From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus 3161492579, 9783161492570

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Edited by Bernd Janowski (Tübingen) · Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

25

Christophe Nihan

From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus

Mohr Siebeck

Christophe Nihan, born 1972; studied Liberal Arts (Philosophy and French Literature) and Theology at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland; 2005 Dr. theol.; Lecturer in Old Testament/Hebrew Bible at the University of Geneva, Switzerland.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-151123-3 ISBN 978-3-16-149257-0 ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2007 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. 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, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

To the memory of my parents, George and Anne-Lise Nihan

Preface This monograph presents my doctoral dissertation completed in November 2005 at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland. For the purpose of its publication, the manuscript was shortened, the bibliography updated, and the English significantly revised. The scholarly discussion was broadened so as to include works that appeared after the completion of my dissertation. Finally, minor improvements were occasionally made, especially in Chapters Two and Three. Apart from these changes, the content of the following study remains that of the original dissertation. Many expressions of gratitude are due. I am particularly indebted to my dissertation advisor, Prof. T. Römer (University of Lausanne), who first introduced me to the critical scholarship of the Hebrew Bible. This study was completed while I was working for him as a research assistant, from August 2000 to September 2005, and I immensely benefited from his expertise in the Pentateuch as well as from his ongoing availability to discuss with me difficult issues and comment upon earlier versions of my work. I learned much from him, both on a scholarly and a human level, and I hope that something of the outstanding intellectual stimulation I received during these past years can be perceived in the following work. I also greatly benefited from the teachings of Prof. Jean-Daniel Macchi (University of Geneva), and from the numerous discussions we had over the years. His scholarly competence and his friendship never failed, and I can only appreciate them more now that I am fortunate enough to be his colleague in Geneva. Several sections of this monograph were initially presented as papers at various academic meetings. Some elements of Chapter Three were presented at the Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament (IOSOT) in Basel, Switzerland, August, 2000. The argument developed in Chapter Four was originally presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) in Toronto, Canada, November, 2002. Chapter Six was presented at the annual meeting of the SBL in Atlanta, Ga, November 2003. And Chapter Five was initially discussed at the international meeting of the SBL in Cambridge, UK, August, 2004. I received many valuable comments from the audience on more than one occasion, from which the present work has greatly benefitted. A few months before submitting my dissertation, I also had the opportunity to present the outline of Chapter Five to a

VIII

Preface

joint seminar organized by the Faculties of Theology in Lausanne and Geneva and the Institut Catholique of Paris. The discussion with the participants proved quite helpful to me, and I would like to thank particularly Prof. Olivier Artus as well as Mr. Vincent Sénéchal from the Institut Catholique. Members of my doctoral jury included Prof. Hanna Liss (Hochschule für Jüdische Studien, Heidelberg), Prof. Reinhard Achenbach (University of Münster) and Prof. Hans-Peter Mathys (University of Basel). All three offered valuable comments on my research, and I am especially grateful for a dynamic and challenging discussion. Several persons also assisted me in preparing and editing this manuscript. My late mother, Mrs. Anne-Lise Nihan, as well as Mr. Nathan Veil and Mrs. Françoise Smyth thoroughly proofread the original dissertation. Mrs. Amy Robertson, doctoral student at Emory University, Atlanta, provided a further revision of the entire manuscript for the purpose of its publication. In addition, Amy Robertson and Françoise Smyth regularly offered insightful comments on parts of the text, or highlighted problematic passages. I am most grateful to all of them for the work that they have done and for the help they offered, especially considering how difficult and unrewarding such task can be. All other existing mistakes remain my own and unique responsibility. Finally, I want to thank the editors of the series Forschungen zum Alten Testament, Prof. Bernd Janowski, Prof. Mark S. Smith, and Prof. Hermann Spieckermann for accepting this work for publication. I also want to thank Mrs. Tanja Mix, Mohr Siebeck editor, for numerous technical advices. The last weeks in the preparation of this manuscript were obscured by the sudden death of my mother, Anne-Lise, after a fight against her illness that lasted for several months. It is difficult for me to express how deeply this trial has affected me, both physically and morally. My brother, Mr. Philippe Nihan, and his girlfriend, Miss Kathryn Forrest, spontaneously offered me their assistance for the final revision of the manuscript. I want to express my deepest thanks to both of them, as well as to Kathryn’s father, Mr. Richard Forrest, for their moral and material help. Without them, the publication of this manuscript might have been considerably delayed. Above all, I want to thank my wife, Céline, for her continuous support while I was working on this study, and particularly during the last two months. For the past ten years, we shared together every joy and pain, and I can only hope that this will continue for many more years.

Geneva, May 2007 Christophe Nihan

Contents Preface....................................................................................................................................... VII Contents ......................................................................................................................................IX Abbreviations and Signs ...................................................................................................XIII Introduction: The Book of Leviticus and the Composition of the Pentateuch ............................................................................1 Chapter One: Leviticus and the Priestly Account of Israel’s Origins in Genesis–Exodus............................................................................20 1. The Current Discussion on P’s Ending.........................................................................20 Excursus 1: The Post-Priestly Origin of Numbers 20 ........................................................26 2. P’s Conclusion at Mt Sinai (Exodus 25–31; 35–40)....................................................31 The Case for the Secondary Nature of Exodus 30–31 ...............................................31 Exodus 25–29: The Case for Literary Unity ..............................................................34 Exodus 25–27 ........................................................................................................34 Excursus 2: On the Composition of Exodus 26 ...........................................................39 Excursus 3: On trpk and td(h Nr) in Exodus 25:10–22 ..........................................44 Exodus 28–29 ........................................................................................................51 3. P’s Account in Genesis–Exodus and Leviticus............................................................59

Chapter Two: A First Approach to the Composition of Leviticus: Structure and Theme of the Book .....................................................................................69 1. Introduction: Leviticus as a Separate “Book” ..............................................................69 Excursus 1: A Note on the Origin of the Material Division of the Penta-teuch ....................75 2. A Dialogue with Recent Approaches (M. Douglas, C.R. Smith, E. Zenger and B. Jürgens, D. Luciani) ..................................76 Excursus 2: The Meaning of Leviticus 27 and its Place within the Book ............................94 3. A Case for the Threefold Structure of Leviticus ..........................................................95 Leviticus 16 as the Center of the Book and the Unity of Chapters 11–16 ................95 Leviticus 11–16 and Its Relation to Leviticus 1–10...................................................99 Leviticus 17–26 and the Theme of Leviticus ...........................................................105 Conclusion: Structure and Theme of Leviticus in the Context of the Pentateuchal Narrative............................................................108

X

Contents

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Leviticus 1–10) ...................111 1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10 ...........................................................................111 On the Possibility of Isolating Leviticus 9 from Lev 1–8........................................111 Excursus 1: Other Problems Traditionally Identified in Leviticus 9 ............................119 Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8–9 ....................................................................................124 Leviticus 10 as a Later, Post-Priestly Supplement to Lev 8–9 ................................148 2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey .......................................150 The Case for the Dependence of Leviticus 8–9 on Lev 1–7....................................150 The Case for the Later Origin of Leviticus 4–7 within Lev 1–9 .............................160 The Two Altars in Leviticus 4.............................................................................161 Some Observations on the Language of Chapter 4 ............................................164 Leviticus 4 and the History of the t)+x Offering in Ancient Israel..................166 References to the t)+x before P and Ezekiel ...........................................................167 The t)+x and Other Offerings of Purification/Expiation ..........................................168 The Case for Two Distinct Categories of t)+x in Ezekiel and in P ...........................172 The Innovation Brought by the Legislation of Leviticus 4–5 .....................................186 Dating the Composition of Leviticus 4.....................................................................195 Summary ....................................................................................................................197 3. The First tôrâ on Sacred Offerings: Leviticus 1–3 ....................................................198 Leviticus 1 and 3........................................................................................................198 Leviticus 2..................................................................................................................206 Origin and Function of the Torah on Sacred Offerings in Leviticus 1–3................215 Dating the Composition of Leviticus 1–3.................................................................220 4. The Composition of Leviticus 1–9* by P...................................................................231 5. Leviticus 5 ...................................................................................................................237 6. Leviticus 6–7: Closing the Torah on Sacrifices .........................................................256

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community: Leviticus 11–16 .....................................................................................................................269 1. Source- and Redaction Criticism of Leviticus 11–15 ................................................270 Leviticus 12–15 .........................................................................................................270 Source- and Redaction Criticism of Leviticus 11 ....................................................283 Synthesis and Summary: P’s Sources in Leviticus 11–15 .......................................299 2. The Priestly Composition in Leviticus 11–15............................................................301 Introducing the Issue .................................................................................................301 Leviticus 12–15: Pollution as an “Intrusion of the Biological into the Social Sphere” (L. Dumont)............................................307 Leviticus 11: Purity as Conformity to Creational Order, Or the Construction of a Judean Ethos .....................................................................324 3. Leviticus 16: Closing P’s Sacrificial System .............................................................340 The Composition of Leviticus 16: A State of the Question.....................................340 A Brief Survey of Past Research.........................................................................340

Contents

XI

A First Approach to the Problem ........................................................................345 Later Additions to Leviticus 16...........................................................................362 Lev 16 and the Permanent Restitution of Yahweh’s Presence in Israel..................370 Purification of the Sanctuary and the Community in Leviticus 1–16 ...............371 The Censer-Incense Rite inside the Inner-Sanctum (Lev 16:12–13).................375 4. P in Gen 1–Lev 16: Its Content and Historical Setting..............................................379 The Priestly Source in Genesis 1–Leviticus 16........................................................379 The Historical Context for P’s Composition ............................................................383

Chapter Five: From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: The Composition of the “Holiness Code” (Leviticus 17–26) ..............................395 1. Prolegomenon: On H’s Narrative Framework ...........................................................395 2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H.........................................401 Leviticus 17................................................................................................................402 Leviticus 18–20 .........................................................................................................430 Leviticus 18 and 20..............................................................................................430 Leviticus 18............................................................................................................430 Leviticus 20............................................................................................................446 Leviticus 19............................................................................................................460 Leviticus 18–20 and the (Re-)Definition of the Community’s Holiness...........478 Leviticus 21–22 .........................................................................................................481 Leviticus 23–25 .........................................................................................................496 Leviticus 23..........................................................................................................496 Leviticus 24..........................................................................................................511 Leviticus 24:1–9: A Complement to the Festival Calendar ........................................511 Leviticus 24:10–23: The Talionic Legislation in H ...................................................512 Leviticus 25..........................................................................................................520 Leviticus 26................................................................................................................535 3. H and the Redaction of the Torah in Fifth-century Yehud ........................................545 4. The Case for the “Holiness School” in the Torah/Pentateuch...................................559 H’s Distinctiveness, and its Implications for Pentateuchal Scholarship .................559 The “Holiness School” and its Editorial Activity outside Lev 17–26.....................562 Position of the Problem .......................................................................................562 HS Additions in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers: A Brief Reassessment ......564 Exodus ...................................................................................................................564 Leviticus ................................................................................................................569 Genesis, Numbers and Deuteronomy .......................................................................570 The So-Called “Passover Papyrus” from Elephantine: A Clue for the Historical Setting of the “Holiness School”?.............................572

XII

Contents

Chapter Six: Inner-biblical Exegesis in Leviticus 10 and Editorial Closure of the Book ..................................................................................576 1. Structure of Leviticus 10.............................................................................................576 2. A Close Study of Leviticus 10 ....................................................................................579 Leviticus 10:1–5 ........................................................................................................579 Leviticus 10:6–7 ........................................................................................................589 Leviticus 10:8–11 ......................................................................................................590 Leviticus 10:12–15 ....................................................................................................593 Leviticus 10:16–20 ....................................................................................................598 3. Leviticus 10 as the Founding Legend of Priestly Exegesis .......................................602

Summary and Conclusions: From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch ........................608 Bibliography ...........................................................................................................................621 Source Index ...........................................................................................................................661 Author Index ...........................................................................................................................683 Subject Index ..........................................................................................................................693

Abbreviations and Signs The following table lists reference works in biblical and Ancient Near Eastern studies, source abbreviations, as well as general abbreviations that are used throughout this book. Unless otherwise specified, all translations of biblical and non-biblical texts are from the author.

AB ABD abs. acc. AES AfO AHw AJBI Akk. AnBib ANE ANET AOAT AOAT.S AP ARET ArOr ASTI ATANT ATD ATSAT AUSS AZERKAVO

b. BBB BBR BEATAJ BETL

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary absolute accusative Archives européennes de sociologie Archiv für Orientforschung W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch, 3 vols, Wiesbaden, 1965– 1981 Annuary of the Japanese Biblical Institute Akkadian Analecta Biblica Ancient Near East/ Ancient Near Eastern Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, edited by J.B. Pritchard, 3rd ed., Princeton, 1969 Altes Orient und Altes Testament AOAT. Sonderreihe A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford, 1923 P. Fronzaroli, Testi rituali della regalità (archivio L. 2769) (Archivi reali di Ebla. Testi 11), Roma, 1993. Archiv Orientalni Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Das Alte Testament Deutsch Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament Andrews University Seminary Studies Arbeitskreis zur Erforschung der Religions- und Kulturgeschichte des Antiken Vorderen Orients Babylonian Talmud Bonner Biblische Beiträge H. Zimmern, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion, Leipzig, 1901 Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium

XIV BevTh BGBE BHS BHTh Bib BibInt BiLi BiOr BIS BJ BJSt BKAT BN BThB BZ BZAR BZAW CAD CAT CB.OT CBQ CC CD CH ch. col. D DBAT

Abbreviations and Signs Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph, Stuttgart, 1983 Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Biblica Biblical Interpretation Bibel und Liturgie Bibbia e Oriente Biblical Interpretation Series Bible de Jérusalem Brown Judaic Studies Biblischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Biblische Notizen Biblical Theology Bulletin Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, edited by J.A. Brinkman et al., Chicago, IL, 1956– Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament Series Catholic Biblical Quarterly the Covenant Code (Ex 20–23) the Damascus Covenant Codex Hammurapi chapter(s) column

DJD Dtr

the Deuteronomic Code Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten Testament und seiner Rezeption in der Alten Kirche Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Deuteronomistic

E Ee EHS.T EI EnAC EvQ esp. ETL ETR ex. EvTh

the Elohistic source/ document/ writer Enu4ma elis] Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe 23, Theologie Eretz Israel Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique Evangelical Quarterly especially Ephemerides theologicae lovaniensis Etudes théologiques et religieuses example Evangelische Theologie

FAT

Forschungen zum Alten Testament

Abbreviations and Signs fem. f(f). FolOr fr. FRLANT FS GHK.AT GKC GRBS H HAL

XV

feminine and the following one(s) Folia Orientalia fragment Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Festschrift Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A.E. Cowley, 2nd ed., Oxford, 1910 Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies

HAR HAT HB HBSt Heb. Hi. Hith. HK HR HS HSAT HSM HSS HTR HUCA

the Holiness Code L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 4 vols, 3rd ed., Leiden et al., 1967–1990 Hebrew Annual Review Handbuch zum Alten Testament the Hebrew Bible Herders Biblische Studien Hebrew Hiphil Hithpael Handkommentar zum Alten Testament History of Religions the Holiness School Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testamentes Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Studies Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual

ICC Int ITC

International Critical Commentary Interpretation International Theological Commentary

J JANES JAOS JBL JBTh JCS JJS JLSA JNES JNSL JPS JPS.TC JQR JSJ

the Yahwistic source/ document/ writer Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Jewish Studies Jewish Law Association Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwestern Semitic Literature Jewish Publication Society The JPS Torah Commentary Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of Judaism

XVI

Abbreviations and Signs

JSJSup JSOT JSOTSup JSPSup JSS JSS.S JTS

Journal for the Study of Judaism. Supplements Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha. Supplement series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Semitic Studies. Supplement Journal of Theological Studies

KAI

H.R. Donner and W. Röllig, Kanaanaïsche und aramäische Inschriften, 3 vols, Wiesbaden, 1964–1968 Kommentar zum Alten Testament Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament M.O. Dietrich, O. Loretz and J. Sanmartín, Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit (AOAT 24/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976

KAT KHAT KHC KTU

l. LAPO LD LXX LXX* LXX LXX

A B

m. M* masc. ms(s) MSL

line(s) Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient Lectio divina the Septuagint the earliest version of the Septuagint Codex Alexandrinus of the Septuagint Codex Vaticanus of the Septuagint

MThSt MUSJ

Mishna the proto-Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible masculine manuscript(s) Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible Marburger theologische Studien Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph

NCBC NEB Ni. NICOT NRTh NS NSK.AT NTS

New Century Bible Commentary Die neue Echter Bibel Niphal New International Commentary on the Old Testament Nouvelle revue théologique new series Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar zum Alten Testament New Testament Studies

OBO ÖBS OLZ Or OS OTL OTS

Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Osterreichische biblische Studien Orientalistische Literaturzeitung Orientalia L’Orient Syrien Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studiën

MT

Abbreviations and Signs

XVII

P p. PAAJR pap. pass. PEQ pers. Pg Pi. pl. PN Ps

the Priestly source/ document/ writer page(s) Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research papyrus passive Palestinian Exploration Quarterly person the Priestly “Grundschrift” Piel plural personal name later additions to the Priestly document

Q QD QuSem

Qumran Quaestiones disputatae Quaderni di semitistica

RA RB RGG RHPR RHR RIDA RivBib RS RTL

F. Thureau-Dangin, Rituel Accadiens, Paris, 1921 Revue biblique Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses Revue de l’histoire des religions Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquité Rivistà Biblica Ras Shamra Revue théologique de Louvain

SAK SamP SBA SBB SBL.DS SBL.SCSS SBL.SP SBL.SymS SBS SBT SCS SDB SJLA SJOT SO SSN ST StBoT StUNT Syr

F. Thureau-Dangin, Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Königsinschriften, Leipzig, 1907. the Samaritan Pentateuch Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge Society of Biblical Literature. Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature. Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series Society of Biblical Literature. Seminar Papers Society of Biblical Literature. Symposium Series Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Theology Septuagint and Cognate Studies Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Symbolae Osloenses Studia semitica neerlandica Studiae Theologicae Studien zu den Bog]azkoy-Texten Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Syriac

t.

Tosefta

XVIII Ta TA TB TDOT Tg THAT ThT ThW TR Transeu TRE TRu TUAT TWAT TZ

Abbreviations and Signs Tarbiz Theologische Arbeiten Theologische Bücherei Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Targum Theologisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Theologisch Tijdschrift Theologische Wissenschaft D. Pardee, Les Textes rituels (Ras Shamra-Ougarit 12), 2 vols, Paris, 2000 Transeuphratène Theologisches Realenzyklopädie Theologische Rundschau Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament Theologische Zeitschrift

UCOP UF ÜSt

University of Cambridge Oriental Publications Ugarit-Forschungen M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (1943), 3rd ed., Tübingen, 1967

Vg. VT VTSup

Vulgate Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum

WBC WMANT WO

Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Die Welt des Orients

YOS

Yale Oriental Series

ZAR ZAW ZDMG ZNW ZThK

Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Introduction

The Book of Leviticus and the Composition of the Pentateuch In the second half of the 19th century, the book of Leviticus played a decisive role in the process that led to the elaboration of the so-called “New” Documentary Hypothesis. However, throughout the 20th century Leviticus, like Numbers, has remained largely marginal in the scholarly discussion regarding the formation of the Torah/Pentateuch. Today, the situation is gradually changing, and there appears to be a renewed concern for the books of Leviticus and Numbers as well as for their place in the achievement of the canonical Pentateuch.1 Nonetheless, because the discussion on this subject is only at its inception, it will be useful to retrace briefly its genesis so as to reach a better understanding of the numerous and complicated issues that are involved here. The version of the Documentary Hypothesis proposed by J. Wellhausen that was to become authoritative for approximately one century, with its chronological sequence of four successive documents (J, E, D and P), was itself dependent upon the previous reassessment of the relative chronology of the “Priestly” (P) source in the Pentateuch by K.H. Graf and A. Kuenen. Initially, P was regarded as the earliest layer in the Pentateuch; for this reason, it was commonly referred to as the Grundschrift.2 In a detailed 1866 study, Graf was the first to attempt to demonstrate, on the basis of a comparison with the original Deuteronomic code (i.e., Deut 4–26 and 28), that the “legal” sections of the so-called Grundschrift were apparently still unknown at the time of Josiah and reflected more likely the situation of the postexilic community.3 Actually, the idea that the legal sections of the Grundschrift were later 1 On Leviticus, see in particular FABRY/JÜNGLING, Levitikus; and RENDTORFF/KUGLER, Leviticus; on Numbers, see now ACHENBACH , Vollendung. More generally on this recent scholarly development, cf. RÖMER, Périphérie. The fact that the Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniensis in August 2006 was specifically devoted to the books of Leviticus and Numbers is another fine illustration of this newest academic concern. 2 For a detailed Forschungsbericht on the so-called “Priestly” source in the Pentateuch in the first half of the 19th century, see in particular HOLZINGER, Einleitung. 3 GRAF, Untersuchungen, 32–85. Graf’s choice of the D code as point of departure for an inner-biblical comparison is because since W.M.L. de Wette it was regarded as the only code for which a sure dating (i.e., under Josiah) could be found. However, Graf also observed that a few passages in Leviticus seemed to be presupposed in D; thus, Lev 11:2–20 has a parallel in Deut 14, while the identification of “leper” (Lev 13–14) as a priestly duty is presupposed in

2

Introduction

than the narrative itself was not entirely new. It had already been suggested by a few scholars in the first half of the 19th century, starting with W.M.L. de Wette in 1807, and later C.P. Gramberg, W. Vatke, and J. George. But the novum brought by Graf resided in the attempt to give a literary-critical basis to this hypothesis.4 Graf’s argument was mainly based on the analysis of some specific laws, such as the festivals, the distinction between priests and levites, or the instructions for the wilderness sanctuary. However, it also included a more general discussion on the formation of Leviticus. In particular, he proposed distinguishing between Lev 1–17 and 18–26, the latter being part of an earlier, originally discrete collection which he assigned to the prophet Ezekiel because of the many parallels between the two works.5 Graf’s demonstration was then adopted by A. Kuenen in his Godsdienst van Israel (1869–1870). However, Kuenen combined Graf’s idea with the revised dating for the Priestly narrative already advocated by E. Reuss in a 1834 lecture.6 He thus came up with three major stages in the composition of the P source: an originally discrete code in Lev 18–26*, to be dated after Ezekiel;7 the “Priestly” history of Israel’s origins (or “Book of Origins”), already containing several laws; and later additions, mainly comprising ritual regulations.8 This model forms the background for the entire discussion on “P” in Wellhausen’s Composition des Hexateuchs, although Wellhausen also introduced some modifications of his own. In particular, he included for the first

Deut 24:8. He thus had to admit that the relation between the two corpuses was not univocal, and that some of the laws in P, particularly in the collection on impurities in Lev 11–15, could actually go back to older, pre-exilic traditions. 4 This was still obvious for scholars from Wellhausen’s school at the end of the 19th century; see, for instance, the following comment by HOLZINGER, Einleitung, 53: “Bei Vatke und George liegt die Graf’sche Hypothese schon vor. Was fehlte, ist die literarische Grundlage” (emphasis added). 5 GRAF, Untersuchungen, 75–83. 6 On this, see KUENEN, Religion, 2. 149–152, 182–192, and particularly ch. 8 (“The Establishment of the Hierarchy and the Introduction of the Law”), 202–286, with the note on p. 291–307. Note further that several indications for the late (postexilic) dating of P are already suggested at various places in the first volume (for a summary of such passages, see p. 182 of the second volume). However, according to Kuenen, Graf also envisaged such a possibility in a letter dated November 1866. For the history of this scholarly discussion between Graf and Kuenen, see KUENEN, Critische bijdragen V, 407–412, where a reproduction of the relevant passage of Graf’s letter (in French) can be found on p. 412. As is well-known, Reuss initially did not dare to publish his lecture (cf. on this the preface to the first edition of his Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften, 1881), although he publicly advocated his position in an entry on “Judenthum” for an encyclopedia published in 1850. (On this point, see HOLZINGER, Einleitung, 64; and on the whole issue, see especially VINCENT, Leben.) 7 Kuenen rejected Graf’s assignment of H to Ezekiel, see Religion, 2. 189–192. Note that he had been anticipated on this point by NÖLDEKE, Untersuchungen, 67–71. 8 For a summary of this view, see for instance KUENEN, Religion, 2. 150.

Leviticus and the Composition of the Pentateuch

3

time Lev 17 together with ch. 18–26.9 Above all, much more than Kuenen, Wellhausen promoted the view that P (which he called Q, for “Quatuor”)10 was originally a primarily narrative source and that most of the “legal” sections stemmed from the hand of later redactors. For Leviticus, this conception has radical implications since Wellhausen retained only Lev 9*; 10:1–5, 12–15 and Lev 16* as part of Q’s account of Israel’s origins. The collections of instructions found in Lev 1–7 and 11–15 are regarded as later interpolations;11 similarly, the collection comprising Lev 17–26, albeit earlier than Q, was also introduced at a later stage. In this way, Wellhausen managed to hold simultaneously the newest view of P as the latest document in the Pentateuch and Graf’s conception of the chronological priority of the “narrative” sections over the so-called “legal” ones. However, the price to pay for this tour de force was that the introduction of the ritual complements had to occur within a very short period, since the composition of both “narrative” and “legal” sections is now located by Wellhausen in the early postexilic era. As with many other aspects of the “New” Documentary Hypothesis, Wellhausen’s model for the composition of P was rapidly adopted by a majority of scholars and proved to be immensely influential. By the end of the 19th century, the distinction between three stages in P: first, Lev 17–26 (called “Heiligkeitsgesetz” = Ph, after a suggestion by A. Klostermann),12 a narrative “Grundschrift” (Pg)13 and various later additions (Ps, for “sekundär”), had become classical and could be found in most manuals and commentaries.14 Wellhausen (as well as, for that matter, Graf and Kuenen before him) generally understood the so-called Priestly “laws” to reflect postexilic innovations in the ritual of the Second Temple which, after being codified, found their way into P’s account of Israel’s origins to be granted a greater legitimacy15. However, this last point was also regularly disputed by scholars who, while admitting the late origin of the literary fixation of the various rituals recorded in P, nevertheless held to the antiquity of these rituals themselves, particularly in 9

WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 150. Note, however, that Kuenen already considered this possibility; see Religion, 2. 150–151.182–192. 10 Following an initial suggestion by H. Ewald, Wellhausen believed that P was originally a “Vierbundesbuch”, a book reporting the conclusion of four successive covenants between God and humanity, corresponding to four successive ages of humanity (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses). The parallel with the four successive ages of mankind in Hesiod is explicit. 11 See Composition, 134ff.; yet he hesitates in the case of ch. 11–15 (cf. on p. 148). 12 KLOSTERMANN, Ezechiel, 385 (originally published in 1877). 13 The designation “Priesterschrift” for what was formerly identified as the first “Elohistic” source (= E1) was introduced by Kuenen in a 1880 article (“Dina en Sichem”). 14 Thus, in 1893, HOLZINGER, Einleitung, 334 can already write that the isolation of these three layers is a matter of “complete agreement” (“völlige Uebereinstimmung”). 15 Thus, an entire chapter in Wellhausen’s Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels was devoted to demonstrating that the sacrifical practice described there was unknown before the exile: Prolegomena, 52–82. For a restatement of this view, see e.g. HOLZINGER, Einleitung, 421.

4

Introduction

the case of P’s sacrificial system.16 The “legal” supplements to P (“Ps”) were unanimously acknowledged to betray a complex literary history; but (here again in agreement with Wellhausen) it was usually not deemed necessary to reconstruct the detail of this history.17 The only real exception concerns the “Holiness Code” which, contrary to the rest of Leviticus, has been the subject of an ongoing discussion until today, in particular because of its obvious parallels with other legal “codes” in the Pentateuch as well as of its significance for the history of biblical legislation. Excursus 1: A Brief Survey of Scholarship on the So-Called “Holiness Code” Several detailed reviews on past scholarship of H are available lately,18 so that in the context of this study we can limit ourselves to sketching the major developments which have taken place since Wellhausen. After Graf, the idea that the material gathered in Lev 17–26 originally formed an independent, pre-Priestly code, integrated only at a later stage into Leviticus by the priestly editors, rapidly became the scholarly opinio communis.19 It was seldom disputed, and with little success until recently. Instead, during most of the 20th century the scholarly discussion has focused on redaction- and form-critical issues. The question of H’s redactional history was raised for the first time by B. Baentsch in a 1893 monograph.20 Basically, Baentsch questions Wellhausen’s view according to which H was the work of a redactor compiling various independent laws.21 Resuming the older observation that it is possible to isolate discrete sets of instructions sharing the same theme, such as 16

In particular, this position will frequently be voided by earlier scholars of religion. For instance, it was one of the most significant areas of disagreement between Wellhausen and W.R. Smith in his classical essay on The Religion of the Semites (see, e.g., on p. 216). Compare also HUBERT/MAUSS, Essai, 200–201 n. 10: “…l’âge du texte n’est pas, selon nous, nécessairement l’âge du rite” (emphasis added); or DUSSAUD, Origins, 4, with a very harsh polemics against the attempt by Wellhausen and his school to connect directly the evolution of the text with that of the rites. Actually, the whole issue was already disputed among the closer followers of Wellhausen. Thus, STADE (Geschichte, 1. 63–67) wants to situate the composition of the priestly laws between Josiah’s reform and Ezekiel’s final vision in ch. 40– 48. REUSS, while holding that P’s legislation as a whole was unknown in Jerusalem before Ezra, nevertheless argued for the presence of some ancient laws in Ex 25–Num 10* (ID., Geschichte, 1. 488), thus leaving open the possibility that some of these laws went back to the late pre-exilic period and were contemporary with Deuteronomy (Ibid., 1. 385). Other, more conservative scholars accepted Wellhausen’s redactio-historical scheme but maintained the great antiquity of these laws, which, for them, went back at least to the monarchical period (WURSTER, Priesterkodex, 127), if not to Moses himself (e.g., DELITZSCH, Essays, 227). This discussion has continued during the 20th century; contrast, e.g., NOTH, Leviticus, 15 (arguing for a setting in the late monarchic period) and ELLIGER, Leviticus, 32 (exilic setting). 17 See already W ELLHAUSEN, Composition, 144 n. 1, in the case of Lev 1–7; and for the restatement of this view, explicitly directed against Kuenen, e.g., CORNILL, Einleitung, 56. 18 See in particular SUN, Investigation, 1–43; and GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 5–22. 19 As noted by SUN, Investigation, 9, Bertholet in his 1901 commentary on Leviticus could already present this result as an old scholarly achievement (“wie schon längst erkannt”). 20 BAENTSCH, Heiligkeits-Gesetz. 21 A view still reflected, e.g., in BERTHOLET, Leviticus, x, where he lists the twelve independent “pieces” (Stücke) which H’s redactor, Rh, used for his composition.

Leviticus and the Composition of the Pentateuch

5

Lev 18–20 or 21–22, he suggests that the different laws composing Lev 17–26 were assembled in small collections before H’s redaction: ch. 17 (Pha), 18–20 and portions of 23–25* (Phb), as well as 21–22 (Phc).22 Various attempts to identify groups of laws which comprised an intermediate stage between the earliest traditions underlying Lev 17–26 and the work of Hr (the redactor of H) have been made in the 20th century, usually with results partly compatible with Baentsch’s proposal.23 The most detailed reconstruction is found in the study by A. Cholewin8ski who identifies no less than five distinct collections: Lev 17:3–9 (H1), Lev 18:6–23*; 19:11–18, 26–28, 30, 32 (?) (H2), Lev 20–22* (H3), which he regards as the “Urheiligkeitsgesetz”, Lev 23* (H4; however, this calendar was possibly intended from the beginning as a supplement to H3), and Lev 25* (H5).24 Yet this model, for all its complexity, still presumes that the H code itself is the work of a single redactor, as already was the case for Graf, Kuenen and Wellhausen. Instead, a few authors, especially R. Kilian, K. Elliger, and, more recently, H.T.C. Sun, have argued for the presence of several redactional layers in Lev 17–26. In a 1952 study on Lev 18, Elliger already suggested distinguishing two redactions in the exhortation framing Lev 18, v. 1–5 and 24–30. In particular, he noted that in 18:24–30 a chronological tension could be observed between v. 24 and 25–29 (in the first case, the nations occupying the promised land are about to be expelled from it, while in the following verses, they have apparently already been chased out before Israel) and held that 18:25–29, together with 18:5 (itself also probably secondary to 18:2–5), developed a more “individualizing” outlook than the original parenesis found in 18:2–4, 24, 30.25 Kilian, in a detailed monography published in 1963, accepted Elliger’s idea of two redactors in Lev 18 and extended it to all of H.26 Later, in his commentary on Leviticus, Elliger advocated an even more complicated model for the redactional history of Lev 17–26, discerning four successive stages.27 Lastly, a different but no less complex

22

BAENTSCH, Heiligkeits-Gesetz. Further ID., Leviticus, 387ff. See, e.g., FEUCHT, Untersuchungen, who identifies two main groups of laws. H 1, comprising Lev 18–22; 23:9–22 (as well as Num 15:37–41), is pre-Dtr; H 2, comprising Lev 25– 26, is post-Dtr. Lev 17; 23:4–8, 23–28; 24 are still later supplements. Among recent studies adopting Baentsch’s model, see MATHYS, Gebot, 85, following EISSFELDT, Einleitung, 315. 24 CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 11–141, and the summary on p. 131–141. These collections were later unified by the H redaction, which was itself supplemented by several later additions and edited by the P school. The H2–H5 collections were composed within the same priestly circles, but did not really form a code before the work of the exilic H redactor. 25 ELLIGER, Leviticus 18; see also ID., Leviticus, 231–235. The tension between 18:24 and 25 was already pointed out by WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 153, who did not really explain it. 26 KILIAN, Untersuchung. The first redaction, Ru (“Urheiligkeitsgesetz”), comprising Lev 18–25* and collecting several different traditions, dates back to the 7th century BCE; it presupposes Josiah’s cultic centralization and is contemporary with the D code. The second redaction, RH (“Heiligkeitsgesetz”, Lev 18–26*), postdates Ezekiel and has parallels with the Priestly Grundschrift. Ch. 17 was added still later. Kilian also identified two successive Priestly layers (Rp), the second being probably responsible for the insertion of ch. 17. 27 ELLIGER, Leviticus, 218ff. Cf. the synthesis of his views on this issue in the Introduction, 14–20. Elliger, who rejects the classical view of H’s primitive independence, identifies a first H stratum (Ph1) consisting of a collection of various traditions including Lev 17*; 18*; 19*; 25* and 26*. This collection was intended from the start as a supplement to the Pg layer in the Pentateuch. The work of Ph1 was then completed by Ph2 (whom Elliger describes as the “Ergänzer” of Ph1 Ph2 introduced various additions to the material collected by Ph1, partly on the basis of earlier traditions, as well as a few more laws in Lev 20 and 21:1–15 23

6

Introduction

model was claimed in 1990 by Sun, who regards H as the result of a process of Fortschreibung of a small collection initially restricted to ch. 18–20.28 Another major development during the 20th century concerned the use of form criticism to reconstruct small series of instructions, usually in the form of decalogues or dodecalogues, with a similar syntactic construction. This approach was initiated by G. von Rad in a 1947 essay included in his “Deuteronomium-Studien”29 and dominated the study of H until the 1980’s30. In particular, it was von Rad who advanced the view that the teachings collected in H had their Sitz im Leben in the “community-instruction of a popular character carried out by the levites”,31 a view that was to become quite popular for some time. Several similar attempts to reconstruct H’s genesis from a form-critical perspective rapidly developed after the publication of von Rad’s essay. In particular, they can be found in the works of scholars such as K. Rabast,32 W. Kornfeld,33 H.G. Reventlow,34 R. Kilian,35 K. Elliger,36 C. Feucht,37 A. Cholewin8ski,38 and most recently H.T.C. Sun.39 As in the works by Rendtorff and Koch on Lev 1–16 (see below), the use of the form-critical method was generally perceived as a means to correct the too exclusively literary approach characteristic of Wellhausen and his school, and thus to go back to the original forms and settings of these laws.40 With the exception of Reventlow, however, it was not meant to replace the literary-critical analysis of Lev 17–26, and most scholars, such as Kilian, Elliger, Cholewin8ski and Sun, basically tried to fit their form-critical observations into the prevailing model for the literary composition of H inherited from Wellhausen.41 On the whole, the form-critical approach gave rise to very elaborate

(originally in the reversed order). A further redaction, Ph3, left untouched the collection composed by Ph1 and Ph2 (except that it changed the initial order of Lev 20 and 21:1–15 to its present order) but added 21:16–24; 22:17–25 and 23*. Thus, the initial collection composed by Ph1 and completed by Ph2, including Lev 17–20; 21:1–15; 25–26, was already more or less achieved before the work of Ph3. A final redactor, Ph4, supplemented the work of Ph3 (very much as Ph2 had supplemented Ph1) by adding 22:1–16, 26–30, 31–33; 24:1–9, 10–22. 28 SUN, Investigation; see his summary on p. 560–574. Ch. 18–20 were first supplemented by Lev 21 and incorporated into their present literary context when ch. 17 was inserted. To this corpus were successively added 22:1–16, 17–25, 26–33; 23:1–44; 24:1–9, 10–23; 25–26; 27. The placement of several of these late additions within Lev 17–26 has no other reason, according to Sun, than the chronological order of their literary insertion (ID., Investigation, 565). In particularm his reconstruction implies that it is only in the case of Lev 18–20 that one can properly speak of a “Holiness Code”, because all the other laws were inserted at a post-P stage. Nonetheless, all the texts in H made use of a considerable amount of traditions. 29 See VON RAD, Holiness Code. 30 The last major form-critical study of H is by SUN, Investigation, published in 1990. 31 VON RAD, Holiness Code, 31. 32 RABAST, Recht. 33 KORNFELD, Studien. 34 REVENTLOW, Heiligkeitsgesetz. 35 KILIAN, Untersuchung. 36 ELLIGER, Leviticus 18; ID., Leviticus, 218–379. 37 FEUCHT, Untersuchungen. 38 CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz. 39 SUN, Investigation. 40 See characteristically the statement by REVENTLOW, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 7–8. 41 Reventlow’s purely form-critical approach, for its part, is explicitly intended as a response to Wellhausen. Reventlow considers a very long process of gradual development for

Leviticus and the Composition of the Pentateuch

7

reconstructions of the original legal collections which were supposed to reflect the civic (Lev 18–20) and cultic (17; 21–22; 23) ethos of the Israelite tribes in the pre-state period. Lev 18, for instance, was commonly regarded as preserving an old “decalogue” (in 18:7–17a) on forbidden sexual relationships within the clan probably going back to the wilderness period.42 Likewise, several ancient collections of ethical, social and economic prohibitions in the apodictic style, also grouped in decalogues or dodecalogues, were found behind Lev 19 (especially in 19:11–18, 26–28).43 Other authors, in the wake of A. Alt’s seminal analysis of Israel’s laws,44 investigated from a form-critical perspective the casuistic and apodictic laws of H, comparing them to the main legal formulations in ancient Near Eastern laws;45 also, various studies similarly compared the legal forms of H to those of D.46 In the last two decades, however, the situation has radically changed. The form-critical approach has gradually been abandoned by the vast majority of scholars, and the attempt to reconstruct “pure” forms on the basis of general syntactic patterns underlying the present text of ch. 17–26 is only exceptional.47 Similarly, recent studies have usually reasserted H’s redactional homogeneity, even if, here also, we do find a few exceptions.48 K. Grünwaldt, in particular, offers a detailed source-, redaction- and literary criticism of Lev 17–26 and, though he acknowledges the presence of a few discrete sources used by the author of H (especially in Lev 18* and 20*) as well as several isolated additions, nevertheless denies the possibility of identifying either separate layers in the composition of H (e.g., Elliger, Kilian) or even earlier groups of laws (thus Baentsch), thus basically returning to Wellhausen’s view of H.49 Similarly, E. Otto identifies a coherent structure in Lev 17–26 and seeks to account for most if not all the tensions traditionally identified in these chapters by the fact that the author of H consistently borrows from and even refers to other pentateuchal codes (“inner-biblical exegesis”).50 Other major recent studies, such as the works by J. Joosten and A. Ruwe, are less concerned with discussing systematically the tensions found in the text of Lev 17–26 but also tend to interpret this code as a unified composition, with some possible exceptions such as ch. 24.51 On the whole, one may observe a general concern for assessing the inner logic and the overall

H in which the oldest instructions go back to the period of the wilderness and (following von Rad on this point) were gradually commented on and transmitted by levitical preachers in their sermons. In this model, even the elements classically assigned to P, such as the mention of Aaron and his sons, reflect ancient traditions and cannot be used for dating the texts. Nevertheless, Reventlow’s approach remained marginal, even at the time of the greatest enthusiasm for form criticism; see already ELLIGER’s criticism in ID., Leviticus, 14–16. 42 For this view of the original Sitz im Leben of Lev 18, see the classical analysis by ELLIGER, Leviticus 18; cf. also KILIAN, Untersuchung, 27. 43 Cf. already VON R A D , Holiness Code, 27–30; and KILIAN, Untersuchung, 42ff.; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 244–255; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 44–54, etc. 44 ALT, Ursprünge. 45 Thus in particular K ORNFELD , Studien, 13–68, and R. KILIAN, Literarkritische und formgeschichtliche Untersuchung des Heiligkeitsgesetzes, Diss. Theol., Tübingen, 1960. 46 Cf. for instance VON RAD, Holiness Code, and particularly RABAST, Recht. 47 See, e.g., the recent commentary by GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus; and also MASSMANN, Ruf, in the case of Lev 20. 48 Thus, e.g., SCHENKER, Incest Prohibitions, in the case of Lev 18–20. 49 See GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz. 50 OTTO, Ethik, 234ff.; ID., Heiligkeitsgesetz; ID., Innerbiblische Exegese. 51 JOOSTEN, People; RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”. In several respects, Ruwe’s monograph furthers a line of analysis initiated by BLUM, Studien, 287ff., and CRÜSEMANN, Tora, 350ff.

8

Introduction

structure of Lev 17–26,52 whereas earlier studies tended to regard this code as a rather awkward compilation, excluding the possibility of identifying a coherent pattern.53 In addition to H’s literary and conceptual coherence, a major issue in recent research has been the code’s relationship to other pentateuchal codes, especially to D and to the P legislation in Lev 1–16. The question is not exactly new (as noted above, it played a decisive role in the works of Graf, Kuenen and Wellhausen already), but it had gradually become blurred during the 20th century, especially under the influence of form criticism.54 H’s relationship to the CC and to D was the subject of a renewed examination by Cholewin8ski in 1976. Basically, Cholewin8ski sought to demonstrate that H was systematically dependent on the two other codes and should be viewed, more specifically, as a revision of D by priestly circles from the end of the seventh century BCE onwards. Those circles disagreed with some major aspects of the D legislation such as the permission of profane slaughter (Lev 17, see Deut 12), the cultic calendar (Lev 23 // Deut 16) and the law on debt remission and slave release (Lev 25 // Deut 15).55 In many respects, his study can be regarded as signaling the return to an approach to the relation between D and H in terms of literary dependence instead of the concern for the isolation of common “forms”; also, it consistently emphasized the necessity of interpreting several laws in H not merely in themselves but primarily in relation to parallel laws in the other biblical codes.56 In Germany, Cholewin8ski’s thesis had a profound scholarly influence, though it also met with some opposition.57 In recent studies, his detailed analysis of H’s relationship to D has been pursued by scholars such as Grünwaldt and Otto who, despite their differences, basically confirm H’s systematic dependence upon D.58 For a majority of Jewish scholars, on the contrary, H precedes D, regarded as the latest pentateuchal source. For instance, J. Milgrom, in his work on Lev 17–27, usually maintains that it is H which influences D and not the reverse.59 Even more debated is the relationship of H to P. Since Graf’s original proposal in 1866, the hypothesis of H’s original independence has always raised some significant issues, in particular because of the absence of a clear introduction to this code, as in the case of the mis]pat[îm in Ex 21:1; because of the importance of the Sinai fiction (cf. the divine addresses

52

See in particular OTTO, Ethik, 242–243; ID., Gesetzesfortschreibung, 386; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 131–138; RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 79–89. 53 However, this traditional view is still found in some recent works, see, e.g., BLENKINSOPP, Pentateuch, 224 (“little internal coherence”); GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 16. 54 I.e., although for a majority of scholars the main redaction of H was still regarded as being post-D (but see ELLIOTT-BINNS, Problems, who dates H to the time of Manasseh), the reconstruction of older collections behind H implied the possibility that some portions of this code pre-date D’ composition. See, e.g., BETTENZOLI, Geist, 51–104; ID., Deuteronomium. 55 CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, esp. 145–327. 56 Note that shortly before Cholewin&ski, THIEL, Erwägungen (1969), had emphasized the fact that the pareneses of the Holiness Code stood in the Deuteronomistic tradition. 57 See in particular BETTENZOLI, Deuteronomium, arguing for a complicated model involving mutual interaction between D and H in the formation of these two codes; more recently, BRAULIK, Dekalogische Redaktion; ID., Beobachtungen, who holds more specifically that H is older, and not later, than Deut 19–25. 58 GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz; O TTO, Ethik, 234ff.; ID., Heiligkeitsgesetz; ID., Innerbiblische Exegese. See also most recently WAGENAAR, Two Kinds. 59 MILGROM , Leviticus, esp. 1357–1361. The issue, however, is complicated by the fact that he nevertheless admits a late revision of H in the sixth century BCE (= HR), which then postdates D (if one keeps the traditional, Josianic dating of the latter code).

Leviticus and the Composition of the Pentateuch

9

to Moses and Aaron, as well as the setting presupposed by several laws such as Lev 17 and 24:10–23; further, 19:23–25 and 25:2ff.); and because of the numerous parallels with P. Although H’s precedence over P was occasionally questioned,60 it is only recently that it was seriously disputed. In 1959, in a short notice for the third edition of the RGG, K. Elliger broke with the established scholarly consensus and asserted that Lev 17–26 had been conceived from the beginning as a sequel to the P narrative (Pg), before the introduction of other ritual supplements (Ps);61 he basically restated the same view later in his commentary.62 Although his suggestion was completely ignored at first,63 the situation has changed in the last decades after it was adopted by Cholewin8ski, who was himself followed by some German scholars.64 Others, on the contrary, have acknowledged that H was probably contemporary with or even slightly later than Pg but nevertheless regard it as an independent code originally, which was composed for itself and not as a sequel to Pg; in particular, this is the position argued most recently by Grünwaldt.65 Gradually, Elliger’s view that H, though later than Pg, was nevertheless older than Ps has also become disputed. In a seminal 1974 article, V. Wagner claimed, on the basis of an examination of the overall structure of Leviticus, that the collection formed by Lev 17–26 (27), which lacks a proper introduction, had been conceived from the start as a sequel to the first part of the book, ch. 1–16.66 In particular, Wagner noted the close connection between ch. 17–26 and 11–16, with their distinctive concern for purity, and argued from this and similar observations that the traditional isolation of ch. 17–26 (27) from the rest of the book seemed unjustified. Basically the same position is found in the studies by E. Blum,67 F. Crüsemann,68 R. Albertz69 and, most recently, A. Ruwe;70 all want to understand ch. 17–27 as an integral part of the book of Leviticus and, more generally, of the Priestly stratum in the Pentateuch (which, following Blum, they regard more as a “compositional layer” than as a proper source). Finally, I. Knohl and J. Milgrom have argued in several studies that H not only presupposes P but is even later.71 Their demonstration is based both on a comparison of the parallel laws found in P and H, such as the calendar of Num 28–29 and that of Lev 23, and on the observation of a significant evolution in H’s theology vis-à-vis that of P, in particular as regards the extension of the concept of holiness to the entire community, a notion still absent from P. In addition, Knohl and Milgrom also include a detailed analysis of the phraseology found in Lev 17–27, which, according to them, is based on P’s terminology but nonetheless frequently modifies it, thus blurring the distinctions established by P and introducing instead new features.72 Lastly, a post-P dating for H is also argued by E. Otto,

60

See especially EERDMANS, Studien IV, 83–87; and KÜCHLER, Heiligkeitsgesetz. ELLIGER, art. Heiligkeitsgesetz. 62 Leviticus, especially p. 14–20. 63 Thus, in an article from 1969 W. Thiel could still regard H’s original independence as an unquestionable result of pentateuchal scholarship; see THIEL, Erwägungen, 41. 64 See CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, especially p. 338; and further KORNFELD, Levitikus, 6; PREUSS, art. Heiligkeitsgesetz; most recently, KRATZ, Komposition, 114. 65 GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz. 66 WAGNER, Existenz. 67 BLUM, Studien, 318ff. 68 CRÜSEMANN, Tora, 323–326. 69 ALBERTZ, Religion, 2. 480ff. and 629 n. 100. 70 RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”. 71 KNOHL , Priestly Torah; ID ., Sanctuary; MILGROM , Leviticus, esp. 13–42 and 1319– 1443; see also, e.g., ID., Leviticus 19. 72 See KNOHL, Sanctuary, 108–110; MILGROM, Leviticus, 35–42.1325–1332. 61

10

Introduction

although from a distinct perspective since for him H is not only post-P but also post-D and therefore belongs to a pentateuchal redaction.73 On the whole, it can be said that the traditional chronology for H and P has been radically reversed in recent decades. There is now almost unanimous acceptance that H presupposes at least a first form of the Priestly document; yet there is still significant disagreement as to the stage of development reached by P at the time of H’s composition, as well as to the precise nature of the relationship between these two works. The various scholarly positions on these two issues have major implications for the exegesis of H. Thus, scholars who maintain that H was originally composed as an independent code, which would be contemporary with or slightly later than Pg (Grünwaldt, Mathys), tend to regard it as an ideal constitution of sorts composed in the early Persian period for members of the Judean community returning from the Babylonian exile.74 To scholars who follow Elliger, the purpose of H’s composition was rather to supplement the Priestly narrative with a legal code influenced by D but reinterpreted from a more distinctively “priestly” perspective.75 Those authors regarding H as an integral part of the Priestly writing mainly emphasize the code’s place in P’s macrostructure. After Yahweh has come to reside within the portable sanctuary which the Israelites have built for him at Mt Sinai (Ex 40) and the Israelites have been taught how to offer sacrifices and deal with cases of impurity (Lev 1–16), they can eventually be taught how to become a holy community, entirely consecrated to Yahweh. This structural observation accounts, in particular, for the obvious change in topics suddenly occurring in Lev 17ff., namely, the new concern for everyday life and moral issues within the community; at the same time, the close connection with Lev 11–16, already observed by Wagner, includes Lev 17–27 in a larger complex concerned with “impurity” in general, physical and moral.76 For their part, Knohl and Milgrom attribute H to a distinct priestly group in Jerusalem, which Knohl identifies as the “Holiness School” (HS), and whose origin they situate in the late eighth century BCE, probably under Hezekiah. Both authors consider that P’s editing by the HS should be seen as an attempt to respond to the religious, social and economic problems of their time as denounced by the pre-exilic prophets (Hosea, Amos, Micah), whereas the authors of P were more concerned with strictly cultic issues, in particular the preservation of the sanctuary’s holiness.77 Interestingly, Knohl and Milgrom also identify the language and theology charac-

73

OTTO, Ethik, 234ff.; ID., Heiligkeitsgesetz; ID., Innerbiblische Exegese. B LENKINSOPP, Pentateuch, 224, also opts for the view that H was never an independent code. Though he includes it, like the rest of Leviticus, in “P”, he also observes that the parallels in Lev 17–26 with D and Ezekiel, strongly suggest “a very late date for the redaction of this part of the Sinai pericope”, thus anticipating in a sense Otto’s position. 74 See MATHYS, Gebot, esp. 108; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, esp. 379ff.; and for this idea already JAGERSMA, Leviticus 19, ch. 5. 75 CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, esp. 138ff. and 325ff.; similarly PREUSS, art. Heiligkeitsgesetz, 714 (“[…] als Weiterführung und Korrektur des Deuteronomiums eingefügt”); KRATZ, Komposition, 114 (“[…] das Heiligkeitsgesetz […], welches das Deuteronomium im priesterschriftlichen Geist und Stil reformuliert […]”); cf. also L’HOUR, L’Impur, II, 52–53. 76 See WAGNER, Existenz; BLUM, Studien, 318ff.; and very similarly CRÜSEMANN, Tora, 323–326, esp. 324–325. 77 KNOHL, Sanctuary, esp. 124ff.; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1352–1355; on P’s theology, see further ID., Leviticus, 42–51; on H’s theology, I D., Leviticus, 1368ff. Nevertheless, one should note that the two authors differ significantly on this point. Knohl emphasizes a sharp contrast between the conceptions of P and H regarding God and the cult; according to him, H polemicizes against P and tries to correct the latter’s exclusive focus on the sacred realm as

Leviticus and the Composition of the Pentateuch

11

teristic of H in other passages of the P source outside Lev 17–27, although they disagree significantly on the nature and number of the texts attributed to the HS.78 This leads Knohl to consider the possibility that the editorial activity of the HS extended over two or more centuries, down to the editing of the Torah, and that the HS should be basically identified with the pentateuchal editors.79 In a certain sense, this proposal partly anticipates Otto’s view, who considers that the H code, being both post-D and post-P, should be assigned to a “pentateuchal redactor” (Pentateuchredaktor) who, together with a “hexateuchal redactor” (Hexateuchredaktor) is responsible for the Torah’s composition during the Persian period.80 It is from this perspective that Otto, developing further Cholewin8ski’s analysis, systematically interprets the reception of the other biblical codes (particularly D) in Lev 17–26. In his model, the legal hermeneutics reflected in H betray the outlook of the pentateuchal redactor, at a time when the grouping of the main legal traditions in a single document prompted the need for the elaboration of a new compromise between such traditions.

By contrast, the remainder of the Priestly legislation, and particularly chapters 1–16 of Leviticus, received very little attention in scholarly treatments of the formation of the Pentateuch during the 20th century. In Europe, and particularly in Germany, discussion of the “P” source has mainly been concerned with the isolation of “Pg” as a discrete document and the analysis of its main features (namely, its literary structure, its overarching themes, and its historiographical project).81 This tendency became especially prominent after two seminal essays by M. Noth and K. Elliger in the 1950’s, both of which radicalized the distinction within P between “narrative” (i.e., primary) and “ritual” (secondary) elements.82 As a result, “Pg” is now usually understood as a narrative source exclusively, and the presence of ritual details is even regularly used as a literary criterion for identifying secondary material in P – well as the tendency, in P, to dissociate the cult from ethics and from the kind of expectations traditionally associated with “popular” religion (see Sanctuary, esp. ch. 3). Milgrom, for his part, has a more nuanced view. For instance, he strongly opposes the idea that cult and ethics are separated in P, although he admits that the concern for the connection between these two topics is greater in H. 78 See KNOHL, Sanctuary, 59–110, with the summary on p. 104–106; and compare with MILGROM, Leviticus, 1337–1344. 79 KNOHL, Sanctuary, 100–103. Milgrom has a related but nevertheless somewhat distinct view on this point, at least in his most recent publications; see especially MILGROM , Leviticus, 1345–1348; and ID., HR. Although he does accept that the H code in Lev 17–26 (27) is the work of one generation of priestly scribes in the eighth century BCE, he attributes the final redaction of this code as well as the interpolations in the style of H elsewhere in the Torah to a single redactor, HR, working in the exilic (or early postexilic) period and whom he basically identifies with the final editor of the Pentateuch (see ID., Leviticus, 1439–1443). 80 As regards Otto’s model for the Torah’s composition, see in particular ID., Deuteronomium. See also now ACHENBACH, Vollendung, who applies the distinction between “Pentateuchredaktion” and “Hexateuchredaktion” to the book of Numbers. 81 See, e.g., LOHFINK , Priestly Narrative; WEIMAR , Struktur; or ZENGER, Gottes Bogen. For further discussion of these issues, see below Chapter One of this study. 82 See NOTH, Pentateuchal Traditions, 8ff.; ELLIGER, Sinn.

12

Introduction

not an unproblematic model if one thinks that the massive presence of cultic themes and terminology was traditionally considered a decisive feature for isolating P among the other traditions of the Pentateuch.83 As regards “Ps” material, and particularly Lev 1–16, apart from summary treatments in Introductions to the OT,84 it was only seldom the subject of a proper form- or literary-critical investigation. Major exceptions include the form-critical studies of R. Rendtorff (1954, reedited 1963)85 and K. Koch (1959),86 as well as some of the classical commentaries on Leviticus, especially by B. Baentsch, M. Noth and K. Elliger.87 However, Rendtorff’s and Koch’s form-critical criterion of a ritual genre (Gattung) was very soon criticized and has entirely been abandoned since then.88 The kind of source- and literary-critical analysis pursued by Baentsch and, later, especially Noth and Elliger, in particular, yields some important observations but – as with Wellhausen’s approach already – it also raises several major methodological problems, particularly as regards some of the assumptions on which this analysis was usually based and, correspondingly, the almost complete omission of comparative data. Above all, like Baentsch already, all these scholars (with the notable exception of Koch) did not really question the conceptual framework defined by Kuenen and Wellhausen, especially as regards the separation between “Pg” and “Ps”. Thus, Rendtorff’s study is exclusively concerned with reconstructing the prehistory of the ritual instructions in Lev 1–7 and 11– 15 but appears to admit the view that these chapters were interpolated in P at a later stage89. Similarly, in the commentaries by Baentsch, Bertholet, Noth and, 83

See, e.g., STRUPPE, Herrlichkeit, 91, in the case of Lev 9. On the problems raised by the attempt to reconstruct a “narrative” layer in Lev 9 devoid of ritual details, see below, § 3.1.1. 84 See, e.g., characteristically SMEND, Entstehung, 51–52 and 172–174. 85 RENDTORFF, Studien. 86 KOCH, Priesterschrift. 87 BAENTSCH, Leviticus; NOTH, Leviticus; ELLIGER, Leviticus. 88 See already E LLIGER , Leviticus, 31; and further FRITZ , Tempel, 116, with a detailed criticism, as well as JANOWSKI, Sühne, 333; UTZSCHNEIDER, Heiligtum, 41; and OTTO, Forschungen, 28–29. On the basis of the works by O. Rössler on Hebrew verbal tenses, Fritz noted that the use of the we6-qa4t[al-x form cannot be regarded as distinctive of a “ritual” genre but is to be expected whenever the verb does not stand at the opening of a sentence. Furthermore, the use of the imperfect ([we6]x-yiqt[ol) in a sentence in combination with perfect forms prefixed by waw does not indicate a stylistic break but is used in biblical Hebrew to represent imperfect aspects. Hence, the alternation in verbal aspects must be abandoned as a criterion for isolating earlier rituals. The criticism has now been accepted by RENDTORFF (see ID., Leviticus, 19–20). KOCH also had to recognize that the stylistic criterion is not completely relevant, but nevertheless appears to retain it, see ID., Rituale, 77; note that his criticism of Fritz’s and Janowski’s arguments (ID., Rituale, 79) misses the point. 89 See RENDTORFF, Studien, 4 and 38. The same cannot be said in the case of Koch’s analysis. Quite to the contrary, Koch actually sought to demonstrate that in the Sinai pericope the original P layer (“Pg”) had consisted in editing and supplementing a series of older, pre-exilic rituals, thus suggesting a complete reversal of the traditional view.

Leviticus and the Composition of the Pentateuch

13

above all, Elliger, the most significant part of the analysis is devoted to reconstructing the genesis of the supplementary material comprising Lev 1– 16. Especially in Elliger’s work, “Ps” appears now very much as a kind of Fortschreibung of Pg adding ritual instructions, following a complicated process involving many successive stages (in some cases no less than ten!).90 Furthermore, most of these additions are isolated interpolations that do not belong to comprehensive redactions of the book, and they all take place over a narrow time span (from the exile to the early postexilic period), so that the gain in terms of historical knowledge is anyway quite limited. As a result, while the commentaries by Baentsch, Noth and Elliger have remained references for the analysis of specific passages in German exegesis, most scholars are actually satisfied with the distinction between “Pg” and “Ps”; further analysis of the so-called “legal” sections of P is normally not viewed as a significant issue for pentateuchal criticism.91 In Anglo-American scholarship, something of Wellhausen’s model has survived in the still common view that the author of Leviticus used various instructions to compose his book that were probably already grouped in discrete collections such as Lev 1–7; 11–15 and 17–26,.92 But the notion that it would be possible to isolate an earlier narrative consisting exclusively of Lev 8–10 and 16 (or an earlier version of these chapters) is usually rejected.93 In addition, the date of the Priestly source itself is now seriously disputed under the influence of several Jewish scholars who, following Y. Kaufmann, place the composition of P in the preexilic period.94 Nonetheless, here also 90

See, e.g., Elliger’s analysis in the case of Lev 13–14 (ELLIGER, Leviticus, 159–173). A still more complicated analysis of ch. 13–14, pursuing the observations of Elliger, can be found in the 1981 monograph by SEIDL, Tora, which is entirely devoted to this issue. For a critical discussion of their results, see further below, Chapter Four of this study, § 4.1.1. 91 See, e.g., the recent statement of this issue by KRATZ, Komposition, 116–117, which is actually a return to the position of Wellhausen and his school (see above, p. 4, n. 17). Compare, however, ZENGER, Einleitung5, 173: “Da im Bereich der Bücher Ex, Lev, Num große Textanteile auf Ps zurückgehen, ist es eine wichtige Aufgabe künftiger Forschung, diese komplexe Größe Ps literarisch, sozialgeschichtlich und theologisch genauer zu erfassen […]”. 92 See, e.g., DAMROSCH, Leviticus, 67; LEVINE, art. Priestly Writers; AULD, Heart, 46. In Germany, this view has been advocated in particular by RENDTORFF, Two Kinds. 93 In this model, therefore, P is both the author of Lev 8–10 16 and the editor of Lev 1–7; 11–15 and 17–27. See characteristically HARTLEY , Leviticus, xxxix. Note that this view is already found earlier among German scholars rejecting Wellhausen’s model such as HEINISCH , Leviticus, 14–15. Among recent studies of P, see also SCHWARTZ, Priestly Account, esp. 109ff.; or PROPP, Priestly Source, 477, who attribute most or all of legislation in Ex 25– Num 10 to “P”. However, there are exceptions to this trend among American scholars as well. See, e.g., DAMROSCH, Leviticus, 67; most recently V AN SETERS, Pentateuch, 172–174, who now holds the view that in Leviticus the so-called “legal” material was added later. See also the observations below on Milgrom’s ambivalent position on this issue. 94 For the English version of Kaufmann’s work, however considerably shortened, see KAUFMANN, Religion, esp. p. 175–200, where he systematically discusses Wellhausen’s argu-

14

Introduction

there is hardly any consensus regarding P’s exact dating in this period.95 However, apart from these general developments, few if any models for the book’s composition have emerged so far. Instead, most studies have been concerned with literary and/or anthropological approaches to Leviticus and Numbers.96 One major exception is J. Milgrom’s magistral commentary on Leviticus. In the first volume, discussing ch. 1–16, Milgrom acknowledges the existence of numerous indications suggesting successive editions of this collection. Basically, he identifies the hand of several editors (namely, P 2, P 3 and H, which, like Knohl already, Milgrom regards as being post-P) but he tends to limit their work to occasional interpolations which, although quantitatively significant, do not really alter the shape of ch. 1–16 as composed by the P author (= P 1).97 Simultaneously, at several places in his commentary Milgrom also appears to concur with the idea that the legal collections have been interpolated between Ex 40; Lev 8–10 and Lev 16,98 so that his view of the formation of ch. 1–16 is eventually somewhat confusing.

ments for P’s postexilic dating. See further inter alia H URVITZ , Evidence; ID., Linguistic Study; ID., Dating; HARAN, Scenes; MILGROM, Leviticus, 3–35. A major exception is B. Levine, who reaffirmed in many studies P’s post-exilic dating; see, e.g., ID., Literary History. Alternatively, many conservative scholars assume that the earliest form of the levitical laws may be traced back to Moses himself, thus returning to the scholarly position that was common in the first half of the 19th century. See, e.g., HARTLEY, Leviticus, xli–xliii. WENHAM , Leviticus, 6–13, similarly argues for the high antiquity of the Leviticus laws, although he is more reserved regarding the issue of Mosaic authorship. 95 KAUFMANN placed the redaction of the P source between JE and D, and dated it somewhat before Hezekiah (since P, according to Kaufmann, still does not know the ideology of cultic centralization which he assumed to have started with Hezekiah; see, e.g., ID., Religion, 205). HARAN (Scenes, esp. 331–333), on the other hand, places the composition of P under the reign of Hezekiah. KNOHL also dates the work of the H school under Hezekiah (see Sanctuary, 204ff. and 220–222). Yet this implies that the composition of P (which, according to Knohl, is already presupposed by H) should be situated earlier. He therefore suggests locating it in the early monarchical period, soon after the erection of Solomon’s temple. MILGROM , Leviticus, 13–35, places the final composition of P at Jerusalem in the pre-Hezekian era, like Kaufmann, but identifies behind P a still older stratum from the sanctuary at Shiloh (see 1 Sam 1–3), possibly going back, in some aspects, to the wilderness period. 96 In addition to several commentaries (most recently, e.g., BALENTINE, Leviticus), see in particular the essays collected in SAWYER , Reading Leviticus; and RENDTORFF/KUGLER, Leviticus. In this volume, the main article devoted to the compositional issue (LEVINE, Literary History) is actually a restatement of the classical view on the book’s formation in the “New” Documentary Hypothesis, particularly as regards H’s chronological priority over P. 97 In all, Milgrom identifies three distinct P layers (P 1, P 2, P 3) and one H stratum. See his summary in Leviticus, 63, where he attributes to P 2 Lev 1:14–17; 2:3, 10, 14–16; 7:8–10; 8:3–5, 10–11, 26bb; 9:21ab; 10:15ab; 11:24–38, 47; 13:47–59; 15:33ab; 16:1. To H, he assigns 3:16b–17; 6:12–18aa ; 7:22–29a; 7:38b(?); 9:17b; 11:43–45; 12:8; 14:34–53(?), 54– 57(?); 15:31; 16:2bb, 29–34a. P 3 consists only of 11:39–40, and could be later than H; note that in his commentary on ch. 17–22 (ID., Leviticus, 1485–1487.1857–1858) he would now assign 11:39–40 to H, and thus give up the attribution of this passage to a distinct P stratum. 98 On Lev 1–7 being inserted between Ex 40 and Lev 8, see ID., Leviticus, 543: “[…] Lev 8 is a direct continuation of Ex 40:17–33, with Ex 40:34–38 and Lev 1–7 as later insertions.

Leviticus and the Composition of the Pentateuch

15

Actually, particularly in the Anglo-American exegesis, by far the most significant development in the analysis of Leviticus has been the gradual rise of more comprehensive approaches to this book which, in spite of their great diversity, have in common to be interested first and foremost in recovering the inner logic of the various priestly rituals. Seminal studies in this area have been the analysis of the animal classification of Lev 11 by M. Douglas in her epoch-making study of the notion of pollution, Purity and Danger (1966),99 which introduced more generally the analysis of the rituals of Leviticus in terms of “symbolic systems”;100 and, on a distinct but related path, the work of several Jewish scholars concerned with interpreting the P legislation as a comprehensive cultic system, with a coherence and rationales of its own. Distinctive of this approach are the works by M. Haran on Ex 25–31 and 35– 40,101 and by J. Milgrom on Leviticus and Numbers,102 whose analyses have been pursued since by several of his students.103 It is not excessive to state that these studies have revolutionized the understanding of P’s legislation in many ways, either by making a case for an integrative reading of these laws (whereas earlier scholarship usually postulated an erratic conflation of various pieces of distinct origin)104 or by evincing the complex theological assumptions underlying certain laws which otherwise made little sense or even In other words, the three pericopes containing this sevenfold formula (Ex 39; 40:17–33; Lev 8) may at one time have been consecutive”. Similarly, but already more harmonizing, ID., Leviticus, 61; note also that a further difficulty arises from the fact that Milgrom considers Lev 8 to be actually later than Ex 29. Therefore, the latter text was apparently part of a still earlier layer in P; however, the nature and extent of that layer remain somewhat obscure. Lastly, on Lev 11–15 as an insert between Lev 10 and 16, see ID., Leviticus, 62.1011.1061. 99 DOUGLAS, Purity, ch. 3. 100 The development, in anthropology, of an approach of the rites, myths and beliefs of different cultures as “symbolic systems” serving the classification and organization of the world inhabited by man has itself a history. In particular, it is related to the names of C. LéviStrauss and M. Douglas in the middle of the 20th century, and to the deliberate rejection of the earlier “essentialist” approach in anthropology which, basically, regarded notions such as “taboo” or the pair “sacred/profane” as universals. On this scholarly development, see especially the useful essay by BORGEAUD, Sacré/profane. Douglas herself has pursued her study of Lev 11 in several articles (DOUGLAS, Meal; ID ., Self-evidence; ID., Forbidden Animals), gradually extending her approach to the books of Numbers (DOUGLAS, Wilderness) and, most recently, of Leviticus (DOUGLAS, Leviticus) as a whole. Other similar approaches of the collection on impurities as “symbolic system(s)” include authors such as Eilberg-Schwartz, Whitekettle and Malul; for further discussion on this, see below Chapter Four. Others have used classical works in anthropology on the nature of rituals (Van Gennep, Turner) to analyze the cosmology underlying P’s rituals (GORMAN, Ideology; JENSON, Graded Holiness). 101 See HARAN, Temples (1978), which actually groups several earlier studies. 102 Besides his commentaries on Leviticus and Numbers, see MILGROM, Cult; ID., Studies. 103 See in particular the remarkable study by WRIGHT, Disposal (on Lev 11–15), and, most recently, GANE, Cult (on Lev 4 and 16). 104 A good case in point is the legislation of Lev 5; see below, § 3.5.

16

Introduction

appeared arbitrary, such as the grades of sanctity identified by Haran in the description of the wilderness sanctuary,105 or the taxonomy of pollution analyzed by Milgrom and Wright in Lev 11–15, with its division into three primary categories of pollution (minor, major, and “extreme”) requiring different forms of seclusion from the community (one-day seclusion, seven-day, or expulsion from the camp).106 In the last two decades, this approach to Leviticus has also gradually made its way in Europe, and can be found in the work of various authors such as A. Marx in France,107 R. Rendtorff in Germany,108 or A. Schenker in Switzerland.109 Partly connected to this development, one should also mention here the growing interest in the problem of the structure of the book of Leviticus in its “final”, canonical form. In Europe also, entire articles and even monographs are now devoted to this issue.110 Although they come to very different conclusions, all these studies have shown that the traditional two-fold division of the book – still assumed by many authors111 – is far too simple and does not do justice to the complexity and the sophistication of its overall structure. In many ways, the recent predominance of synchronic studies of Leviticus can be viewed as a legitimate reaction against some of the excesses of sourceand form-critical analyses, particularly as regards the book’s dissection into several redactional layers or into numerous “small units”, as well as, more generally, the tendency in several commentaries (Noth, Elliger, or more recently Gerstenberger) to envision the formation of Leviticus as a more or less “mechanical” process of Fortschreibung. Similarly, that many of the criteria classically used to identify ancient sources or later redactional reworking, such as changes in style, in address, in verbal tenses or in the order of items, are clearly problematic and need to be checked against comparative evidence

105

HARAN, Temples, 149–188; similarly JENSON, Graded Holiness, esp. 89–114. MILGROM , Impurity System; ID., Rationale; and WRIGHT, Disposal, esp. ch. 8; ID ., Spectrum. A similar approach is also found in an essay by FRYMER-KENSKY, Pollution. 107 See most recently MARX , Systèmes, and more generally the various studies by Marx mentioned in the bibliography at the end of this study. 108 RENDTORFF, Leviticus; similarly, see the work of his student C. Eberhart on sacrificial rites (EBERHART , Studien). Very recently, B. Jürgens, a student of E. Zenger, has offered a detailed study of Lev 16 that pursues the kind of analysis of this chapter initiated for instance by F. Gorman (cf. JÜRGENS, Heiligkeit). 109 See in particular SCHENKER, Recht und Kult, which contains several earlier studies by the author and gives a good overview of his approach of the Priestly legislation. 110 See in particular DOUGLAS, Poetic Structure; ID., Leviticus, esp. 195ff.; SMITH , Leviticus; WARNING, Literary Artistry; ZENGER, Buch Levitikus; RUWE, Structure; most recently, cf. LUCIANI, Sainteté. For a detailed discussion of this topic, see below Chapter Two. 111 See among many others LEVINE , art. Leviticus, esp. 312, where he distinguishes a “torah for the priests” in Lev 1–16 and a “torah by the priests” (for the entire community) in Lev 17–27; similarly ID., Literary History, 21–23. 106

Leviticus and the Composition of the Pentateuch

17

has now become perfectly obvious.112 Yet, in spite of their decisive contribution to our understanding of Leviticus in the past years, more “comprehensive” studies of this book also raise some important methodological questions, which are only seldom addressed. In particular, most studies assigning the Leviticus legislation to P appear to have only a vague notion of the nature of “P” (source or redactional layer?), of its historical background (pre-exilic, exilic or post-exilic?), and, above all, of the purpose and function of this work in its original context. In many cases, these problems are just emerging now in the scholarly discussion. For example, while many studies have focused on Leviticus as a unified work and have neglected the sourcecritical distinction between P and H, it was recently observed that earlier interpretations of P’s sacrificial system may have overstressed the importance of the unique statement found in Lev 17:11.113 Indeed, we are bound to ask what difference it makes – at least from a historical perspective – for the interpretation of Leviticus and other “P” laws if it can be demonstrated that some parts of this corpus are already an exegesis of earlier instructions. Another important question involves the hermeneutics of P’s legislation. Actually, many scholars have tacitly endorsed Wellhausen’s “realistic” reading of Leviticus, regarding it as the codification of actual rituals to be performed by the intended audience of the book. This view is now challenged by some authors, who regard Leviticus as a literary construct mainly, namely, a cosmological-philosophical speculation to be interpreted exclusively against the background of P’s narrative.114 Such an issue is decisive for any interpretation of Leviticus; but it cannot be decided separately from a discussion of P’s historical background, its possible sources, and its intended audience. 112 For example, a similar point was recently established by J.W. Watts in an important article regarding the form-critical problem raised by the mixing of distinct genres in Lev 1–7. See WATTS, Rhetoric; on p. 92, he concludes that there is “a great diversity of form and content among ancient ritual texts”, and “no single ritual genre into which all these texts fit”. The whole question calls for a reassessment of the common understanding of what a “ritual” text is and of how it can be formally defined; see further on this in particular § 3.3.3. 113 See GILDERS, Blood Ritual, 158–180, esp. 176; and as a typical instance of this earlier approach of sacrifices in P, see for example SCHENKER, Zeichen. 114 Thus in particular M. Douglas in her most recent works (ID., Leviticus; ID., Ezra). See also now – although from a completely different methodological perspective – LISS, Kanon, and her criticism on p. 9 of approaches such as by RENDTORFF, Studien, and EBERHART, Studien, using the Priestly texts as a source for the reconstruction of ancient Israel’s cultic history. In this context, one may also mention many anthropological or cross-cultural approaches to Leviticus that tend to read systematically the book as if it were the faithful report of actual rites; see, e.g., the following statement by LEACH, Logic, 141, as an introduction to his analysis of the consecration of Aaron and his sons in Lev 8–10: “So my suggestion is that you treat these texts ‘as if’ they represented the notebook record of a contemporary ethnographer. […] In reading my analysis, check back constantly to the original text as you might well want to do if I were referring to a modern anthropological monograph” (emphasis added).

18

Introduction

In addition, all these questions actually arise in an academic context where, in just one decade, the so-called “Priestly” texts of the Pentateuch are once again a major area of scholarly investigation. As was noted above in Excursus 1, the classical relationship between “H” and “P” is now entirely disputed, and it is unclear whether Lev 17–26 is older than, contemporary with, or later than chapters 1–16. The literary extent of the P document has also become a major scholarly topic since a few years, at least in Europe, and this discussion has far-reaching implications for the way in which one conceives the nature and purpose of this document originally.115 At the same time, there is a marked tendency, in present pentateuchal scholarship, to focus no longer exclusively on the earliest sources, as in the 19th century, but to give considerable attention to the latest redactions of the Torah and to the way in which they contributed to shaping the Pentateuch in its canonical form.116 In this context, the question of the origin of the so-called “priestly laws” in the Pentateuch takes on a renewed significance. Namely, what are the role and the place of the priestly legislation in the historical process that led to the composition of the Torah as an authoritative document during the Persian period? And what can be learned from a critical analysis of Leviticus in this respect? This question was occasionally raised during the 20th century,117 but could never be satisfactorily answered in the coordinates of the classical model for the formation of the “priestly” literature inherited from Wellhausen and its chronological sequence comprising Ph, Pg and Ps. As its title indicates, the following study is an attempt to investigate further the role played by Leviticus in the transition from “P” to “Pentateuch”. Although this study’s concern is primarily redaction criticism, this is done against the background of a systematic discussion of the internal coherence of the Leviticus legislation in its ancient Near Eastern context. The first two chapters each represent a preliminary stage for the critical assessment of the composition history of Leviticus. Chapter One is devoted to the problem of the Priestly source in the other books of the Pentateuch. Addressing the ongoing scholarly discussion on the nature and extent of this source, it argues, along with other scholars, that the so-called “priestly” texts in Numbers most likely belong to a later stage in the formation of the Pentateuch. Instead, P initially concluded with an account of Israel’s sojourn at Mt Sinai. In a second stage, this chapter looks into the question of the nature of the Priestly source in Genesis and Exodus, showing that P’s account in these two books is consistently directed towards the Leviticus revelation forming both its narrative con115

On this issue, see further Chapter One of this study. On this point, see in particular OTTO, Forschungen; and as an illustration of this scholarly trend the collective volume just edited by RÖMER/SCHMID, Rédactions finales. 117 See, e.g., NOTH, Leviticus, 13. In terms of classical pentateuchal scholarship, this question is none other than that of the relationship between “Ps” and “Rp”. 116

Leviticus and the Composition of the Pentateuch

19

clusion as well as its theological climax. Chapter Two addresses in some detail the problem of the book’s literary coherence in its canonical form, and basically argues that Leviticus consists of three major sections: Lev 1–10; 11–16; 17–26 (27), evincing a clear narrative progression whose dominant theme is Israel’s gradual initiation into the divine presence. It is also this general perspective that accounts for the present position of Leviticus in the very middle of the pentateuchal narrative. The core of this study is constituted by Chapters Three, Four and Five, each dealing successively with one of the three sections of the book from the perspective of redaction criticism and the history of the Priestly literature. Questions pertaining to the section’s literary and conceptual coherence; to the sources used by the Priestly writers and the nature of their redactional activity; to the purpose of the Priestly composition as well as its relationship with the previous P narrative in Genesis–Exodus; and, finally, to the historical context reflected in each section are systematically investigated. As will be demonstrated, the book’s composition history is essentially related to two decisive historical developments: the re-interpretation and the re-foundation of the traditional, pre-exilic Temple cult in the context of the new situation prevailing in post-exilic Yehud during the early Persian period, on one hand; and the integration of the Priestly document into the Pentateuch as a document of compromise mediating between major traditions on Israel’s origins, on the other. As such, Leviticus may legitimately be regarded as standing at the very heart of the process leading from P to the Pentateuch. Finally, Chapter Six is entirely devoted to a brief analysis of Leviticus 10. It is argued that this text should be viewed as the latest supplement to Leviticus and as such is closely related to the book’s editorial closure in the late Persian or early Hellenistic period. For this reason, it is of particular importance not only as the last stage in the book’s composition history, but above all as a unique witness to the understanding of the place and significance of Leviticus from the viewpoint of the Torah’s final editors. The study concludes with a brief discussion summarizing and commenting upon the main results achieved.

Chapter One

Leviticus and the Priestly History of Israel’s Origins in Genesis–Exodus 1.1. The Current Discussion on P’s Ending Still today, the distinction between “Priestly” and “non-Priestly” material in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, as well as the identification of the Priestly stratum on the basis of its distinctive language, syntax and theology, remain one of the few unquestioned results of pentateuchal criticism. Besides, the classical view of P as forming a separate document originally, which was occasionally disputed in the last decades,1 has now been reaffirmed in detail by several scholars, in my opinion with compelling arguments.2 The classical observations that, at least in Genesis–Exodus, the P texts represent a coherent story, with only very few lacunas; that they have preserved their own version of several central episodes in Israel’s history of origins (such as in Gen 6–9, Ex 7–11 or 14); and, above all, that in several places they stand in tension with the non-P material in the present form of the Pentateuch, all militate against the view that P was conceived initially as a supplement to the non-P traditions.3 If this conclusion appears to be again the object of a certain con1 CROSS, Tabernacle, esp. 57–58; further ID., Priestly Work; RENDTORFF, Pentateuch, esp. 162–163; TENGSTRÖM , Toledot-Formel; SKA, Ex 6,2–8; ID ., Remarques; BLUM , Vätergeschichte, 420–458; ID., Studien, 229–285; DOZEMAN, Mountain, 87ff.; ALBERTZ, Religion, 2. 480–493; VAN SETERS, Life; VERVENNE, P Tradition; VERMEYLEN, Genèse 1, all of whom hold that P was conceived from the beginning as a supplement to the non-P portions of the Torah, although their views as to the exact nature of this supplement may significantly vary (see, in particular, the nuanced position of Blum). For earlier authors who questioned P’s existence as a separate document, see the references in VERVENNE, Ibid., 73 n. 17. 2 See in particular the discussion by SCHMIDT, Studien, esp. 1–34; and GERTZ, Exoduserzählung, passim; further Z ENGER, Bogen, 35–36; ID., art. Priesterschrift; ID., Einleitung5, 160–161; KOCH , Zwei Eckdaten; CAMPBELL , Priestly Text; CARR , Fractures, 43–140; SCHWARTZ, Priestly Account, esp. 105–109; and SKA, Relative indépendance. 3 A classical example of P’s initial independence is found in Ex 2–6; see now the detailed analysis by SCHMIDT, Studien, 2–10. The P notice in Ex 2:23ab, b–25 is obviously continued in Ex 6:2–8, a passage which stands in tension with its literary context as Blum himself, for instance, has to admit (ID., Studien, 232–233: “Der Abschnitt steht so sperrig in seinem Kontext, dass auch raffinierte Harmonisierungskünste letztlich auf Kosten der spezifischen Textgestalt gehen müssen”). 6:2 begins with the introduction of a new divine speech to Moses, but

1.1. The Current Discussion on P’s Ending

21

sensus, recent discussion has focused on the problem of the ending of the Priestly account. Following the “New” Documentary hypothesis (Graf, Kuenen and Wellhausen), P’s ending was found either in the second part of the book of Joshua (ch. 13–24) or, especially after M. Noth, in the account relating Moses’ death outside the land in Deut 34 (34:1*, 7–9).4 Neither of those two solutions, using Myhl) instead of hwhy; the speech of 6:2–8 is unrelated to the previous divine discourse in 6:1 and to the situation described in ch. 3–5 (the crisis created by Pharaoh’s further oppression of Israel in response to Moses’ claim after the revelation of Ex 3–4) but clearly refers to the situation recounted in 2:23ab, b–25 and to the cry of the Israelites, to which 6:5 explicitly alludes (for this observation, see SCHMIDT , Studien, 7, against SKA, Remarques, 102–103; BLUM, Studien, 233). Above all, the very center of 6:2–8, the revelation of Yahweh’s proper name to Moses (and beyond him, to all Israel) for the first time in mankind’s history makes no sense if P is already composed together with the non-P texts in Gen 1–Ex 5* where Yahweh’s name has already been disclosed, as was traditionally observed (e.g., KOCH, Zwei Eckdaten, 465–466; pace the arguments of BLUM, Studien, 234–235.295–296, which do not really meet the point). It is difficult to imagine, therefore, that 2:23ab , b–25 and 6:2–8 were composed for their present literary context, as argued, in particular, by Ska and Blum. Several similar examples could be given. E.g., the issue raised by Esau’s wedding with “Hittite” (that is, in P’s terminology, Canaanite) women in Gen 26:34–35 is taken up in 27:46 and 28:1–9 (P), while the intervening material in 27:1–45 is clearly intrusive. Especially in sections where P has been combined with a non-P tradition to form a single narrative, such as the Flood story (Gen 6–9), the plagues cycle (Ex 7–11) or the crossing of the Sea in Ex 14, regarding P as supplement is not compelling. E.g., one does not see what, for P, was the purpose of framing the Israelites’ complaint against Moses in the non-P tradition of Ex 14:11–14 with the motif of the people crying to Yahweh in v. 10bb and 15. There can hardly be any doubt that v. 15 was originally meant to follow v. 10; even Blum (Ibid.) must admit that they form “einen ausgesprochen dichten und nahezu geschlossenen Erzählzusammenhang”. In Genesis, the main lacunas concern the report of the birth of Jacob and Esau (cf. Gen 25:19–20… 26b) as well as the account of Jacob’s sojourn with Laban in Aram and his marriage there (Gen 27:46–28:9… 31,18*). The P version of Joseph’s story is also incomplete (cf. Gen 41:46a; 46:6–7; 47:27b–28; 48:3–6; 49:1a, 28b–33; 50:12–13; for this classical reconstruction, see ELLIGER, Sinn, 174–175; further LOHFINK, Priestly Narrative, 145 n. 29; slightly differently, P OLA , Priesterschrift, 343 n. 144). Yet it is not evident that P already knew the Joseph story, which may well be a postexilic creation by the Jewish diaspora in Egypt, as some authors have argued; see RÖMER, Joseph approché; further ID ., Narration; UEHLINGER, Genèse 37–50; SCHMID, Josephsgeschichte. In this case, it is entirely possible that P only reported Jacob’s descent in Egypt, his sojourn, and his death there (= Gen 46:6b– 7; 47:27b–28; 49:1a[?], 29–33*; 50:12–13; and for this solution RÖMER, Narration, 23 n. 32). The reconstruction of P in Ex 1–14 raises only very few difficulties, see SCHMIDT, Studien, 1–34, and GERTZ, Exoduserzählung, passim (cf. also the “Annex” on p. 394–396). The problem of P’s reconstruction in Ex 19–40 will be discussed below, § 1.2. 4 On this, see now the detailed Forschungsbericht by FREVEL, Blick, 9–42. The assumption that P originally extended down to Joshua was based on the hypothesis of an older Hexateuch in J and E; see, e.g., WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 133; and similarly HOLZINGER, Einleitung, esp. 336. Later, M. Noth, because he rejected the Hexateuch hypothesis, argued for a conclusion in Deut 34, see NOTH, ÜSt, 191–201, and further ELLIGER, Sinn, 195–198.

22

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

however, was really satisfactory. The so-called “Priestly” texts in Joshua are traditionally recognized as later supplements, and in more recent accounts of this hypothesis the P source in Joshua is now limited to a few fragments that do not even form a coherent narrative.5 The notice assigned to P in Deut 34:1*, 7–9 actually contains no report on Moses’ death since this report is found in v. 5, usually identified as Dtr. Besides, this notice gives a rather abrupt ending to the P narrative, an observation that already forced several scholars to the view that P’s conclusion was purposefully left open (K. Elliger).6 In a 1988 study which has been most influential in Germany since then, L. Perlitt reexamined the few texts in Deuteronomy evincing affinities with P’s language (namely, Deut 1:3; 4:41–43; 32:48–52; 34:1*, 7–9) and offered convincing arguments against their assignment to this source.7 In the case of Deut 34:1*, 7–9 Perlitt observes that, in addition to the fragmentary character of this notice, its terminology is not characteristic of P but shows the influence of several other pentateuchal traditions. Thus, the mention of the 120 years of Moses’ life in v. 7a combines the notice in Ex 7:7 (Moses is 80 when the exodus takes place) and the Dtr tradition of the forty years of wandering in the wilderness, which has no equivalent in P; it also seems to presuppose the non-P passage of Gen 6:1–4 (see v. 3), itself likely to be a very late addition to the story of origins in Gen 1–11.8 The language of v. 9b recalls Dtr phraseology,9 whereas in 9a the expression hmkx xwr )lm has its closest parallels in the messianic saying of Isa 11:2.10 Besides, 34:9a clear5

See L OHFINK, Priestly Narrative, 145 n. 29, who retains Josh 4:19; 5:10–12; 14:1, 2*; 18:1… 19:51; similarly KNAUF, Priesterschrift. BLENKINSOPP, Structure of P, 288–289, finds P in Josh 4:9, 19; 5:10–12; 9:15–21; 11:15–20; 14:1–5; 18:1; 19:51; 21:1–8; 22:10–34; 24:33. Other scholars, while admitting the presence of P in Joshua, are skeptical towards the possibility of reconstructing it; see for instance PROPP, Priestly Source, 477. Significantly, Wellhausen himself had considerably hesitated on this point. While he initially assumed in his Composition des Hexateuch that P’s conclusion was to be found somewhere in Joshua, probably in Josh 22:34 (Composition, 133), he later revised his view. Thus, in the “Supplements” (Nachträge) to the Composition, he agreed with Kuenen that all of Josh 22:9–34 should be attributed, together with Num 32:6–15, to a late P redaction (ID ., Composition, 352); and in the Prolegomena, he was apparently the first to consider the possibility that the Grundschrift ended in Deut 34, with the account of Moses’ death (ID., Prolegomena, 356). 6 ELLIGER, Sinn, 195ff.; similarly KILIAN, Priesterschrift; and more generally on this point, see FREVEL, Blick, 29–34, with further references. Noth had no explanation either for this ending, and could only suppose that Pg was following an older tradition; cf. ID., ÜSt, 207. 7 PERLITT, Priesterschrift. 8 VAN SETERS, Primeval Histories; ID., Prologue, 149–159; WITTE, Urgeschichte, 65–74. 9 While the sentence h#m-t) hwhy hwc r#)k w#(yw is typical of P, the syntagm l) (m# is reminiscent of the Dtr tradition; the combination is never found elsewhere in P. 10 In the Pentateuch, it is found in connection with the artisans responsible for the building of the tent, in Ex 28:3; 31:3; 35:31. The motif of the artisans has long been recognized as a later insertion in Ex 25–40, see below the discussion of Ex 28, § 1.2.2.2, page 52.

1.1. The Current Discussion on P’s Ending

23

ly depends on Num 27:15–23, commonly regarded as a late addition to P.11 The language of v. 8b is also unique, combining rare words. In the Torah, ykb ‘weeping’ occurs only in Gen 45:2; lb) ‘mourning’ is found only in Gen 27:41 and 50:10–11; besides, the combination of these two words has no parallel in the Hebrew Bible. Lastly, the isolation of a P notice in Deut 34:1a* is no less problematic because v. 1b–6 lack an introduction in this case.12 Moreover, the later origin of the fragments traditionally assigned to P in Deuteronomy is also manifest from the perspective of their editorial function. As observed by T. Pola, Deut 1:3; 32:48(ff.) and 34:7a, 8 build a redactional frame around the remainder of Deuteronomy identifying the day in which Moses read the content of Deuteronomy with the day of his death and thus transforming Deuteronomy into Moses’ testament.13 Thus, these verses make much better sense in the context of the book of Deuteronomy rather than of the P narrative, with which they evince few thematic connections anyway. In spite of some recent attempts, in particular by L. Schmidt and C. Frevel, to reaffirm the presence of P in Deut 3414 there are therefore good reasons to 11

NOTH, Numeri, 185. For further observations, see PERLITT, Priesterschrift, 133–141; as well as STOELLGER, Deuteronomium 34. 13 Cf. POLA, Priesterschrift, 13–14.106.300. 14 SCHMIDT, Studien, 241–251; FREVEL, Blick. However, none of these two attempts can be regarded as convincing. Schmidt does not really offer new arguments against Perlitt’s conclusion and must resort to the traditional assumption that the original notice of Moses’ death was suppressed by a pentateuchal redactor; also, he is obliged to postulate the existence of a P layer in Num 27:15–23, against the opinio communis since Noth (see further below). For his part, Frevel, tries to demonstrate that the alternative conclusions to Pg which have been offered before Deut 34 are not satisfying either and that several texts in P point on the contrary to a report of Moses’ death. However, even he must admit that the text of Deut 34 has been so heavily reworked by later redactions that it can only be reconstructed fragmentarily (see ID., Blick, especially 336–342). In addition to the problem raised by the absence of a notice of Moses’ death, Frevel is unable to account for the dependence of Deut 34:7 on Gen 6:3. Above all, Frevel has well observed, contrary to Schmidt, that the notice in 34:9, which depends on Num 27:15–23, cannot belong to Pg. Therefore, in order to maintain the thesis of a conclusion to Pg in Deut 34, he is forced to surmise that P originally ended before v. 9, in Deut 34:8 (ID., Blick, 342; this idea was already proposed by LUX, Tod des Mose). However, such solution is rather unconvincing because the notice in v. 8b on the coming to an end of Israel’s mourning of Moses clearly appears to demand a sequel (compare with Num 20:29!). Frevel’s solution is rejected in a recent article by S CHMITT, Deuteronomium 34, esp. 186–191. Schmitt retains the conclusion of P in Deut 34:7–9*, yet without discussing the arguments against this solution. SEEBASS, Ankündigung, esp. 459 and 466–467, accepts with Frevel the thesis of the late origin of v. 9. However, he assumes that the sequel to Num 27:12–23* (in which, contrary to Frevel, he surmises that it is possible to identify a first layer belonging to Pg, see Ibid., 459ff.) is not to be found in Deut 34:9, as is commonly assumed, but somewhere in the book of Joshua, possibly in Josh 18:1–10* (see on p. 466 n. 50). In addition to its speculative character and to the problem raised by the reconstruction of an early P account in Num 27:15–23, such a solution leads to additional difficulties. For in12

24

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

assume with Perlitt and, further, Stoellger and Pola, that the conclusion to P cannot be found in the last chapter of the Pentateuch. Since that conclusion cannot reside, a fortiori, in the so-called “P” passages of Joshua, all of which presuppose the account of Deut 34:7–9 as well as the notice on Joshua’s succession in v. 9,15 it must necessarily be identified before Deuteronomy. As recent discussion has demonstrated, however, the texts traditionally assigned to P in Numbers hardly offer any likely candidate. Perlitt, as well as a few authors after him, proposed identifying P’s end in Num 27:12–14, with the announcement of Moses’ death.16 Alternatively, it was proposed that it should be found in the account of Aaron’s death in Num 20:22–29.17 Yet neither of these two solutions appears to be satisfactory. Num 27:12–14 offers a poor conclusion to P, and its separation from the remainder of ch. 27 is arbitrary; without v. 15–23, v. 12–14 are little more than a fragment.18 However, the account of v. 15–23 prepares for the transition to the book of Josh, and cannot have formed once the conclusion of P. In addition, the language of these verses presents many features precluding their attribution to P, as has generally been accepted since Noth.19 As to Num 20:22–29, the motif of the 30-day stance, the transmission of Moses’ office to Joshua, instructed in 27:15ff., is never reported, which would be most surprising in P. 15 For a detailed criticism of this hypothesis, see now POLA, Priesterschrift, 107–108; and especially FREVEL, Blick, 187–210. 16 PERLITT, Priesterschrift, 142; further apparently JANOWSKI, Tempel, 224 n. 47; and most recently SKA, Introduction, 210–215; see also BLUM, Studien, 181–182. Perlitt actually devoted little attention to this issue, and his proposal seems to proceed from a simple substraction. Namely, since Noth had already argued that there was no trace of P between Num 27:12–14 and Deut 34 (see NOTH, Üst, 192ff.; similarly, ID., Pentateuchal Traditions, 9), and since, according to Perlitt, Deut 34 cannot have formed the end of P’s account, he found this conclusion in the last passage asssigned to P before Deut 34, i.e., Num 27:12–14. 17 Thus in particular KÖCKERT, Land, 148. 18 See in particular SCHMIDT, Studien, 211ff., esp. 238–239 (who attributes a first version of 27:12–23* to Pg); SCHÄFER-LICHTENBERGER, Josua, 145–162; FREVEL, Blick, 272ff. 19 See NOTH, Numeri, 185, for whom the introduction of Num 27:15–23 would go back to a stage where the Pentateuch was joined to the Dtr History. For the late origin of Num 27:12– 14, 15–23, see now FREVEL, Blick, 281–282; as well as ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 557–567. Yahweh’s characterization as r#b-lkl txwrh yhl) in 27:16 occurs otherwise only in Num 16:22 belonging to the latest layer in Num 16–17, the Korah story, which is clearly redactional. As noted by Achenbach (Ibid., 564 n. 31): “Die anthropologische Korrelierung von Fleisch und Geist an dieser Stelle […] findet sich in der hier expliziten Weise nur an allerspätester Stelle im A.T.: Hi 34,14f. In der eschatologischen Prophetie der Spätzeit spielt sie eine gewisse Rolle, vgl. Ez 36,26f”. The phrase hwhy-td( (v. 17) is found exclusively in two very late texts in the Hexateuch, Num 31:16 and Josh 22:16–17 (which depends on the former). In v. 18, the hand-leaning rite prescribed for Joshua’s inthronization, with the verb Kms, is unique. In P, it is normally used in the context of the sacrifice of an animal (see Lev 1 and 3). As observed by Achenbach, its closest parallel is the ceremony recounting the levites’ consecration in Num 8:10, also a late passage. More generally, the whole description of Israel’s leader in Num 27:15ff. is clearly inspired from royal ideology and is certainly not char-

1.1. The Current Discussion on P’s Ending

25

mourning in v. 29 offers an unlikely conclusion; besides, it is difficult to see why, if P related Aaron’s death, he did not recount that of Moses as well. Lastly, both Num 20:22–29 and 27:12–23 presuppose the story of Num 20:1–13 reporting Moses’ and Aaron’s rebellion against Yahweh at Qadesh, a text which can also be shown to evince a post-P origin. In particular, the use of )mn Hiphil in v. 12 is never found in P; it is on the contrary a Leitmotiv of the pentateuchal redaction, particularly in Ex 4, as recently shown by J.C. Gertz.20 Similarly, in v. 13 the statement according to which Yahweh has shown his sanctity “before the Israelites” at Kadesh,21 with the verb qds] Niphal, is probably a reference to the instruction of Lev 22:32,22 a central exhortation in the Holiness Code which, as will be demonstrated later in this study, is also post-P. It is therefore unlikely that either of these two verses can be attributed to P; since they are needed for the conclusion of Num 20:1–13, the whole episode should be attributed to a later redaction in Numbers.23 acteristic of P. In v. 17, the expression h(r Mhl-Ny) r#) N)ck is also singular in P but has a close parallel in 1 Kgs 22:17 (see further 2 Chron 18:16; Zech 10:2, two very late passages); v. 17 and, further, 21b also have a parallel in 2 Sam 5:2 (// 1 Chr 11:2). The term dwh in Num 27:20, which is used nowhere else in the Pentateuch, is also presented several times in the HB as a royal attribute (cf. Jer 22:18; Ps 21:6; 45:4; Dan 11:21; 1 Chr 29:25; in Zech 6:13, this royal attribute is reported on the high priest in the present text; on this point, cf. in particular S CHÄFER -L ICHTENBERGER , Josua, 157). Finally, the instruction in v. 19a that Joshua be brought before the priest Eleazar (with dm( Hiphil + Nhkh ynpl) occurs only in two passages in Num 1–10, Num 3:6 and 8:13 (ACHENBACH, Ibid., 564), generally considered as secondary in P. The attempts by SCHMIDT, Studien, 215–238; and SEEBASS, Josua, 59–61; ID., Ankündigung, to identify an earlier stratum in Num 27:15–23 to be attributed to Pg (Schmidt: v. 15– 18, 20, 22, 23a; Seebass: v. 18–23*) are unconvincing, because even the layer they find is informed by a late, post-P terminology. For a detailed criticism, see now FREVEL, Blick, 275ff. 20 See GERTZ, Exoduserzählung, 223–228 and 311–312, and cf. Gen 15:6; Ex 4:1, 5, 8–9, 31; 14:31; 19:9; Num 14:11, all passages which are redactional (otherwise: Gen 45:26; Deut 1:32; 9:23; 28:66). On that ground, POLA, Priesterschrift, 96–97, already concluded that Num 20:1–13 could not belong to Pg. Even SEEBASS, Numeri, 276, who has recently argued again for the attribution of v. 12 to Pg must admit that the use of Nm) Hi. is “wirklich problematisch”; see also ID., Versuch, 224, where he states that this phrase “keine P-Vokabel ist” but is probably from the hand of the pentateuchal redactor. One may also note that the introduction of the divine speech in v. 12 is not characteristic of P either (FREVEL, Blick, 328). 21 In the context of Num 20:13 the referents of Mb should be the l)r#y-ynb mentioned just before rather than the waters of Meriba (see, e.g., SCHART, Mose, 98 n. 4). 22 Thus ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 316–317. Otherwise, #dq Ni. only occurs in Ex 29:43 and Lev 10:3; yet in these two passages the context is somewhat different. In Ex 29:43, it is Yahweh who sanctifies himself in the middle of his community, whereas Lev 10:3 deals specifically with the problem of the priests approaching Yahweh. Thus, only in Lev 22:32 do we find the notion that Yahweh is sanctified by the entire community, including priests and laymen; besides, the connection between Lev 22:32 and Num 20:13 is also clear insofar as both passages are concerned with the observance of Yahweh’s commands; see below. 23 For this conclusion see in particular POLA, Priesterschrift, 96–97; KRATZ, Komposition, 110–111.115; OTTO, Forschungen, 15–16; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 301ff., and already be-

26

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

Excursus 1: The Post-Priestly Origin of Numbers 20 Closer analysis corroborates the view that Num 20:1–13 is not merely a supplement to P (“Ps”), but a creation by a pentateuchal redactor. In spite of the text’s obvious complexity, the traditional attempt to reconstruct an older story behind it which would belong to the P source (“Pg” or “Ps”), appears to be untenable, especially as regards the core of the narrative, v. 8– 11. Scholars unanimously acknowledge that the motif of Moses’ staff in 20:8aa, 9 and 11a is redactional,24 and this observation is confirmed by Gertz’s recent study, which convincingly demonstrates that this motif is indeed redactional in the whole Pentateuch.25 Therefore, the original text in 20:8–11 is usually identified in v. 8aa2 (i.e., without h+mh-t) xq), ab, (8b), 10, 11b, 12. This account reported how Moses and Aaron received from God the order to gather the community and speak to the rock (v. 8aa2, b), expressed their doubts in front of the community (v. 10), and were therefore sanctioned by Yahweh (v. 12) after the latter had nevertheless let water flow from the rock in spite of Moses’ and Aaron’s disobedience (v. 11b).26 However, the separation of the command to take the rod in v. 8aa from the rest of v. 8 raises a problem: without it, the instruction of v. 8b MT stating that Moses alone is required to draw water from the rock hardly makes any sense.27 Therefore, v. 8b should also be assigned

fore them MITTMANN, Deuteronomium, 108ff.; similarly AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 168 n. 163 and 187. The recent proposal of FREVEL, Blick, 327–328 and 328–330, who acknowledges that v. 12 and 13 cannot be original but nevertheless suggests that P’s account in Num 20 ended with v. 11, is unlikely because one expects at least a condemnation of the two leaders, as was already noted by SCHMIDT, Studien, 53–54; see also SEEBASS, Numeri, 276. It has often been argued that v. 12 and 13 cannot belong to the same layer, and that v. 13 should probably be regarded as later than 12. See, e.g., SEEBASS, Versuch, 223, although he acknowledges the logical connection between these two verses. FREVEL, Blick, 310.328, and FRANKEL, Murmuring Stories, 288, argue for their part that it is v. 12 which has been interpolated between v. 11 and 13). However, the so-called tension between the two passages is non-existent. On the contrary, the observation in v. 12 that Moses and Aaron have defiled Yahweh leaves open a major issue. That issue only finds its resolution in v. 13 stating that despite the crime of the two leaders Yahweh sanctified himself before the Israelites at Qadesh by the rock miracle (for a similar idea, see ACHENBACH, Ibid., 316–317). One may also note that the etiology of v. 13 builds an inclusion with v. 1ab, thus rounding off the entire story. 24 Thus already R UDOLPH , Elohist, 86: “Der Stab stammt ebenfalls aus Ex 17 (v. 5f.)”. Similarly NOTH , Numeri, 128–129; ZENGER , Israel, 64; STRUPPE , Herrlichkeit, 190–191; SCHMIDT, Studien, 50–52; ARTUS, Études, 231–232; FREVEL, Blick, 323ff.331–332. 25 See GERTZ, Exoduserzählung, 313–314. This point was established long ago for other occurrences of the staff motif in the Torah, in particular in Ex 14:16; see BAENTSCH, Exodus, 124; RUDOLPH, Elohist, 30; KOHATA, Jahwist, 232–233; SCHMIDT, Studien, 19–20. 26 Thus already RUDOLPH, Elohist, 87; similarly VON RAD, Priesterschrift, 117; ELLIGER, Sinn, 175 (20:1a, 2, 3bc, 4, 6, 7, 8bcef, 10, 11b, 12) ; NOTH, Numeri, 127(ff.) (20:2, 3b, 4, 6, 7, 8ab, bb, 10, 11b, 12); LOHFINK, Priestly Narrative, 145 n. 29 (20:1*… 2, 3b–7, 8*, 10, 11b, 12*); KOHATA, Numeri XX 1–13, 8 (“Daß der Grundbestand, der aus v. 1aa , 2, 3b, 4, 5b, 6, 7, 8ab, b, 10, 11b, 12 besteht, zur Priesterschrift zu rechnen ist, hat […] schon weithin Anerkennung gefunden […]”); ZENGER, Israel, 64–66 (20:1aa, 2, 3b, 6, 7, 8aa*, b, 10, 12; similarly W EIMAR, Struktur, 85); STRUPPE, Herrlichkeit, 184ff. (20:[1a*], 2, 3b, 6, 7, 8aa *, b*, 8b, 10, 11b, 12); SCHMIDT, Studien, 45–72 (20:1aa, 2, 3b, 4, 6, 7, 8aa2, b, 10, 11b, 12); ID., Numeri, 88–93; ARTUS , Études, 217–243 (1aa , 2, 4–7, 8ab , g , 10, 12); FREVEL, Blick, 323ff. (20:1a, 2, 3b, 4, 6, 7, 8aa*, b*, b, 10, 11b; for the reasons noted above, he omits v. 12). 27 That the LXX represents here a facilitating lesson is unanimously recognized.

1.1. The Current Discussion on P’s Ending

27

to the prenateuchal redactor in Num 20, as several authors have concluded.28 Yet this solution raises in turn a further issue. As noted by U. Struppe, the language of v. 11b reporting the resolution of the initial want that caused the people’s protests in v. 2ff. takes up the wording of v. 8b specifically.29 Since v. 11b is considered original, v. 8b and, together with it, the staff in v. 8aa1 should also be original. If so, the alternation between singular and plural address may no longer be viewed as a source-critical criterion. More likely, it simply serves to make a distinction between orders given to Moses alone and those given to him and Aaron together.30 The meaning of this alternation can be disclosed when it is seen that the instructions for Moses alone correspond almost verbatim to those found in the parallel account of Ex 17:5-6. Exodus 17:5b

Numbers 20:8aa1

And your staff (h+m), with which you struck the River, take it (xq) in your hand and go!

Take (xq) your staff (h+m)

Exodus 17:6b

Numbers 20:8b

You shall strike the rock, and water will You shall bring water for them out (t)cwh ) come out (w)cy) of it, so that the people shall of the rock, and you shall give to drink to the drink community and their livestock Actually, the complexity of the formulation of Num 20:8 is caused by the fact that the author of this account has added to these instructions to Moses further instructions involving Aaron. Traditionally, this was explained as the work of the pentateuchal redactor who, in Num 20, is supposed to have revised an earlier P account so as to harmonize it partly with the story of Ex 17, in particular by emphasizing Moses’ role.31 Once the literary homogeneity of Num 20:8 is acknowledged, however, it becomes clear that the attempt to regard all the parallels with Ex 17 as interpolations cannot be sustained,32 and that the entire account of Num 20 is, in fact, a sophisticated réécriture of Ex 17, seeking to involve Aaron as well in Moses’ sin. This reinterpretation of Ex 17 in Num 20 brings into play a division of tasks between the two leaders that appears to conform to the conception previously stated in Ex 4.33 Indeed, following Ex 4, Aaron, who is presented as Moses’ “prophet” (!), must speak for him (4:13–16), whereas the staff is on the contrary the attribute of Moses’ authority exclusively (4:17).34 After Num 20:8, 28

Thus ZENGER, Israel, 64–65; WEIMAR, Struktur, 85 n. 18; SCHMIDT, Studien, 52 with n. 55; most recently, ARTUS, Études, 231ff. See also SEEBASS, Versuch, 222–223. 29 Herrlichkeit, 193. Further FREVEL, Blick, 323–327; FRANKEL, Murmuring Stories, 283. WEIMAR, Struktur, 85 n. 18 and ZENGER, Israel, 164, apparently see the problem and suggest solving it by considering v. 11b as secondary which, for the reason argued above, is impossible; on this, see already the critical remarks by SCHMIDT, Studien, 53. 30 A tension was often perceived between v. 8ab and 8ba because of the repetition of the motif of the water flowing out of the rock (thus already Rudolph). But this observation does not take into account the fact that the perspective is different in the two passages: v. 8ab emphasizes the fact that the rock itself will deliver water, whereas 8ba stresses Moses’ role. 31 RUDOLPH, Elohist, 87; ARTUS, Études, 242, SCHMIDT, Priesterschrift, 69–72, although they disagree on whether this increase in Moses’ role was meant to be polemical or not. 32 This point was actually acknowledged by a few authors recently, see, e.g., SCHMIDT , Priesterschrift, 55ff., who concedes: “Diese Erzählung hat P nicht frei geschaffen”. 33 As has been demonstrated in detail by GERTZ, Exoduserzählung, 305ff., Ex 4:1–17 is also post-P and should be assigned to a pentateuchal redactor. 34 For this latter observation, see also ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 312.

28

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

v. 9–11 then follow quite logically, recounting seriatim the fulfillment, or rather the nonfulfillment (see below), of the instructions given by Yahweh to Moses in v. 8.35 The same demonstration could be made in the case of v. 2–5, which are usually assumed to have been considerably edited but actually form a coherent sequence. V. 3a is required for the etiology of v. 13, which, as argued above, should belong to the earliest layer of the story; besides, it is not correct that v. 3a is merely a doublet of v. 2b, as is commonly said.36 Rather, it specifies that after gathering against Moses and Aaron (v. 2b), the community accused Moses in particular. The focus on Moses can be explained once it is seen that v. 3a is actually a literal quotation of Ex 17:2a and participates, therefore, in the general reformulation of the episode of Ex 17 in Num 20. One may note, in addition, that the alternation between M( and 37 hd( is already prepared for by v. 1a (compare v. 1aa and 1ab). V. 3b is generally retained in the P version of Num 20. V. 4 has often been regarded as a later addition to v. 3b but this solution is problematic since, as correctly noted by Schmidt, this sequence is actually modeled on Ex 16:3a, b.38 Also, there is no tension whatsoever between v. 4 and 5;39 on the contrary, v. 5 pursues the motif introduced by v. 4 by opposing Egypts’ fertility to the wilderness’ sterility.40 The two verses should therefore belong to the same layer. In fact, they take up Ex 17:3b in the reversed order, following the so-called “law of Seidel” (i.e., Ex 17:3bb = Num 20:4; Ex 17:3ba = 20:5a). In addition, the end of v. 5b builds an inclusion with v. 2a, thus rounding off the entire sequence formed by v. 2–5 and stressing its literary coherence. Besides, it should be observed that the presence of late, post-P motifs is not limited to v. 12–13 but occurs in the entire narrative. Thus, in v. 3ab the phrase rm)l wrm)yw appears otherwise in the Pentateuch only in Ex 15:1.41 In v. 3b, the use of the verb (wg is reminiscent of Num 17:27–28; the latter passages bridges Num 17 and 18 and has a marked editorial character.42 In v. 4, the designation of Israel as hwhy lhq is never found in P but only in Deut 23 (v. 2, 3, 4, 9) and Num 16:3.43 In v. 5, the use of hl( with reference to the exodus is not

35

This conclusion is also valid for the authors who, although they admit that the rod motif must be original in Num 20, nevertheless assume that v. 8–11 have been edited. Thus MITTMANN, Deuteronomium, 108ff., identifying v. 8aa, ba, 9–11ba as the original account. Yet in this case, v. 10 (corresponding to the order given in 8a1, b) becomes incomprehensible. More recently, S EEBASS , Versuch, 219–225; ID., Numeri, 273, wants to retain v. 8a, 9–11. However, he does not discuss the fact that v. 11b corresponds to v. 8b which, as noted above, indicates that this latter hemistiche is original; in addition, without v. 10 one fails to grasp the reason why Moses strikes the rock instead of talking to it, as instructed by Yahweh in v. 8a. 36 Thus recently SCHMIDT, Studien, 47; ARTUS, Etudes, 222–223; FREVEL, Blick, 308.323. 37 Against SEEBASS, Numeri, 272, the use of the plural in v. 3b–4, instead of the singular as in 3a, cannot be the basis for any literary-critical hypothesis since M( in v. 3a refers to a collective. 38 SCHMIDT, Studien, 47–48; similarly SEEBASS, Numeri, 272. 39 Pace NOTH, Numeri, 128; SEEBASS, Versuch, 223–224; FREVEL, Blick, 308. 40 STRUPPE, Herrlichkeit, 189; similarly SCHART, Mose, 114. 41 See, e.g., STRUPPE, Herrlichkeit, 186; this introduction occurs a little more frequently in the Nebiim, cf. 2 Sam 5:1; 20:18; Jer 29:24; Ez 12:27; 33:10; Zech 2:4. 42 See NOTH, Numeri, 128; MITTMANN, Deuteronomium, 109; AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 187; as well as BLUM, Studien, 273. Pace STRUPPE, Herrlichkeit, 195; SEEBASS, Numeri, 279; and F RANKEL , Murmuring Stories, 292, the idea that 20:3b refers to Num 14:37 seems to me entirely unlikely, since this passage does not use the verb (wg. 43 hwhy lhq otherwise only in Mi 2:5 and 1 Chr 28:8. Num 16:3 actually refers to the Dtr notion of Israel as a holy nation (Deut 7:6; 14:2, 21; 26:19; 28:9; and for this observation, cf.

1.1. The Current Discussion on P’s Ending

29

typical of P, which always uses )cy (see Ex 6; 12; 16, etc.); the presence of hl( in Num 20:5 is quite probably due to the use of this verb in the account of Ex 17 already (see Ex 17:3). Moreover, Num 20:5 takes up the motif of the “nostalgia for Egypt” which is also likely to be redactional in the Torah.44 Finally, v. 5 appears to combine both Num 13:23 and 16:14,45 two passages belonging to the non-P sections of Num 13–14 and 16 respectively. As regards v. 8–11, the reference to the staff which is placed “before Yahweh” (hwhy ynpl) in v. 9 is a clear allusion to Aaron’s staff in the story of Num 17:16–26, a section generally held to be secondary in P. 46 In v. 10, the use of the plural form of the Qal participle (Myrmh) is unique in the HB; in Num, the verb hrm is found, outside 20:10, only in the so-called “P” texts that depend on Num 20:1–13, namely in 20:24 (Aaron’s death) and 27:14 (announcement of Moses’ death). The terminology is rather reminiscent of the language of Deuteronomy (cf. Deut 1:26, 43; 9:7, 23, 24) or of Ez 20 (20:8, 13, 21), a text combining itself P and Dtr traditions. Since it is difficult to reconstruct a P story in Num 20:1–13 without including v. 10, this observation has always been somewhat of a problem for the classical analysis of this chapter.47 Finally, v. 11a is modeled upon several passages describing Moses’ action as a miracle-worker in the book of Exodus (Num 20:11aa [ Mwr Hi.]  Ex 7:20; 14:16; 17:11; Num 20:11ab  Ex 17:6); therefore, it probably reflects the work of a pentateuchal redactor, as was correctly pointed out by O. Artus recently.48 Taken together, these observations confirm that there is no trace of an earlier, originally independent narrative in Num 20:1–13 and that in spite of its complexity this text must be regarded as a coherent composition by a late, post-P author, as the above observations on v. 12–13 already implied.49 The whole account is a sophisticated reformulation of the earlier non-P story of Ex 17:1–7, which seeks to offer an alternative explanation for the death of Moses and Aaron outside the promised land. Contrary to the view expressed in Deut 1:37; 3:23–28, for the author of Num 20 this death implied necessarily that the two leaders had committed a major sin against Yahweh.50 The formulation of v. 8–11 indicates that they disobeyed Yahweh’s orders in v. 8 by speaking to the people (v. 10) and by striking the rock (v. 11a), instead of gathering the community and speaking to the rock as was ordered in v. 8.51 This reading is confirmed by the fact that the classical formula hwhy hwc r#)k is found in v. 9 (where Moses takes the staff as commanded to him in v. 8aa), but no longer afterwards in v. 10–11, i.e., as soon as Moses and Aaron start disobeying God’s orders in v. 8.52 In addition, Moses’ and Aaron’s speech in v. 10b suggests that the reason for this disobedience was that

R AD , Priesterschrift, 109–110; CRÜSEMANN , Tora, 415–416; BLUM, Studien, 335. Therefore, it cannot belong to P either. On Num 16:3, see further below, § 5.2.3., p. 486. 44 For the demonstration, see the detailed analysis of this motif by RÖMER, Exode. 45 For this observation, see also ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 311. 46 On this, see already NOTH, Numeri, 115–116; further SCHMIDT, Studien, 151ff. Against SEEBASS, Numeri, 182ff., who postulates an ancient tradition in 16:5*; 17:16–26* (sic). 47 See for instance recently SEEBASS, Numeri, 274. 48 ARTUS, Études, 234. 49 For the attribution of Num 20:1–13 to a post-P redaction in the Pentateuch, see already OTTO, Deuteronomium, 15–16; and especially ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 302–317. 50 Contrary to a widespread opinion (e.g., PROPP, Rod, 21), Moses’ and Aaron’s crime is certainly not a minor sin; this is contradicted by Yahweh’s reproach in v. 12 and by passages such as Num 20:24 and 27:14 in which they are criticized for rebelling against Yahweh. 51 See HOLZINGER, Numeri, 85; BAENTSCH, Numeri, 569; R UDOLPH, Elohist, 85; FRITZ, Israel, 27 n. 3; SCHART, Mose, 114–116; BLUM, Studien, 274; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 314. 52 As noted, for example, by MILGROM, Numbers, 165. VON

30

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

they did not believe that they would be able to draw water from the rock simply by speaking to it; that is then condemned in v. 12 as a lack of faith on their part.53 Simultaneously, the story also has a didactic function in that it reaffirms a central feature of H’s doctrine (see the intertextuality of Num 20:12 with Lev 22:31–33), according to which Yahweh may be sanctified in the middle of his community only by a rigorous obedience to his commandments (i.e., to the Torah). Even Moses and Aaron, despite their outstanding status in the community, have been condemned to die outside the land because they have desecrated Yahweh by placing their confidence in the power of their staff rather than in God’s command. In this respect, the text of Num 20 contains a polemical note against the representation of Moses as miracle-worker elsewhere in the Pentateuch (see Deut 34:10–12!). In particular, in Ex 4:1–17 and 14:16, 31 (all passages probably redactional),54 the staff is the very means by which the people is led to believe (also with Nm) Hiphil) not only in Yahweh (Ex 4:8, 9 and 31) but even in Moses (Ex 14:31!). In Num 20, it has become, on the contrary, the symbol of Moses’ lack of faith and of his rebellion against Yahweh. In this regard, electing Ex 17:1–7 as a Vorlage for Num 20 was quite meaningful since in Ex 15–18, this account is specifically the one in which Moses’ staff plays a predominant role and is the symbol of his power over the cosmos (cf. Ex 17:5b, and the connection there with Ex 14:16, 31).

Thus, the above analysis corroborates the view that Num 20:1–13 as well as the accounts of 20:22–29 and 27:12–23 which depend on it are part of a late, post-Priestly redaction in Numbers.55 If so, the attempt to identify P’s ending in this book should be abandoned: obviously none of the other texts commonly assigned to P before Num 20 can serve as a conclusion to that document.56 This result accounts for the fact that isolation of P in Numbers was always regarded as more problematic than in the previous books of the Torah.57 If P did not extend into Numbers originally, where did it end? It has long been recognized that the report of Israel’s sojourn at Mt Sinai represented the very purpose of P’s account.58 Therefore, it is logical to assume that P, initially, could have ended there. That suggestion, first made by E. Aurelius,59 has now been adopted by various scholars. Yet disagreement remains as to the precise extent of P in the Sinai pericope. The issue is closely tied to the problem raised by P’s reconstruction in Ex 19–40, a topic deserving a discussion of its own. 53 This is the classical interpretation of the question in v. 10; see, e.g., LEVINE, Numbers, 490. Alternatively, one may also understand it in the sense that it is they, Moses and Aaron (and not Yahweh), who will be able to draw water from the rock with their staff, which accounts for God’s reproach in v. 12 (MILGROM, Numbers, 165.248ff.; BUDD, Numbers, 218; O LSON , Numbers, 126–127; SEEBASS , Versuch, 221). In both cases, Moses and Aaron are accused of having placed their confidence in the staff’s power rather than in God’s command. 54 On Ex 4, see now GERTZ, Exoduserzählung, 305ff. The redactional nature of the staff in Ex 14:16 has long been noted; see the references above, page 26 note 25. 55 On the interconnection between these three passages, cf. further NIHAN, Mort de Moïse. 56 For a detailed discussion of this point, see FREVEL, Blick, 77–81. 57 See already WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 208. In the course of the 20th century, this had led to a significant reduction of the texts assigned to P in Numbers; see FREVEL, Blick, 46. 58 NOTH, Pentateuchal Traditions, 8; and already VON RAD, Theologie der Priesterschrift. 59 AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 187. Similarly, KAISER, Grundriß, 1. 58–59.

1.2. P’s Conclusion at Mt Sinai (Ex 25–31; 35–40)

31

1.2. P’s Conclusion at Mt Sinai (Ex 25–31; 35–40) In spite of the fact that the discussion on a possible ending of P at Mt Sinai is quite recent, several conflicting proposals have already been made. E. Zenger suggested a conclusion in Lev 9*, the account of the offering of the first sacrifices by Aaron and his house.60 T. Pola,61 followed since by M. Bauks and R.G. Kratz,62 argued for his part for an ending in Ex 40, the account of the tent’s building. Whereas for Pola this conclusion should be found in Ex 40:33b, Bauks, and apparently also Kratz, argue instead for a conclusion in Ex 40:34, with the entry of Yahweh’s “splendor” (dwbk) into the tent of meeting. This is also the view advocated, from a different perspective, by A.G. Auld, who holds that Ex 40 was once the conclusion of the narrative in Genesis–Exodus prior to the insertion of the book of Leviticus.63 The most radical solution was advocated by Otto, who wants to see P’s conclusion in Ex 29 already,64 whereas M. Köckert suggested on the contrary that P’s extent should go as far as Lev 16.65 From a methodological viewpoint, this discussion raises some important questions. The perception of what is an adequate ending for P is necessarily subjective, and the approach involves automatically some degree of circularity – namely, the choice of a conclusion is based on a certain understanding of what P is, which dictates in turn the reconstruction of the literary profile of this document. In fact, the whole issue cannot be settled without a prior discussion of the text- and literary-critical problems involved by the original form of Ex 25–31; 35–40, as Pola and, to some extent, Otto have already done. Contrary to the view adopted by these two authors, however, a close analysis suggests in my opinion that a conclusion to the Priestly source in Exodus, i.e., before Leviticus, is not likely. 1.2.1. The Case for the Secondary Nature of Exodus 30–31 Within Ex 25–31, the case of the last two chapters seems relatively clear. Since Wellhausen,66 it is commonly admitted that chapters 30–31 are second60

ZENGER, Einleitung2, 95; ID., art. Priesterschrift, 438–439; ID., Einleitung5, 164(ff.). See also SCHMID, Erzväter, 263 n. 532; and RÖMER, Pentateuque, 351–352. 61 POLA Priesterschrift, esp. 213–298. 62 BAUKS , Historiographie, esp. 30–37; ID ., Genesis 1; KRATZ, Komposition, 102–117, esp. 105. I also adopted this view previously in NIHAN/RÖMER, Débat actuel, 93–99. 63 AULD, Heart, esp. 49–51; and now more specifically ID., Leviticus. 64 See OTTO, Forschungen, esp. 24ff. 65 KÖCKERT, Gottes Gegenwart, 56ff. It is also mentioned as a theoretical possibility by FREVEL, Blick, 50, although he does not discuss this option later in his study. 66 See WELLHAUSEN , Composition, 137–141; similarly KUENEN, Einleitung, 1. 69ff.; further, e.g., HOLZINGER, Exodus, 145ff.; BAENTSCH, Exodus, 219–220.258–259.268–269; VON RAD, Priesterschrift, 61 (“Keine ältere oder jüngere Erklärung könnte abstreiten, daß die nun folgende Perikope vom Räucheraltar, Ex 30,1–10, ein jüngerer Nachtrag sei”); NOTH ,

32

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

ary. This is especially because of the incense altar in Ex 30:1–10 which should have been mentioned together with the other objects for the service of the tent in Ex 25:10–40 and 26:31–37, and therefore comes too late after the conclusion of the divine speech in Ex 29:43–46. Interestingly, this critical observation is confirmed by the textual tradition, since the SamP, followed by Exodm, displaces the instruction of Ex 30:1–10 MT (and LXX ) after 26:35. Even more significantly, in 4QpaleoGen–Exod1 (formerly 4QpaleoExod1 or 4QpaleoExodm) the place of the incense altar and even actually its presence in the ms are unsure.67 Similarly, a comparison between the MT and the LXX in Ex 35–40 shows that in some cases, the mention of the golden altar is uncertain; this is all the more clear when one considers the testimony of the Monacensis, a palimpsest preserving fragments of the Old Latin of Ex 35–40 which possibly attests to the earliest form of the Greek text, as P.-M. Bogaert has recently demonstrated.68 The combined evidence of the LXX and the Old Latin Exodus, 192ff.; FRITZ, Tempel, 112ff.; OWCZAREK, Wohnen Gottes, 35ff., etc. Even BLUM, Studien, 308–309 with n. 80, acknowledges the secondary character of these chapters. 67 See SKEHAN/ULRICH/SANDERSON , DJD IX, 23: “While M places the instructions for the incense altar at 30:1–10, Exodm Sam place that paragraph between 26:35 and 36. Gen–Exod1 clearly agrees with M* in placing 26:36 after 26:35, but there is no indication as to where 30:1–10 was in Gen–Exod1, if it was present”. On this issue, see further SANDERSON, Exodus Scroll, 111–115. The account of the SamP implies in particular that the conclusion regarding the secondary character of the incense altar in P because of its location in Ex 30:1–10 MT is not merely a matter of modern taste, as has been implied by some critics (see HARAN, Temples, 228–229; similarly MEYERS, “Misplaced” Altar). 68 BOGAERT, Autel d’or; see in particular his synopsis of the mentions of the golden altar in Ex 25–40 in the MT , the SamP (+4QpaleoGen–Exod1), the LXX and the Monacensis (= Mon), on p. 69–70. In the LXX , the golden altar is absent from the list corresponding to Ex 35:11–19 MT (see 35:15), as well as from the final list recapitulating Ex 35–39 in 39:13–23 LXX = 39:33–43 MT (note also the absence of the copper laver of 30:17–21; this list follows the critical edition of Ex 35–40 by WEVERS/QUAST, Exodus, which offers a different numbering of verses than Rahlfs). Furthermore, many other occurrences of the golden altar in Ex 35– 40 are missing in the Mon. Together, these observations denote very clearly the secondary character of the golden altar, as was already argued by earlier scholars (see POPPER, Bericht; further Wellhausen, Kuenen, etc.) and as recently reasserted by Bogaert. On the Mon as the earliest witness to the Greek text of Ex 35–40, cf. the detailed study by BOGAERT, Monacensis. I am more skeptical as to his assumption that the Mon would show that the golden altar was initially introduced into the inner-sanctum (ID., Autel d’or), but this is irrelevant here. The composition of Ex 35–40 is too complex an issue to be examined in detail in this study. It is generally admitted that these chapters are the result of a complicated development, still evinced by the fact that the order of the construction in the Greek tradition is significantly different from that preserved in the MT. Although there have been a few attempts to attribute the Greek text of Ex 35–40 to the LXX translator (thus already FINN, Tabernacle Chapters; still recently WEVERS, Building; ID., Greek Exodus, 574ff.), or even to a later editor (thus GOODING, Account), such assumptions have generally been rejected. Wevers’ theory that the Greek translator of Ex 35–40 had both a parent text close to (if not almost identical to) the consonantal text preserved in Ex 25–40 MT and 25–31 LXX , but that it would nevertheless

1.2. P’s Conclusion at Mt Sinai (Ex 25–31; 35–40)

33

suggests very clearly that the golden altar is not original but was only gradually introduced in the description of the wilderness sanctuary. Finally, Wellhausen already observed that the incense altar was manifestly unknown to the author of Lev 16 since it is not mentioned among the items cleansed in the course of this ceremony. When Ex 30–31 was interpolated, this omission led to the addition, in 30:10, of a special instruction for cleansing the incense altar on the Day of Purifications.69 Moreover, Wellhausen also noted that usually in P reference is made to the altar of burnt offerings as “the altar” (xbzmh) whereas hl(h xbzm is used exclusively when this altar needs to be distinguished from the incense altar, an observation which may be a further indication that the altar of burnt offerings was initally the sole altar in P. The introduction of the incense altar in P probably reflects the growing importance of the incense cult in Jerusalem in the Second Temple period, as well as the role played by the temple itself in incense trade (cf. Neh 13:5, 9). We shall return in more detail to this issue further in this study (below, § 3.2.2.4.). For the present discussion, it is enough to observe that if the incense altar is a late addition, all of ch. 30–31 should be viewed as secondary. This is corroborated by many additional observations on the content of these two chapters.70 For instance, the introduction of the instruction for the census in Ex 30:11–16 prepares for the census of Num 1; see also Ex 38:25–26 MT (= 39:2–3 LXX), which presupposes both Ex 30:13 and Num 1:46 (total number of men = 603,550). The instructions for the sacred incense and the sacred oil in 30:22–33, 34–38 complete the instruction for the incense altar in 30:1–10 and should be assigned to the same layer. In addition, the section on the sacred oil in 30:22– 33 also presupposes that not only Aaron but also his sons are anointed (v. 30), a tradition conflicting with the view initially preserved in P (cf. Ex 29:7; Lev 8:12; see similarly the passages referring to Aaron as the “anointed priest”, Lev 4:3, 5, 16; 6:15; 16:32; 21:10) which appears to betray a later development (see, e.g., Lev 10:7, and further on this below). The section on the “sages” responsible for the building of the tent in 31:1–11 presupposes the incense altar (v. 8), the basin of 30:17–21 (v. 9), as well as the incense and the oil of 30:22–38 (v. 11). Besides, this description seems to be in contradiction with other passages in Ex 25–40 where the building of the sanctuary is apparently entrusted to the people as a whole, see, e.g., Ex 39:42 M T. Finally, the instruction for the Sabbath in 31:12–17 that concludes all of ch. 25–31 (see also Ex 35:1–3) is quite reminiscent of the language of H and probably represents a late insertion by a redactor from the school which composed this code. For a detailed analysis of this passage and its dependence on H, see below § 5.4.2.2. have considered a literal translation of the Hebrew of ch. 35–40 to be “unsuitable as a conclusion to Greek A” (the LXX of Ex 25–31) because “it would simply have largely repeated Greek A in the past tense” (ID., Building, 128) is hardly convincing. If the tradents of Ex 35– 40 MT saw no problem in repeating literally the descriptions found in 25–31, why should it have been an issue for the Greek translator of Exodus, who otherwise follows rather literally his Hebrew Vorlage? As regards Gooding’s model, as noted by many authors, it shows a systematic bias against the Greek text, which Gooding views as a careless, and at times even absurd translation. 69 Pace GANE, Cult, 26–27 and passim. 70 See already WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 139–140.

34

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

1.2.2. Exodus 25–29: The Case for Literary Unity The case of Ex 25–29 is significantly more complicated, and the discussion on these chapters is the subject of no consensus. Following Noth, most scholars, at least in Germany, tend to regard Ex 28–29 (the instruction for the confection of priestly garments and the consecration of Aaron and his sons) as a supplement to the instructions for building the tent in ch. 25–27, in which they find therefore the oldest P layer in Ex 25–40*.71 Yet even the reconstruction of the original form of ch. 25–27 is disputed, and very different proposals have been made in this regard. We shall start by discussing ch. 25–27, before reassessing the arguments for the supplementary nature of Ex 28–29. 1.2.2.1. Exodus 25–27 Almost all scholars agree that the conclusion to Pg in Ex 25–29 should be found in Yahweh’s final statement in Ex 29:43–46 (or, for some, v. 45–46), which takes up and continues Yahweh’s initial promise in Ex 25:8 that he will “dwell” (Nk#) among the Israelites.72 Some authors have proposed connecting 71 NOTH, Exodus, 186–191, had already argued that Ex 29, which differs on some aspects from ch. 28, had to be later than the text of 25–28; for a similar view see for instance FRITZ, Tempel, 114, although he hesitates on the attribution of Ex 28 to Pg. Since then, a majority of scholars have agreed to the secondary character of ch. 28–29 as a whole, even though they significantly disagree on the reconstruction of Pg in ch. 25–27. See in particular STRUPPE , Herrlichkeit, 33ff.; STEINS, Heiligtum, 159–167; WEIMAR, Sinai, 339–346; JANOWSKI, Tempel, 226–228; FREVEL, Blick, 103; CORTESE, Priestly Tent, 9–17; etc. 72 The major exception to this consensus are I. Knohl and J. Milgrom. Both authors assign this passage to the “Holiness school”, in particular because of the use of the first person in Yahweh’s speech and of the formula “I am Yahweh their God”, which they regard as distinctive marks of H; see KNOHL, Sanctuary, 18 n. 24.81.102 n. 145.125 n. 102, etc.; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1338. In Knohl’s work, in particular, this assumption is related to his specific understanding of divine revelation in the Priestly Torah (PT), according to which “the name Myhl) is never juxtaposed to the name of Yahweh” (Sanctuary, 124ff.). This view actually raises many difficulties, since it obliges Knohl to attribute several central texts of P to HS with the result that P, in his analysis, becomes quite fragmentary. In particular, Knohl must assume that Ex 6:2–8, the central revelation of Yahweh’s name to Moses, is also from the hand of H since it exemplifies the same characteristics (ID., Sanctuary, 17 n. 24.61.82.104. 107), with the result that the transition between the people’s complaint in Ex 2:23–25 and the cycle of “plagues” in Ex 7ff. is now lost. Also, it is obvious that without Ex 6:2–8, the entire scheme of divine revelation that permeates P is little more than a torso without a head, the disclosure to Moses of God’s personal name representing the climax of the process of revelation engaged in Genesis, with God making himself known to mankind as Myhl) (Gen 1–11) and to Abraham as yd# l) (Gen 17). The problem raised by Knohl’s attribution of Ex 6:2–8 to HS becomes obvious when he has to assume that some form of revelation of the divine name “Yahweh” to Moses already took place in the PT (see, e.g., Sanctuary, 126: “We have already observed that in the PT, after the revelation of the name of Yahweh […]”). Similar problems arise from Knohl’s analysis of Gen 17:7–8 and Ex 29:45–46, which are closely related in language and theme to Ex 6:2–8. With regard to Gen 17:7–8, Knohl himself must

1.2. P’s Conclusion at Mt Sinai (Ex 25–31; 35–40)

35

Ex 29:43–46 (or 45–46) with the notice concluding the description of the 73 Nk#m itself in 26:30, following an initial suggestion by N. Lohfink. Others include the altar described in 27:1–8, and they have thus suggested that 29:43–46 initially followed the notice in 27:8.74 A most radical solution was recently proposed by T. Pola, who argues that originally Pg comprised no description of the sanctuary itself but was limited to a brief account – which Pola identifies in Ex 25:1, 8a, 9; 29:45–46; 40:16, 17a, 33b75 – relating how Moses, after being shown by Yahweh the “model” (tynbt) of the heavenly sanctuary (25:8a, 9), received the assurance of the divine presence (29:45–46) and then built himself (sic) the sanctuary according to what he had seen (Ex 40:16, 17, 33b). Thus, Pola’s reconstruction takes one step further the general tendency observable since Noth to reduce the extent of P in Ex 25–29.76 Among these various solutions, Pola’s suggestion is certainly the least compelling. (1) On the literary-critical level, his argument rests essentially upon his idea that Pg used exclusively the terms #dqm and Nk#m to designate the sanctuary, as in 25:8–9. Because the oldest portion of the P text in Ex 25– 27, i.e., 26:7–11 (+ 14?) already uses lh), it cannot belong to Pg for Pola.77 acknowledge that the attribution of this passage to the HS is unconvincing, in particular because it involves assuming that the land’s theme was completely absent from PT (ID., Sanctuary, 102 with n. 145 and 104 n. 153). Still, he surmises that the phrase Myhl)l Mhl ytyyhw at the end of v. 8 is editorial. Yet this is quite arbitrary, all the more because v. 8b is prepared by v. 7b, Myhl)l Kl twyhl. In the case of Ex 29:45–46, Knohl has well perceived the connection with Ex 24:15–18; 25:8–9 and 40:34–35, with the result that he must necessarily assign all these passages to the HS (on Ex 24:15–18, see Sanctuary, 67 with n. 21 and 104; on Ex 25:8– 9, p. 63 with n. 10.81.104; on Ex 40:34–35, p. 105.130 n. 19). Here again, the difficulty of this solution is patent; P’s account of the tent’s building is not even introduced (note that in Knohl’s reconstruction, Ex 25ff. should immediately follow Ex 9:8–12!), the purpose of this construction is never stated, and the great motif framing the entire account, with Yahweh’s displacement from his dwelling on Mt Sinai into the tent (cf. Ex 24:15–18; 40:34, and further on this below) is the work of a later redactor. One can see here the general difficulty raised by the radical opposition construed by Knohl between the theologies of P and H when he assumes, for instance, that the motif of Yahweh residing in Israel’s midst should stem from the HS because it is a central motif in Lev 17–26 and in other H passages. What was the purpose of the sanctuary in P, if not that the deity resides among its community? That H develops considerably certain motifs and themes does not mean that he could not find them previously in P. Given that it is impossible to omit the passages in P such as Gen 17:7–8; Ex 6:2–8 and Ex 29:45–46 presenting Yahweh as Israel’s personal God without destroying P’s coherence, the same consideration should apply here. 73 See LOHFINK , Priestly Narrative, 145 n. 29; further S TRUPPE , Herrlichkeit, 33ff.; FREVEL, Blick, 103; similarly WEIMAR, Sinai, 341–343, although he regards 29:43–44 as secondary and connects 26:30 with 29:45–46. 74 Thus in particular STEINS, Heiligtum, 159–167; JANOWSKI, Tempel, 226–228. 75 POLA, Priesterschrift, 224–297, and the synthesis on p. 298. 76 Pola’s reconstruction is followed by BAUKS, Historiographie, 37. 77 For the demonstration, see POLA, Priesterschrift, 237–242.

36

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

But the notion that the d(wm lh) in Ex 25–40 would be a secondary concept is quite unsatisfactory on several grounds. First, it obliges Pola to consider Ex 40:34 (which mentions the d(wm lh)) as secondary and therefore to find the conclusion to Pg in 40:33b, the notice stating that “Moses completed all the work”. Yet this notice hardly offers a satisfying conclusion to Pg, as Pola must admit.78 P should at least include Ex 40:34, considering that without this notice Yahweh’s central promise to dwell (Nk#) in the middle of the Israelites in 25:8; 29:45–46 remains unfulfilled. Furthermore, Ex 40:34 builds an unmistakable inclusion with the beginning of P’s account in 24:15b–16a, as has often been noted. Exodus 24:15b–16aa

Exodus 40:34

rhh-t) Nn(h skyw

d(wm lh)-t) Nn(h skyw

ynys rh-l( hwhy-dwbk Nk#yw

Nk#mh-t) )lm hwhy dwbkw

The inclusion builds a frame around all of Ex 25–40 through the motif of the displacement of Yahweh’s dwbk, which initially dwells (Nk#) on Mt Sinai (Ex 24:15b–16aa) and finally comes to reside in the newly built tent, among the Israelites (Ex 40:34). This device corroborates the suggestion that the notice in Ex 40:34 is original.79 (2) Second, Pola is forced to exclude the etiology of the d(wm lh) in 29:43 from Pg,80 although the reasons for separating v. 43–44 from 45–46 are in my opinion equally unconvincing.81 Against Pola, the locative hm# at the beginning of v. 43 does not necessarily presuppose v. 42b,82 the conclusion of the section on the dymt-offering in v. 38–42 which, for distinct reasons, is usually considered a late interpolation.83 Rather, the repetition between v. 42b and 43 78 See ID., Priesterschrift, 295 n. 263, where he notes that the question of the belonging of 40:34 (–35) to Pg “kann auf streng literarkritischer Ebene nicht befriedigend geklärt werden”. 79 POLA, Priesterschrift, 296 n. 262, acknowledges the importance of the parallel between Ex 40:34(–35) and 24:15bff. but must dismiss it because of the mention of d(wm lh) in 40:34a, 35a. For a criticism of the possibility that Pg ever ended with Ex 40:33b, see also FREVEL, Blick, 93–96. Because she tacitly accepts Pola’s view on the secondary character of the term d(wm lh), B AUKS, Historiographie, 37, retains only 40:34b as P’s conclusion and discards the first hemistiche. Yet this solution is weakened by the parallel between 40:34 as a whole and 24:15b–16a and is unnecessary once it is realized that Pola’s theory is unfounded. 80 POLA, Priesterschrift, 233–237, esp. 234–236. 81 For this solution, see also WEIMAR, Sinai, 343 n. 21; and OWCZAREK, Wohnen Gottes, 84–85. See also the recent criticism of this solution by FREVEL, Blick, 98ff. 82 As observed by FREVEL, Blick, 99, Pola automatically presumes that this locative can only refer to the tent’s entrance because it is the case in the present text and, rather curiously, never considers the possibility that it results from later editorial reworking. 83 See, e.g., BAENTSCH, Exodus, 257; NOTH, Exodus, 191. The section seems clearly out of place after the conclusion of the instruction for Aaron’s consecration in 29:37. Besides, the prescription of a double daily burnt offering (morning and evening) is probably a late inno-

1.2. P’s Conclusion at Mt Sinai (Ex 25–31; 35–40)

37

in the MT, stating twice that Yahweh will let himself “be met” (d(y Niphal) by the Israelites “there” (hm#), is unmistakable. Also, the sudden transition to the first person in Yahweh’s speech in v. 42b is surprising in the context of v. 38– 42, and is manifestly due to the use of this form in the concluding exhortation in v. 43–46. Significantly, the problem raised by this doublet is apparent in the versions’ attempt to avoid the repeated use of the verb d(y Niphal.84 In general, it is assumed that v. 42b MT was added so as to ease the interpolation of v. 38–42a,85 and that is probably correct. The attempt in 29:42b to bridge the dymt instruction in v. 38–42a and the reference to Yahweh’s encounter with the Israelites in v. 43(ff). is indeed obvious. The mention of the place where the daily burnt offering should be made (“before the entrance of the tent of meeting”) serves to introduce the theme of the encounter between Yahweh and his people through Moses and thus to connect the section on the dymt with the final parenesis in v. 43–46. Also, the somewhat complicated formulation of v. 42b MT (“I will meet [d(y Ni.] you [pl.] there to talk [rbd] to you [sing.] there”) appears to combine the statement of 25:22 MT (on which it is manifestly modeled), according to which Yahweh will appear to Moses on the trpk, therefore inside the inner-sanctum, and talk (rbd) to him, with that of 29:43, where it is stated that Yahweh will encounter (d(y Niphal, as in 25:22) the whole community of Israel at the tent of meeting.86 Alternatively, it is also possible that 29:42b MT seeks to harmonize 29:43 with the non-P view of divine revelation in Ex 33:7–11, where (contrary to P’s statement in 29:43) Yahweh is said to appear to Moses alone at the entrance of the tent. If so, this corroborates the late (i.e., redactional) origin of 29:42b, together with 29:38–42a.

The additional arguments occasionally adduced against the original character of v. 43–44 in P are equally unfounded. Against Weimar and Pola, the use of the suffixed form ydbk in 29:43, instead of the usual hwhy dwbk, is logical in vation. It is otherwise attested in the HB only in Lev 6:2ab–6, and possibly in Neh 10:34. In other texts, a distinction is made between a hl( offered in the morning and a hxnm offered in the evening: see 2 Kgs 16:15; Ez 46:13ff.; and even Ezra 9:4. 84 The sequence found in the Greek, which uses gnwsqh/somai/ soi = Kl (dw) (see similarly Ex 30:6, 36 LXX) in v. 42b, and ta&comai (“I will instruct”) in v. 43a, parallels the sequence found in 25:22 LXX (i.e., revelation followed by an instruction). Note that the replacement of d(y Ni. in the MT by the reading gnwsqh/somai/ in Ex 25–40 (cf. 25:22; 29: 42b; 30:6, 36) is systematic in Greek and betrays an exegetical reinterpretation through metathesis of Heb. d(y into (dy . As pointed out by LE BOULLUEC/SANDEVOIR , Exode, 303, the LXX may seek to adapt this passage to Hellenistic mentality by replacing the motif of divine encounter by that of divine revelation. At any rate, that the MT’s reading d(y Ni. is original in v. 43 is implied by the connection established in this verse with the d(wm lh), also deriving from the same root (see GÖRG, Zelt, 168ff.; ID., art. ya4(ad). The same observation implies the MT’s priority over the reading of the SamP in 29:43, which has M# yt#rdnw instead of ytd(nw. Obviously, the reading of the SamP seeks to avoid the repetition of v. 43a with v. 42b; like the LXX, it shows the difficulty caused by this sequence for ancient scribes. 85 E.g., BAENTSCH, Exodus, 258; STRUPPE, Herrlichkeit, 36; STEINS, Heiligtum, 162. 86 For a similar observation, see GÖRG, art. y(d, 143, who speaks of “an effort to bring the ‘collective’ and ‘individual’ uses of y(d ni. under a single roof”. On this issue, see further below in this section, Excursus 3.

38

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

the context of the divine discourse to Moses in Ex 25ff. and cannot be regarded as a sufficient argument for disputing the attribution to Pg.87 As was finely noted by Janowski, 29:43 offers the etiology for the name d(wm lh) (i.e., Yahweh will meet [d(y Ni.] the Israelites in this very place),88 mentioned immediately afterwards, which otherwise remains enigmatic.89 This strongly suggests that the verse is original, and not a later insertion in P. Besides, the play on d(y /d(wm in Ex 29:43–44 corresponds exactly to Nk# /Nk#m in Ex 25:8–9 (same sequence) and reflects P’s love for paronomasia. The classical view according to which Ex 29:43–46 forms a coherent section comprising “eine pointierte Zusammenfassung der Gedanken von P über den Sinn des gesamten Heiligtums samt seiner Priesterschaft”90 should therefore be maintained. If so, the whole case for viewing the d(wm lh) in Ex 25ff. as a later addition has to be rejected. (3) Third, the whole scenario set up by Pola according to which initially only Moses knew the plans for the heavenly sanctuary (Ex 25:8–9) whereas all the details given in 25:10–40; 26; 27 would betray the hand of later redactors91 is quite unlikely from a comparative perspective. In particular, the opposition between the “molto misterioso” (sic) of the sanctuary in Pg and the “prosaicness” of the details given in Ex 25–27 is a purely modern view which has little basis in antiquity.92 The opposition between the “visual” revelation of Ex 25:9 and the oral instructions of 25:10ff.; 26–27 is similarly forced.93 (4) Fourth, and lastly, Pola’s exclusion of Ex 26 from Pg obliges him to postulate that the term Nk#m in Ex 25:8–9 and Ex 26 (v. 1–6, 15ff.) should actually comprise entirely different notions, a very speculative and unsatisfactory assumption.94 Actually, on this latter point, Pola is excessively dependent on the prevailing view that the reference to the Nk#m in Ex 26 is already secondary, itself a conception raising significant difficulties.

87

For a similar criticism, see FREVEL, Blick, 100. See ydbkb #dqnw l)r#y ynbl hm# ytd(nw. 89 JANOWSKI , Sühne, 326; ID ., Tempel, 229–230. Similarly, FREVEL , Blick, 100–101. Pace WEIMAR (Sinai, 343 n. 21), the fact that the use of the verb d(y is untypical of P hardly means anything since this motif could logically not be introduced before the revelation on Mt Sinai and the building of the tent there. As to the use of the verb #dq, “to consecrate’ in v. 43–44, it actually echoes Gen 2:3, thus building a fine inclusion between the conclusion of the divine instructions for the building of the sanctuary in Ex 25–40 and the beginning of P; on this device, see further below. 90 KOCH, Priesterschrift, 31; similarly for instance GÖRG, art. y(d, 143–144, who correctly emphasizes the thematic transition leading “from no=(adtî (v. 43) through qiddas]tî (v. 44) to s]a4k{antî (v. 45)” and thus summing up the main lines of P’s theology in Ex 25–40. 91 See POLA, Priesterschrift, 243–249. 92 See for instance POLA, Priesterschrift, 249. 93 POLA, 252–253. Cf. also the criticism by OWCZAREK, Wohnen Gottes, 31. 94 POLA, Priesterschrift, 241ff.254–256. For a similar criticism: OTTO, Forschungen, 26. 88

1.2. P’s Conclusion at Mt Sinai (Ex 25–31; 35–40)

39

Excursus 2: On the Composition of Exodus 2695 It has long been observed that, in Ex 26, P was combining two different conceptions of the sanctuary, since in 26:7–14, the dwelling (Nk#m) of 26:1–6 is now covered by a “tent” (lh)) apparently serving as a kind of roof. Wellhausen and his followers assumed that the Priestly tent was essentially a retroprojection of the (Second) Jerusalem Temple in the Sinai narrative and thus a “historical fiction” (“eine historische Fiktion”). However, in the first half of the 20th century it was gradually accepted that P had incorporated into his description of the Nk#m an older tradition about the tent-sanctuary, which also seems to be reflected in other passages of the Hebrew Bible such as Ex 33:7–11; Deut 31:14; or 2 Sam 7:6.96 Thus, G. Beer and K. Galling, who adopted von Rad’s idea of two distinct sources in P (PA and PB), assumed that the first source, PA, reflected the lh) tradition in 26:7–14 while the second, PB, corresponded to the Nk#m tradition in 26:1–6, 15–29.97 In his commentary on Exodus, M. Noth also accepted the presence in Ex 26 of two distinct traditions of the sanctuary (as a mobile tent and as a fixed building), although he was more cautious as to the possibility of identifying these conceptions with discrete layers inside the text.98 Since then, this distinction has been further developed, first by K. Koch in his analysis of the “rituals” used by Pg in Ex 25–3199 and later (from a more decisively literary-critical perspective) by M. Görg100 and V. Fritz.101 In spite of their differences in methodology (Fritz refusing the notion of a “ritual style” advocated by Koch after Rendtorff and resumed by Görg), all these authors agreed that the older layer was found in 26:7–14 while 26:1–6 (and 26:15–29, which depends upon it since it continuously refers to the Nk#m) belonged to a secondary layer, inspired by 26:7–11 and transforming the original lh) into a Nk#m. But for Koch and Görg, 26:7–14 belonged to the Vorlage inherited by P; Fritz, for his part, because he denies the idea of a source behind Ex 26, assigned v. 7–14 (as well as a few corresponding verses in 26:31–37)102 to Pg whereas 26:1–6 and 15–29 are Ps additions.103 In his own analysis of Ex 26, Pola basically resumes Fritz’s solution. Like Fritz already, he holds that the the Nk#m of 25:9 cannot be the same as the Nk#m of 26:1–6, and that the latter belongs to a later layer.104 But Pola goes further than Fritz in that he argues that the description of the lh) in Ex 26:7–11* (14) – the section of ch. 26 which, like Fritz, he regards as the oldest – is poorly connected with the references to the “sanctuary” (#dqm) and the “dwelling” (Nk#m) in 25:8–9, and can therefore not belong to the same layer.105 Therefore, he proposes that Ex 26:7–11* should be excluded from Pg and assigned to a later layer in Ex 25ff., while Ex 26:1–6 and 15ff. are still later additions. With this development, the literary-

95 For a survey of earlier scholarship on this topic, see in particular GÖ R G, Zelt, 1ff.; FRITZ, Tempel, 6ff.; and JANOWSKI, Sühne, 329ff. 96 See GÖRG, Zelt, 1ff.; JANOWSKI, Sühne, 329–330, with further references. 97 BEER/GALLING, Exodus, 134ff. 98 NOTH, Exodus, 170ff. 99 KOCH, Priesterschrift, 5ff. 100 GÖRG, Zelt, 8–34. 101 FRITZ, Tempel, 118ff. 102 Fritz identifies the original layer as follows: 26:7*, 9–11, 14, 31, 33a, 35aa, 36ba, 37. 103 FRITZ (Tempel, 122) actually distinguishes between a first “Ps” layer in 26:1–6, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24a, 26–28, 30, and later additions in 26:8, 12, 13, 17, 19, 21, 24b, 25, 29, 32, 33b, 34 and 35ab, g, b. 104 See POLA, Priesterschrift, 237ff. For a similar literary-critical distinction between lh) and Nk#m inspired by the works of Görg and Fritz, although with slightly different results, see also OWCZAREK, Wohnen Gottes, 64–71. 105 POLA, Priesterschrift, 241ff.

40

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

critical distinction between lh) and Nk#m in Ex 26 is transferred to a further stage in P’s composition, and Pola can claim that Pg did not include any description of the tent. Pola’s argumentation actually points to the main problem raised by Fritz’s solution. Namely, if Pg is restricted to v. 7–14 in ch. 26, it is difficult to understand why there is no mention of the Nk#m of 25:9, and why the latter is suddenly referred to as a lh). However, his own solution only defers the difficulty by omitting completely ch. 26 from Pg (this, in passing, raises the issue of whether the goal of exegesis is to isolate the Ur-text of P exclusively, or to understand the history of the formation of “Priestly” literature as a whole). In fact, the entire notion that lh) and Nk#m belong to discrete stages is unlikely and should be abandoned. First, it is false to speak of 26:1–6 and 7–14 as “doublets”.106 26:1–6 and 7–14 are never presented as two concurring sanctuaries. Certainly, the similarity in the conception of the Nk#m and the lh) in v. 1–6 and 7–14, both of which are made of fabric joined together by laces and staples, as well as the notion that the “tent” is to serve as a kind of “roof” upon the Nk#m , indicate that P is trying to integrate and combine here two traditional notions on the divine sanctuary, as Noth already suggested. But the fact that the description of the Nk#m in v. 1–6 and of the lh) in v. 7–14 is built on the same template does not mean that the two passages could not be composed together and that one should necessarily be a later imitation of the other. There is no tension, in the present text of 26:1–14, between Nk#m and lh) and this sequence can perfectly be read as a coherent whole. Furthermore, the literary-critical distinction between v. 1–6 and 7–14 obliges us to view the references to the Nk#m in 26:7–14 as having been interpolated, a conclusion without support in the text of v. 7–14 itself. Second, this kind of analysis disregards the fact that some of the materials described in the lh)-section in 26:7–14 are part of a comprehensive symbolic system in Ex 26 from which it is arbitrary to withdraw an element. In 26:11, the staples joining the fabric of the tent are made of bronze, whereas those of the Nk#m in 26:6 are made of gold. As was correctly perceived by M. Haran, this difference corresponds to a broader scheme in Ex 25–40, according to which the richness and value of the material used for an element is in direct proportion to its importance in the Tabernacle and to its proximity to the the inner-sanctum.107 Thus, for instance, gold is typically reserved for objects inside the sanctuary (25:10–40), while bronze is used for the outer elements, such as the altar and the court (ch. 27), and silver for those parts occupying an intermediate position in the overall architecture (such as the plinth for the frames of the Nk#m , in 26:19ff.). This general principle leads to complicated combinations reflecting elaborate and profound statements of holiness which have been analyzed in detail by M. Haran and, more recently, by P. Jenson. Thus, for instance, the pillars of the inner veil masking the trpk in 26:32 are plated with gold but put on plinth of silver. The pillars of the outer veil are also plated with gold but have plinth of bronze (26:37). And finally, the pillars of the outer court are not plated with gold but have silver hooks and tringles and lie upon bronze plinth (27:10–19). This underlying principle thus conveys a sophisticated notion of gradation in the holiness of the divine sanctuary, in which three major areas can be identified and delimited: the inner-sanctum, the most holy part of the sanctuary; the rest of the Tabernacle; and the outer court.108 With regard to Ex 26:1–14, the use of bronze for the staples of the tent in 26:11 (a verse which Koch, Görg and Fritz all attribute to the original layer of 26:7– 14)109 can only make sense if this verse already presupposes that the tent of 26:7–14 was conceived as the outer cover of the Nk#m in 26:16. I.e., the staples are made of bronze because

106

As correctly noted by WEIMAR, Sinai, 344. HARAN, Temples, 149ff. See further JENSON, Graded Holiness, 89–114. 108 HARAN, Temples, 165. 109 See KOCH, Priesterschrift, 13–14; GÖRG, Zelt, 14–16; FRITZ, Tempel, 118. 107

1.2. P’s Conclusion at Mt Sinai (Ex 25–31; 35–40)

41

contrary to the fabric of the Nk#m, which is to form the inner wall of the sanctuary and uses for this reason golden staples (26:6), the fabric of which the tent is made, described in 26:7–11, was intended from the beginning to function as the outer wall of the sanctuary. To put it plainly, the lh) of Ex 26 was always conceived as the cover of the Nk#m , and it is simply impossible to assume that the description of Ex 26:7ff. was ever independent of its present literary context. It is entirely likely that the lh)-section in Ex 26 alludes to an earlier tradition about the tent-sanctuary, probably comparable to the tradition about El’s tent in Ugarit.110, which P endeavors to integrate into his description of the divine sanctuary.111 As for the use of the term d(y, finally, it should be noted that it is not clearly attested in the cultic realm before P. To be sure, there are a few passages in the Pentateuch, outside P, that refer to the d(wm lh) (see Ex 33:7–11; Num 11:16, 24; 12:4, 5; Deut 31:14, 15). However, the origin of such passages is now disputed, and the prevailing view that they should reflect an earlier tradition, chronologically prior to P, is by no means obvious. We shall return to that issue below, in the Excursus 3. Once this conclusion is accepted, the following passage on the frames and plinth of the Nk#m in 26:15–29 can be regarded as the logical continuation of v. 1–14 (inasmuch as the fabric of which the Nk#m and the tent covering it in 26:1–14 are made necessarily needs supports), and 26:30 offers a fitting conclusion to the whole instruction, parallel to 25:9 and 40.112 There may be some isolated additions in the text of 26:1–30, but this issue need not be pursued further here; in any case, there is no reason to identify discrete layers in this text.

Apart from Pola’s recent proposal, the above observations on the symbolic system formed by ch. 26–27, identifying various grades of sanctity on the basis of the metals and fabric used (Haran, Jenson), also apply against the other two solutions usually advocated, restricting Pg to Ex 26:1–30* or 26:1– 27:8*. Although this does not preclude the possibility that ch. 26–27 were slightly edited, to remove one element from this system is arbitrary. Indeed, it is only with the introduction of bronze for the altar and for the court in 27:1–8, 9–19 that the use of gold and silver respectively in the building of the Nk#m in Ex 26 becomes meaningful. Thus, although the description of the court is almost systematically regarded by critics as an interpolation, without it the whole system remains fragmentary. Moreover, from a literary-critical perspective also, the isolation of either Ex 26:1–30 or 26:1–27:8 is unsatisfactory. The formulation of 29:44a does not refer only to the tent but also to the altar of burnt offerings described in 27:1–8, which indicates that 27:1–8 should be original.113 Admittedly, the notice in 26:30, with its reference to the “model” (tynbt) shown by Yahweh to Moses on Mt Sinai (cf. 25:9) functions as a closure for the description in 26:1–29; but it does not mean that it should 110

On El’s tent in Ugarit, see CLIFFORD, Tent of El. Thus also OTTO, Forschungen, 26. 112 Against OWCZAREK , Wohnen Gottes, 68–69, the description in v. 15ff. makes manifestly no sense without the reference to the Nk#m in v. 1–6. 113 FREVEL, Blick, 103–104, also wants to read 29:43ff. after 26:30 but (contrary to Lohfink and Struppe) has seen the difficulty posed by the mention of the altar in 29:44ab and therefore suggests regarding it as a later interpolation. However, this literary-critical solution has no basis in the text of v. 43–44. 111

42

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

be interpreted as a literary-critical signal, and the same kind of notice is found in Ex 25:40 and 27:8.114 Besides, the very idea that P’s description of the Nk#m in 26:1–30 could have concluded with v. 30 is all the more unlikely because in this case P’s sanctuary would not even have been protected by a veil. This shows that the instruction of 26:31–37, which is an integral part of the symbolic system devised by ch. 26–27, also has to be be original; it aptly concludes the description of the Nk#m in Ex 26:1–30 by marking the separation between the inner-sanctum, the outer-sanctum and the court, thus establishing the fundamental division (actually corresponding to the traditional pattern for temples in the Levant) on which the entire system is based. Likewise, separating the section on the altar in 27:1–8 from the rest of Ex 27 is problematic. In v. 1–8, no location is given for the altar itself; this is obviously because this location is actually implied by the description of v. 9–19, read after 26:1–27:8. Therefore, apart from a few glosses, the description of 26:1–27:19 should necessarily be viewed as a homogeneous composition; once it is seen, in addition, that this layer is presupposed in P’s conclusion to Ex 25–29 (i.e., Ex 29:43–46) and that, pace Pola, the arguments for its alleged secondary character are mistaken, ch. 26–27 should be retained as original in P.115

114

POLA , Priesterschrift, 249ff., has correctly observed that the references to the tynbt mentioned in 25:9, 40; 26:30 and 27:8 (a further reference is also found in Num 8:4) follow a pattern of decreasing precision. Whereas 25:40 explicitly refers to the tynbt, 26:30 simply mentions the +p#m of the dwelling which was shown to Moses, and 27:8 finally limits itself to stating that Moses is to build the altar “according to what he was shown on the mountain”. The observation is accurate but, pace Pola, it can perfectly be taken as a structuring device (e.g., OWCZAREK , Wohnen Gottes, 58–59); it does not have to be considered as a sign for successive editing. Especially unconvincing is Pola’s attempt to demonstrate that all these passages have been interpolated in their present literary context, see ID., Priesterschrift, 250– 251; he himself admits that this is difficult in the case of 26:30 (see on p. 251). As also noted by OTTO, Forschungen, 26 n. 88, Pola’s argument against the original character of the notices in Ex 25:40; 26:30 and 27:8, namely, that a similar notice should be expected after each subsection in the description of Ex 25–27, is unfounded. More likely, such notices have been placed after the most significant sections of the building instruction in Ex 25–40. Against WEIMAR , Sinai, 341–342 (see also STEINS , Heiligtum, 164–165; OWCZAREK, Wohnen Gottes, 58), it can hardly be said that Ex 25:40 is a Wiederaufnahme of 25:9. The notice’s function is identical to that of 26:30 (which Weimar holds as original) and 27:8. Weimar also argues that in 25:9 the entire reference to the tynbt in v. 9ab , g is a later addition (ID., Sinai, 350 n. 43; see also STEINS, Ibid., 164–165; JANOWSKI , Tempel, 229 n. 62). However, his view that the word tynbt should reflect a very late usage is not accurate (compare, e.g., 2 Kgs 16:10; Ez 8:3, 10; 10:8); besides, the exclusion of 25:9ab, g raises an issue because 26:1 (which Weimar regards as the direct continuation of 25:9aa , b) presupposes that the Nk#m has been mentioned before (pace WEIMAR , Ibid., 342 n. 17). Besides, without the tynbt of 25:9, one cannot understand what the +p#m of 26:30 actually refers to. 115 As is commonly recognized, 27:20–21, which is clearly intrusive in this context, is a later interpolation. See NOTH, Exodus, 177; and further OWCZAREK, Wohnen Gottes, 72–73.

1.2. P’s Conclusion at Mt Sinai (Ex 25–31; 35–40)

43

The description of the furniture of the tent in Ex 25:10–40 is also systematically considered as secondary in recent analyses,116 but the arguments for this are hardly convincing. They are essentially based on the assumption that all the parallels between P’s description and the Solomonic temple in the Deuteronomistic tradition of 1 Kgs 6–8 necessarily betray the work of a later redactor.117 For some authors, P, originally, would have described an “empty” sanctuary (thus P. Weimar: “gänzlich schmucklos und leer”),118 and he deliberately omitted all the characteristic features of a temple (sic) in order to emphasize the purely “utopian” nature of his own sanctuary.119 As a matter of fact, all those assumptions are fully unjustified. The thesis of P’s “utopian” sanctuary has little plausibility from a historical and comparative perspective,120 and the whole argument is actually quite circular (that is, the sanctuary’s “utopian” nature is postulated so as to legitimate the elimination of 25:10–40, which it is supposed to justify). As regards the parallels with the Solomonic temple, it is obvious that the author of P could hardly ignore this tradition; besides, even in Weimar’s minimal reconstruction of P in Ex 25–29 there is an unmistakable reference to the measures of the Solomonic temple in 1 Kgs 6, as he must acknowledge, so that this criterion seems particularly unlikely.121 The other observations occasionally adduced against the original character of Ex 25:10–40 are not more compelling. The observation that the Ark (Ex 25:10–22) no longer plays any role afterwards in the P story (but see Lev 16!)122 can easily be accounted for if P originally ended at Mt Sinai, and if the so-called “Priestly” passages in Numbers are part of a later redaction, as argued in the previous section (§ 1.1.).123 Besides, the whole argument is particularly weak. Because the Ark is placed inside the inner-sanctum (Ex 26:33–35), it is only logical that it is exclusively mentioned in the ceremony 116

See in particular STEINS, Heiligtum, 164–165; W EIMAR, Sinai, 341–342; JANOWSKI, Tempel, 227; POLA, Priesterschrift, 247ff.; OWCZAREK, Wohnen Gottes, 59ff. 117 Thus in particular OWCZAREK, Wohnen Gottes, 59ff. 118 WEIMAR, Sinai, 349. 119 See in particular WEIMAR, Sinai, 383–384. 120 See also the similar criticism by OTTO, Forschungen, 26 n. 87. 121 WEIMAR, Sinai, 383–384. In particular, the measurements given in Ex 26 for the tent (30 cubits length x 10 cubits height x 10 cubits width) correspond to half of the measurements given for the temple in 1 Kgs 6:2–3 (60 x 20 x 20; see JANOWSKI, Sühne, 335–336). For further parallels between P’s sanctuary and the Solomonic temple in 1 Kgs 6–8, see HARAN, Temples, 189ff. 122 Thus WEIMAR, Sinai, 342 n. 18; similarly, OWCZAREK, Wohnen Gottes, 59. 123 Against OTTO, Forschungen, 27, who takes up Weimar’s observation while he argues himself for a conclusion to Pg in Ex 29. Besides, Otto’s elimination of the Ark is all the more problematic because he nevertheless retains 26:31–37 as original (see Forschungen, 26 n. 87: “Der Darstellung des Auftrags in der Reihenfolge Heiligtumsbau und Geräteausstattung in Ex 26f. entspricht Ex 25,9”); yet the Ark is specifically mentioned in 26:33–34.

44

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

of Lev 16, the only one during which the high priest is admitted into the inner-sanctum.124 Finally, the original character of the description of 25:10– 40 is confirmed by the fact that Ex 25:9 prepares for it, alluding to the heavenly “model” (tynbt) for all the accessories of the sanctuary (v. 9ag), and that the Ark (25:10–22), the golden table (25:23–30) and the luminary (25:31–39) are all assumed in the instruction of 26:31–37 which, as argued above, is necessarily original.125 As regards the instructions of 25:2–7, they already presuppose Ex 30–31 (see the reference to the anointing oil and the incense altar in v. 6) and should therefore have been introduced together with these chapters. Besides, the use of the term hmwrt in v. 2–3 is untypical of P (where it always designates the portion of the sacrifice given to the priest) and has an equivalent only in Ezra 8:25.126 Initially, 25:8–9 probably followed 25:1–2aa, as is generally assumed.127 Excursus 3: On trpk and td(h Nr) in Exodus 25:10–22 The etymology and the exact meaning of the term trpk are a classical crux. The term is not attested outside P (with one exception in Chr)128 and has no equivalent in the other Semitic languages.129 It seems to be a creation by P on the basis of the root k-p-r130 which, in the Piel, 124

On this connection, see further below, § 4.3.2. Authors who view 25:10–40 as secondary but retain the reference to the Nk#mh tynbt in 25:9ab as original must speculate that the phrase wylk-lk tynbt t)w in 9ag which serves to prepare for 25:10ff. is secondary (thus STEINS, Heiligtum, 164–165; OWCZAREK, Wohnen Gottes, 57; pace Steins, it can hardly be said that the mention of the model of the Tabernacle’s accessories after that of the Tabernacle itself is “überladen und schwerfällig”). On the original character of the reference to the tynbt in 25:9, see above, page 42 note 114. OTTO, Forschungen, 26 n. 87, correctly observes that the notion of an empty sanctuary is unsatisfactory from a comparative perspective and thus retains 25:9ag as original. However, since he nevertheless considers 25:10–40 as secondary, mainly because of the reference to the Ark (see above), he assumes that this phrase is not intended to prepare for the description in v. 10ff., but for that of the articles of the Nk#m in ch. 26–27. Yet the instruction of 26:31–37 presupposes the previous description of 25:10ff. and cannot be read without the latter. Although it is probable that the section formed by Ex 25:10–40 has been slightly edited, as in the case of Ex 26:1–27:19, there is no reason to consider the section on the trpk in 25:17ff. as an interpolation, as suggested, e.g., by CORTESE , Priestly Tent, 12. His view is based on the problem raised by v. 16 and 21b which, however, do not concern the trpk but the Ark; on this, see further below. Besides, the section on the trpk serves to reinterpret the two cherubim of the Solomonic temple (1 Kgs 6:23–28) and is thus an essential part of the description of the temple in P. Note, finally, that the trpk is presupposed by 26:34. 126 As noted by O WCZAREK , Wohnen Gottes, 55. This observation implies that it is not sufficient to omit v. 6, as some earlier authors proposed, in order to retain the bulk of v. 2–7 in Pg (NOTH, Exodus, 164), but that the whole passage must be viewed as an interpolation. 127 E.g., WEIMAR , Sinai, 341 and n. 16. The MT ’s reading in 25:8 w#(w (indirect speech) should be original. The LXX, which has the direct address, doers not make sense after v. 2aa. 128 See Ex 25:17–22; 26:34; 30:6; 31:7; 35:12; 37:6–9; 39:35; 40:20; Lev 16:2, 13, 14, 15. 1 Chr also refers once to the Temple as trpkh tyb (28:11). 129 On this, see for instance JANOWSKI, Sühne, 272 with n. 458. 125

1.2. P’s Conclusion at Mt Sinai (Ex 25–31; 35–40)

45

means ‘to wipe out’ (cf. Akk. kapa4ru) and, by extension, ‘to cleanse, purify’ and even ‘to expiate’ (in the sense of ‘eradicate’;131 cf. already the LXX: to_ i9lasth/rion; the Vulgate: propitiatorium).132 While there is no link between kipper and the kapporet in Ex 25:17–22, some kind of connection is implied in the context of the ritual of Lev 16:14, 15, where the inner-sanctum is cleansed (kipper, see v. 16aa) from the sins of the Israelites by a ritual sprinkling of sacrificial blood on the eastern side of the kapporet and on the kapporet itself.133 The other etymologies occasionally considered are unlikely.134 The alternative derivation from kafara (II), ‘to cover, hide’,135 seems to be quite ancient;136 but the use of the root rpk with the meaning 130

For the derivation, see JANOWSKI, Sühne, 271–272 n. 457. On this, cf. especially LEVINE, Presence, 56–77; similarly, MILGROM, Leviticus, 1079– 1084; SCHWARTZ, Prohibition, 52–53; and most recently GILDERS, Blood Ritual, 28–29. On Akkadian kapa4ru, see CAD K, kapa4ru, 178–180, as well as VON SODEN, AHw, kapa4ru(m) I, 442–443. kapa4ru(m) in the G stem means ‘to wipe’, while the D stem (corresponding to kpr Piel in Hebrew) means ‘to wipe off, remove by wiping’. On Akkadian kapa4ru(m), see also further JANOWSKI , Sühne, 29–60. As argued in detail by Levine and Milgrom, some of the occurrences of Akkadian kapa4ru(m) already include the more abstract notion of “purifying” (LEVINE, 59–60; MILGROM, 1080–1081). In Hebrew, the tendency to abstraction is taken a step further, as noted by Milgrom, and can include notions of expiation and atonement as in the case of the t)+x and M#) sacrifices or of passages such as Lev 1:4 and Lev 16. One major exception to the consensus is found in the monograph by JANOWSKI , Sühne, who basically argues against the idea of a strict correspondence between Akk. kapa4ru(m) and Heb. k-p-r, see explicitly his concluding statement on p. 179–180; in that, Janowski actually follows the earlier view of HERRMANN , Sühne, esp. 103. In my opinion, however, such view is clearly contradicted by the analyses of Levine and Milgrom referred to above, and cannot be supported; on this issue, see also further below at § 3.2.2.3.c. 132 For further references among modern exegetes, see the authors quoted by JANOWSKI, Sühne, 272–273 with n. 472. On the meaning of i9 l asth/ r ion in the LXX , see in particular GRAYSTONE, HILASKESTHAI; and, more recently, KOCH, Some Considerations. 133 As noted by MILGROM, Leviticus, 1014. See also JANOWSKI, Sühne, 271ff.347–350, and further below § 4.4.1., p. 382. This observation, however, does not justify the traditional rendering by “propitiatory” (or further “mercy-seat”, Gnadenstuhl and the like) which has been inherited from the LXX and the Vulgate, since the notion of propitiation is an innovation of the Greek translators, rendering rpk Pi. by exhilaskesthai/hilaskesthai. On this, see especially KOCH, Some Considerations, discussing the earlier studies by Dodd and Graystone. 134 See for example GÖRG, Neue Deutung, who proposed deriving Hebr. kapporet from the Egyptian kp (n) rd(wj), meaning “sole of the foot” (Fussfläche). 135 This rendering is already attested among ancient authors such as Philo or Rashi. For a list of modern authors holding this view, see JANOWSKI, Sühne, 272 n. 465. 136 It is already attested in 4QTgLev (fr. 1:6), which renders kapporet in Lev 16:14 by the Aramaic term ks[y) (= ke5s[a3ya3)); see FITZMYER, Targum of Leviticus, 15ff. Moreover, as noted recently by KO C H , Some Considerations, 67, the fact that the L X X translates the first occurrence of kapporet, in Ex 25:17, by the phrase i9lasth/rion e0pi/qema (where e0pi/qema [“lid, cover”] is the noun and i9lasth/rion an attributive adjective) probably reflects the translator’s awareness of this possible meaning for kapporet. Although, as several authors have pointed out, the kapporet is technically not a cover for the Ark (since the latter was apparently conceived as a closed chest: see JANOWSKI, Sühne, 274–275, with earlier authors quoted in n. 479; similarly DE T ARRAGON , Kapporet, 7ff.), the kapporet does function in a sense as a cover for the upper surface of the Ark; not only is it placed upon (l() it (Ex 25:21a; see further 25:22; 26:34; 30:6; 31:7; 40:20; Lev 16:2, 13; Num 7:89), but it has exactly the same 131

46

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

“to cover” is not attested in the HB and the traditional view of a connection between rpk Piel, “to wipe out, cleanse” and Arabic kafara is erroneous in any event.137 Thus, the kapporet should be viewed as a concept sui generis elaborated by P whose meaning is only disclosed in the ceremony of Lev 16, so as to build a grand inclusion around all of Ex 25–Lev 16. We shall return to this issue later in this study (see § 4.4.1.). For the moment, suffice it to observe that the kapporet is situated upon the Ark, “between the two cherubim” (Ex 25:18–20), and, therefore, has taken the place previously occupied by Yahweh’s throne, whose placement inside the First Temple was specifically designated by the space between the wings of the cherubim acting as throne bearers (1 Kgs 6:27).138 In P, Yahweh is no longer represented as sitting upon his throne inside his sanctuary, contrary to what is still the case in Ezekiel (cf. Ez 1:26; 10:1; 43:7), a development to be connected with the transformation of the traditional temple theology from the perspective of the postmonarchical Second Temple community.139 But the space between the two cherubim – which, as hybrid beings, mark themselves the boundary between heaven and earth – nevertheless remains the axis mundi, the focal point where heaven and earth converge.140 As noted by Janowski, it is possible that the omission of the mention of the height of the kapporet, for which only the length and width are indicated (Ex 25:17; similarly in Ex 37:6 MT, contrast the Ark in 25:10), should also be regarded as relevant in this context.141 On its vertical axis, the kapporet is not limited to the dimensions of the earthly sanctuary, but it reaches up to the divine throne in heaven.142 Lastly, this device is also highlighted by the fact that the trpk is defined in Ex 25:22 as the place where Yahweh will encounter (d(y Niphal) Moses to speak to him, as a (heavenly) king speaking to his (earthly) vizier. The reference to Yahweh’s conversation (t) rbd) with Moses in Ex 25:22 connects the section on the kapporet with the two previous theophanies experienced by Abraham (Gen 17) and Jacob (Gen 35:9–15) in Pg, also featuring the same kind of intimate interview between God and man (see t) rbd in Gen 17:3, 22, 23; 35:13, 14, 15; in Ex 6:2: l) rbd). Here, however, the introduction of the kapporet into the sanctuary built at Mt Sinai means that this interview is no longer an exceptional event, as in the theophanies of Gen 17 and 35:9–15, but has become a permanent possibility offered to Israel. This difference is also emphasized on the semantic level: in the context of the theophanies with the Patriarchs P always use h)r Ni., never d(y Ni.; only the institution of dimensions as the latter (2.5 cubits length for 1.5. cubits width, see Ex 25:17 and compare with 25:10). Thus, several authors assuming that the kapporet was not the Ark’s lid nevertheless speak occasionally of the kapporet as a “cover”, see, e.g., HARAN, Temples, 220. Similarly, JANOWSKI, Sühne, 347, refers to the position of the kapporet “upon the Ark”, “die sie als ‘Deckel’ zu qualifieren scheint”. In this respect, the rendering of 4QTg Lev (see further Ex 25:17 LXX ), even if it is not original, cannot simply be said to be faulty or prompted by ideological considerations (e.g., JANOWSKI, Ibid., 273 n. 476). 137 LEVINE, Presence, 55ff.123ff.; SCHWARTZ, Prohibition, 54–55 n. 2 (literature). 138 For this observation, see JANOWSKI , Sühne, 345–346; P ODELLA , Lichtkleid, 221. It also implies that the traditional view according to which the kapporet was merely a kind of socle for the cherubim in the temple of P (most recently DE TARRAGON, Kapporet, 11) cannot be maintained. On the motif of the cherubim as throne-bearers in the First Temple, which reflects the adoption of a common iconographic motif in the Syro-Phenician area during the Iron age period, see below the references discussed in § 4.4.2., page 390, note 501. 139 On this issue, see below, § 4.4.2., pages 388–390. 140 Similarly JANOWSKI, Sühne, 345–346. 141 Sühne, 347. 142 Note, in this regard, that the centrality of the kapporet inside the temple is likewise shown in the designation of the temple as trpkh tyb in 1 Chr 28:11.

1.2. P’s Conclusion at Mt Sinai (Ex 25–31; 35–40)

47

the temple and its cult make it possible to transform the encounter between God and man into a fixed, regular feature (cf. the basic meaning of the root d(y). As such, the kapporet belongs fully to the great myth of reconciliation between God and man in P, leading to the constitution of Israel as a nation specially elected to Yahweh’s service (below, § 1.3.). Following a seminal study by G. von Rad (1931) it has commonly been assumed that the use of d(y Ni. in Ex 25:22; 29:42b, 43 and the use of N k # in Ex 25:8; 29:45–46; 40:34 originally denoted two separate traditions, an “Erscheinungstheologie” (reflected in the old, pre-P tradition of the d(wm lh) apparently attested in Ex 33:7–11 and Deut 31:14–15, 23) and a “Präsenztheologie” respectively, which were then combined by P in Ex 25ff.143 Most recently, this classical hypothesis has even been used as a literary-critical indication by Pola, the two notions corresponding in his opinion to distinct layers in P.144 However, the entire hypothesis is quite dubious. On one hand, the imagery of Yahweh occasionally descending (dry) in the pillar of cloud to speak to Moses at the entrance of the tent (see Ex 33:9–11; Num 11:17, 25; 12:5; Deut 31:15 LXX [in the MT: h)r Ni.]) is absent from Ex 25ff. and there is no indication whatsoever that it is presupposed by P.145 Besides, the origin of all the above passages connecting the d(wm lh) with the motif of Yahweh’s descent is now seriously disputed, and a good case can be made that they are actually post-Priestly, as various authors have argued.146 On the other hand, although the various attempts which have been made to interpret the use of Nk# in P as referring to a provisional or “impermanent” dwelling are unconvincing in my opinion,147 nonetheless it is clear that against the background of temple theology in the ANE Yahweh is not represented as dwelling exclusively in his earthly abode. Or more pointedly: the earthly temple only shelters the divine presence insofar as it is a reflection or an “image” of the god’s heavenly palace (see also below, § 1.3.). Note further in the same direction that it is not simply Yahweh himself, but the hwhy dwbk, corresponding in P to the deity’s earthly manifestation, that dwells inside the temple. In this respect, there is no need to postulate any sort of tension between the use of Nk# and d(y in P.148 As the place

143

VON R AD , Zelt. The notions “Erscheinungstheologie” and “Präsenztheologie” occur expressis verbis only in ID., Theologie, 1. 233ff., esp. 236, although they are implicit in his former essay. For references to scholars accepting von Rad’s view, see SCHMITT, Zelt, 215ff. 144 POLA, Priesterschrift, 230–256. 145 Contra the recent position stated by PODELLA, Lichtkleid, 223–224. 146 Although there was probably an ancient tradition about Yahweh’s tent, as in the case of El’s tent in Ugarit (above, Excursus 2), the use of d(y Niphal as a cultic term is not documented before P and the phrase d(wm lh) was very likely introduced by P. On the late, post-P character of Ex 33:7–11, which is not a fragment of “E” but was composed for its present narrative context in Ex 32–34, see GUNNEWEG, Gesetz, 171–172; SCHMITT, Suche, 271; FREVEL , Blick, 287–288; ACHENBACH , Vollendung, 174–181, esp. 178–180; DOHMEN, Exodus 33,7–11. It is clear that the other passages referring to the d(wm lh) in Num 11; 12 and Deut 31 presuppose Ex 33:7–11 and are part of the same composition (BLUM, Studien, 76–88). Therefore,they should also be considered post-Priestly; see ACHENBACH, Ibid., 293–294. 147 See in particular CROSS, Tabernacle, 62ff.; ID., Priestly Work, 245ff.298ff.323. For a detailed criticism of this view, see already S CHMITT , Zelt, 216ff., and further METTINGER, Dethronement, 88–97, as well as JANOWSKI, Sühne, 297–346. 148 For a similar conclusion, with some different nuances, see in particular SCHMITT, Zelt, 214–228, esp. 225–228; further JANOWSKI, Sühne, 295–346, who emphasizes the role of the hwhy dwbk in P, following the seminal essay on this motif by WESTERMANN, Herrlichkeit. Both Schmitt and Janowski still assume, however, that the terms Nk# and d(y come from distinct traditions, although they differ as regards the significance of their combination in P.

48

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

where Yahweh’s dwbk dwells, the Nk#m, built on the heavenly pattern (Ex 25:9, 40; further 26:30; 27:8), is indeed the only place where he can be encountered by his people. These observations also imply that the view of some literary critics regarding the section on the kapporet in Ex 25:17–22 as an interpolation cannot be supported. Dissociating Ex 25:10–16 and 17–22 and assigning them to discrete layers149 proves to be impossible. The Ark and the kapporet are part of the same reinterpretation of pre-exilic temple theology and cannot be separated; this is confirmed by the fact that the two cherubim traditionally accompanying the Ark occur only in the section on the kapporet. Also, the remark of some authors that the conception of Ex 25:22, where Yahweh encounters (d(y Ni.). Moses inside the innersanctum, appears to be at odds with the mention in 29:43 of Yahweh’s encounter with all the 150 l)r#y ynb at the dwelling is unsupported and unnecessary. Of course, the tent is the place where Yahweh can be met both by Moses and by his people; but the nature of this encounter differs in the two cases. For Israel, this is primarily through the sacrificial cult; in this respect, it is not a coincidence if 29:43 connects Yahweh’s encounter with Israel to the “consecration” of the tent by Yahweh’s dwbk, an unmistakable reference to Lev 9:23–24, the notice concluding the account of the institution of the sacrificial cult. Yahweh’s encounter with Moses, on the other hand, occurs in Ex 25:22 by means of the revelation to him of further laws for Israel proclaimed from above the kapporet – a reference to the sequel of P’s account in Leviticus (Lev 1:1ff.), following the building of the tent.151 Thus, apart from a few glosses, such as v. 19 which seems redundant,152 the description in 25:17–22 is an integral part of P. One remaining issue, nonetheless, concerns the designation of the Ark as td(h Nr) in Ex 25–40.153 According to 25:16 and 21b, it corresponds to the fact that the Ark is the container,

149

E.g., CORTESE, Priestly Tent, 12, who also refers in this connection to DE TARRAGON, Kapporet; yet de Tarragon merely observes (after several other authors) that the kapporet is not attested in the pre-exilic cult and seems to be an innovation from P. 150 Thus OTTO, Forschungen, 27; and OWCZAREK, Wohnen Gottes, 61. UTZSCHNEIDER, Heiligtum, also assumes the existence, behind the present text of Ex 25–40, of two competing conceptions of the role of Moses and the people. According to his analysis, Ex 25:22 forms the core of a “Lade-Wohnungs-Konzeption” in which the Ark has a prophetic function and which emphasizes Moses’ role in this connection; opposed to this tradition one can identify in Ex 25ff. a “Volk-Heiligtums-Konzeption” promoting on the contrary the people’s role as cultic patrons. (Lastly, Utzschneider also identifies a “Ohel-Moed-Konzeption”, which mainly stresses the cultic and sacrificial function of the tent.) 151 Note that reference to Yahweh’s commands to Moses with the phrase t) hwc in Ex 25:22 is typical of P and occurs throughout Lev 1–16, cf. in particular Lev 8:9, 13, 17, 21, 29; 9:10; 16:34. Of course, Ex 25:22 does not necessarily imply that Moses has to be present himself inside the inner-sanctum when Yahweh speaks to him, since such situation is actually never recounted in the Torah (not even in Num 7:89). Rather, the statement means that God’s encounter with Moses occurs whenever he is present inside the inner-sanctum and speaks to Moses from above the trpk to give him his instructions, as in Lev 1:1ff. 152 Thus NOTH, Exodus, 165; FRITZ, Tempel, 117; JANOWSKI, Sühne, 341. I resist viewing v. 22b as an interpolation (FRITZ, 117; GÖRG, Keruben, 16 n. 13; JANOWSKI, 343) since without this comment the purpose of Yahweh’s encounter with Moses remains unexplained. Against Fritz, v. 22ab 2 (“from between the two cherubim”), although syntactically awkward, need not be secondary. On the original character of v. 20, see in detail JANOWSKI, 342–343. On the doublet between v. 16 and 21b, see below the discussion of the phrase td(h Nr). 153 Ex 25:22; 26:33, 34; 30:6, 26; 39:35; 40:3, 5, 21; in 31:7, td(l Nr). Further Num 4:5; 7:89; Josh 4:16.

1.2. P’s Conclusion at Mt Sinai (Ex 25–31; 35–40)

49

so to say, of the td( which Yahweh will give to Moses. This conception is manifestly intended to prepare for Ex 31:18, concluding the instructions for the building of the d(wm lh) in ch. 25–31 by a notice stating that after he had finished speaking to him, Yahweh gave Moses “the two tablets (txl) of the td( , tablets of stone, written with God’s finger”. As has long been observed, this notice connects the section on the d(wm lh) in Ex 25–31 P with the non-P story in Ex 24:12–15a and Ex 32–34; the two tables of stone written by God himself are those mentioned in 24:12, which Moses brings back from the mountain in 32:15–16 and which he breaks when he comes to know the people’s idolatry (32:19).154 The notice should therefore be from the hand of a pentateuchal redactor. Earlier, it was sometimes assumed that this redactor initially conflated originally distinct traditions from “P” and “E”. Thus, the reference to the two stone tablets written by God’s finger in 31:18b would belong to E and go together with 24:12–15a (also E), whereas 31:18a would represent the notice corresponding to 25:16, 21b and should therefore be assigned to P.155 Yet this solution raises several difficulties. 31:18b is nothing but a fragment and it is difficult to see where it could have fit into 24:12– 15a. If 31:18a alone is assigned to P, the content of the two tablets remains unknown and one is left with speculations.156 Besides, the reference to the two stone tablets is otherwise found nowhere in P and only occurs in two non-Priestly notices, Ex 32:15 and 34:29.157 As a result, this traditional solution has gradually been questioned and Ex 31:18 is now generally identified – correctly in my opinion – as an interpolation from the hand of the pentateuchal redactor in Ex 25–31.158 If so, the notices of Ex 25:16 and 21b, which prepare for 31:18, should also be assigned to the same post-P redactor. However, since it is impossible to assign all the other references to the td(h Nr) to a pentateuchal redactor,159 it appears to imply that the expression did not refer, initially, to the Ark in its capacity as a container for the two stone tablets. This conclusion was already reached by S. Owczarek in a recent study.160 As she demonstrates, outside Ex 25:16, 21b and 40:20aa, it is perfectly possible to understand all the other

154

See, for instance, MICHAELI, Exode, 268. Thus already BAENTSCH, Exodus, 268 (whereas WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 97, still attributed 31:18 as a whole to Q). NOTH, Exodus, 203, also identifies in 31:18 an older fragment belonging to E but hesitates as to the identification of P material in this verse. 156 In general, it was surmised that the two tablets contained the “Priestly” Decalogue of Ex 20, as in Deut 10:1–5; see, e.g., ELLIGER , Sinn, 197; CROSS, Priestly Work, 300.312ff. 322; JANOWSKI , Sühne, 294 (with further references in n. 114). Other solutions include for instance the promise of Ex 29:42–46 (thus MAIER, Ladeheiligtum, 81.83; ROST, Wohnstätte, 164–165). Recently, SCHWARTZ , Priestly Account, 127, wants to regard the fact that the content of the tablets remains unknown in P as part of a deliberate strategy, a solution actually already considered by some earlier authors (e.g., Eerdmans), who nevertheless rejected it. 157 Pace SCHWARTZ , Priestly Account, 114.126–127, who wants to see in Ex 32:15 and 34:29 the continuation of 31:18* in P; see now the analysis of these passages by HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 146–147; DOHMEN, Tafeln, 19–23.44–45; FREVEL, Blick, 137–145, esp. 143–144. 158 See for instance SCHARBERT, Exodus, 120; DOHMEN , Tafeln, esp. 38ff.; OWCZAREK, Wohnen Gottes, 42; FREVEL, Blick, 144. 159 Alternatively it could be assumed that the term td(h has been supplemented systematically at the time of the composition of the Pentateuch; yet not only is this arbitrary, but it is already weakened by the passages referring to the Ark as td(h simply. See Ex 16:34; 30:36; Num 17:19, 25, and the expressions t(w)d(h-l( r#) trpk (Ex 30:6; Lev 16:13), td(h trpk (Lev 24:3), or td(h-l( r#) trpk (Ex 27:21; 30:6a MT). 160 OWCZAREK, Wohnen Gottes, especially 160–171. 155

50

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

references to the td(h Nr) in P without having to presuppose that the expression specifically applies to the two tablets composing the td( according to Ex 26:16, 21b and 31:18.161 Actually, she notes, several passages in the Priestly literature use the term td( as a synecdoche either for the tent (see twd(h lh), Num 9:15; 17:22, 23; 18:2) or for the shrine (td(h Nk#m, cf. Ex 38:21 MT; Num 1:50, 53; 10:11–12), and it appears unlikely that such passages should consistently refer to the presence of the tablets inside the sanctuary. Actually, as perceived by various authors, the expression td(h Nr) was manifestly fabricated by P in reference to the tyrbh Nr) in the Deuteronomistic tradition. Therefore, it does not have to involve a specific reference. Likewise, in the Dtr literature, the expression tyrbh Nr) did probably not refer, initially, to the Ark as a container for the stone tablets either. Such notion is exclusively found in Deut 10:1–5 (and 1 Kgs 8:9, which depends on Deut 10:1–5); the exact origin of this passage is disputed, but there is general consensus, at least, that it does not belong to the earliest layers in D and in the Dtr literature. As suggested by B. Janowski,162 P probably refrained from using the expression tyrbh Nr) because he already applied the term tyrb in the context of Yahweh’s commitment towards Noah (Gen 9) and the Patriarchs (Gen 17ff.).163 The term (e4du=t, from (wd II Hiphil, offered a logical equivalent to be6rît, compare Aram. (dy and Akk. adu= , which are used for oaths, contracts and treaties.164 At the same time, P is surely playing on the general meaning of the root (wd in Hebrew, namely, “witness, attestation”; thus, the Ark, in the compound td(h Nr), would be considered as that which attests to Yahweh’s presence in Israel, as was already suggested by Owczarek.165 As she notes, this explanation allows to account, in particular, for the passages in P mentioned above and where the term td( can be used as a synecdoche for the tent of for the shrine. This also makes sense insofar as, apart from Ex 25:16 and 21b, the first reference to the Ark as the td(h Nr) is in Ex 25:22. There, precisely, Yahweh announces to Moses that he will encounter him (d(y Ni.) and speak to him “from upon the kapporet […] that is above the Ark of the (e4 d u= t”, the Ark being explicitly defined, in this passage, as the very place where Yahweh is present inside his sanctuary. Later, when the notion of the Ark as a container for the tablets was introduced in P, the original conception was revised through the interpolation of Ex 25:16, corresponding to the first mention of the Ark, and of 21b, because it immediately precedes the notice in 25:22. Both interpolations prepare for the conception stated in Ex 31:18 which, as observed above, is from the hand of the pentateuchal redactor. It is generally accepted that the conception of the Ark as a container for the stone tablets has its origin in Deut 10.166 Therefore, the development reflected in Ex 25:16b, 21; 31:18 corresponds to the transfer of this conception onto Ex 25–31 at the time of the creation of the Pentateuch.

161

One possible exception is Ex 30:7, reading td(l Nr) instead of the usual phrase Nr) However, OWCZAREK, Wohen Gottes, 170, correctly observes that it is easy to presume that a later scribe has changed here a h into a l. 162 JANOWSKI, Sühne, 293–294. 163 Janowski also assumes that P tried to avoid the belief that all the promises made to Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had been written down in the Ark. More simply, the avoidance of the phrase tyrbh Nr) in P is related to the willingness to suppress any connection between Mt Sinai and the conclusion of a tyrb (cf. ZIMMERLI, Sinaibund). For the view that td(h Nr) was modeled on tyrbh Nr), see, e.g., SIMIAN-YOFRE, art.(wd, 512–513. 164 For a convenient summary of the evidence, see SIMIAN-YOFRE, art.(wd, 496–497. 165 OWCZAREK, Wohnen Gottes, 170–171. 166 Actually, Owczarek has tried to argue for the opposite development (Ibid., 139–184). However, contrary to what she assumes, there is no evidence for the view that Deut 10:1–5 would already betray the influence of P, and the usual assignation of this passage to a late Dtr td(h.

1.2. P’s Conclusion at Mt Sinai (Ex 25–31; 35–40)

51

1.2.2.2. Exodus 28–29 Now that we have seen the reasons for retaining most of ch. 25–27 in P, we may turn to ch. 28–29. As observed previously, in the wake of Noth, the secondary origin of these chapters has been commonly assumed (although Noth himself still retained ch. 28 as original). Yet this solution is problematic in several respects. From a literary-critical perspective, the reconstruction of a textual sequence in which, originally, Ex 29:43–46 immediately followed Ex 26:30 or 27:8 is unsupported, as we have seen above. Recently, E. Cortese has proposed reading 29:43ff. after Ex 27:19, the conclusion of the description of the court,167 but the suggested sequence is hardly satisfactory either. That the motif of Aaron’s consecration is original is confirmed, finally, by the presence of the notice in 29:44b which, as commonly acknowledged, is based upon Ex 29:1–37 and completes the mention of the tent and the altar in v. 44aa, b. The sequence thus obtained corresponds exactly to the organization of ch. 25–29, i.e., tent (Ex 26), altar (27:1–8), priests (28–29).168 On a conceptual level, the notion of a temple without cultic servants is little more than a modern fantasy, as some scholars have noted.169 But above all, without Ex 28–29 the introduction of Aaron alongside Moses in the previous Priestly narrative in Exodus remains nothing more than a blind motif. 170 This last observation is relevant even for those scholars, such as Weimar or Pola, who assume (in my opinion, incorrectly) the “utopian” nature of P’s sanctuary. Ex 28–29 should thus necessarily be retained within P. Against M. Noth, there is

layer should be prefered. As noted above, the notice in 1 Kgs 8:9 also depends on Deut 10:1– 5. 167 CORTESE, Priestly Tent, 14. 168 Thus, most authors regard the notice in 29:44b as an interpolation connected to the introduction of ch. 28–29 at a later stage (see, for example, STRUPPE, Herrlichkeit, 35; S TEINS , Heiligtum, 161; JANOWSKI , Tempel, 229–230; most recently, see FREVEL , Blick, 103), but formal arguments for this conclusion are missing. Admittedly, it deviates from the systematic we6-qa4t[al formulation which otherwise characterizes Ex 29:43–46. However, as acknowledged by Frevel, this observation per se is insufficient unless we adhere to an overly rigid conception of stylistic homogeneity. The tension sometimes perceived by commentators between Ex 29:1, where Moses is to consecrate Aaron and his sons, and Ex 29:44b, where they are consecrated by Yahweh himself, is non-existent. In the ancient worldview, it is clear that it is only Yahweh who ultimately has the competence to sanctify someone and consecrate him to his service. 169 See, e.g., OWCZAREK, Wohnen Gottes, 73.77. 170 There can be no question that Aaron was conceived from the beginning in P as a priestly figure. This is shown inter alia by the fact that, in P, the only ritual instruction given to the exodus generation before Sinai, the Passover legislation of Ex 12, is specifically addressed to both Moses and Aaron (cf. 12:1). This anticipates the situation described in Leviticus after the consecration of the first priests in Lev 8–9; compare Lev 11:1; 13:1; 14:33 and Lev 15:1.

52

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

no reason for separating ch. 29 from ch. 28;171 besides, the very idea that P once included instructions for the confection of priestly vestments but not for the consecration of these same priests is far-fetched. Actually, the two chapters are closely interconnected considering that Ex 28 opens (v. 1) and concludes (v. 41) with a reference to the consecration of Aaron and his sons.172 Although Ex 28 and 29 appear to have been slightly edited, attempts to identify discrete redactional layers in these two chapters are unfounded.173 There are indications that ch. 28 has been edited, in particular as regards v. 3–5, for which there are good reasons to think that they are a late addition.174 While the remainder of the text of Ex 28 describes the confection of the ephod, the pectoral, the robe, the tunic, the turban and the sash of the high priest by Moses himself, in agreement with the initial instruction in v. 2 (cf. 28:6–14, 15–30, 31–35, 36–38, and 39), according to 28:3–5 these holy items are to be worked by “sages” whom Yahweh himself has filled with a spirit of wisdom. The motif of the sages corresponds to the instruction of Ex 31:1–11 and therefore belongs, together with ch. 30–31, to a later layer in Ex 25ff.; see above, § 1.2.1. It is likely, therefore, that Ex 28 was reworked at a later stage to conform it to Ex 31:1–11 and 35:1–36:8. The beginning of 28:6, which likewise reads the plural, w#(w, instead of the singular, was probably also modified at that stage, when the motif of the “wise artisans” was introduced in Ex 28. Apparently, the same redactional technique is also evinced in 36:8 MT and in Ex 25:10 (although in this latter case the plural refers to the people, not the artisans). In any event, the original text of Ex 28 171 See NOTH, Exodus, 188; and since then for instance STEINS , Heiligtum, 160. Noth mentioned the fact that the priestly diadem is named #dqh rzn in Ex 29:6, while it is designated as Cyc in 28:36; also, in the description of Aaron’s vestments in 29:5, the belt mentioned in 28:39b is missing (but compare Lev 8:7!). Such minor variants cannot be regarded as a decisive argument for the attribution of Ex 28–29 to two discrete layers. 172 Initially, v. 41 probably ended Ex 28: the instruction for the linen underwear in v. 42– 43 comes too late after v. 41 and is likely to be a later addition; note also that Ex 29:1 obviously follows 28:41. See, e.g., BAENTSCH, Exodus, 246; HOLZINGER , Exodus, 139; NOTH, Exodus, 179; O WCZAREK , Wohnen Gottes, 80. It is difficult to imagine that Ex 28 could have ended with v. 39; besides, the mention of Aaron’s sons builds an inclusion with the introduction to ch. 28, v. 1. The reference to the anointing of Aaron’s sons in 28:41 creates a problem because initially P reserved anointing for the high priest exclusively, as is clear in Ex 29 and Lev 8 (see Ex 29:7; Lev 8:12) as well as in the passages referring to the high priest as the anointed priest (Lev 4:3, 5, 16; 6:15; 16:32 and 21:10; this conception is quite logical if, as is commonly presumed, anointing was initially a royal privilege [1 Sam 10:1; 16:3, 12–13; 2 Kgs 9:1–3, etc.], later transferred to the high priest after the exile). The idea that all the Aaronites were anointed at Mt Sinai, and thus partaked in the high priest’s dignity, is probably a later development, reflected in Lev 10:7 and in a few other texts. Since, however, Ex 28:41 prepares for 29:1 and is apparently presupposed in 29:8–9, the verse as a whole cannot be later than Ex 29 and Lev 8, and one should either assume that the reference to anointing has been interpolated (Baentsch) or that initially it concerned only Aaron. 173 ELLIGER, Ephod, and OWCZAREK , Wohnen Gottes, 77–80, have identified a highly complicated redactional history for these chapters, but their analyses are far too speculative to be convincing. Elliger identifies three successive layers in 28:6–30. Owczarek distinguishes between a minimal layer assigned to Pg (= 28:2, 6–8, 15–16, 22–28, 39) and several Ps additions. Her analysis of Ex 29 will be briefly discussed later, see § 3.1.2., page 147 note 187. 174 See for instance BAENTSCH, Exodus, 238; NOTH, Exodus, 179.

1.2. P’s Conclusion at Mt Sinai (Ex 25–31; 35–40)

53

probably comprised v. 1–2, 6–41 (on the linen pants in v. 42–43, see above). As to Ex 29, this chapter will be discussed in detail in the context of the analysis of Lev 8 (below, § 3.1.2.).

If correct, the conclusion reached here implies that P may not have ended in Exodus originally but should include at least the account of Lev 8–9 reporting the ceremony of the consecration of the first priests, in accordance with the corresponding instruction in Ex 29, as well as the offering of the first sacrifices by the newly consecrated priests. As we will see later in this study (§ 3.1.), the classical attempt to separate Lev 9 from Lev 8 cannot be supported, and the notion that the few variations between Ex 29 and Lev 8 should warrant the attribution to two separate layers in P is similarly unjustified. Also, the connection between Ex 25–29 and Lev 1–9 is highlighted by the concluding exhortation in 29:43–46, several elements of which are redactional links preparing both Ex 40 and Lev 8–9. Ex 29:43 (ydbkb #dqnw) and 44a refer not only to 40:34(–35)175 but prepare also for Lev 9:23b.176 The promise that Yahweh will consecrate the tent and the altar through his dwbk is not related in Ex 40: 34–35, but corresponds exactly to what is recounted in Lev 9:23–24 when the dwbk appears to the Israelites and devors the sacrifices on the altar. Lastly, Ex 29:44b anticipates the priests’ consecration in Lev 8. Koch also observed that the sequence formed by Ex 19:1 (chronological notice)  24:15b–16a (the cloud covers Mt Sinai and the divine “glory” dwells upon it)  24:16b (Yahweh calls Moses from inside the cloud on the 7th day) has an exact parallel in the sequence found in Ex 40:17  40:34–35  Lev 1:1.177 In addition to this, it may be noted that Lev 9 is anticipated in a remarkable way by the notice in Ex 40:35, even though this point has often been missed. According to 40:35, Moses is not allowed inside the tent immediately after the entry of the hwhy dwbk in v. 34. The tension thus created, on which we will return in this study (below, Chapter Two), is only solved in Lev 9:23a when Moses and Aaron enter the tent after the first offerings have been presented to Yahweh by the newly consecrated priests. Thus, the entire section recounting the institution of the sacrificial cult in Lev 1–9 is neatly bracketed by this redactional device.178 There have been attempts to regard v. 35 as an interpola175

Cf. Nk#mh-t) )lm hwhy dwbkw, Ex 40:34. Indeed, the announcement that Yahweh will encounter the entire community of Israel at the tent of meeting is not fulfilled by the notice in Ex 40:34; Yahweh’s dwbk is veiled by the cloud covering the tent, and Moses himself is not allowed to approach Yahweh. Rather, it corresponds to the description of Yahweh’s manifestation as recounted in Lev 9:23b. 177 KOCH, Priesterschrift, 45–46, 99; cf. also JANOWSKI, Sühne, 313; BLUM, Studien, 312; F REVEL, Blick, 154. OLIVA, Interpretación, esp. 345–347 (with the figure on p. 347), and ZENGER, Gottes Bogen, 158–159, stress instead the parallel with Ex 40:17  40:34–35  Lev 9:1a, but this is much less convincing. In Ex 24:16b and Lev 1:1, the formulation is the same: h#m-l) )rqyw, but not in Lev 9:1a (h#m )rq … yhyw). 178 Also, one may note the inclusion between Ex 24:17 and Lev 9:23b–24a since in both verses Yahweh’s dwbk appears (h)r) to the Israelites as a “devoring fire” (#) + lk) ); see 176

54

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

tion,179 but this is unlikely. Only in this verse does one find the statement that Yahweh dwells (Nk#) in the sanctuary built for him by Israel, thus signaling the fulfillment of the central promise of Ex 25:8; 29:45.180 To be sure, it has been observed that the conclusion to Ex 25–40, ch. 39– 40, evinces many parallels with the creation account in Gen 1:1–2:3, thus building a careful inclusion around the whole P story in Genesis–Exodus.181 Genesis 1:1–2:3

Exodus 39–40 1:31a

h#( r#) lk t) Myhl) )ryw

d)m bw+ hnhw

39:43a

hk)lmh lk t) h#m )ryw

w#( Nk hwhy hwc r#)k ht) w#( hnhw

2:1

d(wm lh) Nk#m tdb(-lk lktw

2:2a

hk)lmh t) h#m lkyw

40:33b

2:3aa

h#m Mt) Krbyw

39:43b

M)bc-lkw Cr)hw Mym#h wlkyw h#( r#) wtk)lm …Myhl) lkyw y(yb#h Mwy t) Myhl) Krbyw

39:32a

Other motifs in Ex 25–29 echo this traditional connection between temple and creation in antiquity. It is the case, in particular, for the notion that the temple is built according to a heavenly “model” (tynbt ) shown to Moses by Yahweh on Mt Sinai (Ex 25:9, 40; further 26:30; 27:8); this motif is already found in the Cylinder of Gudea of Lagash182 and it corresponds to the general idea that the temple is the image on earth of the heavenly dwelling.183 OLIVA, Interpretacíon, 352–353: “actualización en el culto de la teofanía acaecida en el Sinaí”; further STRUPPE, Herrlichkeit, 78. Probably, this device suggests that the “devoring fire” of Yahweh’s glory is only appeased when it receives the first offerings of the Israelites. That Ex 24:17 was interpolated between 24:16 and 18aa (thus MITTMANN, Deuteronomium, 160; WEIMAR, Sinai, 359 n. 78) is unlikely. Admittedly, it is only in v. 18aa that Moses enters the cloud, as instructed in v. 16b, but the notice in v. 17 could hardly have been placed elsewhere. Besides, the association of fire (v. 17) and cloud (v. 15b–16) is a classical feature of theophanies (e.g., Ex 19:16ff.; Deut 4:11; 5:22; Ps 97:2–3; Isa 6:3-4; Ez 1:4; 10:4). 179 See especially WEIMAR, Sinai, 359 n. 78, although he nevertheless retains Lev 9:23– 24* as original (Sinai, 374ff.); BAUKS, Historiographie, 37. 180 Note also that, pace Weimar and Bauks, it is difficult to detect a case of Wiederaufnahme in v. 35. The repetition is not quite literal and actually serves to justify Moses’ prohibition from entering the tent in v. 35a (cf. the opening kî-clause in v. 35b). More likely, the partial repetition of v. 34 in v. 35b underlines the importance of this narrative development and should therefore be regarded as a literary device. 181 See BLENKINSOPP , Structure, 280–281; Z ENGER , Bogen, 171; WEIMAR , Sinai, 365 (lit.); JANOWSKI , Sühne, 309 n. 195 and 198 (lit.); ID., Tempel, 223–224, 238–239; BLUM, Studien, 306–307 (lit.); most recently BAUMGART, Umkehr, 503–506 (lit.). 182 See FALKENSTEIN/VON S ODEN, Hymnen, 42; K EEL, Jahwe-Visionen, 51 n. 25. As observed by Keel, there is no need therefore to presuppose that the tynbt (from the root hnb, cf. also Akk. tabn|4tu) shown to Moses should refer to a heavenly sanctuary. 183 A further connection with the creation story in P is found in the structural and literary parallels between P’s sanctuary in Ex 25–40 and the description of the Ark in the P version of the Flood (Gen 6–8*). Here also, this motif takes up a classical pattern in Mesopotamian literature. On this, see now the study by BAUMGART , Umkehr, 496–559, esp. p. 506–526 for Mesopotamian parallels, and p. 531–542 for the connection between Ark and sanctuary in P.

1.2. P’s Conclusion at Mt Sinai (Ex 25–31; 35–40)

55

The reference to New Year’s day in Ex 40:17 also connects the building of the sanctuary with the creation of the world in Gen 1, here again after a pattern attested elsewhere in the ANE, especially in Mesopotamia. In Enu4ma elis] Marduk’s sanctuary is completed exactly one year after his victory over Tiamat (see Ee VI 60–61). In Ex 40:17, Yahweh’s temple is achieved one year after the exodus, that is after his victory over Pharaoh in Ex 14* P.

This motif follows a classical pattern in ancient Near Eastern mythology, where the victory of a deity over chaos is followed by its enthronement as king over the creation.184 In the Babylonian cosmogony Enu4ma elis]185 the Anunnaki build a shrine to Marduk (Ee VI 47ff.), in homage to his victory over Tiamat, whose body Marduk used for creating the cosmos (see IV 134ff.; V 1ff.). As Marduk’s palace, this shrine – the Babylonian Esagila – is both a place of rest for him after his victory over Tiamat and a symbol of his sovereignty over the other gods. The same conception is found in several Psalms connecting Yahweh’s throne and his sanctuary with his victory over the waters.186 See in particular Ps 29:10 (b#y lwbml hwhy!),187 89:10–15 and 93; in Ps 74, this may also be the reason for the presence of the poem in v. 12– 17.188 Similarly, it has frequently been suggested that this pattern underlay the story of Baal’s palace in Ugarit, which may have followed his victory over the sea-god Yam and his claim to reign over the other gods of the Syrian pantheon.189 However, this observation per se need not imply that P initially ended in Ex 40.190 On the contrary, in ANE mythology, the god’s enthronement can be followed by the offering of a great banquet, manifesting his new royal status.191 In P, this motif would correspond to the account of the offer184

Similarly PODELLA , Chaoskampf, 318–319; ID ., Lichtkleid, 221–222. On the ANE background to this conception, see JANOWSKI, Königtum, 446ff.; PODELLA, Chaoskampf. 185 For the edition and translation of the text, see HEIDEL, Babylonian Genesis. 186 See for instance WEINFELD, Sabbath, 508. 187 This has a close analogue in the representation in Mesopotamia of Shamash sitting enthroned inside his temple over the celestial sea; see METZGER, Wohnstatt, 141–144. 188 On this, see, e.g., DAY , God’s Conflict, 23–24, and already LELIÈVRE, YHWH, 266– 268; similarly RÖMER, Redécouverte, 567. 189 This statement raises the larger issue of the original order and narrative continuity between the tablets forming the Baal cycle, KTU 1.1–1.6., which goes well beyond the scope of this study. Since the detailed examination by MEIER, Baal’s Fight, it should be clear that the traditional assumption (see, e.g., VAN Z IJL, Baal, 9) that the two tablets dealing with Baal’s palace, KTU 1.3. and 1.4., somehow followed the account of Baal’s victory over Yam can no longer be maintained. There are too many differences in the format and the description of KTU 1.1.–1.2. and 1.3.–1.4. for this view to be plausible; note also that the tablets containing KTU 1.1., 1.2. III and 1.2. I–II–IV were not found in the same area as KTU 1.3.–1.6., thus confirming their material independence. Nonetheless, the many connections between the two cycles does suggest some kind of association, as argued recently by SMITH, Baal Cycle, 7ff., in his reassessment of this issue. 190 As I had myself previously argued in NIHAN/RÖMER, Débat actuel, 93ff. 191 See Enu4ma elis] VI 71ff.; this concept is still found in some biblical texts, see Isa 25:6– 8 or Zeph 1:7ff. It is also implied in Ugaritic epic if KTU 1.3. was somehow connected to the

56

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

ing of the first sacrifices in Lev 1–9 by which Yahweh, who now resides inside his sanctuary (cf. Ex 40:34), may eventually be properly honored by his own people. E. Otto, who has correctly recognized Ex 28–29 as part of the original P account, nevertheless holds that the story’s original conclusion cannot be found after 29:43–46, and that Lev 8–9 should already form a first supplement to Pg. Yet this solution raises many difficulties.192 First, the absence of a compliance report corresponding to the instructions given by Yahweh to the Israelites would be exceptional in P.193 As classically observed, P is characterized, on the contrary, by a basic pattern of instructions and executions, and there is not a single case deviating from this rule. It would be most surprising, therefore, if this pattern were missing in the very climax of the P story, the building of the sanctuary at Mt Sinai. This situation forces Otto to postulate, as Elliger before, an “open ending” (“einen offenen Schluss”) for P which he tries to connect with P’s programmatic nature in the context of the exile.194 However, not only is this suggestion little developed, but the argument is circular (i.e., an exilic setting is postulated to account for the alleged unachieved character of Pg, very much as in Elliger’s attempt to justify the identification of P’s conclusion in Deut 34). Also, Otto’s ad hoc hypothesis is unable to account for the fact that the concluding exhortation in Ex 29:43–46 is not merely open to an indeterminate future, but contains very specific references to Ex 40 and Lev 1–9, as observed above. It is similarly unable to account for the obvious inclusion between the conclusion to P’s account of the building of the tent in Ex 39–40 and Gen 1; to assign systematically these parallels to a later redactor seems unsupported. Lastly, Otto’s reasons for excluding the possibility of a sequel after Ex 29 are largely based on his criticism of Pola’s analysis in Ex 39–40,195 to which we will return below. Otto’s criticism of Pola is not unfounded, but this does not preclude other solutions. Most of all, however, the reason for rejecting Otto’s solution is based on an observation of a different nature, to which little attention has been given in the account in KTU 1.2., as is usually admitted; see above, note 189. On the mythical motif of the enthronement banquet, see for example DAY, God’s Conflict, 149–151. 192 See OTTO, Forschungen; and for a criticism, cf. already FREVEL, Blick, 115–148. 193 On the “execution formulas” in P, see now in particular POLA, Priesterschrift, 116ff. It is usually built on the pattern: h#( Nk PN-t) hwhy hwc r#) lkk/r#)k PN #(yw; the formula can either introduce or (more frequently) conclude the report of the execution of the divine orders. Such formulas are a complete novum of P; when they are missing, one finds a detailed report of the execution, generally resuming word for word the divine instructions (usually with only slight variations), such as in Gen 8:15–17  8:18–19; 28:1–4  28:5; Ex 6:2  6:9a, etc. (for other examples, cf. POLA, 116). As Pola recalls after others, this rigid pattern has a precise significance, highlighting Yahweh’s sovereignty over his creation. 194 OTTO, Forschungen, 35. 195 See OTTO, Forschungen, 25ff.28ff., and POLA, Priesterschrift, 226–229.

1.2. P’s Conclusion at Mt Sinai (Ex 25–31; 35–40)

57

recent discussion. So far, the P account has systematically and deliberately omitted all reference to the offering of sacrifices. Jacob’s offering at Bethel in Gen 35:14 (P) is limited to libation and the pouring of oil; it does not include any animal offering. In the P version of Ex 12, the ritual for Passover prescribed is not a sacrifice to Yahweh, which accounts for the fact that it may be performed at home (see v. 6); it is only in the non-P portion of Ex 12 (v. 27) that this ritual is defined as a sacrifice, with the term xbz (the “Passover sacrifice”, xsp-xbz). Above all, this device is most striking in P’s account of the Flood in Gen 6–9*. Contrary to the non-Priestly account or the standard version of the Gilgamesh epic, P does not conclude with the offering of a sacrifice to the god(s), as one would logically expect. Rather, it is only in Lev 1ff. that one finds the recurring formula xwxyn xyr, “a soothing, appeasing odor”,196 which, in other traditions about the Flood, symbolizes the reconciliation between god(s) and men.197 This device can have only one explanation. It is part of a broader narrative strategy, by means of which P anticipates in the Flood story the account of the inauguration of the sacrificial cult in Lev 1–9. The full significance of this observation will be demonstrated in the context of the discussion of Lev 1–9 (§ 3.4.). Yet it already shows that the account of the institution of the sacrifical cult is an integral part of P and cannot be considered a later supplement.198 One may note, in addition, that the close connection between Ex 25–40 and Lev 1ff. is somehow preserved in the canonical form of these two books. Contrary to the rest of the Torah where we find a clear division between each book (see below, § 2.1.), Lev lacks a proper heading. As traditionally observed, the first words of Lev 1:1, h#m-l) )rqyw, with the subject occurring only later in the phrase, are the continuation of Ex 40:34–35.199 The verses inbetween, Ex 40:36–38, are manifestly a later interpolation preparing for Num 9:15ff., as has long been acknowledged. The Peshitta, which places the divine subject at the beginning of the sentence, is a good witness to the problem caused by this interpolation.200

Initially, Ex 25–29* was probably followed by a detailed compliance report in Ex 35–40 which did not yet include the incense altar (nor the other supple196

Cf. 1:9, 13, 17; 2:2, 9; 3:5, 16; it is missing in 2:16 and 3:11. The Standard Babylonian version, Tablet 11, col. 5, l. 160, reads: ila4ni is[inu ir|4s]a ta4ba (for the edition, see TIGAY, Epic, 296), whereas Gen 8:21 has xxynh xyr-t) hwhy xryw, which is the verbatim equivalent in Hebrew except that “Yahweh” replaces the “gods”. 198 The conclusion reached here also applies to the recent proposal by LUCIANI, Lévitique, 78ff., who holds that the whole book of Leviticus was interpolated at a later stage between Ex and Num, especially because of the connection between Ex 40:36–38 and Num 9:15ff. Yet this is already precluded by the fact that most of the “Priestly” laws in Numbers presuppose the Leviticus legislation. Also, the formulation of Lev 1:1, continuing Ex 40:34-35, makes clear that it is on the contrary Ex 40:36–38 which is a later interpolation (see below). 199 See, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 310; NOTH, Leviticus, 21. 200 The close connection between Ex and Lev already goes against the assumption that the books of Leviticus and Numbers were successively added to a base account that initially consisted of Genesis and Exodus, as argued by AULD, Heart, esp. 49–50; and ID., Leviticus. 197

58

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

ments mentioned in Ex 30–31), as the witness of the Old Latin (preserved in the Monacensis) and, to a lesser degree, of the Greek tradition indicates (see above, § 1.2.1.). Alternatively, one could also adopt the solution advocated by Noth, and often accepted since (although rather uncritically) of an original report consisting only of a few notices scattered in Ex 39–40 (i.e., 39:32, 42, 43; 40:17, 34–35).201 It is quite possible indeed that these passages retain an older tradition. In particular, they correspond to the parallels with the end of the creation account in Gen 1:1–2:3 identified above. Also, 39:32b, 43 appear to assume that the entire community built the tent and its accessories, whereas in the present text of Ex 35–39 MT and LXX this is a specialized task reserved for divinely inspired artisans under the lead of Bezalel and Oholiav, in conformity with Ex 31:1–11. Noth further observed that the chronological notice in 40:17 concluded the building account in Ex 25–40 with an inclusion of the previous notice in Ex 19:1.202 One may add that 40:17 stands in tension with its immediate context: compare 17b and the beginning of v. 18.203 But this does not prove that the original report was restricted to such notices, and the detailed report that can be found in Lev 8 indeed suggests exactly the opposite. Although Ex 35–40 no doubt testifies to a complex genesis, as has long been recognized, a thorough study of this problem requires a much more comprehensive approach, going beyond the isolation of a few verses to address the text- and literary-critical problems jointly. To my knowledge, this has never been done. In the present state of the discussion, it is preferable to limit ourselves to the solution outlined here. 201

NOTH , Exodus, 225–226.227. See further LOHFINK , Priestly Narrative, 145 n. 29 (although he also retains a few verses in Ex 35–36*); FRITZ, Tempel, 112–113; JANOWSKI, Sühne, 309 with n. 194; ID., Tempel, 225.227.228; WEIMAR, Sinai, 359 with n. 77 and 78; AEJMELAEUS, Translation, esp. 396ff.; OWCZAREK, Wohnen Gottes, 35.50–52. 202 NOTH, Exodus, 227. See similarly for instance POLA, Priesterschrift, 226–227. 203 The repetition at the beginning of 40:18 serves to establish that it is Moses alone who erected the Nk#m; this is in line with the rest of ch. 40, emphasizing Moses’ role in the building of the Nk#m . Pace OTTO , Forschungen, 25, it should not be said, therefore, that v. 17 cannot be separated from its present context. The proposal by POLA, Priesterschrift, 226–229, to regard Ex 39:32b, 43 as secondary and to retain 40:16–17a, 33b as the original conclusion to Pg is similarly unconvincing. First, the above observation (which Pola also notes, but misinterprets, cf. on p. 228) speaks against the hypothesis that v. 17b and 18 could go back to the same redactor, notwithstanding the fact that there is not the slightest reason for separating v. 17b from 17a. Second, Pola’s arguments for disputing the original character of 39:32b and 43 are not satisfactory (see on p. 227–228). As Pola himself remarks, the deviation in 39:43 from the classical fulfillment pattern in P is due to the fact that this verse refers to Gen 1:31ab. To take this as a literary-critical observation, as Pola apparently does, is quite suspect from a methodological perspective. Third, and finally, Pola’s solution raises a further issue: contrary to v. 17, v. 16 and 33b are already characterized by the general tendency observable in the rest of ch. 40 attributing a preeminent role to Moses alone in the final installation of the sanctuary, so that in Pola’s reconstruction (and contrary to what he claims) there is actually no longer any reason to dissociate v. 16–17a and 33b from their present literary context.

1.3. P’s Account in Genesis–Exodus and Leviticus

59

1.3. P’s Account in Genesis–Exodus and Leviticus Before we turn to the analysis of Leviticus itself, we must conclude this chapter with a brief assessment of the meaning of the Priestly narrative in Genesis–Exodus, insofar as it provides the overall background for Leviticus. As noted above, the connection between the creation account in Gen 1 and the building account in Ex 25–40* follows a common pattern in the Ancient Near East, where creation and temple are similarly related.204 The temple is “the architectural embodiment of the cosmic mountain”, which itself symbolizes “the primordial hillock, the place which first emerged from the waters that covered the earth during the creative process”.205 This is the case, for instance, in the Gudea Cylinders where the Eninnu temple built by Gudea is called “foundation of the abyss” (temen abzu)206 or “house of the abyss”207 and is depicted as arising out of the primeval waters (abzu).208 It is also found in the great Babylonian epic Enu4ma elis], where the Esagila, the sanctuary built for Marduk by the Anunnaki after his victory over Tiamat, is conceived as standing between heaven and the apsu= on a vertical cosmic axis. As such, it can be described as meh}ret apsî, “counterpart of the apsu=” (Ee VI 62), or even as ziqqurat apsî, “ziggurat of the apsu=”;209 but it also constitutes, simultaneously, the “counterpart” (meh}ret) on earth of Es]arra, Enlil’s dwelling in the lower heavens (see Ee V 120).210 As a consequence, worship inside the tem-

204

On this, see in particular SCHÄFER , Tempel; W EINFELD, Sabbath; LUNDQUIST, Typology; JANOWSKI, Tempel; ID., Himmel; and most recently BAUMGART, Umkehr, 497ff. 205 LUNDQUIST, Typology, 207.208. 206 SAK 113; Cylinder A XXII 11. 207 SAK 127; Cylinder B V 7. 208 SAK 113; Cylinder A XXI 18–27; for these examples, see LUNDQUIST, Typology, 208. 209 ibnu=ma ziqqurat apsî el|4ta (Ee VI 63): “when they had built the lofty ziqqurat of the Apsu”. As argued by MORAN, New Fragment, this statement, in its context, can only refer to the Esagila. Moran also shows that this identification is well attested in Neo-Babylonian documents from the seventh century BCE. 210 On this notion, see METZGER, Wohnstatt; and more recently in particular the important study by JANOWSKI, Himmel, 232–242, who offers a comprehensive survey of the recent discussion, particularly as regards the difficult question of the relationship, in Enu4ma elis], between the Esagila, on one hand, and the apsu=, Es]arra, and Anu’s palace in heaven, on the other (see on p. 238–242). On the temple as a microcosm in Mesopotamia, see also for instance the classical study by W EINFELD, Sabbath, 505; for Sumerian parallels, see on p. 505 n. 6. For the temple as a microcosm in Ugarit, see FISHER, Creation, esp. 318ff. The temple’s representation as an axis mundi is also systematically reflected in the names given to the ziggurats (ziqquratu[m]) in Mesopotamia such as the Etemenanki, the Babylonian Ziggurat completed under Nebuchadnezzar II, whose name (é.temen.an.ki) means “house (which is the) foundation of heaven and earth” (for other examples, see JANOWSKI, Tempel, 217; see also on p. 218–221 for Egyptian parallels). It also accounts for the claim of each important cultic center in Mesopotamia and Egypt to be the site of the world’s creation. For Babylon, see Enu4ma

60

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

ple must imitate worship in heaven, so as to be “a likeness on earth of what he [Marduk] has wrought in heaven” (Ee VI 113).211 Furthermore, the very placement of the building account in P also picks up a traditional motif that was already mentioned above, namely, the enthronement of the deity after his victory over the primeval chaos. In the Priestly account of the creation of the world, which also relates God’s victory over the primeval abyss, but inside a monotheistic framework leaving little room for other deities, mythical monsters or supernatural beings of any sort,212 the building of the temple (sacred space) is replaced by the institution of the Sabbath (namely, sacred time, set apart from the rest of the week, exactly as the sanctuary is set apart from the profane world). This development clearly reflects the experience of the exile and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, as traditionally observed.213 Eventually, the building of Yahweh’s sanctuary in Ex 25ff. takes place shortly after another conflict against the primeval waters, this time in the context of the crossing of the Sea. In particular, the motif of the separation of the waters, which is peculiar to the Priestly account in Ex 14, unmistakably echoes the separation between the waters from below and the waters from above and the delineation of a distinct area of dry land in Gen 1:6–10.214 As in Babylonian cosmogony, the ensuing building of the sanctuary in Ex 24ff. thus serves to celebrate Yahweh’s victory over the Sea; it is both a tribute to the “glory” (dwbk) which he has manifested before the Israelites at the Sea (exactly as the building of Marduk’s temple is a homage of the Anunnaki to him) and a place of rest for this dwbk (cf. Ex 40:34).215 Or, to put it more accurately: Yahweh, who has “glorified” himself (dbkn) (i.e., shown his glory) before the Israelites by defeating Pharaoh and his army must in turn be honored by being built a sanctuary in which he can be decently worshipped and receive the homage of the Israelites in the form of sacrifices, following a standard representation in antiquity.216 Thus, the placement of the elis] VI 72 (“This is Babylon, the place that is your home”). For Egypt, see, for example, the myth of “Thebes as the place of creation” (ANET, 8). 211 See especially W EINFELD, Sabbath, 505ff., with also many additional examples of this homology in Judaism. 212 On this point, see SMITH, Origins, 167–172, esp. 170–171. Only a remote echo of the celestial court may be found in the reference to all the heavenly “armies” (M)bc) in Gen 2:1. 213 On this issue, see now in particular BAUKS, Sabbat. 214 See SKA, Séparation. Note, however, that the verb used by P in Ex 14 is not bdl, as in Gen 1, but bq(. In P, bq( is otherwise used with reference to waters in Gen 7:11, which may suggest that, for P, the crossing of the Sea constituted the positive counterpart to the Flood. 215 For the observation that the dwbk in the Sinai pericope of P, abruptly introduced in Ex 24:16a, 17 without prior mention, is in fact the manifestation of the “glory” which Yahweh has shown at the expense of Pharaoh and his army, see ZENGER, Gottes Bogen, 157. 216 See for instance Baal’s complaint that he is not honored as long as he does not have a palace, KTU 1.4.III. Similarly, it was already noted that in Enu4ma elis] the shrine built by the Anunnaki is also presented as a way of honoring Marduk.

1.3. P’s Account in Genesis–Exodus and Leviticus

61

building account in P reflects the same kind of association between the temple and the celebration of the deity’s victory over his mythical enemies at the creation of the world found elsewhere in the ancient Near East, and particularly in the Babylonian cosmogony. Significantly, Yahweh’s command to Moses to build him a sanctuary takes place on the seventh day (Ex 24:16), thus clearly recalling the pattern of 6 + 1 days in Gen 1:1–2:3.217 The meaning of this device is not that Moses (and Israel) are revealed the secret meaning of the Sabbath, as Zenger has proposed.218 Rather, it highlights the fact that it is only with Israel’s release from Egypt and the arrival at Mt Sinai that the expected conclusion to the account initiated in Gen 1 (building a sanctuary for Yahweh, the creator God) can eventually take place. This analysis suggests, therefore, that the entire Priestly narrative in Genesis–Exodus should be defined as an elaborate myth of origins.219 It follows a traditional pattern of creation myths, in particular as regards the close intertwining of creation, victory over mythical enemies, and the concluding building of a temple. Simultaneously, this pattern is also significantly reinterpreted in P, the building of the temple being now delayed to the end of the account. In-between, P has inserted a long history of mankind divided into three eras (Gen 1–11; 12–50 and Ex 1ff.) and culminating with Israel’s emergence as a distinct nation in the post-diluvian age. Thus, this (re-)arrangement of the traditional mythological pattern highlights Israel’s importance and its role in God’s creation. Indeed, as E. Blum and others have emphasized, it is in Israel that the original proximity between God and man is partially restored, and the entire P account in Gen–Ex* may be analyzed according to this conception.220 After the Flood, which punishes in P the corruption of the earth evidenced by the generalization of violence (smx, cf. Gen 6:11–12 P) among beasts and men (r#b-lk),221 the order initially defined by God for his creation is only partly resumed in Gen 9. The command given to man and woman in Gen 1:28 217 For this connection, see for instance ZENGER, Gottes Bogen, 171–172. Note that there is also a parallel with the description of the building of Baal’s palace (KTU 1.4.), which also lasts seven days. As noted by FISHER, Creation, 319, the use of the number seven probably serves to connect the temple’s building with the ancient Near Eastern tradition of creation and thus underlines its function as microcosm. 218 ZENGER , Gottes Bogen, 172. There is no hint of a hidden meaning to the Sabbath in Gen 2:3; besides, Zenger’s idea that it indicates that Israel must carry further (“fortführen”) God’s creational activity – though described as perfect in Gen 1:31! – is all the more difficult to admit because the Sabbath is a day of rest. 219 BLUM, Studien, 331, speaks similarly of an “Ursprungsgeschichte, die in den wesentlichen Etappen durch eine Art Schöpfungshandeln Jhwhs weitergeführt wird”. 220 This observation is not new in itself; it is presupposed, for instance, in the analysis of LOHFINK, Priestly Narrative, 165ff. It has found a systematic formulation in BLUM, Studien, 293ff. See also now RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, in the case of Lev 17–25. 221 For this rendering of r#b-lk in Gen 6:12, cf. LOHFINK, Priestly Narrative, 168; STECK, Schöpfungsbericht, 145 n. 585; ZENGER, Gottes Bogen, 109 n. 22; BLUM, Studien, 289 n. 8.

62

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

to “be fecund (hrp ), multiply (hbr ), and fill the earth (Cr)h-t) )lm)” is indeed restated in 9:1, 7; but contrary to the ideal of a vegetarian diet for both man and beasts in 1:29–30,222 man is now allowed to eat the flesh of animals (9:3), thus acknowledging the reality of violence between them as well as the impossibility of a peaceful cohabitation.223 This new permission granted to man is only limited by two prohibitions in 9:4–6 (eating the blood of animals and killing other men), which obviously represent for P the two fundamental bans essential for the development of society.224 The post-Flood creation is not a new creation,225 but it is clearly inferior to the original one.226 Here also, this evolution corresponds to a classical pattern found in several myths of origin in antiquity describing the transition from a “golden age” to the present condition of man, and thereby accounting for the permanent experience of suffering and evil.227 Significantly, the Flood story in P is framed by two lists of ten ancestors in Gen 5 and 11:10ff., the second being characterized by a systematic decrease in life expectancy against the former; exactly the same pattern can already be found in some versions of the so-called Sumerian “Kings List” (SKL), the earliest model of Mesopotamian chronicle.228 The inferior status of the post-diluvian creation in P is essentially signaled by the growing distance between God and his creation.229 While in the prediluvian era some privileged mythical ancestors could still experience an immediate relationship with the creator God as is suggested by the notices on Enoch and Noah in Gen 5:22, 24 and 6:9, who are said to have “walked with God”, after the Flood the relationship between God and his creation is medi222

Although one must observe that this diet is nevertheless different for man and beasts, as noted by several commentators (e.g., WESTERMANN, Genesis, 223); contrast 1:29 and 1:30. 223 This point has often been observed; see for instance LOHFINK, Priestly Narrative, 168. 224 In this respect, I regard as highly unlikely that 9:4–6 is a later addition, as suggested by MCEVENUE , Narrative Style, 68–71; Z ENGER , Gottes Bogen, 105; the arguments given by these two authors are either forced or unconvincing. 225 As correctly pointed out, e.g., by LOHFINK, Priestly Narrative, 163–172; SKA, Séparation, 523–528; ZENGER, Gottes Bogen, 115 n. 35. 226 LOHFINK, Priestly Narrative, 169, already spoke of a “descending course of development” in the case of the abandonment of the initial vegetarianism. BLUM , Studien, 289ff., speaks for his part of a “diminution” (Minderung) of the original creation. 227 See LOHFINK , Priestly Narrative, 169, where he refers in particular to the Atrahasis myth; further also ID., Grenzen. 228 For the critical edition of the SKL, see JACOBSEN, King List, to complement with the fragments edited since then, a recent compilation of which can be found in GLASSNER, Chronicles. Most of the versions are fragmentary and the textual history of this chronicle appears to be highly complicated. The SKL is classically dated to the beginning of the NeoSumerian era; the pre-Flood section is usually considered a later addition. Contrary to what is sometimes stated, the decreasing pattern in the age of the kings is not restricted to the preFlood section but also concerns the post-diluvian age. This device is also found in the socalled “Dynastic Chronicle”, a later composition of Babylonian origin. 229 See BLUM, Studien, 289–293, and already ZENGER, Gottes Bogen, 107 with n. 17.

1.3. P’s Account in Genesis–Exodus and Leviticus

63

ated solely by God’s bow placed in the clouds (Gen 9:12–17). The last part of Gen 9:1–17 (v. 12ff.) indeed considers a situation in which God no longer dwells on earth, walking with his creatures, but exclusively resides in heaven. It is also the situation presupposed by the Patriarchal narratives, in which both Abraham’s and Jacob’s encounters with the deity conclude with a notice stating that God “ascended from” them (l(m Myhl) l(yw + PN or pronominal suffix; cf. Gen 17:22; 35:13).230 Only the “sign” (tw)) placed by God in the clouds (the bow – here again, a traditional attribute in ANE mythology, yet reinterpreted in P) prevents him from forgetting completely his creation; see Gen 9:16.231 Immediately after the description of the distribution of the various nations comprising humanity upon the entire earth in Gen 10* P (which can be regarded as the beginning of the fulfillment of the divine order in Gen 1:28 and 9:1, 7, to “be fecund, multiply, and fill the earth”),232 P’s narrative focuses on the progressive emergence of Israel through the gradual narrowing of the 233 tdlwt-notices leading from Shem (Gen 11:10) to Jacob (Gen 25:19ff.) and his sons (35:22b–29). This development eventually finds its conclusion at the beginning of the book of Exodus (Ex 1:7) when the sons of Jacob/Israel have become so numerous that they form no longer a family or even a clan, but a nation. Although, according to P, Israel is the last nation to appear on the stage of world history (a reflection of the Judean scribe’s own historical awareness?), its importance is underlined by the fact that it is not Gen 10 P (as one would expect) but the notice found at the outset of Exodus, in Ex 1:7, which picks up verbatim the terms used by God’s comment in Gen 1:28; 9:1, 7 (cf. hrp, hbr, Cr)h-t) )lm).234 This observation signals that it is only with 230 For this observation, see ZENGER , Gottes Bogen, 107 n. 17; and similarly BL U M, Studien, 293. As already noted by VON R AD , Priesterschrift, 171 n. 6 (quoted by Blum), in Gen 17:1 Abraham is no longer commanded to walk “with” Yahweh but “before” him (ynpl). 231 Here again, I cannot accept Zenger’s idea that 9:16–17 is a later addition to P, see ID., Gottes Bogen, 105–106. His arguments are mainly based on a few stylistic and structural observations whose evidence is disputable. Besides, this solution obliges him to consider that here, as well as in Gen 17 (cf. 17:7, 13, 19b, all passages which he must regard as interpolations), the notion of a “permanent covenant” (Mlw( tyrb) is not Pg, but Ps or even R. Not only is this methodologically untenable from a literary-critical perspective (see, in particular, the reception of Gen 17:7 in Ex 6:7 and 29:45–46, and further on this below); but above all, without this notion of a “permanent covenant” one does not understand why this covenant concerns not only Abraham but all the generations issued from him (17:9ff.), and particularly Israel (cf. Ex 2:24). Besides, the notion of the Mlw( tyrb in 17:7 appears to be presupposed by 17:8, which states that N(nk Cr) will be given to Abraham’s offspring as a Mlw( tzx), a “permanent inheritance”. On P’s conception of the tyrb, see also below, § 5.2.5. 232 For this idea, see in particular KÖCKERT, Land, 150 n. 16. 233 On the structuring function of the tdlwt-notices in P’s account in Genesis, see SCHARBERT, Toledot-Formel; WEIMAR, Toledot-Formel; RENAUD, Généalogies. 234 See LOHFINK, Priestly Narrative, 166; pace BLUM, Studien, 295 n. 28.

64

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

Israel’s emergence as a nation that God’s plan for humanity, set out in Gen 1 and reinterpreted in Gen 9, has properly reached its purpose.235 The reason for Israel’s eminence among the nations is stated in three central passages which are closely connected and which, by reporting the same divine promise, form in a sense the main thread of P’s narrative after Gen 10: Gen 17:7; Ex 6:7; and 29:45–46. In Gen 17:7, Yahweh appears to Abraham to foretell him that he will be the ancestor of a nation with which he will have a specific relationship. In addition, this relationship is defined by a new, permanent covenant that comes in addition to the previous tyrb in Gen 9 (cf. 17:7 and 19b). This promise is later repeated to Moses,236 when Israel, which has meanwhile become a nation, is held captive in Egypt (Ex 6:2–8). It is eventually restated one last time in Ex 29:45, the motive clause concluding the instructions for building the sanctuary in Ex 25–29. Genesis 17:7

Exodus 6:7

Exodus 29:45–46

I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, as an everlasting covenant, to be God to you (Kl twyhl Myhl)l), and to your offspring after you.

I will take you as my people, and I will be your God (Myhl)l Mkl ytyyhw). You shall know that I am Yahweh your God, who has freed you from the burdens of the Egyptians.

I will dwell among the Israelites, and I will be their God (Myhl)l Mhl ytyyhw). And they shall know that I am Yahweh their God, who brought them out of the land of Egypt that I might dwell among them; I am Yahweh their God.

Thus, in P, the promise of Gen 17 and its reception in Exodus comprise a major structuring device, Ex 6 and 29 specifying gradually the nature of the covenant between Yahweh and Israel as well as its implications. In Ex 6:7, this covenant is presented as the reason for the exodus: as in Ex 2:24 (P), Yahweh decides to deliver Israel because he has remembered his previous covenant with Abraham. In Ex 29:45, finally, a further step is reached insofar as Yahweh reveals to the Israelites that the purpose of the exodus was not simply their release from slavery in Egypt but his coming to reside among 235 Against LOHFINK, Priestly Narrative, 167, who argued for a conclusion to Pg in Joshua on the basis that the command to “subdue the land” in Gen 1:28 is not yet fulfilled in Ex 1:7, but only in Josh 18:1. However, Lohfink did not consider the fact that this command, together with the order to “rule over animals” in Gen 1:28, is not resumed after the Flood in Gen 9:1, 7 contrary to the other commands of 1:28, and thus apparently no longer applied to postdiluvian humanity. 236 In Gen 28:3–4 and 35:9–15 (P), several of the promises made to Abraham in Gen 17:4ff. are repeated to Jacob (significantly, this occurs in two passages framing Jacob’s sojourn in Aram), but not the promise of 17:7 that Yahweh will be his personal god as well as the god of his offspring, or that their relation will be defined by a permanent covenant.

1.3. P’s Account in Genesis–Exodus and Leviticus

65

them as his elected nation (“I, Yahweh, have made them come out of the land of Egypt to dwell among them”).237 Yahweh’s return, eventually reported in Ex 40:34, corresponds to the restitution of the divine presence in Israel after the Flood; the significance of this event is highlighted by the various inclusions with the creation account in Gen 1 (above, § 1.2.2.2.). This device, with its mythical background, indicates that in Israel’s sanctuary, as a space set apart from the profane world and as a “model” (tynbt) of the divine palace, the order initially devised by God at the creation of the world can now be partly realized.238 In P, therefore, Israel has become something like the “priestly nation” among the nations of the world, according to the fitting formula coined by A. de Pury.239 It is the one to which Yahweh’s proper name has been exclusively disclosed (Ex 6:3), as well as the one specifically designated to serve him in his temple, thus making possible a more direct relationship between God and man in the post-Flood era. Accordingly, it is in Israel’s sanctuary, specifically, that the creator God has chosen to dwell (Ex 25:8–9; 29:45–46; 40:34) and where, therefore, he can be permanently encountered (root d(y, see especially Ex 25:22 and 29:43), as in the creation before the Flood. Conversely, this means that it is Israel’s cult which guarantees the permanence of the divine presence, and hence the stability of the cosmic order.

237

The close connection between Gen 17:7–8; Ex 6:2–8 and Ex 29:45–46 goes against the view of OTTO, Forschungen, 10 n. 45, who tried to revive the older idea (see, e.g., BAENTSCH, Exodus, 47) that Ex 6:6–8 is a later, post-P interpolation. Without the announcement of v. 7 (“I shall be your God”), the fact that Yahweh will come to reside among Israel because of the promise made to Abraham is lost, and the connection between Ex 29:45–46 and Gen 17:7 can no longer be perceived. It is true that Ex 6:7 uses the complete covenant formula instead of the first half only, as elsewhere in Gen 17:7 and Ex 29:45. But here the second half implies no response from Israel, so that this cannot be regarded as a deviation from P’s doctrine of covenant (pace Otto); rather, it represents a subtle play on the traditional formulation. The fact that the people does not listen to Moses in 6:9 cannot be automatically regarded as the mark of a “negative anthropology” foreign to Pg, as Otto does; besides, this verse stands outside Ex 6:2–8. Finally, Ex 6:2–8 forms a coherent whole and is manifestly modeled after the twofold structure of the oracle of judgment in the prophetic tradition, v. 6–8 replacing the announcement of the judgment by one of salvation for Israel, cf. Nkl at the beginning of 6:6 MT (as observed in particular by SKA, Ex 6,2–8). The only serious issue is the use of the term h#rwm in Ex 6:8, which is unique in Pg (cf. KOHATA, Jahwist, 28ff.; SCHMIDT, Exodus 1–6, 275–276). However, this is probably a reference to Ez 33:23–29 (see 33:24, where the same rare term is also used) and to the situation at the time of the return from exile; see below, § 4.4.2., page 387. For a similar conclusion about the original character of Ex 6:6–8, see now SKA, Introduction, 212–213; as well as FREVEL, Blick, 116. 238 One many note, in this regard, that the rabbis already held that it was only with the building of the Tabernacle that the creation of the world had come to an end; see Pesiqta de Rab Kahana, Piska 1:4; and further SCHÄFER, Tempel, 131ff., who gives this reference. 239 DE PURY, Abraham, 172–177; and already KNAUF, Priesterschrift, 106 n. 19.

66

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

Finally, Israel’s redefinition as a cultic community or a priestly nation also accounts for P’s choice to conclude the story of Israel’s origins at Mt Sinai, and not with the conquest of the land. In P, actually, the land is no longer decisive for Israel’s identity.240 As M. Köckert and, more recently, M. Bauks have shown, in P the land promised to Israel is not given as a hlxn, a personal possession, as in the Deuteronomistic tradition, but rather as a hzx), a term referring to a “Nutzungsrecht”. In this conception, Israel has a right to the land’s usufruct, but the land itself remains Yahweh’s exclusive possession.241 240

Against POLA, Priesterschrift, 324ff.336ff., who seeks to demonstrate that in P Sinai is a mere cipher for Zion and that P tacitly reports an account of the conquest of the land, which is entirely unlikely. (1) First, Pola’s statement that this identification was already common knowledge at the time of P is unsupported. He refers in particular to Isa 6:1ff.; Ex 15:1–18 [cf. 15:17]; and Ps 78:54, 65ff.; in addition, Pg would be following here the literary model of Ez 20 (20:34–35) and 34:13–14 where Zion is presented as the goal of the (new) exodus (Priesterschrift, 151–198, esp. 192–197). However, the alleged identification of Sinai with Zion at a pre-exilic stage is obvious in none of the texts (similarly FREVEL, Blick, 106). On the contrary, Ps 78 clearly distinguishes between two mountains, one outside the land (78:54), the other inside (78:68–69) and the same may well be true for Ex 15 if we take the mention of “your dwelling” (K#dq hwn) in 15:13 to be a reference to Mt Sinai; besides, at least for Ps 78, a pre-exilic setting seems implausible. Nothing in Ezekiel hints at the identification of Sinai with Zion either (see also FREVEL, Blick, 106–108). (2) Second, even if there are indeed some allusions to the First Temple in Pg, as was long noted, there are also several unmistakable differences with the Zion theology, on which Pola never really comments. This is the case in particular of the systematic avoidance of the verb b#y , which traditionally carries the connotation of Yahweh as sitting enthroned in his sanctuary, see Isa 6:1, and further Ex 15:17; 1 Kgs 8:13; Isa 8:16; Ps 9:12; 68:17; 132:13. On this meaning of b#y, see, in particular, GÖRG, art. ya4s]ab, esp. 430–431, who also notes the parallels with this use in Akkadian and Ugaritic literature (p. 421–422); METTINGER, Dethronement, 26ff.; and for the observation that this term is deliberately missing in P, Ibid., 96–97. On the connection between b#y and Zion, see further O TTO, art. s[ijjo=n, esp. 1015; JANOWSKI, Schekina-Theologie, 144. On the reinterpretation of traditional Zion theology in P as betraying P’s post-monarchical outlook, see further below, § 4.4.2. (3) Third, and lastly, if Sinai was really identical to Zion in P, one would have expected a reference to the conquest of the land, which is conspicuously missing in P. Pola’s proposal (ID., Priesterschrift, 272.336 and passim) to locate this reference in the notice found in Ex 19:1, where he sees both a fulfillment of the earlier promise of the land (Gen 17:8; 35:12; Ex 6:8) and an allusion to the pre-P (“Jehowist”) account of the conquest (sic), is fanciful at best. 241 KÖCKERT , Land, esp. 155; further BAUKS , Peuple; ID., Landkonzeption. Contrary to what has often been said, the terms hlxn and hzx) are not synonymous. Whereas hlxn in Deuteronomy and in Dtr literature in general is typically associated with the feudal ideology according to which Israel as a whole is Yahweh’s vassal and, as such, is entitled to the possession of the land as long as he is loyal to his suzerain, the term hzx) probably designates a Nutzungsrecht only; cf. in particular GERLEMAN, Nutzrecht. As observed by MILGROM, Leviticus, 2185ff., this conception can be compared with the juridical conception prevailing in Mesopotamia in the second millenium, according to which possession of the land was entirely transferred to the king who would then award its usufruct to his subjects as a reward for their loyalty; on this notion, see also further BAUKS, Landkonzeption, 174–176, as well as p. 182ff.

1.3. P’s Account in Genesis–Exodus and Leviticus

67

In this respect, the land given to the Israelites in Ex 6:2–8 does not differ from that given to the Patriarchs. Accordingly, the promise made to Abraham to give (Ntn) his offspring the land as a Mlw( tzx) does not come to fulfillment only with Israel in Ex 6 but already occurred in the age of the Patriarchs, as is explicitly affirmed in Gen 28:4 and 35:12.242 In P, therefore, the Dtr tradition of the conquest with its ideology either of complete annihilation of the nations already residing inside the land (see Josh 21:43–45) or at least of strict separation from them (Josh 23; Judg 2:1–5, etc.). has now been replaced by a conception in which Israel’s settlement in the land is basically identical to that of the Patriarchs in Genesis, as was rightly observed by Köckert.243 In other words, there is no fundamental shift between the conception of the land in Genesis and in Exodus; and the exodus itself basically corresponds to a return to the state of things prevailing before Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt.244 Thus, for P, the Israelites are to be “resident aliens” (Myrg) inside the for ANE parallels. In P, Yahweh has replaced the king in this role, which makes perfect sense in the early postexilic period, when P is likely to have been composed (see below § 4.4.2.). On the contrary, hlxn, often improperly rendered by “inheritance”, actually refers to some form of “entitlement or rightful property of a party that is legitimized by a recognized social custom, legal process, or divine character” (HABEL, Land, 35). 242 See in particular BLUM, Vätergeschichte, 443; KOHATA , Jahwist, 31–32; SCHMIDT , Exodus 1–6, 257ff.; KÖCKERT , Land, 155 with n. 26. Therefore, the reference to the land given to the Patriarchs in Ex 6:4, 8 should be understood literally and not as a mere reference to the promise that the land will be given to Abraham’s offspring in the future. The Patriarch’s permanent entitlement to the land’s usufruct probably begins in Gen 23, with the purchase by Abraham of a cave in Machpelah with the field surrounding it as a hzx) (see v. 4, 9 and 20) where all of Israel’s ancestors are succcessively buried (Sarah: Gen 23:19; Abraham: 25:9–10; Isaac: 35:27–29; Jacob: 50:13). In recent times, the attribution of this story to Pg has sometimes been disputed; see in particular BLUM, Vätergeschichte, 441ff. However, the whole episode is presupposed by the notice on Abraham’s death and burial in 25:9–10 Pg, so that I regard this solution as unconvincing. 243 KÖCKERT, Land, 155; somewhat similarly BAUKS, Landkonzeption, esp. 185–187. 244 To be sure, Ex 6:8 refers to the land as a h#rwm, from the root #ry, which, in the context of Ex 6, calls to mind the Dtr tradition of the conquest (LOHFINK, art. ja4ras], esp. 974ff.; on the use of h#rwm in Ez 33:24 and the probable connection with Ex 6:8, see below § 4.4.2.). But rather than marking a caesura between the periods of the Patriarchs and of Israel with regard to the land, h#rwm in Ex 6:8 actually further connects the theme of the entry into the land with the era of the Patriarchs, since it recalls the promise made to Jacob in Gen 28:4 that he will possess the land, where similarly the root #ry is already used. Here, it appears that P is deliberately playing on the polysemy of #ry which can also imply the notion of inheritance as a corrective to the Dtr use of this term in the conquest tradition (for this meaning of #ry as “to inherit”, see for instance SCHMID, art. ya4ras]). At any rate, the connection between Gen 28:4 and Ex 6:8 further corroborates the view that there is no fundamental dichotomy in P between Israel’s settlement inside the land and the previous settlement in the age of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. According to Gen 28:4, Jacob/Israel came to “possess” (#ry) the land long before the conquest. Conversely, the land that will become Israel’s h#rwm through the conquest is not different in any significant respect from that already possessed by the Patriarchs.

68

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

land, meaning that, technically, they stand under the protection of the land’s legal owner, Yahweh himself. The fact that the land already given to the Patriarchs as a Mlw( tzx) can be simultaneously referred to as Myrgm Cr) in Pg (Gen 17:8; 28:4; 37:1; Ex 6:4; see also Gen 36:7) confirms that there is no tension between these two notions. The Patriarchs are sojourners and “resident aliens” in the land because the latter exclusively belongs to Yahweh;245 besides, this notion will be explicitly affirmed later by H, in Lev 25:23–24.246 The fact that the conclusion of the Edom-twdlt in Gen 36:43 (P) also refers to Edom’s land as a hzx) suggests, in addition, that the same conception actually applies to the other nations on earth.247 This conception, which involves a complete revision of the traditional land ideology still reflected in the Deuteronomistic tradition, presupposes a specific historical setting, to which we will return later in this study (below, § 4.4.2.). For the moment, it is sufficient to observe that it accounts for the conclusion of the Priestly narrative at Mt Sinai. In P, the conquest tradition has lost its significance; entering the land basically corresponds to a return to the situation existing in the age of the Patriarchs.248 The novum introduced by the exodus does not reside there, but in the constitution of Israel as a “priestly nation”, namely, a cultic community devoted to Yahweh’s service.

245 KÖCKERT, Land, 156: “[…] Väter und Söhne […] bleiben […] im Blick auf Gottes unaufgebbares Eigentumsrecht am Land Schutzbürger und Beisassen. Weil die Väter in einem Land leben, das Gott gehört, sind sie Myrg, und deshalb ist Kanaan für die Väter Myrgm Cr)” (emphasis original). 246 In Lev 25, however, as part of H’s revision of P, the land is no longer a Mlw( tzx) but has become conditional upon the law’s observance; see further below §§ 5.2.4.3. and 5.3. 247 KÖCKERT, Land, 155. 248 This, however, does not exactly mean that in P the land has simply become a place for the cult, devoid of any political issues; see further below at § 4.4.2. On this point I disagree with K ÖCKERT, Land, 152–153, as well as with RÖMER, Pentateuque, 354 (stating: “le pays ne constitue pas pour P un enjeu géopolitique, il n’est que le cadre à l’intérieur duquel la présence cultuelle de Yhwh peut se réaliser”).

Chapter Two

A First Approach to the Composition of Leviticus: Structure and Theme of the Book A critical analysis of Leviticus should begin with a brief survey of the book in its “final” (i.e., canonical) form. This topic has been the subject of many studies recently; in what follows, we will discuss the various proposals that have been made so far and identify the book’s main divisions.1

2.1. Introduction: Leviticus as a Separate “Book” Before entering this discussion, it should be recalled that the recent interest in the literary structure of Leviticus is closely related to the growing awareness, among scholars of the Pentateuch, of the significance of the Torah’s fivefold division. Contrary to earlier opinion, there are many indications suggesting that the delineation of a Penta-teuch was not merely for practical reasons;2 rather, it appears to have a logic of its own, and to reflect a specific understanding of the coherence and unity of each book.3 In the case of Leviticus, this is already suggested by the notices introducing and concluding the book, especially when compared with the parallel 1

In what follows, the concept of the “final” (or canonical) form of the Torah is used in the sense of BLUM, Endgestalt. Given the plurality of ancient witnesses, this notion can only be a scholarly construct, though it is nevertheless necessary for any close reading of the texts. 2 Actually, this suggestion was already made by some older authors, see, e.g., EISSFELDT, Einleitung3, 206: “Die Grenzziehung zwischen den einzelnen Büchern des Pentateuchs ist weithin sinnvoll”. It is especially in the wake of NOTH , Pentateuchal Traditions, that the Torah’s fivefold division has been regarded as a mechanical phenomenon with little or no import for the interpretation of the Torah itself. Among recent authors with this view, see characteristically GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 2–3; or VAN S ETERS, Pentateuch, 15–19, esp. 16–17, for whom “the process by which the Pentateuch became divided into five books and then was regarded as distinct from the books that followed is separated in time from the composition of the Pentateuch’s content by perhaps several centuries” and thus “cannot be the basis for any literary analysis of the Pentateuch or part of it”. 3 On this question, see in particular B LENKINSOPP , Pentateuch, 31–53; ZENGER , Einleitung2, 34–39; ID., Pentateuch; ID ., Buch Levitikus, esp. 49ff.; JÜNGLING, Buch Levitikus, 7–23; SKA, Structure; ID., Introduction, 32–36. Earlier studies on the structure of the fivefold Torah include SEGAL, Pentateuch; CLINES, Theme; KNIERIM, Composition; MANN, Book.

70

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

super- and subscriptions found in Numbers.4 Both books are introduced with a notice relating an address of Yahweh to Moses;5 and they both conclude with a statement mentioning the commandments (twcm) given by the deity to Moses for the Israelites followed by a topographical indication (Lev 27:34; Num 36:13).6 The parallel does not simply direct the reader’s attention to the numerous similarities between the two books, it also serves to highlight major differences. In Numbers, Yahweh’s instructions are no longer delivered at Mt Sinai (Lev 27:34) but in the wilderness of Sinai (ynys rbdmb, Num 1:1).7 The notices in Lev 1:1 and 27:34 thus frame the book of Leviticus as containing the totality of the commandments given by Yahweh to the Israelites from inside the tent of meeting (Lev 1:1) during the people’s stay at Mt Sinai (Lev 27:34).8 The instructions found in Num 1–10 are part of a further, distinct revelation, already connected to the main theme of that book, namely, Israel’s wanderings in the wilderness (cf. the book’s title in later Jewish tradition, rbdmb). As such, the delineation of Leviticus as a discrete “book” within the fivefold Torah is neither arbitrary nor artificial. It actually matches the logic of the pentateuchal narrative itself, recounting in Lev 1–27 a revelation made to Israel that is distinct from the rest of the revelation connected with Mt Sinai which can be found in Ex 19–40 and Num 1–10. 4 For a general treatment of this issue in the Hebrew Bible, see MATHYS, Bücheranfänge; in the case of the Pentateuch, see BEN ZVI, Closing Words; further OLSON, Death of the Old, 46–49; CLINES, Theme, 25–27; most recently: SCHMID, Erzväter, 29–31. 5 Compare: Lev 1:1 (MT): rm)l d(wm lh)m wyl) hwhy rbdyw h#m-l) )rqyw Num 1:1a: d(wm lh)b ynys rbdmb h#m-l) hwhy rbdyw On this parallel, see also for instance CLINES, Theme, 27–28; KNIERIM, Composition, 405–406; and SMITH, Literary Structure, 18–20, esp. 19, who correctly observes: “Leviticus is thus ‘bookended’ by the two parallel structural indicators”. 6 BEN-ZVI, Closing Words, 8; MATHYS, Bücheranfänge, 7 n. 31. 7 ZENGER, Buch Levitikus, 58, who comments: “Der Berg Sinai ist im Buch Numeri nicht mehr Ort der Handlung” (emphasis added). 8 On the seeming contradiction between the locations of Lev 1:1 (tent of meeting) and 27:34 (Mt Sinai), see the discussion below, § 3.6., p. 263–264. This editorial framework is further signaled by the fact that Num 1:1 contains a long chronological notice (“the first day of the second month of the second year after they left Egypt”) which has no parallel in Lev 1:1 or anywhere in the book of Leviticus (not even in 9:1) but connects Numbers to the end of Exodus where the last similar chronological notice can be found (Ex 40:17; cf. ZENGER, Buch Levitikus, 58). The notice in Num 36:13 also prepares for the book of Deuteronomy; in Deut 1:1, we find a notice similar to Num 36:13, but in which Moses’ “words” (Myrbd ) have replaced Yahweh’s “instructions” (twcm). The contrast actually matches the specific status of Deuteronomy vis-à-vis Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers in the canonical form of the Pentateuch, since most of Deuteronomy consists in the report of Moses’ (and no longer Yahweh’s) speech to the Israelites, with the prospect of “teaching” (dml, see Deut 4:1, 5, 10, 14; 5:1, 31; 6:1) the second generation of the exodus. On this last point, see especially SONNET, Book, 47–48.

2.1. Introduction: Leviticus as a Separate “Book”

71

Furthermore, that Leviticus comprises a distinct revelation within the pentateuchal narrative is also shown by the position of this book as the center of the fivefold Torah, between Genesis–Exodus on one hand and Numbers– Deuteronomy on the other. As several authors have observed, there are indications that this arrangement is not coincidental but betrays, here again, an editorial device. This is already suggested by the size of the book of Leviticus, which is not only the shortest of the five but is framed by two books of almost equivalent size (Exodus and Numbers).9 On the level of content, it was noted that there are several parallels between the books of Genesis and Deuteronomy on the one hand and of Exodus and Numbers on the other; obviously, those four books were intended by the Torah’s editors to form a twofold frame around Leviticus.10 Genesis and Deuteronomy are both closed by a blessing of the 12 tribes (Gen 49 // Deut 33) followed by the death of the main character who pronounced the blessing (Jacob and Moses respectively) and a notice of his burial (Gen 50 // Deut 34). Besides, the parallel between Jacob and Moses is further highlighted by a series of devices.11 Exodus and Num9 Leviticus has 11,950 words, while the longest book, Genesis, is almost twice as long (20,611 words). The other books are of intermediary lengths. Exodus and Numbers each have about 16,500 words (16,712 for Exodus and 16,413 for Numbers); Deuteronomy has 14,294. This computation is taken from THAT, 2. 539. On this issue, see in particular the various studies by M. Haran (e.g., HARAN , Book-Size). On the correlation between the size of Lev and its editorial placement at the center of the Torah, see also BLENKINSOPP, Pentateuch, 46; ZENGER, Buch Levitikus, 53–54; SCHMID, Erzväter, 32–33; SKA, Introduction, 31–32. 10 On this, see in particular ZENGER, Enleitung2, 36–37; ID., Pentateuch; ID., Buch Levitikus, 60–62. Similarly, BLENKINSOPP, Pentateuch, 47; BLOCH-SMITH/SMITH, Pilgrimage Pattern, 301–308; pace AULD, Heart, who explicitly disputes this view. It has been similarly questioned by SCHMID , Erzväter, 32 n. 191, although Schmid must admit that the editorial willingness to frame Leviticus with Exodus and Numbers is actually unmistakable (Ibid., 33). 11 For these devices, see now the careful study by SONNET, Book, 204ff. As he observes, the phrase in Deut 31:14, “the days approach for you to die” – which, in Deuteronomy, constitutes the first speech by YHWH directly recorded by the narrator – calls to mind the statement in Gen 47:29, “and when the days approached for Israel (i.e., Jacob) to die”; this phrase is nowhere attested in the entire Pentateuch outside these two passages. As Jacob before him (see Gen 47:30), Moses will “lie down with his fathers”, see Deut 31:16. The promise is only metaphorical in the case of Moses since, contrary to Jacob who is brought back from Egypt to be buried in Hebron (see Gen 49:28–33), he is actually buried in a place known by Yahweh alone (Deut 34:6); yet it serves to create a further connection between the figures of Jacob and Moses at the time of their death. Moses’ song in Deut 32 is introduced in 31:29 by a phrase which echoes the introduction to Jacob’s blessing in Gen 49:1; in both cases, reference is made to what will “befall” (with )rq, instead of )cm as in Deut 31:17, 21) the people “in the days to come”. Even the sudden irruption, in Deut 32, of the father-son category should probably be explained as a reflection of Jacob’s ultimate speech to his twelve sons in Gen 49, as convincingly argued by Sonnet. Simultaneously, it also emphasizes the contrast between patriarchal authority and Mosaic, that is, prophetic authority. Among other major parallels between Genesis and Deuteronomy, one may note in particular that Deut is framed in 1:8 and 34:4 by the reference to the promise of the land made by Yahweh to the patriarchs (Gen 12–

72

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

bers similarly exemplify several parallels, particularly in the section on the wilderness wanderings and the rebellions of the Israelites, which stands at the center of both compositions.12 Furthermore, although the wilderness sojourn in Numbers is considerably more developed, virtually all the elements of the wilderness wandering of Exodus have a parallel in Numbers 10–21.13 The two sections also share some unique language, such as the motifs of the community’s “murmurs” of the against Moses and Yahweh (Nwl Niphal or Hiphil),14 the accusation addressed to Moses of letting the community die in the desert (Ex 16:3; 17:3; Num 16:13; 20:4–5; 21:6), the nostalgia for Egypt expressed by the Israelites (cf. Ex 16:3; Num 11:5; 14:2–4; 20:5), etc.15 There are also obvious parallels between the so-called “legal” sections of the two books; Num 9:1–14, e.g., is clearly a complement to the Passover instruction in Ex 12. Actually, E. Blum observed that most of the instructions in Num 1–10 are complements to Ex 19–40 rather than to Leviticus.16 50), with which the Patriarchal history in Genesis opens (see Gen 12:1–3). Deuteronomy’s connection with Genesis is also obvious in the book’s continuous references to the “fathers”, which are far more important than in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. 12 While in Ex the sojourn in the wilderness takes place between the departure from Egypt and the arrival at Sinai, in Num it stands between the departure from Sinai and the arrival in Moab. See, e.g., BLOCH-SMITH/SMITH, Pilgrimage Pattern, 289, with the following schema: Exodus

Numbers

1:1–15:21: in Egypt 15:22–ch.18: in the wilderness 19–40: at Mount Sinai

1:1–10:10: at Mount Sinai 10:11–ch. 21: in the wilderness 22–36: in Transjordan

Contra ZENGER, Einleitung2, 37, the alleged parallel between the respective number of wandering notices in the two books seems to me to be rather far-fetched. 13 The episode of Ex 16 (manna and quails) is continued in Num 11. The episode of Ex 17:1–7 (the water flowing from the rock at Massa and Meriba) has a very close parallel in Num 20:1–13. The problem of Moses’ excessive burden and the institution of lay leaders inside the community to discharge him, which are reported in Ex 18:13–26, are also discussed in Num 11, where Yahweh gives some of the spirit he has placed in Moses to seventy elders of the community (cf. 11:16–17, 24–30). The arrival at and departure from Sinai are framed in both books by a notice mentioning Moses’ father-in-law (“Jethro” in Ex 18:27; “Hobab” in Num 10:29–32). Finally, Israel’s defeat against Amalek in Num 14:29–35, after the people’s refusal to conquer the land in ch. 13–14, seems to be the negative parallel to Israel’s victory against Amalek reported in Ex 17:8–16. In addition, as shown by A. Schart, all the parallel episodes in the two books were apparently organized to form a “ring structure” surrounding the Sinai legislation, see the figure by SCHART, Mose, 52. 14 Niphal: Ex 15:24; 16:2; 16:7; Num 14:2, 36; 16:11; 17:6. Hiphil: Ex 16:2, 7, 8; 17:3; Num 14:27 (twice), 29, 36; 16:11 (Qere); 17:20. Only one occurrence of the root is found outside Exodus and Numbers, in Josh 9:18. 15 See especially ZENGER, Einleitung2, 37. 16 See in detail BLUM, Studien, 301ff. Some additional parallels are noted by BLOCH SMITH/SMITH, Pilgrimage Pattern, 298–301.

2.1. Introduction: Leviticus as a Separate “Book”

73

Num 2 gives instructions for the organization of the tribes around the tent of meeting; Num 3–4 describes the function of the levites in the service of the tent. The 12-day ceremony for the dedication (hknx ) of the sanctuary in Num 7 similarly supplements the erection of the sanctuary at the end of the book of Exodus (Ex 35–40), as is made clear by the opening notice in 7:1. One may note, in addition, that Num 7 is concluded by a notice in v. 89 corresponding to Ex 25:22 announcing that Yahweh shall speak to Moses from above the trpk, between the two cherubim, although in Num 7:89 only Yahweh’s voice (lwq) is present. Thus, the two notices neatly bracket the beginning of the instruction on the building of the sanctuary in Ex 25(ff.) and its dedication in Num 7. Significantly, Num 7:89 is immediately followed, in 8:1–4, by an instruction for the luminary of the sanctuary which supplements the instruction found in Ex 27:20–21, thus reinforcing the inclusion with Ex 25ff. One may add that the instruction for the consecration of the levites in Num 8:5–19 parallels that for the consecration of the priests in Ex 29; the census of Num 1 is prepared for by Ex 30:11–16;17 lastly, the long notice about the divine cloud stationed above the tent in 9:15–23 corresponds to Ex 40:36–38.18 The supplementary nature of Num 1–10 vis-à-vis Ex 25–40 is particularly evident, one may note, in the chronological notice in 7:1 situating the dedication of the sanctuary on the very day of its consecration, that is, the 1st day of the 1st month of the 2nd year of the exodus (Ex 40:17). This anachronism, compared with the indication given in Num 1:1 (1st day of the 2nd month of the 2nd year; cf. also 10:11), has often puzzled exegetes.19 Yet its presence in Num 1–10 becomes more logical if this collection was perceived as a complement to Ex 25–40, specifically, rather than to Leviticus. Lastly, as in Ex 25–40 already, most of the instructions in Num 1–10 are not rituals intended to have a permanent validity, as in Leviticus, but rather circumstantial instructions for the march in the wilderness (see Num 1–4; 7; 8:5ff.; 9:15–23; 10:1–10; the only exceptions are Num 5–6; 8:1–4 and 9:1–14).20

Most significant, in this context, is the role played by the comprehensive chronological framework found in the books of Exodus and Numbers.21 Num opens with a complete chronological notice in 1:1, with reference to the day, month and year after the exodus (first day of the second month of the second year). Such notice has no parallel in the book of Leviticus but continues the last similar chronological notice found at the end of the book of Exodus, in 40:17 (first day of the first month of the second year). Together, the two notices delineate a time span of exactly one month. In the canonical Pentateuch, this corresponds, therefore, to the revelation to Moses at Mt Sinai of the divine instructions recounted in Leviticus. Likewise, the second complete chronological notice found in Num 10:11 (20th day of the second month of 17

The connection between Ex 30:11–16 and the census of Num 1 is explicit in Ex 38:25– 26 MT = 39:2–3 LXX, where it is stated that the money obtained from the census amounted to “100 talents and 1,775 shekels, according to the sanctuary shekel; one beka per person, that is, half a shekel, according to the sanctuary shekel”, amounting to a total of 603,550 men of 20 years and over. This computation corresponds exactly to the figure obtained in the census of Num 1, compare 1:46a. 18 See especially BLUM, Studien, 302 n. 55. 19 E.g., NOTH, Numeri, 57–58. 20 BLUM, Studien, 301–302; further WATTS, Rhetorical Strategy, 117, KNIERIM, Composition, 405; ZENGER, Buch Levitikus, 61–62; and BALENTINE, Leviticus, 18. 21 See BLOCH-SMITH/SMITH, Pilgrimage Pattern, 301; further RUWE, Structure, 59–67.

74

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

the second year of the exodus) marking the departure from Sinai (see 10:12) also has a parallel in Ex 19:1, introducing the arrival of the Israelites at Mt Sinai. The chronological system formed by the notices in Ex 19:1 and Num 10:11 on one hand and Ex 40:17 and Num 1:1 on the other frames the book of Leviticus and highlights its distinct position vis-à-vis Exodus and Numbers.22 Exodus 19:1

Exodus 40:17

3rd month of the 1st year of the 1st day of the exodus 1st month of the 2nd year (New Year!)

Leviticus

Numbers 1:1

Numbers 10:11

1st day of the 2nd month of the 2nd year

20th day of the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the exodus

[1st month of the 2nd year]

Arrival at Sinai Erection of the sanctuary at MOUNT Sinai

Instructions to Moses in the Instructions to Moses from inside the tent at MOUNT Sinai

Departure from Sinai

WILDERNESS

of Sinai

There are, therefore, indisputable indications of an editorial attempt to portray Leviticus as a separate book, forming the heart of a fivefold Torah and framed by two pairs of books, Genesis/Deuteronomy and Exodus/Numbers, as argued in particular by E. Zenger. Such a conclusion necessarily implies that the Torah’s canonical division into five “books” can no longer be regarded as a “mechanical” device. Rather, it reflects an editorial understanding of the thematic coherence and the conceptual distinctiveness of each of these “books”. How far this conclusion may be correlated with the Torah’s material division at the time of its final editing is more difficult to assess with certitude, although there is at least some indirect evidence for this (see the Excursus below). In any event, the distinct and even eminent status given to the 22 For a similar idea, see BLOCH-SMITH/SMITH, Pilgrimage Pattern, 301; and now RUWE, Structure, 60. It has been recently disputed by LUCIANI, Lévitique, 83 n. 29 (similarly ID., Sainteté, 1. 351 n. 37), who rejects the connection between the “eighth day” of Lev 9:1 and Ex 40:17. Yet his objection is mainly based on a problematic assumption, namely, that the seventh-day ceremony in Lev 8 could not take place on the same day as Yahweh’s entry into the tent in Ex 40. However, such assumption is unfounded. Quite to the contrary, the close relationship between the notice in Ex 40:34–35 and the revelation of the to=ra= on sacrifices in Lev 1–7, itself immediately followed by the account of the consecration of the first priests in ch. 8, is highlighted by the formulation of Lev 1:1 which, as noted in the previous chapter (§ 1.2.2.2., page 57), is part of the same sentence, grammatically, as Ex 40:34–35. On the meaning of the “eighth day” in Lev 9, see in particular the following chapter of this study (§ 3.1.1.).

2.1. Introduction: Leviticus as a Separate “Book”

75

book of Leviticus in the “final”, canonical shape of the Torah is unmistakable, and forms the general background against which the general structure of this book needs to be assessed. This means that if we are justified in treating Leviticus as a separate “book” within the wider account stretching from the world’s creation (Gen 1) to Moses’ death (Deut 34), we also need to understand why this book was given such prominent place. Excursus 1: A Note on the Origin of the Material Division of the Penta-teuch Although the material division of the Torah into five discrete scrolls is not formally attested before the first century CE,23 there are nevertheless several allusions in writings from the Hellenistic period to the “books” of the law, in the plural, thus implying that the Torah was indeed preserved on more than one scroll.24 Such material division also seems to be implied already by the fact that the Torah’s translation into Greek was entrusted to a different translator (or sometimes even more than one translator) for each book. Finally, the fivefold division of the Torah is also indirectly attested by the influence this division exercised over other major works of this period such as the Psalter .(and possibly also 1 Enoch)25 To this evidence may be added the reference in a Qumran fragment to the “five books”, or to “books divided into five”: My#mwx Myrp [ s (1Q 30 Frg. 1, line 4),26 although it is disputed whether this reference is to the Torah27 or to the Psalter.28 If, however, the fivefold division of the Psalter was already inspired by the conceptualization of the Torah as a Pentateuch, this fragment may nevertheless be considered a further indication of the canonical status of this division in the late Hellenistic period.

23

This issue has been the subject of some interest recently and only the most significant aspects need to be discussed here. See HARAN, Book-Size; SCHMID , Buchgestalten, 35–43; ID ., Erzväter, 26–33 (lit.); BLENKINSOPP, Pentateuch, 42–47; JÜNGLING, Buch Levitikus, esp. 7–23. It is found for the first time in the writings of Josephus, Contra Apionem 1:38–39, and of Philo of Alexandria, cf. De Abrahamo 1; De Aeternitate Mundi 19 (for all these references, see JÜNGLING, Buch Levitikus, 14–15 with notes 43 and 44; BLENKINSOPP, Pentateuch, 54.). The Greek term h9 penta&teuxoj (bi/bloj) is apparently attested for the first time in the writings of the Gnostic Ptolemaios (d. about 180 CE), and the Latin equivalent pentateuchus liber is found in Tertullian. The Talmud speaks for its part of the “five fifths” of Torah (b. Chagiga 14a; b. Megilla 15a; b. Nedarim 22b; b. Sanhedrin 44a; for these references, see for instance JÜNGLING, Ibid., 10ff.). 24 This is attested in the Letter of Aristeas which, although usually referring to the Torah as the “Law” (nomo/j), in the singular, also mentions several times the “books” in the plural, see §§ 28, 30, 46, 176, 317, and on this JÜNGLING, Buch Levitikus, 15 n. 48. In addition, one passage in the Damascus Document refers to the books of the Torah, in the plural; see CD VII:15–16: Klmh tkws hrwth yrps (“The books of the Torah are the ‘hut’ of the king”). 25 That the division of the Psalter imitates the fivefold division of the Torah is a classical observation; for a recent restatement of this view, see, e.g., KRATZ, Tora Davids, 27–28. In the case of 1 Enoch and its fivefold division, see, e.g., BLENKINSOPP, Pentateuch, 45. 26 Cf. DJD I, 132–133. 27 Thus MAIER, Qumran-Essener, 1. 251; JÜNGLING, Buch Levitikus, 11. 28 The first editor, D. Barthélémy, inclined towards this solution even though he actually acknowledged both possibilities, reading: “[li]vres du Pentateuque ou plutôt du Psautier” (emphasis added).

76

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

Actually, it seems unlikely that the editors of the Torah had the technical means to reproduce the entire Torah on a single scroll.29 Evidence for scrolls of such size is sparse before the first century CE,30 and one may assume instead with M. Haran that Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, which are the longest books in the Hebrew Bible and are all limited to 24,000–25,000 words, actually correspond to the maximal size of the scrolls that could be written in biblical times.31 Interestingly, the size of the longest book of the Torah, Genesis (21,000 words), is close to this figure. This is also consistent with the practice attested at Qumran, where the biblical books which have been found were usually preserved on separate scrolls (except for the Twelve, which were probably usually contained in a single scroll), although books of the Torah could be grouped by two, as in some of the oldest pentateuchal mss (4QEx–Levf, 4QLev–Numa, and 4QpaleoGen–Exod1). But even then, a space of about four lines was usually left between the two books – a practice also attested later in the rabbinic tradition – thus acknowledging the material delineation between them.32

2.2. A Dialogue with Recent Approaches As in the case of the Torah and its division into five books, the discussion of the structure of the book of Leviticus is relatively recent. Traditionally, scholars have distinguished ch. 1–16, defined as a “ritual” or “cultic” legislation, and 17–27, more broadly concerned with the holiness of the community as a whole.33 Further sections were identified in Lev 1–16 (1–7; 8–10; 11–16, or 1–7; 8–10; 11–15 and 16), mainly on the basis of the distinction between “legal” and “narrative” sections.34 In part, such division was based on formal 29

On this issue, see the detailed discussion by SCHMID, Buchgestalten, 38–39. The earliest evidence we have for the moment is the scroll found in Wadi Murabba(at and dated from the first century CE (Mur 1), containing fragments of Genesis (Gen 32–35*), Exodus (4–6*) and Numbers (34; 36). As surmised by the editor, MILIK, DJD II, 75–78, 75, it may have comprised the entire Torah (see also SCHMID, Erzväter, 27). Note also that scrolls containing the entire Torah, such as attested in post-biblical Judaism, were mainly for public display (as noted, e.g., by BLENKINSOPP, Pentateuch, 46). 31 HARAN, Book-Size, 171–172. 32 Admittedly, the practice of leaving a blank between the two books is only evidenced in 4QpaleoGen–Exod1 and in 4QLev–Numa (see DJD IX, 17–18.25–26, for 4QpaleoGen– Exod1; and DJD XII, 163, for 4QLev–Numa); in the case of 4Q Ex–Levf the transition between Exodus and Leviticus was not preserved in the fragmentary manuscript, but it is generally assumed that the same device occurred there. 33 This approach can still be found in some recent commentaries or articles on Leviticus. See for instance LEVINE, art. Leviticus, 312; KAISER, Jr, Leviticus, 986–987; STAUBLI, Levitikus, 39ff.; most recently DEIANA, Levitico, 19–21. 34 Thus inter alia BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 306; BERTHOLET , Leviticus, v–viii; ELLIGER , Leviticus, 7–10; NOTH, Leviticus, 9ff.; HARRISSON, Leviticus, 36–37; DAMROSCH, Leviticus, 66–67; PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 20–21; and HARTLEY, Leviticus, xxx–xxxv. All identify on this basis a sixfold structure consisting of Lev 1–7; 8–10; 11–15; 16; 17–26; 27. CHILDS, Introduction, 182, writes that, “there is a wide agreement regarding the structure of the book of Leviticus. Chapters 1–7 deal with the sacrificial system, 8–10 with the inaugural 30

2.2. A Dialogue with Recent Approaches

77

clues, such as the subscription in 7:37–38; yet it also betrays the influence of source criticism. Namely, the separation between ch. 1–16 and 17–27 matches the distinction between P and H, whereas the opposition between “legal” and “narrative” sections reflects the traditional division between Priestly narrative (“Pg”) and later legal supplements (“Ps”). Gradually, and partly connected to the growing rejection of the classical source criticism of Leviticus, many of these divisions have been viewed critically. The distinction between “cultic laws” in ch. 1–16 and “holiness laws” in 17–27, for instance, is much too general and imprecise to be regarded as the major organizing principle of the book.35 Similarly, the rigid division between “law” and “narrative” proves to be problematic, as various authors have observed recently.36 Surely, Leviticus consists mostly of divine rules given to Moses. But these instructions are consistently introduced by a formula (usually “Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying…”)37 presenting them as reported speeches by the pentateuchal narrator. As such, they cannot be dissociated from the previous narration in Gen–Ex. As a matter of fact, the connection is underlined in the first verse of Leviticus: Yahweh, who has come to reside among the Israelites at the end of the book of Exodus (Ex 40), now addresses his community from inside his sanctuary (Lev 1:1ff.). This means that in Lev 1–7 and 8–10 we do not have “law” on one hand and “narrative” on the other, but rather two distinct sub-genres within the Leviticus account corresponding to the report of two distinct kinds of events: actions on one service, 11–16 laws of impurities, and 17–26 laws of holiness. Chapter 27 is an appendix on various gifts to the sanctuary”; a similar view is held by GORMAN, Divine Presence, 2–3. W ENHAM , Leviticus, 4, identifies a fourfold division, consisting of Lev 1–7; 8–10; 11–16; 17–27; the same division is apparently considered by WATTS, Rhetorical Strategy, 16–17. B ALENTINE, in his commentary on Leviticus, identifies five major sections: ch. 1–7; 8–10; 11–15; 16; 17–27. 35 Lev 17–27 also contains numerous instructions for the cult (especially in ch. 17; 21–22; 23; and 27; but see also 19:5–8; 19:20–22; etc.); within ch. 1–16, only Lev 1–7 are concerned stricto sensu with this topic. Moreover, the issue of holiness is found only in some passages of the collection of Lev 17–27 (it is absent, for instance, from ch. 17–18) and is actually already addressed in Lev 11 (cf. 11:43–45), placed significantly ahead of the collection on impurities (Lev 11–16). 36 See for instance SCHWARTZ, Priestly Account, 114–117; DAHM, Opferkult, esp. 192ff.; RUWE, Structure, 57–58; and most recently MARX, Systèmes sacrificiels, 156. 37 rm)l h#m-l) hwhy rbdyw, cf. Lev 4:1; 5:14; 5:20; 6:1; 6:12; 6:17; 7:22; 7:28; 8:1; 12:1; 14:1; 17:1; 18:1; 19:1; 20:1; 21:16; 22:1; 22:17; 22:26; 23:1; 23:9; 23:23; 23:26; 23:33; 24:1; 24:13; 25:1; 27:1. In 11:1; 13:1; 14:33 and 15:1, Aaron is included with Moses, and this is emphasized in the first occurrence (11:1): Mhl) rm)l Nrh)-l)w h#m-l) hwhy rbdyw. In 10:8, Aaron exceptionally replaces Moses as the addressee of the divine speech. In 1:1, the formula has been included into a broader description, but it basically remains the same. The only real exceptions are in 16:1–2aa as well as in 21:1. See now the convenient annex found in RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 369–372, where the introductions to the divine speeches in Ex 25–Num 10 are listed; and see also WARNING, Literary Artistry, 40–41.

78

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

hand, and speeches (mostly by the deity) on the other. Besides, in some parts of the book such as ch. 10 or 24:10–23 the two sub-genres are so closely intertwined that a neat division between them is actually impossible. Especially in the last decade, the growing rejection of the traditional ways of organizing the text of Leviticus has led to a series of studies, highlighting new, central divisions and offering accordingly original suggestions for the book’s overall structure. Contrary to classical structures that were mostly based on content (such as the division between “cultic laws” and “holiness laws”), these studies have usually stressed the importance of formal markers and devices for any attempt to discern the book’s inner logic. In particular, many of the recent proposals have sought to identify the structure of Leviticus on the basis either of a recurring feature or of a general principle of division, possibly combined with further formal observations.38 Characteristic in this respect is the approach developed by M. Douglas in various studies. In a 1993 essay, she had already proposed understanding Leviticus as belonging to the genre of “ring composition”,39 as can be found, e.g., in Greek classical poetry (Pindar), and she developed this proposal in a 1995 article.40 In a ring composition, the coherence as well as the structural and thematic unity of a literary work rely mainly upon the continuous resumption and development of a given theme, which is emphasized by some kind of parallelism between the introduction and the conclusion; this might account, in particular, for the degree of repetition found in Leviticus.41 Douglas identifies this introduction, or exposition, in ch. 1–7, the instructions on sacred offerings. These chapters have a clear conclusion in 7:37–38, echoing the book’s beginning (1:1–2), and introduce the two basic issues developed in the rest of Leviticus: “the holiness of things that have been dedicated to the Lord and the respect due to things that already belong to the Lord”.42 Later in the book, ch. 1–7 are echoed by ch. 23, giving additional instructions regarding the required offerings for holy days; ch. 23 thus corresponds, according to Douglas’ analysis, to the beginning of the book’s conclusion. In between, she identifies a first “turning point” in ch. 19, which is signaled by the fact that 38

For a review of recent approaches, see now especially LUCIANI, Sainteté, 1. 209–241. DOUGLAS , Forbidden Animals, 9–11. See also her previous approach to the book of Numbers (DOUGLAS , Wilderness), where she analyzed the structural function of poetic devices, especially parallelism, following the lead of MILGROM, Numbers, esp. xxii ff. 40 DOUGLAS, Poetic Structure. 41 DOUGLAS, Poetic Structure, 247–248: “Ring composition is not merely a matter of inserting at the end a word from the beginning. The whole text has to be concluded, the themes that have been announced in the beginning have to be brought to fulfillment. There has to be some recognizable interlocking of the conclusion with the beginning. The effort to achieve this artistic completion accounts for much of the repetition, because the composer needs to keep reminding the reader or listener of where the theme is going to be taken”. 42 DOUGLAS, Ibid., 249. 39

2.2. A Dialogue with Recent Approaches

79

this chapter is framed by two parallel texts in 18 and 20. This artistic device underscores the “centrality” of Lev 19 within the whole book;43 for Douglas, this is because ch. 19 equates purity with righteousness (and therefore impurity with unrighteousness) and thus unveils the deep meaning of Leviticus as a whole. Lev 19 is itself parallel to ch. 26, which forms the second turning point within the composition; both chapters are concluded, notes Douglas, by references to Yahweh who delivered Israel from slavery in Egypt (19:36b; 26:45), and they represent therefore major structural divisions. The first section, ch. 1–17, is echoed by 21–25. Ch. 21–22, dealing with defilement of priests and blemished animals, parallel Lev 8–10 (“consecration of Aaron and his sons, defilement of the sons”) and 11–17 (“unclean and blemished things”), while ch. 23–25, introduced by the offerings on holy days, correspond to Lev 1–7.44 A similar structure is proposed by Douglas in her recent monograph on Leviticus,45 but the model for the book’s structure is now borrowed from “pattern poems” in ancient Greek literature, in which “the pattern of lines on the page made by variation in the number of syllables per line gives an illustration of the topic of the poem. A poem on a dove is in the shape of a dove’s wings (…).”46 Regarding Leviticus, the book’s elaborate structure, according to Douglas, is a literary equivalent to the structure of its main theme, the wilderness Tabernacle itself, a verbal symbol of it, one might say, so that reading Leviticus equates a spiritual pilgrimage to the sanctuary. In this model, the two accounts in Lev 10 and 24:10–23 are identified with the outer and inner veils of the sanctuary serving to separate the inner-sanctum, the outer-sanctum and the temple court.47 On this ground, Douglas divides the book into three sections of unequal length, each mirroring main spatial divisions in the structure of the temple itself. Ch. 1–17, the first section, form a ring, with Lev 17 resuming the theme of ch. 1–7 (sacred offerings), and thus actualize a tour of the court. Two major subsections, Lev 1–7 and 11–17, echo each other and form a frame around ch. 8–10, the entrance of the sanctuary.48 The tripartite composition of Lev 18–20, where ch. 19, the teaching on righteousness, is framed by two parallel chapters (18 and 20), corresponds to the passage of the first, outer screen, giving access to the sanctuary. Ch. 21–24 then describe the gradual progression inside the sanctuary towards the second, inner veil. This description culminates in 24:1–9 with the presence of additional instructions for two pieces of furniture, the candelabra (24:2–4) and the 43

DOUGLAS, Ibid., 252. For a figure of the structure thus obtained, see DOUGLAS, Ibid., 253. It basically corresponds to the model previously sketched in her 1993 article (DOUGLAS, Forbidden Animals). 45 DOUGLAS, Leviticus, esp. 195–251 (ch. 10–12). 46 Leviticus, 197. See also the poem by Dosiadas entitled “The first altar”, quoted by her on p. 198. 47 DOUGLAS, Ibid., 195–217. 48 DOUGLAS, Ibid., 222–227. 44

80

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

holy bread permanently displayed on the table (24:5–9),49 both of which were already mentioned in the instructions for building the Tabernacle, in Ex 25 (cf. 25:31–40 and 25:30). The second story of divine sanction, in Lev 24:10–23, marks the separation between the outer-sanctum and the innersanctum, and corresponds to the presence of the second curtain. Behind this curtain, the book of Leviticus reaches its climax, according to Douglas’ analysis, with ch. 25–27.50 Lev 26 brings to completion the theme of righteousness initiated at the beginning of the second section, in Lev 19. As in Lev 18–20, ch. 26 is framed by Lev 25 and Lev 27, both chapters dealing with the issue of redemption and thus exemplifying, each in its own manner, the nature of divine justice. Finally, ch. 27, with its discussion of things dedicated to Yahweh, returns to the basic theme permeating the whole book, “the things that have been consecrated and the things that belong to the Lord”.51 In a 1996 essay, C.R. Smith also considered the importance of narratives in Leviticus as marking major structural divisions within the book.52 But contrary to Douglas, he regards the alternation of laws and narratives as constituting the basic structure of Leviticus and identifies on this basis a seven-part structure, with three accounts in ch. 8–10; 16 and 24:10–23 being framed by groups of laws in Lev 1–7; 11–15; 17:1–24:9; and 25–27. Smith notes that these three “narratives” are linked to each other by various references. 16:1 explicitly refers to the death of Nadab and Abihu in ch. 10, while the theme of 24:10–23, the equal application of the law to the “native” (xrz) ) and the “stranger who sojourns among you” (rg) is already prepared for by a notice in Lev 16 (16:29).53 He further observes that the three stories are all closely connected with the groups of laws in which they are inserted, and which they help to delineate on a conceptual level. Thus ch. 8–9 constitute a fitting conclusion to the instructions of ch. 1–7 on sacrifice, whereas ch. 10 introduces the central notions of the following sections, namely, purity and holiness (see 10:10–11). The ritual of Lev 16 deals centrally with the issue of uncleanness and pollution characterizing the collection of ch. 11–15; but the end of the chapter (v. 29–34) also prepares the reader for some major issues in ch. 17– 27, particularly by enhancing the importance of the weekly Sabbath. Finally, the presence of 24:10–23 is actually motivated, according to Smith, by the fact that this story deals with the status of the stranger, that is, life in a foreign land, and therefore exile, which will be one major issue in ch. 26.54 Contrary 49

DOUGLAS, Ibid., 227–228. Cf. DOUGLAS, Ibid., 241ff. 51 DOUGLAS, Ibid., 244. 52 SMITH, Literary Structure, esp. 22ff. Smith’s proposal seems to have been inspired by Douglas’ earlier analysis of the book of Numbers, where she tried to demonstrate the structural significance of the alternation between laws and narratives; cf. SMITH, 22–23 n. 10. 53 SMITH, Literary Structure, 23–24. 54 SMITH, Literary Structure, 25–26. 50

81

2.2. A Dialogue with Recent Approaches

to the prevailing view, therefore, the major division in Lev 17–26 (27) is not between ch. 17–22 and 23–26, but between 17–24 and 25–27. Smith correctly observes that the explanation of Lev 23–25 as being characterized by the issue of “sacred times”, such as argued by V. Wagner,55 is unable to account for the episode of 24:10–23 in the middle of this section. He notes in addition that 24:1–9 is not fully justified either in this structure, since it should have been placed between the instructions on the weekly Sabbath and annual festivals in ch. 23, and not between Lev 23 and 25.56 Ch. 25–27 are correlated by the theme of “redemption” (l)g), although the latter does not occur in ch. 26. In this model, Lev 27 no longer forms an “appendix” to the rest of the book, but represents, according to Smith, the culmination of what he designates as “the integrating principle of chs. 25–27 […] reclaiming for God that which is, or those who are, already God’s”. The double movement which, from the offerer’s perspective, is implied in Lev 27 (dedication of personal belongings to Yahweh and their redemption) encapsulates, in a sense, the core of the theological statement of the book as a whole. It celebrates the fact that everything belongs to Yahweh, who also has the power of redeeming Israel from slavery as he did in the past (Ex 1–15) and will do in the future (Lev 26:44–45). In this regard, Lev 27 even takes, in Smith’s understanding, something of a proleptic dimension.57 A sevenfold structure has also been proposed by E. Zenger, though his approach to this issue differs significantly from that of Smith. For Zenger, the center of this structure is formed by ch. 16–17; the other sections are arranged around it following a chiastic pattern, of the type A–B–C–X–C’–B’–A’: Leviticus 1–7

8–10

11–15

Opfer

Priester

Alltag

16–17

18–20

21–22

23–26.27

VER-

Alltag

Priester

Opfer + Feste

SÖHNUNG

This model, initially given without justification,58 has later been argued at length by Zenger in a 1999 essay on Leviticus.59 In the latter, he attempts to demonstrate, in particular, (a) that Lev 16 and 17 comprise together the center of the book, and (b) that the main structuring device in Leviticus is formed by the successive introductions to divine speeches, close examination of which 55

Cf. WAGNER, Existenz, 314–315. Cf. SMITH, Literary Structure, 26–28. 57 SMITH, Literary Structure, 30. 58 In Zenger’s first edition of his “Einleitung in das Alte Testament” (1995); see ID., Einleitung, 34–39, esp. 39. This scheme is missing in the fourth edition (see on p. 74–79). In the fifth edition (p. 65), basically the same figure is found, although in a more developed form. 59 ZENGER, Buch Levitikus, esp. 62–76. See also previously ZENGER, Pentateuch (1996). 56

82

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

corroborates the notion of a sevenfold division of Leviticus (= ch. 1–7; 8–10; 11–15; 16–17; 18–20; 21–22; 23–26/27) centered around Lev 16/17, each section being singled out by a distinct introduction.60 In Lev 1–7, the nine introductions all begin with the phrase, rm)l h#m-l) hwhy rbdyw. The section formed by ch. 8–10, where the divine instruction to Moses opens with an order not to speak to the Israelites, as in 1–7, but to “take” (xql) Aaron and his sons to consecrate them as priests, marks a first caesura within the book. The section Lev 11–15 is likewise set apart by its double address to both Moses and Aaron. The introduction to Lev 16–17, 16:1–2 is unparalleled in the book. Ch. 18–20 all concern the Israelites; the commission formula in 18:2 and 20:2, which simply mentions the “Israelites”, builds a frame around the more developed formulation of 19:2 that reads “the whole community of the Israelites”. The introduction to Lev 21 is also unique because it uses rm) instead of rbd for both the introduction to the divine speech and the commission to Moses to speak to the community, a stylistic device that has no parallel elsewhere in Leviticus.61 Moreover, the orders given by Yahweh to Moses are destined for “the priests, sons of Aaron”, an address unique within the book. As to the last section, ch. 23–26 (27), it is distinguished by its systematic address to the Israelites (23:1–2; 23:9–10; 23:23–24; 23:33–34; 24:1–2; 25:1–2; 27:1–2). Zenger completes his analysis by a few additional observations intended to confirm this division of the different sections of the book.62 He notes in particular that sections comprising ch. 1–7 and 11–15 are closed by a similar subscription (7:37–38 and 15:32–33) containing the phrase hrwt(h) t)z; furthermore, the last sentence of 7:38 is picked up almost verbatim at the end of the book (27:34). Finally, he observes that the three sections consisting of Lev 18–20; 21–22; 23–26 (27) are concluded by parenetic statements comprising some similar terms.

Concerning the structural and thematic unity between ch. 16 and 17, the book’s central section, Zenger notes in particular: (1) common topographic references (16:7; 17:4, 5, 6, 9: “entrance of the tent of meeting”; 16:26; 17:3: “in the camp”; 16:27; 17:3: “outside the camp”); (2) the central role played by the motive of blood (Md) in these two chapters; (3) the presence of the theme of purgation, or “expiation”, with the root rpk and the phrase kipper (al (cf. 16:19, 34; 17:11); and, lastly (4), the parallelism between the formulation of the introductions in 16:1–2 and 17:1–2, both mentioning that Moses must speak to Aaron.63 As is already apparent from his scheme above, the centrality of Lev 16–17 within the book is underscored, in Zenger’s model, by the concentric organization of the book’s other sections in corresponding pairs around these two chapters. Ch. 11–15 and 18–20 are explicitly connected by the parallel between Lev 11:44–45 and 20:25–26; both sections are complementary and concern “purity” (11–15) and “holiness” (18–20) in everyday life.64 The instruction about the holiness of priests in 21–22 corresponds to the section recounting the consecration of Aaron and his sons in 8–10, whereas 60

Cf. ZENGER, Buch Levitikus, 65–69. See however Lev 16:2. 62 ZENGER, Buch Levitikus, 69–70. 63 Cf. ZENGER, Buch Levitikus, 64–65 n. 45. 64 Ibid., 71–72. 61

2.2. A Dialogue with Recent Approaches

83

ch. 23–26 are the counterpart of 1–7.65 As to the position of ch. 16–17 as the center of Leviticus, it implies that the book’s dominant theme is the reconciliation between God and man operated by the ritual.66 Zenger’s understanding of ch. 16–17 as forming the center of Leviticus has recently been resumed by one of his students, B. Jürgens, in a study of Lev 16.67 In addition to a detailed description of the two rituals found in Lev 16 and 17, Jürgens develops and refines Zenger’s arguments concerning the connection between the two chapters. He emphasizes the proximity between 16:29–34 and Lev 17, especially with regard to the mention of the “stranger” in 16:29, and tries to show that the two chapters are complementary with regard to the theology of “cosmic restitution” associated with the sanctuary. Thus, ch. 16 represents the culmination of the purification rites in which blood serves as the main instrument in the restoration of the cosmic order after the latter has been disrupted by the community’s crimes; Lev 17, for its part, gives the rationale for the taboo imposed by Yahweh on blood in Gen 9 (cf. 17:10–12): blood was given to the Israelites to be offered on the altar and purge them from their crimes.68

Most recently, a concentric structure has also been proposed by D. Luciani in a detailed monograph.69 Like Douglas, Luciani also lends considerable attention to formal devices such as concatenations and repetitions. He finds a starting point in the three introductions to divine speeches in Lev 1:1; 16:1– 2aa and 25:1, all of which present unique features. 1:1 and 25:1 are the sole introductions in Leviticus to contain a topographic mention, while 16:1–2aa is also singled out by the reference to the death of Aaron’s elder sons and the connection thus created with the story in Lev 10. The presence of a subscript in Lev 7:35–38, 26:46, and 27:34, as well as at the end of ch. 16 (v. 34b), suggests in addition that ch. 1–7 and 25–27 form the two extremities of a structure whose center should be sought in Lev 16 (= A–X–A’), a conclusion corroborated by some formal and terminological parallels between ch. 1–7 and 25–27.70 Another parallel is identified between Lev 8–10 and 23–24 (= B–B’); this is done on the basis of the analogy between the celebrations of ch. 65

Ibid., 73–74. ZENGER , Buch Levitikus, 71: “Im Zentrum des Buches steht mit Lev 16–17 die Botschaft vom versöhnungswilligen Gott, der ganz Israel die Gabe bzw. die Gnade kultischer Versöhnung geschenkt hat”. Besides, this theme does not stand isolated within the Torah but is part of a wider pattern. Indeed, the enumeration of three different types of sins, which are cleansed on behalf of the Israelites on the Day of Atonement in Lev 16 (cf. 16:21 and already 16:16), is framed by two texts also dealing with divine justice and forgiveness in Ex 34:6–7, 9 and Num 14:18 in which a similar enumeration can be found. 67 Cf. JÜRGENS, Heiligkeit, 126–186, esp. 180–186. 68 JÜRGENS, Heiligkeit, 184–185. 69 LUCIANI, Sainteté, 1. 243–334 (ch. 3), where he builds on his previous analysis of the structure of each of the thirty-six units which he identifies in Leviticus, each corresponding to a divine discourse (see on p. 15–205). For a brief presentation of his model for the macrostructure of Leviticus, see already ID., Lévitique, 73–78. 70 LUCIANI, Sainteté, 1. 288ff. See, e.g., the execution formula h#m t) hwhy hwc r#)(k) found in 7:38a; 16:34b and 27:34a. 66

84

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

8–9 (consecration of the clergy and the sanctuary) on one hand and of 23:1– 24:9 on the other (sacred times in the year and daily/weekly liturgy inside the sanctuary) and, above all, of the two accounts in Lev 10 and 24:10–23, each of which revolves around a major transgression.71 Ch. 11–12, for their part, have a parallel in 22:17–33 (= C–C’). Like ch. 11, 22:17–33 also deals with animals (this time, brought to the sanctuary rather than eaten at home), and the second part of this instruction is introduced in the same way as ch. 12 (compare 12:2 and 22:27).72 Finally, the last correspondence established is between Lev 13–15 and 17:1–22:16 (= D–D’). These two sections are united by various terminological and formal devices: see, e.g., the instructions for a person struck with scale disease in 13:45–46 and for the high priest in 21:10, 12). For the main, they pursue the articulation of the themes of uncleanness/ sanctity already addressed in sections C and C’.73 All these various proposals contain important observations and open several stimulating perspectives for the interpretation of Leviticus in its “final” form. Nevertheless, these models also contain obvious flaws, and it seems difficult to regard any of them as being entirely compelling. Douglas’ recent interpretation of the book of Leviticus as a literary projection of the wilderness sanctuary is based on a correct insight (as already Ex 25ff., Leviticus does include a literary representation of the sanctuary),74 but her attempt to model the whole structure of the book on that of the Tabernacle is obviously forced (e.g., how are we to explain that the only chapter describing Aaron’s entry into the inner-sanctum, Lev 16, stands in Douglas’ schema in the outer court, where it represents the structural parallel to Lev 2!?).75 On the whole, most 71

Ibid., 1. 98–305. Ibid., 1. 305–311. 73 Ibid., 1. 311–325. 74 Furthermore, the reader/listener of Leviticus is allowed even into the most remote sections – see, in particular, the inner-sanctum in Lev 16 – which, according to this legislation itself, are strictly forbidden to him. In this respect, it is legitimate to understand Leviticus as a literary and spiritual “pilgrimage” of sorts in the “textual” sanctuary of the wilderness. 75 Cf. the figures in DOUGLAS, Leviticus, 223 and 224. More generally, one major methodological problem in her analogy is that it oscillates permanently between various levels of symbolism. On one hand, texts such as ch. 25–27, for instance, can be located inside the inner-sanctum because they represent, in Douglas’ opinion, the summit of the teaching of the book on divine justice and moral righteousness even though they have nothing to do with the actual inner-sanctum. But on the other hand, at several places in her study the topographic setting given by the texts themselves appears to be the major criterion for locating them within the tripartite Tabernacle-like structure of Leviticus. Ch. 1ff. and 17 are located in the “outer court” section of the book because this is where sacrifices are offered according to the texts themselves. When getting to the “second screen” (ch. 18–24), Douglas argues that the placement of these chapters in the middle section of the book is corroborated by the fact that the section formed by 24:1–9 contains instructions for two pieces belonging to this part of the Tabernacle (DOUGLAS, Leviticus, 227): “So the reader of Leviticus is correctly following the layout of the tabernacle, because there are two of the three named pieces of furniture here, on north and south. And this is the right place for Leviticus to explain two of the tasks which the 72

2.2. A Dialogue with Recent Approaches

85

of the alleged parallels identified by Douglas in Leviticus are rather vague and only seldom corroborated by a rigorous formal analysis. For instance, Douglas identifies two similar “frames” with a central structuring function in ch. 18/20 (framing ch. 19) and 25/27 (framing ch. 26); but while 18 and 20 deal indeed with the same topics, this can be said only superficially of 25 and 27.76 The most compelling case for a “ring structure” in Leviticus is the inclusion (or the “latch”, in Douglas’ terms) between ch. 27 and ch. 1ff., which is indeed unmistakable, but even there it fails to take into account the difference between these instructions, since Lev 27 is not simply about consecration of persons, animals and things to the sanctuary (and therefore to the deity), but deals with the monetary redemption of such dedicated things. Therefore, to assume with Douglas that ch. 27 is the necessary conclusion of the first chapters of the book seems forced. In the case of Smith’s proposal, his hypothesis of a systematic alternation between “law” and “narrative” obliges him to classify Lev 16 as “narrative”, whereas it is entirely a command given by God to Moses (except for v. 34b).77 Besides, the parallels he establishes between Lev 16 and 24:10–23 are hardly convincing.78 Lastly, his model is still too dependent on the classical source-critical division between narrative and legal sections in Leviticus, which was already criticized above.

priests must perform”. But if so, why is there no reference whatsoever to the inner-sanctum in the third section of Leviticus as well, ch. 25–27? 76 Ch. 25 concerns the sale and redemption of land, village houses and persons during the Jubilee cycle; ch. 27 deals with monetary redemption of persons and material possessions which have been dedicated by vow to the sanctuary. In both texts, the root l)g (to redeem) is predominant, and there is a reference to the Jubilee in 27:16–24, but the contexts and the issues addressed are nevertheless quite distinct. In the case of Lev 25, the issue is the fundamental notion that neither ancestral land nor persons can be sold definitively because both belong to Yahweh himself (cf. 25:55); in ch. 27, what is at stake is the possibility of offering a monetary compensation for a person, an animal or a thing consecrated to the temple, and therefore of withdrawing this person or this thing from the sphere of the sacred (more on this point below, Excursus 2, page 94). Moreover, while ch. 19 is separated from 18 and 20 by a distinct introduction (19:1) and a final motive-clause (19:36b–37), there is no similar introduction in ch. 26 contrary to ch. 27. Instead, ch. 25 and 26 are one single divine speech, whose coherence is further emphasized by the nice inclusion formed by the reference to the setting of the revelation at Mt Sinai in the first verse of Lev 25 and in the last verse of Lev 26. 77 Yet even the presence of a compliance report at the end of Lev 16 (16:34b) has a parallel in other texts of Leviticus which Smith classifies as “law” (cf. 21:24; 23:44). A further argument for regarding Lev 16 as a narrative is adduced by SMITH , Literary Structure, 23, who refers to a statement by HARTLEY, Leviticus, xxxi–xxxii, suggesting that the present text of Lev 16 “may have been construed on a report of the first observance of the Day of Atonement” – in other words, it would have been an account before being a prescription. Not only is this view highly questionable, but from a methodological perspective, one should not use a diachronic hypothesis to back what is otherwise a strictly synchronic approach to Leviticus. 78 The issue of equality of native and “sojourner” before the law, cf. 16:29, is emphasized throughout Lev 17–27, even if, admittedly, it is especially dealt with in 24:10ff. Moreover, what the end of Lev 16 introduces is more generally the motif of Sabbatical rest (cf. 16:29–31), which plays no role at all in 24:10–23 but is developed in the calendar instruction of Lev 23, where the ritual of Lev 16 is explicitly mentioned (23:26–32), so that the connection between these two chapters is even more apparent than between Lev 16 and 24:10–23.

86

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

The highly sophisticated concentric structures identified by Zenger and Luciani similarly raise various difficulties, both as regards the parallels identified and the methodology that is used. Zenger’s emphasis on the structuring function of introductions to divine speeches is justified, but the interpretation of the variations in these formulas is a matter of debate. It is not necessarily obvious that all the variations emphasized by Zenger belong to the same level, and his analysis, here, raises a methodological issue. Why should we decide, for instance, that the introduction in 8:1–2 corresponds to a division of the highest level, and not that in 6:1–2?79 A further question has to do with the relationship between this criterion and other major formal devices. As noted above, Zenger does discuss some of them, such as subscriptions for example, but he fails to address others that appear to contradict his own model.80 Besides, most of the parallels he identifies between the sections of his concentric structure are of a rather superficial nature. E.g., as to the comparison between ch. 1–7 and 23–26 (27), sacrificial offerings play only a limited role in 23–27, and the parallel is much more significant with other portions of Leviticus, such as in particular ch. 17 and 22:17–30. A similar criticism applies to virtually all the analogies construed by Zenger.81 Lastly, the attempt to connect ch. 16 and 17 is no less problematic. The arguments advanced for this connection by Zenger and, most recently, by Jürgens are weak.82 Besides, neither Zenger nor Jürgens really

79

In Lev 21–22, the mention of Aaron and his sons as the recipients of the divine speech, as in 6:1–2a, delimitates a specific section. Admittedly, there are other singularities in the formulation of 21:1–2 (which uses rm) instead of rbd); but this is also true for 6:1–2a, where the commission to Moses to speak to Aaron and his sons is not introduced by rbd as usual but by the verb hwc; elsewhere in Leviticus, this device is found only in 24:1. 80 This is the case, for example, with the various compliance reports in Leviticus: 16:34b marks a clear division between ch. 16 and 17, which Zenger wants to hold together; the next compliance report, 21:24, is found at the end of ch. 21, i.e., just in the middle of the sixth section he delineates within the book (ch. 21–22); and similarly, 23:44 separates ch. 23 from ch. 24, both of which are part of his seventh and last section. 81 Certainly, the issue of purity is dominant in both Lev 11–15 and 18–20, but it is not limited to these chapters since it also occurs in ch. 21; 22 and 26. The characterization “Alltag” (everyday life) for the two sections is too general to be relevant; it is not appropriate, in any case, for Lev 13–14 since these chapters specifically deal with cases of exceptional impurity (skin-disease) and are not addressed to all Israelites but only to Aaron and his sons. The parallel between ch. 8–10 and 21–22 is similarly somewhat far-fetched. Admittedly, the issue of the priests’ specific holiness does occur in both sections (ZENGER, Buch Levitikus, 72–74), but this is also true for Lev 6–7 and it cannot be said to be the dominant issue in ch. 8–10. The consecration of priests in Lev 8 is only preliminary to the offering of the first public sacrifices upon the altar in Lev 9, which forms the real climax of ch. 8–10. Also, there is no parallel to the public theophany at the end of ch. 9 (v. 23b–24) in Lev 21–22. The dominant theme of Lev 8–10, therefore, is not so much the purity and sanctity of the priests as the inauguration of the sacrificial cult. In addition, the structure of Lev 21–22 is actually rather reminiscent of ch. 6–7, where specific instructions for the priests (6:1–7:10 // 21:1–22:16) are completed by instructions for all the Israelites (7:11–38 // 22:17–33). 82 The notion that the topography of Lev 17, with the many successive references to the entrance of the tent and more generally the “encampment scenery” (Lager-Szenerie), is exceptional in Lev 18–27 and would therefore rather link ch. 17 with the previous chapter, Lev 16, is contradicted by the episode of 24:10–23. Zenger is thus obliged to argue that 24:10–23 is secondary in Lev 17–27 (Ibid., 64–65 n. 45), a point which may well be correct (see further below, Chapter Five of this study) but is irrelevant in a study of the structure of the book in its

2.2. A Dialogue with Recent Approaches

87

addresses the various indications pointing to a structural division between the two chapters, such as the presence of a compliance notice at the end of Lev 16 (v. 34b), or the formula introducing the divine speech in Lev 17, which has no parallel whatsoever in ch. 1–16 since it is the first time in the book that Moses is commanded to speak to “Aaron, his sons, and all the Israelites” (17:2aa).83 As for Luciani’s model, finally, a detailed criticism of his proposal would be required to discuss his in-depth analysis of the thirty-six units which he identifies in the book and which forms the backbone of his macro-structure of the book. Yet here also, several of the parallels established appear to be problematic, as, e.g., between Lev 11–12 and 22:17–33 or between 13–15 and 17:1–22:16. Not only do these sections of the book have comparatively little in common, but, above all, the divisions proposed disregard several important devices. For instance, the separation between ch. 11–12 on one hand and 13–15 on the other seems forced, if not arbitrary, from the perspective of the form, style and content of ch. 11–15.84 The same could be said for the division between ch. 17:1–22:16 and 22:17–33, or 23–24 and 25.85

“final” form (Endgestalt). (See, besides, Zenger’s own comment on this point, on p. 63–64). Moreover, even if one agrees that the “encampment-scenery” is more marked in Lev 17 than in most of the rest of ch. 18–27 (but cf. 19:20–22 and 21:23, in addition to 24:10–23), this connects ch. 17 with all of Lev 1–16 (cf. especially 14:1–8), and not merely with ch. 16 where this scenery only plays a role in the case of the he-goat for “Azazel” (16:20ff.). The reference in both chapters to blood and the “purgation” operated by the offering, with the expression l(-rpk, is hardly significant, and only underlines the fact that both texts deal with sacrificial purgation, as Lev 4–5 previously. In this regard, Jürgens’ idea that the statement on the purgative capacity of the blood of sacrifices offered on the altar in 17:11 is a comment on the ritual of Lev 16 is untenable. The context of Lev 17 clearly refers to offerings brought by individuals (cf. 17:3–7, 8–9), and 17:11 seems much more to allude, in this respect, to the instructions of Lev 4–5 than to the exceptional ritual carried out once a year by the high priest on behalf of the whole community. Admittedly, because Lev 17 is placed immediately after ch. 16, 17:11 may be read more generally as a comment on the purgative, atoning function of the sacrificial cult in Lev 1–16, climaxing in ch. 16 (on this point, see further the analysis of Lev 17:11 below, § 5.2.1., particularly pages 422–424). But it is certainly not the case that 17:11 has exclusively the ritual of Lev 16 in view. Similarly, the connection between 16:29ff. and Lev 17 because of the reference to the “immigrant” in v. 29 (cf. 17:8, 13, 15) is quite superficial. The motif of the immigrant recurs throughout Lev 17–27 (recall that C.R. Smith, for instance, views 16:29 as preparing for Lev 24:10–23!) and, as already noted above when discussing Smith’s solution, 16:29–31 introduces much more the motif of Sabbatical rest, that plays no role whatsoever in Lev 17 and is rather directed towards Lev 23; 25 and 26. 83 Curiously enough, Zenger notes this phenomenon and correctly emphasizes its structural significance (ID., Buch Levitikus, 67) but fails to draw the logical conclusion (i.e., ch. 16 and 17 do not belong to the same sequence), arguing instead that both 16:2 and 17:2 refer to Aaron with the same formulation (Nrh)-l) rbd) and thus simply omitting the rest of the address in 17:2! On the contrary, the introduction to Lev 17 has been conceived in view of the subsequent chapters. Thus, the detailed mention in 17:2aa of Aaron, his sons, and the Israelites introduces all the recipients of the divine instructions found in ch. 18–22. Lev 18–20 is addressed to the Israelites in general, 21:1–15 to the “sons of Aaron”, 21:16–23 to Aaron alone, 22:1–16 to “Aaron and his sons”. On this, see below in this chapter, § 2.3.1. 84 Lev 11–15 shares a unique concern (bodily pollution), and the coherence of this legislation is emphasized by various devices, in particular the repetition of the phrase “this is the instruction…” (X-trwt t)z) that systematically introduces each subscription in this section

88

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

Apart from their various flaws, however, the main issue raised by all these models is of a still different nature: none of them acknowledges the fact that Leviticus is not simply a collection of divine speeches more or less carefully arranged, but a section of a wider narrative extending from the world’s creation to Moses’ death.86 Somehow, this point is missed by all the newest proposals for the structure of the book discussed so far: Smith, because he still accepts the traditional division between “laws” and “narratives”; Douglas because she systematically seeks to identify a “ring structure” in Leviticus; and Zenger and Luciani because, like W. Warning in a recent monograph,87 they consider the basic structure of the book to be formed by the divine speeches distributed over the book.88 Yet, as noted at the beginning of this section, these speeches are reported speeches by the Leviticus narrator and, as such, they belong fully to the wider pentateuchal narrative. Within this narrative, Leviticus presents itself as the account of a specific revelation made to Moses from inside the sanctuary (Lev 1:1) at Mt Sinai (27:34), taking place in the time span between Israel’s arrival at Mt Sinai in Exodus and the community’s sojourn in the wilderness in Numbers. Considering the very nature of the Leviticus account, it is only logical that divine speeches form one of the most (see Lev 11:46–47; 12:7b; 13:59; 14:32; 14:54–57; 15:32–33). Otherwise, this formula is only found in the subscription to the legislation of ch. 1–7, see 7:37–38, and to the entire Sinai legislation in Lev 26:46 and 27:34. In Lev 6–7, it is used in the context of a superscription introducing the successive to=ro=t, see Lev 6:2, 7, 18; 7:1, 11. Furthermore, as correctly noted by Zenger, the twofold address to Moses and Aaron is another distinctive feature of this section. The distinction suggested by Luciani between Lev 11–12 and 13–15 in terms of “chosen” vs “imposed” uncleanness (see Sainteté, 1. 311–312) is fanciful. It is difficult to regard uncleanness resulting from childbirth as being “chosen” simply because it proceeds from the decision to have “une relation susceptible de donner naissance à un enfant” (note, in passing, that this statement is false anyway, marriages being usually arranged by the parents in antiquity). On the other hand, Lev 13–15 is not exclusively about “imposed” uncleanness, see the case of sexual relationships in 15:18! Finally, the reference to Lev 15 at the very beginning of ch. 12 (v. 2, see 15:19) brackets the instructions on bodily impurity in ch. 12–15 and confirms that the separation of ch. 12 from 13–15 is arbitrary. 85 Lev 22:17–33 is basically a complement to Lev 17; besides, several of its formulations have a parallel in ch. 17. Lev 25 also deals with sacred times, as ch. 23, and cannot be separated from the former. On these two cases, see the discussion below, § 2.3.1. 86 Basically the same criticism applies in the case of LUCIANI, Lévitique. 87 See WARNING, Literary Artistry. 88 See LUCIANI, Sainteté, 1. 11, as well as chapter 1. Warning goes further than Zenger and Luciani, however, since he rejects the possibility of identifying a general, comprehensive structure to the book beyond its division into several units corresponding to the different divine speeches, even though he does nevertheless acknowledge the possibility of grouping the divine speeches in larger units on the basis of his analysis of patterns of words (on which, see ID., Literary Artistry, chapters 3 and 4). Warning’s strictly “formal” approach to Leviticus (for a definition, see Ibid., chapter 1) raises a number of methodological issues. For a criticism, cf. also now LUCIANI, Sainteté, 1. 225–226, and further below.

2.2. A Dialogue with Recent Approaches

89

obvious divisions of the book, even though (against Warning) it is surely mistaken to assume that they should all have the same structural significance.89 Nonetheless, the book’s coherence is ultimately given by its narrative structure, and for this reason the attempt to organize all Leviticus on the basis of divine speeches is bound to fail. This is clear, in particular, in all the places where the report of speeches continuously alternates with the report of non-discursive events, as in Lev 8–10 or 24.90 If we start instead from the narrative structure of Leviticus, an obvious division in the book is signaled by the account of the eighth day (i.e., after the erection of the Tabernacle in Ex 40) in Lev 9–10, as has already been proposed by some scholars, in particular V. Wagner, E. Blum and J.-L. Ska.91 89 Contrast, e.g., 5:14–19 and 1:1b–2, which introduces the entire section on the voluntary offerings in Lev 1–3. Similarly, Warning gives no real attention to the fact that in Leviticus the structural importance of some introductions is explicitly stressed, as in Lev 11:1 (where Aaron’s inclusion, in addition to Moses, is highlighted by the phrase Mhl) rm)l, instead of simply rm)l as usual) or in 17:2aa (with the new command to speak to “Aaron, his sons, and all the Israelites”), obviously because they serve to delineate new sections and therefore have a greater structural significance. In passing, Warning’s computation of thirty-seven divine speeches in Leviticus (ID ., Literary Artistry, 42–46) should be rejected; this sum is only obtained because he identifies two different speeches in 16:1 and 2aa . But 16:1 actually does not introduce a different speech from v. 2aa, and it is much more logical to see all of 16:1– 2aa as forming a single introduction. For this view, see also LUCIANI, Sainteté, 1. 77–78. 90 Thus, Luciani is forced to classify all of Lev 8–10 as comprising one “divine speech” (Sainteté, 1. 44–53), whereas God actually speaks to Moses and Aaron in only two brief passages (8:1–3 [Moses] and 10:8–11 [Aaron])! Similarly, he classifies all of 24:10–23 as another such “divine speech”, even though God’s discourse to Moses only begins in v. 13. Warning is more logical on this issue, but his own solution only signals that the attempt to regard divine speeches as the primary structure in Leviticus leads to an impasse. Thus, he proposes dissociating 8:1–10:7 from 10:8–20 in order to account for the introduction of a new divine speech in v. 8, in spite of the numerous connections linking the two passages; similarly, in the case of ch. 24 he defines a conceptual unit formed by Lev 24:1–12 (sic), even though such unit hardly has any coherence. That Warning finds, in addition, patterns of words corroborating these structural delineations (see, e.g., Literary Artistry, 70–73, in the case of Lev 8:1–10:7) can only confirm the arbitrariness of an exclusively lexical analysis. 91 WAGNER, Existenz; BLUM, Studien, 312–332; SKA, Structure, 346–349. Actually, the idea of dividing Leviticus between ch. 1–10 on one hand and 11–27 on the other was already suggested by SEGAL, Pentateuch, 45–57. It was also adopted by SUN, Investigation, 486–496, in an insightful excursus devoted to the problem of the structure of Leviticus as a whole (“The outlines of a structure analysis of the book of Leviticus”). However, contrary to Wagner, Blum and Ska, Sun’s criteria for adopting this division are mostly based on formal observations (see further on this below) and do not pay much attention to the place of Lev 9–10 in the narrative development of Leviticus as a whole. Pursuing this line, a twofold division of Leviticus centered around ch. 9–10 is also accepted by Ruwe in a recent essay (ID., Structure). However, contrary to Wagner, Blum and others, Ruwe wants to see the major structural break after Lev 8 already rather than after Lev 10. This is mainly because, for him, the mention of the ‘eighth day’ in 9:1 serves to synchronize the day of the inauguration of the sacrificial cult with the larger chronology of the pentateuch-

90

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

The account of the inauguration of the sacrificial cult in Lev 9 and of its tragic aftermath in ch. 10 offers a remarkable conclusion to the whole section formed by ch. 1–10. From a narrative perspective, the arrangement of this section presents an obvious logic: first, sacrifices are instructed (Lev 1–7), then the first priests are consecrated during a seven-day ceremony (Lev 8), finally, the first sacrifices are offered to the deity on the basis of the rules previously decreed in ch. 1–7 (Lev 9–10). Moreover, although this point has usually gone unnoticed, the whole section formed by ch. 1–10 is rounded off by a major narrative development. As was briefly pointed out in the previous chapter (§ 1.2.2.2.), the book of Exodus closes with a tension that is not resolved. After the completion of Israel’s sanctuary, the d(wm lh), Moses is not allowed inside the tent specifically because the latter is filled with the divine presence, the hwhy dwbk (40:35). In other words, although he is present among his people as promised in 25:8 and 29:45, Yahweh cannot be approached, even by Moses, and the gap between God and man remains insuperable. After Ex 40, Lev 1–10 recounts the gradual abolishment of this gap. Quite significantly, the book of Leviticus opens in 1:1 with a first narrative development, when Yahweh suddenly addresses Moses from inside his newly built sanctuary to give him rules for presenting him with sacrifices (Lev 1–7). A further stage is reached in Lev 8 and 9, when first persons (Aaron and his sons), then animals and cereals (the first offerings) are consecrated to Yahweh, i.e., transferred from the realm of profane to the realm of holy. The absolute division between profane and holy al narrative (see Ex 19:1–2; 40:17; Num 1:1; 10:11–12, and on this point above, § 2.1.) and thus should mark the beginning of a new section. Although Ruwe is entirely right to pay attention to the notice of Lev 9:1, this solution cannot be accepted for several reasons. First, it is incorrect to assume that a chronological notice automatically introduces a new section, as is shown by the case of the notice in Ex 40:17 functioning as a bridge between the instruction of Ex 40:1–15 and the compliance report of 40:18ff. Second, Ruwe does not consider the fact that this notice is different from the other chronological notices in Ex 19:1–2; 40:17; Num 1:1; 10:11–12 in that it does not specify the year and month, and that it can therefore not be understood without the previous mention of a seven-day ceremony in Lev 8:35. Third, and above all, Ruwe’s solution is entirely irrespective of the logic and coherence of the ritual recounted in Lev 8–9. Together, ch. 8 and 9 describe a complex “rite of passage” (A. Van Gennep), so that dissociating ch. 8 from ch. 9 is unfounded. While the various acts performed by Aaron and his sons correspond to the separation rite, during which they are gradually brought into their new function of priests, the repetition of this ceremony during seven days corresponds to the liminal phase in Van Genneps’ scheme, and the offering of the first sacrifices in Lev 9 as well as Aaron’s final blessing (9:8–22) represent the final stage, the rite of aggregation, during which they are publicly acknowledged in their new status both by the whole community and by the deity who accepts their offerings (9:24a). For a detailed analysis of Lev 8–9 as a rite of passage: JÜRGENS , Heiligkeit, 192–242, as well as the earlier analyses by GORMAN, Ideology, ch. 4, and JENSON, Graded Holiness, 119–121. On the recent criticism by LUCIANI, Lévitique, 83 n. 29; ID., Sainteté, 1. 351 n. 37, who rejects the connection between the “eighth day” of Lev 9:1 and the exodus chronology in Ex 40:17, cf. above, page 74, n. 22.

2.2. A Dialogue with Recent Approaches

91

registered at the end of Exodus is thus overcome for the first time in Israel’s history; and to this development corresponds a major narrative reversal, since at the very end of the ceremony of ch. 9 Moses and Aaron are eventually admitted into the tent of meeting (9:23a). In this respect, the structure of the account of Lev 1–9, when considered in its wider narrative context, can be compared with the structure of a plot as defined by Aristotle: namely, it recounts the denouement of the initial complication stated in Ex 40:33–35.92 The narrative development taking place between Ex 40:34–35 and Lev 9:23–24 has an obvious structuring function (i.e., recounting the gradual institution of the sacrificial cult at Mt Sinai). At the same time, it also serves to highlight the primary function of the sacrificial cult as a major medium of communication between God and his people.93 The inauguration of the sacrificial cult in ch. 9 establishes a new form of relationship between Yahweh and Israel, in which Israel is now given the means to overcome the division between sacred and profane to approach Yahweh in the holy realm where he dwells. This new relationship is emphasized by a twofold device: the leaders of the community, Moses and Aaron, are allowed for the first time to enter the house of the deity (Lev 9:23a), while the rest of the community is authorized to see the “splendor” (dwbk) of Yahweh (9:24a). This latter aspect also corresponds to a narrative development. In Ex 24:17, the divine dwbk had already 92 ARISTOTLE, Poetics, 1455b, in the case of tragedy: “In every tragedy there is a complication and a denouement. The incidents outside the plot and some of those in it usually form the complication, the rest is the denouement. I mean this, that the complication is the part from the beginning up to the part which immediately precedes the occurrence of a change from bad to good fortune or from good fortune to bad. The denouement is from the beginning of the change down to the end”. Since then, Aristotle’s definition has been considerably developed by specialists of narrative analysis, for instance in the form of the so-called “quinary scheme”, with its five stages (initial situation; complication; transforming action; denouement; final situation). For this, see LARIVAILLE, Analyse; and further BAR-EFRAT, Narrative Art, 47–92; SKA, Our Fathers, 17–38. In Aristotle’s model, the report of Yahweh’s initiative in Lev 1:1, when he calls Moses from inside the newly erected tent and thus bridges for the first time the absolute division between the realms of sacred and profane with which the book of Ex concludes, corresponds to the beginning of the denouement. In more recent narrative analyses, it would typically be defined as the beginning of the “transforming action” encompassing Lev 1:1–9:22, which will ultimately lead to resolution of the initial complication in 9:23–24. In terms of the so-called “quinary scheme”, the initial situation should be found in Ex 40:34 (as the conclusion of the section formed by Ex 25–40); the complication in 40:35, the transforming action in 1:1–9:22, the denouement in 9:23a (when the situation created by the complication is eventually reversed); and the final situation in 9:23b–24. 93 The interpretation of sacrifice in terms of communication between god(s) and men is a commonplace in structuralist approaches in anthropology, see already the classical study by HUBERT/MAUSS , Sacrifice. In the case of Lev 1–7, this interpretation has already been proposed by L EACH , Logic; and DAVIES , Interpretation. This is also true for ritual activity in general, which as DOUGLAS puts it, is “pre-eminently a form of communication” (Natural Symbols, 20); on this, see also LEACH, art. Ritual.

92

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

appeared to the Israelites but only at distance and under the veil of the protecting “cloud” (Nn(); in Lev 9, the community is now authorized – in the context of the sacrificial cult – to experience a more direct form of contact with the hwhy dwbk, thus recalling Moses’ privilege in Ex 24:16. So far in the pentateuchal narrative, this is the first reference to a direct vision of the dwbk by the community.94 In parallel to Moses’ entry into the tent in Lev 9:23a, it marks the importance of the development taking place with the establishment of the sacrificial cult. As for the episode immediately following in 10:1–3, reporting the “unholy” offering brought by Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, and its implications, it forms the reversed image to the glorious ceremony of ch. 9.95 The narrator’s comment at the end of 10:1 that the offerings of Aaron’s sons had not been commanded by Yahweh (hwc )l r#)) deliberately breaks with the pattern observable in Lev 8–9, where each main ritual sequence is concluded by the phrase hwhy hwc r#)k (see Lev 8:4, 9, 13, 17, 21, 29, 36; 9:7, 10; in 9:21: h#m hwc r#)k). Yahweh “eats” (lk)) the faulty priests (10:2) instead of their offering, as he had done in 9:24a (also with lk)). Also, while the offering of the first sacrifices is positively concluded in 9:23b with the manifestation of Yahweh’s dwbk before the whole community, Nadab and Abihu, on the contrary, have failed to “honor” (dbk Niphal) him appropriately, as pointed out by Moses in a personal comment of the episode (10:3). These parallels bracket the entire account in 9:23–10:3. Lev 9:23b

M(h-lk-l) hwhy-dwbk )ryw

Lev 9:24a

…xbzmh-l( lk)tw hwhy ynplm #) )ctw

Lev 10:2a

Mtw) lk)tw hwhy ynplm #) )ctw

Lev 10:3ab

dbk) M(h-lk ynp-l(w

Finally, one last contrast resides in the opposition between Aaron’s “silence” after the death of his two sons (10:3b) and the community’s joyful shout concluding the entire ceremony of chapter 9.96 At the same time, the intimate connection between Lev 9 and 10 is also stressed by the fact that Nadab and Abihu’s offering occurs on the very day of the celebration of ch. 9, as stated 94

In Ex 16:10, the dwbk appears to the whole community (cf. 16:7) but, as in Ex 24:17, it is veiled by the cloud (Nn(). Note also that elsewhere in the Torah, appearance of Yahweh’s dwbk is connected with the community’s complaints, or its rebellion against Yahweh or its leaders: cf. Ex 16:7, 10; Num 14:10, 22; 16:19; 17:7; 20:6; the only exception is in Deut 5:24. 95 Against SUN, Investigation, 491 n. 6, who fails to see the connection between Lev 1–9 and 10, partly because he does not investigate thoroughly enough the narrative logic of ch. 1–10. The formal and conceptual unity of ch. 9–10 has been well perceived, on the contrary, by BLUM, Studien, 317–318; and R UWE , “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 45–52; ID., Structure, 71–72, although his suggestion to treat Lev 9–10 separately from 1–8 is unfounded (above, note 92). 96 Or, according to another possible rendering, his “lamentation” (cf. Mmd II), the contrast with 9:24b being even more telling in this case.

2.2. A Dialogue with Recent Approaches

93

in 10:19 (see the phrase hayyo=m), the absence of any new temporal indication in 10:1ff. suggesting in addition that the two events follow immediately.97 The reference in 10:19 to the chronological indication given in 9:1 rounds off Lev 9–10 and emphasizes the literary and thematic coherence of this unit, thus reinforcing simultaneously the contrast between 9:23–24 and 10:1–3. Thus, Lev 9 and 10 function together as a complex symbol illustrating the implications of the new relationship with God initiated by the inauguration of the sacrificial cult. Yahweh’s presence among his people, demonstrated in 9:23, involves new obligations, first and foremost as regards Israel’s cultic representatives, the priests (10:1ff.). The possibility given to Israel to bridge the division between sacred and profane simultaneously implies that this division may continuously be transgressed, and therefore become blurred, as shown by the profanation of Nadab and Abihu who are guilty of precisely this: presenting Yahweh with a hrz #) (v. 1), an “unholy” offering. It is not a coincidence if this episode leads, shortly afterwards, to a new divine command addressed to Aaron and his sons who must learn to separate (ldb ) systematically between “sacred and profane, unclean and clean” (10:10), in order to avoid further transgressions of the cultic sphere. The two pairs sacred/profane and clean/unclean are not equivalent but form the basic coordinates of the entire cultic system of Leviticus.98 As Sun, for instance, correctly perceived, the instruction of 10:10 programmatically announces the second part of Leviticus, ch. 11–27. The preservation of the new order instituted by the inauguration of the sacrificial cult in Lev 1–10 requires the definition of a “science of division”, as the ancient Greeks called the knowledge of pollution and purity,99 and this is in a general sense the main topic in Lev 11–27.100 Pollution is the dominant theme not only of ch. 11–15, but also of ch. 16, the ritual for the yearly purification of the sanctuary, which is said to “dwell with them [namely, the Israelites] in the midst of their impurities” (Mt)m+ Kwtb Mt) Nk#h, 16:16bb). In Lev 18–20 the issue is further extended 97

For these observations on the unity of Lev 9–10, see RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 45–46. I.e., purity is a prerequisite for the sacred, but is in no case identical to it; the profane may be either clean or unclean; on this, see MILGROM, Priestly Impurity; ID., Rationale; ID., Leviticus, 616–617; JENSON, Graded Holiness, 43ff.; most recently, see especially L’HOUR, L’Impur, I–II, with a detailed analysis. On the pairs holy/common and clean/unclean, cf. further OLYAN, Rites, 15–37 and 38–62. 99 Cf. PLATON, Soph. 226d.: “Of the kind of division that retains what is better but expels the worse, I do know the name… every division of that kind is universally known as a purification (katharmos)”. On this topic, see the remarkable study by PARKER, Miasma, 18ff. 100 As was usually correctly perceived by the scholars who identify a major break between Lev 1–10 and 11ff., especially Wagner, Blum and Ruwe. All three emphasize the function of the second half of the book as the community’s response to the order instituted in Lev 1–10, and even speak in this regard of the “ethical” dimension of ch. 11–27 (BLUM , Studien, 318–319; similarly RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 40–45). 98

94

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

to pollution not only of the sanctuary but of the whole land given to Israel, as is specified in the detailed exhortations of 18:24–30 and 20:22–26. Simultaneously an inclusion is built at the end of ch. 20 with the instruction opening the collection of Lev 11–15. The exhortation of 20:25 returns to the theme of the “separation” (ldb) between clean and unclean creatures, connecting it with the issue of Israel’s sanctification as in the exhortation of 11:43–45 already, the two passages building a great envelope around ch. 11–20. Ch. 21– 22 concern first and foremost priestly purity and sanctity, and therefore represent a kind of complement to the treatment of this subject in ch. 11–20. The other chapters in Lev 17–27 also deal more generally with the preservation of the distinction between sacred and profane. Lev 17 and 22:17–30, which frame ch. 18–22 (see below), are further instructions for the offering of sacrifices supplementing Lev 1–7. Ch. 23–25, for their part, address this same division on a temporal plane since they deal primarily with the observance of sacred times: annual feasts (Lev 23), Sabbatical year and Jubilee (Lev 25). Even the last chapter of the book, ch. 27, fits in this general theme. Excursus 2: The Meaning of Leviticus 27 and its Place within the Book Contrary to what is often (mistakenly) assumed, Lev 27 is not simply about vows or things dedicated to the sanctuary in general,101 but more exactly about monetary compensation for persons (27:2–8), animals (27:9–13) or things (27:14–25) dedicated by vow to the sanctuary. What is at stake in this chapter, therefore, is the possibility under certain conditions of withdrawing something already consecrated to the sanctuary, and therefore belonging to the sacred sphere.102 Thus, it builds indeed an inclusion with Lev 1ff., as perceived by Douglas and others,103 but – contrary to Douglas – not simply in the sense that it means a return to the issue of sacrifices. Rather, while Lev 1ff. deals with the possibility of consecrating a profane thing (animal or cereal) by offering it as a sacrifice on the altar, Lev 27 discusses the possibility of the opposite move, namely, restituting to the profane world a person, an animal or a thing already consecrated. Because it is placed after the subscription of 26:46, ch. 27 was clearly conceived of as an “appendix” of sorts to the whole book, even from a synchronic perspective.104 Nevertheless, considering the above, it is a logical and necessary supplement, dealing with a further aspect of the division between sacred and profane and therefore aptly completing the Leviticus legislation, especially in the second part of the book. 101

See NOTH, Leviticus, 204; more recently GORMAN, Divine Presence, 149ff. (“Issues relating to the payment of vows and the dedication of various persons, animals and objects”); DEIANA, Levitico, 291ff. (“Esso regola l’adempimento dei voti…”). LEVINE , Leviticus, 192ff., relates for his part ch. 27 to the issue of the sanctuary’s “funding”. Even ASHLOCK , Narrative Endings, 132ff., who offers a detailed study to Lev 27, still holds that “the principle interest of this chapter is the raising of money in order to operate the sanctuary”. 102 As shown by MILGROM, Leviticus, 2402–2407, the law of redemption is informed by a coherent principle, already noted by the rabbis: only consecrated gifts which may not be consumed on the altar may be redeemed, except when they are consecrated as Mrx and are therefore most sacred. 103 See MILGROM, Leviticus, 1365–1366; as well as ASHLOCK, Narrative Endings, 138ff. 104 ASHLOCK, Ibid., 134ff., speaks for his part of a “double conclusion” in Lev 26–27 and – following B.R. Gaventa – regards this chapter as an “excess ending” (p. 134, 137).

2.3. A Case for the Threefold Structure of Leviticus

95

Lastly, the division between Lev 1–10 and 11–27 is corroborated by various formal devices. Ch. 11ff. are distinguished from what precedes by the introduction formula in 11:1, including for the first time Aaron, alongside Moses, as the addressee of the divine speech.105 This change in address mirrors the development recounted in ch. 1–10. With the institution of the sacrificial cult, Aaron has gained a new dignity; like Moses, he has become the community’s (cultic) mediator, a role that will be illustrated in particular in the ceremony of ch. 16. Furthermore, in 10:10–11, while the distinction between “clean and unclean” is an obvious reference to Lev 11–15 in particular (or more generally to Lev 11–20), the use of the term Myqx in the sense of “decrees” appears to build a link with the subscription of 26:46, thus rounding off all the second half of the book.106 On the other hand, the motif of the “eighth day” uniting Lev 9–10 (cf. 9:1; 10:19, and above), because it connects these chapters not only to the seven-day ceremony of Lev 8 but also, indirectly, to the general chronology of the exodus (see Ex 40:17), builds a further envelope around all of Lev 1–10. Finally, as was noted by H.T.C. Sun, even though the division between Lev 1–7 and 8–10 is unmistakable, there are some indications that it is not of the same order (i.e., it does not belong to the same level in the book’s overall structure) as the division between ch. 10 and 11ff. Thus, the subscript in 7:37–38 concludes the entire section in Lev 1–7 and identifies it as a distinct subsection within 1–10, but it also prepares for the following report on the consecration of Aaron and his sons in Lev 8 by referring to the “ordination offering” (My)wlm), unmentioned in Leviticus outside 8:22, 28, 29, 31.107

2.3. A Case for the Threefold Structure of Leviticus 2.3.1. Leviticus 16 as the Center of the Book and the Unity of Chapters 11–16 Despite the evidence for a major break after Lev 10 and the relative coherence of Lev 11–27, the notion of a twofold structure may still be too simple. In particular, it does not account for the central position of Lev 16 within the book, as correctly pointed out by various scholars recently (especially Zenger and Luciani), or for the obvious unity of the section formed by 11–15. 105

See further 13:1; 14:33; 15:1. In 11:1, this innovation is stressed by the occurrence of the unique phrase Mhl) rm)l instead of the usual rm)l. 106 SUN , Investigation, 492 and 494. In Leviticus, the use of the masc. pl. Myqx ‘statutes’ occurs exclusively in Lev 10:11 and 26:46. Otherwise, the term used for “decree, statute” is always hqxj (fem.): cf. Lev 3:17; 7:36; 10:9; 16:29, 31, 34, and consistently in ch. 17–26. In 24:9, qx has the meaning of “assigned portion”, as in ch. 1–10 (6:11, 15; 7:34; 10:13, 14, 15). 107 Likewise, 7:35–36 concludes the instruction in 7:28–36 by stating that it is valid from the very day when Aaron and his sons will have been consecrated. Cf. SUN, Investigation, 489–490; as well as RUWE, Structure, 62–65.

96

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

As regards Lev 16, it is undoubtedly the most important ritual in the whole book of Leviticus. It occurs once a year, and it is on this occasion that both the sanctuary (cf. 16:14–19) and the community (16:20ff.) are purified from all the impurities contracted during the year, whether physical or moral in nature.108 It is also the only ceremony in the entire book during which Aaron is admitted into the inner-sanctum, and therefore in the presence of the deity. Furthermore, as a major ritual of purification, Lev 16 is closely related to the main topic of ch. 11–15 and offers a fitting conclusion to this section. As a matter of fact, the sequence formed by ch. 11–16 has an obvious logic: in 11– 15, the Israelites are taught how to handle various cases of pollution which threaten the community’s physical integrity; in 16, the sanctuary and the community are completely purified from their (physical and moral) uncleanness. The sequence recalls Lev 1–10, with a body of to=ro=t (Lev 1–7; 11–15) followed by a great ceremony closely connected to the previous teaching (Lev 8–10; 16). On a formal level, the connection is further stressed by the parallel between Lev 16:16b and the motive clause concluding Lev 11–15, in 15:31.109 At the same time, the significance of Lev 16 is not restricted to ch. 11–16, and this ceremony can also be viewed, more generally, as the conclusion to the entire system of cultic purification in Lev 1–16. This is demonstrated, in particular, by the connection between Lev 4 and 16. Ch. 4 deals with the purification of sins committed “by inadvertence”, hgg#b; according to the social rank of the culprit, the blood of the t)+x offering is either simply put on the horns of the outer altar standing in the court (Lev 4:22–35) or it must be brought into the outer-sanctum to be spread against the outer face of the second veil separating the outer-sanctum from the inner-sanctum, and put on the horns of the incense altar, located inside the outer-sanctum (4:3–21). Yet nothing is said in Lev 4 as to the cleansing of the inner-sanctum, and this only occurs in Lev 16 (v. 11–19); there, in the course of the ritual the blood is brought beyond the second veil and it does not serve to cleanse (rpk Piel) any longer inadvertent sins, as in ch. 4, but all the impurities, tw)m+, and all the 108 The high priest purifies the sanctuary not only from the physical impurities of the Israelites (t)m+), but also from their “rebellions” (My(#p) and all their sins (tw)+x), see Lev 16:16a; similarly, Aaron confesses on the head of the goat offered to Azazel “all the crimes (tnw(-lk-t)) of the Israelites and all their rebellions (Mhy(#p-lk-t)w), as well as all their sins (Mt)+x-lkl)” (16:21a) before sending the goat to the wilderness (16:21b). 109 In both passages, there is a similar reference to the sanctuary that stays “in the middle of” the Israelites and is therefore exposed to their uncleanness. Compare: 15:31a: Mt)m+m l)r#y-ynb-t) Mtrzhw 15:31b: Mkwtb r#) ynk#m-t) M)m+b Mt)m+b wtmy )lw 16:16b: Mt)m+ Kwtb Mt) Nk#h d(wm lh)l h#(y Nkw Note, besides, that the only other motive clause in Lev 11–15 is found at the end of the first instruction of the series, in Lev 11:43–45, thus rounding off the collection of Lev 11–15 while preparing for Lev 16:16b.

2.3. A Case for the Threefold Structure of Leviticus

97

sins, tw)+x-lk , of the Israelites, including their “rebellions”, My(#p , as is stated in Lev 16:16a. As will be argued in the following chapter (§ 3.2.2.3.d), this is best accounted for by J. Milgrom’s theory that Lev 16 (at least in the present form of the book) was meant to form a system of “graded purification” with Lev 4, the sanctuary’s annual cleansing on the “Day of Purifications” addressing all the cases of pollution which have not been dealt with yet by the other rituals instructed in Leviticus: namely, impurities not accounted for in Lev 11–15, and defiant sins against the deity.110 However, even if one rejects this specific interpretation, the general connection between Lev 4 and 16 cannot be denied, as several commentators have recently acknowledged.111 This last observation corroborates the significance of Lev 16 as the climax not only of ch. 11–15 but, more generally, of all of ch. 1–16. Moreover, the central character of ch. 16 is also supported by a series of formal devices. Its introduction in v. 1–2aa is absolutely unique in Leviticus112 and, interestingly, is the eighteenth on a total of thirty-six in the book (the others eighteen being distributed in Lev 17–27).113 Similarly, ch. 16 is concluded in v. 34b by a notice reporting the execution of “all what Yahweh had commanded to Moses”, a feature unparalleled so far in Leviticus and which is a further indication for the relative unity of ch. 1–16. As regards Lev 17–27, on the other hand, several features indicate that these chapters comprise a distinct section. It was already recalled that the introduction in 17:1–2a, with its commission formula involving “Aaron, his sons, and all the Israelites” (v. 2aa ) has no equivalent earlier in the book. Also, ch. 17 opens with an instruction on sacrifices, thus returning to the issue addressed at the very beginning of the book, in Lev 1ff., a device suggesting that a new section is starting here as noted by Douglas.114 Moreover, it has long been observed that the overall structure of ch. 17–26, being framed by a law on sacrifices on one hand and a long exhortation to obedience (ch. 26) on 110 For a detailed presentation of this theory, see in particular MILGROM, Studies, 75–84; and ID., Leviticus, 253–294, esp. 254–261. Milgrom’s view demands some qualification, in particular as regards his idea that the t)+x only serves to purify the sanctuary, and not the offerer; see the discussion in the next chapter at § 3.2.3.3.d. 111 See for example now SEIDL , Levitikus 16, 240–243, esp. 242; JÜRGENS , Heiligkeit, 339–342; JANOWSKI/ZENGER, Jenseits des Alltags, 78–79. 112 In 16:1, the usual introduction h#m-l) hwhy rbdyw is not followed by rm)l, as expected, but by a reference to the death of Aaron’s elder sons, Nadab and Abihu, as recounted in Lev 10 (see 16:1ab , g, b). The narrative introduction to the divine speech in 16:1aa is resumed in v. 2aa, except that the verb rm) has now replaced rbd: h#m-l) hwhy rm)yw. On the importance of 16:1–2aa , see ZENGER , Buch Leviticus, 67 (“außergewöhnlich signifikant”), as well as LUCIANI, Sainteté, 1. 280. On the meaning of the connection with Lev 10 as a major structuring device, see the following section, § 2.3.2. 113 Against WARNING, Literary Artistry, 42–46, 16:1–2aa must be regarded as forming a single introduction; on this, see above page 89, note 89. 114 DOUGLAS, Leviticus, 226–227.

98

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

the other, was strongly reminiscent of the structure of other collections of laws in the Torah; compare Ex 20–23 (see Ex 20:24–26 and 23:20–33 respectively) and Deut 12–28 (see ch. 12 and 28), thus indicating that this section has a coherence of its own within the book of Leviticus.115 Likewise, the separation of ch. 17–26 (27) from 11–16 also accounts for the obvious differences in style and language between the two. Distinctive features of ch. 11–16 such as the recurrence of the phrase X-trwt t)z in the subscriptions to ch. 11–15 (11:46–47; 12:7b; 13:59; 14:32; 14:54–57; 15:32–33; cf. also 14:2) are consistently missing in ch. 17ff. Conversely, it was classically observed that Lev 17–26 was characterized by a distinct style and language, which is only rarely found elsewhere in the book (e.g., in 11:43–45).116 Lastly, the notion of a major division between 16 and 17 is corroborated by the fact that it is possible to identify a coherent structure in Lev 17–26, as argued by Otto and Ruwe.117 A first part, ch. 17–22, addresses the general issue of the community’s sanctity. The main body of this section is formed by ch. 18–20 (instructions for the community’s sanctification), themselves arranged around ch. 19. In 21:1–22:16 this is completed by instructions concerning more specifically the sanctity of the sanctuary and the priests, first Aaron’s sons (21:1–9), then Aaron himself (21:10–16), and finally Aaron and his sons together (22:1–16). The sequence of addressees in Lev 18–22 thus obtained (“all the Israelites”, “Aaron’s sons” and lastly “Aaron”) takes up, in the reverse order, the sequence found in the commission formula of 17:2aa (“Aaron, his sons, and all the Israelites”). Furthermore, ch. 18–22 are closed by an instruction on offerings in 22:17–30 which returns to the theme of ch. 17, and thus forms a comprehensive inclusion around the first half of ch. 17–26.118 Significantly, the commission formula in 22:18aa is exactly identical to that of 17:2aa, thus confirming the inclusion. The two instructions also share further common devices; in particular, the casuistic introduction in 22:18, with the phrase l)r#y tybm #y) #y), is characteristic of Lev 17, see 17:3, 8 and 10. As regards the second part of ch. 17–26, Wagner already observed that its binding concern was the celebration of sacred times.119 Ch. 23 and 25 present a remarkable gradation in this regard since Lev 23 is concerned with the Sabbath and the calendar of yearly feasts,120 25:2–7 with the Sabbatical Year, and 25:8–55 with the Jubilee, occurring every seventh Sabbatical Year. The instruction of 24:1–9 was obviously included here because it also contains instructions 115

For this observation, see WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 149–152, against GRAF, Untersuchungen, 66.75ff. It remains valid whether the classical assumption of a discrete code in Lev 17–26 is justified or not; on this, see the discussion below, in Chapter Five, p. 549ff. 116 See the analyses found in several earlier manuals such as DRIVER, Introduction, 49–50, or H OLZINGER, Einleitung, 411–412; more recently, see KNOHL, Sanctuary, 108–110, and MILGROM, Leviticus, 35–42 and 1325–1332; and further on this point § 5.4.1. in this study. 117 OTTO , Ethik, 242–243; ID ., Gesetzesfortschreibung, 386; RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 79–89. However, Otto also considers that Lev 17 does not merely introduce the legislation of 18–22, but that it forms the “Hauptgesetz” for the whole collection of Lev 17–26. 118 For this observation, see MATHYS, Gebot, 82; further CRÜSEMANN, Tora, 379; OTTO, Ethik, 242; RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 82–83. 119 Existenz, 314–315. 120 Besides, as shown by RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 297ff., the calendar of ch. 23 is consistently informed by a Sabbatical computing. Also, Ruwe, like OTTO (Ethik, 240), views the prescription for the weekly Sabbath in 23:3 as the “Hauptgebot” for Lev 23–25.

2.3. A Case for the Threefold Structure of Leviticus

99

for daily (v. 2–4) and weekly (v. 5–9) rites, and can thus be viewed as a complement to ch. 23.121 Besides, the weekly rite in 24:5–9 must be performed every Sabbath. The only difficulty concerns the second part of ch. 24, v. 10–23, since this episode is not related with sacred days or sacred years. Wagner, and others after him, have proposed solving the problem by dismissing 24:10–23 (or ch. 24 in its entirety) as a later interpolation.122 While this solution may be justified from a diachronic perspective (see below, § 5.2.4.2.b), it does not account for the reason that this passage was inserted at this place. One possible solution is to observe that the center of 24:10–23 is constituted by the blasphemy of the divine Name (v. 10–16, introducing a new version of the talionic law in v. 17ff.), and that the divine Name is, with the Sabbath, the other major sanctum outside the sanctuary and its belongings which can be desecrated by the Israelites.123 Hence, possibly, the reason for the inclusion of the account of 24:10–23 between 23:1–24:9 and ch. 25. We thus obtain the following structure for Lev 17–26: I. SANCTITY OF THE COMMUNITY (LEV 17–22) Lev 17 Offerings to the sanctuary Lev 18–20 Holiness of the lay community Lev 18 Sexual relationships and pollution of the land Lev 19 A to=ra= for the holy community (see 19:2) Lev 20 Sexual relationships and pollution of the land Lev 21–22 Holiness of the priests and of the sanctuary Lev 22,17–30 Offerings to the sanctuary, complement to Lev 17 II. SACREDNESS OF TIMES AND OF THE DIVINE NAME (LEV 23–25) Lev 23 Sabbath and annual festivals Lev 24,1–9 Daily and weekly rituals in the sanctuary Lev 24,10–23 Sanctity of the divine Name Lev 25,1–8 The Sabbatical Year Lev 25,9–54 The Jubilee III. CONCLUDING EXHORTATION (LEV 26)

2.3.2. Leviticus 11–16 and Its Relation to Leviticus 1–10 The identification of a further first-level division between Lev 11–16 on one hand and 17–26 (27) on the other sheds light on the intricate but decisive problem of the connection between the ceremony of ch. 16 and Lev 10, as well as on the function of this connection in the book’s narrative development. As noted above (§ 2.3.1.), the formulation of the introduction to the divine speech in 16:1–2aa is unique: in v. 1, the formula h#m-l) hwhy rbdyw, instead of being immediately followed by rm)l + divine speech, as usual, is amplified to include a direct reference to the death of Aaron’s sons (v. 1ab, g, 121

RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 323–326; comp. with WAGNER, Existenz, 314–315 n. 29. WAGNER, Existenz, 314–315 n. 29; also OTTO, Ethik, 240; ID., Heiligkeitsgesetz, 75. 123 See Lev 19:12 and already Ex 20:7 (// Deut 5:11). One may note that in the Decalogue, the two issues are also connected since the prohibition to misuse the divine Name (Ex 20:7) comes immediately before the instruction on the Sabbath (20:8–11). For a different view on this issue, cf. RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 86–87 and 88–89. His solution, however, relies very much on the perceived parallel between 24:10–23 and 20:1–27, which I find little convincing. 122

100

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

b), thus referring the entire ceremony of ch. 16 to the former account in 10:1ff. of Nadab’s and Abihu’s unholy offering. This observation is anything but new,124 yet, with a few notable exceptions (especially N. Kiuchi and now B. Jürgens), its significance for the structure of Leviticus has often been missed. Two observations, in this regard, may be made here. (1) First, the formulation of 16:1 appears to imply that the revelation to Moses of the ceremony for the purification of the sanctuary and the community in ch. 16 is actually motivated by the crime of Nadab and Abihu. This suggests in turn that, from the perspective of the narrative development of Leviticus, the ritual of ch. 16 actually has the function of restoring the social and cosmic order inaugurated by the sacrificial cult in ch. 9 and transgressed by Aaron’s sons in ch. 10. Yet it is probable that the reference to Nadab and Abihu in 16:1 has an even more specific meaning. As proposed by Kiuchi and Jürgens,125 a further problem, in addition to the transgression of Aaron’s sons, is tacitly raised by the death of the two priests itself, whose bodies have to be removed “from before the sanctuary” according to v. 4 (#dqh-ynp t)m). Corpses, in the pollution system found in the Torah, are the most serious and the most contagious source of pollution (see Num 19; further Num 5:2–4)126 and must therefore be especially kept away from the realm of sacred, as implied by Lev 21:1–4, 10–12. Yet in Lev 10, no purification of the sanctuary is considered, though various instructions are given by Moses (v. 4–7, 12–15) and even by Yahweh himself (v. 8–11) to Aaron in order to avoid further transgressions. Recalling the death of Nadab and Abihu in 16:1 makes explicit that this issue is still pending;127 and the narrative connection thus created between ch. 10 and 16 suggests that the original occasion for the revelation of this ceremony to Moses was, specifically, to cleanse the sanctuary from the corpse pollution caused by this death. Therefore, we have here, exactly the same narrative technique that was already observed in the case of the connection between Ex 40:34–35 and Lev 9:23–24. The connection between Lev 10 and 16:1ff. does not simply create 124

On the contrary, it traditionally legitimized the source-critical assumption of a direct continuation between ch. 10 and 16, with ch. 11–15 as a later interpolation. 125 KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 66–85, esp. 81ff; JÜRGENS, Heiligkeit, ch. 4 ( “Lev 16 als Fortsetzung der Erzählung von der Initiierung des Kultes [Lev 8–10]”), esp. 299–302. 126 See WRIGHT, Disposal, 115–128.169–172.196–199, with further biblical references; MILGROM, Leviticus, 270–278. As Milgrom and Wright have shown, there is a direct connection between the degree of uncleanness and its communicability; see in particular MILGROM, Rationale; ID ., Leviticus, 766–768.976–1004; W RIGHT , Disposal, ch. 8, esp. 220–228; ID., Spectrum; and further on this below, § 4.2.2. 127 See KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 81–84; JÜRGENS, Heiligkeit, 299–300. This point is missed by most authors, usually assuming that the reference to Nadab and Abihu simply serves as a warning to Aaron whenever he enters the inner-sanctum (e.g., HARTLEY, Leviticus, 234).

101

2.3. A Case for the Threefold Structure of Leviticus

an careful inclusion around the to=ra= of Lev 11–15. Above all, it organizes the second part of the book, ch. 11–16, around a further narrative development, i.e., the sanctuary’s profanation by Nadab and Abihu and the eventual restoration of the cultic and cosmic order, instituted in Lev 9 but immediately transgressed in ch. 10. As in Lev 1–10 already, this elaborate device highlights a decisive aspect of the ritual of ch. 16 vis-à-vis Lev 9. Both ceremonies, placed at the end of the first two sections of the book, are actually complementary: while ch. 9–10 recount the institution of a new order and its immediate transgression, ch. 16 considers the possibility of the permanent re-creation of this order through the ritual’s performance.128 (2) Yet there is also a further, more subtle but no less interesting intertextuality between Lev 10 and 16. Indeed, there is an unmistakable contrast between Aaron’s offering in Lev 16 and that of his two sons in 10:1.129 Both Aaron’s sons and Aaron himself present an offering of tr+q, “incense” (not frankincense, Heb. hnbl, but rather a mixture of aromatic herbs or spices, as in Ex 30:34–36 for instance),130 on a portable censer-pan, htxm , yet with exactly the opposite result. While Aaron’s sons die for offering what is termed a hrz #) (‘profane, unholy fire’), in Lev 16 on the contrary the incense cloud, tr+qh Nn(, serves to cover the trpk where Yahweh reveals himself (cf. 16:2bb, g) and prevents Aaron from dying (16:12–13). Leviticus 10:1–2

Leviticus 16:12–13

wttxm #y) … Nrh)-ynb wxqyw

… #)-ylxg htxmh-)lm xqlw

tr+q hyl( wmy#yw #) Nhb wntyw

… hwhy ynpl #)h-l( tr+qh-t) Ntnw

hrz #) hwhy ynpl wbrqyw hwhy ynpl wtmyw …

twmy )lw

The meaning of this contrast can be further clarified by paying attention to the nature of this offering. In antiquity, incense appears to have been typically associated with divine presence. The fragrance of aromatics was believed, in 128 This point is well noted by JÜRGENS, Heiligkeit, 302, who defines Lev 8–10 as a ritual of transformation and Lev 16 as a ritual of restitution. In addition, Jürgens notes that these two distinct but complementary functions determine the very logic of these rituals. Because (contrary to Lev 8–10) Lev 16 does not conclude with the institution of a new cultic order but with the restoration of the former, the various changes undergone by Aaron are not definitive but provisional and limited to the duration of the ritual. E.g., the ceremony ends with Aaron taking off his linen clothes, and putting back his usual clothes (v. 23–24). “Am Schluss des Rituals übernimmt Aaron keine neue Rolle, sondern kehrt in seine alte zurück. Der Kleiderwechsel ermöglicht gemeinsam mit dem Räucherritus lediglich, dass Aaron das Allerheiligste am Jom Kippur ungefährdet betreten kann. Er signalisiert keine Transformation Aarons”. 129 This point has often been noted; see most recently JÜRGENS, Heiligkeit, 300. 130 On this, see further in particular HARAN, Temples, 230ff.; NIELSEN, Incense, 61–65.

102

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

particular, to attract the attention of the gods and dispose them in favor of the offerer.131 As such, incense could have either an apotropaic function (warding off demons or divine wrath, as in Num 17:6–15),132 or a mediating function, allowing the worshipper to be admitted in presence of the deity.133 For this reason, it was frequently connected with rituals of temple purification, as in the ritual of the Babylonian New Year,134 or of temple entrance; in the ritual of Lev 16, the two aspects appear to be combined. With respect to Lev 10, this suggests quite naturally a reason for the choice by Nadab and Abihu of this type of offering specifically, although it was not previously instructed by Yahweh. What the Leviticus narrative is hinting at is that the two priests were seeking to approach the deity who had just appeared to the community before the tent of meeting at the end of ch. 9 (v. 23b). Moreover, this interpretation is corroborated by the MT of 16:1 according to which the two priests died “when they approached (or drew near) before Yahweh”.135 131 This is most evident in the oft-quoted passage of the Gilgamesh epic where Utnapishtim offers incense to the gods at the end of the Flood (11.156–162). See ANET, 95: “I poured out a libation on the top of the mountain./ Seven and seven cult-vessels I set up,/ Upon their plate-stands I heaped cane, cedarwood, and myrtle./ The gods smelled the savor,/ The gods smelled the sweet savor,/ The gods crowded like flies about the sacrificer”. 132 In several Egyptian reliefs picturing cities under siege, one finds the representation of a man holding a censer with incense burning in it, which could have an apotropaic function; see KEEL, Kanaanäische Sühneriten, 435–436.463–467. However, Keel himself argues that this practice actually serves as a means of paying homage to the god-king Pharaoh, represented opposite the city in such reliefs (p. 425–430). At any rate such apotropaic function of incense offering is unmistakable in the story of Num 17:6–15 (e.g., HARAN, Temples, 241). 133 See especially NIELSEN, Incense, 8–12, 29–33. It is particularly manifest in the Babylonian ritual for the ba4ru= (“diviner”) quoted by Nielsen (Incense, 31; see GOETZE, Old Prayer, 25–29, here 26). The ritual implies several various aromatics, all of which are intended to purify the ba4ru= and make him pleasing before Shamash, thus giving him access to the divine council. “O Shamash! I am placing in my mouth pure cedar (resin), I am wrapping it for you in the locks of my hair; I am placing for you in my lap compact cedar (resin), I washed my mouth and my hands […]. Being now clean to the assembly of the gods, I shall draw near for judgment…”. The same view is found in several Egyptian texts, especially in the Pyramid texts. One of them (utterance 267) states: “A stairway to the sky is set up for me that I may ascend on it to the sky, and I ascend on the smoke of the great censing…” (FAULKNER, Pyramid Texts, 76; cf. NIELSEN, art. Incense, 405). See also COTHENET, art. Parfums. 134 Cf. RA, l. 347–356; as well as the rendering of the concerned passage proposed by ANET, 331–334; and WRIGHT , Disposal, 63–64. On the fifth day of the ak|4tu festival, the mas]mas]s]u (“exorcist”) first purifies the Esagila (Marduk’s temple) with water taken from two cisterns (one of the Tigris and one of the Euphrates), a copper bell (?), a censer (NI%G.NA = nignakku) and a torch, and then enters the Ezida, the cella of the god Nabu, which he similarly purifies with a censer (cf. l. 347–348, 351–352, 356), containing perfumes and cypress (l. 352); he also anoints the doors of the chamber with cedar resin (thus ANET), or cedar oil (Wright) manifestly with the purpose of giving to the whole cella a sweet-smelling odor. 135 wtmyw hwhy-ynpl Mtbrqb . Here, brq has clearly the general meaning of “to approach, draw near” in the context of cultic service, as commentators usually interpret. MILGROM,

2.3. A Case for the Threefold Structure of Leviticus

103

If so, the connection between Lev 10 and 16 takes on a new meaning. The death of Nadab and Abihu emphasizes, by contrast, the privilege reserved to the high priest. Only he is authorized to approach Yahweh in the context of the annual ceremony of the “Day of Purifications” (Myrpkh Mwy, cf. Lev 23:27), when he must enter the inner-sanctum with censer-incense to cleanse it from the various pollutions of the Israelites (16:12ff.). The same conception, reserving the offering of censer-incense to the high priest in order to allow him to approach Yahweh, is also found in the story of Num 16–17 (see Num 16:5, 7).136 In the narrative development of Leviticus, this unique role assigned to the high priest is carefully prepared for by the account of ch. 10. At the end of the first part of the book, Lev 1–10, Nadab’s and Abihu’s unlawful attempt to approach Yahweh actually points to the limits of the mediation established between God and his community through the institution of the sacrificial cult at Mount Sinai. The cult represents a first form of communication with the deity, as is emphasized at the conclusion of Lev 9; yet it is by nature only a form of indirect mediation. The distance between God and man is not abolished, it is only bridged by the smoke of the offerings rising up Leviticus, 101, renders this term by “to encroach upon” in this specific context, but this is connected with his specific treatment of the verb brq in P (see ID ., Levitical Terminology, 16–32), of which I remain unconvinced. The LXX specifies by adding pu=r a0llo/trion (= #) hrz ), but this is clearly a harmonization with Lev 10:1, see likewise Num 3:4. A similar reading of 10:1 has been advocated by some scholars previously. They correctly noted that the motivation for Nadab’s and Abihu’s offering was that they sought to approach Yahweh, but inferred from this that the two priests died while attempting to penetrate into the innersanctum. See already DILLMANN, Leviticus, 471; further, e.g., GRADWOHL, Feuer, 289–292; KIUCHI, Purification Offering 81–84. This view also makes sense, especially with respect to the contrast established between Lev 10 and 16 (since it is exclusively during the latter ceremony that Aaron enters the inner-sanctum). However, it was noted above (§ 2.2.) that the account of 10:1ff. appears to take place immediately after 9:23–24, and it seems therefore more logical to assume that Yahweh was still standing at the entrance of the tent of meeting when they approached him with their offering, rather than inside the inner-sanctum. This also agrees with the statement in 10:4 according to which their bodies had to be removed “from the front of the sacred precinct” (#dqh-ynp t)m), probably referring to the entrance of the tent. 136 Otherwise, incense is included within the regular cult by being burnt daily on the golden altar of perfumes located inside the outer-sanctum (Ex 30:1–10) and by being disposed (but not burnt) before the Ark and the trpk (Ex 30:34–38); frankincense (hnbl) must also be added to every cereal offering presented raw and not baked, see Lev 2:2 and further 2:15. The few passages in the Torah mentioning an offering of incense on a censer-pan in addition to Lev 10 and 16, namely, Num 16 and 17:6–15, make clear that it is a privilege reserved for Aaron exclusively which, according to Num 16:5, 7, is the very sign of his consecration to Yahweh and of his status as holiest member of the community. “[Moses] said to Korah and all his community: ‘In the morning, Yahweh will make known who is his, and who is holy, that is who will approach him; the one whom he will choose will approach him’”. Outside the ceremony of Kippur, it appears to be reserved for exceptional situations of emergency such as the one described in Num 17:6–15. Significantly, there are numerous links between Lev 10 and Num 16. This question will be treated below, Chapter Six of this study.

104

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

to heaven, which produces a “pleasing”, “soothing” odor for the deity. In this respect, the issue raised by the story of Nadab and Abihu is the possibility of a direct, personal encounter with the deity now residing inside the sanctuary, beyond the second veil. This issue is addressed at the end of the second part of the Leviticus narrative when Yahweh reveals to Moses the unique ritual of ch. 16, during which Aaron is commanded to perform the very rite that caused the death of his two sons in order to be admitted into the inner-sanctum. Therefore, very much as in Ex 40 and Lev 9, the contrast between Lev 10 and 16 highlights the development taking place in Leviticus as regards the motif of approaching Yahweh (cf. qrb in 16:1 MT). This second major topic in Lev 11–16 is not simply parallel to the theme of the restoration of the cult that was already discussed above; on the contrary, the two aspects have been carefully combined in the present account of ch. 11–16. Lev 10 recounts how the two priests were punished by Yahweh himself because they sought to approach Yahweh with a censer-incense offering; their death calls in turn for the complete cleansing of the sanctuary in Lev 16, in the course of which Aaron will enter the inner-sanctum with censer-incense in his hand, thus disclosing simultaneously the specific circumstance in which this offering may legitimately be presented to Yahweh. In-between are revealed to Moses and Aaron a new set of regulations concerned with the general topic of ch. 16, namely, ritual purity (ch. 11–15). The account of the death of Aaron’s sons in Lev 10 thus functions as a highly sophisticated narrative pivot, uniting Lev 1– 9 and 11–16 and making possible the revelation of a second set of to=ro=t. Significantly, the narrative development occurring in Lev 16 vis-à-vis Lev 1–10 is signaled by the occurrence of a theophany, as at the end of Lev 9, yet this time no longer outside the sanctuary but, on the contrary, inside the innersanctum. Moreover, the meaning of this device is further enhanced by the fact that the theophany of Lev 16 can be shown to be the last in a series of previous, similar theophanies structuring the account of the building of the sanctuary and the institution of the sacrificial cult since Ex 24. Ex 24:15–18

Ex 40:34–35

Lev 9:23–24

Lev 16:2, 12–13

Yahweh’s dwbk dwells (Nk#) on Mt Sinai

Yahweh’s dwbk dwells (Nk#) inside the d(wm lh)

The cloud (Nn() covers (hsk Piel) the mountain Moses enters the cloud on the 7th day: encounter GodMoses

The cloud (Nn() covers (hsk Piel) the

Yahweh’s dwbk appears to the community before the sanctuary [No mention of the cloud]

Yahweh appears to Aaron inside the inner-sanctum in the cloud (Nn(, 16:2), materialized by Aaron’s incense cloud (Nn(, 16:13)

Moses allowed inside the tent, together with Aaron

Encounter GodAaron inside the inner-sanctum

Nk#m

Moses not allowed inside the dwelling

2.3. A Case for the Threefold Structure of Leviticus

105

The logical progression that takes place in Ex 24–Lev 16 is unmistakable. The account of the building of the tent, Ex 25–40, is framed by a central shift. In 24:15–18, Yahweh’s dwbk is “dwelling” (Nk#) on Mt Sinai for seven days (6 + 1). Mt Sinai is covered (hsk ) by the cloud (Nn( ) surrounding the dwbk; the dwbk itself appears to the people as a “devoring” fire (tlk) #), Ex 24:17); finally, Moses enters the cloud on the seventh day. At the other end of the building account, in Ex 40:34–35, Yahweh’s dwbk has now moved to dwell inside the sanctuary, now covered (hsk ) by the cloud (Nn(); however, the dwbk does not appear to the community, and Moses is not allowed inside the tent. This tension is resolved after the inauguration of the sacrificial cult in Lev 9, v. 23–24, when Moses enters the tent, together with Aaron, while the dwbk appears to the entire community and manifests its acceptance of the sacrifices with a divine fire (#)) that “devors” (lk)) the offerings placed on the altar (compare Ex 24:17!). In Lev 16, finally, Aaron is permitted inside the inner-sanctum (16:13ff.), where Yahweh appears to him inside the cloud (cf. 16:2bb, g), thus recalling the previous encounter between God and Moses on the mountain in Ex 24:15–18 – except that Aaron has now replaced Moses in the role of the community’s mediator, and that this encounter is no longer unique, but part of a yearly ritual (cf. 16:29, 34a). We shall return later in this study to the significance of this transformation from the perspective of the composition of P (below, § 4.4.1.). Lastly, one may observe that the inclusion with the beginning of the account of the tent’s building in Ex 24–25 is further emphasized by the mention of the trpk, the very seat of the divine presence according to Ex 25:22; in the entire book, it is only mentioned in the context of the purification ritual of Lev 16 (see 16:14–15).137 2.3.3. Leviticus 17–26 and the Theme of Leviticus The previous section has confirmed that a further division takes place in Lev 11–16 and has suggested that, through the inclusion built with ch. 10 in 16:1, ch. 11–16 had been conceived as a further stage in the book’s narrative development. Aaron’s admission into the inner-sanctum to restore the sacrificial cult after the account of ch. 9–10 corresponds to a new manifestation of Yah137 See further below the discussion of Lev 16 at § 4.3.2.2, where the problem raised by the relationship between the cloud mentioned in Lev 16:2 and the cloud of incense of v. 13 is discussed. The obvious structuring device formed by the theophanies of Ex 24; 40; Lev 9 and 16 in the Sinai account was only occasionally noted by commentators. An exception is the recent study by HAUGE, Descent, esp. 218ff.; yet even he focuses on the connection between Ex 40 and Lev 9 and tends to neglect the wider frame built by Ex 24 and Lev 16. This motif occurs once more in Numbers, see Num 7:89, although in a different form since, there, Moses no longer encounters Yahweh directly but only his “voice” (lwq ). This occurrence is also fitting since Num 7 is the last passage in Num 1–10 dealing with the building of the Tabernacle, and thus forms a still wider envelope with Ex 25.

106

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

weh, this time inside his sanctuary, which forms the climax of a series of previous theophanies structuring Ex 24–Lev 16. This analysis suggests that Lev 1–10 and 11–16 are organized around the general theme of the mediation of the divine presence in Israel in and through the sacrificial cult; in this broad scheme, the theophany of Lev 16, after that of Lev 9–10, corresponds to a further stage in a pattern of gradual intimacy between Yahweh and Israel. What, then, of the meaning of the third and last section of the book, Lev 17–26, in this scheme? (The reason for regarding ch. 27 as an “appendix” to Leviticus, even from a synchronic perspective, has already been discussed above, in Excursus 2.) It is significant that the very issue of the divine presence returns in the second half of the last speech by Yahweh (ch. 25–26), where he announces to Moses the various blessings and curses awaiting Israel in case of obedience or disobedience to his “statutes” (tqx ) and his “commands” (twcm) (see 26:3–45).138 The list of blessings in v. 4–13 culminates with the promise that Yahweh will not merely place his dwelling among the Israelites (26:11a, apparently a reference to Ex 25–40)139 but that he will even “walk in their midst” (see Mkkwtb ytklhthw, 26:12a), a statement that clearly appears to go beyond the previous one. The terminology of 26:12 is actually reminiscent of descriptions in the mythical period before the Flood (Gen 1–5), where the distance between man and God was less clearly marked and where certain privileged ancestors are said to have “walked” with Yahweh (cf. Gen 5:22, 24; 6:9, with Klh Hithpael, as in Lev 26:12).140 It may also recall the situation in Eden, where one finds the notion that Yahweh’s “voice”, lwq , could occasionally walk (!) in the garden with the primeval couple (Gen 3:8).141 If this interpretation is correct, the ultimate blessing of Lev 26 considers nothing less than the restoration, in Israel, of the relationship between God and man that existed before the Flood, thus connecting the conclusion of Leviticus with the beginning of Genesis. With this new development, the book of Leviticus closes with a promise that goes beyond the mediation offered by the sacrificial cult and considers an even more direct form of community between God and man. This is possible because meanwhile, in Lev 17:1–26:2, holiness is no longer exclusively a 138

As noted by SUN, Investigation, 491ff., the term hrwt in Lev 26:46 never occurs either in Lev 25–26 or even in Lev 17–26 but must refer to 7:37–38, the subscription to the whole collection of Lev 1–7, as well as to ch. 11–15. On the possibility that 26:46 does not only conclude Leviticus, but the entire Sinai legislation in the Pentateuch, see further § 5.3. 139 In the context of the interpretation proposed here, it is tempting of course to adopt the recent proposal by MILGROM, Leviticus, 2299–2301, who argues that ynk#m should be rendered in Lev 26:11 as “my presence”. Yet as Milgrom himself must admit this rendering is unparalleled in the Pentateuch. 140 See ELLIGER, Leviticus, 374; H ARTLEY, Leviticus 463; MILGROM, Leviticus, 2300– 2301. On Klh Hithpael in Gen 5–6, see BLUM, Studien, 291–292, and above, § 1.3., page 63. 141 As suggested by MILGROM, Leviticus, 2301.

2.3. A Case for the Threefold Structure of Leviticus

107

quality of the deity, his sanctuary and his servants the priests (see Ex 29; Lev 8), as in Lev 1–16; it has now been extended to the entire community of Israel, as chapters 18–20 show. Israel is now defined as a nation consecrated to (Lev 19:2; 20:7, 26) and by (20:8) Yahweh. Besides, the ultimate purpose of this sanctification process is stated in the exhortation concluding the first half of ch. 17–26 (22:31–33): namely, that Yahweh himself may be sanctified (#dq Niphal) amidst his community (22:32) – a statement purposely anticipating the central promise in 26:12.142 Certainly, as various authors have observed, Israel’s sanctuary (#dqm), as the deity’s seat, continues to form the very center of this extended sphere of holiness.143 Various passages, such as the exhortations to revere ()ry) Yahweh’s temple in 19:30 and 26:2, make clear that the people’s sanctification can by no means be dissociated from the sanctuary (see also further 20:3). Likewise, the sanctuary’s importance is also obvious in the rules for the priests in 21:1–22:16, as well as in the fact that the first half of ch. 17–26 (17–22) is framed in Lev 17 and 22:17–30 by two instructions concerning the offering of sacrifices. Nonetheless, the further broadening of the perspective taking place in Lev 17–27 over Lev 11–16 is unmistakable.144 In the third and last section of Leviticus, the division between sacred and profane is no longer restricted to the sanctuary but has been enlarged to virtually every domain of the individual and social life.145 In ch. 23–25, finally, this same division is systematically applied to the temporal plane.

142 It is further interesting to note that the only other passage in Leviticus where #dq Niphal is used with Yahweh as object is in Lev 10:3; but there, the requirement concerns those “approaching” (root brq ) him, namely, his priests, as the immediate context makes clear. At the conclusion of Lev 17–22, on the contrary, this requirement is significantly enlarged to the entire community of Israel, lay persons (see ch. 18–20) and priests (21:1– 22:16). With this ultimate development in the Leviticus narrative, the entire community has become in a sense a sanctuary for Yahweh, at least as long as Israelites respect his laws. 143 See especially on this KNOHL , Sanctuary, 180ff., as well as MILGROM, Leviticus 19, both of whom consider that Lev 17–26 promotes a concentric, inclusive notion of holiness (sanctuary/priests/community), involving various degrees of sanctity. See also on this further below, Chapter Five of this study, especially § 5.2.3., pages 481ff. 144 Hence, contra WAGNER, Existenz, it is not the case that Lev 17–27 is concerned with “irreparable” offences whereas ch. 11–16 deal with “reparable” offences. Lev 11–15 does not deal with offences but rather with instances of bodily pollution, most of which are unavoidable (Lev 12–15); and Lev 17–27 does admit a few cases of reparation, see Lev 19:20–22; 22:14. See already the criticism by BLUM, Studien, 322 n. 135. 145 Note, moreover, that the series of curses found in Lev 26, v. 14–39, describing the gradual abandonment of Israel by Yahweh because of the people’s continual sins also makes clear that contrary to Lev 1–16, the sacrificial cult will not suffice to appease the divine wrath in case of violation of the commandments, as is stated in 26:31. This difference underlines the development taking place in Lev 17–27, as well as the requirements implied by the enlargement of the concept of holiness to the entire community.

108

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

To be sure, a similar exhortation to sanctification is already found in 11:43–45, i.e., at the beginning of the second section of the book, ch. 11–16.146 Yet (and this point has often been missed by the authors holding the unity of ch. 11–27) even in this case the exhortation is explicitly restricted to the to=ra= on clean and unclean animals; it does not include all the other instructions in ch. 12–15, where the theme of the community’s sanctification is otherwise never addressed. Thus, 11:43–45 represents rather a kind of proleptic announcement of Lev 18–20, connecting the observance of the law of ch. 11 with the – forthcoming! – sanctification of the community in Lev 18–20. The reason for this device is obvious: although purity is not equivalent to holiness in Leviticus (cf. 10:10), the former is nevertheless a necessary preliminary to the latter. In this regard, the inclusion around ch. 11–20 built by 11:43–45 and 20:25 signals the development taking place between ch. 11–16 and 17–27, as well as the gradation between these two collections. The community which has been taught the distinction between clean and unclean (11–15) and which has been entirely purified (16) is now ready to learn a new set of rules by means of which it will become entirely consecrated to its God.

2.3.4. Conclusion: Structure and Theme of Leviticus in the Context of the Pentateuchal Narrative The analysis pursued in this chapter has suggested that the book of Leviticus consists of three major sections (ch. 1–10; 11–16; 17–26/27) whose arrangement evinces a clear pattern, itself related, more generally, to the pentateuchal narrative in Genesis and Exodus. After a first encounter with Yahweh at Mt Sinai, the conclusion of a covenant (Ex 19–24) and the building of a sanctuary for him (Ex 25–40), the story reports the institution of the sacrificial cult and thus of a first form of communication with the deity (Lev 1–10), solving the problem brought about by the mention at the end of Exodus of Moses’ prohibition from entering the sanctuary. The new issue raised at the very end of this section by the transgression of Aaron’s elder sons, Nadab and Abihu (ch. 10), introduces the next unit (Lev 11–16) dealing with the maintenance (Lev 11– 15, see 15:31) and the restoration (Lev 16) of this order. The successful preservation of the boundaries defined at the end of Lev 1–10 opens the way to the third and last section, ch. 17–27, where the theme of Israel’s relationship with Yahweh is now extended beyond the realm of the sacrificial cult to the sphere of everyday life. Furthermore, the narrative progression structuring Leviticus is highlighted by the fact that each section concludes with a reference to the divine presence, the overall sequence suggesting a pattern of growing intimacy with the divine. In Lev 9–10, Yahweh appears to the entire community before the sanctuary; in ch. 16 he appears to Aaron inside the inner-sanctum, in an encounter that recalls God’s encounter with Moses on Mt Sinai; and Lev 26, finally, alludes to Yahweh’s permanent – albeit conditional! – presence in Israel outside the sanctuary, thus returning somehow to the “golden age” of mankind, before the Flood. 146

This point has often been raised against the separation of Lev 11–16 and 17–26 (27); see for instance BLUM, Studien, 318ff.323; SUN, Investigation, 491.

109

2.3. A Case for the Threefold Structure of Leviticus

This threefold structure can be summarized as follows: Lev 1–10

Lev 11–16

Lev 17–26 (27)

Conclusion:

Lev 9–10 

Lev 16 

Lev 26 (+ 27)

Reference to the divine presence:

Public theophany before the d(wm lh), witnessed by all Israel

Theophany inside the inner-sanctum, upon the trpk (Lev 16:2, cf. Ex 25:22)

Yahweh will “walk” in the midst of the Israelites if the latter obey to his commandments (26:12)

Narrative context:

Institution of the sacrificial cult

Maintenance and restoration of the sacrificial cult

Consecration of all Israel to Yahweh

Corresponding sign:

Moses and Aaron are allowed to enter the sanctuary (9:23–24)

Aaron (alone) is allowed inside the inner-sanctum (second veil, 16:12–13)

Subscription to the book (26:46 + 27:34): Moses has been taught all the divine laws; conclusion of the revelation at Mt Sinai

Inclusion with the previous pentateuchal narrative:

 Ex 40:35, conclusion of the building of the tent in Ex 25–40

 Ex 24–25 (24:15–18; 25:22), beginning of the section on the building of the tent

 Gen 5–6 (5:22,

MOTIF/ SECTIONS

24; 6:9; Gen 3:8?), original relationship between God and man before the Flood

The basic theme of the book, therefore, could be described as Israel’s gradual initiation (by Yahweh himself) into the requirements of the divine presence, an initiation taking place in three successive stages. Each of these stages involves acquiring a new set of divisions ensuing the general separation between sacred and profane: how to offer sacrifices (Lev 1–7), how to distinguish between main types of bodily uncleanness (Lev 11–15), which are the different times that have to be regarded as sacred by the Israelites (Lev 23–25), and so on. As such, while Ex 25–40 describes what one may call a “verbal” or a “textual” sanctuary,147 the whole book of Leviticus forms a sophisticated taxonomy organizing the life of an idealized community around this textual sanctuary. At the end of the Leviticus narrative, Israel has been initiated into all the main aspects of the divine presence, as well as into all the 147

For this idea, see in particular the study by LISS, Kanon, esp. 32. Similarly, for an interpretation of Solomon’s temple, 1 Kgs 6–8, as a “verbal icon”, see MCCORMICK, Palace.

110

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

divisions that the maintenance of this presence requires, according to what was programmatically stated in 10:10–11. At the end of the book of Exodus, the building of a #dqm , a sacred space delineated from the profane world, makes possible the deity’s return among his people; but the latter is still unable to approach its God and thus to bridge the divide between sacred and profane (Ex 40:34–35). After Leviticus, this divide is no longer, and all Israel has gradually passed, one may say, from one realm (profane) to the other (sacred). At this point, the journey towards the promised land may legitimately resume, but this time under the direct guidance of God, who dwells inside the tent. Leviticus, in the context of the pentateuchal narrative, makes possible the transition from Exodus to Numbers.148

148

For a similar idea, see also SKA, Structure, 341.

Chapter Three

Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Leviticus 1–10) The first step in this reassessment of the compositional history of Lev 1–10 will be to discuss the traditional division, since Kuenen and Wellhausen, between the so-called “narrative” section in ch. 8–10 and the to=ra= of ch. 1–7. A closer study will demonstrate that this separation is arbitrary and that the report on the inauguration of the sacrificial cult presupposes a first version of the to=ra= on sacrifices (§ 3.1.). This conclusion will raise in turn the question of the original form of this to=ra= in Lev 1–7 which, as will be argued, was probably limited to ch. 1–3 (§ 3.2.), of its sources and their age (§ 3.3.), of the significance of the composition of Lev 1–3; 8–9 (§ 3.4.), and, finally, of the origin of the material later introduced in Lev 4–5 and 6–7 (§§ 3.5. and 3.6.).

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10 3.1.1. On the Possibility of Isolating Lev 9 from Lev 1–8 The classical assumption that the composition of Lev 8–9 had to correspond to a stage in the formation of the book prior to the introduction of ch. 1–7 led to increasingly complex reconstructions. That Lev 8 belonged to Pg was always disputed; because of the differences between this chapter and Ex 29, Wellhausen and Kuenen suggested that it betrayed a later stage in the formation of P and thus excluded it from their reconstruction.1 This meant, however, that contrary to what was the case for Ex 25–28, there was no report of the compliance of Ex 29. Thus, Wellhausen had to postulate that the original report had later been suppressed and replaced by Lev 8,2 a solution that has commonly been adopted. Others, nevertheless, were unsatisfied with this and sought instead to demonstrate that it was still possible to reconstruct behind the present text of Lev 8 an older version corresponding to Ex 29.3 After Noth, who went further by excluding not only Lev 8 but also Ex 29 from Pg,4 1

See WELLHAUSEN , Composition, 143–144; KUENEN , Einleitung, 1. 70–78; similarly, e.g., BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 24. 2 Composition, 144, although Wellhausen also considers the possibility that Lev 9:1 followed immediately after Ex 29:38. 3 Thus in particular BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 343–344; further, e.g., CORNILL, Einleitung, 55. 4 NOTH, Exodus, 186ff.; and see above, § 1.2.2.2.

112

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

the problem of the relationship between these two chapters receded in the background; although the issue was still unresolved, it was no longer regarded as significant for the reconstruction of P in Exodus and Leviticus. A notable exception was Elliger who, in his Leviticus commentary, held the view that the first version of Lev 8 was not later but earlier than Ex 29 and thus belonged to Pg (“Pg2” in his model);5 otherwise, the attribution of ch. 8 to Ps has been widely accepted since Noth. The situation is more complex in the case of Lev 9. Whereas in the wake of Wellhausen earlier studies attributed most of this chapter to the Grundschrift (apart from a few glosses),6 there was a growing recognition in the course of the 20th century of the numerous parallels between the account of ch. 9 and the to=ra= of Lev 1–7 as regards the types of offerings, the description of the sacrificial rituals, and the terminology used (further on this below, § 3.2.). In 1959, K. Koch was the first to acknowledge the significance of these parallels, concluding that Lev 9 was dependent upon (and later than) Lev 1–7 Pg.7 But since the section on sacrifices in Pg calls for some sort of conclusion, Koch wanted to retain the latter in 9:22–24, the notice on the final theophany before the entrance of the sanctuary, which he assumed to be older than the rest of the narrative in ch. 9. The motif of divine consumption of the offerings by fire reflects, according to him, “an older Jerusalemite tradition” which he also sees preserved in 1 Chr 21:26 and 2 Chr 7:1.8 In order to justify his analysis, Koch resorted to the traditional notion that the consumption of the sacrifices upon the altar by a fire of divine origin appears to contradict the previous burning of the sacrifices upon the altar by Aaron and his sons in v. 8– 21.9 Since the notice in 9:22–24 may obviously not stand on its own but requires some kind of introduction, Koch had to isolate (although only tentatively) a few verses in the opening section 9:1–7 (= v. 1, 6–7*) which may not appear yet to presuppose the ritual of v. 8–21. 5

ELLIGER, Leviticus, 104–115; on his analysis, see further below. See already D ILLMANN , Leviticus, 468–471; as well as BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 346ff.; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 27–29; HEINISCH, Leviticus, 48. 7 Priesterschrift, 70. 8 Priesterschrift, 71. 9 This observation was initially made by DE W ETTE, Beiträge, 2. 298ff., who regarded the notice in v. 24a as a late “mythological” correction of the ritual. Later, G. von Rad reversed de Wette’s judgment, suggesting instead that it was rather the detailed description of the offering, including the burning of the animal by Aaron, which should betray a revision of the original account in v. 22–24*; cf. VON RAD, Priesterschrift, 83. This conclusion forms part of a larger argument, in which von Rad tries to demonstrate that the description of the community’s offering in v. 15–21 and of the priests’ offering in v. 8–14 should be assigned to his two distinct Priestly sources, “PA ” and “PB ” (Priesterschrift, 81–83). In Koch’s analysis, however, von Rad’s reversal of de Wette’s judgment is now used to eliminate all of the ceremony’s depiction in v. 8–21 as secondary vis-à-vis v. 22–24. 6

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

113

In spite of its very speculative character and the obvious difficulties involved, Koch’s solution had a profound influence on later literary-critical analyses of Lev 9, especially as regards his conclusion that material belonging to Pg can no longer be identified in v. 8–21, the description of the ritual itself. On this point, one may even speak of a consensus, as we will see below. The last major exceptions to this trend are found in the commentaries of M. Noth, who still holds on to the classical view that Lev 9 is older than ch. 1–7,10 and K. Elliger, who similarly wants to retain part of this chapter as original.11 His own solution, identifying two main layers in Lev 9 (“Pg1” and a later revision, entitled “Pg2”) corresponding to the two successive ceremonies of v. 8–14 and 15–22, closely follows G. von Rad’s earlier source-criticism of this chapter.12 As von Rad, Elliger views v. 8–14 and 15–22 as two parallel accounts. While v. 15–22 are said to betray a “popular” view of the inauguration of the sacrificial cult, v. 8–14 are written from a more distinctively priestly perspective. But whereas von Rad assigned these parallel accounts to his two Priestly sources, “PA ” and “PB ”, Elliger rejects this model. Instead, he regards v. 8–14 as a revision of 15–22 seeking to transform the original, “popular” ceremony into a great celebration of the high priest’s primacy. Also, he assigns to this same layer (= Pg2) the transformation of the original consecration of the first priests in Lev 8* (Pg1) into a seven-day celebration (cf. 8:33–35), here again emphasizing the importance of the high priest’s consecration in the community’s life. Lastly, Elliger accepts von Rad’s idea of a tension in the presence of two successive blessings in v. 22a and 23a and therefore considers the motif of Aaron’s entry into the tent in 9:23aa , b as a further correction by Pg2; it was interpolated through the resumption of Aaron’s blessing in 23ag.13 Regarding the tension between the two forms of consumption of the sacrifices, Ellliger accepts their attribution to distinct layers but rejects von Rad’s specific solution (see above) and reverts to the traditional view considering v. 24a as the result of a late correction.

In general, however, neither of these two solutions has been followed;14 instead, most authors have adopted Koch’s view that the main part of ch. 9, the description of the ritual in v. 8–21, belongs to a later layer than v. 22–24 (see below). Nevertheless, it is manifest that the basic layer reconstructed by Koch in 9:6–7*, 22–24 is incomplete since it lacks a report on the offering of the first sacrifices by Aaron and his sons between v. 6–7 and 22–24.15 Also, Moses’ instructions in v. 6–7 seem to presuppose a previous instruction on the 10

NOTH , Leviticus, 75ff. Contrary to Koch – but in line with earlier scholarship since Wellhausen –, he tends to systematically interpret the differences between Lev 9 and 1–7 as an indication of the antiquity of ch. 9. For a similar view, see also CORTESE, Dimensioni. 11 ELLIGER, Leviticus, 121ff. According to his analysis, Pg (= Pg1) would include 9:3*, 4–5, (6?), 7a* (until “altar”), 8a, 15b, 16, 17a, 18*, 19, 20b, 21b, 22, 23b, 24b. In his classical 1952 article, ELLIGER, Sinn, 175, still assigned most of Lev 9 to Pg. 12 See VON RAD, Priesterschrift, 81–83; and ELLIGER, Leviticus, 124–126.127–128. 13 ELLIGER, Leviticus, 123: “Einschub in maiorem gloriam Aharonis”. 14 Though a few authors have occasionally followed Elliger; see in particular JANOWSKI, Sühne, e.g., on p. 315–316; see also WESTERMANN, Herrlichkeit, 237. 15 E.g., STRUPPE, Herrlichkeit, 91.

114

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

animals to be sacrificed, such as found in v. 2–4. Thus, all subsequent studies have included in the original layer of ch. 9 part or all of v. 2–4, and have sought to isolate a brief notice on the offering of sacrifices in v. 8–21. For N. Lohfink, the original text of Pg should be identified in 9:1*, 2–3, 4b–7, 8*, 12a, 15a, 21b–24.16 In this case, the ritual reported by Pg already included the different sacrifices for Aaron and for the community which are found in the present text of Lev 9, but only with a short notice relating their offering properly speaking. A similar solution has been proposed by P. Weimar, who retains an even shorter text than Lohfink, especially in v. 21b–24.17 E. Cortese, in his commentary on Leviticus, keeps only 9:3–5*, 6, 7b, 15, 23–24,18 thus limiting the original ritual to the offering of the sacrifices on behalf of the community, as already suggested by Elliger. All these solutions, however, are mere suppositions and never the subject of a serious discussion; the only exceptions (to my knowledge) are found in the work of H. Mölle19 and, especially, of U. Struppe (1988).20 Mölle mainly argues that the theophany motif in v. 4, 6 and 23 is secondary (with v. 4 being still later than v. 6 and 23) while, contrary to the majority view, he regards v. 7–21 as forming a coherent section. As Lohfink, Struppe also claims that the original ritual described in Pg is to be found in a brief notice formed by v. 8a, 12a or 15*, which was originally followed by v. 23–24 and introduced by v. 3–4, 5, 6, 7aa.21 However, she combines this reconstruction, somewhat in the manner of Cortese, with Elliger’s idea that the offerings on behalf of Aaron and his house reflect a later innovation. Here, she introduces a new argument for this reconstruction, arguing that the mention of hl(h (sing.) in v. 24a is an indication that this ritual was initially limited to the presentation of one burnt offering, on behalf of the community, possibly together with other auxiliary offerings.

The problems raised by all these reconstructions of a minimal layer in Lev 9 are manifest. The isolation of an original notice in v. 8a, 12a, 15 by Lohfink, 16

LOHFINK, Narrative, 145 n. 29. WEIMAR, Struktur, 85 n. 18; ID., Sinai, 376 n. 134. In both studies, Weimar retains Lev 9:1a, 2–3*, 4b, 5b, 7*, 8*, 12a, 15a, 21b, 23, 24b. While accepting the idea of a tension between the two blessings of v. 22 and 23 (see above, page 113), he considers (against Noth and Elliger) that 23a is original; he also accepts the idea of the secondary character of the motif of consumption of the sacrifices by the divine fire in v. 24a. 18 CORTESE, Levitico, 56. 19 MÖLLE , Erscheinen, esp. 193–196. However, on p. 198 n. 150, he suggests that v. 24 should also represent a later interpolation, and that the original ritual concluded with v. 22 (whereas on p. 195, he suggests instead that v. 24 should have immediately followed v. 21, without discussing the case of v. 22). For a criticial discussion of Mölle’s analysis, in particular as regards his treatment of the theophany motif in Lev 9, see below note 41. 20 STRUPPE , Herrlichkeit, 90–93. Lev 9 has also been discussed recently by FREVEL , Blick, 148–181; but Frevel is primarily interested in demonstrating that Lev 9 was never the conclusion to Pg and discusses only some of the literary-critical problems of this text. Recent commentaries, even in Germany, tend to assume the chapter’s literary homogeneity: see H ARTLEY , Leviticus, 117ff.; GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 88–104; RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 290–302; DEIANA, Levitico, 109–111; cf. also GORMAN, Ideology, ch. 4. 21 Struppe’s reconstruction is not entirely consistent on this point. She begins by noting that “V. 3–4 macht durch die langatmige Aufzählung der verschiedenen Opferarten keinen ursprünglichen Eindruck, da Pg sonst ein weitschweifiges Interesse an kultischen Detailfragen fremd ist” (Herrlichkeit, 92). Ultimately, however, she retains these verses as original. 17

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

115

Cortese, Struppe and Weimar is overly speculative and is not backed by any real literary-critical observation. Instead, it is obviously based on the common, but nevertheless highly ideological assumption that detailed descriptions of cultic rituals are foreign to Pg, as is acknowledged by Struppe.22 What is more, the notices isolated somewhat arbitrarily do not even form a coherent description.23 Thus, one has to assume that the original text of Pg in Lev 9 may no longer be reconstructed, as some of the above mentioned authors have to admit.24 Significantly, in some recent studies, the composite nature of ch. 9 is merely postulated, but no attempt is made any longer to reconstruct the chapter’s original profile.25 Other authors, noting how problematic it was to dissociate Lev 9 from ch. 1–8, now want to exclude this chapter from the original P source.26 In fact, in the present state of the discussion, one needs to raise the question whether the alleged tensions identified in Lev 9 actually require us to account for the presence of distinct layers in this chapter. The classical thesis that the original version of Lev 9 merely knew the offering of the community, and not yet that of Aaron and his house, is highly disputable. Neither in the instructions of v. 2–4 nor in the description of the ritual in v. 8–21 is there any objective reason to dissociate the two types of offerings. In the analysis of von Rad, who was the first to distinguish between v. 8–14 and 15–21, this source22 STRUPPE, Herrlichkeit, 91: “Die Vorliebe für detaillierte kultische Angaben entspricht der Tendenz von Ps, wäre aber für Pg ungewöhnlich. Der Abschnitt V. 8–21 muß daher in seiner jetzigen Gestalt Werk einer späteren Überarbeitung sein”. Note in passing that this assumption is already contradicted by the instruction for the celebration of Passover in Ex 12. 23 V. 8a reports Aaron’s coming to the altar; v. 12a, his slaughtering the burnt offering; and v. 15a, his bringing forward (t) brq) the offerings of the community. Nowhere is the offering of the sacrifices themselves actually described, nor even their placement upon the altar where, supposedly, they were to be later consumed by the divine fire (cf. v. 24a). A further problem is raised by the close correspondence between Moses’ instructions in v. 2–4 and the description of the ritual in v. 8–22. Since these instructions match exactly the ensuing ritual (the only exception being the placement of the cereal offering after the wellbeing offering in the enumeration of v. 4), it seems somewhat arbitrary to retain part or totality of v. 2–4 as original, whereas almost all of v. 15–21 is held to be secondary. Note on this point the hesitation of STRUPPE, Herrlichkeit, 92. 24 Thus for instance CORTESE , Levitico, 56; further S TRUPPE, Herrlichkeit, 90, who acknowledges that “Pg” and “Ps” elements in Lev 9 “nur schwer zu trennen sind”. WEIMAR, Sinai, 376 n. 134, is also aware of the problem, but merely postpones it to a further study. 25 See for instance JANOWSKI, Tempel, who speaks simply of “Lev 9,1–24*” (further divided into “Lev 9,1–5*”, “9,7–21*”, and “9,22–24*”). Even more strikingly, E. Zenger, who has insisted in a series of publications on the importance of the notice in Lev 9:23–24 either as a central structuring device in the composition of Pg (ZENGER, Gottes Bogen, esp. 157– 160), or even as the original conclusion to the Grundschrift (ZENGER, art. Priesterschrift, 438–439; ID.,Einleitung5, 161ff.), apparently never attempted to reconstruct the profile of the layer in Lev 9 to which v. 23–24 are assumed to belong. 26 FREVEL, Blick, 166–180. See similarly ID., Kein Ende?, esp. 97–103.

116

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

critical division originated from his attempt to retrieve two discrete sources in Lev 9. This model for the composition of P has long been abandoned, already by von Rad himself in his later writings. Elliger sought to reinterpret this distinction according to his theory assuming that Lev 8–9 has undergone a revision emphasizing the primacy of the priestly class, to which he assigns the transformation of the initial ceremony of ch. 8–9 into an eight-day ritual (cf. 8:33–35; 9:1) concluded by the offerings of Aaron’s house (9:2, 8–15). However, the notion that the motif of the seven-day ceremony is a secondary development in Lev 8 is quite doubtful since 8:33 is the exact counterpart of the instruction found in Ex 29:35.27 The assumption that the mention of the eighth day in 9:1aa is secondary similarly raises important difficulties (see further below). The other arguments adduced by Elliger for regarding Aaron’s offering in Lev 9 as an interpolation are essentially based on the observation of small variants between the description of the offering of the t)+x and hl( in Lev 8:14–21 and 9:8–14.28 However, slight variations in formulation alone do not justify the assumption of a later redactor, and on the whole the description of 9:8–14 conforms to the procedure described in Lev 8:14–21 as well as in the corresponding passage of Ex 29:10–18.29 27

Compare: Ex 29:35b: Mdy )lmt Mymy t(b#. Lev 8:33b: Mkdy-t) )lmy Mymy t(b# yk. 28 Cf. ELLIGER, Leviticus, especially 125–126. 29 In 9:9a, the description reporting the dipping of blood upon the altar’s horns consists of the following statement: xbzmh twnrq-l( Ntyw Mdb w(bc) lb+yw, whereas Lev 8:15 reads instead w(bc)b bybs xbzmh twnrq-l( Ntyw. Elliger also notes that the term bybs is missing in 9:9, but he does not observe that it is equally lacking in the parallel passage of Ex 29:12 so that it is rather Lev 8 which departs here from both Ex 29 and Lev 9. The same is true for the enumeration of the remaining parts of the purification offering which must be burnt outside the camp. Ex 29 reads the following sequence: flesh, skin, dung (29:14), whereas Lev 8:17 reads skin, flesh, dung. Here again, Lev 9:11 agrees with Ex 29 by reading flesh and skin (although, admittedly, it omits the mention of dung). The fact that Aaron is now assisted by his sons in Lev 9:8–14 innovates vis-à-vis Ex 29 and Lev 8; but this development is only logical since the priests have just been consecrated, and it may certainly not be taken as an indication that 9:8–14 is secondary. Besides, the same phenomenon can be observed in the description of the well-being offering in 9:18–21, which Elliger regards as original. Rather than acknowledging that the two sections 9:8–14 and 15–21 stem from the same hand, Elliger is forced to postulate that the later scribe responsible for the redaction of v. 8–14 borrowed this feature from 15–21 (Leviticus, 125). A similar point applies in the case of the enumeration of the portions of the purification offering in 9:10, which departs from the order found in Ex 29:13 and Lev 8:16 (suet, caudate lobe, kidneys) but basically agrees with the order found in the description of 9:19 (namely, suet, kidneys, and caudate lobe), except of course for the mention of the tail in v. 19 which is a distinct feature of the well-being offering of sheep (cf. Lev 3:7). One further feature unnoticed by Elliger is that the use of qcy in 8:15 and 9:9 for the pouring out of the blood at the base of the altar, instead of the usual qrz, is unique to Lev 8 and 9:8–14, which confirms that the two texts go back to the same hand.

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

117

Above all, the identification of two discrete layers in Lev 9:8–14 and 15–21 raises considerable difficulties. Moses’ instruction to Aaron in v. 3–4, beginning with “And you shall speak to the Israelites, saying…” is not an independent instruction but manifestly presupposes a previous order given to Aaron, so that it is difficult to regard v. 2 as an interpolation. Elliger, the only author to deal explicitly with this issue,30 assumes that all of v. 1–2 are secondary and has to speculate that the original introduction to v. 3 was altered,31 but this is entirely unfounded. Above all, it is especially in the description of the sacrifices offered on behalf of the community in v. 15–21 that the problem is patent. The terms Nw#)rk in 9:15 and +p#mk in 9:16 obviously refer to the previous offering of a purification and a burnt offering in v. 8–14, but Elliger has to assume that the reference is to the purification offering and the burnt offering of Lev 8, since in his reconstruction the sacrifices of ch. 8 and 9 initially took place on the same day!32 However ingenious, this solution is not convincing. As noted above, the presupposition that the eight-day motif results from a later development in Lev 8–9 is not substantiated. And even if one were to accept this reconstruction, the t)+x and the hl( offered in 9:15– 21 do not follow immediately these same offerings in Lev 8, contrary to what is the case in 9:8–14, 15–21, so that it is all the more difficult to assume that the reference in 9:15, 16 was meant for the offerings of 8:14–21. Therefore, the conclusion, that 9:15ff. was conceived from the beginning as the sequel to 9:8–14 seems inescapable. The fact that in v. 15–21 only the rituals for the cereal and the well-being offerings are described (cf. v. 17–21) also makes sense after v. 8–14 since only these two offerings were not reported previously. Finally, as to Struppe’s observation that 9:24a mentions the burnt offering in the singular, it cannot prove that the burnt offering offered by Aaron and his sons is not original. In P (as elsewhere in the HB) the use of the singular to refer to a plurality of sacrifices is a common device.33 The other major tensions observed in Lev 9 may also be questioned. The presence of two blessings in v. 22 and 23 need not be regarded as the indication of a doublet.34 The second blessing in v. 23a may certainly not be considered a case of Wiederaufnahme (compare the formulations of v. 22a and 23a!), and each blessing has a distinct function. The blessing of the commu30

Contrast for instance STRUPPE, Herrlichkeit, 92. ELLIGER, Leviticus, 124. 32 Cf. Ibid., 126. 33 Thus also, e.g., MILGROM, Leviticus, 591. This is already obvious in the formulation of Lev 9:3, where the Israelites are to be instructed by Aaron to take a calf and a lamb hl(l ; exactly the same formulation is found for instance throughout Num 28–29, as well as in Ex 29:40–42, etc. Note that the LXX already rendered hl(h by the plural, ta& o9lokautw/mata, which adds credence to the possibility of reading the Hebrew in a collective sense. 34 For this classical assumption, in addition to von Rad, Noth and Elliger (see above), see further, e.g., SEYBOLD, Segen, 59 n. 16; JANOWSKI, Sühne, 315; STRUPPE, Herrlichkeit, 91. 31

118

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

nity in 22a offers a fitting conclusion to the offering of the first sacrifices on behalf of the people, whereas the blessing of 23ag emphasizes the fact that Moses and Aaron were allowed for the first time into the tent (cf. 23aa, b); what is more, the second blessing is given by Moses and Aaron, and not by Aaron alone as in 22a. Similarly, the notion that the motif of divine consumption of the sacred offerings placed upon the altar in v. 24a contradicts the logic of the previous ritual is highly disputable. It should be recalled that the burning of portions of the animal upon the altar took a very long time (several hours),35 so that the underlying assumption that by the time of Yahweh’s theophany the offerings were already entirely consumed is simply incorrect.36 There is no need therefore to see a tension between the fire upon the altar and the divine fire of 9:24a. The combination of the two motifs is only logical in the context of Lev 1–9: after ch. 8 and the consecration of the first priests, fire was necessarily already burning upon the altar (cf. 8:16, 20–21, 28). Conversely, the reconstruction of an earlier version of ch. 9 presenting exclusively the motif of divine consumption in v. 24a is only possible if Lev 9 once followed immediately Ex 40:34 or 35 which, as we will see below, is entirely unlikely. It is true that the Hebrew Bible, like several other cultures in antiquity,37 knows a tradition according to which exceptional sacrifices are directly consumed by the divinity and not burnt upon the altar: cf. Judg 6:21; 1 Kgs 18:38; 1 Chr 21:26; 2 Chr 7:1 (see further Gen 15:17). However, apart Lev 9 and from 1–2 Chr (which depend on P),38 all the other occurrences of this topos in the HB exclusively concern sacrifices which are not offered upon an altar that was already consecrated.39 In these passages, therefore, the motif of the divine fire consuming the offerings serves to emphasize that they were nevertheless accepted by the divinity in spite of the absence of a legitimate, consecrated altar. In Lev 9, this motif occurs for the first time in the context of offerings made upon an altar, a feature suggesting that this passage is a somewhat distinct case. In his description of the institution of the sacrificial cult at Mt Sinai, the author of Lev 9 obviously sought to include a traditional 35

See already H EINISCH , Leviticus, 48; further on this issue MILGROM, Leviticus, 591; RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 301. 36 See, e.g., NOTH, Leviticus, 82: “In any case the statement in 24a cannot be reconciled with the preceding narrative, according to which the sacrifice, inclusive of the burning, was completely offered on the altar […]” (emphasis added). Similarly, but with the opposite conclusion (v. 23b would be secondary against v. 24a), see EHRLICH, Randglossen, 2. 32. 37 See the various parallels already noted by DILLMANN, Leviticus, 470. 38 Pace KOCH, Priesterschrift, 71, who regards as unlikely that the Chronicler could transfer to David and Solomon a tradition originally related to Moses, and presumes instead that it is P who borrowed the tradition reflected by 1 Chr 21:26 and 2 Chr 7:1. 39 Cf. Gen 15:7; Judg 6:21; 1 Kgs 18:38, and contrast with the story of the inauguration of the cult by Solomon in 1 Kgs 8, where this motif does not occur. In Judg 6, the altar is built afterwards, on the spot where the divine fire has consumed the sacrifices (cf. 6:24).

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

119

motif, showing the legitimacy of the first offerings ever made to Yahweh. But by doing so, he also changed its significance since in P this motif now serves more generally to legitimize the altar standing before the tent (cf. Ex 27:1– 8)40 as the only place where offerings may be made to Yahweh.41 Excursus 1: Other Problems Traditionally Identified in Leviticus 9 The case of the remaining tensions in Lev 9 may be briefly addressed. A contradiction has sometimes been presumed between the motive clause of v. 4b, where Yahweh’s appearance is already predicted to Aaron, and v. 6b (in v. 4b, h)fr:ni is vocalized in the MT as an indicative, but the consonantal text was probably intended as a participle originally, cf. the versions).42 40

Contrast Judg 6:21 and 1 Kgs 18:38. Against de Wette and other scholars who, after him, have regarded v. 24a as a later interpolation (see also, for instance, NOTH , Leviticus, 82), the originality of this hemistiche should therefore be maintained. De Wette’s idea that v. 24a is a later “mythologization” of the original ritual is too rationalistic and has no foundation in the text; the same applies to von Rad’s view that the event reported in v. 24a forms a “doublet” with the theophany in v. 23b (Priesterschrift, 81). Besides, the people’s reaction in v. 24b, which does not consist merely of a proskynesis before the appearance of the hwhy dwbk, as in Num 20:6 but also includes “joyful shouts” (root Nnr), which are best understood as a reaction to the acceptance of the first sacrifices by Yahweh, and not simply to the theophany of v. 23b; contrast for instance Ex 16:10 (against NOTH, Leviticus; 82, who holds the opposite view). On the expression wayya4ronu=, connected with active participation of the assembly during the usual cult, see HARTLEY, Leviticus, 124–125. Pace EHRLICH, Randglossen 2. 32, followed by MÖLLE, Erscheinen, 195 with n. 139, there is no ground for correcting Nnr into )ry, “to fear”, even though this solution makes sense. One may note that among older commentators, the majority believes the tension identified by de Wette to be excessive. See DILLMANN, Leviticus, 470–471; BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 349; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 29, who notes that for the author of Lev 9, “war eben Beides in gleicher Weise selbstverständlich: die Permanenz des Altarfeuers und sein göttlicher Ursprung”; similarly HOFFMANN, Leviticus, 1. 291–292. Mölle’s view that v. 23 (and together with it v. 6) should be considered an interpolation in its context (ID., Erscheinung, 194–196) is based on problematic observations. Moses’ and Aaron’s entry into the tent of meeting is not a blind motif (Ibid., p. 194–195), as observed earlier in this study, but the logical sequel to Ex 40:35; and there is no reason to assume that v. 24 initially followed v. 21. On the contrary, the people’s reaction in v. 24b clearly presupposes the theophany of v. 23b (contra Mölle’s statement on p. 195 [“V. 24 ist damit auch ohne die Erscheinung v. 23 verständlich”]; see in particular the people’s proskynesis in 24b, and compare with Num 20:6). As regards the tension he perceives between v. 23 and 24 and his view that v. 24 should follow immediately v. 21, it is essentially based on the idea that the consumption of the sacrifices on the altar by the divine fire comes too late in the present form of Lev 9, which, as I have suggested above, is unconvincing. Above all, Mölle’s assumption that the entire theophany motif in Lev 9 is secondary is not only quite speculative but it is also untenable once the connection with Ex 24:15b–18aa Pg is considered. Note, besides, that on p. 198 n. 150, Mölle offers a different view, arguing that v. 24 is also secondary and even assuming that it might stem from the same hand as v. 23. However, the fact that v. 22 offers a fitting conclusion to the entire ritual in v. 7–21 can hardly support the conclusion that all of v. 23–24 should be secondary. 42 See BHS. WEVERS, Notes on Leviticus, 118, observes that “since [h)rn] is modified by hayyo=m the participle is likely to have been intended”. 41

120

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

The authors noting this tension usually assume that v. 4b comprises a later interpolation;43 Struppe, in particular, observes that the reference to Yahweh’s appearance in 4b (and not his 44 dwbk ) is foreign to Pg. However, this conclusion is incorrect (cf. Gen 17:1; 35:9) and, besides, the reason for the interpolation of v. 4b remains obscure. Actually, the tension perceived between v. 4b and 6b is disputable. Assuming that the statement of v. 4b is part of the instruction addressed to the entire community in v. 3–4, and not to Aaron specifically, which seems to be the most logical reading,45 the two passages have a distinct function. V. 4b is a motive clause justifying the offering of sacrifices on the eighth day, whereas v. 6 introduces a new series of instructions concerning the unfolding of the ritual itself in v. 7. On the whole, little importance should be given to the omission of the term dwbk in 4b; it must be recalled that since the hwhy dwbk refers specifically to the aspect of the deity that can be seen by man, the appearance of Yahweh and the appearance of his dwbk are basically equivalent. Hence, it seems preferable to retain v. 4b as original in Lev 9. In v. 7ab , the reading of the LXX (tou= 46 oi1kou sou = Ktyb, instead of M(h d(b in the MT) is probably the oldest one. Aaron must offer the first sacrifices in order to atone for himself and his house (= v. 8–14); the offerings for the people’s atonement come only afterwards (v. 15ff.), as is implied by 7ba.47 Struppe views a tension between the motivation for the offerings in v. 7 and v. 6;48 yet, this is primarily based on the unsupported (and highly problematic) assumption that all references to atonement in P result from a later revision of the text.49 Rather, her conclusion as to the secondary character of most of v. 7 (except 7aa) actually reflects her complete misunderstanding of the real issue of the ceremony of ch. 9 (the same conclusion applies to Elliger, whom Struppe basically follows here).50 Evidently, Yahweh can reveal himself in the midst of his community only

43

Thus e.g. NOTH, Leviticus, 77; similarly MÖLLE, Erscheinung, 196. VON RAD, Priesterschrift, 81, already laid emphasis on this repetition for the division of Lev 9 into two sources. 44 Herrlichkeit, 92. 45 Against VON RAD, Priesterschrift, 81, who appears to interpret v. 4b as being addressed to Aaron exclusively. 46 Thus the majority of commentators: see ELLIGER, Leviticus, 121.122; or HARTLEY, Leviticus, 117.118. The MT ’s reading does not really imply a doublet with v. 7ba , as is often argued (e.g., recently, R ENDTORFF, Leviticus, 291: “scheinbare Doppelung”), since the two sacrifices considered are distinct. Following the MT , the people is atoned in one case by the high priest’s sacrifice and in another by its own sacrifice. HARTLEY, 118, states that, “it is unusual to expect the high priest’s sacrifice to have benefits for the people”, but this is incorrect. The notion that the purification offering of the high priest has atoning effects for the entire community is also implied in Lev 4:3–12. Since it is said that the high priest’s sin makes the entire community guilty, his sacrifice automatically has implications for the entire community as well. Thus, it is probable that the MT’s reading corresponds to a later revision influenced by Lev 4. The sequence of the LXX for 9:7ab (‘Aaron and his house’) has a parallel in Lev 16:6, 11, and probably follows the traditional conception; for this view, see also DEIANA , Giorno, 120–123, although he considers a more complicated scenario. 47 Cf. BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 27; E LLIGER , Leviticus, 125; MILGROM , Leviticus, 578. Others (BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 348; WEVERS, Notes on Leviticus, 120) retain the MT as original but regard M(h d(b in 7ab as secondary; however, this seems unlikely on the basis of the analogy with Lev 16:6, 11, 17 (but not with 16:24 LXX, where the MT is probably original). 48 Herrlichkeit, 92. 49 “Der dominierende Gedanke von Schuld und Sühne spiegelt eine spätere Zeit wieder” (Herrlichkeit, 92). 50 Cf. Leviticus, 123ff.

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

121

after the latter has been purified and atoned through the offering of sacrifices; there is no tension in this regard between the statements of v. 6 and 7. V. 17b is usually acknowledged as a gloss intended to harmonize the description of the burnt and cereal offerings in v. 16–17a with the instruction for the daily burnt offerings in Ex 29:38–42, itself a late insertion in Ex 29 as recalled earlier in this study (§ 1.2.2.1.).51 In v. 21, the mention of the right thigh, qw# Nymyh (note the singular, whereas a plural is expected, as in the case of the breasts) is also commonly recognized as an interpolation. The addition is generally supposed to be based on the (late) prescription of 7:32–34,52 but as observed Milgrom53 7:32–34 nowhere states that the right thigh must be “raised” (Pynh); it is not a hpwnt offering, as the breast (cf. 7:34), but a hmwrt. Milgrom has convincingly argued, in my opinion, that in the Hebrew Bible only hpwnt could refer to a rite of dedication, probably a gesture of raising an offering to the deity; the term hmwrt also designates a gift made to Yahweh, the dedication of a thing by its setting aside (Myrh), but it does not imply any distinct ritual contrary to a traditional opinion going back to the rabbis, who interpreted these terms as two distinct cultic motions, one of “waving”, the other of “raising” the offering.54 Lev 7:28–34 reflects a stage when a clear distinction still applies regarding the breast and the right thigh of the well-being offering: only the breast must undergo the hpwnt ritual, whereas the right thigh is merely a hmwrt ‘prelevement’. Only at a still later stage, in Lev 10:14–15, does the distinction become blurred, inasmuch as both the breast and the right thigh of the well-being offering, which are still defined as a hpwnt and a hmwrt respectively (v. 14), must now undergo the gesture of ritual raising (Pynh) before Yahweh according to v. 15.55 Therefore, the inclusion of the right thigh among the

51 E.g., DILLMANN , Leviticus, 469–470; E LLIGER , Leviticus, 126; MILGROM, Leviticus, 584; etc. On the secondary character of Ex 29:38–42, see above, pages 36–37. 52 See, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 348–349; NOTH, Leviticus, 80; etc. ELLIGER, Leviticus, 126–127, holds the whole v. 21 as secondary (with the mention of the right thigh being a still later interpolation), mainly because he regards the waving of the breasts here, as in 8:29, as coming too late after the latter have been offered on the altar; yet this is dubious at best. 53 MILGROM, Leviticus, 476–477.585–586. 54 See MILGROM, Studies, 133–138.139–158.159–170; and ID., Leviticus, 461–473.473– 481. Nevertheless, it is clear that in some cases, the term hpwnt merely means “contribution” or “prelevement” and does not imply any ritual; see DE V AUX, Sacrifices, 32; DRIVER, Three Terms; C HARBEL , Nota. Pace Driver, however, the fact that in most instances in P hpwnt occurs with the verb Pwn suggests that the reference to a specific rite is unmistakable. Milgrom’s argument here is partly dependent on the analysis of VON SODEN, Geschenk, who identified a root r-y-m in Akkadian meaning “to give”, which could actually be an Amorite borrowing. In this case, the etymology of Hebrew te6ru=ma= would not be that it derives from a C inflection of the root r-w-m, “to raise, lift high”, but from r-y-m, “to give” (possibly in the G rather than in the C stem, see on this the observations by ANDERSON , Sacrifices, 140–142). However, the evidence for a root r-y-m “to give” in Akkadian is actually more disputed than acknowledged by von Soden, as Anderson stresses; see the latter’s criticism of von Soden’s analysis in Ibid., 137–144, esp. 142ff. This issue is too complex to be discussed in the context of this study but at any rate the fact that Heb. te6ru=ma= is cognate with the nouns r|4mu II, r|4mutu, tar|4mtu in Akkaddian (see also Ugaritic trmt, and on the latter, ANDERSON, Ibid., 137 with n. 3) all of which mean “gift”, as well as to the verb ra=mu III, “to give a gift”, confirms that this is also the meaning of this term in Hebrew. 55 This development is also surmised by MILGROM, Studies, 163ff., who assumes however that 10:15 is a later addition to v. 14 (cf. p. 165), which I find unnecessary. For a detailed analysis of ch. 10, and for the view that 10:12–15 is a homogeneous unit, see below, § 6.2.4.

122

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

portions raised to Yahweh in 9:21 should probably be assigned to the same late revision as is found in 10:15. The reason for this development is open to speculation. It should be noted that it has a precedent in Ex 29:24b (// Lev 8:27b), commanding that all the sacrificial portions of the “ordination” offering, including the right thigh, undergo the te6nu=pa= rite. This device probably corresponds to the exceptional character of the ordination offering; note, in particular, how the inclusion of the right thigh is justified in 29:22b by a motive clause: yk )wh My)lm ly) . However, in 29:26 a further, distinct te6nu=pa= rite is nevertheless reserved for the breast specifically, in keeping with the notion preserved in Lev 7:28–36.56 The fact that the inclusion of the right thigh in the te6nu=pa= rite was later transferred from the ordination to the well-being offering (= Lev 10:15) may easily be accounted for by the obvious analogy between these two offerings.57

Once the literary coherence of Lev 9 is recognized, there is no reason to dispute the original character of the connection with the ceremony of ch. 8, since the account of ch. 9 clearly presupposes the previous consecration of Aaron and his sons as priests. Similarly, several features in ch. 9 may not be explained without prior knowledge of ch. 8, and even more generally of Lev 1–8. That Moses needs Aaron’s mediation to gather the community in 9:1–4 is exceptional in P,58 but makes perfect sense after the latter’s consecration in Lev 8. Also, Moses’ role in ch. 9 as an intermediary between Yahweh and Aaron corresponds to the situation already described in the account of Lev 56

For a different view, see MILGROM, Studies, 168–170. One residual issue in ch. 9 concerns the absence of any mention of the rite of handleaning in 9:8–14 (compare Ex 29:10, 15; Lev 8:14, 18). This observation is a traditional crux in the exegesis of this chapter. Most likely, as suggested by MILGROM, Leviticus, 571, this omission is related to the author’s willingness to focus exclusively on the rites directly connected with the altar in the context of the inauguration of the public cult (Lev 9), as is also the case in Lev 16 where any reference to this rite is similarly missing (except when Aaron must confess the people’s sins on the head of the goat for Azazel, cf. 16:20–21; but this is a distinct rite, implying the leaning of both hands). The recent suggestion by GANE, Cult, 55 n. 34, who seeks to explain this omission by the rabbinic distintion between “noncalendric” and “calendric” sacrifices (the latter usually including no hand-leaning ritual), is not compelling in my opinion. To regard the ceremony of Lev 9 as “calendric” is unsupported, all the more because Lev 9 comprises a single ceremony with ch. 8 (above, Chapter Two), which is certainly not “calendrical” and where, besides, the hand-leaning rite is mentioned. Whether this rite should have been performed by the elders, as in Lev 4:13ff., as assumed by MILGROM, Leviticus, 579.583.584, is less certain. The two occasions are different and, besides, elders no longer play any role in the sequel of the ritual. Since the M T of 9:3 subsequently refers to the l)r#y-ynb (the SamP and the LXX read l)r#y-ynqz, but this is probably a harmonization with v. 1b) their mention in 1b is generally regarded either as a later revision of an original l)r#y-ynb (D ILLMANN , Leviticus, 468; BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 347, etc.) or (more likely in my opinion) as a later interpolation (BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 27; NOTH, Leviticus, 77; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 118), probably aimed at stressing the importance of elders as a social and political group alongside the priestly class. Note that the situation presupposed by Moses’ speech in v. 2–4 does not seem to imply that Israelites, or representatives of the community, are present at this moment since only Aaron is addressed by Moses (comp v. 5ff.). 58 As noted, e.g., by ELLIGER, Leviticus, 123; see also FREVEL, Blick, 169–170. 57

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

123

8.59 Furthermore, Lev 9 implies that Moses himself has previously received instructions from Yahweh, as is stated in v. 6–7 (cf. also v. 10b and 21b);60 therefore, it necessarily presupposes the notice in 1:1. For this reason, Elliger had already surmised that Lev 1:1a should perhaps be included in Pg.61 Since, however, 1:1 manifestly cannot have been immediately followed either by 8:1 or by 9:1, Lev 9 should be part of layer comprising a first version of ch. 1–8. Finally, the literary connection between Lev 8 and 9 is corroborated by the mention of the eighth day in 9:1aa which clearly depends on the seven-day ceremony reported in Lev 8 (cf. 8:33).62 Attempts to consider this chronological notice as a later addition,63 or to assume that the eighth day initially referred to a symbolic seven-day delay after Ex 40:35, initially unconnected to the ceremony of Lev 8,64 are quite unconvincing. The absence of any dating would be surprising in P,65 especially in the Sinai account where chronological notices have a major structuring function (cf. Ex 19:1a; 24:16; 40:17; and above, § 2.1.). That the seven-day delay signals a reference to the creation of the world in Gen 1:1–2:3 is more than likely; but it hardly implies that the ceremony of Lev 8 is not original, as argued for instance by E. Zenger.66 F.H. Gorman has shown that the seven-day ritual of Lev 8 was conceived from the start on the model of the creation narrative in P,67 and the sequence seven + 59

Apparently, the situation considered by the text of 9:1ff. is one in which Moses has received instructions during the seven-day interval signaled by 8:33 and 9:1aa. 60 Although v. 6–7 have sometimes been regarded as secondary (ELLIGER , Leviticus, 124–125; MÖLLE, Erscheinen, 196, in the case of v. 6 only), there is little ground for this literary-critical judgement. V. 6, in particular, prepares for the final theophany in v. 23–24 and should therefore be original, as correctly perceived by STRUPPE, Herrlichkeit, 90–93. Pace VON RAD, Priesterschrift, 83 n. 130, who retains the verse as original but implies that its function in its present context makes little sense after v. 2–5, the statement of the purpose of the ceremony offers on the contrary a good conclusion to Moses’ instructions in v. 2–5. 61 ELLIGER, Leviticus, 27; and before him already BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 27. This point does not seem to have troubled the exegetes assuming that Lev 9 initially followed immediately after Ex 40:35. However, see NOTH, Leviticus, 77, who must admit: “Now the original P, up to this point, had made no mention of sacrificial instructions on Sinai…”. 62 As correctly observed by NOTH, see Leviticus, 76: “It is then a natural suggestion to link the ‘eighth day’ in v. 1aa with the seven days of the ‘ordination’ in 8.33 (35), and so to take the naming of the ‘eighth day’ as presupposing at least ch. 8 and perhaps also chs. 1–7”. More recently, see also FREVEL, Blick, 173–177, esp. 176–177. 63 Thus, e.g., NOTH, Leviticus, 76; further ELLIGER Leviticus, 123. 64 CORTESE, Levitico, 56; WEIMAR, Sinai, 373 n. 123 and 124; STRUPPE, Herrlichkeit, 92. 65 As admitted by Noth for instance. The introduction found in Lev 9:1aa , with yhyw followed by a temporal indication, is unique in all Leviticus but recalls the formulation of Ex 40:17, a further argument to claim that it is also original in Lev 9. One may of course assume that it was later revised to be harmonized with the seven-day celebration of ch. 8 (thus tentatively NOTH, Ibid., 76), but this is entirely unsupported. 66 See, e.g., ID., Einleitung3, 158. 67 GORMAN, Ideology, 103–139; ID., Rituals.

124

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

one is frequently linked, in the Hebrew Bible, to rites of initiation, exactly as in Lev 8 and 9.68 Besides, it may be observed that a similar pattern involving an eight-day celebration culminating on the eighth day is attested elsewhere in the ancient Near East in the context of ceremonies of temples’ dedication at the beginning of the year69 (cf. Ex 40:17!), and this could very likely serve as a model for the ceremony of Lev 8–9. But if the connection between Lev 8 and 9 is indeed original, what of the traditional problem raised by the relationship of Lev 8 with Ex 29? It is to this issue that we must turn now. The case of chapter 10 presents a still distinct problem, and will be treated separately at the end of this section (§ 3.1.3.). 3.1.2. Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8–9 As noted above (§ 3.1.1.), Wellhausen’s conclusion that Ex 29 and Lev 8 could not belong to the same hand led him to assign Lev 8 to a later redaction (Ps), a view that has generally been followed.70 Noth’s assignment of Ex 29 to a secondary layer in P somewhat complicated the issue and led some authors to argue for the opposite relationship (although Noth himself held the classical view, regarding Ex 29 as the older of the two texts).71 A specific version of this latter hypothesis was proposed by K.H. Walkenhorst, who, in 1969, devoted a complete monograph to the comparison between Ex 29 and Lev 8 (as well as Lev 9). According to him, Lev 8 retains a traditional core older than Ex 29, even though in several passages the text of ch. 8 in its present form has been revised and is later than that of ch. 29.72 68 As is finely noted by FREVEL , Blick, 176, with n. 104. On this issue, see also further KLINGBEIL, Ritual Time. 69 On this, see in particular the references given by MORGENSTERN, Three Calendars, 49ff. 70 WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 142–144; see further KUENEN, Einleitung, 1. 69ff.; COR NILL , Einleitung, § 12.2; BERTOLET , Leviticus, 24–25; KOCH, Priesterschrift, 67ff.; NOTH , Leviticus, 68ff.; MILGROM, Consecration; ID ., Leviticus, 513–516.545–549; P OLA , Priesterschrift, 223–224; OTTO, Forschungen, 34–35. FLEMING, Biblical Tradition, 411–412, also seems to consider that Ex 29 is more original than Lev 8, at least on the level of the traditions recorded in these texts. Actually, Wellhausen was following POPPER, Bericht, 140ff., who was the first to argue that Lev 8 was too different from Ex 29 to stem from the same author. 71 Thus in particular LEVINE, Descriptive Texts, esp. 310ff.; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 106–115; IBANEZ A RANA, El Levitico, 9 and 92–93; MICHAELI, Exode, 256; JANOWSKI, Sühne, 215 n. 168; HYATT, Exodus, 287; PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 136. 72 WALKENHORST, Sinai. His comparison ends up in a highly complex model for the formation of the two chapters, very much influenced by the form-critical attempt to identify “small units” behind the text. Above all, his analysis consistently presumes that both Ex 29 and Lev 8 actually draw upon a common Vorlage, which would represent a very ancient “liturgical” tradition and could still be identified more or less clearly behind the present text of the two chapters (cf. also for the same notion HARTLEY, Leviticus, 109). This assumption, however, is little more than a petitio principii. Both Ex 29 and Lev 8 are manifestly sophisti-

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

125

Neither of the two solutions, however, leads to a convincing result.73 The notion that Ex 29 has drawn upon Lev 8 is the least satisfactory.74 Lev 8 continuously refers to previous instructions given by Yahweh to Moses,75 and the fact that this chapter consistently uses the definite article when mentioning each item of the ritual only makes sense if these items have already been enumerated.76 Yet the opposite view also raises a serious issue, inasmuch as it leaves us without any compliance report for the instruction of Ex 29. Even if one were to accept Noth’s (problematic) view that the original compliance notice to the instructions in Ex 25ff. is to be found in Ex 39:32b and 43a,77 this notice can in no case include the instructions of ch. 29.78 Ex 39:32b (“The Israelites did according to all of what Yahweh had commanded to them [so they did]”)79 exclusively mentions the work accomplished by the Israelites, not by Moses himself; however, Moses is clearly leading the whole procedure cated compositions by P; certainly, many of the ritual acts described in these two chapters originate in traditional rites from the pre-exilic period. This does not mean, however, that we need to postulate a distinct source (either oral or written) behind Ex 29 and Lev 8. In particular, both Ex 29 and Lev 8 are strongly permeated by the Sinai setting (cf. the systematic references to Aaron and his sons, the tent of meeting and the camp), and are thus firmly anchored in P’s narrative fiction. Also, the consecration of all priests at once is a typically literary device, corresponding to the needs of the Priestly narrator at this stage of his account, and is hardly likely to reflect historical reality (a point also noted by FLEMING, Biblical Tradition, 412). The reconstruction of one or several such documents behind the text of Ex 29 and Lev 8 leads to an impasse, and should be abandoned. Instead, one may agree with the recent statement by Fleming (Ibid.): “The combination of rites in Exodus and Leviticus probably reflects the narrative concern for beginnings rather than normal ritual performance […]. These should not be regarded as ritual texts in the sense of having full correspondence to actual practice, whether on one occasion or as a standard, but they are the work of professionals familiar with both ritual and its recording”. 73 Among recent commentators, both GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 88ff., and RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 265–289, occasionally note the differences taking place in Lev 8 with regard to Ex 29, but do not offer a specific view on the nature of the relationship between the two texts. Nevertheless, Rendtorff tends to assume that both texts were composed in parallel and emphasizes mostly the correspondences between them. Cf. also DEIANA, Levitico, 104ff. 74 See in particular the criticism of this solution by MILGROM, Consecration, 276ff.281ff. 75 Each stage of the ritual of ch. 8 is concluded by the phrase h#m-t) hwhy hwc r#)k (cf. Lev 8:4, 9, 13, 17, 21, 29; in v. 36, the formula is extended). In this respect, the situation is different from Lev 9, where this formula is only found once in the course of the ritual, in v. 10 (RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 268; see also 9:7; in 9:21: h#m hwc r#)k). DEIANA, Levitico, 105, also notes that “La frase ‘Mosè fece come il Signore gli aveva ordinato’, ripetuta 7 volte […], sembra provare una dipendenza, almeno per la redazione attuale del testo, di Lv 8 da Es 29”. 76 Thus already BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 25. 77 On this, see above, § 1.2.2.2., pages 57–58. 78 Against the recent solution advocated by OWCZAREK, Wohnen Gottes, 15–88, who apparently regards this notice as the conclusion to the Grundschrift which she reconstructs in Ex 25–29* (see on p. 46–53 for her reconstruction of Pg in Ex 35–40 MT). 79 This last clause is missing in some manuscripts (see BHS), and could be secondary.

126

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

in Ex 29:1–37. Since it is difficult to assume, especially in the case of P, that the compliance of the instructions of Ex 29 was initially not reported, the only way out is to suppose that the original report, possibly consisting merely of a brief notice, was later suppressed and replaced by the present text of Lev 8.80 However, this solution is entirely speculative: contrary to what applies for Ex 25–29, no trace of such notice may be found in the present text of either Ex 35–40 (MT or LXX) or Lev 8.81 In addition, it should be noted that the situation prevailing for Ex 35–39, where the MT and the LXX have preserved distinct accounts of the building of the tent,82 does not apply in the case of Ex 29 and Lev 8 (that is, variants between the MT, the LXX, and other versions only involve details). This suggests that the relationship between these two chapters forms a distinct issue, not to be compared too quickly to Ex 35–40.83 Thus, the solution traditionally adopted since Wellhausen leads to an impasse. In order to reassess this issue, we need to examine whether the variations between the two texts really require to assume that one text is later than the other, and whether it is not possible instead to identify in Lev 8 the original compliance report to Ex 29, as Baentsch has suggested.84 This solution is attractive insofar as the major differences between the two texts may easily be shown to result from a later edition of the two texts.85 In what follows, I will begin by discussing major disagreements between Ex 29 and Lev 8, before turning to a systematic comparison of these texts.86 The main disagreements between Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8 affect four passages. First, the description in Lev 8:10ab–11 has no parallel in ch. 29 (1); second and third, the instructions found in Ex 29:27–30 and 29:36–37 are not fulfilled in Lev 8 (2, 3); fourth, and lastly, the instruction of 29:21 is carried out in Lev 8, but at a different moment of the ritual, cf. 8:30 (4). Let us address these four cases in turn.

80 Thus already hypothetically W ELLHAUSEN , Composition, 144; further HOLZINGER , Einleitung, 424; and more recently, for instance, POLA, Priesterschrift, 223–224. 81 On the reasons for rejecting the solution of OTTO, Forschungen, 25ff., assuming that P initially ended with the instructions of Ex 25–29*, see above, § 1.2.2.2. 82 On this, see above, the brief discussion of this issue at § 1.2.1. 83 Pace, e.g., NOTH , Leviticus, 68–69. On the contrary, earlier scholars such as Wellhausen were well aware of this problem and had already concluded that Lev had to be older than Ex 35–39 MT. See Composition, 144: “[…] Lev 8, obwohl es auch sekundär ist, darum doch mit Ex. 35–40 nicht ganz auf gleicher Linie steht”. See similarly CARPENTER, Hexateuch, 2. 152. 84 BAENTSCH , Leviticus, 343–344. Note that D ILLMANN , Leviticus, 461–468, already considered a similar solution. 85 As Baentsch also observed, see Leviticus, 344: “[…] da schliesslich die als secundär angeführten Stellen so überaus leicht aus d. Zshg. sich lösen…”. 86 The following demonstration refines and occasionally revises the argument which I initially developed in NIHAN, Institution.

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

127

1. Lev 8:10ab –11: The long plus found in this passage reports how Moses anoints not only Aaron, as is required by Ex 29:7, but the whole sanctuary, its furniture, the outer altar and the basin (8:10ab–11). Wellhausen regarded this plus as the major argument for the later origin of ch. 8.87 However, a good case can be made here for the secondary nature of these verses. For, as we have seen previously in this study, in the original version of Lev 1–9 Moses was not allowed inside the sanctuary before the first sacrifices had been offered in Lev 9 (cf. Ex 40:35 and Lev 9:23a). Moreover, the insertion of v. 10ab–11 leads to the altar being consecrated twice, since it is also sanctified in 8:15.88 In fact, it has long been observed that the whole passage is clearly an attempt to harmonize Lev 8 with Ex 40:1–15, where Moses is commanded to anoint the tent and its furniture before he anoints Aaron and his sons (see 40:9–15).89 Thus, Lev 8:10–11 relates the faithful compliance of the instructions given in Ex 40:9–11.90 Not only is the sequence identical in both passages (sanctuary, altar, basin), but so is the description itself. Exodus 40:9–11 9

And you shall take the anointing oil, and you shall anoint the dwelling and all that is inside; and you shall consecrate it, and all its utensils, and they shall be sacred. 10 And you shall anoint the altar of the burnt offering and all its utensils; and you shall consecrate the altar, and it shall be most sacred. 11 And you shall anoint the basin with its base, and you shall consecrate it.

Leviticus 8:10–11 10

And Moses took the anointing oil; and he anointed the dwelling, and all that is inside, and he consecrated them. 11a,ba

He sprinkled from it upon the altar seven times, and he anointed the altar and all its utensils, 11bb

and the basin and its base, to consecrate them.

87 WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 143; further BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 24; KOCH, Priesterschrift, 67–68; MILGROM, Consecration, 277–280; ID. Leviticus, 513–516. 88 As observed by KOCH, Priesterschrift, 68, it also has the effect that Aaron’s sons now have to wait naked after they have been bathed, cf. 8:6b. Note, furthermore, that 8:11 is the only place in the whole book of Leviticus where the outer basin, which is described in Ex 30:17–21 (part of the supplement to P in Ex 30–31, see above, § 1.2.1.) is referred to. Lev 8:6, e.g., reporting the ritual washing of Aaron and his sons, does not mention it. This is surprising if originally Lev 8 knew Ex 30:17–21 and if 8:6 were from the same hand as 8:11. 89 BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 343–344; NOTH, Leviticus, 69–70; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 112–113; PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 141; MILGROM, Consecration, 277–280. WALKENHORST, Sinai, 50–51, argues that if v. 10–11 were really dependent on Ex 40:9–11 they should have been introduced earlier in the chapter, even before Aaron and his sons. But, precisely, this is a clear indication that these verses are not an integral part of the chapter, and that the redaction of Lev 8* is earlier than that of Ex 40:9–11. 8:10ab–11 obviously had to be inserted here because of the mention of the anointing oil in v. 10aa, which therefore should be older. 90 As suggested by MILGROM, Consecration, 279, the introduction of the anointing of the sanctuary before that of Aaron seems to obey the premise that “the anointing of Aaron should not take place in an unconsecrated sanctuary”.

128

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

Quite significantly, whereas the instructions found in Ex 40:2–8 are immediately accomplished by Moses (see Ex 40:18ff.) it is not the case for the commands in 40:9–15. Most likely, this is because the author of Ex 40 presumes that these instructions will be realized in Lev 8:10–11. Note, in addition, that the sevenfold aspersion of the altar with oil in Lev 8:11 may betray the conception that the outer altar is not merely sacred but most sacred, a notion which is also present in Ex 40:10 (otherwise, cf. Ex 29:37; 30:28–29).91 That Ex 40:1–15 is a late addition to Ex 25–40 has long been observed.92 Not only does it presuppose the supplement to P in Ex 30–31 (see above, § 1.2.1.), but the fact that it takes up and expands a previous instruction to Moses in 30:26–30, may suggest that it is even later than ch. 30–31. For this reason, the majority of the authors who have accepted Wellhausen’s idea that Lev 8 was later than Ex 29 but who have observed, contrary to him, the dependence of Lev 8:10ab–11 upon Ex 40:9–11, have agreed that this passage was, in fact, a later interpolation.93 One may add, moreover, that the LXX has preserved a different sequence for v. 10–11, placing 10ab , b after v. 11. This may even suggest that in the third century BCE, this late interpolation was not firmly established in the textual tradition.94 Once v. 10ab –11 are removed, and the original sequence in 10aa, 12 is restored, it matches the instruction in Ex 29:7, except for the addition of the comment w#dql at the end of Lev 8:12 which for its part takes up Ex 29:1. 2. Ex 29:21 and Lev 8:30: Although this sequence describing the ritual aspersion of Aaron, his sons, and their vestments by Moses is found in both texts, the divergence regarding its place in the development of the ritual seems to have been problematic early in the reception. Thus, the Samaritan tradition displaces Ex 29:21 MT after 29:28 in order to harmonize it with the sequence found in Lev 8 MT.95 However, here also, there are good reasons to consider both Ex 29:21 and Lev 8:30 as interpolations. The instruction to take blood from the altar in order to sprinkle with it the vestments of Aaron and his sons raises several difficulties. Nowhere else in P do we find a ritual use of the blood after it has been placed upon the altar, and since fire is already burning 91

Pace ELLIGER, Leviticus, 113, it is therefore unnecessary to assume that the absence of a corresponding instruction for the sevenfold sprinkling of oil in Ex 40:9–11 should betray the fact that the two passages go back to different hands. 92 E.g., WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 142–143; KUENEN, Einleitung, 1. 76. 93 See, e.g., NOTH, Leviticus, 69–70. One notable exception is MILGROM, Consecration, who apparently maintains that v. 10ab–11 are an integral part of Lev 8. 94 As suggested by WALKENHORST, Sinai, 46. 95 Although some variations may be expected between an instruction and its implementation, especially in a predominantly oral culture such as Israel’s (more on this below), the few ancient parallels preserved lead us to expect some degree of conformity. See the case of the bilingual Samsuiluna B inscription, noted by MILGROM, Leviticus, 549–553.

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

129

upon the latter, it is difficult to imagine how this should have been concretely realized, unless one assumes that the text refers here to the blood sprinkled around the altar, that is, on its outer faces.96 Moreover, elsewhere, the formulation describing the pouring out (qrz) of blood “around the altar” (xbzmh-l( bybs) always concludes rituals of blood disposal in P, so that no further rite implying blood is expected afterwards.97 The fact that the LXX of Ex 29, or possibly its Hebrew Vorlage, displaces this sentence at the end of v. 21, instead of v. 20, is a very clear indication of the tension caused by the introduction of a further ritual aspersion of blood after v. 20. The purpose of this interpolation is manifestly to suggest that Aaron, his sons, and their vestments have been consecrated together. Also, the fact that the sprinkling of Ex 29:21 and Lev 8:30 is made with a mixture of oil and blood implies that not only Aaron, but also his sons and their vestments were anointed and consecrated.98 This interpretation clearly contradicts the original notion that only Aaron’s vestments are sacred (cf. Ex 28:2 and 29:29), as well as the fact that Aaron, who alone is to be anointed (Ex 29:7 and Lev 8:12; see also Lev 6:13) is holier than his sons (thus explicitly 8:12). The interpolation of Ex 29:21 and Lev 8:30 is reminiscent of other late passages asserting the anointing of all Aaronite priests collectively.99 However, it creates a new difficulty because 96

Others also considered that instruction to be incompatible with the previous account, but concluded incorrectly that the problem lay in that after Ex 29:20 and Lev 8:23–24 all the blood had already been disposed of by Moses (BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 251–252; HOLZINGER, Exodus, 142; H YATT, Exodus, 289; most recently NIHAN, Institution, 44). However, the text of both Ex 29 and Lev 8 makes it very clear that the blood with which the vestments of Aaron and his sons must be sprinkled is to be taken from the altar. 97 See Ex 29:16; Lev 1:5, 11 (15); 3:2, 8, 13; 7:2; 8:19; 9:12, 18. It is true that in Lev 16:18–19, the pouring out of blood around the altar is followed by a sevenfold aspersion of blood upon the altar; but in this case, the blood is not taken from the altar, but from the animal used for the purification offering of the high priest and of the community (which apparently in Lev 16 is not burnt upon the altar). Elesewhere in P the blood of the purification offering is not poured out around the altar, as in the other sacrifices (including the offering of “reparation” see 7:2!), but at its base (dwsy), see Ex 29:12; Lev 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34; 5:9; 9:9. In Lev 8:15, one finds a unique rite in which the blood of some of the purification offering is placed “on the horns of the altar around” (compare with the parallel in Ex 29:12, where, specifically, the term bybs is missing), while the rest of the blood is also poured out at the base of the altar. On this unique occurrence, see below, pages 140–141. 98 As is correctly observed by RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 285. For a similar view, see FLEMING, Biblical Tradition, 412. One may wonder whether the absence of the second part of Lev 8:30 in several Greek mss (including A, B, and 20 cursive mss) is not a way of solving this issue, though it may also be a case of homoioteleuton (WEVERS, Notes on Leviticus, 113). 99 See Ex 28:41; 30:30; 40:15; Lev 7:36; 10:7 and Num 3:3. Of course, one may also assume that the text of Lev 8 is trying to combine two discrete traditions, as suggested, e.g., by FLEMING, Biblical Tradition, 412: “Whereas the anointing with oil and blood [= Lev 8:30, C.N.] declares the high priest an heir to a tradition of priesthood that is not limited to one person, the pouring of oil on the head [= 8:12, C.N.] sets him apart for a unique calling, just as

130

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

Aaron is now anointed and consecrated twice. The different placement of this addition in Ex 29 and Lev 8 in both the MT and the SamP as well as the important variants preserved by the LXX of 29:21 and 8:30 should probably be taken as a further indication that it was not as firmly established in the textual tradition as the rest of the ritual.100 3. Ex 29:27–30: This passage consists of two distinct instructions (v. 27–28 and 29–30): one concerning the breast and the thigh of the second ram that has been offered for the ordination of Aaron and his sons, and one regarding Aaron’s succession. Neither of them has a compliance report in Lev 8. The explanation for this feature might be related to the nature of these instructions, which legislate for the cultic practice after the first priests have been consecrated and the sacrificial cult has been initiated. V. 27–28 deal mainly with the portion due to the priests by the Israelites when they present a well-being offering (cf. v. 28), whereas v. 29–30 concern Aaron’s succession and could not, therefore, be handled in the context of Lev 8. Nonetheless, both v. 27–28 and 29–30 show signs of being late additions to Ex 29. In v. 27–28, Moses must consecrate the breast (hzx) of the hpwnt which has been “elevated” (Pnwh) and the thigh (qw#) of the hmwrt that has been set aside (Mrwh).101 This breast and this thigh are then defined as a “perpetual due” (Mlw( qx) for Aaron and his sons, taken from the well-being offerings of the Israelites (v. 28). This statement is surprising after the ritual described in the previous verses; according to v. 22–25, the thigh, together with the other fat portions of the ram, the tail, and the basket of unleavened cakes, is turned into smoke upon the altar (cf. v. 25) whereas the breast alone goes to Moses (v. 26). This distribution, which is also presupposed by the parallel sequence in Lev 8:25–29, seems to imply that only the breast comes to the officiating priest, represented here by Moses (see explicitly 29:26: Nrh)l r#)), whereas the thigh must be dedicated to Yahweh. In v. 27–28, this conception is apparently revised since both the breast and the thigh must now be given to Aaron and his sons. This development is probably dependent upon two late passages, kings hold a solitary office”. However, this solution does not account for the other tensions between Lev 8:30 and its immediate context noted above, which Fleming does not discuss (note that neither does he address the problem raised by the difference in the position of Ex 29:21 and Lev 8:30 in their respective contexts). For this reason, rather than a a parallel tradition I prefer to regard Ex 29:21; Lev 8:30 as a correction of the older conception of Aaron’s anointing reflected in Ex 29:7; Lev 8:12; for this view, see already, e.g., DILLMANN, Leviticus, 463. 100 Thus also RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 286, who calls attention to the fact that in Ex 29:21 and Lev 8:30 the order of the enumeration of blood and oil is not identical. Against ELLIGER, Leviticus, 110, there is no ground for assuming that the insertion of Ex 29:21 should be assigned to another hand than that responsible for the interpolation of Lev 8:30. 101 On the terms hpwnt and hmwrt, see above, § 3.1., Excursus 1, pages 121–122.

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

131

namely, Lev 7:28–36 and 10:12–15.102 Both contain instructions regarding the portions of the well-being offering to be eaten by the priests. The influence of Lev 7, in particular, upon Ex 29:28 is manifest. Exodus 29:27–28 27

You shall consecrate the breast of the hpwnt and the thigh of the hmwrt, what has been elevated and what has been set apart from the ram of investiture, from the one which is for Aaron and for his sons. 28 And it shall be for Aaron and for his sons as a perpetual due (-qxl Mlw( ) from the Israelites; for it is a hmwrt , and it shall be a hmwrt from the Israelites, from their well-being offerings; (it shall be) their hmwrt to Yahweh. Leviticus 7:34 For I have taken the breast of the hpwnt and the thigh of the hmwrt from the Israelites, from their offerings of well-being, and I have assigned them to Aaron the priest and to his sons as a perpetual due (Mlw(-qxl) from the Israelites.

Nonetheless, as Milgrom correctly observed in his discussion of the s] o = q hatte6ru=ma=, Ex 29:27–28 also appears to represent an innovation vis-à-vis Lev 7. It was recalled above, when addressing the case of Lev 9:21,103 that Lev 7:32–34 still presupposes a careful distinction between the breast and the right thigh, the te6nu=pa= rite being reserved for the breast while the right thigh is simply a te6ru=ma=, a “prelevement”, as per the original meaning of this term. In Lev 10:14–15, this neat distinction is blurred for the first time, since the right thigh, like the breast, must also undergo the te6nu=pa= rite, even though it is still called a te6ru=ma=. Ex 29:27–28 goes still further, since a te6ru=ma= has apparently become an inclusive term for both the breast and the thigh (v. 28), and it is associated for the first time with a specific rite of motion (see v. 27), like the te6nu=pa= previously. Very likely, as suggested by Milgrom, this betrays one of the final stages in the development of these notions, when an attempt was made to unite them in a single ritual, as is attested for the late Second Temple period.104 If so, Ex 29:27–28 should be considered a very late gloss, and its absence from the corresponding passage in the account of Lev 8 is only logical. The two following verses (v. 29–30) introduce a completely new motif, namely Aaron’s succession, and manifestly interrupt the ritual handling of the sacrificial ram in v. 22–26; the focus on Aaron and his sons in these verses is 102

See also the case of the right thigh in Lev 9:21, discussed above (§ 3.1.1., p. 121). On the origin of Lev 7:28–36 and 10:12–15, see further below, § 3.6. (especially pages 261–262) and § 6.2.4. (pages 593ff.) respectively. 103 § 3.1.1., Excursus 1, pages 121–122. 104 See MILGROM, Studies, 170: at that time, the word hmwrt “was derived from the verb ‘to raise, lift’, and joined to the te6nu=pa=, thereby yielding the ritual familiar to the rabbis at the end of the Second Temple period: ‘forward and backward, upward and downward’ (e.g. M. Men. 5:6)”.

132

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

rather in line with v. 27–28, so that it is probable that they are themselves dependent upon this interpolation. It implies that in the original instruction, v. 26 was immediately followed by v. 31, as several earlier scholars already surmised.105 This sequence corresponds exactly to that attested in Lev 8:29, 31, since, as argued just above, Lev 8:30 also comprises as an interpolation.106 Contrary to what was the case for the addition in Ex 29:21, which was completed by the interpolation of a compliance report in Lev 8:30, the instructions in Ex 29:27–30 concern the sacrificial cult after its official inauguration and not the consecration of the first priests itself; therefore, they did not require a further editiorial intervention in the text of Lev 8. 4. Ex 29:36–37: The last two verses of the ritual for the consecration of the first priests in Ex 29 (v. 38–42 concern the daily burnt offering) contain an instruction for the seven days of the ritual which has no equivalent in Lev 8. A bull must be offered as a purification offering every day, and the altar must be purified ()+x Piel), purged (rpk Piel) and sanctified during seven days, so that it becomes “most sacred” (v. 37). One might theoretically assume that compliance with this instruction is implied by the notice concluding Lev 8 (v. 36: “And Aaron and his sons did all the things which Yahweh had commanded through Moses” [MT]), but this solution is a little too harmonistic and it does not explain why, contrary to the other divine instructions in Ex 29, the compliance of the order found in v. 36–37 is not fully described in Lev 8. In fact, the supplementary character of v. 36–37 is obvious here again.107 The reference to the purification and the consecration of the altar with the blood of the bull for the t)+x to be repeated for seven days corresponds to Ex 29:12; Lev 8:15, but the motif of the altar’s anointing in v. 36 has no equivalent in the previous description and is manifestly an innovation (note also the absence of this motif in the parallel ceremony for the altar’s consecration in Ez 43:18–27). Actually, this supplement has a twofold function. On one hand, it stresses the fact that the altar’s purification and consecration took place not once but each day during the seven-day ceremony of Ex 29 and Lev 8, thus building a parallel with the account of Ez 43;108 on the other hand, it introduces the motif of the altar’s anointing which, in Ex 25–31 and 35–40, is 105 Thus for instance HO L Z I N G E R , Exodus, 142–143; BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 254; EERDMANS, Studien IV, 103; NOTH, Exodus, 190–191; etc. 106 Pace RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 284, I see no reason for holding Lev 8:29 as a later addition (“Nachtrag”), especially since this verse corresponds to the fulfillment of the instruction given in Ex 29:26. The fact that it is Moses who receives a portion of the sacrifice, a statement unparalleled in P, may easily be accounted for once it is acknowledged that Moses stands here in the place of the officiating priest because Aaron and his sons have not yet been consecrated. On the relation between Ex 29:26 // Lev 8:29 and Lev 7:32ff., see above. 107 BAENTSCH, Exodus, 256; EERDMANS, Studien IV, 103–104; NOTH, Exodus, 191, etc. 108 For a similar idea, see, e.g., BAENTSCH, Exodus, 256.

133

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

characteristic of the later revision depending on Ex 30–31, see 30:28–29; 40:10. (One may note, in addition, that the statement in Ex 29:37 that the outer altar is also most sacred, and not sacred, is only found in those two passages, thus reinforcing this connection.) If so, it means that the original instruction for the consecration of Aaron and his sons ended with v. 35. 29:35 offers indeed a fitting conclusion to the whole ritual; the first hemistiche, by stressing the need for Moses to act exactly according to Yahweh’s commandments, prepares for Lev 8, whereas the second half recapitulates the purpose of the entire ceremony and specifies its duration. Moreover, the formulation of Ex 29:35 corresponds to the conclusion to Lev 8, v. 33–36, since 8:33b and 36 pick up chiastically 29:35a, b. Exodus 29:35a + b hkk wynblw Nrh)l ty#(w35a hkt) ytywc-r#) lkk Mdy )lmt Mymy t(b#35b

Leviticus 8:33b + 36 Mkdy-t) )lmy Mymy t(b# yk33b Myrbdh-lk t) wynbw Nrh) #(yw36 h#m-dyb hwhy hwc-r#)

The correspondence between Ex 29:35a, b and Lev 8:33, 36 is all the more noticeable because the intervening material found in 8:34–35 has no parallel in Ex 29. Possibly, Lev 8 was regarded by the Priestly writer as a fitting place to amplify the command given in Ex 29:35, the additional material in v. 34– 35 being carefully framed by the compliance report in v. 33 and 36; alternately, v. 34–35 may be a later interpolation, as its language perhaps suggests. V. 35, in particular, reformulates the instruction already stated in v. 33a, although in a slightly different language, apparently so as to introduce a new prescription for Aaron and his sons (to guard Yahweh’s trm#m ) as well as a new motive clause (ytywc Nk-yk wtwmt )lw). The phrase trm#m-t) rm# occurs otherwise exclusively in H (Lev 18:30; 22:9) as well as in the (later) “Priestly” layer in Numbers, and is not characteristic of P.109 Besides, Moses’ speech in the first person singular (ytywc) is exceptional and has no parallel in Ex 29 and in Lev 8–9.110

109

See Num 1:53; 3:7, 8, 28, 32, 38; 8:26; 9:19, 23; 18:3, 4, 5; 31:30, 47. In H (Lev 18:30; 22:9), this expression refers to the keeping of Yahweh’s commandments, as in the late, post-P passage of Gen 26:5 (otherwise, see Deut 11:1; 1 Kgs 2:3; Zech 3:7; Ml 3:14; 2 Chr 13:11; 23:6); in Numbers, it always refers to the duty of the levites, who are entrusted with the “service”, or the “guard”, of the tent of meeting. Both meanings have a parallel in Akkadian (cf. Akk. mas[s[artu = Heb. mis]meret), see MILGROM/HARPER/FABRY, art. mis]meret`, 72–73. In Lev 8:35, it is unclear which of these meanings is implied, although the majority of commentators have traditionally opted for the former. In the context of the ceremony of Lev 8, however, the restricted meaning of “assuring the service of the tent” seems more apt, especially since one hardly sees to which commandments Yahweh’s speech in v. 35 could actually refer. (The idea that it could be a reference to the commandment to stay seven days at the entrance of the tent, as suggested by some commentators [e.g., RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 288], seems rather unlikely, since in the Hebrew Bible trm#m otherwise refers to a permanent

134

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

In any event, the chiastic resumption of 29:35a, b in Lev 8:33, 36 may be taken as a further hint that the instruction in Ex 29 initially ended with v. 35 and that v. 36–37, unknown to Lev 8, result from a later development. Thus, a close examination of the major differences between the texts of Ex 29 and Lev 8 suggests that they are all due to the reworking of these chapters by later editors. Once these passages (namely: Lev 8:10ab–11; Ex 29:21 and Lev 8:30; Ex 29:27–30; Ex 29:36–37 [Lev 8:34–35?]) are regarded as secondary and removed from the original text of Ex 29 and Lev 8, the instruction and its corresponding realization present only minor variants, most if not all of which should be viewed as stylistic or contextual in nature.111 Lev 8:1–5: Preparation of the ritual. The divine instruction in v. 1–3 resumes, in a selective fashion, the instructions previously given in Ex 29:1– 3. The purpose of this device is to indicate that the time has come for Moses to perform the ritual prescribed by Yahweh in Ex 29. Lev 8:2 not only recalls the offerings described in Ex 29:1b–3 but also mentions Aaron, his sons, and their vestments (cf. Ex 28), thus encompassing the sequence Ex 28 + 29.112 ordinance, not to a temporary instruction; also, one would have expected a more specific reference.) In this case, the instruction hwhy trm#m-t) Mtrm#w should be dissociated from the previous command in v. 35aa to stay at the entrance of the tent of meeting for seven days (e.g., PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 146–147; this was already the interpretation of the Masoretes, who placed a disjunctive accent [zaqef] before the phrase hwhy trm#m-t) Mtrm#w. This interpretation is consistent with the second half of the verse (35b), since it implies that it is only after Aaron and his sons have been consecrated that they will be able to officiate at the sanctuary without dying, exactly as it occurs on the eighth day in Lev 9. Elliger’s objection that elsewhere in the Priestly literature, use of the expression trm#m rm# to indicate the service of the tent is generally followed by a reference to the sanctuary rather than to Yahweh, as in our case (ID., Leviticus, 120), is not necessarily relevant since the reference to the sanctuary is implied by the immediate context of Lev 8:35. Besides, as he himself observes, the phrase hwhy trm#m rm# occurs in several occasions in Ez 40–48 with a specifically cultic meaning (see Ez 44:8, 16; 48:11; similarly in Neh 12:45), so that one may consider that this was also the case for the interpolator of 8:34–35. 110 The MT is clearly lectio difficilior here against the LXX and should be conserved. 111 For practical reasons, the comparison is based primarily on the MT of Ex 29 and Lev 8; the variants preserved by the major versions (the LXX and the SamP) have been systematically surveyed, but only those which may possibly reflect a distinct Hebrew Vorlage are discussed. Analysis of the choices made by the Greek translators into rendering several technical terms of P in Ex 29 and Lev 8 raises a fascinating issue, but is beyond the scope of this study. 112 The LXX, which reads kai\ ta_j stol_a_j au0tou=, understood that Mydgb referred to Aaron’s vestments only. One may imagine that this interpretation is related to the fact that only Aaron is clothed before the altar and the tent are consecrated with the anointing oil, mentioned immediately after the vestments in 8:2, cf. v. 10–11 (see, e.g., WEVERS, Notes on Leviticus, 99). Alternatively, one may also assume that the rendering of the LXX translator was related to the interest, in some circles of the Hellenistic period, in the garment of the high priest, the symbol of the magnificence of the Jerusalemite priesthood. Cf. Sir 45:6–22, where Aaron’s vestment is described at length (v. 7–13), while for his sons only their prerogative to put on Aaron’s vestment after the latter’s death (v. 13) is mentioned.

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

135

The order of the offerings in Lev 8:2b corresponds to the order found in Ex 29:1b–2. The phrase twcmh ls is an adequate designation for the cereal offering described in Ex 29:2–3, since all three types of cakes referred to in 29:2 are characterized by the fact that they are unleavened. The position of the anointing oil in the enumeration of 8:2, between the vestments of the priests and the offerings, corresponds exactly to its place in the unfolding of the ritual (cf. 8:10ff.). The introduction of the hd( in 8:3–5, absent from the parallel passage in Ex 29, has sometimes been taken as a clue that Lev 8 is later than Ex 29.113 However, this is difficult to accept because the term hd( can already be found earlier in P (see esp. Ex 12:3, 6; further Ex 16:1, 2, 9, 10, 22). More likely, its omission Ex 29 corresponds to a specific device. Actually, all of Ex 25–31 only uses the compound l)r#y ynb to refer to the Israelites, and never terms such as hd( or lhq.114 The fact that these two terms are introduced for the first time in Lev 8115 probably serves to emphasize that it is only then, with the institution of the sacrificial cult in ch. 8–9, that the Israelites have become a cultic community properly speaking.116 Lev 8:6–9: Aaron’s dressing (= Ex 29:4–6). 8:6 conforms to the corresponding instruction in Ex 29:4, except for the mention of the d(wm lh), which was already introduced in Lev 8:3–5. The rendering of Ex 29:5 raises several difficulties. The MT may be translated approximately as: “And you shall take the vestments, and you shall put on Aaron the tunic, and the dress of the ephod, and the ephod, and the breastpiece, and you shall gird (?) him with the decorated belt of the ephod (?)”. The tunic (tntk) is mentioned in Ex 28:39; the ephod’s robe in 28:31–34, the ephod itself in 28:6–14, and the breastpiece (N#x) in 28:15–30 (see also the mention of these objects in 28:4). 113

E.g., BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 25; likewise MILGROM, Leviticus, 499. Cf. Ex 25:2, 22; 27:20, 21; 28:1, 9, 11, 12, 21, 29, 30; 29:28, 43, 45; 30:12, 16, 31; 31:13, 16, 17. Admittedly, the situation is a little more confuse in Ex 35–40 MT; lhq occurs once (in 35:1), and hd( in 35:1, 4, 20 and 38:25. However, as recalled in Chapter One (§ 1.2.1.), Ex 35–40 MT, contrary to Ex 25–31, is the result of a complicated textual and literary history, and one may easily presume that these few references were introduced at some stage. 115 Actually, lhq and hd( occur in Lev 4 already; however, this regulation, in the narrative logic of P, cannot apply before the institution of the sacrificial cult in Lev 8–9. In addition, it will be argued below, § 3.2.2., that Lev 4 is a later supplement to P. 116 ELLIGER, Leviticus, 111–112, offers another explanation for the discrepancy between Ex 29 and Lev 8 on this point, which I find hardly convincing. In 8:4b, it is preferable to conserve the MT (lhqtw) instead of the LXX (kai\ e0cekklhsi/asen = lhqyw, cf. BHS), which offers a closer correspondence between the instruction of v. 3 and the compliance notice in v. 4, and should therefore be regarded as facilitating. The meaning of the MT in v. 4b is probably that it refers to the consequence of the notice found in 4a, according to which “Moses did according to what Yahweh had ordered him”; as a result, the community gathered before the tent of meeting (thus WEVERS, Notes on Leviticus, 99). Since the LXX’s reading is made possible by the change of a single letter in the consonantal text, it may result from a correction of the )altiqqre type; that is, the LXX translator proposed reading lhqyw instead of lhqtw. 114

136

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

dp) as a verbal form is exclusively used here and in Lev 8:7, so that the translation may only be conjectural and contextual, even if it is the one adopted by a majority of commentators (and already by the LXX117). The rendering of dp)h b#x is also disputed; note that it is omitted by the LXX in Ex 29:5 and 28:8, probably because the translator no longer understood the meaning of this word. The root b#x elsewhere means “to devise, designate”; commentators usually agree that it refers, in the context of Ex 25–40, to some technique of weaving.118 B.A. Levine119 and J. Milgrom120 suggest the rendering “decorated band”, taking dpo)' here as a verbal noun meaning “that which binds” instead of a reference to the )e4pod. However, the parallel in Ex 28:8 shows that the b#x means some decoration placed upon the ephod, so that most likely the term dp) in 29:5 refers to the )e4pod as well, as in the rest of the verse, and not to a distinct band. The context of 28:8 and 29:5 suggests some kind of belt or scarf placed upon the ephod;121 hence the rendering “decorated belt of the ephod”, which, admittedly, remains conjectural.122 The fullfillment of this instruction in the MT of Lev 8:7 includes several variants when compared with the MT of Ex 29:5. Lev 8:7 MT does agree, however, with the lesson preserved by the Samaritan tradition for Ex 29:5, but this is probably the result of a later harmonization.123 The introduction of an additional verb for describing the dressing of Aaron between the tunic and the robe in Lev 8 against Ex 29124 is obviously related to the insertion of the sash (+nb)) in-between these two items. Another major difference concerns the breastpiece (N#x), which is no longer simply included in the enumeration of the vestments of the high priest, as in Ex 29:5, but is now placed at the end and consists of a longer description than is found in Ex 29 (cf. Lev 8:8). This development creates a slight tension, insofar as the order of Ex 29:5 seems to imply that the breastpiece should apparently be tied to the ephod before the decorated belt, as Elliger, in particular, has argued.125 However, to assume with Elliger on the basis of this observation that we have here an indication of

117

See sune/sfigcen in Lev 8:7. See further on this now CRAIG, Text, for a detailed discussion of the philological issue. 119 Leviticus, 50. 120 Leviticus, 505. See similarly HARTLEY, Leviticus, 111 (“woven band”). 121 Cf. similarly HOUTMAN, Exodus, 487. See already the Vulgate of Ex 29:5 and 39:5, 21. 122 Cf. similarly DURHAM, Exodus, 390, reading: “elaborate belt of the Ephod”. PÉTERCONTESSE, Manuel, 85; ID., Lévitique 1–16, 137, proposes for his part “attaches de l’éphod”, as already before him, e.g., BAENTSCH, Exodus, 248 (“Ephodbinde”), or ELLIGER, Leviticus, 104.115. However, this looks like an attempt to combine the idea of binding with the mention of the ephod itself and does not render the meaning of the term b#x in Hebrew. 123 Similarly, the rendering of Ex 29:5 in the LXX and Syr, both of which omit mentioning the ephod after the mention of the robe, may also be influenced by the lesson of Lev 8:7 MT. 124 See ly(mh-t) wt) #blyw … tntkh-t) wyl( Ntyw. 125 See Leviticus, 112. 118

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

137

two distinct conceptions of the high priest’s garment is far-fetched. As a matter of fact, it is of little importance whether the belt is tied to the ephod before or after the breastpiece has been placed upon the latter, since the breastpiece covers only a portion of the ephod in the description of Ex 28.126 In Lev 8:8, the distinct treatment of the breastpiece is obviously connected with the mention of the Urim and Tummim, whose placement inside the breastpiece represents the fulfillment of the command found in Ex 28:30aa.127 The absence of this instruction in Ex 29:5 should not be taken as an indication that Ex 29 belongs to an earlier redactional stage;128 more likely, its repetition was superfluous so shortly after Ex 28:30.129 The case of the sash for the vestment of the high priest (cf. Ex 28:39), omitted in Ex 29:5 MT but present in Lev 8:7, is more surprising; however, the absence of this minor component of Aaron’s vestment alone can hardly justify the assumption that Lev 8 is later than Ex 29.130 Either it was implied in the mention of the tunic in 29:5,131 or its mention in Lev 8 results from a later harmonization with Ex 28,132 or, lastly, this item has been introduced later in Ex 28 and Lev 8, as was sometimes surmised133 (although in these last two cases, the question remains as to why it was not introduced in Ex 29 as well). The parallel with Ez 44:18, which forbids wearing the sash, suggests that during the Persian period the inclusion of the sash among the priestly vestments was indeed a disputed matter among Sec126 Elliger’s argument is actually connected with his highly complex analysis of Ex 28 in an earlier study (cf. ID., Ephod) identifying competing conceptions of the ephod tied to discrete redactional layers. In particular, in the oldest conception preserved in Lev 8, the breastpiece was still relatively independent from the ephod, whereas at a further stage the breastpiece was reduced to one element of the ephod, which corresponds to the conception found in Ex 29. As argued earlier (§ 1.2.2.2., page 52 and note 173) the entire reconstruction is overly speculative and there is no reason to question the literary homogeneity of Ex 28. 127 See Mymth-t)w Myrw)h-t) N#xh-l) Ntyw, and compare with Ex 28:30aa. The reading l( proposed by several versions (cf. the SamP, the LXX and Syr) is a grammatical harmonization; the MT’s l) should be kept here, as in Ex 28:30. Either it refers to Aaron (hence, “upon him”), or, perhaps more likely, (al means here “in, inside”. 128 Thus for instance NOTH, Leviticus, 69; MILGROM, Consecration, 285–286. 129 Similarly, the absence of the mention of the placement of the Urim and Thummim inside the breastpiece in Ex 39:8–21 MT , a passage describing the manufacture of the breastpiece according to the instructions of Ex 28:15–30, should probably be explained by the fact that it presupposes the fulfillment of Ex 28:30aa in Lev 8:8b. 130 Pace NOTH, Leviticus, 69; further MILGROM, Consecration, 283–285. 131 Against MILGROM, Ibid., 283, there can be no doubt that the gloss found in Ex 29:9aa MT , “You will bind around them sashes, Aaron and his sons”, which is missing in the LXX , cannot be original (see for instance MICHAELI, Exode, 254 n. 4). This observation implies that initially, Ex 29 did not explicitly mention Aaron’s sash at all. Hence, Milgrom’s sophisticated speculations on the import of the mention of Aaron’s sash before and after his consecration in Ex 29 and Lev 8 (Consecration, 283–285) become superfluous. 132 Thus for instance BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 344. 133 See, e.g., DURHAM, Exodus, 394.

138

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

ond Temple scribes; therefore, one may not exclude that this variant has to do with a similar discussion among later editors of Ex 29 and Lev 8. One last variant between the two texts in this section concerns the diadem placed upon Aaron’s turban in Ex 29:6 and Lev 8:9. The statement in Lev 8, missing in Ex 29, about the diadem being placed “in front of the turban”134 (wynp lwm-l)), corresponds to Ex 28:37b. The expression “golden flower, holy diadem” (#dqh rzn bhzh Cyc) in 8:9, against the mere #dqh rzn of 29:6, need not presuppose Ex 39:30 MT, as suggested by Noth,135 since the latter passage has a different – and more elaborate – reading.136 Rather, it is obviously a conflation of Ex 28:36 (rwh+ bhz Cyc) with 29:6 (#dqh rzn). The conflation, in itself, does not imply that the author of Lev 8 has to be later than the one responsible for Ex 29.137 Rather, this has more likely to do with the distinct position of Ex 29 and Lev 8. Ex 29:6 introduces a new designation for the diadem described in 28:36–37; since the two passages follow immediately, there can be no ambiguity as to the reference implied. Lev 8, coming later, conflates the two designations, thus making clear that it is one and the same item of Aaron’s garment. Alternatively, one could also imagine that Lev 8:9 read merely #dqh rzn initially and that the conflation is the work of a later editor; but this seems to me unnecessarily complicated. Lev 8:10aa, 12: Aaron’s anointing. As noted above while discussing the case of the interpolation in Lev 8:10ab–11 (missing in Ex 29), the remaining text, v. 10aa and 12, matches the instruction in Ex 29:7; the specification w#dql at the end of v. 12 takes up Ex 29:1, and emphasizes the importance of Aaron’s anointing in the context of the whole ritual. Lev 8:13: The consecration of Aaron’s sons. The description found in this verse follows the instruction in Ex 29:8–9. As noted above, the specification “Aaron and his sons” in 29:9 MT, missing in the LXX, is no doubt a gloss138, so that its absence in Lev 8:13 is actually logical. Lev 8:14–17: The purification (t)+x) offering. On the whole, this passage is very close to the corresponding instruction in Ex 29:10–14, although the description of Lev 8 preserves a few minor variants. The reference to the lh) d(wm in bringing forward and slaughtering the bull (cf. 29:10, 11) is omitted in Lev 8, evidently because it is obvious after ch. 1–7, contrary to what is the case in Ex 29 where the sacrificial to=ra= has not yet been introduced.139 Also, it 134

The LXX of Lev 8:9 has apparently understood “in front of Aaron” since it renders the pronominal suffix by a masc., whereas mi/tran is fem.; but this is contradicted by Ex 28:37b. 135 NOTH, Leviticus, 69. See similarly WALKENHORST, Sinai, 49. 136 rwh+ bhz #dqh-rzn Cyc. 137 Against for instance MILGROM, Consecration, 277. 138 Above, note 131. Note that the two sections on Aaron and his sons are well delimitated in Ex 29 and Lev 8, a further indication that Aaron’s sudden mention in 29:9a MT is a gloss. 139 Note that this information is also absent in the instructions for the further offerings in Ex 29:15ff.; apparently, its mention in the context of the first offering was sufficient.

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

139

is superfluous after the new introduction in 8:1–5, where the setting of the whole ritual before the tent has already been emphasized (cf. v. 3–4).140 The bull is consistently designated as t)+xh rp, “bull of the purification offering”, which presupposes the concluding notice found in Ex 29:14 ()wh t)+x). Here, as with the following sacrifices, the identity of person performing the slaughter is a traditional crux (cf. 8:15aa, 19aa and 23aa).141 The verbal form used may be taken either as a singular referring to Moses, as understood by the LXX which always adds the singular pronoun (au0to\n), or as a collective applying to Aaron and his sons, who are named immediately before in v. 14 (thus already the SamP, which includes v. 15aa , 19aa and 23aa MT in the previous verse).142 The first solution, adopted by some translators,143 appears to be supported by the fact that, within Ex 29, the command to slaughter is formulated in the 2ps, and therefore addressed to Moses personally (cf. 29:11, 16, 20: t+x#w). However, the instruction of Ex 29:31 and its compliance in Lev 8:31 also suggest that all the orders given by Yahweh to Moses – in this case, boiling the flesh of the ram for the “ordination” offering in a sacred place – need not be accomplished by him exclusively, but may also be performed by Aaron and his sons, as in Lev 8:31. Moreover, the fact that in 8:15a, 19a, 23a, the MT reintroduces Moses as the subject of the next ritual act logically implies that he is not the subject of the slaughter. Otherwise, Lev 8:15a MT should have read: xqyw h#m +x#yw, and not h#m xqyw +x#yw. In fact, the absence of a specific subject may well be deliberate. As noted by Levine and Milgrom in particular, third person verbs can take on a passive or impersonal sense when no subject is specified;144 hence “it was slaughtered”. The impersonal formulation of 8:15aa, 19aa, 23aa agrees with the formulation of the sacrificial to=ra= of Lev 1–7,145 where it appears that the slaughter of the animal is also a prerogative of the offerer (on this point, see further below at § 3.2.1.). Once again, this does not mean that Lev 8 has to be later than Ex 29, especially if, as we will see below, Ex 29 can also be shown to know a first 140

As correctly observed by MILGROM, Consecration, 282. The Cairo Geniza preserves a lesson in which the +x#yw of v. 15aa is missing. Although the reasons for this omission are difficult to determine, it is certainly not original. PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 138, suggests that it has fallen through homeoarcton. 142 PÉTER-C ONTESSE , Lévitique 1–16, 138, proposes that the Samaritan reading results from a later correction, trying to reserve the prerogative of slaughter for priests only. However, in Ex 29 and Lev 8 Moses clearly acts as a substitute for the priest (see especially MILGROM, Leviticus, 555ff.), whereas Aaron and his sons – who are only in the course of being consecrated – are rather in the role of offerers. Therefore, this conclusion is far from being obvious; the case for exactly the opposite view could be made. 143 See for instance PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 137–138; ID., Manuel, 87–88. 144 LEVINE, Leviticus, 52; MILGROM, Leviticus, 520–521, who notes that this is a characteristic feature of P’s style. 145 Cf. 1:5, 11; 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 15, 24, 29, 33 (2x); 7:2 (2x). 141

140

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

version of Lev 1–7.146 The difference may simply be explained by the very position of Lev 8, which comes immediately after the to=ra= of ch. 1–7. In Ex 29, on the contrary, the fact that the order to slaughter the bull for the purification offering is addressed to Moses follows the general pattern observable in Ex 25–31, even though it does not necessarily imply that this order has to be executed by Moses specifically as was recalled above in the case of the instruction in Ex 29:31 and its compliance in Lev 8:31. The other differences between the two texts are mostly minor linguistic variants. 8:14 uses the rare verb #gn Hiphil instead of the usual brq Hiphil (contrast 8:18,147 22), as in Ex 29:10. However, the same phenomenon is also found in the to=ra= of Lev 1–7, where it is always brq Hiphil which is used except in 2:8, where #gn Hiphil is found. Milgrom has surmised that originally 148 #gn might have been reserved for the cereal offering. However, this assumption is problematic when one observes that the MT of Lev 2:8 uses both the verbs #gn and brq, obviously in order to avoid the repetition of the same verb. This latter observation confirms that the change reflects nothing but a stylistic variant.149 8:15 M T reads Mdh-t) h#m xqyw, instead of Mdm in 29:12.150 It is often stated that the formulation of 29:12, with Nm + Md is preferable, inasmuch as it carries the connotation that only some of the blood was taken by Moses;151 however, the construction t) + Md is found immediately afterwards, in 29:16 (although with the pronominal suffix), so that the variant may not be used as an argument supporting distinct authorship of Ex 29. Lev 8:15 specifies bybs (“around”) after the description of Moses putting (some) of the blood upon the horns of the altar. This usage is quite unique. Elsewhere, P uses two standard formulas for the disposal of the sacrificial blood specifically. For all sacrifices except the t)+x , blood is poured out (verb qrz ) around the altar (bybs xbzmh-l().152 For the purification offering, blood is merely poured out (usually with Kp# , occasionally qcy ) at the base (Heb. 153 dwsy ) of the altar. The reason for this difference is apparently that in the 146

Pace in particular ELLIGER, Leviticus, 107, holding that a development takes place on this point between the earliest form of the account of Lev 8 and Ex 29. 147 In 8:18, the reading #gn Hiphil in the SamP is probably harmonized with the M T of 8:14; see however HARTLEY, Leviticus, 107, for the opposite view. 148 MILGROM, Leviticus, 547. 149 Thus also PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 138. Contra ELLIGER, Leviticus, 107. 150 But compare the LXX: a)po\ tou= ai3matoj = Md@Fmi, or Md@Fha Nmi. 151 Thus, e.g., MILGROM, Leviticus, 521; similarly WEVERS, Notes on Leviticus, 105. 152 See Ex 29:16, 20; Lev 1:5, 11 (15); 3:2, 8, 13; 7:2 (7:14); 8:19, 24; 9:12, 18. 153 See Ex 29:12; Lev 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34; 9:9. The only exception concerns the offering of a bird as a t)+x in Lev 5:9, which involves a still distinct rite for the disposal of the blood: the priest must first sprinkle (hzn Hi., cf. Lev 4:6, 17) the wall of the altar with the animal’s blood, and then only pour out (hcm) the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. Actually, this rite takes up the usual rite for a t)+x in Lev 4, but combines it with the act prescribed in Lev 1:15 in the case of an hl( of a bird (cf. Lev 1:15, also with hcm).

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

141

case of the purification offering, the horns (i.e., the extremities) of the altar have already been daubed in blood, so that a further aspersion of blood against the faces of the altar is unnecessary. As to the distinct rite of blood disposal present in Lev 8:15 it corresponds to the unique and founding event of the inaugural consecration of the altar. Significantly, the only other occurrence of this rite in P is in Lev 16:18, when the outer altar standing in the court is re-consecrated; clearly, the two passages form a system. This is in keeping with the observations made in Chapter Two (§ 2.3.) on the close connection between the ceremonies of Lev 8–9 and 16. Admittedly, why the term bybs was not introduced in the corresponding instruction in Ex 29:12 already is unclear; apparently, the Priestly writer did not view this as necessary. Furthermore, Lev 8:15 uses the verb qcy for the pouring of blood at the base of the altar, instead of Kp# in Ex 29:12. Both terms may actually be applied in the context of the purification offering (whereas the pouring out of blood in the case of other sacrifices always occurs with the verb qrz), although Kp# is far more common.154 qcy is also used in the context of the purification offering of Lev 9 (see v. 9), so that here Lev 8 and 9 agree against Ex 29 in the choice of the vocabulary. Since there are other instances, however, where the opposite is true, with Ex 29 and Lev 9 sharing a specific term or formula against Lev 8, it seems difficult to make much of this difference in vocabulary from a source-critical viewpoint.155 8:16, as well as 8:25 later, speaks of the fat that is over the entrails (brqh-l( r#) blxh-lk-t)) whereas the parallel passages in Ex 29:13 and 29:22 mentioned the fat covering the entrails.156 The two expressions have a parallel in Lev 3; however, in Lev 3 they manifestly refer to distinct parts of the fat upon the entrails to be burnt on the altar.157 In Ex 29:13, 22 and Lev 8:16, 25, however, they are presented as being equivalent. Thus, it is not Lev 8 which reformulates Ex 29, but both Ex 29 and Lev 8 which, together, reinterpret the traditional formulation of the to=ra= of Lev 3.158 This is further evidence that both Ex 29 and Lev 8 already presuppose a first version of the to=ra= for sacred offerings in Lev 1–3, as we will see below in detail (§ 3.2.1.). Lev 8:16 and 25 also read “the lobe of the liver” (dbkh trty), instead of the formula usually found in P, trtyh-t) dbkh l( (cf. Lev 3:4, 10, 15; 4:9; 7:4), which also occurs in Ex 29 (cf. 29:13 154 Apart from Ex 29:12, Kp# is found in Lev 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34; qcy only in Lev 8:15 and in 9:9, in the context of a t)+x offering. On the formulation of Lev 5:9, see the previous note. 155 Against MILGROM, Leviticus, 523. 156 brqh-t) hskmh blxh-lk-t). Cf. WELLHAUSEN , Composition, 143 (though he mentions incorrectly Ex 29:8 instead of 29:13); further, e.g., BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 25. 157 brqh-l( r#) blxh-lk-t)w brqh-t) hskmh blxh-t), cf. 3:3, 9, 14. 158 Against ELLIGER, Leviticus, 108, it is not the case, therefore, that only Ex 29 betrays the influence of Lev 3. Contrary to what he states on p. 107 and 109, it is also incorrect that Lev 8:16, 25 evinces a different account of the number of pieces to be burnt on the altar from Ex 29:13, 22 and Lev 3; exactly the same pieces are intended in each case.

142

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

and 22).159 This is of course a mere stylistic variation,160 but it proves interesting in that it is a further indication that it is sometimes Ex 29 which is closer to Lev 1–7, and not always Lev 8.161 Lastly, Lev 8:17 is similar to Ex 29:14, but enumerates the parts of the bull which are to be burnt outside the camp with a slightly different sequence (namely, hide, flesh, dung, instead of flesh, hide, dung). The sequence of Ex 29:14 resembles that found in Lev 9:11 (albeit this verse mentions only flesh and hide), whereas Lev 8:17 is equivalent to 16:27. Lev 4:11 has a longer and more detailed sequence, although it also basically follows the order flesh, hide, dung. It is difficult to presume that such variations in the order itself have any significance. One last difference often adduced against the originality of Lev 8 concerns the plus found in 8:15, where it is said that Moses’ application of some of the blood to the horns of the altar has the effect of purifying and consecrating the latter, an indication missing in Ex 29:12.162 This argument, however, is debatable. The first comment, in v. 15, “and he purified it”,163 only conveys what is already implied by putting animal blood upon the horns of the altar. It is clear that this act serves to cleanse the altar from its impurities, the horns representing the extremities, and thus the liminal part, of the altar itself,164 also, it can be demonstrated that it corresponds very likely to the original function of the t)+x offering.165 Therefore, to assume that the omission of this phrase in the corresponding instruction of Ex 29:12 betrays the fact that, there, this rite had a different significance, as some scholars have done,166 is fanciful. As for the concluding comment in v. 15bb (wyl( rpkl wh#dqyw), there is no reason to view it as a gloss.167 The former consecration of the altar is clearly presupposed by the ceremony of Lev 9, as well as by the reconsecration of the altar in Lev 16 (cf. 16:18–19); moreover, the consecration of both altar and priests 159 The formula dbkh trty occurs once more in Lev 9:19; 9:10 reads dbkh-Nm trtyh. Note that the LXX harmonizes Lev 8:16 with the usual formula, but not 8:25. 160 Pace ELLIGER, Leviticus, 108. The same applies to the reading Nhblx in the MT of Lev 8:16, 25, instead of the reading Nhyl( r#) blxh in Ex 29:13, 22. 161 Conversely, Elliger’s assumption that the text of Ex 29 consistently revises Lev 8 so as to align it with the to=ra= of Lev 1ff. cannot be supported. Although it is correct that Ex 29 tends to concur more closely with the terminology of Lev 1–7 than Lev 8, there are also various minor variations between Ex 29 and Lev 1–7. Thus, e.g., Ex 29:12 reads we6)et ko6l hadda4m tis]pok, whereas Lev 8:15 merely has )et hadda4m, as in the corresponding instruction in Lev 4:25. Likewise, in the case of the ram for the burnt offering, Lev 8:20 mentions the suet, peder, in keeping with the to=ra= of Lev 1:8, 12, while Ex 29:17 omits it. 162 WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 143; KOCH, Priesterschrift, 68; NOTH, Leviticus, 70. 163 That this is the only possible rendering of )+xyw in this context is already obvious in the LXX, which translates e0kaqa&risen. On this, see, e.g., WEVERS, Notes on Leviticus, 105. 164 On this, see for instance MILGROM, Leviticus, 249–251. 165 This point will be discussed in detail below, see § 3.2.2.3.c. 166 Thus for instance typically NOTH, Leviticus, 70. 167 Against, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 344 and 345; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 104.113.

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

143

(in addition to the tent) is also implied in Ex 29:44. For the author of Ex 29 and Lev 8, the execution in Lev 8:15 of the order found in Ex 29:12 was of course the most fitting time to introduce a comment stating the very significance of this act. Lev 8:18–21: The burnt offering. This passage presents almost no difference with the corresponding instruction in Ex 29:15–18. The only exception is the description of the disposal of the animal’s portions upon the altar in Ex 29:17–18aa and in Lev 8:20–21a. It has sometimes been stated that Ex 29 and Lev 8 preserve here two distinct rituals.168 Namely, in ch. 29, burning the burnt offering apparently comprises a single stage: the entrails and the legs, after being washed, are placed upon the pieces and the head, and the whole ram is then burnt upon the altar. In Lev 8, on the contrary, two successive stages seem to be recorded: the head and the fat of the animal are placed upon the altar, then the entrails and the legs, which have been washed in the meantime. However, the distinction proposed here raises a difficulty; in P, the only occasion when the portions of an animal are arranged before being placed upon the altar is when they are ritually presented to Yahweh, as in Ex 29:24 = Lev 8:27. Since no similar instruction for a ritual presentation of the portions is found in Ex 29:17–18, it is simpler to assume that the wording of 29:17b, “You shall wash its [i.e., the ram’s] entrails and its legs, and put them on the pieces and upon its head”169 actually means that the pieces and the head have already been placed upon the altar. Therefore, the subsequent order: “You shall turn into smoke the whole ram upon the altar” should then be understood as a recapitulation of the whole rite. If so, the ritual in Ex 29 for the ram of the burnt offering is exactly the same as the one actually described in Lev 8, as well as in Lev 1 (cf. 1:8–9, 12–13).170 Since there are other indications that Ex 29 already knows the rite as found in Lev 1 (see below), this explanation is easier than to postulate that ch. 29 has mysteriously preserved an earlier rite for the disposal of the portions of the burnt offering upon the altar. The slight difference in the wording of Ex 29 and Lev 8 simply corresponds to the fact that the instruction of ch. 29 is somewhat more condensed than the description of Lev 8. Exactly the same phenomenon applies in Ex 29:21 and Lev 8:23–24 (see below), and it may easily be explained by the distinct position and function of these two texts, especially if Lev 8 was conceived from the start as a follow-up to the instructions on sacrifices in Lev 1ff. 168

E.g., ELLIGER, Leviticus, 108; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 109; MILGROM, Leviticus, 526. The LXX reads here su\n th= kefalh= instead of w#)r-l(w in the MT. It is difficult to decide which reading is original, although the Greek might seek to clarify the development of the ritual considering that the head, contrary to the pieces, has not been mentioned so far. 170 The SamP preserves a lesson including the entrails among the portions mentioned in v. 20, implying that only the legs of the burnt offering were washed. This lesson is unique, but it may hardly be original; one should think of this as a probable mistake by a copyist. 169

144

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

This abridgement also explains, I believe, two other minor variants between Ex 29:17–18 and Lev 8:20–21. As already observed by Wellhausen, Ex 29:17 omits the “fat” (rdp) of the ram, occurring in Lev 8:20 in conformity with 1:8, 12.171 The exact meaning of this term is not entirely clear; in any event, it cannot designate the fat of the whole animal since there is also fat upon the entrails which are mentioned afterwards. Moreover, the term used by P to designate the fat of the whole animal is always blx (cf. for instance Lev 9:24); rdp is only used in 1:8, 12 and 8:20 and therefore must necessarily have a specialized meaning. Ancient commentators already understood that the term designated the fat of a specific part of the animal,172 and this seems to be corroborated by the Akkadian cognate pitru, which refers to “the loose covering of fat over the liver”.173 Here also, therefore, the absence in Ex 29 of this technical detail may simply be due to the fact that the instructions for burning the burnt offering are presented in a more summary fashion in this chapter.174 The same applies for the notice, in 8:21a, that the entrails and legs are washed “in water”, which was omitted in Ex 29:17 because it was not required for the description of the ritual.175 Lev 8:22–32: The offering of the second ram. This passage presents several variants with its corresponding instruction in Ex 29:20–34. However, apart from Ex 29:27–28 and 29–30 which, as shown previously, have been interpolated, none of the other variations between the two texts is significant. The account in Lev 8:23–24 follows closely the instruction in Ex 29:20 concerning the daubing of Aaron and his sons with some of the blood of the second ram. As with the disposal of the first ram upon the altar (see above), the description is slightly more detailed in Lev 8 than in Ex 29: ch. 8 describes first the ritual for Aaron (v. 23) and then for his sons (v. 24), while the command in Ex 29 grouped them together. Milgrom relates this difference to the view that Lev 8 would systematically emphasize Aaron’s holiness over that of his sons against Ex 29.176 Yet this is doubtful; in Ex 29 already, Aaron is dressed separately from his sons (v. 5–6, 8–9) and only he is to be anointed (v. 7). Here again, the difference in the description is more likely linked to the difference in the function and genre of the two texts; as a prescription, ch. 29 is slightly more concise, whereas the description in ch. 8 may be more detailed.177 The sequel of the ritual in 8:25–29 follows very closely the parallel instruction in Ex 29:22–26. The information in 8:26b that Moses placed the 171

Cf. ID., Composition, 143. Cf. the brief survey in MILGROM, Leviticus, 159. 173 LEVINE, Leviticus, 7. 174 Thus, it is unnecessary to assign rdp to a later glossator (BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 345). 175 It is supplied in the LXX but this is probably a harmonization with Lev 8:21 MT. 176 MILGROM, Consecration, 280. 177 ELLIGER, Leviticus, 109, holds for his part that Lev 8:24 was edited at a later stage. 172

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

145

unleavened cakes enumerated in the previous hemistiche (26a) upon the suet pieces and the right thigh mentioned in 8:25 is absent from the corresponding instruction in Ex 29, but it is a logical implication of the description in 29:22–23. Wellhausen put considerable emphasis on the fact that Lev 8:26 mentions an unleavened cake (hcm tlx) while Ex 29:23 speaks of a “round loaf of bread” (Mxl rkk); he related this difference to the fact that Ex 29 preserves the older usage of offering leavened bread.178 However, the account of 29:23 makes clear that the Mxl rkk corresponds, in fact, to the twcm Mxl mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, in 29:2, so that the whole case built by Wellhausen should be abandoned. The difference in the terminology used within Ex 29, in v. 2 and 23, is also a typical example of the necessity to allow some variation in the style of the redactor who composed Ex 29 and Lev 8. The remaining differences concern merely small details. Lev 8:27 uses the verb Ntn instead of My# in Ex 29:24. 8:28 reads Mhypk l(m instead of Mdym in Ex 29:25, corresponding to the description previously found in the two texts (29:24 and 8:27), which also read Pk instead of dy. Lev 8:28 also adds the phrase Mh My)lm, missing in the parallel text of Ex 29:25.179 The presence of this statement in Lev 8 conforms to the description of the previous offerings in Ex 29 and Lev 8 (cf. 29:14, 18; 8:21). Its absence in Ex 29:25 is probably due to the fact that it was already stated at the end of 29:22, so that it was unnecessary to repeat it. That the declaration was introduced in 29:22 already apparently serves to justify that, in addition to the usual portions of the wellbeing offering, the “ordination” (My)lm) offering also requires the right thigh of the ram to be burnt upon the altar: cf. kî )e=l millu)îm hu=) (v. 22b). In Lev 8, however, this justification was unnecessary because the context is not that of an instruction for but a description of the ritual; hence, the Priestly writer could return to the usual pattern and place the declaration Mh My)lm at the end of the account of the ritual burning of the portions of the animal. Lev 8:29 agrees with Ex 29:26, except that the specification My)lmh is found at a different place in the construction of the sentence. Lastly, Lev 8:31–32 agrees with the corresponding instruction in Ex 29:31–34. 8:31a conforms to 29:31– 32; the quotation of Ex 29:32 in Lev 8:31b stresses the fact that Moses (and Aaron and his sons) have acted in agreement with what was instructed by Yahweh in Ex 29.180 Ex 29:33a is a comment on the previous instruction in v. 31–32, and 33b is a mere prohibition, which did not need to be repeated in Lev 8. Finally, the instruction of 29:34 is fulfilled in 8:32. The only notable difference lies in the fact that according to Ex 29:31–32 the flesh of the consecration offering must be boiled in a sacred place (v. 31) and eaten “at the 178

WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 143–144. See further e.g. BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 24. 29:25 MT adds instead hwhy ynpl. It is missing in the SamP and may be a later addition. 180 The MT of Lev 8:31b vocalizes ytywc as an active; however, the passive vocalization, preserved by the SamP, the LXX and other versions, should be preferred here. 179

146

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

entrance of the tent of meeting” (v. 32), while in Lev 8:31a MT it is both boiled and eaten d(wm lh) xtp 181. It is doubtful that this is significant because the phrase d(wm lh) xtp probably refers to the whole courtyard182; it is therefore no more specific than the #dq Mwqm of Ex 29:31, also referring to a place inside the courtyard (cf. Lev 6:9, 19), and the two are simply equivalent. Lev 8:33, 36: The seven-day ceremony. As noted above, Lev 8:33b and 36 take up in the reverse order Ex 29:35a, b. The specification in 8:33a that Aaron and his sons have to stay at the entrance of the tent for the seven days of their ordination is implied in the instruction of Ex 29:35b.183 The intervening material (v. 34–35) is an amplifying comment; it could result from a later interpolation, as the wording of v. 35, in particular, may suggest. To sum up: The comparison between Ex 29 and Lev 8 suggests that contrary to the classical view there is no substantial ground for attributing the two chapters to different hands. All the major variants between the two texts can be demonstrated to stem from later redactional and editorial developments, whereas the large majority of the minor variants are clearly either of a contextual or stylistical nature. Several variants may simply be accounted for by the fact that the two chapters have a different function and belong to distinct genres (instruction vs. compliance report); the lack of attention to this feature has often led to an overemphasis of slight differences in expression. Likewise, lexical or syntactical changes within similar formulations inside the same chapter – a parade example of which is the case of the designation of the cakes inside the basket in Ex 29:2 and 23 – should caution us against applying criteria of stylistical homogeneity in too mechanical a fashion, as, e.g., Elliger. On one hand, it should be recalled, both Ex 29 and Lev 8 have necessari181

The LXX reads: e0n te= au0lh= th=j skhnh=j … e0n to/pw| a(gi/w|, so as to match Lev 6:9, 19. See in particular MILGROM, Leviticus, 147–148. 183 It is unclear whether the wording of Ex 29:35b and Lev 8:33 conveys the idea that the same ritual was to be repeated during the seven days, as several commentators assume (see, e.g., ELLIGER, Leviticus, 120; similarly MILGROM, Leviticus, 538; this was already the view of the rabbinic tradition, see also HOFFMANN, Leviticus, 1. 284). This appears to be implied by the phrasing of 8:34a (“as it has been done today”), yet this verse could be secondary as observed above, pages 133–134. The formulation of Ex 29:35b woud rather suggest the repetition of the My)lm offering, as noted by BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 346. On the basis of Ex 29:36–37, HARTLEY, Leviticus, 115, thinks that it is a t)+x offering which is intended, and he identifies it with the reference to the atonement carried out on behalf of Aaron and his sons during these seven days in Lev 8:34. However, Ex 29:36–37 is a late addition to ch. 29, as is generally acknowledged and as was argued above on pages 132–133. Besides, it should be noted that (1) the function of the offering during these seven days is actually different in the two passages: in Ex 29:36–37, it serves to purifiy and sanctify the altar exclusively, whereas Lev 8:34 mentions for its part only the atonement of Aaron and his sons; and (2) it is not stated in Lev 8:34 that the priests’ atonement is achieved exclusively through the offering of a t)+x; it could also be a combination of sacrifices. For all these reasons, this view is unlikely. 182

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

147

ly been copied numerous times during the Second Temple period, so that variations between two semantically equivalent terms (as, e.g., Kp# in Ex 29:12 instead of qcy in Lev 8:15 and 9:9) can also be the work of a later copyist. On the other hand, our understanding of what constitutes a significant variant may be overly informed by our modern view of literacy. As some authors have noted, a scribal activity informed by a predominantly oral and traditional background was probably considerably more free than in a predominantly literate culture, and therefore regarded as merely synonymous words or expressions that we would definitely hold as textual variants.184 In this respect, once the passages which are among the most obvious interpolations are removed, the structural and terminological correspondence between the two texts is, on the contrary, quite remarkable and definitely suggests the work of a single author.185 The few additions identified above in this section which were made independently to one text, without consideration of the other, probably go back to a stage when the books of Ex and Lev already formed discrete works preserved on separate scrolls in the Temple’s library. Apart from the limited editorial interventions that have been identified, the remaining material builds a coherent composition, as is generally acknowledged.186 That Lev 8 is a faithful compliance of Ex 29 is underlined, moreover, by the fact that ch. 8 is structured by the sevenfold repetition of the phrase hwc r#)k hwhy, concluding each main stage of the ritual (see 8:4, 9, 13, 17, 21, 29, and the final statement in v. 36) – a numerological device intended to emphasize the absolute conformity of the ceremony in ch. 8 with its model in Ex 29.187 184

See for instance PERSON, Scribe; and already NIDITCH, Oral World. At most, it can be observed with Elliger that while the description of the offerings in Lev 8 MT has preserved a few variations in terminology with the to=ra= of Lev 1–7, the formulation of the corresponding instructions in Ex 29 tends to agree almost systematically with the terminology of this to=ra= (although there are exceptions, see above, note 161). This observation raises the possibility that Ex 29 has been edited, at some stage of its transmission, to be aligned with Lev 1–7. This is likely to have been caused by the distinct position of ch. 29, which anticipates the to=ra= on sacrifices in Lev 1ff. but is located in a distinct literary context. 186 See, for example, ELLIGER, Leviticus, 113. One major exception to the consensus regarding the literary homogeneity of Ex 29; Lev 8 is found in the recent study by OWCZA REK, Wohnen Gottes, 80–86, who identifies an earlier version in 29:5–7*, 29–30*, 35a, 44a, 45–46. Her proposal, however, meets with several difficulties. In particular, her reconstruction is based on the arbitrary view that all references to sacrifices in 29:10ff. are later additions. Similarly, her view that initially Ex 29* concerned only Aaron’s consecration leads her to declare all passages in v. 1–28 mentioning Aaron’s sons to be secondary. Nevertheless, she is forced to retain part of v. 35 (35a) in her reconstruction, a passage specifically mentioning Aaron together with his sons! Besides, the wording of v. 35a, “You shall do for Aaron and for his sons according to all that I commanded to you”, implies that Aaron’s sons are fully included in the ceremony, and not merely as Aaron’s heirs. On the whole, therefore, Owczarek’s reconstruction cannot be supported. 187 For a detailed analysis of the syntax of ch. 8, see KLINGBEIL, Syntactic Structure. MILGROM, Leviticus, 544, finds a chiastic structure in Lev 8, but the result is hardly convincing. 185

148

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

3.1.3. Leviticus 10 as a Later, Post-Priestly Supplement to Lev 8–9 So far, the analysis of Lev 8–10 has focused on ch. 8–9, leaving aside the problem of ch. 10. Although in the canonical form of Leviticus, ch. 10 is closely related to the account of the inauguration of the sacrificial cult (see above, Chapter Two), several observations nevertheless suggest that it was not part of P originally but represents a much later addition, as R. Achenbach, in particular, has recently argued.188 Traditionally, critics have always highlighted the literary complexity of Lev 10, which they explained by sophisticated source-critical analyses. In particular, they noted the presence of many late elements in this chapter, such as v. 10–11, which serves as a kind of précis for the entire book of Leviticus and is probably editorial,189 or 16–20, a sophisticated, almost midrashic account whose aim is to harmonize the contradictions between the story of Lev 9 and the to=ra= of ch. 1–7. As a result, they identified the chapter’s original core in v. 1–5, the account of Aaron’s elder sons, possibly with v. 12–15; other sections (v. 6–7, 8–11, 16–20) were said to result from a process of Fortschreibung.190 Since then, even the attribution of v. 1–5 to “Pg” has become disputed, even though the assumption of the chapter’s fragmentary nature has remained.191 As a matter of fact, there are several reasons to dispute the antiquity of this account. In particular, v. 1–5 presuppose the genealogy of Ex 6:14–27 since only there are Mishael and Elzaphan mentioned as sons of Uzziel, Aaron’s uncle (Ex 6:22, cf. Lev 10:4).192 Since Wellhausen, it is almost unanimously recognized that the list of Ex 6:14–27 is a late addition to P,193 which was interpolated by the resumption of 6:10–12 in 6:28–30; indeed, the divine reply to Moses’ objection in 6:12 follows only in 7:1ff.194 In general, Ex 6:13–30 is viewed as an addition to P (“Ps”), but it should more likely be attributed to a pentateuchal redactor, as was already acknowledged by some scholars.195 The genealogical list of Ex 6 is clearly modeled upon the genealogy of Gen 46:8– 27 (cf. Ex 6:14b–16a = Gen 46:8–11), which it seeks to update down to the exodus in the case of Levi’s tribe.196 As observed by E. Blum and some other 188

ACHENBACH, Leviticus 10; ID., Vollendung, 93–110. See for example MILGROM, Leviticus, 615–618. 190 See WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 147–148; similarly BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 349–353. 191 See already ELLIGER, Sinn, 175; NOTH, Leviticus, 83; WEIMAR, Struktur, 85; ID., Sinai, 376; ZENGER, Gottes Bogen, 157–160. Most recently FREVEL, Kein Ende?, esp. 93–94. 192 As correctly noted, for instance, by FREVEL, Kein Ende?, 94. 193 WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 62. 194 See, e.g., SCHMIDT , Exodus 1–6, 296–297; LEVINSON , Hermeneutics, 18–19; and GERTZ, Exoduserzählung, 251–252. The notice in 6:13 anticipates and summarizes 7:1–5. 195 For this solution, see already WEIMAR, Berufung des Mose, 16–17 n. 3; further PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 267–69; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 110–123, with a detailed demonstration. 196 The resumption of Ruben and Simeon in Ex 6 is most likely, therefore, a way of quoting a well-known genealogy up to the point with which the author of Ex 6:14ff. is concerned. 189

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

149

authors, the genealogy of Gen 46:8–27 seems to presuppose the story of Jacob almost in its present form, and must belong therefore to the latest stages in the composition of the book of Genesis (combining P and non-P traditions).197 If so, Ex 6:14–27. cannot belong to P either, but is necessarily redactional. This conclusion is also evident from the logic of the presentation of the genealogical data in Ex 6, which clearly points to the following books of the Torah. As was already observed by medieval exegetes (Ibn Ezra and Rashbam), only the sons of Hebron (cf. Ex 6:18) are not named because they play no role in the remaining books, contrary to the sons of Amram (6:20), Yizhar (6:21, cf. Num 16, Korah), and Uzziel (6:22, cf. Lev 10:4), whose names are given.198 Similarly, while the genealogical list of Ex 6:14–27 always indicates the offspring of Levi’s sons over three generations (cf. 6:17–24), there is one exception in the case of Phinehas (6:25), Levi’s great-great-great-grandson, evidently because of his role in Numbers (cf. Num 25) and in Joshua (Josh 22). Additional observations may be made which corroborate the attribution of Ex 6:14–27 to a pentateuchal redactor. Thus, Propp observes that the number of generations given in Ex 6:14–27 seems to be modeled upon the non-P (probably post-P) text of Gen 15, cf. 15:16 (four generations between Levi and the second generation of the exodus, since the first generation dies in the wilderness and does not enter the land). At the same time, the author of the list in Ex 6:14ff. had to solve the problem raised by the equation, in Gen 15, of 400 years and four generations (15:13, 16), which he apparently did by estimating the life span of Levi, Kohath and Amram to about 130 years each (hence dividing 400 by three),199 and by counting them as sequential, rather than overlapping.200 Also, as finely noted by Propp, the notice in 6:28, specifying that Yahweh was speaking to Moses and Aaron “in the land of Egypt”, is unnecessary in P, where Moses never leaves Egypt (compare also Ez 20:5ff.), and likely presupposes that the text of P was already combined with the non-P tradition in Ex 3–5.201 Finally, the language of the redactional frame of the genealogical list (v. 14 and 26–27) also suggests a late origin, as observed in particular by Achenbach.202 The “heads of ancestral families” (twb)-tyb y#)r) in 6:14a are found exclusively in a few late passages of the Pentateuch (Num 7:2; 17:18), in Josh 22:14, and in Chronicles (1 Chr 5:24; 7:7, 9, 40). The formulation of 6:26b corresponds to Ex 12:51 (note, e.g., the use of the rare expression Mt)bc-l(, instead of the more frequent Mt)bcl), thus building a redactional frame around the entire “plague” story in Ex 7–12.

Additionally, Ruben, Simeon and Levi are the only sons of Jacob to be cursed by their father in Gen 49 (cf. v. 3–7), as was already noted by Rashi (see ACHENBACH, Ibid., 113). 197 BLUM, Vätergeschichte, 249–50. Cf. also LEVIN, Jahwist, 305, who even thinks that it postdates the redaction of the Pentateuch (“nachendredaktionelle Ergänzung”). Note also that this conclusion was already reached by KUENEN, Einleitung, 1. 313. 198 A point also noted by PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 267. 199 Levi: 137 years; Kohath: 133 years (MT)/130 years (LXX); Amram: 136 years (MT)/130 years (LXX), hence a total of 406 (MT) or 397 (LXX) years. 200 PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 269. 201 PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 267. 202 ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 110ff.

150

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

If it is the case that the genealogical list in Ex 6:14–27 is to be assigned to a pentateuchal redaction, the story of Lev 10:1–5, which depends upon it, cannot be part of an independent P document either. This conclusion is corroborated by other aspects of this story (see below, Chapter Six), such as the language of the divine saying quoted by Moses in v. 3 (with #dq Niphal, otherwise in Leviticus only in 22:32), or the fact that it prepares for the narrative of Num 16–17 in its final, post-Priestly form. Nadab’s and Abihu’s death is quoted in Lev 16:1, but as several commentators have observed, the presence in 16:1–2aa of a twofold introduction, a unique device in P, suggests editorial reworking, thus confirming that the story of the two priests was not part, initially, of P’s account in ch. 16.203 This conclusion regarding 10:1– 5, supposedly comprising the oldest part of ch. 10, implies that the attempt to separate editorial interpolations from older material in this chapter is unfounded and that all of Lev 10 is, more likely, from the hand of the final redactor of the book. If so, the function and meaning of Lev 10 need to be reassessed in connection with the broader issue of the book’s insertion in the Torah at a post-Priestly stage. This will be the subject of the last chapter of this study.

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey 3.2.1. The Case for the Dependence of Leviticus 8–9 on Lev 1–7 Ever since Wellhausen and Kuenen (both of whom actually resume an earlier observation by H. Ewald)204 it has been assumed that Lev 1–7 had been interpolated between Ex 40 and Lev 8; still today, this opinion is commonly found.205 Simultaneously, it was noted above that during the 20th century the dependence of Lev 8–9 on 1–7 became gradually obvious. As a matter of fact, close examination of the language of Ex 29 and Lev 8–9 leaves little doubt that they presuppose at least some version of the to=ra= on offerings. The dependence is especially obvious in the case of ch. 1–3, the to=ra= for the burnt, cereal, and well-being offerings. The description of the offering of the first ram as a burnt offering in Ex 29:15–18 and Lev 8:18–21 comes close to the instruction in Lev 1:3–9, 10–13 for the burnt offering of large and small 203

See for instance NOTH, Leviticus, 117–118; WEFING, Untersuchungen, 32–33.35; MILLeviticus, 611–612 and 1012; KÖRTING, Schall, 119–120; FREVEL, Kein Ende?, 92; pace ELLIGER, Leviticus, 202–203. Note the obvious doublet between h#m-l) hwhy rbdyw (v. 1aa) and h#m-l) hwhy rm)yw (v. 2aa). On the meaning of the connection between Lev 10 and 16 created by the insertion of 16:1, see further below, Chapter Six of this study, § 6.1., especially pages 581 and 585ff. 204 EWALD, Geschichte, 141; WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 135; KUENEN, Einleitung, 1.78. 205 See, e.g., MILGROM, Leviticus, 543: “[…] Lev 8 is a direct continuation of Ex 40:17– 33, with Ex 40:34–38 and Lev 1–7 as later insertions”. GROM ,

151

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

cattle,206 even though it slightly shortens it, and occasionally introduces a few minor variations. The correspondence is most striking between Lev 8:18–21 and Lev 1, as shown by the comparison below.207 Leviticus 1:3–6, 8–9

Leviticus 8:18–21 3

hl(h ly) t) brqyw18

hl(h #)r l( wdy Kmsw4

ly)h #)r-l( Mhydy-t) … wkmsyw

5

+x#yw19

hwhy ynpl wncrl wt) byrqy

hwhy ynpl rqbh Nb-t) +x#w

Mdh-t) … wbyrqhw … bybs xbzmh-l( Mdh-t) wqrzw

bybs xbzmh-l( Mdh-t) h#m qrzyw

hyxtnl ht) xtnw hl(h-t) +y#phw

6

wyxtnl xtn ly)h-t)w20

#)rh-t) Myxtnh t) … wkr(w

8

#)rh-t) h#m r+qyw

Myc(h-l( rdph-t)w

rdph-t)w Myxtnh-t)w

xbzmh-l( r#) #)h-l( r#) Mymb Cxry wy(rkw wbrqw9

Mymb Cxr My(rkh-t)w brqh-t)w21

hxbzmh lkh-t) Nhkh ry+qhw

hxbzmh ly)h-lk-t) h#m r+qyw

hwhyl xwxyn-xyr h#) hl(

hwhyl )wh h#) xwxyn-xyrl )wh hl(

Not only is the description of the succession of the ritual acts exactly identical in both texts: 1) bringing forth of the animal; 2) laying of the offerer’s hands; 3) slaughter; 4) aspersion of the altar with the animal’s blood; 5) flaying of the animal into sections; 6) burning of the sections, together with the head and the suet; 7) washing of the entrails and the legs, which are then disposed on the altar; 8) burning of the whole animal on the altar, with the concluding sentence stating that it is an h#) , a ‘food gift’,208 of pleasing odor to Yahweh (xwxyn-xyr 206 The offering of a ram, ly), as a burnt offering is not mentioned in Lev 1, but this device probably simply serves to highlight the outstanding character of the ceremony recounted in ch. 8. The same applies in Lev 9 for the offering of calves, lg(, by Aaron and the community. 207 As noted e.g. by RENDTORFF, Studien, 12; LEVINE, Leviticus, 52; MILGROM, Leviticus, 526 (on Lev 8:21). On the slightly different sequence in Ex 29:15–18, see above, p. 143ff. 208 The traditional etymology connecting h#) with #), “fire”, and rendering it as “offering by fire”, or “fire offering”, is certainly incorrect; see in particular GRAY, Sacrifice, 9–13; further, HOFTIJZER, Feueropfer; MILGROM, Leviticus, 161–162; RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 63– 65; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 13–14, GANE , Cult, 8 n. 22, all of whom propose rendering it by “(food) gift” (as already the Targums, which identify consistently h#) with Nbrwq; cf. RENDTORFF, 63). Following Hoftijzer, it is more likely that the Hebrew h#) should be connected to the Ugaritic term )itt, meaning “eine Gabe an eine Gottheit” (p. 133). See also DRIVER, Ugaritic and Hebrew Words, who renders it “generous, rich gifts”. A parallel with Akkadian es]s]es]u, “offerings (made at the es]s]es]u festival)” has also been proposed (HARTLEY, 14), yet this seems to me unlikely. Indeed, it is clear that the usual rendering “fire offering” is inappropriate in several occurrences, such as, e.g., Lev 24:7, 9. In this passage, neither the frankincense to be placed on the table as a substitute for the bread nor the bread itself – which is given to the priests as a prebend – are consumed by fire although they are both called an h#) . (Pace EBERHART , Studien, 41, there is no indication that the frankincense of 24:7 is to

152

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

hwhyl ), but the formulation of the two descriptions is almost identical, as shown by this comparison, and presents only a few minor variants. The fact that Lev 8 is less detailed may easily be explained if it presupposes the more specific legislation of Lev 1:3ff.; note that the same phenomenon occurs in the second half of ch. 1, v. 10–13 (the hl( from the flock), which also represents a shorter version of the ritual described in 1:3–9.

Similarly, it was often observed that the offering for the ordination of Aaron and his sons in Ex 29 and Lev 8 is manifestly modeled upon the well-being offering prescribed in Lev 3.209 The description of the portions of the animal offered in Ex 29:22 and Lev 8:25 corresponds exactly to what is instructed in Lev 3:9–10 and 13–14; the formulation is similar, although, here again, the passage is more developed in the to=ra= of Lev 3. Besides, the aspersion of blood on the altar has been skillfully integrated into the rite of the daubing of blood upon Aaron and his sons in Ex 29:20 and Lev 8:23–24, where it serves to mark the conclusion. As noted above (§ 3.1.2.), the major difference concerns the fact that the usual expression “the suet covering the entrails and all the suet which is over the entrails” in Lev 3:3, 9, 14 (see also Lev 4:8) is divided between Ex 29:22 on one hand (reading brqh-t) hskmh blxh) and Lev 8:25 on the other (brqh-l( r#) blxh-lk-t)). Apparently, what we have here is a reinterpretation by the author of Ex 29 and Lev 8 of the traditional formula, suggesting that the two phrases are, in fact, equivalent. This development may easily be accounted for if, as will be argued below (§ 3.3.), the composition of the to=ra= of Lev 1–3 is not contemporary with the writing down of Ex 29 and Lev 8–9 but originally goes back to an earlier document. Another difference is the offering of the right thigh, which is a particularity of the My)lm offering in Ex 29 and Lev 8 against Lev 3. It was suggested previously (above, page 144) that the formula )wh My)lm yk in Ex 29:22 concluding the description of the portions of the ordination offering that must be burnt upon the altar may serve to justify this innovation over the well-being be burnt; the ‘pure table’ of Lev 24:6 is obviously the table of pure gold of Ex 25:23ff, which is a table destined to the disposal of offerings before the deity, a practice well attested in the Mesopotamian cultic tradition; it is not the inner altar of Ex 30:1ff. for the burning of incense.) In Lev 7:30, 35–36, h#) is similarly used to designate the priestly prebend from the wellbeing offering, that is, one of the portions of the offering which is not burnt on the altar. Finally, in Num 15:1–16, libations of wine are also included among the offerings which are termed h#) (cf. 15:10, although one could argue here that the term refers primarily to the animals mentioned in this passage, as seems clear from 15:11–13). Admittedly, as observed by several authors (thus, e.g., WILLI-PLEINS, Opfer, 91; PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 46), it is difficult to assume that no connection at all was perceived between h#) and #) in the context of offerings burnt upon the altar, even if this etymology is not original. In this regard, in the case of sacrifices properly speaking (i.e., implying the destruction of the animal or vegetable offered upon the altar) a more specific rendering as “fire offering” would not be unjustified. Furthermore, as EBERHART , Studien, 43–47, has now established, this twofold acceptance of the term h#) (i.e., ‘food gift’ and ‘fire offering’) is already found in the LXX. 209 See for instance NOTH, Leviticus, 71; LEVINE, Leviticus, 53.

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

153

offering by making clear that the offering of the right thigh distinguishes the ordination offering from the one of well-being. If that is correct, it is a further indication that the ordination offering was modeled upon the to=ra= of Lev 3. Finally, the dependence of both Ex 29 and Lev 8 upon the to=ra= of Lev 1–3 is also obvious in the case of the unleavened cakes mentioned in the ritual for the consecration of the first priests, which seem to presuppose the to=ra= for the cereal offering of Lev 2, or at least a first version of it. Outside Lev 2:4, combined use of hlx and qyqr to designate the cakes of unleavened bread which may be brought as a cereal offering to Yahweh is only found in a few isolated passages: namely, in addition to Ex 29:2, 23 and Lev 8:26, Lev 7:12 and Num 6:15, 19, all of which actually depend on Lev 2:4. Moreover, the formulation of Ex 29:2 corresponds to the instruction in Lev 2:4.210 Leviticus 2:4

Exodus 29:2

rwnt hp)m hxnm Nbrq brqt ykw

Nm#b tlwlb tcm tlxw twcm Mxlw

Nm#b tlwlb tcm twlx tls

Nm#b Myx#m twcm yqyqrw

Nm#b Myx#m twcm yqyqrw

Mt) h#(t My+x tls

And when you present an offering of cereal baked in an oven: (it shall be) unleavened cakes, made of flour and mixed with oil, or unleavened wafers smeared with oil.

[Take…] unleavened bread, and unleavened cakes mixed with oil, as well as unleavened wafers smeared with oil; you shall make them of wheat flour.

The description of the twlx and the Myqyqr in Ex 29:2 takes up verbatim the instruction given in Lev 2:4 for cereals baked in the oven. The only difference is that it adds the specification that they have to be made of wheat (h+x) flour. Otherwise, there can be little doubt that the author of Ex 29 intended to show his conformity with the corresponding instruction in Lev 2. It has sometimes been argued that the description of the offerings in Lev 9 evinces several differences with the to=ra= of Lev 1ff., and this observation was even taken by some authors as an argument for the anteriority of Lev 9.211 This is especially true for the purification offering in 9:8–11, which, as a matter of fact, is definitely distinct from the account of Lev 4. However, exactly the same situation applies in the case of Ex 29 and Lev 8 and, as will be argued in the next section (§ 3.2.2.), it should be explained by the later origin of ch. 4. For all the other offerings, few differences can be observed between Lev 9 and ch. 1–3. Thus, the description of the hl( for Aaron and his house in Lev 9:11–14 basically agrees with Lev 1. 210 211

As observed in particular by BAENTSCH, Exodus, 247, and WALKENHORST, Sinai, 39. See in particular NOTH, Leviticus, 75ff.

154

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10) Leviticus 9:12–14

Leviticus 1:5–9 12

hl(h-t) +x#yw

hwhy ynpl rqbh Nb-t) +x#w5

Mdh-t) wyl) Nrh) ynb w)cmyw

Mdh-t) … wbyrqhw

bybs xbzmh-l( whqrzyw

… bybs xbzmh-l( Mdh-t) wqrzw

#)rh-t)w hyxtnl wyl) w)ycmh hl(h-t)w13

hyxtnl ht) xtnw hl(h-t) +y#phw6

xbzmh-l( r+qyw

#)rh-t) Myxtnh t) … wkr(w8 Myc(h-l( rdph-t)w xbzmh-l( r#) #)h-l( r#)

My(rkh-t)w brqh-t) Cxryw14

Mymb Cxry wy(rkw wbrqw9

hxbzmh hl(h-l( r+qyw

hxbzmh lkh-t) Nhkh ry+qhw hwhyl xwxyn-xyr h#) hl(

As in Lev 8:18–21 and Ex 29:15–18, the description is more condensed than in the to=ra= of ch. 1, although it resumes the main stages of the ritual. Also, as in Ex 29 previously, the mention of rdp (possibly referring to the fat over the liver)212 alongside the head is omitted.213 The main innovation in Lev 9 vis-à-vis the to=ra= of ch. 1ff. concerns the role of Aaron’s sons, who assist their father by giving him (with the verb )cm) the blood and the portions of the animal, while in Lev 1, they are the ones who dash the blood against the altar and dispose of the portions of the animal upon it (cf. 1:5, 8). This innovation has to do, of course, with the context of the ceremony of ch. 9, the latter being conducted by Aaron himself whereas he plays no role in Lev 1. Noth also argues that the burnt offering of ch. 9 preserves a ritual distinct from that of ch. 1, inasmuch as in Lev 9, “the burning of the ‘parts’ and the head are first mentioned and then – separately – the burning of the entrails and legs”, whereas in Lev 1, “the entrails and legs are first to be washed and then burnt together with the previously mentioned ‘parts’ (vv. 8, 9).”214 However, this assumption cannot hold, since the formulation of 1:8 makes very clear that the head and the sections of the animal are first placed on the altar’s fire, before the entrails and the legs are washed, so that the ritual of Lev 9 actually preserves exactly the same sequence as in ch. 1.

It is interesting to observe, in particular, that the distinctive feature of the burnt offering in P, the burning upon the altar of the entrails (brq ) and the legs (My(rk) after being washed (Cxr), is exclusively mentioned in the Hebrew Bible in Ex 29:17; Lev 1:9, 13; 8:21 and 9:14. Finally, it is also possible that the statement that the burnt offering on behalf of the community was offered +p#mk in 9:16 relates to the fact that it was done in conformity with the to=ra= of Lev 1.215 Of course, the phrase +p#mk in this place could simply be a reference to the accepted, customary practice and not to a written rule.216 212

On this point, see above, p. 144. On the consistent omission of the hand-leaning rite in Lev 9: above, page 122, note 57. 214 NOTH, Leviticus, 79. 215 E.g., MILGROM, Leviticus, 583; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 118. Earlier commentators occasionally noted this reference, yet maintained the chronological priority of Lev 9 over ch. 1ff. 216 E.g., ELLIGER, Leviticus, 130. 213

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

155

Indeed, this appears to be the case elsewhere in P outside Leviticus.217 Nevertheless, it should be noted that in the only other passage in Leviticus where the formula is used, namely Lev 5:10, it does appear to refer to a previous instruction, here the to=ra= of Lev 1:14–17 for offering of a bird as an hl(.218 Thus, it can also be conceived that the same applies for Lev 9:16, and that the phrase kammis]pa4t[, here, specifically refers to Lev 1. If so, this is an explicit indication of the eagerness of the Priestly writer to show the correspondence of the report of the offering of the first sacrifices with the sacrificial to=ra= in Lev 1–7. For Israel, the legitimate custom (mis]pa4t[) is, specifically, the one construed by the account of the divine revelation to Moses of prescriptions for the major sacrifices. The description of the offering of the Myml#-xbz in Lev 9:18–19 is also quite coherent with the to=ra= of ch. 3.219 Compare 9:18 with 3:2, 8, 13, and 9:19–20 with 3:3–5, 9–11, 14–16. There are two exceptions however: the enumeration of the portions is shortened in the MT of v. 19,220 and the breasts of the well-being offerings are now singled out (v. 20) and offered to Yahweh with the rite of elevation (hpwnt, cf. v. 21). Regarding the first point: while Lev 3 consistently mentions “the suet that covers the entrails, and all the suet that is over the entrails; the two kidneys and the suet that is over them, that is on the sinews (Mylsk);221 and the caudate lobe on the liver, with the two kidneys, which he shall remove”,222 Lev 9:19, for its part, reads: “and the suet pieces (Myblx) of the ox and of the ram (that is): the tail, the covering (namely, suet [hskm]), the kidneys and the caudate lobes”. Thus, all the pieces mentioned in Lev 3 are included, but the description has been considerably simplified. That is best explained, once again, by presuming that, in Lev 9, P could refer his readers to the more complete description found in Lev 3 and thus limit himself to a briefer description in the context of the account of ch. 9. As for the breasts of the well-being sacrifices in v. 20–21,which are offered as a te6nu=pa=, the procedure described in Lev 9 does not follow Lev 3 but corresponds to the prescription found in other passages in P, such as Ex 29:27– 217 See Num 15:24; 29:6, 18, 21, 24. In all these passages, +p#mk is used in reference with the cereal (hxnm) and libation (Ksn) offerings accompanying a hl(, for which no previous instruction is given in P, so that +p#mk here can only refer to the customary usage. 218 Thus most commentators; see, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 329; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 75; RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 198; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 70; DEIANA, Levitico, 78. 219 As correctly observed for instance by ELLIGER, Leviticus, 126–127: “Die Grundschicht stellte das erste Heilsmahlopfer so dar, wie es dem Ritual Lev 3 entspricht”, although he nevertheless maintains the traditional view that Lev 9 was introduced before Lev 3. 220 Compare the LXX; however, it probably betrays a later harmonization with Lev 3. 221 Usually translated by “loins”, but see MILGROM , Leviticus, 207, and further HELD , Lexicography, 401–403 (quoted by Milgrom). 222 See Lev 3:3–4, 9–10, 14–15. Lev 3:9–10 adds the tail, hyl), in the case of a sheep.

156

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

28; Lev 7:28–36 and 10:14–15. This rite also has a parallel in the ritual for the “ordination” (My)lm) offering in Ex 29 (v. 26) and Lev 8 (v. 29). The fact that this rite is omitted in Lev 3 does not necessarily imply that it was not yet known at the time of the composition of the earliest version of the sacrificial to=ra= in Lev 1–7 (below, § 3.3.). Rather, it belongs to the literary genre of that to=ra= which, except in the case of the cereal offering (see Lev 2:3, 10), usually does not address the issue of the portions reserved to the priests (such as the breast of the te6nu=pa= and the right thigh of the te6ru=ma=) during the description of the sacrificial ritual itself; instead, this is reserved for a specific section at the end of ch. 1–7, in 6:1–7:36 (see 7:28–36 for the the breast of the te6nu=pa=). Even though Ex 29:27–28; Lev 7:28–36 and 10:14–15 are all later inserts in P,223 this does not mean that the mention of the offering of the breasts as a te6nu=pa= in Lev 9:21 should also be considered as an interpolation. One can also imagine that P introduced this innovation in Lev 9 on the basis of an analogy with the ordination offering, see Ex 29:26 and Lev 8:29.224 Perhaps the most important difference between Lev 9 and the to=ra= of ch. 1–3 concerns, at first sight, the case of the cereal offering in 9:17a.225 The description of v. 17a is summary: “He (Aaron) brought forward the cereal offering, took a handful of it,226 and burnt it on the altar”. It refers undoubtedly to the offering of mere semolina (tls), non-baked, as in the instruction of Lev 2:1–3 (contrast 2:4ff.); however, the wording is distinct. Noth observes here: “This shows a deviation worth noting from the ritual in ch. 2: there is no mention here of any addition of incense; and the ‘taking of a handful’ does not imply the stereotyped technical expression of 2.2; 5.12; 6.15 [= 6:8 MT], but is a more general turn of speech”.227 However, the taking of a handful of the cereal offering to be burnt on the altar can only refer to the offering of the h r k z ) , as prescribed by 2:2. The absence of any mention of oil and 223

For Ex 29:27–28, see the discussion above, § 3.1.2., pages 130–131; for Lev 7:28–36, see further in this chapter, pages 261–262; for Lev 10:14–15, see below, § 6.2.4. 224 A further problem is actually raised by the wording of Lev 9:20, implying that the breasts of the well-being offerings were first placed upon the altar together with the suet portions described in v. 19 before being offered with the “elevation” (te6nu=pa=) rite. This does not appear to correspond to the procedure described for this rite elsewhere in P: compare Ex 29:22–26 // Lev 8:25–29, as well as Lev 7:30–31. ELLIGER, Leviticus, 126–127, suggests that the mention of the breasts has been consistently interpolated in v. 20–21. However, this solution only postpones the difficulty. Actually, the mention in 9:21 of the offering of the breasts as a te6nu=pa= after the suet portions have been burnt upon the altar fits the pattern that can be observed elsewhere in P and should be original. The textual difficulty is exclusively caused by the mention of the breasts in 9:20a already, which should be deleted as a gloss. The introduction of the phrase (al heh9a4zo=t after the mention of the suet portions could betray the influence of Lev 7:30; in v. 30ba, exactly the same formula (in the singular) is found as in 9:20a. 225 As noted on p. 121, v. 17b is unanimously viewed as a later insert in Lev 9. 226 The SamP and the LXX both read here the plural, wypk, “his hands”. 227 NOTH, Leviticus, 79.

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

157

frankincense has often been commented upon,228 but this is a false issue; in fact, the formulation of 2:1–2 makes clear that when the cereal offering of raw semolina is brought to the priest, oil and frankincense have already been added to it. In this regard, the description of 9:17a corresponds to 2:2 (the offering of hxnm itself), except that the author of ch. 9 used wpk instead of wcmq, and did not feel the need to restate the content of the cereal offering.229 Thus, close comparison confirms almost systematically the dependence of Ex 29; Lev 8–9 upon Lev 1–3. In particular, the description of the burnt offering in Ex 29 and Lev 8–9 is basically identical to the one found in Lev 1. The “ordination” (My)lm ) offering in Ex 29 and Lev 8 is modeled on the wellbeing offering of Lev 3, and the well-being offering of Lev 9 also concurs with the description of ch. 3. Finally, the two major types of cereal offerings instructed in Lev 2 (raw and baked, cf. v. 1–3 and 4–10) are found in Ex 29; Lev 8 (baked hxnm in accompaniment to the ordination offering) and Lev 9 (raw cereal offering in accompaniment to the burnt offering for the community) respectively. Besides, as we have seen, there is an obvious connection to the to=ra= of Lev 2:4ff. in the first description of the baked cereal offering of Ex 29 and Lev 8, in Ex 29:2. Lastly, there is possibly an explicit reference to the prescription of Lev 1 in the phrase kammis]pa4t[ in Lev 9:16. The few variations observed, as well as the general tendency to simplify the descriptions that can be noted in Ex 29; Lev 8–9, may be explained by a twofold device. First, the fact that the descriptions of Ex 29 and Lev 8–9 tend to be shorter than those of Lev 1–3 also corresponds to the distinct nature of these texts; i.e., the description of the offerings made in the context of a ceremony does not have to be as specific as the instructions of Lev 1–3.230 Furthermore, it is commonly accepted that the to=ra= of Lev 1–7 was not simply created by P but that it goes back to an earlier document – the origin and the nature of which remain to be discussed (see § 3.3.). Some of the variations thus merely betray distinct stylistic and linguistic usages between P and his Vorlage; this point was already made above regarding the reference to the suet in Lev 3 and in Ex 29:22 // Lev 8:25. Therefore, the above analysis calls for a revision of the prevailing view, since Ewald, Kuenen and Wellhausen, on the relationship between Ex 29; Lev 8–9 and Lev 1–7. The traditional literary-critical argument supporting this conclusion, namely that Lev 8–9 should have followed immediately after Ex 40 initially, is actually mistaken. To be sure, following the order of the instructions in Ex 25–29, one would expect that the building of the sanctuary be followed immediately by the consecration of the first priests; in this respect, the instructions of Lev 1–7 appear as a delaying element between Ex 40 and 228

In addition to Noth, see also for instance MILGROM, Leviticus, 583–584. See htnbl-lk l( hnm#mw htlsm (Lev 2:2). 230 NOTH, Leviticus, 78, also remarks that in Lev 9 the priest is “the operating subject in all presentations”, and not in ch. 1–7. This is related of course to the nature of this ceremony. 229

158

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

Lev 8, as was already noted by Ewald. However, as recalled above (§ 3.1.2.), Ex 40 is a late supplement to P. Contrary to Lev 8, it consistently presupposes Ex 30–31. Lev 8, for its part, appears to ignore Ex 30–31 as well as Ex 40. The only reference to Ex 40, in Lev 8:10ab–11, has been shown to be an interpolation, a point also suggested by the reading preserved for this passage in the LXX. Thus, the argument for the alleged continuity between Ex 40 and Lev 8–9 is actually irrelevant, because the two sections cannot belong to the same redactional layer. Moreover, in its present form Lev 1–7 consistently presumes that Aaron and his sons will have been anointed as priests (1:7; 2:2, 3, 10; 3:2, 5, 8, 13; etc.). Therefore, following P’s narrative logic, this section could hardly have been introduced before Ex 28–29. Actually, from the perspective of the overall structure of Ex 25–Lev 9 in P, the present position of Lev 1–7 is quite careful. On one hand, it highlights the thematic coherence of the section on sacrifices after that recounting the building of the tent, in Ex 25–40. On the other hand, the two sections are nevertheless united by various redactional devices. Thus, the inclusion built by Ex 29 (initially the conclusion of the instructions for building the tent in P, before the addition of Ex 30–31) and the corresponding compliance report in Lev 8 frames all of Ex 35–40 and Lev 1–7. Moreover, as noted by Koch, the structure of Lev 1–9 is unmistakably reminiscent of that of Ex 25–40.231 Exodus 25–40

Leviticus 1–9

Ex 24:15–18aa: Yahweh dwells on Mt Sinai during six days and calls ()rqyw) Moses from inside the cloud on the 7th day

Lev 1:1a: Yhwh dwells inside the d(wm lh) (cf. Ex 40:34–35) and calls ()rqyw) Moses from inside the tent

Ex 25–29: Yahweh speaks to Moses: Detailed instructions for building the lh)

Lev 1–7: Yahweh speaks to Moses: Detailed instructions for offering sacrifices

d(wm

Ex 35–40: Completion of the instructions

Lev 8–9: Inauguration of the sacrificial cult: offering of the first sacrifices

Ex 40:34: The hwhy dwbk leaves Mt Sinai and enters the d(wm lh)

Lev 9:23–24: Public manifestation of the hwhy dwbk before the d(wm lh)

In each section, the stationing of the hwhy dwbk upon the mountain (Ex 24:16–17) or inside the tent (Ex 40:34–35) is followed by a call to Moses (Ex 24:18aa ; Lev 1:1a), who receives detailed instructions by Yahweh, once for building the tent (= Ex 25–29), the second time for offering sacrifices (= Lev 1–7). Completion of the instructions (Ex 35–40; Lev 9) then leads to a public manifestation of the hwhy dwbk (Ex 40:34; Lev 9:23–24) concluding the section with a narrative and theological climax.

The to=ra= of Lev 1ff. is therefore not at all the intrusive element between Ex 25–40 and Lev 8–9 traditionally considered; it is, on the contrary, an integral 231

For this observation, see KOCH, Priesterschrift, 45–46, and above, § 1.2.2.2.

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

159

part of the narrative beginning in Ex 40:35 and climaxing in Lev 9:23–24. The revelation of Lev 1–7 has been deliberately constructed in parallel to the revelation of Ex 25–29, except that while the first revelation was located on Mt Sinai, the second takes place inside the newly built sanctuary (Lev 1:1). Not only is this location particularly apt for the content of this legislation dealing exclusively with sacrifices, but above all it corresponds to the narrative logic of the Priestly writer in Lev 1–9. Just as the building of the tent was a prerequisite for Yahweh’s presence among his people (Ex 40:34), the revelation to Moses (and further to Israel) of the appropriate way to offer him sacrifices is the prerequisite for his revelation in Israel’s cult (Lev 9:23–24). In the account of the inauguration of the sacrificial cult in Lev 9, the importance of the to=ra= on sacrifices is actually explicitly signaled. The second part of that ceremony, in particular, not only includes each of the three main types of offerings described in Lev 1–3 but follows exactly the order in which they are enumerated in this to= r a= (namely: hl( , hxnm, Myml#-xbz). From this perspective, the concluding notice reporting the acceptance by the deity of the first sacrifices offered by his community (v. 23–24) emphasizes, within P’s account, the authoritative character of the to=ra= of ch. 1–3, indicating that it presents the only legitimate manner to sacrifice for the community of Israel. The same device is probably reflected in the use of the phrase kammis]pa4t[ in Lev 9:16, if the interpretation of this phrase that was proposed above is correct. This means that Lev 9, and together with it Ex 29 and Lev 8, do not simply relate the inauguration of the sacrificial cult at Mt Sinai, as is commonly stated. More accurately, they recount the institution of the cult as construed by the sacrificial to=ra= divinely revealed to Moses in Lev 1ff. We shall return to the meaning of this observation later in this chapter, when discussing the composition of Lev 1–9 by P (§ 3.4.). Before this, however, we need to address two further questions: first, the literary homogeneity of Lev 1–7 (§ 3.2.2.); second, the origin of the earliest part of this legislation (§ 3.3.).232 232

On a strictly literary-critical level one may note, in addition, that the separation of Lev 1–7 from Lev 8–9 raises a significant difficulty, as observed earlier in this chapter (§ 3.1.1.). Lev 8 opens with the statement that Yahweh spoke to Moses (v. 1); this statement can hardly have followed immediately after Ex 40:35 (itself presupposed in Lev 9:23a), and thus presupposes the general introduction in 1:1. Similarly, the account of Lev 9 assumes that Moses has received further instructions from Yahweh after the revelation on Mt Sinai and the building of the tent, and thus cannot be read without the notice in 1:1. The notice should therefore necessarily be retained as original in P, as some authors have correctly perceived (BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 27; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 27). Simultaneously, though it is presupposed by both Lev 8 and 9, Lev 1:1 makes no sense as an introduction to either of these two chapters, which confirms that it was intended from the beginning to introduce a body of instructions taking place between Ex 40:35; Lev 1:1 and Lev 8–9, as is the case of ch. 1–7 in the present text of Leviticus. Elliger, who has perhaps best perceived this difficulty, was forced to surmise that Lev 8:1 followed immediately after 1:1a; yet the separation between v. 1a and 1b is arbitrary, and one still misses the reference to the d(wm lh) since it is found in v. 1b and not in v. 1a.

160

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

3.2.2. The Case for the Later Origin of Lev 4–7 within Leviticus 1–9 As was already suggested above, a different situation applies in the case of Lev 4–5, the legislation on the t)+x (purification)233 and M#) (reparation) offerings. The reparation offering does not occur in Ex 29 and Lev 8–9. Although the t)+x plays a central role in the rituals for the consecration of the priests and the inauguration of the cult, its description shows several significant differences from that found in the to=ra= of Lev 4, as was traditionally observed. In particular, the t)+x of Ex 29 and Lev 8–9 completely blurs the elaborate distinctions established by Lev 4 between two major categories of sin/purification offerings, those whose blood must be brought into the tent (cf. Lev 4:5–7 and 16–18), and those whose blood must simply be put on the outer altar (4:25, 30, 34). As a purification offering for Aaron, the high priest, and for his sons, the blood of the t)+x of Ex 29:10–14; Lev 8:14–17 and 9:8–11 should have been brought into the tent, sprinkled seven times against the inner veil, and placed upon the horns of the incense altar, in agreement with the ritual described in 4:3–12 (cf. 4:5–7). Instead, the offering of the t)+x in Ex 29 and Lev 8–9 follows the ritual for the purification offering of an individual in Lev 4, with the blood being simply placed upon the horns of the outer altar.234 But the flesh and the hide for Aaron and his sons are nevertheless burnt outside the camp (Ex 29:14; Lev 8:17 and 9:11), as is required for the high priest (4:11–12), and not eaten, as is prescribed for an individual (6:17–23). The same is true in the case of the purification offering for the community in Lev 9, which is presented like the one for Aaron and his house in 9:8–11 (cf. v. 15) instead of being offered after the ritual of 4:13–21. (Note also that the animal offered by the community is not a bull, as prescribed by 4:14, but a male goat, cf. 9:3.) That this contradiction was already an issue for the editors of Leviticus is demonstrated by the brief, yet fascinating, account found in Lev 10:16–20, which, in a quasi-midrashic fashion, endeavors to explain why Aaron did not eat the flesh of the second t)+x , as he should have done, since its blood was not brought into the sanctuary (see 6:17–23) and its flesh apparently not burnt.235 233

On this translation of t)+x, in the case of Lev 4 at least, see below, § 3.2.2.3.d. For this traditional observation, see already WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 136; KUE NEN, Einleitung, 1. 80; BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 322; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 27; etc. MILGROM, Leviticus, 580–581, also notes the problem (although curiously only in the case of Lev 9) and acknowledges that the t)+x offering of Aaron in Lev 9 probably reflects an older conception (“an earlier phase in the development of this sacrifice”, see on p. 581). 235 On the difficult episode in Lev 10:16–20, see further below § 6.2.5. In the context of ch. 9, however, the burning of the flesh was probably implied, as KOCH, Priesterschrift, 73, argues. The contrary view is taken by MILGROM, Leviticus, 583, because he assumes that )+x Piel in 9:15 refers specifically to the purification of the altar. This is dubious since the altar is not mentioned, contrary to the other examples adduced by Milgrom. Therefore, the usual ren234

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

161

Nevertheless, the significance of these discrepancies between Ex 29; Lev 8–9 and Lev 4–5 should not be overstated. Contrary to what has been repeatedly stated, they do not necessarily imply that Lev 4–5 are later than Ex 29 and Lev 8–9.236 In itself, the absence of the M#) offering in the ceremonies of Lev 8 and 9 is certainly not an indication that the to=ra= of 5:14–26 was unknown to the author of Ex 29 and Lev 8–9237 since in P the M#) is always an individual, private offering.238 There is at least one instance of a collective offering of an M#) outside P, in 1 Sam 6 (cf. 6:3ff.), but it is a mere monetary compensation, without any sacrificial aspect; otherwise, there is no record in the HB of the offering of an M#) in the context of a public celebration.239 Furthermore, according to Lev 5, the M#) offering is not required in the case of just any crime, but when a sacrilege has been committed, as is explicitly stated in 5:15, 21 (cf. the technical expression l(m l(m). The case of the purification offering is more complex; yet even there, the fact that the blood of this offering is not yet brought into the sanctuary in Ex 29 and Lev 8–9 may not be taken either as a proof that these chapters have to be older than Lev 4, as has consistently been done. As we have seen, the conception underlying the account of Lev 1–9 is that Moses was forbidden the access to the sanctuary before the conclusion of the eight-day ceremony in ch. 8–9 (see 9:23a). In this case, neither Moses nor Aaron could have conformed to the ritual prescribed in 4:3–21 in any event.240 All this being said, there are, nonetheless, other observations suggesting that Lev 4 is indeed later than Ex 29; Lev 1–3 and 8–9.241 3.2.2.1. The Two Altars in Leviticus 4 A first indication of the secondary character of Lev 4 is the role played by the incense altar in this chapter, more specifically in the case of the rituals for the dering of )+x Piel as “to offer a purification offering” is more appropriate here. Since burning the animal’s remains is an integral part of the rite itself, it is likely to be included in 9:15. 236 Pace my earlier opinion in NIHAN, Institution, 50. 237 See, e.g., WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena, 75. 238 Cf. Lev 5:14–26 as well as 14:12ff.; further Lev 19:21–22; Num 6:12. 239 As already noted by BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 330; similarly, MILGROM, Leviticus, 572. 240 This observation also infirms the recent suggestion by GANE, Cult, 26, holding against Wellhausen that he would have failed to take into account “the possibility that Lev 9 does not need to mention the incense altar because it is part of the ritual”. Besides, this explanation is hardly satisfactory. First, one does not understand why it is specifically the ritual performed inside the outer-sanctum which is not described in Lev 9, why all the other rituals previously commanded in Lev 1–3 (and which are no less, therefore, “part of the ritual”) are explicitly mentioned. Second, this harmonistic reading is contradicted by the episode recounted in Lev 10:16–20, which calls attention to the tension between the t)+x of Lev 4 and 9. 241 This conclusion is rejected in the recent study by DAHM, Opferkult, 202–205, however without a serious discussion of the distinctive features of Lev 4(ff.).

162

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

high priest and the community, in 4:3–21.242 However, against a prevailing argument going back to Wellhausen, the decisive point, here, is not the fact that this altar is mentioned in Lev 4 but not in Ex 29 and Lev 8–9. For, as noted above, the absence of any mention of the incense altar in these chapters is coherent with the narrative logic of P in Lev 8–9 since this altar is located inside the outer-sanctum, contrary to the altar of burnt offerings. What is decisive, rather, is that Lev 4 presumes the instruction of Ex 30:1ff. which, as argued earlier in this study (§ 1.2.1.), definitely belongs to a later stratum of P. The incense altar is nowhere mentioned before Ex 30 (MT and LXX),243 so that it is impossible to understand Lev 4 without at least a first version of this section; moreover, the designation found in Lev 4:7, Mymsh tr+q xbzm, is a reference to the instruction in Ex 30:7a.244 It is worth noting, besides, that in the whole book of Leviticus the incense altar is mentioned only in Lev 4. Even the great cleansing ritual of Lev 16 still knows of only one altar, the altar of burnt offerings which stands in the courtyard;245 this is clear from the description of 16:16–19, which merely indicates the purification of the outer altar (cf. v. 18–19).246 To assume that the cleansing of the incense altar is pre242

On this point, see WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 138.140; ID., Prolegomena, 66; KUEEinleitung, 1. 80; BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 322; etc. 243 Regarding the SamP, displacing Ex 30:1–10 MT after 26:35, as well as other traditions in which the incense altar is only partly attested (LXX, Old Latin, Qumran), see above, § 1.2.1. 244 See rqbb rqbb Myms tr+q Nrh) wyl( ry+qhw. For the phrase Myms tr+q, see further Ex 25:6; 30:11; 35:8, 15, 28; 37:29; 39:38; 40:27, all passages which depend on Ex 30:1–10. 245 Thus already WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 138.147; the same argument is developed by KNOHL, Sin Offering, 195–197. It was sometimes argued that the altar mentioned in v. 12, from which Aaron must take a panful of coals, was the incense altar, especially because it is designated as “the altar before Yahweh” as in 4:18. However, the characterization hwhy ynpl is also found in the case of the outer altar (cf. Lev 1:11; it is also implied in 1:5), so that this observation can hardly be retained as an argument for the identification of the altar of v. 12 with the incense altar. Besides, the idea that a permanent fire is burning is only specified for the outer altar (cf. 6:2ff.; for this observation, see ELLIGER, Leviticus, 213; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1025), and not in the case of the incense altar. It is clear, therefore, that it cannot be the latter which is implied in 16:12. 246 Although, interestingly, the altar of 16:18–19 was identified as the incense altar by the rabbinic tradition, which was obviously embarrassed by the mention of a single altar in Lev 16; see mYoma 5:5: “Then he shall come out to the altar that is before the Lord, this is the golden altar (bhzh xbzm hz)”. One exception is found in Ibn Ezra on Lev 16:18, who correctly identifies the altar of 16:18–19 with the outer altar. For further details, see MILGROM, Leviticus, 1035.1036, as well as HEGER, Incense Cult, 233–234 n. 141. More recently, this is also the position revived by LEVINE, Leviticus, 105, who is however alone among modern commentators to defend this view. In particular, it is openly contradicted by the statement that Aaron must go out ()cy) of the shrine to purify the altar, implying that the latter is situated outside (see already, for example BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 55; more recently MILGROM, 1036). This observation had already perplexed rabbinic commentators, and Levine has no better explanation for it (pace Levine, the context of Lev 16:18 makes clear that Aaron is no longer in the inner-sanctum but already in the outer-sanctum when he must go out, so that the text NEN,

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

163

supposed in the cleansing of the tent in 16:16–17, as some authors propose,247 is not only harmonistic but is already contradicted by the observation that later editors had to introduce a specific instruction for the cleansing of the inner altar during the ritual of the ‘Day of Purifications’ at the end of Ex 30:1– 10 (cf. v. 10).248 This is a very clear indication that Lev 16 belongs to a first version of Leviticus which is manifestly older than Ex 30:1ff., and, therefore, than Lev 4 as well, since the latter necessarily depends on the former. The literary integrity of Lev 4 was occasionally questioned, and there have been attempts to retrieve an earlier version of this chapter, that did not mention the incense altar. However, the criteria for this are arbitrary and the attempt is simply inconclusive.249 The assumption of an earlier form of ch. 4 that would not yet know the incense altar takes its cue from the observation that this altar is not mentioned in the second part of the ritual, v. 22–35. Yet, this proves nothing but simply reflects the logic of the ritual of ch. 4 which may in no case be interpreted in the sense that Aaron goes out to the outer-sanctum; for a similar criticism, see also HEGER, 232–233 n. 140). 247 Thus MILGROM, Leviticus, 1035; similarly GANE, Cult, 27ff. Gane finds support for this in the statement of v. 16b … d(wm lh)l h#(y Nkw (“And thus he [Aaron] does for the tent of meeting…”). Yet to see here a reference to the purification rite described in Lev 4:3-21, as Gane wants to do, seems forced. The wording rather suggests that the same rite serving to purify the inner-sanctum also serves to cleanse the outer-sanctum. Above all, this does not explain why the purification of the incense altar is not mentioned in the ritual of ch. 16, contrary to that of the outer altar. 248 It is disputed whether 30:10 is original or was added to the core of the pericope on the incense altar in Ex 30:1ff. at a later stage (thus for instance KNOHL, Sanctuary, 29; HEGER, Incense Cult, 113, although it is not correct either to state that v. 10 is “generally recognized” as a later addition); this issue can be left open here. 249 See KOCH , Priesterschrift, 53–58; NOTH , Leviticus, 39ff.; and especially ELLIGER , Analyse; ID ., Leviticus, 57–68. Elliger’s analysis has occasionally been adopted by other scholars; see in particular JANOWSKI, Sühne, 196–197, as well as EBERHART, Studien, 130– 131. All these analyses, however, lead to problematic results. Koch’s is based on the formcritical reconstruction of an earlier “ritual” genre characterized by “Kurzsätze” in the we6qa4t[al, which is unanimously rejected by now (see above the Introduction, p. 12 with note 88); in addition, his reconstruction is fragmentary, especially in the case of v. 3–21. Ironically, even RENDTORFF, Gesetze, 13–14, had already considered that a critical analysis of the earlier “form” of Lev 4 was impossible. Likewise, Noth makes little attempt to reconstruct the original form of the text, and simply presumes the existence of an earlier account without the incense altar. Elliger, who offers the most detailed analysis, identifies a core law in v. 22–35, because the latter does not mention the incense altar. But since it is difficult to see why this law mentioned the case of the chieftain ()y#n), specifically, in addition to the individual layman, he must postulate that v. 22–26 originally concerned the community and not the )y#n in order to restore a more logical sequence in 4:22–35 (community + individual), which is entirely unfounded. (His only argument for this is based on Num 15:22ff. where a male goat, as in Lev 4:22–26, is mentioned as a t)+x for the community. This is all the more problematic because Num 15 is now unanimously recognized as being itself based upon Lev 4; see KELLERMANN, Bemerkungen; TOEG, Halachic Midrash; and KNOHL, Sin Offering.)

164

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

identifies two main degrees in non-intentional sins: those committed by the high priest and the whole community, which are most serious, and those committed by an individual other than the high priest (tribal chieftain or lay person), involving a lesser degree of gravity. It cannot be viewed, then, as an indication that v. 22–35 should reflect an earlier stage than 3–21; besides, the separation of v. 22–35 from 3–21 raises significant problems.250 It is much more satisfactory to regard the text of ch. 4 as presenting a logical structure, in which four successive cases (high priest, community, tribal chieftain, and lay person) are discussed according to their importance and grouped in two discrete categories (cf. also 6:23): a major ritual purification requiring that the blood be brought into the outer-sanctum (v. 3–12, 13–21), and a minor one in which it is simply placed on the horns of the outer altar (22–26, 27–35).251 3.2.2.2. Some Observations on the Language of Chapter 4 A further argument for the secondary character of Lev 4 is the language of this chapter, to which, surprisingly, very little attention has been given so far. Whereas the language of Lev 1 and 3, in particular, is remarkably stereotyped (see further below, § 3.3.), ch. 4 contains several unique expressions and formulations. In v. 2, the term hgg# , which should be rendered by “inadvertent”,252 is a rare expression found only in relatively late texts outside Lev 4– 250 As Wellhausen had finely observed, the fact that in all of ch. 4 (and not only in v. 3– 21) the outer altar is referred to as “the altar of the burnt offering” (hl(h xbzm, cf. 4:7, 10, 18, 25, 30, 34), whereas it is always simply designated as “the altar” ( xbzmh) in Lev 1–3, is manifestly prompted by the need to distinguish it from the incense altar, which is still unknown in ch. 1–3 (WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 138ff.; further especially KNOHL, Sin Offering, 195– 197). This implies that the second half of ch. 4, although it does not mention the incense altar, nevertheless presupposes it. Koch, Noth and Elliger must therefore all assume that the specification hl(h has been systematically interpolated in 4:22–35 when the incense altar was introduced (KOCH , Priesterschrift, 54 n. 4; ELLIGER, Analyse, 40; ID., Leviticus, 58; NOTH, Leviticus, 39.42.43), which is unfounded. To be sure, 4:22–26, 27–31, 32–35, as already 4:3–12 and 13–21, also use simply xbzmh (4:19, 30, 31, 34, 35). However, in each of these sections the first designation for the altar is nevertheless always hl(h xbzm. 251 For this view of Lev 4 as a unified text, see already MORALDI, Espiazione, 113–118. 252 The root gg# means “go astray, err” (as in Ez 34:6). In Num 15:22–31, sins committed hgg#b are explicitly opposed to sins committed hmr-dyb, “with high-lifted hand”, an expression which does not merely refer to “intentional” acts, as is generally understood (see for instance JANOWSKI, Sühne, 254–255; OTTO, Ethik, 225; RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 150), but more likely to public, “demonstrative” acts against Yahweh as shown by SCHENKER, Interprétations récentes, 65.69; ID., Studien, 120–121. Schenker’s demonstration is based on the occurrence of this expression in Ex 14:8 and Num 33:3 where it cannot be rendered by “intentinally” but rather means “öffentlich, demostrativ [sic], vor allen Augen”. For a further discussion of this point, with many more references, see now especially GANE, Cult, 202–213, who basically adopts Schenker’s view with a slight qualification (see on p. 211). There is consensus that the general meaning of hgg#b is “inadvertently”; see inter alia MILGROM, Studies, 125; ID., Leviticus, 228–229; KNIERIM, art. s]gg; KIUCHI, Purification Of-

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

165

5: see Lev 22:14; Num 15:24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29; 35:11, 15; Josh 20:3, 9; Qoh 5:5 and 10:5.253 The combination of )+x + hgg#b occurs in Lev 4–5 and Num 15 only.254 In the Torah, the term twcm, “commandments”, in the plural, is mostly found in D and in H; it is seldom found in P, and exclusively in late texts.255 Also, the formula in Lev 4:2, hny#(t )l r#) hwhy twcm lk, literally “all the commandments of Yahweh which must not be done”, is unique in the Hebrew Bible. The phrase xy#mh Nhkh “the anointed priest” (Lev 4:3, 5, 16) does not occur anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible,256 except in Lev 6:15, the to=ra= for the t)+x offering completing Lev 4. (Note that the HS likewise designates the high priest by reference to his anointing, but consistently uses periphrases instead.)257 The term hm#) (Lev 4:3; see also 5:24, 26; 22:16), instead of the usual M#), is typical of postexilic literature; it is almost exclusively present in Ezra and in Chronicles.258 The reference to the “elders of the community”, hd(h ynqz, in Lev 4:15 is uncommon in P. It appears to be modeled on expressions such as ry(h ynqz, M(h ynqz , or l)r#y ynqz, all characteristic of the Dtr literature. More generally, the representation of the elders as the community’s lay leaders is not typical of P, where elders never play any significant political role.259 Their inclusion could well reflect the infering, 25ff.; ID ., Study, 5–15; etc. MILGROM, Studies, 125ff., further argued that “the performer of hg# is conscious of his act (drinking wine, making love or crossing hills) but not of its consequences” (cf. similarly ID., Leviticus, 228–229). This view has often been disputed by other authors, who argue that hgg# refers to an unpremeditated act or involuntary error, irrespective of the wrongdoer’s consciousness. Cf. RENDTORFF, Studien, 202–203; KNIERIM, art. s]gg, 871, in open criticism of Milgrom; similarly JANOWSKI, Sühne, 255, who describes the overall theme of Lev 4:1–5:13 as follows: “t)+x-Opfer zur Sühnung unvorsätzlich begangener Sünden je nach Stand und Vermögen des Sünders”; also SEIDL, art. s]a4ga4h/s]a4gag, who rejects Milgrom’s understanding and concludes that in P the term hgg# “bezeichnet unabsichtliches, aber auch leichtfertiges oder fahrlässiges Vergehen” (col. 1063). Milgrom’s rendering is closely related to his own interpretation of the verb M#) in Lev 4–5 in a subjective rather than objective sense (i.e., “to feel guilt”, instead of the usual rendering by “to be guilty”), as well as with the interpretation of the relationship between the cases addressed in Lev 4 and in 5:1–4, where the term hgg# is notably absent. Both issues are discussed below, § 3.5. 253 Similarly, the use of hg# Qal (Lev 4:13) is mostly found in Second Temple wisdom literature: cf. Ps 119:10, 21, 118; Job 6:24; 12:16; 19:4; Prov 5:19, 20, 23; 19:27; 20:1; 28:10. 254 Lev 4:2, 22, 27; 5:15; Num 15:27, 28. Otherwise, )+x + hgg# is only found in Qoh 5:5. 255 See Ex 16:28; 20:6; Num 15:22, 39, 40, a chapter depending on Lev 4; and Num 36:13, the subscript to the book of Numbers, which is editorial. Otherwise, outside H and D, twcm in the Pentateuch occurs only in Gen 26:5 and Ex 15:26. 256 This has often been noted. See for instance NOTH, Leviticus, 38. WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 140, already observed that the closest parallel was found in 2 Macc 1:10. One should nevertheless note that the notion is implied in Ex 29:7 and Lev 8:12. 257 See Lev 16:32; 21:10, and further Num 35:25. 258 See Ezra 9:6, 7, 13, 15; 10:10, 19; 1 Chr 21:3; 2 Chr 24:18; 28:10, 13 (3 x); 33:23. Otherwise only in Ps 69:6 and Am 8:14. 259 The mention l)r#y ynqz in 9:1 is commonly viewed as a gloss (above, page 122, n. 57).

166

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

fluence of the Deuteronomistic tradition,260 or it may be an attempt, within priestly circles, to acknowledge the role played by the council of elders during the Persian period.261 Likewise, the reference to the )y#n in Lev 4:22 evokes the so-called “Priestly” passages in Numbers, especially in Num 1–10, as well as the vision of Ez 40–48; in Exodus, mentions of the )y#n exist in P only in two late passages, Ex 16:22 (generally attributed to “Ps”) and 35:27 MT (also Ps). Finally, Israel’s designation as the “people of the land”, Cr)h M(, in Lev 4:27, is no less singular in P. In the Torah, reference to the Cr)h M( is only found in two passages of H (cf. Lev 20:2, 4). Moreover, the combined mention of the )y#n and the Cr)h M( in the second part of Lev 4 rather recalls the to=ra= of Ez 40–48, where we also find the same combination (see Ez 45:16, 22; 46:1–5 and especially v. 3, 9). If so, its unique use in Leviticus is likely to betray the influence of Ez 40–48. Although this kind of analysis needs to be used with caution, close examination of the language of Lev 4 corroborates its distinct character within Lev 1–16. In particular, the fact that the chapter’s terminology already includes many (late) traditions outside P, contrary to what is the case elsewhere in ch. 1–16, is consistent with the suggestion that it is a late insert. 3.2.2.3. Leviticus 4 and the History of the t)+x Offering in Ancient Israel One final – but central – observation has to do with the place of Lev 4 in the development of the traditions on the purification offering in the Hebrew Bible. After Wellhausen, and especially in the last decades, the discussion on the t)+x offering has often focused on whether this sacrifice was a late (exilic) innovation or not, which, as a way of approaching this complex issue, is too simplistic. What cannot be disputed, however, and should serve as starting point for any investigation into the history of the t)+x , is the existence of competing traditions on the function and nature of this sacrifice. Certainly, it would be methodologically unsound to assess all these differences diachronically, à la Wellhausen, and to assume that they should automatically reflect successive stages in the evolution of this offering. In Israel as in antiquity in general a certain degree of specialization of the sacrifices is expected in the 260

On the elders in Deuteronomy, see GERTZ, Gerichtsorganisation, 173–225. On the existence of such a “council of elders” in Jerusalem during the fifth century BCE, see in particular ALBERTZ, Religion, 2. 446–447. According to Albertz, together with the priestly college this council comprised the two leading bodies of the Jewish self-government, alongside the governor (hxp ), the “officials” (Myngs ), and the Myr#, possibly local administrators. The existence of these two councils is attested by one famous papyrus from Elephantine (AP 30), written to both Jerusalem and Samaria and asking for assistance in the rebuilding of the colony’s temple. In the case of Jerusalem, in addition to the governor, it mentions “the high priest Jehohanan and his colleagues, the priests in Jerusalem” as well as “Ostanes, the brother of Anani and the leading men among the Jews”; see AP 30, lines 18–19. In a recent, detailed study, BERNETT, Polis, esp. 111–112, also offers a similar reconstruction. 261

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

167

traditions developed by cultic centers;262 not only will these cultic traditions compete among themselves (as, e.g., in the case of the tradents of P and of Ezekiel in the Hebrew Bible), but they will coexist with other, less specialized conceptions of these same sacrifices obtaining outside the priestly, professional circles. Nevertheless, close analysis of the traditions about the t)+x offering do suggest some sort of historical development, the main lines of which remain to be examined. When compared against this historical background, the legislation of Lev 4, which has no equivalent whatsoever in the HB (except in the supplement found in Num 15:22–31), appears as one of the ultimate stages in this development. a. References to the t)+x before P and Ezekiel It has long been observed that, contrary to what is the case for other major types of animal offerings (the hl( , the xbz and the Myml#), use of the substantive t)+x as a technical term for a distinct type of sacrifice is only seldom documented outside P and Ezekiel 40–48. It is completely absent from the non-P layers of the Torah; in the Ketubim, it is only found in a few late, postexilic texts (Ps 40:7; Ezra 8:35; Neh 10:34; and 2 Chr 29:21ff.). In the Nebiim, three passages, generally regarded as pre-exilic in origin, have traditionally been adduced to support the existence of the t)+x sacrifice in the period of the monarchy, i.e., Hos 4:8; Mi 6:7, and 2 Kgs 12:17. However, the import of such passages was already disputed by Wellhausen,263 who has often been followed on this point.264 As a matter of fact, the evidence is difficult to assess. As noted by many authors, that the term t)+x in Mi 6:7 refers to a type of sacrifice is unlikely given the parallel with (#p in the first part of this hemistiche, a term which never has a cultic connotation.265 In the case of 2 Kgs 12:17, the problem does not lie only with the date of the composition of the book of Kings, whose first edition cannot be situated before the reign of Josiah (at the earliest), but further with the fact that, as some scholars have already observed, the story of Joash’s reform in 2 Kgs 12 – as well as other passages in Kings – clearly appears to have undergone a priestly edition at some stage, to which the notice in v. 17 should probably also be assigned.266 If so, it 262

On this issue, see for instance ANDERSON, Sacrifices, 27–34, in the case of the hxnm. See Prolegomena, esp. 73. 264 See, e.g., RENDTORFF, Studien, 54.62; contrast however KOCH, art. cha4t[a4), 314, in the case of Hos 4:8 and Mi 6:7. 265 RENDTORFF, Studien, 62; RUDOLPH, Micha, 108; pace KNIERIM, Hauptbegriffe, 20. 266 See for instance the analysis by R ENDTORFF, Studien, 54, who attributes v. 14–17 to this revision. LEVIN, Sturz, 55, regards the entire story of the temple restoration as a late priestly composition, with v. 17 and a few other verses as a still later interpolation. Among commentators of the Books of Kings, the possibility of 2 Kgs 12:17 as a late gloss is also entertained for instance by GRAY, I & II Kings, 532; as well as HOBBS, 2 Kings, 155. Unfortunately the evidence for a late priestly revision of the report of 2 Kgs 12 is still seldom consi263

168

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

is difficult to tell whether this notice reflects the practice of the First or of the Second Temple. A more compelling case is found in Hos 4:8, where the priests of the Northern kingdom are reproached for “feeding on the t)+x of my [that is, Yahweh’s] people”, since a cultic interpretation of t)+x here makes considerable sense. In particular, as several authors have noted, if a double entendre on the use of the noun t)+x is assumed in this passage, referring both to the people’s sin and to the offering which they make for this sin, it considerably enriches the verse’s overall meaning as well as the logic of the connection between the two hemistiches. The priests, who literally live on the people’s sin, have logically become avid (literally, they “lift their throats”, v. 8b) for the people’s iniquity (Nw().267 Yet even in this case, the reference to a specific type of sacrifice is allusive at best. b. The t)+x and Other Offerings of Purification/Expiation The almost complete absence of reference to t)+x as a sacrificial term outside the priestly literature implies by no means, however, that offerings for atonement and purification are a late innovation reflecting the community’s spiritual decline, as claimed by Wellhausen and his school.268 Nor does it justify the problematic assumption that the focus on expiation in the temple cult should necessarily reflect the traumatic experience of Jerusalem’s destruction by the Neo-Babylonians, as has often been advocated in German scholarship in the second half of the 20th century.269 Expiation and purification are central themes in all cults throughout antiquity without exception,270 and there is cersidered in the discussion on pre-exilic evidence for the t)+x sacrifice, the large majority of scholars assuming somewhat naively that this notice is a reliable witness of the practice at Joash’s time; see e.g. DE VAUX, Institutions, 2. 310; or MILGROM, Leviticus, 287–288. 267 See, e.g., STUART, Hosea–Jonah, 79; MAYS, Hosea, 70; BONS, Hosea, 73; ANDERSEN/ FREEDMAN, Hosea, 358. If there is a double entendre on the noun t)+x, the traditional objection against a sacrificial allusion in Hos 4:8 that the parallelism with Nw(, a non-sacrificial term, also requires a non-cultic rendering of t)+x in v. 8a (e.g., RENDTORFF, Studien, 62) is irrelevant; this argument is valid only if one has to choose between either meaning. 268 This view continues to be adopted uncritically by some recent authors, see for instance characteristically DEIANA, Levitico, 174: “L’origine del h9at[t[a4)t è sconosciuta; di sicuro questo sacrificio non è attestato nel periodo preesilico…”. 269 See the classical study by KOCH, Sühne, who does not hesitate to state that before the exile, “göttliche Vergebung ist nicht völlig unbekannt, aber spielt keine nennenswerte Rolle im Kult und Glauben” (Sühne, 219ff.; similarly ID., art. cha4t[a4), 316); also GESE, Sühne, 91ff. These two studies (which, it must be emphasized, already represented a significant attempt to revise the Wellhausenian theory on sin and expiation) have basically set the terms of the discussion in German scholarship for most of the second half of the 20th century; see recently, e.g., CRÜSEMANN, Tora, 359ff. 270 For an overall survey in ancient Near East and in Egypt, see now WEINFELD, Place, 42–51; for Mesopotamia in particular, cf., e.g., D IETRICH, Sünde; for the Hittite world, see VIEYRA, Rites; more recently WILHELM, Reinheit.

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

169

tainly no reason that a different situation should apply in the case of the kingdoms of Israel and Juda during the period of monarchy. Instead, the paucity of the evidence recalled above suggests that the t)+x was not among the popular offerings presented at local town shrines or during national festivals and ceremonies, but that it represents rather a specialized type of sacrifice initially. Interestingly, outside the literature emanating from priestly circles (and therefore representing the specific viewpoint of major cultic centers), numerous texts within the HB still testify to the fact that originally, atonement was not the exclusive function of the t)+x offering, but was accomplished by other sacrifices. 1 Sam 26, for instance, has preserved the tradition that any “gift” (hxnm) can appease the deity when the latter has been offended (see v. 19). In particular, this seems to have been one of the major functions of the (whole) burnt offering, the hl(, an extremely dispendious offering since the offerer had no share in it. Its general function was probably to attract the deity’s attention, as B. Levine has argued,271 but this offering could also serve, more specifically, to avert the god’s wrath, appease him, and propitiate him.272 In Gen 8:20–22, the conclusion to the non-P story of the Flood, the burnt offering presented to Yahweh by Noah is described as an “appeasing, placating odor”, which leads Yahweh to renounce cursing the earth in the future (v. 21, compare with the Standard Babylonian version in the Gilgamesh Epic). Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible the presentation of a burnt offering often likewise takes place in contexts where the deity has become angry and needs to be appeased; see in particular Judg 20:26, where the offering of the hl( follows a public fast; 2 Sam 24:21–25 (offering of an hl( to stop the plague caused by David’s census); further similarly the context presupposed in 1 Sam 7:9 (where the offering consists of an lylk hl(, a rather infrequent designation) and 1 Sam 13:8–12. In this latter passage, the purpose of the burnt offering is stated explicitly (v. 12), namely, “to appease” (hlx Piel) Yahweh.273 An interesting confirmation is also found in the notice in 2 Kgs 3:27, relating how the king of Moab sacrificed his first son as a hl(, obviously in order to appease the wrath of Kemosch who was on the verge of delivering the town to its enemies.274 Allusion is also made to the expiatory function of the hl( in some of the passages in the Latter prophets or the Psalms which are critical of the sacrificial cult; see in particular Mi 6:6. Similarly, Ps 51:18–21 271

See his detailed study of the evidence in ID., Presence, 22–27, where he notes in particular that this explains why, the t)+x offering notwithstanding, the burnt offering always precedes the other offerings (xbz or Myml#). The deity’s attention must first be turned towards his worshippers before the latter can present him with a gift (or better, a tribute) consisting of the animal’s choicest parts (the suet portions) and share a meal with him. 272 This point is missed by WEINFELD, Place, 42–47, when he uses the comparative evidence for the importance of expiation and purification in the sacrificial cult in order to establish the antiquity of the t)+x and M#) sacrifices; besides, he does not discuss either the problem posed by the almost complete absence of references to these offerings before P. 273 On “to appease” as the main meaning of hlx Piel, see, e.g., STOLZ, art. h9lh, 570 (“besänftigen”). On the importance of this passage to determine one of the major functions of the hl( originally, see also ZWICKEL, Erwägungen, 236–237; and MILGROM, Leviticus, 175. 274 For this observation, see for instance ZWICKEL, Erwägungen, 244.

170

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

typically contrasts the offering of the hl( with obedience to Yahweh as a means of atonement. The notion is also partly retained in the P legislation on the hl( , see Lev 1:4 and the specification le6kappe4r. In Lev 16:24, the offering of a concluding hl( in the context of the ceremony of Yôm Kippur atones (kipper) for the entire community. Similarly, in Lev 9:7 and 14:20, the hl(, combined with another sacrifice (t)+x in 9:7; hxnm in 14:20), is said to achieve atonement (kipper). The combined offering of a hl( and a t)+x for atonement is further found in Num 15:24–25; it also consistently occurs in the context of purification rites from a major source of pollution, see Lev 12:6–7a, 8; 15:15, 30, as well as Num 6:11; 8:12. In Ez 40–48 also, the hl(, combined with other offerings, effects atonement for the community; see Ez 45:15 (with hxnm and, more surprisingly, Myml#), and 45:17 (with t)+x, hxnm and again Myml#). Finally, the expiatory function of the hl( is documented in a few passages of postexilic literature; see Job 1:5, where it is recounted that Job offered a burnt offering for his sons every morning, in case they had sinned and cursed (lit. “blessed”) God. Interestingly, the conception of the expiatory function of the hl( was also retained by the rabbis who discussed at length the problem of the relation between hl( and t)+x, since the latter had become the expiatory sacrifice par excellence in the Second Temple period.275 Furthermore, the references adduced above on the atoning function of the hl( are also compatible with evidence found in other areas of the eastern Mediterranean littoral where the burnt offering was also practiced (namely, Anatolia, Greece, Syria [Ugarit] and the Phenician-Punic area), especially in the case of Hurrians, Hittites and Greeks, for whom the burnt offering is essentially a sacrifice devoted to chtonic deities.276 275

See the references given by MILGROM, Leviticus, 175–176, who quotes in particular the following passage from the Talmud: “The Tanna, R. Simeon, asks: why does the purification offering precede the burnt offering (in the sacrificial order)? It is comparable to an attorney who comes to appease. Having made his (plea of) appeasement, the gift (of appeasement) follows” (t. Para 1:1; b. Zebah9 7b). Other positions were that the burnt offering expiated for neglected performative commands, for sinful thoughts, or even for brazen sins if no punishment is specified for them (Ramban; the same view has been adopted by some modern commentators, see for instance S CHENKER , Studien, 110). As pointed out by Milgrom, the expiatory function of the hl( appears to have been acknowledged at Qumran as well. 276 In the Hurrian-Hittite sphere, the burnt offering appears to have consisted mostly of birds, although lambs and even a bull are also attested (see the ritual of king Mursilis, TUAT 2. 289–292). In the Hurrian-Luwian milieu this offering seems to have been designated by the terms ambas]s]i and keldi (see HAAS/WILHELM, Riten, 35–37.42.50.137–142.247.255; on the ambas]s]i as burnt offering, also KÜMMEL , Ersatzrituale, 24.40; FRIEDRICH/KAMMENHUBER, HethWb2, s.v. ambas] s ] i), though this point is disputed now (cf. the authors quoted by BERGQUIST, Sacrificial Koine, 40 n. 62; yet in some of the cases at least it seems to me that it can hardly be disputed that the terms refer to types of sacrifices). At any rate, the connection of the burnt offering with chtonian deities and the purpose of averting the gods’ wrath is well documented: e.g., “They burn one bird (for the absolution) of wrath and one bird (for the absolution) of guilt”; and further the many examples given by MILGROM, Leviticus, 174–175. In passing, it must be noted with Milgrom that the attestation of the burnt offering in Anatolia contradicts the view that this type of offering is only found in Syria, Phoenicia and Greece, and would belong to “eine vorgriechische und vorsemitische Schicht […], die, […] einmal südlich des Taurus gesessen haben muß”, as stated by L. ROST (Erwägungen, 116) whose opinion has often been followed (see, e.g., JANOWSKI, Erwägungen, 250ff.). Alternatively, it has also been surmised that the connection between the burnt offering in Greece and SyriaPhenicia would reflect the influence either of the Minoan (thus SCHMID, Bundesopfer, 90ff.) or Mycenaean culture on Ugarit (GILL, Thysia, in critical reaction to Schmid), an opinion

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

171

As to the t)+x, this offering was probably developed at some time during the period of monarchy by the upper part of the priestly class, most likely in some cultic center of the northern kingdom. This picture is compatible with the nature of Hosea’s reproach in Hos 4:8, which is clearly addressed either to the priests of a major regional shrine or to the state-sponsored priesthood of Israel in general (see Hos 5:1). It is also compatible with the statement found in 2 Kgs 12:17 – whatever the age of this notice – according to which the priests of the royal temple in Jerusalem were in charge of buying the animals for the 277 t)+x and the M#) – possibly from the temple flock. A more detailed assessment of the origin of the t)+x is out of reach; certainly, there is no ground for assuming that this sacrifice is a creation of the exilic or even postexilic period, and if the reading of Hos 4:8 proposed above is correct this solution may certainly be rejected. At most one can observe that the rite of riddance implied in the t)+x sacrifice, with the animal’s carcass being used to absorb the impurity, is not characteristic of Syro-Phenician religion but recalls much more similar rituals from Mesopotamia and Anatolia, so that it could be a reflection of the influence of those cultic tradition during the period of the domination of the Neo-Assyrian empire over Israel and Judah.278 which has usually been rejected (for criticism, see JANOWSKI, 251–253; further BERGQUIST, Sacrificial Koine, arguing for the opposite influence). In the case of ancient Greece, affinity between Hebrew (ola= (+ ka4lîl) and the o9lokau/twma has long been noted (ROST, Erwägungen, 115ff.; and for further references JANOWSKI, Erwägungen, 249 n. 119), even though differences in the occasion and function of the two types of sacrifice are considerable. In Greek religion, the holocaust was part of the sacrifices made to chtonic deities (also including ghosts and dead heroes); the function of such sacrifices was mostly if not exclusively apotropaic. As such, they stood in complete opposition to the cult rendered to the Olympian gods, whose corresponding sacrifice was the qusi/a, a public festive sacrifice which had affinities with the Hebrew s]lm offering, taking place in the daytime and culminating with a common meal; by contrast, the offerings made to the chtonian deities, described by the verbs sphagiazesthai, enagizein and holokautein, occurred always during the night and were never eaten but either entirely burnt or thrown into water (on this point, see HARRISON, Prolegomena, 10ff.; YERKES, Sacrifice, 53–55; JAY, Generations, 22–23; MALINA , Mediterranean Sacrifice, 32–33). However, contrary to what has often been stated, the dichotomy between the two forms of cult is not absolute (see BURKERT , Griechische Religion, 112), and it was occasionally possible to offer holocausts even to Zeus, although in this case usually in connection with qusi/a. For references, cf. BURKERT, Ibid; on the Greek thusia, see also the important essay by VERNANT, Théorie générale. 277 GRAY, Sacrifice, 37, on the contrary used this passage to argue that before the exile the t)+x and the M#) were not sacrifices but merely monetary donations. On the basis of the witness of 1 Sam 6 this seems indeed quite likely in the case of the M#); see below the discussion of Lev 5:14–16, § 3.5. Yet in the case of the t)+x there is no indication whatsoever that it ever consisted of a mere material compensation. 278 In Mesopotamia, the closest parallel is found in the rite practiced on the fifth of Nisan for the purification of the temple in the context of the Babylonian New Year festival, where the body of a decapitated ram is used for cleansing the temple: ina pagri immeri lu8mas]ma4s]u b|4ta u8kappar (“the mas]ma4s]u [exorcist] wipes the house [temple] with the carcass of the ram”,

172

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

c. The Case for Two Distinct Categories of t)+x in Ezekiel and in P In the so-called “Priestly” portions of the Pentateuch, the t)+x offering occurs in four distinct contexts: (1) in cases of specifically inadvertent sins (Lev 4:1–5:13; Num 15:22–31); (2) in the context of the purification of an individual, more specifically of his (or her) reinstatement in the community (Lev 12:6–7a, 8; 14:19, 31; 15:14–15, 29–30; Num 19:13, 20), or of a sanctum (Lev 16:11–19); (3) in the context of consecration rituals for a person or for the altar (see Ex 29:11–14, 36–37; Lev 8:14–17; Num 8:8, 12), of reconsecral. 354; for the edition of the text, see RA, here p. 140). The carcass is then thrown into the river (l. 357–359), while the ram’s head is disposed of in the open country (l. 360). A further instance, this time in the case of an individual, is found in one of the rituals of the Asakk|4 Mars[uti Series (edition in CT 17.10–11:68–87; quoted and translated by WRIGHT, Disposal, 67–68) for the case of a sick man who cannot rest and suffers from demoniac affliction, apparently because “he has caused his god concern” (l. 70–71). A goat is placed near the sick person (l. 75–76), its heart is removed and placed in the patient’s hands (l. 79–80), and the patient is wiped with the goat’s carcass as well as with bread and dough (l. 82–85); the wiping materials are then apparently dumped out in the street (l. 87; this must be inferred from the context, since the instruction does not specify the object to be dumped out in the street; for this interpretation: W RIGHT, 68 n. 55). In another ritual (from the Utukk|4 Lemnuti Series, see the text in translation in WRIGHT, 65–67), a goatskin is placed on or near the patient and then also thrown into the street. In the case of the Hittite ritual tradition, a parallel concerns, in particular, the rituals consisting in the purification of an army or sick persons through a gate on either side of which the two halves of a sacrificial victim have been disposed; on this type of ritual, see EITREM , Purificatory Rite; as well as MASSON, Rituel hittite; KÜMMEL, Ersatzrituale, 150–168. Interestingly, this Hittite ritual has a analogue in Greek religion, see PARKER, Miasma, 22 and 225–226. These examples clearly imply that contrary to the contention of some scholars (such as, e.g., ZOHAR, Repentance, 612) the notion that in the case of the t)+x the flesh of the animal absorbs impurity is hardly improbable, but represents on the contrary a relatively common belief in the ancient Near East. The carcass’ contamination is also evident in the t)+x offered in the purification ceremony of Lev 16; after the remains have been taken outside the camp (v. 27), the person responsible for burning them must also purify himself (v. 28; see, e.g., GA N E, Cult, 240, and further below). However, it should be noted that carcass is only one among the multiple materials that could be used both in Hittite and Mesopotamian religious traditions for wiping out evil and uncleanness, which could include figurines (as for instance in one of the Namburbi rituals, see the “Namburbi Ritual for the Evil of a Dog” in CAPLICE, Namburbi Texts, II), water, bread, fire, etc. (for a convenient and systematic survey in the case of Hittite rituals, see WRIGHT, 36). Also, a major difference with the t)+x ritual in the Hebrew Bible (and more specifically in P) concerns the central role of blood as a “cultic detergent” (Milgrom) in the ritual process of wiping out uncleanness (see in particular the description in Lev 4 and 16, and further now GILDERS, Blood Ritual, 109–141). East-Semitic parallels are sparse (in the case of Hittite rituals, see WRIGHT, Disposal, 36 n. 67; in Mesopotamia, see the ritual of B|4t Rimki, in BBR no. 26 iii l. 19–21). However, contrary to what was sometimes said earlier (e.g., Oppenheim), it can hardly be regarded as characteristic of the West-Semitic tradition either (see, e.g., Ugarit, where blood actually hardly plays any ritual role). Actually, the best parallel would be with Arabic traditions.

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

173

tion (see Num 6:11, in the case of the Nazirite who has been in contact with a dead), or even of desecration (Num 6:14, 16, still in the case of the Nazirite); and, lastly, (4) in the context of ceremonies for the public, regular cult (Num 28–29; see also Lev 16 in the case of the ritual for the 10th day of the 7th month).279 Thus, it is only in Lev 4:1–5:13 and the (related) instruction of Num 15:22–31 that the offering of a t)+x is explicitly connected with inadvertent (hgg#b) sins.280 (Likewise, distinction between major and minor rites involving manipulation of the blood of the t)+x sacrifice is also unique to Lev 4 – although allusion is made to it in 6:23 and 10:18 – and is never found outside these passages). Whereas it has often been presumed that atonement from sin was implied in several other passages, this remains unsupported.281 In addition, as observed in particular by Milgrom, in several cases the t)+x offering is required on occasions involving no sin, such as the purification from a case of severe uncleanness (Lev 12:6–7a; 14:10–20, 21–31; 15:14–15, 29–30), or the consecration of the altar (Lev 8:15), so that the traditional rendering of t)+x as “sin offering” is simply absurd in such instances.282 279 Basically, this classification follows, with some differences, the one proposed by M ARX, Rite, 29–38. This important study has been the object of a detailed response by MILGROM, Leviticus, 289–292 (to which Marx recently responded in turn; cf. ID., Systèmes sacrificiels, 185ff. Some of the main aspects of their discussion are treated below in this section. 280 Although it may be somehow implied in Num 6:11. The reason why corpse pollution, in this case, can be classified as a sin is probably because the Nazirite is guilty of violating Yahweh’s interdiction in v. 6 to incur corpse contamination. However, because the person has died “all of a sudden”, M)tp (tpb (v. 9), he cannot be held responsible for it; therefore, this case can be grouped as one of “inadvertent sin” against Yahweh’s negative commandments mentioned in Lev 4:3, even though the phrase hgg#b does not occur. For this interpretation, see now GANE, Cult, 145 n. 3 and the discussion there. In addition, because the Nazirite is expected to live in a state of permanent sanctity (v. 5), structurally analogous to that of the high priest (hence the fact that the same restriction applies to him as for the latter in Lev 21:10–15, as the rabbinic tradition had already recognized, see, e.g., Midr. Num. Rab. 10:11, and on this MILGROM, Leviticus, 280), he is guilty of having let a holy thing become desecrated by a major form of pollution such as death. For this reason, he must also offer an M#), v. 12, which is typically an offering made in case of sanctum profanation, see Lev 5:14–16. 281 As also noted, for instamce, by MARX , Rite, 36: “Il est tout-à-fait arbitraire […] de combler le silence des textes en prétendant que ces réalités sont sous-entendues dans tous les autres cas”. 282 MILGROM , Cult, 67. The ambiguity and polysemy of the t)+x is now growingly acknowledged by most recent studies on this offering in P; see in particular KIUCHI, Purification Offering; MARX, Rite; RENDTORFF, Leviticus, esp. 209–223; SCHENKER, Studien, 12–15, esp. 14; EBERHART, Studien, esp. 162–173, etc. Although several of these studies (especially by German scholars) tend to maintain the traditional rendering by “sin offering” (Sündopfer), all of them recognize to some degree that the t)+x cannot be reduced to a single function, but is part in “Priestly” literature of a complex ritual system in which it serves to perform various, distinct functions: atonement, purification, consecration, etc. (one exception to this consensus, however, is found in the interpretation of the t)+x by J. Milgrom; see further the discussion below). In this regard, I cannot agree with the view that has been advocated recently by

174

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

Finally, it is also highly significant that Lev 4:1–5:13 has no equivalent in the to=ra= of Ezekiel (ch. 40–48), contrary to the other three categories of instructions for the t)+x offering in the “Priestly” portions of the Pentateuch. Ez 40–48, which, at least in its present form, was probably conceived as an alternative program to “P”,283 mentions this sacrifice for the consecration of the altar (Ez 43:18–27); for the annual cleansing of the sanctuary on New Year’s Day (45:18–19; 45:20: on the seventh day of the first month), for public ceremonies in the first and seventh months of the cultic year (45:21–25); and, finally, for the purification of a priest who has come into contact with a corpse (44:27, 29).284 Both in the Priestly literature and in Ez 40–48, the distinctive feature of the t)+x as a specific type of offering concerns the ritual disposal of blood. In P, blood must be daubed on the altar’s horns in addition to being merely poured out at the altar’s base (see Ex 29:12; Lev 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34; 8:15; 9:9; 16:18; in the case when the blood of the t)+x is brought into the sanctuary, a ritual aspersion of the blood against the inner veil [Lev 4:3–21] or against the trpk [Lev 16:14, 15] is also included). In Ez 40–48, blood rites are also mentioned, although they somewhat differ from those described in P. In Ez 43:20, in the context of the ceremony for the consecration of the altar, the t)+x’s blood must be placed on the four horns of the altar, as well as on the four corners of the “platform” (hrz() of the altar, i.e., the altar’s main body, and around the 285 lwbg, which apparently designates the “boundary” of the altar’s gutter; the rite is then repeated each day during eight days (seven + one), see v. 22–26. In Ez 45:18–19, a t)+x is offered for the purification of the sanctuary on New Year’s day, and its blood must be placed on the doorposts (tzwzm) of the temple, on the corners of the altar’s platform, as in 43:20, and on the doorposts of the inner court; the same rite is repeated on the seventh day of the first month for inadvertent sins (v. 20). As in Ez 40–48, in P (notwithstanding Lev 4), the offering of the t)+x is frequently connected with the purgation of the sanctuary or the altar, in a clause involving rpk Piel followed by the sanctum introduced either directly by the nota accusativi, )et (Lev 16:20a, 33a; compare Ez 43:26 [cf. v. 25]; 45:20) or by (al (see Ex 29:36, 37; 30:10a; Lev 8:15; 16:18; also, with min: Rendtorff, according to whom it would be “more sensible” to retain the traditional rendering by “sin offering” since no new meaning seems to be able to cover the entire range of meanings and functions implied by the t)+x offering (cf. ID., Leviticus, 221; for a similar position, see also EBERHART, Studien, 113[ff.] and 267). We shall return to this issue below. 283 See now on this the detailed study by KONKEL, Architektonik. 284 Admittedly, Ez 45:20 also mentions the t)+x in connection with a sin committed by inadvertence (hg#) or by neglect (ytp), but in this case it is exclusively the sanctuary and the altar which are purified with the blood of the t)+x, not the offender as in Lev 4:1–5:13. 285 See the altar’s description in Ez 43:13–17, and further on this point for instance the convenient discussion by WRIGHT, Disposal, 149ff., with further references.

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

175

Ex 30:10b; Lev 16:16).286 There can hardly be any doubt that in all these passages, kipper must be understood in a literal sense: the t)+x’s blood cleanses the sancta, wiping off the impurities attached to it and thus acting like a “ritual detergent”, as Milgrom, in particular, has repeatedly argued.287 It is especially striking to note that in the instances where ritual use of the t)+x’s blood is explicitly mentioned, the object of the compound kipper (al is usually a sanctum (Ex 29:36–37; 30:10; Lev 8:15; 16:14–16, 18).288 In all such cases, the rendering of (al by “on, over” appears to be the only possible translation.289 As emphasized by Milgrom (following Y. Kaufmann and others), this view of pollution as a malevolent substance attaching to sancta and permanently threatening them is a common, recurrent concern throughout the ancient Near East, even though in the case of P and of Ezekiel the demonic na286

In Lev 14:53, the reference is to a house infected with t(rc instead of a sanctum. Pace MILGROM, Studies, 76, however, it is unclear whether the rite performed by the priest in Lev 14:49–53 should be classified a t)+x offering properly speaking, even though the ritual’s purpose is actually to cleanse ()+x Piel) the house from its ‘h9at[t[a4)t’. 287 See especially MILGROM, Studies, 67–69 and 75–84; ID., Leviticus, 253ff. 288 Note also the case of Lev 14:49–53 with a house, although as observed just above (note 286) this instance does not correspond to a t)+x offering properly speaking. To be sure, in the case of the ceremonies of Lev 9 and 16 involving – among other things – the ritual use of the blood of the t)+x , the rite is also said to effect kipper for the priests (Lev 9:7 LXX; 16:6, 11) or for the priests and the entire community (Lev 9:7 MT; 16:17), but in this case, specifically, it is never (al that is used but ba(ad, “on behalf of”. The case of Lev 16:30, 33, 34, using (al, is different since v. 29–34 are no longer part of the ritual’s description (concluded in v. 28) but are a general subscription to it (and, moreover, do not belong to P but to H). Otherwise, when kipper (al is used with persons as objects, ritual use of blood is not mentioned (see Lev 12:7, 8; 14:19, 31; 15:15, 30; 23:28; Num 6:11; 8:12; 15:25, 28; 28:22, 30; 29:5), the only exception being Lev 4:1–5:13 (see 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:6, 10, 13). On the case of Lev 16:10, see the following note. For a comprehensive tabulation of kipper in the context of purification offerings, see now GANE, Cult, 110–111. 289 MILGROM , Studies, 76; ID., Leviticus, 255; similarly GARNET, Atonement Constructions, 146; pace JANOWSKI, Sühne, 185 n. 5.187.188–189.231–232 and KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 89ff. The case of the formulation of Lev 16:10, where the construction kipper + (al is used with the goat for Azazel, is a very clear illustration that this construction can in no way be systematically rendered by “to make atonement for”. Otherwise, we should not only assume that the scapegoat is capable of sinning but also that in Lev 16 the high priest makes atonement for the goat to Azazel! JANOWSKI (Sühne, 185 n. 5) must suppose that this passage is textually corrupt (cf. already ELLIGER , Leviticus, 201), a poor solution. More likely, it seems that kipper + (al refers here very concretely to the transfer of the people’s sins onto the goat, as argued by Milgrom (Studies, 76 n. 10; see similarly GARNET, Ibid., 146). Janowski’s argument to the contrary is entirely circular. He denies the possibility of this interpretation on the ground that kipper + (al should should necessarily mean “Sühne schaffen für/zugunsten von”, even though he acknowledges simultaneously that this rendering is meaningless in the context of Lev 16:10. KIUCHI, for his part, who postpones the discussion of this difficult passage to the end of his book (see Purification Offering, 149ff.), is forced to argue that (a4la4w in Lev 16:10 does not refer to the goat but to Aaron, which is not exactly the most natural interpretation of this verse either.

176

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

ture of impurity is no longer evident.290 Although the use of blood as a ritual detergent is sparse in Mesopotamia and in the Hittite tradition,291 close analysis of the passages mentioned above leaves no doubt as to the effective lustrative power of blood (cf. explicitly Ex 29:36–37; 30:10; Lev 8:15; 16:14– 16, 18, always with kipper).292 In such contexts the traditional rendering of kipper by “to make atonement” (implying that sancta are capable of sinning) hardly makes sense.293 In this regard, the traditional view that the ritual disposal of blood, in the context of the t)+x offering, is mainly (if not exclusively) symbolic cannot be supported,294 although it is certainly correct to assume that the importance 290

For examples see, e.g., MILGROM, Studies, 77 and the additional references given there in note 12. 291 See above, page 172, note 278, and relevant references. 292 In Lev 16:16, for instance, it is stated that the purpose of the ritual aspersion of the blood of the t)+x for the high priest and the communiy against and over the trpk in v. 14–15 is to effect kipper over/on ((al) the inner-sanctum in order to wipe it off “from its impurities” (t)m+m). For a similar conclusion, see in particular the recent analyses by EBERHART, Studien, 222–288; and GILDERS, Blood Ritual, esp. 135ff. 293 For this view, see, e.g., HERRMANN , Sühne, 83ff.; further JANOWSKI , Sühne, esp. 231–232; KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 87–94, esp. 91–94, with rather unconvincing arguments. RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 218–219, offers a somewhat more nuanced discussion of this issue, even though he still retains the traditional rendering. In his recent analysis, EBERHART, Studien, has correctly perceived that in P as in Ez (see Ez 45:20) the altar could become contaminated by the community’s sins, and that the coupling of rpk Piel with the verb rh+ in the contexts where sancta are concerned implies that, “die Beseitigung von Sünde als Reinigung zu verstehen ist” (168). He also correctly notes that in the context of the use of kipper with sancta, “die Verwandtschaft […] mit akk. kuppuru – ‘kultisch reinigen’” is unmistakable (257–258). He nevertheless chooses to keep the notion of atonement in the case of sancta but tries to mark a distinction by speaking of “cultic atonement” (“kultische Sühne”), which I find unsatisfactory both on a philological and an exegetical level. Likewise, in two recent studies, JÜRGENS, Heiligkeit, 120–121, and ALBERTZ, KPR, 140–145, continue to speak of a “kultische Sühne” (a problematic designation in my opinion), but do admit that when the reference is to a sanctum we have to do with a rite of purification (“Reinigung”) specifically. 294 Thus GESE , Sühne; further JANOWSKI , Sühne, esp. 221ff.; SCHENKER , Zeichen. All these authors support this interpretation primarily on the basis of Lev 17:11. Both Gese and Janowski view the blood of the sacrificial animal as a “gift” made to men by God, which in turn makes possible the reparation of offenses by the offering of this blood on the altar through the ritual putting to death of the animal which, in Gese’s and Janowski’s view, represents the vicarious death of the offerer himself. “Rituelle Freisetzung des Blutes ist Freisetzung des (individuellen) Lebens, der näpäs], und das Blut ist im kultischen Sinne die freigelegte Substanz” (GESE , Sühne, 246; also JANOWSKI , Sühne, 246–247; likewise, KOCH, Sühne, 230–231). While this is partly correct in the case of Lev 17:11 (see further below, § 5.2.1., although the vicarious interpretation of sacrifice argued by Gese and Janowski should be qualified), the question of the extent to which this (late) rationalization of the sacrificial cult should be applied to the rest of P is an issue. Schenker also regards blood as a “sign” (Zeichen) of Yahweh’s willingness to forgive man and reconcile with him in the sacrificial cult (“Versöhnungswunsch Gottes”), although his interpretation tends to be even more sym-

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

177

given to blood as a ritual detergent in the Hebrew Bible, and especially in priestly circles, ultimately stems from its identification with life (#pn ) and from its implied holiness.295 Rather, the meaning of kipper, here, is basically the same as in the Akkadian cognate, kapa4ru (see above, § 1.2.2.1., Excursus 3). This is confirmed by the fact that in the case both of sancta and persons this verb can be combined either with )+x Piel, “to purify”,296 or with rh+ in the Qal or Piel conjugations.297 Such associations clearly demonstrate that ritual cleansing of the sancta, especially the altar, is the condition for their purification, de-contamination ()+x Piel) and even their consecration (#dq), all terms that are regularly found with kipper and refer to its effects. In this respect, kipper can be said to be the “supernym” for “a range of verbs covering the removal of both impurity and the state of being common (h9o4l)”.298 bolic than that of Gese and Janowski. Namely, bringing blood into the inner-sanctum on Yôm Kippur would be mostly a means of recalling to Yahweh his promise to forgive man. Another highly symbolic interpretation of blood in the context of the sacrificial cult has also been argued by WILLI-PLEIN, Opfer, 96ff.: whereas the t)+x, as the bearer of the community’s sin, symbolizes death, sprinkling (sic) the altar with the blood of the t)+x serves to manifest the sin publicly, and connects it with the sanctuary, itself the place and the symbol of life, thus ultimately enabling atonement and reconciliation with the deity. This latter interpretation is hardly compatible not only with Lev 17:11, but also with the fact that elsewhere in the HB and especially in P blood is primarily a symbol of life, not of death. It is also difficult to reconcile with the statement in Lev 6:17–23 that the blood of the t)+x is most sacred and has the power to sanctify whatever it touches. As regards the other symbolic interpretations of the sacrificial blood by Gese, Janowski and Schenker, the main problem is that even if blood surely has a symbolic meaning in P (see also the following note) there is no reason to believe that this symbolic function simply replaces the more “literal” function of blood as a cultic detergent – unless one tacitly assumes that such a representation would belong to a more “primitive” stage of religion and cult which has been superseded in P’s cultic system. Instead, EBERHART, Studien, in his recent reassessment of the blood rites accompanying the t)+x in P, correctly recognizes that it is questionable to assume that even at a late stage in the evolution of the t)+x tradition, the blood rites have lost any purificatory function (cf. p. 263). 295 Thus, e.g., EBERHART , Studien, 222–288. GILDERS, Blood Ritual, comes to a more cautious conclusion in this regard. Although he is entirely correct to observe that for both source-critical and exegetical reasons the significance of Lev 17:11 (H) should not be overemphasized, in my opinion he does not pay enough attention to the witness of Lev 6:17–23, showing that the blood and the flesh of the t)+x offering are “most sacred” (v. 18), and that the t)+x’s blood has the power to sanctify whatever it comes in contact with (v. 20–21); also v. 23 explicitly connects the degree of sanctity of the t)+x with the fact that the blood has been brought into the sanctuary (v. 23), and hence approached the presence of Yahweh. On the importance of Lev 6:17–23 in this regard, see EBERHART, Studien, 257–259. 296 Only with sancta: see Ex 29:36–37; Lev 8:15; Num 19:19; Ez 43:20, 22, 23; 45:18. 297 See Lev 12:7–8; 14:18–20, 29, 31; 16:19 (altar); 16:30; Ez 43:26 (altar). In Lev 14:49– 53: for a house infected with s[a4ra(at. 298 GILDERS, Blood Ritual, 135–137, in his recent discussion. Before him, cf. KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 94–99; see also HARTLEY, Leviticus, 64; SKLAR, Sin, 112–115. MILGROM , Leviticus, 290, disputes the view that the blood of the t)+x effects consecration in

178

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

Nevertheless, in all the other cases where the object of kipper is not a sanctum but a person, it is more difficult to assess the meaning of blood rites, and the connection between the ritual disposal of blood on the altar’s horns and the purification of an individual is somewhat unclear. The most obvious solution is to assume that the function of the rite is the same in all cases, as argued by Milgrom in his interpretation of the t)+x. Following this view, the phrase kipper (al with a person as object should consistently be taken as a mere equivalent of kipper be6(ad-X (Lev 9:7; 16:6, 11, 17, 24). That is, the priest effects the kipper rite on behalf of the offerer; therefore, the ritual does not have the function of purifying the offerer, but only the altar which has been polluted by the impurity or the involuntary sin of the offerer.299 Yet while Milgrom has the merit of taking seriously the function of the blood rite,300 this “restrictive” interpretation of the h9at[t[a4)t meets with several objections.301 In particular, it is unable to account for the various instances where it is stated that the offering of a t)+x serves to purify (rh+) persons from (Nm) a given category of physical impurity (see Lev 12:7; 14:19; 15:15, 30). In all these cases Milgrom is forced to interpret Nm as a causative (hence for example in 15:15, we6kipper (a4la4yw hakkohe4n … mizzo=bo= is rendered by “the priest shall effect purgation on his behalf, for his discharge”, and similarly in 15:30),302 while the meaning is obviously privative, as is demonstrated by Lev 12:7a where the parturient is declared to be “purified from her source of blood” (hymd rqmm hrh+w).303 A similar point can be made in the case of Lev 4–5. Because the text of ch. 4 says that the offender is forgiven after the priest has performed kipper (v. 20, 26, 31, 35; similarly 5:10, 13), Milgrom has to surmise that the offender is forgiven not for his inadvertent sin, but for having polluted the sanctuary through inadvertent sin.304 Yet in this case, one hardly understands why the verb xls Niphal is exclusively found, in all the occurrences dealing with the purification offering, in this context.305 Logically, in Milgrom’s hypothesis, reference to the offerer’s forgiveness should be present whenever a purification offering is required, whatever the nature of the evil, since the result (pollution of the sanctuary) is the same. Instead, the difference between the statement concluding the kipper rite in Lev 4 (xlsnw ) and in Lev 12 (hrh+w) definitely suggests that the kipper procedure in these cases is primarily directed to the offerer, and Lev 8:15. Yet it is unlikely that the altar is consecrated by the anointing oil, as Milgrom holds; the latter is not even mentioned in this verse. Also, the altar’s reconsecration through ritual aspersion of the blood of the t)+x is unmistakable in Lev 16:19, as noted by Gilders. 299 See originally MILGROM, Studies, 75–84; and ID., Studies, 67–69; Leviticus, 253–292. 300 This issue is not sufficiently addressed for instance in Marx’s treatment of the t)+x offering (see MARX, Rite; it it is only briefly mentioned on p. 45). 301 For criticism of Milgrom, cf. also EBERHART, Studien, 240–243; and DENNIS, t)+x. 302 See MILGROM, Leviticus, 902–903. 303 For a detailed development of this point, see now GANE, Cult, ch. 6, esp. 112ff. The fact that it is only after the offering of the t)+x and the performance of the kipper rite that the declaration of the woman’s purity occurs (see Lev 12:7ab and 8b) demonstrates that her purification does not precede her offering of the purification offering (as Milgrom would hold, see ID., Leviticus, 760) but that this offering is part of her purification process. 304 ID., Leviticus, 245. 305 Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13; see also Num 15:25, 26, 28. In Lev 5:16, 18, 26 and 19:22, xls Niphal also occurs with the M#) offering.

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

179

not to the altar.306 This is even confirmed by one passage, Num 8:21, which states that the purpose of the t)+x prescribed for the levites is Mrh+l, “to purify them”.307

More probably, the solution to this problem should be sought in the origins of the t)+x – or better, as we shall see, of the specific type of t)+x involving complex blood rites. A decisive observation in this respect was made by Rendtorff.308 He notes that the fact that, both in P and in Ezekiel, the occurrences in which the t)+x is not accompanied by another offering but appears alone always deal with the purification of the altar or the sanctuary exclusively (see Ex 29:36–37; 30:10; similarly Ez 43:19–21; 45:18–19, 20) suggests that originally this ritual was specifically intended for the cleansing of sancta. “Offenbar haben wir es also bei der Weihe- und Reinigungsriten für den Tempel und die Altäre mit einer genuinen Funktion der chattat zu tun”.309 Furthermore, as some authors have pointed out, the testimony of Ez 40–48 clearly implies that this ritual was initially not an offering, but rather typically a rite of elimination, or of removal, of impurities attaching to the sancta. When the t)+x serves for the cleansing of the altar or the sanctuary, it is never offered on the altar (see Ez 43:19–21, 22; 45:18–19, 20), and instead the animal must be burnt outside the sanctuary, in a specific place, as is instructed in 43:21.310 This corresponds to similar rites of disposal of impurities attested elsewhere in Anatolia, Mesopotamia and Greece, where in some cases burning was apparently also one possible means of disposing of the animal’s carcass after it had absorbed the impurity.311 In P, this earlier tradition has been developed into an offering properly speaking by the inclusion of the practice consisting of burning the suet por306 In addition, the fact that the kipper statement consistently occurs at the end of the ritual in Lev 4:1–5:13 shows that it refers to the entire ritual process described in v. 13–21, 22–26, 27–31, 32–35, and not to a specific rite such as the daubing of blood upon the horns of one of the two altars (GILDERS, Blood Ritual, 137; pace Milgrom). 307 A point also noted by GANE, Cult, 120–122. 308 See ID., Studien, 199–234, esp. 205–206.217–220.222–226.233–234, and 247–249. 309 RENDTORFF, Studien, 206. This hypothesis has been developed since then especially by JANOWSKI, Sühne, 221–242; see also GESE, Sühne, 100.101–102; WEFING, Untersuchungen, 140–141; most recently also EBERHART, Studien, 134. 310 See especially on this GESE, Sühne, 101; ID., Verfassungsentwurf, 47 n. 3; JANOWSKI, Sühne, 236–238. RENDTORFF, Studien, 222–226, esp. 224–225, assumes that the burning of the t)+x was initially connected with the rite for purification of the altar only, and not of the sanctuary. Yet this assumption seems unlikely; the account of Ez 45:18–20 clearly implies that the same t)+x rite served for the purification of the sanctuary and the altar, and the animal was most likely also burnt outside the sanctuary, as in Ez 43:21. 311 On elimination rites in Anatolia, Mesopotamia and Greece, see above, pages 171–172, note 278. For a parallel to the burning of the carcass, see the passage in the Hittite Law, Table I, § 44b, where reference is made to this means of disposal (for the text: FRIEDRICH, Hethitische Gesetze, 31; and for this reference, MILGROM, Studies, 73). However, in most rituals (as in Lev 16:20–22) the animal bearing the impurity remains alive and is let free in the open.

180

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

tions, reserved for the deity, as with the Myml#-xbz (see Lev 3), whereas the rest of the animal – including its flesh – had to be burnt outside the camp: see Ex 29:14; Lev 8:17; 9:11, and contrast with the later instruction of Lev 6:17– 23 according to which the flesh is to be eaten by the priests if the blood of the 312 t)+x has not served to cleanse the sanctuary. The purpose of this develop313 ment, which is unparalleled in Ezekiel, was clearly to integrate the original elimination ritual into P’s sacrificial system, with the result that the t)+x now occurs in the context of the purification no longer of sancta exclusively, as in Ez 40–48, but of both sancta and persons. However, a distinction is nevertheless maintained. Namely, contrary to what applies for the purification of sancta, where the t)+x alone is sufficient (Ex 29:36–37; 30:10; Lev 8:15; 16:14–20a), the t)+x in the case of the purification (or consecration)314 of a person is always associated with the offering of an hl( (as well as, possibly, other additional offerings).315 Apparently, the t)+x seems to be offered systematically before the hl(.316 312

On this development, see RENDTORFF, Studien, 234; JANOWSKI, Sühne, 237; for the observation of the parallel with the Myml#-xbz in Lev 3, see RENDTORFF, 220–221.234. That this represents a later development of the original t)+x ritual tradition of purification through elimination of impurities is also suggested by the observation that in Mesopotamia and Anatolia animals used in the contexts of such rites are normally not sacrificed. 313 However, we should not conclude from this observation that the legislation of Ez 40–48 is necessarily older than that of P, as was consistently done by the authors referred above. As already noted in this study, the development of different sacrificial conceptions by competing priestly circles is a phenomenon observed throughout antiquity, and it cannot be used as a sound source-critical criterion. Rather, it is clear that the school which composed Ez 40–48 was more conservative than P on certain issues pertaining to the sacrificial cult, and more innovative in others, such as the festival calendar (Ez 45:18–25), where it adopts the Babylonian division of the year into two halves (cf. also Lev 23, and see below, § 5.2.4.1.). 314 On kipper in the case of the purification offering as a supernym including consecration as well as purification, see above. This is very clear in the case of the altar in Lev 8:15, which is both purified and consecrated with the blood of the purification offering. Even Marx, who initially distinguishes between the two situations, eventually treats them together (Rite, 39ff.). 315 See Ex 29:10–14, 15–18; Lev 8:14–17, 18–21; 9:8–14, 15–16; 12:7a, 8; 14:19–20, 31; 15:14–15, 29–30; Num 6:11, 16; 8:12; and for this observation in particular MARX, Rite, 39. The importance of this point is now acknowledged by MILGROM, see Leviticus, 291, although it is somewhat difficult to see how it should be reconciled with his own theory. The only partial exception concerns the legislation in Num 19 for the purification of a man polluted by contact with a corpse, since in this case only a t)+x offering is required. Yet this instruction is unique and cannot be compared with the rest of the t)+x legislation in the Priestly literature, because the t)+x mentioned here does not consist of an animal sacrifice but of a lustration with a specific type of water; see v. 12, 17–19. Besides, this regulation raises many issues, in particular regarding its literary homogeneity, its date of composition and the possibility that it preserves a distinct tradition, which cannot be addressed in this study. At any rate, its exceptional character within the purity system of P is unanimously recognized. 316 Cf. Ex 29:10–18; Lev 8:14–21; Lev 9:8–14, 15–16; 14:19–20; and for a complete demonstration, MARX, Rite, 39. In Lev 12:6–8, one should probably assume that the order reflects

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

181

It should also be noted that in many other aspects, the t)+x in P has retained traces of its origin as a rite of elimination and not as a sacrifice. Thus, in particular, burning of the suet portions on the altar is far less significant in this case than for the other offerings,317 and the ritual’s major aspect is clearly constituted by blood rites. Also, the characteristic statement hwhyl xxyn xyr, “a pleasing, soothing odor to Yahweh”, which systematically concludes the burning of the offering on the altar for the burnt, cereal and well-being offerings (Lev 1–3), is not attested in the case of the t)+x except in one single occurrence, Lev 4:31. The testimony of Lev 16 similarly indicates that, in P, purification was still realized by the blood of the t)+x alone (see v. 11–19), since burning of the suet portions occurs only afterwards, once the ritual cleansing of the sanctuary has been performed (v. 25). This is a clear illustration of the way in which the t)+x still retains something of its original nature in P.

A. Marx, following the classical analysis of rituals by Van Gennep, has proposed analyzing the combined offering of a t)+x and a hl( as a typical rite of passage, identifying the t)+x with the rite of separation, while the hl( represents for its part the rite of aggregation. “Il apparaît ainsi que le noyau de ces rituels de passage est constitué de deux éléments, un élément négatif, formé par le h9at[t[a4)t dont le sang effectue la séparation d’avec l’état antérieur, et un élément positif, formé par l’holocauste, lequel établit, par la combustion de la victime, la relation avec Dieu”.318 Pace Marx, however, this does not mean that in such cases the disposal of the blood of the t)+x upon the altar does not serve to purify the latter. The opposite view is implied, in particular, by Lev 8:15, where the t)+x offered by Aaron and his sons for their consecration (v. 14–17) simultaneously serves to consecrate the outer altar (8:15bb). Nor do we have to presume, like Milgrom, that the person’s uncleanness would have polluted the altar from afar.319 More likely, the purification of the altar performed on behalf of the offerer is probably required by the fact that the offerer being in a state of uncleanness, he cannot offer sacrifices without a preliminary cleansing of the altar (rite of separation), which ensures that his ensuing offering of an hl( will not be unclean or polluted, and will effectively achieve reconciliation with the deity (rite of aggregation).320 the importance of the sacrifices, not the order of their presentation, as argued by Marx who notes: “De manière significative, le verbe ‘sh n’est pas ici employé, mais le verbe bo’ hi, lequel désigne habituellement l’action d’amener les victimes au sanctuaire”. Note that the rabbinic tradition retained a similar conception (m. Zebah9 10:2). 317 A point also observed by EBERHART, Studien, 257.299. 318 MARX , Rite, 46. See also now MARX , Systèmes, 184–188, where he discusses Milgrom’s objections to his interpretation of the t)+x. 319 E.g., MILGROM, Studies, 78. Although there can be no doubt, as already noted above, that this conception of the “miasmic” nature of impurity is also found in P (see Lev 16:16, and further below), it does not mean that each individual case of severe pollution automatically requires the offering of a t)+x for purging the altar, a conception stated nowhere. 320 For the t)+x as a preliminary rite of purification, see LEVINE , Presence, 26–27 and 101–108, although he extends systematically this function to the t)+x offered for the atonement of sin, and not simply for the elimination of impurities. This is apparently the case in Ez 45:22ff. but not, for instance, in Num 28–29 where the t)+x also serves to make atonement

182

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

In all the instances mentioned above, the combined offering of a t)+x and a h l( for an individual is never connected with a case of sin, whether deliberate or unwitting, but always serves for his (or her) ritual purification only. Even in the great cleansing ceremony of Yôm Kippur in Lev 16, it is striking to observe that the community’s atonement is not realized by the goat offered as a t)+x, which is meant to cleanse the sanctuary from the various crimes of the people (v. 14–19), but by the second goat sent to Azazel (v. 20– 22), which is not a t)+x offering stricto sensu but rather a typical rite of elimination.321 From this observation, some scholars have occasionally inferred that the legislation of Lev 4 and Num 15, where the t)+x serves now for the atonement of inadvertent sin, would merely represent a further stage in the traditional development of this ritual.322 Yet this view is unlikely. Already the unmistakable relation between the name of this offering and the noun for designating “sin” in the Hebrew Bible militates against such an assumption.323 This observation is also corroborated by the polemics preserved in Hos 4:8 which, in the reading argued above, is probably a pun on the double meaning of the term t)+x. In this passage, the fact that the parallel for t)+x in the second part of this verse is (a4won shows that the only possible allusion to a type of sacrifice is to an offering for sin, not for purification.324 It also makes sense from a comparative perspective, since in other cultures of the ANE offerings for the community but is apparently always offered after the hl( , a point not addressed by Levine (see on this MARX , Rite, 39–40). On the t)+x for the atonement of sin, see the discussion immediately below. In his discussion of the t)+x , EBERHART, Studien, 230–267, comes to a view similar to the one adopted here (see, e.g., on p. 256). This accounts for the fact, already pointed out above, that in P the t)+x, contrary to the voluntary offerings in Lev 1–3, is not defined as a hwhy hhyn xyr except in Lev 4:31. 321 This point is missed by RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 217–221, esp. 219–220, arguing on the basis of 16:30 that the t)+x in Lev 16 also includes atonement for the people. Yet in the entire section formed by 16:14–20, the action of rpk Piel is obviously directed towards the sanctuary (v. 16: rpk + l(; v. 17a: rpk + b ) or the altar (v. 18: rpk + l(, as in v. 16 for the sanctuary). This is also very clear from the concluding summary in v. 20. 16:17 simply implies that the ritual is performed “on behalf” of Aaron, his house and the people. The problem raised by 16:5 and the phrase t)+xl including both goats will be discussed further below in § 4.3.1.2. As will be suggested, the phrase is deliberately ambiguous, meaning as well “a t)+x offering” (in the case of the goat for Yahweh specifically) and “for the sin (of the community)” more generally (thus covering the goat for Azazel as well). Against the idea that the two goats would comprise a single t)+x offering (thus KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 147–156; SCHWARTZ, Bearing of Sin, 17ff.), see now the criticism by GANE, Cult, 254ff. 322 Thus in particular GESE, Sühne, 101–102; similarly JANOWSKI, Sühne, 239–242. 323 A point also noted for instance by RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 221. LEVINE, Presence, 101– 103, concludes from his philological examination that t)+x as a sacrificial term includes a reference both to )+x Piel, “to cleanse, purify”, and to the noun for “sin”. 324 MILGROM, Leviticus, 286–287, also notes this but must surmise that it refers to the h9at[t[a4)t in its capacity to purge pollution caused by unwilling sins, a fine case of Systemzwang.

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

183

could be designated by the name of the offense to be atoned.325 In this case, the assumption that t)+x would always mean a purification offering specifically, never a sin offering (e.g., Milgrom), must be rejected.326 We find a further confirmation of the simultaneous existence of these two types of t)+x in Ez 40–48. Ez 42:13 and 44:29 refer to a t)+x eaten by the priests; hence it cannot be the same t)+x as the one serving elsewhere in ch. 40–48 for the purification of sancta, since the latter was not offered on the altar (cf. Ez 43:19–21, 22; 45:18–20) but entirely burnt outside the sanctuary (cf. Ez 43:21).327 Although this point has seldom been noted, we also have in Ez 40–48 an indication that the second type of t)+x did not include any blood rite, which was instead a characteristic of the elimination rite. Whereas in the case of the first t)+x, purification of the sancta is always entrusted to the Zadokide priests, the t)+x offered for the community’s atonement for seven days since the 14th day of the first month and since the 15th day of the seventh month in Ez 45:21–25 are to be presented by the Davidic prince, the )y#n (v. 22ff., see also 45:15– 16). Not only is it quite unlikely that the prince would perform blood rites, of which nothing is said in the context of 45:21–25, but this is even explicitly prohibited by the instruction of Ez 44:15, according to which the presentation to Yahweh of the suet and the blood of the sacrificial animals is a perquisite of the Zadokides.

In sum, the evidence points towards the existence of two distinct types of t)+x in the religious and cultic tradition of Israel in the second half of the First Temple and at the beginning of the Second. 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. Very clearly, this rite was not part of the public cult, but it was developed at some time by the priestly class of some of the major temples in Israel and Judah for the consecration and the regular purification of the sanctuary and the altar, probably in particular in the case of New Year ceremonies, see Ez 45:18–20. The name of this rite was apparently derived from the Piel of )+x, which could mean both “to offer a t)+x offering”328 and “to purify” (through the ritual offering of a t)+x)329. Besides, the fact that )+x Piel is only found once outside P and Ez 40–48 (in the postexilic Psalm 51:9)330 strongly suggests that this is dis325

See e.g. the examples given by WEINFELD, Place, 44, for Hurrian and Hittite religions. A point also noted by WEINFELD, Place, 44 n. 16. 327 JANOWSKI, Sühne, 238, considers that the tradition of eating the portions of the t)+x which have not been burnt entirely on the altar must reflect a late, post-Ezekiel (“nachezechielisch”) development because he assumes that it is not attested before P and that Ez 42:13 and 44:29 are later than Ez 43:19ff. and 45:18–20, which is doubtful. Besides, Janowski does not discuss the evidence offered on this point by Hos 4:8. 328 See Lev 9:15, probably also 6:19. Pace MILGROM, Leviticus, 402.583, there is no reason to assume a rendering by “to perform the purification rite” in these two contexts, and the traditional rendering “to offer a t)+x offering” is more logical. 329 On the term t)+x as a derivative from )+x Piel, see MILGROM, Leviticus, 253–254; LEVINE, Presence, 102. 330 A point also noted inter alia by KOCH, art. chat[t[a4), 316. 326

184

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

tinctively priestly terminology.331 This ritual was further developed by the school of P at the beginning of the Second Temple period into a proper offering and extended from the purification of sancta to that of persons by being combined with a burnt offering, whereas the school which edited and transmitted the scroll containing the prophecy of Ezekiel rejected this development and conserved the original rite. The second type was an offering made for the atonement of (moral) offenses, possibly mostly collective rather than individual, either in the context of annual ceremonies or at specific occasions as in the rest of the ancient Near East;332 here, the offering’s name conveys specifically the idea of sin.333 In this offering, the animal was not burnt outside the sanctuary as in the elimination rite, but partly offered on the altar and partly eaten by the priests (see Ez 42:13; 44:29, and already Hos 4:8). However, even in P something of the original distinction between the two rites was preserved since when the t)+x is used for the cleansing of a sanctum the kipper formula usually immediately follows the ritual disposal of blood (see Lev 8:15; 16:16, 19; in Ex 30:10, the burning rite is not even mentioned; only in Ex 29:36–37 is the evidence more ambiguous), whereas in the case of a person this statement is not found before the suet portions of the animal have been offered on the altar.334 As proposed above, this difference is best explained by assuming that in the case of sancta, purification is completed solely by ritual use of the animal’s blood, as in the original rite, and that the requirement of burning the fat was added as a means to match this rite to the second type of rite associated with the t)+x, in which the burning on the altar was on the contrary an essential part, so as to achieve a unified procedure. 331

Hence, for this first type of offering, Milgrom’s etymological explanation of the term on the basis of its derivation from )+x Piel holds true. 332 See for instance the ritual prescribed for appeasing the god’s wrath, RS 1.002, and for the text, PARDEE, Textes rituels, 1. 92–142. 333 Against Milgrom’s unilateral rendering of t)+x by “purification”, the ambiguity of this sacrificial term has been recently emphasized by scholars noting that in some cases (especially Lev 4 and 16:16, 21), the reference to the notion of “sin” is unmistakable: REND TORFF, Leviticus, 221; SCHENKER, Studien, 12–15; DENNIS, t)+x Sacrifice, 110–114. At the same time, however, this latter meaning is also irrelevant in several contexts, as argued above (and as is admitted somehow by DENNIS, Ibid., 112–113). Thus, KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 93–94, already spoke of “two types of hattat ceremony”, one in which this offering serves for the atonement of the priests, the congregation and the individual, the other for the “atonement of sancta”. This view is also argued now by GANE, Cult, ch. 6 and passim, who, though acknowledging that t)+x sacrifices can serve to purge the sanctuary and its sancta in some cases, holds that in all other instances their function is to remove evil from their offerers (be it physical uncleanness or a moral fault). According to the interpretation proposed here this ambivalence should be explained by the existence, initially, of two discrete types of t)+x in Israel. R. Gane’s recent proposal will be discussed below in this section, pages 190–192. 334 See Lev 4:19–20, 26, 31, 35. This significant distinction is unfortunately missed in the recent study by EBERHARDT, Studien, passim. t)+x

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

185

On the whole, the reconstruction proposed here and the distinction between two different types of t)+x with originally discrete rites come close to the suggestion initially made by B.A. Levine.335 He proposed distinguishing between a t)+x sponsored by the people and serving for the atonement of collective as well as individual sins and a t)+x sponsored by the priestly class, which was “an expression of the duty of the priesthhood to protect the purity of the sanctuary”.336 Levine also perceived that the two types are related to two distinct ways of disposing of the animal, one in which it must be burnt outside the sanctuary and the other in which it is to be eaten by the priests. The main difference with the analysis proposed above is that Levine’s is essentially based on the Priestly texts. He makes no attempt to situate these texts in the broader frame of the various traditions about the t)+x, and he does not consider the issue of P’s inner diachrony either. As a result, rather than seeing that Lev 4 already represents an attempt to combine the various traditions on the t)+x (see below), Levine wants to interpret this legislation on the basis of the distinction between the two types of t)+x; in his view, the major blood rite performed inside the sanctuary in the first part of Lev 4 (v. 3–21) would correspond to the traditional rite of elimination, since the animal’s carcass is burnt outside the camp, whereas the minor rite, in which the carcass is not burnt but eaten by the priests (Lev 6:17–23) and which is explicitly said to be used for the community’s atonement in Lev 10:16–20, would typically exemplify the second type of t)+x. This interpretation, however, is obviously untenable and has been rightly criticized.337 In particular, it is clear that in the major blood rite, purification is not connected with the burning of the carcass but with the ritual disposal of the blood inside the sanctuary since the kipper formula occurs in 4:20 before the carcass is taken away from the camp (v. 21). Conversely, the main aspect of the disposal of the t)+x in the case of the minor blood rite is not that it is eaten by the priests – significantly ignored in the legislation of Lev 4 itself – but that it is partly burnt on the altar. Similarly, to associate two discrete functions to the two blood rites is no less forced, because the major rite not only serves to cleanse the sanctuary but is explicitly said to perform atonement for the community (v. 20), whereas for the minor rite it is equally clear that the t)+x whose blood is daubed on the horns of the outer altar (v. 25, 30, 34) also serves to cleanse the latter, exactly as with the inner altar in the major blood rite (see v. 7, 18). A like criticism applies to the analysis of the history of the t)+x by Rendtorff, Gese and Janowski. As noted above, these authors have correctly perceived that the origin of the blood rites associated with the t)+x is to be found in a rite for cleansing the altar and the sanctuary which was by and by developed into a rite for the atonement of the community and the individual. In addition, Rendtorff and, to some extent, Janowski, also suggested – although somewhat vaguely – that this development reflected the integration of another, distinct tradition, of pre-exilic origin, in which an offering was made for the atonement of sins. Such rite broadly corresponds to the second type of t)+x identified in this study.338 Yet because Rendtorff, Gese and Janowski systematically understand kipper to mean “to make atonement for”, even when it is applied to a sanctum, they eventually fail to realize that originally we are dealing with entirely distinct types of rituals – one of removal and elimination, the other of atonement for sin –, as Levine had correctly perceived; they assume instead a linear development where an initial rite for the atonement of the altar was gradually extended to the sanctu-

335

LEVINE, Presence, 103–108; see also ID., Leviticus, 18.21–22. Presence, 104. 337 See for instance MILGROM, Leviticus, 263; EBERHART, Studien, 238–240. 338 See RENDTORFF, Studien, 233.239.248, though he does not recognize the existence of a specific sin offering but assumes that this role was played by the hl( (in the case of collective sin) and the M#) (for individual sin) respectively; similarly JANOWSKI, Sühne, 239ff. 336

186

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

ary and the entire community.339 Janowski even ends up concluding that although the t)+x for individuals is, historically speaking, a later development, it was already somehow implied in the original rite (“Das aber bedeutet […] daß beide t)+x-Überlieferungen – t)+x zur Entsühnung von Altar und t)+x zur Entsühnung von Menschen – sachlich zusammengehören”).340 Once it is obvious that in the case of a sanctum the kipper formula concluding the disposal of the blood of the t)+x can only refer to a rite of removal and purification; that the notion of atonement for a sanctum is unlikely; and that outside Lev 4:1–5:13 and Num 15:22– 31 even the t)+x for an individual has nothing to do with sin (see Lev 12:6–8, etc.) but rather with the purification of an individual from pollution and his re-instatement into the community, as has been argued in this section, it becomes perfectly clear that the t)+x for atonement of sin and the t)+x for the ritual purification of a sanctum or an individual belong to two separate traditions.341

d. The Innovation Brought by the Legislation of Leviticus 4–5 Against this traditio-historical background, we are now in a position to understand the origin of the t)+x legislation of Lev 4:1–5:13 (and Num 15:22–31), as well as the reasons for its somewhat unique position in the Torah. Whereas in P so far the t)+x was predominantly an offering for the preliminary purification of a person or the altar (or the sanctuary, in Lev 16) and as such was always offered before the other sacrifices (see Ex 29:10ff.; Lev 8:14ff.; 9:8–22; 12:6–8; 15:14–15, 29–30; 16:6ff., and compare with Ez 43:18–25), in Lev 4 a t)+x is now required every time an inadvertent crime has been committed (v. 2), and the corresponding ritual is described on the model of Lev 1–3. Close examination of this ritual shows that this t)+x is no longer strictly a sin or a purification offering exclusively, but rather a sophisticated combination of both, in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to conflate for the first time the two discrete categories of t)+x identified above. On one hand, that the t)+x of Lev 4 serves for the atonement of inadvertent sins is explicitly indicated in the concluding statement we6nise6lah9 (v. 20, 339

See especially GESE, Sühne, 101–102. JANOWSKI, Sühne, 240. 341 Among further difficulties with the reconstruction of Rendtorff, Gese and Janowski is the fact that they fail to recognize the evidence for a t)+x for atonement of sins already in the First Temple period (see above the discussion of Hos 4:8; Ez 40–48 and the comparative material), which belongs to a different type of rite than the t)+x for the ritual purification of sancta. Also, these three authors (especially Rendtorff and Janowski) are misled by the identity of the minor blood ritual in Lev 4:22–35 with the ritual attested elsewhere in P (except in Lev 16) for the t)+x, see Ex 29:10–14; Lev 8:14–17; 9:8–11. They correctly recognize that this rite must be older than the major blood rite performed on the inner veil and the incense altar in Lev 4:3–21, which was probably modeled on the blood rite of Lev 16; but they wrongly conclude from this that the second part of chapter 4, where the minor blood rite is performed for the atonement of (inadvertent) sin, must necessarily reflect an older tradition than the one attested in Lev 4:3–21 (see especially JANOWSKI , Sühne, 194–197 and 221ff., adopting Elliger’s source-criticism of Lev 4), a view that was shown above (§ 3.2.2.1.) to be unsupported. 340

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

187

26, 31, 35) which follows immediately the traditional kipper formula.342 As such, Milgrom’s view, already criticized above, according to which the ritual of Lev 4 exclusively serves for the purification of sancta cannot be maintained.343 On the other hand, however, it is equally clear that the legislation of Lev 4 simultaneously implies the conception that the people’s unwitting sins pollute and defile the sanctuary to different degrees. Indeed, the ritual and symbolic correlation established between the distinction of two main types of inadvertent sins and the cultic-topographic division between the two altars and their corresponding areas makes little sense outside the “dynamic” (or “miasmic”) theory of pollution postulated by Milgrom. To assume that the prescription to cleanse the outer-sanctum and not merely the bronze altar in the case of major inadvertent sins (v. 3–21) merely has a “symbolic” (meaning “abstract”) significance, as has classically been done, is unsatisfactory.344 Moreover, this seems to be contradicted by the detail of the ritual already: if the only reason why blood has to be brought into the outer-sanctum in case of major inadvertent sins was to present it to the deity, as a mere sign of the offerer’s vicarious death (Gese, Janowski) or of his willingness to seek reconciliation (Schenker), why the requirement for the priest not simply to sprinkle 342 The fact that both this statement and the kipper formula are missing in the case of the high priest (see Lev 4:3–12) should probably be explained by assuming that atonement for the high priest and his house were performed only once a year, in the context of the ceremony of ch. 16 (KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 129; RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 160). 343 Note further that the connection is unmistakable in several passages of Lev 4, which relate the t)+x designating the sin of the community or of an individual to the t)+x offered for this sin; see for instance 4:14: “When the t)+x which they committed in regard to it is known, the community shall offer a young bull t)+xl, and bring it before the tent of meeting”. See also v. 23–24, 28. For a similar conclusion as to the meaning and function of the t)+x in Lev 4, see now DENNIS, t)+x Sacrifice, 115–118. 344 See in particular the authors already discussed above, pages 176–177, note 294, and recently, e.g., SCHENKER, Interprétations, 60. But see also EBERHART, Studien, 262–263, as well as DENNIS, t)+x , 115–118, who acknowledge the problems raised by a strictly “symbolic” understanding of Lev 4. Eberhart also correctly perceives that the central aspect of the legislation of Lev 4 is, specifically, the combination of atonement from sin and purification of the sanctuary (“eine Kombination von kultischer Sühne und der sog. unkultischen Sühne”). In passing, the problem with the approach criticized here is not so much that it seeks a symbolic meaning for the ritual (every ritual can be generally defined as a “symbolic activity”) but rather that it tends to do so by focusing on one element (blood) to which some symbolic significance is attached (life/death symbolism) based on another context (in particular, Lev 17:11), irrespective of the specific context in which blood is used in the ritual of Lev 4. Yet one of the main characteristics of ritual, as a symbolic system, is to form “a complex performance of symbolic acts, characterized by its formality, order, and sequence, which tends to take place in specific situations and has as one of its central goals the regulation of the social order” (GORMAN , Ideology, 19). For a general discussion of ritual as a symbolic activity, see, in addition to Gorman, the valuable analysis by GANE, Cult, ch. 1, who includes insights from “system theories” (B. Wilson) in the definition of “ritual activity”.

188

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

it hwhy ynpl (Lev 4:6, 17), but also to apply it on the horns of the inner altar (4:7, 18)? This is entirely reminiscent of the other instances where the blood of the t)+x is explicitly said to serve for the cleansing of sancta (Ex 29:36– 37; 30:10; Lev 8:15; 16:14–16, 18, and above, § 3.2.2.3.c.), and the same notion should logically apply in Lev 4 as well. Lastly, a further observation may be added to corroborate this view. As perceived by Milgrom, there is an unmistakable connection between Lev 4 and 16. Together, the two instructions cover the three areas of the sanctuary: temple court/outer altar (Lev 4:22–35), outer-sanctum/incense altar (4:3–21), inner-sanctum/Ark (ch. 16). The system involved here is all the more obvious with regard to the gradation taking place in the ritual disposal of blood. Temple court (Lev 4:22–35)

Outer-sanctum (4:3–21)

Inner-sanctum (Lev 16)

– Daubing of blood on the horns of the outer altar (4:25, 30, 34)

– Sevenfold sprinkling of blood in front of the inner veil (pa4roket)

– Unique sprinkling of blood eastward of the kapporet

– Daubing of blood on the horns of the inner altar (4:6–7, 17–18)

– Sevenfold sprinkling of blood in front of the kapporet (16:14–15)

Inside the outer-sanctum, daubing of blood on the horns of the inner altar corresponds to the rite performed with the bronze altar inside the temple court, but this is preceded by the sevenfold sprinkling of blood in front of the inner veil (pa4roket), highlighting the sanctity of the inner-sanctum by comparison with the outer-sanctum. Inside the inner-sanctum, the same sevenfold sprinkling occurs, this time before the kapporet.345 But it is preceded by a unique sprinkling of blood eastward of the kapporet. On one hand, this rite is structurally and functionally equivalent to the daubing of blood upon the horns of the two altars (since there is no altar inside the inner-sanctum, and since the kapporet cannot be touched by the high priest). On the other hand, the inversion taking place inside the inner-sanctum, with the sevenfold sprinkling of blood coming now second, serves to highlight the importance of the kapporet as the very place of Yahweh’s manifestation (Ex 25:22), and thus simultaneously highlights the greater sanctity of the inner-sanctum over the outer-sanctum.

In Lev 16, the ritual’s purpose is to cleanse the inner-sanctum (16:16) which has become polluted by “the impurities (t)m+) of the Israelites, their rebel345

Pace GANE, Cult, 73–74. Gane correctly observes that tkrp ynp-t) in Lev 4 means “before the veil”, and therefore refers primarily to the high priest’s location inside the outersanctum rather than to the direction in which blood is sprinkled (although he admits that the latter is logically implied). However, against other scholars (e.g., KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 124–126), he concludes that this actually weakens the parallel with the sevenfold sprinkling against the kapporet in Lev 16:14. Yet Gane appears to confuse the two distinct rites commanded in this verse. If v. 14a requires that the blood be sprinkled once trpk ynp-l( hmdq , hence “on” or “towards” the eastern side of the kapporet, v. 14b then commands that the sevenfold sprinkling be made trpk ynpl which, as Gane himself notes, is equivalent to ynp-t) in 4:6, 17.

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

189

lions (Mhy(#p), as well as all their sins (Mt)+x-lkl)” (v. 16a).346 In this latter statement, one explicitly finds the conception that not only physical impurities – presumably all the forms of bodily pollution not correctly handled by the community, according to the to=ra= of Lev 11–15 – but also moral offenses, especially defiant sins (My(#p , that is, “rebellions” or “breaches” against Yahweh)347 penetrate the sanctuary and pollute it. The gradation observed above between the t)+x of Lev 4 and of Lev 16 suggests that the same notion underlies the legislation of Lev 4 and forms the background for the distinction between minor and major rites in this chapter. As such, as noted by Milgrom, Lev 4 appears to have been conceived from the beginning as a complement to the ritual of Lev 16, with which it makes up a comprehensive system of pollution and purification.348 While minor unwitting offenses only pollute the outer altar (Lev 4:22–35), major unwitting offenses, committed by the high priest or the entire community, pollute the outer-sanctum and its altar (Lev 4:3–21), whereas deliberate offenses even penetrate the inner-sanctum and can only be cleansed therefore through the ceremony of Lev 16.349 As Milgrom puts it, “the graded purgations of the sanctuary lead to the conclusion that the severity of the sin or impurity varies in direct relation to the depth of its penetration into the sanctuary”350 – although it is actually more accurate to state that it is the depth of penetration into the sanctuary which depends on the severity of sin. Lastly, the distinction between minor and major blood rites also allowed the author of Lev 4 to tacitly include the offering of a t)+x for severe impurities (Lev 12:6–8; 15:14–15, 29–30) into this purification system. 346

Against MILGROM, Leviticus, 1034, the last clause of this enumeration, Mt)+x-lkl , cannot be rendered as a summarizing category of the previous enumeration (“that is, for all their sins”). As GANE , Cult, ch. 13, has convincingly demonstrated, t)+x usually refers in pentateuchal ritual law to expiable (non-defiant) sins, and can therefore include neither My(#p, inexpiable defiant sins, nor of course tw)m+, physical impurities, which do not belong to the category of sin. The same observation applies in the case of 16:21a, although there t)m+ are replaced by tnw(; see further on this below. Gane also observes that the fact that lkl does not always function to introduce a summarizing category is shown by Lev 11:46. In general, it is admitted that the major blood rite in Lev 4 (v. 3–21) has been modeled on the rite described in the ceremony of Lev 16; see e.g. ELLIGER, Leviticus, 70; further JANOWSKI , Sühne, 234ff.; contra GANE , Cult, 279. This anteriority of ch. 16 over ch. 4 is logical, since Lev 16 does not yet know of the incense altar, contrary to Lev 4 (see above, § 3.2.2.1.). 347 On the term (#p see in particular KNIERIM, Hauptbegriffe, 176–184; as well as H. Seebass in RINGGREN/SEEBASS, art. pa4s]a(. For its use in P, see especially GANE, Cult, 294–298, who, after Milgrom and others, establishes that “the My(#p of Lev 16:16 are like the ‘highhanded’ category of Num 15:30–31” (p. 296), namely, defiant, inexpiable sins. 348 On this, see especially MILGROM, Studies, 75–84, as well as ID., Leviticus, 254–261. 349 In addition to Milgrom, the function of Lev 16 (at least in the final form of Lev 1–16) as a ceremony covering all the cases of transgressions not included in the legislation of Lev 4 is acknowledged by several recent commentators; see SEIDL , Levitikus 16, 240–243; JÜR GENS, Heiligkeit, 339–342; as well as JANOWSKI/ZENGER, Jenseits des Alltags, 78–79. 350 ID., Leviticus, 257.

190

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

Since in this case nothing was prescribed earlier regarding the bringing of blood inside the sanctuary (see, on the contrary, Ex 29:10–14; Lev 8:14–17; and 9:8–11!), severe impurities could be de facto assimilated to minor inadvertent sins, polluting merely the outer altar and not the outer-sanctum. Most recently, Milgrom’s theory of pollution has been criticized by one of his former students, R. Gane, in a thorough and detailed study of the t)+x offering.351 As part of his overall argument, Gane accepts Milgrom’s view that the ritual of Lev 16 serves for the cleansing of the sanctuary once in the year from the t)m+, My(#p, and tw)+x of the Israelites (cf. 16:16), but rejects the idea that this ritual would account for all the forms of pollution, physical and moral, not cared for during the year by the usual purification offerings instructed in cases of inadvertent sin (Lev 4) or of bodily uncleanness (Lev 12–15), partly on the basis of the (correct) observation that Milgrom’s theory of purification offerings as removing an evil attached exclusively to sancta and never to persons is unfounded (see above). He thus proposes instead what he designates as a “two-phase” system of cultic purification, which, in part, takes up a view of the t)+x in Leviticus previously advocated by N. Zohar.352 Purification offerings whose blood is brought into contact with either of the two altars (i.e., all instances except Lev 16) serve to remove physical uncleanness or a moral evil from the offerer (phase 1). Disposal of blood on the two altars involves, however, transfer of impurity to the sanctuary, since blood is a carrier of impurity; hence the need for a further purification, this time of the sanctuary, that occurs once a year in the ritual of Lev 16 (phase 2).353 In this way, Gane manages to uphold Milgrom’s insight as to the complementary function of Lev 4 and 16, yet with a qualitative distinction between the two rituals. Although his analysis is noteworthy in several respects, Gane’s own theory of pollution nevertheless raises several difficulties, and not all of his criticism of Milgrom is relevant. First, the division proposed is problematic in that it restricts the function of the ritual of ch. 16 to the purification of the sanctuary, whereas it is also said to effect atonement (rpk) for the people and the priests (see v. 24) by means of the transfer of their sins to the goat sent to Azazel (v. 20b–22), including in particular a category of evil, tnw( (see v. 21aa) that has not been previously cleansed from the sanctuary (compare v. 16a).354 The distinction between 351

GANE, Cult. See ZOHAR, Repentance. 353 GANE, Cult, esp. ch. 12, and already ch. 8. 354 On the twofold function of Lev 16 (purification of the sanctuary and of the community), see further below § 4.3.2.1. Gane accounts for the absence of the tnw( in 16:16a by resorting to Lev 10:17, stating that it is the task of the priests to “bear” ()#n ) the tnw( of the community by eating the flesh of the t)+x (ID., Cult, ch. 5 and further on p. 299–300). However, as argued above (§ 3.1.3.), Lev 10 is, from a diachronic perspective, a much later addition to Leviticus (see further below Chapter Six). Besides, even from a synchronic perspective, it is an issue whether tnw( in 10:17 has the same specific meaning as in 16:21a, as Gane assumes, or whether it is a general, comprehensive term for moral offenses, as is also the case in 16:22 for instance. Instead, Gane’s view presupposes that in 16:21a the other two categories of evil, My(#p and t)+x, have been somehow “acquired” by the high priest after they have been cleansed from the sanctuary in 16:14–19 (see 16:16a, and for this view SCHWARTZ , Bearing of Sin, 17), as the tnw( of 10:17 already (GANE, Cult, 258), a conception which is problematic. The omission of t)m+ in 16:21a implies that they have been entirely cleansed from the sanctuary after the ritual of v. 14–19 (a point with which Gane would agree), and it is easier to assume that the same is true for the My(#p and the t)+x mentioned 352

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

191

purification of the sanctuary in v. 14–19 and atonement of the community by the elimination of all moral offenses (cf. Mtnw(-lk-t), v. 22a) in v. 20bff. is explicitly made at the transition between the two, in. v. 20a: “When he (Aaron) has completed the purification of the innersanctum, of the tent of meeting, and of the altar…”. Thus, Gane’s view that the purification ritual involving Azazel’s goat is basically intended to further remove from the community the very sins that have already been removed from the sanctuary is problematic in this respect.355 Furthermore, if the t)+x of ch. 16 served to cleanse the sanctuary from the evil transferred during the year by application of blood upon the two altars, it is difficult to understand why it is necessary to cleanse the inner-sanctum from the t)m+ and the t)+x (in addition to My(#p, defiant, non-expiable sins accumulated during the year) and not simply the outer and inner altars. In this regard, Gane’s criticism of Milgrom’s theory of “dynamic” pollution is unsatisfactory and cannot account for the statement of Lev 16:16.356 Besides, if t)m+ and t)+x in 16:16 referred to the same evils already purified from the offerer in the other purification offerings outside Lev 16, as Gane implies, one would expect a different formulation. Syntactically, t)m+ and t)+x should directly follow, with the My(#p coming last since they are unexpiable sins. The present syntax appears to make better sense in Milgrom’s model. t)m+, that is, impurities that have not been accounted for previously, are mentioned first, which is logical since Lev 16 follows immediately ch. 11–15 and the concluding statement of 15:31; then come My(#p, which, as defiant, non-expiable sins, cannot be suppressed by means of a purification offering and are therefore a central aspect of the evil to be removed from the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement; and, lastly, all sorts of expiable sins that, for one reason or another, have not been previously removed and are therefore summarized in the phrase Mt)+x-lkl, “as well as all their sins”. Another issue has to do with Gane’s conception of blood as a carrier that becomes loaded with physical impurity or moral sin before being applied to one of the two altars.357 Such a conception, which forms the backbone of his pollution/purification system, is nowhere obvious in P, and Gane’s argument on this point is unconvincing. According to Lev 6:20, blood of the t)+x, like the flesh, sanctifies what it touches; because, in addition, 6:21 commands that a vessel in which the flesh of the t)+x has been cooked be destroyed (if it is clay), Gane reasons by analogy with Lev 11:31–33 that the flesh of the t)+x, though holy, is nevertheless unclean, and that so also must be its blood.358 But the context of Lev 11:31–33 is entirely different, and the text of 6:17–23 never says that the flesh and blood of the t)+x are unclean, in addition to being most holy (cf. v. 22, like the t)+x itself, v. 18).359 Contact with them leads to sanctification, not pollution (v. 20a) and there is no reason to assume that both are with the t)m+ in 16:16a rather than to postulate that they were further temporarily transferred to the high priest. Once it is perceived that the ritual of ch. 16 pursues a twofold aim (purification of the sanctuary and the community), the reason for the omission of t)m+ and its replacement by twn( becomes obvious: the second part of the ritual is focused on the atonement of the community’s moral offenses, as stated in v. 22a, because physical impurities within the community have already been systematically addressed previously, in ch. 11–15. On the meaning of Lev 10:17, see further below, Chapter Six, § 6.2.5., especially pages 599–600. 355 See GANE, Cult, esp. ch. 11. 356 See GANE, Cult, ch. 7. 357 See already ZOHAR, Repentance, and the response by MILGROM, Rejoinder. 358 GANE, Cult, 172(ff.). 359 Here, Gane actually depends for this view on Milgrom himself and his specific understanding of the “ambivalence” of the purification offering, see, e.g., Leviticus, 403–404. This is not to deny of course that blood in the Hebrew Bible can be an ambivalent symbol (life/death), as stressed by GANE, Cult, 174; see further on this esp. GILDERS, Blood Ritual.

192

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

involved here simultaneously; Gane himself notes the contradiction with other passages in Lev 1–16 (7:20–21 and 15:31) opposing uncleanness and sanctity. The reason why garments or vessels touched by the blood or the flesh of the t)+x must be washed or destroyed (6:20– 21) is not that they have become unclean, but reflects the necessity to avoid the propagation of holiness, i.e., to preserve the separation between profane and holy. A further problem for Gane’s conception of blood as carrier of impurity is raised by the passages where the blood of the t)+x does not serve for the removal of evil (physical or moral) from the offerer but only for the decontamination of sancta, as in Ex 29:36–37 or Lev 8:15. In such instances, therefore, blood can have the same function as in the Day of Atonement outside the specific ritual of Lev 16, thus showing once again that the separation between Lev 16 and other purification offerings in the year (or, in other words, between the two stages identified by Gane) is actually not absolute. Gane tries to manage this issue by maintaining a strict distinction between both usages of the t)+x (namely, for de-contaminating sancta and for removal of impurity/ moral evil=, yet this is difficult in the case of the t)+x of Lev 8:14–17, since, as recalled above, the latter serves simultaneously for the consecration of the altar (v. 15) and more generally, in the context of the ceremony of ch. 8, of Aaron and his sons (see v. 34b). On the whole, therefore, Gane’s model is unlikely, and Milgrom’s theory of a “graded” system of pollution/purification defined by Lev 4 and 16, with its corresponding conception of impurity as “miasma”, appears to account more adequately for the relevant data.

Since Lev 16, which does not yet know of the incense altar, is earlier than Lev 4 (above, § 3.2.2.1.), this comprehensive system of graded purification formed by ch. 4 and 16 is part of a later reinterpretation of ch. 16 at the time of the insertion of ch. 4, a trace of which can still be found in the formulation of Lev 16:16a. There is an obvious symmetry between this formulation and that of v. 21a, where Aaron confesses (hdy Hiphil) over the head of the goat for Azazel “all the crimes (tnw(-lk-t) ) of the Israelites and all their rebellions (-t)w Mhy(#p-lkl ), as well as all their sins (Mt)+x-lkl).” The only difference between the two statements is the reference to the community’s crimes, tnw(, in v. 21a which has replaced the mention of the impurities, t)m+, in v. 16aa. This variation is consistent with the ritual’s logic, since it emphasizes the distinct function of each of the two rites. While the first goat, offered as a t)+x on behalf of the people (v. 15ff.), serves for the cleansing of the sanctuary, the second goat, sent to Azazel in a remote place (v. 20b–22), effects atonement for all their offenses by removing them from the community. Nevertheless, the repetition in v. 16ab and in v. 21ab of the phrase -t)] w Mt)+x-lkl Mhy(#p[-lkl raises an issue insofar as it is difficult to see why tnw( , as a category of evil, are unmentioned in v. 16a as a source of pollution.360 However, as some authors have already observed, it is likely that the phrase Mt)+x-lkl Mhy(#p[-lkl-t)]w in v. 16ab and 21ab stems from a later revision,361 and that initially v. 16a only read t)m+ and v. 21a tnw(. In partic360

Unless one accepts the view that it is already accounted for by the statement found in Lev 10:17, which is unlikely; see the criticism of this conception above, page 190, note 354. 361 See in particular LÖHR , Ritual, 3–4; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 206; WRIGHT, Disposal, 18– 19; this solution is also considered by MILGROM, Leviticus, 1034.1044.

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

193

ular, this solution accounts for the fact that only tnw( are mentioned at the end of the ritual of 16:20b–22, in v. 22, whereas the other offenses are not resumed. Originally, therefore, the ritual of ch. 16 was limited, as regards the sanctuary, to the purification of all the sorts of ritual impurities contaminating it; this makes perfect sense after ch. 11–15 and the concluding warning of 15:31, itself echoed in Lev 16:16b (cf. Mt)m+ Kwtb, and see on this above, § 2.3.1.). After the insertion of ch. 4, the interpolation of the phrase -lkl Mhy(#pmw Mt)+x in v. 16 reinterprets the ceremony to transform it into a ritual for the removal of all the forms of polluting agents which could not be disposed of during the rest of the year, and thereby integrates it into the graded system of pollution and purification to which Lev 4 also belongs.362 But because the ritual of ch. 16 conserved its twofold function (purification of the sanctuary and of the community), it was necessary to introduce the reference to t)+x and My(#p in v. 21a as well, so that these categories of evil be removed not only from the sanctuary, but also from the community. This conclusion implies that the reworking of Lev 16:16, 21 probably goes back to the same author as the one who composed Lev 4, as D.P. Wright suggested.363 In sum, the Priestly author of ch. 4 combines for the first time the two originally distinct functions of the t)+x, purification of sancta and atonement from sin, to form a comprehensive system of pollution in Lev 1–16, accounting for all possible forms of transgressions from the social and moral order: impurities, inadvertent sins and deliberate sins, whose severity is represented by the degree to which they pollute the sanctuary. In this system, atonement from (inadvertent) sin necessarily implies, simultaneously, the purification of the sanctuary: the two aspects have become indissociable. In this respect, the translation of t)+x by “purification offering” in Lev 4 and, by extension, in the final form of Lev 1–16, is legitimate. The problem raised by the combination of two different rites associated with each type of t)+x was brilliantly resolved by the distinction, within the legislation of Lev 4, between two categories of inadvertent offenses (major and minor), involving in turn two distinct blood rites, one in which the victim’s blood is used to cleanse the sanctuary whereas its remains are systematically burnt outside the camp (v. 3–21), the other in which the victim’s blood only serves to cleanse the outer altar, while its remains need not be burnt outside and may presumably be eaten by the priests as is explicitly stated in Lev 6:19, 22. As was already suggested by some authors, this principle may have been derived from Lev 16; since the t)+x whose blood served to cleanse the sanctuary was not eaten but burnt (v. 362 Note further also that the use of the term My(#p is exceptional in P, possibly an indication that it is not original in Lev 16 but reflects a later reworking of the text; in the Pentateuch, see Gen 31:36; 50:17 (2x); Ex 22:8; 23:2; 34:7; Num 14:18, all non-P passages. 363 See ID., Disposal, 19–20. As to the notion that P, in Lev 16, would have adopted an older pre-P ritual, as argued by Wright and others, see the discussion below in § 4.3.1.

194

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

25), one could assume, by contrast, that the t)+x whose blood had not been brought into the sanctuary should legitimately be eaten by the priests.364 However, in Lev 4 combination of the two traditional forms of the t)+x into a single ritual does not serve only harmonizing purposes. As the pivot of a system of pollution encompassing all forms of transgression, both ritual and non-ritual, this text simultaneously represents the Priestly school’s major contribution to the criminal legislation in the Hebrew Bible and, beyond, to the issue of divine justice (theodicy), as emphasized by Milgrom and, more recently, by Gane (although from a somewhat distinct perspective)365. Lev 4 reinterprets the central statement of P, namely, God’s presence in the middle of his people (see Ex 25:8; 29:45; 40:34) from a juridical perspective. All the transgressions against the social and moral order instituted by Yahweh (see Lev 4:2) are systematically classified according to the degree to which they pollute the sanctuary, thereby threatening the divine presence in it.366 Conversely, the traditional division of the sanctuary into three main areas (inner-sanctum, outer-sanctum, temple court) is reflected in the division between three main types of sins (minor inadvertent sin, major inadvertent sin, and deliberate sin), all of which are acccounted for by the graded system of pollution and purification devised by Lev 4 and 16 together. This graded system underlines the profound, almost organic continuity between the community’s everyday life and the deity dwelling inside the inner-sanctum; as Milgrom has finely observed, in Lev 4 the sanctuary has become a mirror of the community’s moral state. As such, the distinction made between various kinds of offenses, in particular between inadvertent and deliberate crimes, conveys a specific teaching on the nature of the relationship between Yahweh and his community. Although the distinction between inadvertent and deliberate offenses is older,367 its systematic use in Lev 4 (and in Num 15:22–31) as well as the development of a specific terminology for error (hgg#) are unparalleled in the Hebrew Bible, as D. Daube already observed.368 The reason for this is closely related to P’s cosmology: P’s world is one of stability and harmony (cf. Gen 1), over which the creator God exercises an absolute control 364

This is shown by the link between the phrase #dqb rpkl Mmd-t) )bwh r#) in 16:27 and the rule of Lev 6:23 (ELLIGER, Leviticus, 86; JANOWSKI, Sühne, 238). In principle, one could also argue that this phrase was inserted in Lev 16:27 to justify the rationale formulated in 6:23, but this is more difficult. 365 MILGROM, Israel’s Sanctuary; GANE, Cult, Part 4. 366 Concerning the fear of divine abandonment in the HB, see of course Ez 8–11. It also forms the topic of several works in ANE literature, such as the so-called “Marduk’s Prophecy” or the Poem of Erra. On this topic, see, e.g., the study by BLOCK, Divine Abandonment. Regarding this topic in the HB, and especially in P,see also recently OLYAN, Rites, 16. 367 It is also found in other ancient codes, as in Mesopotamia for instance (see, e.g., CH §§ 206–207). In the biblical codes outside P it is used exclusively for the legislation on murder (Num 35:16ff. and Deut 19:4ff.). 368 See DAUBE, Error.

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

195

and in which there is no place for human transgressions (as stated in Num 15:30–31).369 In Lev 16, the use of the word (#p (‘breach’, ‘rebellion’) in v. 16a, 21a similarly recalls the importance of absolute loyalty to Yahweh; here, as suggested by Gane, Yahweh is implicitly represented as a king-god sitting inside his palace who, in order to administer justice, also continuously needs to uphold his absolute authority.370 And yet, performance of the ritual of Lev 16 by the high priest simultaneously implies that Yahweh will never leave his community, whatever the importance of individual transgressions (contrast Ez 8–11!), but will forever remain in its midst, at least as long as the ritual is correctly performed. The conception of divine justice laid out here – punishment of individuals when they rebel against Yahweh’s authority, but no collective sanction – appears to reflect the doctrine elaborated within priestly circles after the Babylonian exile (compare with Ez 18). In the context of P, more specifically, it is also consistent with the concept of the be6rît between God and Israel stated in Gen 17. Because circumcision is the concrete “sign” of this be6rît and must be kept by every man belonging to Abraham’s offspring (v. 9–13), any uncircumcised male will be “cut off” from his kin for breaking God’s covenant (v. 14). Nonetheless, because this tyrb is a Mlw( tyrb (v. 7– 8, 13, 19), individual transgression, though punished, does not put an end to it.371 With the insertion of Lev 4 in P, this view is no longer restricted to circumcision; rather, it is now applied to the entire realm of ethics (see 4:2). 3.2.2.4. Dating the Composition of Leviticus 4 Relative chronology indicates that the to=ra= of Lev 4 was composed at some point during the fifth century BCE, since it is later than the first edition of Lev 1–16 (see below, § 4.4.). Simultaneously, there is no hint in the text of Lev 4 itself that P has already been combined with non-P traditions to form a single document; note, similarly, that the legislation of Lev 4–5 appears to be presupposed in H (see Lev 19:20–22). The elaboration of this legislation very likely reflects the growing role played at this time by priestly circles in the administration of justice in Persian period Yehud, especially in Jerusalem. A 369

This is already shown by the so-called “execution formulas” in P (above, p. 56 n. 193). DAUBE, Error, esp. 211–212, wanted for his part to interpret the distinction between deliberate and inadvertent offenses in Lev 4 by the fact that the priestly legists lived in a world where illicit action was usually qualified by the ritual context rather than defined per se, thus leaving a considerable scope for accidents and errors. The idea is interesting and may illuminate the origin of this priestly tradition but it falls short in the case of Lev 4. The situation considered there concerns all of Yahweh’s commandments, not only cultic rules, and the mitigating circumstance is not that the person did not know the rule (the opposite is implied by Lev 4:2) but that he or she transgressed it by inadvertence and realized it only afterwards. 370 GANE, Cult, 300–302, as well as ch. 14. 371 See now the analysis by GROSS, Zukunft, 45–70, esp. 52ff., summarizing the earlier discussion; and further on this issue the discussion of Lev 26, below § 5.2.5.

196

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

more specific dating may be inferred, in addition, from the motif of the incense altar in Lev 4 and from the corresponding legislation of Ex 30:1–10 on which it depends. The introduction of this altar certainly betrays the growing popularity of incense cult in the postexilic period, as has traditionally been surmised,372 as well as the willingness of the priestly class to control this type of offering. The composition of the incense (tr+q) to be burnt twice a day on the golden altar according to Ex 30:7–8 is not specified in this passage, but it has usually been identified with the recipe for sacred perfume instructed later in Ex 30:34–38 (v. 34).373 This identification seems to be corroborated by the fact that the incense burnt on the inner altar in the context of the dymt-rite is consistently designated as “incense of sammîm” (Mymsh tr+q), namely, “incense of spices”.374 As noted by Haran, this is probably a reference to the recipe of Ex 30:34 consisting of pure frankincense (hkz hnbl) specifically, to which three different spices are added.375 Besides, the prohibition in Ex 30:9 against burning “profane incense” (hrz tr+q) on the incense altar also seems to presuppose the instruction of Ex 30:34–38, as well as the designation of this compound as “holy” (v. 38).376 In Jerusalem, frankincense was probably occasionally available on the market since the late Neo-Assyrian period.377 However, the daily rite instructed in Ex 30:7–8 appears to presume more specifically a historical context in which the ingredients described in v. 34 had somehow become permanently available to the priestly class. Such a situation is not attested in the Hebrew Bible before Nehemiah. Neh 13:5 and 9, in particular, refer to the storage of frankincense (le6bona=) inside the Second Temple. This appears to suggest that, at that time, the Temple of Jerusalem had become associated in a way or another with the trade of frankincense from Southern Arabia. That this development took place under Nehemiah’s governorship is indeed quite logical. It is unlikely that the Temple could play any significant role in international trade as an administrative center before the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls by 372

See for instance still recently ZWICKEL, Räucherkult, 301. See, e.g., BAENTSCH, Exodus, 260.264; ZWICKEL, Räucherkult, 301. 374 Cf. Ex 30:7 (without determinative), and further Ex 25:6; 31:11; 35:8, 15, 28; 39:38; 40:27; Lev 4:7; Num 4:16; 2 Chr 2:3; 13:11. In Lev 16:12: hqd Myms tr+q. 375 I.e., P+n “storax” (?), tlx# “nail” (onyx?), and hnblx “galbanum”; for a discussion of the identification of these terms, see the contribution of S. Rattray in MILGROM, Leviticus, 1026–1028. HARAN , Temples, 208, comments that the incense of sammîm “is so called because, in addition to frankincense, it has three other ingredients, which are the sammîm, spices (Ex 30:34–38) – something that is not usual in ordinary incense”. The identification of the Mymsh tr+q burnt on the inner altar with the sacred incense compound described in Exodus 30:34ff. is disputed by HEGER, Incense Cult, 99–100, because Ex 30:36 prescribes that some of this compound must be disposed inside the inner-sanctum, before the (e4du=t. However, I see no reason to view these two uses as mutually exclusive, as Heger appears to do. 376 See inter alia BAENTSCH, Exodus, 260. 377 See the discussion of incense trade below in this chapter, § 3.3.4. 373

3.2. The Composition of Leviticus 1–7: A Preliminary Survey

197

Nehemiah. Indeed, the neglect of Jerusalem’s temple before Nehemiah is explicitly documented in a few passages such as Neh 10:40.378 On the contrary, Nehemiah’s governorship appears to have corresponded to a period of economic development in all Yehud, and especially in Jerusalem, as is confirmed by the demographic evolution in the second half of the Persian period.379 In this respect, Nehemiah’s mission to Jerusalem appears to provide the likeliest historical context for the composition of both Ex 30 and Lev 4380 This conclusion fully agrees with the above observations on the distinctive terminology of Lev 4 (see § 3.2.2.2.), which evinces several expressions or motifs not attested in P but reflecting the influence of other postexilic writings. 3.2.2.5. Summary In short, it has been argued in this section (§ 3.2.2.) that a critical analysis of the legislation of Lev 4 from the perspective of its dependence on Ex 30 (§ 3.2.2.1.), of its distinctive terminology (§ 3.2.2.2.), and no less of its place in the history of the t)+x offering in Israel and Juda (§ 3.2.2.3.), demonstrates that it is a later insert in Lev 1–9. In particular, Lev 4 combines the two distinct functions traditionally assigned to the t)+x, atonement of sin and purification of a sanctum and, by extension, of a person, into a single, comprehensive ritual for the purification of the sanctuary from inadvertent sin. Together with Lev 16, this ritual forms a complex system of graded pollution covering all of the possible cases of physical and moral transgression in Lev 1–16, and evincing at the same time a sophisticated teaching on criminal law and divine justice. Because of the role played by the incense altar in Lev 4, this legislation should be dated to the middle of the fifth century BCE, at a time when P was still transmitted as a discrete document, but nevertheless shortly before its 378

On this point, see, e.g., BEDFORD, Models, 158, who emphasizes like many others that there are several indications in the biblical texts themselves that before Nehemiah’s office as governor in Jerusalem, “the temple was not of great significance to the Judaean population”, and that this development took place only in the context of the rebuilding of Jerusalem and of the attempt to reaffirm the status of the city as the administrative center of the whole district. Note in this context that the demographic record for Yehud in the late sixth century BCE confirms that the population of returnees at this time was quite limited; see on this now especially LIPSCHITS, Demographic Changes, who comments (p. 365): “The evidence shows that the ‘return to Zion’ did not leave its imprint on the archaeological data, nor is there any demographic testimony of it”. Though Nehemiah’s memoir is a highly ideological document, there is no reason to question the historical truth behind the account that the city’s walls had not been rebuilt and that the temple was consistently neglected. 379 See CARTER, Soundings; ID., Emergence, 172–246; and especially LIPSCHITS, Demographic Changes. 380 ZWICKEL, Räucherkult, 289–303, esp. 303, comes to a similar dating (late fifth/early fourth century), but seeks instead to connect the introduction of the incense altar with Ezra’s mission in Jerusalem, see Ezra 7:16, 18, 21, 24.

198

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

inclusion into the Pentateuch. Such dating also accounts, in particular, for the distinctive terminology of Lev 4 and the fact that it betrays, more than the rest of P, the influence of many other biblical traditions. This conclusion as to the late origin of Lev 4 has implications for the composition of Lev 5 and 6–7 as well since they clearly depend on the legislation of ch. 4. Lev 5:1–13 is a supplement to the to=ra= of ch. 4. From a traditiohistorical perspective the M#) offering cannot be dissociated from the t)+x, and Lev 5:14–26 builds a comprehensive system with 4:1–5:13, as will be seen below. Ch. 6–7 form a distinct collection which, at least in its present form, presupposes all of Lev 1–5, as is commonly acknowledged. Hence not only Lev 4, but all of ch. 4–7 are later supplements in P, and this means that the to=ra= on sacrifices was initially restricted to Lev 1–3, as we shall see now. The issue of the composition of Lev 5 and 6–7 respectively will be addressed later in this chapter (below, §§ 3.5. and 3.6.).

3.3. The First tôrâ on Sacred Offerings: Leviticus 1–3 3.3.1. Leviticus 1 and 3 As noted in the previous section (§ 3.2.1.), some divergences between the formulation of Ex 29 and Lev 8–9 on the one hand and the to=ra= of Lev 1–3 on the other, especially as regards the reference to sacrifices, indicate that the author of Ex 29; Lev 8–9 edited an older document. This assumption is quite ancient, and was already classical in the 19th century. It is sustained, in particular, by a close study of the formulation of this to=ra=. Especially in Lev 1 and 3, several features suggest that P’s narrative framework is secondary. As scholars have observed,381 originally these two chapters were probably more closely connected. As in 1:3–9, 10–13, 14–17, the instructions found in 3:1–5, 6–11, 12–16 (17) depend on the main case stated in 1:2, whereas Lev 2:1 introduces a new case: “and when a person (#pn ) brings an offering of cereal…”. Furthermore, except for Lev 1:2 and 3:17 (which is traditionally regarded as a later addition, probably inspired by H),382 ch. 1 and 3 systemati381 DILLMANN, Leviticus, 374; BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 308; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, XII and p. 7; HEINISCH , Leviticus, 15.26; further KOCH, Priesterschrift, 52; NOTH, Leviticus, 26; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 48; IBANEZ ARANA, El Levitico, 5–6; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 4; MILGROM, Leviticus, 203–204 (observing: “ch. 1 and 3 form a single literary unit”); DAHM, Opferkult, 205; DEIANA, Levitico, 45. See also RENDTORFF, Studien, 9, although he is more reserved. 382 For the secondary character of 3:17, see already for example BAENTSCH , Leviticus, 320, who notes not only the change in address but also the parallel with the later instructions found in Lev 7:23–25 and 26–27; similarly ELLIGER , Leviticus, 49. For the proximity between Lev 3:17 and H, see especially KNOHL, Sanctuary, 49–51; and MILGROM, Leviticus, 216. In particular, the phrase Mkytrdl Mlw( tqx occurs otherwise in Ex 27:21; Lev 7:36;

3.3. The First tôrâ on Sacred Offerings: Leviticus 1–3

199

cally use an impersonal formulation (3ps), contrary to ch. 2 which combines it with a direct address, either in the singular or in the plural. These observations already indicate the possibility that the present arrangement of the text of Lev 1–3 is not original, and that ch. 1 and 3 formed once a single case. There are also indications that references to the setting at Mt Sinai in ch. 1–3 betray a secondary development. Thus, the mention of the tent of meeting is not consistent throughout Lev 1 and 3 (on Lev 2, see below); it is found in 1:3–9 (v. 3, 5); 3:1–5 (v. 2), 6–11 (v. 8) and 12–16 (v. 13), but not in 1:10–13 and 14–17. Besides, in Lev 3, the slaughter of the animal must take place “before the tent of meeting” (cf. v. 2, 8, 13), whereas in Lev 1 it is merely said that it must be done “before Yahweh”.383 The text of ch. 1 and 3 mentions several times “the sons of Aaron, the priests”;384 but the main priest officiating at the altar is simply designated as “the priest”, Nhkh.385 In the context of the Priestly narrative, this main officiant should be Aaron (as for instance in Lev 9), but this is not explicitly stated by the text. In addition, the main priest is always specifically in charge of the burning of the portions of the animal on 10:9; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 41; 24:3, all passages belonging to H or dependent upon the Holiness Code. The mention of blx lk in the previous verse (v. 16b) is also generally regarded as having been interpolated into the phrase hwhyl xxyn xyr, which typically concludes the instructions for the various types of sacrifices: BAENTSCH, Ibid., 320. (Note that here and in Num 18:17, the MT reads xyrl instead of the usual xyr; this reading must be retained as lectio difficilior.) MILGROM (Leviticus, 214.216) suggests that all of v. 16bb was interpolated by H, but this seems less likely because elsewhere xxyn xyrl is always followed by hwhyl; nevertheless, since both the LXX and the SamP have an additional hwhyl after x (w)xyn xyrl, it is also possible that the addition includes indeed all of v. 16bb, and that the initial hwhyl following xyrl xxyn was omitted in a part of the textual tradition in order to avoid repetition. However, it should also be noted that the phrase “all suet is Yahweh’s” in 3:16bb offers a fitting conclusion to the whole legislation of Lev 3, considering that it states the rationale dictating the division of the portions of the well-being offering into two shares (the deity’s and the offerer’s). Hence, a case could be made that this statement is indeed original in Lev 3. As recalled by ELLIGER, 50, the formula of v. 17a (“a permanent decree for all your generations [in all your settlements]”) elsewhere typically concludes a section (see Lev 7:36; 10:9; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 31; 24:3, the only exception being in 23:41 which, besides, probably belongs to an interpolation, see the analysis of Lev 23 below, § 5.2.4.1.), so that the introduction of the phrase “all the suet is Yahweh’s” in v. 16b need not be connected with the interpolation of v. 17. This is also the conclusion reached by Elliger who, after a lengthy discussion (Ibid., 49–51), eventually assigns v. 16bb and 17 to two distinct layers in the text of Lev 3. Against him, however, I see no reason for considering that v. 16bb was necessarily added by the P writer in Lev 1–3 and could not have been found in his source already. 383 As observed in particular by NOTH, Leviticus, 30. 384 Mynhkh Nrh) ynb, cf. Lev 1:5, (7), 8, 11; 3:2, 5, 8, 13. In 3:5, 8, 13, the MT reads simply Nrh) ynb, whereas the LXX systematically adds oi9 i9erei=j = Mynhkh; the SamP also adds Mynhkh in 3:13, but not in 3:5 and 8. In 1:7, the MT reads Nhkh Nrh) ynb, whereas the versions have the plural; on this point, see further below in this section. 385 Lev 1:9, 12, 13, 15, 17; 3:11, 16.

200

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

the altar (cf. 1:9, 13, 17; 3:11, 16), except in 3:5 (offering a Myml#-xbz from the herd) where it is entrusted to Aaron’s sons without any apparent reason for this innovation. Although this remains necessarily a hypothesis, such observations are best explained by the traditional view according to which references to the Sinai setting in Lev 1 and 3 are not original but reflect a later editorial reworking of the text when it was inserted in P. Once the mentions of the tent and of Aaron’s sons are bracketed, the remainder of Lev 1:3ff. and 3:1ff. may be read as an initially discrete document without any difficulty (on 1:2, see below). The interpolation of Lev 2 between ch. 1 and 3 probably also goes back to the hand of P, as is suggested by the parallel with the sequence found in 9:16–21. Possibly, the present position of Lev 2 may reflect the fact that in P the hl( offered in public ceremonies is systematically accompanied by an auxiliary hxnm , as has often been suggested.386 More fundamentally, however, the sequence present in Lev 1–3 should reflect the respective importance of these three main types of offerings from the viewpoint of the Priestly writer. Namely, the burnt offering comes first because it is entirely offered to Yahweh (except for the skin). The cereal offering is not entirely offered to Yahweh, but sacrificial remains belong to the priests; lay offerers have no share in it. In the case of the well-being offering, finally, the sacrificial meat is divided between Yahweh and the offerer. However, if this conclusion is accepted a further question arises as to the reconstruction of the original form of Lev 1 and 3. Earlier critics initially assumed that only the reference to Aaron’s sons and to the entrance of the tent of meeting had been interpolated.387 This means that the difference between plural and singular in the designation of the officiants (i.e., Mynhkh versus Nhkh) was already found in the original text and should correspond to the difference between the role of the chief priest leading the ritual and that of other cultic servants.388 Later authors, especially Rendtorff, Koch, Noth and Elliger, advocated a somewhat different conception. For Noth and Elliger, the reference to several priests corresponds to the introduction of Aaron’s sons. Therefore, it belongs to the revision added by the P writer to his source; originally, P’s Vorlage would only have read Nhkh, in the singular.389 Rendtorff, partly 386

E.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 314. For his part, RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 84, suggests that placing the cereal offering after Lev 1:14–17 serves to parallel the legislation of 5:7–13, in which a person who cannot afford a burnt offering of two birds (5:7–10) may simply bring a tenth of an ephah (5:11–13). Yet the parallel is not quite accurate; although it is true that later Judaism has preserved the tradition that the hxnm was the offering of the poor, the case of the cereal offering in Lev 2 is distinct from that of 5:11–13, since, for the raw cereal offering, it requires the addition of more expensive products, such as oil and frankincense (v. 2, 15). 387 See, e.g., DILLMANNN, Leviticus, 373ff.; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 1. 388 E.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 311–312, on Lev 1:5: “Die Priester, d.h. die assistirenden Pr. (von dem eigentlichen fungirenden Priester v. 9 zu scheiden […]”). 389 NOTH, Leviticus, 20.22.23.30; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 28ff.49; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 16.

3.3. The First tôrâ on Sacred Offerings: Leviticus 1–3

201

followed by Koch, went further, suggesting that not only the reference to Aaron’s sons and the plural form had been inserted but even the whole phrase Mynhkh Nrh) ynb. In this reconstruction, the impersonal singular formulation would refer, according to Rendtorff, to the lay offerer, the subject of 1:2 and of the various subcases identified in Lev 1:3ff. and 3:1ff.; only the first mention of Nhkh (sing.) in 1:9 would mark a change in subject. This leads him to identifying behind Lev 1 and 3 a ritual Gattung in which the lay offerer was originally responsible for all the ritual acts except the burning of the animal upon the altar, which was the priest’s exclusive prerogative.390 However, this latter proposal raises numerous difficulties.391 It is unlikely that such technical acts as the presentation of blood and its smearing against the faces of the altar (1:5, 11, 15; 3:2, 8, 13) were reserved for the lay offerer.392 The same is true for the placing of the portions upon the fire of the altar. This point raises a particularly interesting issue: since it is assigned to “the priests, the sons of Aaron” in Lev 1:8 but to “the priest”, Nhkh, in 1:12, this casts doubt upon the relevance of this distinction as a form- or source- critical criterion. Lastly, all of Rendtorff’s reconstruction actually presupposes the form-critical assumption that the Gattung behind Lev 1–7 consists of a priestly instruction for lay members of the community, so that the presence of instructions for the priests should automatically be regarded, in this model, as the sign of a later development. Once it is clear, however, that the whole hypothesis of a lay instruction is unsupported and should be abandoned (below, § 3.3.3.), the whole reconstruction becomes problematic. The division of functions between priests and lay offerer should therefore be original.393 Besides, it is easy to see that it follows an obvious rationale, namely: all the rites having to do with the altar are systematically entrusted to the priests. The case raised by Noth and Elliger is harder to decide. Admittedly, the reconstruction of an older Vorlage containing only the distinction between the cultic officiant (Nhkh) and the lay offerer allows a simplification of the ritual procedure, especially because the distinction between the function and identity of “the priests” as a collective and “the priest” as an individual figure is not entirely clear in Lev 1 and 3. The analysis of Noth and Elliger also lays much weight on the MT in 1:7,394 which has preserved the reading Nhkh Nrh) ynb 390

RENDTORFF, Gesetze, 5ff. Very similarly KOCH, Priesterschrift, 45ff. See also the detailed criticism by ELLIGER, Leviticus, 30–31. 392 RENDTORFF, Gesetze, 8–9. KOCH, Priesterschrift, 47, also hesitates as regards the attribution of this rite to the offerer and places “Aaron/der Priester” into brackets (with a reference to Rendtorff). There is no indication before the exile that this rite was ever performed by the offerer, as Rendtorff acknowledges, except once in the case of a king (2 Kgs 16:13). Yet the endorsement of priestly functions by a king is a common device in antiquity. 393 Thus already ELLIGER, Leviticus, 31. 394 The SamP, the LXX, and 4QLevb have the plural here, but are generally regarded as the result of a facilitating reading. 391

202

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

instead of Mynhkh, as is found elsewhere in Lev 1 and 3. They both take it to be a trace of the original formulation of Lev 1, which escaped, in this single case, the reformulation from singular to plural.395 However, the reason why this passage alone would have been overlooked by P remains obscure, and one has no other solution than assuming a scribal mistake.396 But if this were the case, one wonders why it was not corrected by later copyists from the Priestly school (who, according to Noth and Elliger, did not hesitate to intervene massively elsewhere in the text of Leviticus), as the scribes of the SamP and of the LXX version of Leviticus (or their Hebrew Vorlage)397 already did. Apparently, for the editors of M* (i.e., the Hebrew textual tradition which was later adopted by the Masoretes), the reading Nhkh in 1:7 made sense in itself. Recently, Rendtorff has proposed that this reading was motivated by the instruction of Lev 6:2–6, where caring for the fire of the altar is the responsibility of “the priest”, Nhkh.398 However ingenious, this suggestion is not very convincing because a significant tension remains between 1:7, where putting fire and wood upon the altar is a collective responsibility (at least in the present state of the text), and 6:1–6, where it is on the contrary an individual task. Rather, it seems to me that the unique formulation of Lev 1:7 in the MT should be viewed as a skillful means of identifying the (originally anonymous) priest of 1:9 as being Aaron himself, so as to imply the following equation: Mynhkh = Aaron’s sons; Nhkh = Aaron; deliberately, this has been done in the context of the first reference to this priest.399 Such identification suits the context of P’s account, in which it is obvious that Aaron officiates as chief priest (cf. Lev 9; further, Lev 16). At the same time, the replacement of Nhkh in 1:9 by Aaron could mean that the role of chief officiant in the ritual of Lev 1 had to be taken exclusively by the high priest, which was not necessarily the intent of the original legislation. If this is correct, the reading Nhkh in 1:7 is a literary device by the Priestly writer who edited Lev 1–3 rather than a mere scribal mistake; therefore, the plural Mynhkh in Lev 1 and 3 cannot longer be taken as indicating later revision of the original text. This suggestion may even be taken a step further, if one considers the possibility recently advocated by Rendtorff in his commentary that all of v. 7 should in fact be attributed to P and was not part of the latter’s Vorlage. Resuming a suggestion made by A. Dillmann,400 Rend395

NOTH, Leviticus, 23; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 28. Similarly HARTLEY, Leviticus, 16. Thus, e.g., ELLIGER, Leviticus, 28: “In 7 unterblieb die Umwandlung aus Versehen”. 397 Cf. the reading of 4QLevb, which also has the plural. 398 RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 57. 399 Several instances of this editorial technique are attested in the Hebrew Bible or the versions. For instance, the LXX always renders the Hebrew term trpk by i9lasth/rion, except, specifically, in the very first occurrence of this term, in Ex 25:17, where it translates it by i9lasth/rion e0pi/qema (where e) p i/ q ema [‘lid, cover’] is the noun and i9lasth/rion an attributive adjective: cf. KOCH, Some Considerations, 67); this unique reading is clearly exegetical. 400 DILLMANN, Leviticus, 394. 396

3.3. The First tôrâ on Sacred Offerings: Leviticus 1–3

203

torff notes that the fact that the instruction for the kindling of fire upon the altar is found exclusively in the first section of Lev 1 (v. 3–9) appears to reflect the situation of the Priestly narrative, in which no fire has yet been put upon the altar (if one excepts the late notice in Ex 40:29):401 “Nach dem jetzigen Zusammenhang der Sinaiperikope ist jedoch das Feuer noch nicht entzündet worden, so daß es der ausdrücklichen Erwähnung bedarf”.402 Rendtorff also notes that elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (see 1 Kgs 18:33), the placing of wood upon the altar usually precedes the division of the animal into pieces, a sequence which seems indeed more logical, and that the repeated mention of Aaron’s sons in v. 7 and 8 is somewhat superfluous. Elsewhere in Lev 1–3, the cultic officiants are only mentioned when there is a change in the subject of the instruction; this slight discrepancy may be easily explained if, originally, v. 8 followed v. 6.403 If Rendtorff is correct, and if v. 7 as a whole – including Nhkh Nrh) ynb – should be assigned to P and not to its Vorlage, the suggestion made above that the singular Nhkh in this verse was introduced by P when editing Lev 1–3 finds a further confirmation.

Apart from Lev 1:7, another observation against the reconstruction of a ritual in ch. 1 and 3 which only knew of a division between priest and offerer concerns the material execution of some of the ritual acts. In particular, it is doubtful that the disposal of the quarters of the male bovine (cf. 1:3) presented as a burnt offering on the altar could be the responsibility of a single priest, given the weight of these portions; thus, in Lev 1:8 the plural has every reason to be regarded as original.404 In this respect, it is significant to note that in 1:12 the disposal of the portions of the burnt offering of small cattle is attributed to the priest alone. Rather than assuming that Lev 1:12 has preserved a more original form of the ritual for an unknown reason, as Noth and Elliger do, the tension between the plural of v. 8 and the singular of v. 12 is actually explained by the nature of the animal offered in these two passages. Namely, contrary to the case of the burnt offering of large cattle, placing the parts of a male from the flock (sheep or goat, see Lev 1:10) could be done by a single person. Hence, there is no ground for assuming that, within Lev 1–3, the reference to priests, as a collective, should betray a later revision of the texts. The overall assumption of Noth and Elliger that the plural form was systematically fostered by the introduction of Aaron’s sons in the original ritual, although tempting at first sight, is too mechanical. It does justice neither to the formulation 401 MILGROM, Leviticus, 157, disputes this assumption and argues from the parallel passages Lev 10:1 and Num 16:7; 17:11, that the expression Ntn + #) does not refer to the kindling of a fire on the altar but to fire transferred from the altar. However, this argument is rather inconclusive; the case addressed in Lev 10 and Num 16–17 is completely different, since it concerns the putting of fire taken from the altar on censers. 402 Leviticus, 55. 403 RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 56. 404 See also MILGROM , Leviticus, 159: “The verb is in the plural because the weight of some of the bull’s parts requires that they be carried by more than one priest”. Note that in Lev 9:13, Aaron is also assisted by his sons, who give him the parts of the burnt offering before he burns them upon the altar, which further corroborates the notion that the original text of Lev 1 and 3 considered the presence of several priestly assistants to the chief officiant.

204

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

of Lev 1 and 3 nor to the complexity of the ritual procedure considered in those texts. If the interplay between plural and singular in the reference to the cultic officiants is original, it should probably be understood as a distinction between a chief officiant (Nhkh) and assisting priests (Mynhkh), as older critics had initially surmised.405 Once the identification of the number and role of the cultic officiants in the original form of the rituals of Lev 1 and 3 has been settled, the reconstruction of these rituals raises no other significant issue. Apart from the various references to Aaron’s sons and to the tent of meeting, all of Lev 1:3–9 (except possibly v. 7, see above), 10–13; 3:1–5, 6–11, 13–16 should be attributed to P’s Vorlage. The instruction for the burnt offering of bird in 1:14–17 is probably a later addition;406 indeed, this case is not provided for by the formulation of 1:2, which mentions only the offering of cattle, hmhb.407 Whether this sup405

See also here KNIERIM, Text, 87, though his assumption that the distinction between the main priest and auxiliaries should reflect a post-Deuteronomic development (in which the auxiliary priests would correspond to the levitical priests) is unsustained in my view. Admittedly, there remains one further problem concerning the instruction for the offering of a Myml#-xbz of large cattle in Lev 3:1–5; in this passage, and contrary to the prescriptions for the offering of small cattle in 3:6–11 and 12–16, there is no longer any mention of “the priest”, in the singular, but only of Aaron’s sons, who thus assume all the functions otherwise assigned to the individual priest in Lev 1 and 3:6ff., in particular the burning of the portions of the animal on the altar in v. 5 (see, e.g., RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 131). Traditionally, it has been proposed that P replaced the reference to Nhkh in 3:1–5 by the mention of Aaron’s sons (see, e.g., E LLIGER , Leviticus, 49; similarly HARTLEY , Leviticus, 37). Alternatively, GERSTENBERGER Leviticus, 44–45, surmises that the section comprising Lev 3:1–5 has no traditional basis but is entirely a creation by P, hence the absence of Nhkh, which I find excessively speculative. More likely, in my opinion, the reading of 3:5 should be correlated with the instruction in this verse that the Myml#-xbz be placed on top of the hl( already burning upon the altar. The reference to the (whole) burnt offering is commonly viewed as a later interpolation (see, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 319; ELLIGER , 49, etc.), and that is probably correct. Furthermore, the hl( mentioned in 3:5 can be the permanent hl( to be offered every morning according to Lev 6:2–6 (for this view, see HOFFMANN, Leviticus, 1. 73; RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 131–132), or, more simply, the burnt offering of Lev 1 (HARTLEY , Leviticus, 40). However, these two questions are not decisive. In any event, what seems clear is that the present formulation of 3:5 considers the offering of the hl( and of the Myml#-xbz as two consecutive actions. From that perspective, the omission of the reference to the priest and the mention of Aaron’s sons instead may imply that while the main priest is entrusted with the burning of the burnt offering on the altar, in conformity with Lev 1 (v. 8, 12), the auxiliary priests are responsible for burning the accompanying Myml#-xbz. If so, the reading “sons of Aaron” in Lev 3:5 MT may be contemporary with the introduction in this verse, at some stage, of the reference to the burnt offering. 406 See, e.g., BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 6; E LLIGER, Leviticus, 29.33; MILGROM, Leviticus, 166. For the opposite view, see BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 313; KOCH, Priesterschrift, 49. 407 Moreover, as noted by ELLIGER, Leviticus, 29, the formulation of v. 14a suggests that the author of v. 14–17 imitated the formulation of v. 3aa , but misunderstood wnbrq hl(, taking it as an apposition; this is a further indication of a later hand.

3.3. The First tôrâ on Sacred Offerings: Leviticus 1–3

205

plement is from the Priestly writer who incorporated Lev 1 and 3 into the Sinai narrative or from a later scribe408 may not be decided.409 The original document used by P in Lev 1 and 3 is consistently formulated as a case law. The main case is stated in 1:2; the present wording of this verse is obviously overloaded, which is accounted for by the fact that it was edited when Lev 1; 3* was integrated into P. The formulations in the second person plural in v. 2ab, b manifestly depend on the order given by Yahweh to Moses in 2aa , “Speak to the Israelites, and you shall say to them”, and belong therefore to the same layer as v. 1.410 Once plural addresses are left aside, the remainder of v. 2 is quite coherent: “When a person presents an offering to Yahweh (hwhyl Nbrq),411 from his livestock (hmhbh-Nb ), from the herd or from the flock”.412 This statement formulates the general case of the law: when a Nbrq is presented, it should consist of cattle, either large or small. Two further subcases are then addressed: the Nbrq may be a burnt offering (hl() or a well-being offering (Myml#-xbz).413 Since each of these two types of offerings may consist of an animal taken from the herd or from the flock, four further subcases are then identified, in 1:3–9 (burnt offering from the herd), 1:10–13 (burnt offering from the flock), 3:1–5 (well-being offering 408

Thus ELLIGER, Leviticus, 29.33. At any rate, the instruction of 1:14–17 appears to be presupposed by 5:7–10, at least if we accept with the majority of commentators +p#mk in v. 10 to be a reference to Lev 1. It has often been surmised that the reference to “the head and the suet” in 1:8 and 12 was a later addition (KOCH, Priesterschrift, 47 [tacitly]; NOTH , Leviticus, 23; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 31). The MT of v. 8 is syntactically difficult (compare the SamP, the LXX and other versions, which read #)rh-t)w, contrary to the MT ), and the position of the two terms #)r and rdp is different in the description of v. 8 and 12. It could be a harmonization by P with the description found in Lev 8:20 and (partly) in Ex 29:17 and Lev 9:13, but this remains speculative. Rendtorff and Koch have also conjectured that the instruction for washing the entrails and the legs in 1:9a and 13a was secondary, because it is phrased as a yiqt[ol instead of the usual we6qa4t[al formulation characteristic of the so-called “ritual style” (RENDTORFF, Gesetze, 10; and KOCH, Ibid., 47 n. 9). However, besides the problems raised by this criterion, the washing of the dirtiest portions of the animal is only logical, and the stylistic change should not be interpreted in a form- or literary-critical sense therefore. More likely, it probably serves to emphasize the specific position of the ritual washing, which is the penultimate act of the ritual. Thus M. Paran, quoted by MILGROM, Leviticus, 160; however, Paran and Milgrom regard it as the tenth and last discrete ritual act, which cannot be correct. The last ritual act necessarily consists of burning the animal upon the altar. 410 See also for this in particular ELLIGER, Leviticus, 28. 411 Literally, “that which is brought near” (to be offered to Yahweh); the noun is a nominal derivative of brq, and is exclusively found in the priestly literature (40 times in Leviticus, 38 times in Numbers) and in Ezekiel (Ez 20:28; 40:43; note however that two occurrences of Nbrq, but with a different vocalization, are also found in Neh 10:35; 13:31). The LXX consistently renders it by dw~ron, ‘gift’; see DANIEL, Recherches, 119–130. 412 Namely: N)ch-Nmw rqbh-Nm hmhbh-Nm hwhyl Nbrq byrqy-yk Md). 413 On rendering Myml#-xbz as “well-being offering”, see below § 3.3.4., pages 223–225. 409

206

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

from the herd), and 3:6–16 (well-being offering from the flock).414 Because the ritual for offering a Myml#-xbz of small cattle will differ in the case of a sheep (v. 7–11) and of a goat (v. 12–16), this last subcase is itself further divided into two cases, both of which are subsumed under the general prescription of v. 6. Each subcase is typically introduced by the particle )im, a characteristic feature of the genre of case law.415 Once the form-critical assumption that a Gattung of oral instruction underlies the text of Lev 1ff. is abandoned, the formulation of Lev 1*; 3* in the genre of the case-law should necessarily be considered original (pace Rendtorff and Koch); the idea that a still earlier form of those chapters could be retrieved is simply unfounded.416 3.3.2. Leviticus 2 The case of the to=ra= for the cereal offering in Lev 2 is more complex. As already stated, the identification of a new case in 2:1a interrupts the original continuity between Lev 1 and 3, and suggests that the present place of ch. 2 is not original but more likely corresponds to P’s classification of sacrifices. On the whole, ch. 2 does not reveal the same stylistic homogeneity as ch. 1 and 3, and there is no agreement as to the original form of this chapter. The main issue concerns the stylistic changes between the formulation of verses 1–3 (3ps, as in Lev 1 and 3), 4–10 (2ps, but see v. 8ba), 11–12 (2ppl), 13–16 414

This order clearly reflects the greater economic importance of bovines over sheep; the same situation applies for instance in the Punic tariffs, and is also found in some comments by ancient authors, such as Pline, see the references given by DILLMANN, Leviticus, 390. Similarly, the placement of the burnt offering before the well-being offering corresponds to the economic and religious importance of the former, since the victim is entirely consecrated to the deity and not shared with the offerer as is the case with the well-being offering. 415 See in particular LIEDKE, Rechtssätze, 31–34. 416 See already the criticism by ELLIGER, Leviticus, 30–31, and more recently KNIERIM, Text, esp. 91–97. Elliger further submits that the term Nbrq was created by the P redactor (Po1) who composed the legislation of Lev 1–5 on the basis of various sources (according to him, Lev 1*; 2*; 3*; 4*). Hence, he postulates that in v. 2, the general term Nbrq has replaced hl( when Lev 3* was combined with the instruction on the Myml#-xbz in Lev 3* (ID., Leviticus, 27–28; see also NOTH, Leviticus, 21), and that the term was also interpolated by Po1 in the remainder of ch. 1 and 3 (ELLIGER, Ibid., 28.49). However, the whole reconstruction is quite speculative; Elliger’s syntactical arguments on p. 27 and passim are inconclusive. For instance, the fact that in Lev 3:14aa the term Nbrq is applied more specifically to the suet portions of the well-being offering burnt on the altar proves nothing because the term specifically designates what is offered to Yahweh – in the case of the well-being offering, the suet pieces –, so that one does not need to see a contradiction with the use of Nbrq in the remainder of the chapter. Besides, even if this observation should suggest that Nbrq in 3:14aa is an interpolation, it can certainly not be inferred that all occurrences of this term in Lev 1 and 3 are redactional, since one would expect a greater homogeneity in the term’s use. Pace Elliger, this conclusion implies that Lev 1 and 3 were initially composed together, as four subcases of the general case identified in 1:2, and therefore never comprised discrete cases.

3.3. The First tôrâ on Sacred Offerings: Leviticus 1–3

207

(2ps). These correspond only partly to changes in theme; v. 13, the instruction on the addition of salt to every cereal offering, is more closely connected with v. 11–12 (interdiction of leaven and honey) than with v. 14–16 (the offering of a hxnm of firstfruits). Earlier critics generally assumed that the whole chapter was a compilation of originally distinct instructions.417 Alternatively, a few authors suggested that the stylistic changes reflected a process of gradual supplementation, with only v. 1–3 as the original instruction.418 Attempts to isolate various traditions in Lev 2 became increasingly popular in the course of the 20th century under the influence of the form-critical method. Initially, Rendtorff recognized two originally distinct genres of instructions behind Lev 2: one in the so-called “formulaic” style (formularhafter Stil) in v. 1–2, 8–9 and 15, and one in the so-called “to=ra=” style (Torastil, cf. J. Begrich)419 in v. 4–6 and 11–13, which are characterized by direct address.420 However, for Rendtorff the instructions in the formulaic style reflect a later harmonization with the formulation of the animal offerings in Lev 1ff. Basically the same distinction is resumed by Koch, although he assumes against Rendtorff that the instructions in the formulaic style are original.421 Koch also considers that only in v. 11–12 is an original instruction in the “to=ra=” style to be found, whereas the alleged “pedantic” (sic) style of v. 4–6 would be uncharacteristic of the genre and betrays a later composition.422 Noth, too, assumes a similar distinction;423 although he remains rather vague regarding the reconstruction of the original form of ch. 2, he believes the passages closer to the style of Lev 1 and 3 (v. 1–3 and 8–10) to constitute the oldest layer in this chapter, which was later supplemented by an instruction characteristic of the Gattung of the priestly to=ra= in v. 4ff. V. 11–16 are still later interpolations of various origins.424 Elliger surmises that the primitive version of ch. 2 systematically used the 3ps; this version comprised 2:1–2*, 4*, and 8–9*.425 More recently, Rendtorff came to a similar view in his commentary.426 Reading brqt in v. 4 as a 3ps feminine, he therefore includes 2:4 among 2:1–3 and regards v. 5–6, 7, formulated in the 2ps, as a later supplement to v. 4. Originally, in this model, 2:1–3, 4 were followed by v. 8–10; the last section, v. 14–16, is similarly formulated as 2:1–3, whereas the intervening section, v. 11–13, is not so closely connected with the remainder of the chapter and could be a later interpolation.427 Finally, a still different solution is proposed by Gerstenberger, who identifies the original form of ch. 2 in the 2ps instruction of v. 4–8 and 13–15; the passage to 3ps in v. 1–3

417

Thus, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 314. BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 7, assumes that initially the whole instruction was composed in the 2ps; the correction of v. 1–3 to the 3ps would reflect a later harmonization with the style of ch. 1 and 3. 418 See CARPENTER, Hexateuch, 2. 145; CORNILL, Einleitung, 55. 419 See BEGRICH, Priesterliche Tora, 63ff. 420 RENDTORFF, Gesetze, 19–20. 421 KOCH, Priesterschrift, 49–50. Compare also for instance HARTLEY, Leviticus, 28, who seems to consider that the “basic regulation” for the cereal offering is to be found in v. 1–2 (4) and 8–9. 422 ID., Priesterschrift, 51. 423 NOTH, Leviticus, 26ff. 424 ID., Leviticus, 28: “secondary material”. 425 ELLIGER, Leviticus, 39ff. 426 RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 82–84. 427 See RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 84.

208

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

would reflect the resumption of the original instruction by P and harmonization with the style of Lev 1 and 3,428 a solution which actually returns to Rendtorff’s initial proposal.

Nevertheless, all these attempts to reconstruct an earlier form of ch. 2 on the basis of stylistic changes are problematic and should be rejected. The recurring notion that the grouping of the legislation on raw and baked cereal offerings in v. 1–3 and 4–10 cannot be original overemphasizes their literary differences and raises more difficulties than it solves. The existence of two types of cereal offerings, raw and baked, is already attested as an old custom in pre-exilic times (Am 4:4–5; see also Hos 3:1),429 and it would be strange if the original document contained an instruction for one type and not for the other.430 The close interconnection between v. 1–3 and 4–10 is also obvious in their formulation. In v. 4–10, after the enumeration of the three types of baked cereal offering (v. 4–7), the instruction for the sacrifice itself in v. 8–10 is closely parallel to v. 2–3. Moreover, the meaning of the term hrkz), referring to a portion of the whole cereal offering (namely a handful of fine flour, 431 tls, with oil, to which incense is added), is no longer given in v. 9, obvi428

GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 37. Amos 4:4bb mentions the offering of the tithe (of firstfruits) and 4:5aa mentions leavened bread (Cmx ); on this latter passage and its implications, see in particular ZWICKEL, Räucherkult, 181–185. On the various types of material, including both animals and cereals, which could be burnt on altars, see also, in addition to the study by Zwickel, KELLERMANN, Apokryphes Obst, 129. 430 PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 53 n. 3, argues that originally v. 1–3, which he regards as being older than 4ff., covered both types of cereal offerings. However, this can hardly match the present wording of these verses. Besides, if this were indeed the case one would not understand why at a later stage the need was felt to supplement v. 1–3 with detailed instructions on baked cereal offerings. 431 The exact rendering of tls is disputed, although there is general agreement that it probably refers to wheat, as is stated in Ex 29:2 (My+x tls). Since DALMAN, Mehlarten, it is assumed that tls designates the portions of wheat retained in the sieve (cf. already m)Abot 5:15; see further yS0 a bb. 7, 10b, 17c; tMenah9 8:14, quoted by MILGROM, Leviticus, 179). However, this opinion has been recently disputed by Rendtorff, with good grounds (see ID., Leviticus, 90–95). With the rabbinic tradition, he acknowledges that tls is connected with the sieving of wheat, but argues that the term designates the choice part of wheat, and not what remains in the sieve (cf. RENDTORFF, 95: “bestes Weizenmehl”). He observes, in particular, that in all the passages of the HB outside P where tls is mentioned, it is systematically considered as an expensive good. 1 Kgs 5:2 relates that the daily provisions for Solomon’s court consisted of 30 Kor of tls and 60 Kor of xmq (probably barley); in 2 Kgs 7:1, 16, 18, tls is similarly worth the double of Myr(#, also barley, an observation which therefore agrees with the description found in 1 Kgs 5:2. Finally, in Ez 16:13, tls is presented as a luxurious food. Thus it is indeed likely that tls designates purified wheat, after it has been sieved; hence the rendering adopted here, “fine flour”. For a similar view, see MARX, Offrandes végétales, 35 n. 10: “[…] solèt désigne une qualité supérieure de farine, dont le prix est fixé au double de la farine d’orge en 2 Rois vii 1, 16, 18”. How fine the type of wheat designated by tls is, is impossible to specify; see the observations by RENDTORFF, Ibid., 95. 429

3.3. The First tôrâ on Sacred Offerings: Leviticus 1–3

209

ously because knowledge of the detailed description of v. 2 is presupposed.432 Attempts to restrict the original shape of v. 4–10 to v. 4–6 (thus Rendtorff initially) or 4–8 (Gerstenberger) are all unconvincing, since in this case the instruction is fragmentary. Similarly, the proposal by Elliger, now adopted by Rendtorff in his commentary, that v. 4 was originally followed by v. 8–10 and that this instruction was formulated in 3ps, as v. 1–3 already, is unlikely. In particular, the notion that v. 5–7 are secondary because of their direct address raises a problem since the phrase hl@e)'m' h#e(fy' (“prepared in any of these ways”)433 in v. 8a refers to the existence of several ways of preparing the baked cereal offering, and thus appears to presuppose more than simply the instruction of v. 4.434 Therefore, the original text of Lev 2 should have included at least a first version of both v. 1–3 and 4–10, and the change in address in the two sections cannot be used as a source-critical criterion. As in other ANE texts, it probably corresponds to a mere stylistic device, emphasizing the difference in the topic of legislation: namely, raw cereal offering in v. 1–3, vs. baked in 4–10. The absence of any reference to the Sinai setting such as the mention of the tent of meeting, as well as the alternation between the reference to Aaron and his sons and the formula “the priest” (cf. v. 2 and 8–10), suggest that here also, as in Lev 1 and 3, the Priestly writer has made use of an older document. The instruction on the remainder of the cereal offering which must be given to Aaron and his sons (v. 3 and 10) has traditionally been considered as a later supplement by modern scholars.435 The issue of priestly perquisites is otherwise never addressed in Lev 1–5 and constitutes on the contrary the topic 432 ELLIGER, Leviticus, 40, assumes instead that this description in v. 2a is secondary just because it is missing in v. 9a. Not only is this quite unsupported but it does not explain why, in this case, the description was not inserted simultaneously in both passages. 433 Like most commentators, I adopt the MT’s vocalization against the LXX, where the consonantal text is vocalized as an active form, a!n poih=|, “he (the offerer) prepares”. 434 As acknowledged by RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 82–83. As regards the formulation of v. 4 and 8, the case is no more compelling. In v. 4, the reasoning that brqt should be read as a feminine (cf. already the LXX) because it is subsumed under the case of v. 1 (with yk #pn), is questionable. Subcases in P are always introduced by M)w whereas the phrase brqt ykw in v. 4 clearly marks the introduction of a new case, which may be formulated in a different address in order to distinguish it from the former. As regards t)bhw in v. 8a in the MT , it has often been objected that this reading was not original. WEVERS, Notes on Leviticus, 17, observes that, “[it] may well be a paleographically inspired error due to its being followed by t)”, so that the reading of 4QLevb (confirmed by the LXX), which has )ybhw, should probably be preferred. In the second half of v. 8, hbyrqh need not be rendered by an active form, but may also be understood as a passive (“it shall be presented”; see, e.g., MILGROM, Leviticus, 185); alternatively, it could also be read as an imperative 2ps masc. with a fem. suffix (thus BHS). 435 RENDTORFF, Gesetze, 19–20 (without justification); KOCH, Priesterschrift, 50; NOTH, Leviticus, 27 (“a later addition, but quite possibly based on an earlier usage”); ELLIGER, Leviticus, 40; MILGROM, Leviticus, 186–187.

210

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

of the appendix found in ch. 6–7 (see 6:7–11 and 7:9–10). J.E. Hartley nevertheless comments that since “only a portion of the grain was offered, some direction as to the disposal of the rest of the grain would have been needed in the earliest regulation”.436 One may take this observation further by noting that the case of the cereal offering is different from the burnt and wellbeing offerings, where the disposal of the remainder of the offering is clearly not an issue; the burnt offering is entirely consumed on the altar, whereas the flesh of the well-being offering which has not been burnt on the altar goes to the offerer. Thus, in itself, the absence of a provision comparable to Lev 2:3, 10 in the remainder of ch. 1–3*, the earliest sacrificial legislation, is not an indication that this provision has to be later, and one could assume on the contrary that v. 3a and 10a (with “the priests” instead of “Aaron and his sons”)437 are original.438 Yet Hartley’s argument is not entirely conclusive, because other passages in Lev 1–5 testify to the fact that instructions were not given systematically for the remainder of the offering. None exists in the case of the hxnm of firstfruits (Lev 2:14–16), and the prescription for the remainder of the minor purification offering (Lev 4:22–35) is not found in Lev 4–5 either but only in the supplement formed by ch. 6–7 (cf. 6:17–23). Therefore, it is probably preferable to retain the traditional view and consider all of 2:3 and 10 as a later addition from the hand of P.439 As to the remainder of ch. 2, v. 11–16, the last section (v. 14–16) comprises an appendix dealing with a very specific case, since it prescribes how an offering of firstfruits (Myrwkb) should be made; it consists of ears (byb)) roasted in fire, and of groats (#rg , comp. Arabic g]aris])440 of the fresh ear (lmrk).441 This offering is clearly modeled upon the instruction in v. 1–2; oil

436

HARTLEY, Leviticus, 28. V. 3b and 10b (hwhy y#)m My#dq #dq) are characteristic of P’s classificatory system in Lev 1–7, which differentiates between sacred and most sacred offerings (the latter including all types of offerings except the well-being offering, see below on Lev 6–7, § 3.6.), and are probably redactional. 438 Also, that 2:3 and 10 come after the formula “a fire offering of pleasing odour to Yahweh” concluding the sacrificial ritual in v. 2 and 9 (e.g., ELLIGER , Leviticus, 40) proves nothing, since the instruction on the priestly perquisite could hardly be introduced earlier. 439 Pace KOCH, Priesterschrift, 50, this does not necessarily imply that the remainder of the hxnm went originally to the offerer and possibly served to accommodate the communal meal, along with remainder of the well-being offering. ELLIGER, Leviticus, 45, wants to regard the mention of frankincense in v. 2–3 as secondary because it is omitted in v. 4–10, but this corresponds to the difference between baked and raw cereal offering specifically. 440 See for instance MILGROM, Leviticus, 194. 441 On lmrk , see DALMAN , Arbeit und Sitte, 3. 260–261.266–267. On its meaning, see HAL, 475 (“Jungkorn”); MULDER, art. karmel, 328. A connection with Akk. kuru4mattu (e.g., CAZELLES, Lévitique, 25 n. d), seems unlikely; on the possibility of a connection with the low mountain range stretching from the plain of Dothan to the Mediterranean Sea bearing the 437

3.3. The First tôrâ on Sacred Offerings: Leviticus 1–3

211

and frankincense (hnbl) are also added (v. 15), and the token-portion (hrkz)) is burnt exactly as the regular raw cereal offering (v. 16 = v. 2). It is not a coincidence: the purpose of this instruction is manifestly to assimilate the offering of firstfruits to a cereal offering. This is obvious, in particular, both in the protasis (2:14a), referring to the Myrwkb txnm, and in the statement concluding v. 15: )wh hxnm. Therefore, the priestly scribe responsible for this instruction is making a legal point: the offering of firstfruits falls under the law on cereal offerings – more precisely, on raw cereal offerings – and this is why v. 14–16 are logically appended to Lev 2.442 This also means, necessarily, that the offering of firstfruits must follow the appropriate ritual, as is shown by the description in v. 15–16. The offering of Myrwkb to the sanctuary is well attested elsewhere in the Torah, but it is usually connected to the second pilgrimage festival in the year, referred to as the Feast of Ingathering (rycqh gx, Ex 23:16) or of Weeks (t(b# gx, Ex 34:22; Deut 16:9–12). However, the formulation of the protasis in Lev 2:14a may suggest rather a voluntary offering by an individual: “If you (sing.) present an offering from the firstfruits to Yahweh…”.443 The only possible parallel to this within the Torah is in Deut 26:1ff., which also appears to refer to an individual offering of firstfruits. Otherwise, a still different tradition is attested in the festal calendar of Lev 23 (v. 10–21), which also presupposes a collective offering of firstfruits yet no longer in the context of a pilgrimage festival. It is likely that Lev 23 presupposes the instruction of Lev 2:14–16 even though there is no explicit reference.444 However, the shift that can be observed in Lev 2 from a same name, see MILGROM, Leviticus, 194. The term appears elsewhere in the HB only in Lev 23:14 and 2 Kgs 4:42 (where the connection between fresh ear and firstfruits is also found). 442 As correctly perceived for example by PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 59. For the rendering of Myrwkb as “firstfruits” in Lev 2:14, see ELLIGER, Leviticus, 46–47, who observes that Myrwkb in P always refers to firstfruits (cf. Lev 23:17, 20; Num 18:13; 28:26). This identification is disputed by MARX, Offrandes végétales, 42, who must nevertheless acknowledge that the offering of Lev 2:14ff. is identical to the offering of firstfruits: “[…] Comme l’indique le v. 14, cette offrande est faite à partir […] des tout premiers produits de la nouvelle récolte (voir Lev xxiii 14; Jos v 11), d’où leur nom”. 443 A point also noted, for example, by KNOHL, Sanctuary, 24, following Ibn Ezra. 444 Both MILGROM, Leviticus, 192ff. and RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 112–113, in particular, have raised the issue of the relationship between Lev 2:14–16 and the law on the firstfruits offering in Lev 23:10–21. Rendtorff proposes relating it to the offering of the #dxh hxnm seven weeks after the offering of the rm( in Lev 23:15–21 (cf. 23:16). However, Milgrom has correctly observed that the “new ears roasted in fire” mentioned in Lev 2:14 must refer to the first barley, not the first wheat (see similarly KNOHL, Sanctuary, 24). Therefore, pace Rendtorff, it cannot be equated with the “new cereal offering” in Lev 23:16–17, which was made during the wheat harvest, and it should be identified with the offering of the first sheaf, made during the barley harvest, as already argued by the rabbinic tradition and, more recently, by Milgrom and Knohl. Since there is no clear reference to Lev 2:14–16 in 23:10–14, this can be little more than a mere assumption. However, Milgrom finely observes that Lev 23:10–14 does not detail the ritual for offering the first sheaf, contrary to what applies in the case of the

212

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

collective to an individual offering of firstfruits, as well as the absence of any reference to an annual pilgrimage to the sanctuary, make sense if, as will be argued below (§ 3.3.4.), the collection of Lev 1–3 was originally composed in a historical context when the Temple had not been yet rebuilt, and when the prospect of resuming national pilgrimages to Jerusalem would certainly not have been on the agenda. This also appears to be the situation reflected in the short account of Jer 41:4–5 for instance. As to Lev 2:11–13, this passage is also generally regarded as a later addition to Lev 2, probably in two stages (i.e., v. 11–12 and 13), in particular because of the change in address. However, this phenomenon may not be taken as a sure indication of a different layer, especially if, as argued above, the transition from third to second person is original in v. 1–10. The prohibition against leaven actually summarizes the general principle underlying the law on raw and baked cereal offerings in v. 1–3 and 4–10; the change in address probably serves to emphasize this device. V. 11a forbids the offering of leavened dough (Cmx, compare Am 4:5!), whereas the second part of the verse states the rationale for this prohibition: leaven (r)#) and honey (#bd) must never be burnt on the altar.445 The prohibition of adding leaven to the offering of cereals seems to be older than P – it is implied, for instance, in the polemical statement of Am 4:5 –, so that its presence in the original version of Lev 2 seems logical. The mention of honey (#bd ) may surprise at first sight, because the term does not occur previously in Lev 2; however, it is unnecessary to consider it a later gloss.446 Traditionally, two different interpretations of this prohibition have been given. The most compelling, in my opinion, remains that the common denominator between leaven and honey is their propensity to fermentation, which was well known in antiquity, especially in the

in 23:16–21 (see v. 18–20), possibly an indication that the author of Lev 23 tacitly refers here to the ritual prescribed for the offering of the firstfruits of barley in Lev 2. The problem of the origin and meaning of the firstfruit legislation in Lev 23 will be addressed in detail in Chapter Five of this study; see below, § 5.2.4.1. 445 On the difference between Cmx and r)#, cf. KELLERMANN, art. h9ms[, esp. 1063–1064. MILGROM, Leviticus, 188, also quotes the following passage from Yahel )Or: “s8e)o4r leavens the dough, and the leavened dough is called h9a4me4s[“. 446 Probably implied here is fruit honey, and not bee honey, which is only mentioned in Judg 14:8–9 (but see the comment by CAQUOT, art. de6bhash, 128) and seems to have been rather exceptional. Caquot and further MILGROM, Leviticus, 189–190, recall that the domestication of bees is not clearly attested in ancient Israel; Milgrom also observes that #bd is frequently mentioned among offerings of fruits. On the other hand, as pointed out by Caquot (following BLOME, Opfermaterie, 303–304) #bd in Lev 2:11 can surely not mean “wild honey” (as probably in 1 Sam 14:26–30) since “firstfruits [among which honey is included] are offered from what was gained through working”. Honey, here, must refer to a substance extracted from certain fruits, possibly mainly dates since in the Semitic world the name for date syrup is generally equivalent to that for honey; compare with Akk. dis]ip suluppi. #dxh hxnm

3.3. The First tôrâ on Sacred Offerings: Leviticus 1–3

213

case of leaven.447 From this perspective, the prohibition of offering leaven and honey on the altar highlights the difference between profane and sacred realms: as the abode of the deity, the sanctuary must be protected from processes of death and decay characteristic of human, mortal life.448 The same rationale is implied in the exclusion from the altar of all persons with bodily impurity (Lev 11–15, cf. Lev 12:4; 15:31; see further below, § 4.2.2) or in the requirement that members of the Aaronite dynasty suffering from physical deformation should not approach the altar to present Yahweh’s food (Lev 21:16–23). Alternatively, it has been argued that the prohibition of offering leaven and honey on the altar should be connected with polemics against foreign cultic practices where this offering plays a major role (see, e.g., Hos 3:1, or Jer 7:18; 44:19), but this seems unlikely.449 A further confirmation of the explanation adopted here for this prohibition may be found in the fact that the verse immediately following, 2:13, requires the addition of salt (xlm). Salt in antiquity was the symbol par excellence of permanence, a notion evidently related to its capacity as a powerful conservative agent. Thus, the idea stated in Lev 2:13 that salt is the very symbol of the enduring treaty between Yahweh and Israel (Kyhl) tyrb xlm) has numerous parallels not only in the Hebrew Bible but in other cultures of antiquity.450 In this regard, the prescription of adding salt on every cereal offering (hxnm ) and, by extension, on every Nbrq to Yahweh451 offers a remarkable 447

Cf. the examples given by MILGROM, Leviticus, 189. For the idea that leaven and honey are excluded from the altar for their fermentive action, cf. already SMITH, Religion, 220. 448 For a detailed statement of this interpretation, see now DOUGLAS, Leviticus, 163–166. 449 E.g., CAQUOT, art. de6 b hash, 129–130; KELLERMANN , art. h9ms[, 490; and previously GRAY, Sacrifice, 26ff.402. However, it should be observed that the offering of leaven and honey to Yahweh is actually not prohibited in Lev 2 (see v. 12), so that it cannot be a case of polemics against non-Yahwistic cults. What is at stake is that leaven and honey must not be burnt on the altar though they may nevertheless be presented to Yahweh, and this distinction makes sense in the first explanation, not in the second. 450 For various sources in antiquity, see MILGROM, Leviticus, 191–192, who quotes in particular a Neo-Babylonian letter mentioning “all who tasted the salt of the Jakin tribe”. Ezra 4:14 similarly refers to “eating the salt of the palace” to describe loyalty to the Persian king (on this passage, see now RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 111), and in 2 Chr 13:5, the promise of an everlasting dynasty to David is referred to as a “covenant of salt”. Milgrom (quoting GRAY, Numbers, 232) also mentions Arab. milh9 a t, a derivative of malah9 a , “to salt”, meaning “a treaty”. For parallels in Greek and Roman cultures, see BLÜMNER, art. Salz, 2089.2091–2093. 451 The second occurrence of hxnm in v. 13 is sometimes rendered by the general term “offering”, instead of “cereal offering” as at the beginning of the verse, probably in order to prepare for the reference to Knbrq-lk, “all your offerings”, at the end of the verse (thus for instance PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 52). But this is unnecessary and, besides, in P hxnm otherwise always has the technical meaning of “cereal offering”. Alternatively, other scholars have sometimes surmised that Nbrq, here, should be restricted to the cereal offering mentioned immediately before, see for instance E ISING, art. mlh9. Yet, as correctly observed by R ENDTORFF , Leviticus, 110–111, this is contradicted by the fact that other passages in the

214

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

complement to the previous prohibition of leaven and honey, as major agents of fermentation and therefore alteration, so that v. 11–13 comprise a well-knit unit. The transition in v. 13 from a collective (see v. 11) to a 2ps address stresses the importance of this prescription within Lev 2, just before the whole regulation concludes with the discussion of a specific case (offering of firstfruits) in v. 14–16.452 This analysis suggests therefore that the original text of Lev 2 consisted of v. 1–2, 4–9, 11–13, 14–16. References to Aaron’s sons (note the absence of any mention of the tent of meeting) are from the Priestly writer who inserted Lev 2 into P. V. 3 and 10 are probably also from his hand. It is obvious that the style of ch. 2 as well as some expressions such as Nbrq or xyr xxyn h#) hwhyl are reminiscent of ch. 1 and 3; this is also true for the general structure of ch. 2 (see further below). This suggests that Lev 2 never formed an independent instruction, but was from the beginning part of the same collection as Lev 1 and 3. As argued above, ch. 3 originally followed Lev 1, and this is confirmed by the fact that Lev 2 has a new, distinct introduction in v. 1aa ; hence, the to=ra= of Lev 2 was probably conceived as a complement to Lev 1; 3 initially. Whether Lev 2 was composed simultaneously with Lev 1 and 3, or whether it was added later to the collection on animal offerings cannot be determined. The fact that Lev 2 does not follow the very strict pattern found in Lev 1 and 3 (we6-qa4t[al with 3ps) cannot be used as a sound criterion to assign a distinct origin to this law since, as we will see in the next section, collections of ritual texts in the ANE often preserve instructions composed in different styles. Originally the greater stylistic freedom found in Lev 2 may also have served to emphasize the distinct nature of the cereal offering vis-àpriestly literature (Num 18:19) and in Ezekiel (43:24) presuppose that salt must be added to all sacrifices, and not to the cereal offering only. On the meaning of this general reference, at the end of Lev 2, to all the offerings prescribed in Lev 1–3, see below. 452 ELLIGER, Leviticus, 42–43, adduces a few arguments beside the change in address for regarding v. 13 as being later than v. 11(–12), but these are hardly convincing. He considers v. 13a (except aa) as a quotation of an older formula, possibly in a rythmic form (2+3+2), and partly expressed in “Deuteronomistic-like language”, which would still use hxnm in the general sense of “gift”, contrary to the redactional v. 13aa. V. 13b, where the prescription of adding salt is extended to all the offerings (Nbrq) brought to Yahweh, is a still later supplement based on this general sense of hxnm in v. 13a. However, the reconstruction of a rythmic form behind 13a is dubious, and there is no reason to assume that the passage as a whole is a quotation. The expression Kyhl) tyrb is not typical of P, and could be a borrowing; but the remainder of 13a is not characteristic of Dtr language; see in particular the use of tb# Hi., which is only seldom found in the Dtr literature but occurs in Ex 12:15 and Lev 26:6 (H), and above all in Ezekiel. Besides, the notion that hxnm in v. 13ag would be used in a different sense than in v. 13 aa is an unnecessary speculation, as observed in the previous note. As to the general statement of v. 13b, see further below. Lastly, it is interesting to note that Elliger considers v. 14–16 to be later than v. 13 although these verses have the same address, which shows how problematic this latter criterion is.

3.3. The First tôrâ on Sacred Offerings: Leviticus 1–3

215

vis the animal offerings described in Lev 1 and 3. In any event, the collection formed by Lev 1*; 3* and 2* (in this order) already existed at the time when the scribe responsible for the composition of Ex 29 and Lev 8–9 introduced it in P, moving the law of Lev 2 to its present position on the same occasion. With the inclusion of Lev 2, the collection on the offering of animals as sacrifices to Yahweh was thus logically completed by a law for the cases when an offering of cereals is brought. The structure of the law also recalls that of Lev 1 and 3 where each law is organized in two subcases according to the nature of the animal, which could be taken from the herd or from the flock. In the original form of Lev 2 as well, the law on the cereal offering is divided into two subcases according to the nature of the offering (raw or baked, cf. v. 1–2 and 4–9); even the further subdivision of the second subcase (v. 4–9) has a parallel in Lev 3:6–16. The prohibition of leaven which follows in v. 11, disclosing the main rationale behind the cereal offering, offers a parallel to the concluding sentence hwhyl blx-lk (“all suet is Yahweh’s”, 3:16bb) if this sentence is indeed original in ch. 3.453 Lastly, in the instruction of 2:13, the generalization to all the offerings made to Yahweh (v. 13b) makes good sense if this verse initially stood just before the end of a short collection consisting of Lev 1; 3; and 2 (in that order). Indeed, the connection made in this verse between salt, offering and covenant would have built a perfect climax for the whole legislation on sacred offerings. One can even say that it acts as a general comment on the purpose of all sacrifices: namely, to uphold the be6rît between Yahweh and his community. 3.3.3. Origin and Function of the Torah on Sacred Offerings in Leviticus 1–3 While it is likely that P has made use of an earlier collection in Lev 1–3, the problem of the origin and, above all, of the function of this collection prior to its insertion into P has not yet been satisfactorily settled. Although quite popular at a time, the form-critical view (advocated, in particular, by Rendtorff and Koch) identifying behind these texts a ritual Gattung intended for public delivery, more specifically for oral instruction of lay offerers, is untenable. Not only does it assume that the formulation of Lev 1ff. as case law betrays a later reworking, an assertion quite unsupported (see above), but it cannot account for the nature of these instructions. Lev 1–3 simply records a sequence of ritual acts to be performed but never states how to perform them. This is obviously because knowledge of how to fulfill all the acts stipulated in these instructions is assumed by the text, even in the case of actions such as the flaying and quartering of the burnt offering or the separation of the suet portions of the well-being offering, all of which actually require a complex

453

See above, the discussion on pages 198–199, in note 382.

216

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

anatomic knowledge.454 Clearly, no lay offerer could ever carry out his sacrifice by simply being read aloud the instruction corresponding to his case in Lev 1–3, and the entire concept of a lay instruction underlying Lev 1–3 should be abandoned, as was also recently argued by R. Knierim.455 To be sure, the Hebrew Bible has preserved the notion that priests were regularly consulted in ritual and cultic matters and would deliver on this occasion a teaching or an instruction (to=ra=), a point on which Rendtorff and Koch laid considerable emphasis.456 But this does not mean that the term “to=ra=” was exclusively reserved for public instruction initially, even less that the texts now classified as such in Leviticus such as 1–7 (see 7:37–38) and 11–15 (11:46; 12:7b; 13:59; 14:2; 14:32, 54–57; 15:32–33) must have their origin in such setting; the opposite is obviously true in Lev 6–7.457 More generally, the very attempt to connect Lev 1–3 to a fixed literary genre of “ritual instructions” appears to be irrelevant since such a “genre” probably never existed in ANE literature.458 In general, the classification of numerous texts as “rituals” in Ugarit, Mesopotamia or Anatolia is primarily done on the basis of their subject matter (i.e., they are descriptions of or instructions for a ritual), as well as their presumed cultic setting. In Mesopotamia, certain collections of rituals may exemplify a greater stylistic and formal homogeneity, such as the series of incantations known as S0urpu and Maqlu= (both terms meaning “burning”).459 Yet even in this case, there are still considerable differences within the same series; the S0urpu collection, for instance, consists of one so-called “ritual” tablet specifying the occasion and the nature of the ritual to be undertaken, and of nine tablets of incantations, the main function of which is to cancel an oath or the curse resulting from the violation of an oath. The same observation applies in the case of Ugarit, where texts classified as rituals by scholars extend from lists of offerings to the deities to descriptions of various rituals for specific cultic occasions. Here again, the classification is mainly based on content, setting and function, with the implication that the precise extent of the class of ritual texts at Ugarit is still disputed.460 As a matter of fact, the majority of scholars distinguish essentially between “mythological” and “ritual” (or cultic, or even more generally “religious”) texts.461 454

Thus, in many commentaries on Leviticus, one may find recurring statements such as: “The ‘slaying’ of the animal ‘before Yahweh’ […] is only briefly noted […], obviously because everyone may be presumed to know how it is done”; thus, e.g., NOTH, Leviticus, 22. 455 See KNIERIM, Text, especially §§ 7 and 12. 456 Cf. Jer 18:18; Ez 7:26; 22:26; Hos 4:6; Zeph 3:4; Mal 2:7. Further on this below, § 3.6. 457 Lev 6–7 contains instructions for the disposal of remains intended for the priests (cf. 6:2a!) but are nevertheless designated as hrwt (6:2, 7, 18; 7:1, 11, 37; see below, § 3.6.). 458 For a similar criticism see in particular WATTS, Leviticus 1–7. Significantly, this point is now also recognized by KOCH, Rituale; for the discussion, see further below. 459 For the S0urpu incantations, see the edition of the text in REINER, S0urpu; for the Maqlu= series, see MEIER, Assyrische Beschwörungssammlung. 460 In the last three decades, this problem has gradually become the subject of a growing number of studies. For a convenient, comprehensive survey, see CLEMENS, Sources, 102–115. 461 See for instance CAQUOT ET AL., Textes ougaritiques; DEL O LMO LETE, Canaanite Religion, 7ff.; PARDEE/BORDREUIL, Ugarit, 706; etc.

3.3. The First tôrâ on Sacred Offerings: Leviticus 1–3

217

The two genres are often identified on the basis of formal, stylistic features but these remain most general; i.e., mythological texts are classified as “literary” or “poetic”, while ritual or cultic texts are characterized as “non-literary” or evidencing “un degré pratiquement nul d’élaboration littéraire”,462 or as being written in prose463 (although several authors would also refer to certain texts in this category as “semi-poetic”).464 Yet even this distinction is problematic in the case of the texts combining myths and rituals (the so-called “textes mythico-magiques” or “para-mythologiques”, or the mythological texts containing elements of a ritual such as KTU 1.23). Recently, H. Niehr has thus argued that the distinction between mythological and ritual or cultic texts should primarily be based on their distribution in the libraries of Ugarit, rather than on their formal features.465 Quite often, the category of “ritual texts” is further divided into several sub-types, such as between rituals and “magical” or divinatory texts,466 or between rituals and lists of deities or offerings.467 Here again, such divisions can be partly connected to distinctive syntactic features,468 but the sub-types cannot be reduced to a single, unvarying formulaic pattern. At most, a distinction frequently made is between “descriptive” and “prescriptive” rituals, as initially suggested by Levine,469 but even that distinction is problematic since (a) most verbal forms in these rituals are imperfective or imperative rather than declarative,470 and (b) even the indicative verbal forms are probably to be interpreted modally, namely, in such cases “description has the value of prescription”.471

In terms of their literary features, the laws of Lev 1ff. are reminiscent of Mesopotamian and Hittite rituals in which identification of a given case intro462

CAQUOT ET AL., Textes ougaritiques, 2. 11. Thus PARDEE/BORDREUIL, Ugarit, 706. 464 Thus, e.g., LEVINE, Descriptive Rituals, 105ff.; GORDON, Ugaritic Literature, 105. 465 NIEHR, Beziehungen. 466 See for instance PARDEE/BORDREUIL, Ugarit, 706. 467 See, e.g., DEL OLMO LETE, Canaanite Religion, 17ff.87ff. 468 See DEL OLMO LETE, Ibid., 11–24, esp. 20–24. 469 LEVINE, Descriptive Rituals. 470 PARDEE, Ritual, 25, with further references. 471 DEL O LMO L ETE, Canaanite Religion, 12–13, here p. 13; he thus comments: “Accordingly, the label ‘descriptive ritual’ given to texts of the Ugaritic liturgy – or of biblical liturgy – is almost a contradiction in terms”. In his initial study (Descriptive Rituals, esp. 108–111), Levine attempted to offer a precise characterization (on the basis of the documents available at this time) of the style and terminology of the “descriptive” rituals, but said nothing regarding “prescriptive” rituals; yet his arguments in favor of specific “descriptive” forms were rather questionable (see, e.g., CLEMENS, Sources, 105 n. 505). In a later study of 1983 (LEVINE, Descriptive Ritual Texts), he acknowledges that the distinction between the two is not absolute, and that even “descriptive” rituals are actually prescriptive in function and, moreover, that “descriptive rituals gradually appropriate prescriptive formulations as their functional role comes to determine their formal structure to an ever greater extent” (p. 469), which means that even as regards the form of these rituals the distinction is problematic. As a matter of fact, the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive rituals is now either ignored or used in a very general sense. See, e.g., PARDEE /BORDREUIL , Ugarit, 709; further CLEMENS, Sources, 105 n. 506 (with additional references). DEL O LMO LETE, Ibid., 11–24, distinguishes between “cultic record”, “prescriptive ritual” and “recited ritual”, the category of “prescriptive rituals” being further subdivided. PARDEE, Ritual, 25, also regards “the vast majority of these texts as prescriptive in nature”. As concerns the evolution from record to description to prescription hypothesized by Levine, it has usually been rejected. 463

218

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

duces an instruction for the ritual to be performed, as recently noted by Koch.472 Yet even then, the parallel remains very general; and the Mesopotamian and Hittite rituals in question exemplify a considerable variety in their formulation, even within the same collection as noted above. In the S0urpu series, for example, it would be quite arbitrary to dissociate the ritual in the first tablet from the various incantations found in the other nine tablets, as Koch somehow proposes,473 because the latter are clearly also part of the ritual performance. Furthermore, the subject matter is notably different; in both Mesopotamia and Anatolia, rituals introduced by a casuistic formulation are all found in the context of the so-called “magical rituals”, which are in fact rituals for the elimination of evil and the healing of a person, or for protection against bad omens. In the instructions of Lev 1–3, the protasis identifies the various cases of legitimate offerings which may be brought to the temple of Yahweh while the corresponding instruction for the sequence of ritual acts to be performed in each case is stated in the apodosis; this distinctive pattern has no parallel in Mesopotamian or in Hittite literature, as has long been observed. It has a parallel in the Punic tariffs from the fourth century BCE, which are also formulated in the style of case laws and deal similarly with the offering of various types of sacrifices to the temple.474 Yet the two collections nevertheless have a very different scope, so that the comparison is limited. The Punic tariffs are not concerned with instructions for the performance of the sacrificial ritual itself; they are more a sort of official schedule, written on stone tablets, defining the wages of the priest performing the ritual according to the nature of the offering. Even the case of Lev 6–7, often compared to the Punic tariffs, differs significantly since, there, the issue is not so much the priests’ wage as, more generally, the disposal of the remaining portions (see further below, § 3.6.). All the above remarks mean that Lev 1–3 is typically a scribal creation, freely using the genre of case law to prescribe the offering of three main types of sacrifices. Although there is an unmistakable pattern of formulation, especially in Lev 1; 3, the instruction for the cereal offering (Lev 2) shows that this stylistic pattern did not have to be rigidly applied, and the entire formcritical attempt to reconstruct a strict “ritual” Gattung is flawed. On one point, however, comparative evidence may help illuminate the original function of 472

KOCH, Rituale, 82ff. The ritual can be introduced either by being stated at the opening (as, e.g., in the case of the “Namburbi Ritual for the Evil of a Dog” [see CAPLICE, Namburbi Texts II]: “A Namburbi ritual for the evil of a dog which howls and moans in a man’s house”), or by a casuistic formulation; for the latter, the case introduced can be either the situation requiring the ritual to be performed, or the performance of the ritual itself, as in the opening line of the first tablet of the S0urpu series. 473 See Rituale, 83. 474 This comparison has often been made, see already DUSSAUD, Origines, 143ff.; further in particular the studies by VAN DEN BRANDEN, Lévitique 1–7; BAKER, Leviticus 1–7.

3.3. The First tôrâ on Sacred Offerings: Leviticus 1–3

219

this collection. A central aspect of Lev 1–3 resides in its enumeration of a specific sequence of ritual acts regarded as normative. This has a parallel in numerous texts classified as “rituals” in both Ugarit and Mesopotamia, extending from mere cultic records of offerings to more developed ritual instructions, regarding which it has often been proposed that they should be viewed as cultic “aide-mémoires” (memoranda, check-lists) of a sort, to be used by the person in charge of the ritual.475 This notion also applies to Lev 1–3. As with several Ugaritic and Akkadian rituals, the purpose of writing down this collection would have been to set a standard order for the performance of the ritual itself;476 knowledge of how to perform these acts is tacitly assumed, and it was evidently maintained by repeated practice. This template could then be read or memorized by religious specialists; above all, it could be permanently checked. If so, Lev 1–3 should be conceived as a kind of sacrificial manual, or, possibly, an excerpt from such a manual, which functioned as a standard for the priests officiating at the temple with regard to the offering of the three main types of public sacrifices.477 As in some Mesopotamian collections, the casuistic formulation of the instructions of Lev 1–3 and the corresponding classification of offerings into discrete types and sub-types might have been meant to make consultation easier.478 In addition, it is also possible that the copying of this sacrificial manual served for training priestly scribes, as has been suggested in the case of Mesopotamian collections, especially omen series,479 medical diagnosis series and law collections.480 475 In the case of Ugarit, see CAQUOT, Littérature, 1403; C AQUOT ET AL., Textes ougaritiques, 2. 133; PETERSEN, Clay Tablets, 46 (“Checklisten”); NIEHR, Beziehungen, 123; PARDEE, Ritual, 3. For Mesopotamia, this suggestion has been made regarding several collections of ritual and magical instructions, especially manuals; see, e.g., BOTTÉRO, Manuel. 476 See for example D EL O LMO LETE, Canaanite Religion, 15–16, in the case of Ugaritic rituals: “The ‘ritual’ undertakes to ‘fix’ – and so describe – the cultic action as a complex whole. […] With respect to circumstances, this action is inevitably framed within parameters of ‘space’ and ‘time’ that are much more significant than for any human action”. 477 A similar view was briefly hinted at by K NIERIM, Text, 105, in the case of Lev 1, although without consideration of the comparative evidence: “The text […] may be studied by priestly students in preparation for their own sacrificial service but with specific attention to the guidance of lay persons through an offering procedure”. 478 In the case of Neo-Assyrian omen series, for instance, the fact that the results of the consultation of the animal sacrificed are formulated in the protasis was probably intended to allow the consultation of the corresponding omen in the series; on this point, see SPIECKERMANN, Juda, 238–244, with further references. 479 See B OTTÉRO , Mésopotamie, 233–251, esp. 246ff.; ID ., Manuel, 96ff. Note that in some cases, such as the exorcistic manual studied by Bottéro, this purpose is stated in the introduction; cf. BOTTÉRO, Manuel, 66: ana ih}zu u ta=martu (“for teaching and consultation”). 480 Cf. especially on this WESTBROOK, Law Codes. RAINEY, Order, also supports the idea that the legislation of Lev 1–5 would have had a “didactic” character.

220

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

3.3.4. Dating the Composition of Lev 1–3 Is it possible to determine more precisely the time and occasion when this manual was written down? It was already noted above in the context of the discussion of the t)+x (§ 3.2.2.3.) that the three offerings prescribed in Lev 1–3 probably correspond to the three oldest types of offerings in Israel. Similarly, there is no reason to question the fact that the rites set down in Lev 1–3 follow a very old custom, which was transmitted over centuries, even though 1 Sam 2:12ff. does suggest rival local practices and/or evolution on some points, especially as regards the burning of fat.481 Still, some motifs in Lev 1–3 point to a later date for the composition of this to=ra=; this is true, in particular, for the command to add frankincense to the cereal offering, as well as for the compound Myml#-xbz in Lev 3. Let us address these two points in turn. (1) The instruction to add frankincense, hnbl, to every raw cereal offering (Lev 2:1–2; 6:8; see also 2:15) appears to presuppose a situation where this product was regularly available for purchase. As is widely acknowledged now, such a situation cannot be conceived before the late Neo-Assyrian period at the earliest because it is only at that time that the development of new trade routes and economic relations in the context of the pax Assyriaca fostered the development of incense trade with Arabian tribes.482 The expansion of this trade “normalized the supply and lowered the cost of incense”, as one 481 According to 1 Sam 2:13–15, the meat of the xbz, the common offering, was boiled in several pots or kettles, until the fat had detached itself from the flesh and could then be burnt (qt[r) separately (see for instance ZWICKEL, Räucherkult, 174; further EBERHART, Beobachtungen, 88–92; and for the archaeological record ZWICKEL, Ibid., 157 n. 1). The crime of the Elides in this passage comes from the fact that they claim their portions before the meat has been boiled, and therefore before the fat could be offered to Yahweh as a burnt offering, see the statement in v. 16. In the Priestly legislation on the Myml#-xbz, instead, the animal’s meat is not boiled beforehand, but its suet portions are taken off and burnt directly on the altar (see Lev 3:3–5, 9–11, 14–16; for the difference with the custom recorded in 1 Sam 2:13–15, see also EBERHART , Beobachtungen, 94–95). The account of Lev 8:31 suggests that it is only afterwards that the flesh of the Myml#-xbz was boiled to be eaten by the partakers of the cultic meal, see likewise Lev 6:21 and Num 6:19. The age and origin of 1 Sam 2:12–17 are disputed today; pace ZWICKEL, 171–180, a dating in the 11th century [sic] cannot be supported. Likewise, it is difficult to decide whether this passage reflects the original practice in Israel, or just at one cultic center for instance; note, however, that Ez 40–48 still appears to presuppose this custom for the offering of the Myml#-xbz (see Ez 46:20–24). The origin of the distinct rite prescribed in P is impossible to specify; it is tempting to connect it with the resumption of the sacrificial cult at the Jerusalem temple in the early Persian period (see below), but there is no concrete datum to support this assumption. In any event, Wellhausen’s view that the custom of boiling meat was gradually replaced by the practice consisting in roasting it (ID., Prolegomena, 68), is unfounded. In P, the practice of roasting the meat is reserved for the Passover meal (Ex 12:8, 9), which is not a sacrifice; and Ez 40–48 likewise ignores it. 482 See in particular KNAUF , Midian, 29–30 n. 153; GITIN, Four-Horned Altar, esp. 109; E LAT , Trade, 23. K ELLERMANN, art. le6b;ona4h, 455, also observes that even in Akkadian the terms for the burning of incense are rare and mostly late.

3.3. The First tôrâ on Sacred Offerings: Leviticus 1–3

221

author puts it,483 thus making this expensive good accessible for the first time even to regions economically insignificant and remote from the main routes. In Judah, this evolution did not occur before the late 8th/early 7th centuries, that is, in the context of the political, economic and administrative expansion of Jerusalem after the fall of Samaria.484 Especially under Manasseh’s reign, which was characterized by a policy of systematic loyalty vis-à-vis the Assyrian kings, a small elite in Jerusalem was able to develop new economic relations and get involved in international trade, leading in turn to the import of foreign goods and customs, as had already been the case earlier in Samaria. The Neo-Assyrian astral cult practiced on the roofs of houses (cf. 2 Kgs 23:5, 12; Jer 32:29; 44:17–19, 25; Zeph 1:5), which became popular in the seventh century BCE, included offerings of incense.485 However, it is during the periods of Neo-Babylonian and Persian rule that the ritual use of frankincense appears to have become particularly important.486 Whereas incense trade continued under the Neo-Babylonian empire, the trade of frankincense and other exotic, expensive aromas such as myrrh coming from Southern Arabia intensified considerably under Persian rule after the end of the sixth century. In Palestine, nearly 300 cuboid altars from the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods were found, which testifies to a remarkable spreading of the cult of incense.487 It is also at that time that the cuboid altar supplanted the fourhorned altar and became the dominant form.488 Significantly, the first mention 483

GITIN, Ibid., 109. Since Avigad’s excavations of the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, it is now unanimously acknowledged that the city experienced a major demographic evolution in the late eighth/ early seventh centuries, although the social and economic factors underlying this expansion are still disputed. On this issue, see the general survey by GEVA, Western Jerusalem; as well as REICH/SHUKRON, Urban Development. 485 See in particular WEINFELD, Worship, 152. Ez 8 likewise associates the burning of incense in censers with the adoption of Babylonian rituals in Jerusalem (cf. 8:11); this text may allude more specifically to the Mesopotamian Namburbi rituals, see now the analysis by ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 257–61. 486 For this view, see e.g. O’DWYER SHEA, Incense-burners, 95; WEIPPERT, Palästina, 717. 487 WEIPPERT, Palästina, 716–717. Note also that one of the postexilic cuboid altars found in Lachish had inscribed on it lbnt (“frankincense”; see NIELSEN, Incense, 48), which leaves no doubt as to their purpose. 488 See STERN, Incense Altars, 52; and WEIPPERT, Palästina, 716–717. On the four-horned altar, cf. the recent status quaestionis by G ITIN, Four-Horned Altar. Of the 33 horned altars dating from the 10th to the 7th century BCE found in Palestine at the time, only 2 were found in Judah, one in Lachish (10th century), and one in Gezer (7th century?). Note further that it is not even clear that these altars were exclusively used as incense-burners, as pointed out by several scholars (see for instance NIELSEN, Incense, 38), even though their existence probably testifies to the occasional practice of an aromatic cult. In any case, the archaeological data confirm, in the case of the four-horned altars, that the burning of incense was exceptional and played a minor role in Judah during most of Iron Age II, which is only logical given the economic situation in this area. It is significant in this respect that the book of Kings has kept 484

222

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

of frankincense imported from Arabia is found in the book of Jeremiah (6:20).489 Quite possibly, during the Persian period the wealthy elite in Jerusalem gradually became involved in the trade of incense with Arabian tribes, even though Jerusalem was outside the “incense road” between Elat, in Southern Arabia, and Gaza. It is in the context of Persian incense trade that frankincense and other valuable exotic spices could have been regularly available on the market, even in remote places such as Jerusalem,490 as is presupposed in Lev 2. Likewise, Neh 13:5, 9 state that frankincense was stocked in one of the rooms of the Jerusalem Temple, probably both to be used by priests in the daily cult (Ex 30:7–8; Lev 24:7) and to be sold to lay offerers. Frankincense and other exotic spices nevertheless remained expensive, as shown by Isa 43:23–24,491 and were the privilege of a wealthy elite.492 (2) Another interesting reference point for approximating the historical context in which the to=ra= of Lev 1–3 was composed is the sacrifice designated as Myml#-xbz in Lev 3. There are clear indications that initially the terms xbz and Myml# were not equivalent, contrary to what was often assumed by earlier scholars.493 This is still evident in the formulation of Josh 22:27, which has preserved the reading ze6ba4h9e=nu= u=s]e6la4me=nu=,494 thus distinguishing between the two types of offerings. Above all, the two sacrificial terms occur in significantly different contexts. xbz as a noun almost always refers to animal sacrifices in general (whether the ritual itself or the animal sacrificed) and usually includes a meal, most often in the context of the family or the clan.495 The term Myml#, on the contrary, never occurs alone but is always accompano record of a regular offering of incense even in the Jerusalem temple. One may suppose that local herbs were burnt with the animal or cereal offerings. In this case, Lev 2, which orders the addition of frankincense, specifically, to the cereal offering, is reinterpreting an older tradition. (Note, in passing, that there is a possible parallel to the practice described in Lev 2 in the expression lh9m qt[rt in the Punic tariffs, cf. KAI 76 B 3.) But the burning of imported spices, such as frankincense or myrrh, must have been exceptional before the seventh century BCE. 489 A point also noted for instance by KNAUF, Midian, 30 n. 153. 490 WEIPPERT, Palästina, 717. 491 See also KELLERMANN, art. le6b;ona4h, 457. 492 Significantly, frankincense is omitted in the cereal offering brought in Lev 5:11–13 by the needy person, even though a different theological explanation for this omission is given in this case by P (cf. 5:11). Note, also, that a distinction is made between the frankincense used in the composition of the “sacred perfume” instructed in Ex 30:34ff., made of hkz hnbl, “pure frankincense”, whereas Lev 2 merely mentions hnbl (HARAN, Temples, 242). 493 See R ENDTORFF, Studien, 119–149; ID ., Leviticus, 118–129, esp. 118–120; LEVINE, Presence, 3–52; contrast with earlier positions such as DE V AUX, Institutions, 2. 262; STEVENSON, Hebrew ‘Olah, esp. 492ff.; SCHMID, Bundesopfer, 19–44; and LACH, Sacrifice. 494 A point also noted for instance by SEIDL, art. s]e6la4mîm, 113. 495 On this point, see in particular RENDTORFF, Studien, 134–135; ID., Leviticus, 120. The etymology of zbh9 (“slain offering”) raises no issues, and the term is common in Semitic languages, see further, e.g., BERGMAN, art. za4bhach, 8–11; and MILGROM, Leviticus, 218.

3.3. The First tôrâ on Sacred Offerings: Leviticus 1–3

223

nied by an hl(, as was noted in particular by Rendtorff.496 Besides, it takes place almost exclusively in the context of celebrations of national dimension, such as the inauguration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:64 // 2 Chr 7:7) or its reconsecration (2 Chr 29:35), the consecration of the altar (Deut 27:6–7; Josh 8:30– 31; 2 Sam 24:25 // 2 Chr 21:26; 2 Kgs 16:13; Ez 43:27; further Ex 20:24), the bringing of the Ark into Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:17–18 // 2 Chr 16:1–2), national feasts (1 Kgs 9:25; similarly Ex 32:6) or, on the other hand, national fasts and demonstrations of self-contrition (Judg 20:26; 21:4), or extraordinary events of national scope (1 Kgs 3:15).497 In Samuel–Kings this sacrifice is systematically offered by the king (1 Sam 13:9; 2 Sam 6:17–18; 24:25; 1 Kgs 3:15; 8:64; 9:25; 2 Kgs 16:13), and in Ezekiel 40–48 it is similarly associated with the Davidic )y#n (see Ez 45:15, 17; 46:12, but cf. however 46:2). It must be noted, in addition, that the combined offering of (ola=/(olo=t and s]e6lamîm in the Hebrew Bible is paralleled to some extent in Ugarit, where we also find the expression s]rp ws]lmm in the context of public ceremonies, often celebrated in the presence of the king.498 More specifically, both in Ugarit and Israel the s]e6lamîm appears to have been a festive meal (see for instance 1 Sam 11:15), which normally had a covenantal dimension; it was a concrete expression of the s]lm (“well-being, accord”) reigning between the people and the deity. Although both in the Ugaritic literature499 and in the Hebrew Bible500 the meaning and etymology of s]e6lamîm remain disputed, the connection with the Semitic root s]-l-m is commonly accepted. In Akkadian, nouns derived from the root s]- l-m belong to the semantic field of friendship, well-being and peace (see sal|4mu[m], sala4mum I, s]ala4mu I), or of the conclusion of treaties (cf. sulummu=, itself derived from sala4mu). In Ugarit, the only occurrence of s]lmm in a non-ritual text, the Keret epic (KTU 1.14), appears to have a similar meaning. In this pas496

Studien, 38ff.57.123–126; ID ., Leviticus, 121. For Myml# alone, see Ex 20:24; 32:6; Deut 27:6–7; Josh 8:31; Judg 20:26; 21:4; 1 Sam 13:9; 2 Sam 6:17–18; 24:25; 1 Kgs 3:15; 8: 64; 9:25; 2 Kgs 16:13; Ez 43:27; 45:15, 17; 46:2, 12; 1 Chr 16:1, 2; 21:26; 2 Chr 7:7; 29:35; 31:2. In Am 5:22, we find the unique reading s]lm, in the singular, see further below. 497 Cf. in particular RENDTORFF, Studien, 123–126; ID., Leviticus, 121; similarly LEVINE, Presence, 27–41; also MARX, Systèmes sacrificiels, esp. 153, who comments: “Du fait de leur lien avec la fondation d’Israël, les s]ela4mîm servent, en particulier, à la mise en place des éléments du culte national”. All the passages mentioned by MILGROM, Leviticus, 217, in favor of private Myml# in the Hebrew Bible are actually taken from P (Num 6:13–21; Num 15:8) or from Ezekiel (Ez 46:2, 12), so that they actually do not meet Rendtorff’s criteria. Rendtorff’s conclusions were exclusively based on non-priestly passages. 498 See in particular RS 1.001:4; RS 1.003:13, 29; RS 1.009:7, 15; RS 24.253:10, 15, 28; RS 24.298:4(?); and for further references, cf. JANOWSKI, Erwägungen, 235 and 238. On this expression, see the discussion by DE MOOR, Peace-offering; JANOWSKI, 235–237, and 246ff.; and now PARDEE, Textes rituels, 1. 42ff. On the connection between the s]lmm and the king, see also ANDERSON, Sacrifices, 37 with n. 31. 499 Cf. JANOWSKI, Erwägungen, 231–232 n. 1; PARDEE, Textes rituels, 1. 43–44 n. 143. 500 For a survey of the various translations of the term which have been proposed, cf. for instance MILGROM, Leviticus, 220–221; RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 125–126. On the rendering of s]e6la4mîm in the LXX, see especially DANIEL, Recherches, 273–297.

224

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

sage, the king of the city before which Keret has lain siege, Pbl-mlk (king Pabil), sends him a message urging him to accept a number of valuables (silver, gold, slaves, horses, chariots and the like) as a tribute and to retreat from Udum, his city. The enumeration of the valuables offered concludes with this injunction (KTU 1.14 III 26–27 and par. [V 39–40; VI 9–10]): “Take, Keret, s]lmm s]lmm! And flee, oh king…” (qh9 .krt. s]lmm/s]lmm.w ng.mlk). The term s]lmm used here has often been taken as a reference to the s]lmm offering mentioned in cultic texts,501 but this interpretation is now generally abandoned. The context of this passage clearly refers not to a sacrifice but to a kind of tribute, and it has been gradually acknowledged that a term with a specialized meaning in a cultic context did not necessarily retain this meaning in the myth.502 Since this usage of s]lmm in the myths is unique (although the term s]lm is also attested a few times), one can think of an ad hoc creation, in which a typical cultic term is exceptionally used in a “profane” sense.503 However, it is difficult to ignore the parallels with the treaty terminology in Akkadian. The phrase qh9 … s]lmm in KTU 1.14 III 26 has been related with the Akkadian idiom sal|4mu lequ=, referring to the conclusion of a covenantal pact.504 Although it is quite possible that this conception applies to our passage, the immediate context, in which s]lmm occurs at the conclusion of the enumeration of the commodities offered to Keret by the king of Udum, suggests rather that here s] l mm is primarily a term designating the totality of these commodities.505 In this regard, s]lmm in KTU 1.14 is close to the Akkadian term s]ulma4nu, which derives from a qutl noun s]ulmu (meaning “well-being, peace”) with an a4 n u ending, and refers therefore to a present or a gift intended to achieve s]ulmu,506 as suggested by B. Levine. Levine went further to argue on the basis of the Mesopotamian evidence that the s]ulma4nu was originally “a gift presented to the king by his subordinates”, which would have transformed progressively into an offering to the god of the city, presented to him by the king of this city, and that traces of this development could still be observed in the Hebrew Bible.507 This proposal raises several problems and has been rightly criticized by B. Janowski and G.A. Anderson (although the latter does accept the parallel between s]lmm in the Keret epic and Akk. s]ulma4nu).508 In particular, these two authors observe that Levine’s treatment of the Mesopotamian evidence for s] u lma4 n u is problematic, especially regarding the so-called Königsritual where the s]ulma4nu offered to the king is not

501

See for instance DE MOOR, Peace-offering, 116–117. See especially LEVINE, Presence, 14ff.; further ANDERSON, Sacrifices, ch. 2. 503 Thus recently PARDEE, Textes rituels, 1. 47. 504 See JANOWSKI, Erwägungen, 245 and esp. n. 93; accordingly, he translates s]lmm here by “Friedensangebot”. For occurrences of this idiom, see AHw, 1015 s.v. sal|4mu(m) 4. 505 See also the objection by ANDERSON, Sacrifices, 53, who notes that “it is quite unlikely that Pabil is offering a new item, an actual treaty proposal, in his plea to Kirta”. 506 Cf. LEVINE, Presence, 18–19. 507 See ID., Presence, 29–32. Levine bases his argument on two Mesopotamian texts in particular, a passage from Enu4ma elis] (IV 134) where Marduk receives a s]ulma4nu from the other gods after he has slain Tiamat, and the so-called Königsritual, in which the s]ulma4nu is a gift presented to the king by his subordinates at his investiture, which the king gives in turn to the temple. In this latter ritual, we witness, according to him, “the step-by-step process by which a present to the king becomes an offering to the god, and is then appropriated by the priesthood” (Ibid., 32). In the HB, Levine tentatively proposes that a motif parallel to the Mesopotamian Königsritual may be found in 1 Sam 11:14–15; the s]ela4mîm mentioned in this account would be “gifts presented to Saul on the occasion of his victory and investiture as king over Israel”, which Saul then offers “as sacrifices to the God in whose name he ruled”. 508 JANOWSKI, Erwägungen, 241–245; ANDERSON, Sacrifices, 44–53. 502

3.3. The First tôrâ on Sacred Offerings: Leviticus 1–3

225

the same as the s]ulma4nu presented by the king to the deity. As pointed out by Anderson in particular,509 the relevant context is rather the diplomatic correspondence of the Late Bronze age, in which s]ulma4nu is a very common term for a present between two kings (either from a vassal to a superior or between kings of equal rank),510 exactly as is the case for Pabil’s offering in the Keret epic. The term is current in the correspondence of El-Amarna, but it also occurs in Hittite treaties of Bogazköy and in the Akkadian texts found at Ugarit, most of which consist of such diplomatic letters.511 In this context, the s]u lma4 n u is the gift which should concretize the s]lm expected between the two parties. “The forming of any friendship or covenantal pact most likely presumed an act of gift exchange. […] This gift was an expression of both the well-being one king hoped for another and the well-being which existed between them”.512 It is true that, as some authors have correctly observed, the difference in form between Ug. s]lmm and Akk. s]ulma4nu prevents a direct derivation of the former from the latter;513 but this does not preclude that s] l mm in the Keret epic is cognate with, and functionally equivalent to, Akk. s]ulma4nu. However, the fact that s]lmm in a diplomatic, non-cultic sense is not attested outside the Keret epic and that in the Ugaritic correspondence s]ulma4nu is systematically rendered by s]lm514 suggests that we have to do here with a poetic use of a term otherwise reserved for the cultic sphere, as in the Hebrew Bible.515 At any rate, in the Keret epic this term clearly refers to a present made in the prospect of manifesting s]lm between the two kings.516 That the author of this epic could use a technical term for a sacrifice in this sense very clearly suggests that this type of offering, the s]lmm, was associated with a similar conception, viz., it was presented to the deity as a tribute expressing the state of well-being existing between this deity and the offerer. On these grounds, the traditional rendering of both Ug. s]lmm and Heb. s]e6lamîm by “well-being offering” remains in my view the best.517

Yet these observations on the distinct character of the Myml# and the fact that it is not simply interchangeable with xbz do not imply that we are dealing 509

Sacrifices, 47. See however ANDERSON, Sacrifices, 47, who notes that the use of this term is exceptional in the first millenium, and that it seems “most appropriate to an age when kings were ‘brothers’ […] and international relations were regulated by diplomacy rather than imperial supremacy”; but cf. his own qualification of this statement in n. 68. 511 For the occurrences, see AHw, 1268 s.v.; literature on the term s]ulma4nu is considerable, see the references in LEVINE, Presence, 16 n. 35, and further JANOWSKI, Erwägungen, 242–243 n. 74. In Middle Assyrian legal documents, a specialized juridical usage of the term has developed, see on this FINKELSTEIN, S0ulma4nu Texts. 512 ANDERSON, Sacrifices, 52. 513 Thus for instance JANOWSKI, Erwägungen, 245; PARDEE, Textes rituels, 1. 47. 514 A point noted by PARDEE, Textes rituels, 1. 44 n. 143. 515 On this point, I agree with the argument developed by PARDEE, Textes rituels, 1. 47. 516 Thus, e.g., PARDEE , Textes rituels, 1. 47, who rejects the parallel with Akk. s]ulma4nu but nevertheless concludes that both in the cultic texts and in the Keret epic s]lmm must have the meaning of “don/offrande qui est présenté(e) pour se procurer le bien-être/la paix”. 517 Recently, RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 126–127, and EBERHART, Studien, 90–93, have again argued for a rendering of Myml#-xbz by “Gemeinschafts-Schlachtopfer”, following a proposal already made by M. Noth. Yet not only does this translation fail to account for the etymology, which both authors hardly consider (see briefly RENDTORFF, 124), but it does not enable us to discriminate between the xbz and the Myml# , since, as Rendtorff must admit (p. 127), the aspect of communal meal is also frequently associated with the term xbz in the Hebrew Bible. 510

226

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

with two entirely distinct types of offerings, as Rendtorff initially argued,518 or that the compound Myml#-xbz is a creation from priestly circles betraying an attempt to combine the two offerings. Rather, this recalls other similar constructions with xbz as a general sacrificial term followed by a term specifying the variety of this sacrifice, as in, e.g., hdwt xbz (Lev 7:12; 22:29; Ps 107:22; 116:17), Mymyh xbz (1 Sam 1:21; 2:19; 20:6), or hxp#m xbz (1 Sam 20:29);519 hence on a philological level, the compound Myml#-xbz can only be interpreted to mean “a xbz of the Myml# variety”520 – as Rendtorff now apparently accepts.521 The same seems to have been true for Ugarit, where, according to Levine, “s] l mm is classified in the dbh9/zebah9 category”.522 This observation also accounts for the fact that in all the non-P sources, the Myml# appears to be a sacrifice of the same type as the xbz, which is eaten in the context of a communal meal (see Ex 32:6; Deut 27:7; 1 Kgs 3:15) and probably implied similar blood rites (Ex 23:18; 34:25; Deut 12:27; 2 Kgs 16:15).523 Finally, it may be noted that the compound Myml#-xbz occurs a few times outside P, where it has the same meaning as the term Myml# alone. Thus, for instance, a passage in 1 Kgs 8:63 reads Myml#-yxbz , whereas the following verse has simply Myml#. Similarly, 1 Sam 10:8 has Myml#-yxbz and the corresponding passage in 1 Sam 13:9 reads Myml#; etc. Against Rendtorff’s attempt, it is unfounded to postulate that in this case either xbz /yxbz or Myml# has been added in these contexts by a later editor, and his arguments are a fine case of Systemzwang.524 In fact, most of the remaining occurrences of Myml#-xbz outside P (Josh 22:23; 1 Sam 10:8; 1 Kgs 8:63; further Ex 24:5 and 1 Sam 11:15, where we find the reading Myml# Myxbz, a construction which should be understood as an apposition)525 fit in the pattern described above for the Myml# alone, i.e., they are always accompanied by a hl( and are offered in the context of a public celebration, generally of national significance. The only exceptions are 2 Chr 30:22; 33:16, where the Myml#-yxbz are also offered in a similar context but are not accompanied by burnt offerings; and further 518

See Studien, 119–149; more recently ID., Leviticus, 118–120, but see further below. For further examples, see MILGROM, Leviticus, 218; and RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 126. 520 See for instance MILGROM, Leviticus, 218. 521 See RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 126, although he would nevertheless maintain his original understanding of xbz and Myml# as two distinct types of offerings, the Myml# being according to him the “official pendant” (Ibid., 128) to the private xbz. 522 LEVINE, Presence, 20; on this point, see further JANOWSKI, Erwägungen, 243 n. 115. 523 For this observation, see in particular MILGROM, Leviticus, 217. Pace RENDTORFF, Studien, 145–147 and passim, it is quite unlikely that the xbz in general implied no blood rite whatsoever, contrary to the Myml#, and that the inclusion of this rite in the Myml#-xbz should reflect the influence of the Myml# exclusively (cf. ID., Studien, 156–157.162ff.). Note, in particular, that such rites are mentioned along with the xbz in Deut 12:27 and 2 Kgs 16:15. Rendtorff himself now apparently rejects his earlier opinion, see ID., Leviticus, 128–129. 524 See RENDTORFF, Studien, 149–15; but compare now ID., Leviticus, 123. 525 DE VAUX, Sacrifices, 47; LEVINE, Presence, 28 n. 69; RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 123. 519

3.3. The First tôrâ on Sacred Offerings: Leviticus 1–3

227

Prov 7:14, where the Myml#-yxbz are mentioned as private, votive sacrifices. Yet all these passages are of post-exilic origin. In 2 Chr, it seems to reflect a later development, within priestly circles, of the Myml#-xbz as a public offering; in Prov, it may betray the influence of P in Lev 7:16ff., where the offering of a Myml#-xbz in the context of a vow is acknowledged. Therefore, it is easiest to assume that already before P, Myml# and Myml#-xbz were just equivalent, the former being only a simplified form.526 Given the scarcity of attestations of Myml#-xbz outside P, the shorter designation was obviously more popular. In P, on the contrary, the consistent use of the compound -xbz Myml# may reflect the fondness, in priestly circles, for accurate terminology. What is radically new, however, in the use of the designation Myml#-xbz in P is the context in which it occurs now, as Rendtorff and, above all, Levine have already observed.527 The Myml# is no longer an offering made in the context of the royal cult in exceptional circumstances (see above), but it has become “the zebah9 par excellence”, as Levine puts it,528 to be performed by every Israelite whenever he wants to offer a xbz.529 On one hand, this development clearly reflects the influence of the legislation of D and the abolition of the offering of sacrifices, Myxbz, at local sanctuaries (see Deut 12). Because every xbz is defined as a Myml#-xbz, that is, as a sacrifice of public, even national significance, it has necessarily to be made at the national sanctuary in Jerusalem.530 On the other hand, the traditional function associated with the Myml# (-xbz) in Judah and Israel, namely, the public celebration under royal patronage of outstanding events, is now transferred onto the offerings brought to the Temple of Jerusalem by all members belonging to the community of the l)r#y ynb. Such development suggests a historical context when the royal cult in Jerusalem is no longer existent, thus no earlier than the Neo-Babylonian period. Very clearly, the extension of the traditional Myml# sacrifice to every sacrifice made at the sanctuary of Jerusalem was a way for priestly circles to respond to the major issue raised by the disappearance of the king, the temple’s traditional patron in antiquity. The king’s main cultic function, namely, the offering of the Myml# in the context of public celebrations at the main sanctuary, is now assigned to the community as a whole.531 Simulta526

Also, one cannot argue that all the non-P passages reading Myml#-xbz are necessarily post-P; this is not true, for instance, of 1 Sam 10:8 or 1 Sam 11:15. 527 See RENDTORFF, Studien, esp. 162ff. and 246–247; LEVINE, Presence, 47–52. 528 LEVINE, Presence, 51. 529 Interestingly, Milgrom, although observing correctly that grammatically the term Myml# in the compound Myml#-xbz designates the variety of this xbz, must nevertheless acknowledge that “P’s zebah9 s]e6la4mîm, however, is an all-inclusive term – embracing all of the above-mentioned zebah9 offerings” (ID., Leviticus, 218). 530 As noted in particular by RENDTORFF, Studien, 246. 531 In Ez 40–48, on the contrary, the )y#n retains the traditional privilege of offering the Myml# on behalf of the entire community (see 45:17; 46:2, 12; similarly 45:15; but cf. 46:2).

228

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

neously, as argued by Levine, this innovation was a means, for postexilic priestly circles, of availing themselves “of a sacrifice identified with great cultic moments in Israelite history – the initiation of the monarchy under Saul […]; the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem, marking the rise of that city to cultic prominence, and the dedication of Solomon’s temple. […] The s]ela4mîm epitomized significant beginnings […]”.532

Taken together, these considerations suggest a dating for the composition of Lev 1–3* at a time when the temple in Jerusalem had probably not been rebuilt (since Lev 1–3 is older than P) but when the restoration of the cult could nevertheless seriously be considered, i.e., in the first decades of the Persian period, from 538 BCE onwards. A setting in the Babylonian exile also accounts for the parallel between the formulation of Lev 1–3 and the literary tradition of Mesopotamian rituals with a casuistic formulation mentioned above.533 Although one cannot exclude the possibility that already in the seventh century, under Assyrian domination, Judean scribes had access to some of the Mesopotamian ritual texts, the probable influence of Mesopotamian ritual literature is best explained during the Babylonian exile, where we have direct evidence that a few Judean scribes were trained in Neo-Babylonian academies and had therefore access to portions of this literature.534 From the perspective of the small group of exiles in Babylon, the prospect of restoring the Temple in Jerusalem and of officially resuming the sacrificial cult (whether or not there continued to be offerings on the site during the NeoBabylonian period by the local population) implied a series of significant issues. A new class of priests, capable of ensuring the service of the Second Temple, needed to be trained. Priests returning from exile belonged to a new generation unacquainted with the cult of the First Temple. Actually, it is quite possible that some of them may even have served in Babylonian temples.535 Furthermore, resumption of the cult perforce called for the (re-)definition of a unified practice. Finally, the priestly class was confronted with the problem that the cult was no longer placed under the patronage of a Judean king, as 532

Presence, 52. Cf. § 3.3.3. KOCH, Rituale, 84, considers for his part the transmission of the genre from Babylon to Israel, although he is unable to specify how it occurred (“auf irgendeine Weise”). 534 We have clear evidence of Judean and Israelite scribes having access to Babylonian sources in a tablet whose colophon mentions that it was written by a scribe named “Shemaya” who depended (according to the colophon) on models from both Babylon and Borsippa. See the reference quoted by UEHLINGER/MÜLLER T RUFFAUT, Ezekiel 1, 165. The authors comment: “This provides undisputable proof that Western exiles could make it into Babylonian scholarly curriculum already during the early days of the golah and even enter the arcanes of privileged esoteric information (piris]tu ila4ni rabu=ti, ‘secret of the great gods’)”. 535 This has been suggested for instance by BERQUIST, Judaism, 30–31, on the basis of the description of the fabrication of statues of foreign gods in Isa 40–55, which seems to reflect some acquaintance with Babylonian workshops of the various temples of the city. 533

3.3. The First tôrâ on Sacred Offerings: Leviticus 1–3

229

had been the case during the monarchy. In the interpretation proposed above, the priestly manual in Lev 1–3, with its elaborate classification of sacrifices, answered all those various concerns simultaneously. As a manual to be studied by priestly apprentices and an aide-mémoire for professional priests, it guaranteed the unity of the ritual at the temple. Moreover, this to=ra= organized the various sacrifices that could be brought by an individual into a comprehensive system which, in some respects, obviously betrays an attempt to cope with the new political and economic situation. In Lev 1–3, animal offerings are reduced to two types: the hl( and the Myml#-xbz. The lylk, also a totally burnt offering but apparently without any flaying of the animal (see Deut 33:10 and Ps 51:21; further 1 Sam 7:9),536 is implicitly excluded from the sacrificial practice, most likely because it was not sophisticated enough for priestly circles and had somehow fallen out of fashion.537 At any rate, its omission allowed for a simplification of the sacrificial practice through the restriction to only one type of burnt offering, the hl( . The Myml# was transformed from a distinctively national, even royal offering to the only type of xbz tolerated on the altar of the Temple, as argued above. The burnt offering retains its former preeminence among sacrifices; besides, the comment found in Lev 1:4b, “so that it may be acceptable on his behalf to make atonement for him (wyl( rpkl)” confirms that, typically, it was brought by the offerer whenever he, or she, suspected he may have irritated the deity and was trying to regain the latter’s favor by attracting his attention with a valuable sacrifice, as was already the case in the pre-exilic period (on this, see above, § 3.2.2.3.a.).538 In the case of the Myml#-xbz, on the 536

See KAPELRUD, art. ka4lîl, esp. 184–185. In the Phenician-Punic area, a ka4lîl offering is also attested in the Punic tariffs as well as in various inscriptions; for references, see JANOWSKI, Erwägungen, 253. The tariff of Marseille further distinguishes between s]lm-kll and kll, while the tariff of Carthage is unaware of the distinction. However, it is uncertain whether the s]lm kll refers to a specific type of offering; as some have argued, it is possible that kll should be read not together with s]lm but with the sequel of the phrase, meaning that all of the s] lm offering must go to the officiating priest (cf. DIETRICH ET AL., s]lm kll). 537 Note that the paucity of attestations of this term in the Hebrew Bible suggests that it was replaced by the hl( already at an earlier date. 538 This seems to me the most satisfactory interpretation of this phrase. JANOWSKI, Sühne, 192ff., and RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 37–38, regard it as a later exegesis of the previous phrase wl hcrnw, but this solution is required by their general hypothesis that the hl( may only effect atonement when combined with a t)+x offering. Yet such combination rather occurs in cases where a person needs to be cleansed from a physical pollution, as was argued above (§ 3.2.2.3.c.). The offering of a hl( served for the atonement in cases of moral offenses against the deity, before the insertion of Lev 4 (above, § 3.2.2.). The fact that no such offense is mentioned in Lev 1 does not justify the assumption that the burnt offering was presented not for a specific sin but rather “for the general sinful disposition of the presenter” (thus HARTLEY , Leviticus, 19). Even if the concluding phrase wyl( rpkl in 1:4b is viewed as a gloss (ELLIGER, Leviticus, 30), it should be a correct statement of the ritual’s purpose.

230

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

contrary, the concern that one’s offering may not be accepted by the deity is no longer an issue, and there is no statement in Lev 3 comparable to 1:3b and 1:4b.539 Rather, the Myml#-xbz endorses the traditional function of the Myml#, viz., to manifest the state of well-being prevailing with the deity.540 Together, these two offerings thus exemplify the two main functions devoted to sacrifice in traditional societies, namely, restoring the relationship with the deity when it is broken or endangered, on one hand, and celebrating this same relationship on the other.541 To this sacrificial system, an instruction for cereal offerings was appended in Lev 2, which may be explained by the popularity of this type of offering not only in the traditional cult of Israel/Judah (see Am 4:5!), but also in nonYahwistic cults of the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods, especially in the cult to Ishtar, the Queen of Heaven (see Jer 7:18; 44:15ff.). The systematic and comprehensive character of Lev 2 is similarly evident; obviously, the attempt was made to include all major variants of this offering, grouped under the specialized term hxnm.542 Thus, a distinction is made not only between raw and baked cereal offering but also between different modes of baking this offering (cf. 2:4–7); as suggested by Gerstenberger, these various modes probably correspond to different types of culture and ways of living,543 and therefore highlight the inclusive character of the instruction of Lev 2. As argued by J. Milgrom (building on an earlier observation by M. Haran),544 it is also possible that the prescription that only a portion of the cereal offering must be burnt on the altar, which appears to represent an innovation vis-à-vis the earlier practice where the cereal offering was seemingly entirely burnt (Judg 6:19–21; 13:19–20),545 may well be a means of distinguishing this 539 In v. 3b, the pronominal suffix in wncrl may be either objective or subjective, referring to the offering or to the offerer. Yet in v. 4b the verb hcr clearly means the offerer. 540 Outside P, the Myml#( -xbz ) is usually not associated with the notion of atonement either; one exception seems to be Ez 45:15, 17. For further possible references, see MIL GROM, Leviticus, 221–222; EBERHART, Studien, 109–112. Pace Eberhart, in Lev 9 the atonement of the people referred to in v. 7 is probably realized by the burnt and purification offerings alone. Pace Milgrom, a reference to the well-being offering in Lev 17:11 (H) is unlikely in my opinion, see below the discussion of this verse in § 5.2.1., page 422 and n. 114. 541 On this question, see in particular the fine discussion by MALINA, Rituale, esp. 40–41. 542 On the development in the course of which the noun for “gift” derived from the Semitic root m-n-h9 gradually took, in a cultic context, the specialized meaning of “grain” or “cereal” offering (along with other specialized meanings in profane, non-cultic contexts, such as “tribute”), see ANDERSON, Sacrifices, 27–34. He shows that the need to specialize this term in priestly circles does not reflect priestly “legalism” but rather corresponds to the administrative development of temples in Israel and in Judah. Thus, it is quite likely that at the return from exile, the P school inherited this designation; see already 2 Kgs 16:13 and Am 5:22, 25. 543 See GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 38. 544 MILGROM, Leviticus, 200–202, following HARAN, art. Minh9a=. 545 MILGROM, Leviticus, 200–201 (here again following Haran’s previous study).

3.4. The Composition of Lev 1–9* by P

231

offering from the practice of presenting incense and cakes to Ishtar, the Queen of Heaven, whose cult was quite popular in the Neo-Assyrian and NeoBabylonian periods.546 While Jer 44:19 MT suggests that the cakes offered to the Queen of Heaven could be made in the form of the goddess,547 the portion of the cereal offering burnt to Yahweh is defined more abstractly as an hrkz) (“token-portion”) in Lev 2 (see v. 2, 9, 16), a neologism playing on the notion of remembrance (root rkz).548

3.4. The Composition of Lev 1–9* by P Once the issue of the origin of the to=ra= of Lev 1–3 has been clarified, we may resume the question of the composition of Lev 1–9 as well as of the result achieved by the inclusion of this to=ra= in the Priestly account of Israel’s origins. According to the analysis pursued here, the text of P in Lev 1–9 originally consisted of Lev 1–3 and 8–9. Contrary to the traditional view, ch. 8–9 were never composed independently of Lev 1ff. (above, § 3.2.1.) but were meant from the start to follow upon Lev 1–3 in P. Likewise, the attempt to dissociate Lev 9 from Lev 8 is unfounded, and both chapters were composed by the same author as the one responsible for Ex 25–29 (§ 3.1.). Together, Ex 28–29 and Lev 8–9 were intended as a redactional and editorial framework for the to=ra= on offerings in Lev 1–3, which was introduced in P as 546

Reference is made to this cult in various passages of Jeremiah. For the burning of cakes (Mynwk) to the Queen of Heaven, see Jer 7:18 and 44:17–19; for the setting of this cult on the roof of houses, cf. 19:13. MILGROM, Leviticus, 201, notes that “the cakes, kawwa4nîm, are the familiar Akk. kama4 n u/kama4 n a4 t u, the sweet baked cakes offered to the gods”; see further on this especially DELCOR, Reine, 141–143; also, MCKANE, Jeremiah, 1. 170. 547 On this issue, and for a discussion of the phrase hbc(hl in Jer 44:19 MT, see in particular DELCOR , Reine, 143–145; and MC K ANE , Jeremiah, 2. 1077; HOLLADAY, Jeremiah, 2. 279. As noted by Delcor, the practice of offering cakes made in the shape of deities was common in antiquity. 548 On the hrkz), see in particular SCHOTTROFF, Gedenken, 328–338. Outside Lev 2 (v. 2, 9, 16), the term is only attested in Lev 5:12; 6:8; 24:7; and Num 5:26, all passages depending on the former. Although the interpretation of this term considerably varies, modern scholars usually accept the connection with the root rkz, as did the LXX (mnhmo/sunon) and the rabbinic tradition before. See, e.g., RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 100; MILGROM, Leviticus, 182; and DEIANA , Levitico, 58. The exact meaning of this connection is disputed, but there can be little doubt that it is related to Yahweh’s remembrance of the offering, as the rabbis had already understood. DANIEL, Recherches, 225–237, has shown that the LXX has linked the term hrkz) with the remembrance of the hxnm itself (“la ’azkârâh, mnhmo/sunon de la minh9â h, assure le souvenir de la minh9âh” [Ibid., 233]), and this understanding agrees in many respects with the rendering of some modern authors of hrkz) by “token-offering” (thus in particular DRIVER, Three Terms, 100: “burnt as a substitute for the whole offering”; similarly RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 100–101; MILGROM, Leviticus, 182).

232

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

a revelation made by Yahweh himself to Moses at the foot of Mt Sinai from inside the tent of meeting (Lev 1:1).549 With this development, the manual for the priests of the Second Temple is now divinely legitimated and presented as the very content of the to=ra= revealed to Moses during the foundational period of Israel’s stay at Mt Sinai. A similar device is documented – though admittedly on a much smaller scale – by the silver amulettes of Ketef Hinnom, which attest to the fact that P has taken up in Num 6:22–24 an older, traditional blessing, and transformed it into a divine revelation made to Aaron, the ancestor of Israel’s priests.550 As to Lev 1–3, we may still have an echo of the opposition with which the transformation of this set of priestly rules for sacrifices into a divinely revealed legislation met in other circles. Thus, Jer 7:21ff., a later addition to Jer 7, rejects vigorously the possibility that Yahweh ever commanded anything to Israel as regards the offering of sacrifices when he led his people out of Egypt (see 7:22).551 From the viewpoint of P’s narrative logic, Lev 1–9* forms the expected sequel to the original account of the building of Yahweh’s sanctuary in Ex 25–29; 35–40*. Ex 40:35, the notice initially concluding this account before the addition of 40:36–38, stresses that even though Yahweh is now dwelling in the middle of Israel, as in the original creation before the Flood, he still cannot be approached by the Israelites, including Moses, because the latter do not know yet how to worship him. This issue is solved in two stages, first by the revelation to Moses of the to=ra= on sacrifices in Lev 1–3 and then by the eight-day ceremony of Lev 8–9 recounting the consecration of the first priests and the offering of the first sacrifices on the community’s behalf, in agreement with the previous instructions in Lev 1–3. The whole ceremony forms

549 Although the literary integrity of Lev 1:1 has sometimes been disputed, especially regarding v. 1a, “and he called Moses” (see, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 310), this view is difficult to support. As observed previously (above, § 3.2.1., page 158), the sequence formed by Ex 40:35 + Lev 1:1 imitates Ex 24:15b-18aa + 25:1ff., and the two verses should belong to the same layer. Besides, the connection between 40:35 and 1:1 should necessarily be earlier than the interpolation of Ex 40:36–38, and thus predate the pentateuchal redaction; as noted by several authors, the issue raised by the interpolation of Ex 40:36–38 between 40:35 and Lev 1:1 is still manifest in the Syriac tradition, which displaced the subject (Yahweh) at the beginning of v. 1a (see also above, § 1.2.2.2., page 57). ELLIGER, Leviticus, 27–28, proposes retaining only v. 1a as part of Pg and assigns v. 1b to the Priestly editor responsible for the insertion of Lev 1ff. Yet this solution is unfounded and was disputed above, § 3.2.1., page 159. As argued at § 3.3.1., the reworking of Lev 1:2 to harmonize this verse with the situation considered in v. 1 goes back to the Priestly writer when he composed Lev 1–9. 550 For the edition of the two amulettes, see, e.g., YARDENI, Remarks. 551 For a similar interpretation, see CARROLL, Jeremiah, 1. 215–216. WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena, 58–59, used this observation to argue that the prophet Jeremiah did not yet know P. However, apart from the problem raised by the attribution of this passage to the prophet himself, the statement seems better understood as a polemical response to a recent innovation.

3.4. The Composition of Lev 1–9* by P

233

an elaborate rite of passage,552 inaugurating a new order in which a relationship is established between the Israelites and Yahweh through priestly mediation. The importance of this narrative development is highlighted by the ceremony’s duration; while the seven days of Lev 8 echo the creation of the world in Gen 1:1–2:3, in Lev 9, the offering of the first sacrifices on the eighth day somehow takes the place of the first day after the creation.553 It is also emphasized by the glorious climax in 9:23–24: Moses and Aaron are admitted into the tent and Yahweh’s dwbk appears to the people, a unique event in P.554 All these observations show that the prevailing view since Wellhausen that the composition of Lev 1ff. would betray a late “nomistic” revision is simply false. Quite to the contrary, Lev 1–9 pursues the overarching theme of the Priestly narrative, i.e., the restoration of the relationship between God and mankind in a distinct ethnic group, the Sons of Jacob/Israel, and the definition of the latter as the “priestly nation” among the nations of the world.555 It was already suggested earlier in this study (§ 1.2.2.2.) that the omission of any reference to sacrifices in P in Genesis and Exodus – even at the end of the Flood narrative (Gen 6–9) – was deliberate and prepared for the account of the inauguration of the sacrificial cult in Lev 1–9. In P, the offering of sacrifices to Yahweh, the creator God, is a task reserved to Israel exclusively, after Moses has been revealed the to=ra= on sacrifices at Mt Sinai in Lev 1ff. This means that it is in Israel’s sacrificial cult that the divide between God and men, still prevailing even after the building of the sanctuary (see Ex 40:35!), is finally bridged in the post-Flood era. The creator God, who had retired to the clouds after the Flood (Gen 9:12ff.), dwells again among men and accepts their offerings whose soothing odor (xwxyn-xyr, Lev 1–3) pleases him.556 552 See above, § 2.2., pages 89–90, note 91. As observed there (after Gorman, Jenson and Jürgens), the ritual described in ch. 8 corresponds to the separation of Aaron and his sons from their earlier status; the seven-day period prescribed in v. 33–35 represents the liminal state; and the offering of the first sacrifices in ch. 9 corresponds to the rite of aggregation, since Aaron and his sons perform the rites for the first time in their new status as priests. 553 Pace some recent authors (STRUPPE, Herrlichkeit 102 n. 2; similarly FREVEL , Blick, 173–177, esp. 175–176), the difference in the interval of time between Ex 24:16 (6 + 1 days) and Lev 9:1 (7 + 1 days) is therefore quite logical and does not justify the assumption that it corresponds to a later development. As argued previously in this study (§ 1.3., p. 61), the mention of the seventh day in Ex 24:16 picks up the seventh day of the creation in Gen 2:1–3. Contrary to the expected pattern in antiquity, Gen 2:1–3 does not conclude with the creation of a sanctuary for Yahweh but with the institution of the Sabbath. In Lev 9, the eighth day reflects the fact that the sacrificial cult is not conceived as part of the creation but as a human response to it. As such it is given the prominent place among the works of man in P. 554 In Ex 16:10, the hwhy dwbk appears in the cloud, as in Ex 24:16–17 and 40:34, and is therefore not directly contemplated by the people. 555 See on this in detail above, § 1.3. 556 Cf. Lev 1:9, 13, 17; 2:2, 9; 3:5, 16. As previously noted (§ 1.2.2.2., p. 57 with note 197), this formula concludes the story of the Flood both in the non-P version (Gen 8:21) and

234

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

Similarly, it is in Israel’s cult that Yahweh’s sovereignty over his creation is now publicly acknowledged for the first time. The sequence formed by Ex 25–40 and Lev 1–9 follows a mythical pattern in ANE, in which the god’s enthronement inside his newly built palace leads to a great banquet in his honor.557 With Israel’s offerings, the God-king dwelling inside Israel’s sanctuary can likewise be adequately honored and worshipped. This conception also appears to dictate the order of the sacrifices in P. As noted above (§ 3.3.1.), the placing of the cereal offering between the burnt and well-being offerings suggests a progression from most to least significant offerings, the burnt offering being placed first because it is entirely consecrated to the deity, while the well-being offering comes last because in this case the deity must share it with the lay offerer.558 In all those aspects, the institution of the sacrificial cult in Lev 1–9 re-enacts, in Israel’s mythical sanctuary, the initial harmony between God and men that was devised in the creation of the world, thus completing the narrative opened in Gen 1; as noted above, this connection is further enhanced by the ceremony’s duration in ch. 8–9 (7 + 1 days). However, there is a more subtle but no less significant way in which the account of Lev 1–9 is related to Gen 1. The revelation to Israel of the sacrificial legislation and the inauguration of the sacrificial cult in Lev 1–9 actually correspond to an improvement of the situation for post-diluvian mankind after Gen 9. The permission granted to man after the Flood to kill and eat animals implies a revision of the original order defined in Gen 1, where both human beings and animals were created to be vegetarians – even though they are distinguished by the nature of their diet (cf. 1:29–30) – and were therefore supposed to coexist peacefully. This permission is solely limited by two prohibitions (9:4–6) – eating animal blood and killing other human beings –, which should be regarded as a kind of minimal requirement for the possibility of a civilized life, in spite of the permission granted to kill and eat animals.559 Although the opposite view has sometimes been held by authors who tend to consider that the putting to death of animals is not an issue for P,560 there can be little doubt that the order instituted after the Flood as well as the relationship between men and animals prevailing in it are largely inferior to the original creation. We have some evidence from other cultures in antiquity, espein the Standard Babylonian version (Tablet 11, col. 5, l. 160), and typically expresses reconciliation between god(s) and men and the restoration of their relationship. 557 See, e.g., Enu4ma elis] VI 71ff., and for further references above, § 1.2.2.2., p. 55. 558 In this regard, the problem of the division of the animal between God and men in the sacrificial cult is also an issue, as in Greek religion and Greek myths in particular (see VERNANT, Table; DURAND, Bêtes), although the overall conception is somewhat distinct. 559 On this aspect, see the important work by BEAUCHAMP, Création, who speaks in the case of Gen 9 of “controlled violence” (violence régulée). On the presence of a “vegetarian utopia” in P, see also MARX, Offrande végétale, ch. 5; and DOUGLAS, Leviticus, 171–174. 560 See SCHENKER, Versöhnung, 104; more recently EBERHART, Studien, 203–211.

3.4. The Composition of Lev 1–9* by P

235

cially in Greece, that putting to death a domestic animal, contrary to the wild beast, constituted an important problem, and that ritualizing the slaughter by transforming it into a sacrifice to the god(s) was a means of normalizing and therefore of legitimizing the animal’s death, the taking of the animal’s life being compensated for by the offering of this same life to the god(s).561 It has even been argued that this concern could be, from an anthropological perspective, a basic feature of the significance of sacrifice in general. At any rate, as observed since long,562 in Israel at least the practice of accompanying the animal’s slaughter with some kind of ritual dedication is clearly presupposed by the Deuteronomic legislation. In Deut 12, the permission of profane, nonsacrificial slaughter is clearly presented as a legal innovation; yet, quite significantly, even in this case a minimal rite – abstention from eating the blood, which must be poured instead on the ground – is retained (see Deut 12:16ff. and 12:23–25). Finally, a ritual dedication also appears to be reflected in the story of 1 Sam 14:31–35. In P, although unrestricted animal slaughter is granted to man in Gen 9, the problem raised by this new situation is explicitly signaled by the juxtaposition of the prohibition of eating blood with the flesh (v. 4) and the prohibition of murder (v. 5).563 561 In the case of ancient Greece, see in particular VERNANT, Table; and further DURAND, Sacrifice (with an iconographic record); ID., Bêtes; as well as HIMMELMANN, Tieropfer, esp. 66ff., who states that “Tieropfer primär rituelles Schlachten ist” (p. 68). This conception is connected in particular with the motif of the so-called “assenting animal” in Greek religion. For a survey of the ancient sources see BURKERT, Greek Tragedy, 106–107; this motif is also present in the iconography, although it appears there to have been in fact little more than a formal device, see on this the discussion in VAN STRATEN, Hiera Kala, 100–102. In Greece as in Israel (see Deut 12:15, 22; and also Lev 17:13–14), it is the death of a domestic animal which raises a specific issue; the death of a wild animal is considerably less problematic (in the case of Israel this is already implied in the formulation of the legislation of Deut 12:15, 22; compare also Lev 17:13–14 with 17:10–12!). This refutes the classical theory advanced by BURKERT, Homo Necans (who developed himself an earlier insight by K. Meuli), according to whom the dedication of a sacrificial portion to the gods is a reflex of earlier, ancestral hunting practices; on this point, see the criticism by Himmelmann. For parallels to this general conception of sacrifice in other traditional cultures outside the Mediterranean, see the references given by HOUSTON, Purity, 187, who cites in particular two African cultures, the Nuer and the Kachin. In the case of P, MARX , Offrandes végétales, 139ff., comes to a similar conclusion: “Pour P, au contraire, la mise à mort d’un animal est un acte d’une gravité telle qu’il a besoin d’être expressément légitimé par Dieu” (p. 142). Pace Marx, however, I do not think that the decisive impulse for this conception comes from Zoroastrian religion; as argued here, the reticence towards the slaughter of domestic animals is a widespread phenomenon in antiquity, corresponding to a more general anthropological structure. Besides, as Marx himself must admit (Ibid., 148–149), P is not opposed to animal sacrifices and his position cannot be compared in this regard with the Zoroastrian doctrine. 562 See especially W ELLHAUSEN , Prolegomena, 63.77–78; SMITH, Religion, 238–239; more recently for instance HIMMELMANN, Tieropfer, 67–68; HOUSTON, Purity, 187. 563 This point has been correctly noted by some authors; see, e.g., BEAUCHAMP, Création.

236

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

When Lev 1–9 is read against the background of P’s account of the origins of mankind in Gen 1–11, and of the development taking place after the Flood regarding the relationship between man and animals, the revelation to Israel of the legitimate way of sacrificing animals to Yahweh appears to represent a significant improvement over the situation described in Gen 9.564 This does not mean, of course, that P rejected the Dtr innovation of the permission of profane, non-sacrificial slaughter previously introduced in D. Actually, acceptance of profane, non-sacrificial slaughter appears to be presupposed in P’s instruction for Passover in Ex 12 (see 12:6b).565 Moreover, contrary to what is the case in H (see Lev 17:3–7), there is no indication that the sacrifices prescribed in Lev 1–3 are mandatory and that domestic animals serving as food necessarily have to be offered as sacrifices to Yahweh.566 Nonetheless, the implication of Lev 1–9 is that the revelation of the to=ra= of Lev 1–3 by Yahweh himself to the Israelites means that the latter are able not only to honor him appropriately but also, simultaneously, to compensate, at least partially, for the violence involved in putting to death domestic animals by offering these animals ritually. Israel, defined as the “priestly nation” on earth and the one in charge of presenting the god of the universe with offerings, is thus 564

And not, as argued by LOHFINK, War, 206–207, that the “state of war” between man and animal in Gen 9 would serve to make sacrifices possible. Lohfink correctly perceives that in P’s world, “people normally ate only meat that had previously been offered to a divinity in a cultic ritual”, but fails to see that the existence of such ritual is already connected, from a historical and cultural perspective, with the issue of violence made to domestic animals. 565 Admittedly, because Israel was still in Egypt when the Passover regulation was given, the animal could not have been sacrificed anyway. However, there is no indication in Ex 12:1–13 that this instruction is no longer valid after the sanctuary’s building. On the contrary, even the author of H had to retain it: see Lev 23:5, and further on this below, page 505 n. 428. 566 This classical view since Kuenen and Wellhausen has been recently disputed by a few authors, in particular SCHWARTZ , “Profane” Slaughter, 26–38. I find myself in agreement with some of Schwartz’s points, in particular as regards Lev 7:22–27 which, contra Kuenen and Wellhausen, is probably from H’s hand (see below, § 3.6.) and does not necessarily presuppose permission of profane slaughter. However, on the whole his assumption that profane slaughter is already prohibited in P (or more pointedly, that with the setting up of the Tabernacle all animal slaughter would automatically have become sacrificial) fails to convince. First, Schwartz is unable to explain why it is nowhere prescribed in P that all domestic animals should be sacrificed, contrary to what is the case in Lev 17:3–7. Methodologically, Schwartz’s demonstration is problematic in this respect: to argue that no passage in Lev 1–16 unequivocally presupposes the permission of non-sacrificial slaughter does not automatically imply that P ignores or rejects such permission, as he infers. Besides, if the rejection of any form of non-sacrificial slaughter was already fully accepted by P, one can hardly understand the necessity for the ban on profane slaughter in H (Lev 17:3–7; for a similar criticism, see MILGROM, Leviticus, 1455). This is all the more a problem because Schwartz, at least in this article, accepts Knohl’s view of H as a supplement to P. (But authors rejecting the distinction between P and H would also have to explain why Lev 17 was introduced at this place, and not in the context of the sacrificial legislation of ch. 1–7, as would seem logical.) Finally, there is one instance of non-sacrificial slaughter in P in Ex 12:6, as observed above.

3.5. Leviticus 5

237

simultaneously described in P as the nation in which a relationship between God, men and animals superior to that characterizing post-diluvian mankind prevails; as such, Israel is closer (although not equivalent!) to the original creation. It is possible that this perspective is also reflected in the order of the offerings defined by P in Lev 1–3. As suggested by A. Marx, the importance given in P to the cereal offering, which has become the second most sacred offering immediately after the burnt offering, serves perhaps as a permanent reminder of the vegetarian utopia initially defined in Gen 1.567

3.5. Leviticus 5 So far, this chapter has been mainly devoted to discussing the composition of Lev 1–3 and 8–9; the reasons for considering Lev 4 and, together with it, ch. 5 and 6–7, as a later addition to P in Lev 1–9 have been given above (see § 3.2.2.). Before closing this chapter, we still need to discuss the composition of these supplements, as well as the reasons for their insertion into Lev 1–9. Lev 5 consists of a series of instructions for additional cases when a purification (t)+x) offering (v. 1–13) or a reparation (M#) ) offering (v. 14–26) have to be brought to Yahweh. Their interpretation raises several issues, which it is imperative to clarify prior to any critical assessment of the logic and the redactional homogeneity of this chapter. A preliminary discussion concerns the translation of the verb M#) in Lev 5, as well as in the previous chapter, Lev 4. Traditionally, this verb is expressed by “to be, or become guilty”.568 Nonetheless, as some authors have observed, this rendering is unable to account for the formulation of 4:22–23a and 27–28a which appears to involve an alternative. Either the person who has committed an inadvertent sin performs )a4s\am (v. 22, 27) or this person is told that he or she has sinned: “or (if) it is made known to him…” ((dAwOh wO)) (v. 23a MT, 28a MT, instead of “when it is made known”, h(fd:wOnw:, as in 4:13–14a). Thus, “it would make no sense to say that ‘if anyone sins, and is guilty or is told what their sin is, then he or she shall bring an offering’”;569 we6)a4s]e4m, here, must apparently involve more than an objective statement of guilt, namely, some form of awareness of the (inadvertent) sin committed.570 In a detailed study, Milgrom was one of the first to argue at length a subjective (and not objective) rendering for the verb M#). This verb, according to him, has a consequential meaning, expressing the connection that exists not only between sin and punishment, but also between sin, punishment and guilt feelings; as such, the verb mainly denotes “the suffering brought on by guilt”, and should be rendered as “feel guilt”.571 However, this view raises many new dif567

See MARX, Offrandes végétales, 139–149; also ID., Systèmes sacrificiels, 131. See for instance JANOWSKI, Sühne, 256, who proposes more specifically: “schuld, haftpflichtig sein” for M#) Qal, and “Schuldpflicht, Haftpflicht, Schuldverpflichtung” or, when the notion of reparation dominates, “Schuldableistung, Schuldgabe” for the substantive. 569 SKLAR, Sin, 30; emphasis original. 570 See already KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 33–34; and further now SKLAR, Sin, 30–31. 571 MILGROM, Cult, 1–12; see further ID., Studies, 122ff.; ID., Leviticus, 339–345. 568

238

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

ficulties.572 In particular, this rendering stands in tension with 4:13–14, which implies that the community should bring an offering because it has been warned of its inadvertent sin, not because it is struck with remorse. Also, Milgrom is unable to apply his rendering of M#) to the phrase le6)as\e6mat in 4:3, where he is somehow forced to return to an objective rendering (“to the detriment of the people”). Lastly, while Milgrom holds that )a4s\am normally refers to the guilt resulting from the recognition of sin, there is at least one instance, in 5:17, where the phrase we6)a4s]e4m is not preceded by knowledge of the sin, so that the latter actually appears to be implied in the use of )a4s\am.573 N. Kiuchi,574 while accepting some of Milgrom’s insights, rightly refuses his strictly subjective rendering and seeks to include the element of awareness in the rendering of M#). He thus proposes “to realize guilt” (which is already found in a few older English translations, such as NJV) which “has both objective and subjective aspects”,575 and can be summarized as follows: “since the sinner is guilty, he feels guilty” (Kiuchi). Since then, a comparable rendering has been adopted by some scholars, in particular Rendtorff and Hartley.576 However, it is similarly unable to account for the formulation of the first two cases in Lev 4. In 4:3, a translation of le6 ) as\ e 6 m at by “to realize guilt” hardly makes sense;577 in 4:13–14, if the community had already realized that it is guilty, one does not understand the need that it be informed about the inadvertent offense committed.578 This points to the general difficulty in the translation of )a4s\am in Lev 4–5: the verb may imply some sort of awareness of sin, as in 4:22–23, 27–28 or 5:17, but not consistently (see 4:13–14). This can be logically explained, however, if, contrary to Kiuchi, the realization of sin is not contained in the verb )a4s\am but is only one of the possible consequences of )a4s\am. This is the view now defended in particular by J. Sklar, who proposes rendering )a4s\ am by “to suffer guilt’s consequences”.579 This solution accounts for the consequential meaning of )a4s\am (Milgrom) as well as for the fact that it may (yet does not need to) lead to the realization of the sin (Kiuchi): “an unknown sin has been committed, and the sinner becomes aware of it only because of some sort of suffering that results from the sin”.580 Such a conception is well attested in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., 2 Sam 21:1), as well as in other ancient Near Eastern cultures,581 and it accounts well for the variations in the formulation of Lev 4 (4:3, 13–14, 22–23, 27–28). As we shall see below, this is the only possible understanding of we6)a4s]e4m in 5:17–19. Furthermore, it also 572

For criticism, see also in particular WELLS, Testimony, 67ff., and SKLAR, Sin, 34–39. For this observation, see especially SKLAR, Sin, 37–38. 574 Cf. KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 31–34. 575 ID., Purification Offering, 34. 576 RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 152–153; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 62. 577 SKLAR, Sin, 34. 578 Kiuchi, who is aware of the problem, is obliged to surmise that “the relationship between v. 13b and 14a is unlikely to be consecutive”, noting correctly that “if it were, it would follow that the congregation is still in the dark as to the offense when they feel guilty” (ID., Purification Offering, 33–34). Yet a consecutive rendering of v. 13b and 14a is certainly the most natural in this context. The assumption that h(dwnw in v. 14a serves to explain wm#)w in v. 13b is at odds with the formulation of 4:22–23 and 27–28, where the two verbs are not synonymous but rather describe two different situations. 579 SKLAR, Sin, 39–41. 580 Ibid., 40. 581 See MILGROM, Cult, 76–80, referring in particular to the Babylonian “Prayer to Every God” where we find the following statement: “The sin which I have done, indeed I do not know. The forbidden thing which I have eaten, indeed I do not know. The prohibited (place) on which I have set foot, indeed I do not know” (ANET, 391–392). For the comparative record in Mesopotamia, see VAN DER TOORN, Sin, 94ff.; and now DIETRICH, Sünde. 573

3.5. Leviticus 5

239

makes sense in the other passages of ch. 5 where this verb is found, namely, 5:2–4, 5 and 20–26).582

The first part of Lev 5, v. 1–13, begins with the enumeration of four cases (v. 1–4) in which a person (cf. #pn, v. 1) suffers guilt’s consequences (cf. M#)y, v. 5 MT and LXX)583 because he (or she) has sinned;584 this person must then confess his (her) guilt (v. 5) and bring his “reparation”, wm#), to Yahweh for the sin which has been committed. The reparation itself must consist of a female from the flock, sheep or goat, offered as a purification (t)+x) offering, so that the priest can purify this person from his sin (v. 6). The four cases identified in v. 1–4 are of a different nature, and their interpretation is considerably disputed.585 The main issue in v. 1 is the meaning of hl) lwq. This expression probably refers to the public proclamation of a curse, pronounced by a wronged person on the one by whom he has been wronged (cf. Judg 17:2 and Prov 29:24). Therefore, v. 1 considers the case of a person who, although he has heard the proclamation of this curse and he was a witness of the wrongdoing or knows something about it, nevertheless fails to testify, as in the instance condemned by Prov 29:24.586 V. 2–3 concern a person who becomes impure by touching either the car582 SKLAR , Sin, briefly addresses Lev 5:23 (p. 40–41) as well as 5:17–19 (p. 37–39) but leaves aside entirely the case of the difficult passage 5:2–4. Yet, as we shall see below, the proposed rendering “to suffer guilt’s consequences” also fits the context of this passage. 583 The SamP reads )+xy, probably so as to harmonize with v. 6, stating that the offender must bring his reparation “for his sin which he has sinned” ()+x r#) wt)+x l(). 584 The beginning of v. 5 must be kept with the MT and the SamP, against the LXX* (followed by the Vulgate). As often surmised, the omission may result from homoioteleuton (thus, e.g., HARTLEY, Leviticus, 48; see also BHS). 585 Against SPIRO, Law; similarly NOTH, Leviticus, 44, it is certainly not possible to consider that the cases described in v. 2–4 are dependent on those in v. 1 and form a single case (in that the witness of v. 1 would have witnessed the offenses committed in v. 2–4 and failed to testify). This solution is contradicted by the fact that v. 2–4 are introduced by yk and not by M) as should occur if they were subcases of v. 1. Also, it would require assuming that the antecedent of )whw in v. 2–4 is the witness of v. 1, which is grammatically unlikely. See also the criticism by KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 23–24; and MILGROM, Leviticus, 309. 586 Thus in particular PHILLIPS, Criminal Law, 138; SCHARBERT, art. )a4la4h, 262; KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 30; RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 190–191; and especially the recent and detailed discussion by W ELLS , Testimony, 57–59. Since this is the situation explicitly envisioned in both Judg 17:2 and Prov 29:24, it is tempting to conclude that hl) refers specifically to cases of theft (thus PHILLIPS, 139). Previously, it was often assumed that hl) lwq referred to a solemn adjuration to testify; see BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 327 (“Zeugnispflicht”); BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 14; BRICHTO, “Curse”, 42–43. However, as observed by Phillips, the text does not state that hl) lwq is addressed to the witness. NOTH, Leviticus, 44, understood hl) lwq as a curse unlawfully uttered, which the sinner of v. 1 failed to report, as he should have done; this interpretation is already found in some Targums as well as in Philo, see MILGROM, Leviticus, 294. However, as noted by KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 30, “there is nothing in the text to suggest that the curse is unlawful”. Besides, the parallel with Prov 29:24, where the rare expression hl) lwq also occurs, corroborates the interpretation accepted here. PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 86, adduces the possibility that hl) lwq could desig-

240

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

cass of any unclean animal (v. 2), or a human uncleanness (v. 3). The disputed point, here, lies in the nature of the guilt incurred. In both cases, the description is followed by the statement that the fact was “hidden” to him (wnmm Ml(nw);587 in v. 2, the case ends with the following statement: M#)w )m+ )whw, whereas in v. 3, it reads M#)w (dy )whw. On the basis of v. 3 (and of v. 4, which, although describing a different situation, concludes in the same manner as v. 3), modern scholars have generally assumed that v. 2–3 reflected a temporal sequence: contracting impurity initially remained dissimulated and was only later discovered.588 This solution, however, raises a difficulty. With regard to the construction of the sentence in v. 3, the final statement we6)a4s]e4m would be somehow dependent on the knowledge that impurity had been contracted; yet this is problematic in several respects. On one hand it can hardly be reconciled with the situation prevailing in Lev 4, where, as observed above, the statement we6)a4s]e4m does not presuppose awareness of the wrongdoing (see Lev 4:22–23a, 27–28a).589 On the other hand, as noted by Kiuchi,590 this interpretation is explictly contradicted by the formulation of v. 2 MT, which is lectio difficilior and where we6)a4s]e4m is preceded not by )whw 591 (dy but by )m+ )whw. Here, the waw in the clause cannot be conjunctive and therefore should be circumstancial; since the formulation of v. 2b is parallel with that of v. 3b, the most natural conclusion is to assume the same rendering for the verses. How then should we interpret the formulation of v. 3b? Milgrom and Kiuchi have both argued that it describes a case in which an act (contracting impurity through contact with human uncleanness) was done consciously (Kiuchi), or even deliberately (Milgrom), but was later forgotten (rendering thus the clause wnmm Ml(nw).592 In this case, the clause (dy )whw would refer to the initial awareness of the wrongdoer: although he originally knew, the fact later escaped him. While this rendering

nate the call to an unknown witness to testify in the case of a wrongdoing; however, there is no clear attestation for this practice in the HB. For the use of lwq in the context of a public proclamation, see also Ezra 1:1. 587 All of 5:2b is missing in part of the LXX tradition; it is dubious that the LXX reading is original, and v. 2b was probably omitted by accident, as is generally acknowledged. 588 See BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 327; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 14; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 55.74; PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 73; etc. Note that many authors also emend the )m+ )whw in v. 2 into (dy )whw, as in v. 3 (see for instance Baentsch, Elliger), as is already found in the textual tradition preserved by the Cairo Genizah (cf. BHS). However, such emendation is speculative and unnecessary; on this point, see further below. 589 For this observation, see KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 28. This problem was already noted by earlier authors. For instance, BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 327–328, proposed interpreting M#)w in 5:2–4 in a subjective sense (“er […] sich seiner Schuld bewusst wird”), contrary to Lev 4 where he understands it in an objective sense. Others, such as ELLIGER, Leviticus, 55, try to have it both ways: while retaining the notion of a temporal succession in their translation, they consider simultaneously the clause (dy )whw as a kind of qualification of the previous clause, so that M#)w can be more directly connected with wnmm Ml(nw. Thus, e.g., on v. 3b: “und es bleibt him verborgen – er merkt es aber (hernach) – und er wird schuldig”. 590 KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 29; see also ID., Study, 11. 591 Also, in Lev 4, it is always a passive form which is used to refer to the situation where the offender is informed of his sin (presumably by others), and not an active form as in 5:3–4. 592 MILGROM, Leviticus, 299.312–313; KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 28–29. See also L EVINE, Leviticus, 27–28; H ARTLEY, Leviticus, 68; most recently WELLS, Testimony, esp. 68–69. The alternative proposal to interpret the clause as stating that the person has deliberately hidden the fact (RODRIGUEZ, Substitution, 95–96, for whom all four cases in 5:1–4 deal with the deliberate concealment of a sinful act) has no basis in the text.

3.5. Leviticus 5

241

is grammatically possible, it is nevertheless unnecessarily complicated. Actually, the construction of v. 3b, with its series of three we6-qa4t[al forms, suggests more likely that all three clauses (wnmm Ml(nw, (dy )whw, and lastly M#)w ) have the same function. In that case, if the clause (dy )whw is taken in a circumstancial sense as in v. 2b already, the same should apply to the other two clauses in v. 3b. Initially, this possibility was immediately rejected by Kiuchi on the ground that “obviously wnmm Ml(nw cannot be simultaneous with (dy )whw”.593 But does this objection necessarily apply? The two clauses do not need to operate on the same level, and they can both qualify the initial situation. This seems to be so in v. 4, addressing a case when a person has sworn any kind of rash oath. To assume, here, that the clause wnmm Ml(nw implies that this person later has forgotten it, and is suffering guilt’s consequences precisely because of that goes against the logic of the text. Obviously, the issue in 5:4 is that initially the person was not aware of the full implications of his oath, as usually acknowledged by commentators,594 and this is why the text specifies that the oath was sworn inconsiderately, )+bl; otherwise, this additional information makes little sense.595 Here, therefore, the phrase Ml(nw wnmm serves as a circumstancial clause together with (dy )whw; namely: the person has made his oath consciously, but the latter’s implications have initially escaped him and became manifest only later.596 This conclusion is entirely consistent with the understanding adopted above for the phrase we6)a4s]e4m (“to suffer guilt’s consequences”) as involving the possibility (but not the necessity) of becoming aware of the sin committed. The same conclusion should apply in the case of v. 2–3; a person has consciously touched any animal or human uncleanness, but the fact that he has become thereby impure himself has remained hidden to him; it is only because he suffers the consequences of his guilt (we6)a4s]e4m, v. 2, 3, 4) that he suspects that he has committed a sin.597

If this interpretation is correct, the first case deals with a person who fails to testify although he has heard the imprecation condemning the wrongdoer; cases no 2. and 3. concern a person who failed to notice that he had become impure after having contact with a dead animal or any kind of human uncleanness; and case no 4. addresses a person who swears an oath which he cannot hold. In spite of their differences, these four instances share several features, which explains why they were grouped together. In particular, a common point seems to be that these crimes may not be subsumed under the category of inadvertent offenses, as in Lev 4, but already include some degree of awareness; hence the systematic absence of the term hgg#b, or the root s]gg* in general, as observed by several authors.598 The acts discussed in v. 2– 4 (touching an animal or human uncleanness, swearing an oath) are perfectly 593

KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 28. See, e.g., HARTLEY, Leviticus, 68–69; RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 192–193. 595 The swearing of an oath inconsiderately is a classical topos in the Hebrew Bible; see in particular Qoh 5:4; Deut 23:22–24, and further Judg 11:29–40. 596 The solution recently proposed by R ENDTORFF , Leviticus, 193, for whom the guilty person was not necessarily aware of the oath character of his statement which would have been disclosed to him only later, is both unfounded and overly complicated. 597 Note that in a recent publication on Lev 4–5, Kiuchi changed his former view and would also regard now the two clauses wnmm Ml(nw and (dy )whw in v. 3 and 4 as being both circumstancial; cf. KIUCHI, Study, 11ff. 598 See for instance MILGROM, Studies, 124–125 n. 13. 594

242

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

conscious, probably even deliberate,599 but their implications (becoming impure, being unable to hold one’s oath) are not realized at the moment when they are performed, so that the person suffers the consequences of his (or her) guilt (we6)a4s]e4m).600 In the case of v. 2–3, the problem is probably that the person who did not realize at once that he had become impure is not able to undergo the required purification – one-day seclusion, possibly with a ritual bathing, cf. Lev 11 and 15 –, as has traditionally been surmised.601 The case addressed in v. 1 is somewhat distinct; it comes closer to what one would call, in modern legislation, a crime of omission, and the difference is signaled by the use of na4s8a4) (a4won (namely, “to bear one’s sin”) instead of we6)a4s]e4m. Like we6)a4s]e4m, na4s8a4) (a4won is a general reference to the consequences of sin for the guilty person;602 but the latter phrase probably has a more specific juridical meaning (see also on Lev 5:17–19 below).603 For the redactor of Lev 5, the use of na4s8a4) (a4won in 5:1 is thus a means of underlining both the distinctiveness of this case and its similarities with those addressed in 5:2–4. Although all these crimes are more severe than the involuntary offense of Lev 4, 599 MILGROM, Studies, 124–125, n. 13; ID., Cult, 109; pace KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 29, it is hard to see how the act mentioned in v. 4 (swearing an oath) could not be deliberate. 600 Milgrom’s view that 5:2–3 deals with a case in which the guilty person deliberately neglected to undergo the prescribed rites of purification (ID., Lev 5.1–13, 251–254; ID., Leviticus, 297–299) is unsupported and does not account for the wording of this passage. 601 Thus, e.g., ELLIGER, Leviticus, 74; LEVINE, Leviticus, 27; RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 191; GORMAN, Leviticus, 41; SCHENKER , Studien, 119; etc. The arguments against this view by SPIRO, Law, 96, partly followed by KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 29, are not compelling. 602 In a comprehensive study of this expression in P, SCHWARTZ, Bearing of Sin, convincingly argues, after other authors, that it does not indicate a particular kind of punishment. Schwartz even claims that it is “a metaphor for guilt and not punishment” (p. 12), which I find less likely; see the critical comments by MILGROM, Leviticus, 1488–1490; also SKLAR, Sin, 22–23. That it refers to punishment and not only to guilt is corroborated by the use of the same expression in Neo-Babylonian legal documents, on which see now the fine discussion by WELLS, Testimony, 73–78. Wells concludes that: “In these Neo-Babylonian legal documents, a person bears sin when that person fails to comply with the legal or administrative officials or fails to fulfill a duty owed to such officials. In none of the texts do the bearing-sin expressions indicate a specific penalty. […] To bear sin seems to indicate that a person is guilty and subject to whatever punishment the court or administrative board deems necessary” (Ibid., 77–78). Milgrom also holds that “na4s8a4) (a4wo4n is a non-expiable, irremediable divine sentence. In all cases where the punishment is not stated, it is forthcoming – irrevocably” (ID ., Leviticus, 1490). Yet this interpretation is in contradiction with the use of this phrase in Lev 5:1 since the larger context of v. 1–6 implies on the contrary the possibility of reparation (as Milgrom must acknowledge in this case, see ID., Leviticus, 315). 603 Thus WELLS, Testimony, 78ff., on the basis of the parallels with Neo-Babylonian legal documents: “The person is guilty not only with respect to Yahweh but also with respect to a real-world legal situation in a manner similar to that of Baniya in YOS 6 108. Just as Baniya would have a penalty to pay because he failed in his obligation before the human court, so, too, would the person in Lev 5:1” (Ibid., 79). Although it remains hypothetical, this solution makes good sense in the criminal context considered by Lev 5:1 (see above, page 239).

3.5. Leviticus 5

243

they can nevertheless be expiated by the offering of a female from the flock (v. 6), i.e., the same sacrifice as required in the case of the purification offering for the individual in 4:27–35. Yet the law introduces simultaneously a further requirement since this offering should now be preceded by an explicit confession of the crime (cf. hdy Hithpael, v. 5, a rare term mainly found in postexilic literature).604 This innovation over the legislation of ch. 4 accounts for the distinct nature of the crimes addressed in 5:1–4, as well as for the fact that they are more serious than the offense considered in Lev 4.605 One remaining issue regarding the relationship between Lev 4 and 5:1–6 concerns the reading of 5:6, wm#)-t) )ybhw, which has replaced the usual formula wnbrq-t) )ybhw in the second part of ch. 4, cf. 4:23, 28, 32.606 This usage is reminiscent of the M#) legislation in 5:14–26 (cf. 5:15, and, although with a slightly different formulation, 5:25) and seems to blur the neat distinction between the two collections. Earlier commentators frequently explained it by the assumption of a distinct genesis for 5:1–6; in particular, it was presumed that either this passage was older than the distinction between purification and reparation offerings607 or, on the contrary, that it corresponded to a later stage in the development of the sacrificial legislation, in the course of which the border between t)+x and M#) would have become gradually obscured.608 However, this solution is not only speculative but it does little to clarify the meaning of 5:1–6. More likely, the occurrence of the term M#) in 5:6 should be related to the nature of the crimes described in 5:1–4, as has already been acknowledged by some authors. In effect, all four cases may be defined as implying direct offenses against the deity. The notion that breaking an oath is a sacrilege against the gods is found in all antiquity; oaths were generally made in the name of a deity (cf. explicitly Lev 19:12 for the Hebrew Bible), and they thus had a sacred character since they were guaranted by the gods themselves.609 The nonfulfillment of an oath, possibly made in Yahweh’s name, as in the case addressed in v. 4, could therefore be assimilated to a crime against Yahweh himself. The sanction found in v. 1, 610 Nw( )#n, “to bear one’s sins”, is always in P and in H a divine sanction. Implied here is apparently the ancient notion that the gods are responsible for justice and social order, and that the man who omitted to testify was punished by Yahweh himself. Finally, purity is required by the gods from those who worship them; to neglect (whether deliberately or not) to purify oneself from uncleanness (v. 2–3) can thus be defined as an offense against Yahweh’s holiness.611 Additionally, v. 2–3 may address the permanent threat that the sanctuary be polluted by a person who has neglected to purify himself.612 In sum, it is probable that the occurrence of the term M#) in 5:6 is connected to the fact that all the four cases discussed in v. 1–4 604

See Lev 16:21; 26:40; Num 5:7, Dan 9:4, 20; Ezra 10:1; Neh 1:6; 9:2, 3; 2 Chr 30:22. On the importance of the motif of confession in 5:1–6, see in particular MILGROM, Cult, 108–110; ID., Studies, 56–57; ID., Leviticus, 301–303; cf. also SCHENKER, Studien, 119. 606 Although this expression has sometimes been rendered here in the technical sense of a “reparation offering for Yahweh”, this translation is hardly acceptable in the context: the formulation of v. 6 makes clear that this is a t)+x offering. Thus, M#) should clearly be translated here by “reparation”. 607 See for instance BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 11. 608 See BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 327; HERRMANN, Sühne, 78–79; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 74. 609 As observed for instance by MILGROM, Leviticus, 313–314. 610 As noted, e.g., by MILGROM, Leviticus, 295. 611 See also on this point the further discussion by MILGROM, Leviticus, 313. 612 As suggested in particular by SCHENKER, Studien, 109.111. 605

244

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

are likely to include some offense against the deity. This idea has been developed in particular by A. Schenker in a series of studies on Lev 4–5.613 He basically argues that “die Natur der Übertretung ist die des M#), d.h. der Veruntreuung von Heiligem”;614 yet because the acts described in 5:1–4 are purposeful but not evil they may nevertheless be expiated by a purification offering instead of the (more expensive) reparation offering prescribed by 5:14ff.615 However, his explanation is not entirely satisfactory; in particular, the absence of any evil purpose in 5:1ff. cannot account for the replacement of the M#) offering by a t)+x offering in 5:6. First, it is incorrect to state that the offenses discussed in 5:1–4 all stem from wellintentioned acts; as noted above, this cannot hold in the case of v. 1. Second, the absence of evil purpose also characterizes two of the instructions on the M#) offering, in 5:14–16 and 17–19. Thus, the requirement to offer a purification offering for the cases addressed in 5:1–4 cannot be merely explained by the absence of any sinful purpose. In fact, it is clear that in 5:1–4, contrary to what applies in the case of 5:14–26, the crimes committed are not direct offenses against the deity. The issue of sacrilege is therefore not primary, which corresponds to the absence in v. 1–6 of the characteristic expression l(m l(m, as in 5:15 and 21.Thus, the logic behind the formulation of Lev 5:1–6, and especially of v. 6, seems to be as follows. As all the crimes described in v. 1–4 imply some form of offense against Yahweh’s holiness, a reparation (M#)) is required; but inasmuch as this offense is only an indirect consequence of the crime itself, such reparation does not need to take the form of an M#) offering and the less expensive purification offering, preceded by a confession of the crime itself – to account for the difference from the legislation on inadvertent sins in Lev 4, as argued above –, suffices.

5:1–6 is then followed by two instructions in v. 7–13 for cases when an individual Israelite does not have the financial means to provide the animal required for his purification offering. Instead of a female from the flock he may thus bring a couple of turtledoves or pigeons (v. 7–10), one of which is offered as a purification offering and the other as a burnt offering; or, if this is still too expensive for him, he may even simply bring a tenth of an epha of flour (v. 11–13). What we have here, therefore, is a specific clause for needy members of the community, which has been appended to the legislation of Lev 4:1–5:6, exactly as in the case of the appendix in Lev 1:14–17. Implicit is the idea, of course, that any member of the community should be able to bring his or her purification offering;616 note that in the Punic tariffs, similar clauses in case of need are also found. Traditionally, Jewish interpretation related this 613

See SCHENKER, Studien, esp. 108–109.111.118–120; most recently, see ID., Lev 5,1–6. ID., Studien, 109. 615 Schenker does not hesitate to conclude: “Der Ritus ist der des t)+x Opfers, der Zweck der des M#)” (ID., Studien, 109; emphasis original). 616 Thus for instance HARTLEY, Leviticus, 69. A tenth of an epha represents approximately 2 liters (one epha = 22 liters). ELLIGER, Leviticus, 75, suggests that such an amount was not necessarily less costly than two turtledoves; yet, as correctly observed by RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 198, “Das Ritual geht jedenfalls davon aus, daß diese Menge Mehl leichter beschafft werden kann als die Tauben”. Following MILGROM, Leviticus, 306, Rendtorff also recalls the saying of Ibn Ezra, according to whom the tenth of an epha represents the daily ration for one person. The instruction in this same verse to omit oil and frankincense serves to distinguish it from the usual raw cereal offering, see Lev 2:1–2, and is justified in the context of Lev 5 by the fact that it is not a free offering (see also Num 5:15). 614

3.5. Leviticus 5

245

legislation to the purification of 5:1–6 only, but this is disputable.617 According to the formulation of the clause in v. 7, the law concerns a person who cannot afford to buy a head of small cattle (h#, which may designate either a sheep or a goat).618 This applies not only to the t)+x of 5:1–6, but also to the purification offering of the individual in 4:27–35. Therefore, it is preferable to conclude that 5:7–13 have been conceived as a supplement to all of Lev 4:1– 5:6, and not only to 5:1–6. Actually, it is difficult to understand why a poverty clause was considered in the case of the sins described in Lev 5:1ff. but not for the inadvertent sin of an individual in 4:27–35, all the more because the latter is explicitly held as less severe since it does not require a confession.619 Evidently, only individual Israelites could have found themselves in the situation of being unable to bring the animal required for one’s purification offering by the legislation of 4:27–35 or 5:1–6. A distinct clause for the high priest (4:3–12), for the whole community (4:3–21), or even for a chieftain ()y#n, 4:22–26) was therefore superfluous. The second part of ch. 5, v. 14–26, deals with the M#) offering. The distinctiveness of this section is marked by the introduction of a new divine speech in 5:14; the previous one occurred in 4:1 and included the whole of 4:1–5:13. The presence of another such introduction in 5:20 suggests that the collection of 5:14–26 consists of two main parts, v. 14–19 and 20–26; v. 14– 19 are themselves neatly divided into two distinct subcases, 14–16 and 17–19 (cf. the beginning of v. 17, with yk #pn-M)w). V. 14–16 open the M#) legislation by defining the general case for this offering; it must be brought whenever someone commits a sacrilege (l(m l(m) 620 by sinning inadvertently (here with hgg#b, contrary to 5:1–6) against any one of Yahweh’s sancta (see the phrase hwhy y#dqm).621 The reparation offering itself must consist of a male ram without blemish from the flock (v. 15), which is sacrificed by the priest (v. 16). In addition, restitution is made for the object of the sanctuary which has been desecrated,622 and one fifth of the latter’s value is added.623 617

This interpretation has been revived by MILGROM, Lev 5.1–13; ID., Leviticus, 307ff. See for instance RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 196–197. 619 For a similar observation, see also RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 196. 620 On this formula and on its rendering by “sacrilege”, see in particular the detailed discussion by MILGROM, Concept; ID., Leviticus, 345–356. 621 In H, the term #dq can be used with reference to abstract entities (such as Yahweh’s name), but never in P, where it always refers to concrete sancta. Besides, this rendering is also implied by the context of v. 16. As to what is covered by the phrase hwhy y#dq in this passage, see MILGROM , Leviticus, 320–326, concluding that it should include “all of the sancta, major and minor”. 622 The underlying concept is probably that a sanctum which has been profaned cannot usually be reconsecrated, see MILGROM, Leviticus, 328. 623 The origin of the fifth in connection with the M#) is difficult to trace; however, the fact that it is only found in priestly texts (see Lev 5:16; 22:14; Num 5:7; further Lev 27:13, 15, 19, 27, 31) suggests that this is its origin. For this view, see especially JACKSON, Theft, 179–180. 618

246

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

However, a specific issue is raised by the rendering in v. 15 of the expression #dqh-lq#b Mylq#-Psk Kkr(b, which is apposed to the mention of the male ram for the reparation offering. Literally, this expression means, “according to the valuation/assessed value in shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary”; the final kap is generally identified as “a pronominal suffix that became fossilized and thus absorbed in the nominal stem”.624 To be sure, its signification is that the ram must be worth a certain number of shekels; but the decisive question is why this requirement is found only in the case of the M#) offering. To argue, as some do, that it is in order to avoid the offering of worthless animals does not settle the issue;625 for the same would apply to all the mandatory offerings prescribed in 4:1–5:13 already. The technical expression Mylq#-Psk Kkr(b is mainly found in Lev 27, the law on the commutation of vows;626 on the basis of this observation, Speiser proposed, in a 1960 study, rendering this expression in 5:15 by “convertible into silver shekels”.627 This implies that, according to 5:14ff., the ram required for the M#) offering could be commuted to currency, which served then to buy the sacrificial ram. Speiser further drew a parallel between Lev 5 and documents from Nuzi or Mari presenting evidence of what he called “ceremonial payment”, in which certain obligatory fines or payments are imposed in terms of fixed animal ratios even though payment in currency is clearly involved. Speiser’s view was followed, in particular, by Milgrom.628 Independently from Speiser, Noth had already concluded from the phrase Mylq#-Psk Kkr(b that it was “the ram’s value in money, not the ram itself” that had to be brought to the sanctuary according to the legislation on the M#) offering in 5:14ff.629 However, this latter conclusion is impossible to support; the wording of the following verse (v. 16), M#)h ly)b wyl( rpky Nhkh, clearly refers to the offering of a sacrifice.630 This observation also implies that comparison with Lev 27 and documents from Mari and Nuzi has limits, since contrary to these cases Lev 5:14–26 does not consider a mere commutation in money. The idea that the sacrificial ram would be bought by the officiating priest with the offerer’s money is ingenious but has no support in the text itself. On the contrary, the formulation of the instruction to bring the animal in v. 15, beginning with )ybhw followed by the identification of the animal, is similar to that found elsewhere in Lev 4–5 (cf. 4:4 [14], 23, 28; 5:6), and there is no reason to surmise that 5:15 does not intend a real ram. More likely, the presence of the technical phrase Mylq#-Psk Kkr(b in 5:15 should be connected to the evolution of the M#) offering, which was originally not a sacrificial offering but a monetary compensation, possibly paid primarily in silver (cf. 2 Kgs 12:17; see also 2 Sam 6). Thus Levine has proposed that the phrase Mylq#-Psk Kkr(b should be considered an echo of the original nature of this offering, in order to make clear, when the ram was introduced, that it was the equivalent of the former payment in silver.631 “It is as if to say: The )a4s]am being offered in the form of a sacrificial ram represents a fixed payment in silver, and is being of-

624

SPEISER, Leviticus, 30; further LEVINE, Leviticus, 30; MILGROM, Leviticus, 326. Thus for instance PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 94. 626 See Lev 27:23, 25, 27; otherwise in Num 18:16. 627 SPEISER, Leviticus. 628 See MILGROM, Cult, 13–15; similarly, ID., Leviticus, 326ff. 629 See NOTH, Leviticus, 47; for this idea, see also ELLIGER, Leviticus, 77 n. 55. 630 Cf. HARTLEY , Leviticus, 82; R ENDTORFF , Leviticus, 202; see already LEVINE, Presence, 100: “[…] according to Leviticus 5:14–26 [the)a4s]a4 m] had to assume the form of a sacrificial ram for its disposition in the ritual”. 631 ID., Presence, 95–101. 625

3.5. Leviticus 5

247

fered in substitution for that payment”.632 This explanation accounts satisfactorily for the fact that the term Kkr(b consistently occurs in the context of the M#) pericope (cf. 5:15, 18, 25) and exclusively there within Lev 1–5.633

The instruction that follows in v. 17–19 has often puzzled exegetes. Contrary to 5:14–16, it does not deal with sacrileges against cultic possessions (note the absence of the expression l(m l(m), but requires the offering of an M#) whenever a sin is committed unintentionally (hgg#b) against any of Yahweh’s negative commandments. The formulation of the case in v. 17, with the sentence )+xt yk #pn M)w, is almost a literal repetition of Lev 4:2 and 5:1, with the nuance that the clause M)w defines Lev 5:17–19 as a subcase of Lev 5:14–16.634 The issue, therefore, is why this instruction was included in the M#) legislation. Earlier commentators have usually explained this divergence by surmising that 5:17–19 was a later revision of Lev 4:27–35 (the purification offering of the individual),635 or that the regulations on the purifica632 LEVINE, Presence, 100. This solution makes superfluous the assumption that the text of Lev 5:15 is corrupt and should be emended; thus, in particular, JACKSON , Theft, 172; and FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, 222–223 (see also on p. 250–251), both of whom consider that the phrase #dqh-lq#b Mylq#-Psk has been interpolated and that the original legislation merely read M#)l Kkr(b. Not only is this speculative but 2 Kgs 12:17 and 1 Sam 6 suggest exactly the opposite development, that is, from monetary compensation to sacrifice. 633 The absence of a fixed figure before the phrase Mylq#-Psk, indicating the number of shekels to be paid as in other occurrences of the phrase lq# Psk (see, e.g., Ex 21:32; Lev 27:3, 6; Num 7:13, 19, 25, 31, etc.; 18:16; 2 Sam 24:24; Jer 32:9; Neh 5:15) is probably deliberate rather than the result of textual corruption (pace ELLIGER, Leviticus, 77); in particular, the value of the ram to be offered would have been left to the appraisal of the priest (contra PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 94, it is difficult to see how this omission could be intended to prevent the offering of a ram of lesser value). In any event, the plural, Mylq#, suggests that the ram had to be worth at least two shekels; this is also the tradition preserved by Rashi as well as by the Vulgate (reading duobus siclis). 634 The phrase yk #pn M)w is syntactically problematic. The possibility cannot be excluded that the addition of the clause M)w stems from a later editor, as surmised by several commentators (see, for example, ELLIGER, Leviticus, 56; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 73). If so, 5:17–19 was originally introduced by yk #pn as in Lev 5:1, 4, 15, 21, and the addition of M)w by a later editor probably reflects the attempt to define 5:17–19 as a subcase of 5:14–16 since it is typically this clause which serves to introduce subordinate cases in P (see Lev 1:10, 14; 2:5, 7; 3:1, 6, 12; 4:13, 27, 32; 5:7, 11). In spite of the reading of the SamP, which omits the yk clause and reads tx) #pn M)w, the alternative explanation according to which it is this clause which was interpolated in order to conform the legislation of 5:17– 19 with the introduction found in the remainder of Lev 5 (see for instance PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 95–96) is unlikely. Similarly unlikely is Milgrom’s assumption that P copied an independent law and prefixed it with M)w in order to connect it with the previous instruction in 5:14–16 (see MILGROM , Leviticus, 331–332). The phrase )+xt yk #pn previously occurs in Lev 4:2 and 5:1, and is probably borrowed from these two passages; therefore, it should logically be from the hand of the Priestly writer who composed Lev 4–5. 635 For this opinion, see, for instance, BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 330; NOTH, Leviticus, 47–48; or ELLIGER, Leviticus, 66.

248

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

tion and reparation offerings were at once independent from each other.636 None of these solutions, however, is really helpful. The reason for the revision of 4:27–35 and the transformation of the purification offering into one of reparation is generally unclear, if not simply attributed to the incompetence of later scribes;637 and the notion that the M#) legislation in Lev 5 would have an independent origin from the t)+x legislation in Lev 4 is similarly unsustained. Other suggestions have been made, which, though they do not involve redaction criticism, are no less speculative.638 In fact, only a close reading of the formulation of this law may give us basis for explaining the meaning of 5:17–19 vis-à-vis 4:27–35. Milgrom, in particular, has pointed out that the case described in 5:17 is not simply equivalent to the one addressed in Lev 4.639 In effect, it is not stated that the offender who sinned against any of the divine prohibitions acted inadvertently (hgg#b), as in Lev 4, but that he did not know, or was not aware ((dy-)lw), that he was committing a sin. Technically, this type of sin is also a sin by inadvertence, since it is unintentional and not deliberate; hence the reason why it can be assimilated to an inadvertent error in the statement concluding the instruction (v. 18b), see gg#-r#) wtgg#.640 At some point, the consequences of this guilt in the person’s everyday life cause him to surmise that he must have offended the deity in one way or another. In the rendering of )a4 s ] a m adopted above (namely, “to suffer guilt’s consequences”), this makes perfect sense.641 The fact that a reparation (M#)) offering is required and not simply a purification (t)+x) offering, as in Lev 4, even though contrary to 5:14–16 this is not an instance of sacrilege,642 suggests an aggravating circumstance. To this corresponds the addition of the statement we6na4s8a4) (a4wono= after we6)a4s\e4m in v. 17; most likely the two phrases are not simply equivalent here.643 Following the recent suggestion by B. Wells in the case of 636

Thus RENDTORFF, Gesetze, 18–19. See, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 330, on 5:17–19: “Ein Zusatz confusester Art. […] ein mixtum compositum von Sünd- u. Schuldopfer”. Quite similarly DE V AUX , Ancient Israel, 421: “The last redactors who drew up these confused rulings had no clear idea of what exactly was meant by a t)+x and an M#)”. 638 E.g., PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 97, surmises that 5:17–19 concerns cases of severe offenses against Yahweh’s authority and honor, implying disobedience to fundamental commandments on the relationship between God and man, such as Ex 20:3–7. 639 ID ., Studies, esp. 123; see also ID., Leviticus, 332ff. See further similarly SCHENKER, Studien, 104ff. and 116–117; most recently KIUCHI, Study, 7–10. 640 Milgrom’s explanation on this point (ID., Leviticus, 334) seems to me overly complicated. 641 Contra KIUCHI, Study, 8–9, there is no need therefore to assume that the term hgg# in 5:17–19 is applied here to the case of a person who is not even aware of his or her act. 642 Note in this context the absence in 5:17–19 not only of the formula l(m l(m (as observed above), but also the requirement to pay an additional fine of 20 %. 643 Against SKLAR, Sin, 38 and n. 105, who takes both phrases to be parallel statements. 637

3.5. Leviticus 5

249

5:1, it was noted above that the phrase na4s8a4) (a4won involved an element of juridical responsibility.644 This is corroborated, in our passage, by the wording of 5:19b which specifies that the guilty person has “incurred liability to Yahweh” ()a4s\om )a4s\am layhwh),645 thus justifying the need to present the more expensive M#) offering. But what is this aggravating circumstance? The formulation of v. 17–19 is very clear in this respect: as noted above, the sin was not only inadvertent but unknown ((dy-)lw , 5:17, repeated in 5:18b). Some authors have deduced from this observation that the issue was that the sin was not disclosed to the person and therefore remained concealed.646 Yet it was noted above in the discussion on the meaning of )a4s\am that even in Lev 4, disclosure of the sin by someone else was only mentioned as a possibility, at least in the case of v. 22–23 and 27–28 (see (dAwOh wO), v. 23a, 28a MT). In this respect, the situation addressed in Lev 5:17–19 does not necessarily differ fundamentally from the one stated in the second half of Lev 4, where the possibility that the inadvertent sinner became himself aware of his sin because of the latter’s consequences was already considered (see we6)a4s\em, 4:22, 27). Another, simpler solution is that since the sin was not only inadvertent but that the individual was not even aware that he was violating one of Yahweh’s prohibitions, he does not even know what sin he has committed. Thus, the sinner cannot bring the purification offering required for his sin, as instructed by the legislation of Lev 4 (see the formulation of 4:28b: “he brings as his offering a female goat… for his sin, w t ) + x -l( , which he has committed”; similarly 4:32; further 5:6, 7); and this, in turn, would constitute the aggravating factor requiring the offering of an M#). This understanding accounts, in particular, for the specific wording of 5:18b. The usual reference, at the end of the ritual, to the sin (t)+x) which the offerer has committed, and from which he has been purified (see Lev 4:26, 35; 5:6, 10, 13), is now replaced by a circumlocution: gg#-r#) wtgg#, literally, “his inadvertent error which he has committed by inadvertence”, obviously a more general, unspecific reference to any inadvertent sin possibly committed. Finally, the interpretation of the last instruction of ch. 5, in v. 20–26, also raises several difficulties, in particular regarding the nature of the crime addressed. An explanation frequently advanced is that v. 21–22 enumerate a traditional list of abuses against one’s compatriot (cf. wtym( , v. 21), among which was included a case of false oath. However, this interpretation is unable to explain how and why such abuses could be regarded as a form of sacrilege against Yahweh himself (cf. hwhyb l(m hl(mw, v. 21), requiring an M#) offering. The authors adopting it generally had to resort to rather acrobatic spe644

WELLS, Testimony, 78ff., and for the discussion, above, note 602. For this rendering of )a4s\am le6 + person, see, e.g., MILGROM, Leviticus, 334–335. 646 Thus, for example, S CHENKER, Studien, 106–107.116–117. See similarly MILGROM, Leviticus, 332ff.; most recently, see KIUCHI, Study, 7–10. 645

250

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

culations to account for this fact.647 A more satisfactory solution may be attained once it is acknowledged that the clause rq#-l( (b#nw in v. 22, “and he swears falsely”, does not represent a discrete wrong but applies to all the previous instances enumerated; the same interpretation is true for v. 24aa , which should thus be a summary of the cases mentioned in the subsequent enumeration of v. 23.648 As a result, the situation considered by the law of Lev 5:20–26 is the following: a wrongdoing has been committed against a fellow Israelite. This wrongdoing consists of a “deceit” (cf. #xk), or a denial of truth, which can concern three general cases:649 first, a deposit (Nwdqp), a pledge (see dy tmw#t),650 or a fraud or a “robbery” (lzg); second, extorsion (q#();651 and, third, finding something lost (hdb) )cm). In each of these cases, the suspected wrongdoer refuses to recognize his liability; since the situation implies that it is one person’s word against another, the suspected party is required (probably by the court) to prove his innocence by taking a solemn oath in Yahweh’s name.652 The practice is well known in antiquity and is also dictated in Ex 22:9–10. In this case, the sacrilege considered by Lev 5:20–26 is that of a person who has sworn falsely in Yahweh’s name, pretending that he was innocent whereas he was in fact guilty, thus desecrating the divine name (cf. Ex 20:7, and above all Lev 19:12). This interpretation has been argued in detail, in particular, by Milgrom653 (though a similar idea is already found in the work of some earlier authors)654 and it has generally been accepted by recent commentators since then.655 As observed by Schenker, a decisive point, however, is that in this interpretation the law of Lev 5:20–26 actually serves as a supplement to the legislation of the Covenant Code in Ex 22 mentioned above, since it considers the case where a person forced to take an oath in the name

647

E.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 331: “Ein Ma’al gegenüber d. Nächsten ist zugl. eine Versündigung gegen Jahve, der jede Unterdrückung u. Schädigung d. Nächsten verboten hat…”. 648 Pace NOTH , Leviticus, 49, I see no reason for the oath sworn in 5:22 to be different from the one referred to in 5:24, or for the second oath to be a later interpolation. 649 The verb #xk applies to all three cases described in v. 21b–22, as is already shown by the repetition of #xk in v. 22aa; see for instance RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 207. Pace JACKSON, Theft, 54, I see no reason to except q#( from the offenses linked with #xk. 650 This phrase is a hapax legomenon; the rendering is therefore necessarily contextual. 651 On this rendering of q#( , see, e.g., H ARTLEY, Leviticus, 83. The coupling of lzg and q#( is a literary topos in the HB, see Lev 19:13; Deut 28:29; Jer 21:12; Ez 18:18; 22:29; Mi 2:2; Ps 62:11; Qoh 5:8, and on this RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 207. 652 On the nature of such oaths, see WESTBROOK , Deposit Law. As he underlines, such oaths were generally imposed by the court itself, on either the plaintiff or the defendant. 653 ID., Studies, 84–128; see further ID., Leviticus, 365–373. 654 See in particular STADE, Geschichte, 2. 256; and BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 17. 655 See SCHENKER, Studien, 120; LEVINE, Leviticus, 32–33; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 83–84; RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 207; and especially now WELLS, Testimony, 138–141.

3.5. Leviticus 5

251

of Yahweh makes a false statement.656 For the priestly scribe who composed Lev 5:20–26, such a case fell automatically under the M#) legislation.657 It explains why this supplement was introduced at this place,658 even though, as observed by several authors, it represents a deviation from the general rationale underlying the legislation of Lev 4–5, since a false oath cannot be regarded in any case as a non-deliberate offense. Significantly, the penalty imposed in 5:24 – restitution of the property (probably either in kind or in money)659 plus a 20-% fine – is considerably lighter than the one considered for theft in the Covenant Code (see Ex 21:37 and 22:3),660 even though to this penalty the offering of a ram as an M#) (5:25) must be added.661 Apparently, the fact that the offender has taken on himself to denounce his crime afterwards (since only he may know that he has sworn falsely) is implicitly viewed here as an alleviating circumstance.662 As noted by Milgrom, this means that repentance, in P, is thus acknowledged as a judicial category663 – exactly like 656

See SCHENKER, Studien, 120. WELLS , Testimony, 140–141, also stresses the issue of the probable misuse of Yahweh’s name in 5:20–26, though he apparently misses the reference to Ex 22:9–10. 658 Pace JACKSON, Theft, 174, who holds Lev 5:20–26 to reflect a stage in which the M#) penalty would have come “to be applied to secular offenses as well as sacrilege”. 659 For the first possibility, see DAUBE, Studies, 133–144; for the second, MILGROM, Cult, 137–140; ID., Legal Terms, who draws attention to the Akkadian cognate to Heb. yes]allem, s]ullumu, which is not limited to restitution in kind. Milgrom also points out that in the case of 5:16, the sanctum has been desecrated and must probably be replaced; here, compensation in money is certainly intended. However, this observation does not apply to 5:24, where restitution in kind may be considered if the property stolen is undamaged. 660 In the case of the theft of a domestic animal, the penalty amounts to 300 % (4 sheep for one stolen) or even 400 % (five oxen for one stolen) if the animal has been stolen or killed and cannot be recovered (Ex 21:37); if undamaged, the penalty amounts to the double (Ex 22:3). Note that some codes in antiquity exemplify still larger figures in certain cases, see, e.g., § 8 of Hammurapi’s code requiring up to 1000 or even 3000 %. 661 JACKSON, Theft, 175–176, holds the view that the penalty imposed by the legislation of Lev 5 is actually more severe than that of the Covenant Code in Ex 22:3, and that “restitution plus the asham plus a fifth adds up to the double penalty of the Code plus a fifth” (175). This is because he assumes that the ram offered for the M#) had to be the equivalent of the stolen property; this assumption is itself based on his rendering of the phrase M#)l … Kkr(b in 5:15 as “at your assessment of the property wherein guilt was incurred” (see ID., Theft, 172–175). However, this rendering is unlikely for the reasons mentioned above in the exegesis of 5:14–16 (cf. pages 246–247). Besides, the view that the ram offered as an M#) must be equivalent to the fraud itself raises a number of issues; it is difficult to imagine how the priest would always be able to find a ram of the same value as the stolen property. Also, as Jackson admits, there would have been cases where some frauds were worth more than a ram. 662 See the Hittite parallel mentioned by MILGROM, Studies, 54–55, with note 25 for further examples from Mesopotamia. This view is also accepted by SCHENKER , Studien, 120; WELLS, Testimony, 140: “The biblical text thus seems to allow the admission of wrongdoing to mitigate the potential consequences and to spare the defendant a more severe punishment”. 663 See ID., Studies, 61ff. 657

252

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

public confession in 5:1–6 already. Besides, as Milgrom argues, the relative leniency of the priestly legislation may have been intended to “encourage the voluntary return of stolen goods”.664 The requirement for the M#) follows the general principle of 5:14–16, but the reparation implied is now skilfully distributed among the two parties offended: God and the fellow Israelite. The ram for the M#) sacrifice goes to Yahweh (v. 25), whereas the possession deceitfully appropriated is returned to its legitimate owner (or otherwise restored in money) with a fine of 20 % (one fifth). This rapid survey of Lev 5 suggests that what we have here is undoubtedly a collection of instructions forming a comprehensive system with Lev 4. On the whole, its purpose is clearly to supplement the legislation of ch. 4 by addressing various instances not covered by the latter. Whereas Lev 4 deals exclusively with inadvertent (hgg#b) transgressions of divine prohibitions, 5:1–6 extend this law to cases where a sinful act is committed consciously, possibly even deliberately, but its sinful nature is not perceived at once (v. 2–4); these are associated with a case of sin of omission (v. 1). Like inadvertent sins, these offenses may be expiated by a purification offering, but only after they have been previously confessed; this difference is justified by the fact that the act was intentional, and not inadvertent as in Lev 4. In this regard, Lev 5:1–6 may properly be considered an appendix to the legislation of Lev 4 dealing with borderline cases in the t)+x legislation; the practice echoes a common classification procedure in antiquity.665 To this appendix is added a further clause for cases where a person does not have the means to bring the offering required in Lev 4:27–35 and 5:1–6 for individual offenses. As noted above, this supplement to the t)+x legislation is quite comparable to that for the hl( legislation in Lev 1:14–17. The M#) of Lev 5:14–26 covers three distinct cases, which also complete the legislation of Lev 4. The basic law is found in 5:14–16; it requires that a ram be brought every time a sacrilege is unwittingly committed against any of Yahweh’s sancta. Contrary to the t)+x 664

See ID., Leviticus, 329–330, where he also observes that rabbinic law will later hold that the voluntary admission of theft is not subject to any fine; see also in this context the tannaitic principle taqqa4nat has]s]a4bîm, “a dispensation for the repentant”, mentioned by Milgrom. This view is also adopted by WELLS, Testimony, 140. His alternative proposal, that the passage refers to a type of oath which is “spoken voluntarily by either party” but “is not court-imposed”, hence the greater leniency of Lev 5:20–26, is possible but more hypothetical. 665 This is true in particular of the practice consisting in focusing on peculiar cases representing exceptions to the rule, see the examples from Hittite and Roman laws given by MILGROM , Leviticus, 310. The same device is found in Mesopotamian law codes, see, e.g., the additional slave laws placed at the end of CH, immediately before the epilogue (§§ 278–282), completing the earlier legislation on the topic in §§ 15–20. Note also that in the “Great Code” of Gortyn, amendments to previous laws have systematically been placed at the end (XI.24– 25; XI.31–45; XI.46–55; XII.1–5; XII.6–19; GAGARIN, Organisation, esp. 131).

3.5. Leviticus 5

253

legislation, the M#) no longer deals only with the inadvertent violation of divine prohibitions or related cases as in 5:1–4 but with direct offenses against the deity, i.e., cases of sacrileges technically speaking, as is already emphasized by the sudden occurrence of the formula l(m l(m in 5:15. The greater gravity of the cases treated by the M#) legislation is concretized by the fact that the animal required in Lev 5:14ff., a ram, is more expensive than in the case of an individual’s inadvertent sin, where a female goat or a female sheep suffices (see 4:27–35 and 5:6).666 To this initial law in 5:14–16 are added two exceptional cases not covered by v. 14–16, very much as in the case of the supplement formed by Lev 5:1–6 vis-à-vis the standard t)+x legislation in ch. 4. Lev 5:17–19 deals with an instance where a person suspects that he or she has unintentionally transgressed any of Yahweh’s negative commandments but, contrary to the case considered in Lev 4:22–23, 27–28, is not even able to identify the nature of the sin committed and thus present the corresponding purification offering. 5:20–26 discusses the case of a person who, having deceitfully confiscated a possession belonging to a fellow Israelite, takes an oath in Yahweh’s name to prove that he is innocent (see Ex 22:9–10) before he eventually admits his crime. The inclusion in the M#) legislation is justified by the fact that this case also involves a sacrilege against Yahweh’s name (see the occurrence of the distinctive statement l(m l(m in 5:21, as in 5:15); yet contrary to the situations addressed in 5:14–16 and 17–19, it is no longer an inadvertent offense. Apparently, the logic behind this regulation is that the deliberate confession of a false oath reduces the offense to the level of a sacrilege committed by inadvertence, since the penalty required is identical to that specified in 5:14–16. This analysis of the coherence and systematic character of chapter 5 has important implications regarding its composition. In particular, it calls for a revision of the classical view that this chapter is a composite text, evincing a complex if not erratic development.667 It is not an overstatement to say that 666

RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 201. Sacrificing a ram connects the M#) with the purification offering of the chieftain in 4:22–26, for whom a male goat – not a female as in 4:27–32 – is required. That a male goat was considered more expensive than a female should be explained by pastoral considerations. Typically, a farmer would keep only a very limited number of males, much smaller than of females, since one male suffices to fertilize several females and therefore to ensure the reproduction of the herd. After the elimination of the surplus males, which could be either sold or killed for food, the remaining males took necessarily a much greater economic value than the females. In the case of small flocks, with possibly only one or two males, the requirement to bring a male animal would even involve a considerable loss. 667 See WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena, 75–76 n. 2; KUENEN, Einleitung, 1. 80; CARPENTER, Hexateuch, 2. 148 (“a collection of fragments… of different origin and date”); BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 320ff.; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 11ff.; RENDTORFF, Gesetze, 17ff.; NOTH, Leviticus, 43–50; ELLIGER , Leviticus, 64–67; most recently GERSTENBERGER , Leviticus, 61–67 (although he does underline the thematic coherence of this collection); see also briefly the considerations by HARTLEY, Leviticus, 76.

254

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

most of the tensions perceived in the text actually result from a misunderstanding of the distinct function of a given passage in the context of Lev 4–5, as in the case of 5:17–19 or of 5:1–6 discussed above. Besides, the attribution of one or the other instruction to a secondary layer of the text raises further difficulties. For instance, 5:1–6 has often been considered as a later interpolation between Lev 4 and 5:7–13.668 Yet as observed by Elliger, closer analysis of 5:7–13 suggests that this instruction already presupposes v. 1–6.669 This is clear, in particular, in the reading wm#)-t) )ybhw in v. 7 (MT),670 instead of the usual wnbrq-t) in ch. 4, which can only refer to the formulation of v. 6, where wm#)-t) )ybhw is introduced in order to differentiate the case of v. 1–4 from the inadvertent sin of Lev 4 (see above). Similarly, the reference to “any one of these (cases)” (hl)m tx)m) in v. 13 picks up the conclusion of v. 4 (hl)m tx)l M#)w) as well as the wording of v. 5 MT (hl)m tx)l).671 Thus, it actually seems difficult, if not impossible, to read the instruction of 5:7–13 without 5:1–6. Elliger himself assumes that the instruction of 5:7–13 is a later addition to v. 1–6, in two stages (v. 7–10 and 11–13), but there is no basis for this conclusion.672 Contrary to Elliger’s view, the present position of 5:1–6 is not “schwer zu begreifen”673 but on the contrary quite logical. As noted above, 5:1–6 completes the legislation on the purification offering of the individual in 4:27–35, and the instruction of 5:7–13 applies to both 4:27–35 and 5:1–6. As such, the position of 5:7–13 after 5:1–6 but nevertheless before the M#) offering in 5:14ff. is quite fitting. As regards Lev 5:14–26, it has often been maintained that the three laws composing this section, v. 14–16, 17–19 and 20–26, did not form a coherent whole but had been added in discrete stages, although there is hardly any agreement on the logic of this process. Thus, Elliger and a few other authors assume that the instruction of 5:20–26 is the latest addition to the M#) legislation, in particular because it has a new introduction (v. 20, cf. v. 14) and deals with a case of deliberate sin, although it is composed on the model of v. 668

E.g., BAENTSCH , Leviticus, 326ff.; RENDTORFF , Gesetze, 18; ID., Studien, 207–210; Leviticus, 196 (as a possibility); among more recent authors see also, e.g., PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 86. Most problematic is Rendtorff’s initial assumption that Lev 5:1–6 would belong to the M#) legislation in 5:14–26 and was only introduced when the latter was combined with the t)+x, a view contradicted by the reference to the t)+x offering in v. 6. 669 ELLIGER, Leviticus, 64–65. 670 The LXX reads here wt)+x-t) instead of wm#)-t) as in the MT , but this reading is hardly original, as is commonly recognized (ELLIGER , Leviticus, 56; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 49). The MT’s reading )+x r#) wm#)-t) )ybhw is somewhat difficult; a possibility, however, is that it is elliptical for )+x r#) wt)+x l( w#m)-t), as in v. 6 (Elliger). In any event, the MT is lectio difficilior, while the reading of the LXX may represent a simplification. 671 This point is also correctly noted by RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 196. 672 See the discussion by ELLIGER, Leviticus, 65. 673 Leviticus, 65. ID .,

3.5. Leviticus 5

255

14–16 and 17–19.674 However, as observed in particular by Milgrom, in antiquity, profanation of sacred objects and violation of one’s oath, especially one taken in the name of a deity, represent the two major forms of sacrilege against the gods.675 Hence the combination of 5:20–26 (a case of false oath) with 5:14–16 is entirely coherent. At the same time, the presence of a new introduction in 5:20, after the one in 5:14 separating the M#) law from the t)+x in 4:1–5:13, emphasizes the particular focus of 5:20–26 vis-à-vis 5:14–16 (also a case a sacrilege, l(m l(m, but no longer inadvertent, hgg#b). Alternatively, the intervening instruction of 5:17–19 has been viewed as an interpolation,676 but this is equally dubious. The case against the original character of this law is mainly based on the mistaken assumption that the conception of the M#) in this passage differs from that in Lev 5:14–16 and 20–26 (note in particular the absence of the phrase l(m l(m, as in Lev 5:15 and 21). Yet as stipulated above this assumption betrays a misunderstanding of the passage’s logic; besides, even a scholar like Noth for instance had to acknowledge that in spite of the presumed tensions with the remainder of Lev 5 the introduction of this instruction at this place was actually quite logical, and that it was closely connected with the law of 5:14–16.677 Here again, therefore, there is no reason to surmise that 5:17–19 is not original in the M#) legislation, especially when it is recognized, with Milgrom, that hidden offenses against the gods are a major religious and legal issue in antiquity. In sum, contrary to what has generally been assumed by commentators of Leviticus, there is no reason to question the literary homogeneity of Lev 5:1– 13 and 14–26. Especially in the case of the latter section, traditional literary criticism has been plagued by the incapacity to perceive that the discrete instructions within the larger unit (v. 14–16, 17–19 and 20–26) did not stand in contradiction with each other but formed a comprehensive system with Lev 4. Moreover, the association between the t)+x and the M#) is traditional (see 2 Kgs 12:17), rendering the classical view678 that 5:14–26 should be later than ch. 4 all the more unjustified. Lev 5:1–13 and 14–26 were composed by the same author as Lev 4, and complement the legislation on inadvertent, nondeliberate offenses by addressing more complex or borderline cases. Like Lev 4 (above, § 3.2.2.3.d.), the composition of Lev 5 betrays the growing involvement of priestly scribes in legal matters during the Persian period; it also betrays the remarkable degree of casuistic elaboration achieved by these scribes at this time. Although it probably served for consultation at the Temple’s library, the complexity and, indeed, sophistication of Lev 5 674

ELLIGER, Leviticus, 66–67; similarly, GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 61–63. MILGROM, Concept; similarly, Leviticus, 345–356. 676 See in particular BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 330; similarly NOTH, Leviticus, 47–48. 677 See ID., Leviticus, 48. 678 See characteristically NOTH, Leviticus, 46; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 65ff. 675

256

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

suggest an erudite work rather than a composition with a primarily practical design. One can imagine that it could serve, for instance, for the training of young scholars in difficult legal issues.

3.6. Leviticus 6–7: Closing the Torah on Sacrifices To conclude, the analysis of the composition of Lev 6–7 also raises some interesting questions, even if the interpretation of these two chapters does not present as many difficulties as that of Lev 4 and 5. As was already suggested earlier in this study, the actual theme of ch. 6–7 is not simply the definition of the priestly share in the sacrificial portions, but more fundamentally the disposal of the remains of the sacrificial animal. Since this animal has been consecrated to the deity by being offered on the altar, its remains, in consequence, also have a distinct, sacred status and must not be profaned.679 This problem is discussed in particular in the first section, specifically addressed to the priests (cf. 6:2aa and 18aa ), dealing with the disposal of the remains of the five types of sacrifices described in Lev 1–5 (albeit not in the same order): the hl(, the hxnm, the t)+x, the M#), and the Myml#-xbz. In the case of the hl(, since it is entirely burnt on the altar, the instruction applies to the disposal of the suet ashes (N#d), which must be taken outside the camp to a clean place (Lev 6:3–4). What remains from the hxnm, the t)+x and the M#) must be eaten by the priests (cf. 6:7–11, 17–23; 7:1–7); it cannot be eaten by lay members of the community. The justification is given by the statement that these offerings are “most sacred”, My#dq #dq, cf. 6:10, 18, 22; 7:6. Thus, a neat distinction is drawn from the Myml#-xbz, the remaining flesh of which may be eaten by lay members under certain conditions (cf. 7:11–21) and is therefore only “sacred”, #dq.680 In addition, a 679 This was correctly perceived by some earlier scholars: see KOCH, Priesterschrift, 61, who develops earlier insights by BEGRICH , Priesterliche Tora, esp. 80ff.; cf. also ELLIGER, Leviticus, 93. Unfortunately, however, this important point is missed by most commentators, who assume instead that the concern of this legislation is merely “the distribution of the parts of the animal not consumed on the altar, most of which are assigned to the priests”, thus HARTLEY, Leviticus, 94 (emphasis added). Similarly for example M ARX, Theology, 107, for whom the text deals with “what may be called the ‘residual substance’, that is, what is left after YHWH has received his part of the sacrifice”; see also ID., Systèmes, 33; and already RAINEY, Order, 487: “the passage deals with administrative details, especially the allocation of the various parts of the sacrificial victim to those entitled to them”. Other authors are even more elusive, considering that Lev 6–7 deals with various matters concerning the priests primarily; see, e.g., NOTH, Leviticus, 52–53; MILGROM, Leviticus, 382 (“matters of interest to the priests”); RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 232; GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 77; most recently DEIANA, Levitico, 91. On the notion that the organization of ch. 6–7 would typically reflect an “administrative” order, see the critical discussion below, page 267. 680 On this distinction, see MILGROM, Leviticus, 182–183.320–321.394–395, and passim.

3.6. Leviticus 6–7: Closing the Torah on Sacrifices

257

further distinction is made in the case of the Myml#-xbz according to the context and purpose of this offering. If it is for an act of thanksgiving (hdwt-l(), it must be eaten on the same day, whereas if it is a votive (rdn) or “freewill” (hbdn)681 offering the flesh may be kept for two days, but must be eaten on the third. Obviously, the difference has to do with the fact that the flesh of the Myml#-xbz offered as a thanksgiving is more sacred than that which is presented in a votive context. Because of the neat distinction made between the Myml#-xbz and other offerings, additional instructions for the disposal of the remains of most sacred offerings had necessarily to be placed after the instruction on the M#) in 7:1–7 but before the section on the Myml#-xbz in 7:11–21, hence in 7:8–10; the complements deal with the flesh of the burnt offering and introduce further points in the case of the cereal offering.682 Therefore, the section 7:8–10 is not at all out of place, as commonly perceived;683 rather, it occupies a logical position within ch. 6–7. At first sight, the second section, 7:22–36, which returns to an address to all Israel, as in Lev 1–5 (cf. 7:23a, 29a),684 seems clearly distinct from the previous one. However, careful examination suggests that this section is also related to 6:1–7:21 and serves as a complement, in particular for the to=ra= on the Myml#-xbz in 7:11–21. The legislation on the well-being offering in Lev 3 is concluded, in 3:17, by an instruction prohibiting the eating of the suet or the blood of any animal. The reason for placing this clause at the end of the legislation on this type of offering is evidently because it is only in the case of 681

On these terms, cf. ELLIGER, Leviticus, 100; MILGROM, Leviticus, 413–414.419–420. For a similar explanation of the placing of Lev 7:8–10 in its present position, see PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 115; MARX, Theology, 107–108. 683 See, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 332; similarly NOTH, Leviticus, 60 (“very loosely and probably rather late”); ELLIGER, Leviticus, 87; or HARTLEY, Leviticus, 95 (“a secondary piece that has been misplaced sometime in the history of the transmission of the text”). 684 Against most commentators (e.g., PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 121; MILGROM, Leviticus, 426), it is unclear whether Lev 7:22–36 is exclusively addressed to the lay community, or whether the mention of the Israelites in 7:23a and 29a (as already in 1:2aa and 4:2aa) includes the priests as well, and therefore the entire community. Also, some commentators adopt a different division of Lev 6–7, placing the main caesura not after 7:21 but already after 7:10, and considering 7:11–36 as a coherent section; see MILGROM, Leviticus, 382; cf. also RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 231; M ARX , Theology, 107, who opposes the first four sacrifices to “that sacrifice which is divided among YHWH, the priests and the offerer, Lev 7:11–36 […]”. Indeed, the close thematic connection between 7:11–21 and 7:22–36 is unmistakable, as we will see. Also, it is true that 7:11–21 concerns the entire community and not merely the priests. However, as noted by Marx, this is due to the nature of the well-being offering which is the only offering where a part of the remains goes to the offerer, contrary to what applies in the case of the other sacrifices. Nonetheless, the delineation of 7:11–36 as a discrete unit does not account for the fact that the new introduction is placed at 7:22, not at 7:11, and that 7:11–21 is included in the section opened by 6:2aa and thus addressed to the priests, as Milgrom, Rendtorff and Marx must all somehow admit. For this reason, 7:22–36 is best viewed as an appendix to 11–21, as is usually proposed (e.g., HARTLEY, Leviticus, 95). 682

258

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

this offering that a share comes to the offerer himself. In 7:22–27, immediately after the to=ra= for the well-being offering in 7:11–21, the prohibition of 3:17 is taken up and developed, thus echoing the structure of 3:1–16 followed by v. 17. In particular, 7:22–27 introduces a further distinction between the suet of domestic animals (v. 23) and the suet of a carcass (hlbn) or of an animal that was torn into pieces by beasts (hpr+, v. 24); in the second case, the suet may be used for any purpose, but it may not be eaten. The last instruction, 7:28–36, is also dependent on the to=ra= of 7:11–21, since it introduces an additional instruction for the share of the well-being offering belonging to the priest. In this respect, all of 7:22–36 may actually be regarded as an appendix to the to=ra= of 7:11–21, which explains its placement just after the latter.685 The relationship between 7:22–27, 28–36 and 7:11–21 is somewhat comparable to what applies in the case of the to=ra= for the cereal offering in 6:7–16, where the instruction for the disposal of the remainder of the hxnm in v. 7–11 is also completed in v. 12–16 by an instruction for the daily hxnm which Aaron must bring as from the day of his anointing (and which is also formally delineated from v. 7–11 by the introduction of a new divine speech). However, the connection is even greater in the case of 7:11–36 because v. 22–36 are mainly additional instructions for the disposal of the portions of the wellbeing offering. Finally, the connection between the first and second section of ch. 6–7 is further emphasized by the fact that the final subscription comes after v. 36, in v. 37–38, and thus includes de facto both 6:1–7:21 and 7:22–36. This brief survey of the structure and arrangement of Lev 6–7 already signals that the coherence of this collection is far greater than has been generally acknowledged by commentators.686 It does not mean, however, that it is a compositional unit. In particular, scholars have often observed that 6:12–16 and 7:22–36 were probably not original; although not all the arguments advanced are compelling, there are indeed some reasons to support this view. As regards Lev 6:12–16, it is only very loosely connected with the issue of the disposal of sacrificial remains (cf. v. 16); rather, the to=ra= for the cereal offering in 6:7–11 was the obvious opportunity to introduce a new instruction for the daily cereal offering to be brought by the high priest beginning on the day of his consecration (for this understanding, see below), of which nothing was said earlier in Ex 25–40 or in Lev 1–5. In itself this argument is not necessarily decisive, since a somewhat similar device occurs in the case of the 685

This point is missed by most commentators; see MILGROM, Leviticus, 426(ff.), holding that the section 7:22–27 is a later insert that “severed the original continuous passage on the thanksgiving and well-being offerings (vv 11–21, 29b–34)”. Others have found both 7:22–27 and 28–34 to be complements to the legislation on the well-being offering but nevertheless fail to perceive that this is what constitutes the inner unity of this section, and not merely the fact that it is addressed to all Israel; thus, e.g., PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 122ff. 686 Thus NOTH, Leviticus, 53: “[…] a collection of elements of priestly professional knowledge arranged without much plan”. Similarly, e.g., GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 76–77(ff.).

3.6. Leviticus 6–7: Closing the Torah on Sacrifices

259

to=ra= for the reparation offering in 7:1–7, most of which is devoted to describing the manner in which it must be made (see v. 1–5). Nevertheless, the assumption against the original character of 6:12–16 can be supported by noting that all of this section is missing in one of the main testimonies of the Greek tradition, the codex Alexandrinus.687 If it is not simply an instance of homeoarcton (see v. 12 and 17),688 this observation may confirm the secondary nature of v. 12–16.689 The interpretation of this instruction raises an issue insofar as the text of v. 12–16 considers a regular (or “continuous”) offering (dymt hxnm, v. 13 MT;690 see also v. 15: Mlw(-qx), half of which should be brought in the morning and half in the evening; but it specifies simultaneously that this offering should be brought “on the day” (Mwyb) when Aaron is anointed, thus apparently reserving it for this specific occasion. Earlier commentators thus assumed that the phrase wt) x#mh Mwyb was a later interpolation by a scribe who either confused or wanted to identify the cereal offering of v. 12– 16 with the “ordination” (My)lm ) offering mentioned in 7:37.691 Another possibility is to consider that Mwyb in v. 13 does not necessarily mean “on the day” but also “from the day”, as suggested by some authors;692 note that this rendering is also attested in 7:35, for instance. In any event, once it is recognized that the cereal offering of 6:12–16 is not identical, originally, to the ordination offering mentioned in 7:37,693 the function of the former becomes clear: it accompanies the daily burnt sacrifice which, following Ex 29:38–42, is also a dymt offering and must be presented every morning and evening. Admittedly, Ex 29:38–42 already prescribes an auxiliary cereal offering (cf. 687

This important observation was occasionally noted by earlier scholars (see, e.g., MERX, Kritische Untersuchung, 172), but seems to have escaped recent commentators (even WEVERS, Notes on Leviticus, 75ff., does not discuss it); it is also absent from BHS. 688 As proposed, e.g., by PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 110 n. 10. 689 Additionally, a further argument for the secondary nature of 6:12–16 was the absence of the phrase trwt t)z, as in 6:2, 7, 18; 7:1, 11, as well as the presence of a new address in 6:12; see, e.g., ELLIGER, Leviticus, 89–90. However, regarding the first point, this omission is actually logical since v. 12–16 can be regarded as a complement to the to=ra= for the cereal offering in v. 7–11 and are therefore subsumed under the introduction of 6:7. As to the presence of a new address in 6:12, its significance is diminished by the fact that 6:17–23 is also introduced by the same device (but see further on this below). Among recent authors viewing 6:12–16 as an interpolation, cf. also MILGROM, Leviticus, 396; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 94. Pace Elliger, there is no reason to assume that v. 15–16 are still later than v. 12–14; in the context of Lev 6–7, one would logically expect an instruction on the priestly share, as is found indeed in Lev 6:16. 690 The LXX and the SamP both read here dymt hxnml. 691 Thus, for example, BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 335; NOTH, Leviticus, 56–57. 692 PORTER, Leviticus, 50–51; PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 111; WEVERS, Notes on Leviticus, 75; MILGROM, Leviticus, 397 (with other Semitic parallels to this construction). 693 Compare the description in Ex 29:19ff. and Lev 8:22ff. The My)wlm offering is not limited to a cereal offering but consists mainly of a ram; yet even the cereal offering accompanying it is different from the one prescribed in 6:12–14, cf. Ex 29:2–3, 23; Lev 8:26.

260

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

Ex 29:40); however, it consists of raw cereal (a tenth of an epha of semolina mixed with a fourth of a hîn of oil, accompanied by a fourth of a hîn of wine), whereas the offering of Lev 6:12–16 is baked (v. 14).694 Since the two types of cereal offerings are considered in the law of Lev 2, raw and baked, the rule of 6:12–16 probably betrays the willingness to have both types along with the daily burnt sacrifice; therefore, it should be viewed as a complement to Ex 29:40. Clearly, this instruction was inserted here because it is subsumed under the clause for the cereal offering in 6:7–11;695 however, it is also connected to 6:2b–6, which already refers to the daily burnt sacrifice (see below).696 A further observation may be added to this last consideration. Milgrom has proposed that v. 12–16 were interpolated through the insertion of the formula “Yahweh spoke to Moses” in v. 12 and 17; if so, originally, all of the section 6:2–7:21* was introduced only by the initial address to Moses in 6:1.697 Admittedly, the introduction to the to=ra= for the purification offering in 6:17–23 is more developed since it also includes a new command to Moses to speak to Aaron and his sons, v. 18aa , which has no parallel in v. 12. However, taking up an earlier observation by Koch, one may surmise that the new introduction in v. 17–18aa was interpolated in order to stress the distinction between the section on the purification, reparation and well-being offerings in 6:17–7:21, on one hand, and the section on the burnt and cereal offerings in 6:2–16, on the other. Koch argued that this device reflects the structure of Lev 1– 5, where the instruction on the purification and reparation offerings (4–5) is delineated from ch. 1–3 by a new introduction (cf. 4:1–2aa ).698 Yet if so, one does not understand why the to=ra= for the well-being offering in 7:11–21 was not also separated from the to=ra= for the purification and reparation offerings in 6:17–7:7 (or 7:10). Rather, one gets the impression that the role of the new introduction in 6:17–18aa is to emphasize the proximity between burnt and cereal offerings in 6:2–16. This device is best understood if the cereal offering was mainly considered by the interpolator of 6:17–18aa in its function as an auxiliary offering to the hl( . Since this is obviously the case for the additional instruction of 6:12–16 regarding the daily cereal offering to be presented by the high priest, one may suppose that the interpolation of v. 17–18aa was also meant to strengthen the link between 6:2–6 and 6:7–11, 12–16.

Concerning 7:22–36, this section was generally considered a later insertion because of the presence of a new address (7:22–23a, 28–29a) as well as its obvious supplementary character vis-à-vis 6:1–7:21,699 although some authors 694

Admittedly, the rendering of this verse presents some difficulties; see, e.g., MILGROM, Leviticus, 399–400. But, at any rate, the fact that it is baked cannot be disputed. 695 Thus also for instance MILGROM, Leviticus, 396. 696 HARTLEY, Leviticus, 94, also observes that, “the term dymt, ‘continual’, in v. 13 […] connects this material with the mention of the continual fire on the altar (dymt #)) in v. 6”. It is possible, though not certain, that mention of the dymt txnm in Neh 10:34 implies a reference to the to= r a= of Lev 6:12ff. One should note, however, that Neh 10:31–40 has obviously been edited and expanded. According to the recent analysis by REINMUTH, Reform, v. 34 is part of a revision of 10:31–40 postdating a first redaction of the Torah. 697 See MILGROM, Leviticus, 396. 698 KOCH, Priesterschrift, 63. 699 See in particular BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 18–19; KOCH, Priesterschrift, 65ff.; NOTH, Leviticus, 64–65; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 90–93; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 95.

3.6. Leviticus 6–7: Closing the Torah on Sacrifices

261

retained 7:28–36 (or at least part of it) as original.700 In the case of v. 22–27, the secondary nature of this passage is also corroborated by the sudden change to a direct address in the 2ppl. Recently, Knohl and Milgrom have further drawn several parallels between 7:22–27 and the Holiness Code (Lev 17–27), and have argued on this basis that the section was most likely the work of an H redactor.701 7:22–27 serves to develop Lev 3:16b–17, also an H insert (at least for v. 17).702 Moreover, Knohl observes that the fact that in v. 23 and 25 the ban on the eating of the suet of domestic animals (oxen, sheep, or goats, v. 23) is connected with their being animals that may be sacrificed on the altar (v. 25) is best explained by the assumption that 7:22–27 already presupposes the ban on profane slaughter in Lev 17, as well as the requirement that every animal fit for sacrifice should be offered to Yahweh as a wellbeing offering.703 Further thematic and linguistic parallels may also be made between 7:22–27 and H. In particular, the prohibition against eating blood in v. 26–27 has its closest parallel in Lev 17:10–14. One may also note that the distinction between a dead animal (hlbn) and an animal torn by beasts (hpr+) in 7:24 is only found in one place, namely in Lev 17:15. Besides, the introduction of a specific, less rigorous clause for animals which have been found dead in 7:24 recalls the logic of the instruction of 17:15–16 coming after 17:10–14. Hence, 7:22–27 should be assigned to a later revision of Leviticus in the spirit of H; we shall return later in this study to the nature of this revision (below, § 5.4.2.). In the case of 7:22–27, the function of this H insert is obviously to supplement the legislation of Lev 17 on the prohibition against blood by one against the eating of the suet of any animal, which takes up and develops Lev 3:16b–17; the parallel between the conclusions of the sub-sections formed by 7:23–25 and 26–27 emphasizes that both actions deserve the same penalty, namely being “cut off from one’s kin”, a sanction frequently found in H. Otherwise, the text of 7:22–27 is coherent and shows no specific mark of later editorial interventions, as is usually acknowledged.704 The second part of the section comprising 7:22–36, v. 28–36, is less clearly marked by H’s style, except for the formula Mtrdl Mlw( tqx (“a permanent decree throughout their generations”) at the conclusion of v. 36, which I regard with Knohl as being characteristic of H.705 Knohl nevertheless attributes 700 See, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 332.341, although he only retains as original 7:28–31, 34*. ELLIGER, Leviticus, 90–93, also considers 7:28–36 to be older than 7:22–27, though he does not think that any of the two sections belongs to the original text of Lev 6–7. 701 Cf. KNOHL, Sanctuary, 49–51; MILGROM, Leviticus, 28–29.426. 702 For the demonstration, see above § 3.3.1., pages 198–199, note 382. 703 KNOHL, Sanctuary, 50. 704 See for instance ELLIGER, Leviticus, 90 (“literarisch völlig einheitlich”). 705 See KNOHL, Sanctuary, 46ff. Pace MILGROM, Leviticus, 16–17 and 435, it is unclear that the Samaritan reading (qx, “due”, while the MT has tqx) is original. Text-critically, the SamP could betray a harmonization with the reading Mlw(-qx in 7:34, or even with 10:15.

262

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

the passage as a whole to an H redactor, a conclusion disputed by Milgrom, who holds 7:28–36 to be earlier than 7:22–27, and therefore from the hand of P.706 However, the fact that 7:28–36 is introduced exactly in the same manner as 7:22–27 (comp. 7:28–29a and 22–23a) casts doubt on the originality of this section, suggesting rather that it has been interpolated together with 7:22–27. Milgrom must thus surmise that the introduction in v. 28–29a has been interpolated later, so that originally 7:29b would have immediately followed 7:21;707 yet this is rather unconvincing. Also, Yahweh’s reference to himself in the first person in the core of the law (v. 34) is rare in P (see however 6:10–11, and further on this point below), while it is typical of H. Moreover, the instruction of 7:28–36 is closely connected with 7:22–27, since it begins by recalling that the suet portions must be offered to Yahweh on the altar (v. 29–30); in this respect, it constitutes the positive counterpart to the prohibition against eating suet found in 7:23, introducing the instruction of 7:22–27. Lastly, the plural address which is characteristic of 7:22–27 and separates this section from 6:1–7:21 also occurs in 7:32.708 It has sometimes been suggested that v. 32–34 were a later insert in v. 28–36, and there are indeed some grounds for this view.709 In general, it was surmised that the aim of this interpolation would have been to add the right thigh to the priestly share of the well-being offering. Admittedly, if this reconstruction is correct, v. 32–34 should be treated separately. Yet even so, the above observations on the literary dependence of this unit on 7:22–27 remain valid. Whether both supplements are from the same hand (the H redactor in the Torah), or whether v. 28– 36 are still later than v. 22–27 (as the presence of a new introduction in 28– 29a may perhaps suggest) cannot be decided with certainty. 706

MILGROM, Leviticus, 435. ID., Leviticus, 396.429. 708 Thus, pace Milgrom, it is not true that use of the plural address is unique to v. 22–27. 709 See, e.g., NOTH, Leviticus, 65; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 91; PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1– 16, 124. This development is confirmed by several indications. Lev 8:29 (see already Ex 29:26) limits the priestly share to the breast, whereas the inclusion of the right thigh is only found in later passages: Ex 29:27–28 (cf. the discussion above, § 3.1.2., p. 130–131), Lev 9:21 (where, however, the mention of the right thigh is a later interpolation: see above, § 3.1.1., page 121), and 10:14–15 (on which, see below, § 6.2.4.). The assumption of the later origin of v. 32–34 is justified by the fact that the mention of the right thigh comes too late after v. 31 as well as by the passage’s distinct terminology, in particular the sudden use of the 2ppl in v. 32, the divine speech in the first person in v. 34, and the use of the term qx to designate the priestly prebend in v. 34 instead of tx#m in v. 35. Contra KNOHL, Sanctuary, 208 n. 11; and MILGROM, Leviticus, 16–17.435–436.473ff., I do not consider a tension between the attribution of the right thigh to the officiating priest in 7:34 and the statement of 10:14–15 according to which this thigh goes to the entire priestly cadre (Milgrom includes 9:21 with 10:14–15, but the reason for this eludes me). Other passages in Lev 6–7 appear to imply that the officiating priest who receives the sacrificial portion may share it with his entire family, see 6:19, 22 and above all 7:6–7; this is also the meaning of the law in 22:10–16. 707

3.6. Leviticus 6–7: Closing the Torah on Sacrifices

263

The subscription in 7:37–38710 is clearly editorial, at least in its present form. The reference to the fact that this to=ra= was revealed to Moses by Yahweh ynys rhb in v. 38 anticipates the notices found at the end of the book, in Lev 25:1; 26:46 and 27:34. As we will see later in this study, such notices in Lev 25–27 correspond to the willingness to conclude not only the divine revelation in Leviticus, but more generally the entire revelation at Mt Sinai initiated in Ex 19ff. (contrast Num 1:1).711 The notice in 7:37–38 was probably intended not only as the conclusion to Lev 6–7,712 but also more generally to the entire to=ra= on sacrifices in Lev 1–7. This is already suggested by the inclusion of the My)wlm offering in the enumeration of v. 37. Contrary to a prevailing view, it is not a reference to the (secondary) instruction of Lev 6:12– 16,713 but to the ordination offering of Aaron and his sons in Ex 29 and Lev 8. As we have seen above, the regulation in 6:12–16 does not address the “ordination offering” of Aaron and his sons but forms a complement to the to=ra= for the cereal offering in 6:7–11 regarding the daily minh9a= accompanying the burnt offering. Besides, if a reference to 6:12–16 was intended, the position of the phrase My)wlm in the enumeration of v. 37 would not make sense, whereas it is consistent if the reference is to the offering described in Ex 29; Lev 8.714 The mention of the “ordination offering” in 7:37 apparently reflects the attempt to include all the different types of sacrifices instructed at Mt Sinai.715 As a result, the term to=ra= in v. 37 is used as a general term, and no longer for an instruction about the disposal of sacrificial remains specifically, as in Lev 6–7 originally. In its present form at least, the notice in v. 37–38 thus surely goes back to the editor of Leviticus, as is the case for the parallel notices in Lev 25:1; 26:46; 27:34.716 Contrary to a classical assumption, there is no need to perceive a tension between 7:38 and the opening notice in Lev 1:1 locating 710

With most commentators, add w before hxnml in v. 37 (cf. the LXX, Syr, Tg; see BHS). See below, § 5.3., p. 551ff. The connection between 7:37–38 and 25:1; 26:46 and 27:34 is also noted for instance by ELLIGER, Leviticus, 103. 712 Thus NOTH, Leviticus, 65; MILGROM , Leviticus, 436; RENDTORFF , Leviticus, 258; DEIANA, Levitico, 98 (“[v. 37] funge da conclusione e sintesi di Lv 6–7”). 713 See already BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 342; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 23, etc.; most recently, see also RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 258, who considers a reference to both Ex 29:19ff. and Lev 6:12–16 and proposes that, at some stage in the development of the tradition, the term My)wlm referred to “den vegetabilischen Teil dieses Opfers”, which would explain why it could be used in Lev 7:37 for the offering described in 6:12–16. This, however, is quite unsupported. 714 As correctly noted by MILGROM, Leviticus, 436: “[…] The place of the ordination offering in this series of sacrifices fits its rank in the order of holiness perfectly. It follows the most holy sacrifices and precedes the less holy well-being offering. Indeed, it is neither one nor the other, sharing some of the attributes of both. Its ambiguous state corresponds precisely to the ambiguous, liminal state of its priestly offerers”. For the conclusion that My)wlm in 7:37 refers to the ordination offering in Ex 29 and Lev 8, see also ELLIGER, Leviticus, 103. 715 For a similar idea, cf. ELLIGER, Leviticus, 103. 716 Pace ELLIGER, Leviticus, 92–93, who assigns it to the P scribe who inserted Lev 6–7. 711

264

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

God’s speech inside the tent of meeting rather than on Mt Sinai.717 Yet rhb ynys does not necessarily mean “on Mt Sinai”, but may also be rendered by “at Mt Sinai”.718 This solution accounts, in particular, for the reference to the “wilderness of Sinai” in 7:38; otherwise, the juxtaposition of the two locations is difficult to understand.719 Nevertheless, the possibility should also be considered that not all of v. 37–38 is from the hand of the final editor of Leviticus. As various authors have noted,720 the reference to the ordination offering in v. 37 could also be a later interpolation, probably from the same hand as the one responsible for v. 38; once it is removed, the remainder of v. 37 corresponds exactly to the classification in the original to=ra= of Lev 6:1–7:21 and could have formed a fitting subscription. The use of the opening phrase in 7:37 is reminiscent of the successive headings found in 6:2, 7, 18; 7:1, 11, although the formulation is nevertheless somewhat different (zo)t hatto=ra= le6-X, instead of zo)t to=rat ha-X). In any event, if the considerations above are correct, and if sections 6:12– 16; 7:22–27, 28–36, and 37–38 can be shown to be later inserts, one must concur with the traditional view according to which the collection of Lev 6–7 originally consisted of a series of five sections introduced by zo)t to=rat ha-X, in 6:2ab–6, 7–11, 17–23; 7:1–7, 11–21 (possibly concluded by asubscript in 7:37), each of which was devoted to one of the offerings successively described in Lev 1–5.721 The five to=ro=t of the original legislation in Lev 6–7 form a 717

E.g., DEIANA, Levitico, 99, for whom it betrays “un lavoro redazionale non accurato”. For this idea, cf. BLUM, Studien, 313–314; also RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 54–55 n. 5. 719 Thus, commentators have often suggested that ynys rbdmb in 7:38b was a later interpolation, intended to correct ynys rhb in v. 38a, which I find unconvincing. See, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 342; similarly MILGROM, Leviticus, 438. Others hold on the contrary that it is the reference to the wilderness of Sinai in 1:1 which would be secondary vis-à-vis the location in 7:38; thus already KUENEN, Einleitung, 1. 81; further, e.g., KORNFELD, Levitikus, 33–34. Yet the reason why the editor of Leviticus would have sought to correct 7:38 is unclear. Besides, since the subscription in 7:37–38 presupposes the entire legislation on offerings in Lev 1–7, it is unlikely to be older than 1:1. Certainly, there is no reason to assume that the mention of the wilderness of Sinai was interpolated in 1:1, as Kuenen appears to imply. DILLMANN, Leviticus, 497, and more recently HARTLEY, Leviticus, 101, propose that rbdmb ynys refers to the place where the Israelites must bring their sacrifices to Yahweh, and not where the to=ra= on sacrifices was revealed to Moses. Yet in this case the tension between 1:1 and 7:38 remains. Note that HOFFMANN, Leviticus, 1. 70ff., likewise based his case that Lev 6–7 would initially have followed immediately Ex 29, before the interpolation of Lev 1–5, on the apparent contradiction between 1:1 and 7:38. 720 See inter alia BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 342; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 103, all of whom assume nonetheless that the original subscription was not limited to v. 37 but included v. 38a (thus Baentsch) or even all of v. 38 (Elliger). For the reasons described above, however, the reference to Mt Sinai – and hence v. 38 – cannot be from P’s hand. 721 See BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 332ff.; NOTH, Leviticus, 53(ff.); ELLIGER, Leviticus, 79–95 (and especially the synthesis on p. 93); MILGROM, Leviticus, 396 (who includes however 7:29b–36); somehow also HARTLEY, Leviticus, 93–94(ff.); GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 76ff. 718

3.6. Leviticus 6–7: Closing the Torah on Sacrifices

265

coherent and homogeneous composition, in which, apart from a few passages such as 7:8–10, there are only few interpolations.722 The term hrwt, in this collection, has a very specific meaning and refers to an instruction for the disposal of sacrificial remains; this is shown most clearly in the formulation of Lev 7:7, which specifies that the to=ra= for the reparation offering is the same as the one for the purification offering (v. 7a). This statement can make no sense if it is applied to the ritual previously described in v. 2–5, which is not identical to the ritual for the minor purification offering since the blood of the animal is not put on the horns of the altar but simply sprinkled against its sides (v. 2), contrary to what is required in Lev 4:25, 30, 34. Rather than postulating that Lev 7:7a assumes the identity of the two rituals,723 or that it relates to the description of 7:2–5 except for the manipulation of blood,724 or even that the statement refers to the purpose of the ritual (atonement),725 it is more likely that the phrase refers to the following hemistiche (v. 7b) stating that the portion of the reparation offering goes to the officiating priest,726 as in 6:19. (Possibly, the statement of v. 6, which corresponds to 6:22, is also included.) The specific use of the term to=ra= in the original form of Lev 6–7 (i.e., 6:1– 7:21) agrees with several passages elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, especially in the Latter Prophets, in which it appears to designate a teaching by priests (cf. Deut 33:10; Jer 18:18; Ez 7:26; Hos 4:6; Mal 2:7), in particular concerning cultic and ritual matters: see Lev 10:10; Ez 22:26; 44:23; Hag 2:11; also, Deut 24:8; Zeph 3:4.727 Nevertheless, in Lev 6:1–7:21, the tradition is reinter722 Although 7:8–10 is a supplement to the basic legislation in 6:2ab–7:7, its present position is quite logical, as already observed above, so that it is unclear whether it should be regarded as an interpolation (see the authors quoted above, page 257, note 683). GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 80, considers for his part that 7:7–10 (and not merely 7:8–10) belongs to “ein anderer, vielleicht älterer Versorgungskatalog”, but this is unnecessarily complicated. ELLIGER, Leviticus, 82–95, considers several additional passages in 6:1–7:21 which may reflect a later editorial reworking; however, none of his suggestions is convincing. In particular, the notion that the phrase “most holy” should have comprised, initially, a concluding formula in 6:10, 22 and 7:6 is entirely unsupported, and one does not understand why, in this case, it has been consistently completed in all three sections (see 6:11, 23 and 7:7). Note also that 6:18 openly contradicts this assumption. NOTH, Leviticus, 50ff., also finds a few interpolations in 6:1–7:21, which are no more compelling. E.g., it is unjustified to regard 6:10ab, b as secondary; otherwise, it is not even specified that the remains of the cereal offering are most sacred, as is done for all the other sacrifices (see 6:18, 22; 7:6). 723 Thus, e.g., PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 115. However, this statement can hardly agree with the descriptions found in Lev 4 and 7:2–5 respectively. 724 Thus RODRIGUEZ, Substitution, 160. 725 KOCH, Priesterschrift, 64. 726 Thus already Rashi, and further NOTH, Leviticus, 58; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 99. 727 This point was already emphasized for instance by BEGRICH, Priesterliche Tora. However, contrary to Begrich, we do not need to assume that this is the original meaning of the term to=ra=. More likely, it reflects an usage of that term which was developed among priestly circles specifically, and which could co-exist with other usages. It is true that some passages

266

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

preted and the roles are reversed since this teaching is now delivered not by the priests to the people but by Yahweh himself to the priests (6:2; see below). Simultaneously, the composition of a distinct “teaching” for each of the five types of offerings described in Lev 1–5 also provided an opportunity to recall basic aspects of the ritual (cf. in particular 6:7b–8, in the case of the cereal offering, and 6:18, on the purification offering), or to introduce details yet unknown to the description of Lev 1–5. Thus, in 6:2b–6, the disposal of the suet ashes (N#d) of the daily burnt offering (v. 3–4) is the occasion to add instructions on the conservation of the fire of the altar of burnt offerings (v. 5–6), which must be a dymt #), a “permanent fire”. The to=ra= for the reparation offering gave an opportunity to describe the relevant ritual to be performed (7:2–5) for which no instruction existed in Lev 5:14–26, contrary to the other four types of offerings in Lev 1–5. Finally, in 7:11–21, the to=ra= for the Myml#-xbz introduces a distinction between two main contexts in which this offering may be presented to Yahweh (thanksgiving and votive); here again, this was not mentioned earlier in ch. 1–5. These observations as to the supplementary character of Lev 6–7 raise the more general issue of whether it is possible to retrieve an older collection of to=ro=t behind these chapters, as many scholars have proposed. The classical assumption that ch. 6–7 have undergone a complex development involving several successive stages is already contradicted by the coherence and logic of the original composition identified in Lev 6:1–7:21. Furthermore, the main arguments adduced on behalf of the assumption that ch. 6–7 once formed a separate document are all unconvincing. The recurrence of the phrase zo)t to=rat ha-X proves nothing in this regard, and the differences in language between Lev 1–5 and 6–7 may also be accounted for by the fact that 6–7 is later than 1–5.728 Rather, close examination of the five to=ro=t of Lev 6–7 demonstrates the extent to which all these sections depend on the legislation of Lev 1–5, and on P in general. This is especially clear regarding the to=ra= for the purification and reparation offerings. Lev 6:17–23 presumes the distinction between major and minor rituals for the t)+x offering (6:23) which is not attested outside Lev 4, so that 6:17–23 cannot be understood but as a supplement to the latter legislation. Regarding 7:1–7, Kuenen already observed that the introduction of a description of the ritual for offering the M#) (v. 2–5) at this place was obviously intended to compensate for the absence of any such

in the HB associate to=ra= with priests specifically (e.g., Jer 2:18; Ez 7:26; Mal 2:7). However, in other passages, the term to=ra= can also be identified with a prophetic instruction. This is the case, e.g., in several passages where it is paralleled with the term da4ba4r (Isa 1:10; Jer 6:19; 26:4–5; Zech 7:12). 728 Against BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 308.332–333. Even if one admits that trwt t)z is, originally, a typical super- or subscription for documents preserving instructions on cultic/ritual matters (as in Lev 11–15), this does not imply that such a document lies behind Lev 6–7.

3.6. Leviticus 6–7: Closing the Torah on Sacrifices

267

description in the corresponding legislation of Lev 5.729 Even with regard to the other three to=ro=t, Lev 6:2a–6, 7–11; 7:11–21, there are several indications of their literary dependence on Lev 1–5. In particular, the description of the ritual for the cereal offering in 6:8 takes up the account of Lev 2. Besides, the to=ra= of 6:7–11 refers to the to=ro=t for the purification and reparation offerings in 6:17–23 and 7:1–7 (cf. 6:10), so that it would be difficult to assume that it is older than the latter. The to=ra= for the daily holocaust in 6:2–6 presupposes the instruction of Ex 29:38–42, which is a late addition to Ex 29 (see above, § 1.2.2.1.); finally, the fact that the to=ra= of 7:11–21 introduces a new distinction between two types of well-being offerings indicates that it was conceived as a supplement to the legislation of Lev 3. In addition to these observations, it should be emphasized that Lev 6–7 is more pervaded by the Sinai fiction than Lev 1–3, where, as argued above (§ 3.3.1.), it is easy to isolate an earlier originally independent document. In 6:7–11, in particular, the priests are systematically identified with Aaron and his sons, so that any reconstruction of an earlier, pre-P version, must resort to numerous emendations.730 Finally, even the difference in the order of the sacrifices, which has sometimes been used as an argument for the distinct origin of Lev 6–7, can easily be accounted for. Actually, the only change concerns the well-being offering, which is now mentioned last (7:11–21) instead of being placed after the cereal offering as in Lev 3. As noted, this position corresponds to the fact that it is the only sacrifice whose remains, which can be eaten by lay members of the community, are sacred and not most sacred.731 Thus, the general rationale organizing Lev 6–7 is between offerings whose remains are reserved for the priests, and are therefore most sacred, and others that can be eaten by lay people (i.e., the well-being offering). This rationale differs from that underlying Lev 1–5; however, it is entirely consistent with the general topic of Lev 6–7, namely, the disposal of sacrificial remains. Therefore, to presume that the distinct position of the well-being offering in Lev 6–7 should reflect an earlier tradition is mistaken. Likewise, there is no need to postulate that the organization of Lev 6–7 is characteristic of an alleged “administrative”, or “book-keeping” order, in opposition to a “didactic” or a “prescriptive” one reflected in Lev 1–5 (A.F. Rainey); as argued here, it can simply be accounted for by the distinct topic of ch. 6–7.732 729

Cf. KUENEN, Einleitung, 1. 80; see already ID., Critische bijdragen V. See for instance the discussion on this point by NOTH, Leviticus, 54–55. 731 Thus also RAINEY, Order, 488. 732 RAINEY, Order, esp. 487ff., building on the previous studies by Levine who proposed a similar distinction; his own study has often been followed since. In addition to the general criticism raised above, one may note that the very notion of an “administrative order” actually raises several important difficulties. Thus, the assumption that the designation “most sacred” is first and foremost “an administrative distinction” is unsustained; it is also attested in Lev 2:3, 10, belonging to a collection that Rainey regards as didactic in nature, not administrative 730

268

Chapter Three: Institution of the Sacrificial Cult (Lev 1–10)

On the whole, this analysis has established that the first version of Lev 6–7, which is to be found in 6:1–7:21* (possibly also with a subscription in v. 37*), was composed from the beginning as a supplement to Lev 1–5. Its purpose is to lay down regulations for the disposal of the sacrificial remains after the offering has been consecrated to Yahweh by being burnt on the altar. As such, it offers a fitting conclusion to the entire legislation on sacrifices in the first part of Leviticus, every possible aspect of sacrifice now having been addressed, from the bringing of the animal (see Lev 1:2) to the elimination of its residual remains after it has been offered on the altar. Although the to=ra= of Lev 6–7 already depends on Lev 4–5, the complete difference in subject nevertheless presumes a separate composition, written by a distinct scribe. However, the observation that Lev 6–7 was edited at a later stage by the H school (see above, on 7:22–36), together with the fact that Lev 7:11–21 appears to be presupposed by H (see Lev 19:5–8 and 22:17–30; further below, § 5.2.2.2.), indicate that the original version of Lev 6–7 was composed a little after Lev 4–5, and probably even before the integration of P into the Pentateuch. An earlier, originally independent version of Lev 6–7, as suggested by Baentsch and others, has never existed. The reason why the original version of Lev 6–7 has the instructions given by Yahweh to Moses reserved for Aaron and his sons exclusively (cf. 6:2aa), contrary to what is the case in Lev 1–5, is found in the very topic of this collection, since in antiquity the disposal of sacred remains was typically regarded as a priestly competence. This observation also accounts for the fact that each successive instruction in Lev 6:1– 7:21 is defined as hrwt, as per the original meaning of this term as a priestly teaching (cf. Deut 33:10; Jer 18:18; Ez 7:26; Hos 4:6; Mal 2:7), especially on matters concerning the separation between sacred and profane or pure and impure (Lev 10:10; Deut 24:8; Ez 22:26; 44:23; Zeph 3:4; Hag 2:11). Simultaneously, this device also allowed the priestly class in Jerusalem to trace their own tradition of priestly teaching to the revelation made to Moses at Mt Sinai, and thus to assert its antiquity and its authority. Finally, legislation such as Lev 6–7 could also serve to establish once and for all the priestly share of each sacrifice presented to the Temple in Jerusalem, as in the almost contemporaneous Punic tariffs, to which Lev 6–7 has often been compared. However, in the interpretation proposed here, this can only be a derived function.

(p. 486–487). Second, his attempt to equate the administrative order found in Lev 6–7 with “the frequency of the sacrifices in the fixed calendrical offerings” (i.e., Num 28–29, cf. p. 489ff.) is equally unconvincing. On one hand, this hypothesis stands in tension with the rationale previously identified in Lev 6–7; if this to=ra= is organized according to the distinction between most sacred and sacred, it cannot simultaneously follow the frequency of the sacrifices in the cultic calendars. On the other hand, the comparison is forced since some types of offerings, namely the reparation and well-being offerings, are systematically absent from the calendar of Num 28–29.

Chapter Four

Purity and Purification of the Community: Leviticus 11–16 It was noted in the research overview that scholarship on Lev 11–16 in the last three decades illustrates in exemplary fashion the impetus brought to the field by social and cultural anthropology. Earlier studies up to the 1960’s focused on two issues mainly: the source- and literary-critical analysis of this collection, and the definition of the concepts of “pure” and “impure” it implied. The latter was long dominated by the reflections initiated by William Robertson Smith and James G. Frazer on the original proximity of sacred and impure and on their function as two complementary forms of taboo in the socalled “primitive” cultures and religions.1 Later, primarily symbolic interpretations of purity and impurity gradually became popular among biblical scholars, in particular impurity as a symbol of death and decay.2 On the whole, few efforts were made to grasp the logic and coherence behind the composition of each individual instruction (Lev 11; 12; 13–14; 15), even less behind the collection as a whole. The laws of Lev 11–15 were usually regarded as a learned compilation of various beliefs and prohibitions relating to pollution from different periods in Israel’s history. That a certain structure was imposed on the grouping of these instructions did not go unrecognized. The relationship between duration of impurity and the importance of the purification ritual, for instance, was often correctly noted. On the whole, however, the notion that the only way to make sense of this collection was by trying to retrace the history of its development largely prevailed. Basically, this is still the view that can be found in the commentaries by Noth (1962) and Elliger (1966).3 It is only with the publication of Mary Douglas’ classic, Purity and Danger, and of her study of Lev 114 that an attempt was really made to understand this latter legislation as a cultural and religious system articulating a coherent world-view, and thus to go beyond the mere statement of the text’s 1

SMITH, Religion, 152ff. and 446–454; FRAZER, Bough, 131–223. On the history of this problematic, see the historical survey by HENNINGER, Pureté, 400ff. (with further references). For its reception in OT exegesis, see, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 355–356. 2 See in particular VON R AD , Theologie, 1. 271–278; KORNFELD, Tiere; PASCHEN, Rein, esp. 57–59; more recently, MILGROM, Rationale; ID., Leviticus, 1000–1004. 3 For a summary of Elliger’s view on the composition of Lev 11–15, see Leviticus, 12–13. 4 DOUGLAS, Purity, ch. 4.

270

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

apparent heterogeneity. This approach has been pursued since by numerous studies which, like Douglas’, have opened completely new options for the interpretation of Lev 11 and, beyond, the collection on impurities. In general, these studies have usually ignored the many source and text-critical problems raised by ch. 11–15 and 16, and have tended to treat these chapters as if they were an original composition reflecting the world-view of P’s author in the early Persian period.5 However, as we shall see, this radical reversal of the earlier situation, though understandable, is not entirely satisfactory either. There are on the contrary many indications that Lev 11–16 is not a mere creation from P’s hand but evinces a more complicated genesis. The most obvious case is the first part of Lev 11, which has a very close parallel in Deut 14, thus suggesting the possibility that the two traditions, D and P, actually go back to a common Vorlage; but this also true, to a lesser degree, for ch. 12–15 and 16. Discerning more accurately between P’s sources and his own contribution will assist us in re-assessing the nature of P’s work in this collection as well as the meaning of his literary project.

4.1. Source- and Redaction Criticism of Leviticus 11–15 The bulk of Lev 11–15 is made up by ch. 12–15 which, as noted above in this study, form a coherent sub-section; it is framed by two laws dealing with cases of pollution stemming from genital organs: childbirth (Lev 12) and male or female genital secretions (Lev 15), whereas the to=ra= on scale disease, the most severe form of impurity, has been skillfully placed at its center (Lev 13– 14). Ch. 11 occupies a specific position and raises distinct issues in terms of text- and redaction criticism; it therefore deserves a discussion of its own. 4.1.1. Leviticus 12–15 Even more than for Lev 1ff., the contextualizing elements integrating 12–15 in P’s fiction are sparse and can easily be isolated. They are limited to the narrative framework (12:1–2aa; 13:1; 14:1, 33; 15:1–2a), and to a few references to Aaron (13:2), the tent of meeting (12:6; 14:11, 23; 15:14, 29), the “encampment”, hnxm (13:46; 14:3), or the former legislation on sacrifices in Lev 1–7 (cf. in particular 14:13).6 Editorial comments in Lev 12–15 are restricted to the motive-clause of 15:31 concluding the whole collection by emphasizing that Israelites must stay away from the sanctuary when in a state of impurity in order to avoid polluting it. Lastly, that the instructions found in 5

See recently, e.g., MARX, Impureté; DOUGLAS, Ezra; and SCHAPER, Priestly Impurity. Note also the introduction to the legislation of 14:33–53, with its reference to Israel’s entry into the land of Canaan given by Yahweh (v. 34); see on this below, pages 276–277. 6

4.1. Source- and Redaction Criticism of Leviticus 11–15

271

Lev 11–15 have a separate origin is also signaled by the systematic presence of a subscription, beginning with trwt t)z and followed by a brief identification of the nature of the case addressed, which is a distinctive feature of this collection.7 Whether it means that these instructions were initially preserved on discrete scrolls, or whether the subscription simply served as a scribal device to separate between instructions preserved on the same scroll in order to ease their consultation, is difficult to tell.8 At any rate, the similitude both in subject-matter and in formulation suggests that these instructions were certainly intended to be grouped together, thus forming a small collection on the treatment of most important cases of pollution. Critics have usually assumed a complicated genesis for the material contained in ch. 12–15, especially for chapters 13–14, the to=r a= on t(rc (scale disease).9 They conclude that the section on fabrics in 13:47–59 is a later interpolation, breaking the continuity between 13:2–46 (identification of the (rcm, the person stricken with scale disease) and 14:1ff. (instructions for his purification and reintroduction into the community), whereas the section on houses in 14:33–53 would be a still later addition.10 As a matter of fact, the subscription in 14:54–57 suggests indeed that the sections on fabrics and on houses are secondary. V. 54 reads: “This is the to=ra= for all scale diseases (t(rch (gn-lkl), and for ‘scurfy patches’ (qtnlw)”; t(rc (gn occurs in 13:2– 28 (cf. v. 2, 3, 9, 20, 25, 27), whereas qtn, “scurfy patch”, referring to some form of hair or beard scale, corresponds to the instruction found in 13:29– 37.11 There follows in v. 55 the mention of disease of fabrics and of houses, whose position in the enumeration of 14:54ff. is indeed logical after v. 54. But the next verse eventually returns to 13:2–46. Lev 14:56 consists of the following enumeration: trhblw txpslw t)#lw; this sequence precisely corresponds

7

Cf. 11:46–47; 12:7b; 13:59; 14:54–57; 15:32–33. On the importance of this device, see also FISHBANE, Law to Canon, esp. 67ff.; as well as ID., Colophons. 8 Pace BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 353, it is unsupported to assume that the absence of a general subscription such as is found in 7:37–38 militates against this latter possibility. 9 It is now clear that t(rc has nothing to do with “leprosy” as we know it (i.e., Hansen’s Disease), but represents a skin ailment characterized by the appearance of scales (a notion still retained in Greek, lepros meaning actually “scabby, scaly”), hence the rendering adopted here after others by “scale disease”. The etymology is disputed, see for instance SAWYER, Note; SEIDL, art. s[a4ra(at`, 1127–1129; MILGROM, Leviticus, 775. 10 See already DILLMANN , Leviticus, 506–507; further WURSTER , Priestercodex, 124; BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 364.369.374–375; JASTROW, Leprosy Laws, 392–394; HEINISCH, Leviticus, 68; KOCH, Priesterschrift, 80; NOTH , Leviticus, 104; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 172–173. 176–177; KORNFELD, Leviticus, 49; MILGROM, Leviticus, 808.863ff.883–884.886. 11 For this observation, see ELLIGER, Leviticus, 166.170; further MILGROM, Leviticus, 883–884. As observed by Milgrom, the affection referred to as qhb in 13:38–39 is never considered impure and is not resumed, in 14:54–57. On the term neteq, see also KRONHOLM, art. na4t`aq/net`eq. 118. Here, however, I adopt Milgrom’s rendering as ‘scurfy patch’.

272

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

to that found at the opening of Lev 13, in v. 2.12 Clearly, this serves to specify the former mention of “all scale diseases” in v. 54, while simultaneously rounding off the to= r a= for s[a4ra(at of persons specifically.13 This suggests, therefore, that the enumeration of v. 55 has been interpolated in-between, and that 13:47–59 and 14:33–53 were not part of the subscript initially.14 Other authors have proposed, on the contrary, viewing 14:56 as a late addition to v. 54–55.15 However, this explanation is less likely, insofar as it cannot account for the fact that v. 56 obviously makes more sense if read immediately after 54, so that it is rather the enumeration of v. 55 which looks like an intrusive element. Milgrom’s main objection against this solution is that the last word of v. 54, qtnlw, should not be placed on the same footing as the enumeration of v. 56. For Milgrom, since the expression “scurfy patches”, qtn, is missing in v. 29–37, it is not defined as a case of t(rc (gn. Instead, the fact that t(rc (gn occurs in v. 2–28 only implies that it is reserved for scale diseases of the fleshy skin, and not for the hair.16 Thus, the enumeration in v. 56, returning to the various forms of t(rc (gn, would not be logical after the word qtnlw in v. 54. If so, however, it is difficult to understand why the enumeration in v. 56 was inserted after v. 55, and not immediately after the phrase (gn-lkl 17 t(rch in v. 54, as Milgrom must concede. Actually, the distinction he proposes is not so obvious. In the introduction to the to=ra= for neteq, neteq is generally defined as “nega( of the head or of the chin” (v. 29); and after it was declared impure by the priest, this nega( is declared as neteq ()wh qtn, v. 30ba ), meaning that it is a case of “s[a4ra(at of the head or of the chin” (v. 30bb). Thus, the division between v. 2–28 and 29–37 is not absolute in this respect and it is possible, in a sense, to include neteq in the phrase t(rch (gn-lkl in v. 54, and not only the enumeration in v. 56. If so, t(rch (gn-lkl is the general subscript to 13:2–46, whereas qtn in v. 54 as well as trhblw txpslw t)#lw in v. 56 specify the main forms of s[a4ra(at. As noted above, the fact that the order of the enumeration is the reverse of the order of ch. 13 is a stylistic device, rounding off the entire to=ra= for persons affected with s[a4ra(at. Alternatively, the original subscript to Lev 13:2–44 and 14:2–8a was sometimes identified in 14:57b exclusively.18 This view is mainly based on the occurrence of the phrase trwt t)z t(rch in v. 57b, partly taking up v. 54. However, restricting the subscript to v. 57b raises an issue because the other subscripts found in Lev 11; 12 and 15 are significantly more detailed (cf. 11:46–47; 12:7b; 15:32–33). Either v. 57b was merely a means to round off the original subscript after the enumeration in v. 54 and 56; or it was possibly introduced after the addition of the reference to fabrics and houses in v. 55. This would account for the use of the general term t(rc 57b, instead of t(rc (gn in v. 54 which is reserved for persons specifically. As to v. 55, finally, it was probably added after the introduction of the section on houses in 14:33–53 because the section on fabrics already has its own subscript 13:59; see below. 12

The exact meaning of these three terms is unclear, although they all refer to some form of skin disease of the s[a4ra(at type; this problem cannot be discussed here. MILGROM, Leviticus, 773–774, proposes for his part “the discolorations, the scabs, and the shiny marks”. 13 For the observation of this inclusion, see especially MILGROM, Leviticus, 884. 14 See ELLIGER, Leviticus, 177; FISHBANE, Law to Canon, 440–442. HOFFMANN, Leviticus, 416 also admits that “V. 56 hätte eigentlich in v. 54 eingeschoben sein sollen”. 15 BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 49; KOCH, Priesterschrift, 89; MILGROM, Leviticus, 883–884. 16 MILGROM, Ibid. See 13:2, 3, 9, 20, 25, 27. 17 Ibid., 884, acknowledging that in this case the order “would have followed perfectly”. 18 Thus, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 376; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 49. These authors regard all of 14:54–57a as a late interpolation from the hand of the redactor of the Pentateuch (R).

4.1. Source- and Redaction Criticism of Leviticus 11–15

273

Furthermore, the numerous parallels between the formulation of 13:47–59 and v. 2–46 indicate that the to=ra= for fabrics was conceived from the beginning as a complement to the to=ra= for persons;19 the same is probably true for the section on houses.20 In 13:47–59, the formulation of v. 50, with the motif of a seven-day period and the use of rgs Hi. for the seclusion of the fabric, echoes the formulation found throughout v. 2–46: see v. 4, 5, 21, 26, 31, 33. In v. 51, the examination on the seventh day and the hypothesis of the spreading of the suspect spot on the fabric, with the verb h#p , corresponds to 13:7, 27 (cf. further 13:35–36). V. 53 ((gnh h#p-)l hnhw) parallels v. 6, 34 (with qtn instead of (gn); cf. also v. 20. The instruction of v. 54 is equal to the rule for a second period of seven-day seclusion in v. 5 and 33 (cf. rgs Hi. + tyn# Mymy t(b#). The dependence on the first part of ch. 13 is especially obvious in v. 55; the expression wtxbgb w) wtxrqb, literally “on its (bald) spot or on its forehead”, originally applied to the person suffering from t(rc on the head (cf. 13:42– 43), but is transferred here to fabrics. Besides, the detail in this verse, “even if the affection has not spread”, can only be understood as a reference to v. 2–8 and 29–37, where a suspected affection which has not spread after a second period of seclusion is declared to be pure, cf. v. 6 and 34, contrary to what is the case for fabrics. The formulation of v. 56 recalls that of v. 6 (see (gnh hhk hnhw). V. 57 parallels the instruction found in v. 7–8, 35–37, where the spreading of an affection after the latter has been declared pure at the term of a second seclusion period of seven days is the indisputable mark of t(rc. But the use of xrp, “to break out”, recalls v. 12, 20, 25, 39; the declarative statement )wh txrp likewise occurs in 13:42. The section on houses presents more significant variations and innovations, most of which are due, however, to the distinct topic of this instruction.21 Nevertheless, there are also some obvious parallels. Note, in particular, the seven-day seclusion in v. 38–39 (also with hgs Hi.), with the examination on the seventh day and the possibility of the spreading of the spot (see v. 39, also with (gn h#p). In v. 43, the case of a further spreading of the suspected spot has a parallel in 13:18ff.; the verb xrp, ‘to break out’, is also found in 13:12, 20, 25, 39, 42. In v. 44, the phrase tr)mm t(rc, Hi. part. of r)m, already occurs in 13:51, 52 (in the MT, but compare the SamP). Lastly, there is a close parallel between the purification rite for houses in v. 49–53 and for persons in 14:4–7 (on this, see further below).22

However, contrary to the prevailing view, these observations merely imply that the to=ra on s[a4ra(at of persons was gradually completed, at some stage of its transmission, by instructions for fabrics and houses that were derived from the principles laid out in 13:2–46. It is difficult to understand why such development should have occurred only after the Priestly writer edited 13:2–46, and the arguments that have usually been adduced in support of this theory are 19

On this, see also especially BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 368ff.; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 172–173. There have been attempts to reconstruct a version of 13:47–59 that would not yet presuppose 13:2–46; see, e.g., SEIDL, Tora, 43–46. Yet even he must admit that from v. 55 onwards, original material may no longer be identified given the importance of the terminological parallels with v. 2–46. 21 This point was usually missed by the authors who have emphasized the differences between Lev 14:33–53 and Lev 13; see, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 374–375. 22 Note, also, that the instructions in v. 46–47 for a person residing in the infected house are closely reminiscent of the instructions that are found in Lev 15 for a person who came into contact with a man or a woman suffering from genital discharges. 20

274

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

simply not compelling. In particular, the whole notion that the introduction of 13:47–59 and 14:33–53 should reflect a legalistic evolution within the school of P, somehow mechanically transferring onto fabrics and houses instructions initially intended for persons, is entirely mistaken.23 The to=ra= for identifying fungus in houses, in particular, has close parallels in Mesopotamia and Anatolia where fungus was considered to have an ominous character.24 Thus, we have all the reasons to presume that in Lev 14 also, this section goes back to an ancient tradition of instruction, which was certainly already known by the Priestly writer when he composed Lev 12–15. Actually, the classical argument for identifying 13:47–59 as an interpolation, namely, the close connection between 13:2–46 and 14:1ff., is not necessarily conclusive. In particular, it does not account, for the presence of a new commission speech in 14:1, at the onset of the (rcmh trwt (v. 2). Usually, it has been surmised that although the ritual in 14:1–32 in its present form is clearly from P’s hand, it nevertheless preserves an older tradition in the bird rite of v. 2–8a. This view is made likely by the similar bird rite which is found in the to=ra= for houses (14:49–53).25 The rite itself appears to combine features of an elimination rite (dispatching a bird in the open field, with the verb s]lh9) with elaborate blood and life/death symbolism. Recently, T. Staubli has proposed understanding this rite as being exclusively symbolic: i.e., the dead and live birds would represent the former (rcm before and after his healing. However, this view is not quite satisfactory either, especially when one considers the parallel rite for the purification of a house in 14:49–53, and the classical view that the live bird takes away the impurity of the former (rcm – as is stated for houses in 14:52 – should be retained.26 Whether this rite was already 23 E.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 374: “die […] für Personen bestimmten Reinigungsceremonien sind in mechanischer Weise auf das Haus übertragen”; cf. also ELLIGER, Leviticus, 179. 24 See MEIER, House Fungus; for Hittite parallels, cf. also MILGROM, Leviticus, 864–865. 25 For this idea, see WURSTER, Priestercodex, 124–125; BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 370–371; SEIDL, Tora, 48ff. (v. 3b–8d); PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 218.221. 26 Cf. STAUBLI , Symbolik. Despite many good observations, Staubli fails to discuss the import of 14:49–53, where it is explicitly mentioned that the same ritual as in 14:4–7 – namely, dipping the live bird, together with “cedar wood”, “crimson (string)” and hyssop, into the blood of the bird that was killed over the “live” water before sprinkling seven times the contaminated house – has the purpose of “purifying” (h9t[) Piel) that house (v. 52). Although it is clear that blood, here, acts as the main ritual detergent, exactly as in the major and minor blood rites in Lev 4, for instance, it is difficult to understand what would be the meaning of previously dipping the live bird into the blood, and how this would contribute to purifying the infected house, if not because the bird will carry away some of the impurity when it is left in the open immediately afterwards (v. 53). Thus, against Staubli, it does not seem sound to interpret this rite as an “Analogieritual” (p. 236) exclusively; elements of sympathetic contamination appear to be implied as well. The objections raised by Staubli against this conclusion are not decisive. E.g., the fact that it is not defined as a t)+x offering proves nothing, because the other elimination rite in Lev, the goat dispatched to Azazel, is not a puri-

4.1. Source- and Redaction Criticism of Leviticus 11–15

275

connected with the to=ra= of 13:2–46 at a pre-P stage is difficult to decide. In general, it is surmised that 14:2–8a originally followed immediately 13:2–46, and that the P scribe who composed Lev 11–15 would also be responsible for the insertion of the phrase wb#wm hnxml Cwxm in 13:46bb.27 However, Elliger already objected that the isolation of this latter phrase is arbitrary.28 Still, even assuming that the connection between 13:46 and 14:2ff. is original, one does not understand why the Priestly writer chose to introduce a new commission speech in 14:1, thereby breaking the sequence comprising 13:2–46 and 14:2– 8a that he found in his Vorlage. To my knowledge, this point was never satisfactorily answered. Actually, it seems more logical to postulate that this device was needed so as to signal the return to the issue of the (rcm after the section dealing with fabrics was introduced between 13:2–46 and 14:2–8. Therefore, if the commission formula in 14:1 is assigned to the Priestly writer, the latter should also logically be responsible for the insertion of 13:47–59, and that passage need no longer be viewed as a post-Priestly insert.29 fication offering either (see above, p. 182 with n. 321, and below, § 4.3.1.2.). True, the nature of the evil transferred upon the bird is not specified in v. 4–7 (or in v. 49–53), but this is also the case in other ANE elimination rites, compare, e.g., the purification of Nabu’s cella with the carcass of a ram on the fifth day of the ak|4tu festival (RA, l. 353ff.). That the live bird is simply released into the “open field”, and not into a “mythical” place (p. 231 n. 4), as in some of the ANE elimination rites involving birds, corresponds to a general tendency in Lev (the goat “for Azazel” in Lev 16 is likewise simply sent to a “cut off land”, v. 22a). Also, Staubli is correct to criticize the prevailing view of this ritual as a “volkstümlich-archaisches Relikt” in P (p. 237). Yet it is certainly not typical of P either, and although it was nicely fitted into its present context (see below), it remains likely that P has not simply invented this rite but has used an older tradition. Lastly, one does not see very well how releasing the live bird outside the camp, “into the open field” (v. 7, 53), could be symbolic of the reinstatement of the healed (rcm into the camp, as Staubli would have it. To argue, as he does, that the bird is sent back “in sein eigenes Biotop, zu seinesgleichen” (p. 232), similarly to the healed (rcm, is forced. Above all, it does not consider the fact that the separation between the camp and the world outside comprises, specifically, the main symbolic division within Lev 11–16 (see below, page 280 and passim), and that “outside” tends to be systematically negatively connoted. For a review of elimination rites involving birds in Mesopotamia and Anatolia: WRIGHT, Disposal, 80–83. Interestingly, the combination of the blood of birds (among other animals), with wood and carmin is already found in Hurrite texts from the 2nd millennium BCE ; see H AAS , Hurritischer Blutritus, 73. In Lev 14, the original ritual probably opened with the phrase (rcm trwt hyht t)z in v. 2aa, and went up to the first declaration of purity at the end of v. 8a (see rh+w); this is the reconstruction usually adopted by commentators of Leviticus. 27 For this view, see already WURSTER, Priestercodex, 124. 28 ID., Leviticus, 171. He notes, in particular, that some detail would be expected on how and where the (rcm must “dwell apart”, as is found in 13:46bb. 29 Elliger, for his part, assigns 14:2–8a to the first P redactor of ch. 13–14, whereas 14:8b– 20 would be the work of a later redactor. However, this is because he does not consider the possibility that the rite described in 14:2–8a goes back to an older tradition. Besides, the offering of sacrifices instructed in 14:10–20 is the typical conclusion of aggregation rites in P (comp. 14:19–20 with 12:6–7a;15:14–15, 29–30), and this section is unlikely to be secondary.

276

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

As regards the to=ra= for houses, finally, the introduction in v. 33–34 is clearly from P’s hand. Since, however, there is no other trace of P’s language in the remainder of this law, it is unnecessary to assume that all of 14:33–53 should be assigned to the Priestly writer. More likely, P has simply replaced an earlier introduction such as “When scale disease occurs in a house…”.30 That P needed a new introduction for this law specifically is indeed logical, even though this point has usually been missed by commentators. Once P included the older collection on scale disease in his own narrative and hermeneutical framework, the instruction for houses, contrary to those on persons and fabrics, did no longer fit into the wilderness setting; hence the need to preface it with a reference to the entry into the promised land (v. 34). Milgrom and Knohl want to assign this introduction to the hand of the H redactor because of the parallels between v. 34 and Lev 19:23; 23:10; 25:2, as well as of Yahweh’s discourse in the first person.31 Yet the language of this verse is already found in Ex 6:8 (which, contra Knohl and Milgrom, cannot be H),32 so that this solution is unsupported; thus, v. 34 may legitimately be assigned to P. It is true that such introduction to a law is unique in Lev 1–16 but this, once again, has to do with the nature of the subject addressed. In sum, close analysis suggests that P composed ch. 13–14 on the basis of three different to=ro=t dealing with cases of suspected disease of persons (13:2– 46), fabrics (13:47–59) and houses (14:33–53). These instructions are closely related and were certainly transmitted together; this is shown, in particular, by the numerous parallels in terminology between 13:2–46 and 13:47–59. In addition, it is likely that the to=ra= for persons was initially followed by a brief instruction for the purification and reinstatement of a former (rcm in 14:2–8a. At the same time, the above analysis of the subscript in 14:54–57 has shown that the three to=ro=t on persons, fabrics and houses were not composed together, but that the latter were more likely gradually added to the the to=ra= for persons. This also accounts for the presence of a distinct style and terminology not only in 14:33–53, but also in 13:47–59.33 30

Thus also KNOHL, Sanctuary, 95 n. 119, though he assigns the change to H and not to P. See KNOHL, Sanctuary; MILGROM, Leviticus, 866–886. For this observation, see already ELLIGER, Leviticus, 176. Knohl assumes that H edited an earlier priestly instruction; Milgrom considers the possibility that all of 14:33–53 should be assigned to H, which I find especially unconvincing given the complete absence of H vocabulary elsewhere in this law. 32 For the discussion, see above, § 1.2.2.1., pages 34–35, note 72. 33 In the case of 13:47–59, note in particular the sudden use of a direct address in 13:47– 59 (v. 55, 57, 58a) or the preference for passive constructions: see, e.g., pr#t #)b in 13:52, or the use of sbk Hothpaal in 13:55, 56 (no other occurrences in the HB). On this, see also the remarks by SEIDL, Tora, 46. The case of v. 49 is interesting in this respect since the expression “it shall be shown to the priest”, with h)r Hophal, has no parallel in v. 2–46 where the active form is usually used. Note also the use of the Hiphil participle tr)mm to qualify the s[a4ra(at of fabrics and houses in 13:51, 52 and 14:44, a usage not attested for persons. 31

4.1. Source- and Redaction Criticism of Leviticus 11–15

277

As was observed above, the interpolation in 14:55 of the notice mentioning fabrics and houses breaks the original connection between v. 54 and 56. The instruction of 13:2–46 is likely to have been completed first by the section on fabrics in 13:47–59, since the latter has its own subscript (v. 59), contrary to the section on houses. When the latter was included, the subscription for persons was moved to its present place, in 14:54–57, to serve as a general subscript to the entire collection, and was completed by a notice including fabrics and houses in 14:55.34 Therefore, the sequence found in v. 54–55 (persons, fabrics, houses) probably reflects the order in which these sections were added, as well as the way in which they were already arranged to form a comprehensive collection on the various manifestations of s[a4ra(at even before this collection was introduced by the Priestly writer into Leviticus.

For the rest, all three sections (13:2–46; 13:47–59; 14:33–53) are well structured and literarily coherent, and the various attempts by form critics to isolate earlier “small units” behind ch. 13 are not only incredibly complicated but also quite unsupported.35 34 Pace ELLIGER, Leviticus, 177, who surmises that the reference to fabrics and houses in this verse stems from different hands, because the legislation on fabrics is probably older than that on houses. Yet this solution is unnecessarily complicated, and it disregards the fact that the section on fabrics has its own subscript in 13:59. 35 See especially RENDTORFF, Gesetze, 48ff.; KOCH , Priesterschrift, 79ff.; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 166–172; and SEIDL, Tora, esp. 25ff. See also most recently GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 147–152, who partly follows Elliger. In Lev 13:2–46, Elliger isolates two distinct Vorlagen, in 13:2–8, 29–37* and 18–28*; the first Vorlage was itself already supplemented, before the redactional work of P, by three successive additions, including 13:9–11, 12–13, 14–17; finally, several passages, with all of v. 40–44, were added by the author of Lev 11–15. Even more complicated is the development proposed by Seidl in his monograph. He discerns in ch. 13–14 four “core texts” (“Kerntexte”) in 13:2–8*, 18–23*, 40–46*; and 14:3b–8d (sic), on the origin of which he remains however extremely vague. These four core texts, forming the source-critical skeleton of Lev 13–14, were themselves later supplemented by various “small units”, corresponding approximately to the main remaining sections in ch. 13–14; there results an incredibly complex and sophisticated picture of the formation of Lev 13-14. Methodologically, most of the assumptions on which such reconstructions are based are problematic. In particular, the compositional logic of 13:2–44 militates against the central assumption that each section should have a discrete origin. Thus, 13:2–8 and 18–23, 24–28 are not merely alternative instructions for cases of scale disease, which could have existed independently from each other; rather, 13:2–8 deals with the most general cases of scale disease (as is already indicated by the literal resumption of 13:2 in the subscript of 14:56), while v. 18–28 concern more specific and ambiguous cases and were clearly conceived from the start as a supplement to v. 2–8 (as recognized by Seidl). That it was introduced later is possible, but by no means necessary; the practice of including a discussion of borderline cases, such as those dealt with in v. 18–28, is typical in ancient laws, as was already emphasized in the discussion on Lev 5 in the previous chapter. Likewise, in 13:47–59, the criteria for identifying later additions are misleading. Even the passages suddenly using a direct address (a phenomenon unparalleled in v. 2–46; see v. 55, 57 and v. 58a) may not be isolated without destroying the text’s coherence. Thus, for instance, v. 55 and 56 state an alternative: when a given fabric presents a suspected scurfy patch, but the latter has not spread after a period of seven days, it is washed and quarantined for another seven-day period at the term of which either the scurfy patch has remained unchanged (v. 55), in which case the fabric must be destroyed, or it has faded (v. 56), in which case the spot is simply cut out from the fabric. This

278

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

In addition to transforming this traditional collection into a revelation made to Moses at Mt Sinai, the Priestly writer responsible for the composition of Lev 13–14 supplemented it with a detailed instruction for the ritual purification of the former (rcm and his reinstatement into the community in 14:1– 32. He probably took up an earlier tradition preserved in v. 2–8a, possibly already connected with the to=ra= of 13:2–46 (see above), which he adapted to the wilderness setting of the Sinai fiction and developed into a complex ritual in three successive stages; the (rcm is gradually purified and reinstated into the camp (v. 2–8a), into his tent/house (8b–9), and finally into the cultic community (10–20). That v. 8b–20 are from P’s hand is generally admitted. The instruction concerning the final sacrifice for the reinstatement of the (rcm into the community in 14:10–20, 21–31, is reminiscent of the formulation of the instructions found in Lev 1ff. (even though it contains a few singularities, such as the combined use of the verb hl( with hl( as a noun for the sacrifice of the burnt offering, in P otherwise only in Ex 40:29).36 Also, the sacrifice of 14:10–20 obviously combines all the four types of offerings which, in P, may have an expiatory function: the reparation offering, the purification offering, the burnt offering and, finally, the cereal offering, which is included here as an auxiliary offering to the burnt offering (v. 20a).37 The well-being offering, is already shown by the formulation introducing v. 56, Nhkh h)r M)w, which presents this instruction as an alternative to the situation considered in the previous verse, introduced itself by Nhkh h)rw, a phrase typically found after the mention of a seven-day quarantine in Lev 13, cf. v. 5, 6, 27, 32, 34, 51. Therefore, v. 55 and 56 form a coherent sequence, from which v. 55 cannot be omitted; hence the presence of a second person address in v. 55, 57 and 58 may not be regarded as the indication of a later reworking of the section 13:47–59. Similarly, the elimination of v. 57 and 58 also raises a problem since the washing of the fabric followed by the declaration of purity (13:58) corresponds exactly to what is found in 13:2–46, in the case where the priest proceeds to a second examination after a further isolation period of sevendays, cf. 13:6 and 34. As regards 14:33–53, finally, the literary homogeneity of this section was already acknowledged by Elliger; see the demonstration in ID., Leviticus, 176–177; pace SEIDL, Tora, 58–63; as well as GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 174–176. 36 As observed by ELLIGER, Leviticus, 175; see also Lev 17:8 (H). 37 MILGROM, Leviticus, 845, argues that since 14:10 instructs offering “three tenths” (most likely of an ephah, although the measure is not given) of semolina, and since there is a total of three sheep (one for each animal offering, the M#), the t)+x, and the hl(), each sheep was implicitly accompanied by the offering of one tenth of an ephah of semolina; he bases his conclusion, in particular, on the instruction of Num 15:3–4. Although attractive, this solution is not without difficulties; it is unable to explain in particular why, of the three animal offerings in 14:10–20, only the burnt offering is explicitly accompanied by a cereal offering (cf. v. 20a). If the three tenths of an ephah of semolina should serve to accompany each animal offering, why not include them in the description of v. 12–18 (reparation offering) and 19 (purification offering)? The wording of 14:10–20, where the three tenths (of an ephah) of semolina are defined in v. 10 as a hxnm (cereal offering) which is then offered in v. 20a, rather suggests that the cereal offering, here, was merely conceived as an addition to the burnt offering. Admittedly, the reason why three tenths of an ephah of semolina are called for, instead of the

4.1. Source- and Redaction Criticism of Leviticus 11–15

279

which in P is never presented in a context of expiation, is logically absent in ch. 14. Nonetheless, the prominent position of the M#) offering in Lev 14 is unique in P. Elsewhere in P, the M#) appears as a private sacrifice in P (but compare 1 Sam 6!), which is not offered in connection with other offerings. Here, moreover, it is performed before all other sacrifices and forms the central rite for the purification of the former (rcm, (see 14:12–18 and 14:24–29). Yet this should apparently be explained by the specific meaning of this disease which, in Israel as elsewhere in antiquity, was typically believed to be a sanction of the deity for a major offence.38 Because the M#) is an offering serving for the reparation and the compensation of sacrileges specifically (see Lev 5:14–26, and on this above, § 3.5.), its specific role in the context of Lev 14 is therefore fitting. Finally, it was long observed that the ritual of the eighth day is reminiscent of the ritual performed by Moses in the context of the consecration of Aaron and his sons in Ex 29 and Lev 8.39 The description of 14:14 (daubing of blood of the offering on the lobe of the right ear, the thumb of the right hand, and the big toe of the right foot) and 14:18a (pouring of oil on the head of the offerer) correspond to 8:23–24 and 8:12 respectively; but Lev 14 goes beyond Lev 8 by introducing a complex rite with oil (v. 15–17), which has no parallel in Lev 8 but is partly based on the description of the daubing of blood in 8:23–24, cf. the formulation of 14:17. Similarly, the temporal frame created by v. 8b–20, with its time span of seven days (v. 8b–9) followed by a great saccrificial ceremony on the eighth day (v. 10–20), parallels the chronological structure of Lev 8–9. Very likely, the reason for this parallel should primarily be sought in the nature of these two rites. The eight-day ritual of 14:1–20 is typically a rite of passage, describing the transition from a state of extreme impurity implying exclusion from the camp to a state of purity corresponding to the resumption of cultic responsibilities.40 For P, the account of the consecration of the priests which, as recalled earlier in this study, is also a rite of passage obviously had usual measure of one tenth, remains obscure; however, HARTLEY, Leviticus, 196, finely notes that the quantity of oil required (one log) also represents three times more than the usual amount. Hence, we probably have here a deliberate device (three animals offered in expiation instead of only one as usual, cf. Lev 4–5, three times the usual quantity of semolina and oil), corresponding to the importance and even the unique character of the purification ceremony recounted in Lev 14. 38 See VAN DER TOORN, Sin, 72ff.; and MILGROM, Leviticus, 820ff. In the Hebrew Bible, this notion is also reflected in many narratives where t(rc is a typical divine sanction, see Num 12:9; 2 Kgs 5:27; 2 Chr 26:18ff. 39 See, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 373; ELLIGER , Leviticus, 175; GORMAN, Ideology, 131–132.173ff. 40 On this point, see in particular JENSON, Graded Holiness, 168–171; as well as GORMAN, Ideology, ch. 5.

280

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

a paradigmatic character and could serve therefore as a model for the ritual of Lev 14. Still, the homology thus created has other additional implications. Comparing the purification of the former (rcm, reflecting the passage from extreme uncleanness identified with death and seclusion outside the camp to purity and reinstatement into the community, to the consecration of the first priests also suggests a parallel between the boundary separating the sanctuary from the profane world and an other boundary, this time between the camp (Israel) and the wilderness (the outside world). Thus, the homology highlights the development taking place between ch. 1–9, which are focused on the sanctuary, and ch. 11–16, where the scope is broadened to the community as a whole. Above all, it also suggests a hierarchy between the boundaries separating the sanctuary from the community, and the community from the outside world; although the two are not equivalent (the community, in P, is not holy, contrary to what obtains in H) they can nevertheless be related and compared. Therefore, one has here a fine example of the way in which P’s editorial and narrative arrangement of traditional to=ro=t conveys simultaneously a profound symbolic teaching on central issues. Apart from 14:13b, which is a gloss inspired by Lev 7:7 and is usually regarded as secondary,41 the remainder of 14:8b–20 forms a coherent composition.42 P’s choice to insert the ritual at this place in ch. 13–14 – rather than, say, immediately after 13:46 or after 14:53 – probably has to do with the fact that the sections on the t(rc of persons and of fabrics are very similar in their formulation, whereas the section on houses presents a specific case, and is set apart by its distinct introduction (v. 33–34). Moreover, the insertion of 14:1ff. creates an alternation between animate and inanimate, making an a–b–a’–b’ pattern: t(rc of a person (13:2–46), of a garment (13:47–59), of a person again (14:1–31), and lastly of a house (14:32–53).43 The appendix for the person who does not have the means to afford the sacrifices required by 14:10– 20, in v. 21–31, is generally held as a later supplement.44 This conclusion is all the more likely because 14:21–31 has its own distinct subscription (v. 32) and appears to depend already on the similar instructions in Lev 1:14–17 and 5:7–13, which are likewise later additions to P. Especially with the latter instruction, there are some obvious connections in terminology and style; in 41 See BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 373; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 175. The phrase #dqh Mwqmb in 13ab is found only here and in 10:17, and could also be a late gloss; for this view, see, e.g., Elliger. 42 Thus also ELLIGER, Leviticus, 175. SEIDL, Tora, 52–54, identifies other interpolations; in particular, he surmises that the occurrence of the phrase rpkw in v. 19b and 20b would be superfluous after the conclusion of 18b, or that the final rh+w in v. 20c would have been interpolated from v. 3–9. However, all these suggestions are based on a serious misunderstanding of the logic of the ritual in 14:10–20. 43 As finely observed by DOUGLAS, Leviticus, 177. 44 BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 43; KOCH, Priesterschrift, 86; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 175–176; etc.

4.1. Source- and Redaction Criticism of Leviticus 11–15

281

particular, the recurring phrase wdy gy#t (14:22, 30, 31 MT ; 45 compare also 14:21) recalls the opening expression in 5:11–13 (see also 5:7 in the SamP). There remains to be discussed the issue of the redaction of Lev 12 and 15 and of the tradition used by P. As to ch. 12, there is a consensus that the clause of necessity in 12:8 is a later addition; apart from that, from the redactional frame introduced by P in v. 1, 2aa, and from the reference to the tent of meeting in v. 6, the remainder of ch. 12 forms a coherent instruction.46 As has long been recognized, the explicit references to the legislation on the impurity of the menstruing woman in 12:2bb and 5ab suggest prior knowledge of Lev 15:19–24.47 To regard these references as interpolations by a later redactor in Lev 11–15, as Elliger does, is arbitrary.48 Instead, they show that Lev 12 was originally conceived as a supplement to Lev 15,49 probably preserved on the same document given its brevity. The singular introduction of the divine discourse in 12:1, where only Moses is mentioned and not Aaron, contrary to what is usually the case in Lev 11–15 (11:1; 13:1; 14:33; 15:1; but see 14:1), has often been taken as an indication that Lev 12 was introduced at a secondary stage in Lev 11–15.50 Yet this view is unsatisfactory, insofar as it 45

wdy gy#t-r#) t) at the beginning of 14:31 MT is generally considered as a dittography. However, and even though it appears to be omitted in the LXX and in Syr, this need not necessarily be the case; for the opposite view, see, e.g., PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 218. 46 The reference to circumcision in 12:3 need not be taken as a mark of the work of P. As noted by ELLIGER, Leviticus, 157, if the phrase hlr( r#b is found only in Gen 17 (17:11, 14, 23, 24, 25), lwm Niphal is used there with the nota accusativi, contrary to Lev 12:3 MT (but see the SamP). Whether 12:4b belongs to the original to=ra= or is from the hand of the Priestly scribe responsible for the insertion of the collection of Lev 11–15 into Leviticus is difficult to decide. In v. 6, the requirement to offer a turtledove as a t)+x alongside the lamb as a hl( does not betray a later harmonization with other passages in P calling for the combined offering of hl( and t)+x (thus in particular S CHÖTZ , Sündopfer, 17–18; also KOCH , Priesterschrift, 79 n. 5). The use of the singular suffix in the phrase wbyrqhw in v. 7a proves nothing, since there are other cases in the priestly literature where the singular suffix can refer to a collective of offerings, as in Num 7:13–17. It is true that in other passages, the purification offering is always mentioned before the burnt offering, contrary to what is the case here, because it is a preliminary sacrifice (above, § 3.2.2.3.c., especially p. 181–182). However, the order here is probably determined by the nature of the offerings, since the animal required for the burnt offering is much more important than that for the purification offering (as observed, e.g., by M ARX , Rite, 39 n. 26). Lastly, the fact that a lamb is required as a burnt offering, and not simply a turtledove as in 15:14–15, 29–30 (but see the clause of 12:8), need not be taken as an indication of the secondary character of the purification offering in 12:6, as some critics have done. More likely, it corresponds to the fact that the impurity of the parturient is regarded as being more important than for a woman suffering from morbid genital losses in Lev 15. 47 WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 148; KUENEN, Einleitung, 1. 83; DRIVER, Introduction, 46; BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 362; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 40; etc. 48 See ID., Leviticus, 156. 49 For this idea, see already DILLMANN, Leviticus, 504. 50 BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 362 (as a possibility); BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 40; NOTH, Leviticus, 97; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 13.156–157; PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 194.

282

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

betrays the typical conception of a later redactor working somewhat mechanically, who would have forgotten to introduce Aaron in addition to Moses. Besides, given the importance of birth as a source of pollution in antiquity (see below), the omission of this instruction in Lev 11–15 would be all the more surprising. Finally, if an older, pre-P version of Lev 12 can be identified in v. 2ab–7 which would have belonged to the collection of to=ro=t edited by P, as argued above, one does not understand why P initially did not retain it when composing Lev 11–15. Regarding Aaron’s omission in 12:1, this has more likely to do with the nature of this case, which is unambiguous and does not require priestly consultation, contrary to most instances of suspected impurity (cf. explicitly Lev 13).51 As regards Lev 15, the hand of the Priestly writer is easy to identify (see the introduction, v. 1, and the mention of the tent of meeting in v. 14, 29) and the reconstruction of an originally independent to=ra= raises no difficulty. Actually, the chapter presents a remarkable structure. V. 2–15 and 25–30, two sections on male and female discharges, respectively, deal with abnormal genital discharges exemplifying a serious, morbid disfunctioning of the reproductive system. They frame two instructions in v. 16–17 and 19–24 on male and female discharges which, although uncontrolled and involuntary, are nonpathological. At the center of the chiasm stands a brief instruction on pollution through sexual intercourse in v. 18, which, very aptly, forms the transition between the sections on male (v. 2–17) and female (v. 19–30) uncleanness.52 The whole legislation, minus P’s interpolations, should therefore be regarded as a homogeneous composition.53 The motive clause in v. 31 is prob51

See similarly MILGROM, Leviticus, 743(ff.). H ARTLEY , Leviticus, 166–167, surmises that Aaron’s omission in 12:1 could be related to “the vital role that sacrifices have in this regulation, for Aaron’s name is also missing in 14:1, the introduction to the ritual of restoration for one who has recovered from a grievous skin disease” (p. 167). Yet sacrifices do not play a more “vital” role in Lev 12 than in Lev 15, where Aaron is also mentioned in the introduction; besides, the willingness to omit Aaron in a sacrificial context hardly makes sense. 52 Cf. MILGROM, Leviticus, 905.930–931; WHITEKETTLE, Leviticus 15.18; and HARTLEY, Leviticus, 206. W ENHAM , Leviticus, 216, has also seen the chiastic structure of ch. 15, but misses the pivot function of v. 18 which, after other exegetes, he associates with v. 16–17. 53 Thus the majority of authors; see for instance BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 49: “Das Cap. scheint aus einem Guss”, and more recently MILGROM, Leviticus, 905. A major exception is ELLIGER, Leviticus, 193–197, but his arguments for identifying several secondary elements in this chapter are unconvincing. Thus, the fact that v. 9–12 are manifestly modeled on v. 4–8 does not imply that they are a later addition. Similarly, there are no reasons to regard v. 23–24 as secondary; that the introduction of these two instructions by M)w occurs for the first time in Lev 15 does not prove anything, like Elliger’s idea that v. 24 is misplaced and should have been introduced immediately after v. 19 were it original. One may acknowledge that the subscript of v. 33b (“and for a man who lies with an unclean woman”) seems to come too late after the concluding phrase of 33ag ( hbqnlw rkzl ), and is probably interpolated (thus also HARTLEY, Leviticus, 208). This could be an indication that the corresponding case, v. 24, was

4.1. Source- and Redaction Criticism of Leviticus 11–15

283

ably editorial, as is commonly acknowledged.54 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).55 The request to “separate” (thus the MT) or even “warn” (thus the SamP and the LXX ) “the Israelites from their impurities”56 makes perfect sense after 10:10–11, where the priests are required by Yahweh to “separate between the sacred and the profane, the impure and the pure, and to teach to the Israelites all of the laws that Yahweh has communicated to them through Moses”.57 If 15:31 depends on Lev 10, it should be assigned not to P, but to the book’s final editor (see above, § 3.1.3., and below, Chapter Six). The language of this verse is reminiscent of H, as observed by Knohl, especially as regards Yahweh’s reference to the temple as “my sanctuary” (cf. ynk#m) which is unparalleled in P but occurs in 26:11,58 an observation confirming its late origin. 4.1.2. Source- and Redaction Criticism of Leviticus 11 As noted in the introduction to this section, the source- and literary criticism of Lev 11 raises a distinct issue insofar as the first part of this legislation has a added later, as surmised by Elliger (Leviticus, 193), although one could also argue that this minor case was originally implicitly included in the general subscript of v. 32–33a, and that it is only at a later stage that an editor felt the need to give a distinct subscript to this instruction. Most problematic is Elliger’s assumption that v. 19a (except hyht-yk h#)w) is an editorial addition intended to parallel the section on female genital impurity in v. 19ff. with the section on male impurity in v. 2ff. (Ibid., 194–195). Not only is this entirely speculative, but it obliges Elliger to regard all of v. 25–27 – where the same phrase recurs – as secondary; if so, the original rule would exclusively have dealt with morbid, abnormal genital losses in the case of a man, and not of a woman, an assumption difficult to support. In fact, it is obvious that 15:2–15 and 19–30 were composed in parallel to each other, and that the whole case built by Elliger for later harmonization of these two sections should be rejected. As regards v. 16– 18, finally, Elliger’s statement that these verses “stehen […] nur in lockerer Verbindung mit dem Vorhergehenden” (Ibid., 195) betrays a misunderstanding of the logic of this legislation. V. 16–17, dealing with the case of involuntary emissions of semen which are not pathological, are logically treated after the case of morbid, abnormal genital discharges (v. 2–15) because this is only a minor form of impurity, which cannot be transmitted and only requires a minor purification (ritual bathing plus washing of the clothes possibly contaminated). 54 See BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 379; more recently, e.g., HARTLEY, Leviticus, 208. 55 See ELLIGER, Leviticus, 196. 56 In my view, the MT’s reading should be preferred here against the LXX and the SamP, although the contrary option is often retained by commentators (e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 379, and similarly BHS). This reading has a parallel in Lev 22:2, which makes sense if 15:31 is from the book’s final editor and presupposes H. Yet this point is not decisive. 57 Thus for instance MILGROM, Leviticus, 945. 58 Cf. KNOHL, Sanctuary, 69–70 and passim. See also the form y#dqm, which never occurs in P but is a favorite expression of H (Lev 19:30; 20:3; 26:2). Note, finally, that the use of rzn Hi. in 15:31 MT has a parallel in Lev 22:2, also H.

284

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

very close parallel in Deut 14:3–20. In the past, this phenomenon was often explained in terms of the literary dependence of one text on the other. From the perspective of the documentary hypothesis advocated by Kuenen and Wellhausen, it is Deut 14 which served as a source for Lev 11,59 whereas scholars arguing for the traditional view of P’s precedence over D decided on the opposite relationship.60 However, these authors already perceived that the source text (whether Deut 14 or Lev 11) was not a free composition but was based on an older source, most likely of priestly origin. Gradually, it became clear that this model was too simple, and that a more likely explanation was that both Deut 14 and Lev 11 had drawn separately from a common source. This position has been adopted by almost all scholars during the 20th century,61 except for Rendtorff62 and more recently Milgrom,63 who have returned to the former view of A. Dillmann and B.D. Eerdmans according to which Deut 14 is entirely dependent on Lev 11. Milgrom, in particular, views Deut 14 as an “abridgment” of Lev 11, and does not hesitate to conclude that, “D had the entire MT of Lev 11 before him” (sic).64 However, his treatment of the issue is unsatisfactory on many grounds. (1) First of all, Milgrom’s demonstration raises a methodological issue, since he actually reasons in terms of a simple alternative between the literary dependence of one chapter on the other and actually never considers the possibility that both chapters could go back to a common source.65 This parti pris has important implications. Thus, Milgrom observes, after many others, that there are elements in Deut 14 missing in Lev 11 which are best explained by the assumption that such passages in Deuteronomy were not yet known by the author of Leviticus. In particular, among the most manifest pluses of Deut 14, he mentions the list of prohibited animals in 14:4b–5 (although it is not impossible to argue for omission by the author of 59

See, e.g., KUENEN, Einleitung, 1. 83. See in particular DILLMANN, Leviticus, 481–482; also EERDMANS, Studien IV, 62ff. 61 See, e.g., BAENTSCH, Bundesbuch, 105–106; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 33; STEUERNAGEL, Deuteronomium, 53; DRIVER, Deuteronomy, 163–164. For other earlier authors, see MORAN, Connection, 271 n. 1 (lit.). In the 2nd half of the 20th century, see in particular KOCH, Priesterschrift, 74ff.; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 143–145; M ORAN, Connection; MAYES, Deuteronomy, 237; BRAULIK, Deuteronomium, 1. 107; NIELSEN, Deuteronomium, 150; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 153ff.; HOUSTON, Purity, 26–67, esp. 56–57, 63–65. NOTH, Leviticus, 91(ff.) argues for a complex relationship between Lev 11 and Deut 14, with several stages in the development of these two regulations characterized by mutual influence of one text on the other, which is also partly compatible with this model. 62 Cf. ID., Gesetze, 45 n. 34. However, Rendtorff himself qualifies this conclusion: “Dt. 14 zeigt sich von der jetzigen Form von Lev. 11 abhängig” (emphasis original). 63 MILGROM, Leviticus, esp. 698–704. 64 ID., Leviticus, 704. 65 Note that Milgrom clearly misconstrues scholarship on Lev 11 and Deut 14 in this regard; see, e.g., on p. 698, where he states that this issue “has occupied scholars for the past century – without their reaching a consensus. Most have agreed with Kuenen […] that Leviticus is an expansion of Deuteronomy. A few [sic] suggested that they derived from a common source […]”. 60

4.1. Source- and Redaction Criticism of Leviticus 11–15

285

Lev 11 in this case, see below), or the introduction in 14:3, with its characteristic use of the term hb(wt, which is not attested in P. But what Milgrom fails to recognize is that it is precisely this type of observation which gradually led scholars to the idea of a common source behind D and P.66 Certainly, no one will dispute that 14:3 is distinctive of the D legislation, and that its absence from Lev 11 implies that it stems from the hand of the author of Deut 14; but this does not prove that all of Deut 14 is merely copied from Lev 11, as Milgrom surmises. Redactional passages in Deut 14, such as 14:3, can just as well be accounted for if both D and P edited the same text. (2) Second, the idea that Deut 14 could be entirely explained as an abridgment of Lev 11 has long been dismissed as raising too many difficulties. To take only the most obvious examples: in Deut 14:4a, one does not understand why D would have shortened the longer formulation of Lev 11:2b, were it original. Not only is 11:2b more developed but the use of hyx, “living creatures”, as an inclusive term for the entire animal world including all beasts, 67 68 hmhb, has a parallel in the P story of the Flood, in Gen 8:17. It is best explained, therefore, as a refinement introduced by the P writer in Lev 11–15. In Lev 11:3 MT, the absence of the specification yt# before tsrp (which, together with Milgrom, should probably be rendered as “hoof”)69 creates a difficulty. Milgrom himself must admit that here the reading yt# in Deut 14:6 is obviously original and should also be provided in Lev 11:3, in agreement with the versions (the LXX, the SamP, and others).70 How this solution can be reconciled with the view that “D had the entire MT of Lev 11 before him” (see above) is not obvious. Regarding the section on aquatic creatures in 14:9–10 it is especially clear that the author of Deut 14 does not simply depend on Lev 11, this instruction being considerably shorter and less developed than its parallel in 11:9–12.71 While 14:9 and 11:9 are almost identical – except for the phrase Mylxnbw Mymyb Mymb in 11:9b, unparalleled in D –, Lev 11:10–12 considerably develops the basic instruction found in Deut 14:10. That 11:10–12 is not original is shown by the fact that most of Deut 14:10 (Mkl )wh )m+ …t#q#qw rypns wl-Ny) r#) lkw) is repeated twice in Lev 11, in v. 10 and 12, except that )m+ is replaced by Cq#. In addition, the instruction concluding Deut 14:10a, wlk)t )l, is now put at the center of the composition Lev 11:10–12, v. 11; it is combined there with a new instruction which has no equivalent in D, namely the prohibition against touching the carcasses of aquatic creatures that do not have fins and scales. As noted by Elliger, the reason why the author of D could omit this latter instruction, had he had the text of Lev 11 as a Vorlage, is hard to grasp.72 Milgrom simply fails to mention this case in his comparison of Deut 14:9–10 with Lev 11:9–12.73

66

See for instance STEUERNAGEL, Deuteronomium, 53. The context may suggest a broader meaning for hmhb here, such as all land animals. In P, hmhb always has a more restricted meaning (“cattle”, or “quadrupeds”; see HOUSTON, Purity, 33–34; BOTTERWECK, art. be6he4ma4h, 8–10), but this is irrelevant if P found this term in his source. Alternatively, one may also assume that land animals other than quadrupeds were automatically tabooed, so that a translation by “beast” or the like is nevertheless fitting. 68 In Gen 1:24, 25; 7:14, 21; and Lev 5:2, hyx refers to wild beasts and is used in opposition to hmhb, which apparently carries here the meaning “domestic animals” (see MILGROM, Leviticus, 645; HOUSTON, Purity, 33). In Gen 1:28, 30; 8:17, 19, however, hyx has manifestly the more inclusive meaning of “living creatures”, as in Lev 11:2b. 69 ID., Leviticus, 646. 70 ID., Leviticus, 646.700. 71 See also on this especially ELLIGER, Leviticus, 144; similarly, HOUSTON, Purity, 43. 72 ELLIGER, Leviticus, 144. 73 Compare MILGROM, Leviticus, 700–701. 67

286

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

Elseewhere, in his analysis of Deut 14:8b, Milgrom surmises that “D is concerned solely with food prohibitions”, and not with the issue of corpse contamination;74 but then, he must explain the exception represented by Deut 14:8b by assuming that D slavishly copied its Vorlage. A more acceptable explanation, however, is that originally contamination through the carcass of an animal was an issue only for quadrupeds, see Deut 14:8b // Lev 11:8a, and that, as in the case of the birds, there was no corresponding instruction for water creatures.75 This instruction was then supplied, probably in an attempt at systematization, by the Priestly writer who introduced it in Lev 11:11 by combining it with the prohibition against eating and by framing the two clauses with the repetition of Deut 14:10 in v. 10 and 12.76 One may note, in addition, that Milgrom is somewhat at pains to explain why, if Lev 11:9–12 were original, the author of Deut 14 replaced the term Cq# by )m+.77 Since ) m + is consistently used in D, whereas P alternates between )m+ (in the section on quadrupeds) and Cq# (in the sections Lev 11:9–12, 13–19, 20–23), the impression at first sight is rather that the distinction is an innovation introduced by P.78 Similarly, it is also difficult to understand why D should abridge the section on flying insects in Lev 11:20–23 if he had it under his eyes, and Milgrom himself does not really address this issue. Besides, his view that Deut 14:19–20 forms a distinct unit on flying insects, equivalent – in a summarized fashion – to Lev 11:20–23 does not withstand critical examination. It is essentially based on the observation that the logic behind D’s argumentation in 14:19–20 cannot be grasped without the corresponding instruction in P, since D considers all flying insects (Pw(h Cr#) impure (14:19), but nevertheless tolerates the eating of pure insects (14:20); however, D does not give criteria for identifying the latter, and these are only found in the corresponding instruction in Lev 11:20–23.79 Yet Milgrom does not pay enough attention to the fact that 14:20 reads Pw(, and not Pw(h Cr#, as in 14:19. The distinction cannot be coincidental80 and suggests that 14:20 is not the sequel of v. 19 (the sequence would hardly make any sense, since the prohibition of 14:19 is obviously of a general kind). Rather, Pw(-lk in 14:20 is manifestly used for all air creatures, including birds, rwpc (14:11–18, cf. v. 11), and flying insects, Pw(h Cr# (14:19), and thus serves as a summary for the whole section 14:11–20. If this interpretation is correct, it is obvious that 14:19– 20 cannot be an abridgment of Lev 11:20–23, but that it is rather Lev 11 which mitigates the absolute prohibition on flying insects in D so as to introduce an exception for some types of locust81 of the grasshopper family having an additional pair of jointed legs.

74

ID., Leviticus, 700. This is evidently related to the distance between Jerusalem and the sea; marine creatures were not a part of the ordinary diet of the authors of this legislation; see further on this below. 76 MILGROM, Leviticus, 700, adduces further that in Deut 14:9 the repetition of wlk)t in 9a and 9b is an indication that v. 9b was copied from Lev 11:9b, “where it was stylistically required after the elongated enumeration of the bodies of water”. However, he must also admit that the second occurrence of wlk)t in Deut 14:9b is not merely superfluous, but was needed to balance wlk)t )l in v. 10a, so that his former argument is irrelevant. 77 See ID., Leviticus, 700–701. 78 Thus, e.g., ELLIGER, Leviticus, 144; M ORAN, Connection, 273. On the meaning of the terms Cq# and )m+ as well as on the case for their being P’s innovation, see below, page 291. 79 See ID., Leviticus, 699, and already on p. 665. 80 Note that in Lev 11 Pw( is the term used for birds (v. 13), whereas Pw(h Cr# is used for flying insects (v. 20–23). 81 Thus ELLIGER, Leviticus, 145; HOUSTON, Purity, 48. Elliger finely notes that the inclusion created by 11:20 and 23 is reminiscent of the redactional technique used by the author of Lev 11 in the section on marine creatures, cf. v. 10 and 12. 75

4.1. Source- and Redaction Criticism of Leviticus 11–15

287

Finally, the most noteworthy problem for Milgrom’s view is raised by the omission of the second part of Lev 11, v. 24–40, in D. Milgrom’s uncritical acceptance of Rendtorff’s idea that this section is entirely comprised within the short command of Deut 14:21aa (“Do not eat any carcass”)82 is hardly convincing, since 11:24–40 does not deal with defilement by ingestion, but by touch! One can only agree, on this point, with Elliger’s rebuttal of Rendtorff’s view: “[…] In diesem Satz 14 21 den Rest von Lev 11 einfach zusammengefaßt zu sehen, führt Rendtorff’s Theorie ad absurdum […]”.83 The statement of Deut 14:21a has nothing to do with the issue addressed in Lev 11:24–40, but furthers a discussion on the definition of Israel’s holiness in relation to the prohibition of certain alimentary practices; its closest parallel is in Ex 22:30.84 (3) Third and last, Milgrom never really discusses the main traditional observations which prompted the identification of a common source in Deut 14 and Lev 11. Thus, Milgrom himself admits that Lev 11 is not of one piece and that the earliest layer, 11:2–23 (= P1), was later supplemented by v. 24–38, 41–42 (P2), as traditionally acknowledged, with v. 39–40 and 43– 45 as still later additions.85 But in this case, it is all the more curious that D systematically set apart the latest sections of Lev 11, and deliberately focused on the most ancient portion of ch. 11. Unless one wants to argue that the redactor of Deut 14 practiced a very modern form of source criticism, the best explanation is that the text he was looking at did not correspond to the totality of Lev 11, as surmised by Milgrom, but rather to the extent of Milgrom’s “P1” – which, in the model advocated here, would correspond to the source used by both D and P. Similarly, the fact that the material common to Deut 14 and Lev 11 forms a coherent text (more on this below) makes better sense if both D and P drew from a common source.86 Note that contrary to Rendtorff and Milgrom, in his recent commentary on Deuteronomy T. Veijola questions the assumption of a common source and wants to regard Lev 11 as “eine erweiternde und zugleich systematisierende Fassung von Dtn 14”,87 thus returning to the earlier position of Wellhausen and Kuenen. Yet Veijola exclusively discusses the pluses of Lev 11 vis-à-vis Deut 14, and not the pluses of Deut vis-à-vis Lev such as, e.g., the list of permitted species in Deut 14:7–8. Furthermore, he must admit that, in its present form at least, the list of unclean birds in Deuteronomy is probably dependent on Leviticus, so that in this case at least the literary dependence obviously goes the other way round.88 Finally, as was

82

ID., Leviticus, 702–703, and RENDTORFF, Gesetze, 45 n. 34. ELLIGER, Leviticus, 145. 84 On the origin of Ex 22:30 and its relationship to Deut 14:21a, see, e.g., SCHWIENHORSTSCHÖNBERGER, Bundesbuch, 368–377.395, and further below, page 427, note 128. 85 See in particular MILGROM, Leviticus, 691–698; and ID., Chapter 11. 86 Also, the fact that the portion common to D and P is formulated in the plural address whereas the redactional framework in Deut 14 uses a singular address (cf. v. 3 and 21) does not prove that D borrowed from P (thus MILGROM, Leviticus, 699), but may be adequately explained if both D and P drew from a common source using the plural address. Note that Milgrom’s idea that all of Deut 14 could be explained as an abridgement of Lev 11 is also regarded with caution by some of Milgrom’s students; see, e.g., WRIGHT, Spectrum, 169 n. 2. 87 VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium, 296–297. 88 Veijola explains this device by the idea that the bird list in Deut 14 (v. 12–19) has been interpolated, but the assumption that originally the bird section would have comprised v. 11 only (“Any clean bird you may eat”) is unlikely. The bird list actually replaces the criteria for distinguishing between clean and unclean species among land and water animals, and is therefore integral to the original classification. The possibility that the bird list in Deuteronomy was aligned at some stage with the parallel passage in Leviticus should be seriously 83

288

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

already acknowledged by earlier scholars, the very assumption that the animal classification in Lev 11; Deut 14 would be a creation of the authors of Deuteronomy is difficult; the classification is not characteristic of Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic style and theology but rather betrays typically priestly knowledge and concerns (more on this below, § 4.2.3.).

Thus, attempts to derive Deut 14 from Lev 11 or Lev 11 from Deut 14 are too simple to be regarded as satisfactory, and the parallels between the two texts are best explained by the assumption of a common source. Even though in its present form Lev 11 tends to be more complete and more systematic than Deut 14, we actually find in both texts pluses vis-à-vis the parallel legislation. As regards Deuteronomy, the opening exhortation in v. 3, the list of clean, permitted animals in v. 7–8, and the statements in v. 11, 20 framing the bird list (v. 12–19), in particular, are missing in Lev 11. As for the pluses in Lev 11, the assumption that all these passages were systematically omitted by the Leviticus author is unlikely. On the contrary, this device suggests simultaneous but independent expansion of the same Vorlage, all the more when it is realized that many of the pluses betray the typical language and theology of the Priestly and Deuteronomistic schools respectively.89 This conclusion, however, does not preclude the possibility that at a certain stage in the transmission of Leviticus and Deuteronomy one list was reworked to conform to the other. This possibility had already been raised, in a very general manner, by Noth in his commentary on Leviticus where he had argued that some sections of Lev 11 had been taken over in Deut 14, “to be sure not probably from the final stage of this chapter as we now have it, but from an earlier form”.90 More specifically, Koch surmised (however only as a possibility) that the use of mîn in the list of birds found in Deut 14:12–18 had been imported from Lev 11. Not only is this use distinctive of P (compare Gen 1) but it is also inconsistent within Deut 14.91 Finally, the idea that an original list of unclean birds in Deut 14 was reworked under the influence of Lev 11 has been considerably developed by W.L. Moran in a classical study from 1966.92 Starting from the observation that in Lev 11:13–19 MT , the list of twenty unclean birds systematically uses the nota accusativi (with only one exception, in v. 19 MT) whereas this use is more inconsistent in Deut 14:12– 18, where ten birds have it (nos 5–12, 15–16) and ten do not (1–4, 13–14, 17– considered, as we shall see below, but this does not yet indicate that the entire list in Deuteronomy is a late import from Leviticus, as Veijola holds. Similarly, Veijola’s observations regarding the differences between the formulation of the bird list and Deuteronomy’s usual syntax (see Ibid., 297) are correct, but may also be accounted for if the bird list, like the remainder of this classification, stems from a common source rather than from Lev 11. 89 As concerns Lev 11, several such instances have been pointed out when discussing Milgrom’s hypthesis above; regarding Deut 14, see characteristically the use of hb(wt in v. 3. 90 NOTH, Leviticus, 91. 91 KOCH, Priesterschrift, 76 n. 6. 92 MORAN, Connection, esp. 273ff.

4.1. Source- and Redaction Criticism of Leviticus 11–15

289

20), Moran suggested that the sequence of ten birds not introduced by )e4t actually constituted the original list, which was later harmonized with the one in Lev 11. The original bird list was thus the exact parallel to that of ten permitted quadrupeds found in Deut 14:4b–5. Moran further combined his suggestion with Koch’s earlier hypothesis by noting that the view that the list of birds containing the nota accusativi had been inserted later was apparently corroborated by the observation that three occurrences of mîn out of a total of four in Deut 14:12–18 were actually introduced by )e4t.93 Moran’s reconstruction has often been followed since then;94 however, it raises at least one important difficulty. Unfortunately, Moran does not relate his hypothesis with the – complex but instrumental – issue of the textual history of the bird list in both Lev 11 and Deut 14. Especially in the LXX, traces of a long and complicated development appear to be reflected in the confused state of this tradition. This question was already the subject of a detailed study by R.K. Yerkes in 1923–24, which was consistently ignored by later scholars95 with the exception of W. Houston, who recently reaffirmed the importance of this problem as well as the interest of Yerkes’ research.96 Basically, Yerkes observed that in the Septuagint tradition for Leviticus and Deuteronomy, only nine birds (nos 1–5, 7–9 and 20) are in the same order, whereas there are considerable variations in the order of the remaining birds in the main manuscripts. The case of the raven is especially interesting because it is missing in the first hands of two major mss of Deut LXX, namely B (Vatican) and A (Alexandrian). Yerkes concluded from this that the birds whose order was uncertain are later additions to the original list, which thus consisted almost exclusively of large and very large birds of prey, with the exception of the bat (no 20).97 Ten additional birds were then gradually introduced, probably in a haphazard order which is still reflected, according to Yerkes, in the LXX of Deuteronomy; the LXX of Leviticus represents a later attempt at classification and harmonization, apparently following the MT in Leviticus.98 Although Yerkes’ reconstruction remains speculative by necessity, his analysis of the evolution of the textual tradition seems to offer a more secure basis than Moran’s recourse to the variation in the use of the nota accusativi in Deut 14, which is particularly fragile a criterion. Thus, several authors have 93

Ibid., 276–277. See among others MAYES, Deuteronomy, 238; NIELSEN, Deuteronomium, 150. 95 YERKES, Unclean Animals, 7–26, esp. 23–26. 96 HOUSTON, Purity, esp. 47–48. 97 The problem of identifying the birds mentioned in Lev 11 and Deut 14 is far too complex to be addressed in the context of this study; on this point, see in particular the analyses by DILLMANN, Leviticus, 488–495; YERKES, Unclean Animals, 9–23; and DRIVER, Birds. For a convenient synopsis of their translations, as well as of the Hebrew and the translations found in the LXX and Vulgate, see HOUSTON, Purity, 44–45. 98 See YERKES, Unclean Animals, 23–26. 94

290

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

taken the variation for a mere indication of a loose style.99 Actually, the possibility that the use )e4t in Deut 14 divides the list of unclean birds into two sets of ten items, betraying an attempt at classification, should not be excluded; yet the logic governing the latter can apparently no longer be recovered.100 At any rate, the LXX evidence demonstrates that the list of unclean birds underwent a complex development, which cannot be simply reconstructed on the basis of a comparison of the MT of Deut 14 and Lev 11, as Moran still does. Instead, text-critical methodology favors the view that the MT of Lev 11 and Deut 14 stands at the end of a long process of harmonization (though a few differences persist),101 whereas the more confused state of the LXX tradition corresponds to an earlier stage in the textual development. Moreover, the absence of the raven in the LXX A and B of Deut 14 can hardly be accounted for as a case of mere omission; rather, it seems to imply that the Greek translator of Deuteronomy still had access to a Hebrew Vorlage distinct from the textual tradition found in the MT. This case is all the more interesting because, as was already noted by Elliger, in Lev 11:15 MT (// Deut 14:14 MT) the raven is singled out, in the bird list, by being preceded by lk. 102 Here, the possibility that the Greek tradition, and especially the LXX of Deuteronomy, has preserved in part an older form of the list of unclean birds apparently finds a confirmation. If that is correct, the hypothesis of a systematic reworking of the bird list in Deut 14 MT under the influence of Lev 11 MT which has occasionally been argued should be rejected. The less systematic use of mîn and of )e4t in the list of Deut 14:12–18 vis-à-vis Lev 11:13ff. more likely betrays a gradual but largely separate development, in the two chapters, of the textual tradition preserved by the MT. As regards the reconstruction of the source used by D and P in general, the likeliest solution is to consider that it included most of the material common 99

ELLIGER, Leviticus, 144–145; further HOUSTON, Purity, 62; MILGROM, Leviticus, 702. The matter is considerably complicated, in addition, by the problem raised by the identification of the birds. If one follows DRIVER, Birds, the list of ten birds in Deuteronomy preceded by the nota accusativi (nos. 5–12 and 15–16) would include the saker falcon or the buzzard, the raven or the rook, the eagle owl, the short-eared owl, the long-eared owl, the kestrel or the sparrow hawk, the tawny owl, the fisher owl, the scops owl and the osprey; whereas the list of ten birds without it (nos. 1–4, 13–14 and 17–20) would group the griffon vulture or the golden eagle, the black vulture, the bearded vulture, the kite, the screech-owl, the little owl, the stork or the heron, the cormorant, the hoopoe and the bat. I was not able to detect any clear logic in these groupings, whether regarding the birds’ species or their habits. 101 In particular, Deut 14:13 adds hydhw , which is missing in the SamP as well as in the LXX and is generally considered a late addition; the position of Kl#h is different in Deut 14:16–17 and Lev 11:17–18. Deut 14:17 reads hmxrh instead of Mxrh in Lev 11:18, and Deut 14:13 MT reads h)rh, instead of h)dh in Lev 11:14, probably a typical case of scribal confusion between r and d initially, which is corrected in the SamP. For further minor variants between the bird list of Lev 11 and Deut 14, see MILGROM, Leviticus, 701. 102 ELLIGER, Leviticus, 144, quoted by HOUSTON, Purity, 48 n. 1. 100

4.1. Source- and Redaction Criticism of Leviticus 11–15

291

to Deut 14 and Lev 11, since the isolation of this material does provide a coherent text.103 The only exceptions concern the use of Cq# instead of )m+ in Lev 11:11, 12, 13, 20 and the introduction to the list of unclean birds in Lev 11:13 and Deut 14:11–12a, which is considerably different. As regards the distinction between Cq# and )m+ in Lev 11, it was already suggested above in the context of the discussion of Milgrom’s position that from a text-critical perspective this is best explained as a later development, the simpler form preserved in D being most likely original. The reason why D, had he found the distinction in its source, would have deliberately omitted it is more difficult to perceive.104 The distinction introduced by P sets apart the land animals from fish, birds and flying insects, and probably corresponds to an attempt to refine the classification received. In my opinion, Milgrom is correct to assume that the distinction between Cq# and of )m+ in Lev 11 corresponds to one between uncleanness by contact and by ingestion respectively.105 This seems to be implied, in particular, by the comparison between the instructions on land swarmers in v. 29–31 (ff.) and 41–42. V. 29–31 deal with pollution by contact specifically (cf. v. 31) and consistently use )m+, while v. 41–42 deal with pollution by ingestion and use Cq#. The distinction accounts for the fact that v. 41–42 are more inclusive than v. 29–31, extending the prohibition to all land swarmers; otherwise, if the same type of pollution was intended in both passages the more specific rule of v. 29–31 would be meaningless. Yet it is v. 29–31 and 41–42, specifically, that are not included in the original legislation, as Milgrom would also acknowledge, but are part of P’s supplement in 11:24–42. This can be taken as further confirmation that the distinction is not original but is P’s innovation. Concerning the introduction to the bird list, the two passages do have some elements in common, which suggest that the original introduction probably read something like, “These are the birds which you shall not eat (they are impure to you)”. P has developed this introduction by adding the Cq# motif, whereas D has added in 14:11 an introduction on the birds that can be eaten which manifestly harmonizes with the similar introductions found in the lists of pure quadrupeds and marine creatures. If we follow Yerkes’ suggestion, the original bird list would probably have consisted of eight birds,106 namely those which are in the same order in both Leviticus and Deuteronomy in all textual traditions (nos. 1–8 in the Greek B, nos. 1–5, 7–9 in Hebrew and other 103

See for instance the reconstruction offered by ELLIGER, Leviticus, 140–141. The argument that D deliberatley omitted the term Cq# because it specifically reserved it for idolatrous customs (WRIGHT , Spectrum, 169 n. 1) is unconvincing because this term actually occurs in only one place in Deuteronomy, namely Deut 7:26 (in 29:16: Cwq# ). Besides, as noted by Wright himself, the fact that D can use b(t/hb(wt for both idols (7:26) and animals (14:3) casts a further doubt on the distinction proposed. 105 See MILGROM, Two Terms; ID., Leviticus, 656–659; also, DOUGLAS, Leviticus, ch. 8. 106 See YERKES, Unclean Animals, 23ff.; HOUSTON, Purity, 47. 104

292

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

Greek traditions). Yerkes tended to include a ninth bird, the bat, because it is mentioned as the last bird in all lists (no. 20). Yet, as argued by Houston, the bat is probably a later addition since contrary to the eight other birds forming the original list it is not a bird of prey.107 On the whole, this reconstruction of the source used by D and P implies that it is the shorter text of Deut 14 which is closer to the original, while the more expanded version found in Lev 11 is the result of redactional activity. This conclusion has been recently disputed by Houston, who acknowledges (contrary to Eerdmans, Rendtorff and Milgrom) that D and P drew from a common source and that Deut 14 cannot simply be explained as an abridgment of Lev 11, but nevertheless maintains that it is Lev 11 which has preserved the formulation closer to the original.108 However, his arguments on this point are not necessarily convincing.109 They include (a) the fact that the “fulness of expression” reflected in Lev 11 would be distinctive of priestly documents (and should belong, therefore, to the primitive to=ra= already); (b) the supposedly original character of the distinction between Cq# and )m+ in Lev 11; and (c) the presence of a few pluses in the text of Deut 14, which are likely to be secondary. Thus, Deut 14:7a MT mentions h(ws#h after ysyrpmmw hsrph, contrary to what is the case in Lev 11:4 (but note that is is missing in 14:7 SamP!); the list of permitted (edible) quadrupeds in 14:4b–5 has no parallel in Lev 11; and 14:11 adds an introduction on edible birds. It was already argued above that the distinction between Cq# and )m+ is more likely a development introduced by P. Houston’s hypothesis that two distinct recensions, one with Cq# and )m+ and one with )m+ exclusively, could have existed in parallel is possible in principle but speculative. His point on the original character of the more developed form of Lev 11 is not consistent, since Houston eventually acknowledges that in some respects at least, D’s shorter text is an indication of the fact that “the Deuteronomic form of the text is earlier than the final redaction of Leviticus 11 […]”.110 Finally, as regards the issue of the pluses in D, the argument is hardly convincing either, because Houston admits that both Lev 11 and Deut 14 are distinct developments of a common source; thus, the presence of a few pluses in D cannot yet be taken as an indication that Lev 11 is closer to the original form of this source, especially since the pluses are considerably more important in Leviticus than in Deuteronomy.111 107

Houston (Ibid., 48) also notes the importance of multiples of four in Lev 11: “There are twenty birds in the present list; probably eight in the original one; four unclean beasts in vv. 4–8; four clean insects in v. 22; and eight unclean teeming things in vv. 29–30”. 108 See Ibid., 63–65: Lev 11 and Deut 14 are “two distinct developments of a set of to=ro=t approximately corresponding to what we find now in Lev. 11.2b–14, 16a, 20” (p. 65). 109 See in particular ID., Purity, 64. 110 Ibid., 65. 111 Against HOUSTON , Purity, 64, I am not so sure that the possibility that P has deliberately omitted the list of edible quadrupeds found in Deut 14:4b–5 should be excluded. The

4.1. Source- and Redaction Criticism of Leviticus 11–15

293

To sum up: the parallelism between Lev 11 and Deut 14 betrays that both P and D have made use of the same source, which includes something similar to the text shared by the two chapters even though it cannot be excluded that a few pluses (such as Deut 14:4b–5?) are also original. The attempt has sometimes been made to reconstruct a still earlier form of the original instruction found in Lev 11 and Deut 14 on a form-critical basis,112 but this is quite unfounded and the relevant criteria are non-existent. Houston has also suggested that the list of four borderline land animals in Lev 11 and Deut 14, which share one of the two criteria for inedibility, is a secondary development betraying later refinement of the original instruction.113 Although theoretically possible, this solution does not recommend itself. It was already recalled that the inclusion of borderline cases is a common feature of ancient laws. Furthermore, M. Douglas noted that borderline cases present a specific threat for classificatory systems, which explains why the author of the original instruction took the trouble to mention them explicitly.114

The present MT of Lev 11 and Deut 14 is primarily the result of distinct developments.115 The redactional framework of Deut 14 (v. 1–2, 3, and 21) is characteristic of D, whereas in Lev 11:2–23 the original source has been significantly expanded, and apparently partly harmonized with the P account on creation in Gen 1.116 Mutual influence of one text on the other seems to have been limited to a few additions, such as h(ws#h in the MT of Deut 14:7, and there is no reason to assume that either of the two texts underwent a systematic revision under the influence of the other, contrary to what has omission could reflect P’s willingness to obtain a comprehensive system which did not exclude any possible species. The issue is somewhat complicated by the question of whether the list of Deut 14:4b–5 can be regarded as exhaustive of “the species of the artiodactyl suborder Ruminantia known from the range of Hebrews” (thus HUNN , Abominations, 106), in which case the omission is indeed more difficult to account for. But this conclusion remains speculative given the quasi impossibility of identifying some of the names with certainty; on this point, see the discussion by HOUSTON, Purity, 61–62. 112 See in particular RENDTORFF, Gesetze, 39ff. 113 Ibid., 37–39.65; however, Houston hardly gives any argument for this conclusion. 114 DOUGLAS , Purity, 69. On the inclusion of borderline cases in ancient legislation, see especially above, page 252. 115 See above, pages 288–290. The view that, at some stage in their transmission, Lev 11 and Deut 14 MT underwent a distinct development was already proposed by ELLIGER, Leviticus, 143. 116 Lev 11:10 introduces the existence of creatures swarming in the water (Mymh Cr#), which is not found in D but is probably taken from Gen 1:20. Also, the specification of the domains in which land animals live in Lev 11:2 (missing in the parallel Deut 14:4) corresponds to Gen 1:24. On this, see EILBERG-SCHWARTZ, Creation, 360–361; the other observations he adduces are not convincing. To this, one may add the more frequent use of the form le6 + mîn in the bird list of Lev 11, which is similarly reminiscent of Gen 1. However, as observed above, the MT of Lev 11:13–19 (and of Deut 14:11–18) is apparently the result of a gradual redactional and editorial process that was not completed yet by the time of the LXX translation; therefore, it cannot be simply attributed to the hand of P’s author.

294

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

sometimes been surmised. Nevertheless, the textual evidence – in particular in the LXX – for Lev 11 and Deut 14 suggests that the section on unclean birds went through a gradual, complex development, certainly extending well beyond the first redaction of Lev 11 and Deut 14, of which the textual arrangement preserved in the Masoretic tradition appears to represent the final stage. The precise state of the bird list at the time of P’s redaction of Lev 11 is impossible to determine; one should probably consider a process of continuous expansion of the original list of eight birds, within which the redaction of Lev 11 only represents an intermediary stage. The analysis of the composition of the second part of Lev 11 raises fewer difficulties and will be dealt with more briefly. It has sometimes been surmised that the section on impurity by contact with a dead animal, v. 24–40, was also based on an earlier source.117 However, it is obvious that v. 24ff. cannot be the beginning of an originally independent instruction,118 but are better regarded as a supplement to and an expansion of 11:2b–23.119 Thus, while 11:8a merely prohibits contact with the carcass of unclean animals, v. 24–28 give instructions for purification in case contact cannot be avoided. 11:26 repeats the rationale for identifying clean and unclean quadrupeds already found in 11:3 (ff.), but it also introduces a further criterion by specifying that among living creatures walking on four legs all those which “walk on flat paws”120 should be considered unclean (v. 27). One could surmise that this supplement was already inserted before the original instruction behind 11:2b–23 was edited by P; yet the fact that it is entirely absent from Deut 14 militates against this conclusion as argued previously. Moreover, as observed by Milgrom, the general concern of v. 24–40, impurity by contact, and even the terminology of this section are closely reminiscent of the general issue of ch. 12–15.121 Therefore, the second part of ch. 11 should logically be assigned to the P scribe responsible for the composition of Lev 11–15. Milgrom himself wants to assign it to a second P redactor, P2, but this is of course because 117 See in particular BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 359 (“ein ursprünglich selbstständiges Stück”); R ENDTORFF, Gesetze, 41–42; KOCH , Priesterschrift, 78–79; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 145–147; GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 128–132. 118 Pace ELLIGER, Leviticus, 145–146. That there are some differences in style and formulation between 11:2b–23 and 24–40 does not automatically imply that v. 24–40 should be attributed to a distinct Vorlage, as argued by Elliger, but can also be accounted for by the origin of the second part of ch. 11 as a later development. 119 Thus already BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 33: “eine entschiedene Fortbildung und Steigerung der Vorstellungen von rein und unrein”. 120 For this rendering of wypk-l(, see in particular MILGROM, Leviticus, 726; and similarly HOUSTON, Purity, 50. As demonstrated by Milgrom, Pk here can certainly not mean “hand”, as suggested by DOUGLAS, Purity and Danger, 56 (similarly W ENHAM, Leviticus, 177), but must refer to the sole of the foot. 121 ID., Leviticus, 693.

4.1. Source- and Redaction Criticism of Leviticus 11–15

295

he regards the instruction on edible and inedible animals as the work of P, and not as being taken from a separate source;122 once this conclusion is rejected, it is possible to assign all of Lev 11 (v. 2–23 and 24–40) to the Priestly writer responsible for the composition of Lev 11–15. Among v. 24–40, v. 39–40 are probably an interpolation, as usually surmised.123 They interrupt the sequence formed by v. 29–38 and 41–45, which are exclusively concerned with land swarmers, Cr)h Cr#; also, the insertion of an instruction on eating carcass (hlbn), v. 40a, in the context of the legislation on pure and impure, edible and inedible animals could well reflect the influence of Deut 14, cf. v. 21a (also with hlbn). One may note, nevertheless, that the interpolation of this rule at this place is quite fitting since it deals with both pollution by contact and by ingestion and thus bridges the sections formed by v. 24–38 (contact) and 41–42 (ingestion). Milgrom also observed that the wording of Lev 5:2 mentioning contact with the carcass of dead unclean beasts as a source of pollution could be taken to imply that initially the carcasses of all clean quadrupeds were regarded as non-polluting, a further indication of the secondary origin of 11:39–40. Contrary to what is sometimes stated, however, 11:39–40 does not imply a complete revision of this former view by defining all dead beasts as polluting and therefore by rendering the legislation of v. 24–28 on contact with the carcass of unclean quadrupeds superfluous.124 Rather, the formulation of v. 39 suggests that it considers the specific case of a clean, edible beast that died naturally, and was not killed by man.125 Animals killed by man are not addressed in the law, and are therefore tacitly not regarded as a source of pollution.126 The reason for this distinction is probably that in the case of beasts already found dead man has no control over the process of killing, and that the carcasses of such animals are exposed to all sorts of carrion-eaters. Besides, this is consistent with the view stated in the other codes of the Torah (Ex 22:30; Lev 17:15–16; Deut 14:21a) where a similar distinction is presumed. Milgrom has repeatedly argued that the interpolation of 11:39–40 betrays the influence of H, although he varied in its precise assignment.127 Yet the whole argument is based on problematic reasoning. According to Milgrom, the carcass of a clean animal does not pollute if it 122

See MILGROM, Leviticus, 691ff. See BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 359; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 37; NOTH, Leviticus, 96; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 47; HOUSTON, Purity, 52 n. 1; MILGROM, Leviticus, 681–682.693–694. 124 Thus, e.g., NOTH, Leviticus, 96. 125 Thus also MILGROM, Leviticus, 681. 126 Also, as noted by MILGROM, Leviticus, 682, this seems to be reflected in the legislation of 7:22–27: “If the suet from the carcass of a pure quadruped may be utilized in man’s service (7:24), clearly it does not defile”. 127 In his commentary on Lev 1–16, he attributes it to “P3”, a late Priestly redactor whom he situates after H. In his commentary on Lev 17–22, he assigns it to the H redactor himself, see ID., Leviticus, 1485–1487.1857–1858. 123

296

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

has been sacrificed (in the case of a domestic animal) or brought down as game; hence 11:39–40 would necessarily presume the prohibition of profane slaughter in H.128 Actually, the law says nothing as to the obligation to sacrifice, and the idea that it depends on Lev 17 is unsupported. Besides, close comparison of this law with H’s own legislation on carcasses in 17:15–16 suggests exactly the opposite relationship (further below, § 5.2.1.). In particular, H adds the case of the hpr+ (cf. Ex 22:30) and introduces a new rule in a case where the person coming into contact with such carcasses fails to observe the required rites of purification (v. 16). Finally, there is no trace of H’s language in 11:39–40. Therefore, it is more likely to consider this addition to P in Lev 11 as older than H. As regards the remainder of 11:24–38, it forms a homogeneous composition; a few attempts have been made to identify secondary elements within it but objective grounds are lacking, and the whole instruction presents a logical development. The section on uncleanness through contact with carcasses of quadrupeds in v. 24–28 (or “high carriage land animals” to resume R. Whitekettle’s terminology), which was discussed above, is completed by a section on uncleanness through contact with carcasses of land swarmers (designated as Cr)h-l( Cr#h, or “low carriage land animals”) in v. 29–31.129 V. 32–38 introduce several instructions for the various cases when the carcass of any of the eight land swarmers enumerated comes into contact with any domestic item (vessels, fabrics, etc., v. 32–34), with an oven, a stove, a spring or a cistern (v. 35–36), or with grain (37–38).130 This instruction has no parallel for 128

See ID., Leviticus, 681. The exact significance of the designation of the two classes of land animals in Lev 11 is a classical crux; contrary to what is often stated in commentaries, it is clear that the distinction is not primarily based on size; on this point, see now the observations by WHITEKETTLE, Taxonomy, 347–348. As noted by Whitekettle, the verb Cr# used in Lev 11:29, 41, 42, 43, 46 (see further Gen 1:20, 21; 7:21; 8:17; 9:7; Ez 47:9; Ps 105:30) rather refers to a form of movement characteristic of one of the two classes of land animals; the same observation applies to the #mr, which can be used for both this same class of land animals (as in Gen 1:26, 28, 30; 7:8, 14, 21; 8:17, 19; 9:2; Lev 11:44; 20:25; Deut 4:18; Ez 38:20; Ps 69:35; 104:20) or for aquatic animals (as in Gen 1:21; Lev 11:46; Ps 69:35). Here, I follow Whitekettle’s detailed morphological analysis (see Taxonomy, 350ff.), from which he concludes that Cr# and #mr movement is used in the HB for land animals to designate a class of such animals which “propel themselves forward with locomotory movements that occur largely along a horizontal plane relative to the ground” (Ibid., 360), whereas the second class of land animals, characterized by the absence of such movement, groups all the animals whose locomotory movement “occurs largely along a vertical plane relative to the ground”. By simplification, the first class may be referred to as “Low Carriage Land Animals” and the second as “High Carriage Land Animals”, as he proposes in another essay (see ID., All Creatures). 130 Pace GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 131, this section does not merely exemplify theoretical and abstract reasoning. That it is a typical scribal product is obvious in the movement toward comprehensiveness and systematization, but the law nevertheless deals with concrete cases which are quite realistic in the context of small rural townships. 129

4.1. Source- and Redaction Criticism of Leviticus 11–15

297

the section on quadrupeds, but this does not justify regarding it as a later interpolation. Indeed, what characterizes “swarming” creatures is specifically the fact that they cannot be controlled, and thus (especially as concerns land swarmers) consistently threaten to invade the domestic sphere.131 11:32–38 logically completes v. 29–31, and its position in Lev 11 is therefore justified.132 Lastly, the origin of v. 41–47 is also disputed. Several authors have suggested that the instruction on land swarmers in v. 41–42 was initially part of the original instruction on edible and inedible animals in the first part of ch. 11.133 Yet this seems unlikely on several grounds. To be sure, the instruction on land swarmers completes those on water (Lev 11:10) and air (11:20–23) swarmers. But if the above reconstruction is correct, the source used by D and P initially contained a general prohibition on flying insects only (Pw(h Cr#). This is logical because flying insects were the only category of swarming creatures to provide a regular source of food for at least some parts of the Judaean population and represented therefore a real issue. For the same reason, the original prohibition against flying insects was later alleviated by the introduction of a distinct clause for locusts in Lev 11:20–23. As we have seen, the insertion of the prohibition against water swarmers in 11:10, which is missing in D, betrays a further systematization by P, and the same should be true therefore for the section on land swarmers in v. 41–42. Besides, if the instruction of v. 41–42 were original, one would not understand why it was not included in the section on land animals (v. 2–8), on the model of what applies for water and air swarmers. Instead, its present position appears to betray an editorial device. Thus, it concludes the section on land swarmers in the material added by P in v. 29–38 (as argued above, v. 39–40 are a later supplement). Simultaneously, it returns to the issue of edibiliy after the long section on uncleanness through contact with the carcass of an impure animal in v. 24–38, thus preparing for the summary in v. 46. Furthermore, because it is a supplement to the instruction on land animals at the beginning of this chapter 131

On this, see especially CARROLL, Leviticus, 121; as well as MILGROM, Leviticus, 686. BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 359–360, also concludes to the literary homogeneity of v. 24– 38, and correctly comments that it forms, “ein vollständiges, fein ausgeklügeltes System”. ELLIGER, Leviticus, 145–147, acknowledges for his part that there is no reason to question the literary unity of v. 24–28, 29–31, and 32–38, but nevertheless regards v. 35–38 as a later development (in two stages: v. 35–36 and 37–38). His argument (p. 146–147) is mainly based on the repetition in v. 35 and 37 of the opening phrase of the section formed by v. 32–34 (see in particular 35aa and 32aa). But this is probably a mere stylistic device serving to introduce a new enumeration after v. 32–34, which does not need to indicate a different hand. One cannot exclude the possibility that the instruction of 11:32–38 has been gradually supplemented, and that the instructions for contamination of an oven, a stove, a spring, a cistern (v. 35–36), or grain (37–38) through the carcass of a swarming land creature are later refinements of the original legislation in 32–34, but there is no relevant indication in the text. 133 See in particular BAENTSCH , Leviticus, 356.361; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 147–148 (who includes all of v. 41–44a); MILGROM, Leviticus, 683.691ff. 132

298

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

(v. 2b–8), it rounds off the entire to=ra= on clean and unclean animals in Lev 11, just before the subscript of v. 46–47. This function of v. 41–42 as a bridge between the two sections of Lev 11, v. 2b–23 and 24–38, corroborates the idea that it is from the hand of the Priestly writer in Lev 11; what is more, this conclusion also accounts for its absence in D.134 The subscript in 11:46–47 should also be attributed the Preiestly writer, because it mentions “all the living creatures that move (#mr) in the water, and all the creatures that swarm (Cr#) on the ground” (v. 46). The former refers to Lev 11:10 (the use of #mr instead of Cr#, as in 11:10, could be a reference to Gen 1:21), whereas the latter corresponds to 11:41–42, two passages missing in Deut 14 and which have been identified as additions by P to the common source. Whether P replaced an earlier subscript in 11:46 is difficult to decide, although its absence in Deut 14 might indicate that it is entirely an addition by P.135 There remains, finally, the case of 11:43–45. The parallel between this instruction and the language of H has long been noted.136 In addition to the characteristic phrases “For I am Yahweh your God”,137 “you shall sanctify yourselves so that you will be holy” (= Lev 20:7), “for I am holy” (yn) #wdq yk, cf. 19:2; 20:26; 21:8), and the reference to Yahweh as the one who led Israel out of Egypt in order to be his God (11:45a = 22:33; but cf. already Ex 6:6–8), the connection between animal prohibitions and holiness has an exact parallel in Lev 20:25 + 26. Besides, the conclusion to v. 43– 45, 45b, corresponds to 20:26a (yn) #wdq yk My#dq Mtyyhw; the LXX adds in 11:45b ku/rioj, thus reinforcing the correspondence with 20:26a); finally, the phrase “you shall not defile your throats” (Mkyt#pn-t) wcq#t-l), v. 43) is not found elsewhere in P but also occurs in Lev 20:25 (with )l instead of l)).138

The case of 11:43–45 is a remarkable example of the difficulties raised by the traditional view of H as a being earlier than P, since it is obvious that this insert cannot be read for itself but that it is a supplement to 11:41–42 (P). Initiallly, some scholars tried to solve this issue by suggesting that not only v. 41–45, but also the whole to=ra= on edible and inedible animals in 11:2b–23 134

As also observed e.g. by WRIGHT, Spectrum, 168 n. 1. Admittedly, in Lev 12–15, the subscripts have been identified as belonging to the source used by P. However, as will be argued below, it is probable that the source behind Lev 11 and Deut 14 has a distinct origin, so that the two cases cannot be compared. 136 See inter alia KLOSTERMANN, Ezechiel, 377; DRIVER , Introduction, 59; BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 361; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 33; NOTH, Leviticus, 96; KNOHL, Sanctuary, 69; MILGROM, Leviticus, 39–40.685–688.694.695–696. 137 See Lev 20:7; 24:22; 25:17; 26:1, 44; in Lev 19:2, the formula has been slightly expanded, reading … yn) #wdq yk. It is also found frequently in H without the introductory yk. 138 The influence of H language throughout these verses goes against Elliger’s attempt to identify two originally distinct pieces within this passage, namely, in v. 43–44a and 44b–45 (see ID ., Leviticus, 147–148; for this idea, see already D ILLMANN , Leviticus, 504). Even though v. 44b repeats v. 43, v. 45 actually introduces a wholly new motivation. Besides, the repetition of central motifs is characteristic of H’s exhortations, see, e.g., Lev 18:24–30 and 20:22–26. 135

4.1. Source- and Redaction Criticism of Leviticus 11–15

299

and its subscript, v. 46–47, originally belonged to H.139 However, it was soon recognized that v. 43–45 aside, the rest of ch. 11 did not bear any of the distinctive marks of H.140 Hence it became necessary to assume that 11:43–45 once belonged to an original H instruction on pure and impure animals comparable to what is found now in Lev 11, which also seems to be presupposed by Lev 20:25, and of which only 11:43–45 survived for quite obscure reasons.141 Once it is recognized that H is actually the editor of P, this complex and highly speculative assumption is no longer required. 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. However, in 20:25–26a a further comment on the significance of the legislation of Lev 11 is now introduced in the context of the final parenesis of v. 22–26, since the observance of this law is connected to Israel’s separation from the ways of the other nations (cf. v. 26b, and further 22–24), a notion which was not yet explicit in P. Moreover, as already noted in Chapter Two of this study (§ 2.2.), the reference to 11:43–45 – and more generally, of course, to the to=ra= 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. In this regard, the interpolation of 11:43–45 by the H editor makes apparent the connection between the P collection on impurities in Lev 11–15(16) and the first part of the first section of the Holiness Code (chapters 17–22), namely, Lev 17–20. 4.1.3. Synthesis and Summary: P’s Sources in Leviticus 11–15 In brief, the source- and literary-critical analysis of Lev 11–15 indicates that P has drawn on the following sources. On one hand, an instruction on edible and inedible animals in Lev 11:2b–23, which was also used by the author of Deut 14; and on the other hand, various to=ro=t on bodily impurities dealing with the case of a birthing woman (12:2ab–7); of scale-disease of persons (13:2–44), fabrics (13:47–59) and houses (14:34–53); and finally of various types of male and female genital impurities, including abnormal discharges, menstru139 Thus in particular HORST, Lev XVII–XXVI, 34; further, e.g., DRIVER, Introduction, 59. This hypothesis has recently been revived by FIRMAGE, Genesis 1, however apparently without knowledge that it had been previously advocated. 140 See already BAENTSCH, Heiligkeits-Gesetz, 5–6, for this observation. 141 Thus for instance KLOSTERMANN, Ezechiel, 377–379; BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 356; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 33–34; etc. In general, it was supposed either that this parallel legislation was entirely lost or that it would have represented an earlier stage in the formation of the to=ra= on edible and inedible animals.

300

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

ation, involuntary, non-morbid seminal flows, and sexual intercourse (cf. Lev 15:2b–30, 32–33). The latter evince numerous parallels in formulation in addition to their common theme and were certainly already grouped to form a small collection; whether these instructions were preserved on separate scrolls or on the same scroll cannot be decided with certainty. Since according to several biblical sources the identification of impurity and more generally the division between pure and impure was considered a typical priestly competency,142 there can be no doubt that this collection originated in the temple library, where it could be consulted and copied. Very much as with the original collection of instructions for public sacrifices in Lev 1–3 (see the previous chapter of this study, especially § 3.3.3.), we should probably think of a kind of a priestly manual on major cases of bodily impurities, or an excerpt from such a manual, which could serve both for the training of priests and as an aide-mémoire, or a check-list, to be consulted at will by priestly specialists when required. As a priestly manual, it was certainly in use from the beginning of the Second Temple, since it is necessarily earlier than the composition of Lev 11–16 by P. Contrary to the case of Lev 1–3, we lack any sound criterion for dating more precisely the writing down of this collection. As was noted above in the discussion of Lev 13–14, the scientific knowledge preserved in these to=ro=t certainly goes back to a long priestly tradition in the First Temple period. In particular, the testimony of 2 Sam 3:29 shows that the association of genital discharges (za4b) and skin disease (s[a4ra(at) was traditional in Israel, probably because they were regarded as the most severe forms of bodily uncleanness. At most, one may ask whether the consistent omission of any reference to the demonic forces traditionally associated in the ancient Near East, and especially in Mesopotamia, with impurity and bodily pollution143 could indicate that the writing down of these to=ro=t already presupposes the development of Yahwistic monotheism, and therefore cannot be earlier than the Neo-Babylonian period. Yet this remains entirely hypothetical. The source used by P (and D) in Lev 11:2b–23 very likely has a distinct origin. It is not concerned with bodily impurities such as skin disease or genital flow and, contrary to Lev 12–15, it is not formulated as a case law. We will see below how closer examination of the nature and function of the common source behind Lev 11 and Deut 14 gives some clues as to the origin of this document. For the moment, suffice it to note that the combination of the list of pure (edible) and impure (inedible) animals with the collection on bodily impurities is not traditional but goes back to the Priestly writer responsible 142

See Lev 10:10; Deut 24:8; Ez 22:26; 44:23; Zeph 3:4; Hag 2:11, and above, § 3.6. As noted by MILGROM, Leviticus, 259–260, following an initial observation by Kaufmann; pace LEVINE, Presence, 79–91, who assumes on the contrary that the demonic nature of impurity is still present in P. On demonic beliefs associated with impurity in Mesopotamia, see WRIGHT, Disposal, 248–250 and passim, with detailed references. 143

4.2. The Priestly Composition in Leviticus 11–15

301

for the composition of Lev 11–15. To understand the logic behind this development is the object of the following section.

4.2. The Priestly Composition in Leviticus 11–15 4.2.1. Introducing the Issue Identifying the sources used by the Priestly writer in Lev 11–15 is not only relevant for the prehistory of these chapters; above all, it gives us a proper base to interpret the nature and purpose of P’s own contribution to the legislation on bodily impurities. If the source-critical analysis above is correct, this contribution consisted mainly of the insertion of several traditional to=ro=t on the handling of impurity in the Sinai narrative, which are now presented as divine decrees revealed to Moses (and Aaron) to be further communicated – at least for some of them (cf. Lev 11:2a; 12:2aa; 15:2a) – to the whole community of Israel. According to this analysis, P is also responsible for the introduction of two significant developments. First, an instruction on various cases of direct or indirect contact with carcasses of impure land animals (quadrupeds and swarmers) in 11:24–42 was added to the original instruction of 11:2b–23, thus building a connection with one dominant issue in Lev 12–15, pollution by contact. Second, the original one-day ritual for the reintegration of a former (rcm , Lev 14:2–8a, was supplemented and transformed into a gradual eight-day ritual in three stages (cf. the threefold repetition of the formula rh+w in v. 8a, 9b, and 20b) culminating on the eighth day with the offering of a series of sacrifices, Lev 14:10–20* (> v. 13b). The ritual was deliberately modeled upon the ceremony of the consecration of Aaron and his sons in Lev 8; the setting on the eighth day also suggests a connection with the ceremony of Lev 9 (cf. 9:1). The parallel created by P highlights the importance of the transition, or the passage, taking place when the healed (rcm is reinstated into the camp by comparing it with the passage occurring during the consecration of Aaron and his sons. In the larger context of ch. 11–15, and even of ch. 1–16, this device serves to parallel the separation between Israel (the wilderness camp) and the world outside with the separation between the sanctuary and the profane world, thus reflecting both the development taking place from sanctuary (Lev 1–9) to community (Lev 11–16), and the homology between the two with regard to the protection of their boundaries. We shall return to this point at the end of this discussion. Yet perhaps the most important aspect of the Priestly composition in Lev 11–15 lies in its specific combination of traditional instructions. The present arrangement of Lev 12–15 apparently goes back to P, since there are indications that Lev 12 probably belonged initially together with Lev 15, as observed above. This arrangement seems to primarily reflect a literary device since

302

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

ch. 12 and 15, two instructions on various cases of impurity from a genital source, build a frame around ch. 13–14, thus emphasizing the importance of this latter section dealing with the most severe form of impurity.144 In addition, the placing of Lev 12 at the beginning of this collection probably corresponds to the fact that it deals with birth and hence with the beginning of life, as the rabbinic tradition already held.145 Another, more significant aspect of P’s editorial activity in Lev 11–15 concerns the combination of the collection of Lev 12–15 with the to=ra= on edible and inedible animals in Lev 11:2b–23, which, as shown above, has a distinct origin. Although the importance given to the to=ra= of Lev 11 in this arrangement was occasionally noted, few authors have attempted to uncover the reason that P chose to introduce Lev 11–16 with a classification of animal species according to their purity or impurity. In this respect, it is striking to observe that while there has been a remarkable growth of interest in the concepts of purity and pollution implied in Lev 11– 15 in the two or three decades following the publication of Douglas’ Purity and Danger, still, most studies have tended to treat Lev 11 and Lev 12–15 separately. This approach may be legitimate at a first stage of the analysis, given the difference in topic between these two sets of texts. Ultimately, however, what we need is to understand the comprehensive view of pollution that lies behind Lev 11–15 as a whole, and what effect is achieved by P in combining ch. 12–15 with ch. 11, and in placing Lev 11 before 12–15. Even in Douglas’ 1999 study on Leviticus, Lev 11 and 12–15 are discussed in separate chapters,146 and Douglas makes few comments on the unity of the whole even though she does acknowledge that ch. 11–16 form a distinct unit within the book’s structure. Similarly, several recent studies on the nature of impurity in P take their cue from the section on bodily affections, Lev 12–15, and especially from the to=ra= on genital discharges in ch. 15; while often important and stimulating, they usually make little effort to grasp the significance of Lev 11 in this regard, this chapter being often dealt with separately,147 or even just ignored.148 Conversely, Houston, in his otherwise remarkable study on Lev 11, addresses only very briefly the place of this chapter within 11–15 and, on the whole, tends to argue throughout his work 144

For a similar idea, see also DOUGLAS, Leviticus, 176–177. “R. Simlai said: Even as man’s creation was after that of cattle, beasts and birds, even so the law concerning him came after that concerning cattle, beasts and birds. This is [indicated by] what is written, This is the law of the beasts and of the fowl and of every living creature (Lev. XI, 46) and thereafter If a woman produce offspring” (Midr. Lev. Rab. XIV.1). Further for this idea DILLMANN , Leviticus, 504. Milgrom suggests in addition that “the various impurities of persons in chaps. 12–15 may have been ordered according to the decreasing length of their purification: birth (forty to eighty days), scale disease (eight days), genital discharges of male (eight days, one day), of female (seven days, eight days)”. This is ingenious, but hardly conclusive; it does not account for the seclusion of the (rcm, of indeterminate length, nor for the case of female genital pollution in ch. 15. 146 See DOUGLAS, Leviticus, ch. 7–8 (on Lev 11) and 9 (on 12–15). 147 See in particular EILBERG-SCHWARTZ, Savage, esp. ch. 7, 8 and 9. 148 See, e.g., BERQUIST, Corporeality; MALUL, Knowledge, esp. 379–394. 145

4.2. The Priestly Composition in Leviticus 11–15

303

that the connection between the two groups of texts is limited to the second half of ch. 11 (v. 24ff.) addressing the issue of impurity through contact with carcasses of impure land animals.149 At some point in his work, he even states that, “though this chapter has found a place in the collection on purities because of its second half, its first half, with the conclusion of the whole, would belong more appropriately in the Holiness Code […]”150 – thus returning to something like Driver’s original suggestion (see above). One may note, in passing, that this suggestion is all the more difficult because Houston himself is also inclined to accept the idea that H is actually the editor of P. A similar view has been argued at length in a recent study by E. Firmage, who had already stressed in a former article on Lev 11 (1990) the difference between this chapter and Lev 12–15,151 and who now wants to argue that all of Lev 11 is from the hand of H (which he also considers to be post-P).152 However, this source-critical solution to the difficult issue of the relationship between Lev 11 and 12–15 can hardly convince, since neither Houston nor Firmage have any new arguments to oppose to the traditional criticism already levelled against Driver that H’s terminology and characteristic motifs are limited to 11:43–45 and are simply missing from the remainder of the chapter;153 as stated above, this observation is best explained by the assumption that H, here, edited an earlier version of Lev 11, which therefore cannot possibly be from his hand.

In most recent studies, the topic of the conceptual coherence of Lev 11–15 has generally been addressed, in a more or less elaborate fashion, by resorting to the concept of holiness. In short, P’s instructions in Lev 11–15 would serve to invite the community of Israel to a form of imitatio Dei by separating from all sources of pollution – whether by abstaining from eating impure animals, by cleansing themselves in case an impurity had been contracted, or by expelling the most severe forms of impurity, as with the (rcm in Lev 13:45–46 – so as to live a life conforming to God’s will. This idea, which can actually already be found in various forms in Douglas’ successive studies on Lev 11,154 was especially developed by Milgrom. 149 See ID., Purity, 244–248, for the relation of Lev 11 with 12–15. The same observation applies in his most recent study, see HOUSTON, Reading, and his statement on p. 161. 150 ID., Purity, 55. 151 See FIRMAGE, Dietary Laws, esp. 182–183. 152 FIRMAGE, Genesis 1. 153 On this, cf. above, page 299. This issue is not really addressed by Firmage in his recent study (ID ., Genesis 1), his attribution of Lev 11 to H being based on content rather than language. Besides, he does not discuss the fact that 11:43–45 is clearly supplementary in nature within Lev 11, as has long been acknowledged. Note, finally, that while Firmage is quite correct to connect Lev 11 with Gen 1 (further on this below, § 4.2.3.), his assignment of Gen 1 to H is no less problematic. Not only is Gen 1:1–2:3 systematically presupposed in P’s account, but this solution leaves open the problem of where this document started. 154 In her original analysis on “The Abominations of Leviticus” (Purity, 54–72), Douglas insists on the notion of holiness as wholeness, which in turns implies that “individuals shall conform to the class to which they belong” (67), and is therefore the opposite of impurity defined as the property of those beings which, within the well-ordered system of creation, fail to conform to their class. Douglas concludes her analysis by suggesting that “the dietary laws would have been like signs which at every turn inspired meditation on the oneness, purity and completeness of God” (72), since holiness is first and foremost “the attribute of the Godhead”

304

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

Very much like Douglas in certain of her essays, Milgrom relates the prohibition of eating impure animals to the separation from other nations surrounding Israel;155 however, he then goes on to elaborate a more specific view of the purpose of the dietary prohibitions in Lev 11. According to him, such prohibitions form an “ethical system”, which, like the prohibition of blood, would be meant to instill reverence for life by limiting the number of animal species available for consumption. Since God is the source of every life, observance of dietary prohibitions is thus a way of revering his holiness and, ultimately, of imitating it.156 As regards Lev 12–15, Milgrom argues (after several earlier scholars) that all the impurities contained therein were associated with the realm of death and were therefore viewed as being antithetical to God’s holiness. He thus concludes that the laws of Lev 11–15 ultimately serve a common ethical purpose, namely, to urge the Israelites to side with the forces of life against those of death.157 In a sense, this interpretation of purity and impurity in terms of the conflict between forces of life and death is not new and can already be found in the works of several earlier authors.158 What is new, however, in Milgrom’s understanding of P’s system of impurity is the idea that traditional beliefs on impurity have been “demythologized” (sic) and reinterpreted from a monotheistic perspective so as to include a moral or ethical injunction to side with life against death by permanently seeking sanctification.159 Other authors, especially D.P. Wright, P. Budd and now A. Marx, (63). A similar view is argued in several later studies, though in a refined form. See in particular ID., Self-evidence, where she develops the view that the animal classification of Lev 11 has to do with the maintenance of boundaries in general, including political ones, and thus emphasizes Israel’s holiness as separation from the nations; similarly ID., Deciphering. 155 See especially DOUGLAS, Self-evidence, 273ff., and the previous note. 156 See MILGROM, Diet Laws; ID., Ethics; as well as ID., Leviticus, 718–736. 157 See MILGROM , Rationale, 106: “It is thus no accident that the laws of impure animal food (Leviticus 11) are followed by the laws of impure human secretions (Leviticus 12–15). Both are informed by the same ethical impulse, to separate the Israelites from the forces of death and ‘separate them to’ (i.e., link them) to the forces of life”. For this interpretation, see further ID., Leviticus, 766–768 and 1000–1004. 158 See VON R AD , Theologie, 1. 271–278; KORNFELD , Tiere; PASCHEN , Rein, 57–59; F ELDMAN , Defilement, 35–37; WENHAM , Leviticus, 188; ANDRÉ , art. t[a4me4); HARTLEY , Leviticus, 140–147, esp. 145; most recently also GARCÍA LÓPEZ, Lo purò, 59. Actually, this view had already been proposed by DILLMANN, Leviticus, 479. 159 ID., Rationale, 108: “To recapitulate, the concept of impurity in the Bible, demythologized and eviscerated of its originally demonic content, became restricted to those bodily manifestations associated with death. Israel was enjoined to shun impurity and, whenever that was not possible, to eradicate it through purificatory rituals. It was not death but life that Israel was to pursue. Hence holiness, the semantic and ideological antonym of impurity, became the goal. Holiness implied pursuing the moral values associated with the divine nature. Correspondingly, the concept of impurity was broadened to denote the violation of these moral values. Thus, impurity and holiness came to be associated with Israel’s response to the totality of the commandments”.

4.2. The Priestly Composition in Leviticus 11–15

305

have developed a comparable understanding of Lev 11–15 as prompting imitation of God’s nature.160 Contrary to Milgrom, they consider the impurities of Lev 11–15 as symbols not merely of death but of death and sexuality (see Lev 12 and 15), which are the two major biological features characteristic of man, differentiating him from God. In order to be allowed to meet God in his sanctuary, man must first sanctify himself by putting aside, at least temporarily, these biological features. Both Wright and Marx relate this view to the story of the expulsion of the first human couple from the Garden of Eden in Gen 3; the laws of impurity, made necessary by this inaugural event, would remind man of his mortal condition, whereas the possibility of purification points towards the overcoming of man’s condition and the prospect of his reconciliation with divine origins.161 Although there are several correct insights behind the views of Milgrom, Wright and Marx, the interpretation of the impurity laws in terms of personal sanctification and imitation of God’s (holy) nature is nevertheless unsatisfactory on many grounds. 1. First, as we will see below, reducing impurities to a set of symbols such as death, or death and sexuality, is ultimately too one-sided. Besides, Milgrom’s interpretation of Lev 11 as an instruction promoting reverence for life is unconvincing, and was already criticized by some of his own students, in particular Firmage and Wright,162 both of whom correctly observe, first, that no restriction is placed on the quantity of meat of pure animals that may be eaten,163 and, second, that if the purpose of Lev 11 was reverence for and preservation of life, the prohibited species should have been held as holy (as the cow in India), not as impure ()m+ ) or abominable (Cq#).164 Hence, the nature of the relation between Lev 11 and 12–15 should be sought elsewhere. 2. Second, the interpretation of the laws of impurity in terms of Israel’s sanctification and consecration to Yahweh is certainly correct for H, as is implied by passages such as Lev 11:43–45 and 20:25–26 for instance. But when this later view is assigned to P, it is blurring completely the distinction between the two corpuses.165 In this regard, it is somewhat astonishing that an 160 See WRIGHT , Unclean, esp. 739; ID ., Holiness; MARX , L’impureté; also KLAWANS, Pure Violence, esp. 140–149. 161 See WRIGHT, Holiness; MARX, L’impureté, esp. 382–384. 162 See FIRMAGE, Dietary Laws, 195 n. 24; WRIGHT, Observations. 163 MILGROM, Leviticus, 735, tries to prevent this objection by arguing that the “average” Israelite could only afford to eat meat on extra occasions. Yet as noted by HOUSTON, Purity, 77 n. 1, “the average Israelite did not need the lesson taught by the law, but the rich did”. 164 HOUSTON, Purity, 77 n. 2, finely adds to this objection that the contradiction is all the more blatant considering that, in Milgrom’s system, the unclean stands for the forces of death. 165 This is explicitly acknowledged for instance by KLAWANS, Pure Violence, 142, when he states that, “the point of following these regulations [i.e., Lev 11–15] is nothing other than the theological underpinning of the entire Holiness Code: imitatio Dei (Lev 11:44–45; 19:2;

306

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

author like Milgrom, who himself put such stress on the difference between P and H in matters of holiness, eventually ends up arguing the view that Lev 11–15 also promotes sanctification of the community. As he observes elsewhere, holiness is in P an attribute of God, the sanctuary and the priests, and P, contrary to H, never considers the possibility that the community as a whole may become holy.166 Moreover, this interpretation blurs the complex distinction between pure and impure on one hand and sacred and profane on the other by ultimately equating purity with holiness and purification with sanctification. To be sure, as observed by Milgrom, impurity is the complete opposite of holiness in P’s system, and purity is a precondition for access to the sacred, as in all antiquity. But this can certainly not be taken to imply that the pure and the sacred are identical in the end, or that the whole division explicitly articulated in Lev 10:10 can be reduced to the opposition between sacred and impure, as Milgrom indeed would have it.167 3. Third, one last point concerns the interpretation of prohibition from the area of the sanctuary of such characteristic human features as sexuality and death. Similar rules are found in other cultures of the ancient Mediterranean world, especially in Greece and in Egypt.168 For ancient Greece, R. Parker has clearly established that the ban placed on death and sexuality in sanctuaries was not intended to breach the gulf between gods and men but had rather the function of emphasizing the absolute – one may even say ontological – difference between them. “By banning birth, death, and also sexuality from sacred places, the Greeks emphasize the gulf that separates the nature of god and man. On one level, of course, the gods have much in common with man in these respects: they underwent birth, and engage in sexual activity. But whereas for men birth and sex are part of a cycle that ends in the grave, the gods enjoy the benefits of the flesh but not the ills. (Philosophers were to seek to free the gods from the taint of the physical altogether). Excluded from a temple because of the birth of a son, a Greek is reminded, perhaps, that his son has been born to replace himself, and die in his turn, while the gods persist in splendid immortality”.169

Admittedly, the situation differs with respect to the impurity system in Lev 11–15, insofar as these chapters were composed in a historical and religious 20:7, 26)”. For the opposite view that Lev 1–16 and 17–26 present two diverging conceptions of impurity, see KUGLER , Theological Conflict. One should note, in addition, that even the scholars rejecting the distinction between P and H need to account for the fact that, in Lev 11–15, the connection between purity laws and Israel’s sanctification is only found in a single passage (v. 43–45) which, besides, is obviously an interpolation (see above, pages 298–299). 166 See especially MILGROM, Holiness; thus, e.g., on p. 68: “Thus for H, holiness is a dynamic concept, towards which all of Israel, priests and laity alike, must continuously strive: priests to retain it, lay persons to attain it. Here H serves as a polemic against P, which rigidly reserves the notion of #wdq solely for the priests, Nazirites and the sancta”. 167 See in particular ID., Rationale, esp. 105ff. 168 For ancient Egypt, see, e.g., the testimony found in HERODOTUS, Hist., 2.64,. 169 PARKER, Miasma, 66.

4.2. The Priestly Composition in Leviticus 11–15

307

context in which Israel’s God was in the process of being separated from any anthropomorphic attribute. Yet very much the same interpretation of the purpose of these prohibitions can nevertheless be made. In P at least, the effect of requiring the Israelites not to approach Yahweh unless they are physically pure, whole and blameless (rh+ ) should have been not so much to inspire them to lead a godly life as to remind them permanently of God’s perfection compared to their own imperfect status, and thus to present them with an elaborate symbol of the difference between God and man.170 Death and sexuality are not conditions to overcome, but rather typical exemplifications of the limitations inherent to the human condition. One may further note that the case advocated by Wright and Marx eventually leads to a contradiction, since they are unable to reconcile this view with P’s otherwise rather positive view of sexuality and procreation in Gen 1:28 and 9:1.171 As such, the interpretation of Lev 11–15 as exhorting to imitatio Dei should be qualified even though, as stated above, several observations are no doubt correct; we need therefore to search for a more satisfactory explanation of the logic behind this section. In order to achieve this, we will first focus on the collection on bodily impurities in Lev 12–15 (§ 4.2.2.) before we address the problem of the place of Lev 11 within P’s system of impurity (§ 4.2.3.). 4.2.2. Leviticus 12–15: Pollution as an “Intrusion of the Biological into the Social Sphere” (L. Dumont) The search for a coherent concept of pollution in Lev 12–15 is a relatively recent concern, prompted in particular by the remarkable development of social and cultural anthropology in the second half of the 20th century. Earlier scholars dealing with these chapters tended to view them as reflecting traditional beliefs attributing the major types of uncleanness to the activity of demonic beings, even though it was unclear to what extent such beliefs were still present in the composition of Lev 12–15.172 Gradually, this view gave 170 MARX , L’impureté, 384, comes very close to this when he observes that, “Les règles relatives à l’impureté vont avoir pour fonction de rappeler à l’être humain sa condition distinctive, caractérisée par la finitude, marquée du sceau de la mort et qui, par là même, se situe aux antipodes de la condition divine […]”. However, he then goes on to couple this with an eschatological reading of purification as a “sign” for the definitive reconciliation to come, which is clearly influenced by his own theological background but has no basis in Lev 11–15. 171 MARX , L’impureté, 383, correctly notes this point, but nevertheless retains the view that sexuality in P is a consequence of the so-called “original sin” in Gen 3, as is apparently implied by Gen 3:16ff. However,this view is already contradicted by the fact that the commandment of procreation in P precedes the story of the expulsion from Eden (cf. 1:28), and is repeated as such after the Flood (9:1). Besides, Marx’s reading becomes all the more difficult once it is noted that Gen 3 does not belong to P, especially if P is a discrete document (§ 1.1). 172 See inter alia BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 362.376; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 41.43; NOTH, Leviticus, 97; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 157.197.

308

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

way to the idea that the impurities collected by P had in common their status as symbols of death and decay, or – as in the more recent analyses discussed above – of death and sexuality as the two main biological features defining the human condition. From the perspective of the symbolic interpretation, the impurities collected in Lev 11–15 do not have any intrinsic connection; they were simply chosen as eminent symbols of death, or of sexuality and death.173 There are indeed several observations backing the symbolic interpretation. Thus, it was long noted that the instruction for the person identified as a (rcm in Lev 13:45–46 to tear his clothes, dishevel his hair, and cover his moustache (v. 45) are characteristic signs of mourning in ancient Israel; the (rcm is thus defined as a person permanently mourning his own social and symbolic death.174 The connection between skin disease of the t(rc kind and death is also explicit in the story of Miriam in Num 12 (cf. 12:12), when Aaron prays Moses to intercede in favor of his sister with the following words, “Let her not be as one dead, coming from its mother’s womb with its flesh half eaten away”. The reason why morbid, pathologic genital discharges (cf. 15:2–15 for man and 25–30 for woman) are associated with disease and therefore with death is also obvious.175 Similarly, menstrual blood is paralleled with loss of life, and therefore death, in several other cultures, and this could also be the case in ancient Israel.176 As suggested by some scholars, further evidence for the fact that menstrual blood is considered “antithetical to fertility”, and therefore opposed to the realm of life, can possibly be found in the prohibition on sexual intercourse with a menstruant woman in H (Lev 20:18; see already the seven-day pollution attached to this case in Lev 15:24).177 Yet other aspects of the symbolic interpretation raise several problems and cannot satisfactorily account for the collection of impurities in Lev 12–15. First of all, the general notion that in biblical thought blood is the seat of life (cf. Gen 9:4–6; Lev 17:11, 14; Deut 12:23) and that for this reason the loss of blood symbolizes death and is therefore impure178 obviously calls for qualifi173

Thus explicitly MILGROM, Leviticus, 1002: “A mere glance at the list of impurity bearers […] suffices to reveal that this list is arbitrary and artificial. […] Thus, the conclusion is inescapable that the impurities entered in this list have no intrinsic meaning in themselves but were selected because they serve a larger, overarching purpose. […] Their common denominator is death” (see similarly ID., Rationale, 104–105). 174 See, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 369 (“Der Aussätzige trauert um sich wie um einen Toten”). On the relationship between s[a4ra(at and death, see more generally in particular FELDMAN, Defilement, 37–41; as well as GORMAN, Ideology, 132.152ff. 175 See already SNAITH, Leviticus, 106; WENHAM, Leviticus, 218. 176 For the comparative record, see especially DOUGLAS, Purity, ch. 9; FRIEDL, Women, 29; BUCKLEY/GOTTLIEB, Blood Magic, 38–39; EILBERG-SCHWARTZ, Savage, 185. 177 See esp. EILBERG-SCHWARTZ, Savage, 183. In my opinion, however, this explanation of Lev 20:18 is doubtful; like the parallel prohibition in 18:19, this law rather reflects H’s specific concern for strict boundaries to the sexual activity; on this, see below § 5.2.2.1. 178 See MILGROM, Leviticus, 767–768.1002; similarly HARRINGTON, Systems, 29.

4.2. The Priestly Composition in Leviticus 11–15

309

cation. As noted by H. Eilberg-Schwartz, the blood of circumcision does not contaminate but is on the contrary positively marked.179 Furthermore, the blood of cuts and wounds is nowehere said to be contaminating;180 besides, as noted by Whitekettle, if the issue behind the pollution beliefs attached to menstrual blood was the fear of death, one can hardly understand why the legislation omits entirely the case of more lethal woundings.181 Thus, EilbergSchwartz already emphasized that, “the contrast between menstrual blood, which is contaminating, and the blood of circumcision or sacrifice, which is positively marked, indicates that only some kinds of blood are contaminating. The prohibitions on the menstruous woman have nothing to do with an inherent quality of blood. […] Blood has different meanings depending upon how it originates and from whom it comes”.182 More generally, as was already noted by some authors, it seems particularly forced to see death symbolism attached to sexual intercourse (Lev 15:18), not to speak of birth (cf. Lev 12), since the bodily emissions in these cases (semen and the blood of birth) are closely connected to reproduction and the giving of life.183 Finally, if death were such a concern to the P editor of Lev 11–15, one does not understand why he omitted any reference to corpses as a source of pollution, an issue discussed only in the later supplements to P found in Num 5:2 and 19:11– 22.184 (Note similarly in this context the fact, already observed above, that originally in P only the carcasses of unclean animals were regarded as polluting – see Lev 5:2 –, as Milgrom himself acknowledges.) The alternative interpretation of Lev 11–15 as symbols of both death and sexuality is somewhat more acceptable and allows us to account, in particular, for the cases of sexual intercourse and birth mentioned above. The intuition that in all cultures impurities are related in one way or another to fundamental biological aspects of human life is certainly correct, as we will see below. However, this still does not mean that the impurities of Lev 11–15 can be reduced to mere symbols of such fundamental dimensions of human existence 179

EILBERG-SCHWARTZ, Savage, 179. As noted by FRYMER-KENSKY, Pollution, 401. Further MALUL, Knowledge, 382. 181 WHITEKETTLE, Levitical Thought, 377. Note that contrary to his assertion, the belief that women can menstruate to death is indeed attested in some cultures, as pointed by MALUL, Knowledge, 382 n. 10 (with further references), although it is nowhere explicit in the HB. 182 ID ., Savage, 179 (emphasis added). The case of the blood of animal sacrifice may be somewhat more complicated, since in this case blood is returned to the creator God; on this point, I incline to agree with Milgrom’s observations, see ID., Leviticus, 1003. 183 EILBERG-SCHWARTZ , Savage, 185–186; similarly MALUL, Knowledge, 382. EilbergSchwartz himself notes that these observations contradict at least partly an interpretation of pollution attached to genital emissions in terms of the reproductive function of sexual organs, such as he somehow advocates in ch. 7 of his book (see p. 182ff.). 184 Note that Milgrom also admits that both on a literary-critical and on a religious-historical plan, Num 19 must be later than Lev 12–15; see MILGROM, Studies, 85–95, esp. 95. 180

310

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

as death and sexuality. The problem is particularly patent when one considers the bodily emissions described in Lev 15. Sexuality as such plays a very minor role as a source of pollution (see 15:18); it is ascribed one of the least severe grades of impurity (one-day seclusion with ritual ablution; note that this is quite similar to Herodotus’ report in the case of Babylon);185 besides, this source of pollution is not even mentioned in the concluding summary of 15:32–33. In fact, the instruction of Lev 15 makes clear that pollution beliefs are primarily attached not to the emission of semen during intercourse, but rather to these discharges which are either abnormal (gonorrheic issues, cf. 15:2–15, 25–30) or the symptom of a provisional disfunctioning of the reproductive system, such as menstrual (15:19–24) and puerperal blood (Lev 12). The connection between genital pollution and the incapacity of the reproductive system to fulfill its procreative function had already been hinted at by Eilberg-Schwartz,186 and it has been considerably developed, as regards puerperal and menstrual discharges, in two recent studies by Whitekettle.187 Noting that “the reproductive processes which generate impurity in Levitical thought (Lev. xii and xv) are all systematically disfunctional”, Whitekettle basically argues – partly on the basis of an interesting homology between womb and wellspring common to Mesopotamian and Israelite thought, which suggests the existence of a more general homology between the primeval macrocosm and the uterine microcosm188 – that the onset of the menstrual or puerperal discharge signaled “the dissolution of the womb as a habitable reproductive environment”,189 whereas the duration of impurity, seven or forty days, corresponded to the period of the womb as a functional reproductive system, or, in terms of the cosmological homology, a “habitable reproductive environment”.190 Contrary to Whitekettle’s assertion, however, the fact that 185

Hist. 1.198. In Mesopotamia, the woman who has not washed yet after sexual intercourse is referred to as ‘musukattu’, a general term comprising “the woman in the period after she has given birth, the one who has not yet washed after sexual intercourse, and also the menstruating woman” (VAN DER TOORN, Sin, 31). 186 ID., Savage, 183–186. 187 See WHITEKETTLE, Lev. 12; ID., Levitical Thought. 188 Cf. ID., Levitical Thought, 383–389. 189 ID., Leviticial Thought, 390. 190 The Mesopotamian evidence adduced by Whitekettle for a conceptual connection between the primeval world and reproductive cycles in terms of processes of creation, decreation and recreation is convincing, but the parallel he draws between the seven days of menstrual discharge (15:19–24) and the seven days of creation (Gen 1), as well as between the forty days of puerperal discharge (Lev 12:2–4) and the forty days of Gen 7–8 during which the primeval waters are unleashed from the “wellsprings” (tny(m, Gen 7:11b), is obviously forced. Above all, the two periods of seven days in Gen 1 and forty days in Gen 7–8 are structurally and functionally not equivalent, but on the contrary completely opposite since the release of the primeval waters in Gen 7 corresponds precisely to the undoing of God’s previous separation of the waters in Gen 1:6–10. The forty-day flood in Gen 7–8 can hardly be

4.2. The Priestly Composition in Leviticus 11–15

311

sexual intercourse is also considered polluting (15:18) already demonstrates, in my opinion, that this line of intepretation cannot account for the entire system of genital impurities.191 Yet it is certainly correct that the period of impurity associated with menstrual and puerperal discharges corresponds to the transition from the womb as a non-functional reproductive system to a functional one, which confirms in turn that notions of genital pollution are primarily (although not exclusively) associated with situations in which the reproductive system is suddenly disfunctioning, and certainly not simply with sexual symbolism in general.192 Once limitations of the usual symbolic interpretation are acknowledged, a more appropriate way seems to be offered by anthropological approaches to pollution in terms of correlation between bodily control and maintenance of social order and boundaries. This was already M. Douglas’ general argument in Purity and Danger, as well as in several of her later essays. Her definition of pollution as that which falls between or violates the categories into which a society divides and classifies external reality was soon rejected as being too broad by several scholars who observed that the large majority of anomalous or disordered phenomena are not considered polluting193 and that, conversely, “not all pollutions are products of category violations”.194 However, the general approach to pollution in relation with physical and social-political boundaries has remained common among anthropologists and scholars of cross-cultural studies. As regards the pollution system of Leviticus, Douglas initially tended to deal almost exclusively with the animal classification found in Lev 11, which she attempted to interpret systematically from a political assimilated to a process of transformation of the world into a “habitable reproductive environment”, as in the case of the seven days of Gen 1:1–2:3. Yet in Whitekettle’s argument, the two functions of the period of menstrual and puerperal discharge are exactly identical. Besides, his explanation cannot account for the duration of eighty days in the case of the birth of a girl, Lev 12:5 (as Whitekettle himself must provisionally admit; see Ibid., 376 n. 2). 191 Elsewhere, Whitekettle argues that this would have to do with the fact that the penis is both the organ of fertility as well as of urination, and thus plays an ambiguous role and has an ambiguous status (see ID., Lev. 15.18, 43–44). However, this has no basis in Lev 15 itself. 192 MARX , L’impureté, 381–382, correctly identifies the problem raised by Whitekettle’s analysis for his own approach of the Levitical impurities as symbols of death and sexuality, but rejects this interpretation on the ground that in this case persons incapable of procreating, such as the eunuch, the barren woman and the woman not yet in the condition of becoming pregnant, should have been systematically considered impure. However, this objection actually misses the point; all the cases mentioned by him are not problematic because here the incapacity to procreate is completely predictable. It can therefore be easily controlled and represents no social threat; what is problematic for the priestly writers is on the contrary the sudden irruption of a biological accident which causes a temporary disfunctioning of the reproductive system and which is entirely unpredictable. On this issue, see further below. 193 See fopr instance the criticism voiced by MEIGS, Papuan Perspective, 310. 194 PARKER, Miasma, 62.

312

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

perspective.195 According to her, this classification would have served to preserve Israel’s boundaries against foreign influence, although elsewhere in her work she also observed more generally that this is only one of the many possible social functions of pollution from a comparative perspective.196 While in Purity and Danger she merely argued that physical integrity, represented by a state of purity and holiness, was a symbol of political integrity,197 in later studies she developed this insight further and, in particular, proposed relating the classification of animals into clean and unclean species in Lev 11 with Israel’s reticence of exchanges with foreigners and refusal of exogamic marriages.198 Although there is possibly a correct insight as regards the political significance of Lev 11, the connection between the animal classification and the ban on intermarriage seems forced, and it can hardly account in any event for the other pollutions of Leviticus. Douglas herself has apparently abandoned this line of interpretation in her more recent publications;199 and in her latest treatment, she even reversed her former argument, apparently holding now that the levitical laws were composed on the contrary as a polemical response to Ezra’s prohibition on foreign marriages!200 How this latter interpretation can be reconciled with her former analyses on the social and political function of the animal classification in Lev 11 remains unclear. Another, more comprehensive attempt to interpret the impurity system of P in terms of bodily control was made by Eilberg-Schwartz in his 1990 monograph, The Savage in Judaism. In a chapter devoted to discharges and fluid symbolism of the human body in the Hebrew Bible, and especially in P,201 Eilberg-Schwartz begins by identifying two basic symbolisms behind the impurities associated with bodily emissions, namely the oppositions men/women (gender symbolism) and death/life (life, or fertility symbolism).202 However, he himself notes the presence of several “anomalies” which cannot be satisfactorily accounted for by these two symbolisms and thus goes on to identify a third, which relates impurity with “uncontrollability”, or lack of control of the physical body.203 In this regard, he makes the insightful observation that the most polluting emissions in Lev 15 are those which are the least controlled 195

DOUGLAS, Purity, ch. 3; ID., Meal; ID., Self-evidence; ID., Forbidden Animals. Cf. Purity, 146–147, where she distinguishes between four kinds of social pollution, each being connected with a specific kind of threat against the system: external danger, transgression of internal lines, danger related with the margins of the system, and finally internal contradiction, or “the system at war with itself”. On these four categories, see Ibid., ch. 7–9. 197 See DOUGLAS, Purity, 65ff. 198 See in particular DOUGLAS, Self-evidence, esp. 273ff.; and already ID., Meal, 269–273. 199 Compare in particular DOUGLAS, Leviticus, ch. 7–8. 200 Cf. ID., Ezra. 201 See EILBERG-SCHWARTZ, Savage, ch. 7 (p. 177–194). 202 Savage, 185; on gender and fertility symbolism, see already ch. 6 (p. 141–176). 203 Ibid., 186ff. 196

4.2. The Priestly Composition in Leviticus 11–15

313

and the least conscious, in particular morbid discharges designated as za4b, and concludes from this that there seems to be a direct relation between “the controllability of a bodily fluid and its power to contaminate the body”. “The difference between the ejaculation of semen and the release of nonseminal fluids or menstrual blood is the difference between a controlled, conscious act and a passive, involuntary occurrence. […] Nonseminal and menstrual discharges which are less controllable than semen are also more polluting. This analysis also accounts for urine, which falls at the opposite end of the spectrum. It is a fluid over which men and women can and indeed are expected to exercise a great deal of control. The fluids which are released from the genitals thus comprise a system which expresses various degrees of human control. Urine, at the one end, being the most controllable, can never contaminate the body. Sperm which is ejaculated, and thus subject to human control on certain occasions, makes the body impure only until evening. Menstrual blood, non-menstrual blood, and non-seminal discharges are completely uncontrollable, and consequently make the body impure for seven days”.204

Eilberg-Schwartz then goes on to analyze the association between impurity and lack of control in terms of its social function. The relation between impurity and uncontrollability is a means of “cultural domination” (Foucault), inasmuch as the provisional exclusion and isolation from the cult had the effect of reinforcing the social structures existing and somehow served as a symbolic reminder of the threats and sanctions related with more serious, deliberate offenses.205 From a more functionalist perspective, he argues that the priestly system of impurity can also be connected with the way in which social status is ascribed within the priestly community. In such a community, where status is mainly defined by descent and not by personal achievement, the non-controllable character of pollution would echo the social structure, in which status is arbitrarily ascribed by birth.206 Comparison with other communities (Christians, Rabbis and Qumran adherents) suggests that the degree to which descent was rejected as a criterion for assigning social status implied a corresponding degree of disruption of the connection between contamination and lack of control.207 Eilberg-Schwartz’s analysis of the connections between uncleanness and bodily control in P represents, I believe, an important advance in the understanding of the logic behind the composition of Lev 11–15, especially as regards the observation of a direct correlation between the degree of control and the degree of uncleanness. As pointed out by Eilberg-Schwartz, “the association of menstrual blood, pollution and uncontrollability are [sic] found in 204

Ibid., 187. Ibid., 191–192. On p. 193–194, he relates the issue of bodily control with the problem of the body in a religion in which human beings are made in the “image” of God (Gen 1:27), but of a God who has virtually no body. See further on this ID., Body. 206 ID., Savage, 204. 207 See Ibid., ch. 8. The problem of exclusion in connection with impurity is also addressed in detail, from a different perspective, in the recent study by OLYAN, Rites, esp. 38ff. 205

314

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

other cultural traditions as well. In Samoa, for example, “blood is referred to as palapala (literally ‘mud’) or ’ele’ele (‘dirt’), but only when it flows uncontrolled from the body. Thus, blood flowing from a wound accidentally contracted or menstrual blood may be called ‘dirt’ in respectful address”.208 The same could be said of various other phenomena listed in Lev 12–15; for instance, in a study on the treatment of the significance of hair symbolism among Hindu and Sikh Punjabis in relation with major events such as birth and death, P. Hershman concludes that “birth and death cannot be controlled, and it is because of this that they bring with them pollution. Pollution is essentially that which cannot be controlled”.209 In an essay on models of sickness causation among the Fipa of south-west Tanzania, R.G. Willis identifies two indigenous models of causation, one which he labels the “lay” or “folk” theory, and another proper to “a small category of specialists, numbering perhaps 500, who are called asiaanga […], or ‘doctors’”. The latter (“scientific”) model is characterized by an elaborate bodily symbolism, in which the body functions as a kind of cosmological map; this symbolism governs a classification of bodily disorders, in which the worst form of sickness and pollution is an apparently purely theoretical construct, called incila, “which is held to result from a combination of a sufferer’s lack of conscious control over his intimate social relations with the idea of uncontrolled sexuality. This entirely notional category of pollution, as it appears to be, is explained as a necessary theoretical consequence of the Fipa cosmological system, in which intellect is properly in a relation of dominance and control over the forces of the lower body”.210 In consequence, the Fipa attach the highest symbolic value to the controlled use of sex, which they regard as “analogous to the social transformation of nature”, and especially to ritual masturbation.211 Consciously controlled sex is even attributed the power to cleanse a form of pollution called amaƒo, which “affects the survivor of a marriage on the death of his or her conjugal partner. […] Amaƒo can, however, be removed by an act of ritual copulation”.212 Yet as concerns the impurity system of P, Eilberg-Schwartz’s approach in terms of control factor is probably still too simple to account satisfactorily for all the aspects of this system. Thus, as noted by M. Malul in a recent monograph, one does not understand in this model why the non-voluntary emission of semen during night (15:16–17) pollutes exactly as much as emission of semen in the context of sexual intercourse. Malul also observes that there are other bodily emissions, not related to sexual organs, such as sweat, vomit, 208

Ibid., 187; the quotation is from SHORE, Sexuality, 198 (emphasis original). HERSHMAN, Hair, Sex and Dirt, 290 (emphasis added). 210 WILLIS, Pollution, 377. 211 See Ibid., 375–376. 212 Ibid., 376. 209

4.2. The Priestly Composition in Leviticus 11–15

315

pus, which are not regarded as polluting although they are generally not controllable.213 He himself argues for a revised notion of the control factor, implying the dimension of “epistemic control”. According to him, only the emissions flowing from an unknown source, and which are thus “epistemically uncontrolled”, would generate uncleanness.214 However, although the notion of control cannot be separated, in numerous respects, from that of knowledge,215 this solution also raises important difficulties. While one can possibly accept Malul’s view that bodily secretions such as saliva, mucus, ear wax, tears, sweat, and breast milk “come out from various parts of the body that could hardly be viewed as hidden, let alone mysterious, in the same sense as a woman’s insides”,216 this seems more difficult to accept for secretions such as pus and vomit, which Malul does not address in this context.217 Besides, even in the Hebrew Bible the delineation between the polluting nature of secretions originating in the reproductive organs and other secretions is not so rigid since other literate circles in Judah such as D and Ezekiel considered feces as unclean (cf. Deut 23:13–14 and Ez 4:12ff.).218 Finally, Malul’s opposition between the mysterious aura surrounding the uterus and the circumcised penis which, once rid of its foreskin, would be under epistemic control, fails to account for the fact that emissions of semen, whether voluntary or involuntary, are nevertheless polluting (although only mildly), as he must admit.219 Above all, on a more methodological level, the theories of Malul and Eilberg-Schwartz are biased by their common tendency to dissociate the case of non-pathological emissions from genital organs (semen, menstrual and puerperal discharges) from that of gonorrheic discharges and other forms of impurity in P, and to develop the control theory only on the basis of the former. In Eilberg-Schwartz’s model, this is justified by the attribution of gonorrheic discharges and other types of pollutions such as skin disease to the death-life symbolism, and not to the control symbolism, and the same option is implicitly followed by Malul.220 However, even though one may accept the idea of 213

See MALUL, Knowledge, 387. ID., Knowledge, 388ff. Malul also specifies that his model modifies Douglas’ conception of impurity as that which transgresses boundaries. “[…] In the case of the contaminating discharges under study here, they do not transgress some borders of the social structure, symbolized by the human (female) body; they emanate from a physical place that is already considered to be symbolically marginal and ‘out of place’” (388–389). 215 This is especially evident in the case, discussed just above, of pollution beliefs among the Fipa of south-west Tanzania. 216 ID., Knowledge, 389. 217 Note that he mentions these two types of secretion in his criticism of Eilberg-Schwartz’s model, on p. 387, but no longer in the remainder of his analysis. 218 This observation also suggests that Eilberg-Schwartz’s interpretation of urine as a most controllable bodily feature quoted above should probably be relativized. 219 See ID., Knowledge, 389–390. 220 See Savage, 184; and MALUL, Knowledge, 385 n. 24, referring to Eilberg-Schwartz. 214

316

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

the superposition of these two symbolisms in Lev 11–15 (gender symbolism does not appear to play a major role, except for the duration of impurity in the case of the birth of a girl, see 12:5),221 the division of the texts and their assignment to one symbolic level or the other is clearly artificial and problematic in view of the coherence of the legislation of Lev 15. What we need, instead, is a model capable of accounting for this coherence and, beyond, for the Priestly system of pollution reflected in Lev 11–15. Besides, the dissociation of menstrual from gonorrheic discharges seems all the more arbitrary because both Eilberg-Schwartz and Malul acknowledge that menstrual blood, like gonorrheic discharges, is an instance of death-life symbolism in addition to control symbolism. This means that one form of pollution is not necessarily limited to one symbolism. If so, there is no reason why, from a methodological perspective, one should not inquire about the significance of gonorrheic discharges (and other forms of severe pollution) in terms of the control factor, instead of reserving the latter for non-pathological discharges. Once the arbitrariness of these delineations is acknowledged, the problems raised by the version of the control theory advocated by Eilberg-Schwartz and Malul become all the more obvious. In particular, if the degree of pollution of bodily emissions is directly correlated with the degree of lack of bodily control which these emissions exemplify, one does not understand why gonorrheic discharges are ascribed a higher degree of impurity than menstruation (contrary to the latter, the former require the offering of a sacrifice at the end of the period of impurity, see 15:14–15, 29–30), since both cases are instances of a complete lack of bodily control.222 Actually, it is obvious that the difference has to do with the fact that contrary to gonorrheic discharges, menstrual discharges are a cyclical feature, and can therefore be predicted. This element finds no place in the control theories elaborated by Eilberg-Schwartz and Malul. Malul’s theory of “epistemic control” appears to be especially problematic when it is noted that, for abnormal discharges from the male or female organ, the degree of pollution assigned has manifestly nothing to do with knowledge of its source. Otherwise, a male discharge should not be regarded as being more polluting than the involuntary or voluntary emission of semen, and a female discharge should be ascribed a much greater impurity than a male discharge. Instead, both are assigned exactly the same degree of impuri221

Malul’s version of the gender symbolism is essentially based on the contrasting of pollution in case of emission of semen (for the male) and menstrual blood (for the female); see ID., Knowledge, 390–394. However, these are two distinct phenomena; for the author of Lev 15, menstruation is not the functional equivalent of semen emission for man, but a case of discharge (cf. Md hbz, 15:19), which therefore parallels male discharges in 15:2ff. (see also on this the structure of Lev 15, above, § 4.1.1., p. 282). 222 MALUL, Knowledge, 391–394, attempts to come to terms with the distinction between gonorrheic and menstrual discharges, but his explanation is hardly convincing and does not account for the higher degree of impurity attached to gonorrheic discharges.

4.2. The Priestly Composition in Leviticus 11–15

317

ty in Lev 15. Furthermore, as observed above, a male gonorrheic discharge is considered more polluting than a woman’s menstrual discharge because, contrary to the latter, it cannot be predicted. Finally, one last issue for the two theories is raised by the fact that they are practically based exclusively on the case of bodily emissions, that is, the legislation of Lev 12 and 15; it is not clear how these theories relate to instances of affections of the skin, of fabrics or of houses as listed in Lev 13–14.223 These affections can also be interpreted as exemplifying lack of control, but the case of the disease of fabrics and houses shows that the horizon is no longer simply the issue of Ego’s control over his or her own body, as in Lev 15, and that this model is too restrictive to account for the other forms of pollution addressed in ch. 12–15.224 One may also recall, in this context, that authors such as A.S. Meigs have emphasized the fact that what is perceived as polluting is not so much the emission in itself as the fact that it threatens to gain access to the body of another person.225 A more comprehensive interpretation of the impurities of Leviticus 12–15 should start from the observation that they are all natural phenomena whose occurrence represents the intrusion of an anomaly in the social or cultural order. L. Dumont, in his classical essay on the caste system in India, had already proposed defining pollution as “the irruption of the biological into social life” (“l’irruption du biologique dans la vie sociale”).226 Whereas culture corresponds to the attempt by man to impose a certain order on the world, the intrusion of uncontrolled, chaotic, non-domesticated natural elements into the social sphere constitutes on the contrary a permanent threat for all societies. Of course, not all natural phenomena need to be considered impure and polluting, but only those representing major biological intrusions into the social order; this typically involves significant biological events such as birth, death, 223

Here again, Eilberg-Schwartz, followed by Malul, would relate this to the distinct level of death-life symbolism; see Savage, 184. 224 Another proposal for interpreting the impurity system of P in terms of bodily control has been recently argued by BERQUIST, Corporeality, 40–43. He develops an interpretation of bodily pollution in terms of maintenance of cultural and social boundaries very much in the line of Douglas and others, but goes on to suggest that the specific concern for genital emissions and sexuality should be connected with their role in the reproduction of society, on one hand, and with the fact that sexual emissions are generally hidden from the rest of the society on the other. This latter observation is interesting, but it would only apply to the case of semen emission in the context of sexual intercourse (15:18) and has little relation with the majority of cases discussed in Lev 15. As observed above, Lev 15 is not essentially concerned with sexual emissions, as Berquist wrongly assumes after many others, but rather with cases in which such emissions correspond to a disfunctioning of the reproductive system. 225 MEIGS, Papuan perspective; and see her classical definition of pollution on p. 313 as “(1) substances which are perceived as decaying, carriers of such substances and symbols of them; (2) in those contexts in which the substances, their carriers, or symbols are threatening to gain access to the body; (3) where that access is not desired”. 226 DUMONT, Homo hierarchicus, 85; and more generally, p. 69–85.

318

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

sexuality, and certain types of eminent diseases. In addition to India, this line of interpretation has already been argued for ancient Greece in a noteworthy study by R. Parker (1983).227 In particular, Parker observes that, as in most traditional societies, this explanation accounts for the pollution beliefs associated with central transitions in social life such as birth and death. While any such transition requires social accommodation in the form of rites of passage, as was already demonstrated by A. Van Gennep, only some of these transitions are associated with pollution beliefs. The difference in this regard between marriage, for instance, and birth and death has manifestly to do with the fact that the former is a social constraint upon the body whereas the latter are natural processes on which society has no control, although they do have decisive implications for the social structure itself. “It is not enough to say that marriage is too joyful an occasion to be polluting, because birth is joyful too. The real difference seems too be that, while marriage is a controlled event, birth and death intrude on human life at their own pleasure. They are an irresistible ‘irruption of the biological into social life’. Although they are natural events, they are also violations of order; the dead or dying man and the parturient woman have lost control of their own bodies, and the social group must stand back powerless while crucial changes are worked upon it. The accompanying rites of passage can be seen as reassertions of control; the baby, thrust rudely into the world by nature, still requires social acceptance, and the shade will not be able to reach the world of the dead unless the due rites are performed. […] Marriage, by contrast, is not an intrusion that requires sealing off, but is itself a harness set upon the rebellious body”.228

As observed by Parker, this approach connecting the impurity of some natural phenomena with their character of major transitional events also allows us to reinterpret Douglas’ initial insight into the relation between purity and transgressions of a society’s categories. “But in the case of the rites of passage, the theory has an obvious plausibility. Persons in the transitional condition are by definition between statuses, and it is not hard to see the corpse and the new baby as situated at the interstices between two worlds. The corpse, in particular, is anomalous both socially (no longer in human society, not yet among the dead) and physically (all the outwards marks of a living person, but lifeless)”.229 Such an approach relating pollution to the intrusion of major biological events in the social sphere accounts well for the logic determining the Priestly system of impurity in Lev 11–15, especially in ch. 12–15, and allows for a more comprehensive view of the control factor. The three most severe cases of uncleanness, birth (Lev 12), skin disease (Lev 13), and morbid genital discharges (15:2–15, 25–30), all represent major cases of disruption of the social 227

Miasma, esp. 59–66. Unfortunately, this important discussion on purity and impurity in ancient Greece has seldom been taken into consideration by biblical scholars so far. 228 PARKER, Miasma, 63. 229 Ibid., 62.

4.2. The Priestly Composition in Leviticus 11–15

319

and cultural order by natural events, on which neither the individual nor the community have any control. The association of a high degree of impurity justifies the isolation of the person from the rest of the society, and can therefore be regarded as a means of preserving the social order against the intrusion of biological, anti-social (and hence “chaotic”) forces. (a) In the case of woman after parturition, the situation corresponds to the one described above by Parker for ancient Greece (note that in Mesopotamia too, for instance, birth was followed by a period of impurity and seclusion for the mother).230 Here also, the impurity of the new mother is closely related to rites of re-aggregation into the society, since the first period of impurity, which is apparently also the period of greater uncleanness, corresponds precisely to the time span (seven days) between the child’s birth and the day of his circumcision, in the case of a boy (12:2–3).231 For a girl, this period is simply doubled (fourteen days, cf. 12:5), probably so as to account for the absence of an equivalent rite of passage.232 The following period of thirtythree days (sixty-six in the case of a girl) is defined for the mother as “the days of her purification” (hrh+ ymy), that is, the days during which her blood is purified,233 and thus corresponds to the period of recovery of her “normal” (that is, usual) reproductive functions.234 (b) In the case of gonorrheic discharges, the systematic enumeration of the main occasions on which a person may come into contact with the man or woman suffering from gonorrheic discharge (see 15:4–12, 26–27) emphasizes the degree of communicability of his or her impurity, either by direct or indirect contact, and implies de facto that the za4b or the za4ba= are quarantined from the rest of society.235 As argued above, the most likely reason for associating 230

See for instance VAN DER TOORN, Sin, 31, with further references. Note that a similar ritual is found in a Hittite text, where a sacrifice is offered on the seventh day after the child’s birth; for this reference, see MILGROM, Leviticus, 764. 232 This would explain the traditional crux raised by the fact that the duration of impurity is systematically doubled for a girl. To be sure, the association of a greater impurity in the case of a girl’s birth is found in several other cultures (examples in MILGROM, Leviticus, 750), probably because of the uncleanness associated with the menstrual cycle. In antiquity, this could also have been related to the scientific opinion that the formation of the embryo took a longer time for a girl than for a boy (cf. Aristotle, Hist. Anim. 7.3; Hippocrates, De natura pueri, ch. 7, both quoted by MILGROM, 751). Yet all this does not explain the fact that the duration of uncleanness is specifically doubled for a girl. Therefore, it may legitimately be surmised that it is to compensate for the absence of the rite of circumcision. 233 As noted by ELLIGER , Leviticus, 158 n. 3, hrh+ in the expression hrh+ ymd must be understood as referring to the purification process, as in Neh 12:45; 1 Chr 23:28; 2 Chr 30:19. 234 See especially WHITEKETTLE, Lev 12. Note that the same forty day period of purification is found among several other cultures; in Greece, the parturient was also prohibited from entering a temple during forty days, as in Lev 12:4b (MILGROM, Leviticus, 750). 235 On the communicability of uncleanness in the case of the za4b or the za4ba=, see in particular the detailed description by WRIGHT, Disposal, 181–189. 231

320

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

gonorrheic discharges with uncleanness is that it betrays a disfunctioning of sexual organs, as in the case of menstrual discharges. Here also, therefore, declaring such things unclean is a means of protecting society against the irruption of a sudden biological phenomenon – the emission of a gonorrheic discharge, za4b – implying a sudden and temporary disfunctioning of the reproductive system and thus threatening not only the social order, but also the perpetuation of life on which society is based. (c) As regards skin disease of the t(rc kind, lastly, the expulsion of the (rcm from the camp in P (13:45–46) explicitly signals the fact that this extreme form of physical affection is not compatible with the preservation of social order, but belongs to the world outside the boundaries of society, in the realm of chaos. It is of interest to note in this context that in a later priestly legislation, Num 5:1–4, the man or woman suffering from gonorrheic discharge and the person who has been rendered impure by contact with a corpse are included with the (rcm among those who must be expelled from the camp. This identification of skin disease with chaos vs order is further enhanced by the death symbolism impregnating the representation of the (rcm in 13:45–46 and elsewhere (see Num 12:12). In this regard, the line of interpretation pursued here allows for a revision of the conception of the impurities of Lev 11–15 in terms of symbols of death. It would be more exact to say that all these impurities are considered as part of the world of chaos and antistructure. In the case of these biological phenomena regarded as most uncontrollable and therefore most threatening for the social order, such as skin disease of the t(rc kind, this association can even be stated in the language of death and mourning, as in Lev 13:45–46 and Num 12:12. That birth, gonorrheic discharges and skin disease are defined as the most severe forms of impurity because they represent major biological threats against the social order is also implied by the fact that in all these cases, the period of impurity is concluded by the offering of a sacrifice (cf. Lev 12:6–7a; 14:1–20 [21–32]; 15:14–15, 29–30), whose function is obviously to restore the original order which has been disrupted. The fact that it is not the case for menstrual discharges (cf. 15:19–24), even though this form of uncleanness exemplifies the same degree of pollution as gonorrheic discharges, was explained above with the observation that this form of uncleanness is a recurrent, cyclical phenomenon. By contrast, the formulation of the legislation on female emissions in the second half of ch. 15 makes it clear that blood discharges outside usual menstrual periods constitute a distinct, more severe case of impurity, which is assimilated to male gonorrheic discharges and also requiring the offering of a sacrifice once the uncleanness has come to an end (see 15:25–30). This difference confirms that the degree of pollution is primarily correlated with perception of the intrusive character of biological disorder. Menstrual discharges, being cyclical and therefore predictable, repre-

4.2. The Priestly Composition in Leviticus 11–15

321

sent a lesser danger for the social order. The control factor correctly identified by Eilberg-Schwartz and Malul in the case of non-pathological emissions is actually only an aspect of the more general system of pollution in Lev 12–15. The issue, ultimately, is not simply individual control over one’s body but, more generally, the community’s control over individual bodies. As regards the remaining forms of impurity discussed in Lev 12–15, they also fit easily into this scheme. Nocturnal, involuntary emissions of semen are also biological intrusions into the social sphere involving a lack of bodily control. Note, significantly, that in 1 Samuel 20:26, this type of minor pollution, causing seclusion for a period of one day only, is specifically designated as hrqm, “accident”. But since they do not correspond to a serious disorder of the reproductive system, implying its temporary disfunction, they are not perceived as a major threat to social order and are therefore ascribed a minor degree of impurity in the pollution system of which Lev 15 is a part (one day uncleanness with ritual ablution, cf. 15:16–17). Concerning sexual intercourse (15:18), for which the same degree of uncleanness is considered, it was already noted above that it is not explained adequately by a mere analysis in terms of control over one’s own body.236 Following the analysis pursued here, a better explanation is that sexuality is a major biological event over which society does not have complete control since it is associated with the intimacy of the private, domestic sphere.237 The instructions for t(rc of fabrics (Lev 13:47–59) and houses (14:33– 53) similarly match this overall scheme. Although they do not concern major biological events such as birth, illness or sexuality, they also represent examples of the “intrusion of the biological into social life”, against which society must protect itself. Fabrics and houses are not only artifacts, i.e., works of culture, they are also eminent symbols of a civilized, sedentary life (for fabrics, see, e.g., Gen 3:21!); hence the ominous character of sudden physical alterations of these objects, such as those described in Lev 13–14. The same view applies, finally, to the instruction dealing with contact with carcasses of impure animals in the second half of Lev 11 (11:24–38). Carcasses are a parade example of the intrusion of the biological, and the instruction for the various cases in which the carcass of a Cr# of the land may come in contact with vessels or other domestic belongings (11:32–38) is a vivid illustration of the threat raised by the ever-present possibility of the sudden irruption of the organic into the domestic sphere, symbolizing here the world of order and structure.238 Thus, the inclusion by P of this instruction at this place is entirely 236 As admitted by EILBERG-SCHWARTZ, Savage, 204: sexual intercourse is “the only source of impurity in the priestly system whose occurrence was the result of human intention”. 237 Here, Berquist’s insight discussed above (note 224) on the relation between pollution and the hidden nature of sexuality (ID., Corporeality, esp. 41) can be positively assessed. 238 For this analysis, see in particular CARROLL, Leviticus, 121.

322

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

consistent with the overall view of impurity in Lev 12–15, and builds a fine transition between the original instruction on inedible animals in the first part of ch. 11 on one hand and the collection on bodily impurities on the other. In P, as in P’s sources already, neither clean animals nor even corpses were apparently regarded as polluting. The omission of corpses may seem surprising at first sight since in many other cultures death is a major source of pollution, but it is consistent with what the available sources suggest for the other ancient Near Eastern cultures where a specific concern for corpses as a source of pollution is also missing.239 Similarly, in earlier biblical sources, there is hardly any reference to the fear of corpse pollution and the same disposition still prevails in P’s description of the burial of the Patriarchs in the family cave in Hebron (see Gen 25:9–10; 35:27–29; 50:13), which probably corresponds to the traditional practice. Even in H and in Ez 40–48 (see Lev 21:1b– 4, 10–12; Ez 44:25), the issue of corpse pollution is addressed only in the case of priests because of their superior sanctity. It is only in still later traditions, especially in Num 5:2–4 and 19:11–22, that death is defined for the first time as a major source of pollution for all the community. To assess the reasons for this development is difficult, but it might reflect the growing condemnation of the cult of the dead in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods.240 Such condemnation necessarily had the effect of severing the traditional community between living and dead (compare Isa 8:19!), which would in turn probably enhance the perception of corpses as a major source of pollution. Thus, an approach to pollution in terms of control imposed on biological, organic phenomena perceived as threatening the organization of the world instituted by human societies appears to account for virtually all aspects of the impurity system found in Lev 12–15 as well as in the second part of Lev 11. This conception of pollution already informed the collection on impurities (Lev 12–15) edited by P, which comprised the major traditional sources of impurity: skin disease and genital discharges (cf. 2 Sam 3:29), to which birth 239

On Ugarit, see for instance CAZELLES, Pureté, 472–473; for Mesopotamia, see, e.g., Sin, 37, who comments: “The Mesopotamian texts hardly refer to the defilement incurred by the contact with a human corpse. The ideal of a swift and proper burial of the dead is apparently owing more to a concern for the welfare of the ghosts (et[emmu4) of the deceased than to a fear of contamination”. 240 On the cult of the dead, which has been the subject of some studies recently, see, e.g., LEWIS, Cults; and BLOCH-SMITH, Burial Practices, esp. ch. 3; on the consultation of deceased ancestors in Israel and ANE, cf. in particular the fine study by TROPPER, Nekromantie, and for the biblical record especially Isa 8:19. This condemnation appears to have originated in Deuteronomistic circles primarily (for the prohibition on feeding the deceased, see Deut 14:1; 26:14!; for the condemnation of necromancy, see Deut 18:11; and, further, 1 Sam 28:3–25; 2 Kgs 21:6; 23:24). Priestly circles, which were globally more tolerant towards “popular” practices and beliefs, probably did not share originally this critique. The Deuteronomistic ban on the cult of the dead and on necromancy is taken up for the first time in H (see Lev 19:28 for the former and 19:31; 20:6, 27 for the latter). VAN DER TOORN,

4.2. The Priestly Composition in Leviticus 11–15

323

was also added. With P’s edition of this collection, however, it takes on a further dimension by being reinterpreted and re-defined as a revelation made to Moses and Aaron at Mt Sinai in the mythical past of Israel’s foundation, to be communicated to all Israel. This development is quite consistent with the systematic construction in P of Israel as a “priestly” nation among the nations of the world, which is now taken one step further with the composition of Lev 11–15 by P. Except possibly in Lev 13–14, where the systematic omission of the instruction to Moses and Aaron to teach this to=ra= to the Israelites (compare 11:2a; 12:2aa; 15:2a) could imply that it is primarily, if not exclusively, a priestly competence (probably because skin disease had an ominous character and was traditionally considered a divine sanction, as is also shown by the importance of the M#) offering in 14:10–20), the preservation of the social order from the intrusion of organic, socially uncontrolled and therefore chaotic forces has become the responsibility of the entire community. Yahweh’s establishment in his sanctuary in Ex 40 and the inauguration of a new cosmic order through the institution of the sacrificial cult in Lev 9 have further implications for the social organization and everyday life of the community living in the immediate proximity of the sanctuary. After Lev 1–9, therefore, the focus has logically shifted from the sanctuary and the offering of sacrifices to the wider issue of the community’s integrity. In this regard, the law on impurities stresses the fact that the boundaries defining this cosmic order are continuously threatened by the intrusion of organic, anomic and therefore chaotic, anti-social forces and that Israel, as the “priestly nation” of the world and the community responsible for Yahweh’s sanctuary, the very symbol of order, is logically called to be a model of social control over such forces. This point is made clear, in particular, in one of P’s main additions, the ritual for the reinstatement of the former (rcm in Lev 14. Both the exclusion of the (rcm from the camp (13:45–46) and his re-aggregation in several successive stages (14:2–20) exemplify the separation between the camp, in which uncleanness must be continuously controlled, and the outside world; most severe forms of uncleanness which cannot be controlled are to be expelled from the camp. In addition, as suggested above, the deliberate analogy with the ceremony recounting the consecration of Aaron and his sons in Lev 1–9, of which the ritual of Lev 14 somehow represents the equivalent in the second part of the book, parallels the division between the camp and the world outside, on one hand, as well as between the sanctuary and the community on the other. This device conveys a specific meaning: it suggests that although the two boundaries (sanctuary/camp and camp/outside world) are not simply equivalent, the community’s responsibility in keeping the latter is nevertheless analogue to that of the priests as regards the sanctuary. It now remains to be seen how the first part of Lev 11 fits into this picture, and why P set it as the introduction to the whole legislation of Lev 11–15.

324

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

4.2.3. Leviticus 11: Purity as Conformity to Creational Order, Or the Construction of A Judean Ethos In order to address this issue, we need first to examine briefly the nature and origin of the document used by P so as to understand the meaning of its inclusion in Leviticus. The source-critical analysis of Lev 11 (above, § 4.1.2.) has indicated that it consisted of a classification of the entire animal kingdom; this system is primarily based on a division into three separate realms (land, water, air), though a further distinction is made between Pw( , “birds”, and Pw(h Cr#, winged swarmers (cf. also Deut 14:11–20; in Lev 11, a similar distinction was introduced by the Priestly writer in the case of land and marine creatures).241 Each category of animals is systematically divided into clean and unclean creatures on the basis of strictly morphological criteria (except in the case of winged creatures, for which there are no criteria but a mere list of unclean species, possibly consisting of only eight bird originally). Unclean species are those that do not match the given criteria, thus corroborating M. Douglas’ general view that pollution theories are always somehow classification systems, serving to organize and articulate conceptually the complexity of reality. But what are the rationales of this classification, and what was its ultimate purpose or function? This question, as is well-known, was already a major crux in antiquity. Traditional explanations include aesthetic, hygienic, ethical, or moral-symbolic theories (most of which are already found in the Letter of Aristeas or in Philo).242 Among modern commentators, besides the hygienic theory, it has long been presumed that prohibited animals were in some way incompatible with the Yahwistic cult, either because they were deemed demonic or, on the contrary, totemic attributes, or because of their importance in non-Israelite, “pagan” cults.243 An offspring of this latter line of interpretation consists in the idea (first advocated by W. Kornfeld) that the unclean animals of Lev 11 are associated with the sphere of death, which is incompatible with Yahweh.244 All these theories have been shown to be unable to account for the logic behind the classification of Lev 11, and there is 241 See Lev 11:29ff. (Cr)h Cr#) and 11:10 (Mymh Cr#), and on this plus typically introduced by P in his Vorlage (compare Deut 14), above § 4.1.2., page 285. For the notion of a threefold division (land, water, air) as the basis for the cosmology underlying Lev 11 // Deut 14, see also, e.g., WHITEKETTLE, All Creatures, 165ff.; pace HOUSTON, Purity, 34–35, speaking of a fourfold division that would correspond to “the four levels of a stratified universe set out in Deut. 4.17–18”. Yet the context of Deut 4 is somewhat different and, besides, the distinction made there is between quadrupeds and land swarmers (Cr)h Cr#), not between birds and winged swarmers as in Lev 11 // Deut 14. 242 See Aristeas, §§ 128–171. On this, see also the study by BERTHELOT, Interprétation, stressing the Pythagorician influence in the allegoric reading of the dietary laws in Aristeas. 243 See for instance BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 356; DÖLLER, Speisegesetze; NOTH, Leviticus, 92; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 150; ANDRÉ, art. t[a4me4), 331. 244 See KORNFELD, Tiere; ID., Leviticus, 44.

4.2. The Priestly Composition in Leviticus 11–15

325

no need to demonstrate this once more in this study.245 Instead, more recent analyses have usually followed Douglas’ approach to this classification as a “symbolic system” with its own, internal coherence.246 Yet study of the larger underlying principles has not led to any real consensus and is still intensely disputed.247 In Purity and Danger, Douglas basically argued that a coherent principle of cleanness underlay the classification of Lev 11, according to which each animal species should conform to the class to which it belongs.248 The criteria for each class are defined by the mode of locomotion corresponding to the sphere inside which it lives (land, water or air), according to the threefold division already found in the creation account of Gen 1. “In the firmament twolegged fowls fly with wings. In the water scaly fish swim with fins. On the earth four-legged animals hop, jump or walk. Any class of creatures which is not equipped for the right kind of locomotion in its element is contrary to holiness”.249 Although this interpretation quickly became quite popular and was often adopted by exegetes,250 its problems were already pointed out by M.P. Carroll in a 1978 essay. Carroll correctly observed that most of the criteria – such as chewing the cud for quadrupeds or having scales in the case of 245

See esp. HOUSTON, Purity, 69–78; as well as BRYAN, Kosher Mentality, 144–154. One exception is found in the “materialistic theories”, some of which are explicitly designed against the kind of symbolic interpretation argued by Douglas; see esp. HARRIS, Good to Eat; ID., Cultural Materialism, and for a detailed criticism, HOUSTON, Purity, 83–93. 247 For a survey of the main existing theories on the first part of Lev 11, see also now the research article by MOSKALA, Categorization, who addresses this issue in detail. 248 See Purity, esp. 69–71. This idea is resumed in many of her later essays on the subject. 249 Ibid., 70. In some later essays, such as “Deciphering a Meal” and “Self-evidence”, Douglas retained this interpretation of Lev 11 as a coherent dietary system but made a greater attempt to relate this classification with “the context of social relations in which the categories had meaning”, in response to a corresponding criticism by R. Bulmer and S.J. Tambiah. See DOUGLAS, Meal, 261; and BULMER, Cassowary; TAMBIAH, Good to Think. She basically argues that the classification develops a series of successive boundaries, separating clean quadrupeds from unclean ones, and further clean quadrupeds fit for being offered on the altar from clean but non-sacrificial quadrupeds. This scheme of successive boundaries is analogous, according to Douglas, to those defined in the Pentateuch, separating Israel from the surrounding nations, and delineating, within Israel itself, a specific class of cultic servants fit for approaching the altar. Ultimately, the analogy would have its roots in a spatial icon, the temple, which stands itself at the very center of several concentric boundaries and materializes the divisions between holiest, holy, and profane. In terms of social relevance, the main thrust of such a classification would lie in the valuation of the integrity of both territorial and ethnic boundaries (in particular as regards prohibition of exogamy). See on all this DOUGLAS, Meal, esp. 261–273; further ID., Self-evidence, 273ff., where she mainly develops the issue of the social relevance of the classification. 250 See, e.g., the articles by SOLER, Sémiotique de la nourriture; ID., Règles alimentaires. More recently, see for example MARX, L’impureté, 366–371. 246

326

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

the fish – actually appeared to have nothing to do with the mode of locomotion.251 In the case of land animals, it could possibly account for the mention of hoofs, but not for the reason that hoofs have to be cloven.252 Douglas’ understanding of Cr# as a form of propulsion crossing the boundaries between the three spheres (land, water and air), yelding it automatically unclean for this reason, is based on a faulty exegesis of the text. In Lev 11:10 all marine creatures, including clean as well as unclean ones, are defined as Cr# of the water;253 similarly, in 11:20–23, Pw(h Cr# includes all flying insects, clean and unclean.254 Finally, in the case of birds, for which no criteria are given, Douglas’ difficulties are no less obvious. Though she initially suggested that unclean birds could all be of the diving or swimming type (and therefore hybrid between water and air),255 she rapidly rejected this solution to revert to the traditional rabbinic view that these are either birds of prey or carrion eaters.256 Yet if so, the reason why an entirely different rationale would suddenly apply for this part of the classification remains obscure. The only passages where Douglas’ explanation is clearly relevant concern the locusts in Lev 11:20–23, and possibly also the Cr# of the land in 11:29ff. Yet these two passages are missing in the parallel text of Deut 14 and are most likely additions by P (as argued above, § 4.1.2.). This suggests that all of Douglas’ theory is not simply false but is actually based on a rationalization that is not original to this classification.257

251 See C ARROLL, Leviticus, esp. 118–120. Further, for the same criticism (although apparently without awareness of Carroll’s article), see FIRMAGE, Dietary Laws, 179–180. For a detailed discussion of Douglas, see also now HOUSTON, Purity, 93–114. 252 FIRMAGE, Dietary Laws, 180; further MILGROM, Leviticus, 726–727. As already noted by C ARROLL (Leviticus, 119–120; see further MILGROM, Leviticus, 726; HOUSTON, Purity, 50), Douglas’ related argument regarding quadrupeds having flat feet (that is, paws) rests on a faulty translation of Pk by “hand” in Lev 11:27 (above, page 294 note 120). The distinction here is merely between quadrupeds with hooves and quadrupeds without. 253 As also observed by FIRMAGE, Dietary Laws, 180–181; HOUSTON, Purity, 104–105. In Gen 1 and 9, the verb Cr# is even used for the spreading of humans on earth, which also confirms that it refers to a type of motion which is not systematically associated with uncleanness, contrary to what Douglas affirms. 254 HOUSTON, Purity, 105. 255 DOUGLAS , Purity, 71. Not only is this suggestion clearly erroneous, but as finely observed by Firmage, it does not even fit with Douglas’ own scheme (cf. ID., Dietary Laws, 179):“[…] Birds that dive and swim still fly, and it is their wings which are their principal means of locomotion. There is nothing about their wings that is at all anomalous”. 256 See m. H9ul 3:6; and DOUGLAS, Meal, 269–270. For further rabbinic references on this point, see MILGROM, Leviticus, 661–662. 257 Pace also BRYAN , Kosher Mentality, 165–166, who seeks to rehabilitate in part this criterion without addressing seriously the source-critical problem in Lev 11. Other shortcomings in Douglas’ analysis have occasionally been mentioned, which need not be reviewed here in detail. See the convenient survey in HOUSTON, Purity, 111–114.

4.2. The Priestly Composition in Leviticus 11–15

327

In a later series of studies Douglas herself abandoned this approach to Lev 11, acknowledging in particular that it could not account for all the criteria mentioned.258 Since the 1990’s, Douglas has consistently favored instead a primarily symbolic and ethical interpretation that is reminiscent, in several regards, of the sort of allegorical exegesis initially developed by the Letter of Aristeas or by Philo. Though the interpretation she offers may considerably vary from one study to the other, she systematically seeks to understand the prohibition of species in terms of respect for animal life, a view that is clearly influenced by Milgrom’s initial proposal.259 In a 1993 article, she thus suggested that unclean animals are either carnivorous or “blemished” in a general sense in that they do not correspond to the creational norms of their habitat. Whereas carnivorous animals exemplify predators, blemished ones correspond to “the sufferers from injustice”, and their being labelled unclean highlights their need for protection.260 Together, the two categories of unclean animals teach that “holiness is incompatible with predatory behaviour”.261 In her recent monograph on Leviticus (1999), she likewise tends to treat the criteria as mainly symbolic, at least for some categories of animals. E.g., fish without scales and fins are defined as unclean, because “scaly covering is a protective armour, fins guide locomotion, being without them is a disadvantage”; as such, the lack of fins and scales “assimilates the whole species into the class of foetus and young”.262 “Swarming” creatures are now defined as symbols of “fruitfulness in animal creation”, and must not be eaten for this reason; hence their designation in Leviticus (but not in Deuteronomy) as “abominable” beings to eat.263 In the case of land animals, the division into clean and unclean animals is primarily understood as a way of observing God’s covenant with man;264 but it also serves to preserve the life of the species defined as unclean.265 258

See already DOUGLAS, Forbidden Animals, 17. See MILGROM, Ethics, and on this above, § 4.2.1., page 304. 260 DOUGLAS, Forbidden Animals, esp. 17–23. 261 Ibid., 22. 262 DOUGLAS, Leviticus, 168–169. For this idea, cf. previously ID., Forbidden Animals, 22. 263 DOUGLAS, Leviticus, ch. 8. 264 See Leviticus, ch. 7; and similarly now DOUGLAS, Land Animals. As regards land animals, the distinction between clean and unclean species corresponds to that between animals “under the covenant”, i.e., animals placed under man’s dominion by God’s covenant in Gen 9 (mainly domesticated), and other animals. Moreover, for Douglas, Lev 17 requires that the only land animals which may be eaten are therefore domesticated quadrupeds that can be sacrificed on the altar; hence, killing and eating animals may not occur without God’s “permission”, and every opportunity to eat meat becomes simultaneously an opportunity to manifest Israel’s loyalty towards his God. “The table, and all who eat at it, and everything that has been cooked for them to eat, are under the same law of holiness” (ID., Leviticus, 138). 265 Note such assertions as: “To be classified unclean ought to be an advantage for the survival of the species” (DOUGLAS, Leviticus, 142). 259

328

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

The shortcomings of this approach are obvious, and need not be addressed in detail.266 As in Carroll’s work previously, several of the symbolic associations proposed by Douglas are dubious or arbitrary;267 and her theory regarding the “ethical” function of this classification avoids none of the objections previously voiced against Milgrom’s interpretation, in particular with respect to the fact that no attempt is made to restrict the number of clean animals that may legitimately be eaten.268 Especially unconvincing is the idea that the term Cq# in Lev 11 would not connote any idea of disgust contrary to what applies elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, including Deut 14 (cf. 14:3!).269 In the case of land animals as well, her theory is clearly inadequate.270 Above all, however, 266

For criticism of Douglas’ recent interpretations see also HOUSTON, Reading, 150–157. In his 1978 criticism of Douglas, Carroll offered an alternative explanation based on the classical distinction, in anthropology, between nature and culture. He suggested that unclean animals are all those which blur this boundary, and are therefore perceived as anomalous and even threatening to pervade the socially organized sphere. But since this broad distinction cannot, in itself, account for the specific delineation between clean and unclean animals in Lev 11, Carroll further develops his argument to imply that most of the unclean species were, in fact, considered as carnivorous, and therefore as transgressing the post-Flood order instituted by Gen 9, in which only human beings are permitted to eat flesh (Gen 9:3). “‘Meat-eating’ is appropriately associated only with men (and thus culture) and is not associated with animals (nature)” (CARROLL, Leviticus, 122. He is partly followed on this point by B RYAN , Kosher Mentality, 166–167). Yet, even though the distinction between nature and culture probably also applies in a general way to Lev 11 (see below), the whole explanation is hardly convincing. First, several of the animals listed as being unclean, such as the camel or all the insects, are not carnivorous (and can hardly be associated with carnivorous animals), as pointed out by HOUSTON, Purity, 114. Second, this characteristic cannot account for the criteria stated in Lev 11 and Deut 14. What is the relation, e.g., between the requirement for clean fish to have fins and scales and the exclusion of carnivorous marine creatures? Carroll must surmise that it served to exclude the shark, but this is far-fetched. If the rationale behind this classification was the distinction between carnivorous and non-carnivorous animals, the whole morphological scheme elaborated in Lev 11 would be pointless. 268 See above, page 305. 269 Even if one should probably accept Milgrom’s view that Cq# and of )m+ in Lev 11 correspond to a distinction between uncleanness by contact and uncleanness by ingestion respectively (see above, the discussion of this point on p. 291), Douglas’ specific application of the distinction raises a further difficulty since one does not understand why the term Cq# was not applied equally to unclean land quadrupeds in Lev 11, so as to protect them like the rest of the creation. Are we to deduce that the unclean quadrupeds are the only truly impure, detestable animals in the entire animal world? (HOUSTON, Reading, 152–153, similarly observes in this regard that the connection between the section devoted to land animals, ch. 7, and the one devoted to other creatures in ch. 8 is unclear and would even “suggest that entirely different principles underlie them”). Note, finally, that a further difficulty for Douglas’ analysis on this point is that in the long motive clause concluding Lev 11 in 11:43–45, the two terms Cq# and )m+ are employed. Here, even Douglas tends to resort to source criticism in order to explain this problem (see ID., Leviticus, 156), which is rather paradoxical since she otherwise systematically rejects this option in her book. 270 In particular, she tends to reduce the opposition between clean and unclean animals to that between domestic and wild, that is, between animals included in the covenant and others 267

4.2. The Priestly Composition in Leviticus 11–15

329

the main issue is that, contrary to her own claim,271 Douglas is actually no longer able to offer a comprehensive explanation connecting the nature of the morphological criteria selected and the animal species considered as unclean, as she had initially attempted to do in Purity and Danger. Especially in her 1999 monograph, entirely distinct principles seem to apply with respect to each category of animals. In the case of land animals, Douglas appears to presume, as in Purity and Danger already, that the criteria for clean quadrupeds were derived from the livestock, and then extended to wild animals sharing the same features.272 In the case of marine or swarming creatures, on the contrary, the explanation seems to be purely symbolic, and always ad hoc: scales are like an armor, therefore fish lacking scales need extra protection; swarming or teeming creatures are a symbol of the fruitfulness of life, etc. Nevertheless, the issue originally raised by Douglas in her 1966 analysis of Lev 11 has been pursued since by some authors, especially E. Firmage (1990) and, above all, W. Houston (1993).273 Both of them actually start from Douglas’ observation that the criteria for clean quadrupeds were obviously derived from Israel’s livestock;274 this gives us, in turn, a starting point in order to understand the genesis and the logic of this classification. Firmage thus proposes that, “the paradigm constituted by the cattle, sheep and goats”, which were eaten and sacrificed “from time immemorial” offered a set of morphological criteria for defining all clean quadrupeds that was both “comprehensive and easily applicable”.275 Since the paradigm comprises animals that are fit not only for the table but also for the altar, the origin of this classification (what Firmage terms the “mainspring of the dietary law”) should ultimately be sought in the “temple paradigm”, namely, the conformity or non-conformity of quadrupeds with sacrificial animals.276 Firmage then seeks to show that the which are not. See, e.g., Leviticus, 136: “Leviticus divides land animals into two categories, first, the herds and flocks which share the lives of their owners, travel with them, and provide their sustenance, and second, all the rest”. This is clearly erroneous, because the criteria of Lev 11:3 are not said to be restricted to domestic animals but clearly apply to both domestic and wild animals (similarly HOUSTON, Reading, 154–155), a conclusion supported by the fact that Lev 11:4b–7 discusses borderline cases which include both domestic (the camel, to some extent the pig) and wild animals: if wild animals were excluded a priori, their inclusion here would hardly make any sense. Moreover, her distinction of the two classes of animals with reference to God’s covenant in Gen 9 is actually based on a misunderstanding since the formulation of Gen 9:3 (which includes all mankind) clearly implies that all animals are given as food to man by God. Note also that Douglas’ assumption that Lev 17 would restrict edible quadrupeds to sacrificial animals is also incorrect, cf. the case of game animals in 17:13–14. 271 See for instance DOUGLAS, Forbidden Animals, 17. 272 See for instance DOUGLAS, Leviticus, 140; and already ID., Purity, 69. 273 See FIRMAGE, Dietary Laws; HOUSTON, Purity. 274 DOUGLAS, Purity, 69. 275 FIRMAGE, Dietary Laws, 186–187. 276 Dietary Laws, 187. As noted by Firmage, this idea is not entirely new, and can already be found in particular in the work of J.G. Frazer.

330

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

same principle is at work in the case of marine and aerial creatures. This aspect of his model is particularly problematic (as he must somehow admit himself), and we shall return to this issue below. If we limit our discussion to the case of quadrupeds for the moment, the main difficulty that remains, specifically, is to understand how it was possible to derive the criteria for all clean animals from the cattle, and nevertheless obtain a taxonomy that is both “comprehensive” and “easily applicable”. This calls for a detailed investigation of the social, cultural but also zoological context of the classification in Lev 11; Deut 14, as Houston, in particular, has sought to do in his 1993 monograph. Basically, Houston shows that the system of dietary rules found in Lev 11 and Deut 14 largely appears to correspond to the accepted dietary and sacrificial customs in a dominantly pastoralist economy such as that of pre-exilic Israel.277 Sheep, goats and oxen comprised the usual source of meat and were the principal sacrificial animals in the whole area of Syria-Palestine. The archaeological remains surveyed in a systematic fashion by Houston suggest that the hunting practice was apparently limited to wild mammals showing a close morphological resemblance with the domestic stock, such as gazelles and fallow deer; this conclusion is also quite consistent with the enumeration found in Deut 14:4b–5. As already noted by E. Hunn, the authors of the original taxonomy underlying Lev 11 and Deut 14 had correctly observed that among quadrupeds all the ruminants which were either raised or hunted for food shared common anatomical characteristics and could therefore be grouped in a specific zoological taxon, exclusive of other species.278 (In modern zoology, this taxon corresponds to the sub-order Ruminantia of the order Artiodactyla.) The main quadrupeds explicitly or implicitly prohibited by the classification – such as the dog, the camel or the donkey – were usually neither eaten nor sacrificed, apart from outstanding circumstances.279 A partial exception concerns the case of pigs. Even though pigs were never raised on a 277

HOUSTON, Purity, esp. ch. 4 (“The Context Surveyed”, p. 124–180). HUNN , Abominations; further HOUSTON , Purity, 36. On the problem raised by the camel, see further below. Among the other borderline animals mentioned in Lev 11:4b–7, the hyrax and the hare do not chew the cud, but, as commonly observed, they both give the impression of chewing food because of the sideward movement of their jaws (see for instance MILGROM, Leviticus, 648–649; similarly HOUSTON , Purity, 38). As surmised by Hunn, followed by Houston, it is quite possible that precisely the four animals mentioned in v. 4b–7 (camel, hyrax, hare and pig) are referred to because they are all taxonomically singular, “the hyrax and hare being the only representatives of their respective orders in the region and the camel and pig of their sub-orders”. 279 E.g., in a case of famine, see 2 Kgs 6:25. A few Ugaritic texts also mention the sacrifice of a goose and of an ass, here again in exceptional circumstances; see KTU 1.106:30; KTU 1.40:26, 34, 43; and KTU 1.119:16. All these passages are mentioned by HOUSTON, Purity, 151–152. 278

4.2. The Priestly Composition in Leviticus 11–15

331

large scale in Syria-Palestine, contrary to Egypt and Mesopotamia,280 remains are nevertheless found on some sites for all periods, even though we do observe a significant decline in Iron I.281 In any event, it is likely that the exclusion of the pig in Lev 11 // Deut 14 does not simply reproduce actual practice but that it also reflects the concerns of the (priestly) authors of this classification, very much as in the case of Egyptian priests according to Greek sources282 This would explain, in particular, why, as noted by some authors, the criterion of chewing the cud was specifically added to exclude the pig since all other unclean quadrupeds are already excluded by the criterion of the cloven hoof alone.283 Obviously, exclusion of the pig was of utmost importance to the authors of this classification. Once the origin of the classification of quadrupeds is clarified, the rest of the system can easily be accounted for. The two remaining sections, on marine and aerial creatures, are an obvious attempt to enlarge the classification to the entire animal kingdom. The brevity of the original form of the instruction on marine creatures, which merely specified the criteria of fins and scales for clean fish, should be explained by the authors’ almost complete ignorance of marine life, as Firmage, in particular, already suggested.284 Levine and Houston are probably correct when they surmise that virtually all these authors knew was that “most of the fish normally eaten by Jews came from creatures that had scales and fins, and also perhaps that many others would be likely to be unacceptable because of their feeding habits”.285 To this may be added the fact that the fish that were occasionally available on the Jerusalem market (cf. Neh 13:16) could probably no longer be identified with precision.286 As regards the case of birds, it was actually impossible for the authors of the classification to elaborate a list of morphological criteria, as in the case of land and water creatures, for reasons that were correctly identified for the first time by 280

On the pig as an object of contempt in antiquity among elites, namely for the priests, see MILGROM, Leviticus, 650–653; and HOUSTON, Purity, 168ff. For Mesopotamia, see also, e.g., SCURLOCK, Animal Sacrifice, 392–393. 281 See the figure in HOUSTON , Purity, 178–180, and his discussion on p. 135–140 and 168–176. This phenomenon cannot be merely explained by environmental conditions (breeding pigs requires significant quantities of water and is not adapted to hill countries) but also appears to imply a cultural factor, probably related to the pastoralist ethos. Since pigs have a distinct diet, their breeding is hardly compatible with that of ruminants. Following I. Finkelstein and others, Houston correlates the significant decline in the breeding of pigs at the beginning of Iron I with the growing influence of the pastoralist ethos after the disappearance of city-states at the end of Bronze Age (see ID., Purity, 172–175). 282 See HERODOTUS, Hist., 2.47. 283 See already DOUGLAS, Self-evidence, 283–284; further HUNN, Abominations, 107; and HOUSTON, Purity, 39. The pig is indeed the only animal in the Middle East that has a cloven hoof but does not ruminate. 284 FIRMAGE, Dietary Laws, 190. 285 HOUSTON, Purity, 235; see already LEVINE, Leviticus, 246. 286 FIRMAGE, Dietary Laws, 190.

332

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

Houston: the various bird species eaten in Israel in addition to doves and pigeons, namely, chickens, ducks and geese, could not be included in a specific taxon on the basis of an exclusive morphological feature.287 The authors of the classification had therefore to resort to a list of unclean birds. The possibility that this list was initially formed by birds typically associated with bloodshed and eating of blood or waste matter, as proposed by Houston, is attractive, provided the reconstruction of a primitive list of eight birds corresponding to nos. 1–5 and 7–9 of the present list is correct.288 Interestingly, this notion is still retained by the rabbinic tradition (m. H9ul 3:6). Later, the list was completed with various types of birds regarded as anomalous, such as the bat. The decisive issue, however, concerns the reason for this enlargement to marine and air creatures. Firmage seeks to interpret this development on the basis of his “temple paradigm”. On the model of what applied for quadrupeds, the authors of the original animal classification would have sought to elaborate “an all encompassing classification scheme of singular significance that is without parallel in the ancient Near East”, exemplifying a “distinctive expression of monotheistic Yahwism”.289 However, Firmage’s “temple paradigm” is particularly problematic here: for marine creatures, there is precisely no such paradigm;290 and regarding birds, it is similarly difficult to consider that the two sacrificial birds, the dove and the pigeon, form the implicit “avian norm” presupposed by the enumeration of unclean birds291 since, for the reasons argued above, the authors of the classification were not able to reduce clean birds to a single set of morphological criteria derived from the pigeon/dove paradigm.292 Houston, for his part, decisively rejects the view that the classifi287

HOUSTON, Purity, 47. For evidence of the domestication of chickens, geese and ducks in pre-exilic Israel, see FIRMAGE, art. Zoology, 1144–1146; as well as HOUSTON, Purity, 143. 288 Ibid., 236, and above, § 4.1.2. Note that in Mesopotamian lists, collections of predatory birds are also attested; cf. the Babylonian lexicon H}arra h}ubullu, and on this FOSTER, Animals, 273. 289 FIRMAGE, Dietary Laws, 185. 290 Firmage must assume that “certain species were excluded because in lacking fins and scales they were thought to resemble land species that were prohibited by the criteria of v. 3”; scaleless fish for instance, such as the eel, were possibly compared with snakes, and so on (ID., Dietary Laws, 189 and 200–202). While he correctly points to the lack of knowledge of marine life in Israel, Firmage thus ends up suggesting that the criteria for the fish are – both on a logical and literary plan – secondary. 291 See Dietary Laws, 191. Firmage accepts the rabbinic view that these birds are mainly predatory or carrion birds, and thus concludes that their prohibition is based on their diet and behavior. The list would implicitly presuppose the opposition between the vegetarian (graminivorous or herbivorous) diet characteristic of domestic birds, of which the pigeon or the dove are the paradigm, and the diet of the birds of prey or the carrion-eaters. But since the precise nature of the diet of several other less well-known birds would have been reserved for a few experts, the authors of Lev 11 had recourse to a list of all the birds considered unclean. 292 For this criticism, see HOUSTON, Purity, 47. He also observes that Firmage’s complex explanation regarding the origin of the bird list (see the previous note) does not really agree

4.2. The Priestly Composition in Leviticus 11–15

333

cation of Lev 11 would exemplify a “distinctive expression of monotheistic Yahwism”. He views it instead as “a surviving example of the kind of teaching given by the priests at many sanctuaries in the Syro-Canaanite area in order to ensure the purity of their holy places and congregations at the time of the festival”.293 It is only after the exile, when it was edited by D and P, that it was given a distinctively Yahwistic, possibly even monotheistic dimension.294 In this regard, the sections on fish and birds should merely reflect an internal development of this tradition, motivated by a desire for comprehensiveness295 and, perhaps, by occasional polemics against other, non-Yahwistic cults.296 Houston is certainly correct to locate the origin of the classification of quadrupeds in a tradition of instructions connected with local sanctuaries; the distinction between clean and unclean is a typical priestly duty (cf. Lev 10:10; Ez 44:23; Hag 2:11; and on this already above, § 4.1.3.). Furthermore, the kind of complex anatomic knowledge evinced by the grouping of all clean quadrupeds in a single, comprehensive taxon (see above) suggests precisely the same Sitz im Leben (compare especially with Lev 13!). As to the introduction of the two other sections, however, Houston’s explanation falls short. As he acknowledges himself, the instructions on fish and birds were manifestly not composed for practical reasons but have a marked theoretical character.297 The criteria for fish are extremely general, and whatever the problems raised by the identification of birds, most if not all of the eight birds of prey originally mentioned in the list would not have been thought of by the Israelites as a possible source of meat.298 Rather, the way in which the section on marine creatures, in particular, seeks to imitate the section on land animals suggests the attempt to elaborate a comprehensive cosmological scheme, in which the totality of the animal kingdom could, in principle, be divided into clean and unclean, edible and non-edible species on the basis of fixed criteria, such as morphological characteristics.299 In this scheme, dietary prohibitions with the history of the text (which Firmage does not consider), since the original list probably consisted of eight birds, all well-known for their carnivorous and scavenging habits. 293 HOUSTON, Purity, 232. The definition of criteria on a morphological basis was designated for the lay people, and the formulation of the criteria themselves was deliberately made simple, so as “to be applied by simple inspection” (Ibid., 233). On the kind of cultic context considered by Houston for the origin of the classification, see also on p. 156–161. 294 Cf. HOUSTON, Purity, 239–258. 295 Ibid., 232. 296 See Ibid., 239–241. 297 See HOUSTON, Purity, 233–236. 298 Similarly, his idea of the restatement of the permissibility of certain fish, and of birds such as doves, as being directed against the taboos of certain prominent non-Yahwistic cults (especially Atargatis, Asherah and Astarte) is overly speculative. Even though such polemics may be present, surely they cannot account for the sections on fish and birds as a whole. 299 Note, significantly, that in his recent study on Lev 11, Houston also emphasizes the cosmological pattern implied by Lev 11; see ID., Reading, esp. 158–161.

334

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

are no longer relative to the festival tradition of a local sanctuary and the preferences of its main deity, or even to the dietary ethos of a specific ethnic group, as is otherwise the case in antiquity.300 Instead, they have become permanent features of a cosmic order in which scaleless fish are always unclean and ruminants with a cloven hoof are necessarily always clean. Even though such a development can be said to reflect, in a general way, the cosmological speculations of priestly circles in Judah, it is tempting to connect it more specifically with the historical context of the Babylonian exile.301 Such dating is corroborated, besides, by the inclusion of the camel in the list, which suggests a terminus a quo in the seventh century BCE, with the intensification of caravan trade by Arab tribes.302 Diet was obviously a major issue for the exiles in Babylon (as it will be, later, for diaspora communities, see Dan 1). In the common view of antiquity, diet, as a major ethnic marker, was closely related with the boundaries of the land, that is, the sphere over which the national god (in a universe inhabited by numerous other deities) had dominion. In some passages, the Hebrew Bible has preserved the tradition that food eaten outside the land is automatically unclean (see Ez 4:13; Hos 9:3; further Am 7:17). Significantly, in all these passages, eating unclean food is connected with either Judah’s or Israel’s exile. What is more, Judeans were also automatically confronted with other dietary traditions of a much higher antiquity. As observed by C. Grotanelli,303 the Joseph story retains a highly ironical episode in Gen 43:32 relating how the Egyptians refused to eat with Joseph in spite of his political status, on the ground that it would have been an “abomination” (hb(wt, as in Deut 14:3!) for them to share a meal in the company of Hebrews.304 The episode certainly reflects actual experiences of the Jewish diaspora in Egypt and, by extension, in other major diaspora 300

On this point, I therefore concur with Firmage’s view of an “all encompassing classification scheme” unparalleled in the ANE (cf. above, p. 332). VAN DER TOORN, Sin, 36, likewise stresses the unique character of this classification in antiquity. How far this should be connected to the development of Yahwistic monotheism, specifically, as Firmage contends (Dietary Laws, 185), is difficult to tell. Significantly, although similar comprehensive lists of animals are found elsewhere, in Egypt and in Mesopotamia, they do not appear to be connected with dietary prohibitions. See, e.g., the Babylonian lexicon H}arra h}ubullu, Tablets XIII ff., and for the text LANDSBERGER, Fauna. For a fine description of the various occasions in which dietary prohibitions applied in Mesopotamia, see VAN DER T OORN , Sin, 33–35; cf. also SCURLOCK, Animal Sacrifice, 393–395. For ancient Egypt, our main source is Herodotus (Hist., Book 2, 2.37 and passim), cf., e.g., HAUSSLEITER, Vegetarismus, 33–35. 301 As was already suggested very briefly by ALBERTZ, Religion, 2. 408. 302 See HOUSTON, Purity, 140–142, who also mentions the paucity of camel remains in Palestine before the Hellenistic and Roman periods. 303 GROTANELLI, Aspetti, 153–154. 304 WEINFELD, Deuteronomic School, 226, followed by HOUSTON, Purity, 59–60, renders hb(wt in Deut 14:3 as “that category of things which the delicate finds odious or abhorrent”. See also Houston’s comment on this point: “Israel’s holiness, their dedication to Yahweh, demands abstinence from disgusting things, things that self-respecting people do not eat”.

4.2. The Priestly Composition in Leviticus 11–15

335

communities.305 In such a historical context, the purpose of this classification becomes obvious. On one hand, it undoes the traditional connection between national boundaries and dietary purity. Cleanness of diet is no longer restricted to a given geographical area but, quite to the contrary, it is now possible for a Judaean to eat clean food in any place of the world, granted that he, or she, follows the norms devised in the classification itself for each class of animals. On the other hand, this classification simultaneously offered an obvious solution to the legitimacy crisis raised by the confrontation with other, more ancient and therefore more authoritative traditions with which Judaean literati could obviously not compete – no more than Greeks, for instance.306 Contrary to what applies in these traditions, the Yahwistic dietary ethos is no longer founded on custom, it is now defined as being part of a fixed, comprehensive cosmology.307 If so, we must conclude that the classification re-used by Lev 11 and Deut 14 was intended from the beginning both as a practical dietary code and as a symbolic system allowing to Judaean exiles to articulate their difference vis-à-vis other nations and cultures. Now that we have clarified the origin and function of the animal classification behind Lev 11 and Deut 14, we are in a position to address the significance of its inclusion in P. As in Lev 12–15, the Priestly editing of the to=ra= on clean and unclean animals transforms a body of typically priestly knowledge into a divine revelation made to all Israel in a mythical past, the period of Israel’s foundation at Mt Sinai. In this respect, the Priestly writer furthers here the general process of separating Israel from the other nations as a distinctively “priestly” nation. While P’s source in Lev 11 distinguished between Pw( and Pw(h Cr# in the case of aerial creatures, P introduces the same distinction into the other two categories of animals (land and water).308 Above 305 On the attribution of the Joseph cycle to the Judean diaspora in Egypt, probably at Elephantine, see in particular RÖMER, Cycle; UEHLINGER, Joseph; ID., Genèse 37–50. 306 See for instance the famous episode recounted by Herodotus in Hist. 2.143, ridiculing Hecataeus who, “discoursing of his genealogy, traced his descent to a god in the person of his sixteenth ancestor”, and was opposed by the priests of Thebes, who confronted him with their own genealogy in the form of 345 statues for each previous high priest, in a line that still “did not run up either to a god or a hero”. 307 The context of cultural confrontation advocated here could also account for some specific features of the original animal classification found in Lev 11 and Deut 14, in particular for the explicit ban on the pig (Lev 11:7; Deut 14:8) since it was typically an object of contempt in antiquity among elites; see above note 280. Similarly, we have some evidence that in antiquity the camel was typically regarded as the most anomalous being in the entire animal reign; this is attested, in particular, in Aristotle’s writings. See Post. Analytics 2, ch. 98, 15ff.; and Hist. Animalium, 642b–644a, and 663ff. I owe these references to Françoise Smyth (personal communication). In this case, the ban on camels might simultaneously betray the inclusion of an element of shared international knowledge, thus confirming the claim of the priestly authors in Jerusalem to rival other cultural systems. 308 See above, § 4.1.2., especially pages 285.286.291ff.

336

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

all, by inserting v. 24–42 (which have no parallel in Deut 14 and were absent from P’s source), P enlarges the issue of pollution by ingestion to that of pollution by contact of the carcass of a dead animal, either a quadruped (v. 24– 28) or a Cr)h Cr# (v. 29–38).309 V. 39–42 offer a fitting conclusion to the two main sections (v. 2a–23 and 24–38), immediately before the subscription in v. 46–47 (v. 43–45 being a later interpolation by H). V. 39–40 combine the two issues of pollution by contact (v. 39) and by ingestion (v. 40) in the case of the carcass of a domestic quadruped; and v. 41–42, prohibiting the ingestion of any sort of Cr)h Cr#, complete the instruction on land animals in v. 2b–8 and thus form a fine inclusion around the entire law. P’s elaborate reworking of his source, here, serves a specific function since the theme of pollution by contact now connects Lev 11 with the dominant issue addressed by the instructions in ch. 12–15, and thus emphasizes the literary and conceptual coherence of the collection formed by Lev 11–15. However, as observed at the very beginning of this section (above, § 4.2.1.), the decisive question, though seldom raised, is why P chose to introduce ch. 11 before ch. 12–15, and how he viewed its relationship to the rest of the collection on impurities. A decisive step in this direction was made by Douglas and a few others who observed the unmistakable analogy between Lev 11 and the legislation on sacrifices opening the first part of the book, in Lev 1ff.310 While ch. 1ff. systematically define God’s table, namely, the animals which may legitimately be brought to be sacrificed to the altar, Lev 11 for its part defines the table of men, i.e., all animals that may be eaten by the Israelites. As observed by Douglas, in particular, we thus obtain a coherent, concentric structure dividing the entire animal kingdom into three categories: sacrificial animals (all clean domestic quadrupeds and some birds); edible animals (all other animals defined as clean by Lev 11); and all other, i.e., non-edible animals. The inclusion between Lev 11 and 1ff. forms a comprehensive dietary system, in which God’s diet and man’s diet are simultaneously paralleled and hierarchized. However, as with the to=ra= on sacrifices in Lev 1–9 already (see above, § 3.4.), the profound significance of this system appears when Lev 11 is read against the background of P’s story of origins in Gen 1–11.311 Man’s diet plays a central role in this story, since one of the main innovations introduced by God after the Flood is the abandonment of the strict vegetarian diet of origins (Gen 309

Above, § 4.1.2., p. 291ff. See, e.g., DOUGLAS , Meal, esp. 262ff., as well as other essays. This notion was also resumed by Firmage and Houston; see further the discussion below. Recently, the analogy was also correctly perceived by Veijola in his commentary on Deut 14: VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium, 297–298. 311 The connection between Lev 11 and Gen 1–9 has been pointed out by several authors recently. See in particular FIRMAGE, Dietary Laws, 196–197; MILGROM, Ethics; ID., Leviticus, 704ff.; also HOUSTON, Purity, 253–258. 310

4.2. The Priestly Composition in Leviticus 11–15

337

1:29) and the permission for unlimited consumption of meat that is granted to man (9:3, the only restriction concerning the consumption of blood). Firmage and Houston, in particular, have both correctly noted the importance of the development taking place in Lev 11 vis-à-vis Gen 1–9 (P); but they arrive at very different interpretations. Firmage regards Gen 1; 9 and Lev 11 as relating the gradual approximation, first by man and ultimately by Israel, of the diet of Yahweh himself. The permission granted to kill animals in order to feed from them would be a divine privilege, unknown to original humanity, bestowed on man after the Flood, whereas – from the perspective of the sacrificial interpretation of Lev 11 developed by Firmage – the legislation of Lev 11 emphasizes the necessity, for Israel at least, that there be conformity between the animal species eaten by the Israelites and those offered to God.312 However, the entire interpretation depends upon Firmage’s theory of the “sacrificial paradigm” in Lev 11, which was found above to be untenable as such, especially for marine and aerial creatures. Besides, Firmage clearly misconstrues the relationship between Gen 1 and 9: the permission to eat meat in 9:3 is obviously a concession made to man, not progress vis-à-vis the vegetarianism of origins.313 Houston, for his part, seeks to connect the pattern observable in Gen 1; 9 and Lev 11 with the issue of violence between man and animals that permeates P’s account of man’s origins in Gen 1–11. In this respect, he eventually ends up adopting Milgrom’s ethical interpretation of Lev 11 as being a law promoting reverence for animal life – though he does acknowledge (against Milgrom) that this was not its original sense.314 Yet it seems difficult to see how Lev 11 could have had such a function in the view of the Priestly scribes, since this to=ra= says nothing as to the quantity of clean animals that may be eaten or even, for instance, the way in which they are to be put to death. As was argued in the previous chapter (see above, § 3.4.), the connection with the problem of the endemic violence between men and animals is much more obvious in the case of the legislation on sacrifices (cf. Lev 1–9). 312

ID ., Dietary Laws, 196–197; see also the Appendix 5, on p. 203–204. Firmage thus concludes that in P “the dietary laws represented the culmination of a progression in holiness, by which God had brought a people by steps to enjoy unprecedented proximity to himself”. 313 Pace FIRMAGE, Dietary Laws, 196, where he affirms that, “in P’s view there is nothing inherently reprehensible about eating meat, nor any inherent virtue in vegetarianism”. For a similar criticism, see also HOUSTON, Purity, 257. There is every reason to think, on the contrary, that vegetarianism was praised by priestly circles as in other philosophical circles in antiquity as an eminent form of diet. Regarding Greek sects (Orphism, Pythagorism, etc.), see H AUSSLEITER, Vegetarismus, 79ff.; PARKER , Miasma, 358–363; and now also BORGEAUD, Interdits alimentaires. For Persians, see MARX, Offrande végétale, 145ff; and on P’s vegetarianism, Ibid., ch. 5. This is also entirely consistent with what was stated above, § 3.4., regarding P’s reticence vis-à-vis the killing of animals. 314 See HOUSTON, Purity, 257–258.

338

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

More likely, the specific issue taken up in Lev 11 is of a different nature. In Gen 9, permission is given to man to feed from any kind of living creature: yx-)wh r#) #mr-lk; in Lev 11, this permission is restricted – in a special revelation to Israel – to a limited number of species whose common characteristic is being defined as “clean”. In other words, Lev 11 introduces the requirement of a differentiated consumption of meat, as opposed to the undifferentiated consumption characterizing Gen 9. In this regard, the legislation of Lev 11 offers to Israel the possibility of an intermediate position between the – now impossible – vegetarian ideal of origins and the general permission of feeding from all living creatures. Of course, the Priestly writer is aware that other nations have similar dietary prohibitions. However, from his viewpoint, only the community formed by the Israelites has been revealed a set of dietary rules in conformity with the cosmological order instituted by Yahweh himself at the creation of the world. This pattern, as noted by Houston himself, is strongly reminiscent of the more general pattern observable in several myths of origin in which a given cultural practice is explained as a mediating position between two extremes, both of which prove to be untenable.315 As such, the to=ra= of Lev 11 is now part, in the P narrative, of the process of a partial restoration of the original proximity between God and man in Israel that was already identified both in Exodus (above, § 1.3.) and in Lev 1–9 (§ 3.4.). While the original state of harmony between God, men and animals, of which the strictly vegetarian diet was the hallmark, has been definitively lost and cannot be retrieved, still, a dietary ethos conforming more closely to the creational order is offered to Israel uniquely.316 The placement of the to=ra= on clean and unclean animals at the outset of the collection on impurities thus serves to connect this collection with the general theme of P, i.e., the restoration of the creational order and Israel’s transformation into the “priestly nation” among the other nations of the world. In this respect, Lev 11 can even be said to take on paradigmatic significance vis315

HOUSTON, Purity, 256–257, with reference to LEACH, Biblical Myth. Note that in a more recent study on Lev 11, Houston comes closer to the solution advocated here; see ID., Reading. The prohibitions of Lev 11 would serve to “avoid what is unworthy of the presence of God” (150), and obedience to them should be understood as “an expression of loyalty to the covenant Lord, loyalty which is particularly demanded of Israel to Yahweh” (159). In this regard, Houston correctly concludes that Lev 11 ultimately implies the observance of, and the conformity with, a specific cosmic order. “It is only when each creature observes its place in the cosmic order, and humanity, in dominion over them all, preserves the place of each, that justice and harmony can be maintained in the world” (160). While I would agree with most of this interpretation, Houston nevertheless distinguishes insufficiently in my opinion between mankind and Israel in P. From P’s viewpoint, Lev 11 is clearly a proprium of Israel exclusively, and not of mankind in general, for which the Noachic rule in Gen 9 suffices. In this respect, Lev 11 does not open to universal harmony and “cosmic righteousness”, but rather to the possibility of a partial re-creation in Israel exclusively – although for P this process also has implications for all mankind in a wider sense. 316

4.2. The Priestly Composition in Leviticus 11–15

339

à-vis the entire collection formed by ch. 11–15. Read after Lev 11, systematic control demanded over all major forms of biological intrusions into the social sphere may now be understood to partake in the very same process of recreation by instituting separation from phenomena regarded as contrary to the creational norm. Exactly as anomalous animals – i.e., animals deviating from the morphological norm of their class – must be set apart, all major modifications of the physical norm prevailing for human bodies must similarly be kept away from Israel, because the latter, as the shelter of God’s sanctuary, is called to be a microcosm of the original order devised by God. Simultaneously, however, there is perhaps another reason for which P chose to introduce ch. 11 at this place. This chapter also introduces a distinct dimension with regard to ch. 12–15, what one might term an ethical aspect to the purity laws, although not in the sense considered by Milgrom and now Douglas of an incentive to the respect of animal life. The selection between clean and unclean, edible and non-edible species of animals involves a continuous choice for every family, each meal becoming in a sense the occasion for a deliberate decision to observe or dismiss the law. By contrast, the impurities of Lev 12–15, as noted above (§ 4.2.2.), are biological dysfunctions on which man, by definition, has no or little control; the attempt to preserve the community from being seriously disturbed by these dysfunctions through the temporary seclusion of the affected person is a social necessity, more than an individual choice. As such, much more than for the legislation of Lev 12–15, the to=ra= of Lev 11 sets apart those who practice it from the rest of humanity. As later the observance of the kashrut in post-biblical Judaism, that of the diet of Lev 11 thus constitutes a typical rite of passage defining one’s belonging to the community of Israel, quite comparable, in this respect, to circumcision (Gen 17) and Passover (Ex 12), and which, like these two rites, can be practiced inside as well as outside Eretz Israel. In this respect also, the to=ra= on clean and unclean animals takes on a prominent role with respect to the legislation on impurities as a whole. Purity, in Lev 11, is no longer merely a given state which needs to be continuously protected against intrusions from outside, as in Lev 12–15. Rather, it implies willingness to live in conformity with a certain ideal of wholeness and integrity which, according to this to=ra=, is rooted in the cosmic order itself, and whose active observance is the distinctive mark of Israel’s election among the nations. This last point was still obvious for the authors of H in their reception of Lev 11 (see Lev 20:22–26, prepared for by the interpolation of 11:43–45), where the observance of the to=ra= on clean and unclean animals is now presented as a parade example of a holy, godlike life. Even though this corresponds to a later, distinct re-interpretation from the perspective of the “Holiness” school (see further below, Chapter Five), nevertheless, it correctly points to the unique significance of this to=ra= within Lev 11–15.

340

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

4.3. Leviticus 16: Closing P’s Sacrificial System Within Leviticus, ch. 16 is certainly the chapter to which most studies have been devoted and which has drawn the greatest attention.317 This is due not only to the central significance of the ritual of Yom Kippur in later Judaism,318 but also to the manifest complexity of this ceremony. This complexity has classically been interpreted in traditio-historical terms: namely, ch. 16 would comprise a literary history in several stages, which can themselves (at least partly) be connected to stages in the development of the Israelite cult. As a result, many studies have been concerned with the source-, form- and literary-critical analysis of ch. 16, the history of the ritual, and to a lesser extent, its ancient Near Eastern parallels; other issues, and especially the question of the chapter’s relationship to the rest of P’s narrative in GenesisLeviticus, have often been neglected. In the following analysis, we shall first address the problem of the chapter’s composition (§ 4.3.1.). If, as it turns out, a compelling case can be made for viewing Lev 16 (or at least v. 2–28) as a careful composition by P rather than as a compilation of various rituals, the question of the function and significance of this chapter as a conclusion to Lev 1–16 and, beyond, to the P account beginning in Gen 1, becomes a decisive one, and will have to be addressed separately (§ 4.3.2.). 4.3.1. The Composition of Lev 16: A State of the Question 4.3.1.1. A Brief Survey of Past Research The discussion on the genesis of Lev 16 is remarkably complex, so much so that it is even difficult to summarize.319 Whereas the text’s homogeneity was accepted during most of the 19th century (though its origin was a matter of dispute),320 it was questioned for the first time in two studies by Oort (1876) and Benzinger (1889),321 both of whom observed that the present state of the 317 See OORT, Verzoendag; BENZINGER, Gesetz; MESSEL, Komposition; LANDERSDORFER, Studien; LÖHR, Ritual; SCHUR , Versöhnungstag; MORGENSTERN, Three Calendars; ID., Two Prophecies; HRUBY, Yom; WEFING, Untersuchungen; AARTUN, Beitrag; WRIGHT, Disposal, 15–74; DEIANA, Giorno; KÖRTING, Schall, 119ff.; SEIDL, Levitikus 16; GANE, Cult, 217ff. 318 Note however that the expression Yom Kippur does not occur yet in Lev 16, nor elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, but was coined by the rabbinic tradition. In the Holiness code, (cf. Lev 23:27–28 and 25:9), we find the syntagm Myrpk(h) Mwy. On the role and significance of Yom Kippur in ancient Judaism, see in particular HRUBY, Yom, 70–74.161–192.413–442. 319 For a general survey of the discussion until 1970, see WEFING, Untersuchungen, 1–32; as well as AARTUN, Beitrag, 74–76; and most recently SEIDL, Levitikus 16, 221–228. 320 DILLMANN , 524–526, and some other authors held Lev 16 to be a very ancient law, while Wellhausen or Kuenen attributed it en bloc to P; see, e.g., KUENEN, Einleitung, 1. 83; also REUSS, Geschichte, 2. 487.500. 321 See OORT, Verzoendag; BENZINGER, Gesetz.

4.3. Leviticus 16: Closing P’s Sacrificial System

341

text of Lev 16 seemed to confuse discrete rituals. In particular, these authors noted that the ritual implying the two goats offered on behalf of the community in v. 5, 7–10, 20–22 had obviously been interpolated, as shown in the literal resumption of v. 6 in v. 11a. Oort concluded therefore that the whole motif of the community’s atonement was secondary in Lev 16 and that the original text, which he found in v. 1–4, 11b–14, 16*, 18a, 19, 23, 24a, 25a, 29a, consisted of a ritual for the purification of the sanctuary. He also remarked that this reconstruction corresponded to the testimony of Ezekiel 40–48, which only knows of an annual purification of the sanctuary, and not yet of the entire community (cf. Ez 45:18ff.).322 Benzinger, for his part, considered (against Oort) that it was impossible to dissociate the complex of ritual acts involving the blood of the sacrifices to be performed by the high priest inside the sanctuary in v. 14ff.; he thus retained only v. 1–4, 6, 12–13, 34b as original. The purpose of this ritual would have been to allow Aaron’s admission into the inner-sanctum in a case of emergency, as required by the episode of Nadab and Abihu recalled in v. 1. The original ritual was later supplemented by a complex legislation combining the purification of the sanctuary and of the community in v. 5–28 which, contrary to Oort, Benzinger considers to be two inseparable issues at the time of the composition of Lev 16:1–28.323 As Oort, Benzinger also observed a tension between the context presupposed by v. 1–28 and 29–34a, in which Aaron’s entry into the inner-sanctum has become a fixed ceremony taking place only once a year on a given date (cf. v. 29b). He thus suggests that initially v. 29–34a formed in P a different law concerned with a completely distinct ceremony from 16:1–28, which was combined with the former only at a later stage. Early on, Benzinger’s analysis had a certain influence on later scholarship of ch. 16, and its solution was adopted as such,324 or with few modifications,325 by various commentators; but it was disputed soon afterwards in a 1907 study by Messel.326 While accepting the distinction between v. 1–28 and 29–34a, Messel, noting the parallel between the ritual described in v. 3–10 and 11–28, argued that the second part of v. 1–28 betrayed a later development of the original ritual in v. 3–10* (thus returning to a solution already advanced by Stade).327 In this model, 322

Note that, as observed by AARTUN (Beitrag, 74–75, and the reference quoted on p. 103, n. 2), Oort later revised his literary-critical judgment, apparently under the influence of Kuenen, and returned to the traditional view of the literary homogeneity of Lev 16. 323 BENZINGER, Gesetz, 77–78. 324 Thus BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 380ff.; CHEYNE, Scapegoat. 325 Thus BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 51–53, who proposes including at least v. 11b, 23–24 in Benzinger’s original layer. Note that a similar solution is retained by HRUBY, Yom, 48–51, though he would keep not only v. 1–4, 6, 12–13 but also v. 23ff. 326 MESSEL, Komposition. 327 See STADE, Geschichte, 2. 258 n. 1. In the formation of 16:1–28, Messel identifies four stages in all: the original ritual in v. 3b, 5–10, 34b; a first development with the addition of v.

342

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

therefore, it is the atonement of the community which was the theme of the original ritual, not the purification of the sanctuary. Messel’s criticism of Benzinger’s solution, which had somehow represented the opinio communis at the turn of the century, later gave rise to a host of diverging interpretations of the source- as well as literary-critical questions brought about by Lev 16, all of which cannot be reviewed in the context of this study. In his monograph on Lev 16, Landersdorfer devotes a brief analysis of the “literary problem” raised by this chapter, in which he seems to agree with Benzinger that the oldest form of the ritual should be found in v. 4, 12–13, although it should be said that except for v. 29–34a, the literarycritical analysis of Lev 16 plays a little role, on the whole, in his analysis.328 Von Rad attempted to retrieve his two parallel recensions (PA and PB) in Lev 16, and used for this the apparent doublet formed by v. 1 and 2.329 He also accepts Benzinger’s reconstruction of a distinct ritual in v. 2–4*, 12–13 (2a, ba, 3a, 4, 12–13), but contrary to him does not regard it as the original form of Lev 16, but as the PB equivalent to the ritual described in PA. Rendtorff, in his earliest analysis of Lev 16, resumed von Rad’s distinction between two “narrative” recensions in v. 1, 2bb and 2a, ba , 3a, 4, 12–13 and a “ritual” section in v. 5–28, but went on to reconstruct the genesis of this latter section on the basis of the same kind of form-critical approach he developed throughout his study.330 He eventually gets to a remarkably complex analysis, in which he also distinguishes v. 5–10 and 11–28 as two separate corpuses and further identifies in 11–28 three distinct rituals in (a) v. 11aa , b, 14a, 11ab (sic); (b) 15, 16aa; (c) 20b, 21; finally, he counts with a series of successive additions in v. 18–19, 23–24, 25, 26, 28, 27 (in this order). Although he basically uses the same methodology as Rendtorff, Koch arrived at a significantly different result. According to his analysis, the isolation of the sentences in the so-called ritual style allows the identification of a coherent ritual behind v. 7ff., dealing exclusively with the two goats and the ram offered by the community,331 even though Koch nevertheless assumes that originally, “das Ritual von Kap. 16 aus verschiedenen Riten zusammengewachsen ist”.332 Elliger’s commentary initiated a more distinctively literary-critical approach of the problem, pursued in several respects in later analyses by Wefing and Körting. Although they present important differences, their analyses have several fundamental observations in common. The Wiederaufnahme between 2, 3a, 4, 11 (12b), 14–16a, 17–28; later supplements in v. 12–13, 16b, 25; lastly, the interpolation of 29–34a, transforming the ritual into an annual ceremony on the tenth of Tis]ri. 328 LANDERSDORFER, Studien, 80ff. 329 Priesterschrift, 85–87. 330 See RENDTORFF, Gesetze, 59ff. 331 KOCH, Priesterschrift, 92–96. 332 Ibid., 95.

4.3. Leviticus 16: Closing P’s Sacrificial System

343

v. 6 and 11a is a manifest indication that the rite with the two goats in v. 7–10 (prepared by v. 5) has been interpolated, and the fact that v. 14 seems to follow immediately v. 12–13 suggests that the incense rite is also an interpolation. Finally, the main part of the material in v. 15–28 is viewed as being typical of the theology of late Priestly layers, even though, here again, there are some notable disagreements between Elliger, Wefing and Körting as regards the genesis of this material; v. 29–34a are also held as a later addition because they stand in tension with v. 1–28. One may note, however, that this solution was already anticipated in a sense by M. Noth in his commentary on Leviticus.333 Although he observes that the literary genesis of Lev 16 is highly complex and can probably no longer be retrieved, Noth nevertheless suggests that v. 5, 7–10 (and with them v. 20b–22) are later insertions, and that almost all of v. 15–28 is supplementary (with v. 29–34 as a still later addition), with the possible exception of v. 17b.334 In Noth’s view, therefore, the original layer should be in v. 3, 6, 11–14, 17b (?).335 Elliger, for his part, assigned to the original version of ch. 16 (= Pg2) v. 1, 2a, ba, 3a (?), 4, 11, 14, 15, 17, 20b, 22b–24, 34b; the original ritual would have consisted, in this reconstruction, of a ceremony for the atonement of the high priest, his house, and the entire community. A later redactor, responsible for the interpolation of v. 3b, 5–10, 16* (> ag), 18–20a, 21* (> ae), 22a, 25– 28, inserted the motif of the two goats offered on behalf of the community, one of which is destined to Yahweh and the other to Azazel (cf. 5–10, 21– 22a), and reinterpreted the sacrificial sequence accordingly: one goat is now intended for the atonement of the sanctuary (cf. v. 16, 18–19), whereas the other must carry the sins of the community in the wilderness. Eventually, a final redactor transformed the ritual into a fixed ceremony by introducing v. 29–34a, and also added the motif of Yahweh’s theophany on the kapporet in connection with Aaron’s incense offering in v. 2bb, g and 12–13.336 Against this analysis, Wefing objected that the connection between atonement for the high priest and his house and atonement for the community would already reveal a secondary development. She identified the original ritual in v. 3, 6, 11b, 14 (Aaron’s purification offering), thus returning to the suggestion already expressed (although with much caution) by Noth.337 This ritual was then combined, according to Wefing’s analysis, with an offering for 333

NOTH, Leviticus, 117–126. See ID., Leviticus, 123–126. 335 Ibid., 119–123. 336 For all this, see ELLIGER, Leviticus, 202–210. 337 See NOTH, Leviticus, 117ff., esp. 122: “[…] According to the present wording of v. 6 (= v. 11a) the point of departure for the development of the whole was a sacrifice to atone for the priesthood; and the instructions for this sacrifice form the most detailed portion in this ch. 16. There is therefore reason to think that this sacrifice, from the textual and even perhaps from the literary point of view, is to be regarded as the kernel” (emphasis added). 334

344

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

the atonement of the community in v. 5, 7–10; the redaction responsible for this interpolation may possibly be identified with the redactor of v. 15–17, where the two offerings of the high priest and the community are now combined. The rest of the ritual, v. 18–28, denotes a later development, in two or three stages (18–19, 20–22, 23–28); v. 29–34 are a still later addition. V. 1 is the work of the pentateuchal redactor, who introduced the ritual of Lev 16 in its present literary context; v. 2 and 4 are assigned to a distinct tradition about Aaron’s entrance to the sanctuary. Lastly, v. 12–13 belong to the latest stage in the composition of the chapter, and their insertion is probably somehow connected with the story of Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10.338 A similar interpretation is found in the recent analysis of Lev 16 by Körting, although she offers a slightly less complicated model, with only five successive stages.339 A Grundschicht in v. 2a, ba, 3–4, 6, 11b, 14, 23, 24* (without the reference to the burnt offering of the community) instructing the presentation of a purification and burnt offering by Aaron was later supplemented by the addition of offerings on behalf of the people in connection with the introduction of the Azazel rite (v. 5, 7–11a, 15, 17, 20b, 21–22), and the reference to the burnt offering of the people in v. 24. The introduction, in v. 16–20a (16, 18–20a), of the cleansing of the inner-sanctum, the sanctuary and the altar reflects the work of a further, third redaction of ch. 16. The remaining ritual instructions in v. 1–28 (v. 1, 2bb, g, 12–13, 25–28) are all later supplements (“ergänzende Ritualanweisungen”); the last stage in the development of ch. 16 is represented by v. 29–34a, corresponding to the introduction of the ritual in the calendar of Israel’s festivals. While this line of interpretation, inspired by a combination of Elliger’s and Noth’s analyses, represents the most developed approach to the problems raised by Lev 16, a few other recent studies should be mentioned in order to complete this rapid scholarly survey. Koch’s solution was pursued by Otto (1977) in a study combining form- and literary-critical observations. Although his analysis presents a few minor differences from that of Koch, he also assumes that the original ritual consisted in offering two goats on behalf of the community (v. 7–9), one destined to Yahweh and serving for the purification of the sanctuary from the sins of the Israelites (v. 15–16*, 18–19*), the other sent to the wilderness to Azazel for the atonement of the community (v. 20–22*). The original ritual ended with a burnt offering on behalf of the community (v. 23–24a*, 27*); the introduction of an offering for the atonement of the high priest and his house betrays, as in Koch’s analysis, the concern of the Priestly redactors.340 Aartun (1980) emphasizes a considerable number of tensions in Lev 16 both on a syntactical and thematic level and also 338

See WEFING, Untersuchungen, 32–152, and the synthesis, 153–176. See KÖRTING, Schall, 119–131, and her reconstruction in the annex on p. 387–389. 340 See E. Otto in OTTO/SCHRAMM, Fest, 70–74 and n. 18 on p. 164–165. 339

4.3. Leviticus 16: Closing P’s Sacrificial System

345

assumes a complex tradition history for the development of the present text, but eventually refrains from offering any reconstruction of this development.341 Janowski (1987) basically follows Elliger’s reconstruction of the chapter’s genesis;342 it is similarly adopted by O. Loretz in his comparative study of Azazel in Lev 16 and the Ugaritic ritual KTU 1.127.343 In the most recent monograph dealing with the history of ch. 16, Deiana reverts for his part to the solution already advocated by Messel and Löhr, and finds the oldest ritual in the first part of the text, v. 3–10 (3, 5–10*), to which the ritual for the purification of the sanctuary in 11, 14–16, 18–20 as well as the rite for sending the goat to the wilderness in v. 21–22 were then later added. The remaining verses correspond to a third, later stage in the development of the text.344 However, Deiana also innovates by suggesting that the original rite of v. 5–10 concerned the offering of a single goat, offered to Azazel, since only one t)+x appears to be mentioned in 16:5. The introduction of the second goat would be connected with the later reinterpretation, in the Hellenistic period, of the ritual transforming Azazel into a name for a desert which, according to him, is perceptible in v. 21–22.345 4.3.1.2. A First Approach to the Problem As this survey suggests, there is hardly any consensus on either the nature of the original ritual prescribed by Lev 16, or the composition history of this chapter, even though it is possible to identify some very general trends in the scholarly discussion. In reaction to this situation, there is a growing tendency in recent studies to consider that – except perhaps for v. 29–34a – the text’s genesis can no longer be reconstructed, even though it is admitted that it conflates various earlier traditions.346 Other recent authors hold Lev 16 to be a unified composition, apart possibly from a few isolated glosses. This position, 341

AARTUN, Beitrag, esp. 76–83. JANOWSKI, Sühne, 234 n. 245 and passim. 343 LORETZ, Leberschau, 40ff., esp. 44–46. 344 See DEIANA, Giorno, 25–140, and the synthesis on p. 115–116 and 135–136 (in this last passage, however, the reference to “vv. 3.5.10” should be corrected into “3.5–10”). 345 Ibid., 51.76.134ff. See also on this already ID., Azazel. 346 This was already in a sense the position argued by NOTH, Leviticus, 117(ff.); see further similarly e.g. CORTESE, Levitico, 76; KORNFELD, Levitikus, 62; PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 245–246. HARTLEY , Leviticus, 219, acknowledges that, “the rough state of the text […] witnesses to a long, complex development of the traditions regarding this day”, but does not really offer a reconstruction of this process, even though he does identify some later additions in Lev 16, such as v. 29–34a. Similarly, in a recent study, BREMMER , Scapegoat, 182, begins his discussion of Lev 16 by stating: “The date of the final redaction of the chapter is much debated, but for our purpose it may be sufficient to consider it post-exilic but preHellenistic. Unfortunately, no consensus has been reached about the place of the chapter in the whole of the Pentateuch or the nature of its various sources”. 342

346

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

which may be regarded as a return to the scholarly consensus before the studies of Oort and Benzinger, is found in the works of Wright (1987),347 Milgrom (1990),348 and Seidl (1999),349 all of whom view v. 2–28 as a homogeneous composition.350 However, these studies usually do not really address the source-critical observations suggesting that Lev 16 is composite, so that the chapter’s literary unity is more assumed than properly demonstrated.351 Hence, a brief reassessment of this issue is called for. The previous discussion of Lev 10 in Chapter Three of this study has already shown that the introduction in 16:1, with its reference to the death of Nadab and Abihu, was a late interpolation inserted when Lev 10 was added. In this respect, the classical view that the introduction to the ritual in v. 1–2 is not from one hand, and that v. 1 is manifestly later than v. 2, may be accepted (on this, see above, § 3.1.3.). It is also apparent that v. 29–34a are a later supplement, as is indicated by their position at the end of the instruction. The prevailing view since Benzinger that the ritual described in v. 2–28 does not necessarily presuppose a fixed ceremony remains cogent. Even in the case of the phrase t(-lkb in v. 2, which means literally “at all times”, the context clearly appears to imply that this expression should be interpreted not in a strictly temporal sense (i.e., as a reference to a specific time in the year) but rather in a modal one, i.e., Aaron may not enter the inner-sanctum at free will. This conception agrees with the use of this expression elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible;352 significantly, it is still retained in part of the rabbinic tradition.353 It is also consistent with the fact that in Lev 16 itself this phrase does not serve to introduce a specific date but an instruction for the procedure to be followed (v. 3ff.).354 Admittedly, it could be argued that the disclosure of the 347

See Disposal, 15–74. Leviticus, 1061–1065. 349 Levitikus 16. 350 Milgrom assigns v. 2–28 to a pre-P source, v. 1 to P, and v. 29–34 to H; Seidl ascribes v. 1–28 to P, but admits that v. 29–34 are probably secondary. However, GANE, Cult, 35–37, following an unpublished paper by B.J. Schwartz, would hold the unity of all of ch. 16. 351 With the partial exception of SEIDL, Levitikus 16, esp. 228–235. Yet even he does not really address the classical arguments for identifying several layers in Lev 16. His analysis of the main doublets of the text (such as v. 6 and 11) as being no longer indications of a redactional process but “Kohärenzkriterien” (sic, see on p. 234) is particulary unsatisfactory. 352 See, for instance, KRONHOLM, art. (e4t ;/(atta=, 440, who observes that t(-lkb is in most cases a “generalizing expression” expressing for example “a pedagogical generalization of wisdom instruction (e.g., ‘Let your garments always be white’, Eccl. 9:8)”. 353 See esp. Midr. Lev. Rab. 21:7, stating that, “He (Aaron) may enter any time he chooses as long as he follows the procedure”; and on this point MILGROM, Leviticus, 1012–1013. 354 For this observation, cf. already BENZINGER , Gesetz, 68 n. 1; further LEVINE, Leviticus, 100; also BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 382–383 (“nicht zu jeder [beliebigen] Zeit”); WEFING, Untersuchungen, 36–37; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1012–1013; KÖRTING, Schall, 120–121 (concluding that the “modal” rendering of t(-lkb is more compelling than the “temporal” one). 348

4.3. Leviticus 16: Closing P’s Sacrificial System

347

date only at the end of the instruction is part of P’s literary strategy in Lev 16355 (although, as noted by some commentators, there is no real parallel to this elsewhere in P, where the date of a given ritual is generally given at the beginning).356 But the purpose of such a strategy remains difficult to perceive, and this solution seems too harmonistic. Alternatively, it has sometimes been surmised that t(-lkb in v. 2 was originally followed by the indication of the specific time(s) and occasion(s) when Aaron could enter the sanctuary but that such notice was later suppressed,357 perhaps when the calendar stipulation of v. 29–34a was introduced.358 However, this is unnecessarily speculative; besides, the introduction of a festival’s date by t(-lkb )by-l) is quite unusual in the Hebrew Bible, and one would have expected instead a more precise phrasing, such as “only at this time of year” or the like. Finally, it should be noted that the dating of the ceremony in Lev 16:29–31 stands in tension with the concluding notice in v. 34b stating that the community did “according to what had been instructed to Moses by Yahweh”, and thus apparently performed the ritual of ch. 16. Since, according to P, the instruction of ch. 16 was revealed to the Israelites at some time during the first month, between the eighth day (see Lev 9:1) and the end of the month (see Num 1:1), the celebration reported by 16:34b cannot be harmonized with a dating on the tenth of the seventh month, as required by 16:29ff. in accordance with 23:26–32. On the contrary, the formulation of the notice in v. 34b seems to confirm that the ceremony of Lev 16 was originally not connected with a specific date in the year but could be performed on various occasions, provided that the required conditions (as specified in v. 2ff.) were fulfilled by the high priest. The secondary character of v. 29–34a is also indicated by the change in terminology, as has been noted by several authors.359 In particular, the innersanctum is referred to as #dqh #dqm (v. 33) instead of #dqh in v. 2–28 (see v. 2, 3, 16, 17, 20, 23, 27); the community is referred to by the phrase lhqh M( (v. 33) instead of M( (v. 15, 24) or lhq (v. 17); the verb rpk Piel, when it has persons as subjects, is systematically constructed with l( (see v. 30, 33, 34), whereas Lev 16:1–28 always uses (db.360 There are also some significant differences between v. 2–28 and 29–34a. Thus, there is a sudden change in the address of Moses’ speech, which is now directed to all the community of Isra355

Thus GANE, Cult, 36, here again following Schwartz (see above, note 350). See already BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 380, and further, e.g., MILGROM, Leviticus, 1065. 357 For this view, see DILLMANN, Leviticus, 523–524; BENZINGER, Gesetz, 67–68 (but cf. p. 68 n. 1!); MESSEL, Komposition, 5–6; NOTH, Leviticus, 119; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 211, etc. 358 This idea is already found in the study by Benzinger; see further MESSEL, Komposition, 6; and KOCH, Priesterschrift, 93 (as a possibility); ELLIGER, Leviticus, 211. 359 BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 380; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 207; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1065; etc. 360 See Lev 16:6, 11, 17, 24; l( and t) are always used exclusively with sancta (or occasionally non-human beings, as is the case for the goat sent to Azazel), see Lev 16:10, 16, 18 and 16:20. On the meaning of this distinction in P, see the discussion above, § 3.2.2.3.c. 356

348

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

el, and no longer to Aaron exclusively as in v. 2–28 (where Israel is referred to in the third person, see v. 5);361 also, it is no longer Aaron who is concerned but his descendants.362 Above all, there is an obvious proximity in the terminology and theology of v. 29–34a with H, and particularly with Lev 23:26–32, as long observed.363 The parallel is particularly striking in 16:31, which is the literal equivalent to Lev 23:32a, but there are numerous additional similarities between the two laws, especially in 16:29–31. Leviticus 16:29–34a Mlw( tqxl Mkl htyhw

Leviticus 23:26–32 29

hzh y(yb#h #dxl rw#(b K)27

y(yb#h #dxb

)wh Myrpkh Mwy

Mkyt#pn-t) wn(t #dxl rw#(b

Mkl hwhy #dq-)rqm

w#(t )l hk)lm-lkw

Mkyt#pn-t) Mtyn(w

Mkkwtb rgh rghw xrz)h

hwhyl h#) Mtbrqhw

Mkyl( rpky hzh Mwyb-yk30

w#(t )l hk)lm-lkw28

Mkyt)+x lkm Mkt) rh+l

)wh Myrpk Mwy yk hzh Mwyh Mc(b

wrh+t hwhy ynpl Mkyhl) hwhy ynpl Mkyl( rpkl Mkl )yh Nwtb# tb#31

Mkl )wh Nwtb# tb#32a

Mkyt#pn-t) Mtyn(w

Mkyt#pn-t) Mtyn(w

Mlw( tqx

Note, in particular, that the following expressions are distinctive of H: in v. 29, the inclusion of the native (xrz) ) and the resident alien (rg ) in the law,364 as well as the phrase rgh rgh 365 Mkkwtb; in v. 31, the phrase Nwtb# tb# is also H;366 the reference to the high priest in v. 32 corresponds to the description in Lev 21:10 (see further Num 35:25);367 the Priestly school, for its part, uses xy#mh Nhkh (compare Lev 4:3, 5, 16; 6:15).368

361

See for example WEFING, Untersuchungen, 144; AARTUN, Beitrag, 80. As noted by MILGROM, Leviticus, 1065. 363 For the parallels, see esp. ELLIGER, Leviticus, 207; WEFING, Untersuchungen, 203 n. 368; DEIANA, Giorno, 138–139. The secondary character of Lev 16:29–34a and the parallel with Lev 23:26–32 are acknowledged by most authors, see BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 380–381; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 52–53; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 227–228; SEIDL, Levitikus 16, 220ff. 364 See Lev 17:15; 18:26; 19:34; 24:16, 22; otherwise only in Ex 12:19, 48–49; Num 9:14; 15:29, 30; 35:15, all passages which presuppose Lev 17–26 (on this point, see further the analysis below, § 5.4.2.). Outside the Pentateuch, it only occurs in Josh 8:33 and Ez 47:22. For this observation, see also MILGROM, Leviticus, 1055–1056 and 1065. 365 Lev 17:10, 12, 13; 18:26; otherwise: Ex 12:49; Num 15:26, 29 (see also 15:14); 19:10, 35:15, all passages presupposing Lev 17–26. Outside the Torah: only in Josh 20:9; Ez 47:22. 366 See Lev 23:3, 32; 25,4; Ex 31:15; 35:2; on Ex 31:12 and 35:3, see below, p. 568–569. 367 For this observation, see also for instance ELLIGER, Leviticus, 207. 368 A point also noted, e.g., by MILGROM, Leviticus, 1058. See also above, Chapter Three, § 3.2.2.2., page 165. 362

4.3. Leviticus 16: Closing P’s Sacrificial System

349

The interpolation of v. 29–34a at the end of the ritual described in Lev 16 serves to identify this ritual with the one celebrated on the day of Myrpk, the tenth of Tis]ri, according to Lev 23:27ff. That this identification postdates Lev 23 accounts, in particular, for the reason why the calendar legislation of Lev 23:26–32 does not contain the slightest allusion to the ritual described in 16:2–28, and is manifestly unaware of it.369 Although some scholars have argued that Lev 23:26–32 would depend on Lev 16,370 the opposite view is more obvious. The importance of the parallels not only with the calendar of Lev 23, but more generally with the terminology and theology characteristic of the H code, demonstrate that this section is a further instance of editorial activity of the H school outside Lev 17–26. Besides, without Lev 23, 16:29– 34a is nothing but an isolated fragment, as Elliger correctly acknowledged.371 The main argument for the priority of 16:29–34 is the fact that this passage does not designate the celebration of the tenth day of the seventh month (Tis]ri) by the phrase Myrpkh Mwy, as in 23:27.372 Yet this omission may also be accounted for by the difference of context, since it is a distinctive feature of the calendar of Lev 23 to give systematically the name of the feasts in addition to their date. Besides, as Wefing, for instance, must admit, the phrase Myrpkh Mwy is also missing from the corresponding passage in the later calendar Num 28–29 (see 29:7–11). Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as a sound indication of the chronological priority of Lev 16:29ff.373 To be sure, Lev 16:29–34a is shorter than Lev 23:26–32 and does not contain, in particular, the development on the sanction for persons violating the prohibition to work during the feast which is found in 23:29–30. Yet it is clear that the H editor did not need to introduce all the aspects of the ceremony in Lev 16:29–34a already but focused instead on its most significant features. On one central point, however, he took the opportunity to 369

Although it consists of two distinct (but related) parts (v. 29–31 and 32–34a) the literary homogeneity of this interpolation is generally acknowledged, even by highly critical scholars, and need not be reasserted here; see, e.g., ELLIGER, Leviticus, 207; WEFING, Untersuchungen, 144. Note further that the influence of H is perceptible in the two parts of v. 29– 34a, see in particular v. 32a (which, as noted above, corresponds to Lev 21:10) and 34a. 370 See in particular WEFING, Untersuchungen 146; MILGROM, Leviticus, 2019–2021 (although he accepts the assignment of 16:29–34a to H). Most scholars simply refrain from addressing this issue, and speak of Lev 16:29–34a as an H insert within P which has close relations with 23:26–32, see, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 380–381.386. HARTLEY, Leviticus, 227–228, offers a detailed discussion on this point, but eventually leaves both options open. 371 See Leviticus, 207, where he describes 16:29–34a as a supplement “im Stile des H”. Against Milgrom, who correctly recognizes that these are the work of the H school but nevertheless regards them as earlier than Lev 17–26 (27), which is unconvincing. 372 Thus for instance WEFING, Untersuchungen, 146. 373 See W EFING , Untersuchungen, 146–147. In an attempt to explain this phenomenon, Wefing has to adopt a highly speculative theory (as she must admit), according to which Lev 16:29–31 and Num 29:7–11 originally referred to a celebration on the tenth of Tis]ri which was not yet the one designated in Lev 23 as Myrpkh Mwy. Knohl, also followed on this point by Milgrom, has argued that the calendar of Num 28–29 is earlier than Lev 23 (see KNOHL, Priestly Torah; and ID., Sanctuary, ch. 1), but this is hardly convincing; for the demonstration that it is on the contrary Num 28–29 which presupposes Lev 23, see now especially ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 602ff.; as well as WAGENAAR, Origin, 146–155.

350

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

supplement it by adding to the requirements of complete rest and fasting that the law applies equally to the xrz) and to the rg (16:29).374 Not only is this an innovation compared to Lev 23, but it seems difficult to perceive why the latter legislation should have omitted it were Lev 16:29ff. original. The inclusion of the rg in the earlier legislation is a typical hallmark of the later editorial work of the H school, and can also be found in several other H interpolations outside Leviticus: compare Ex 12:19, 48–49; Num 9:14; 15:29; and 35:15, all passages to which we will return later in this study, see below, § 5.4.2.).

In the next chapter, we shall return briefly to the nature and function of Lev 16:29–34a as part of the context of the discussion of the editorial work of H outside Lev 17–26, and to the possible date of the innovation brought by this late interpolation (see below, § 5.4.2.2.). For the time being, it suffices to retain the notion that the transformation of the original ritual, for which no specific date was given, into an annual ceremony in Israel’s calendar of festivals and sacred times is a late development, which should be assigned to the H school in the Pentateuch. This conclusion, combined with the absence of a specific date in v. 2, suggests that originally the ritual of Lev 16 was not a fixed ceremony, and could – at least in principle – be repeated several times in a year if purification of the temple was required, as has classically been assumed by exegetes since Benzinger. At the same time, however, the absence of any indication of an interval of time in Lev 16 suggests very clearly that both the revelation of this ceremony and its first performance, referred to in the notice in v. 34b, took place shortly after the inauguration of the sacrificial cult in Lev 9.375 This is reminiscent, in particular, of the ritual pattern in the Mesopotamian tradition connecting the creation of the world, culminating with the building of a sanctuary, and its purification every New Year. We shall return to this issue later in this section (below, § 4.3.2.). As regards the core of the ritual, v. 2–28, the problem is significantly more complex. There can be no question that this ceremony conflates several distinct types of rituals commonly found in the ancient Near East. The beginning of the instruction, especially the formulation of v. 2 and 3a (see also twmy )lw at the end of v. 13), suggests that the ritual somehow involves a ceremony of temple entrance, allowing the high priest to enter the most sacred part of the sanctuary on a given occasion in order to encounter the deity, such as is found elsewhere in antiquity, especially in Egypt.376 The core of the ritual is formed by the purification of the sanctuary (namely, the inner-sanctum, the sanctuary, and the outer altar) through the blood of sacrifices (v. 14–19), and is thus 374

For this observation, see also KÖRTING, Schall, 133. This was clearly also the understanding of the later editor who connected Lev 16 with Lev 10 through the interpolation of v. 1. 376 See in particular in Egypt the collection of texts dealing with the daily ritual for the temple; for a comprehensive presentation and translation, see TUAT 2. 391–405. In such texts, as in Lev 16, incense offering plays a central role; on this point, see further the survey by NIELSEN, Incense, 11–12. 375

4.3. Leviticus 16: Closing P’s Sacrificial System

351

strongly reminiscent of similar ceremonies in Mesopotamia, especially the ak|4tu festivals in Uruk and Babylon.377 Finally, the rite involving the goat sent to Azazel in the wilderness for the atonement of the whole community, which builds a kind of frame around the ceremony for the purification of the temple in v. 11–19 (see v. 7–10, 20–22), is a typical instance of a rite of elimination, identical to the bird rite found in Lev 14:4–7, of which we have several parallels in antiquity.378 Moreover, it is obvious that the distinctiveness of the so-called “scapegoat” ritual in v. 7–10 is highlighted, on a literary level, by its being framed through the resumption of v. 6 in v. 11a. There is no doubt that we have an originally independent ritual intended for the purification of the community, probably in cases of emergency, as has been long acknowledged. In the present context of Lev 16, the term lz)z( clearly refers to the name of some kind of demonic being inhabiting wild and desolated places; although it is not found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, it also appears as such in the later pseudepigraphic literature.379 The name lz)z( itself is most likely derived 377

For the edition and translation of these two rituals, see THUREAU-DANGIN, RA, 61–125 and 127–154. See also for example COHEN, Cultic Calendars, 437–451, for translation and discussion of extant texts relevant to the Babylonian New Year Festival. 378 For Hittite and Mesopotamian parallels, see in particular the survey by WRIGHT, Disposal, 31–86; and also MILGROM, Leviticus, 1071–1079. For a detailed discussion of South Anatolian (Hurrian) sources, see JANOWSKI/WILHELM, Bock, esp. 134–158. There are also some very interesting parallels from Ebla in two archives dating to about 2400–2300 BCE describing the purgation of a mausoleum with a live goat which is then sent to the steppe; for the texts see ARET XI 1 v. I 19–II 7 and ARET XI 2 v. I 7–21, and on this ZATELLI, Two Eblaite Texts, 254–258. In Ugarit, we have a parallel in one text, KTU 1.127:29–31 = RS 24.277, found on the clay model of an animal lung (probably of a sheep or a goat), which apparently refers to the taking away of a goat ((z) “in the far” (mrh9qm) by a man from the city in a case when the latter is threatened by an imminent danger (apparently an enemy army). For the reconstruction and the analysis of the text, see DIETRICH/LORETZ, Mantik in Ugarit, 19–38. Further on this parallel, see L ORETZ , Leberschau, 40ff.; AARTUN , Parallele; and JANOWSKI/WILHELM, Bock, 131–132. For ancient Greece, see the pharmakos rites, and on this in particular recently BREMMER, Scape-Goat Ritual; ID., Scapegoat, 177–181, who notes however that the rite of tranfer performed by Aaron on the goat’s head in Lev 16:21 has parallels in the Anatolian tradition, but not in the Greek one (Scapegoat, 183). The newest attempt by DOUGLAS, Go-Away Goat, to dismiss these Greek parallels is simply unconvincing; besides, her case is somewhat contradictory since even she must acknowledge the existence as well as the significance of such parallels towards the end of her essay. 379 See 1 Enoch (especially the Book of Watchers): 1 Enoch 8:1; 9:6; 10:4–8; 13:1; further also 54:5–6; 55:4; 69:2; as well as Apoc. Ab. 13:6–14; 14:4–6; 20:5–7; 22:5; 23:11; 29:6–7; 31:5. On this tradition, see inter alia HANSON , Rebellion in Heaven; and also recently GRABBE, Scapegoat, esp. 153–155. Although it has occasionally been disputed, even in recent times, this interpretation remains in my opinion the only possible one. Other traditional interpretations include the rendering of lz)z( as being a composite of z(, “goat” and lz), “go away”, hence the “goat which departs” (thus already the LXX [o9 klh=roj tou= a)popompai/ou], followed by the Vulgate [caper emissarius]; similarly GASTER, Azazel, 325–326, on the basis of Arabic (azala), or the idea

352

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

from (zz )l;380 as the name of a wilderness demon, it would mean therefore “the angry god”.381 Alternatively, on the basis of the Semitic root (zz, “rough ground”, one could also be tempted to render it as “the god of the wilderness”.382 The reading (zz )l is still preserved in some Qumran mss and in the Samaritan Pentateuch, and is certainly original.383 The MT’s reading most likely represents a deliberate alteration of the original name through metathesis by later editors who, by reverence to Yahweh, sought to conceal the divine nature of this demon. The combination of an elimination rite, such as the one implied in the dispatching of a goat lz)z(l, with an offering to Yahweh is rather untypical, and probably betrays a later development of the original rite. The present arrangement almost gives the impression that, in v. 7–10, the second goat is also offered to Azazel; note that in v. 5, both goats are explicitly said to be presented t)+xl, which may refer either to the community’s sin, to their purification offering, or even to both simultaneously (on this issue, see further below). Initially, the rite should have consisted in dispatching out of the town or the city a goat, on which the sins of the community had been transferred, to a deity who had become angry with the community and whose wrath was shown by sending a plague or a similar calamity. Such a rite of elimination has a very close parallel in one Hittite ritual in particular, the so-called “Ritual of Ashella”, where, after the leaders of the army have placed their hands upon that it would refer to a geographical designation such as “rocky precipice” (Rashi), “precipitous place” (Sipra) and the like; see for instance the survey by LANDERSDORFER, Studien, 18; DRIVER, Three Terms, 98, proposed “jagged rocks/precipice”; HOFFMANN, Leviticus, 1. 304– 305, suggests for his part an abstract name, “destruction”. All these interpretations are impossible both on the etymological level and in the context of the ritual described in Lev 16, which systematically parallels Azazel with Yahweh (see v. 8, 10) and thus clearly implies that it must refer to a similar entity, hence a god or a demon. Furthermore, in the Hebrew Bible as in other parts of ANE, wilderness, where the goat to Azazel must be dispatched, is traditionally one of the abodes of demons (see Isa 13:21–22; 34:11–15; and on this point, e.g., W RIGHT , Disposal, 27–30). Finally, as noted above, it also corresponds to the tradition retained in later Jewish literature, especially in 1 Enoch. This conclusion has been adopted by a majority of scholars and needs not be reasserted in detail here; see, e.g., TAWIL, (Azazel, 43; JANOWSKI, Sühne, 268 n. 447 (to be completed with JANOWSKI/WILHELM, Bock, 112 n. 11); ID., art. “Azazel”; and WRIGHT, Disposal, 21. 380 And not from (ez )el, “mighty goat”, as suggested by LEVINE, Leviticus, 102. 381 For this reading, cf. already for instance CHEYNE, “Scapegoat”, 155 (who renders however l)zz( by “God strengtheneth”); more recently, see in particular TAWIL, (Azazel; LORETZ, Leberschau, 50–57; WRIGHT, Disposal, 21–22; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1020–1021. As regards the problem of Egyptian parallels, and especially the view held by GÖRG (Beobachtungen; ID., Azazelogen), see in particular the critical discussion by JANOWSKI, Azazel (= JANOWSKI/ WILHELM, Bock, 123ff.). 382 For the parallel with the Semitic root (zz, which yielded in Arabic (aza=zu(n), see DRIVER, Three Terms, 98; and for a similar suggestion, GANE, Cult, 248 n. 13. 383 11QT 26:13; 4Q 180 1 7–8; and on this TAWIL, (Azazel, 58–59; DE ROO, Wrath, 236.

4.3. Leviticus 16: Closing P’s Sacrificial System

353

several rams, the animals are driven to the open country, into the enemy’s land, to appease an angry deity who caused a plague.384 Alternatively, it is also possible that the phrase (zz )l initially did not refer to the name of a deity or a demon but to the deity’s wrath which, as a miasmic force threatening the social order, needs to be disposed of, as recently argued by Janowski and Wilhelm on the basis of Anatolian parallels.385 If so, the lamed before the mention of Azazel was not, initially, a lamed auctoris, indicating the name of the offering’s owner as in the parallel hwhyl in v. 8 and 9, but the purpose of the offering of the goat (as the preposition ana in Hittite ritual texts, for instance). Although this solution is attractive from a comparative perspective, the reason why. in the later tradition, the phrase (zz )l was eventually understood as a personal name remains obscure. Janowski and Wilhelm have to surmise that this development reflects a period in which it was no longer understood that the phrase referred to the purpose of the elimination rite and was therefore interpreted as the name of a demonic being inhabiting a desolate place.386

In any event, there can be no doubt that by the time of the composition of Lev 16 Azazel was already the name of a well-known wilderness demon, since the reference to a supernatural being other than Yahweh is absolutely unique in P’s monotheistic cosmology, and is entirely unlikely to be P’s own invention.387 The inclusion of this ritual suggests that it must still have been quite popular at the time of P. Although the description of the original rite may no longer be recovered from v. 10, 21–22, the presence of a few hapax legomena in these verses may nevertheless corroborate the view that P has freely used an older tradition, oral or written, probably preserved in the temple of Jerusalem or in a near sanctuary.388 This is also indicated by the fact that it is the 384 See TUAT 2. 285–288; also W RIGHT , Disposal, 50–55. This parallel is missed by GANE, Cult, 250, when he denies that the goat sent to ‘Azazel is an offering to him because, “the live goat transports Israelite moral faults to Azazel, who ends up with this noxious load”, and concludes: “The ritual is a singularly unfriendly gesture toward Azazel”. 385 Cf. JANOWSKI/WILHELM, Bock, esp. 134ff. 386 Bock, 161–162. 387 Against a few authors such as MILGROM, Leviticus, 1021, there is no ground for surmising that in the present form of Lev 16, Azazel has been deprived of any demonic power. The explicit opposition between Yahweh on the one hand and Azazel on the other in v. 7–10 as well as the fact that Azazel is located in the wilderness, which is traditionally the abode of demons (above, note 379 for the references) already suggest the contrary. Equally unlikely is the attempt by DE ROO, Wrath, to argue that for the author of Lev 16 the compound (zz )l is a reference to God’s wrath rather than to a demonic being, thus taking further, in a sense, the thesis by Janowski and Wilhelm. Although de Roo is correct to note that many rituals in the HB are intended to appease God’s wrath, the two are actually never dissociated (whereas, in Lev 16, Yahweh and Azazel are clearly distinct entities). Besides, the entire hypothesis is based on the postulate that the HB would admit no other divine beings along Yahweh (p. 236–237), which is simply false. Note also that it is unable to account for the fact that in later Jewish tradition Azazel is consistently viewed as the name of a demonic being. 388 See the term yt( in the phrase yt( #y), or the adjectival use of the verb rzg, “to cut”, in the phrase hrzg Cr), a “cutoff land”. The term yt( is generally rendered, following the ver-

354

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

only place in P where we find a rite implying the transfer of the community’s sins and impurities through the leaning of both hands on the animal’s head.389 Whether in this document the earlier rite of elimination was already combined with the offering of a goat hwhyl is difficult to decide with certainty. However, the obvious tension caused by the fact that the sacrifice of the goat presented as a purification offering to Yahweh is apparently reported twice, in v. 9 and 15, as well as the fact that the text of v. 7–10 and 21–22 forms a coherent account within which v. 11–20 have been inserted, suggest that this is likely to have been the case. Evidently, the combination of the original elimination rite with the offering of a second goat to Yahweh denotes the attempt to confer a distinct Yahwistic significance to this rite. Nonetheless, all these observations do not mean that the conflation of these rituals in the present text of Lev 16 necessarily reflects a long process of gradual supplementation or that each ritual should correspond to a distinct layer within the text, as critical scholarship on Lev 16 has consistently presumed since Benzinger and Oort. The absence of any consensus in the sourceand literary-critical analysis of this chapter as well as the difficulties raised by most if not all main solutions proposed so far already demonstrate, on the contrary, that the rituals comprising Lev 16 are actually much more closely tied than may appear at first sight. Benzinger’s proposal to restrict the original ritual to the high priest’s entrance to the sanctuary in v. 1–4, 12–13 – which, as pointed out above, almost became the opinio communis for a few decades after the publication of Benzinger’s essay – faces the obvious difficulty that v. 3 already contains instructions to bring a bull and a ram. Thus, it requires at least the description of the high priest’s purification offering in v. 6/11, 14, as well as of his burnt offering in v. 24. Yet the high priest’s burnt offering in 16:24 cannot be dissociated from the burnt offering of the community in this same verse. This observation sions, by “a man ready”, or “a man in waiting”. See the LXX : a! n qrwpoj e3 t oimoj ; Vg.: paratum; on this, see further, e.g., ELLIGER, Leviticus, 216; DEIANA, Giorno, 74; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1045; H ARTLEY, Leviticus, 223; etc. However, LEVINE, Leviticus, 106, proposes deriving yt( from t( , “(appointed) time”, and to render it by “a designated man”, which seems to me the best solution; see similarly KRONHOLM, (e4t` /(atta=, 437 (“opportune”). 389 Contrary to the laying of one hand in case of sacrifice, the laying of both hands consistently refers, in the HB, to a form of symbolic transfer of one being to another (whether of sin, as in 16:21, or of authority, as in Numb 27:23; 27:18 LXX; Deut 34:9; further Lev 24:14; Suzanna 34 LXX [Num 8:10?]; see in particular PÉTER -C ONTESSE , Imposition, esp. 51ff.; further on Lev 16:21–22, JANOWSKI, Sühne, 209ff.; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1041; etc.). The rite with a single hand has a distinct function, and probably represents a declaration of ownership by the offerer, see especially WRIGHT/JONES, Gesture; MILGROM, Leviticus, 152–153 (rather than a form of identification of the offerer with his victim, which would substitute itself to the offerer when the latter has sinned, as argued e.g. by DUSSAUD, Origines, 72; NOTH, Leviticus, 22; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 34; PÉTER-CONTESSE, Imposition, 54; and especially GESE , Sühne, 95ff.; and JANOWSKI, Sühne, 220–221).

4.3. Leviticus 16: Closing P’s Sacrificial System

355

led some scholars to include v. 23–24 in the older layer identified by Benzinger;390 however, the burnt offering of the community in v. 24 corresponds to the instruction found in v. 5, which itself introduces the motif of the two goats in v. 7–10. Similarly, the notion that the text of ch. 16 would initially have ended with v. 10, as argued by Messel and others after him, is difficult to accept. Admittedly, this solution has the merit of being able to account for the literary resumption of v. 6 in 11a, which would prepare, in this model, for the interpolation of the ritual described in v. 12–28. However, there are also several indications that the text of v. 3–10 is truncated and demands a sequel. Thus, in particular, there is no report of the offering of the hl( of the high priest and of the community mentioned in v. 3 and 5 respectively.391 Similarly, it was already noted above that v. 10 cannot be separated from 21–22 describing the sending of the goat for Azazel to the wilderness. Above all, the main difficulty with this interpretation is that Aaron’s entry into the sanctuary is nowhere reported in v. 6–10, contrary to what would be expected from v. 3a; hence the necessity for Messel to consider v. 2–3a as a later interpolation.392 Yet his arguments for perceiving a tension between v. 2–3a and v. 3bff. are very limited and do not appear to support such a conclusion.393 Be390

Cf. BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 51–53; similarly HRUBY, Yom, 48–51 (“23ff”.). Among the adherents to Messel’s model, this point is generally not noted. DEIANA, Giorno, 34, merely observes that, “Desta meraviglia che di tale vittima, come dell’olocausto della communità del v. 5, si parli soltanto al v. 24”, and further argues in a footnote (n. 93) after RENDTORFF, Studien, 23, that the burnt offering was added in v. 3 and 5 at a later stage. However, there is certainly no support for such an argument in the text of v. 3–5. 392 See MESSEL, Komposition, 8–9. 393 See Komposition, 9. Messel’s argument is that the addition of v. 3a (“With this Aaron must enter the sacred place [#dqh ]…”) before 3b: “a bull of the herd for the purification offering and a ram for the burnt offering” creates a problem, since only the blood of the bull is brought into the inner-sanctum, whereas the ram is offered outside the sanctuary. For the same observation, see further LANDERSDORFER , Studien, 13; VON R AD , Priesterschrift, 87; and ELLIGER, Leviticus, 203. However, this argument is not coherent, since Messel correctly observes that v. 3a belongs to the same redactional level as v. 11–28*; in this case, one has to assume that the later redactor who reworked the original ritual in v. 3b, 5–10 introduced in v. 3a a phrase intended to prepare the insertion of v. 11ff., but nevertheless contradicted them! In fact, there is no need to perceive a tension between v. 3a and v. 11ff., and the whole issue arises from the very literal rendering adopted by Messel. V. 3 may simply be taken to mean that the bringing of a bull and a ram for a purification and a burnt offering respectively is the prerequisite to Aaron’s entry into the inner-sanctum; in this case, there is no tension between v. 3a and 3b, and the verse may be regarded as homogeneous. This conclusion also implies that contrary to Messel, it should not be assumed that the meaning of #dqh has to be different in v. 2 and 3a; in v. 3a as well, #dqh must also refer to the inner-sanctum, and not merely to the entire sacred building, as argued by Messel (Komposition, 9). On the significance of this conclusion for rendering #dqh throughout Lev 16, see further below. WEFING, Untersuchungen, 41–42, also rejects the idea that the connection between v. 2 and 3 is original because the animals prescribed in 3b are nowhere else related with the issue of the high priest’s entrance 391

356

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

sides, the whole reconstruction rests primarily on the observation of literary “doublets” between v. 5–10 and 11–28. But apart from v. 6 and v. 11a, the other repetitions identified (v. 9 // 15 and 10 // 20)394 are not convincing. V. 15 and 20–22 are not cases of literary resumptions (contrary to v. 6 and 11a); rather, they pursue the distinction between the two goats introduced in v. 9 and 10 (one goat being offered to Yahweh, the other exiled to a remote place). The problem raised by the kind of extreme form criticism developed by Rendtorff in his analysis of Lev 16 is obvious and need not be discussed here at length. That it is possible to identify, from a comparative perspective, various distinct types of ritual procedures in this chapter does not mean that they must have their origin in a discrete instruction. Also, several assumptions on which this kind of analysis is based, such as the belief that a sacrificial ritual should always follow the same sequence, are entirely problematic. The difficulties raised by the notion that at a pre-P stage already, the rite involving the two goats was combined with a set of ritual acts for the purification of the sanctuary (Koch, Otto) have been mentioned. What remains to be discussed, therefore, are the sophisticated analyses by Elliger, Wefing and Körting which all lay considerable emphasis on the Wiederaufnahme between v. 6 and 11a for the literary-critical analysis of Lev 16. The decisive point, however, is whether this observation, in itself indisputable, automatically implies that the ritual with the two goats in v. 5, 7–10 was interpolated at a later stage and by a distinct hand, as they assume. Though it seems logical at first, this literarycritical solution is actually problematic. Elliger’s reconstruction, in which the earlier layer of the text already combined the purification offerings of the high priest (v. 11, 14) and of the community (v. 15), faces the problem that the goat of the t)+x offering for the people is only mentioned in v. 5 and 9, hence in the stratum which he regards as a later interpolation. This observation led Wefing to restrict the original ritual to the high priest’s t)+x in v. 11, 14, and to attribute the community’s offering in v. 15 to a later redaction.395 In this model, also adopted by Körting, the original ritual was limited to the t)+x offered by the high priest for his own atonement and the atonement of his house (see v. 6/11a). But is it really possible to dissociate this rite from those implying the whole community? In v. 23–24, Aaron, after he has confessed over the head of the goat for Azazel to the inner-sanctum. Since, however, Lev 16 is the only text in the Pentateuch dealing with this issue, the argument is pointless. 394 See MESSEL, Komposition, 7. 395 WEFING, Untersuchungen, 82–85; and for her criticism of Elliger’s solution, p. 188 n. 148. Wefing assigns v. 15 to a redaction seeking to identify the community’s t)+x with the high priest’s offering after the original ritual in v. 3, 6, 11b, 14 was coupled with the ritual of v. 5, 7–10, which introduced the motif of a t)+x offering of the community (v. 9) but did not include yet the ritual disposal of the animal’s blood inside the sanctuary, as occurs with the high priest’s t)+x in v. 14.

4.3. Leviticus 16: Closing P’s Sacrificial System

357

the sins of the community and sent the latter to the wilderness (v. 21–22), enters again the sanctuary, washes his body, puts on new clothes and offers conjointly his own burnt offering with that of the community. Here, at the close of the entire ritual, the hl( of the high priest, mentioned in v. 3, is combined with the hl( of the community of v. 5; thus, the two offerings serve the same purpose: to atone for the high priest and the community altogether (rpkw 396 Körting, who logically retains v. 23–24 in the M(h d(bw wd(b, v. 24bb). first layer of Lev 16, must allege that the reference in v. 24 to the burnt offering on behalf of the people was interpolated later.397 However, there is no text-critical argument sustaining this view, and the reasoning appears to be circular. Namely, it is assumed that the hl( of the community is necessarily secondary because it is believed that in the remainder of the ritual, the high priest’s and the community’s atonement are distinct issues which should belong to different literary layers. A more radical solution is advanced by Wefing, who finds the conclusion of the ritual for the atonement of the high priest in v. 14, thus escaping the problem raised by the conflation of the burnt offerings of the high priest and of the community in v. 23–24. Yet not only is Wefing unable to explain the reference to Aaron’s hl( in v. 3, but – as she has to admit398 – it is entirely unlikely that v. 14 could have formed once the conclusion of the ritual. At the very least, one would expect a statement on the purpose and significance of the sevenfold sprinkling of the blood of Aaron’s purification offering in this verse, as is found in v. 16ff. It was already this observation which had led Noth to suggest that v. 17b could have represented the original conclusion of the ritual;399 but v. 17b clearly includes the atonement of the community in addition to Aaron and his house, and Noth is thus obliged to regard this mention as a later gloss.400 Lastly, one should also note that the offering of a hl( after a t)+x is a common feature throughout in P; it occurs consistently in the context of public ceremonies, as in Lev 8 and 9, so that their separation in Lev 16 appears all the more unlikely.401 396

The LXX adds kai\ peri\ tou= oi1kou au0tou=, but this is clearly an attempt to harmonize with the phrase wtyb d(bw in v. 6 and 11a. 397 KÖRTING, Schall, 127. 398 WEFING, Untersuchungen, 60: “Ob das Ritual ursprünglich einmal mit Vers 14 endete, muß äußerst zweifelhaft bleiben – wahrscheinlich ist es nicht” (emph. added). However, she does not reflect further upon the implications of this observation for the exegesis of Lev 16. 399 See NOTH, Leviticus, 123. 400 Although one could surmise that the purification offering of the high priest was originally not only for himself and for the atonement of his house but also of the community as a whole, as is implied by Lev 9:7 MT, but this would contradict the statement in Lev 16:6 and 11a; besides, it is most likely that the MT of 9:7 is secondary against the LXX reading in this verse, which does not mention the community (see on this above, § 3.1.1., p. 120). 401 A point also remarked by KÖRTING, Schall, 127, who uses it as an argument for retaining the burnt offering of Aaron in the primary layer of the text of ch. 16. On the meaning in P of the sequence comprising a t)+x offering followed by an hl(, see above, § 3.2.2.3.c.

358

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

In sum, the dissociation of the offerings of the high priest and of the community, and thus the reconstruction of a layer solely concerned with the high priest’s atonement in Lev 16, are not justified from a source- and literarycritical perspective. On the contrary, the two motifs belong together, exactly as in the ceremony of Lev 9,402 whose parallel with ch. 16 is obvious from a structural and functional viewpoint, as we will see in more detail below. If so, however, and since the description of the t)+x of the community in v. 15 clearly presupposes v. 5 and 9, one must conclude that in spite of the resumption of v. 6 in 11a, from a literary-critical perspective the ritual with the two goats in v. 5, 7–10 should also be regarded as original in Lev 16 and cannot be a later interpolation. Rather, the function of the doublet, which forms an elaborate frame around v. 7–10, is probably to signal the return to the procedure with the bull for the high priest after the digression on the two goats through the resumption of v. 6.403 The need for such a device arose from the conflation of two distinct rites, one involving the two goats and serving for the community’s purification and atonement, the other involving a bull and meant for purification of the sanctuary. Although it is likely that the author of Lev 16 adapted originally discrete instructions for his composition, especially in the case of the rite with the two goats (see above), in the present text at least they may no longer be separated and assigned to distinct layers. As for the other tensions that have commonly been noted, it was observed above that it is not possible – against Messel and several others after him – to speak of a doublet in the case of v. 9 and 15, comparable to the resumption of v. 6 in 11a. Certainly, the phrase t)+x wh#(w in 16:9 initially referred, in the original ritual, to the slaughter of the goat for Yahweh. But the Priestly writer who adapted the ritual with the two goats could easily have taken the verb h#( in a general sense (“he makes it into a purification offering”, as later Jewish tradition also understood it).404 One may adduce in this regard that in P whenever the phrase h#( + sacrificial term is used to designate the act of offering a sacrifice, the sacrificial term itself is usually preceded either by a determinant or by the nota accusativi.405 Since it is not the case in Lev 16:9 402

For the literary homogeneity of the ceremony described in 9:8–21, see above, § 3.1.1. Thus for instance MILGROM, Leviticus, 1024. A less likely solution would be that the verb brq Hiphil should be rendered differently in v. 6 and 11a, as has sometimes been suggested (thus recently H ARTLEY, Leviticus, 236.239, referring to LEVINE, Leviticus, 104, although the reference appears to be faulty). 404 According to the Mishna (m. Yoma 4:2, 9–10), the goat on which the lot hwhyl is cast is not slained immediately, but has a red ribbon attached around its neck to symbolize the fact that it has become the goat destined to be sacrificed as a purification offering. A similar understanding seems to be attested in the ancient versions. The LXX reads kai\ prosoi/sei peri\ a(marti/aj which, as noted, e.g., by DEIANA, Giorno, 52, “ha la doppia valenza di ‘presentare l’offerta’ e di ‘offrire il sacrificio’”; see similarly Vg, offerat illum pro peccato. 405 See Ex 29:38; Lev 9:7, 22; 14:19; 16:24. 403

4.3. Leviticus 16: Closing P’s Sacrificial System

359

this observation supports a non-specific rendering of the verb h#( in this verse. Alternatively, it could also be assumed that the P author of Lev 16 interpreted the waw in the t)+x wh#(w as purposive.406 In any event, the result is that the phrase initially concluding the procedure with the goat for Yahweh in the older instruction, partly preserved in v. 7–10, was probably regarded by P as preparation for the effective slaughter of the goat in v. 15. The use of the verb +x# in this verse, instead of h#( as in 16:9, indicates that P understood the rite of v. 15 as corresponding to a further stage in the development of the procedure initiated at v. 7ff. One may note, finally, that in Lev 16 the unity of the rites described in v. 7–10 and 11–19 is emphasized by the fact that the two goats offered by the community, one to cleanse the sanctuary from the people’s impurities (v. 15) and the other to be sent to Azazel (v. 21–22), are defined as forming together one purification offering (see t)+xl, v. 5). Deiana wants to use this observation as a hint that the original ritual knew of only one goat offered by the community,407 but this reasoning is unconvincing since the collective use of a sacrificial term is found in several other places in P.408 Admittedly, the goat sent to Azazel does not constitute a t)+x offering properly speaking; yet since it also serves for the atonement and the purification of the community (see v. 21), the P author of Lev 16 could easily subsume it within this sacrificial category.409 Another problem raised by the very detailed analyses of Elliger, Wefing and Körting concerns their systematic tendency to regard the purification of the sanctuary in v. 16–19 (with v. 17 being possibly earlier) as a secondary development, entirely foreign to the original ritual.410 This seems quite unlikely, from both a literary-critical and a comparative perspective. 406

Thus for instance MILGROM, Leviticus, 1022. Giorno, especially p. 42. 408 See, e.g., Lev 9:22, 24, and further on this the examples given in § 3.1.1., p. 117 n. 33. 409 For a similar view, see MILGROM, Leviticus, 1018, who notes that the term t)+x “may have been chosen for its philological sense ‘that which removes sin,’ which precisely defines the function of the scapegoat”. In his recent discussion, GANE, Cult, 246–261, also concludes that, “each of the two goats, individually, is a t)+x animal” (p. 258) and proposes rendering t)+x in 16:5 by “purification ritual”. Gane, however, considers an even greater continuity between the two goats since in his understanding of Lev 16 the sins that are transferred upon the second goat are in part those that were removed from the sanctuary; for a critical discussion, see above, § 3.2.2.3.d., p. 190–192. Alternatively, as some authors have proposed (e.g., RODRIGUEZ, Substitution, 113; GORMAN, Ideology, 97), one could also surmise that the use of the singular in v. 5 refers to the fact that at this point of the procedure, it is not known yet which goat will be chosen to be offered as a purification offering to Yahweh. 410 In itself, this trend is not original, insofar as since Benzinger (and with the partial exception of scholars such as Rendtorff, Koch and Otto) most authors have tended to regard the motif of the sanctuary’s purification as secondary. What is new, however, in the works of Elliger, Wefing and Körting, is the attempt to deny any original connection between Aaron’s purification offering in v. 14 and the purification of the sanctuary in v. 16ff. 407

360

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

First, exactly as in the case of the two goat ritual in v. 5, 7–10, the mere elimination of v. 16–19 is problematic; for what is the purpose of the sevenfold sprinkling of blood beyond the second veil in v. 14 and 15 if not to purify the inner-sanctum, as is stated in v. 16? That this is the function of ritual aspersions on objects everywhere else in P has already been recalled earlier in this study.411 Not only is there no reason for a different situation to apply here; but the view of Elliger, Wefing and Körting requires the assumption that the ritual aspersion of the sacrificial blood inside the inner-sanctum originally served only for the atonement of the high priest (and of the community, if v. 15 is included), and that only at a later stage did it become a means for purifying the sanctuary itself through the insertion of v. 16ff. In fact, it is obvious that the tension between the two motifs is non-existent. As Wefing admits, the notion that atonement of individuals and purification of sacred objects are distinct issues betrays a modern conception that is foreign to the worldview of antiquity.412 Besides, it may be noted that the elimination raises an important difficulty in terms of literary coherence since the purpose of the sevenfold sprinkling of the inner-sanctum with the blood of the two purification offerings in v. 14 and 15 is no longer stated, contrary to what is usually the case in P. Elliger and Körting try to solve the difficulty by retaining v. 17 as the immediate sequel to v. 14–15 (although for Körting, v. 15 and 17 already belong to a secondary layer), but this solution is unconvincing. V. 17 (or at least 17b) does indeed seem to be secondary in its present literary context because it interrupts the description of verses 16 and 18, as often observed.413 Besides, v. 17b stands in tension with v. 6 and 11a, already mentioning atonement for Aaron and his house in connection with the offering of their t)+x; lastly, the summary in v. 20a makes no mention of this statement either. However, it is obvious that v. 17 is not earlier than v. 16 and 18 but has been interpolated; the notion that originally it should have followed v. 15 is entirely unlikely since v. 17 presupposes the distinction between d(wm lh) (referring to the entire sanctuary) and #dqh (the inner-sanctum) which is introduced for the first time in v. 16. Hence, v. 14–19 (minus v. 17b and, perhaps, v. 17a as well) should be regarded as a coherent unit. The interpolation of v. 17b probably betrays the attempt by a later redactor to connect the ceremony of Lev 16 with the legislation of Lev 4. As was argued in the previous chapter (see § 3.2.2.3.d.), the doublet between v. 16ab 411

See in particular the discussion in § 3.2.3.3. WEFING, Untersuchungen, 92ff. Even KÖRTING, Schall, 129, recognizes that the connection of v. 16 with v. 14–15 has “eine innere Logik”, though she nevertheless maintains that the second motif is a later development of the first. 413 KOCH , Priesterschrift, 94; E LLIGER , Leviticus, 205, view all of v. 17 as secondary; other authors, however, retain only 17b as a later insert, see BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 385; and NOTH, Leviticus, 123. The matter is difficult to decide and can be left open here. 412

4.3. Leviticus 16: Closing P’s Sacrificial System

361

and 21ab strongly suggests that Lev 16 was originally a rite merely concerned with the purification of the sanctuary from impurities (v. 11–19), on the one hand, and the elimination of the crimes (tnw() of the community (v. 20b– 22) on the other. It was noted, in addition, that this solution accounts for the fact that in the ritual involving Azazel, only tnw( are recalled in v. 22, and not the other offenses mentioned in v. 21. The reference to all the “rebellions” (My(#p) and all the sins (t)+x) was introduced in the two passages when Lev 16 was combined into a great system of atonement with the legislation of Lev 4, which already presupposes the altar of perfumes (see 4:7, 18) and should therefore be later than Lev 16 which is still unaware of it (above, § 3.2.2.1.). The combined offering of a t)+x for the priestly house (v. 14) and for the people (v. 15) corresponds to the fact that the entire community, priests and laymen, is responsible for the pollution of the sanctuary which is said to reside “amidst their impurities” (v. 16b, see Lev 15:31). The fact that only in the case of the purification offering of the high priest is it stated that it serves to atone for himself and for his house (v. 6, 11a),414 without a corresponding statement for the offering of the community in v. 15, should probably be explained by the fact that in P, as elsewhere in antiquity, the preservation of the sanctuary’s purity was a specific duty of the priests (above, § 3.2.2.3.c.). With the insertion of the phrase Mt)+x-lkl Mhy(#p[-lkl-t)]w in v. 16a (and in v. 21a) the entire ceremony became part of the comprehensive system equating atonement from sin and purification of the sanctuary in Lev 4. While Lev 4 concerns the purification of all the sins committed by inadvertence (hgg#b, v. 2), the ritual performed inside the inner-sanctum deals with all types of deliberate sins not covered by the legislation of Lev 4. Aaron’s entry into the innersanctum during the ceremony is now reinterpreted in the sense of the specific theory of graded pollution developed by the author of ch. 4; while inadvertent sins were assumed to pollute either the outer altar (4:22–35) or the outersanctum (4:3–21), depending on the social status of the sinner, deliberate sins represent a further degree of pollution and thus logically penetrate the innersanctum. The interpolation of v. 17b which, as noted above, stands in tension with v. 6 and 11a, is also quite consistent with the theology of Lev 4; most likely, it was introduced together with the revision of v. 16a and 21a. Purification of the sanctuary, including the inner-sanctum, achieves atonement not only for the priestly house, as in the original ceremony, but for the entire community (cf. l)r#y lhq-lk). From the perspective of Lev 4, in which the sanctuary’s degree of pollution is directly proportional to the importance and the nature of the community’s sins, preserving the sanctuary’s holiness is no longer the privilege of the priestly class, as it was the case originally, but has become, in a sense, the duty of the entire community (see above, § 3.2.2.3.d.). 414

For the meaning of rpk + d(b here, see the discussion in § 3.2.2.3.c., p. 175 n. 288.

362

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

To sum up: The various attempts that have been made to assign the different rituals combined in the present text of Lev 16 to discrete stages in its formation are all unconvincing. On the contrary, close analysis of the text suggests that these rituals, although typologically distinct, cannot be isolated from each other but form a coherent complex of rites. Even the observation of the resumption of v. 6 in v. 11a cannot be used to dissociate, on the literary level, the ritual with the two goats in v. 5, 7–10 from the purification offering of the high priest; and the classical assumption that the motif of the purification of the sanctuary stems from a secondary development has also proved untenable both from a literary and a comparative perspective. Apart from a few limited additions as v. 17, the bulk of ch. 16 should be regarded as a unified composition from the hand of the Priestly writer. He created the ritual by combining two distinct rites of elimination, one consisting in the dispatching of a goat to a remote place (hzrg Cr)), and one in which a bull’s blood is used for the purification of the temple, as is also found in Ez 45:18–19. In the case of the first rite, the author of Lev 16 may have adapted a discrete instruction still partly preserved in v. 7–10, 21–22, in which the original rite of elimination was already combined with the offering of another goat to Yahweh, most likely in order to give a distinctively Yahwistic tone to the sending of a goat lz)z(l. Also, in v. 5, the Priestly writer further developed the incorporation of the earlier elimination rite into P’s sacrifical system by stating that the offering of the two goats together had the same purpose and possibly even formed in a broad sense a single offering (cf. t)+xl). In the present text of Lev 16:2–28, the goat offered to Yahweh is now integrated into the second rite by being presented as the community’s contribution to the purification of the sanctuary. In the case of the second rite, it seems to reflect characteristically the first of the two traditional types of t)+x offering, in which the bull’s carcass is entirely burnt outside the sanctuary (cf. Ez 43:21, and on this above, § 3.2.2.3.c.).415 Although it is likely that, here again, the Priestly writer did not simply invent that rite, it was so carefully combined with the first one that it is no longer possible to reconstruct more specifically the tradition used by P. 4.3.1.3. Later Additions to Leviticus 16 So far, this discussion has focused on the major tensions traditionally observed in the text of Lev 16, bearing upon the general issue of the possi415

As long observed, the notice on the burning of the suet of the purification offerings of the high priest and of the community in v. 25 comes too late and should have immediately followed the ceremony in v. 11–19. Benzinger, who was the first to observe this, suggested that the verse was misplaced; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 52, resumed his observation to argue that it was a mere gloss, a solution often followed since (e.g., MESSEL, Komposition, 11; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 206). In fact, since the introduction of the systematic burning of the suet of the t)+x is apparently P’s innovation (above, § 3.2.2.3.c.), 16:25 is probably from P’s hand.

4.3. Leviticus 16: Closing P’s Sacrificial System

363

bility of reconstructing distinct stages in the formation of the chapter. Nevertheless, several other, more limited interpolations have also been identified, which will now be briefly discussed. It is true, in particular, for v. 12–13. This passage prescribes that, for his first entry into the inner-sanctum Aaron is to take a censer-pan (htxm) as well as two handfuls of incense (tr+q), bring them beyond the second veil, and put incense on the fire burning in the censer “before Yahweh” (hwhy ynpl). As a result, the “cloud of incense (tr+qh Nn()” will “cover the trpk that is over the ‘testimony’ (twd(h-l(), and he [that is, Aaron] will not die (twmy )lw)” (v. 13b). Following Benzinger, it has been observed that v. 12–13 did not seem to be firmly anchored in their present literary context. For Benzinger, it suggested that v. 12–13 initially followed v. 6, v. 7–11 being an interpolation. But later authors usually claimed the opposite view, regarding v. 12–13 as an addition because this rite seems to interrupt the sequence between v. 11 and v. 14.416 Thus, the instruction that is initiated in v. 11b (cf. t)+xh rp-t) +x#w wl-r#)) is taken up in v. 14 only (rph Mdm xqlw). Above all, the present sequence of the text also raises a logical difficulty. Since Aaron must bring into the inner-sanctum not only the censer but also two handfuls of incense, he can hardly take with him the blood of the bull of the t)+x as well. Therefore, one has apparently to assume that after entering a first time the inner-sanctum, Aaron is to return to the outer altar and take the blood back inside the innersanctum. However, nothing is said about that in the text of chapter 16, nor about what is to become of the bull’s blood in the interval. Actually, it is worth noting that in the latter case the Mishna had to provide additional instruction.417 Although the removal of v. 12–13 offers an apparently simple solution to these difficulties, it raises other problems. In particular, it results in Aaron’s entry into the inner-sanctum not being reported in v. 14, contrary to what is the case in v. 15.418 Penetrating the inner-sanctum, the very place of the divine presence, is the most eminent and the most dangerous act of the entire cult, and it is difficult to accept that its mention would have been simply omitted by P on its first occurrence. Apparently, then, v. 14 does presuppose the previous instruction of 16:12. Besides, the arguments evinced above are not necessarily decisive. That Aaron must exit the inner-sanctum and return to the altar in the course of the ritual is also tacitly implied in v. 15, so that the sequence comprising v. 13–14 need not be considered anomalous in this re416

See already MESSEL, Komposition; and further W EFING , Untersuchungen, 102ff.; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 204.209–210. KÖRTING, Schall, 126.131, also raises the possibility of an interpolation but eventually opts for the original character of v. 12–13. 417 See m. Yoma 4:3; 5:3, where it is stated that a cultic servant had to continually mix the blood to prevent it from coagulating. 418 See tkrpl tybm-l) wmd-t) )ybhw, 16:15a.

364

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

gard.419 Finally, it must be noted that the use of incense in rituals of temple entrance is a common feature in Egypt, and that it also occurs, for instance, in one of the rites associated with the ceremony of the Babylonian New Year,420 which the author of Lev 16 may have known (see below). For these reasons, in all likelihood the censer-incense rite of v. 12–13 is also original.421 A related issue concerns the relationship of 16:12–13 with the concluding clause of v. 2, where it is stated that the purpose of the entire ceremony of ch. 16 is that Aaron may not die “for/when I [that is, Yahweh] will appear in the cloud on the trpk” (16:2bb, g).422 The parallel with the description of v. 12– 13 is obvious: in both cases, the possibility for Aaron’s survival in presence of Yahweh (cf. twmy )lw, v. 2ba and 13bb) is connected with the appearance of the cloud (Nn() on the trpk . This device suggests that most likely the two passages stem from the same hand. It has sometimes been held that the clause of v. 2bb, g had been interpolated because of the sudden occurrence of the first person in the divine speech;423 yet this is dubious. There are other parallels in P to this phenomenon, as for example in Ex 29:43–46, the conclusion to the divine instructions for the building of the tent in Ex 25–29. Besides, v. 2bb, g makes good sense after the phrase twmy )lw which Elliger, for instance, has to consider also as an interpolation. But in this case, the entire motive clause is eliminated in v. 2b, and one does no longer understand why Aaron is ordered not to enter the inner-sanctum at will in the first part of the verse (2a). Nevertheless, if there are good reasons to assume that the k|=-clause in 2bb, g is original, and was intended as a prolepsis to the censer-incense rite performed by Aaron in v. 12–13, the nature of the cloud in this verse is somewhat unclear. The rabbis already debated whether it should be identified with the cloud of incense of v. 12–13, or whether it refers to the divine firecloud in the form of which Yahweh reveals himself to Israel;424 modern scholars are 419

As to the risk that the blood of the first t)+x coagulates during Aaron’s first entry into the inner-sanctum with his censer, this detail was probably simply omitted (either intentionally or not) by the author of Lev 16; it is possible that the problem was only gradually noted through the repeated practice of the ritual. 420 On the fifth day of the ritual, the priest enters Nabu’s cell with a censer (nignakku), a torch (gizillû), and some kind of vessel (egubbû) to purify it; see THUREAU-DANGIN, Rituels Accadiens, 140 (= l. 347–348). 421 On this issue, my conclusion here meets that of NOTH , Leviticus, 122; cf. also KÖRTING, Schall, 126.131. 422 The rendering of the opening kî is difficult to decide. Most modern scholars interpret it in a causal sense (i.e., “for I will appear in the cloud”; e.g., DEIANA, Giorno, 30; ID., Levitico, 160), as already the versions (thus the LXX : gar ; the Vulgate has: quia). However, in the context of v. 2, a temporal rendering (“when I will appear”) is also justified (thus, e.g., PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 251). At any rate, the choice for either option is not significant for the interpretation of the clause. 423 See especially ELLIGER, Leviticus, 203.207–208; further MILGROM, Leviticus, 1015. 424 For the rabbinic discussion, see the references given by MILGROM, Leviticus, 1014.

4.3. Leviticus 16: Closing P’s Sacrificial System

365

likewise divided.425 In fact, both options are equally attractive, and it might be surmised that ambiguity, here, is deliberate. On one hand, the parallel with v. 12–13 definitely seems to imply some kind of connection between the cloud of v. 2 and that produced by the censer-incense rite inside the inner-sanctum. On the other hand, the allusion to the divine firecloud is also unmistakable in the wider context of P’s narrative. The mention of Nn( at the beginning of the great ceremony of Lev 16 creates a remarkable inclusion with the story of the building of the tent in Ex 25–40, which is itself framed by two occurrences of the divine cloud at strategic places. In Ex 24:16 (P), it is residing over Mt Sinai, and Moses enters it in order to receive the instructions for the building of the tent (25:1ff.); at the other end, in Ex 40:34–35, the cloud has moved down from its abode on Mt Sinai to enter the newly built tent (v. 34), but Moses himself cannot penetrate the tent because it is filled by the divine cloud (40:35, preparing for Lev 1–9). In Lev 9:23–24, Yahweh’s ka4bo=d appears to the community before the tent, but no mention is made of the cloud. In Lev 16, finally, the divine cloud reveals itself inside the inner-sanctum, and can be approached (albeit only under certain conditions) by Aaron.426 In this respect, the occurrence of the firecloud at the very beginning of ch. 16 appears to be the climax of a coherent development framing the entire Sinai pericope in P. Yet if this conclusion is correct, it necessarily implies that some sort of connection was indeed intended by the author of Lev 16 between the censerincense cloud of v. 12–13 and the divine firecloud by which Yahweh reveals himself to the Israelites at Mt Sinai, after the crossing of the Sea in Ex 14. Namely, in Lev 16 the censer-incense cloud covering the kapporet and protecting Aaron from seeing the deity who resides inside the inner-sanctum is now equated, in a sense, with the divine firecloud itself. We will have to return to this issue below (§ 4.3.2.2.), for it casts a decisive light on the function and significance of the entire ritual of ch. 16 in the context of the P narrative. The remaining tensions identified in Lev 16 can be discussed more briefly. The original character of v. 2 and 3 has sometimes been disputed, yet the enu425

A majority of scholars seem to opt for the firecloud interpretation; see already BERLeviticus, 54 (“Nn( hat mit der Weihrauchwolke von v. 13 nichts zu schaffen sondern ist Jahwes ständige Begleiterscheinung”), and further in particular WEFING, Untersuchungen, 38ff. For the opposite view, arguing that the cloud of v. 2 is identical to that of v. 13, see especially ELLIGER, Leviticus, 207; and MILGROM, Leviticus, 1015; cf. also HEGER, Incense Cult, 216–225. Milgrom rejects the firecloud interpretation on the ground that nowhere in the HB is there a prohibition found on seeing the divine firecloud. That is correct, but only as long as the Israelites remain at a distance; thus, in Ex 24:15b–18aa , only Moses may approach the divine cloud and enter it. Since Lev 16 considers the same kind of intimacy with the divine, but this time for Aaron specifically, it explains why the appearance of the divine firecloud inside the inner-sanctum could be defined by the Priestly writer as a lethal threat. 426 As is commonly acknowledged, Ex 40:36–38 is a very late addition that serves to prepare for Num 9:15ff. On this point, see above, § 1.2.2.2., page 57. THOLET,

366

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

meration in v. 3 of the sacrificial animals and the priestly vestments which Aaron must have with him in order to enter the inner-sanctum is quite coherent after the statement of v. 2. Besides, if v. 12–13 are original, as argued above, it must necessarily also be true for v. 2, which introduces the issue of the lethal danger connected with Aaron’s contact with the deity (see v. 2bb, g  v. 13bb). It has often been claimed that the instruction of v. 4 interrupts the description of the sacrificial animals which are required from the high priest (v. 3) and the community (v. 5), and should therefore be regarded as an interpolation.427 However, the prescription for Aaron to put on specific clothes on the occasion of the ceremony of Lev 16 fits well with the unique character of this ritual, in which the high priest is exceptionally allowed inside the innersanctum, and this instruction could hardly have been introduced elsewhere in the text of ch. 16. Above all, it is presupposed by the passage on the offering of the hl( of the high priest and of the community in v. 23–24 which, as argued above, must be original. Since there is obviously no possibility of sorting out the reference to the linen garments of v. 4 as a later addition in those verses, this motif must similarly be original, at least as regards v. 4a.428 V. 4b looks indeed like a later gloss, and breaks somehow the transition between v. 4a and 5. Yet since the removal of Aaron’s clothes at the other end of the ritual, in v. 23–24, is also accompanied by a ritual bath, this notice is likely to be original nevertheless. As regards the core of the ritual itself, in v. 6–25 (from the offering of Aaron’s bull to the final offering of the hl( of the high priest and of the community and the burning of the suet of the purification offerings), the above analysis has shown that it is a unified composition in which only v. 17 (or possibly just 17b) as well as the phrase Mt)+x-lkl Mhy(#p[-lkl-t)]w in v. 16ab and 21ab are later inserts by the later redactor who harmonized Lev 16 with Lev 4. As argued above, v. 25 was most likely introduced by the P scribe who composed Lev 16:2–28; although this verse has often been assumed to be a later addition, this is unlikely. The absence of any ritual burning of the fat would be unique in P. Moreover, contrary to what is often tacitly held, the burning of the suet is not at all a minor aspect of the sacrificial procedure in P but represents its necessary conclusion, as Eberhardt has recently demonstrated.429 V. 25 should therefore belong to the original text of Lev 16; one 427

Thus MESSEL, Komposition, 7; NOTH , Leviticus, 118. WEFING, Untersuchungen, 42, also argues that the instruction on Aaron’s clothes in v. 4 comes too late in the present text, and should have preceded the instruction on the sacrificial animals required in v. 3. Not only is this observation disputable, but Wefing fails to note that the placement of v. 4 after v. 3 reflects the system of value of Lev 16. Regarding what Aaron requires to be allowed inside the inner-sanctum (cf. the beginning of v. 3), the bull for the purification offering and the ram for the final burnt offering are more important than the linen fabrics prescribed in v. 4. 428 Thus also ELLIGER, Leviticus, 202–204. 429 See EBERHARDT, Studien.

4.3. Leviticus 16: Closing P’s Sacrificial System

367

may also note that the previous burning of the fat seems to be presupposed by the enumeration of v. 27, from which the fat is omitted.430 Admittedly, that in v. 23–25 the burning of the hl( precedes that of the suet of the purification offering is unique in P, outside the calendar of Num 28–29; however, it probably corresponds to the fact that the burning of the purification offering is less important than that of the burnt offering. While burning the latter brings about atonement for the high priest and the entire community (v. 24b), nothing equivalent is said for the burning of the purification offering. This is probably because in this case, as in Lev 8:15, purification of the sanctuary has already been achieved through the ritual disposal of blood in v. 14–19, as is explicitly stated in v. 16 and 19.431 Lastly, v. 26–28 should similarly be retained in the original ritual; against the proposal of Elliger and Körting, there is no reason to consider them as belonging to a later layer than v. 23–24.432 Disposal of the animal’s remains is an essential aspect of an elimination rite such as the t)+x (see Ez 43:21!), and the corresponding notice is consistently found in P (see Ex 29:14; Lev 4:11–12, 21; 8:17; 9:11), so that 16:27–28 should necessarily be original. Finally, a word is to be said about the issue raised by the terminology of Lev 16:2–28, which has occasionally been used as an argument against the literary homogeneity of this text. Contrary to what is often asserted, there is no need to assume that the meaning of the term #dqh varies in v. 2, 3, 16, 17, 23 and 27; in all these passages, it can be taken to refer to the inner-sanctum specifically. The opposite view was essentially based on v. 3a, in which it is argued that #dqh should designate the entire sanctuary since the two animals mentioned in 3b are not brought into the inner-sanctum in the course of the following ritual, but only the blood of the bull serving as a purification offering.433 However, it is manifest that this reasoning is faulty.434 The logical connection between v. 3b and 3a should not be understood in the sense that the bull and the ram are to be brought into haqqodes], but rather that the taking of these two animals is a prerequisite for Aaron to enter haqqodes]. Here also, 430

BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 52, uses this observation to contend that it is v. 25 which presupposes v. 27, but this is particularly unlikely since one does not understand, in this case, why v. 27 omitted the fat, specifically, among all the parts of the two animals. He also adduced against the originality of this verse the fact that it uses a singular form to designate the two purification offerings. Yet this is a frequent device in P, as was previously observed in the case of the hl(; see above, page 117. 431 On this point, see above, § 3.2.2.3.c., regarding the difference between purification of sancta and of persons by means of the t)+x in P. 432 See ELLIGER, Leviticus, 206–207; KÖRTING, Schall, 130 (with caution). 433 Thus already MESSEL , Komposition, 9: “#dqh muß ja hier das heilige Gebäude bezeichnen; nach V. 2 ist wohl zunächst das Allerheiligste gedacht”. See further for example WEFING, Untersuchungen, 48; AARTUN, Beitrag, 76–77. 434 See already above, note 393.

368

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

therefore, this term should be taken to refer to the inner-sanctum, and the view that its meaning is not coherent throughout Lev 16 has no basis. Admittedly, the fact that P uses #dqh, which refers elsewhere either to the outer-sanctum in general435 or to the sanctuary as a whole,436 in order to designate the innersanctum, instead of the usual phrase My#dqh #dq, is unusual.437 As a result, the d(wm lh) , referring otherwise in P to the entire building (or, more precisely, to the outer tent covering the Nk#m; see Ex 26:7–14), is now applied to the outer-sanctum. Milgrom argues from this that 16:2–28 stem from an older, pre-P ritual.438 However, since v. 2–28 already presuppose P’s broader narrative context in Gen–Lev, and since the language and the theology of these verses clearly betray the influence of P, this proposal cannot be sustained.439 Besides, the formulation of the first occurrence of the term #dqh, in v. 2, with its reference to the inner veil and the trpk, suggests that the author of v. 2–28 is actually aware of the common meaning of this term elsewhere in P and wants to avoid a possible confusion. More likely, if, as argued above, P adapted freely an older ritual on the purification of the sanctuary, one may surmise that such specific use of #dqh was taken from his source. Alternatively, this could also suggest that Lev 16 was composed by a scribe other than that responsible for Lev 1–9 (further on this below, § 4.4.1.). To sum up this survey: With the exception of v. 17 as well as of the phrase Mt)+x-lkl Mhy(#p[-lkl-t)]w in v. 16ab and 21ab , and, possibly, of v. 4b, the rest of the instruction for the ritual of 16:2–28 should be considered original. Contrary to a common assertion,440 this ritual has a perfectly coherent, albeit complex, structure, the core of which is constituted by the combination of three distinct rites: first, a rite for the admission of the high priest to the inner-sanctum, the very seat of the divine presence (v. 2ff., 12–13), second, a rite for the cleansing of the sanctuary (v. 14–19), and finally a rite for the disposal and elimination of the community’s faults implying the transfer of those crimes onto a goat dispatched outside the community to a demonic entity named Azazel (v. 10, 20b–22). These rites are themselves coherently organized around the motif of Aaron’s entrance into the inner-sanctum (v. 12–13), which makes possible in turn the purification of the entire sanctuary, starting from the inner-sanctum and moving towards the outer altar (v. 14–19), and, 435 See Ex 26:33: My#dqh #dq Nybw #dqh Nyb; in the various passages dealing with Aaron’s entry into #dqh, the reference could also be to the outer-sanctum rather than to the sanctuary in general; see Ex 28:29, 35, 43; 29:30; 35:19; 39:1, 41. 436 Thus the majority of occurrences: see Ex 30:13, 24; 36:1, 3, 4, 6; 38:24, 25, 26, 27. 437 See BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 383; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 203ff.; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1063. 438 See ID., Leviticus, 1063. 439 The same observation applies against SEIDL, Levitikus 16, who holds that this text is “eine ursprünglich unabhängige, wenn auch recht späte priesterliche Spekulation” (p. 245). 440 See NOTH, Leviticus, 117(ff.); similarly GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 196; but see on the contrary the relevant observations by SEIDL, Levitikus 16, 228–235, esp. 234–235.

4.3. Leviticus 16: Closing P’s Sacrificial System

369

finally, of the community itself (v. 20b–22).441 From a source- and literarycritical perspective, we have seen that the different attempts classically made in order to correlate these rites with distinct stages in the formation of Lev 16:2–28 cannot be supported. From a comparative perspective, it should also be noted that such a combination of rites contains nothing exceptional in itself, but is on the contrary a feature well attested elsewhere in antiquity. The Babylonian New Year Festival, the ak|4tu, which has come down to us in a fragmentary state and to which the ceremony of Lev 16 has often been compared, actually involves a far more complex set of cultic rites than Lev 16.442 The parallel is especially interesting in the case of the ritual for the cleansing of the Esagila, a cella in Marduk’s temple in Babylon in which Nabu, a visiting god, is about to reside for a short stay, on the fifth day of the Babylonian festival. This ceremony similarly implies a preliminary purification of the cella with censer-incense, among other purifying instruments (torch, water, and cedar oil), as well as the slaughter of a ram which becomes the carrier of all the impurities contained in this cella, the carcass of which will be disposed of in the river;443 similarly, it is eventually followed by a rite of penitence and confession to which the king must submit (cf. Lev 16:21).444 Though such parallels remain very general and do not mean that the ceremony of Lev 16 is a mere calque of the cleansing of the Esagila in the Babylonian New Year Festival,445 it shows that the sequence of rites attested in Lev 16 is perfectly plausible. Once this point is granted, and the literary and structural 441

This point has also been observed recently by RODRIGUEZ, Leviticus 16, who correctly perceives that this ceremony consists of the combination of a rite of entrance, a cleansing rite and an elimination rite, and further comments: “The rite of entrance makes it possible for Aaron to have access to the inner-sanctum in order to perform the cleansing rite through which sins and impurities are removed from the sanctuary on behalf of the priesthood and the people of Israel; finally, through the elimination rite the goat for Azazel takes them away to their place of origin, to the wilderness. […] There is here a clear and direct connection between the rite of entrance, the cleansing rite and the elimination rite which contributes to the theological and literary unit of Lev 16” (p. 284–285; emphasis original). 442 The text of the Babylonian New Year Festival which has come down to us relates the events from the second to the fifth day of this festival. For a critical edition of the text, see THUREAU-DANGIN, Rituels Accadiens, 127–154; for an English translation of the extant texts for each day of the ritual, see COHEN, Cultic Calendars, 437–451. 443 See THUREAU-DANGIN, Rituels Accadiens, 140–141 = l. 346–363. 444 Ibid., 144–145 = l. 415–452. On these parallels, see already MILGROM, Leviticus, 1067–1070; and now GANE, Cult, 362ff. 445 See in the same sense the remarks by MILGROM, Leviticus, 1068–1069; GANE, Cult, 370ff., both of whom list several major differences between the two rituals. It does not preclude, however, the possibility that the P author of Lev 16 knew the Babylonian ceremony and could have been inspired by it. On the wider issue of the relevance of the Babylonian ak|4tu for the pre-exilic New Year Festival in Israel, see especially the cautious observations by VAN DER TOORN, New Year Festival, esp. 339ff.

370

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

coherence of Lev 16:2–28 is acknowledged, we may turn to the significance of this central ceremony in P. The overall structure of the original ceremony in P (= Lev 16:2–28, 34b, minus the few interpolations identified above) may thus be described as follows: Divine speech to Moses 16:2aa 16:2ab–5 Introduction: provisions for the ritual’s performance 16:2 Initial restriction of Aaron’s entrance to the inner-sanctum 16:3–5 Preparations for the ceremony: offerings to be brought by Aaron (a young bull and a ram) and by the community (the two goats); Aaron changes clothes and bathes himself 16:6–10 Preliminaries: separating the goat for Yahweh from the one for Azazel by casting the lots 16:11–19 First part of the ceremony, complete purification of the sanctuary with Aaron’s bull and the first goat 16:20–22 Second part of the ceremony, purification of the community with the other goat 16:23–28 Conclusion of the ritual 16:23–25 Return to the “normal” order: Aaron takes off his special clothes and puts on his usual ones, bathes himself, and offers his burnt offering and the burnt offering on behalf of the community 16:26–28 Complementary provisions regarding the sacrificial remains 16:34b Compliance report

4.3.2. Lev 16 and the Permanent Restitution of Yahweh’s Presence in Israel As was briefly suggested in Chapter Two of this study (above, § 2.3.3.), the general significance of the ceremony of Lev 16 is already indicated by its function; like Lev 8–9, which concluded the first part of Leviticus, on sacrifices, Lev 16 is also a typical rite of passage, with its three characteristic stages (separation, liminality and aggregation). Aaron, as the community’s representative, must endorse a new, distinct status during the ritual’s celebration, which is symbolized by the fact that he must leave his usual clothes and wear specific ones. The change of clothes and the ritual bath (v. 4, 24) frame the ceremony and define a period of marginality, during which the transition occurs; as in other rituals, this period is typically represented as a particularly dangerous time for Aaron, as is emphasized by v. 2 and 13. The return to Aaron’s usual clothes and the presentation of the burnt offerings (v. 23ff.) signal the end of Aaron’s marginal status and thus the resumption of the official cult, to which corresponds the offering of the hl( for Aaron and for the community in v. 23–24.446 But whereas the ceremony of Lev 8–9 established a new cosmic order characterized by a closer relationship to the deity through the institution of the sacrificial cult in Israel, that of Lev 16 is intended on the contrary to restore this order every time it is significantly transgressed, and 446

See in particular GORMAN, Ideology, 61–102; and JÜRGENS, Heiligkeit, 73–123.

4.3. Leviticus 16: Closing P’s Sacrificial System

371

thus its very existence is threatened.447 This general function of Lev 16 in the context of Lev 1–16 is most obvious in the two rites for the purification of the sanctuary and of the community, on which most recent studies of Lev 16 have focused, and which will be addressed first. Subsequently, we shall see how the censer-incense rite performed by Aaron in v. 12–13 and the related theophany also fit into this picture. 4.3.2.1. Purification of the Sanctuary and the Community in Leviticus 1–16 In the original form of Lev 16, i.e., before the introduction of Lev 4 and the reworking of 16:16a and 21a, the center of the ceremony is formed by a complex rite combining the purification of the sanctuary from the ritual “impurities” (t)m+) of the Israelites in v. 14–19, followed by the purification of the community itself from its moral faults (tnw() in v. 20b–22. The purification of the sanctuary connects ch. 16 to the collection on impurities. This point is emphasized in v. 16b, when it is recalled that the tent of meeting “dwells” (Nk#) amidst the impurities of the Israelites (Mt)m+ Kwtb), exactly like Yahweh himself dwells in the midst (Nk# + Kwtb) of his people according to the central promise of Ex 25:8 and 29:45. Whereas, as argued above (§ 4.2.), the general purpose of the collection on impurities in Lev 11–15 is to emphasize that Israel, as the community within whose boundaries the very symbol of cosmic order, the sanctuary, resides, must be a model of social control against 447 Thus in particular GORMAN, Ideology, 61–102, and especially his conclusion on p. 101–102: “Leviticus 16 details an annual ritual in which the divinely created order is restructured and, as such, is the ritual enactment of world order. […] Thus, the ritual serves to reestablish the divinely created order by enacting the re-ordering of cosmos, society, and cult. […] The holiness of the tabernacle is restored, the community is cleansed and sin eliminated, and chaos is removed to its proper place. Leviticus 16, thus, restructures and reestablishes the three orders of creation”. Very similarly JÜRGENS, Heiligkeit, esp. 118–123, though he rightly disputes Gorman’s idea that in the course of the ceremony of Lev 16 the distinctions between the main categories on which this cosmic order is built (sacred/profane, pure/impure, order/ chaos) would be deliberately broken down in order to be reestablished and restored. The ak|4tu festival in Babylon can also be analyzed as a rite of passages aiming at the renewal of order, as some authors have pointed out, especially as concerns Marduk’s departure from the Esagil on the eighth day (rite of separation), his three-day stay in the ak|4tu-house (liminal phase), and his return to Babylon on the eleventh (rite of aggregation). For this analysis, see VAN DER TOORN, New Year Festival, 337–339. How far this renewal was conceived as being primarily cosmic or political in nature is disputed. Various authors would now favor the latter; see, e.g., VAN DER T OORN , Ibid.; PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, Ina s]ulmi |4rub, esp. 74–75. Indeed, the emphasis on the celebration of the values of the prevailing political order cannot be denied; however, it would go too far to deny any cosmic significance to the festival, especially given the close connection between the two dimensions in antiquity as well as the common representation of the temple as a microcosm. For a balanced view on this issue, see, e.g., SOMMER, Babylonian Akitu. The overlapping of political and religious features in the ak|4tu is also argued at length in the recent study by BIDMEAD, Akitu Festival.

372

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

the organic, anti-social forces permanently threatening those boundaries, Lev 16, for its part, focuses on the permanent risk of the sanctuary itself becoming polluted in spite of the attempts by the Israelites to control the spreading of impurity. For Israel, pollution is an inveterate mark of the community’s mortal condition, over which it can only exert a limited form of control, as reflected in the measures recommended in Lev 11–15. For the deity dwelling in Israel’s sanctuary, pollution is intolerable because Yahweh is not subject to biological accidents and transitions characterizing human life, from birth to death. If Israel’s God is to live among humans, it can only do so within a place that is also immune to such accidents and transitions. In a sense, the sanctuary itself, as a symbol of cosmic order, is also necessarily a symbol of the kind of immutability and impermeability expected from the deity itself, as is illustrated for instance in the instruction prohibiting the offering of substances symbolic of fermentation and corruption on the altar in Lev 2:11–12.448 This issue which, as is shown by the existence of similar purification rites outside Israel, is basic for every temple theology, is settled in Lev 16 by the revelation to Moses of a ritual for the sanctuary’s complete purification. Allowing the permanent possibility of restoring the sanctuary’s initial purity and sanctity whatever the defilement incurred ultimately warrants that the deity will remain forever present in Israel, contrary to the scenario described for instance in Ez 8–11. For this reason, the ceremony of Lev 16 offers a fitting conclusion not only to the legislation on impurities in Lev 11–15, but more broadly to the to=ra= of Lev 1–16 and, beyond, to the P narrative in general. Whereas the placement of Lev 11–15 immediately after 8–9 underlines the fact that the cosmic order instituted by the inauguration of the sacrificial cult is always threatened by the Israelites’ inability to escape the biological determination which is inherent to their condition,449 Lev 16 nevertheless allows for the reestablishment of this order, provided the high priest correctly performs the appropriate ceremony. In this respect, Lev 11–15 and 16 cannot be dissociated. Rather, they complete each other, and even somehow function together as a symbol of the ambivalence of the relationship between Yahweh and Israel.450 The association of a further rite for the purification of the community, following immediately the cleansing of the sanctuary and implying the confession of the community’s faults (tnw() and their transfer onto a goat’s head (v. 20b–22), is quite coherent. In antiquity, all forms of transgression of the moral 448

On this, see above, § 3.3.2., p. 213; on the sanctuary as a symbol of the division between the condition of gods and men, see also above, § 4.2.1., especially pages 306–307. 449 This is explicitly stressed by the motive clause in 15:31, even if, as argued above (page 283), this notice is probably not from the hand of P but of the final editor of Leviticus. 450 The very same function of cosmic renewal is implied in the ak|4tu festival in Babylon; on this, see, e.g., the study by SOMMER, Babylonian Akitu, and the remarks above, note 447.

4.3. Leviticus 16: Closing P’s Sacrificial System

373

and social order dissatisfy the gods and cause their wrath because this same order is ultimately endorsed by the gods themselves.451 In this context, the purification of the sanctuary through the ritual of Lev 16 is each time simultaneously the opportunity for the community to begin its relationship to Yahweh anew. This is reminiscent, in particular, of a central feature of the fifth day of the Babylonian ak|4tu festival, where, after the ritual cleansing of Bel’s temple and of the Esagila, the king eventually submits to a ritual of confession and penitence under the direction of the s]es]gallu-priest; he is temporarily deprived of his royal attributes, and the sincerity of his penitence is regarded as a portent of Bel’s favor for the year to come.452 In Lev 16, however, the connection between the two rites is further highlighted by the association of the two goats offered by the community (v. 5) on which the lots are cast (v. 7–10), one of which being sacrified to Yahweh as a t)+x for the purification of the sanctuary (v. 15ff.) while the other is sent to Azazel with the faults of the community (v. 10, 20b–22). In addition, the king’s confession is replaced, in Leviticus, by the high priest’s confession of the community’s sins on behalf of the latter, a significant development in itself. The inclusion of this rite of transfer and elimination thus signals that ritual and moral purification are indissociable in the ceremony of Lev 16, and calls in particular for a revision of Knohl’s view that the Priestly school, contrary to H, would be uniquely concerned with ritual matters and not with ethical issues.453 At this stage, however, moral crimes are not yet represented systematically as a miasmic force penetrating the sanctuary and polluting it according to their degrees of seriousness. This development, as argued earlier in this study, will only take place with the addition of Lev 4 and the corresponding reworking of Lev 16:2–28 which incorporates this ceremony into the complex system of pollution defined by Lev 4, Lev 16 becoming now a ritual for the purification of all the cases of pollution not covered by the legislation of ch. 4. Initially, the ceremony of Lev 16:2–28 only included the purification of the inner-sanctum, the outer-sanctum and the altar from the ritual impurities (t)m+ ) of the Israelites, not addressed by the legislation of ch. 11–15. The 451 For Mesopotamia, see in particular VAN DER TOORN, Sin, ch. 3, where he demonstrates at length how the protection of the moral order relies on the involvement of the gods themselves. In the Mesopotamian literature relative to the abandonment by a patron deity of its temple, moral faults are a frequent cause; see, e.g., the so-called “Marduk prophecy” (for the translation, see TUAT 2. 65–68), and further on this BLOCK, Divine Abandonment. The same is true for ancient Greece, see, e.g., the discussion on this point by PARKER, Miasma, ch. 8. 452 The king’s sincerity is tested by the priest, who must strike him on the cheek; the text then reads: “If when (he strikes) the king’s cheek, the tears flow, (it means that) the god Bel is friendly; if no tears appear, the god Bel is angry: the enemy will rise up and bring about his downfall”. (I follow the translation proposed by D. Wright, in MILGROM, Leviticus, 1068.). 453 KNOHL, Sanctuary, 137ff.; and on this already the critical observations by MILGROM, Leviticus, 21–26.

374

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

association of the rite of transfer and elimination of the community’s faults in Lev 16:21–22 underlines that Yahweh needed to dwell not only in a pure, non-defiled sanctuary, but also in the middle of a community morally blameless and upright. Lastly, the decision by the Priestly writer in Lev 16 to incorporate the rite involving the dismissal of a goat to a demonic entity named Azazel probably betrays a concession to popular beliefs at the time of composition of Lev 16, as is commonly assumed. This phenomenon is quite in line with the general tendency of the Priestly school, which frequently betrays a more liberal stance towards popular practices than the Deuteronomistic school for instance.454 Nevertheless, this explanation alone does not account for the function of this rite in the present text. Instead, the reference to another supernatural being alongside Yahweh, a unique device in P and even in the Torah in general,455 actually serves to highlight the general division upon which the entire system of P in Lev 1–16 is construed. While Yahweh is located inside the sanctuary and is associated with order, culture, and a coherent society, Azazel is associated with the wilderness, a symbol of chaos, anomy and anti-culture.456 The opposition between Yahweh and Azazel in Lev 16 personifies the antinomy between two extreme poles: the sanctuary on one hand, the center of which is formed by the Ark and the kapporet specifically and which is mentioned for the first time in Leviticus in 16:14–15, and the wilderness on the other.457 In the course of the ceremony, all forms of transgressions against the social and moral order devised by the creator God are sent back to Azazel, and therefore transferred outside the boundaries of the community, which is thus also represented as standing on the side of order as opposed to disorder. In this respect, the entire ceremony of Lev 16 must ultimately be viewed as preserving a central teaching on creation and divine justice.458 The antinomy 454

This is especially clear in the P account of the Patriarchs. P has no problem with the cult of Israel’s ancestors, since he systematically indicates their place of burial (the cave of Machpelah in Hebron, see Gen 23, and further 25:9–10; 35:27–29; 50:13, and compare in particular with Deut 18:9ff.). 455 In the Pentateuch, outside Lev 16 the only partial exception might be the reference to the Cbr in the obscure statement of Gen 4:7, if one assumes an allusion to Akk. ra4b|4su, the name of a demonic being. In Ex 12:23, the tyx#m (“Destroyer”) is clearly subordinated to (or possibly even identified with) Yahweh. 456 On this point, see especially GORMAN , Ideology, 98–99; JENSON , Graded Holiness, 202–203; and JÜRGENS, Heiligkeit, 81, all of whom note that the entire ceremony of Lev 16 is construed between two extreme poles: the kapporet, the seat of the divine presence, and the wilderness, which in this text is associated with a demonic being. 457 For a similar idea, see also WHITEKETTLE, Leviticus 15.18, 40–42. 458 SEIDL, Levitikus 16, 243, similarly concludes that Lev 16 was originally “primär eine theoretische Reflexion über die Möglichkeiten der Sündentilgung im sprachlichen Kleid ritueller Anordnung”; see also JANOWSKI/ZENGER, Jenseits des Alltags, 79. However, contrary to Seidl, I see no reason to assume that Lev 16:2–28 is a mere literary construction without any

4.3. Leviticus 16: Closing P’s Sacrificial System

375

between the figures of Yahweh and Azazel identifies Yahweh as the creator of a coherent and civilized world whose microcosmic model is the sanctuary. Although this world is continuously threatened by forces of chaos and antistructure that are rebel against the organizing scheme of the creator God, such forces do not properly belong to it.459 Thus, the original elimination rite edited by P is not simply included but simultaneously significantly reinterpreted in the broader narrative context of Gen 1–Lev 16. Israel, as the “priestly nation” in the universe, is called to restore the perfection of the original creation by sending all physical and moral transgressions back where they belong by means of the ceremony of ch. 16. With this, the great ritual concluding the to=ra= on impurities in Lev 11–16 ultimately achieves the literary construction of an ideal community in which something of the divine order devised at the creation of the world may be reflected not only once in a distant, foundational past, as in account of the inauguration of the cult at Mt Sinai in Lev 8–9, but even permanently, namely, every time the grand ceremony of Lev 16 is performed by the high priest. This last aspect becomes even more obvious when one takes into consideration the censer-incense rite in v. 12–13. 4.3.2.2. The Censer-Incense Rite inside the Inner-Sanctum (Lev 16:12–13) Whereas both the relationship between the rites for purification of the sanctuary and of the community and their function in the context of Lev 16 as a rite practical prospect. The notion that this text was suddenly transformed into an effective celebration simply by the interpolation of Lev 16:29–34a and its inclusion in the festival calendar (cf. Lev 23:26–32) is unsatisfactory, and this kind of alternative is too simple. 459 For a similar view, though from a somewhat different perspective, see also now GANE, Cult, 261–265, who argues that the dismissal of the second goat serves to return moral faults to their source, namely, Azazel. If this interpretation is correct, we touch here a central issue with which every monotheistic system is confronted. Either the One God is presented as the creator of both good and evil, as in the school of Second Isaiah; in Isa 45:7, we find the following statement: (r )rwbw Mwl# h#(, “I do s]a4lo=m and I create evil” (note, interestingly, that one Qumran ms [Isa Qa] even reads bw+ instead of Mwl#, see BHS). This solution preserves divine omnipotence but raises an issue in terms of divine justice. Alternatively, the origin of evil is imputed to an external force, as is typically the case in the relecture of the story of 2 Sam 24 in 1 Chr 21, where the initiative of David’s census is now attributed to the intervention of the s8a4t[a4n. P’s stand in Lev 16 is reminiscent of the book of Job, especially of the final dialogue between Job and God in ch. 40–41, which suggests that the struggle of the Creator God against chaos was not settled once and for all but is on the contrary a permanent reality, as is signaled by the presence of such mythical monsters within the creation as the Behemoth and the Leviathan. For this interpretation, and for its background in the traditional iconography and symbolism of the “master of animals” in ancient Near East, see in particular KEEL, Jahwes Entgegnung. Interestingly, the connection between the representation of God in P and in the book of Job has already been hinted at by KNOHL, Sanctuary, 165–167. This interpretation also accounts for the nature of the reception of the figure of Azazel in later Judaism, especially in Enoch (above, note 379). On this aspect, see in particular FAUTH, Spuren.

376

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

of maintenance are manifest, the relation to the censer-incense rite that Aaron must perform whenever he enters the inner-sanctum (v. 12–13) has generally escaped commentators, and requires a few comments.460 Closer analysis suggests that this rite has several meanings, depending on the ambiguous nature of the cloud of incense, and that such polysemy is actually a deliberate device. On one hand, the most obvious function of the censer-incense rite is to allow Aaron to have access to the inner-sanctum without dying (see the statement twmy )lw in v. 13bb, and already in v. 2b), the cloud protecting him from the sight of the deity revealing itself upon the Ark (v. 2bb, g),461 and thus to proceed in the complete purification of the sanctuary including the kapporet, the very seat of the divine presence (Ex 25:22). It is clear that the Priestly writer is referring here to one of the traditional functions of censer-incense in antiquity, which had apotropaic powers and could serve to ward off demons and appease the gods’ wrath (see Num 17:6–15).462 Here, however, this traditional function is already reinterpreted, since according to the formulation of v. 13 it is no longer incense per se but the resulting cloud that protects Aaron from the deity.463 At the same time, the use of incense as a means for the offerer to purify himself in order to be admitted into the presence of the gods, who are pleased with the perfume’s sweet savor, is also a well-attested motif 460

It is simply omitted in most recent approaches to the ceremony of Lev 16, thus characteristically SEIDL, Levitikus 16, 240–243; similarly JANOWSKI/ZENGER, Jenseits des Alltags, 73–81. GANE , Cult, 237–238, exclusively stresses the apotropaic/expiatory function of this rite. KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 82ff., and JÜRGENS, Heiligkeit, 300, both connect this rite with the cultic offence of Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10:1–3 (see also briefly GANE, Cult, 227), which is certainly correct on the level of the final text of Leviticus (see the considerations made above in § 2.3.2.), but not of the initial composition of Lev 16 if, as argued above (§ 3.1.3.), Lev 10 is a late interpolation in Lev 1–16. Besides, the intertextuality of Lev 16:12– 13 is not restricted to Lev 10, even in the canonical form of Leviticus, but rather concerns primarily the cloud theophany on Mt Sinai in Ex 25–40, see further below. A major exception is found in the analysis of GORMAN, Ideology, 89, who, in a very brief comment, correctly connects the censer-incense rite in Lev 16 with both the function of protecting Aaron from Yahweh’s presence and simultaneously manifesting this same presence within the cult, which basically agrees with the the analysis of this motif proposed here. 461 Pace MILGROM, Leviticus, 1014, the formulation of v. 2b makes clear that it is not the sight of the Ark (see also 1028ff., for instance on p. 1029: “The need to ‘cover’ […] can only be to screen the Ark from the high priest’s sight”), but of the divine cloud itself which is potentially lethal for Aaron. Besides, the reference to Num 4:20 quoted by Milgrom to back his interpretation is faulty, since there Aaron and his sons are the only ones for whom the sight of the most holy place of the sanctuary is apparently not fatal. 462 See also on this point § 2.3.2, page 102. For the association of censer-incense with an apotropaic function, see already HEINISCH, Leviticus, 74; NOTH, Leviticus, 123; further LEVINE, Presence, 93; ID., Leviticus, 104; NIELSEN, Incense, 73; and GANE, Cult, 237. 463 For a similar observation, see MILGROM, Leviticus, 1029. Milgrom (Ibid., 1030–1031) also raises the interesting issue of the nature of the ingredient capable of producing this smoke, since it appears that those described in Ex 30:34 are unlikely candidates.

4.3. Leviticus 16: Closing P’s Sacrificial System

377

in antiquity,464 and we still find an echo of this notion in Lev 16:12–13. In this respect, the censer-incense rite, as the condition for Aaron’s admission into the inner-sanctum, somehow makes possible the entire purification ceremony of Lev 16. On the other hand, the fact that this censer-incense also appears to imply some sort of connection with the divine firecloud itself, as is suggested in particular by the formulation of v. 2bb, g, signals that the censer-incense rite performed inside the inner-sanctum has a further, deeper significance in the context of the whole ceremony. Read in sequence, the two passages referring to the “cloud” (Nn() in Lev 16, v. 2b and 13, suggest that the cloud of incense produced by Aaron somehow represents the manifestation of the divine cloud itself inside the sanctuary.465 Leviticus 16:2b

Leviticus 16:13

He [Aaron] shall not die when I will appear [Aaron] shall place the incense upon the fire inside the cloud, above the kapporet before Yahweh, and the cloud of incense shall cover the kapporet, and (thus) he shall not die

Here again, P may be playing on another traditional function of incense in antiquity, since it is likely that in ritual contexts incense smoke could serve to give concrete expression to the manifestation of a deity.466 In any event, the cloud of incense of Lev 16:13 has a twofold meaning: to protect Aaron from Yahweh’s sight and to serve as a location for the divine presence. Yet the same ambivalence characterizes the description of the divine cloud itself in Ex 24:15b–18aa (P) already. There, the cloud, together with fire (namely, the two traditional attributes of the storm god in Syria-Palestine!), does not only represent the earthly manifestation of the deity, but also serves, simultaneously, to “cover” (hsk , as in Lev 16:13!) from Israel’s sight the divine ka4bo=d residing on Mt Sinai (see Ex 24:16). This parallel explains in turn why the incense cloud of Lev 16 could be associated by the author of this text with the divine cloud revealing itself to Israel on Mt Sinai in Exodus.467

464

See the references given earlier in this study, § 2.3.2, pages 101–102. As is acknowledged for instance by ELLIGER, Leviticus, 207, in a lapidary statement (“der Weihrauch erzeugt die Wolke”); further on this point, e.g., DOZEMAN, God, 135–136; GORMAN, Ideology, 89; as well as H EGER, Incense Cult, 216–225, all of whom observe the significance of the incense cloud as a sign of the divine presence inside the sanctuary. 466 See in particular the Egyptian rituals consisting in filling the god’s statue with smoke, and on this NIELSEN, Incense, 11–12. 467 This parallel is also noted by GORMAN, Ideology, 89, who states finely: “In both cases, it may be said that the smoke veils while it reveals”. 465

378

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

The importance of this motif in Lev 16 is highlighted by the complex set of intertextual references which it convokes within the P version of the Sinai account, a point generally insufficiently noted. First, the reference to Yahweh’s manifestation inside the cloud connects the entire ceremony of Lev 16 with the two previous cloud theophanies which judiciously frame both ends of the account on the building of the sanctuary in P, in Ex 24:15b–18aa and 40:34–35. In this regard, the cloud theophany of Lev 16 can be seen as taking the narrative development occurring between Ex 24:15b–18aa and 40:34–35 one step further. The divine cloud which, in Ex 24, resides on Mt Sinai, comes and dwells upon the tent of meeting in Ex 40, which is then “filled” with the divine splendor (ka4bo=d); it Lev 16, finally, it shows itself to Aaron inside the inner-sanctum, the inner room of the sanctuary, in Lev 16. Ex 24:15b–18aa

Ex 40:34–35

Lev 16:2b, 12–13

Yahweh’s dwbk dwells (Nk#) upon Mt Sinai. The cloud (Nn() covers (hsk Piel) the mountain

Yahweh’s dwbk dwells (Nk#) in the d(wm lh). The cloud (Nn() covers (hsk Piel) the

Yahweh appears to Aaron inside the inner-sanctum in the cloud (Nn(, v. 2b), materialized in Aaron’s incense cloud (v. 13)

Nk#m

Simultaneously, the connection in 16:2 between temple entrance and theophany also relates the ceremony of ch. 16 to the conclusion of the eight-day ceremony in Lev 8–9, when Moses and Aaron are eventually admitted into the tent and the divine dwbk appears to the entire community gathered before the tent in 9:23 (also with the verb h)r as in 16:2),468 a verse forming itself an inclusion with the motif of Moses’ non-admission into the tent in Ex 40:35. Lastly, the formulation of Lev 16:2b and 13 presupposes the conception stated in Ex 25:22 according to which the kapporet is the very place of Yahweh’s manifestation inside the inner-sanctum, hence the reason that it needs to be covered by the incense cloud in Lev 16 in order to prevent Aaron from dying. Overall, this complex set of references adds a further dimension to the ceremony of Lev 16 by connecting it with the inaugural revelation of Yahweh on Mt Sinai and, more broadly, with the general theme of divine presence. The censer-incense rite performed by Aaron does not simply manifest the divine presence inside the sanctuary; it also constitutes, at the same time, a ritual reenactment of the inaugural revelation of Yahweh to Israel at Mt Sinai. As such, the cloud motif offers a perfect introduction to the rites for the purification of the sanctuary and the community in the sequel of the ceremony (v. 14–28), which, as argued above, are concerned with the restoration of the initial relationship between Yahweh and Israel, and therefore with the possi468

Note that in Lev the motif of “seeing” (h)r) Yahweh only occurs in 9:6, 7, 23; 16:2!

4.4. P in Gen 1–Lev 16: Its Content and Historical Setting

379

bility for the community to continue to have access to the deity in the cult. It also provides a fitting conclusion to the Sinai revelation in P (Ex 25–Lev 16) and, beyond that, to the entire P narrative in Gen 1–Lev 16. Indeed, the initial theophany that accompanied the formation of Israel as a priestly nation in P (Ex 24; 40; Lev 9) has now become a permanent feature of Israel’s cult. With this ultimate development, the Priestly account of Yahweh’s revelation to Israel on Mt Sinai can come to a close; besides, the climax that is reached in the ceremony of Lev 16 is highlighted by the occurrence, for the first time so far in Leviticus, of a notice reporting that the Israelites did “according to what Yahweh had ordained to Moses” (v. 34b). However, the development described here that gradually takes place between Ex 24 and Lev 16, thus perfectly rounding off P’s account of the divine revelation at Mt Sinai, goes along with another, more subtle transformation. In Lev 16, Aaron, the high priest and the chief of the cult, has somehow replaced Moses as the community’s mediator. In this context, it is certainly not a coincidence that the introduction to this ritual in Lev 16:2 is the only passage in the entire book of Leviticus where Aaron’s status as Moses’ brother ()a4h9) is recalled. While Moses was admitted inside the cloud in Ex 24:15b–18aa, Aaron is likewise allowed to stand before Yahweh in Lev 16; and as Yahweh appeared to Moses in Ex 25:22 and spoke to him “from above the kapporet” to give him his instructions, he will similarly appear to Aaron “above the kapporet” (Lev 16:2b) whenever the censer-incense ritual is performed inside the inner-sanctum. Thus, P’s account of the gradual establishment of a sacrificial cult in which the divine revelation at Mt Sinai can be permanently re-enacted in the ritual is also, simultaneously, the account of the eventual replacement of the prophetic (i.e., Mosaic) mediation by the priestly-sacrificial (Aaronite) one.

4.4. P in Gen 1–Lev 16: Its Content and Historical Setting These last observations suggest very strongly the possibility that Lev 16 was once the conclusion to the P account starting in Gen 1. As the next chapter of this study will establish, Lev 17–27, the last section in the book, corresponds to a later stage in the formation of Leviticus. If so, the question needs to be raised of the meaning of the Priestly story in Gen 1–Lev 16, as well as of the historical context that it appears to presuppose, before we turn to ch. 17–27. 4.4.1. The Priestly Source in Genesis 1–Leviticus 16 The analysis of Lev 1–16 suggests that these chapters (more accurately: Lev 1–3; 8–9; 11–16) are a literary unity and an integral part of P. They form the conclusion to the general issue permeating the Priestly account, namely, Israel’s election as a “priestly nation”, chosen by Yahweh himself to serve him in

380

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

his sanctuary. To compose Lev 1–16*, the Priestly writer edited an older manual on sacrifices (Lev 1–3) as well as a collection of instructions for priestly specialists on clean and unclean animals (Lev 11:2–23) and on various cases of bodily pollution (Lev 12–15), and framed them by two texts recounting the institution of the sacrificial cult (Lev 8–9, see Ex 28–29) and its restoration (Lev 16:2–28). Contrary to the view suggested by some scholars recently, the assignment of Lev 11–16 to a different layer than ch. 1–9 is not compelling.469 Admittedly, on a purely literary level Lev 9:22–24 would offer an adequate conclusion to the Priestly story, as initially observed by Zenger, but this observation alone is not decisive. That P’s cult initially did not include an instruction for the purification on the sanctuary, as is found in Lev 16, seems unlikely. Besides, the analysis above has recalled that both on a structural and on a conceptual level, the two sections are much more closely interconnected than it is usually assumed, the rite of passage for the maintenance of the sacrificial cult in ch. 16 forming the expected complement to the rite of passage in ch. 8–9 recounting the institution of this same cult. Furthermore, the connection with the beginning of the Priestly account in Gen 1–11 is actually far greater in Lev 11–16 than in Lev 1–9 (on the latter, see above, § 3.4.). The collection on impurities in Lev 11–15 opens with a legislation in Lev 11 commanding Israel to observe a diet more closely conforming to the creational order by distinguishing systematically between clean and unclean animals rather than the non-differentiated consumption of meat granted to man after the Flood (Gen 9), thus separating Israel from the other nations. Similarly, the remainder of the collection on impurities, ch. 12–15, should also be understood in the context of the Priestly narrative as an incentive to live in a world of order by setting apart all the major deviations from the creational norm identified in this collection, and thus to be a model of social control over chaos. Above all, it is with Lev 16 that the dominant theme of the entire Priestly narrative, the restitution in Israel’s sanctuary of the divine presence in the original creation, eventually reaches its expected conclusion. As in the Mesopotamian ak|4tu festival, the entire ceremony brings order from chaos through the cleansing of the sanctuary and the purification of the community and is thus “a re-enactment of order’s primeval victory over chaos”, as one author puts it with regard to the ak|4tu.470 In Lev 16, this motif 469

As recalled in § 1.2., pages 31ff., some authors (E. Zenger et al.) hold that P initially ended in Lev 9. Others hold that P ended in Exodus, but presume that Lev 1–9, or a first form of those chapters, comprise a first supplement to “Pg”, with Lev 11–16 as a still later addition (e.g., O TTO, Priesterschrift, 27ff.; ID., Deuteronomium, 42.53.71 and 150; similarly ACHENBACH, Leviticus 10, 55). This solution was already considered by POLA, Priesterschrift, 221, who mentions Lev 9:22–24* as an “Abschlußtext”; cf. similarly BAUKS , Historiographie sacerdotale, 37. I also adopted it initially in NIHAN/RÖMER, Débat actuel, 99–101. 470 SOMMER, Babylonian Akitu, 95. In the Babylonian ak|4tu, the connection between this ceremony of cosmic renewal and the creation is also manifest in the recitation at the outset of

4.4. P in Gen 1–Lev 16: Its Content and Historical Setting

381

is given concrete expression by Aaron’s admission into the inner-sanctum, before the cloud revealing the divine presence. As was previously suggested, this device forms the climax of P’s account, and this on several levels simultaneously. (1) First, the cloud motif connects the ceremony of ch. 16 with a wider pattern rounding off Ex 24–Lev 16 through the description of the cloud’s move from Mt Sinai (Ex 24:15b–18aa) to the tent of meeting (Ex 40:34–35) to the inner-sanctum (Lev 16). The general device underlying this pattern is unmistakable: it suggests that the entire Sinai account has been conceived by P on the model of ancient Near Eastern temple entrance rituals. In the still larger framework of the Priestly narrative as a whole, the god’s return to its sanctuary forms the structural opposite to his previous withdrawal from his own creation after the Flood in Gen 9.471 (2) Second, as argued above, Aaron’s censer-incense cloud in Lev 16 is simultaneously a ritual re-enactment of the initial cloud theophany in Ex 24, revealing concretely the divine presence in Israel’s sanctuary. This corresponds to the general meaning of the ceremony of ch. 16 since the combined purification of the microcosmic sanctuary and of the community guarantees that God will permanently stay among Israel. In Lev 16, the symbolic re-enactment of God’s primeval victory over chaos is simultaneously a reassertion, in the medium of ritual, of his presence among his creation. Contrary to what applies in Lev 9, the restoration of the divine presence is no longer simply a unique event in a mythical, foundational past; it has become a constitutive feature of each successive performance of the ritual since the origins. P thus aptly concludes with a ritual in which the temporal gap between the situation considered by the myth and the historical situation of P’s audience is eventually bridged. With the revelation to Moses of this last ritual, Yahweh’s original encounter with Israel at Mt Sinai has become a permanent feature in Israel’s cult. (3) Third, the meaning of the celebration of Lev 16 as the climax of P’s account is further enhanced by the unique role bestowed upon Aaron, who has replaced Moses as the (cultic) intercessor between God and Israel. In this respect also, the ceremony of ch. 16 should be viewed as the conclusion to a gradual development rounding off P’s account in Ex 24–Lev 16, relating the transition from Mosaic-prophetic to priestly (i.e., Aaronite) mediation between God and men in the sacrificial cult. the festival of Enu4ma elis], the Babylonian cosmogony. How far the ceremony was perceived as a ritual enactment of the creation combat is, however, disputed. See, e.g., VAN DER TOORN, New Year Festival, 337–339; as well as PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, Ina s]ulmi |4rub, esp. 74–75. In my opinion, it is difficult to assume that no connection at all was perceived between recitation of the myth on the fourth day of the festival and the ceremony itself. Pongratz-Leisten acknowledges this point when she states that, “rituelle Handlungen […] eine mythische Ausdeutung erfahren können”. In any event, all these authors agree that the festival’s central purpose is the re-establishment of the prevailing social and political order. 471 See Gen 9:13–17, and on this theme in P, above, § 1.3., p. 62ff.

382

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

Lastly, the significance of Lev 16 as the conclusion to the Priestly account can be corroborated by one additional observation: it is only in Lev 16 that the reference to the kapporet in P becomes meaningful, as a few authors have perceived. In this respect also, the two sections formed by Ex 25:17–22 and Lev 16:2, 12–13 are complementary. It was recalled earlier in this study that the term kapporet in Ex 25 must be viewed as a creation by P, formed on the verb kipper (§ 1.2.2.1., Excursus 3). This enigmatic construction receives an explanation at the other end of P’s Sinaitic account, when the kapporet is presented in the ceremony of Lev 16 as the focal point of the purgation rite (kipper) performed by Aaron inside the inner-sanctum, by means of which the high priest removes the impurities of the Israelites and therefore makes it possible for the deity to remain inside the sanctuary.472 As such, this sophisticated device is more than a mere etymological pun. The connection that it suggests between Yahweh’s presence upon the Ark and the purgation of the temple encapsulates on the contrary the basic meaning of the ceremony of Lev 16 and, beyond this, of the entire sacrificial cult in P. Delaying the revelation of this connection until ch. 16 builds another careful inclusion around P’s Sinaitic account, and illuminates the function of Lev 16 as the conclusion to P. For all these reasons, Lev 16 should be viewed as the original conclusion to P, as has initially been proposed by M. Köckert.473 Exactly as in the case Lev 8–9 vis-à-vis the to=ra= on sacrifices, this chapter cannot be dissociated from Lev 11–15 (see above, § 4.3.2.1.) but was freely composed by P (on the basis of earlier traditions) as the conclusion to the collection on impurities. At most, the possibility exists that Lev 11–16 was written by a different scribe in the Priestly school because of the somewhat distinct terminology of ch. 16, although this observation alone is not decisive (see above). Even then, this composition should be contemporary with that of Lev 1–9, and cannot be significantly later.474 472 See esp. JANOWSKI, Sühne, 348–349; similarly MILGROM, Leviticus, 1014, following a suggestion by D.P. Wright. It is worth noting that the connection between Ex 25 and Lev 16 was obvious for the Greek translators, see the remarks by KOCH, Some Considerations, 70. 473 See KÖCKERT, Gottes Gegenwart, 56ff. 474 Similarly unfounded is Otto’s assumption that Lev 16, together with the edition of ch. 11–16, would be the work of a pentateuchal redactor, namely, that the insertion of Lev 11–16 would correspond to a redactional stage where P was already fused with non-P sources. The original shape of ch. 16 (v. 2–28) is a typically Priestly creation that betrays absolutely no influence of other, non-P traditions, and it remains entirely in the literary and theological framework of the Priestly narrative in Gen–Ex*. Furthermore, as observed earlier in this study, this assignment is already precluded by relative chronology, since Lev 16 is still unaware of the altar of perfumes and must therefore predate the legislation of Lev 4ff., itself older than the H Code in Lev 17–26. Note that ACHENBACH, Vollendung, is more uncertain on this point. On p. 64 and 610, he assigns Lev 16 to a secondary development in a P document initially ending in Lev 9, whereas on p. 201 he argues on the contrary that Lev 17–26 initially came immediately after Lev 9, ch. 16 being therefore a still later interpolation.

4.4. P in Gen 1–Lev 16: Its Content and Historical Setting

383

4.4.2. The Historical Context for P’s Composition Although an exilic setting is generally assumed for the Priestly source,475 numerous observations actually point to the return from exile and the first decades of the Persian period. In particular, this setting accounts adequately for the conception of the land in P. As was argued earlier in this study (§ 1.3.), the Israelites are called to identify themselves with the Patriarchs and to dwell as Myrg, “resident aliens” in a land over which they no longer have political control, but which they can nevertheless settle and exploit, a conception that makes perfect sense in the Achemenid era. As was already noted by some authors,476 the description of the cosmic order established by Yahweh himself after the Flood in the P version of the so-called “Table of nations” in Gen 10* probably reflects the new world order instituted by the Persian kings and already appears to betray the influence of imperial ideology. In particular, the division of the nations on earth by Yahweh in Gen 10 closely echoes the Achemenid conception according to which Ahura Mazda, as the god responsible for the order and stability of the world, assigned once and for all a specific location to each nation.477 Even the identification of the nations according to their ethnic origin (hxp#m), their settlement, and their common language (Gen 10:5, 20, 31) seems to reflect the classification criteria used by the Achemenid administration in the satrap lists.478 475 Among recent authors, see, e.g., WEIMAR, Sinai; POLA, Priesterschrift; OTTO, Priesterschrift, 24ff.; FREVEL, Blick, esp. 382–387. 476 See already VINK, Date, 61; and more recently KNAUF, Priesterschrift, 105–106. 477 On this, see in particular AHN, Herrscherlegitimation. The P version of Gen 10 can be found in v. 1[>b?], 2–7, 20, 22–23, 31–32; for this classical reconstruction, see for instance WESTERMANN, Genesis, 665–673. Its assignment to P is now disputed by some authors; see in particular CARR , Fractures, 99–101, who follows several earlier observations by TENG STRÖM, Toledotformel, 21–25. Yet this is unconvincing in my opinion. The main arguments offered by Carr are not decisive. Contrary to his statement, it is not a problem to read the genealogy of Gen 11:10ff. (Pg) after 10:31–32, and there is no compelling reason to consider that the P material in Gen 10 must have been composed for its present literary context, especially since it is obvious that the non-P material in Gen 10 is actually post-P; see the detailed analysis by WITTE, Urgeschichte, 100–116. Besides, the elimination of Gen 10* from P’s account in Gen 1–11 causes several problems. First, it corresponds to the completion of the order given by Yahweh to Noah and his three sons to “fill the earth” after the Flood in Gen 9:1, 7. Second, it must be observed that the mention of the names of Noah’s sons in Gen 5:32, immediately before the Flood, breaks with the usual pattern in the genealogical scheme of Gen 5 which otherwise exclusively mentions the main descendant by his name; one therefore expects afterwards a description of the offspring of all three of Noah’s sons and not only of Shem (Gen 11:10ff.). Hence, the traditional view that the Table of Nations in P serves to survey all the families in humanity not included in the promise to Abraham (EISSFELDT, Biblos Geneseo4s, 461–462) remains valid. As argued above (see § 1.3.), the function of Gen 10 is to inscribe not only Gen 17 but the entire P account in the context of world history. 478 As noted by KÖCKERT, Land, 150 n. 16. For these lists, see LECOQ, Inscriptions, 130– 153. For further parallels between the P version of Gen 10 and Persian ideology, see also

384

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

From this perspective, it is indeed possible to systematically interpret P’s account of the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as a political program for the l)r#y ynb at the time of the return from exile. Under the shield of the empire, peaceful cohabitation with the people living in the land is recommended (see Abraham’s negotiation with the “Sons of H9et” in Gen 23),479 but intermarriage with them is explicitly condemned (Gen 26:34–35; 27:46).480 Jacob must marry the daughter(s) of his mother’s father (Gen 28:1–2), and thus remain inside the clan,481 whereas Edomites should similarly marry among themselves (Gen 28:8–9).482 In P as elsewhere, the function of such a policy was not only to preserve and reinforce the clan’s cohesion and solidarity, but also to guarantee that the clan’s lands were not lost to another clan.483 P thus responds to the confusing situation prevailing during the return from exile, caused by the forced cohabitation of the non-exiled population with other, non-Judean clans during the Neo-Babylonian period, especially in the Negev as the epigraphic evidence appears to imply,484 by promoting a VERMEYLEN, Table, who raises the possibility that Yaphet in Gen 10 Pg refers to the Persian empire. Similar examples of the influence of the Achemenid ideology over local cults are also documented in other regions of the empire, especially in Mesopotamia; see, for instance the fine study by FRAHM, Babylonische Priestergelehrte, regarding Uruk’s clergy 479 On the reasons for retaining this story in P, see § 1.3., page 67 note 242. 480 On this, see in particular the observations by GUILLAUME, Priestly Writer, esp. 73–76, although his explanation is at times somewhat confused. In particular, the attempt to see a reference to the people of the land being uncircumcised in Rebecca’s speech to Isaac in 27:46 seems unconclusive, namely because, as he notes himself, most of the non-Jewish ethnic groups constituting the Cr)h M( at the return from exile, especially Edomites, were also circumcised. This being said, his article has the merit of breaking with the common understanding of P as promoting a “universalist” outlook devoid of any political implication. 481 There are several indications that the favorite form of marriage within the lineage in Israel was to the father’s brother’s daughter, as in several other cultures (and still for instance in many Arab communities today); cf. Gen 24:15; Lev 21:14; Num 36; and Tob 4:12, and see for instance HOUSTON, Purity, 99, with further references. But in Gen 28:1–2, Isaac cannot recommend that Jacob marry his brother’s daughter, for this would blur the distinction between Jacob’s offspring and the Ishmaelites! However, other forms of marriage within the lineage are also attested, such as with one’s brother’s daughter, see Gen 11:29 (P). 482 As also observed by GUILLAUME, Priestly Writer, 76. 483 See in particular Num 36 which, as a correction of the previous legislation in Num 27:1–11, is entirely orientated towards the concern that the lands belonging to Zelophehad’s daughters remain in the clan. 484 For a survey of the material evidence, especially Persian period Aaramaic ostraca, testifying to the systematic cohabitation of Edomites, Arabs and Judeans in the Negev, more specifically in the region around the Beersheba-Arad valley, see LEMAIRE, Transformations; JANZEN, Politics, 501–507 (esp. 506–507); and for the epigraphic evidence, see further LEMAIRE, Nouvelles inscriptions, esp. 2.231–233: “Ainsi […] cette documentation […] met en lumière la rupture constituée par les campagnes néo-babyloniennes du début du VIe s.: là où apparaissaient des ostraca paléo-hébreux (à Lakish, Maqqédah, Arad, Béérshéba), on trouve désormais des ostraca araméens. Là où l’onomastique était essentiellement yahwiste, on ren-

4.4. P in Gen 1–Lev 16: Its Content and Historical Setting

385

strict ethnic separation from all non-Judeans inhabiting the land.485 This probably applied to the clans among the non-exiles that had made alliances with non-Judean clans.486 In this context, the continuous emphasis in Genesis on Hebron as the burial place of all of Israel’s ancestors (Gen 23:19; 25:9–10; 35:27–29; 50:13) is certainly not a coincidence. The story of Genesis 23 relating Abraham’s acquisition of a cave in Machpelah with the field surrounding it as a hzx) (v. 4, 9 and 20) would have served to legitimize Judean claims on this town vis-à-vis the competing claims of the other ethnic groups inhabiting it.487 Although Abraham is presented as the common ancestor of both Edomites and “Israelites”, and is thus an “ecumenical” ancestor of sorts for the three groups living in Hebron, namely, Edomites, Arabs and Judeans,488 the line inheriting the ancestral cave of Hebron is not the line Abraham–Isaac– Edom but the line Abraham–Isaac–Jacob (Gen 50:13). One can hardly escape the conclusion that, for the Priestly writer, the place of Edomites is within the traditional boundaries of Edom, as described in Gen 36, that is, in Mt Seir and its immediate vicinity.489 More generally, P’s policy of ethnic separation can also be viewed as a response to the larger issue of preserving distinct Judean identity in the context of the great economic and cultural market promoted by the Persian empire. Such a policy of peaceful cohabitation combined with strict ethnic segregation was actually compatible with the general policy of the Achemenid empire under Darius I. The main concern of imperial administration was to maintain order inside the provinces of the empire and to collect taxes, but it seems to contre maintenant une abondance de noms en ‘Qôs’ et une importante onomastique nordarabe” (p. 232). 485 As observed in the previous note, one must primarily think of Edomite and Arabian tribes. It is difficult to see any significance to the reference to Aram in Gen 28:2. Most likely, it is due to the fact that P could not ignore the previous traditions locating Laban in Aram. GUILLAUME (Priestly Writer, 76) wants to see a reference to “the Aramaic wives and descendants of the returnees”, but this seems somewhat far-fetched. 486 In this respect, it is not excessive to say with Guillaume that P anticipates, in some respects, the segregationist policy of Ezra. However, against Guillaume I do not believe that P promoted the doctrine that the returnees should marry only among themselves and not with families from the population remaining in the land, at least as long as the latter had been careful to avoid any alliance with foreigners. Not only is this quite unlikely given the size of the group of returnees from the golah under Sheshbazzar, but it is already weakened by the fact that P adopted the Patriarchal traditions which, as the evidence of Ez 33:23–29 suggests, was mainly favored by the non-exiles; on this, see further below, pages 386–387. 487 It is generally admitted that although Hebron was settled by Judeans in the early Persian period, the town nevertheless lay outside the borders of the province of Yehud; see, e.g., AVI-YONAH, Holy Land, 2. 25–26; LEMAIRE, Histoire, 12–53. 488 On Abraham as “ecumenical ancestor” for various ethnic groups in or near Hebron, see the fine essay by DE PURY, Abraham, especially 177. 489 Cf. also GUILLAUME, Priestly Writer, 76; pace DE PURY, Abraham, 177, defending a more irenic conception on this point.

386

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

have been generally supportive of local ethnic claims.490 However, one must note that if the condemnation of intermarriage in P recalls the ethnic segregationism also obvious in (late) Deuteronomistic texts from the same period, such as Josh 23 or Judg 2:1–5, P’s policy nevertheless differs significantly. In the Dtr texts the central concern is the threat that contact with other ethnic groups could lead to religious deviance, intermarriage being relevant only insofar as it could induce to adopt other deities.491 In P, on the contrary, this is never an issue. This observation is quite consistent with the inclusive version of monotheism advocated by P, in which all the nations turn out to worship the same god, Yahweh, even though only Israel is aware of it. As a political program for everyday life in Yehud under Persian rule, P left significantly more room for positive collaboration and constructive interaction with the other ethnic groups inhabiting the land than other, more nationalistic traditions such as those circulated within Dtr circles. The political agenda of the author of P is also evident in his careful combination of the traditions of Genesis and Exodus into a single, complex myth on Israel’s origins. As various scholars now assume, it is likely that we have here originally distinct, competing traditions of origins, which were never combined before P.492 As witnessed by Ezekiel 33:23–29, the figure of Abra490

As a matter of fact, this general statement must be considerably differentiated according to the nature of the political organizations inside the Persian empire, and even according to the policy of each king. For Darius I, whose reign is most likely the period under which P was composed (see below), see for instance BRIANT, Histoire, 488–528. Nevertheless, such policy was de facto necessitated by the existence of very different forms of political organization within the empire (satellite kingdoms, city-states, tribal units, temple communities, and so forth) implying the necessity for Persian emperors to concede a significant degree of autonomy. As observed by BLENKINSOPP, Jewish Ethnos, 45–46, “Such a situation evidently ruled out one centralized legal system for all. In the matter of judicial control, the first concern of the central administration was the preservation of the pax Persica and the avoidance of insurrection. […] The other major concern was fiscal, and in the first place the prompt payment of taxes and tribute”. For Babylon in the Achemenid period, see also now the detailed study by WIESEHÖFER, Kontinuität, who considers a balance between local autonomy and royal control. This model remains true even though the thesis of a Persian “Imperial authorization”, as coined by FREI and KOCH, Reichsidee, should be given up. See the criticism by RÜTERSWORDEN, Reichsautorisation; W IESEHÖFER , “Reichsgesetz” oder “Einzelfallgerechtigkeit”; KNOPPERS, Authorization; REDFORD, So-Called “Codification” (for Egypt under the reign of Darius I); SKA, Question Marks. It is also partly distinct from the disputed issue of the degree of religious tolerance which characterized the successive Persian kings, and which may have varied significantly; see, e.g., the critical remarks on this point by AHN , Toleranz, esp. 195–200. At least, it cannot be denied that Persian kings were generally ready to authorize the existence of cults contrary to their own religious convictions. 491 See for instance Deut 7:3–4; Josh 23:12; in Judg 2:1–5, the problem of intermarriage is not even mentioned, but see Judg 3:5–6. 492 This idea was already suggested by RÖMER, Väter, 547, and has been demonstrated in detail now by SCHMID, Erzväter. It is currently being accepted by an increasing number of

4.4. P in Gen 1–Lev 16: Its Content and Historical Setting

387

ham, as a local, native ancestor, was frequently used by the non-exiles in order to back their claims to the land, and it is probably among such circles that the traditions on Abraham were preserved and developed during the NeoBabylonian period. By contrast, the exodus tradition was probably favored by more segregationist circles, such as the Deuteronomists, and it is likely to have been especially important among former exiles.493 The combination of the two traditions in P not only serves to acknowledge the legitimacy of both, and thus to promote cohabitation between returning exiles and non-exiles, but it also manifestly seeks to reach a compromise. On one hand, the exodus (and the conquest) is now presented as the proper fulfillment of the promise of the land made to Abraham (Ex 6:2–8, and especially v. 8). In this context, one may wonder whether the unique use of h#rwm in Ex 6:8 (instead of the usual 494 hzx) ) is not a deliberate allusion to the claim of non-exiles in Ez 33:24. Namely, the land given to Israel as h#rwm is not only the land promised to Abraham’s offspring, it is also the land given to the generation of the exodus. On the other hand, the integration of the Genesis traditions offers a means to balance the idea of complete control over the land implied by the Exodus tradition. Under Persian rule, former exiles must learn to live inside the land as the non-exiles did during the Neo-Babylonian period, and to be willing to share it (or even to negociate it!, compare Abraham in Gen 23) with other ethnic groups, as the Patriarchs did before.495 scholars in Germany, see in particular GERTZ , Exoduserzählung, esp. 380–388; and even BLUM, Verbindung, who has modified his initial position on this point. The Dtr literature systematically ignores the traditions on a previous settlement of Israel’s ancestors inside the land before the exodus and the conquest. The few references to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in Deut are either editorial glosses (see Römer’s demonstration) or in some cases they may be part of a late, post-P revision of the book (Schmid). In the Former Prophets, the reference to the “fathers” almost exclusively concerns the generation of the exodus and not the Patriarchs, who are not mentioned (with only one exception in the late text of Josh 24). Moreover, it is clear that, contrary to Ex and Num, Dtr language is largely absent from the book of Gen. 493 See similarly how Ezra’s return to Jerusalem is described as a new Exodus in Ezra 8!. 494 In the Hebrew Bible, h#rwm is a rare term. Outside Ex 6:8 and Deut 33:4 it occurs exclusively in Ezekiel, see Ez 11:15; 25:4, 10; 33:24; 36:2, 3, 5. 495 If this conclusion is correct, it implies that some circles at least among the first returnees realized that the strict segregation between former exiles and non-exiles was untenable and tried to work out some strategies to bridge the gap. While much emphasis has been put recently on the clash which occurred between former exiles and non-exiles at the time of the return (see e.g. SMITH, Religion; or CARTER, Emergence, 307ff.), this would only have been possible in the context of the return of a significant number of exiles, that is, certainly not before the time of Nehemiah. In this regard, it is not a coincidence if the segregationist strategy separating the families claiming descent from former exiles (and capable of bringing some proofs of their genealogical claims, see Ezra 2:59–62 // Neh 7:61–64!) is not attested before the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. If a previous return actually took place under Sheshbazzar, it probably amounted only to a very limited number of exiles (probably little more than a few dozens), as seems confirmed by the demographic record, cf. LIPSCHITS, Demo-

388

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

The Priestly writer’s political agenda for the returnees goes hand in hand with his redefinition of Israel as the world’s priestly nation. As Knauf has correctly perceived,496 the world of P is a world in which the state as a form of political organization has become marginal, contrary to Deuteronomistic tradition, and in which it is the structure of the empire which is now divinely sanctioned at the creation of the world, as the parallels noted above between Gen 10 and the Achemenid empire indicate. In P, the conquest and the foundation of the monarchy are no longer significant and can be omitted from the story of Israel’s origins. “Israel” must be conceived not on the model of a traditional state, but of a qa4ha4l, a cultic community or assembly whose primary function is to serve the temple of Jerusalem and its god.497 Yet this temple is no longer the royal shrine of Judah’s national god, as in the pre-exilic period. Rather, it has become the sanctuary of the creator God, Yahweh/Elohim; and because Yahweh is, at the same time, Israel’s personal god, this sanctuary is actually represented in P as the cultic center of the universe. This observation accounts in particular for the specific iconography of P’s sanctuary in Ex 25–40. Thus, on one hand, against the growing hypostasis of the divine presence in some circles after the exile manifest for instance in the so-called Dtr “Name” theology, P basically reasserts the traditional tenet of the divine presence inside the sanctuary (with the use of the characteristic

graphic Changes, esp. 355ff. Obviously, this small group was hardly in a position to dictate its law to the large population of non-exiles remaining in the land; in such a context strategies of cohabitation of the kind found in P are to be expected. 496 See KNAUF, Priesterschrift, 102–109, esp. 105–108 497 See similarly KNAUF, Priesterschrift, 106: “Israel ist bei P kein Staat und soll es auch nicht mehr werden, sondern mehr als ein Staat: das Gottesvolk als Kirche. […] Ihr weitgehendes ‘Staatsschweigen’ darf darum nicht als atavistischer Traum von der Wiederherstellung ‘vorstaatlicher’ Zustände in Israel ausgelegt werden, sondern als Hinweis, daß Israels Proprium auf einer anderen Ebene zu suchen ist”. See also the observation by L ISS, Kanon, 31, who notes that P “stellt nicht einfach ein Gesetz für eine Gruppe dar, sondern konstituiert umgekehrt allererst diese Gruppe – Israel nach 587 – in ihrem Selbstverständnis” (emphasis added). As traditionally observed, the emphasis on Israel’s cultic rather than political identity is also evident in the nature of the designations used by P, in particular the favorite phrase l)r#y ynb or Israel’s designation as hwhy M( in Ex 6:7. On this latter formula see, e.g., BAUKS, Peuple, where she notes: “[…] (am YHWH, le peuple de YHWH, c’est plus qu’une nation. Le terme dépasse le langage politique […]”. Note also that in Gen 28:3 Jacob’s descendants are designated as a Mym( lhq, and similarly in 35:11 as a Mywg lhq. It is not a coincidence that this formula occurs in the context of the promise to Jacob, Israel’s direct ancestor, while the promise to Abraham in Gen 17 merely speaks of the numerous Mywg (cf. v. 4, 5, 6, 16) which will come forth from him. The introduction of the term lhq in reference to Jacob’s offspring emphasizes that from the beginning, Israel’s destiny was to become a “priestly” nation. However, it is only with the exodus (and the building of the sanctuary) that Israel will properly become the hwhy M( among the nations. This explains why this phrase does not occur before Ex 6:7.

4.4. P in Gen 1–Lev 16: Its Content and Historical Setting

389

verb s]kn).498 On the other hand, very much as in Ezekiel, any reference to the traditional Sabaoth theology, itself closely associated with the pre-exilic temple and the royal (Davidic) cult, is now omitted, and deliberately so. Thus, Yahweh’s distinctive designation in the pre-exilic Zion-Sabaoth theology, namely, (Mybwrkh b#y) tw)bc hwhy, is consistently missing,499 as well as, more generally, any reference to the traditional representation of Yahweh as sitting enthroned inside his sanctuary (with the characteristic verb b#y).500 Even the traditional function of the cherubim as throne bearers is reinterpreted in this context, since they now serve to protect the kapporet with their wings 498 The idea that the Dtr Name theology corresponds to a growing emphasis on the transcendence of Yahweh, by contrast with P’s dwbk theology, has found its classic formulation in the study of VON R AD , “Name” Theology, although it is present among several earlier authors; see further, e.g., CLEMENTS, God and Temple, 79–99; WEINFELD, Deuteronomic School, 191–209, esp. 192–198; METTINGER, Dethronement, esp. 38ff.; and KELLER, Untersuchungen, with a detailed Forschungsbericht. Recently, however, RICHTER, Name Theology, has revived the interpretation of the phrase le6s]akke4n s]e6mo= s]a4m previously advocated by a few scholars before (in particular de Vaux), according to which this phrase must be understood not as a D-stem of West Semitic s]kn, “to cause to be dwelling”, but as a loan adaptation from Akkadian s]umu s]aka4nu, which derives from the G-stem s]kn in East Semitic, meaning “to put”, and refers to a claim to possession. While I would agree with some of Richter’s observations, her radical thesis also presents several problems. Thus, she is unable to explain why, if the phrases le6s]akke4n s]e6mo= s]a4m and la4s8u=m s]e6mo= s]a4m were indeed basically equivalent, the latter gradually came to replace the former; hence her need of the ad hoc hypothesis that by the seventh century BCE the le6s]akke4n form had already become obscure, see on p. 95. Note also her difficulty, on p. 62–63, with the phrase of Deut 12:5 MT , wnk#l M# wm#-t) Mw#l. Above all, Richter, as de Vaux before her already, is unable to make proper sense, in her interpretation, of the passages containing the phrase lihyo=t s]e6mo= s]a4m, which clearly appear to refer to some form of effective presence for the divine name; see 1 Kgs 8:16, 29; 2 Kgs 23:27, also 2 Chr 6:5, 6; 7:16; 33:4; and note how, on p. 90, she is forced to acknowledge that the use of this phrase in 1 Kgs 8, a central Dtr text, “may have something to do with the divine presence” (sic, see further on p. 215–217). Lastly, she fails to discuss the traditional observation that the same reticence about the traditional conceptions of the divine presence in Israel can be observed at several other places in Dtr literature, e.g., in the representation of the Ark as a mere box for the tablets, and no longer as the deity’s footstool (Deut 10:1–5; 1 Kgs 8: 9, 21), or of Yahweh as sitting enthroned (with b#y ) in heaven and not on earth (1 Kgs 8:27, 30, 39, 43, 49; for these two examples, see METTINGER, Ibid., 51). There are also many attestations in the Hebrew Bible outside Dtr, and also outside Israel, for the use of the divine name as a hypostasis of the deity (for a summary, see METTINGER , Ibid., 131), so that one need not surmise that it was a complete innovation of the Dtr circles. All in all, therefore, the attempt to derive the phrase le6s]akke4n s]e4m entirely from the Mesopotamian monumental tradition is not successful in my opinion, and the traditional view that this phrase also implies a reference to a re-conceptualization of the nature of the divine presence in the temple cannot be eliminated so easily. More likely, it seems to me, the two aspects (juridicial claim by the deity over Jerusalem and hypostasis of the deity) were implied when this formula was coined by Dtr circles. 499 See 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2 // 1 Chr 13:6; 2 Kgs 19:15 // Isa 37:16; Ps 80:2; 99:1. 500 As observed in particular by METTINGER, Dethronement, 90–97.

390

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

(Ex 25:20).501 In P, the temple is still Yahweh’s residence, as well as the place where heaven and earth are brought together, but the most prominent features characteristic of the royal iconography have been omitted. This interpretation suggests that P’s intended audience comprised the small temple community whose members probably identified themselves with the true l)r#y ynb (a favorite term in P) and acknowledged the temple of Jerusalem as the religious and political center of Judah. The exact nature of the temple community in Judah in the Persian period is disputed, but this issue cannot be addressed in detail here.502 In any event, the rebuilding of the tem501 On the cherubim as throne-bearers in the iconography of the First Temple, see in particular DE V AUX , Chérubins; KEEL, Jahwe-Visionen, 23ff.; METZGER, Königsthron; and JANOWSKI, Keruben, esp. 257ff. For the comparative material, see DE VAUX, 235ff. and Keel. In P, the cherubim still delineate the place of Yahweh’s manifestation since they stand on each side of the kapporet (cf. 25:18–20 and 22), but this place is no longer represented as a divine throne (compare 1 Kgs 6:27–28), and the cherubim are apparently much smaller (since the kapporet itself measures only 2.5 x 1.5. cubits). Note, in addition, that the protective function devoted to the cherubim in P is not characteristic of the traditional iconography (cf. Keel) but is a reinterpretation and a transformation of their ancient function as throne bearers. 502 It is clear, by now, that the model of the Bürger-Tempel-Gemeinde (BTG) advanced by J. Weinberg in a series of studies (see WEINBERG, Citizen-Temple Community) is based on several problematic assumptions, especially as regards Weinberg’s two-governors system (based itself on an uncritical adherence to Alt’s theory that Judah was annexed to Samaria after 587/586, which is generally rejected today); his view of Yehud’s exceptional status inside the province of Transeuphratene (in particular the idea that the entire BTG would have benefitted from a tax exemption from the Persian empire); and his uncritical reconstruction of Yehud’s demography in the Persian period. See for instance the criticism by KREISSIG, Theorie; HORSLEY , Empire; BEDFORD , Models; WILLIAMSON, Judah, 156–158; CARTER, Emergence, 301–304. However, this does not preclude the possibility that some form of political role was actually recognized for the temple community in Jerusalem, at least as regards the community’s self-administration (against H ORSLEY , Empire, 170; and similarly CARTER, Emergence, 306, both of whom emphasize the temple’s role as a “symbol of social order”). Thus, some passages in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah clearly imply that the temple assembly, referred to as the lhq, was summoned whenever important decisions about the community and its organization had to be taken (cf. Ezr 10:1, 12; Neh 5:7, 13; 8:2, 17). This agrees with the main role of temple assemblies throughout ancient Near East, especially in Egypt and Mesopotamia (see the study by DANDAMAËV, Assembly). Also, it is probable that, as was the case for several Babylonian cities, the temple assembly was presided over by a council of elders, probably composed of the twb) y#)r, the “heads of the fathers’ (houses)”, who are repeatedly mentioned in Ezra–Nehemiah. See in particular ALBERTZ, Religion, 2. 446–447; this identification is confirmed by Ezra 3:12 M T , which reads Mynqzh twb)h y#)r. The existence of this lay council alongside a priestly college is attested by the correspondence with Elephantine, see AP 30, lines 18–19, which mentions, besides the governor, “the high priest Jehohanan and his colleagues, the priests in Jerusalem” as well as “Ostanes, the brother of Anani and the leading men among the Jews”. Clearly, however, it is in the context of the rebuilding of Jerusalem and of the attempt to reaffirm the city’s status as the administrative center for the whole district, under Nehemiah and afterwards, that Jerusalem’s temple gradually took a new importance, as argued by BEDFORD (Models, esp. 158) and others.

4.4. P in Gen 1–Lev 16: Its Content and Historical Setting

391

ple, as well as its reintroduction as both a cultic and administrative center, would never have been possible without the economic and political support of a portion of the population living in Judea, who had an interest in the resumption of the activities of the former, pre-exilic temple in Jerusalem.503 As in Mesopotamia and elsewhere in the ancient Near East, the temple community in Jerusalem would have been constituted by free citizens.504 In a primarily agricultural economy such as that of Judea, these free citizens would all have been landowners, capable of drawing a sufficient income from their lands to be economically independent. P’s account, as an elaborate myth of Israel’s origins, is primarily concerned with the archetypal Israel and does not belong to the same sort of political propaganda for the temple’s rebuilding as that found in Haggai or Zechariah 1–8. Yet its highly idealized definition of Israel as the priestly nation among the peoples of the earth did nevertheless offer a response to the main problem which was faced by the new, post-exilic and, above all, post-monarchical community in Jerusalem, whose temple was no longer supported by a royal patron. The conceptualization of Israel in P implies that the situation of the post-exilic community actually corresponds to that of the Israel of origins, before the introduction of the state. In this context, the disappearance of the temple’s royal patronage, as well as the integration of Yehud within the Persian empire, are now presented as the opportunity for Israel (i.e., for the temple community in Jerusalem) to resume – eventually! – its initial vocation as the cultic center of the universe.505 The temple, as the sole surviving indigenous institution in Persian Yehud, has definitively supplanted the palace as the center of the religious, social and politic life in Jerusalem.506 In this respect, the complex myth of origins recounted in Gen 1–Lev 16* can be regarded as the Ursprungslegende, the founding account, of the nascent post-monarchic, post-state temple community in Jerusalem. In particular, the description of the cult in Lev 1–16, as an integral part of P’s literary construction of Israel’s origins, presents its readers with an ideal to which the temple community of the Second Temple period could continuously refer as a model. Simultaneously, the inclusion in P of earlier collections of instructions on sacrifices (Lev 1–3, later 4–5 and 6–7) and purity/impurity matters (Lev 11–15) and their transformation into a divine revelation made to Moses at Mt Sinai must have served to legitimate the Second Temple cult that had just resumed. Indeed, there are several indications elsewhere in the Bible, espe503

The necessary involvement of the local community in the rebuilding of the temple is explicitly mentioned in several passages of the HB, see in particular Hag 1; Ezra 1:2ff. 504 On this, see DANDAMAËV, Assembly; DANDAMAËV/LUKONIN, Ancient Iran, 152ff. 505 As recognized also by KNAUF, Priesterschrift, 106. 506 For a similar emphasis on the role of the temple as indigenous institution in Persianperiod Yehud, see also SKA, Question Marks, 176; and similarly ID., Introduction, 321ff.

392

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

cially in Haggai and Zechariah, of the reluctance of an important part of the community to rebuild the temple (Hag 1:1–15; 2:1–9, 15–19; Zech 2:10–17; 8:1ff.), apparently for both practical and ideological reasons. The economic crisis alluded to in Hag (see Hag 1:2–11) not only raised a material issue but would also have been regarded as an inauspicious omen, as appears to be reflected in Hag 1:2.507 In addition, several circles among the elite might have been critical of, if not openly hostile to, the very project of rebuilding the temple. This is true, in particular, for the post-exilic tradents of Dtr traditions, who held the Torah, and no longer the temple, to be the proper foundation of Israel as a community,508 and who placed observance of social justice above cultic worship.509 Here, therefore, P concurs with the assertion of some prophetic circles that the Second Temple has remained the place where Yahweh dwells (Nk#) in the middle (Kwtb) of his community (cf. Zech 2:14, 15; 8:3, 8; also Ez 43:7, 9; in P: Ex 25:8; 29:45–46). Yet contrary to postexilic prophecy, this statement does not represent the fulfillment of an imminent eschatological restoration but rather the return to the order initially intended by Yahweh.510 In a more subtle yet no less significant way, the depiction of Israel’s cult in Lev 1–16 also serves to establish the legitimacy, and to some extent even the supremacy, of the priestly class within the temple community. This is apparent, in particular, in the careful and gradual construction of the figure of Aaron, the high priest, as co-leader of the community alongside Moses. It was already suggested above in the context of the discussion of Lev 16 that this 507 Thus, for instance, ALBERTZ, Religion, 2. 451–452. As BEDFORD recently recalled (ID., Temple Restoration, esp. 174–176), the problem of the appropriate time to rebuild and reconsecrate a damaged cult site was a decisive one throughout ANE. This interpretation of Hag 1:2 holds true even if one should render the phrase )b-t( )l in this verse by “it is not the time to come” rather than by “the time has not come yet”, as in most translations; on this, see now the detailed analysis of K ESSLER, Building, esp. 245. However, pace Kessler, it is difficult to deny that the term t( must have some kind of connotation of a divinely appointed time, as argued by BEDFORD, Temple Restoration, 173–178. From this perspective, the argumentation of Hag 1:2–11 takes on its full meaning. In particular, Yahweh’s justification in v. 9 that he has chosen to inflict drought on his people because his house lies in ruins, may represent an effective attempt to reverse the logic behind the traditional saying quoted in 1:2, which takes the drought as an omen that it is not yet time to rebuild the temple. 508 Note that in the story of Josiah’s reform of the First Temple in 2 Kgs 22, which follows a classical pattern in ANE, the foundation stone which should have been discovered by the king is replaced by the hrwth rps. Whereas the temple itself will be destroyed, as announced by the prophetess Huldah (22:16–17), only this Book of the Law (traditionally identified with the book of Deuteronomy) will survive the disaster and thus remain as a means of access to the divine presence after the disappearance of the temple. On this point, and for the traditional background of this story, see the study by RÖMER, Book-Finding. 509 See especially Jer 7:1–15. For a similar observation in the context of the discussion surrounding the rebuilding of the temple, see ALBERTZ, Religion, 2. 452. 510 The fundamental difference between P and eschatological prophecy was already pointed out by LOHFINK, Priestly Narrative, 171–172.

4.4. P in Gen 1–Lev 16: Its Content and Historical Setting

393

ceremony, when read against the overall background of P’s Sinaitic account, evinced a transition from prophetic (Mosaic) to priestly-sacrificial (Aaronite) mediation. Indeed, the development taking place in this respect in Ex 25–Lev 16 is unmistakable. At the end of the building account in Ex 40, Moses, who was previously admitted into the divine cloud residing on Mt Sinai (24:15b– 18aa), is refused access to the tent because it is covered by this same divine cloud (40:35). When Moses is eventually allowed inside the tent at the end of Lev 9 he is accompanied by Aaron (contrast Ex 33:7–11!); and the subsequent blessing to the community (9:23a) is made not by Moses alone but by both of them. The episode emphasizes the fact that for P the temple is the only place where Yahweh can be approached and consulted through the sacrificial cult and that the mediation of the high priest is indispensable for this. After Lev 8– 9, Aaron is now directly addressed by Yahweh together with Moses (11:1; 13:1; 14:33; 15:1); and in the great ceremony of ch. 16 (where Aaron’s status as Moses’ brother is adequately recalled in the introduction, cf. 16:2), Aaron has replaced Moses as the community’s representative before God. This latter conception is actually anticipated in the description of Aaron’s garments in Ex 28. According to 28:15–30, Aaron represents Israel before Yahweh by wearing on his breastpiece the twelve precious stones symbolizing the twelve tribes (see also 28:9–12).511 The conclusion of this description in v. 29–30 is instructive: whenever he enters the sanctuary, Aaron bears “upon his heart” the “judgment” (+p#m) of the Israelites before Yahweh (hwhy ynpl). As noted by O. Keel recently, this motif, in P, recalls the bringing of the Ma’at by Pharaoh in the Egyptian cult. As in Egypt, it symbolizes in P the willingness to conform to the cosmic order endorsed by the gods themselves, and thus highlights the unique role of Aaron as the community’s representative.512 These observations suggest that for the Priestly writer responsible for Lev 1–16 the high priest has become the true political chief of the new, postexilic community, on whom the legacy of the Davidic line has been transferred. In this context, the bestowing upon Aaron of several traditional royal attributes, such as diadem (rzn), anointing with oil, and confection of “vestments of majesty” is significant.513 This is quite reminiscent of the description found in the 511

This point was recently observed in particular by ZWICKEL, Edelsteine, 48–49, who comments: “Der Hohepriester wird hier als Vertreter des ganzen Judentums dargestellt” (49). The identification of these stones was disputed since antiquity; see ZWICKEL, 50–63. On the breastpiece in Ex 28, see also now the study by KEEL, Brusttasche. Keel, following VAN DAM, Urim, 67–76, stresses the parallel with the Egyptian pectoral. 512 KEEL, Brusttasche, 383. 513 On the high priest’s diadem in P, see Ex 28:36–38; 29:6; 39:30 (MT) and Lev 8:9; as a royal attribute in the HB: 2 Sam 1:10; 2 Kgs 11:12; Ps 89:40; 132:18; 2 Chr 23:11. On anointing with oil as a royal marker, see (especially for Northern kings): 1 Sam 10:1; 16:1, 3, 13; 1 Kgs 1:39; 2 Kgs 9:1, 3, 12; 11:12; 23:30. Similarly, the “tiara” (tpncm; see Ex 28:4, 37 [2 x], 39; 29:6 [2 x]; 39:28, 31; Lev 8:9 [2 x]; 16:4) is described in Ez 21:31 as an attribute of the

394

Chapter Four: Purity and Purification of the Community (Lev 11–16)

of Zech 6:9–15, where a crown (a traditional royal symbol) is placed on the head of Joshua, the high priest. Such development seems best explained as a consequence of the disappearance of the last Davidides, Zerubbabel and his son. This view is all the more attractive if one accepts the classical hypothesis that the oracle of Zech 6 was initially intended for Zerubbabel, and later transferred to Joshua.514 To be sure, priestly circles in Judah were unable to impose a theocracy before the Hellenistic period. Also, although it is very likely that matters of temple and cult, a typically royal prerogative in the First Temple period, became the prerogative of the high priest in the early Persian period, to speak of a “diarchy” (priestly and lay governorship) during the Persian period, as is has sometimes been done, is unfounded.515 Actually Aaron’s depiction in Ex 28–29; Lev 1–16 probably betrays the ambitions of priestly circles in Jerusalem at a time when, after the withdrawal of the last Davidides, any possibility of restoring national autonomy had apparently vanished. In this context, the political importance of the high priest was all the more significant since after Zerubbabel, the governor of Yehud appointed by the Achemenid administration was not a Judean for several decades, that is, before Nehemiah.516 Even if he was himself under the rule of a foreign governor, the high priest must logically have been regarded by several circles as the legitimate Judean leader. All in all, these considerations suggest that the more fitting context for the composition of P is probably the first decades of the fifth century BCE, shortly after the disappearance of the last Davidides.517 MT

prince of Israel. On this point, see already NOTH, Office, 235–238, who also calls attention to Aaron’s representation in a royal costume in the synagogue of Dura-Europos; further GOSSE, Transfert. This point was disputed recently by FLEMING, Biblical Tradition, who refers to a similar practice of anointing priests in a ritual from Emar (= Emar [VI.3] 369) for ordaining the NIN.DINGIR, a high priestess. Yet he focuses on the anointing rite and does not discuss the other features suggesting transfer of royal attributes on Aaron, so that his case against Noth is unconvincing. Besides, one still has to account for the fact that outside Ex 28–29 and Lev 8 anointing of the high priest is not attested before 1 Chr 29:22. 514 Although this view is now disputed (see e.g. ROSE, Zemah, 151–176), I still find difficult the idea that Joshua was the original recipient of the crown, as in the present MT of 6:9– 15, especially with regard to the mention of the “priest” sitting on the other throne in v. 13. 515 As recently suggested by ROSE, Zemah, especially in the context of his discussion of the oracle of Zech 3:7 (see on p. 68–83 and passim). 516 See e.g. the reconstruction of the governor list in MEYERS/MEYERS, Zechariah 1–8, 14. 517 If one accepts the reconstruction of MEYERS, Shelomith Seal, the last Davidide to serve in a public office would have been Shelomith, )a4 m a= of Elnathan (circa 510–490), himself ph9w) (governor) of Yehud. Note, finally, that the dating adopted here for P also fits with the adoption by the Priestly writer of the twelve-tribe system in Ex 28. According to the recent status quaestionis in the study by MACCHI, Genèse 49, 256–280, analysis of the relevant biblical sources shows that this system “n’apparaît qu’à partir de l’exil babylonien et se développe à l’époque perse. Le deutéronomiste ne semble d’ailleurs pas l’avoir connu” (p. 272).

Chapter Five

From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: The Composition of the “Holiness Code” (Lev 17–26) 5.1. Prolegomenon: On H’s Narrative Framework Since Graf, Kuenen and Wellhausen, the traditional assumption that Lev 17–26 was originally a separate code before its inclusion into P has focused the discussion on the reconstruction of this code and its genesis.1 As a result, the treatment of the relationship between H and P was restricted to the elimination of all elements in H perceived as characteristic of P; questions such as when this code was edited by the Priestly school and, above all, why, remained unclear and were implicitly considered of limited interest.2 Methodologically, however, the reconstruction in Lev 17–26 of a document entirely free from P’s influence raises significant difficulties; in particular, earlier scholars had to acknowledge that even the original code showed many affinities with P.3 If so, the criteria for differentiating between genuine H material and later editorial interventions are quite fragile, if not arbitrary, and there is an obvious risk of circular reasoning.4 The evolution of research on H in the second half of the 20th century also attests this problem; gradually, a majority of scholars has considered a more complicated interaction between P and H in order to account for the obvious connections between these two corpuses. Thus, some authors suggested that H was edited by priestly circles even before its insertion into P.5 For others, although originally 1

For a detailed presentation, see the survey in the Introduction, Excursus 1, p. 4–11. See for example the statement by KILIAN, Untersuchung, 175, who considers a complicated process for P’s revision of H and merely comments: “Die Frage nun zu klären, welche Stellen innerhalb der Rp-Zusätze in H einer ersten und welche späteren Überarbeitungen angehören, gehört nicht zur Aufgabe dieser Arbeit. Zudem würde eine solche Klärung eine Analyse des ganzen Leviticus- und P-Komplexes im Pentateuch voraussetzen, ohne daß ein gesichertes Ergebnis zu erwarten wäre”. 3 E.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, LV and 387: “[…] eine unleugbare Geistesverwandtschaft mit der Gesetzgebung der priesterl. Schule (P)”; further KILIAN, Untersuchung, 169ff., etc. 4 Thus, e.g., KILIAN, Untersuchung, 174, admits that in many places the parallels between H and P are so important, “daß man kaum noch weiß, ist man schon in P oder noch in H”. 5 For this view, see VON R AD, Holiness Code; further, e.g., THIEL, Erwägungen, 72–73. CHOLEWIN&SKI, although he follows Elliger and regards H as a supplement to Pg, also admits that the traditional collections composing H (H1, H2, H3…) show such a close relationship to 2

396

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

independent, H would already presuppose – and even react to – a first draft of P (Pg, plus possibly some legal traditions).6 Yet none of these explanations can be considered to be entirely satisfactory. The first solution makes it virtually impossible to distinguish between genuine H material, later priestly additions on a still independent document, and P’s editorial work. The second raises another difficulty since H’s literary independence is no longer supported by its chronological priority over P, as in the classical model. Actually, the specific problems raised by the attempt to retrieve a pre-P core in Lev 17–26 are already obvious in the narrative framework of these chapters. Close examination of this framework shows that there are good reasons to question the classical hypothesis of H’s precedence over P.7 Two types of observations, in particular, are relevant. (1) First, the separation between “law” and “narrative”, and thus the identification of an older collection initially independent from P’s narrative fiction, is actually much more difficult than in the case of Lev 1–7 and 11–15. In some cases, it is even impossible. For instance in Lev 21:16–17 and 22:1–2, the subject matter of the following laws (21:18–23 and 22:3–16) is given in the introduction itself.8 Also, as was traditionally observed, the code is missing a proper introduction and can hardly have begun with Lev 17:3ff.; this already led some scholars to discard ch. 17 and seek such an introduction in 18:2ff., thus returning to the solution initially argued by Graf.9 Above all, the assumption that the narrative frame should be systematically secondary is contradicted by the fact that the laws themselves are devised as a divine speech in which Yahweh can refer to himself or to things belonging to him P that they must all have been composed by scribes belonging “zu den priesterlichen Kreisen” (Heiligkeitsgesetz, 140). 6 See KILIAN, Untersuchung, 169ff. (followed by MATHYS , Liebe, 83); and now GRÜN WALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 127–130, 366–368.381ff., and passim. In Grünwaldt’s analysis H somehow becomes a work involving a critical revision of Pg, a view already held by CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, esp. 138–140. On this scholarly trend, see above, page 10. 7 Introductions to divine speeches with commission formulae to Moses are found in Lev 17:1–2a; 18:1–2a; 19:1–2a; 20:1–2aa; 21:1a, ba , 17a; 22:1–2aa1, 17–18a; 23:1–2aa, 9–10aa, 23–24a, 26, 33–34a; 24:1ff.; 25:1–2aa . For a comparison with similar introductions in the first part of Leviticus, see in particular RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 57ff., and the appendix on p. 369–372; cf. also GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 121–122. 8 In Lev 21:16ff., the classical solution has been to sort out v. 16–17a as secondary (see for instance BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 407; KILIAN, Untersuchung, 88; THIEL, Erwägungen, 55; most recently GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 68), but the phrase K(rzm #y) at the beginning of v. 17ba is a clear reference to Aaron in v. 17a. If it is also regarded as secondary, as has usually been done, the remainder of v. 17b lacks an introduction. In Lev 22:1ff., the situation is quite similar. V. 1–2aa 1 are generally considered an interpolation (see BAENTSCH, 408; KILIAN, 91–92; GRÜNWALDT, 71; etc.); in addition, one has to presume that the beginning of v. 3a has also been edited by P. 9 Thus in particular KILIAN, Untersuchung, 176.178–179.

5.1. Prolegomenon: On H’s Narrative Framework

397

(thus typically in Lev 19:30; 26:2) in the first person singular. The entire collection is structured by the so-called “formula of self-presentation” (Selbstvorstellungsformel, although self-assertion would be better), which can occur either in the short (hwhy yn)) or in the long (Mkyhl) hwhy yn)) form and can be found both in the exhortations and in the laws themselves.10 Whereas Yahweh’s reference to himself constitutes an exceptional device in the other Codes, even in Deut 12–26, it is, on the contrary, one of H’s distinctive feature, as long noted. Yet can it be explained without some sort of narrative introduction?11 The fact that H’s laws are consistently conceptualized as a divine speech makes more sense if, unlike the so-called “Covenant Code” (CC) and the Deuteronomic Code (D), this collection never formed a discrete document but was conceived from the beginning for its present location. In a more subtle way, the close connection between the legal collection and its narrative framework is also shown by the central structuring function assigned to the successive introductions.12 For instance, the fact that 17:1–2a, with the command given by Yahweh to Moses to speak to “Aaron, his sons and all the Israelites” (v. 2a), has an equivalent only in Lev 22:17–18a serves to parallel the two instructions of Lev 17 and 22:17–30, both dealing with the offering of sacrifices, and to underline their structural function as a literary frame around the first part of H, Lev 17–22.13 The centrality of Lev 19, introducing the motif of the community’s holiness (19:2) within ch. 18–20 is 10

The short form occurs in Lev 18:5b, 6b, 21b; 19:12b, 14b, 16b, 18b, 28b, 30b, 32b, 37b; 20:26a; 21:12b; 22:2b, 3b, 8b, 30b, 31b, 33b; 26:2b. The so-called “long” form of this formula occurs in 18:2b, 4b, 30b; 19:2b, 3b, 4b, 10b, 25b, 31b, 34b, 36b; 20:7b, 8b, 24b; 21:8b, 15b, 23b; 22:9b, 16b, 32b; 23:22b, 43b; 24:22b; 25:17b, 38a, 55b; 26:1b. Yet in many cases this formula can be extended; see esp. Mk#dqm (Mkyhl) ) hwhy yn) (or w#dqm , or M#dqm ) in 20:8b; 21:8b, 15b, 23b; 22:9b, 16b, 32b. On this formula, see in particular the classical studies by ZIMMERLI, Jahwe; and ELLIGER, Herr. On the difference between “short” and “long” forms and its possible function as a structuring device in H, see RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 71–74 and passim, and further below. As stated by H ARTLEY, Leviticus, 292: “These selfintroduction formulae function to locate the authority of a passage, law, or summons to obedience in the name of the giver of that word, namely Yahweh. That is, a formula raises the authority of a law or a series of laws above the socio-political sphere to the divine sphere. Consequently, in obeying these laws the people express their loyalty to Yahweh”. MILGROM also observes that the formula is reminiscent of the phrase “I am the lord” in ANE documents, especially royal land grants (Leviticus, 1518) by which the crown guaranteed the authority of such documents. For this reason, “self-assertion” seems more appropriate indeed than “selfpresentation”, and will be consistently used in this chapter. 11 This point is recognized, e.g., by THIEL, Erwägungen, 72, who admits that the question to know whether “die 1. pers. Jahwes mit den P-Einleitungsformeln zusammenhängt oder mit der über ganz H verstreuten Formel (Mkyhl)) hwhy yn) oder mit beiden” is difficult and can only “bestenfalls hypothetisch beantwortet werden” (sic). 12 On this point, see RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 57–64, and above, § 2.3.1. 13 MATHYS , Liebe, 82; CRÜSEMANN , Tora, 379. For further remarks on the parallels between Lev 17 and 22:17–30 and their function as a frame around Lev 17–22, above, § 2.3.1.

398

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

signaled by the fact that it is the only speech addressed to the whole community (cf. td( lk, only in 19:2a). Similarly, the close relationship between Lev 25 and 26 is shown by the fact that both chapters are included in the same introduction (25:1–2aa) as well as by the inclusion created by the resumption of the reference, in the subscription of 26:46, to Mt Sinai in 25:1. In all these cases, therefore, there is a close relationship between the subject matter of the laws and their narrative introduction. This observation does not necessarily imply that the two are from the same hand, but it suggests at least that the same redactor is responsible for the narrative frame of these laws and their organization into a comprehensive collection. The problem of H’s narrative framework was recently addressed in detail by K. Grünwaldt. In particular, he tries to demonstrate its secondary character by arguing that many of the introductions to the divine speeches evince stylistic tensions with the laws which they serve to 14 introduce. Yet most of his examples are unprovable. In 21:16–24, there is no need to assume a tension between the direct address to Aaron (“your seed”) in v. 17 and the indirect reference to him in v. 21 (“Aaron’s seed”); similar changes from 2ps to 3ps are attested elsewhere in H (see esp. Lev 22:17–25, and further for instance 19:19 and 20–22). Besides, the argument is all the more unconvincing since 21:17, 21 concern two references to Aaron; 15 logically, in Grünwaldt’s model, both should correspond to the same editorial layer! Thus, in this case, the alleged tension is not between the original code and the editorial layer but within the editorial layer itself, demonstrating the inadequacy of the criterion used. Similarly weak is Grünwaldt’s argumentation in the case of Lev 22:1–16. As noted above, it is actually impossible to dissociate in 22:1–3 the introduction to the divine speech from the beginning of this speech itself, and Grünwaldt must hypothesize that originally the instruction was formulated in the 3ps; yet the plural recurs in v. 9, so that Grünwaldt is forced to assume editorial 16 intervention in this verse also. Finally, since v. 15, which he regards as original, is similarly formulated in the plural, he must eventually concede that: “Die Spannung zwischen 17 Formelwerk und Gesetzestext zieht sich also durch den gesamten Abschnitt ab V. 3*” . Note, in addition, that the same change from singular to plural can be observed in the motive clause concluding the previous section (21:16–23), see 21:23b, b M#dqm hwhy yn) yk, which confirms that the distinction is irrelevant in Lev 21–22, at least on the literary critical level. As for his remaining observations, the fact that Aaron and his sons are included in the address of Lev 17:2a and 22:18a whereas these two laws are primarily addressed to the lay 18 community can hardly be regarded as meaningful; their presence is only logical since Lev 17 and 22:17–30 both concern sacrificial matters for which priests are directly responsible. The assumption that in its present context the divine formula of self-assertion in Lev 18:2b and 19:2b would come too abruptly after the narrative introduction in 18:1–2a and 19:1–2a respectively, and that if the sequence were original, one should have between the two a socalled “messenger formula” such as hwhy rm) hk (“thus spoke Yahweh”), as in the prophetic literature, is simply false since the formulation of Lev 18:2 and 19:2 has an exact parallel in a few other P passages such as Ex 6:6a. Grünwaldt also argues for the secondary character of 14

See GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 124–126. This is indeed the case, see his reconstruction on p. 130. 16 Heiligkeitsgesetz, 70–71. 17 Ibid., 125. 18 Ibid., 125; see also p. 33 n. 59. 15

5.1. Prolegomenon: On H’s Narrative Framework

399

the narrative frame on the basis of his reconstruction of an earlier layer in Lev 23; 24 and 19 25–26, but this argument is of course entirely circular (since the reconstruction itself is motivated by the assumption that this frame has systematically been added in H). Thus, there only remains the case of the to=ra= of Lev 21:1–15 where, indeed, any direct reference to the P 20 fiction is missing after the introduction in v. 1a. Yet this observation alone, to which we shall return below (§ 5.2.3.), can certainly not justify the case for the secondary nature of the narrative framework in Lev 17–26.

(2) Second, a further problem is raised by the fact that the fictional setting provided by the P narrative is not restricted to the introduction for these laws, but actually permeates the entire H legislation; this is true not only of the exhortations but also of several individual instructions.21 In this respect also, the situation is significantly different from other codes, especially the CC where there are virtually no references to the Sinai setting outside the introduction (Ex 20:22–23) and the conclusion (23:20–33). In Lev 18–20, for instance, the parenetic frame consistently presupposes that these laws are revealed to Israel after the exodus and before entry into the land (Lev 18:3, 24ff.; 20:22–26; see also the concluding reference to the exodus in 22:33). The same situation is presupposed in Lev 19:23–25; 23:10 (ff.) and in Lev 25:2ff.; in the latter text, it is also combined with an explicit reference to Mt Sinai (25:1). The first part of the legislation of Lev 17, in v. 3–9, is consistently infused with references to Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness; see the mention of the “encampment” (hnxm) in v. 3 and of the d(wm lh) in v. 4, 5, 6, 9. Earlier scholars tried to solve the difficulty by regarding all these motifs as interpolations from the hand of the Priestly editor,22 but this solution is forced and raises additional issues.23 Hence, it was gradually given up and scholars were forced to assume that the author of H had borrowed these motifs from P.24 In this case, however, the decision to eliminate H’s narrative framework while retaining at the same time such motifs as the wilderness camp and the tent of meeting becomes quite arbitrary.25 Others tried to solve this difficulty by proposing that the tent of meeting mentioned here was not the P tent of Ex 25ff. but the (supposedly pre-P) “oracular” tent of Ex 33:7–11,26 or even that 19

See Heiligkeitsgesetz, 126, and for the analysis p. 76ff. See GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 124–125. 21 This is because in H the distinction between exhortations and laws is very often less clearly marked than in the CC and in D. On this device, see esp. JOOSTEN, L’imbrication. 22 See among others BA E N T S C H, Heiligkeits-Gesetz, 13–23; ID ., Leviticus, 388ff.; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 57–58; THIEL, Erwägungen, 46–49. The elimination of d(wm lh) xtp in v. 4, 5, 6, and 9 was justified by the apparent tension with the mention of the Nk#m in v. 4; see, e.g., GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 28–29; and further on this below, § 5.2.1. 23 For a detailed discussion, see below, § 5.2.1. 24 Thus in particular CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 27–29. 25 On the contrary, SUN, Investigation, 98–99, assigns all of 17:1–4 to a Priestly redactor. 26 Thus KILIAN, Untersuchung, 13–14. See further Num 11:16, 24; 12:4, 5; Deut 31:14, 15. Actually, all these passages are most likely post-P, see § 1.2.2.1., p. 47 and n. 146. 20

400

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

the mention of the wilderness camp and of the tent actually betrayed the historicity of the tradition preserved in Lev 17ff.,27 but such solutions are hardly more tenable. Similarly, the instructions for the priests in 21:16–23 and 22:1–16 are also consistently informed by P’s conception of the Aaronites as forming the priestly dynasty (cf. 21:16–17, 21aa ; 22:1–2aa , 3a, 4aa ); here again, the secondary nature of these references cannot be sustained, even from a literary-critical viewpoint, as argued above. As a matter of fact, it is worth noting that the reconstruction of an earlier form of Lev 17–26 entirely free from any reference to the wilderness setting is not only arbitrary, it was also never entirely successful. Even after removing all the elements manifesting most clearly this code’s dependence on P, such as the introductions to the divine speeches and any mention of Mt Sinai, the remaining material still presupposes a situation in which Israel has just left Egypt (cf. 18:3; further 22:33; 25:55; 26:13, 45) and is on the point of entering the promised land (cf. 18:3; 18:24–30; 20:22–26).28 Besides, this narrative context is not limited to H’s parenetic framework in Lev 18–25. Not only is it explicitly mentioned in some laws, in particular in Lev 25 (see 25:2ff., and further 19:23; 23:10), but it is consistently presupposed by the grand exhortation of Lev 26:3–45 describing life inside the settled land according to Israel’s obedience or disobedience to Yahweh (cf. 26:3–13 and 14–39, and compare with Deut 28). This exhortation, contrary to what is often falsely stated, does not recount the conclusion of a tyrb between Yahweh and Israel. Rather, it describes (or more exactly, it predicts, as we shall see when analyzing this 27

See REVENTLOW, Heiligkeitsgesetz; also KILIAN, Untersuchung, 12 (as a possibility). In general, this problem has received only limited attention. Under the influence of the form-critical approach to Lev 17–26, it was generally assumed that the laws collected in H had undergone a long process of transmission, and that several of them were probably of a high antiquity, i.e., the pre-state period or even the wilderness. However, this is not valid for the parenetic frame which was considered, on the contrary, as redactional and therefore contemporary of the first draft of the code, so that even from a form-critical perspective the problem of the reference to the wilderness setting remained. Reventlow, as many conservative scholars before him, used this observation to argue that the Sinaitic setting in H could not be dissociated from the laws and had to be therefore a traditio-historical datum. KILIAN, Untersuchung, 173–174, surmises at the end of his investigation that the wilderness setting, in which he correctly recognizes a “characteristic feature” of his late-exilic H redactor (RhRedaktor), would reflect the attempt to identify the historical situation of his generation with that of the generation of the conquest. More generally, a majority of scholars seems to have tacitly compared H with D which, in its present form, is also stylized as a series of instructions given by Moses immediately before the conquest of the land. This is still the solution advocated most recently by GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 124 (on this point, I must qualify my earlier criticism of Grünwaldt’s thesis in NIHAN , Holiness Code, 100). However, it is unlikely that the original code in Deut 6:4ff. was already included in this narrative setting, a point which Grünwaldt, for example, fails to discuss; more probably, this setting was introduced together with the narrative of Deut 1–3, as is generally presumed. 28

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

401

chapter) the implications of the observance (v. 3–13) or non-observance (v. 14–39) respectively of an already existing tyrb. As close examination shows, this tyrb is not only the one concluded with Abraham and the other Patriarchs, as in P (cf. Gen 17 and Lev 26:42), it also includes the non-Priestly tyrb made with the generation of the exodus at Mt Sinai in Ex 19–24 (cf. Lev 26:45). We shall return below (§ 5.2.5.) to the significance of this unique attempt to deal with two covenant traditions, the Priestly and the non-Priestly, that were originally separate. For the moment, it is enough to observe that such a device corroborates the conclusion that the composition of Lev 26 (and, beyond, of all of ch. 17–26) is best understood as a supplement to a previous narrative in Gen–Ex (the nature and extent of which remains to be discussed) rather than as a discrete document.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H The conclusion reached above concerning the “supplementary” view of Lev 17–26 has important implications for the interpretation of this collection. In the Torah, the so-called “Holiness Code” is distinguished by its intermediate position between other codes (especially the CC and D) and P. On one hand, it imitates the general structure of these codes29 and shares numerous parallel laws with them; on the other hand, it is also consistently permeated by P’s theology and terminology. In the context of the “new” documentary hypothesis and of the characteristic evolutionistic scheme underlying it, this phenomenon was accounted for by placing H between D and P (and generally also after Ezekiel, though this point was occasionally disputed),30 the latest stage being automatically identified with P. If, on the contrary, H cannot be separated from P, the whole question of this code’s origin and significance remains to be clarified. At which stage of the formation of the priestly literature in the Pentateuch was it composed and for what purpose? Should it be assigned to the same school as the one responsible for the composition of P in Gen 1–Lev 16 (thus Blum, Crüsemann, and now Ruwe) or does it imply on the contrary a significant revision of P (cf. in particular Cholewin8ski , Grünwaldt and, from a different perspective, Knohl and Milgrom)?31 Do the paral29

See especially the introduction with a law on sacrifices (Lev 17; cf. Ex 20:24–26; Deut 12) and the conclusion with an exhortation stipulating the consequences of both obedience and disobedience, on the model of ANE vassal treaties (Lev 26; cf. Deut 28). 30 Wellhausen’s disciples generally agreed to place H after Ezekiel but there were exceptions, such as A. Klostermann; see above, Introduction, Excursus 1. Note also that the question was further complicated by the issue of H’s literary history; e.g., BAENTSCH, Heiligkeitsgesetz, dated the collection formed by Lev 18–20 (plus parts of 23–25) to the first years of the exile. In this case, it would have been broadly contemporary with Ezekiel’s prophecy. 31 See above, Introduction, Excursus 1, pages 8–11.

402

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

lels with D and other codes betray the willingness of priestly circles after the exile to write their own version of the law (thus in particular Crüsemann,32 but already in a sense Cholewin8ski),33 or should they rather be connected with the attempt to harmonize different traditions (in particular D and P) at the time of the composition of the Torah as a unified (legal) document (thus Otto)?34 In order to answer these questions, we need to investigate systematically not only the nature of the reception of Priestly and non-Priestly traditions in H but also the compositional logic and the literary integrity of this collection. In the following discussion of the laws comprising Lev 17–27 these two questions shall be dealt with hand in hand.35 5.2.1. Leviticus 17 In earlier scholarship, the literary integrity of this chapter was disputed and it was frequently regarded as a compilation of various discrete laws on sacrifices and the eating of animal’s blood.36 For this reason, the four successive instructions in v. 3–7, 8–9, 10–12 and 13–14 have usually been considered as preserving originally independent traditions. V. 15–16, whose connection with the rest of ch. 17 is not obvious at first sight and which are introduced by r#) #pn-lkw instead of yk #y) #y), were believed to be a late supplement. The core of the original, H legislation would therefore reside in v. 3–4, 8–9, 10 (11–12), 13–14, while v. 5, 7 were viewed as an addition to v. 3–4, probably by the hand of Rh, H’s redactor. V. 1–2, 6, and 15–16, for their part, were assigned to P, as the references to the tent of meeting and the wilderness setting.37 Because they both consider H as a supplement to Pg already, Elliger 32

CRÜSEMANN, Tora, esp. 333–337; ID., Exodus; and also RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 33. Cf. on this point CHOLEWIN &SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, who regards H as the creation of a distinct priestly school, whose work (involving several successive stages) adheres to the basic principles (“Hauptprinzipien”) of the Deuteronomic reform but seeks nevertheless to revise and modify it in several respects in order to include the interests and concerns of this circle (see for instance his summary on p. 342–344). 34 See especially OTTO, Ethik, 234ff.; ID., Levitikus 17–26; ID., Innerbiblische Exegese. 35 For the moment, the traditional designation “Holiness Code” for Lev 17–27 is simply retained as convenient; for a detailed justification, see below § 5.3., p. 550–551. Note, besides, that this designation is retained by several authors who have similarly abandoned the view of H as an originally discrete document. The main exception is represented by those scholars who would dispute the identification of a major structural break after ch. 16 (Zenger, Jürgens) or deny any coherence to ch. 17–27 as a unit (e.g., Gerstenberger). For the justification of this delineation, see the discussion above in Chapter Two, § 2.3.1., pages 97–99. 36 For a detailed review of the various reconstructions of the pre-literary and literary history of this chapter proposed in the past, see in particular SUN, Investigation, 87–94. 37 For this reconstruction, see in particular (with only slight differences) BAENTSCH, Heiligkeits-Gesetz, 13–23; ID., Leviticus, 388(ff.); PATON, Leviticus xvii.–xix., 31–45 (who nevertheless retains v. 15aa *, 16b as original); BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 57–60; further especially KILIAN, Untersuchung, 4–21; most recently BULTMANN , Der Fremde, 193 with n. 80 33

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

403

and Cholewin8ski logically reject the possibility of reconstructing a pre-P legislation in v. 1–7, but nevertheless retain an older, pre-P set of instructions in v. 8–9, 10–12 and 13–14.38 Finally, Sun finds the original core of the law in 17:1–4, which already presupposes P; v. 1–4 were gradually supplemented in several successive stages following a process of Fortschreibung (v. 5 + 7, v. 6, v. 8–9, v. 10–12, v. 13–14, v. 15–16); of these supplements, v. 10–12, 13– 14 and 15–16 (but not v. 8–9) were originally independent39. Yet a closer analysis of the structure of Lev 17 suggests that such formand source-critical reconstructions are unsupported, and that this text is best understood as a complex, but nevertheless unified composition.40 In general, earlier analyses have given insufficient attention to the fact that Lev 17 is characterized by both a great literary coherence and simultaneously considerable freedom in the formulation of cases and the recurrence of given set of motifs, as B.J. Schwartz, in particular, has remarkably perceived. (v. 3–4*, 8–9*, 13–14*). In general, scholars working with the form-critical method agreed that the oldest part of the legislation lay in the series of four apodictic laws in v. 3–4, 8–9, 10 and 13(–14), whereas v. 5–7, 8–9, 11–12 and 15–16 would be later additions; see REVENTLOW, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 31–52; FEUCHT , Untersuchungen, 30–31; GÖRG , Zelt, 51; and most recently for this idea HARTLEY, Leviticus, 268, who assumes a discrete origin for each of the five laws composing Lev 17 even though he notes that, “there are not sufficient clues to provide any certainty for a detailed reconstruction of the composition history of this speech”; as well as GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 215–216 (with hesitation as to the originality of v. 15–16). For Reventlow, however, the gradual supplementation of these laws would reflect an extraordinarily long and complicated process of (mainly oral) transmission. 38 ELLIGER, Leviticus, 219–225; CHOLEWIN &SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 16–31. Elliger identifies the traditional material in v. 8ab–9 (> d(wm lh) xtp l)w), 10a, 11aa, 13, 14aa, b; the H redaction involves three main phases. A first redactor, Ph1, is responsible for the insertion of v. 1–4, 9a*; this material is then completed briefly afterward by v. 5–7a and 7b (+ 8aa?); finally, Ph2 reworks v. 10–14, by adding v. 10b, 11ab , g , b, 12, 14b. The interpolation of v. 15–16 cannot be clearly identified with either Ph1 or Ph2. Cholewin8ski discerns the original material in v. 8–14 in 8–9*, 10, 13, 14bb *; a first redaction (“H 1”), which groups no less than four successive redactors (!), is responsible for v. 3–9 more or less in their present form (except for v. 4, further edited at a later stage); the general redaction of the H code (“HG”) then adds v. 1–2a and 10–14, before ch. 17 is slightly edited by P. 39 SUN, Investigation, 95–106. Note however that even within v. 10–12, 13–14 and 15–16 he identifies traces of a development in several phases. On the whole, his model is clearly influenced by Elliger and Cholewin8ski, even though his theory of a gradual supplementation of an earlier kernel in v. 1–4 is closer to the view argued by NOTH, Leviticus, 130–132. 40 See also now SCHWARTZ, Prohibitions; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 24–34; RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 135–159; MILGROM , Leviticus, 1447ff. Of these, Schwartz’s study, which is based on his doctoral dissertation on Lev 17–19 (“Selected Chapters of the Holiness Code – A Literary Study of Leviticus 17–19”, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1987), is the most accurate and the most exhaustive analysis of Lev 17 regarding the chapter’s structural, thematic and literary coherence, although I eventually disagree with his general view of the structure of Lev 17 as exemplifying a concentric pattern (see below, especially page 424). Unfortunately, I was unable to consult the dissertation itself.

404

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

On one hand, each of the five instructions is built on the same general structure. The law itself consists of two clauses; the first begins with the subject followed by r#) and a verb (always in the yiqt[ol) stating the case, whereas the second starts with a verb in the we6-qa4t[al, resumes the casus pendens, and pronounces the sanction.41 In addition to this, all instructions except the last one are introduced by the same formula, that is, /tybm #y) #y) ...r#) l)r#y ynbm, followed by the verb (v. 8, 10, 13 add rwgy r#) rgh Nmw 42 Mkwtb); also, the trk-sanction is always mentioned in these four laws. On the other hand, the construction of each law shows considerable variations, to the point that it is actually not possible to reconstruct a single, coherent form, in spite of the various attempts that have been made to that effect.43 The first two laws both contain a clause stating that the case consists in the omission of a certain action – bringing a sacrificial animal to the sanctuary –, which has no equivalent in the three following laws. Rather, the sanction in v. 10 introduces the form ytrkhw instead of the impersonal trknw in v. 4 and 9. And in v. 13, the prescription to pour out the blood of game animals and to cover it with earth has replaced the sanction in the main clause (see v. 13b); a trk-threat occurs at the end of v. 14, yet it is no longer a legal statement but a quotation of the divine saying in v. 10–12.44 Thus, all endeavors to include v. 10–14 (15–16) in a single, unified Gattung conceived on the model of v. 3–9 lead automatically to artificial and forced reconstructions of the alleged “Urform” of these instructions.45 The 41

On this, see in particular SCHWARTZ, Prohibitions, 37. In the MT, tybm is found in Lev 17:3, 8, 10, and ynbm in 17:13; in the LXX, however, ynbm is used systematically (see BHS); note also that a few mss, the SamP and the PseudoJonathan read tybm in 17:13 as well. Since the MT offers the most irregular pattern, it is likely to be original; the reading tybm in the Hebrew tradition of 17:13 is certainly facilitating, and the reading of the LXX may also reflect the willingness to harmonize 17:3, 8 and 10 with both 17:13 and 17:2a. The fifth law is introduced by a more simple formula, r#) #pn-lkw. The reference to the rg occurs in all five instructions except the first; on this point, see below. 43 See in particular REVENTLOW , Heiligkeitsgesetz, 31–52; FEUCHT , Untersuchungen, 30–31; GÖRG , Zelt, 51; KILIAN, Untersuchung, 9ff; similarly CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 16ff.; and most recently GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 215–216 44 Cf. below, p. 425. On the quotation of the divine saying in v. 10–12 already, see p. 419. 45 In the case of v. 13–14, the traditional solution has been to retain only trky in v. 14bb as the original conclusion to v. 13 (thus KILIAN, Untersuchung, 9; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 16; still recently GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 216) and to take the clause of v. 13b as being basically the equivalent to the )lw-clause in v. 4a and 9a. This solution is not only arbitrary (as recognized by ELLIGER, Leviticus, 221) but it cannot even account for the case of v. 10 where an intermediary clause comparable to the )lw-clause in the first two instructions is still missing. Elliger also observed the problem raised by the sudden occurrence of the form ytrkhw in v. 10b and thus had to postulate that the traditional prohibition in v. 10* is “unvollständig” and that the initial sanction had been replaced by 10b (ID., Leviticus, 220–221). Recently, GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 215–216, has proposed that the original series consisted of four prohibitions which were strictly identical and for this does not hesitate to rewrite 42

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

405

attempt by Elliger and Cholewin8ski to limit this form to a portion of 17:3–16 (namely, v. 8–14) is similarly inconclusive, since, even in this material, they are unable to reconstruct a coherent Gattung. 46 Rather, as pointed out by Schwartz, features such as the identical introduction of the first four laws and the occurrence of the trk-sanction are not a “form” in the traditional sense of this term, they are only “the syntactical base upon which the author has constructed five different – though similar – structures”.47 That we do not deal here with a traditional Gattung but with an elaborate literary creation is further indicated by the fact that these laws do not follow the conventional casuistic pattern48 and that their formulation is quite unique in the HB (its only real parallel being in Ez 14:1–11, as commonly observed). Further examination also reveals that this pattern can be partly correlated with the general structure of the text of ch. 17, which underlines its significance as an elaborate literary device. Thus, the sudden occurrence of the active form of the trksanction in v. 10 (ytrkhw) differentiates the second part of Lev 17, v. 10–16, from v. 3–9. Similarly, the distinct status of the last instruction, v. 15–16, which is more a kind of appendix to the two previous laws in v. 10–14, is singled out not only by its different, shorter introduction, but also by the absence of any reference to the trk-sanction. This progression, however, is somehow prepared by the fourth instruction which, contrary to the three previous laws, does not mention the trk-sanction in its main clause (v. 13) but only as a reminder in its motivational section.49 On the whole, these observations on the the formulation of v. 10–12 and 13–14 on the model of v. 3–4 and 8–9, i.e.: “Jeder, der das Blut eines Opfertieres zu sich nimmt, wird ausgerottet” (v. 10–12), and “Jeder, der das Blut eines erlegten Wildes genießt, wird ausgerottet” (v. 13–14; see on p. 216). How problematic this kind of reconstruction may be hardly needs to be emphasized here; note, in addition, that it is all the more unlikely since the trk–formula is usually followed by a reference to one’s clan. On the difficulties raised by the reconstruction of an original series of four prohibitions behind the present text of Lev 17, see also SUN, Investigation, 95, who correctly observes: “In order to reconstruct an original series, the text in its present shape must be rejected, at which point it might well be asked whether the evidence for such a series is based primarily on the evidence of the text or on the assumption that an old series underlies the text”. See similarly SCHWARTZ, Prohibitions, 39, who concludes that “the common formulation is not a frozen or inflexible ‘Gattung’. These paragraphs display considerable variety even in their use of those elements which they all have in common, not to mention the elements that they do not share”. 46 SUN , Investigation, 99–104, sees the difficulty and gives up reconstructing a comprehensive form for the traditional instructions which he identifies in the second part of ch. 17. However, in this case, the criteria for postulating the existence of such traditions behind v. 10–16 become arbitrary. For instance, the fact that the formulation of the apodosis in v. 10 and 13 differs from that in v. 3–4 and 8–9 does not justify the assumption of a distinct origin. 47 SCHWARTZ, Prohibitions, 39. 48 As noted by SCHWARTZ, Prohibitions, 37, we have rather to do with statements, or declarations, whose function is “to announce what will happen if certain offenses are committed or certain commands not complied with”. 49 For this observation, see SCHWARTZ, Prohibitions, 38–39.

406

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

structuring function of the syntactic pattern show that the organization of the five laws composing the text of ch. 17 reflects a careful and coherent composition. Hence, there is no reason to attribute the redaction of v. 3–9 and 10–16 to two different hands, as claimed by Elliger and Cholewin8ski, even less to assume the kind of complex process of Fortschreibung for the formation of this text considered by Noth or Sun or, from a more conservative perspective, by Reventlow and Hartley. A more detailed analysis of each of the five prescriptions will help clarify the logic of this composition as well as its structure and general significance. Lev 17:3–7, 8–9 The first two instructions are closely connected by their common theme, since both are concerned with the general issue of legitimate vs. illegitimate sacrifices, whereas the second part of Lev 17, v. 10–16, is primarily concerned with the “eating” of blood; as noted above, the division between these two parts is also formally underlined by the sudden occurrence of the active form of the trk-sanction.50 In v. 3–7, the law itself, v. 3–4, states that every slaughter of an ox, a sheep or a goat, either inside or outside the camp, which does not take place at the tent of meeting, the central sanctuary, is bloodshed (cf. the typical formula Md Kp# in v. 4) and will lead to the “cutting off” (trk Niphal), i.e., the exclusion, from one’s “kinspeople” (wm().51 This law was traditionally understood in the 50

Admittedly, a separation is marked by the occurrence of the phrase rm)t Mhl)w in v. 8aa. Yet pace SUN, Investigation, 79–87, esp. 83; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 264, this observation in itself is not a sufficient reason to place a major structural division after v. 3–7 and to group v. 8–9 with the second part of ch. 17, v. 10–14 (15–16); Sun admits that, “on the basis of the content of this unit, this analysis is inadequate” (emphasis original). 17:8aa is not a new introduction to the divine speech, as in 18:1–2a, it is simply a new command to speak to the Israelites, which depends on the general introduction in 17:1–2. Besides, we have seen earlier in the analysis of the structure of Leviticus that even such introductions do not systematically mark major structural divisions but also sometimes serve to delineate sub-units, as in 5:20 for instance. Most likely, the brief commission formula of 17:8aa has the function to delineate v. 8–9 as a sub-unit within 17:1–9. For a similar view, see RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 138–139. 51 The meaning of this sanction was already discussed in rabbinic times (see the references given by MILGROM, Leviticus, 457) and is still disputed; for a general discussion see also now S KLAR , Sin, 15–20. It can only be briefly assessed here. As argued by Milgrom, the krt (Ni./Hi.) sanction is primarily a divine penalty (see also, e.g., JOOSTEN, People, 80; SKLAR, Sin, 18–19). This is implied in particular by passages such as Lev 17:10; 20:3, 5, 6, where Yahweh himself announces that he will execute this sanction, and also by the fact that several of the crimes for which the krt penalty is prescribed are secret sins against Yahweh (see the comprehensive survey by MILGROM, 458) which were not publicly known. HASEL, art. ka4rat`, 348, argues that it can occasionally be carried out by men but the examples he gives (Ex 31:14; Lev 20:2) do not support this statement. Against a classical view recently reasserted by Joosten (Ibid., 80) and Sklar, the fact that a death penalty may at times be added to the krt

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

407

school of Wellhausen as implying the ban of the profane, non-ritual slaughter of every domestic animal.52 More recently, several authors have suggested the need to qualify this view, since the enumeration of v. 3a (z(-w) b#k-w) rw#; note that the same triad is found in Lev 22:27 and earlier in 7:23, also in reference to sacrificial animals)53 appears to restrict the law of v. 3–4 to the quadrupeds which may be sacrificed in P.54 Though correct in itself, the observation nonetheless misses the fact that the category of domestic quadrupeds traditionally killed for food in Israel was probably co-extensive with that of sacrificial quadrupeds. This is suggested namely by the enumeration of Deut 14:4 which mentions among the domestic quadrupeds (hmhb) that may be eaten exactly the same animals as Lev 17:3a.55 In this case, the enumeration of Lev 17:3a would automatically have included not only all sacrificial quadrupeds but also more generally all the domestic quadrupeds which could sanction, as in Lev 20:2–3, makes it unlikely that the two are identical; pace SKLAR, Sin, 16, it is not obvious in Ex 31:14 and Num 4:18–20 that the two sanctions (death and krt) are meant to be equivalent. Besides, if death was intended, the function of the various qualifiers used, such as “cut off from among their kin” (Lev 17:4, 10; 20:3, 6, etc.), or “from Israel” (Num 19:13), “from the assembly” (Num 19:20), or even “from before me (i.e., Yahweh)” (Lev 22:3), seems difficult to understand. Beyond this, it is difficult to determine more precisely the nature of this penalty. MILGROM (458–460) thinks either of extermination of one’s line or of a post-mortem interdiction for the sinner to rejoin his ancestors in the afterlife. However, the idea that the expression “to be cut off from one’s kin” would refer to childlessness is not obvious at first sight (even though this notion is well attested later in rabbinic tradition) and it seems to be explicitly contradicted by Lev 20:17–21 where the krt penalty (v. 17–18) is clearly distinct from childlessness (v. 20–21; the logic governing the arrangement of v. 17–21 also suggests that the former is a more serious sanction than the latter). The second solution is more interesting, but it does not fit the passages where krt is used in combination not with one’s kin or clan (M( or Mym() but with more comprehensive terms such as td( l)r#y (Ex 12:19), lhq (Num 19:20) or even l)r#y (Ex 12:15; Num 19:13). In such cases, the only possible meaning seems to be that the culprit is rejected by Yahweh himself from the cultic community (GRÜNWALDT , Heiligkeitsgesetz, 149; and already ZIMMERLI , Eigenart, 166ff.). Such excommunication would automatically mean a cursed life, involving such implications as prematurate death and childlesness (since children are on the contrary the sign of a blessed life in the HB) and probably also rejection from the ancestral line after death. 52 See inter alia WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 150; BAENTSCH, Heiligkeits-Gesetz, 16; ID., Leviticus, 389; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 58; and more recently FEUCHT, Untersuchungen, 30; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 165; BLUM, Studien, 338. 53 See MILGROM, Leviticus, 1454; otherwise only in Num 18:17 (with rwbk). Since Lev 7:23 is also an H insert in Lev 6–7 (above, § 3.6., p. 260–261) and since this expression does not occur earlier in P, it is apparently characteristic of H. At any rate, the fact that it occurs in Lev 17 and 22:17–30 stresses the structural equivalence between these two laws which form a frame around the first part of Lev 17–26, ch. 17–22. 54 See NOTH, Leviticus, 129–130; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 226–227; BULTMANN, Der Fremde, 193; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 26 (with further references in n. 22); as well as RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 141ff. I adopted it previously in NIHAN, Holiness Code, 92 with n. 51. 55 Myz( h#w Myb#k h# rw#. Animals mentioned in Deut 14:5ff. are all game animals.

408

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

legitimately be killed for food; indeed, a distinction between the two is actually irrelevant. Its only particula veri is to call attention to the omission of sacrificial birds (turtledoves and pigeons, see Lev 1:14–17; 5:7; 12:8) from the law of v. 3–4. But this must be explained in light of the requirement in v. 5 to offer these animals as a well-being offering (see below). Contrary to what is the case for other animal offerings (namely, the hl( and the t)+x ), P’s sacrificial system does not acknowledge the possibility of offering domesticated birds as well-being offerings (cf. Lev 3). Whereas the law of v. 3–4 requires therefore that every (sacrificial) quadruped be offered as a sacrifice at the central sanctuary, the justification for this is given in v. 5–7. V. 5 and 7 are carefully built around v. 6, relating the ritual of the offering itself by the priest at the altar before the tent of meeting, and are clearly complementary. In v. 5a, the sudden shift from +x# in v. 3 to xbz, “to sacrifice”, implies that any slaughter of a sacrificial animal is actually de facto a sacrificial act, wherever it takes place. For this reason, v. 5b requires that in order to be legitimate this sacrifice must be made to Yahweh at the central sanctuary, where the sacrificial animals will be offered as a -xbz Myml#, a well-being offering (note that this rationale is already expressed in the plus of v. 4 preserved in the LXX and in the SamP, even though it is most likely secondary from a text-critical viewpoint).56 Conversely, the putting to death of sacrificial animals outside the tent of meeting is logically defined as an illegitimate, non-Yahwistic sacrifice made to foreign deities (literally, “hairy ones”, Mry(#, apparently some kinds of goat-demons or satyrs).57 The close connection between the law of v. 3–4 and the rationale of v. 5–7 already militates against the traditional view regarding v. 5–7 as an interpolation. Not only does this solution miss the very point of the law of v. 3–7, but without v. 5a and the definition of every slaughter as a sacrificial act one simply does not 56

Thus the majority of commentators, see, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 389; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 219; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1456. However, as some authors have suggested (see BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 59; further SUN , Investigation, 66), it is possible that it has been omitted from the MT through homoeoteleuton, although one could also argue in principle that it was inserted by means of the repetition of w)ybh )l. Note also that the reading of the MT is apparently confirmed by 11QpaleoLev, since there does not appear to be enough space for the longer text in the preserved fragments (as noted by SUN, Ibid., 67). At any rate, it is doubtful that this plus is original. Not only does it have obvious characteristics of a gloss, but it would have made v. 5b unnecessary. Comparison with v. 5 suggests that this expansion was motivated by the fact that the latter only mentions well-being offerings and omits any reference to burnt offerings, which are then included in the plus found in v. 4. Either this expansion – which may be quite ancient – did not find its way into the textual tradition of the proto-MT (as the testimony of 11QpaleoLev could suggest), or it was omitted later. Sun, for his part, argues that part of the plus in the LXX (and in the SamP) would be original; yet this is too speculative, and even in his own reconstruction the tension with the statement in v. 5b remains. 57 On the Mry(#, see Isa 13:21; 34:14; 2 Chr 11:15; and for their traditional identification with goat-demons (satyrs), see especially WRIGHT, Disposal, 21–30 (with further references).

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

409

understand why it is crucial that each sacrificial animal be brought as a Nbrq (offering) to Yahweh at the central sanctuary as required by v. 4.58 Furthermore, the authenticity of v. 5–7 is also implied by the above observation that the restriction of sacrificial animals to domesticated quadrupeds and the intentional omission from the list of v. 3a of domesticated birds agrees with only one type of animal offering in P’s sacrificial system, namely, the -xbz Myml#, whose mention is introduced in v. 5b only. This clearly shows that the law of v. 3–4 is already composed with an eye toward v. 5–7. At first sight, the case of v. 6 is less obvious, because it appears to interrupt the transition from v. 5 to 7.59 However, as noted by Grünwaldt, the description of the ritual to be performed by the priest is prepared by the mention of this same priest in v. 5 already; since a similar mention has no equivalent in the parallel passages of v. 4 and 9, it remains somewhat a blind motif without v. 6.60 In addition, one may note that the ritual dashing of blood (with qrz) in this verse offers a fitting contrast to the accusation of v. 4, according to which putting to death a 58

The case for regarding v. 5–7 as an interpolation has generally been based on the observation of the sudden change from singular (in v. 3–4) to plural, its apparently loose connection with the instruction of v. 3–4 (cf. the introduction with r#) N(ml in v. 5), the parallel with v. 8–9, which have no similar supplement, the sudden introduction of a reference to a setting in Canaan (cf. hd#h in v. 5) rather than in the wilderness as in v. 3–4 and, finally, the presence of a few differences in terminology between 3–4 and 5–7. See WURSTER, Priestercodex, 119; BAENTSCH, Heiligkeits-Gesetz, 16; ID., Leviticus, 389; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 57; further, e.g., ELLIGER, Leviticus, 222. However, none of these tensions is significant and some of the observations on which they are based are actually mistaken. The same shift from singular to plural is observed elsewhere in ch. 17 (see v. 10–12, 13–14). That Yahweh can refer to the Israelites in his speech (cf. also v. 12) is explained by the fact that it is directed to Moses; whether it means that this section is intended as an aside to Moses specifically, as Schwartz and Milgrom would hold, is more difficult to decide. The parallel with v. 8–9 is inconclusive, because the two situations described are different (see below). The sudden transition to a setting inside the land is a characteristic feature of H which tends in several passages to address its actual audience directly (very much as in Deut 5:3). See similarly the reference to the Cr)h M( in Lev 20:2, 4 which also implies a temporary suspension of the Sinai fiction; for this observation, see ELLIGER, Leviticus, 225 and passim; further JOOSTEN, People, 46.195. In this case, the reference to hd#h in v. 5 can certainly not be taken as an indication of a later hand. Finally, the main difference between v. 5–7 and 3–4, i.e. the use of xbz instead of +x#, is part of the central device of this law, as argued above, namely, the definition of every slaughter of a sacrificial animal as a sacrifice. Similarly, the fact that v. 4 uses Nbrq, and not yet Myml#-xbz as in v. 5b, reflects the same strategy and corresponds to the fact that it is only in v. 5a that the term xbz is introduced. Lastly, the shift from l)r#y tyb in 17:3 MT to l)r#y ynb in v. 5 (thus Elliger) does not mean anything from a literary-critical viewpoint 59 See for example NOTH, Leviticus, 131; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 21; as well as SUN, Investigation, 98–99. 60 ID ., Heiligkeitsgesetz, 29–30. His own proposal to retain only v. 6aa as original is exclusively motivated by the attempt to reconstruct a pre-P version of ch. 17. On that issue, see the discussion further below, pages 416–418.

410

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

sacrificial animal at any other place than the central sanctuary is bloodshed.61 In this regard, v. 6 highlights the opposition between legitimate and illegitimate sacrifice, and its location between v. 5 and 7 is fitting. Lastly, v. 6 is required after the distinction made in v. 5, in which sacrificial animals should be offered not as just any sacrifice (xbz), but as a Myml#-xbz specifically; the description that follows in 17:6 comprises a kind of précis of the ceremony commanded in Lev 3.62 Against the traditional understanding of v. 3–7 as transforming every slaughter of a sacrificial quadruped into a sacrificial act, it has sometimes been argued that +x# in v. 3 had the specific meaning of ritual (sacrificial) slaughter, as elsewhere in P. If so, the law of v. 3–4 would not ban profane slaughter in general, but only the offering of sacrifices at another place than the central sanctuary, as in Deut 12:15–16.63 Yet this interpretation comes up against several difficulties. Firstly, the law of v. 3–4 would be redundant with that of v. 8–9, requiring that every sacrifice be offered to Yahweh at the tent of meeting64 (even though, admittedly, the two laws are not exactly identical since v. 8–9 do not only include the well-being offerings, as in v. 5). Secondly, it is unlikely that +x# has this restricted meaning in P. In the HB, +x# , when it is not accompanied by modifiers, usually refers not to sacrifice but to the act of slaughtering itself.65 Besides, the understanding of +x# as a sacrificial term is unable to explain why in v. 5 it is stated that these animals have to be sacrificed as well-being offerings specifically. This prescription suggests that 17:3–4 considers the case of animals killed for food, since the Myml#-xbz is the only type of offering, in P’s sacrificial system, in which the offerer has a share in the animal’s meat. This view implies that +x# in 17:3 refers to the mere killing of the animal; if it is interpreted in a sacrificial sense, one does not understand why this sacrifice should be a well-being offering and not a burnt offering. If so, the alternation between the terms +x# and xbz in v. 3–7 necessarily reflects a deliberate device and the classical understanding of this passage as transforming every slaughter of a sacrificial animal into a sacrificial act is the only one possible. 61

As noted by SCHWARTZ, “Profane” Slaughter, 25; similarly MILGROM, Leviticus, 1461. See similarly RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 145. For the sprinkling of the animal’s blood on the altar, see Lev 3:2, 8, 13; for the burning of the suet portions, see 3:4–5, 10–11, 15–16. 63 The interpretation of +x# in a ritual or non-ritual sense was already the subject of a discussion between R. Akiba and R. Ishmael (see b. H9ul 16a–17a; and on this LEVINE, Presence, 112). Among modern scholars, see SNAITH, Verbs; LEVINE, Presence, 113; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 270–271; and GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 26–27. 64 As correctly observed for instance by MILGROM, Leviticus, 1452. 65 Cf. especially MILGROM, Profane Slaughter, 13–15; further ID., Leviticus, 1453. In P, see Ex 12:6; and further Lev 14:5, 50; pace, e.g., SNAITH, Verbs, who assumes that in P this term has always a sacrificial meaning. Outside P, a non-sacrificial context is clearly implied, for instance, in Gen 37:31; Num 11:22; 14:16; Jer 41:7; 52:10, etc. 62

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

411

This conclusion indicates that attempts to reconcile the law of Lev 17:3–7 with the Deuteronomic legislation of Deut 12:15–1666 have to be rejected67 and, on the contrary, this law should be regarded as a critical revision of the permission of profane slaughter in D, as has been commonly proposed since Wellhausen.68 The requirement that every domestic animal killed for food should be offered to Yahweh as a sacrifice of well-being implies de facto the abandonment of the possibility of non-sacrificial slaughter advanced by D as a consequence of the centralization of the cult (cf. Deut 12:13–14 and 15–16). Whereas in D this development was accompanied by a radical semantic innovation, the use of the traditional term xbz to designate profane slaughter (Deut 12:15, 21), it is explicitly rejected in Lev 17:5 which, on the contrary, rehabilitates the exclusively sacrificial connotation of this verb.69 With this, Lev 17 reaffirms the traditional view (cf. 1 Sam 14:31–35), which must have been particularly popular in priestly circles, that there can be no killing of domestic animals without some form of official rite associating it with Yahweh, the divine patron of the temple in Jerusalem.70 In addition, the implications of D’s innovation are denounced in the clause of 17:7a stating that if the Israelites sacrifice to other gods, polemically referred to here as “satyrs” (Mry(#), it is because they have been allowed to slaughter animals outside the precinct of the central sanctuary! According to H, therefore, the permission of profane 66 As argued most recently by GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 26–27, who sees on the contrary in Lev 17:3–7 “eine erneute Inkraftsetzung des Zentralisationsgebotes Dtn 12”, and does not hesitate to state: “Die Frage der Profanschlachtung liegt ganz außerhalb der Blickrichtung des Gesetzes” (sic). Note in passing that this solution does not explain why it was necessary to repeat the law of Deut 12; thus, Grünwaldt must postulate that Lev 17 would have served to reject a possible misinterpretation of Deut 12 deducing from this law that the offering of sacrifices outside the central sanctuary in Jerusalem was tolerated by D (Ibid., 27). How such a misunderstanding could have originated in Deut 12, which stresses on the contrary that it is only in the one “place” (Mwqm) chosen by Yahweh that offerings can be brought (v. 5–6, 11, 14, 21!), remains unclear to me. 67 As also admitted recently by SCHWARTZ, “Profane” Slaughter, in his reassessment of Lev 17:3–7. However, that both chapters should primarily be understood for themselves, and not as one document reacting to the other. 68 See WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 150: “Lev. 17 vergleicht sich mit Dtn. 12; dies Gesetz verlangt ebenfalls die Centralisirung des Opferdienstes, hält aber trotzdem die Forderung aufrecht, dass alle Schlachtung Opfer sein müsse”. Further, e.g., NOTH, Leviticus, 129; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 226; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 160–165; RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 141; OTTO, Innerbiblische Exegese, 142–144. 69 For this idea, see OTTO, Innerbiblische Exegese, 143. Note that the use of xbz to designate the sacrificial act itself is exceptional in P (only in Lev 9:4!), so that its use here in Lev 17:5 is all the more significant. 70 For the attribution of H to a distinct priestly school in Jerusalem, see below, § 5.4. For a similar idea (although with a different historical setting!), see in particular CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz. KORNFELD, Leviticus, 66, also assigns Lev 17 to “eine rigorose Schule innerhalb der jerusalemischen Priesterschaft”.

412

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

slaughter is responsible for the religious idolatry continuously denounced in D, starting with Deut 12:29–31, the conclusion to the law of centralization and the transition towards Deut 13. The polemical intent is enhanced through the use, in Lev 17:7, of the terminology of cultic prostitution (X-rx) hnz) that is unmistakably reminiscent of the Deuteronomistic and prophetic condemnation of idolatry.71 Thus, the reassertion in Lev 17 of the prohibition of profane slaughter culminates in v. 7 with subtle polemics that borrow from Dtr theology and language, but in order to back the rejection of D’s innovation.72 Simultaneously, the law of Lev 17:3–7 also implies a revision of the P legislation on sacrifices which, as traditionally observed, had accepted the principle of profane slaughter (see Ex 12:6), even though in P the possibility of the ritual killing of animals, which was given to Israel in the legislation of Lev 1–9, is identified with a superior form of observance of the creational order in the post-Flood era.73 In H, however, this conception is now radicalized in that sacrifice is no longer a possibility offered to Israel as in P but a necessity in order to remain inside the cultic community formed by Yahweh and his people, as is implied by the threat of the trk-sanction in Lev 17:4. The theology underlying this development is manifest in this same verse, which states that the person who commits profane slaughter has incurred bloodguilt (Md) because he or she has shed blood (Kp# Md). These two formulas are used elsewhere in reference to homicide.74 Their use in Lev 17 implies nothing less than the identification of profane slaughter of a sacrificial animal with a case of murder which will be judged by God himself and imputed (b#x Ni.) to the person responsible for this crime.75 This development is clearly a revision of 71

The expression is found in the prophetic tradition, specifically in Ez and Hos, and has very likely its origin there. Yet it is also found in some (late) Dtr or post-Dtr texts, and was therefore apparently received at some stage in the Dtr circles. See Ex 34:15, 16; Deut 31:16; and Judg 2:17; 8:27, 33. In H, this terminology recurs in Lev 20:5–6. Otherwise, it is quite foreign to P; the only exception, Num 15:39, already presupposes H. 72 SCHWARTZ , “Profane” Slaughter, 24, offers a somewhat different explanation; satyrworship would simply refer here to the previous practice applying before the proclamation of the law of v. 3ff. However, this does not account for the obvious polemical intent of v. 7, especially with the language of cultic prostitution reminiscent of the prophetic critique. 73 See above § 3.4., p. 236, with note 566, for a critical discussion of this classical view’s recent reassessment by SCHWARTZ, “Profane” Slaughter, esp. 26–38. 74 On the two phrases Kp# Md and b#xy Md in 17:4, see in particular now SCHWARTZ , “Profane” Slaughter, 21ff., and MILGROM, Leviticus, 1456–1457. 75 The statement that “bloodguilt” (Md) will be “imputed” (b#xy) to the man guilty of profane slaughter alludes to a legal pronouncement in case of homicide, cf. ELLIGER, Leviticus, 226. As noted by SCHWARTZ, “Profane” Slaughter, 21 (cf. also MILGROM, Leviticus, 1456), the relationship between these two phrases is that of a measure-for-measure principle, i.e., the offender has spilled blood and therefore blood is accounted against him. As finely suggested by Elliger (Ibid.), it is very likely that the phrase Kp# Md in v. 4 contains an allusion to the practice consisting in pouring out the animal’s blood on earth, as required by Deut 12:16, 21. In this case, we have a further polemical note against D in this passage; in H, the very rite

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

413

the doctrine of Gen 9:4–6, where, on the contrary, a marked difference was made between theriocide and homicide and where only the shedding of blood of man, not of animal, was condemned by Yahweh and punished by a measure-for-measure sanction (see the wording of Gen 9:6a: Md)h Md Kp# 76 Kp#y wmd Md)b). H’s revision, which tends to equate the profane slaughter of sacrificial quadrupeds to homicide (even though a difference remains in the sanction: compare Lev 17:4bb with Gen 9:6ab), thus suggests a significant reinterpretation of P’s doctrine in Gen 1–11. In the case of sacrificial quadrupeds, i.e., those domesticated animals which have the closest relationship to man, the prohibition of eating blood in Gen 9:4 is no longer regarded as a sufficient response to the problem of the violence (smx, cf. Gen 6:11 P) involved by the putting to death of animals.77 In Israel, whose vocation is to develop and sustain a relationship towards the animal creation closer to the vegetarian ideal of origins (cf. Gen 1:29–30), the putting to death of domesticated quadrupeds for food can only be justified by their being offered on the altar as sacrifices to Yahweh, their Creator. In this respect, H both takes up and radicalizes P’s sacrificial legislation with regard to its cosmological implications.78 The connection between the instruction of 17:3–7 and 17:8–9 has been frequently misunderstood. Yet the formulation of v. 8–9 makes it clear that the law’s concern is no longer for profane, non-ritual slaughter but for sacrifices offered in other places than in the tent of meeting, be it to Yahweh himself or to other gods.79 In this respect, v. 8–9 complete v. 3–7: whereas the justifying the practice of profane slaughter in D is now reinterpreted in a criminal sense. “Das Blut solcher Tiere einfach auf die Erde laufen zu lassen, anstatt es an Jahwes Altar zu bringen, ist doch gleichbedeutend mit dem Vergießen von Menschenblut, mit Mord”. Schwartz further argues that the use of the sentence b#xy Md means that, “extra-tabernacle slaughter of oxen, sheep, and goats will be accounted as bloodguilt against the offender, as if the prohibition of theriocide were still in force, though no real bloodguilt exists” (emphasis original). Yet this is unnecessarily complicated and the sentence is best understood as suggesting an effective crime. With Milgrom (Ibid., 1457), it is preferable to assume that the primordial law of theriocide “is indeed restored, but not for the entire animal kingdom – only for three sacrificeable animals: the ox, the sheep, and the goat”. 76 The parallel was often noted, see, e.g., ELLIGER , Leviticus, 226; RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 143. Ruwe also observes that this connection is all the more obvious since in P the absolute use of Kp# Md is most infrequent and occurs only in Gen 9:6; Lev 17:4; Num 35:33. 77 See especially RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 143: “Die Regelung von 17,3f schränkt die in Gen 9,2–7 eingeräumte Verfügungsmöglichkeit über die Tiere stark ein. Schlachtung wird auf den kultischen Raum begrenzt. Das Verbot der Profanschlachtung in 17,3f steht damit deutlich im Zusammenhang mit dem kosmologischen Grundproblem der priesterlichen Urgeschichte, nämlich der in der Tiertötung thematisierten Gewaltproblematik”. 78 Pace RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 142–144, who perfectly analyses the cosmological scheme underlying the sacrificial conception of Lev 17 in connection with the P story of origins in Gen 1–11 but fails to distinguish between P and H in this respect. 79 For this rendering, see, e.g., BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 59 (who also notes the parallel with Ex 22:19); ELLIGER, Leviticus, 227; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 27–28; to some extent

414

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

first instruction abolishes the notion of profane slaughter, the second requires that every sacrifice be made at the central sanctuary.80 On the semantic level, the transition from one issue to the other is already highlighted by the replacement of the verb +x#, “to slaughter” at the beginning of the first law (v. 3), by 81 hl( Hiphil (MT), “to offer”, in v. 8, “indicating that the first law is concerned with an animal as food, and the second with an animal as sacrifice”.82 Thus, in v. 8–9, the rationale expressed in the motive clause of v. 5–7 – namely, because every slaughter of a sacrificial animal is a sacrificial act, it can only be legitimate if it is offered as a sacrifice to Yahweh – is now formulated as a binding law and the implications of its non-observance are explicitly addressed in the second part of the law, where the sanction (trk-threat, as in v. 3–4) is specified. One may further note that the law of v. 8–9 is anticipated, negatively, by the clause of v. 7a where the concern is expressed that the Israelites are permanently tempted to offer sacrifices to other deities than Yahweh, thus underlining the topical unity of the section formed by v. 3–9.83 Above all, the law of v. 8–9 enlarges the issue of sacrifice, which, in v. 3–7, was limited to the well-being offering, to include all types of offerings. Given that the context addressed by the law of v. 8–9 seems to be that of an also MILGROM, Leviticus, 1463–1469. In spite of a long tradition of interpretation (cf. BAENTSCH , Leviticus, 388.390; KILIAN, Untersuchung, 14; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 159; BLUM, Studien, 338), it is difficult to say that the instruction of v. 8–9 is more specifically aimed at at a centralization of the cult, even if this notion is clearly presupposed in both passages (see further on this issue below). RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 149–150, also correctly observes that v. 8–9 deal no longer with the problem of slaughter, as in v. 3ff., but of sacrifice (“Opferung”); yet his interpretation of this section remains rather vague. SUN, Investigation, 99, completely misses this difference, which leads him (like NOTH, Leviticus, 131 already) to the view that the instruction of v. 8–9 repeats that of v. 3–7 and merely supplements it by including the rg and the burnt offering. The reason why the burnt offering was not included in the first law has already been addressed: it is because Lev 17:3–7, as its Vorlage in Deut 12:13ff., deals exclusively with the case of domestic animals killed for food. On the reason of the omission of the rg and of its inclusion in 17:8–9, see below. 80 Thus also for example ELLIGER, Leviticus, 227: “Wie alles Schlachten opferbarer Tiere ein Opfer sein muß, so muß alles Opfern Jahwe gelten”. 81 The SamP and the LXX read instead h#( ; as suggested by BHS, this reading could betray an attempt to harmonize with v. 9. Besides, the use of hl( Hiphil with not only the burnt offering but even the xbz is unique in the HB, as correctly observed by MILGROM , Leviticus, 1466, which corroborates the view that the reading found in the LXX and in the SamP is facilitating. As argued by Milgrom (Ibid.), it is probable that the author of Lev 17 makes creative use of the verb hl(, which would be more or less equivalent here to h#(, as the SamP and the LXX understood it. This is a further indication that the author of Lev 17–26 cannot be P. B.J. Schwartz (quoted by Milgrom) surmises that the phrase xbz-w) hl( hl(y should be taken as an ellipsis for the formula Myxbz/xbz xbzyw tl(/hl( hl(y, found elsewhere in the HB (see Ex 24:5; Josh 8:31; 1 Sam 6:15; 1 Chr 29:21), but this is more speculative. 82 MILGROM, Leviticus, 1464; similarly RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 149. 83 For this observation, see also MILGROM, Leviticus, 1468.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

415

offering made voluntarily by an Israelite or a resident alien, the traditional dispute over whether the term xbz includes purification and reparation offerings (which are both mandatory) is somewhat irrelevant in my opinion. Besides, all mandatory offerings in P serve to compensate either for pollution of the sanctuary (t)+x , above § 3.2.2.) or for misappropriation of Yahweh’s My#dq (M#) , above § 3.5.), so they automatically need to be brought to the central sanctuary. But if the law in v. 8–9 concerned primarily, if not exclusively, the two voluntary animal offerings in P, i.e., the hl( (Lev 1) and the Myml#-xbz (Lev 3), why is the term xbz used in v. 8? Two reasons may be given. First, although the expression xbz-w) hl( is quite unique in the HB (it only occurs here and in Num 15:3, 5), it is reminiscent of the compound hl( xbzw which, outside P, is frequently used as a merism to designate the entirety of the sacrificial cult.84 Thus, it is likely that in Lev 17 also, xbz-w) hl( refers to the fact that the law of v. 8–9 is meant for absolutely any type of offering.85 Second, the use of xbz instead of Myml#-xbz may have to do with the fact that the law applies not only to the Israelites, but also to the resident aliens, contrary to v. 3–7. By definition, the well-being offering is reserved for the Israelites exclusively – hence the absence of the rg in v. 3–4, contrary to v. 8–9 – because it is a sacrifice exemplifying the unique covenantal relationship between Yahweh and his people. The xbz , by contrast, is a general term for sacrifice, which could be used to refer to the offerings of Israelites and aliens alike. The inclusion at this place of the rg is a considerable innovation over earlier codes, the CC and D, which also condemn the offering of sacrifices to gods other than Yahweh (see Ex 22:19 in the MT and the SamP; further, e.g., Deut 7:5)86 but always restrict this prescription to Israel. The partial integration of the resident alien in Israel’s cult has no real equivalent in the earlier codes.87 It is part of a wider development in H, itself connected with the unique conception of the land in Lev 17–26. We shall return to this issue later in this chapter.88 84 The compound is found in the Dtr literature and in the Prophets. See, e.g., Deut 12:6, 11; Josh 22:26, 28, 29; 1 Sam 15:22; Isa 43:23, etc.; see RENDTORFF, Studien, 140–142. 85 This idea is also found in the rabbinic tradition, see b. Zebah9 109b. See also RENDTORFF, Studien, 140–142, as well as HARTLEY, Leviticus, 273; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1467. 86 Note the difference between the version of the MT and of the SamP in Ex 22:19, which, however, does not modify the basic meaning of this law. The parallel between Lev 17:8–9 and Ex 22:19 is also noted for instance by GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 27–28. 87 For this observation, see in particular BULTMANN, Der Fremde, 190ff. The closer parallel would be the mention of the resident alien in some national celebrations at the sanctuary of Jerusalem, see Deut 14:29; 16:11, 14, but even this case is significantly different since in these passages he is obviously included among the personae miserae together with the levite, the orphan and the widow. 88 See below, § 5.4.1. On the relationship between the inclusion of the rg in H and the centrality of the land in this code, see now RAMÍREZ KIDD, Alterity, 60ff.

416

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

Finally, before we turn to the second part of ch. 17, v. 10–16, a word is in order regarding the narrative context presupposed by v. 3–9. Significantly, even scholars assuming the original independence of H already had to recognize that the legislation of ch. 17 had been so heavily edited by P that it was difficult, if not impossible, to recover the earlier, pre-P layer.89 This is most obvious in the case of the first part of ch. 17. V. 3–9 systematically refer to the scenery of the wilderness camp (v. 3) and to P’s sanctuary, the d(wm lh) (v. 4, 5, 6, 9), whereas the occurrence of the divine “I” in the second part, v. 10–14, also presupposes the account of 17:1. The elimination of all references to the tent of meeting in v. 3–9 has no support in the text. Traditionally, it was argued that in v. 4 the reference to the tent was in tension with the phrase ynpl hwhy Nk#m, and this observation was interpreted as an indication that the mention of the tent in this verse, and by extension in all of v. 3–9, had been interpolated by P.90 Yet this conclusion is illogical since it is on the contrary the reference to the hwhy Nk#m that seems awkwardly placed and should be regarded as a gloss.91 This view is all the more likely because, apart from Lev 17:4, this expression is usually found in later texts.92 Besides, the classical thesis of the priority of hwhy Nk#m in v. 4 raises a major difficulty since this location is not specified in the remainder of v. 3–9; any indication of place is simply missing after )wb Hiphil in v. 5 and 9. This is particularly unlikely for v. 5, where one would expect that the mention in 5aa of the place where the Israelites must not bring their sacrifices (i.e., the open field, hd#h) be balanced in the second part of the hemistiche by a mention of the legitimate place where they must do so, as is indeed the case in the present wording of v. 5ab.93 Finally, the elimination of the reference to the wilderness camp in v. 3 is similarly arbitrary and unsupported.94 89

Thus, for example, THIEL, Erwägungen, 46: “Wie wohl in keinem anderen Teil von H hat hier die P-Überarbeitung in den Grundbestand eingegriffen, so dass es oft schwerfällt, die ursprünglichen H-Satzungen wiederherzustellen”. 90 See for instance BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 388; THIEL , Erwägungen, 46; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 28. 91 As noted by SUN, Investigation, 97 n. 75; see already EERDMANS, Studien IV, 88–89. 92 Cf. Num 16:9; 17:28; 19:13; 31:30, 47; Josh 22:19; 1 Chr 16:39; 21:29; 2 Chr 1:5. GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 28, turns the logic upside down when he states that, “ein wichtiges Argument für die Priorität des hwhy Nk#m ist der Konkordanzbefund” (sic). His demonstration to back up this statement on the same page is not exactly convincing. 93 In this regard, it is difficult to agree with GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 29, that “ein sinnvoller und spannungsfreier Text” would result from the elimination of the reference to the tent of meeting in v. 5ab. 94 See, characteristically, BAENTSCH , Heiligkeits-Gesetz, 19; ID ., Leviticus, 389; BER THOLET , Leviticus, 58–59; T HIEL, Erwägungen, 47. GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 30–31, correctly notes the arbitrariness of this solution once the pre-P origin of H is no longer established; he therefore tries to suggest the existence of a tension between v. 3b and 4a because, according to him, the space outside the camp is a “Tabuzone” where, in the priestly concep-

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

417

In short, therefore, there is no reason to consider that the legislation of ch. 17 ever existed independently from its present literary context. The formulation of the first part of this chapter illustrates on the contrary that the attempt to dissociate H from P is untenable, as was already argued in the previous section (§ 5.1.). Graf, we may recall, initially restricted H to Lev 18–26 and assigned ch. 17 to P, whereas the main argument for Wellhausen’s inclusion of this law in H was the parallel with the CC and D, also opening with a legislation on sacrifices.95 Later, however, a few authors acknowledged that it was actually impossible to identify a pre-P stratum in Lev 17 and returned to Graf’s position, identifying the beginning of H in ch. 18 only.96 This solution, however, does not address the argument raised by Wellhausen. If H was originally a discrete code, comparable to the CC and D, it is unlikely that it is only at the time of its insertion into P that this collection was rearranged to fit the pattern of the other legal codes in the Hebrew Bible, as Kilian for instance would have it. Once it is recognized, however, that the so-called “Holiness Code” never existed independently from its present literary (and narrative) context, the dependence of Lev 17 on P becomes logical and the traditional crux raised by the position of this chapter between Lev 1–16 and 18–26 (27) can be satisfactorily explained. At the same time, the fact that Lev 17–26 imitates the general pattern of other biblical codes suggests an attempt to delineate these chapters as a distinct collection within Leviticus. In particular, the return to the legislation on sacrifices in ch. 17, rounding off Lev 1–16, as well as the presence of a completely new introduction in 17:1–2 identify Lev 17ff. as a supplement to the previous chapters – a point which even the authors arguing for the attribution of ch. 1–16 and 17–26/27 to a single author have been forced to acknowledge.97 On the level of content, this observation agrees with the fact that the legislation on sacrifices in 17:3–9 involves a significant revision of P’s own conception in Gen 1–Lev 16; it also agrees with the sacrificial terminology of v. 3–9 which, as observed above, presupposes P tion, no one would consider sacrificing. However, (1) the argument ignores the polemical nature of 17:3–7; namely, the persons suspected of sacrificing outside the camp are those accused in v. 7 of sacrificing to demonic deities; in this regard, the location of sacrifices outside the camp only underlines their marginal, anti-Yahwistic and anti-social character; (2) it does not justify at any rate the elimination of the reference to sacrifices inside the camp in v. 3ab; and (3) the argument is completely contradictory, since it implies that the reference to the camp, which is supposed to have been introduced by the P editor of Lev 17, would go against his own theology (see in the same respect the following statement on p. 33 n. 49: “Deutlich wird hier auch, daß das Verständnis des Verbes +x# in V. 3b nicht dem priesterschriftlichen Verständnis entspricht!”, which betrays the same confusion). 95 See GRAF, Untersuchungen, 66.75ff.; WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 150. 96 See in particular KILIAN, Untersuchung, 176.178–179. 97 See for instance DOUGLAS, Leviticus, 226–227. It is also consistently implied in the analysis by RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, when he reads Lev 17 against the background of the previous to=ra= on offerings in Lev 1–7.

418

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

but also shows some unique features. A comprehensive interpretation of H will have to be able to simultaneously account for indications of both continuity and discontinuity with P. Lev 17:10–14, 15–16 As often observed, v. 10–14 are united by the general prohibition against eating blood (cf. the phrase Md lk), which recurs in v. 10 [2 x], 12 [2 x], and 14 [also twice, since the suffix in the second occurrence of the verb lk) also refers to Md ]). Besides, these two laws have exactly the same structure, as observed by Cholewin8ski, which further underlines their literary coherence. This structure consists of three parts: the law itself (v. 10, 13), a motive clause introduced by yk, which stands at the center of the structure (v. 11, 14aa), and a final clause, which is a quotation of a previous divine saying (v. 12, 14ab, g b) introduced by the verb rm).98 Finally, these two laws are also complementary from the perspective of their content, since the first deals with the prohibition against blood in connection with sacrificial animals (cf. v. 11), whereas the second addresses for its part the case of game animals (v. 13). The last instruction, v. 15–16, forms a kind of supplement to the two previous laws as it deals with the case of an animal neither sacrificed (v. 10–12) nor hunted (v. 13–14) but already found dead. As we will see, it is likely that this instruction is also partly concerned with the consumption of blood, even though, contrary to v. 10–14, this issue is no longer explicitly stated. Formally, the distinct status of the last instruction as an appendix to v. 10–14 is emphasized by the presence of a specific introduction (r#) #pn-lk), which is less developed than the one found in the four previous laws, and by the absence of the trksanction.99 Admittedly, the position of v. 10–14 and 15–16 in the overall structure of ch. 17 is somewhat complicated by the fact that the central motive clause of the third instruction, in v. 11, also connects this law with the issue of sacrifice, which is the main thrust of v. 3–9, so that, on the level of content, the division between the two parts of Lev 17 is not absolute. It is this observation that led some scholars to discern a concentric structure in this chapter, whose center would be constituted by the instruction of v. 10–12, and especially by the rationale of v. 11.100 Yet, as we will see, the attempt to read See CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 19–20; SUN , Investigation, 103; also RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 150–151. 99 On the other hand, the presence of a distinct introduction at the beginning of v. 13 clearly militates against the attempt to treat v. 10–16 as a single section (e.g., REVENTLOW, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 36). For his part, NOTH, Leviticus, 131–132, seems to regard v. 10– 14 as a single unit, but the formulation of v. 13 clearly implies that we have a discrete law. 100 See in particular SCHWARTZ, Prohibitions, esp. 42–43; and already before him SCHENKER, Zeichen; similarly also MILGROM, Leviticus, 1448–1449; SKLAR, Sin, 164ff.; as well as LUCIANI, Sainteté, 1. 82–85. 98

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

419

v. 10–12, and especially v. 11, as the general axiom for the five laws composing ch. 17 is unconvincing. Thus, it is better to retain the view that Lev 17 comprises two main sections (v. 3–9, 10–14), the second being completed by an appendix (15–16) or, better, a subcase (see below);101 in addition, the sacrificial motif in v. 10–12 serves as a transition from the first part to the second. The structure of v. 10–12 is complex, but nevertheless quite coherent; here also, endeavors to make a source- or a literary-critical division between the law and its rationale are futile.102 A central motive clause, v. 11, is framed by two general statements on the prohibition of blood in v. 10 and 12, the latter being a quotation of a previous saying by Yahweh. While several proposals have been made regarding the source of this saying (Gen 9:4, Lev 3:17, Lev 7:26–27, or even Deut 12:16, 23!),103 the simplest and most convincing solution is to regard it as a quotation of v. 10 or, more exactly, of the first part of v. 10 since the reference to the trk-sanction is omitted in v. 12. Because v. 12 comes after v. 11, which explains and justifies the law of v. 10 (cf. the introductive kî), it introduces the repetition of the law itself with the phrase Nk-l(, “this is why”. This device underlines the centrality of the motive clause itself; as pointed out by Schwartz, the main parallels for this structure are found in the Deuteronomistic literature and in the Decalogue.104 The formulation of v. 11 is remarkably complex, both on a syntactical and on a semantic level, and has been the subject of an important discussion. Two motive clauses, introduced by yk, in v. 11aa and 11b, frame a longer clause in 11ab; the terms #pn and Md appear in the two yk-clauses, but in reverse order, thus forming a chiastic inclusion around the central statement in v. 11ab.105 17:11aa

)wh Mdb r#bh #pn yk

17:11ab

Mkyt#pn-l( rpkl xbzmh-l( Mkl wyttn yn)w

17:11b

rpky #pnb )wh Mdh yk

101

For this, see recently RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 137–140; and below, pages 424ff. See ELLIGER, Leviticus, 220–221; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 19–20; also SUN, Investigation, 99ff. Yet Elliger and Cholewin8ski assign the composition of v. 10–12, 13–14 to the same redactor but assume the original independence of the laws in v. 10 and 13. Particularly problematic is the solution of Sun, who notes that v. 10–12 and 13–14 have the same structure but nevertheless assigns the composition of these two laws to several (!) successive redactors, so that the identity of structure appears to result from mere coincidence. 103 Among recent authors, see, e.g., GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 218. None of these solutions is likely. Gen 9:4 is not addressed to Israel but to Noah and his sons, i.e., to mankind in general, whereas Lev 3:17 and 7:26–27 do not mention the resident alien, as does 17:12; Deut 12 similarly omits the rg and besides would be quite illogical on the narrative level. For the view adopted here, cf. also SCHWARTZ, Prohibitions, 46 with n. 1, as well as MILGROM, Leviticus, 1479. 104 See SCHWARTZ, Prohibitions, 45 with n. 3. Cf. Ex 20:11 // Deut 5:15; and Deut 15:11, 15; 19:6–7; 24:18, 22; otherwise only in Num 18:24, a late text presupposing H. 105 Thus also for instance MILGROM, Leviticus, 1478. 102

420

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

The first clause is reminiscent both of Gen 9:4 (Pg) and Deut 12:23, as classically observed. As in these two passages, the prohibition against eating blood in v. 10 is motivated by the notion that blood is identical to #pn , the lifeforce.106 Yet in Lev 17:11, this rationale is now developed into a much more complex motivation in the second part of this hemistiche, v. 11ab. According to this passage, blood was “given” (Ntn) by Yahweh himself upon the altar to the Israelites for the specific purpose of atoning for and even ransoming their lives, or, better, atoning for their lives by ransoming them. The use of rpk Piel here in connection with the disposal of blood on the altar recalls unmistakably the Priestly doctrine of purification and atonement in Lev 1–16 and for this reason the expression Mkyt#pn-l( rpkl has usually been rendered by “to make atonement for your lives”.107 At the same time, however, the fact that the meaning “ransom” is manifestly intended in all other passages where this idiom occurs (Ex 30:15, 16; Num 31:50) suggests indeed that in Lev 17:11 also rpk Piel is a denominative of [email protected] This rendering is further 106

This rendering of #pn is generally admitted, see for instance RENDTORFF, Prolegomenon, 24; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1472; the rendering by “self” which has sometimes been proposed (ELLIGER, Leviticus, 218; RENDTORFF, Studien, 231; FÜGLISTER, Sühne, 145) must be rejected. Pace SCHWARTZ, Prohibitions, 49–50, the statement of Lev 17:11aa, “for the life of the flesh is in its blood” probably has a deeper significance than simply to convey the obvious idea that, “when blood is gone, there is no life”. The significance of the ritual use of blood, especially in P, as well as the active role given to blood in several metaphoric expressions (see, e.g., Gen 4:10) imply that in the HB blood has a distinct force per se. 107 See ELLIGER, Leviticus, 218; FÜGLISTER, Sühne; JANOWSKI , Sühne, 245; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 261; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 154(ff.); RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 136. 108 On this, see LEVINE, Presence, 67–68; BRICHTO, Slaughter, 27–38; MILGROM, Studies, 98 with n. 11 and 15; I D., Leviticus, 1474; W ENHAM , Leviticus, 115; KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 107; SCHWARTZ, Prohibitions, 55 (who states however incorrectly that this rendering has been “universally” adopted by now; cf. the references given in the previous note); and most recently SKLAR, Sin, 168. In order to retain the traditional rendering of rpk as “Sühne schaffen” in Lev 17:11, GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 154, must conclude that the use of this idiom in Lev 17:11 is unique (“wiederum scheint der Verfasser frei zu formulieren”), which is hardly convincing. This rendering is also objected to by SCHENKER, Zeichen, 179– 182, but his arguments are mainly directed against Brichto’s (and, to some extent, Milgrom’s) specific rendering of 17:11. Once it is admitted that the beth is indeed a beth instrumentii, as Schenker correctly perceives (see below), his remaining reasons against the rpe$k@ interpretation are not decisive. That a difference applies between wild and domestic animals in this respect is clearly justified in 17:11 by the reference to the animal’s slaughter on the altar, which connects v. 11 with the first part of the legislation (v. 3–9). When Schenker argues that, “hätte das Blut auf dem Altare die Funktion, eine Kompensation für die Tötung des Tieres als solcher zu sein, so müsste alles Blut, auch das Blut von Jagdtieren […] auf den Altar gebracht werden” (Ibid., 180), he misunderstands the point. It is not the animal’s life as such that serves as a compensation for human life, but the life of the animal offered on the altar; and this corresponds to P’s doctrine, where only sacrificeable animals may be offered on the altar and thus make atonement for the offerer. On the interplay of meanings of the term #pn in 17:11 (Ibid., 180–181), see below; note that even in Schenker’s exegesis, the reference to the ani-

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

421

illustrated by the complex interplay on the word #pn in v. 11, which is found no less than three times, once in each clause. In the first occurrence, #pn refers to “life” in general; in the second, to the life of the Israelites; in the third, to the life of the animal offered on the altar. As stated by J.E. Hartley, “this interchange in the meanings of #pn would have little significance unless the animal’s life had some essential correspondence to the supplicant’s life”.109 The animal’s life, here, is clearly offered as a compensation for human life. In this respect, the law can be viewed as an application of the general principle 110 #pn txt #pn, which is stated later in Lev 24:18; at the same time, however, this principle is transformed and mitigated, since Yahweh accepts the substitution of man’s own life by that of an animal.111 Finally, the connection itself between the first two clauses, v. 11aa and ab, is motivated in the third and last clause combining the main idea of the two first clauses – the blood is the #pn and it was given on the altar to ransom the lives of the Israelites –, into a single sentence: “For it is the blood that ransoms by means of life”.112 Thus, in Lev 17:10–12, we have a subtle development of the traditional prohibition against the consumption of blood in D and P. As in Deut 12:23 and Gen 9:4, the traditional statement that “blood is life” (or, more precisely, mal’s life in the third and last mention of #pn (v. 11c) is unmistakable (Ibid., 170). It is precisely because the animal’s #pn is at the same time an instance of the abstract “life principle” mentioned in v. 11a that it can make compensation for the human #pn mentioned in 11b. The question of whether rpe$k@ “ransom”, and rpk Piel, “to purge” are etymologically (and semantically) related or whether they are unrelated homographs (as argued in particular by SCHWARTZ, Prohibitions, 54) cannot be addressed here. In any event, there can be no question that, though using the verb rpk with a different meaning, the author of Lev 17 is simultaneously playing on the traditional meaning of this verb in P. Recently, SKLAR, Sin, has argued that in “priestly texts” (by which he means the texts dealing with the sacrificial cult in Ex 25–Num 10), the verb kipper in a sacrificial context always implies some form of “payment” (rp$ek@), even in contexts dealing with impurity. Yet his analysis does not differentiate between P and non-P in the Torah and could only be valid, at best, from a canonical perspective. Even in this respect I would have serious reservations, but this point goes beyond the present study. 109 Leviticus, 276. 110 This point has been noted by many critics, even among those who hold to the traditional rendering of rpk by “to make atonement” in 17:11; see ELLIGER, Leviticus, 228. 111 For this observation, see already ELLIGER, Leviticus, 228; and further in particular SCHWARTZ, Prohibitions, 56–57. For the conclusion that substitution is implied in Lev 17:11, see also KIUCHI, Purification Offering, esp. 107–109; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 276–277. 112 For this translation of the phrase rpky #pnb )wh Mdh yk, see for instance MILGROM, Leviticus, 1448. That the beth in #pnb is a beth instrumenti, not a beth essentiae or a beth pretii, is now commonly accepted and has been amply demonstrated. For a survey of past research and a critical discussion, see JANOWSKI , Sühne, 244–245; KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 105–106; FÜGLISTER, Sühne, 145–146; SCHENKER, Zeichen; MILGROM, 1478–1479. See also now SKLAR , Sin, 168–174; although he hesitates between the beth essentiae and the beth instrumenti, he eventually concludes that the difference between the two is not really decisive since in both cases “blood is able to atone because of the life it contains” (Ibid.,173).

422

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

that blood is the seat of life, since the life-force of the flesh is in the blood) in v. 11aa is used negatively to justify the prohibition of blood in 17:10. But this prohibition is now followed in Lev 17:11ab, b by a positive complement describing the function of blood on the altar from the perspective of a substitutive conception of sacrifice. With the addition of v. 11ab, b, the rationale of v. 11a a is thus expanded into an elaborate comment on the significance and function of the sacrificial cult, more specifically “on the precise dynamic of the rp',k@i-action of blood in all sacrifices in which blood is said to rp@',kam;” ,113 i.e., the burnt offering (Lev 1:4!), the purification offering and the reparation offering.114 Because blood is life (v. 11aa), and because the animal’s blood has been “given” by God himself on the altar in compensation of human life (v. 11ab), it has the capacity to kipper (v. 11b), i.e., to compensate for human blood115. In the context of Lev 17:10–12, this expansion of the earlier tradi113

SCHWARTZ, Prohibitions, 59 (emphasis added). Milgrom’s thesis that Lev 17:11 would actually refer specifically to the well-being offering (Prolegomenon, 151; ID., Leviticus, 1474–1478; cf. also BRICHTO, Slaughter, 27–28) has been almost unanimously rejected, and is unlikely. Milgrom must assume that the reason for which atonement or compensation (he frequently oscillates in the terminology) would have been needed lies in the killing of the animal itself, which is assimilated to a case of bloodshed in v. 4 (see above). However, this suggestion is already contradicted by the fact that v. 4 explicitly states that there is bloodshed only if the animal is sacrificed outside the sanctuary. That 17:11 would refer to the well-being offering is also contradicted by the immediate context, since v. 8–9 are no longer limited to this kind of offering but refer to the hl( and the xbz, most likely a merism for the entire sacrificial cult, as noted above and as Milgrom himself would appear to accept (cf. Leviticus, 1467; for this observation, see in particular SCHENKER, Zeichen, 182). Finally, Milgrom’s suggestion is made problematic by the fact that the well-being offering is otherwise never associated with rpk in P, as he must concede himself; he is thus forced to surmise that we have here an innovation by H, which is possible but unprovable. Recently, Milgrom has adduced the witness of Ez 45:15, 17, where this offering is indeed associated with atonement (Leviticus, 1478; but see already for this observation RODRIGUEZ, Substitution, 226–229, unmentioned by Milgrom); however, this case is significantly different, since there the well-being offering is not offered alone but in combination with all the other public offerings during the festivals, including the cereal offering, the burnt offering and the purification offering. Most likely, the atoning character of the ceremony comes primarily, if not exclusively, from these sacrifices. At most, one may wonder whether the well-being offering also receives this function because of its association with these sacrifices in Ez 45. In any event, this passage should not be taken as an indication of the assignment of a function of atonement to the well-being offering alone. For a similar criticism of Milgrom, see S CHENKER , Zeichen, 181–182; KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 102–103; GORMAN, Ideology, 184–187; R ENDTORFF, Prolegomenon, 169; and SKLAR, Sin, 174–181, all of whom adopt the traditional thesis that the reference is to the sacrifices to which a rpk function is traditionally assigned in P, especially the t)+x. Pace ZOHAR, Repentance, 611ff., this is not a reason however to restrict Lev 17:11 to this latter type of sacrifice only. 115 On the whole, this conclusion is basically identical to the view advocated by SCH WARTZ, Prohibitions, 58–60, although, contrary to him, I do not adopt Milgrom’s conception of the blood as serving to cleanse the sanctuary exclusively, see on this § 3.2.2.3.c. Of course, 114

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

423

tion prohibiting the “eating” of blood because of its identification with life is carefully justified by the repetition of the prohibition of v. 10 after v. 11. As is implied by the opening yk-clause introducing the quotation in v. 12 by Yahweh of his own speech in v. 10 (“This is why I said to the Israelites…”), it is now the entire statement of v. 11, and no longer only the identification of blood with life in v. 11aa as in Gen 9:4 and Deut 12:23, which founds the prohibition on blood. If blood must not be eaten, it is also because of its central function on the altar for the Israelites. The introduction of this expanding comment on blood prohibition at this point in Leviticus makes perfect sense since it comes immediately after the sacrificial system developed in Lev 1–16, which culminates in the ceremony for the complete purification of the sanctuary and the community (ch. 16). Besides, this reinterpretation of the prohibition of Gen 9:4 in connection with the sacrificial cult is justified with regard to P’s narrative logic by the fact that this cult has been revealed to Israel exclusively. For the author of Lev 17, the justification of the prohibition on blood because of the latter’s identification with life is sufficient only for the other nations, i.e., the offspring of Noah and his sons in Gen 9:4. In the case of Israel, to which Yahweh himself has given blood on the altar to compensate for their lives, a higher rationale applies for this prohibition. Nevertheless, if 17:11 may legitimately be seen as a general comment on the sacrificial cult in P, the substitutive concept stated in this verse is certainly not characteristic of P where, as was argued earlier in this study (§ 3.2.2.3.c.), the animal’s blood has primarily the function of a ritual detergent, cleansing the impurity of the sanctuary or of persons. At most it may have an antecedent in Lev 1:4, which admits the offering of a hl( to atone for the sins of an individual. But there, as in the previous tradition, the offering of an animal is more likely a means to appease the divine wrath (on this, see § 3.2.2.3.b.); nowhere is it said that the animal’s life is the substitute for human life. In this respect, one can only agree with Schwartz when he states that “the passage is reflective and interpretive; it puts forth a new and unique theory of what sacrificial ‘atonement’ is and how it works, not a theory of why one needs it. It is a case of inner-biblical exegesis, almost midrashic in nature”.116 Here also, therefore, close analysis of the sacrificial legislation in Lev 17 suggests both continuity and discontinuity with P, exactly as in v. 3–9.117 Lev 17:11 makes clear that, despite the fact that blood is the agent of life, it is not blood per se that has the power to redeem man; substitution is only possible because Yahweh has first “given” this blood on the altar, i.e., accepted the principle of substitution by means of animal life; see GESE, Sühne, 98; and JANOWSKI, Sühne, 246–247. 116 Prohibitions, 59–60. 117 Against BLUM, Studien, 324, and especially now RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 154–157, who want to read 17:10–12 as simply representing the logical development of P’s prohibition on blood in Gen 9:4 in the context of Israel’s sacrificial cult. However, neither of these two authors offers a detailed analysis of Lev 17:11.

424

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

The question of the nature of the connection of this passage with the rest of the chapter, and especially with the two previous laws in 17:3–9, must now be raised. The significance of Lev 17:11 as a reinterpretation of the sacrificial system in Lev 1–16 does not justify the view that this passage might form the center of the entire chapter. On a structural level, attempts to find a chiastic pattern in Lev 17 are unconvincing;118 besides, we have seen above that formal indications favor on the contrary a grouping in two series of similar laws (v. 3–9, 10–14), the second of which is completed by an appendix in v. 15–16. On a thematic level, it is difficult to maintain that the prohibition against blood is the “pivot”,119 or the general “axiom”,120 of the four other laws. Admittedly, one can state in a very general sense that the common theme of all five laws is the proper disposal of blood, as has occasionally been proposed,121 although this motif is not even clearly mentioned in the second and fifth laws. However, there is no indication that the rationale of v. 11 might have a broader application beyond the law of v. 10; in fact, the opposite is already implied by the structure of v. 10–12, and the formulation of v. 12 identifying v. 11 as the justification of v. 10, not of the whole chapter. Moreover, the central statement of v. 11, that Yahweh has “given” blood on the altar to ransom the life of the Israelites, does not include the case of the wellbeing offering in v. 3–7 since it is the only sacrifice with which no kipper function is associated, at least in P. Even in the case of v. 8–9, it has been demonstrated above that the law dealt first and foremost with voluntary offerings and not with mandatory offerings to be brought in case a sin has been committed. Thus, v. 11 cannot constitute the rationale for the legislation of v. 3–9, according to which every slaughter of a sacrificial animal has to be a sacrifice (v. 3–7), and one made to Yahweh exclusively (v. 8–9); such rationale was already given in v. 5–7. More likely, the introduction of v. 10–14 completes the critical revision of the permission of profane slaughter in D and P.122 Both in Gen 9:2–4 and 118

See MILGROM, Leviticus, 1449. Milgrom identifies the five laws as forming an A–B–X–B’–A’ pattern, but there is hardly any correspondence between terms A and A’ nor between B and B’, either from the perspective of their content or of their terminology. 119 Thus MILGROM, Leviticus, 1448. 120 SCHWARTZ, Prohibitions, 43; now also S KLAR , Sin, 164ff.; LUCIANI, Sainteté, 1. 82– 85. The same view was already briefly argued by SCHENKER, Zeichen, esp. 170, who regards v. 10–12 as the “Verbindungsglied” between v. 3–7, 8–9 on the one hand and v. 13–14, 15– 16 on the other. Like Milgrom and Schwartz, Schenker is thus obliged to restrict the meaning of ch. 17 to the prohibition of eating blood: “Weder von geschlachteten und geopferten Haustieren noch von erjagtem Wild oder gerissenen Tieren darf Blut genossen werden” (emphasis original). This view hardly does justice to the complexity of this legislation. 121 See ELLIGER, Leviticus, 218 ( “Umgang mit Blut”); MILGROM , Prolegomenon, 154– 155; BRICHTO, Slaughter, 25; SCHWARTZ, Prohibitions, 43 (with further references in n. 1). 122 RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 154–157, underlines the connection with the prohibition on blood in P, and especially in Gen 9:4; OTTO, Innerbiblische Exegese, 142–143, emphasizes

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

425

Deut 12:15–16 (see further Deut 12:20–22, 23–25) this permission is immediately followed by the absolute prohibition of eating blood. The same sequence applies in Lev 17, where the rejection of profane slaughter in v. 3–9 is similarly completed by a reminder that blood, because it is the seat of the animal’s life itself and therefore belongs to God exclusively, can never be consumed by man (v. 10–11aa). Contrary to Gen 9 and Deut 12, however, in the context of Lev 17 no further instruction is required since v. 3–9 have already implied that all sacrificial animals must be offered on the altar; hence their blood will necessarily be disposed of on the altar according to the rite required for each type of offering in Lev 1–5 (and 7:1ff.). For this reason, the prohibition and its rationale are instead developed in Lev 17:11 into a general comment on the function of blood in Israel’s cult. This comment underlines the unique privilege enjoyed by the Israelites, for whom blood is not merely prohibited because of its sacred character but also because it was given “upon the altar” by Yahweh as substitute for their own lives. As a general – but nevertheless radical – re-statement on the function of sacrificial cult in Lev 1–16, it offers a good sequel to the instructions of v. 3–9. But whereas v. 3–7 are exclusively concerned with the well-being offering and v. 8–9 with the hl( and the xbz, 17:11 now extends the prospect to all the sacrifices with which a kipper function is associated, i.e., in the first place, the purification and reparation offerings. Since, however, the rationale for the prohibition on blood in v. 11 is necessarily limited to sacrificial animals, a further instruction is added in v. 13–14 for the case of wild (i.e., game) animals.123 V. 14 repeats not only the prohibition on blood already stated by Yahweh in v. 10 and 12 but also the rationale of v. 11aa justifying it; as for v. 11aa, this rationale appears to combine the language of Gen 9:4 and Deut 12:23, as has often been pointed out. Gen 9:4 Deut 12:23b Lev 17:11aa Lev 17:14aa(g), ba

(wlk)t )l) wmd w#pnb r#b-K); r#bh-M( #pnh lk)t-)lw #pnh )wh Mdh yk; )wh Mdb r#bh #pn yk; )wh (w#pnb) wmd r#b-lk #pn yk (wlk)t )l r#b-lk Md).

On one hand, the juxtaposition of r#b, #pn and Md is closer to Gen 9:4 (= P), as is the use of wmd … #pn, which has no equivalent in Deut 12:23. On the other hand, the introduction of the rationale with yk in both Lev 17:11 and 14 echoes Deut 12:23, as also the phrase )wh Md.124 for his part the parallel with Deut 12, where the permission of profane slaughter is also immediately followed by the prohibition of eating blood. The two explanations are not mutually exclusive, but on the contrary complementary. 123 In this respect also, Lev 17:13–14 completes the law of v. 10–12, which confirms that the assignment of these verses to a later hand (SUN , Investigation, 103.105) is unlikely; see also the observations above on the identical structure of v. 10–12 and 13–14. 124 On the parallel with Deut 12:23, see, e.g., CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 174, with further references in n. 70; and more recently GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 142; OTTO, Innerbiblische Exegese, 142. ROFÉ, Introduction, 16, holds on the contrary that it is Deut

426

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

In accordance with the prohibition of profane slaughter in v. 3–9, the rite prescribed for the disposal of blood in Deut 12:16, 24 is now restricted in Lev 17:13–14, in a slightly different form (blood must not only be poured out on the earth, but also covered with earth), to wild animals exclusively; this instruction thus builds the necessary complement to the legislation of 17:10–12. With this development, D’s attempt to equate the slaughter of domestic and wild animals (see the phrasing of Deut 12:15, 22: ly)kw ybck wnlk)y!) is definitively rejected in H. Finally, v. 10–14 are completed in v. 15–16 with a subcase addressing the question of the consumption of carrion, i.e., a beast which is either found dead (literally, a hlbn , a carcass) or has been torn into pieces (hpr+ ), presumably by wild beasts. As observed above, the distinct nature of this prescription, as a subcase of the previous legislation, is also underlined by its different introduction. Although the location of this supplement has often been considered awkward,125 it is in fact perfectly logical, since the law concerns a case left out by v. 10–14, that is, an animal neither sacrificed nor hunted but already dead.126 In this respect, the placement of v. 15–16 after v. 10–14 recalls the common practice, in ancient legal collections, of dealing at the end with specific cases not covered by previous laws. In addition, it is probable that for the author of Lev 17 consumption of carrion was also directly connected with the issue of blood prohibition, and hence with v. 10–14. The implicit postulate behind this law seems to be that since the animal was found dead, and not killed, there is always a risk that it was not correctly drained of its blood.127

12:20–28 which depends on Lev 17 and represents an attempt to harmonize the Deuteronomic law of centralization with H’s view (see similarly FISHBANE , Biblical Interpretation, 533–534). It is correct that Deut 12:20–28 is a later supplement to ch. 12, as was long acknowledged (albeit the origin and the date of this supplement is disputed), but the above comparison between Lev 17:11, 14, Gen 9:4 and Deut 12:23 makes it more likely it is Lev 17 that combines the other two passages rather than the other way round. Even if Deut 12:20–28 should be seen as a late, postexilic addition to ch. 12, this still does not mean that it has to depend on Lev 17 once the exilic origin of H is abandoned (see below, § 5.3.). 125 V. 15–16 were almost unanimously considered by earlier critics as a late addition to the rest of the chapter, only loosely connected with it. See the references given above, in note 37; and more recently KORNFELD, Levitikus, 66; SUN, Investigation, 104. 126 For a similar judgment on the authenticity of v. 15–16, see recently GRÜNWALDT , Heiligkeitsgesetz, 31 (who also notes correctly that, “die Argumente für die Ausscheidung von V. 15f. […] berücksichtigen nicht den Duktus des Kap.s”, although his interpretation is somewhat different from the one proposed here). SCHWARTZ , Prohibitions, 64–65; RUWE , “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 157–159; and OTTO , Innerbiblische Exegese, 143–145, also view this law as being closely connected with the rest of the chapter. 127 For this idea, see SCHWARTZ, Prohibitions, 64–66; further RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 158; and MILGROM, Leviticus, 1484.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

427

Simultaneously, the inclusion of this law in Lev 17 is also a case of legal exegesis, since it has direct parallels in both the CC (Ex 22:30) and D (Deut 14:21a).128 In this regard, the formulation of Lev 17:15–16 is a remarkable example of the creative reception and revision of earlier legal traditions by the author of H. On one hand, the fact that Lev 17:15–16 mentions both hlbn and hpr+ clearly reflects an attempt to harmonize the laws of Ex 22:30 and Deut 14:21a, each of which mentions only one of these two terms (hpr+ in Ex 22:30, hlbn in Deut 14:21a), in order to cover all the various cases contained in the previous laws.129 On the other hand, Lev 17:15–16 eases the previous legal traditions since consumption of carrion is no longer prohibited as in the CC and D, but only renders temporarily impure. This mitigation conforms the law on carrion to the earlier legislation of Lev 11:39–40, itself a later insert into P (above, § 4.1.2.), which it supplements however in two ways: a sanction is added for the case in which the required measures for purification (ritual bathing of one’s clothes and body, v. 15b) are not taken (v. 16); and the resident alien is now included. This is a further indication that H’s legal exegesis is based on P and depends on the latter, but also that H cannot be from the same hand and betrays the work of a distinct school.130 128 The problem of the origin of Ex 22:30 and Deut 14:21 cannot be discussed here. Both passages are clearly secondary in their respective corpora and are generally viewed as part of a specific redactional layer both in the CC and in D emphasizing the community’s holiness. Most likely, Ex 22:30 (at least in its present form) depends on Deut 14:21a, since the notion of the community’s holiness is better attested in D: SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Bundesbuch, 360–377, esp. 368ff. (although v. 30b would be older than Deut 14:21a); OTTO, Ethik, 231–233; VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium, 295 n. 1009; for the opposite view, see OSUMI, Kompositionsgeschichte, 200–204.210–212. The question of the relative chronology of Deut 14:21a within D, as well as of whether Ex 22:30 should be assigned to a Deuteronomistic (thus Schwienhorst-Schönberger) or post-Dtr (Otto) redaction of the CC may be left open here. In general, it is admitted that Ex 22:30 and Deut 14:21a are both older than Lev 17:15–16, see SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, 373–375. As he notes, the construction of Ex 22:30 and Deut 14:21a is quite similar, whereas Lev 17:15 is more freely composed. This observation, together with the fact that Lev 17:15 combines hlbn (Deut 14:21a) and hpr+ (Ex 22:30), militates against the assumption of S PARKS, Comparative Study, who holds that Lev 17:15 depends on Deut 14:21a but would nevertheless be earlier than Ex 22:30. This is because Sparks uncritically adopts Van Seters’ view of the CC as the latest of the three codes (see now VAN SETERS, Lawbook; for a criticism, see especially LEVINSON, Covenant Code). 129 See similarly SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Bundesbuch, 375; OTTO , Ethik, 241– 242; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 171. The pair hpr+w hlbn is otherwise only mentioned in H (Lev 7:24 [see above, § 3.6, and further below, § 5.4.2.2.] and Lev 22:8) and in Ezekiel (Ez 4:14; 44:31). MILGROM, Leviticus, 1487, correctly observes this point but because it does not fit his own model, he is forced to elaborate a far-fetched theory according to which the omission of one of the two members of the pair in the CC and D reflects the different socioeconomic setting of these two codes, which I regard as unconvincing. 130 And also that Lev 11:39–40 cannot stem from H, pace MILGROM, Leviticus, 1857. As regards 11:8a, the tension sometimes alleged with 17:15–16 is non-existent: the law of ch. 17

428

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

However, the mitigation that can be observed in Lev 17:15–16 vis-à-vis Ex 22:30 and Deut 14:21 does not merely reflect P’s influence. It should also be connected with the observation that in H, contrary to what applies in the CC and in D, the law on carrion is no longer linked to the affirmation of Israel’s holiness which, in the earlier legal tradition, justified this prohibition. In H, such a connection is now restricted to the case of the priests, who are explicitly forbidden to eat carrion because of their higher degree of sanctity (Lev 22:1–16; see further below, § 5.2.3.). The disconnection of carrion consumption from Israel’s definition as a holy nation also accounts for the inclusion of the resident alien in Lev 17:15–16, which represents a considerable innovation vis-à-vis the earlier codes. In the CC and in D, the non-consumption of carrion is presented as the sign of Israel’s inherent holiness, and thus as the mark of its separation from the nations as a people consecrated to Yahweh.131 For this reason, Deut 14:21a specifies that carrion must be disposed of either by being given to the “the resident alien (rg) who is in your towns”, or sold to foreign peoples (yrkn); in Ex 22:30, it is merely stated that it should be given to dogs.132 On the contrary, in Lev 17:15–16, abstention from eating carrion is no longer a sign of Israel’s election; this is why the law can be both loosened and extended to include the resident alien, as noted above. This omission is certainly not coincidental. Rather, as argued by E. Otto,133 it prepares for a central feature of H, namely, the complete redefinition of the conception of the community’s sanctity. Contrary to what is the case in the CC and in D, Israel’s consecration to Yahweh is no longer simply defined by the purity of its diet (Ex 22:30; Deut 14:21a) nor even by its separation from other nations, as in Deut 7:1–6, but first of all by the complete observance of the Torah. This notion will be described later in H, especially in Lev 19; here, however, at the end of Lev 17, it is anticipated by the deliberate omission of any reference to Israel’s holiness in the reformulation of Ex 22:30 and Deut 14:21a. Thus, against the recent suggestion of Milgrom, there is no need to surmise that ch. 17 might have been added later to H simply because the exhortation to holiness begins only with ch. 19 – a solution which, as Milgrom to some extent acknowledges, raises considerable additional difficulties.134 applies only to the animals (either domestic or wild) which can be legitimately eaten by the Israelites, whereas 11:8a concerns the carcass of unclean, and therefore non-edible animals. 131 Cf. Ex 22:30a: yl Nwyht #dq-y#n)w; Deut 14:21a: Kyhl) hwhyl ht) #wdq M( yk. 132 Following SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Bundesbuch, 375, the conception stated in Deut 14:21a would be reinterpreting Ex 22:30, but in an earlier form. 133 See here OTTO, Ethik, 241–242; ID., Innerbiblische Exegese, 144. Otherwise, this fundamental difference between the laws of Ex 22:30; Deut 14:21a and Lev 17:15–16 remains unexplained, even by the authors acknowledging the dependence of Lev 17 on both the CC and D: see for example RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 157–159. 134 See MILGROM, Leviticus, 1332–1334. If so, we should also logically omit ch. 18 (as Milgrom must admit), although Lev 18 is clearly presupposed by Lev 20 as well. Actually,

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

429

To sum up, Lev 17 is best understood as a complex but nevertheless outstanding case of inner-biblical exegesis which presupposes and reinterprets earlier legislation on sacrifices in P, D, and even the CC. Its main theme is the rejection of the permission of profane slaughter introduced by D and further adopted by P. Such slaughter is limited to game animals (v. 13–14), which probably corresponds to a return to the practice prevailing before D (see 1 Sam 14:31–35, and above, § 3.4.). All domestic, i.e., sacrificial animals must necessarily be offered on the altar (v. 3–7), where they may be dedicated to Yahweh only (v. 8–9). However, the revision of Deut 12 in Lev 17 focuses on only one consequence of the law of centralization in Deut 12:15–16 and 20– 25; all other issues addressed in this chapter of D are left untouched. This observation already suggests that Lev 17 was not simply composed to replace Deut 12, as has sometimes been maintained (e.g., Cholewin8ski, Grünwaldt), but was rather intended as a kind of corrective to the latter in the context of a combined reading of the two corpora; it is definitely a case of inner-biblical (legal) exegesis.135 The author of Lev 17 probably accepts the principle of cultic centralization, as has generally been assumed and as v. 8–9, in particular, also suggest (see above).136 But it is the main consequence of this centralization in D, the permission of profane slaughter, which he radically opposes. At the same time, the corrective reading of Deut 12 is also the opportunity for H’s redactor to introduce or develop other, related issues. In particular, the rationale for the prohibition of blood is expanded in 17:10–12 into a general comment on the function of blood in Israel’s cult, reinterpreting both Gen 9:4 the fact that Lev 19 is preceded by two chapters in which any reference to Israel’s sanctification has been omitted must be viewed as part of the literary and exegetical strategy of H’s redactor, as we shall see in detail below, § 5.2.2., especially § 5.2.2.3., p. 478–481. 135 OTTO, Innerbiblische Exegese, esp. 141ff., even speaks of Lev 17 as a case of “Fortschreibung” of Deut 12, but this seems to me incorrect. Usually, this term designates an addition interpolated into the same text, and immediately after the passage that it supplements (thus, e.g., Zimmerli’s use in his commentary on Ezekiel). In the study of biblical law, it is also used sometimes in the case of a parallel law repeating its Vorlage in order to supplement it (thus, e.g., LOHFINK, Fortschreibung?, in the case of parallel laws in the CC and in D); but the case of Lev 17 and Deut 12 is still different. At most, one could possibly speak of Lev 17(ff.) as a Fortschreibung of P in Lev 1–16. 136 Nevertheless, it is also possible that the author of H would have accepted the existence of other Yahwistic sanctuaries outside the small province of Yehud, such as – in the context of the Persian period, when H was probably composed (see below, § 3.5.) – Shechem or Mt Gerizim in Samaria. To go beyond this and to assert that H rejects the principle of centralization, as MILGROM , Centralization, recently advocated, seems to me unfounded. Milgrom’s arguments are mostly indirect or from omission, and often connected with problematic textual postulates (such as, e.g., the assignment of Josh 22 to P, see Ibid., 65). Above all, the entire discussion presupposes Milgrom’s historical reconstruction locating H in the exilic period, which, for reasons that will become obvious below (§ 5.3.), I cannot accept. Moreover, the fact that the only reference in H to Yahweh’s “sanctuaries” (in the plural), in Lev 26:31, is openly polemical, does not appear to support Milgrom’s contention.

430

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

and Deut 12:23 as well as P’s conception of the sacrificial cult in Lev 1–16. Also, the prohibition of carrion found in Ex 22:30 and Deut 14:21a is not only introduced as a subcase of the legislation on blood disposal in Lev 17:10–14 (cf. v. 15–16), but is also eased in order to be harmonized with P’s legislation in Lev 11:39–40, itself however supplemented and revised in the light of the general conception of holiness in the rest of H. As regards P, finally, the traditional attempt to reconstruct a version of Lev 17 that would not depend on P has proved to be untenable both on a conceptual and on a literary-critical level. The law of ch. 17 consistently presupposes P and was never conceived as the introduction to an independent code. But the nature of the relationship of this chapter to P is nonetheless complex, simultaneously evincing, as we have seen, elements of continuity and discontinuity. On the one hand, the legislation on sacrifices in Lev 17 consistently presupposes the to=ra= of Lev 1–16, and cannot be understood without the latter. On the other hand, Lev 17 is explicitly presented as a supplement to P’s sacrificial legislation, whose prospect is to re-address the topic of sacrifices so as to introduce some significant revisions. Thus, the offering of sacrificial animals on the altar is now made mandatory, and the meaning of the sacrificial cult is reinterpreted in 17:11 from a radically new perspective. In this respect, Lev 17 already suggests that H is neither simply identical to P nor simply a critical revision of the latter. In the following chapters, we shall try to further uncover the nature and the purpose of this specific reception of P in H. 5.2.2. Leviticus 18–20 Within the first part of Lev 17–26, ch. 17–22, Lev 17 is followed first by a series of instructions, in ch. 18–20, addressed to the entire community of Israel (see 18:2a; 19:2; 20:2aa), whereas the next section, 21:1–22:16, is specifically addressed to the priests. Furthermore, it has long been observed that ch. 18 and 20 are parallel in content and build a frame around the legislation of ch. 19, thus underlining the latter’s central position in the middle of the series. For this reason, we will first comment on the function and significance of ch. 18 and 20 before turning to the analysis of ch. 19. 5.2.2.1. Leviticus 18 and 20 a. Leviticus 18 The general structure of ch. 18 is simple and presents no difficulty. After an introduction to Yahweh’s speech (v. 1) and a command to Moses to report the following law to Israel (v. 2a), the reported speech itself consists of a series of prohibitions dealing with illicit sexual relationships formulated in a singular address (v. 6–23) framed by two general exhortations in a plural address (v.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

431

2b–5 and 24–30).137 The parallel between the two exhortations is underlined by their similar content. V. 2b–5 exhort Israel to obey Yahweh’s “ordinances” (My+p#m) and “statutes” (tqx), instead of the customs and laws prevailing in Egypt and in the land of Canaan, which Israel is on the point of entering. V. 24–30 take up this basic exhortation but add a threat in case of disobedience. Violation of Yahweh’s statutes and ordinances (v. 26, in reverse order of the enumeration in v. 4) will make the land impure and will in turn lead Israel to be “vomited” ()yq) out of the land’s boundaries by the land itself, which already vomited out its previous inhabitants. In Lev 20, we similarly find at the center of the chapter a series of laws dealing with illicit sexual relationships, v. 10–21, framed by two parallel exhortations in v. 7–8 and 22–26. Here, however, they do not merely consist of prohibitions, as in 18:6–23, but rather list several different cases of sexual transgressions, all beginning with r#) #y)w, and the corresponding sanction; one exception to this pattern is found in v. 19, which is formulated as a prohibition, although it also contains a sanction. In addition, the order of the cases is completely different from that found in ch. 18. The series is prefaced by an additional case in v. 9, which does not concern a case of illicit sex but of a person cursing his father or his mother; this case is also singled out by its distinct introduction, r#) #y) #y) yk. As in Lev 18, the exhortations in v. 7–8 and 22–26 insist on keeping Yahweh’s statutes (cf. ytqx, v. 8, 22; the latter passage also adds y+p#m, “my ordinances”, as in 18:4, 5 and 26) and connect the observance of these laws with the issue of Israel’s holiness (root #dq, v. 7, 26). In addition, v. 22–26 also motivate the observance of Yahweh’s laws by the threat that the land may “vomit out” ()yq) Israel as it did with the previous nations (v. 22) in case the people were to follow the statutes (tqx ) of the nation (thus the MT; some versions read a plural here) which Yahweh will expel before Israel. This motif closely echoes the concluding exhortation of ch. 18, v. 24–30, mentioned above. In 20:24b–26, it is developed into an exhortation to Israel to “separate” (ldb Hiphil) between clean and unclean animals (v. 25), like Yahweh himself has previously separated (ldb Hi.) Israel from the nations (v. 24b, 26b). Finally, 20:6 and 27, two complementary rules for cases of necromancy (cf. the expression yn(dy w) bw), v. 27), build an inclusion around all of v. 7–26, thus underlining the coherence of this section. A specific problem is represented by the first law, v. 2ab–5, which addresses the case of a man who has dedicated (literally, “given”) his child to K l m (‘Molech’ in the vocalized text), since it has no equivalent in the second part of ch. 20. Either this law must be regarded as forming a discrete section in ch. 137

This structure is found in most commentaries and studies; see, e.g., ELLIGER, Leviticus, 231; and more recently HARTLEY , Leviticus, 284–285; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1516–1517. LUCIANI, Sainteté, 1. 111–113, observes the same parallels but simply considers v. 2ab–8 and 22–27 as forming a frame around v. 9–21.

432

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

20,138 or it may be grouped together with v. 6 so that all of v. 2ab –6 would constitute the structural counterpart to the last law of ch. 20, v. 27.139 Despite the fact that v. 2ab–6 and 27 are disproportionate in length, the close connection between the laws on Klm and on necromancy both in content and in formulation favors, in my opinion, this latter view. Regarding the central law in Lev 18:6–23, it is generally admitted that it consists of two series of prohibitions. V. 6–18 forbid various cases of incest, whereas v. 19–23 extend the scope to other sexual offenses:140 namely, sex with a menstruating woman (v. 19), with a neighbor’s wife (v. 20), with another man (v. 22), and with a beast (v. 23). In addition, in v. 21 the case of a man dedicating his offspring to “Molech”, as in 20:2ab–5, has been included. As we will see below, however, the division between these two series is not so rigid, and the placing of v. 19–23 immediately after v. 6–18 reflects a specific redactional strategy. V. 6–18 are a series of laws prohibiting sexual relationships with various women because they are of the “same flesh”, as stated in introduction (v. 6), i.e., because of their degree of kinship, either through the father or the mother, with the addressee (= Ego). As S. Rattray, in particular, has argued, the basic postulate motivating the incest prohibitions of Lev 18 is that affinity is equivalent to consanguinity; that is, kinship is equally defined by filiation as by alliance with another kin (marriage)141 – a postulate explicitly stated in Gen 2:24, as she observes. The incest laws cover four generations (from 138 Thus LEVINE, Leviticus, 135; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 47; also RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 227–229. 139 HARTLEY, Leviticus, 329–330; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1728; and recently MASSMANN, Leviticus 20, 79–81. WENHAM, Leviticus, 276, and SUN, Investigation, 234–235, consider for their part the two exhortations of v. 7–8 and 22–26 as major structural indicators and thus identify in Lev 20 a basic pattern consisting of two series of laws (v. 2ab–6 and 9–21) each followed by a distinct exhortation. However, this proposal has difficulty in accounting for the position of v. 27 which must be considered as a third, additional law (though not followed by a corresponding exhortation); also, it misses the fact that the series of laws in v. 9–21 is closely connected with the previous exhortation in v. 7–8 by the introductive yk (“hence”), so that it is not possible to read this exhortation only as the conclusion to v. 2ab –6. Against many authors (Sun, Hartley, Milgrom), I see no reason to understand the yk here as being merely emphatic; contrast for instance ELLIGER, Leviticus, 274. 140 For this division between v. 6–18 and 19–23, see, e.g., H ARTLEY , Leviticus, 285 (assuming however a further division between v. 6–17a and 17b–18); RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 162–168; MILGROM , Leviticus, 1523–1524 (also with a further division between v. 6–17a and 17b–18; but see on p. 1548ff., where he holds that v. 18–23 form a discrete unit; on this problem, see further below, pages 439ff.); and compare also with SCHENKER, Incest Prohibitions, 163ff. 141 RATTRAY, Marriage Rules, esp. 542: “Wives are so closely connected that their relatives are treated as one’s own relatives”. She is followed by MILGROM, Leviticus, 1527ff. This point was already made by some earlier commentators; see for example NOTH, Leviticus, 135.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

433

Ego’s parents to his granddaughter) and appear to be addressed to the paterfamilias of a b) tyb (“father’s house”), that is, a kin-related group composed of three to five generations and living in close quarters.142 The order of the prohibitions goes from the closest blood relations, starting with the mother in v. 7, to the more distant ones, namely, women who are not related by consanguinity but by alliance: Ego’s father’s brother’s wife (v. 14), son’s wife (v. 15), brother’s wife (v. 16), as well as Ego’s wife’s daughter, granddaughter and sister (v. 17–18).143 More specifically, one can identify with A. Ruwe five groups of laws, consisting in three sets of two laws and two sets of three laws arranged in alternation: v. 7–8, 9–11, 12–13, 14–16, and 17–18.144 V. 7 begins with Ego’s mother, obviously because of the paradigmatic character of this case of incest;145 v. 8 associates the case of the stepmother who, although she is not Ego’s mother, is nevertheless also the “nakedness of your father” like the mother (v. 8b). Her inclusion at the beginning of the list, immediately after 142

For the idea that these laws are addressed to the head of a b) tyb, see already ELLIGER, Gesetz, esp. 9ff.; PHILIPS, Family Laws, 361, and further similarly HARTLEY, Leviticus, 285; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1525–1526. On the b) tyb in ancient Israel, see for example STAGER, Archaeology, 18–23. On the problem of the difference between b) tyb and twb) tyb, see the discussion by FECHTER, Familie, 211–217. Interestingly, the notion that the law is addressed to men is still preserved in the Damascus Document (A), which paraphrases Lev 18:13, reading: “The law of forbidden sexual relationships; for men it is written…” (cf. 5:8–10; quoted by MELCHER, Holiness Code, 92). 143 See RATTRAY, Marriage Rules, 542–543; and MILGROM, Leviticus, 1526ff., although he would include the case of v. 14 with v. 12–13 instead of v. 15–16; on this point, see below. The identification of a careful structure in Lev 18:6–18 goes against the recent study of CARMICHAEL, Leviticus 18–20, who denies the existence of any such principle and seeks instead to account for the organization of ch. 18 and 20 on the basis of their allusions to the cases of incest successively described in the patriarchal narratives. Although I would not dispute the possibility of such allusions, the attempt is often forced; see the detailed criticism by MILGROM, Leviticus, 1591–1593. On the logic commanding the organization of the sex laws in ch. 20, see below § 5.2.2.1.b. 144 RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 164–168. 145 Similarly RATTRAY, Marriage Rules, 542: “The reason for beginning the list with the mother is to establish the principle with the one case least likely to occur and most universally abhorred. In other words, just as one would ‘not expose the nakedness of one’s father, that is of one’s mother’, so one must not expose the nakedness of the father’s wife, half sister, etc.”. In the phrase Km) twr(w Kyb) twr(, the waw is most likely to be understood as a waw explicative: “your father’s nakedness, that is, the nakedness of your mother”. The same statement identifying a woman’s nakedness to her husband’s nakedness is found in v. 8b, 14, 16b; in v. 10b, it applies to Ego’s relation to his granddaughter. As argued in particular by MELCHER, Holiness Code, 94, it probably refers to a man’s sexual jurisdiction over a woman’s sexual function: “Here, the ’erwâ of a man means that a woman has been designated as his sexual partner; he has exclusive jurisdiction over her sexual function”. In the case of v. 10b, she is certainly correct that the jurisdiction of the granddaughter’s sexual function was assumed by the paterfamilias until she was married, and thereafter passed to her husband.

434

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

Ego’s mother, is also significant because it illustrates the general rationale noted above that kinship is defined by affinity as well as by consanguinity. V. 9 and 11 are closely interconnected, since they deal with Ego’s father’s or mother’s daughter (v. 9) and with Ego’s father’s wife’s daughter (v. 11), i.e., Ego’s sister, half-sister or stepsister.146 Here also, the equation between consanguinity and affinity implies that these three women, although they do not have the same degree of blood relation to Ego, can be similarly prohibited. Between these two prohibitions, in v. 10, a law has been inserted condemning sexual relations with Ego’s own granddaughter (either Ego’s son’s daughter or Ego’s daughter’s daughter) because she is of the same flesh. Obviously, the reason for the mention of the granddaughter at this place is that, apart from the mother and stepmother in v. 7–8, the women in v. 9–11 represent Ego’s closest kin. As traditionally observed, one would have similarly expected the mention of Ego’s daughter in this context; of all the numerous explanations proposed for her omission the most likely, in my opinion, remains that, even for the author of H, the father’s absolute jurisdiction over his own daughter was an evidence which could not be questioned.147 146

This interpretation of v. 9 and 11 is still disputed. Most likely, v. 11 deals with the case of a woman’s daughter who was not begotten by Ego’s father, since otherwise this rule would be redundant with that of v. 9. Rather, the father “married another woman who had a daughter from a previous marriage; she is a stepsister whom the father raises” (MILGROM, Leviticus, 1541; pace NOTH , Leviticus, 135, and BIGGER , Family Laws, 197, the phrase “from your father’s clan”, Kyb) tdlwm, in v. 11 may simply refer to the fact that the daughter has entered Ego’s father’s clan with her mother). Earlier critics often suggested that v. 9 had been edited and initially concerned merely the full sister, Ktwx) (thus BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 393; further ELLIGER, Leviticus, 231; KILIAN, Untersuchung, 22), but this is unsupported. RATTRAY, Marriage Rules, 537, followed by MILGROM, Leviticus, 1527–1528, assumes that the reference in v. 9 is to the half sister exclusively (similarly RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 167 n. 25). However, this conclusion itself rests upon Rattray’s assumption that the references to Ego’s closest female relatives had been deliberately omitted because they would have been automatically forbidden by the general prohibition of 18:6, which Rattray compares with Lev 21:2–3. Yet this idea is already contradicted by the mention of the mother in v. 7, and I prefer assuming with the majority of commentators that v. 9 covers both the cases of the sister and half sister (see e.g. HARTLEY, Leviticus, 295). Note that in ANE codes, close relatives with whom sexual relations are taboo are also mentioned (see, e.g., CH §§ 154–158: daughter, granddaughter, mother and stepmother), and the same is actually true for Lev 21:2–3. 147 However, sexual abuse by the father of her own daughter would have been prevented by economic motives (loss of the bride's price) as well as social-cultural ones (dishonoring the entire b) tyb, as stated in Deut 22:21). For a similar solution, see already LURIA, Tochterschändung; BASSETT , Noah’s Nakedness; CARDASCIA , Egalité; SUN, Investigation, 150ff.; Z ISKIND, Missing Daughter [but compare ID., Legal Rules, 100–101 n. 33]); most recently LAFONT, Femmes, 181–190, although she mainly mentions the economic argument. Alternative explanations are unconvincing in my opinion, if not frequently harmonizing. The classical view (see, e.g., ELLIGER, Gesetz; ID., Leviticus, 238; HALBE, Reihe, 84–85) that an earlier law dealing with the daughter would have been deleted at some stage in the transmission of the text – by whom and for which reasons? – is refuted by the observation that in all other

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

435

With v. 12–13, the accent shifts to Ego’s parents’ closest kin within the household, i.e., Ego’s father’s or mother’s sister. The two verses form a pair; prohibition of sexual relationships with them is justified by the fact that they are of the same flesh as Ego’s father or mother.148 In v. 14–18, a distinction is made between women related to Ego as wives of close male parents (14–16: Ego’s father’s brother, son, and brother),149 and women related to Ego as relatives of his own wife (17–18: wife’s daughter, granddaughter, sister).150 lists enumerating cases of incest in the HB (see especially Lev 20; Deut 27:20–23; further Ez 22:10–11), the daughter is systematically missing (for this observation, see also SUN, Investigation, 147–148). Rattray and Milgrom assume that the daughter was omitted because her case was perfectly obvious, like that of the mother and sister (see similarly RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 168–172); however, the mother is mentioned in v. 7; the reason for assuming the mention of the full sister in v. 9 was discussed in the previous note. For a detailed criticism of Rattray’s solution in the case of the “missing” daughter, see now FECHTER, Familie, 181–185. M EACHAM , Missing Daughter, surmises that the list of ch. 18 would have a polemical purpose against the Davidic line and the Patriarchs; since a father-daughter sexual relationship is one of the few prohibitions which was not violated by them, it could be omitted. However, as noted by FECHTER (Familie, 186), not all the prohibitions in ch. 18 are attested in the patriarchal or David stories. Thus, v. 10 (father-granddaughter) as well as v. 13 (nephew-aunt on the maternal side) have no equivalent (in the second case, see however Ex 6:20). For further criticism of Meacham’s proposal, see also MILGROM, Leviticus, 1528–1529. JOOSTEN, Exercice, achieves the tour de force of suggesting that the daughter’s omission is a rhetorical device, i.e., the legislator prohibited it but would have taken into account his audience’s sensibility on a touchy subject. The hypothesis is ingenious, but one hardly sees why the case of the daughter would be more touchy for H’s audience than other close female relatives; besides, Joosten’s argument appears to assume that Lev 17–26 were composed for oral delivery, which is possible but unsupported. Most recently, ESTÉVEZ, Sexualidad, 368–369 and SCHENKER, Incest Prohibitions, 164–165, have revived the rabbinic view that the daughter’s prohibition would be included in the law of v. 17 (since a man may not marry a woman and his daughter simultaneously; see already Rashi, Ibn Ezra; and among the moderns, PATON, Leviticus xvii–xix, 46; KORNFELD, Studien, 99 n. 63), but this is similarly unconvincing. If v. 17 was intended to cover the father-daughter prohibition, then this law would also make unnecessary the law of v. 10 since it prohibits not only marriage between a woman and her daughter, but also her granddaughter. Besides, the formulation of v. 17 suggests that it considers a case where the daughter is not Ego’s daughter, as in the parallel prohibition of 20:14. 148 Reading Km) r)# in v. 13 with the MT against the SamP and a few other Hebrew mss, which omit r)#; see for instance the BHS. 149 As observed by RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 166–167, v. 14 and 16 clearly build an inclusion around v. 15 (v. 14: Ego’s father’s brother’s wife; v. 16: Ego’s brother’s wife). At the same time, v. 14 makes an adequate transition between v. 12–13 and 15–16, since Egos’ brother’s wife is also his aunt by alliance. 150 The attempt by TOSATO, Law, to interpret the phrase htx)-l) h#) in v. 18 as referring not to a woman and her sister but to two non-related women, and hence to read this verse as a law against polygamy (and even against divorce!) as it will later be done at Qumran (see CD 4:20–21; for further references to this reception of Lev 18:18 in later Judaism, see also MILGROM, Leviticus, 1548), is fully unsupported. It is already contradicted by the context: the other incest laws presuppose that Ego’s father has more than one wife, otherwise the sys-

436

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

We thus obtain a coherent and comprehensive structure, consisting of three main parts: (a) Ego’s closest female relatives (by blood or by affinity), v. 7–11, with a further division between v. 7–8 and 9–11; (b) Ego’s parents’ closest female relatives, v. 12–13; (c) other women related to Ego by marriage, v. 14–18, with a further division between v. 14–16 (Ego’s close parent’s wife) and 17–18 (Ego’s wife’s close female relatives).151 Introducing v. 19–23 after v. 6–18 moves the sexual prohibitions from the sphere of the b) tyb to that of society in general. In this regard, the two sections are actually closely interconnected. Whereas the incest laws prohibit sexual relations that would endanger the basic structures of the father’s house, the laws of v. 19–23 similarly condemn sexual relations presented by the author of Lev 18 as endangering the social and cultural order as a whole152. Although it has been suggested that the common concern in the laws of v. 19–23 would be the illicit use of man’s procreative functions153, this is actually not as clear as it may appear. First, this rationale functions only indirectly in the case of the law of v. 20. Rather, the primary issue involved in sexual intercourse with a compatriot’s wife is that it represents an intrusion into the latter’s house (see Ex 20:17; Deut 5:21), and as such threatens the social order. Second, in the case of 18:22 the formulation: “and a man shall not lie down the lying down of a woman” (h#) ybk#m bk#t )l rkz-t)w), suggests that the prohibition is aimed primarily not at the active partner but at the receptive one, as observed in particular by J. Walsh.154 Here, therefore, the tematic distinction in v. 6–11 between Ego’s mother and another wife of Ego’s father (v. 7–8, 9, 11) would be meaningless. Similarly, as noted by Tosato himself (Ibid., 208 n. 25), this interpretation of v. 18 makes v. 17 perfectly redundant; if neither polygamy nor divorce are authorized there is no need to prohibit Ego’s marriage with a wife and his daughter or granddaughter simultaneously. 151 For a similar scheme, see especially MILGROM, Leviticus, 1526, although with a slightly different division, namely: v. 6–11: Ego’s closest kin relations; v. 12–14: Ego’s parents’ closest kin relations; v. 15–16: Ego’s relatives by marriage; v. 17–18: Ego’s wife’s closest relatives. 152 Similarly RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 175–182; MOHRMANN, Leviticus 18; and SCHENKER, Incest Prohibitions, 167–170. Pace Schenker, however, it is certainly not the case that the incest prohibitions are merely prompted by the preservation of the Mwl# tyb (thus already E LLIGER, Gesetz, 8ff.). As cultural anthropologists have demonstrated, similar prohibitions are found in most if not all cultures and reflect an essential aspect of the organization of societies as well as of the definition of exchange systems within these societies and among them; see especially LÉVI-STRAUSS, Structures élémentaires. 153 See especially MILGROM, Leviticus, 1567 and passim (but see on p. 1549); SCHENKER, Incest Prohibitions, 167–169. MILLER, Notes, argues for his part that the common theme in Lev 18:19–23 is “the idea of improper placement or use of semen” (p. 402). 154 See WALSH, Leviticus 18:22, 205, correcting on this point the argument of OLYAN, Leviticus 18:22. Walsh further suggests connecting this prohibition with the honor/shame dynamic commanding social and sexual behavior in antiquity; i.e., the law would imply that it is dishonoring for a man to adopt the sexual role normally devoted to women.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

437

problem appears to be primarily the confusion of gender roles: namely, a man should not behave (sexually) like a woman does. Of course, since the type of sexual activity considered as “normal” by the author of Lev 18 is closely connected with procreation, the impossibility of reproduction, in contrast, certainly plays a decisive role in defining various sexual relations as “abnormal” in v. 19–23. However, the above two observations suggest that a more fundamental scheme underlies these prohibitions. Namely, all the cases described represent transgressions against major boundaries controlling sexual activity in Israel’s society. Sexual intercourse with a woman during the time of her menstruation (v. 19) violates the distinction between the woman’s normal reproductive cycle and the liminal period during which this cycle is provisionally suspended.155 The parallels with Lev 15:24 and, above all, Ez 22:10, suggest that this prohibition was a specific concern to priestly circles (although P, here, is apparently more lenient than H).156 Sexual intercourse with a compatriot’s wife (v. 20) violates the principle of a man’s exclusive rights on his wife and therefore transgresses another major foundation of social control over sexuality. Sexual intercourse between men (v. 22), and bestiality (v. 23), are similarly condemned because they blur two major cultural and social divisions: male and female roles (gender division, underlined by the prohibition for a male to “lie down the lying down of a woman”), as well as human/animal.157 Finally, v. 21, inserted at the center of the series, forbids the sacrifice of children to Klm/Molech.158 Most 155

On this, see above, § 4.2.2., in the context of the analysis of Lev 15. Pace GER Leviticus, 231, and RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 180, who seek to interpret the prohibition of Lev 18:19 in connection with 20:18, where the man having a sexual relation with a menstruating woman is accused of “laying bare her source”. On this point, see the similar criticism by SCHENKER, Incest Prohibitions, 168 n. 14. 156 Admittedly, one could also argue that 15:24 deals with a case where a man has been exceptionally surprised during sexual intercourse with his wife by the sudden appearance of menstrual blood (thus SCHENKER, Incest Prohibitions, 168 n. 14), whereas H here, as in Lev 20:18, clearly legislates for cases where the woman’s menstruation has already started, so that one would not necessarily have to see a contradiction between these two passages. 157 Cf. similarly WALSH, Leviticus 18:22, 207. Walsh also observes the parallel with v. 20 and 23 (“Similar reasoning can be extended as well to the other two instances of sexual category confusion in the immediate context: adultery, which confuses the categories of one’s own sexual property and one’s neighbor’s, and bestiality, which transgresses the boundary between human and animal”), although he does not attempt to extend the reasoning to include v. 19 and 21. RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 181, eventually comes close to the interpretation of v. 19–23 argued here: “Im einzelnen sind es die kulturell wichtige Basisunterscheidungen zwischen ‘Mensch und Tier’ (V. 23), zwischen ‘Männlich und weiblich’ (V. 22), zwischen ‘einem Menschen und einem anderen Menschen’ (V. 19), zwischen ’der Sphäre eines Bürgers und der Sphäre eines anderen Bürgers’ (V. 19), die hier zur Geltung gebracht werden”. 158 The problem of the identification of “Molech” has been the subject of various studies and cannot be discussed in detail here. The thesis of EISSFELDT, Molk, according to which it would be a technical term for child sacrifice has generally been rejected, and the occurrences STENBERGER,

438

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

likely, the logic behind this association is that a man’s offspring (cf. K(rz) belongs to Yahweh and not to another god (Ex 13:2; see further, Ex 13:12–13; 22:28; 34:19–20). The sacrifice of one’s child to Molech is contrary to the affirmation of Yahweh’s control over man’s reproductive activity and therefore represents another case of transgression against the boundaries set by society to sexual activity.159 The laws comprising v. 19–23 are also closely interconnected through their terminology.160 In particular, the first two (v. 19 and 20) are concerned with impurity (root )m+) through sexual intercourse with a woman (h#)), whereas v. 22 and 23a treat cases where a man lies down (bk#) with a partner other than a woman (another male or a beast); in addition, these two verses both of this term in the HB suggest very clearly the name of a deity (see Lev 20:5!; further 1 Kgs 11:17; 2 Kgs 23:10). See DAY, Molech (with p. 91–94 for a criticism of Eissfeldt); and HEIDER , Cult; ID ., art. Molech. The present vocalization has clearly been modeled on bos] e t, “shame”. Contra Day and Heider, however, the identification of the deity m-l-k with the Syro-palestinian god Malik is doubtful. More likely, m-l-k is an epithet for a deity designated as “the King”, as argued by WEINFELD, Worship. Weinfeld thinks of Adad-milki in the context of the introduction of Neo-Assyrian cults in Syria-Palestine (cf. similarly ALBERTZ, Religion, 1. 192). This is possible, but it does not account for the repeated attempt in prophetic literature after the exile to exonerate Yahweh from the charge of having required human sacrifices from Israel (Jer 19:5; 32:35, and especially Ez 20:25–26), suggesting awareness of such practice. Thus, it is also possible that m-l-k was an epithet applied to Yahweh himself (Yahweh-maelaek) in the context of the offering of children to him (cf. also RÖMER, Sacrifices humains, esp. 23). In this case, the opposition between Yahweh and Molech in passages such as Lev 18 and 20 takes a specific meaning and should be viewed as part of the same postexilic strategy as the prophetic passages mentioned above. Weinfeld also argues on the basis of Assyrian parallels that references to the burning of children by fire would correspond to rites of dedication to the deity. This view is attractive, but it should not preclude the possibility that effective sacrifices of children were occasionally practiced in connection with the cult of m-l-k, especially in situations of emergency, as is suggested by 2 Kgs 3:27. 159 This interpretation accounts in particular for the opposition in v. 21a between Molech and Yahweh. For a similar view, see SCHENKER, Incest Prohibitions, 168. RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 181–182, analyses v. 21 as a transgression of both the relationship uniting parents to children and the loyalty to Yahweh. GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 189, underlines for his part the function of the prohibition as preserving the relation of the entire family to Yahweh and as protecting it against foreign (i.e., non-Yahwistic) religious influences. HARTLEY/DWYER, Investigation, esp. 91–92, also interpret sacrifices of children to Molech as a violation of kinship. The other explanations which they offer (Ibid., 90–93; similarly H ARTLEY, Leviticus, 336–337; further also MILGROM, Leviticus, 1558–1559) are less convincing in my opinion. Earlier authors generally assumed that the prohibition of sacrifices to Molech had been placed there by a late redactor simply because of the terminological association between (rz in v. 20 and K(rzm at the beginning of v. 21; see BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 394; KILIAN, Untersuchung, 66–67; NOTH, Leviticus, 136. 160 For this observation, see for instance HARTLEY , Leviticus, 289. Note further that the coherence between these five laws is also underlined by the fact that they are all systematically formulated according to the pattern X + lo) yiqt[ol.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

439

contain a similar declaratory formula: )wh hb(wt (v. 22) and )wh lbt (v. 23 in the MT). This redactional device stresses the central position of the middle law (v. 21), which also corresponds to the most serious offense (sacrificing to Molech implies the desecration of Yahweh’s name).161 The occurrence in v. 21b of the short formula of self-assertion (hwhy yn)), which otherwise, in the central section of ch. 18 (v. 6–23), is found only in the general prohibition of v. 6, similarly signals the importance of the middle prohibition in v. 19–23. At the same time, v. 21 is also anchored in its literary context through its parallels with the previous law (see the repetition of Ntt-)l and (rz in both verses). Alternatively, the parallel between the formulation of v. 20 and 23a could also suggest an attempt to organize these five laws to form two alternating pairs (v. 19/22 and 20/23), as surmised by Ruwe;162 however, the parallel between v. 19 and 22 is not obvious, either on a conceptual or on a terminological level, and this solution seems less likely. More significantly, one may further observe that the transition between the laws of v. 6–18 and 19–23 is carefully prepared for by the formulation of 17–18. In particular, v. 17 introduces for the first time a declaratory statement ()wh hmz, “it is a depravity”), as in v. 22 and 23.163 The prohibitions in 17b–18 are separated by a syndetic connection, as will systematically be the case in v. 19–23, whereas such connection is lacking in v. 6–16.164 Also, the construction of v. 18 (object followed by a prohibitive with lo) + 2 ms yiqt[ol, followed by an infinitive construction specifying the result of the condemned action) deviates from the pattern of v. 6–16 but anticipates the construction of v. 19– 23. On the other hand, the formulation of v. 19, which also contains the phrase “to uncover the nakedness of X” (X-twAr:(e hlf@gI@), occurring consistently in v. 6–18 (but no longer afterwards, in v. 20–23), similarly builds a link between v. 6–18 and 19–23, suggesting that the division between the two series is not rigid. On the level of content, finally, the transition between v. 6– 18 and 19–23 is also prepared by the fact that the cases listed in v. 17–18 are the most remote from Ego’s own kin. All those addressed in v. 6–16 deal with women who are directly or indirectly related, either by blood or by marriage, with a man who is himself one of Ego’s close blood relatives (father, mother, brother or son).165 V. 17–18, on the contrary, apply to women who are not 161

M# llx in H: see Lev 19:12; 20:3; 21:6; 22:2, 32; otherwise, mostly in Ez 20 and 36. RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 176–177. 163 As observed by HARTLEY, Leviticus, 289; FECHTER, Familie, 167. 164 MILGROM, Leviticus, 1526. 165 Women directly related to Ego’s father (by consanguinity or by alliance): father’s wife, v. 7, 8; father’s daughter, v. 9; father’s sister, v. 12; women directly related to Ego’s mother (apart from Ego’s mother herself): mother’s daughter, v. 9; mother’s sister, v. 13; women directly related to Ego’s brother: brother’s wife, v. 16; women directly related to Ego’s son: son’s wife, v. 15. Women indirectly related to Ego’s father: father’s wife’s daughter, v. 11; father’s brother’s wife, v. 14. 162

440

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

related with one of Ego’s close blood relatives but who are instead close relatives of Ego’s wife. In other words, these verses no longer concern relationships within the same kin structure but between two distinct kin structures which have become affiliated by marriage; the shift of perspective is indicated by the sudden occurrence of the term xql (“to take as spouse”) in v. 17–18.166 In this respect, these two latter laws offer an apt transition before v. 19–23, where the scope is broadened still further to include sexual relationships within the context of the entire social structure. The observation of these terminological and thematic connections has led several authors to suggest taking v. 18,167 v. 17b–18,168 or even all of v. 17–18 together with v. 19–23, but this solution is unnecessary. The separation of v. 18 from v. 17 or 17b–18 from 17a is quite unjustified,169 and v. 17–18 as a whole are not more closely connected with v. 19–23 than with v. 6–16. Besides, there are also some indications that we should separate v. 19–23 as a unit distinct from v. 6–18, such as the obvious parallel between the formulation of v. 6 and v. 19.170 More likely, therefore, v. 17–18 have been conceived by the author of Lev 18 as a transitional element from family (v. 6–16) to society (v. 19–23). Since, as is generally acknowledged, the preferred form of marriage was inside the clan (endogamy) rather than outside (exogamy),171 166

For this rendering of xql here see, e.g., the arguments by MILGROM, Leviticus, 1547. E.g., GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 226ff.; FECHTER, Familie, 150ff.; most recently in particular MOHRMANN, Study, 70–71. MILGROM, Leviticus, 1548, similarly regards v. 18–23 as forming a distinct section, which however is in contradiction with his earlier view, on p. 1523ff. TOSATO, Law, because he interprets Lev 18:18 as referring to any two women (and not specifically to two sisters), is also obliged to assume that this verse no longer belongs to the incest laws even though he observes the parallels between v. 17 and 18 (Law, 205 n. 18; for a criticism of Tosato’s reading, see above note 150). 168 E.g., ELLIGER , Gesetz; ID., Leviticus, 232; REVENTLOW, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 52ff.; KILIAN, Untersuchung, 25–33; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 32–33. Note, however, that in his commentary Elliger shows the greatest indecision on this point; on p. 231, he considers that v. 6–23 comprise 6–18 and 19–23; on p. 240, he only takes v. 18 together with 19–23. 169 V. 17b is grammatically and thematically linked to v. 17a and cannot be read without it, as was already noted by FEUCHT, Untersuchungen, 31 (cf. also SUN, Investigation, 128). The separation between v. 17 and 18 is already contradicted by the parallel construction of v. 17b and 18 noted above (i.e., appearance of the syndetic connection, as in v. 19–23; use of the verb xql); besides, on a conceptual level, this separation is similarly unfounded: the case of Ego’s wife’s sister continues the case of v. 17 (Ego’s wife’s daughter and granddaughter) but has no connection with that of v. 19. This point is actually recognized by FECHTER, Familie, 150ff., which makes it difficult for him to justify the division between v. 17 and 18. MOHRMANN , Study, 71, observes that in v. 18 the perspective has shifted from Ego’s family to another family, but this is already true for v. 17, so that, here also, the separation is unjustified. 170 Cf. the repetition of the phrase h(t) wr( twlgl (w)brqt )l in these two verses, and for this observation see for instance FECHTER, Familie, 171; RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 165. 171 The prevalence of endogamy over exogamy is already indicated by the fact that the HB clearly preserves the notion that the preferred form of marriage is with Ego’s father’s 167

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

441

one may even state more specifically that the sexual laws of ch. 18 are organized according to a comprehensive scheme moving from family (v. 6–16) to clan (v. 17–18) to nation (v. 19–23). At each level, the common concern is always the preservation of the fundamental structures and boundaries upon which these institutions depend. Finally, a still further boundary is devised by the parenetic frame of ch. 18 (v. 2–5, 24–30), this time between Israel as a nation and the other nations surrounding it (Egypt and the former inhabitants of Canaan).172 This division itself is closely connected with the previous ones, since these nations are accused of practicing precisely the customs prohibited in the laws of v. 6–23 (see v. 3 and 24ff.). “Do not defile yourselves in any of these (practices), for by all these (practices) the nations I am casting out before you defiled themselves (18:24). […] You, however, must keep my statutes and my rules and commit none of these abominations, neither the citizen nor the alien who resides among you (18:26); for all these abominations the people in the land who (were) before you did, and the land became defiled (18:27)”.173

The introduction of the parenetic frame of ch. 18, v. 2–5 and 24–30, continues the concentric structure of successive boundaries in the laws of v. 6–23 (family, clan, nation) and develops it into a general cosmological scheme, reflecting upon Israel’s place among the nations. The main implication of this elaborate scheme is that at the level of the family, the clan, or even the nation, the ultimate purpose of these prohibitions is to preserve Israel’s distinct status as Yahweh’s people. In other words, Israel’s separation from the nations begins with preservation of the family’s fundamental structures (incest laws). It has been commonly assumed by critics that in the case of v. 6–18, the author of Lev 18 had edited a traditional list of incest prohibitions.174 This suggestion is made likely by the difference in style and language between the parenetic framework and the prohibitions (plural vs singular address; absence in v. 7–18 of any characteristic mark of H’s redactional activity), as well as by the strong stylistic coherence of the series of incest prohibitions. It is confirmed by a minor yet decisive observation: in the parallel legislation of Lev brother’s daughter; on this, see above, § 4.4.2., page 384, note 481. In small township communities throughout ANE, endogamy would consistently have been favored; see for instance MARSMAN, Women, 56–57, and further p. 61ff. in the case of ancient Israel. 172 For this idea, see also now M OHRMANN , Study, esp. 71–73, who identifies the same concentric structure of successive boundaries between family, clan/tribe, nation, and other nations. However, Mohrmann takes v. 18 not with v. 17, as argued above, but with v. 19–20, which I find unlikely since v. 19–20 are clearly dealing with the same structure as v. 21–23. 173 I adopt here Milgrom’s translation, see ID., Leviticus, 1515–1516. 174 Earlier authors generally included all of v. 6–23, see BAENTSCH, Heiligkeits-Gesetz, 24–27; ID., Leviticus, 391ff.; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 61ff.; and already WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 152, who also observed, however, the difference in style between v. 7–17 and the rest. PATON, Leviticus xvii–xix, 45–52, identified for his part two groups of ten laws in v. 6–15 and 16–23. On the case of v. 19–23, see below.

442

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

20, the redactor felt the need to specify the meaning of the phrase X-twAr:(e hlf@gI@ on its first occurrence, 20:11: “And a man who lies (bk#y) with the wife of his father, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness (hlg wyb) twr()” (see further similarly 20:19, 20, 21).175 The same technique can be found elsewhere in the Torah,176 and the presence of this exegetical comment confirms that the H redactor did not compose freely the list in Lev 18 but made use of an earlier document; otherwise he would have clarified the meaning of this phrase in ch. 18 already.177 Ez 22:10–11 suggests that such prohibitions were of special concern to priestly circles in Jerusalem, and the list of Lev 18 very likely reflects such a tradition of instruction, either oral or written.178 The original list probably contained at least v. 7–16; v. 6, which works the transition from plural (v. 2–5) to singular (v. 7ff.) address, is clearly redactional.179 The above observations on v. 17–18 suggest that in their present form, these verses are also redactional; whether a similar prohibition was already found in the original list remains an open question.180 Con175 See already PATON, Lev. XX, 120; the objection by MILGROM, Leviticus, 1766, is irrelevant: the author of Lev 20 understood the prohibition of 18:8 as a case of adultery with a close relative’s wife (as was probably its meaning), hence the use of bk# and not xql. Other critics have correctly noted the exegetical function of this verse vis-à-vis 18:8 but assume that the phrase hlg wyb) twr( is an editorial expansion: e.g., KILIAN, Untersuchung, 72. Yet this is unsupported, especially since the idiom X-twAr:(e hl@fgI@ occurs elsewhere in Lev 20 (v. 17–21). 176 E.g., the first occurrence of trpk in Ex 25:17 LXX; see on this § 1.2.2.1., p. 45, n. 136. 177 On this point, I agree with GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 55, that it is unlikely ch. 18 and 20 would be mere literary creations by a single author, as argued now by RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 168–175, esp. 174–175. Ruwe’s argument rests on a methodological assumption which is problematic in my opinion. The fact that the list of incest prohibitions in Lev 18 clearly stems from priestly circles and is probably a late creation, as is suggested by its almost complete absence from other legal traditions in the HB (except Deut 27:20–23 and Ez 22:10– 11), does not imply that it is from the hand of the author of H. The question of whether it is possible to identify a discrete source in Lev 20 will be addressed below, pages 450–454. 178 The expression X-twAr:(e hlf@gI@ is most infrequent outside Lev 18 and 20 and Ez 16 and 23 (see Ex 20:26 and Isa 43:17). However, it also occurs in Ez 22:10 specifically, thus enhancing the connection between Lev 18; 20 and Ez 22:10–11. 179 For this observation, see for instance FECHTER, Familie, 139.172; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1533. For the redactional character of v. 6 in general, see further BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 393; ELLIGER, Gesetz, 12–13; KILIAN, Untersuchung, 28ff.; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 32; HALBE, Reihe, 63–64; FECHTER, Familie, 144–145.171. Other redactional features in v. 6 are the introduction with #y) #y) (see Lev 17:3, 8, 10, 13; 20:2, 9; 22:4, 18; 24:15), as well as the use of the short formula of self-assertion, hwhy yn), in v. 6b. 180 The redactional character of most or all of v. 17–18 is recognized by the majority of commentators. ELLIGER, Gesetz, and other authors who adopted his reconstruction considered v. 17a as traditional (see for instance KILIAN, Untersuchung, 25–33). However, the separation of 17a from 17b–18 is arbitrary, as noted above; besides, this solution is all the more unconvincing because this would be the only case where justification for the prohibition is not given (except for v. 9, where it would be superfluous given its immediate context). More recently, HALBE, Reihe, 67–68; SUN, Investigation, 158; and FECHTER, Familie, 139ff. (for v. 17a, see esp. p. 157–159), recognize all of v. 17–18 as redactional (see similarly WANG,

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

443

trary to what has usually been assumed, it is quite unlikely that the tradition underlying Lev 18 is much older than the composition of the chapter itself and even less likely that it is typical of the traditional ethos of the Israelite family.181 First, in most traditional cultures, such fundamental prohibitions usually remain unwritten.182 Second, as has often been noted, comparison with other traditions in the Hebrew Bible suggests that the incest prohibitions enumerated in Lev 18 do not necessarily reflect the practice in ancient Israel and that we should consider it instead as a theoretical construct.183 More likely, we have here a scholarly construct by priestly scribes of the Second Temple in Jerusalem that were especially rigorous on these issues, as Ez 22:10–11 suggest, and sought at some point to set up a comprehensive catalogue covering all cases of incest. For the rest, attempts to reconstruct earlier stages of the tradition underlying v. 6–18 by means of form criticism should be definitively abandoned. Elliger’s suggestion of an original

Family). It should be noted, however, that on a conceptual level, the relationship between v. 7–16 and 17–18 is closer than is commonly assumed. Since v. 6–16 already presuppose the identification of consanguinity with affinity (see above) a woman other than Ego’s mother, after being married to Ego’s father, is similarly prohibited to Ego as Ego’s mother herself (v. 7–8). Therefore, the proposition that v. 17–18 would no longer concern incest prohibitions but more generally marriage rules (NOTH, Leviticus, 136; SUN, Investigation 157–158 n. 73; and now FECHTER, Familie, 115–232, esp. 218–221) is incorrect. Note that Fechter’s conclusion is mainly based on the assumption that v. 17–18 deviate from the patrilinear ancestry that permeates the rest of the system (Ibid., 150). Yet it is not the case that the kin structure presupposed by Lev 18 is exclusively patrilinear; this is explicitly contradicted by the prohibitions concerning the mother’s daughter and sister in v. 9 and 13 (as Fechter himself partly recognizes, in the case of v. 13, see Ibid., 150 n. 153). More specifically, the rationale that incest prohibitions may extend to the wife of a close male relative to include her own close blood relatives is already laid down in v. 11. Namely, if Ego’s father’s wife’s daughter is prohibited, this must be the case a fortiori with Ego’s own wife’s daughter (granddaughter, sister). This latter observation is also valid against the recent suggestion by FRIEDL , Polygynie, 259, who considers that v. 17–18 are separated from v. 6–16 and deal with a new issue, i.e., “die polygyne Ehe unter Beteiligung verwandter Co-Frauen”. However, in the logic of the incest system of ch. 18, where a father’s wife (other than the mother) is the “same flesh” as the father by virtue of alliance and is therefore equally prohibited as the mother, the blood relatives of Ego’s wife automatically become in a sense Ego’s own relatives. FECHTER, Familie, 153–160, identifies further additions in v. 7–16. The formulation of v. 7, combining the mention of the father’s and mother’s nakedness (Km) twr(w Kyb) twr() is clearly redactional, as is generally recognized (see, e.g., E LLIGER, Gesetz, 1–2) but this still does not mean that the mention of the father’s nakedness has to be a late addition; more likely, it is from the hand of the author of ch. 18. The other tensions identified by Fechter are based on questionable criteria and are not convincing in my opinion. 181 ELLIGER, Gesetz, and most of the scholars following him assumed a historical setting in the “nomadic” period; more conservative scholars even thought of the wilderness period (thus REVENTLOW, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 52ff.). One major exception is BIGGER, Family Laws, who already perceived that the document was not earlier than the late monarchy. 182 See somewhat similarly RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 168ff., who distinguishes between “incest taboos” (Inzesttabus) and “incest instructions” (Inzestvorschriften). 183 E.g., marriage with father’s wife: Gen 35:22; 1 Kgs 2:22; criticized in Ez 22:10. Marriage with a half sister: Gen 20:12; 2 Sam 13; criticized in Ez 22:11. Marriage with a father’s or a mother’s sister: Ex 6:20.

444

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

decalogue or dodecalogue behind these laws,184 which has been incredibly popular for some time,185 does not withstand close examination.186 Similarly, the identification of “pure” forms (i.e., syntactic constructions) in Lev 18, which could then be used to enlighten the genesis of these prohibitions, is not only methodologically problematic but does not give any convincing result.187 Actually, there are no such “forms” in the text of ch. 18. What we have, rather, is a basic formulation: )wh [X] twr( (yk) hlgt )l [X] twr(, “the nakedness of X (female relative of Ego), you shall not uncover; (for) this is the nakedness of Y (male relative of Ego, except in the case of Ego’s mother, v. 9 and 13)”, which can be expanded when required.188

As regards v. 19–23, the observations made above clearly show that they are also redactional; attempts to reconstruct an earlier form of these prohibitions are quite unconvincing.189 The literary coherence of the parenetic framework 184

See ELLIGER, Gesetz, esp. 1–12; similarly ID., Leviticus, 231–232. See, e.g., REVENTLOW, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 52ff.; KILIAN, Untersuchung, 25ff.; FEUCHT, Untersuchungen, 31–34; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 32 n. 4; NOTH, Leviticus, 134 (as a possibility). An earlier decalogue is also proposed recently by WANG, Family, 5ff. 186 Among other difficulties, Elliger’s reconstruction depends on the assumption that there once existed a father-daughter prohibition, which was subsequently lost during the transmission of the text; for a critical assessment of this traditional view, see above, pages 434–435, n. 147. More generally, the entire reconstruction rests on the problematic idea that the decalogue (or dodecalogue) was the basic and earliest form of legal composition in ancient Israel. 187 Thus BIGGER, Family Laws, and especially HALBE, Reihe; further SUN, Investigation, 153ff.; most recently FECHTER , Familie, 176ff., who basically accepts Halbe’s distinction between two basic forms in Lev 18:6–16. 188 This formulation essentially corresponds to Halbe’s form “B”, whereas form “A” corresponds in his model to the construction found in v. 7 and 15. Halbe’s attempt to divide all the prohibitions of v. 6–16 between these two forms is meaningless, since most of these laws present more or less important variations vis-à-vis one pattern or the other, so that Halbe must continuously assign such variations to later editors. Significantly, this complexity had already led Bigger to identify not two, but no less than four “pure” forms in the prohibitions of v. 6–16 (see Family Laws, 196ff.), but even he must allow redactional and editorial additions. More fundamentally, still, the older series of prohibitions thus reconstructed generally makes no sense from a general, anthropological perspective. For instance, the cases addressed in v. 7, 11, 14, 15, which both BIGGER, Family Laws, 196–198 and HALBE, Reihe, 69ff., attribute to the same form, can hardly be regarded as a comprehensive series (namely, Ego’s mother, stepsister, father’s brother’s wife, stepdaughter!). Halbe (Ibid., 85) himself correctly recognizes that this series “für sich selbst entbehrt jeder rekonstruierbaren Ordnung” (sic), so that one is left wondering what can be the interest of this kind of reconstruction. 189 Even form critics generally recognized that the reconstruction of an earlier “form” in these verses was made difficult given their fragmentary character, and that they were more likely redactional; see E LLIGER , Gesetz, 14–16; KILIAN , Untersuchung, 28–29; or HALBE, Reihe, 65–68, esp. p. 66; pace RABAST, Recht, 18.24; REVENTLOW, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 56–57; and, curiously, most recently FECHTER, Familie, 171–174, who claims that v. 19 constituted once “den Auftakt einer kurzen Normenreihe unter dem Thema ‘kultische Unreinheit aufgrund verbotener Sexual praktiken’” (Ibid., 173). The above observations on the significance and organization of v. 19–23 also imply that these verses are literarily homogeneous, as most commentators would admit (see for instance E LLIGER, Gesetz, 14–16; ID., Leviticus, 232– 233; pace NOTH, Leviticus, 136, who states – incorrectly – that “this portion is not very uni185

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

445

of ch. 18, v. 2b–5 and 24–30, has traditionally been disputed, but with unconvincing arguments in my opinion; attempts to identify two different hands in these verses are unfounded.190 The arguments against the literary unity of these verses are of three types mainly. V. 24–30 seem to contain manifest doublets; v. 5 and 29 appear to reflect an “individualistic” perspective alien to the more “collective” view expressed in v. 2b–4 and 24–28, 30, and, besides, v. 5 would also be a doublet of v. 2b–4;191 finally, this framework would attest two distinct and antagonistic temporal perspectives. Whereas in v. 3 and 24, Yahweh’s speech to the Israelites apparently takes place before the conquest, in v. 25ff. the expulsion of the inhabitants of Canaan has already occurred.192 However, none of these arguments is convincing. The assumption of the presence of several doublets in the text of v. 24–30 becomes problematic once it is realized that all of this passage is built on a two-part pattern, as Cholewin8ski already observed. Recently, D. Luciani, following a proposal by B.J. Schwartz, has refined Cholewin8ski’s structure. He thus identifies two parallel panels (= v. 24–25, 26–29) consisting of one opening exhortation in v. 24–25, comprising five parts (abcde: v. 24a, 24b a, 24bb, 25a, 25b), followed by a second exhortation to observe Yahweh’s commands in v. 26–29, the structure of which parallels the first exhortation (a’b’c’d’e’: v. 26; 27aa , b1; 27ab2; 27b; 28– 29), concluded by a renewed exhortation to observe God’s statutes (a’’: v. 30).193 The argument for the difference between the situation addressed in v. 3 and 24–30 is not conclusive either. First, the situation addressed in v. 24–30 does not contradict the context presupposed by v. 3: in v. 24ff., Israel is still on the point of entering the land, as in v. 3. Thus, the apparent tension lies in reality entirely in the chronological sequence between v. 24 and 25. Yet, grammatically, nothing prevents us from rendering the Piel participle xl#m as a perfect (“I have cast out before you”).194 This solution is corroborated by the parallel exhortation concluding Lev 20. In 20:23, reference to the nations cast out before Israel, with xl#m as in

fied”, and assumes therefore that it probably consists of “successively added supplements to vv. 7–16”; similarly SUN, Investigation, 158ff.). Even the prohibition of sacrificing children to Molech in v. 21 should be retained as original, against earlier critics (BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 394; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 235; recently FECHTER, Familie, 164–167), but in accordance with most recent ones (cf. GRÜNWALDT, Heligkeitsgesetz, 34–35). 190 For the identification of two redactors in 18:2b–5, 24–30, see ELLIGER, Gesetz, 17ff.; KILIAN, Untersuchung, 33–35; NOTH, Leviticus, 134; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 34– 41; recently FECHTER, Familie, 141–149; SCHENKER, Incest Prohibitions, 174–180. Earlier authors also disputed the literary homogeneity of this redactional frame but assigned the additions to a pentateuchal redactor (Rp); cf. BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 391ff. 191 See already BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 391; further ELLIGER, Leviticus, 233. 192 Thus especially ELLIGER, Gesetz, 19ff.; ID., Leviticus, 233–234; further KILIAN, Untersuchung, 33–35, and KORNFELD, Levitikus, 69, who basically follows Elliger’s analysis. 193 LUCIANI, Sainteté, 1. 89–90; compare with CHOLEWIN &S KI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 36–38. However, Cholewin8ski’s proposal is unable to account for v. 26b and 29, which fall out of his structure and which he had to regard as later inserts. In any event, the identification of a twopart pattern in 18:24–30 accounts for the fact that DILLMANN, Leviticus, 541ff., already proposed identifying two parallel sources in this passage. It is also the reason that critics could never agree on the exact nature of the doublets in v. 24–30. 194 See JOÜON, §§ 121 i and following: in the case of the participle used as an attribute, the temporal aspect depends entirely on the context, in this case v. 25ff. This point was already noted recently by GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 37.

446

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

18:24, is immediately followed by the affirmation that Yahweh has “loathed” (Cwq ) these nations because of their practices; since this statement uses a wayyiqt[ol, as in 18:24 and has manifestly the same meaning as the notion of the land “vomiting out” its inhabitants in 18:25(ff.), in both occurrences xl#m should be rendered in the past. The other conceptual tensions identified by Elliger between v. 24 and 25–29 are irrelevant;195 besides, his proposal to restrict the text of the first H redaction to v. 24 and 30 exclusively is hardly satisfying and was already criticized by several authors.196 Finally, the argument that v. 5 and 29 deviate from their context because of a more “individualistic” outlook is pointless since a similar device is found in other places in the HB. See Ez 20:11, 13, and 21, where the same statement as in 18:5 that man lives by virtue of God’s laws occurs in the context of a collective description! Admittedly, the formulation of 18:5aa reproduces in part 18:4a, and v. 4b could form the conclusion to the opening exhortation. But it should be noted that v. 5aa does not simply duplicate v. 4a, since it resumes the terms y+p#m and ytqx in a chiastic order;197 besides, v. 5aa is quoted later in v. 26aa, suggesting that it is original.198

b. Leviticus 20 The prohibitions of 18:6–23 have a close parallel in Lev 20, especially in the central section formed by v. 9–21. Most of the cases in 18:6–23 recur in this section, although their order differs. Whereas the arrangement of the prohibi195 See ID., Gesetz, 19ff.; ID., Leviticus, 233–234. E.g., the fact that in v. 24 the nations have become unclean, whereas in v. 25, it is the land is hardly an indication of two different hands. Rather, the implied logic is obvious: the nations which have become impure have in turn made the land unclean, and Israel is enjoined by Yahweh not to imitate them. 196 FEUCHT, Untersuchungen, 126–128; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 39 n. 17–18 and 40–41 n. 20; also REVENTLOW , Heiligkeitsgesetz, 57ff.; and SUN , Investigation, 160–161, who notes that on the level of content and language v. 30 cannot be separated from 25–29. 197 A point also made for instance by GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 38. 198 Pace CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 36, and similarly SUN, Investigation, 160–161; F ECHTER, Familie, 141–149, all of whom attribute v. 5, together with 26b and 29, to a later redaction. Recently, SCHENKER, Incest Prohibitions, 174–180, esp. 179–180, has suggested that 18:2b–5, as a whole, were part of an earlier redaction than 18:24–30 and 20:22–24a (whether 20:24b–26 are from the same hand as 20:22–24a is unclear, see Schenker’s brief comment on these verses on p. 176). However, Schenker’s argument is mainly based on the fact that the situation described in 18:2b–5 (Israel’s location between Egypt and Canaan) is no longer implied in 18:24–30 and that 18:2b–5 does not yet allude to the casting out of these populations as a punishment for their customs. These observations can hardly be regarded as decisive: 18:24–30 focuses on Israel’s entry into Canaan, which explains why Egypt is no longer mentioned and why it is only now that the casting out of the peoples inhabiting the land is mentioned. Furthermore, Schenker argues that contrary to the later redactor in 18:24– 30 and 20:22–24, “the interest of this redactor points much more towards the distinction of Israel from these peoples” (i.e., Egypt and Canaan), but this is precisely the notion expressed in 20:22–26 (see v. 24b–26)! Of course, Schenker could imply that 20:24b–26 are later, yet not only is this unsupported but, if so, one would have to imagine that the second redactional layer (18:24–30; 20:22–24a) was harmonized with the first (18:2b–5) by a third hand adding 20:24b–26 after 20:22–24a, which seems unlikely. More probably, these passages are part of a redactional scheme linking Lev 18–20; see below.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

447

tions in ch. 18 is evidence of a logical order from Ego’s closest relatives to more distant cases, as argued above, in ch. 20, the logic commanding the arrangement of these prohibitions is less clear at first sight. Though many commentators have not hesitated to deny the existence of any such logic,199 the structuring principle of this series seems to lie in the nature of the sanctions stated for each act.200 V. 10–16 are all cases of sexual intercourse punished by a death penalty (always with the formulaic sentence tmwy twm, except in v. 14). V. 9, although it deals with a different issue (cursing one’s own parents) has been included here because it prescribes the same sanction. V. 17–21 concern five cases of sexual intercourse for which the death penalty does not apply (see the systematic absence of the tmwy twm-formula) and, furthermore, for which the sanction is not carried out by the community.201 In this latter section, a pattern of decreasing severity in the sanctions is clear.202 V. 17 (marriage with one’s sister, cf. Lev 18:9) and 18 (sexual intercourse with a woman experiencing menses or loss of puerperal blood, cf. Lev 18:19)203 both deal with offenses 199 E.g., NOTH, Leviticus, 146; SUN, Investigation, 251; still recently, FECHTER, Familie, 221: “Man merkt auf den ersten Blick, daß die Anordnung von Lev 20 keinem erkennbaren Prinzip zu gehorchen scheint”. 200 For this idea, see also HARTLEY, Leviticus, 329–330; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1743; and especially RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 229ff. In a sense, however, this point had already been hinted at by earlier scholars, who surmised that an original tmwy twm series in v. 10–16 had been gradually supplemented by less severe penalties in v. 17–21; see further below. Other structures for 20:9–21 have been put forward by SUN, Investigation, 237–243; and SCHENKER, Incest Prohibitions, 172–173. Sun’s proposal is biased by the incorrect assumption that a major structural division lies in v. 19, and not in v. 17. Schenker attempts to organize the laws according to the issue of “inadmissible sexual intercourse for a man”. Yet if this is indeed the general concern of these laws, it is not obvious that it suffices to identify a coherent structure in v. 10–21 (v. 9, for Schenker, belongs rather to v. 2–8). In particular, Schenker’s solution is unable to explain why the five cases addressed in v. 17–21 were not grouped together with v. 13–14, since they also deal with instances of “illicit sexual intercourse that does not hurt other marriages”, and why they were separated instead by the two cases of male and female bestiality in v. 15–16. MILGROM, Leviticus, 1744, reproduces a schema by M. Hildenbrand who discerns a chiastic structure in v. 10–21, but, as he admits, the result is unlikely. 201 RUWE , “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 235, holds that in v. 17–21 the sanction is systematically carried out by Yahweh, but this is only partly true in the cases where the offender must “bear his sin” (v. 17, 19, 20). Alternatively, SCHENKER, Incest Prohibitions, 172, states that only in v. 21 does Yahweh intervene to punish the culprit, which cannot be correct. First, also in v. 20 the offenders remain sterile, as in v. 21; second, as argued above in the analysis of ch. 17 (cf. note 51), the trk-sanction (v. 17, 18) is carried out by God and not by the community. 202 RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 235–241, identifies a primarily chiastic arrangement of the sanctions in v. 17–21, with v. 19 at the center (which, in my opinion, is not entirely convincing). Yet later he also seems to admit the existence of a decreasing pattern in the organization of the sanctions (see esp. on p. 240). 203 hwd is used for menses in Lev 12:2. The fact that hymd rwqm, literally “source, fountain, well” of blood, occurs otherwise only in 12:7, where it refers to the purification of the partu-

448

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

sanctioned by excommunication (trk-penalty); in the first case, however, an additional sanction applies for the man who must “bear his sin”.204 V. 19 (sexual intercourse with one’s father’s or mother’s sister, Lev 18:12–13) and 20 (sexual intercourse with one’s father’s brother’s wife, Lev 18:14)205 also prescribe the same sanction, the bearing of one’s sin, but for v. 20 the implication of this punishment is apparently specified: the couple will die childless (wtmy Myryr().206 This point forms a transition into the last law, in v. 21 (marriage with one’s brother’s wife, Lev 18:16), which also mentions childlessness (wyhy Myryr(), but not the bearing of sin. In the case of v. 17–21, the logic commanding the sanctions is easy to trace. The sister is a first-degree relative, whereas the father’s sister, mother’s sister, and uncle’s wife are all second-degree relatives. Hence the sanction of v. 17 is more severe than in v. 19 and 20, whereas v. 19–20 prescribe a similar sanction because they are cases considered identical.207 V. 18 implies that the case of a man having sexual intercourse with a woman experiencing menstrual or puerperal losses (prohibited in 18:19) was classified by the author of Lev 20 as an offense almost as serious as that of v. 17. The lighter sanction in the case of the last type of offence (marriage with one’s brother’s wife) probably comes from the fact that this marriage was a traditional custom, and is even prescribed by D (Deut 25:5–10).208 Here, the H legislator clearly ofrient, suggests however that Lev 20:18 refers not only to menstrual blood, as usually held by commentators, but also to puerperal blood. 204 The MT , which reads the singular, should be retained here, against the LXX and the Peshitta. On this formulaic sanction, see above, § 3.5., p. 242, note 602. 205 wtdd should refer here to the uncle’s wife and not to the father’s sister (as apparently in Ex 6:20), otherwise this law would be redundant with v. 19. 206 The absence of a connection between wtmy Myryr( (in the MT) and w)#y M)+x seems to imply that the second phrase specifies the former, as most commentators acknowledge; hence one cannot speak of a double sanction in this case, as, for example, RUWE , “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 237, apparently does. The translation “childlessness” for yryr( here is commonly accepted; on the problem raised by the rendering of this term in some passages of the HB, especially Jer 22:30, I would side with the solution offered by HARTLEY, Leviticus, 328–329, who postulates both a general and a technical meaning for the term. 207 For this reason, the phrase w)#y M)+x in 20:20 should be retained as original in my opinion, even though it is missing from a part of the LXX tradition. As noted by RUWE , “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 236, although v. 19 and 20 use the terms X -twAr:(e hlf@gI@ and bk# respectively, and not t) xql as in v. 17 and 21, these laws probably consider marriage and not sexual intercourse with a woman married to another man; otherwise such cases would fall under the jurisdiction of adultery in v. 10. 208 That levirate marriage is addressed in 20:21, as commentators have generally assumed (see, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 403; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 340), is confirmed by three observations: (1) the use of the verb t) xql, as in v. 17; (2) the fact that if the brother were still living, this law would contradict the law of adultery in v. 10; and (3) the sanction itself (childlessness) which, as some authors have observed (PHILLIPS, Aspects, 118; similarly MILGROM, Leviticus, 1758), is appropriate in the context of a polemics against levirate mar-

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

449

fers something of a compromise.209 Levirate marriage is not openly prohibited, but it is nevertheless presented as something odious ()wh hdn); besides, that it will remain fruitless deprives the Deuteronomic law of its motivation (see Deut 25:5–6) and renders it pointless. The logic behind the organization of v. 10–16 is more complex but here, too, a coherent structure can be identified. Since all the laws have basically the same sanction (death), a further principle of classification is required. Five cases dealing with sexual intercourse between humans (v. 10–14) are completed by two others addressing male and female intercourse with a beast (v. 15–16, cf. Lev 18:23). In v. 10–14, the first case (v. 10: adultery, Lev 18:20) differs from v. 11–14 by the absence of a rationale.210 The last law (v. 14: marrying a woman and her mother, Lev 18:17a) is singled out by the nature of the punishment (burning by fire) as well as by the presence of an exhortation (Mkkwtb hmz hyht-)lw), which marks a break between v. 10–14 and 15–16.211 One may note further that its position at the end is justified by the number of persons involved in the sanction (three, instead of two as in v. 10–13).212 The three intervening laws are all characterized by the idiom Mb Mhymd, “their bloodguilt is upon them” (v. 11, 12, 13), which indicates that no blood revenge will occur because of the execution of these persons.213 The order of riage, since the main function of such a custom (in addition to caring for the brother’s widow) was to compensate for the absence of a descendant in the brother’s line (cf. Deut 25:5–6). 209 Similarly SCHENKER , Incest Prohibitions, 172–173; also MILGROM, Leviticus, 1758. Against some authors (E LLIGER , Leviticus, 277; KORNFELD , Levitikus, 82), the polemical intent against levirate marriage and its mandatory character in D can hardly be denied. 210 V. 11: hlg wyb) twr(; v. 12: w#( lbt; v. 13: w#( hb(wt; v. 14: )wh hmz. Possibly, the absence of a rationale in v. 10 and 15 should be explained by the fact that contrary to the other laws in v. 11–14, the death penalty for adultery (v. 10) and for zoophily (v. 15) is already prescribed by earlier legal traditions, see Deut 22:22 and Ex 22:18. Unless we assume that the inclusion of the mention of the woman in the sanction is a later addition (thus NOTH, Leviticus, 150), the use of the singular in v. 10 in the MT (tmwy-twm; but cf. the versions) should be explained as a syntactic issue. As noted by HARTLEY, Leviticus, 328 (see also GKC, 1450), the verb before a compound form may frequently be in the singular. 211 On the importance of this exhortation at the end of v. 14 for structuring v. 10–16, see also LUCIANI, Sainteté, 1. 116. 212 For this observation, see RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 232, who however interprets v. 14 as the center of v. 10–16. In my view, this is not plausible and I prefer to set the main division between v. 10–14 on one hand and v. 15–16 on the other on the basis of the nature of the cases addressed; cf. also MILGROM, Leviticus, 1751. 213 The usual formula is wymd (hyhy) w#)rb, “his blood(guilt) will be upon his head”. The formula used in Lev 20 is otherwise found only in Ez 18:13 (GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 204, mentions Deut 19:10 as another possible parallel, but this is unlikely). Along with the majority of commentators, however, I assume that its meaning is equivalent to the classical formulation. On the latter, see the classical study by KOCH, Spruch. The distribution of this idiom in v. 10–16 raises a question because it is absent from v. 10, 14 and 15. MILGROM, Leviticus, 1747, regards it as a mere stylistic device; according to him, it would be replaced in

450

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

v. 11–13 is also logical: v. 11 (cf. Lev 18:8) and 12 (Lev 18:15) are found after v. 10 because they also deal with cases of adultery; and the offense made to the father (v. 11) has been placed before that made to the son (v. 12). Lastly, the prefacing of v. 10–16 with v. 9 is quite apt, since the case addressed by this law (cursing one’s parents) probably represented for the author of Lev 20 a paradigmatic example of transgression of the elementary structures of society, further illustrated by all the other instances described in v. 10– 21.214 In sum, Lev 20:9, 10–21 are evidence of a precise casuistic system, in which the various laws are consistently organized primarily by the nature of the sanction incurred, corresponding to the gravity of the case (v. 9, 10–16: death penalty; v. 17–21: other penalties, further organized according to a decreasing pattern), and secondarily by the nature of the case itself in v. 10–16. Since the main difference between Lev 18 and 20 lies in the addition of penalties specifically, the organizing principle behind the structure of Lev 20 appears to have been conceived as a means of highlighting the distinct function of this chapter vis-à-vis the parallel legislation of Lev 18. The identification of a coherent structure in v. 9–21 already militates against the form-critical assumption that the origin of this section should be found in a short collection of tmwy twm-laws (possibly including v. 2–5* as well) gradually supplemented by successive additions.215 Even from a formcritical perspective, this proposition was made problematic by the fact that the form of the tmwy twm laws in Lev 20 does not correspond to the traditional one found in Ex 21:12–17 but rather seems to be freely adapted from the latter, so that critics had to suppose that Lev 20:9–16 represented a later stage in the history of this genre.216 More generally, however, the difference in the organization of the laws of ch. 18 and 20 (and especially the apparently awkward order of 20:9–21) as well as some differences in style and terminology and the v. 10, 14, and 15 by the occurrence of a rationale. However, a rationale is also found in the laws containing the formula (v. 11, 12, 13, see similarly v. 9), and Milgrom’s observation is not correct anyway in the case of v. 15. RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 231–235, esp. 232–234, develops a complex theory in which the formula’s omission in v. 10 and 15 serves to underline that the death penalty is not restricted to the man who has committed sodomy with a beast (v. 15) or adultery (v. 10) but also includes his sexual partner, although not for the same reasons (the beast is killed not for its own responsibility, but as a measure of purification; the woman will be killed if she is actually guilty). The theory is over-sophisticated and hardly satisfactory anyway; at most it could apply to v. 15 but it seems far-fetched in the case of v. 10 and does not explain the absence of the formula in v. 14. 214 HARTLEY, Leviticus, 339; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 204. Death penalty for cursing one’s parents is already stated by the CC and D, see Ex 21:17; 27:16. In Deut 21:18–21, this sanction is also applied to anyone rebelling against his parents. 215 See DAUBE, Studies, 78–85; NOTH, Leviticus, 146–147; KILIAN, Untersuchung, 78–83; E LLIGER, Leviticus, 265–268; WAGNER , Umfang; ID., Rechtssätze, 16–31; SUN , Investigation, 251–258. Recently, this view has been argued by MASSMANN, Leviticus 20, 82–153. 216 See for example NOTH, Leviticus, 146; SUN, Investigation, 251.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

451

omission in Lev 20 of some of the cases prohibited in Lev 18 (18:7: mother; 18:10: granddaughter; 18:18: wife’s sister) have led to the assumption either that Lev 20 was from the hand of a different redactor or that it was based on a distinct tradition.217 The hypothesis of two distinct redactors in Lev 18 and 20 does not withstand a closer examination of the parenetic framework in these chapters which, as we will see in detail below, constitutes a unified composition and cannot be ascribed to different hands. The theory of a discrete tradition used by the redactor of Lev 20, finally, is plagued by the observation that several laws in this chapter presuppose not only ch. 18, but more generally all of Lev 17–19.218 In 20:2ab –5, the description of the case itself in v. 2 (Klml w(rzm Nty r#) … #y) #y)) is clearly reminiscent of the formulation of the parallel prohibition in 18:21.219 Besides this, the emphasis placed on this specific transgression in Lev 20 corresponds to the fact that it is already distinguished in 18:19–23 by its central position within the series as well as by a unique occurrence of the short formula of self-assertion (“I am Yahweh”). The rationale given for the penalty of v. 3 (y#dq M#-t) llxlw y#dqm-t) )m+ N(ml) takes up the prohibition of 18:21, which already links Molech worship with the profanation of Yahweh’s holy name, and connects it further with the fear of polluting Yahweh’s sanctuary. Other features in 20:2–5 recall earlier motifs in Lev 17–19. In H the use of the excommunication formula with trk Hiphil occurs only here (20:3, 5, also in v. 6) and in Lev 17:10. Similarly, the accusation of “whoring after” Molech in v. 5 (yrx) hnz, twice, also in v. 6) uses the language of 17:7. Lev 20:6 resumes the prohibition of 19:31, as was often observed,220 and combines it with the language of 20:2–5 (X-rx) hnz, 20:5; and in the sanction itself, the use of b Mynp Ntn, 20:3 [further 20:5 with My#], and trk Hiphil, 20:3, 5), thus building a fine transition between the two laws. Lev 20:9 is very clearly a Fortschreibung of Ex 21:17;221 simultaneously, its placement before the other laws in v. 10–21 recalls the position of the commandment to fear both parents in 217 See for example WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 155; BAENTSCH, Heiligkeits-Gesetz, 31– 34; ID., Leviticus, 401; REVENTLOW, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 78–91; FEUCHT, Untersuchungen, 34– 37; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 63–65. More recently, see also FECHTER, Familie, 221– 227; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 54ff.207–208; and MILGROM, Leviticus, 1765–1768. PATON, Lev. XX, considered on the contrary the chapter in its entirety as a late composition dependent on Lev 17–19. Among recent authors, see however GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 262–263 (although later, on p. 264–265, he does assume the existence of a former collection of twm tmwy-laws in v. 9–16); as well as RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 224–226. 218 For the parallels between Lev 18 and 20, see now RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 225; and for a systematic comparison of the two chapters, see especially GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 178–196. For the comparison between Lev 20 and 17–19 in general, see also PATON, Lev. XX, who had already observed the systematic dependence of ch. 20 on ch. 17–19. 219 As observed by R UWE , “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 225, the parallel between these two passages is further underlined by the fact that the same connection between Klm (Molech) and (rz is not found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. 220 Compare: 19:31 Myn(dyh-l)w tb)h-l) wnpt-l); 20:6 Myn(dyh-l)w tb)h-l) hnpt r#) #pnhw. 221 On this point, see in particular GRÜNWALDT, Heligkeitsgesetz, 203–204. On the use of the notion of Fortschreibung in the context of legal exegesis, see above, page 429, note 135.

452

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

19:3aa, immediately after the commandment of holiness (19:2), and before all the other laws in this chapter. 20:11, as was noted above, contains an exegetical comment on the meaning of the phrase X - twAr:(e hlf@gI@ in Lev 18. The fact that this comment takes place in 20:11 makes perfect sense, given that it is specifically the first law, within v. 10–21, where the expression X-twAr:(e hlf@gI@ occurs. In 20:13, the description of sexual intercourse with another man is clearly reminiscent of the parallel law in 18:22;222 the qualification of this act as hb(wt is also taken from this passage. Similarly, the designation of marriage with a woman and her mother simultaneously as a case of “impudicity” (hmz ) corresponds to the statement found in Lev 18:17; otherwise in H, this term occurs only in 19:29.223 The formulation of the laws against male or female sexual intercourse with a beast in v. 15–16 is also quite reminiscent of 18:23;224 as noted by Ruwe, the parallel is all the more striking because the laws against sodomy are formulated very differently in Ex 22:19 and Deut 27:21.225 V. 17–21 use systematically the phrase X -twAr:(e hlf@gI@, as in the parallel prohibitions of ch. 18. In 20:18, the term rwqm (hymd), “source, well, fountain” (of blood), otherwise only in the P law on the parturient (Lev 12, cf. v. 7), suggests that the author of Lev 20 sought to enlarge the prohibition of 18:19 to include not only menses, but also puerperal blood, i.e., all the forms of cyclical, non-morbid losses of blood in the female cycle.226 Finally, the dependence of Lev 20 on Lev 18 is most obvious in the case of 20:19, as traditionally observed, since here the protasis is replaced by a literal quotation of the prohibition of 18:12a and 13a.227 The rationale in 20:19 justifying both the prohibition and the sanction for those transgressing it (“for he has laid bare his own flesh”) picks up and develops the rationale found in 18:12–13: since a father’s or mother’s sister is of the same flesh as they, she is therefore also of the same flesh as Ego, and sexual intercourse with her is equivalent with laying bare one’s own flesh.

The importance of these similarities already obliged earlier critics to postulate either that the two traditions forming the basis of Lev 18 and 20 had developed in parallel or that the redactor who composed Lev 20 had considerably edited the older tradition behind this chapter.228 However, neither of these 222

Compare: 18:22 h#) ybk#m$ bk#t )l rkz-t)w; 20:13 h#) ybk#m rkz-t) bk#y r#) #y)w. 223 A point noted by RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 225. 224 Compare: 18:23a Ktbk# Ntt-)l hmhb-lkbw; 20:15 hmhbb wtbk# Nty r#) #y)w. 18:23b h(brl hmhb ynpl dm(t-)l h#)w; 20:16 ht) h(brl hmhb-lk-l) brqt r#) h#)w. 225 RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 225 n. 11. 226 Some critics have correctly noted the redactional character of this development, but suggested that the reference to (hymd) rwqm was a later gloss (e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 403). Although the wording of 20:18 is somewhat repetitive, this solution is not acceptable. 227 See e.g. ELLIGER, Leviticus, 266–267; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1756. 228 The former view was advocated by many form critics, see, e.g., REVENTLOW, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 79; and SUN, Investigation, 251–261, who assumes that the parallels between Lev 20 and 18 are the result of a gradual process of supplementation of ch. 20; in general, this position is no longer held now. For the latter view, see recently GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 207; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1765–1768.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

453

two solutions is likely. The assumption of a parallel development of two traditions mutually influencing each other is unnecessarily speculative and does justice neither to the literary coherence of ch. 18 and 20 respectively nor to the fact that several parallels in ch. 20 are obviously redactional. The mere elimination of the laws with clear parallels in Lev 18 is made problematic by the very coherence of these laws in their present literary context. For example, 20:19 is unanimously recognized as redactional, but the suppression of this law is difficult to justify since one can hardly imagine that the original legislation would have dealt with the uncle’s wife and not with the father’s or mother’s sister. Even in v. 10–16, where, as noted above, scholars have traditionally seen the earliest core of Lev 20, the isolation of the so-called “redactional” elements is unsatisfactory, given the importance of the parallels, especially in v. 13–16.229 In addition, it should be pointed out that separating between a redactional frame and a central body of laws is much less obvious in Lev 20 than in Lev 18; especially in 20:2ab–9, there is a remarkable transition from law (2ab–6) to exhortation (7–8) to law again (9ff.). Although the possibility that the author of Lev 20 has made use of some traditional material cannot be entirely dismissed, all these observations suggest that this chapter is more likely a literary creation conceived, from the very beginning, as a complement to the legislation of ch. 18. The remaining arguments which have been traditionally adduced against this solution are not conclusive. The main objection is the different order of the laws in the two chapters,230 but this corresponds to their different literary 229 This point has been recently recognized by FECHTER, Familie, 224, who, after a brief analysis of the parallels between Lev 18 and 20, concludes in the case of the laws of ch. 20: “Es dürfte – im Unterschied zu Lev 18 – kaum mehr gelingen, die ursprünglichen Textschichten darstellen zu können”. Since he nevertheless assumes the existence of a separate tradition behind Lev 20, all that he can eventually state is that, “eine eindeutige Lösung dieses Problems scheint unmöglich” (Ibid., 225). Most recently, MASSMANN, Leviticus 20, 82ff., has proposed once again identifying a short series of tmwy twm laws in v. 10–16 (i.e., v. 11*, 12*, 13*, 15*; he also reconstructs a distinct tradition behind v. 17–21*). Not only are the criteria for this reconstruction quite problematic (e.g., v. 10 and 14 are eliminated from the original series because of the absence of the formula “his blood/their blood will be on him/them”, but the formula is supplied in v. 15 in order to retain the law as original!) and the result hardly acceptable, but above all Massmann reproduces the methodological circle characteristic of the form-critical approach to this chapter. Instead of starting with the analysis of the dependence of Lev 20 on Lev 18, his investigation begins by assuming the existence of a distinct tradition in Lev 20; the problem of the parallels with Lev 18 is addressed only at the end of the analysis (see Ibid., 147–148), so that no other solution is left but to assign these parallels to the hand of the redactor of ch. 18–20. 230 For this classical objection, see for instance BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 401; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 268: “Das eigentliche Korpus 9–21 ist unabhängig von c 18 gewachsen; im entgegengesetzten Fälle würde sich die aus c 18 getroffene Auswahl nicht erklären, geschweige denn die merkwürdige Reihenfolge”. Recently, MASSMANN, Leviticus 20, 148: “Dass nicht

454

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

purpose, as was suggested above. The order of Lev 18 underlines the need for the observance of the elementary boundaries set by society to sexual activity, from close family to the nation; the organization of Lev 20, by contrast, actually reflects the function of this chapter vis-à-vis the prohibitions of ch. 18, namely, to supplement the latter with the statement of the corresponding sanction. The differences in formulation between the two chapters can easily be accounted for by the fact that in Lev 18 the H redactor certainly made use of an earlier document, as argued above; in Lev 20, on the contrary, he could reformulate more freely the prohibitions found in ch. 18. Significantly, the main differences concern the laws found in Lev 18:6–18 specifically, i.e., those which are part of the traditional material in ch. 18; v. 19–23, being redactional, reveal fewer differences.231 Finally, the problem of the omission of some prohibitions of Lev 18 in ch. 20 hardly finds a satisfactory answer with the assumption of a distinct tradition in Lev 20, since it still does not explain why the author of ch. 20 did not introduce these laws himself in order to harmonize his Vorlage with the legislation of ch. 18. Obviously, omission of these laws was not a problem for him. More likely, their absence in Lev 20 is linked to the nature of the cases addressed therein. The prohibition on sexual intercourse with one’s mother (Lev 18:7) was automatically covered both by the law of 20:9 requiring the death penalty for anyone showing disrespect to his parents as well as by 20:11.232 As for the case of the granddaughter (18:10) or of a woman and her sister (18:18), their omission from Lev 20 suggests that although such unions were prohibited (Lev 18), they are apparently not regarded by the H redactor as deserving a sanction.233 The reason for this legal exegesis can only be hinted at; in the case of sororate marriage at least, this may have to do with the popularity of this kind of union, considered elsewhere in the ANE as a favorite type of polygynous marriage.234 jede in Lev 18 verbotene Tat sich in Lev 20 wiederfindet, hat denselben Grund. Die Vorlagen von Lev 18 waren eben andere als die von Lev 20”. 231 As noted above, the formulation of the laws on Molech (Lev 18:21; 20:2–5), homosexuality (18:22; 20:13) and bestiality (18:23; 20:14), is quite similar. The law on sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman in 20:18 expands the prohibition of 18:19 to include the case of puerperal blood (Lev 12), which may explain the change from hdn (18:19, as in 15:24) to hwd since this term is also used in 12:2 in the context of a comparison between the two forms of uncleanness (menstrual blood and puerperal blood). The main difference concerns the law on adultery (18:20 and 20:10). However, as argued above, the formulation of 18:20 is prompted by its immediate context, as a transition between v. 19 and 21. 232 For this latter observation, see for example ELLIGER, Leviticus, 276. 233 For a similar view, see RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 226, who, however, argues that the omission of these cases should be explained by their popularity during the monarchical period; yet this would have been also true for other forms of union sanctioned in Lev 20. 234 This is reflected in Jacob’s story, since Jacob marries both Rachel and Leah. See also in particular Ez 23, where the fact that Yahweh takes as spouses both Israel and Judah, represented as two sisters, apparently raises no issue. As observed by FRIEDL, Polygynie, 265, such

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

455

If so, the question of the purpose of this sophisticated editorial and compositional device remains. Whereas the focus on the source- and form-critical issue in Lev 20 generally prevented earlier scholars from reflecting on the function of Lev 20 within the overall structure of H, the conclusion reached here as to the origin of this chapter shows on the contrary that its position is highly significant. Some authors have already noted that the parallel between Lev 18 and 20 underscores the central position of Lev 19, in which the commandment of holiness appears for the first time (19:2).235 More pointedly, the function of ch. 20 with respect to Lev 18 and 19 may be better appreciated through an examination of the progression taking place in these three chapters. We have noted above how the last law of ch. 17 reinterpreted the parallel laws of Ex 22:30 and Deut 14:21a by disconnecting the consumption of carrion from the issue of Israel’s holiness, thus leaving room in the following laws for the reinterpretation of this notion. In the opening exhortation of Lev 18 (v. 2–5), a further step is taken since here for the first time we come across the formula Mkyhl) hwhy yn). Yahweh introduces himself to Israel as its personal and exclusive God; the repetition of this formula frames v. 2b–4 and is connected with the command of v. 3–4a enjoining Israel to reject the statutes (tqx ) of the other nations and to exclusively obey Yahweh’s ordinances (My+p#m) and statutes (tqx ). The customs of those nations are then exemplified through the prohibitions of 18:6–23, and the chapter ends in v. 24–30 by an exhortation repeating the necessity for Israel to reject the customs of the other nations and to keep Yahweh’s statutes, but this time with a specific emphasis on the consequences of these customs on the land itself. Following the recent proposal by Luciani, it was argued above that it is possible to identify two parallel panels in v. 24–25 and 26–29 consisting of two exhortations built on a similar fivefold structure.236 The first exhortation warns the Israelites that they must not become defiled by the customs of the nations previously occupying the land (see v. 24a); the second panel opens with a reminder that the Israelites must instead observe Yahweh’s laws (v. 26). In each section, the consequences of pollution and disobedience to God’s laws are then laid out in two parallel statements (v. 24b–25 and 26–29): the land “vomitted out” the nations previously occupying the land after it had become defiled by their form of union is never condemned in the HB outside Lev 18:18, contrary to other forms of union criticized in this legislation. Friedl also notes that sororate marriage is well attested in the ANE and that Old Babylonian legal documents indicate that, “Schwestern sind die einzigen blutsverwandten Frauen, die mit demselben Mann verheiraten sind” (Ibid., 125). The case of a woman’s granddaughter (Lev 18:17b) was probably subsumed under the law for a man marrying a woman and her mother in 20:14. The case of the stepsister (18:11) either was covered by the law of 20:17 or was also regarded sufficiently leniently by H to be prohibited but not sanctioned, as in the case of the granddaughter and the two sisters. 235 See DOUGLAS, Leviticus, 238–239; also MILGROM, Leviticus, 1767–1768. 236 See LUCIANI, Sainteté, 1. 89–90, and above, pages 445–446.

456

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

customs. A concluding statement in v. 30 aptly takes up the initial exhortations in the two panels: if Israel keeps Yahweh’s laws (v. 26), they will not become defiled by the “statutes” (Myqx) of the nations (cf. v. 24a) – and therefore will not have to be be expelled from the land. Lev 19 introduces a new element, the exhortation to the Israelites to lead a holy life, that is, in conformity with Yahweh’s holiness, which introduces the entire chapter (v. 2). This exhortation is followed by various laws, themselves closing with the exhortation to keep all (lk) of God’s statutes (tqx) and ordinances (My+p#m) in 19:37 (see already 19:19aa). The connection between Israel’s holiness and obedience to Yahweh’s laws is then explicitly defined in the first exhortation of ch. 20, v. 7–8, where these two notions are taken up and developed. As it makes clear, holiness is attained by Israel through observance of Yahweh’s laws (v. 7, 8a);237 conversely, the fact that Yahweh has given his laws to Israel implies that it is he, ultimately, who sanctifies them (v. 8a, 8b). In this respect, this structure suggests that the laws enumerated between the exhortation concluding ch. 19 (v. 37) and the first exhortation of 20:7–8, v. 2ab –6, takes on paradigmatic significance. Ch. 20 picks up two central prohibitions of Lev 18 and 19, the ban on Molech worship (18:21) and on necromancy (19:31). The choice of these two practices is obvious: both are defined in Lev 18 and 19 as distinctively non-Yahwistic cults. Whereas holiness means obedience to Yahweh’s law, these cults represent, on the contrary, the utmost form of disloyalty towards Yahweh and are therefore the exact antonym of holiness.238 The novelty vis-à-vis the mere prohibitions of Lev 18 and 19 is that these practices are now penalized in Lev 20:2ab–6. This device underlines the development introduced by the commandment of holiness in Lev 19. Because Yahweh is holy, and because Israel is to conform to, and even imitate, this holiness by obeying all of his laws (19:2, 37; 20:7–8), Yahweh cannot tolerate disobedience within his community, and the latter must be systematically punished, as is shown by 20:2–6 (taking up 18:21 and 19:31). It is not a coincidence if Lev 20 opens with two laws not only dealing with excommunication from one’s sacral community but explicitly describing in addition Yahweh’s active role in this process. Not only do they use trk Hiphil (20:3, 5, 6, only here and in 17:10) instead of the passive form found elsewhere in H, but this statement is preceded by the unique statement that Yahweh will “turn his face” (Mynp Ntn, 20:3, 6; in 20:5 with My#) towards the culprit, thus underlining that he will take personal responsibility to punish him. The first law of ch. 20, sanctioning Molech worship, is exemplary in other 237 In the MT , the phrase Mt#dqthw, missing from the SamP and the LXX, could betray a later attempt to conform 20:7a to 11:44, where exactly the same formulation is found. 238 In this regard, there is absolutely no reason to consider v. 6 as a later accretion to v. 2a b –5, as several earlier commentators have proposed (see for example NOTH, Leviticus, 149).

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

457

respects.239 First, it is the only law with 20:17 prescribing a twofold punishment: the death penalty, as in 20:9–16, and excommunication by Yahweh, as in 20:17–18. Second, it is also the only law containing a clause for instances where the community would refrain from performing the sanction prescribed by Yahweh (stoning, v. 2b); in this case, the law specifies that Yahweh himself will excommunicate not only the culprit, as in v. 3, but all his clan (hxp#m) with him (v. 4–5). The meaning of this clause is obvious: it emphasizes the absolute necessity for the crime not to remain unpunished by providing a still heavier sanction in case of non-fulfillment of the penalty prescribed. Third, and last, the sanction for Molech worship is unique in that, as in Lev 24:10–23, it must be performed by the entire community (in 20:2, 4, the “people of the land”, Cr)h M(; in 24:14: hd(h-lk). Thus, the two laws of 20:2ab–6 are paradigmatic not only because of the nature of the crimes but also, and even more so, because of the nature of the sanctions themselves. As a transition between the concluding exhortation of 19:37 and 20:7–8, they illustrate negatively the exclusive loyalty required by Yahweh, which is then positively formulated in the exhortation of v. 7–8. As an introduction to Lev 20 in general, v. 2–6 and 7–8 give the key to the meaning of this legislation in relation to Lev 18 and 19. Because Israel is sanctified through Yahweh’s laws, no disobedience towards them shall remain unpunished.240 In the central section of ch. 20, v. 9–21, this principle is 239

The literary unity of v. 2ab–5 was often disputed by earlier commentators but is commonly admitted since ELLIGER , Leviticus, 268–269; see CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 55–58; BULTMANN , Der Fremde, 194–195; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 48–49; MASSMANN, Leviticus 20, 95–97. Cholewin8ski has convincingly shown that this passage was built according to an A–B–C–A’–B’ pattern (v. 2ab, b, 3a, 3b, 4, 5), whose center (= C) is formed by the rationale stating that giving one’s child to Molech corresponds to polluting Yahweh’s sanctuary and desecrating his name. Since the trk -sanction is not equivalent to death, but means being excommunicated from the cultic community formed with Yahweh (above, page 406 n. 51), the tension commonly perceived between v. 2b and 3 does not apply. 240 For a similar view as to the function of Lev 20 after Lev 18–19, see MASSMANN, Leviticus 20, 193–198, although for him it reflects primarily the meaning of these chapters in their “canonical arrangement”; how far this arrangement should be attributed to the redactor of H remains unclear in his analysis. GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 59, also briefly suggests a similar view of the relationship between Lev 18; 19 and 20. RUWE , “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 221–246, does not really comment on this issue, even though he assigns all three chapters to the same author. Earlier authors generally considered the problem of the relationship of Lev 20 to Lev 18–19 as exclusively source-critical in nature. Some assumed that the reason for the present location of ch. 20 was that in the tradition used by the H redactor, ch. 18 and 19 were already somehow connected. Thus, BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 63, surmises that the author of Lev 20 “habe Cap. 18 und 19 schon in einer gewissen Verbindung vorgefunden”; likewise, KILIAN, Untersuchung, 165–166. Others held that Lev 20 had been composed after Lev 17– 19 (PATON, Lev. XX). Alternatively, the location of ch. 20 was sometimes simply explained by stating that the redactor of this chapter dealt not only with the prohibitions of ch. 18, but also with a few others found in Lev 19 (thus ELLIGER, Leviticus, 271–272). CHOLEWIN&SKI,

458

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

then consistently exemplified with respect to the sexual relations prohibited in Lev 18. Bracketting Lev 19 with ch. 18 and 20 does not simply highlight the centrality of the holiness command in 19:2. It would be more accurate to say that the resumption of Lev 18 in Lev 20 exemplifies the implications of the commandments of ch. 18 for a community willing to live according to the ideal of holiness that has been laid out in Lev 19. The general principle underlying the complex pattern formed by Lev 18–20 is stated in 20:14, the brief exhortation concluding the most severe sanction of the series: hmz hyht-)lw 241 Mkkwtb, “there shall be no depravity among you”. Finally, Lev 20 is concluded by a long exhortation which represents in a sense the synthesis of all previous exhortations in Lev 18–20.242 It consists of two parts, v. 22–24a and 24b–26. V. 22–23 are basically a summary of the exhortation of 18:2b–5 and 24–30;243 Israel is commanded to keep Yahweh’s statutes instead of adopting the customs of the nations which Yahweh has come to loathe, so that it will not be vomited out by the land as the previous nations. This summary is completed in v. 24a by a quotation of an earlier divine saying promising the land’s possession to the Israelites, closing with the traditional formula describing Canaan as “a land flowing with milk and honey”. The second part, v. 24b–26, introduces a new concept summarizing the general meaning of the perspective gradually developed in Lev 18–20: Israel’s sanctification appears to be the climax of a broader process, through which Yahweh has set Israel apart from the nations to be his own people.244 V. 24b and 26 form a frame around v. 25; in v. 24b, Yahweh states that he has

Heiligkeitsgesetz, 62–63, suggested for his part that Lev 20 (which, according to him, would originally have belonged together with Lev 21–22*) was placed there by the H redactor in order to build a link between Lev 17–19 on one hand and 21–22 on the other. Still others, finally, regarded the location of Lev 20 within H as a typical example of the fact that this code had been composed rather loosely, probably mainly through the gradual juxtaposition of various laws, and mostly without any specific plan (for example NOTH, Leviticus, 146). 241 On the importance of this exhortation in Lev 18–20, see also LUCIANI, Sainteté, 1. 116. 242 For this observation, see already ELLIGER, Leviticus, 270 (“allgemeine Paränese”); further OTTO, Ethik, 238; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1759ff. 243 V. 22 is mainly a digest of 18:26–28: “Keep all my laws and my customs (v. 26a)… and the land shall not vomit you (v. 28a)”; the addition of the comment: “where I will make you enter” after the mention of the land is taken from 18:3; only the phrase hb tb#l at the end of 20:22 represents an innovation (but see hb Mtb#y in 18:3a). More generally, the exhortation to keep Yahweh’s ‘statutes’ and ‘ordinances’ is reminiscent of 18:4a, 5a, 26aa, 30aa; 19:19aa, 37a; 20:8a; but the addition of the phrase ‘all’ before tqx and My+p#m brings to mind more specifically the exhortation concluding Lev 19, v. 37a, also with lk. V. 23a combines 18:3bb (“do not follow their laws”) with 18:24bb (“[the nations] I am driving out before you”), except that the MT in 20:23a has a singular (“the nation”) instead of a plural (but see the SamP). V. 23b corresponds to 18:27, except that it introduces the notion that Yahweh has come to “loathe” (Cwq, only here in H) the nation(s) inhabiting the land before Israel. 244 On this point, see in particular CRÜSEMANN, Exodus, esp. 119ff.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

459

“separated” (ldb) Israel from the nations and this is said again in v. 26, yet in a more elaborate form. It is combined with the almost verbatim repetition of the exhortation to holiness in 19:2245 and with a specification of purpose at the end: yl twyhl, “to be mine”. The repetition of 19:2 creates a great envelope around Lev 19–20, thus explicitly signaling a further evolution of the central theme of Israel’s holiness in ch. 18–20. At the center of this structure, v. 25 connects Israel’s separation from the nations with the prescription for Israel to “separate” (ldb ) between clean and unclean animals, as Yahweh did previously, an obvious reference to the to=ra= of Lev 11.246 In the context of the conclusive exhortation of Lev 20:22–26, this reference has a double function. First, through the analogy explicitly established between the division into clean and unclean species and Israel’s separation from the nations, it reinterprets the clean diet of Lev 11 as a paradigmatic law for Israel’s election and holiness, as in Deut 14 (see 14:2ff.).247 In P, the exemplary function of this diet in setting Israel aside from the nations was implicit, but this point was still dissociated (and deliberately so) from the statement of Israel’s holiness (above, § 5.2.1.). Second, the inclusion with Lev 11 signals the thematic unity of these chapters for the redactor of H. This is not a coincidence: both Lev 11 and 20 respectively open and close a series of laws which deal with the purification (and sanctification in ch. 19–20) of the entire community. In Lev 21– 22 (more exactly 21:1–22:16), another section begins, which is now concerned with purity and sanctity of the priests.248 In this respect, the final exhortation of 20:22–26 serves as a structuring device not only for ch. 18–20, but even more broadly for ch. 11–20,249 thus offering another indication of the way in which H supplements P. 245 Thus the MT ; the SamP and one Greek ms omit #wdq and read simply hwhy yn) yk. Which reading is original is difficult to tell. Also, the LXX adds “your God” after Yahweh, probably to harmonize either with v. 24b or with the parallel statement in 20:7 (cf. BHS). 246 Pace GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 52–54.219–220, who, because he holds that H was initially separate from P, is forced to deny this reference, although with weak arguments (the omission of fish from 20:25 [cf. 11:9–12] can easily be explained by the fact that these creatures played a limited role in Israel’s daily diet, see on this above, § 4.2.3.). Earlier critics either held v. 25 to be a late interpolation by the P editor (e.g., FEUCHT, Untersuchungen, 37; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 271) or they surmised that originally a law on clean and unclean animals had stood there, of which only the conclusion remained in v. 25 (BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 401. 404; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 60–63). Yet the second solution is entirely gratuitous, and the elimination of v. 25 as a later addition raises a problem, since v. 26 could hardly have followed v. 24b. Rather, the repetition of v. 24b in v. 26 serves to introduce v. 25; hence the fact that several authors were forced to propose eliminating v. 26 with v. 25 (Baentsch), a most unlikely solution given the inclusion established in this verse with the opening of ch. 19. 247 For this observation, see in particular OTTO, Innerbiblische Exegese, 174. 248 WAGNER, Existenz, 313; BLUM, Studien, 319.323–324; and HARTLEY, Leviticus, 332. 249 Whether v. 27 is original or not is difficult to tell. Certainly, this law is not a mere doublet of 20:6, as has often been incorrectly assumed; the difference in formulation indicates

460

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

5.2.2.2. Leviticus 19 The above analysis has already suggested the central significance of the law of ch. 19 in the structure of ch. 18–20. This observation has to be corroborated by a brief analysis of this law. The apparent heterogeneity of the various prescriptions and prohibitions grouped in Lev 19, as well as the absence of a clear framework, have traditionally led commentators to dispute the chapter’s literary coherence.250 In general, they assumed instead that this text was an assortment of laws from various origins.251 Alternatively, because of the manifest similarity of some laws with the Decalogue, form critics surmised that Lev 19 originated in a series of “decalogues” or even “dodecalogues”, the identification of which, however, was always disputed.252 Recent research on Lev 19 has tended to reject these two approaches as methodologically unsupported and has resumed instead the search for a comprehensive structure in this chapter, even though no consensus has been reached so far on this point either.253 An obvious structuring device is provided by the repetition of the formula 254 hwhy yn) (short formula = SF), or Mykhl) hwhy yn) (= LF),255 which delineates 16 distinct units: v. 2ab, b (1–2aa: introduction to the divine speech), 3, that the two laws deal with distinct cases: the consultation of dead ancestors by an Israelite (v. 6) and the invocation of such ancestors by a male or a female specialist (see 1 Sam 28!). GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 54, notes that the inclusion built with v. 6 (see above, page 431) suggests it is original; yet its removal would perhaps give an even more obvious structure, namely: law (v. 2ab–6), exhortation (7–8), law (9–21), exhortation (22–26). 250 Thus for example NOTH, Leviticus, 138: “remarkably diverse and disordered”. 251 Thus inter alia BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 396 (“keine urspr. Einheit, sondern […] aus verschiedenen Elementen zusammengeschweisst”); NOTH, Leviticus, 138ff.; THIEL, Erwägungen, 51–52; and especially JAGERSMA, Leviticus 19; see also among recent authors MATHYS, Liebe, 77ff., partly adopting Jagersma’s proposal; and SUN, Investigation, 207–219. 252 Thus in particular MORGENSTERN, Decalogue; REVENTLOW, Heilgkeitsgesetz, 65ff.; KILIAN, Untersuchung, 57–63; AUERBACH, Zehngebot, 266–268; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 247ff. More recently, other form-critics, while denying the existence of such a primitive decalogue or dodecalogue, presume that Lev 19 draws on several earlier independent laws, see, e.g., SUN, Investigation, 207ff.; and GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 239 (“Die Überlieferer der Leviticus-Sammlung haben kurze Ver- und Gebotsreihen vorgefunden, zusammengestellt und mit ihrer eigenen, theologischen sehr wichtigen Abschlußformel voneinander abgesetzt”). 253 Among recent proposals, see MAGONET, Structure; SUN, Investigation, 186–195; BARBIERO, Asino, 215–243, esp. 241; OTTO, Ethik, 245–246; ID., Heiligkeitsgesetz, 73; LUCIANI, Commentaire; ID ., Sainteté, 1. 99–110; K ÖCKERT, Gottesfurcht, 149–151; RUWE , “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 190–195. A distinct view is held by GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 39–46.259, who, though he accepts the chapter’s unity contrary to earlier critics, still maintains with them that no coherent structure can be identified. On p. 259, he even surmises that this would be a deliberate device, namely, to reflect human life in its irreducible diversity. Unless the search for a unifying structure proves indeed to be a chimera, such a view cannot be accepted. 254 V. 12b, 14b, 16b, 18b, 28b, 30b, 32b, 37b. 255 V. 2b, 3b, 4b, 10b, 25b, 31b, 34b, 36b.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

461

4, 5–10, 11–12, 13–14, 15–16, 17–18, 19–25, 26–28, 29–30, 31, 32, 33–34, 35–36, 37. However, other devices also suggest the possibility of identifying larger groups of laws, such as the alternation between long and short formulas of “self-assertion”, or between case laws and apodictic laws. Indeed, v. 5–10 and 20–25 stand out in Lev 19 because of their formulation as case laws. In addition, each section contains only one formula of self-assertion; it is identical in both cases (LF) and concludes each section (v. 10b, 25b). Lastly, the structural parallel between v. 5–10 and 20–25 is unmistakable: each unit consists of two laws, the first (5–8 // 20–22) dealing with a sacrifice, and the second (9–10 // 23–25) with the proper use of the land. Similarly, the coherence of the apodictic laws in v. 11–18 is underlined by several means. This series is composed of four units (v. 11–12, 13–14, 15–16, 17–18), always ending with a SF (12b, 14b, 16b, 18b). Each unit consists of five prohibitions, except the first (v. 11–12) which has only four; beyond this, in each subunit except the penultimate, the enumeration of the prohibitions is followed by a positive statement indicating the consequences of the observance (v. 13–14, 17–18) or non-observance (v. 11–12) of the prohibitions.256 In addition, the series formed by v. 11–18 has a strong thematic unity, since all the prohibitions deal in one sense or another with the issue of social justice. Finally, as recognized by several scholars, it is likely that the general recommandation introducing v. 19, “You shall keep my statutes” (see 19aa), which anticipates the concluding exhortation of v. 37, signals a major structural division.257 The assumption that ch. 19 consists of two halves is further corroborated by the obvious structural and thematic parallel between v. 5–10 and 20–25, but also by the occurrence of many terminological parallels, especially between v. 3–4 and 30–32 (cf. also v. 15aa and 35aa; 18ab and 34aa2). Together, these observations corroborate the view of E. Otto that the basic structure of ch. 19 consists of two parallel panels, built on the same pattern:258 256

See v. 12: “So that you (in the singular in the MT, but see the LXX) shall desecrate the name of your God”; v. 14: “So that you (pl.) shall fear your God”; v. 18: “So that you (sing.) shall love your fellow as yourself”. In v. 11–12, this difference, together with the difference in the number of prohibitions and the use of the plural whereas v. 13–18 use a singular address, probably serves to underline the structural and thematic importance of this law. 257 ELLIGER, Leviticus, 244; BARBIERO, Asino, 220–223.226–229.239–240.241.242–243; LUCIANI, Commentaire, 224.229–230; OTTO , Ethik, 245–246; RUWE , “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 191–192; also GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 249. Pace GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 42. 258 The various alternative proposals (see the references given above, note 253) cannot be discussed in detail here. BARBIERO offers many important observations, in particular as regards the alternation between case laws and mere prohibitions or prescriptions, the central function of v. 19, as well as several terminological parallels. However, his ABA’ structure with five “frames” (see the figure in ID., Asino, 241) remains unsatisfactory: not only are the sections of markedly unequal length (A = v. 5–18; A’ = 33–36) but the parallels between them are often incomplete. Thus, sacrifices are absent from v. 33–34; also, to state that v. 33–

462

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

General exhortation to holiness (19:2ab, b) 

Transition: New exhortation: “Keep my statutes” (v. 19aa) 

(a) Fundamental prescriptions: parents, the Sabbath, prohibition of apostasy and idolatry (v. 3–4)

(a’) Fundamental prescription: prohibition of mixtures (v. 19ab, g, b)

(b) Casuistic laws: sacrifice (v. 5–8) and cultivation of the land (v. 9–10)

(b’) Casuistic laws: sacrifice (v. 20–22) and cultivation of the land (v. 23–25)

(c) Other prescriptions: loyalty to the fellow Israelite (v. 11–18)

(c’) Other prescriptions: loyalty to Yahweh and the fellow Israelite, including the resident alien (v. 26–36)

 Final exhortation: “Keep and practice all my statutes and all my ordinances” (v. 37)

Of the sixteen units delineated by the repetition of the SF or the LF, each panel contains seven; the additional two are found in the framing verses, v. 2 and 37. In both panels, there is a close relation between the fundamental prescription (v. 3–4, 19ab, g, b) and the first law of the third part (c/c’: v. 11–12, 26–28).259 V. 3–4 are clearly a quotation from the Decalogue (Ex 20:2–17 // 34 deal primarily with the land, as v. 9–10 and 23–25, is clearly forced. LUCIANI proposes a complex model (basically an ABC–X–B’C’A’ pattern, cf. the figure in ID., Commentaire, 227), where X, at the center, would be formed by v. 19–22. Although he has finely noted the structuring function of v. 19, it seems difficult to support the idea that v. 20–22 can be similarly understood; his attempt to justify this point (Ibid., 230) is unconvincing. Also, his structure is essentially based on the observation of terminological parallels between the two main parts of Lev 19 (Ibid., 223–224). It pays little attention to the presence of other, more significant structuring devices such as those identified above, and does not adequately consider the fact that the vast majority of these parallels actually concerns v. 3–4 and 30–32 specifically. SUN classically identifies three major units in v. 3–10, 11–18 and 19–37 (see already WENHAM , Leviticus, 249–250), but as he himself indicates, his proposal is mainly based on content, and the grounds for assuming a same-order division between v. 3–10 and 11–18 remain obscure. RUWE proposes a structure which, on the whole, is quite comparable to the one argued by OTTO, except that, first, he wants to make v. 19ab, g, b the fundamental prohibition commanding the whole chapter and, secondly, that he dissociates v. 33–36 from v. 26–32. However, neither of these two proposals is very strong. Although the prohibition of v. 19ab, g, b surely betrays a major aspect of the theology of the author of Lev 19 (and of H in general) Ruwe’s attempt to interpret the entire chapter from this single perspective misapprehends its complexity. As to v. 33–36, he can only identify them as an unspecified “Schlußabschnitt” which would mirror an “Anfangsabschnitt” consisting of v. 3–4. Yet the two paragraphs have hardly anything in common; the closest parallels with 3–4 are actually in 30–32. On the differences with Otto regarding the interpretation of v. 11–18 and 26–36, see the following note. 259 In what follows, I differ from the explanation offered by OTTO , Ethik, 245–246; ID., Heiligkeitsgesetz, 73, regarding the analysis of the structural parallel between v. 11–18 and 26–36. Otto basically wants to parallel v. 11–12 with 26–31, 13–14 and 32–33, 15–16 and 17–18 with 34, 35–36a. However this proposal raises several difficulties. In particular, the

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

463

Deut 5:6–21): compare Lev 19:3aa with Ex 20:12; Deut 5:16; 19:3ab with Ex 20:8–11; Deut 5:12–15; 19:4aa with Ex 20:3; Deut 5:7; and 19:4ab, g with Ex 20:5; Deut 5:9. Similarly, there is an unmistakable allusion to the Decalogue in Lev 19:11–12. V. 11a is a quotation (in plural form) of Ex 20:15; Deut 5:19, the prohibition on theft, which is then completed in the second part of the verse (11b) by two others concerning lying to one’s fellow (#xk, rq#) in the context of the misappropriation of a property belonging to him.260 The connection with false oaths in the following verse (19:12a) also echoes the Decalogue, where the same prohibition is found immediately after that on theft (Ex 20:16; Deut 5:20). Similarly, the prohibition on mixtures in v. 19ab, 261 g, b has its closest counterpart in v. 26–28. V. 26 opens with a prohibition against eating “over the blood” (26a MT ); whatever the precise meaning of this custom (which could refer to some form of chtonic worship), it is clearly presented as implying a fundamental confusion of the creational order, as is the case for the mixing of seeds and fabrics in v. 19ab, g, b.262 V. 27–28 forbid four forms of alteration of one’s body. In addition, the first three are connected with mourning rites (cf. Deut 14:1),263 by which the living identify grouping of v. 32 with 33 is illogical and breaks the obvious connection between 33 and 34 as between v. 32 and 31 (see below); also, the parallel between v. 11–12 and 26–31 rests on quite superficial features (plural address) and does not do justice to the thematic unity of v. 26–28 on the one hand and v. 29–31 on the other. 260 On these two terms and their use in context of property matters, see for example MILGROM, Leviticus, 1631. 261 See in particular R UWE , “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 209–214, who views v. 26–28 as “eine Gruppe von Trennungsvorschriften […] die Fundamentalunterscheidungen wie Leben und Tod, Mensch und Natur usw. betreffen” (p. 214). 262 In the context of Lev 19:26, this traditional view accounts in particular for the relation with divinatory practices in the second part of the verse (26b). Note further that in one of the two other places where this custom is referred to, Ez 33:25, it is also linked to idolatry; in the other place, 1 Sam 14:31–35, this connection may also be implied but is less obvious. The exact nature of this practice remains unclear anyway; comparison with other ancient parallels, especially Greece, suggests some kind of sacral meal, in which blood would have served to invoke the spirits of the dead; see especially GRINTZ , “Do Not Eat”. The alternative view, interpreting l( as meaning “with” and understanding the prohibition as referring to eating “with the blood” (thus, e.g., NOTH, Leviticus, 143; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 261), although already popular in antiquity (see for example the LXX of 1 Sam 14:33), is unlikely. In v. 26b, the meaning of the two verbs describing divination, #xn and Nn(, is similarly unclear but they certainly refer to two different forms of divinatory techniques (possibly, the observation of the movements of snakes and clouds respectively); otherwise, the two roots only occur in Deut 18:10; 2 Kgs 21:6; 2 Chr 33:6. RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 212, also wants to interpret these two prohibitions as “Trennungsvorschriften”, but that seems somewhat farfetched. More likely, they were associated here with the first prohibition because, like the former, for the author of Lev 19 they were paradigmatic of forbidden rites. 263 See SPRONK, Beatific Afterlife, 244–247; L EWIS , Cult, 161–162 and passim, both of whom adduce parallels from Ugaritic epic for such customs. The prohibitions against tonsure and incisions for the dead have a direct parallel in Deut 14:1; here, they are completed by a

464

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

themselves with the dead. Thus, these prohibitions are further intended to preserve the boundary between the dead and the living in order to avoid confusion between these two realms. In the other units forming the third series of each panel (c/c’), the opening prohibitions (v. 11–12, 26–28) are then completed by thematically connected instructions. Thus, v. 13–18 add various prohibitions which, like v. 11–12, are all concerned with the enforcement of solidarity with a fellow Israelite, especially in situations of potential abuse of one man by another (v. 13–16). Each unit contains the term (r (v. 13, 16, 18); tym(, already present in v. 11, also occurs in v. 15, 17. Finally, the entire section is appropriately concluded by the final exhortation to love one’s fellow as oneself. The structure of the section corresponding to v. 13–18 in the second panel, v. 29–36, is more sophisticated. V. 33–34 clearly echo v. 13–18. V. 35aa takes up v. 15aa (“You shall not do injustice in judgment”), thereby indicating that this law continues and supplements v. 15–16, this time by dealing with scales and weights instead of persons. V. 33–34 seem to combine the two laws of 19:13–14 and 17–18 from the perspective of the rg, the resident alien: he must not be “oppressed” or “exploited” (hn( Piel), because of his inferior social status (v. 13, although there with q#(), but he must instead be loved “as a native/citizen” (xrz)k), i.e., as a fellow Israelite, and therefore as oneself (Kwmk), as in v. 18. Hence, v. 33–36 are basically the continuation of v. 13–18, and their equivalent in the second panel (v. 19ab–36); the first unit (v. 33–34) takes up units 1 and 3 (v. 13–14 and 17–18), while the second (v. 35–36) corresponds to the central unit (v. 15–16).264 V. 29–32, for their part, take up and develop the fundamental prescriptions of v. 3–4, as is shown by the numerous parallels between these two passages.265 As in v. 3–4, one finds the same blending of commandments prescribing loyalty to parents and loyalty to Yahweh, thus associating closely the two issues. V. 29 forbids the prostitution of one’s daughter, i.e., the economic exploitation of her sexual capacity, thus offering an adequate complement to v. 3aa: children must revere parents, but parents must in turn protect their children. V. 30ab uses the same language as v. 3aa, but this time applying the commandment to reverence for the sanctuprohibition against cutting one’s beard (literally, “destroying the edge of your beard”), which is also known as a mourning rite in several texts in the HB, especially in Ez (5:1; 7:18; see also, e.g., Jer 7:29). Tattooing is apparently unrelated with mourning customs and was probably included because it likewise represents a major modification of one’s body. 264 The unity of v. 33–36 is also underlined through the exodus motif; in v. 33–34 the law on the resident alien is motivated by the reference to Israel’s sojourn in Egypt (34ab ), whereas in 36b the LF is completed by the reference to Yahweh as the one who brought Israel out of Egypt. The unique formulation of v. 36b signals that the legislation of ch. 19 has reached its conclusion and simultaneously forms a transition with the general exhortation to keep all of Yahweh’s laws and customs in v. 37. 265 See especially LUCIANI, Commentaire, 223–224; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1598–1599.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

465

ary; like v. 3aa , it is also associated with the commandment to keep Yahweh’s Sabbaths (v. 3ab), repeated verbatim in 30aa. The prohibition immediately following, “do not turn to (divinized) ancestors” (v. 31aa) is also reminiscent of the prohibition following v. 3, “do not turn to nothings” (Mylyl), v. 4aa). The commandment of v. 32 coming afterwards balances v. 31: consultation of dead ancestors is proscribed, but respect of elders is commanded.266 At the same time, v. 32 is clearly parallel with v. 14 (respect of physically disabled persons) and thus announces the return to the issue of social justice in v. 33–36. The parallel is explicitly signaled by the fact that the commandment of v. 32 has the same motivation as v. 14: “(thus) you shall fear your God”.267 The exegetical development of v. 3–4 in v. 29–31 (v. 32) builds an inclusion between the third part of the second panel (c’) and the first part of the first one (a), that is, the two ends of the whole structure. Simultaneously, this device is already prepared by the contrast between v. 3–4 and 19, the reference to the Decalogue being absent from the fundamental prohibition introducing the second half of ch. 19. On the level of content, v. 29–31 are closely connected with v. 26–28, since they also deal with the issue of loyalty to Yahweh. In this respect, they form the thematic counterpart to v. 11–18 (loyalty to the fellow Israelite). Lastly, the unity of v. 26–31 is further highlighted by the fact that the prohibition of v. 31 (necromancy) builds an inclusion with the opening prohibitions on divination in v. 26 (comp. Deut 18:10–11, where necromancy is also mentioned together with other forms of divinatory techniques such as #xn and Nn() and by the occurrence of a new LF in 31b after v. 25. The return to issues of social justice in v. 33–36 serves to end the second half of ch. 19 in parallel with the conclusion of the first half. V. 32 not only forms a transition between v. 29–31 and 33–36 but connects loyalty to Yahweh and loyalty to other, weaker members of the community: to show reverence to an elder is to fear Yahweh. As in the Decalogue, the two issues cannot be dissociated.268 266

Similarly RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 216. Hence, pace RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 193–194, it is unjustified to separate entirely v. 33–36 from v. 26–32. Note that the separation of v. 32 from 31 is also suggested by the occurrence of a LF in 31b, and not in 32b as one would have expected. RUWE, 207, tries to solve the difficulty by claiming that elsewhere in H some sections are not closed by a LF but by a SF preceded by a LF (see Lev 18:2b–5). The observation in itself is correct, but the reason for using this device here in Lev 19 remains unexplained; in my view, it could serve to underline the transitional nature of v. 32. MILGROM, Leviticus, 1702, as well as GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 248, regard instead v. 32 as a further development of the commandment to revere (lit. ‘fear’) parents. Yet, as noted, the parallel is more obvious with 19:14. Besides, the same motivation, Kyhl)m t)ryw,, occurs otherwise in Lev 25:17, 36, 43, in exactly the same context of social justice, thus corroborating this understanding for 19:32 as well. 268 In spite of the undeniable complexity of v. 26–36, it would not be plausible to view v. 33–36 as a later supplement. Not only is it impossible to dissociate v. 32 from v. 33–36, but the identification of the resident alien’s legal situation with that of the xrz), which is explicitly stated in v. 33–34, is presupposed in other parts of H, see in particular 25:35 (where the 267

466

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

The binding theme of the various laws contained in Lev 19 is indicated by the opening exhortation to imitate Yahweh’s holiness (“You shall be holy for I am holy”) in v. 2. The implication of this over-arching command for Israel is then exemplified in the commands of v. 3–36, which have been grouped according to different aspects of Israel’s religious and social life regarded as fundamental by the author of this chapter. First come basic laws, such as the Decalogue and the absolute prohibition of mixtures (v. 3–4, 19), then various instructions concerning sacrifices (v. 5–8, 20–22), cultivation of the land (v. 9–10, 23–25), and, lastly, loyalty to Yahweh and to one’s neighbor (v. 11–18, 26–36). In all these laws, holiness is defined both positively and negatively. Positive commandments, such as v. 3a (parents and the Sabbath), are laws whose observance is essential for the achievement of holiness. Prohibitions, on the contrary, implicitly define fundamental boundaries; this is why the interdiction of mixtures in v. 19 has an exemplary function, and serves as an introduction for the entire second part of the legislation on holiness in ch. 19. It was classically observed that both positive commandments and prohibitions have numerous parallels in the other legal codes.269 Already in its general structure, Lev 19 explicitly presents itself as a commentary on the Decalogue, yet there are also several clear references to Ex 20–23, to Deut 12–26 and even to Lev 1–16. Nonetheless, it has usually remained unnoticed that the selection of these laws and the nature of their arrangement in the elaborate structure of ch. 19 can also be accounted for by the concept of holiness, as we shall see in detail below.270 In this respect, Lev 19 stands as a remarkable case of inner-biblical legal exegesis: that is, it takes up several earlier laws regarded as exemplary in order to build a compendium of sorts illustrating the requirements of a holy life. The paradigmatic character of ch. 19 is signaled by the transition from the exhortation to observe Yahweh’s statutes in the middle exhortation to the command to keep and practice all (lk) his statutes and ordinances in the concluding exhortation. As a first step towards personal sanctification, observance of the legislation of ch. 19 introduces in rg is assimilated to a “brother”, like the xrz) !). Note in addition that the same reference to Yahweh as the God of the exodus (v. 36b) recurs in the final exhortation of 22:31–33 (v. 33), where it also serves as a motivation for keeping Yahweh’s laws (22:31, compare 19:37). 269 See especialy GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 225–250, and the figure on p. 226–227. For parallels with D, see the synopsis in CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 307–309. 270 This point has been emphasized in particular by MILGROM, Leviticus, esp. 1722–1723, who also regards the opening call to holiness in 19:2 as the hermeneutical key to the entire legislation of ch. 19 and concludes that the laws comprising it represent “commandments by which holiness can be achieved”. However, his attempt to connect each command individually to the idea of holiness is clearly forced, especially in the so-called “ethical” sections (v. 11–18 and 26–36) for which the principle does not apply so simply in my opinion. In this latter case, the connection with the holiness theme concerns rather the entire section as such, in that it defines the ethical requirements for a holy life; see further below.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

467

turn the observance of the entire Torah, as the rabbinic tradition has already acknowledged.271 A brief discussion of the individual laws forming ch. 19 will corroborate this view and confirm the chapter’s literary homogeneity as well as its dependence on other legal traditions in the Torah. 1. 19:3–4, 19ab, g, b: The fact that v. 3–4 open the legislation of ch. 19 with a reference to the Decalogue corresponds to the overarching status of this revelation in Israel’s legal tradition. Four commandments (nos 1–2, 4–5) are mentioned, and the reference presents a triple inversion with regard to its source in Ex 20/Deut 5. The prescription on the Sabbath and on parents (nos 4 and 5 in the Decalogue)272 precedes the prohibition of worshipping other gods and making idols (nos 1 and 2); parents are placed before the Sabbath; and the mother is named before the father. Following Seidel’s law, this device probably indicates that the author of H is explicitly quoting the Decalogue.273 At the same time, the Decalogue’s prescriptions are not merely reproduced but already expanded and commented upon, in particular as regards the prohibition of worshipping other gods and making idols in 19:4a. Other gods are designated as “nothings” (Mylyl)), i.e., they are explicitly denied any existence (contrary to the parallel passages in Ex 20:3; Deut 5:7). Also, by using hksm instead of lsp (Ex 20:4) or hnmt (Deut 5:8), Lev 19:4a parallels the Decalogue’s second commandment with the equivalent prohibition in Ex 34:14–26 (v. 17).274 All four commandments are closely connected with the opening exhortation to sanctification in v. 2 (commandment no 3, forbidding abusive use of Yahweh’s name [Ex 20:7; Deut 5:11], has a parallel in Lev 19:12a). The Sabbath in H is defined as a sacred time, as already in the Decalogue (Ex 20:8; Deut 5:12). The quotation of the first two commandments in v. 4a emphasizes that holiness requires exclusive loyalty to Yahweh, since only he is holy (v. 2; see also Deut 7:5–6). Finally, reverence of parents, as the foundation of all family solidarity (see Lev 18:7; 20:9), is also presented 271 The rabbinic tradition recognized that “most of the Torah’s essential laws” could be derived from Lev 19; see the well-known statement from Midr. Lev. Rab. 24:5: “R. H9 i yya taught: This section [i.e., Lev 19, C.N.] was spoken in the presence of a gathering of the whole assembly, because most of the essential principles of the Torah are attached to it. R. Levi said: Because the Ten commandments are included therein”. The statement made by R. H9iyya is also found in Sifra Qedoshim; on this, see now BODENDORFER, Horizont, 353–354, who shows that both Sifra Qedoshim and Leviticus Rabbah understand Lev 19 (and not Lev 16, as most recent commentators would assume!) as the theological center of Leviticus. 272 In what follows, I adopt the traditional division of the Decalogue in use in the Reformed tradition, namely: v. 3, 4–6, 7, 8–11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. 273 SEIDEL, Parallels; for a presentation, see LEVINSON, Hermeneutics, 18–20. On the ANE background to parental “love”, see especially ALBERTZ, Hintergrund, 165ff. 274 hksm otherwise only in Num 33:52; Deut 27:15 in the context of a legal instruction; further in Ex 32:4, 8; Deut 9:12, 16, in the context of the story of the golden calf.

468

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

elsewhere in H as the first requirement for personal sanctification (see the sequence formed by 20:7–8 and 9). In addition, both the significance of this command and the connection between loyalty to parents and to Yahweh are signaled in Lev 19 in a subtle way by the replacement of the verb dbk in Ex 20:12; Deut 5:16 by )ry, “to fear, revere”. Elsewhere in H, this is used exclusively for Yahweh and his sanctuary.275 In the second part of ch. 19, the opening prescription, the prohibition on mixtures (19ab, g, b), likewise deals with a basic aspect of holiness. As the parallel law of Deut 22:9–11 states, mixtures are sacred (v. 9), and as such are reserved for the sanctuary.276 In addition, Lev 19:19 reformulates Deut 22 as a general prohibition, applying to all types of fields (hd#), cattle (hmhb) and clothes (dgb), thereby radicalizing it.277 2. 19:5–8, 20–22: The two laws on sacrifices in v. 5–8 and 20–22 placed immediately after the general prescription in each panel are also closely connected with the issue of holiness.278 V. 5–8 are basically a repetition of P’s law on the consumption of the meat of the well-being offering in 7:16–18 forbidding consumption of this meat more than two days after the offering was made.279 Here also, H generalizes by omitting the distinction between rdn (“votive”) and hbdn (“freewill”) in 7:16 and adds instead a rationale (see the phrase llx hwhy #dq-t)-yk). The addition of this rationale, a typical feature 275 See 19:14, 32; 25:17, 36, 43 with “your God” as object; 19:30 and 26:2 with y#dqm, “my sanctuary”. Note that in rabbinic tradition the parallel between honoring God and honoring one’s parents is an instance of the midrashic rule involving the comparison between two notions that have the same value or the same rank; see MekhY on Ex 20:12 (quoted by MAYER, art. Midrasch, 736). 276 See for instance the description of the high priest’s garments in Ex 28. On the use of mixtures in the description of fabrics in Ex 25–31, see in particular HARAN, Temples, 158ff. 277 Deut 22:9–11 deals only with vineyards (22:9), ox and donkey (v. 10), and linen and wool (v. 11). These specific prohibitions are comparable to what is found in other legal traditions in the ANE; see in particular §§ 167–168 of the Hittite Laws (NEUFELD, Hittite Laws). Note also how H harmonizes with the earlier law by systematically using the adverb My)lk in all three domains, whereas D uses both My)lk (22:9) and wdxy (22:10–11). Some scholars have argued that Lev 19:19 might be earlier than Deut 22 (FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, 58–63; BRAULIK, Dekalogische Redaktion, 153–160; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1665ff.), but the arguments for this view are unconvincing, and it has been rejected recently by most scholars; see GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 241; and WAGENAAR, Two Kinds. Note, in addition, that the verb (br Hiphil in Lev 19:19 is probably a late Aramaism (on this, see for instance KILIAN, Untersuchung, 46–47), which corroborates the post-Deuteronomic and post-exilic dating of this law. 278 Against RUWE , “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 195–198, who, in his analysis of the two units formed by v. 5–8 and 20–22 denies any connection with the general context of ch. 19 and regards them instead as literary bridges with other parts of H, which I find untenable. 279 See the synopsis in MILGROM , Leviticus, 1618. The law of 7:11–15 on thanksgiving ( hdwt ) offerings is not included here, because it is dealt with later in H, in the context of 22:17–30, as will be argued below in § 5.2.3.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

469

of the H redactor, is a very clear indication that H, here, is dependent on P.280 The reason for the inclusion of this law at this point is that in P the well-being offering is the only sacrifice whose meat can be eaten by lay members of the community.281 Thus, it is a unique case where the strict separation between sacred and profane is not maintained and where a holy thing is touched by a profane member of the community, with a permanent threat that it may be desecrated as the rationale in v. 8a stipulates.282 The law of v. 5–8 deals therefore with a central aspect of the relationship between the community and the sacred sphere. Moreover, this issue is made all the more significant in H precisely because H, contrary to P, requires that every domestic slaughter be a sacrificial slaughter, i.e., a Myml#-xbz (Lev 17:3ff., see above). The second case law requiring a sacrifice, in v. 20–22, is basically a complement to the law of Deut 22:23–27 (itself a development of Ex 22:15) on the illegitimate taking of the virginity of a woman already betrothed to another man, which addresses a specific case unforeseen by D.283 Here, the woman has been ‘assigned’ (Prx Niphal)284 to another man, as in Deut 22:23– 27, but she is not free, i.e., she is a slave-girl and has not yet been redeemed. 280

MILGROM, Leviticus, 1616; KNOHL, Sanctuary, 118; pace ELLIGER, Leviticus, 246; and GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 230. Elliger’s arguments (followed by Grünwaldt) are based on a few syntactic variations which are hardly relevant. Earlier authors acknowledged the dependence of 19:5–8 on Lev 1–7, but held this law to be a late insert in ch. 19 (still recently K ORNFELD, Levitikus, 73). Yet this view is unlikely and results from the failure to perceive the function of v. 5–8 within ch. 19. 281 For this observation, see also HARTLEY, Leviticus, 314; as well as RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 195–196; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1615–1616. For this reason, the well-being offering is only sacred (#dq), and not most sacred (My#dq #dq), see above § 3.6. 282 One should also keep in mind that the offering and the partaking of the Myml#-xbz would typically have taken place in the context of a communal meal involving the whole family or clan; in this regard, it is not a coincidence if the law of Lev 7 is concluded, in v. 19– 21, by a rule defining who may take part in this meal. MILGROM, Leviticus, 1616, comments: “In a sense, the sacred meat has transmitted the holiness of the sanctuary into the home”. 283 BARBIERO, Asino, 211–212; OTTO , Ethik, 248; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 242. This case is not discussed by BRAULIK , Dekalogische Redaktion; it shows very clearly the necessity of addressing the issue of the literary dependence between Lev 19 and D on the basis of a systematic and comprehensive comparison of the two corpuses, and not simply of an examination of the most obvious parallels between the two collections. Another methodological problem with Braulik’s approach has to do with the fact that his comparison between H and D, and more specifically Deut 19–25, is meant to corroborate his view that Deut 19–25 is not pre-exilic, but early postexilic. Since he actually adheres to the majority view of H as being post-D (thus, e.g., ID., Weitere Beobachtungen, 184 n. 1: “Allerdings erscheint mir […] die Abfassung eines Heiligkeitsgesetzes vor dem Deuteronomium […] als unhaltbar”) but pre-P, he is forced to assume that all passages in H having a parallel in Deut 19–25 are earlier. Once the post-P origin of H is acknowledged, this becomes irrelevant. 284 The occurrence of the participle Niphal neh9erepet is unique in the HB and the etymology and exact meaning of this term are disputed, although the rendering adopted here is the one generally found in the commentaries; see further SCHWARTZ, Literary Study, 245–246.

470

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

Her dependent status is presented as a mitigating factor (v. 20); the specification, “they (MT ) shall not be put to death, for she had not been redeemed/ freed”, is a clear reference to D where on the contrary the man and (except under certain circumstances) the woman are systematically put to death.285 The reason that the sanction is replaced by the requirement for the man to bring a reparation offering (M#), v. 21–22) is a traditional crux.286 But in any event, it defines the case of the slave-girl as a case of sacrilege (l(m, see Lev 5:15, 21) against Yahweh requiring a compensation, thus accounting for the inclusion of this law in ch. 19.287 In the context of the holiness legislation of Lev 19, this rule completes the legislation of Deut 22 and serves simultaneously as a general reminder that Israel, as a holy nation, must consistently compensate for any breach against Yahweh’s sacred rights through an offering of the appropriate sacrifice. The law thus combines the reception of earlier legal traditions with a central tenet of P’s theology and defines it as a subcase of the M#) legislation in Lev 5.288 The insertion of this law immediately after the fundamental prohibition of v. 19 was intended as a structural parallel with the law of v. 5–8, itself following v. 3–4. At the same time, it is also reminiscent of the sequence found in D (see Deut 22:9–12, 13–29). Here, therefore, 285 BARBIERO, Asino, 212; OTTO, Innerbiblische Exegese, 148. The traditional view of v. 21–22 as being secondary (GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 44–45, following Baentsch) is unfounded. Besides, this solution would require a rendering of the hapax trqb in v. 20 as “indemnity” or the like; otherwise, no punishment is stated for the man. Yet this is unlikely on both etymological and syntactic grounds: cf. SCHWARTZ, Literary Study, 250. The rendering of biqqoret as “investigation”, following the LXX (e.g., MILGROM, Leviticus, 1668ff.) is usually rejected now, because it would seem superfluous after the report of v. 20a (WENHAM, Leviticus, 271; SCHWARTZ, Ibid., 249). Schwartz suggests a rendering of “distinction”, on the ground that the primary meaning of the root bqr is “to split, divide”. This solution actually makes sense in context; namely: “a distinction (trqb) is to be made: they are not to be put to death since she had not been made free”. WESTBROOK, Studies, 101–109, argues after S. Loewenstamm on the basis of Babylonian parallels (cf. OA baqa=rum) that the phrase biqqoret tihye= would refer to an “actio in rem”, i.e., the legal owner of the woman is entitled to claim her restitution because of the wrong that has been committed. This would be attractive but the whole case rests upon a rendering of v. 20, and especially of the phrase neh9erepet (connecting it with the root (rb rather than h9rp) by which I am not convinced (cf. the previous note). 286 MILGROM, Pericope, basically suggests that it is a means of dealing with the sacrilege implied by this specific case of adultery, since it could not be punished by death (Lev 20:10). SCHWARTZ, Literary Study, 252, while rejecting Milgrom’s explanation, nevertheless comes to a similar view. Schwartz is probably correct that the choice of an M#) rather than a t)+x should be explained by the fact that the latter was mainly connected to inadvertent sins and could therefore not apply in this case (but see Lev 5:1–4, and on this, § 3.5., p. 239–244); the use of the M#) for deliberate sins, on the contrary, has an antecedent in Lev 5:20–26. Yet this does not alter the fact that the offering of an M#) automatically includes the case of 19:20–22 in the legislation of Lev 5:14–26, and thus defines it as a case of sacrilege; see below. 287 MILGROM, Leviticus, 1665. 288 OTTO, Ethik, 248, observing that the to=ra= of Lev 19 is thus tied to P’s M#) legislation.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

471

we have a remarkable illustration of the exegesis of an earlier legal tradition from the specific perspective of the community’s achievement of holiness. 3. 19:9–10, 23–25: The introduction of two case laws dealing with the legitimate use of the land immediately after v. 5–8 and 20–22 (v. 9–10 and 23– 25) corresponds to the particular importance of this issue for H, as is shown by other passages (see Lev 23:9–22; 25:2–7, 8–55!). The two laws complete and correct the existing legislation on this point. V. 9–10 specify that the abandonment of the harvest’s gleanings and of the vineyard’s leftover grapes to the poor and the alien is mandatory, whereas the parallel law of Deut 24:19–22 merely forbade coming back to collect them in case they had been omitted initially (xk#, Deut 24:19).289 The parallel between rg and yn( in v. 10 indicates that the rg is included among the personae miserae, contrary to what is the case elsewhere in H (see Lev 25:47ff.), but conforming to what applies in D.290 V. 23–25 supplement the traditional legislation on firstfruits of the land (Ex 23:16, 19; 34:22, 26; Deut 16:9–12; 26:1–2) by a specific instruction for newly planted trees. The fruit of these trees may not be eaten before the fifth year (v. 25); in the fourth year, it must be regarded as sacred (#dq) and presented as an offering of “praise” (Mylwlh) to Yahweh (v. 24).291 Thus, the two laws deal with the setting apart of the land’s produce, once for the personae miserae and once for Yahweh himself; in Lev 23:15–21, 22, the two aspects are likewise closely linked. The parallel between v. 9–10 and 23–25 as well as the fact that leaving the harvest’s remains is now made mandatory suggest that this clause is no longer a mere economic measure as in Deuteronomy, but has become in a sense inscribed in the creational order itself.292 Together, v. 9–10 and 23–25 thus define additional instructions for a use of the land conforming to the divisions set by Yahweh himself for his creation, which accounts for their inclusion in ch. 19. As in the case of the slave-girl 289 CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 269–271 (although he assumes that an older, pre-D tradition underlies the prescriptions formulated in the singular in Lev 19:9–10); GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 232; contra BRAULIK, Dekalogische Redaktion, 15–18, who assumes on the contrary that the author of Deut 24:19–22 had Lev 19:9–10 as his Vorlage. The question of why the fruits of the olive-tree are omitted in H, contrary to D (Deut 24:20), cannot be discussed here, but this is consistent with the fact that olive trees are also omitted in the law on the Sabbatical year in H, Lev 25:2–7, even though they are found in the law’s Vorlage; see Ex 23:11. Hence, this device should not be used as an argument against the original character of Deut 24:19–22. GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 232, surmises that omission of olive trees in H has to do with the economic importance of their cultivation in Persian Yehud. 290 BULTMANN, Der Fremde, 177. 291 The reading of the SamP, which has Mylwlx instead of Mylwlh, is probably an attempt to harmonize with Deut 20:6 (see also 28:30); as noted by MILGROM, Leviticus, 1683, it can hardly be original since the following phrase hwhyl makes no sense in the SamP. 292 This background is also particularly manifest in the description of v. 23 comparing the firstfruit in its bud to a foreskin (hlr(, see Gen 17:11, 14, 23, 24, 25).

472

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

law in v. 20–22, these laws are therefore another typical instance of the reception in H of earlier legal traditions (namely, Deut 24:19–22; Ex 23:16, 19; 34:22, 26; Deut 16:9–12; 26:1–2) from a distinctively priestly perspective. V. 24, stipulating that the fruit of a newly planted tree must be offered to Yahweh as an offering of praise, proves to be a fitting connection with the sacrificial motif in v. 5–8 and 20–22. However, the inclusion of v. 5–10, 20–25 in the same unit, set aside from its context by its systematic formulation as a case law, could also betray a further association. Whereas v. 5–8 and 20–22 deal with the offering of animals on the altar, v. 9–10 and 23–25 concern on the contrary the correct disposal of the land’s fruits; in this respect, the two pairs of laws complete each other from the perspective of their content. 4. 19:11–18, 26–36: These two sets of laws forming the third and last part of each panel (v. 11–18, 26–36) illustrate still another fundamental aspect of holiness: loyalty to Yahweh and to other members of the community, the two notions being interconnected. Loyalty to the fellow Israelite is systematically addressed in v. 11–18, which are basically a complement to v. 3–4 and aptly conclude with the injunction to “love” one’s neighbor as oneself.293 This device is reminiscent of the Decalogue, where the first five commandments prescribing loyalty to Yahweh and the parents (Ex 20:3–12; Deut 5:7–16) are followed by five commandments prohibiting major crimes against the fellow Israelite. Furthermore, the parallel is highlighted by the fact that the first prohibition of the series (v. 11a) is a quotation (in the plural) of Ex 20:15; Deut 5:19. Thus, the laws of v. 11–18 are explicitly defined as a supplement to the Decalogue’s second half.294 In addition to the Decalogue, v. 11–18 also have many parallels in the other codes, so that this list of prohibitions may be viewed as characteristic of the general hermeneutics of Lev 19. 293

On the political or covenantal use of the notion of love in the ANE in general and in Lev 19:17–18 in particular, see MORAN, Background; M ATHYS , Liebe, 12–28; on the rendering of Kwmk, MATHYS, Ibid., 6–9; BARBIERO, Asino, 285–294; HERRMANN, Lev 19,18ab. 294 Hence the traditional endeavor to reconstruct an earlier decalogue, or even a “dodecalogue”, behind Lev 19 (see the authors quoted above in note 252) typically misconstrues the hermeneutics of this text, and the nature of its reception of the Decalogue. A similar observation applies to the attempt to identify the Ten Commandments in Lev 19 (see recently HARTLEY, Leviticus, 310; KAISER, JR, Leviticus, 1131). Not only is this approach often forced, but above all it is too unilateral and restrictive. It arbitrarily separates prohibitions from their immediate context (e.g., what sense does it make to dissociate v. 16ab from 16aa and to regard this prohibition as the equivalent in Lev 19 of the prohibition on murder in Ex 20:13; Deut 5:17? Besides, the reference is rather to Ex 23:7, see further on this below), and it misses the fact that these prohibitions are not a mere restatement of the Decalogue but rather a sophisticated exegesis of the latter. Thus, for instance, it may be that 19:29 contains an allusion to the prohibition on adultery but this verse is first and foremost a complement to the command to honor parents in the Decalogue. Methodologically, one should distinguish quotations of the Decalogue (as in v. 3–4 and 11a) from mere reminiscences.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

473

V. 11b completes the prohibition of theft in Ex 20:15; Deut 5:19 with two others concerning deception of a fellow Israelite (#xk Piel and rq# Piel) which are not found in the other codes. V. 12 takes up Ex 20:7; Deut 5:11, but restates it emphasizing the specific aspect of the prohibition on swearing a false oath ((b#n … rq#l) in Yahweh’s name (instead of the more general prohibition on misusing this name in the Decalogue), and adds a different rationale: the fear of desecrating (llx Piel) Yahweh’s name. This rationale betrays a characteristic feature of H which introduces for the first time in the Torah the notion that not only Yahweh but also his name (M#) are holy and thereby liable to be desecrated (see further 24:10–23, and below, § 5.2.4.2.b). The fact that this notion is specifically introduced in the context of the legislation of ch. 19 is particularly fitting. V. 13 corresponds to Deut 24:14–15, but in 13a the prohibition of exploitation is more general (re4(a6ka4, “your fellow Israelite”, contrast Deut 24:14) and it is completed by the prohibition against seizing illegitimately his property (lzg) which has no equivalent in D;295 v. 13b is a summary of Deut 24:15.296 V. 14 has a partial equivalent in Deut 27:18 (which mentions, however, only the blind and not the deaf), and seems to reflect mainly traditional wisdom (see Ex 4:11).297 This could account for the fact that this prohibition has a close parallel in the Wisdom of Amenemope.298 V. 15–16 take up the laws for fair trials in the CC (Ex 23:1–8) and in D (Deut 16:18–20): V. 15 corresponds to Ex 23:3, 6, 8 and to Deut 16:19. Against D, H restates the explicit prohibition of the CC against being partial to the poor (cf. wbyrb rdht )l ldw, Ex 23:3), but immediately balances it with a similar prohibition against favoring the rich;299 the device is reminiscent of the formulation found in Deut 1:17, where judges are commanded to listen to the poor and the rich alike. Like the CC, H associates closely these instructions for judges with the prohibition on slander and false accusation (Ex 23:1 [2]; compare Deut 19:15ff.), except that the order is reversed – possibly so as to indicate that H is quoting Ex 23:1–8. V. 16ab is reminiscent of 295

BARBIERO, Asino, 252–253; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 234–235; pace BETTENDeuteronomium, 391–392; BRAULIK, Dekalogische Redaktion, 163–165. The fact that H is briefer than D here proves nothing yet (on this point, see CHOLEWIN &S KI , Heiligkeitsgesetz, 292), and against Braulik it is unlikely that Lev 19:13 ever existed separately from its present context; for instance, the use in this verse of the term ( r, absent from the corresponding passage in D, is a general feature of all of v. 11–18, as noted above. 296 Against some commentators (and already part of the rabbinic tradition), the formulation of Lev 19:13b according to which a loanworker’s wage may not be kept until next morning most likely implies that it must be paid before sunset, so that there is no need to see a contradiction here with Deut 24:15. 297 See SCHMIDT , Exodus, 201 (“zumindest auch einen weisheitlichen Hintergrund”); quoted by GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 235 n. 539. 298 See Wisdom, XXIV, 9–14; and on this JAGERSMA, Leviticus 19, 93–94. 299 On the comparison between Lev 19:15–16 and Deut 16:18–20, see also CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 292–295; and BARBIERO, Asino, 259–264. ZOLI,

474

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

Ex 23:7, although the formulation of H (Md-l( dm(t )l, lit., “You shall not stand upon the blood”) is unique in the HB.300 Finally, v. 17–18 may be regarded as the equivalent in H of the commandments of Ex 23:4–5 and Deut 22:1–4 (so-called “enemy’s love”).301 However, the law of Lev 19:17–18 has a much more general significance. Whereas Ex 23:4–5 and Deut 22:1–4 prohibit using an opportunity to take revenge on one’s personal enemy, Lev 19:17–18 forbids instead all kinds of feelings motivated by personal resentment – hating ()n#), taking revenge (Mqn) and bearing a grudge (r+n) – rather than the willingness to reprove one’s fellow Israelite (see xky Hiphil, v. 17b).302 The fundamental conception underlying this instruction (i.e., to “love” another as oneself) is then positively stated in v. 18ab , which thus builds the structural pendant to the opening prohibition in v. 17a (see the exhortation Kyx)-t) )n#t-)l).303 The focus, in H, is no longer on the enemy specifically; rather, this issue has been transformed into a rule for interpersonal conflicts in general, which offers a fitting conclusion to the entire section formed by v. 11–18.304 300 The absence of a waw between v. 16aa and ab (following the MT, but see the other textual witnesses mentioned by BHS) implies however that there is a close relationship between these two statements, so that v. 16ab should necessarily reflect the fear that innocent blood may be shed as a result of slander or false accusation, as in Ex 23:7. On this expression, see further for instance MILGROM, Leviticus, 1645. 301 On this, see in particular the detailed study by BARBIERO, Asino, for a systematic analysis of Ex 23:4–5; Deut 22:1–4 and Lev 19:17–18; for the dependence of Deut 22:1–4 on Ex 23, see esp. p. 133–138. Here also, BRAULIK, Dekalogische Redaktion, 160–161, argues for the literary dependence of Deut 22:1–4 on Lev 19:17–18, but this seems particularly unlikely. To make such an argument, one should explain why it is Deut 22:1–4 which is terminologically and conceptually much closer to Ex 23:4–5 than Lev 19:17–18. As observed by OTTO, Ethik, 247, in the sequence formed by Lev 19:15–19, the connection between v. 15–16 and 17–18 is reminiscent of the association in Ex 23 of the laws on fair trials (v. 1–3, 6–8) with the law on the enemy’s donkey (v. 4–5), whereas the connection between Lev 19:17–18 and the prohibition of mixtures in v. 19 reminds us of the similar connection found in Deut 22:1–12 (v. 1–4, 9–11). Braulik’s objection on this point (Ibid., 161 n. 48) is rather weak. In particular, it does not account for the distinct position of v. 17–18 at the end of the series on social responsibility formed by v. 11–18; also, Braulik incorrectly assumes (like Otto) that Lev 19:17–18 is basically equivalent to Ex 23:4–5 and Deut 22:1–4, but see below, note 304. 302 xky Hiphil means “to set right” (in a forensic context) and, by extension, “to reprove” or “rebuke” in a non-legal context. As noted by some commentators (HARTLEY, Leviticus, 316; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1647), the notion underlying v. 17b seems to be the sapiential conception that reproof will benefit a wise person, see especially Prov 9:8; 19:25; 25:12; 28:23. Pace Hartley, it need not be assumed that the context implied by 17b is exclusively forensic, in spite of the proximity with v. 15–16; there is no positive indication for this in v. 17–18. 303 BARBIERO, Asino, 283. 304 For this reason, I cannot agree with MATHYS , Liebe, 81 (followed by OTTO, Ethik, 247–248) when he claims that the commandment to love one’s neighbor “ist ursprünglich also ein Gebot der Feindesliebe”. This is already contradicted by the application of this commandment to the resident alien in v. 33–34 (which Mathys apparently regards as a later de-

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

475

Thus, in 19:11–18 also, the author of H has composed a small collection on interpersonal and social responsibility by reinterpreting some central prohibitions from the CC and D, especially in Ex 23:1–12 and Deut 22:1–12. Like the other laws comprising Lev 19, these are implicitly defined as being exemplary of the requirements induced by the initial plea to holiness in v. 2. This is further emphasized by the systematic repetition of the phrase “I am Yahweh” at the end of each of the four units comprising this section (v. 12b, 14b, 16b, 18b). The exegesis of the ethical laws of the CC and D in Lev 19:11–18 climaxes in several respects with the fourth unit of this series (v. 17–18), which reinterprets the earlier traditions of Ex 23:4–5 and Deut 22:1–4 (see above) to imply that in the holy community personal resentment cannot be tolerated and interpersonal relations should be based on mutual loyalty exclusively. As observed by Knohl and Milgrom in particular,305 the connection between holiness and ethics which is established here is a complete innovation over other codes, where this notion was explicitly associated with the rejection of either unclean alimentary customs (Ex 22:30; Deut 14:21a) or of rites defined as non-Yahwistic (Deut 7:5–6; 14:2).306 The last three units of ch. 19, v. 32, 33–34 and 35–36, conclude the second half of this chapter by reverting to this issue. The fact that these three laws are consistently built in parallel with v. 13–18, as noted above, already identifies them as complements to the ethical series in v. 11–18, which, as argued, is itself an exegesis of the Decalogue as well as various ethical laws in the CC and in D. Thus, in a sense, one could say that this device mirrors the entire process of inner-biblical exegesis upon which the legislation of ch. 19 as a whole is built. V. 32 (respect of elders) corresponds to v. 14; as in v. 14 already, this law has its closest parallel in the sapiential tradition (Prov 16:31; 20:29; 23:22; Lam 5:12)307 and thus similarly betrays an attempt to include it in Lev 19. V. 33–34 reinterpret the law of v. 17–18 to apply the commandment to love one’s neighbor to the resident alien. The opening prohibition in v. 33 (wt) wnwt )l, “you shall not exploit him”) takes up Ex 22:20;308 the commandment to love the resident alien is already found in Deut 10:19 (albeit without the specification Kwmk ), where it is also motivated by reference to Israel’s sojourn in Egypt, as in v. 34a.309 H’s innovation consists of the motivelopment); note also that it is unfounded to assume that the faulty fellow of v. 17b must automatically be an enemy, as pointed out by GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 240. 305 KNOHL, Sanctuary, esp. 180–186 (“Inclusive Sacredness”); MILGROM, Leviticus 19. 306 MILGROM, Leviticus, 1629–1630. 307 GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 248. 308 CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 50–51 and 276–277; BULTMANN, Der Fremde, 178. 309 In his recent reassessment of the origin of the statement that Israel was a rg in Egypt, RAMÍREZ K IDD, Alterity, 86–98, concludes that it is Deuteronomistic and that it reflects the experience of the exile. It was later introduced in the CC (Ex 22:30; 23:9) and in H (Lev 19:34), cf. Ibid., 101 n. 12. On the relationship between Lev 19:34 and Deut 10:19, see CHO-

476

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

vation given for this commandment in v. 34aa identifying the resident alien (rg) with the native (xrz)).310 This considerable innovation justifies in turn the addition of the phrase Kwmk over D: because the resident alien is like a (full) citizen, he legitimately deserves the same loyalty as “yourself”, i.e., as a full-born Israelite.311 V. 35–36 complete v. 15–16 (fair trials) by a law on fair trade; that v. 35–36 are intended as a complement to v. 15–16 is signaled by the quotation of v. 15aa in v. 35aa. Fair trade represents a basic condition for social justice, as several passages in the Hebrew Bible make clear (see Am 8:5; further Hos 12:8; Prov 11:1; 20:10, 23), which accounts for its inclusion here. Moreover, Prov 16:11 indicates that a fair scale could be considered an eminent symbol of Yahweh’s justice and equity, thus suggesting a direct connection with the overall theme of ch. 19, namely, imitatio dei.312 This law has a close parallel in Deut 25:13–16 (cf. also Ez 45:10), but H’s enumeration is more complete, reflecting the attempt to cover all possible cases of economic injustice.313 Once again, this development makes sense in the general context of ch. 19 and of the exhortation to Israel to strive for a holy life. Finally, the first part of v. 26–36, 26–31, groups together several laws dealing with loyalty to Yahweh, which can also be viewed as a further development within Lev 19 of the programmatic prohibition of v. 4a (itself already a commentary of the Decalogue’s first two commandments). As with Deut 7:5–6 already, the inclusion of this list in Lev 19 underlines the fact that consecration to Yahweh is incompatible with the practice of various rites defined as non-Yahwistic. As suggested above, the association of v. 26–31 with v. LEWIN &S KI , Heiligkeitsgesetz, 274–276; B ARBIERO , Asino, 292–293; GRÜNWALDT , Heiligkeitsgesetz, 248–249. In Ex 22:20; 23:9, the same motivation occurs but with the prohibition against ill-treating or oppressing the rg, not the positive command to love him. 310 Otherwise, the identification is found in H in Lev 17:15; 18:26; 24:16, 22, and in the Torah in Ex 12:19, 49; Lev 16:29; Num 9:14; 15:15–16, 29, all passages depending on H (see below, § 5.4.). Outside the Pentateuch see also Josh 8:33; Ez 47:22. In Num 19:10; 35:15, the ge4r is included with the be6ne= yis8ra4)e4l. On the pair rg/xrz), see RAMÍREZ KIDD, Alterity, ch. 3. 311 BULTMANN, Der Fremde, 177–179, identifies no fewer than three stages in the composition of v. 33–34; see also CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 50–51. Their reconstruction is mostly based on the alternation between singular and plural address in v. 33–34, but this (problematic) criterion cannot even be used consistently since already in v. 33a both addresses are combined! Apart from this, the formulation of this passage is quite coherent, and its literary homogeneity should be maintained. 312 Note that in Ez 45:9–12, the call to Israel’s My)y#n to behave righteously in v. 9 is specifically illustrated in v. 10–12 by instructions on weight and scale measures, thus suggesting exactly the same symbolic association as in Lev 19. 313 Deut 25:13–16 only mentions fair weights (Nb)) and fair measures (hpy)), whereas H adds fair scales and fair hîns in v. 36a; also, the formulation of v. 35 is more complete and more general than its parallel in Deut 25:13–14. On this, see CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 277–278; BETTENZOLI , Deuteronomium, 389–390; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 249; pace BRAULIK, Dekalogische Redaktion, 169–174, and MILGROM, Leviticus, 1707.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

477

32–36 probably imitates the two-part structure of the Decalogue. The connection between the two series is explicitly indicated by v. 32, which states that to revere elders is to fear Yahweh; in this way, loyalty to the neighbor is defined as an extension or a consequence of loyalty to Yahweh himself. Here also, the author of H has freely composed a catalogue of prohibited rites, which takes up similar lists in D, in particular Deut 14:1–2 and 18:9–14.314 In Lev 19:26b, the pair #xn and Nn( comes from Dtr literature (Deut 18:10b and 2 Kgs 21:6), where it seems to be a merism for all kinds of divinatory practices. Lev 19:27–28 is equivalent to Deut 14:1, which it supplements with two additional prohibitions (cutting – literally, “destroying” – the edge of one’s beard, and tattooing). The choice of funerary rites here in H is all the more significant when it is seen that in D this prohibition is already connected with Israel’s consecration to Yahweh (Deut 14:2). Finally, the ban on necromancy in 19:31 has a parallel in Deut 18:11; note furthermore that in 2 Kings 21:6, necromancy is mentioned together with the terms #xn and Nn(. These prohibitions are associated in v. 29 and 30 with two instructions more characteristic of the concerns of the author of H. V. 29 furthers the reception of the Decalogue in Lev 19, since it completes the prescription of v. 3aa to revere one’s parents with the prohibition against a paterfamilias “profaning” his daughter by prostituting her. The use of llx Hiphil, “to profane, desecrate”, is particularly fitting in the context of ch. 19 since it is the exact antonym of “to be/become holy”, the purpose stated for these laws in v. 2. V. 30 lays out two fundamental commandments – observing Yahweh’s Sabbaths and revering his sanctuary – which recur verbatim in the exhortation of 26:1–2 (see 26:2a), thus building a frame around Lev 19 (first statement of the commandment of holiness) and 26 (H’s conclusion).315 This inclusion actually corresponds to the fact that all of the remaining laws in ch. 21–25 are concerned in a sense with these two sancta: Lev 21–22 contains various prescriptions intended to avoid profanation of Yahweh’s sanctuary and of its belongings (Lev 21:23), and Lev 23–25 (except 24:10–23, probably a later interpolation, see below § 5.2.4.2.b) deals with sacred times in the year, of which the Sabbath appears to be the prototype and the paradigm (see Lev 23:3). Ruwe has even suggested that the commandment to revere Yahweh’s sanctuary might represent the basic theme (“Basisthematik”) of the first part of H, ch. 17–22, whereas the Sabbath command might stand for the second part of H, ch. 23–25.316 However, even though ch. 17–22 are actually framed by two laws on the offering of sacrifices (ch. 17; 22:17–30), it seems difficult to reduce the theme of the first part of H, especially in ch. 18–20, to the preservation of Yahweh’s sanctuary; therefore, this view needs to be qualifiCHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 295–296. This is also noted for instance by OTTO, Innerbiblische Exegese, 139. 316 RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 90–120, esp. 103ff. 314 315

478

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

ed. More fundamentally, it seems to me, 19:30 and 26:2, apart from framing ch. 20–25, lay out the two fundamental coordinates of holiness in H: spatial and temporal.317 On the spatial level, Yahweh’s sanctuary represents in H the very center of the sphere of holiness in which the community partakes (contrary to what is the case in P, where holiness does not extend beyond the sanctuary’s boundaries).318 And as the sanctuary comprises an area set apart in Israel, the Sabbath is likewise a time specifically reserved for Yahweh (see Ex 20:8; Deut 5:12!). In this specific sense, 19:30 and 26:2 can indeed be viewed as a kind of précis for the entire holiness legislation, as proposed by Ruwe. 5.2.2.3. Leviticus 18–20 and the (Re-)Definition of the Community’s Holiness The result of the analysis of ch. 18–20 can be summarized as follows. Lev 18–20 forms a unified composition, which is internally structured both by the exhortations opening and closing each chapter (18:2–5, 24–30; 19:2ab, b, 37; 20:22–26) and by the relationship between the main body of laws in 18:6–23 (prohibitions) and 20:2ab–21 (sanctions). In 18:7–18, the author of H has made use of an earlier instruction transmitted in priestly circles of the early Second Temple (see also Ez 22:10–11); all the rest of ch. 18–20, apart from a few interpolations, is from his hand. Traditional attempts to identify evidence of several redactors in the exhortations, especially in 18:2–5 and 24–30, are unreliable and should be rejected. Similarly, the classical understanding of these chapters as a piecing together of discrete laws or legal collections of various origins needs to be revised; in each chapter, the arrangement of these laws reflects a specific logic corresponding to a specific redactional and compositional design. The unifying theme of these chapters is the definition of the community’s holiness, which is already prepared at the end of ch. 17 (v. 15– 16) by the reinterpretation of the two parallel laws on carrion consumption in the CC (Ex 22:30) and in D (Deut 14:21a). Whereas in D Israel’s holiness is stated and justifies the rejection of certain specific rites (Deut 7:5–6; 14:1–2) or dietary customs (Deut 14:21a, as in Ex 22:30 already), in H it has become instead an ideal to achieve – imitatio dei – through the faithful observance of all Yahweh’s laws, as is gradually developed in the exhortations of Lev 19:2, 37; 20:7–8 and 22–26.319 Holiness therefore includes virtually all aspects of 317

For a similar idea, see also MILGROM, Leviticus, 1699. T. Römer (personal communication) has suggested that #dqm might be rendered here by “sanctity” rather than by “sanctuary”; if so, Ruwe’s suggestion could be reinterpreted in this sense. However, although this meaning is possible, it is infrequent in the HB; elsewhere in Lev (see 12:4; 16:33; 20:3; 21:12, 23; 26:31) #dqm unmistakably refers to the sanctuary. This meaning is especially obvious in 20:3, where #dqm is mentioned together with Yahweh’s sacred name and hence must necessarily have a more specific sense. 319 This difference is underlined by the fact that in D, the reference to Israel’s consecration always occurs at the end of the laws, where it serves as a rationale motivating the previous 318

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

479

Israel’s religion and ethics; as the exhortations make clear, it is the observance of Yahweh’s laws which brings about Israel’s separation (root #dq) both from the other peoples (Lev 18:2–5, 24–30; 20:22–26) and to Yahweh (consecration). This conception represents a complete reinterpretation not only of the earlier codes, but also of P, where holiness is a primarily static notion, reserved for the sanctuary, its belongings and its priests (see Ex 29 and Lev 8), and hence dissociated in principle from the law’s observance.320 The heart of this section is formed by ch. 19, whose importance is underlined by its central position between ch. 18 and 20 and by the fact that it opens with the first exhortation in H to imitate Yahweh’s holiness (v. 2); note, furthermore, that the address in this verse to “all the community of the Israelites” is likewise unique in H. The laws forming the body of the chapter itself (v. 3–36) illustrate the implications of this initial exhortation in various areas of Israel’s life. Through systematic exegesis of the Decalogue, the CC and D, they define the basic rules by which holiness may be achieved by Israel. In this respect, their observance is a preliminary step towards Israel’s sanctification through the observance of the totality (lk) of the Torah, commanded in the concluding exhortation of 19:37. The nature of the laws selected by the author of Lev 19 is a characteristic reflection of the remarkable extension of this notion in H. In addition to loyalty to Yahweh (Deut 7:5–6, cf. Lev 19:4a, 26–31), Israel’s consecration to Yahweh implies in particular 1) respect of the sanctuary (19:30aa) as well as other sancta, including the Sabbath (19:3ab, 30ab), the well-being offering (19:5–8!) and Yahweh’s sacred name (19:12a); 2) cultivation of the land in conformity with the divisions set by its Creator (19:9–10, 23–25); and 3) social ethics (v. 11–18, 32–36). The first aspect – entirely absent from the CC and from D – allows for the integration in H of P’s conception of holiness. The second betrays the central concern for the land in H, stressed in the exhortation of 18:24–30, and further developed in 20:2–5, 22–26 and in ch. 23; 25 and 26. The third aspect, finally, represents another major innovation by H: it brings the close connection found in the other codes, and especially in the Decalogue, between loyalty to Yahweh and to one’s neighbor to its logical conclusion. Because the two dimensions canprohibition; see Deut 7:6; 14:2, 21a, always with the phrase Kyhl) hwhyl ht) #wdq M( yk: “For you are a people consecrated to Yahweh your God”. In Lev 19:2, on the contrary, it is an exhortation introducing the following laws. On this issue, see recently, e.g., L’HOUR , L’Impur, II, 38–40.40–42. The problem of the origin of Deut 7:6 (which should belong to the same layer as 14:21a) may be left open here; see, e.g., OTTO, Rechtsreform, 229–231. 320 Even though, as argued earlier in this study, Lev 4 should already be regarded as a late attempt by P’s tradents to bridge the absolute division between the sanctuary and the realm of social ethics; see above, § 3.2.2.3.d. On this redefinition of holiness in H vis-à-vis both earlier codes and P, I basically concur with the views advocated by KNOHL (Sanctuary, passim) and MILGROM (Leviticus 19; ID., Leviticus, 1397–1400 and 1711–1726), except, of course, as regards their dating of H and their location of this code in Israel’s history (see below, § 5.3.).

480

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

not be dissociated (as is emphasized, in particular, in the last section of ch. 19, v. 26–36), loyalty to one’s neighbor is also a condition for Israel’s sanctification. The main result achieved by this remarkable re-interpretation of the notion of holiness is that the boundaries to be observed by Israel in order to “separate” itself to Yahweh are no longer simply external, as in D where various rites are prohibited by being defined as non-Yahwistic and distinctive of other nations (Deut 7:5–6; 14:1–2; compare with Lev 20:22–26), but internal, covering virtually all major aspects of Israel’s religious and social life. Lev 18 and 20, for their part, illustrate another essential aspect of Israel’s consecration to Yahweh for the author of H, namely, separation from various forms of sexual relations defined as contrary to the creational order set by Yahweh himself (18:6–23; 20:2ab–21). The prohibitions on Molech worship and necromancy (18:21; 20:2ab–5, 6, 27) with which they are combined take up a central feature of the parenetic framework of Deut 12–18 (see Deut 12:29–31; 18:9–14),321 and supplement it with comprehensive legislation on prohibited forms of sexual intercourse, whose origin should be sought in the separate tradition found in Lev 18:7–18. This legislation, which has no equivalent in the other codes except, partly, in Deut 27:20–23, includes the traditional laws on adultery (Ex 20:14; Deut 22:22, reproduced in Lev 18:20 and 20:10), on intercourse with a beast (Ex 22:18; Deut 27:21; see Lev 18:23; 20:15–16), and on the father’s exclusive rights over his wife (Deut 23:1; 27:20, see Lev 18:7) but it goes well beyond to include many more possible cases of illicit relations.322 Here also, therefore, we have a significant exegetical development of the earlier legislation found in the Decalogue, the CC and D.323 The composition of ch. 18 and 20 evinces the importance of this issue in 321 See CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 253–258; BULTMANN, Der Fremde, 195; as well as OTTO, Innerbiblische Exegese, 145–146. The connection is all the more obvious because in Deuteronomy, reference to offerings made to Molech is found exclusively in these two passages. 322 BRAULIK , Weitere Beobachtungen, 187–195, also argues that Deut 22:22 and 23:1 would be dependent on Lev 20:10 and 11. However, here again Braulik is forced to isolate these parallels from their respective literary contexts. When Deut 22:22 and 23:1 are compared not only with Lev 20:10, 11 but with 20:9–21 as a whole, there can be little doubt that it is Lev 20 that depends on D and expands it, and not the contrary. This is somehow acknowledged by Braulik himself when he eventually surmises that the Dtr redactor would have known Lev 20:10 “nicht als Teil der Sammlung von Unzuchtsbestimmungen (20, 9–21) bzw. des Heiligkeitsgesetzes, sondern in irgendeinem Stadium seiner Vorgeschichte” (Ibid., 192). This, however, means a return to the classical hypothesis regarding 20:9–21 as originating in a collection of fragments or short “Reihen”. 323 See also the comment by ZISKIND, Legal Rules, 97: “Deuteronomy devotes fourteen chapters to legislation [sic, although the sum should be fifteen chapters if the reference intended is Deut 12–26, C.N.], and much of it deals with family matters, yet only one half of one verse, Dt. 23:1, deals with incest”. Note, in addition, that even in Deut 23:1, it is probably not a matter of incest properly speaking but rather of (mis)appropriating one’s father’s rights.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

481

the priestly worldview of H’s author. As in the school of Ezekiel, sexual transgressions are a major source of pollution not only for the temple but for the entire land (see Lev 18:24–30, compare with Ez 22). The framing of ch. 19 by ch. 18 and 20 indicates that observance of the divisions defined by the sex rules inside the family, the clan and the society is a prerequisite for the pursuit of a holy life (19:2ff.). In this respect also, the arrangement of the laws of ch. 18 and 20 around the central legislation of ch. 19 is quite meaningful. 5.2.3. Leviticus 21–22 The interpretation of ch. 21–22 raises fewer difficulties than ch. 17–20 and can be dealt with more briefly. On the whole, Lev 21–22 completes ch. 18–20 with various laws whose general concern is the preservation of the holiness of the sanctuary. In this respect, the arrangement of ch. 18–22, after the opening law of ch. 17, betrays a specific gradation: from the community’s holiness (18–20) to the sanctuary’s (21–22); at the same time, the latter legislation is already prepared by the command of 19:30aa (“revere my sanctuary”). More specifically, in these chapters all the laws apply to various cases where the sanctuary, its staff or its belongings are threatened to become desecrated by the introduction of a profane or unclean element.324 The laws’ major divisions are indicated by the occurrence of a new speech report formula in 21:1aba, 16–17a; 22:1, 17–18a, identifying four main units: 21:1–15; 21:16– 23 (24); 22:1–16; 22:17–33. A further report is found in 22:26, but the fact that it is significantly more concise than the four previous ones (omission of a commission formula) suggests that it does not delineate a new unit but rather indicates a subdivision in 22:17–33.325 The fourth and last unit, 22:17– 33, differs from the previous ones by its commission formula (v. 18a), since it is no longer addressed to the priests exclusively but to the entire community, as in 17:2a; we shall return to this issue below. At the same time, the content of this unit also connects it with the first half of ch. 22, so that it is unnecessary to separate entirely 22:17–33 from 21:1–22:16.326 In particular, both 22:1–16 and 17–30 deal with the Israelites’ offerings, once from the perspective of their consumption (v. 1–16), and once from that of the offering of the animal itself (v. 17–28). In addition, the last prescription of v. 17–33, v. 29–30, placed immediately before the concluding exhortation of v. 31–33, returns to the issue of consumption, thus associating both sections even more closely. Finally, the unity of Lev 21–22 is underscored by the concluding exhortation 324

Note in this regard the recurrence of the roots llx and )m+, especially in Lev 21:1– 22:16. llx: 21:4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 23; 22:2, 9, 15, 32; )m+: 21:1, 3, 4, 11; 22:3, 4, 5 (3x!), 6, 8. The root #dq is also systematically present: 21:6 (2x), 7, 8 (4x), 12 (2x), 15, 22 (3x), 23, 32 (2x); 22:2 (3x), 3 (2x), 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 (2x), 12, 14 (2x), 15, 16 (2x), 32 (3x). 325 Against, e.g., SUN, Investigation, 341–354. 326 ELLIGER, Leviticus, 278–301; RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 247–275.276–293.

482

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

in 22:31–33, which unmistakably echoes the conclusion to Lev 18–20 in 20:22–26. A further division of the four main units comprising ch. 21–22 is signaled by the recurrence of the formula hwhy yn) followed by #dqm plus suffix. This formula is found not only at the end of each unit (21:15, 23; 22:16, 32), but also in 21:8 and 22:9. The subdivision of 21:1–15 and 22:1–16 respectively suggested by this device corresponds to a difference in content in the two halves of each unit (see 21:1bb–9, 10–15; 22:2aa2–9, 10–16), except that in the case of 21:1–15 one would have expected it after v. 9 rather than v. 8 (on this point, see below).327 Interestingly, of the six occurrences of the formula, the four central ones have a third masculine singular or plural suffix referring to the priests specifically, whereas in the first and the last instances (21:8 MT; 22:32 MT) which form something of a frame around ch. 21–22, the suffix used is a second person plural apparently addressing the community in general.328 Finally, the occurrence of a compliance notice at the end of ch. 21 (v. 24), a relatively rare device in H (cf. 23:44; 24:23), also suggests a division between ch. 21 and 22, the meaning of which we will discuss below. Traditionally, the interpretation of these chapters has focused almost exclusively on the reconstruction of the traditional material underlying it, while the question of the function of Lev 21–22 within H and the logic commanding the organization of these laws received little attention. In general, scholars merely assumed that the author of H had sought to complete his legislation with a “cultic to=ra=”, which he had composed by drawing on several priestly traditions, some of them probably quite old.329 Alternatively, a few authors surmised that ch. 21–22, because of their strong thematic coherence, might have formed a distinct collection initially, which was introduced only later at its present place by the redactor of H.330 However, the usual assumption that these chapters have a strong traditional basis does not resist closer examination, as the analysis below will demonstrate. This point was already correctly 327 LUCIANI, Sainteté, 1. 119–127, correctly notes the parallel between v. 1–9 and 10–15 but goes so far as to suggest that v. 9 was conceived as the center of 21:1–15, yet this seems to me excessive considering the content of this verse. V. 9 is best viewed, it seems to me, as a complement to the rules for the priest in 1bb–8. 328 MILGROM , Leviticus, 1793. In 21:8, the SamP and the LXX (see also 11QpaleoLev) read M#dqm instead of Mk#dqm in the MT. However, this reading is more likely a harmonization with the other occurrences of this formula in 21:15, 23; 22:9, 16; i.e., in the context of a speech specifically intended for the priests (21:1), it seemed more logical than the sudden reference to all Israel in the MT. RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 253–254, correctly notes the importance of this formula in the division of ch. 21–22, but since he fully dissociates 21:1– 22:16 from 22:17–33, like many commentators, he misses the connection between 21:8 and 22:32 and cannot account for the unique reading of the MT in 21:8 (see Ibid., 253 n. 30). 329 PATON, Leviticus xxi, xxii; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 72–73; REVENTLOW, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 92–103; NOTH, Leviticus, 152–163; KILIAN, Untersuchung, 84–103; still recently SUN, Investigation, 262ff.; GERSTENBERGER, Priester; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 346–347. 330 BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 404–405; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 66–81, esp. 80–81.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

483

perceived by Elliger, who reduced for this reason H’s Vorlage in Lev 21–22 to a few isolated verses in ch. 21* (2–4, 7–8a*, and 18–22*).331 But if so, the reconstructed source is so sparse and fragmentary that one should accept these chapters as a free composition by the author of H drawing occasionally on some traditional elements rather than on a specific Vorlage. Above all, the classical explanation raises an issue in that these chapters do not form a comprehensive to=ra= on priestly duties (compare with Ez 44:15–31) but deal only with some specific aspects of the cult. Some authors, recognizing this difficulty, have thus surmised that ch. 21–22 are an excerpt from such a to=ra=.332 Yet this only increases the problem since the question of why the author of H selected these laws and not others remains unanswered. The decisive issue, then, is that of the logic connecting the four units comprising Lev 21–22. A major obstacle to understanding this has been the failure to perceive that these various rules for the priests define together a specific conception of holiness, this time not of the community as in ch. 18–20 but of the sanctuary. The first unit, 21:1–15, contains various instructions, mainly prohibitions, whose common concern is the profanation (llx) of either ordinary priests (v. 1bb–9) or of the high priest himself (v. 10–15). The division between the two sections is signaled by the fact that they are both concluded by the statement “I am Yahweh who sanctifies you (pl.)/him”, in v. 8bg and 15b. In the case of the priests, four cases of desecration are considered: by contact with a dead person (v. 1bb, 4), by the practice of mourning rites (v. 5), by marriage with certain types of women (v. 7) and by the prostitution of a priest’s daughter (v. 9). The section on the high priest follows basically the same structure, except that for the first two prohibitions the order has been reversed (mourning rites, v. 10b, contact with a dead person, v. 11), and the rule regarding the daughter is replaced by a more general statement on the high’s priest offspring (v. 15). There is also a close parallel between v. 6, exhorting the priest to remain holy (#dq) lest he desecrate (llx Piel) Yahweh’s name, and v. 12, where he is required not to leave the sanctuary (#dqm) lest he desecrate (llx Piel) the latter.333 V. 1–15 exemplify several parallels with the language and theology of Lev 18–20. In 21:5, the list of mourning rites forbidden to the priests corresponds to that of 19:27–28aa and follows exactly the same sequence, with only a few differences in the terminology used; the omission of tattooing (19:28a b , g ) probably comes from the fact that it is not a mourning rite.334 Similarly, v. 9 corresponds to the prohibition found in 19:29. The language of v. 6–8 is likewise characteristic of H, and combines elements from previous 331

See Leviticus, 278ff. See for instance GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 291. 333 On this point, cf. MILGROM, Leviticus, 1834–1835, reproducing a paper by C.E. Hayes. 334 See above, § 5.2.2.2. on Lev 19:28ab, g, and ELLIGER, Leviticus, 289. MILGROM, Leviticus, 1803, surmises that tattooing was included in the prohibition against gashing the flesh. 332

484

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

exhortations in Lev 18–20. The structure of these verses is quite remarkable: v. 6 and 8 frame the law of v. 7 with the repetition of the same central statement: priests are holy because they present Yahweh’s food. In v. 6, however, this statement motivates the exhortation to the priests to avoid profanation, whereas in v. 8 (MT) it justifies the appeal to the community to treat the priests as holy (#dq Piel). The recurring notion that priests are consecrated to their God (Mhyhl)l, v. 6, 7) parallels the concluding exhortation addressed to Israel in 20:26; similarly, the motive clause closing 21:8 combines the language of 19:2; 20:7–8 and 20:26.335 All in all, therefore, v. 1–9 should be viewed as a composition by the author of H; at most, the difference in formulation in v. 1bb–4 could suggest that H is quoting from an earlier catalogue of prohibitions, although this remains hypothetical.336 Since the section on the high priest, v. 10–15, systematically presupposes v. 1–9 and is modeled on them, it must necessarily also be redactional.337 Besides, the high priest’s description in v. 10a clearly refers to Aaron’s consecration in Ex 29 and Lev 8, another indication that H is post-P.338 Thus, the classical assumption that v. 1–15 correspond to a traditional priestly instruction is quite unsupported.339 With 335

Namely, hwhy yn) #wdq yk = Lev 19:2; 20:26a; Mk#dqm hwhy yn) = 20:8b. Scholars have traditionally sought to include the list of prohibited women in v. 7 in this catalogue; see the authors quoted in note 329. Yet this is already precluded by the difference in form between v. 1–4 (singular) and 7 (plural); the traditional assumption that v. 7 was originally formulated in the singular is just untenable. The two lists concern different issues, and have nothing in common. The interpretation of v. 1bb–4 and 7 also raises several questions of detail which cannot be all addressed in the context of this study. hllx in v. 7 and 14 probably means “profaned by prostitution” (thus recently Z IPOR, Restrictions, with p. 259– 261 for a criticism of the alternative rendering “raped”); whether it indicates a reference to cultic prostitution specifically (thus ZIPOR, Ibid., 265: a hierodule) is more speculative. The problem raised by the phrase wym(b l(b in v. 4 can be left open here, although I would not favor emendation. In v. 2–3, the priest’s wife is probably implied, as seems to be suggested by Lev 18:6ff. (and by Ez 24:15–18, cf. W ENHAM, Leviticus, 290), although her omission could also reflect the existence of a discussion on this issue within priestly circles at the time of the composition of H, as later in the rabbinic tradition (see MILGROM, Leviticus, 1798). 337 As correctly acknowledged by ELLIGER, Leviticus, 282–283. Pace ZIPOR, Restrictions, 264–265, for whom 21:1–9 and 10–15 are on the contrary two separate compositions. 338 See ELLIGER, Leviticus, 282, noting the following parallels: hx#mh Nm# w#)r-l( qcwy = Lev 8:12; wdy-t) )lmw = 8:33; Mydgbh-t) #bll = 8:2, 7; cf. also MILGROM, Leviticus, 1813. Usually, scholars have sought to regard this description as an interpolation (BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 407; KILIAN, Untersuchung, 87). Yet the reference to the high priest’s head and vestments in this clause is necessary for the prohibition in v. 10b, where he is forbidden to dishevel his hair and to tear his clothes. This point is noted by GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 67, though he fails to observe the implications for the relative dating of H and P. 339 BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 406–407; KILIAN, Untersuchung, 84–91; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 66–72. Kilian and Cholewin8ski identify the basic stratum in v. 1bb–3, (4), 7*, [8], 10a*, b, 11, 12aa , 13–14; cf. similarly SU N, Investigation, 284–288. Following Begrich, Kilian, Cholewin8ski and Sun also associate this priestly instruction with the (alleged) genre of the t(d; likewise, REVENTLOW, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 92ff., and still recently HARTLEY, Leviti336

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

485

the possible exception of v. 9, which seems to come too late after v. 8, the remainder of v. 1–15 forms a unified composition.340 The laws of 21:1–15 systematically underline the superior sanctity of the priests over the rest of the community (v. 1–9) and of the high priest over the other priests (v. 10–15). Because they are holier than lay Israelites, priests must submit to additional rules; and in the case of the high priest those rules are even more stringent: mourning rites are totally forbidden to him (v. 11), even for his closest relatives (parents), and he may only marry a virgin of his own kin (v. 14).341 The rules on marriage in v. 7 are primarily motivated by the fact that since priesthood is hereditary, preservation of the line’s purity is essential, especially in the case of the high priest who is explicitly warned against profaning his own lineage (v. 15). The combination with the rules on mourning reflects that, from an anthropological perspective, death, along with sexuality, is a major source of pollution (see above, § 4.2.2.); because of their superior holiness, priests are expected to exert a higher degree of personal control in this area.342 In addition, the formulation of v. 1–6 clearly illustrates the idea that the renouncement of mourning rites is an eminent symbol of one’s consecration to Yahweh, as in D – compare the sequence formed by v. 5–6a with Deut 14:1–2! (Note, significantly, that the connection was so obvious for ancient interpreters that in the LXX Lev 21:5 is supplemented by a passage taken from Deut 14:1–2.) Yet priestly holiness is not only quantitatively superior to lay holiness, it is also qualitatively different, as the statement on priestly holiness in v. 6–8 makes clear. Contrary to the community, priests are no longer exhorted to become holy by keeping Yahweh’s laws, they are innately holy because they have been set aside (consecrated) to present Yahweh’s “food” (Mxl , v. 6, 8), an anthropomorphism characteristic of H (but quite foreign to P!) summarizing the purpose of the sacrificial cult.343 In this respect, the section formed by 21:1–15 plays an essential role immediately after ch. 18–20: it defines the relationship between lay and priestly cus, 347. Elliger correctly sees that v. 10–15 are necessarily redactional but, as noted above, still assumes a Vorlage in v. 1bb–4, 7–8a (Ibid., 281). 340 LUCIANI, Sainteté, 1. 125–126, makes the insightful suggestion that this rule, which is clearly modeled upon 19:29 (+ 20:14 for the sanction), acts as a concrete reminder to the Israelites, after the exhortation of 21:8 MT to hold the priests holy, that the priest’s sanctity “ne dépend pas seulement de lui, mais aussi de tout Israël” (125). 341 More specifically, hlwtb probably refers to “an adolescent, nubile girl”, namely, a girl of marriageable age; see the classical study by WENHAM , Girl. Although hlwtb does not necessarily mean a virgin, this is clearly implied here by the immediate context (v. 13–15). 342 Recently, CARMICHAEL, Leviticus 21, has sought to account for the juxtaposition as a purely literary device; according to him, it reflects the same combination of these two issues already found in the story of the Levite and his concubine in Judg 19. Since there is no clear connection between the two texts, this interpretation remains unlikely in my opinion. 343 (Myhl)) Mxl only in Lev 21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22; 22:25. P uses hwhyl h#) Mxl, see Lev 3:11, 16. For this observation, see, e.g., GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 270 and 276.

486

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

holiness.344 The extension, against P (see above), of holiness to all Israel in Lev 18–20 does not involve the abolishment of the distinction between priests and laity, as could be falsely interpreted (see Num 16:3!). Rather, the affirmation of the community’s holiness is included within a graded system of holiness (laity, priests, high priest). In this system, the qualitative distinction between priestly holiness (as an innate quality) and Israel’s sanctification (as an ongoing process) serves to maintain a division in P between the realms of the sanctuary, on one hand, and of the community on the other. At the same time, the two forms of holiness are nevertheless coordinated in a specific way. As the exhortation addressed to the community in 21:8b (MT) makes clear, Israel’s sanctification also implies the recognition of the priests’ holiness: “He [the priest] shall be holy to you, for I am holy, I, Yahweh, who sanctifies you”. The second unit, v. 16–23, forbids a priest to offer sacrifices in case he suffers from one of the physical blemishes (Mwm) listed in v. 18b–20. This law has several parallels elsewhere in the ANE,345 and the list of twelve blemishes (clearly a symbolic number) is itself most likely traditional.346 The exclusion of physical blemishes from the sanctuary probably corresponds to the traditional view of the temple as a microcosm of God’s creation and thus as a symbol of wholeness and integrity.347 For the rest, v. 16–18a and 21–23 exemplify several distinctive marks of H and are clearly redactional.348 This is indicated, in particular, by the systematic reference to the priests as Aaron’s offspring (v. 17, 21), which, as argued previously (§ 5.1.), cannot be considered a secondary element in v. 16–23. One may note, in addition, that the authorization in v. 22 for priests to partake of the sacrificial remains, as well as the distinction between “most sacred” and “sacred” offerings in this verse, seem to involve a reference to the legislation of Lev 6–7, as often observed.349 344

On this, see in particular the accurate observations by KNOHL, Sanctuary, 189–192. On this, see the useful comparative survey offered by MILGROM , Leviticus, 1841– 1843; and also the discussion by GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 268–270. 346 For the identification of these blemishes, see now the discussion by HARTLEY, Leviticus, 350; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1826–1828. In a recent study, HENTRICH, “Lame”, 9–20, has suggested that the tradition reflected in Lev 21:18–20 would have concerned the entire community originally, and not the priests specifically; but this view is fully unsupported. 347 Thus also HARTLEY, Leviticus, 349–350; RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 267–268. 348 For a similar conclusion, see GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 270. Cf. the expression wyhl) Mxl in v. 21 and 22, and the characteristic phrase M#dqm hwhy yn) yk in v. 23. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the traditional material in these verses would include more than the catalogue of twelve blemishes in v. 18b–20, pace most earlier critics (KILIAN, Untersuchung, 88–91; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 283–284; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 72ff.). Note that Elliger was already forced to limit his reconstruction, outside v. 18b–20, to a few words preserved in 21bg and 22aa (wyhl) Mxl … byrqhl #gy )l). SUN, Investigation, 300–303, assumes a complicated genesis for v. 21–23, for which I can simply see no evidence. 349 BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 408; KILIAN, Untersuchung, 88–89, etc., who had therefore to regard this passage as an insert by the P editor; pace GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 69. 345

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

487

Although this point has often been missed, there is a close connection between this law and the previous one. Whereas 21:1–15 defined the customs forbidden to a priest because of his innate holiness (mourning, marriage), v. 16–23 address on the contrary the question of physical defects forbidding a priest to approach the altar. The blemishes identified in v. 18–20 are contrary to the notion of holiness, which implies an idea of wholeness, completeness;350 but because priesthood is hereditary, such priests cannot simply be excluded. The solution consists of a compromise: they are forbidden to approach the altar to present Yahweh’s food (v. 17, 21) but may nevertheless partake of the sacrificial remains like the other priests (v. 22, see further Lev 6–7). Thus, while the first part of ch. 21 distinguished the priests from the lay community (v. 1–9) and from the high priest (v. 10–15), the second part introduces a further division, this time inside the priestly class itself. The repetition of the prohibition in v. 17, 21 frames the list of blemishes in v. 18–20 before the qualification in v. 22. Furthermore, the issue of who among the priests may offer sacrifices on the altar is closely connected with the first part of ch. 21, since there, as noted above, the priest’s (innate) holiness was justified by the fact that he had been set apart to present his God’s food. Simultaneously, the focus in v. 16–23 on the offering of God’s food at the altar produces a subtle, but nevertheless significant shift from the issue of the sanctity of the priests themselves to that of the sanctuary as such.351 This is stated in the final exhortation (v. 23), summarizing the purpose of the entire law: “And he [the priest] shall not desecrate (llx Piel) my sancta (y#dqm [MT])” (23ba), that is, in the context of this verse, the veil (tkrp) and the altar (xbzm) mentioned immediately before.352 The connection between the two topics, the priests’ and the sanctuary’s holiness, is shown by the motive clause following this exhortation in 23bb: M#dqm hwhy yn) yk, “for it is I, Yahweh who sanctifies them [that is, the priests]”. Hence, just as Israel must preserve the priests’ holiness in order to be continuously sanctified by Yahweh (21:8b) and just as the high priest is sanctified by Yahweh only if he does not desecrate his lineage (v. 15), the priests as a whole may only be sanctified by Yahweh if they preserve the holiness of his sanctuary. The same conception underlies the next unit (Lev 22:1–16) which is devoted to the My#dq, the sacred offerings made by the Israelites, more specifically in the light of their consumption (root lk))353 by the priests and their family. 350

See also for instance W ENHAM , Leviticus, 292; H ARTLEY, Leviticus, 349–350, both drawing on the work of M. Douglas. 351 This point has often been missed, see for example NOTH, Leviticus, 153; or HARTLEY, Leviticus, 346, who refers to all of ch. 21 as containing “rules for a holy priesthood”. 352 For this rendering of y#dqm here, see, e.g., MILGROM, Leviticus, 1832. Yet “sanctuary” would also be possible. 353 See Lev 22:4, 6, 7, 8, 10 (2x), 11 (2x), 12, 13 (2x), 14, 16.

488

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

Interestingly, this issue is already mentioned at the end of the previous unit in 21:22, thus underscoring the close relationship between the two laws. The first part of 22:1–16 (v. 2–9) concerns the priest exclusively. After a statement of the law’s purpose (v. 2aa2–b), v. 3 establishes the general rule: no priest in a state of uncleanness may approach (l) brq) the sacred offerings. The law is completed in v. 4–8 by the enumeration of various cases of uncleanness; it concludes with a general comment in v. 9, quite similar to the one found in 21:23. Here also, the statement of 22:9 implies that priests have a specific responsibility towards the sacred offerings because they are expressly consecrated by Yahweh to his own service (v. 9b); the seriousness of this task is emphasized by the fact that the sanction for any profanation is death. The rule of v. 3–9 may be regarded as the priestly equivalent of the instruction found in Lev 7:19b–21 for lay members of the community, and therefore as a supplement to the to=ra= of Lev 6–7. However, the prescription is more rigorous for the priests (they must abstain not only from eating the sacred offerings, but more generally from approaching them), and the enumeration of cases of uncleanness has been significantly expanded (compare with 7:21), obviously in order to harmonize it with Lev 11–15.354 Here also, therefore, we have a further example of the way in which H supplements P. The addition in v. 8 of an instruction on a beast found dead or torn apart (hpr+w hlbn, as in Lev 17:15) is particularly interesting. The traditional connection, in the CC and in D, between innate holiness and the prohibition against eating carcasses is maintained, but it is now applied to the priests exclusively (compare with Lev 17:15–16). Yet this is entirely logical, since innate holiness, in H, is now a prerogative of the priests (Lev 21:6–8; contrast Ex 22:30; Deut 7:6; 14:21)! 354 V. 5 corresponds to Lev 7:21, except that it begins with uncleanness by contact with a swarmer and ends with contact with a person made unclean. MILGROM (Leviticus, 1854) suggests that it is in order to conform Lev 22:5 with the sequence found in 5:2–3. He also notes the use of Md), whereas the rest of ch. 22 uses #y), which could also be explained as a quotation from 5:3. In addition, this would account for the use of Cr# in 22:5 (cf. 5:2) instead of Cq# in 7:21 MT (but see the reading Cr# in the SamP and in other mss which is probably also an attempt to harmonize 7:21 with 5:2 [cf. BHS]). In v. 4, this law is completed by the case of a priest affected by scale disease (t(rc), by a genital discharge (bz), or who has contact with a man contaminated by a corpse or one who has himself suffered from an emission of semen. Not only does this cover virtually all the main cases described in Lev 12–15 (leaving aside specifically female sources of pollution, which is logical in the context of Lev 21–22; also, the reference to corpse contamination is an addition) but, as noted by MILGROM (Ibid., 1851ff.), the enumeration follows a descending order of impurity reflecting the classification of ch. 12–15 (namely, scale disease: exclusion from the community; genital discharge: sevenday seclusion; contact with a bz: one-day seclusion). Also, in 22:4, the phrase )ct-r#) #y) (rz-tbk# wnmm is an unmistakable reference to Lev 15:16, 18. The presence of some differences in the formulation of 22:4–5 and Lev 11–15 (cf. ELLIGER, Leviticus, 287) admittedly precludes an attribution to the same hand but is only logical if H is later than P (pace, recently, GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 273–274).

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

489

Since not only the priest but also his house may eat the sacred offerings (at least in some cases, see below), v. 2–9 are then completed in v. 10–16 by additional instructions to this effect. As in v. 2–9, the law opens with the statement of the general rule: no rz, i.e., no one outside the priest’s family355 may eat the sacred offerings (v. 10a); the repetition of this rule in 13b frames cases dealing with borderline situations in v. 10b–13a (a priest’s resident hireling,356 a slave and the daughter of a priest married but whose husband has died or has repudiated her). Finally, the law is completed in v. 14 by a fine for cases when a lay member would nevertheless eat a sacred offering by inadvertence (hgg#b). The conclusion, v. 15–16, underscores the priests’ responsibility in seeing that no unauthorized person partakes of the portion of the sacred offerings given to the priests; otherwise, the resulting profanation will be directly imputed to the priests themselves.357 Thus, the connection between v. 2–9 and 10–16 is quite logical358 and there is hardly any reason to question the unit’s literary homogeneity, as Elliger already admitted.359 That the law focuses exclusively on the priestly portion of the sacred offerings is also logical because the case of the consumption of the portions attributed to the laity (i.e., some of the meat of the well-being offering) was already discussed in the context of ch. 18–20, the section on the community’s holiness (see 19:5–8). There is however some uncertainty as to what kind of offering is referred to by the My#dq in 22:1–16. Following Wellhausen, it has traditionally been assumed that My#dq in v. 3ff was a general term including all types of 355 And not simply any non-priest (i.e., lay person), as is often assumed (e.g., SNIJDERS, art. zu=r, 55), since this would include other persons in the priest’s house. For this meaning of rz in such context, see Deut 25:5, and for this observation see KILIAN, Untersuchung, 94. 356 ryk#w Nhk b#wt; the words b#wt and ryk# probably form a hendiadys and do not refer therefore to two distinct realities, since b#wt is almost never attested alone in the HB. On this point, see MILGROM, Leviticus, 2187.2221. 357 The wording of 22:15–16 is difficult but it is generally agreed that it should be rendered as follows: “(15) They (the priests) shall not desecrate the sacred offerings of the Israelites, which they (the Israelites?) have set aside for Yahweh, (16) or they (the priests) would cause them (the Israelites) to bear severe guilt (hm#) Nw() when they (the Israelites) eat their (own) sacred offerings, for it is I, Yahweh, who sanctifies them (the priests?)”. In other words, the t) is not reflective here and refers to the Israelites and not to the priests (with MILGROM , Studies, 63–64; similarly E LLIGER , Leviticus, 294; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 262), even though it was interpreted differently by several ancient versions (see the LXX, and for rabbinic exegesis, MILGROM, Leviticus, 1868). 358 Contra, e.g., GERSTENBERGER, Priester, who treats Lev 21:1–22:9 as a distinct unit. 359 See Leviticus, 285–287; see also more recently GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 70–71 and 271–273 (who, contrary to Elliger, assumes the existence of a distinct tradition in v. 4–8a; on this point, see below). For a review of the main classical reconstructions, see SUN, Investigation, 317–322; Sun himself considers here again a rather complicated genesis for the formation of 22:1–16 (see Ibid., 322–325), but his arguments (such as the variation in the construction of the verb lk) in v. 10–13, for example) are doubtful methodologically and in any case his analysis leads to no convincing result, as he must himself admit.

490

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

offerings,360 which would indicate either that H was unaware of P’s distinction between “sacred” and “most sacred” offerings (but see 21:22) or that he deliberately chose to blur it. But it is not necessarily so. The second part of this unit (v. 10–16) clearly implies that the My#dq are eaten at home; hence, they cannot include the most sacred offerings which, according to Lev 6–7 (see similarly Ez 42:13), have to be eaten inside the sanctuary’s precincts (Lev 6:9, 19; 7:6). Rather than assuming that the word My#dq has two different meanings in 22:3–9 and 10–16,361 it is easier to view the law in its entirety as being specifically concerned with the case of the well-being offering. If so, H’s use of the term My#dq in Lev 22 is not at odds with P’s classification or with the terminology of Lev 21:22. The focus on the well-being offering may be accounted for by the fact that, as the only type of offering which does not need to be eaten in a sacred place, it is considerably more subject to profanation, and thus deserved a specific treatment.362 In sum, the interpretation above implies that all Lev 21:1–22:16 should be regarded as a coherent composition by the author of H. This author systematically depends on P in Lev 1–16 (esp. ch. 6–7 and 11–15); for the rest, it is quite likely that he also drew on various priestly traditions, but there is no need to assume the existence of a distinct collection of priestly rules. Also, the thematic unity of 21:1–22:16 is greater than traditionally acknowledged, and the three main sections (21:1–15, 16–23 and 22:1–16) are closely interconnected by various devices.363 Contrary to what has been commonly assumed, the laws in 21:1–22:16 are not simply a manual of priestly duties, or even a small collection on “priestly holiness”. Rather, their common concern is, more 360

See WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 158; BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 408 (on 21:22); KILIAN, Untersuchung, 88–89; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 75; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1848. 361 Thus de facto MILGROM, Leviticus, 1869–1870, who correctly notes that in 22:10–16 My#dq can only refer to sacrifices with a lesser grade of sanctity although, along with many scholars (see the previous note), he still favors an inclusive meaning for this term in v. 3–9. 362 Similarly RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 271. 363 Admittedly, the presence of the compliance report at the end of ch. 21 (v. 24) is a crux. However, this alone cannot justify the assumption that ch. 22 as a whole is later than 21. The last part of ch. 22, v. 17–30, builds an inclusion with ch. 17; moreover, the final exhortation concluding all of Lev 17–22, in 22:31–33, cannot have followed immediately after 21:24. This report may simply serve to underline the difference between ch. 21 dealing with the priests and the sanctuary and ch. 22 focusing on the sacrificial offerings. Alternatively, one may seriously question the original character of this report. As noted by some commentators (see, e.g., REVENTLOW, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 96), it actually stands in tension with the command given to Moses in 21:1 to speak to Aaron and his sons, since in 21:24 Moses in fact includes all the Israelites. In this case, it is probably an interpolation by a redactor who wanted to stress that the sanctuary was the concern of the entire community and not only of the priests (for this view, see also REVENTLOW, 96–97; MILGROM, Leviticus, 1833). As suggested by Milgrom (Ibid., 1834), the report may have been introduced there and not at the end of ch. 22 because the last part of this chapter was already addressed to all Israel.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

491

generally, the preservation of the sanctity of the cultic realm. Thus, each law prevents the profanation of a central aspect of the cult: the priests and the high priest (21:1–15), the sanctuary itself (21:16–23), and the remains of the sacrifices offered by the community (22:1–16). In addition, the logic underlying the arrangement of these three sections is unmistakable: first the priests, who have been chosen to offer God’s sacrifices and thus represent the link between the community (Lev 18–20) and the temple, then the offering of the sacrifices themselves, and finally the disposal of the sacrificial remains; the position of this last section recalls, in addition, the placement of Lev 6–7 after ch. 1–5. At the same time, the three sections are also united by the concern for God’s food (keyword Mxl ). Priests have been consecrated to bring Yahweh’s food (21:6–8), they shall not desecrate Yahweh’s sanctuary when they bring his food at his altar (21:23), and the dominant theme of the third and last section is that the sacrificial remains do not become desecrated by the priests, his family, or a lay person. The reason for this focus on sacrifices in Lev 21–22 is obvious: the sacrificial act itself, i.e., the transfer of an animal or a vegetable from the profane to the sacred realm, involves a permanent threat that the boundaries between the two become blurred. Hence, the predominance of the sacrificial theme in 21:1–22:16 is entirely consistent with the general concern for the preservation of the sanctuary’s boundaries in this collection. On the whole, the legislation provides a fine complement to the previous section on the community’s holiness in ch. 18–20. As programmatically announced in 19:30, it illustrates how the sanctification of the community itself depends first of all on the preservation of Yahweh’s sanctuary as the very symbol of God’s holiness, but also on the unique role of the priests in this respect.364 The last unit of ch. 21–22, 22:17–33, completes the former legislation with various rules addressing the offering of sacrifices (v. 17–30), followed by a concluding exhortation (v. 31–33). Although this section is closely related to the rest of ch. 21–22, as observed above, its distinctiveness is nevertheless underlined by the fact that these rules no longer concern the priests and their responsibility in avoiding the sanctuary’s profanation (note, correspondingly, the disappearance of the root llx in v. 17–30), but are addressed to all the Israelites (v. 18aa). The rules themselves consist of two parts: a law prohibiting the offering of blemished animals (v. 18b–25), either as a vow (rdn) or as a freewill offering (hbdn), and two additional instructions (v. 27–28, 29–30), 364

Hence, while it would be excessive to state that for H the priests sanctify the community (thus KNOHL, Sanctuary, 191), they nevertheless contribute to its sanctification by preserving the most fundamental division of all, upon which the holiness of the entire community depends. Here, one can see why the assumption that H, contrary to P, would typically betray non-priestly, “lay” concerns is unsupported (thus recently GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 381–385; ID., Amt, esp. 243; similarly KUGLER , Theological Conflicts, 27, for whom “the authors of Leviticus 17–26 were not particularly pro-priestly”).

492

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

the first forbidding the slaughter of a mother and its young on the same day and the second specifying that a thanksgiving offering has to be eaten the same day it is sacrificed. The distinction between the two parts is conveniently signaled by the occurrence of a new speech report formula between v. 18–25 and 27–30, yet this time without a commission formula, so as to differentiate it from the previous introductions.365 At the same time, all these laws share the same concern, namely, the offerer’s acceptance by the deity (root 366 hcr, see v. 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29). As was observed earlier in this study (§ 2.3.1.), the unit formed by Lev 22:17–33 has manifestly been conceived to build an inclusion with Lev 17, thus delineating ch. 17–22 from the second part of H, ch. 23–25. The inclusion is shown by the commission formula of 22:18a, which is identical to the one introducing Lev 17 (see 17:2a), as well as by the content of the first two laws (v. 18–25 and 27–28) returning to the issue of legitimate offerings, exactly as in Lev 17; the parallel between the wording of 17:3ff. and 22:18b–25 is particularly obvious.367 This law takes up a fundamental postulate of the sacrificial cult requiring that only whole (Mymt) animals be offered (see Lev 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6, etc.) and completes it by mentioning the physical blemishes excluding an animal from the altar (v. 21–24). The list of blemishes itself is apparently modeled on the similar list found in Lev 21:18–20, although it may incorporate elements from another traditional list in priestly circles.368 The association in v. 27–28 of a law prohibiting separation of a young from its mother before the eighth day and sacrificing them together on the same day apparently combines the law of Ex 22:29 with a reinterpretation of the prohibition against seething a kid in its mother’s milk in Ex 23:19b; 34:26b; Deut 14:21b.369 This law is probably not so much motivated by a “humanitarian” 365

Pace SUN, Investigation, 351, who regards this device as a sign of the supplementary character of v. 27ff. Apparently, the same view is also held by HARTLEY, Leviticus, 360. 366 HARTLEY, Leviticus, 360 MILGROM, Leviticus, 1882. 367 The introduction of the case with l)r#yb rgh-Nmw l)r#y tybm #y) #y) in v. 18 (in the MT ), in particular, is quite reminiscent of Lev 17:8, 10, 13 (and 17:3 LXX); otherwise, this introduction is unparalleled in Leviticus. The connection was already perceived by the ancient versions (thus the SamP, the LXX and others) adding rgfha after the mention of the resident alien, thus enhancing the parallel with ch. 17. On the formal parallels between ch. 17 and 22:17–30, see for example REVENTLOW, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 100.102. 368 For a synopsis of the two lists of blemishes and their respective arrangement, see now GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 267–268. For a discussion of the blemishes themselves see especially HARTLEY , Leviticus, 361; and MILGROM, Leviticus, 1876–1879, who concludes that the list is basically equivalent to that invalidating priests, in spite of some variations in terminology. For the idea that many of these criteria are traditional, compare Mal 1:8, 13, which also names some of the most obvious blemishes enumerated in Lev 22. 369 For the view that v. 28 corresponds to the prohibition in Ex 23:19; 34:26b; Deut 14:21b, see also, e.g., ELLIGER, Leviticus, 301; KEEL, Böcklein, 11ff.40ff.; GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 303; but cf. GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 275. Even if, as noted by Grünwaldt,

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

493

concern, as in Deut 22:6–7 (although one should rather say “animalian”), 370 as by the willingness to account for a fundamental aspect of creation, i.e., the unique relationship between a mother and its kid.371 During the first seven days, this bond must in no case be destroyed by man (v. 27) and even after this period it prevents the two animals from being sacrificed together (v. 28). As was already observed by Ibn Ezra, the seven-day delay recalls of the requirement that males shall not be circumcised before the eighth day,372 and thus emphasizes the law’s cosmological dimension. The insertion of this law at this place in H is quite fitting, since it completes the reflection opened by Lev 17 (see § 5.2.1.): in order to be legitimate, the killing of an animal must not only be ritual (i.e., sacrificial), it must also respect the fundamental boundaries defining the cosmological order. Finally, the inclusion of the last law, v. 29–30, is particularly significant. In the context of Lev 22:17ff., it underscores that the legitimate handling of the meat which has been sanctified by being offered on the altar is also a condition for the sacrifice to be accepted by Yahweh (cf. Mkncrl, v. 29). But it has moreover a broader function in the context of Lev 22, and even of Lev 17–22. On one hand, as observed by Knohl, it forms an inclusion with the mention of the rdn and the hbdn at the beginning of this unit. This combination is reminiscent of Lev 7:11–18, where those three types of offerings are also mentioned together, except that the order is reversed, possibly to indicate that it is a quotation.373 Besides, 22:29– 30a corresponds almost exactly to 7:15. On the other hand, 22:29–30 also completes 19:5–8, itself a development of 7:16–18 as recalled above (see § 5.2.2.2.). The inclusion builds a frame around Lev 19–22.374 This is quite meaningful since this sequence contains all the references to the community’s holiness in H, from the opening exhortation in 19:2 to the conclusion of ch. 17–22, in 22:31–33, placed immediately after 22:29–30. On the whole, therefore, v. 17–30 should be regarded as a compositional unit,375 conceived simultaneously both as a complement to Lev 21–22 and there is no direct terminological parallel between the two laws, the situation considered (killing a mother and its young together) is actually the same. Pace MILGROM, 1884, the sequence formed by v. 27–28 makes it obvious, in my opinion, that the rw# and the h# are the same as the ones mentioned in v. 27 and can therefore only designate females. 370 See, e.g., GISPEN, Leviticus, 318; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 362; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 275; in a more sophisticated way also BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 411. For a criticism, see also MILGROM, Ibid., 1883ff.; and RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 288ff. 371 For this view, see RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 289–290; and for the iconographic background of the symbol of the “seething mother”, KEEL, Böcklein; HARAN, Seething. 372 Among moderns, see also for instance HARTLEY, Leviticus, 362. 373 KNOHL, Sanctuary, 119. 374 For this observation, cf. RUWE , “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 196.292; MILGROM , Leviticus, 1885, himself following B.J. Schwartz. 375 In particular, the observations made above on 22:27–28 and 29–30 go against the traditional assumption of earlier scholars, who usually treated these verses as a later supplement to

494

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

more generally as the conclusion to the first half of H in Lev 17–22. Here also, the supplementary character of this unit vis-à-vis the Priestly legislation is obvious, particularly in the terminology used in addition to the explicit reception of Lev 7:11–18.376 The conclusion of the first part of H is noticeable in the exhortation of 22:31–33, which combines several motifs from the previous exhortations in Lev 18–20 and in 21–22.377 The call to keep and practice Yahweh’s commandments in v. 31a corresponds to Lev 19:37; 20:8 and 20:22, although H uses here the term twcm, as in Lev 26 (26:3, 14, 15), the final exhortation concluding the H Code. The formulation of the prohibition against desecrating Yahweh’s name in v. 32a recalls the similar prohibition in 21:6ab, except that it is now addressed to all Israel, as already in 18:21; 19:12a; 20:3, and not only to the priests. Similarly, 22:32b MT (Mk#dqm hwhy yn)) builds an inclusion with both 21:8 MT, the first exhortation of ch. 21–22, and with 20:7–8, a central exhortation in Lev 19–20. The combination of v. 31a and 32b parallels the exhortation of 20:8; the connection of v. 31a with 32a suggests that the general consequence of disobedience to the law is to desecrate Yahweh’s holy name,378 a notion that is specifically reminiscent of Ezekiel.379 This exegetical development of the previous exhortation to keep Yahweh’s laws in H (19:37; 20:8, 22) is motivated by a unique statement in v. 32ab, g, which is in fact the v. 17–25; cf. BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 411 (“Nachträgliches”); NOTH , Leviticus, 163; KILIAN, Untersuchung, 91–98; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 297–298. 376 hdwt-xbz (22:29) is found in Lev 7:12–16 (v. 12–13, 15) and in a few (late) Psalms (50:23; 107:22; 116:17; see further 2 Chron 29:31; 33:16). H’s dependence upon P in Lev 22:17–30 is further emphasized by the use of several terms. See in particular hcr Ni. in Lev 22:23, 25, 27, otherwise only in Lev 19:7 and 1:4; 7:18 and Isa 40:2 (a point admitted even by GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 273 n. 763). Outside Lev 22:18, 27 (see also 23:14), Nbrq in the Torah is found exclusively in “Priestly” texts in Lev and Num. Similarly, brq Hiphil (Lev 22:18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25) in a sacrificial context also occurs almost exclusively in “Priestly” texts, especially in Lev 1–16 and Num. Similar observations led earlier scholars (e.g., PATON, Leviticus xxi, xxii, 166ff.) to assume that this passage had been heavily edited by P. 377 On the literary unity of 22:31–33: ELLIGER, Leviticus, 297–298. Since 22:33 is clearly based upon P (see below), critics were forced to dismiss it as a later addition (e.g., KILIAN, Untersuchung, 97). Once H’s dependence upon P is admitted, this is no longer necessary. 378 Several scholars have seen this connection but assumed that twcm referred here only to the “ritual” laws in Lev 21–22 (BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 411; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 301), or even only to the laws in 22:17–30 (MILGROM, Leviticus, 1888). However, this restriction is unjustified. In H, twcm is only used otherwise in 26:3, 14, 15 (see also 27:34), where it consistently refers to all of Yahweh’s commandments. The restriction to Lev 21–22 is also contradicted by the fact that 22:17–30 corresponds to Lev 17 and frames all of Lev 18–22 and that the previous law, v. 29–30, forms an inclusion with Lev 19 (see 19:5–8) as noted above. 379 Especially in Ez 20 and 36:16ff.: see 20:9, 14, 22, 39; 36:20, 21, 22, 23; 39:7. According to POHLMANN, Ezechielstudien, passim; ID., Hesekiel, 2. 299–313 and 482ff., ch. 20 and 36:16ff. are key texts of the comprehensive “diaspora redaction” in Ezekiel (postexilic peiod). The concern for Yahweh’s “name” before the nations is distinctive of this redaction.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

495

positive counterpart to v. 32aa. If Yahweh is desecrated when Israel disobeys his laws, then he is logically sanctified (#dq Niphal!) every time the people obey the latter and behave according to his will. This remarkable statement, which has no real parallel in the Hebrew Bible apart from the saying in Lev 10:3, represents in this regard the climax of the definition of holiness in H in connection with Israel, Yahweh and the law. In particular, it demonstrates another aspect of the dynamic conception of holiness by now including Yahweh himself in the ongoing process of sanctification of Israel. The more Israel obeys the law, the more it sanctifies itself (20:7a, see 19:2ab) and is sanctified by Yahweh (20:8b; 22:32b), and the more Yahweh himself becomes sanctified (22:32ab, g), of course not in the absolute,380 which would be aberrant, but in the midst of Israel (l)r#y ynb Kwtb!, cf. Ex 25:8; 29:45), the people he has chosen for himself, where he may manifest his own holiness ever more visibly.381 There is no rigid, definite division between Israel’s holiness and Yahweh’s holiness, but on the contrary a close interconnection: Israel’s sanctification by means of imitatio dei (Lev 19:2; 20:26!) enables in turn Yahweh to manifest his holiness within his community. It is not a coincidence that this ultimate statement on obedience to the law as the vector of a process of sanctification gradually bridging the distance between Yahweh and Israel has been inserted in the middle of the exhortation concluding the first part of H, Lev 17–22. In the second part (ch. 23–25), and even in the final exhortation of ch. 26 (v. 3–45), this issue no longer occurs; with 22:31–33, the redefinition of Israel’s holiness in H has reached a first conclusion.382 This point is also well illustrated by the last sentence of this 380

Thus KNOHL, Sanctuary, 183; KUGLER, Theological Conflicts, 16. For a similar view, see MILGROM, Leviticus, 1888. This “relative” understanding of the statement of Lev 22:32a does not justify, however, the traditional rendering of #dq Niphal by “to be treated as holy” or “be proclaimed holy” (see HAL, 3. 1003; and recently SUN, Investigation, 346; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 358; contrast, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 411). Such a rendering understates the uniqueness of the statement in 22:32a; in addition, the passive form is natural in the context of Lev 22:32 given the first part of the verse. If the Israelites must refrain from profaning Yahweh’s name (v. 32aa), then a passive rendering for v. 32ab, g (“in order that I be sanctified in the midst of the Israelites”) is more logical than an active one (“in order that I show myself holy”). This is acknowledged by most commentators, who have to adopt a highly harmonizing rendering for Lev 22:32 such as “I shall be proclaimed holy in the midst of the Israelites” (thus, e.g., Hartley), in order to avoid the notion that Yahweh is sanctified by the Israelites. Yet it is also found in Num 20:12, where Yahweh reproaches Moses and Aaron for not believing in him “in order to sanctify me before the eyes of the Israelites”, so that there is no ground for rejecting this understanding in Lev 22:32 either. Note, significantly, that Num 20:12 immediately precedes one of the only two passages in the Torah, with Lev 10:3 and 22:32, where #dq Ni. is found (cf. Num 20:13; Ex 29:43). 382 Of course, this does not justify the view that ch. 23ff. would be a later supplement, as argued by Sun in particular. The Holiness Code needs the conclusion in Lev 26 (itself inseparable from ch. 25, with which it forms a single discourse), and the legislation on sacred 381

496

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

exhortation, v. 33. The reference to the exodus takes up the language of 19:36b, where it was also closely connected with the exhortation to obey Yahweh’s laws (see 19:37). However, 22:33 introduces a further rationale for the exodus: “in order to be your God” (Myhl)l Mkl twyhl). This statement aptly concludes the exhortation of 22:31–33 and, with it, all of Lev 17–22. On one hand, the reference to Yahweh as the God of the exodus serves as general motivation for the exhortation to obey Yahweh’s laws in v. 31–32.383 On the other hand, the statement of the purpose of the exodus in v. 33a takes up the central concept of the Priestly narrative (compare with the formulation of Ex 6:7!),384 but reinterprets it from the perspective of the conception already displayed in Lev 20:22–26385 by associating it, in the context of Lev 22:31– 33, with the issue of Israel’s sanctification. As in P, the purpose of the exodus is Israel’s transformation into God’s people. But in H, this is specifically achieved through the faithful observance of Yahweh’s laws leading to sanctification of the people (thus Lev 19:37; 20:7–8, 22, 26; 22:31). 5.2.4. Leviticus 23–25 The second part of H deals mainly with the observance of sacred times and is organized according to a specific pattern:386 the Sabbath (23:3), fixed ceremonies of the year (23:4–43), the Sabbatical Year (25:2ab–7), and the Jubilee, occurring every seventh Sabbatical Year (25:8–55). In 24:1–9, two laws have been added after Lev 23, because they treat a related issue: the priests’ daily (24:1–4) or weekly (24:5–9) obligations inside the tent of meeting. Only in 24:10–23 do we have an episode entirely unconnected with Israel’s calendar. The systematic definition of sacred times in H illustrates the programmatic statement on the Sabbath in the first part of this code (see Lev 19:3ab, 30aa), appropriately recalled in the exhortation closing Lev 23–25 (26:1–2, see 26:2aa). The observance of the times set apart for Yahweh constitutes yet another central aspect of the community’s consecration to its God. 5.2.4.1. Leviticus 23 The structure of this chapter is clear. A first division is constituted by the speech report formulae (v. 1, 9, 23, 26, 33) which, with only one exception in v. 26, are generally followed by a commission formula (see v. 2aa, 10aa, 24a, times of the year in ch. 23–25 is prepared for by the reference to the keeping of Yahweh’s sabbaths in 19:30, as already observed above in the study of ch. 19. 383 HARTLEY, Leviticus, 363. 384 On Ex 6:6–8, see above, § 1.3.; on the reason for attributing this passage to P, and not to a later redactor, see especially on pages 34–35, note 72 (contra Knohl and Milgrom), as well as on page 65, note 237 (against Otto et al.). 385 See the analysis of this passage above, § 5.2.2.1.b. 386 See also the observations made above, § 2.3.1.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

497

34a).387 The body of the chapter, v. 4–37, consists of instructions for the celebration of the main feasts of Israel: Passover and Unleavened Bread (v. 5–8), Firstfruits (of barley and wheat, v. 9–22), the “Blowing of the Horn” (h(wrt, v. 23–25), the “Day of Purifications” (Myrpkh Mwy, v. 26–32) and the Feast of Booths (twks, v. 34–36). Each section follows a specific pattern: date (month/ day, v. 5 [6], 24, 27, 34), name of the feast (v. 5 [6], 24, 27, 34), obligation to call a #dq-)rqm, a “holy day”388 (v. 7, 8, 21, 24, 27, 35–36), prohibition of work (v. 7, 21, 25, 28, 31, 35f.) and offering of sacrifices (v. 8, 12–13, 16–20, 25, 27, 36).389 Only the prescription concerning the firstfruits of barley and wheat, v. 9–22, deviates from this pattern.390 The date is not fixed, but relative (v. 11, 15–16),391 no name is given for the feasts, and in the case of the sheaf offering (of barley), v. 9–14, both the prescription of a holy day and the prohibition of work are missing. Instead, v. 9–14 and v. 15–22 give very specific instructions regarding the nature of the offerings to be presented on this 387 With a slight variation between the formulation of v. 2aa and v. 10aa , on one hand (Mhl) trm)), and v. 24a and v. 34a on the other (rm)l). 388 Literally, #dq-)rqm means “a sacred convocation (to a festive day)”, but the noun )rqm could logically be applied to the festive day itself, hence the rendering adopted here, “holy day”. On )rFq;mi as a derivative from )rq I, ‘call, proclaim’, in the sense of “proclaiming a special day”, see KUTSCH, )rFq;mi; and for the translation “holy day”, cf. now WAGENAAR, Origin, 192. Another possibility would be to render #dq-)rqm as “sanctuary convocation” (LEVINE, Numbers 20-36, 381-382), taking #dq as a noun rather than as an adjective. But, as noted by Wagenaar, in both Lev 23 and Num 28-29 this expression seems to be related first and foremost to the prohibition of work, and thus to the distinct, sacred character of the festive day itself, set aside from the other days in the year. 389 GRÜNWALDT , Heiligkeitsgesetz, 285. Verses 14, 21, 31, further add that the former instruction is a “permanent decree throughout your generations in all your settlements” (Mkytb(w)#m lkb Mkytrdl Ml( tqx). 390 It is generally accepted by scholars that the two ceremonies in v. 9–21 refer to two distinct, successive grain offerings: first, of barley (v. 9–14), second, of wheat, which ripens later (cf. Exod 9:31–32; 34:22; Deut 16:9ff.; Ruth 1:22; 2:23). In general, it is also assumed that the fifty day interval between the two feasts would correspond to the period from the beginning of the barley harvest to the end of the wheat harvest. This corresponds to what is found in Deut 16:9–10, where the same interval (seven weeks) is linked to the very beginning of cereal (i.e., barley) harvest. For a restatement of this view, see most recently WAGENAAR, Origin, 33–34. Note also that the Gezer calendar counts two lunar months (one lunar month = approximately 29.5 days) for the harvest of barley and of wheat; since the wheat harvest probably began one or two weeks after that of barley and would have lasted for one month approximately (DALMAN, Arbeit und Sitte I/2, 415), this is also consistent with the notion that the fifty days refer to the interval between the two harvests. Rabbinic sources suggest, however, that it was not exceptional for the wheat harvest to last beyond the seven week interval; see the references given by MILGROM, Leviticus, 1991. 391 That is, the offering of the First Sheaf should begin the day after the Sabbath following the first harvest (v. 11), whereas the Feast of Weeks should begin fifty days later, the day following the seventh Sabbath (v. 15–16). The identification of the Sabbath mentioned in v. 11 was already the object of a considerable polemic at the end of the Second Temple period, as is well known; see VAN GOUDOEVER, Biblical Calendars, 18–29, and further below, note 436.

498

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

occasion, which have no equivalent in the remainder of ch. 23; in the case of all the other feasts, we only find the general command to offer “food gifts” (h#)).392 The festal prescriptions in v. 5–36 are framed by a superscript and a subscript in v. 4 and in v. 37–38. These two passages are formulated identically; they identify the feasts in v. 5–36 as the hwhy yd(wm, namely, the “appointed times of Yahweh”,393 where a #dq-)rqm must be proclaimed. V. 37b also recalls the necessity to bring “food gifts” on these days (see v. 8, 12–13, 16–20, 25, 27, 36) and adds a list of the offerings for each day.394 V. 38 completes this summary by adding other occasions in the year not included in v. 5–36. In v. 2–3, a law prescribing the celebration of the Sabbath as a -)rqm #dq (v. 3) is framed by the anticipation of v. 4 in v. 2. Lastly, in v. 39–43, additional instructions are given for the last feast of ch. 23, Sukkôt (v. 34–36), in particular regarding the construction of booths (v. 40) and the connection of the celebration with the exodus (v. 43). The chapter’s literary genesis is still disputed. V. 39–43, which repeat v. 34–36, while expanding them, and come too late after the subscription found in v. 37–38, are manifestly an interpolation.395 Similarly, it is likely that the Sabbath law in v. 3 is an addition.396 Not only does the repetition of v. 4 in v. 2ab, g , b suggest that v. 3 was introduced by the technique of Wiederaufnahme, but v. 38a appears to imply that initially the Sabbath was not counted among the holy days. The rest, v. 4–38, together with the introduction in v. 1–2aa and the compliance report in v. 44, should be regarded as a homogeneous composition except for a few additions.397 In order to account for the distinct character of v. 10–22, older critics proposed that this section, together with an earlier version of v. 39–43, formed the original H calendar, later edi392

For the rendering of h#) by ‘food gift’, see above, § 3.2.1., pages 151–152, note 208. From the root d(y, “designate”, see for instance MILGROM, Leviticus, 1955–1956. 394 Namely, burnt and cereal offerings, “sacrifice”, drink offering: Myksnw xbz hxnmw hl( (thus the MT; the LXX has a different list). The phrase wmwyb Mwy-rbd in v. 37 refers to the daily protocol for offerings and is found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, see e.g. 1 Kgs 8:59; 2 Kgs 25:30 // Jer 52:34; Ezra 3:4, etc.; see on this MILGROM, Leviticus, 2034. 395 See already GEORGE, Feste, 143–144; further NOTH, Leviticus, 175; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 304–306; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 92; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 372–373; KÖRTING, Schall, 99ff.; ULFGARD, Sukkot, 82–83; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 77–78. On the attempt to assign v. 39–43 to the same layer as 10–22, see below. 396 This is also the object of a scholarly consensus. See inter alia BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 413; KÜCHLER, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 44; KILIAN, Untersuchung, 104; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 304– 306; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 372; KNOHL, Sanctuary, 14–19; LEVINSON, Hermeneutics, 19–20; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 77; W EYDE, Festivals, 11–12 (ff.). Except for Levinson, all these authors agree that v. 4, and not v. 2ab, g, b, formed the original superscription. 397 For this view, see NOTH, Leviticus, 163–176; and more recently GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 76–89 (except for the speech report formulas and the commission report in v. 44; on this, see below). It also appears to be the view adopted in his recent study by WEYDE, Festivals, 9–144. 393

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

499

ted by the Priestly school.398 Yet this solution faces obvious difficulties. In particular, the passages attributed to H hardly form a comprehensive calendar, since they are restricted to the Firstfruits and Sukkôt. Thus, scholars had to acknowledge that the basic layout of ch. 23 was made of the sections attributed to P, into which the H fragments had been interpolated.399 In addition, v. 39–43 are better explained as an expansion of v. 34–36 rather than as a parallel tradition.400 Even in the case of v. 9–22, there are obvious similarities with the other festivals in ch. 23, so that it had to be assumed that the original H legislation had been considerably edited by a Priestly redactor.401 This traditional view was later abandoned in the commentaries by Noth and Elliger. Whereas Noth identified v. 2–3 and 39–43 as later additions and regarded the rest of v. 4–38 as a literary unit,402 Elliger suggested on the contrary that v. 9–22 and 39–43, although containing fragments of an older tradition, had been added by a later – but nevertheless “geistesverwandt” (sic)403 – redactor (= Ph4), thus reversing radically the classical view. To this secondary redactor, Elliger also assigns v. 2ab –3 and 28–31 (v. 32 is a still later interpolation).404 This is quite close to the opinion of Knohl who, in a detailed study of ch. 23, identifies the passages traditionally attributed to H, v. 9–22 and 39–43, together with other passages (v. 1–4, 28ab –31, 32, 38), as part of a supplementary layer. This layer would be the work of the Holiness School (HS), and it forms a revision of an older calendar belonging to P.405 Although Elliger’s model has been adopted with only slight modifications by various scholars until now,406 it nevertheless raises some major questions. 398

The idea that a first version of the calendar lies in v. 9–22*, 39–43* goes back to G EORGE, Feste, 120–144; it was taken up and reinterpreted in the context of the distinction between H and P by W ELLHAUSEN, Composition, 159–163. See further PATON, Leviticus xxiii., 35ff.; BAENTSCH, Heiligkeits-Gesetz, 44–50; ID., Leviticus, 412–413; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 78; MORGENSTERN, Supplementary Studies, 29ff.; KILIAN, Untersuchung, 108–109. In general, it was also accepted that the supplements in Lev 23 came from an earlier priestly calendar. Among exceptions to this view, see K UTSCH , Erwägungen, esp. 13–16, who assumes instead that the original form of ch. 23 consisted of an old “#dq-)rqm Ordnung” which he finds in v. 4, 5, 6–8, 18ab, 21ab, 24b*, 25, 27a*, 28aa, 27b (sic), 34b–36, 37. 399 See for instance BAENTSCH, Heiligkeits-Gesetz, 44–45: “Aus P. kommt der ganze Entwurf, der Plan und die Hauptmasse der folgenden Festgesetzgebung, und die älteren Stücke des H. nehmen sich fast wie kleinere Eintragungen, Zusätze oder Einschiebsel eines Redaktors in dem Gesetzesstück Cap. XXIII aus” (emphasis added). 400 NOTH, Leviticus, 175 (“the section vv. 39–43 cannot be taken for anything else than a literary addition”); ELLIGER, Leviticus, 305–306. 401 See BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 412ff., and quite similarly KILIAN, Untersuchung, 103–111. 402 Ibid., 166ff. 403 ID., Leviticus, 311. 404 ID., Leviticus, 304–312. 405 KNOHL, Sabbath; ID., Sanctuary, 1–45. 406 See in particular CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 82–94 (attributing v. 4–8, 23–25 and 33–38 to his H 4 layer, and v. 1–3, 9–22, 26–31 and 39–43 to his main H redactor, HG);

500

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

The alleged criteria for assigning v. 9–22 and 39–43 to the same layer are all quite doubtful.407 The attribution of the section on the Day of Purifications, v. 26–32, to a later hand is also entirely problematic, since this instruction is presupposed elsewhere in H (Lev 25:9); besides, v. 26–27 are identical to the formulation of v. 5–8, 23–25 and 33–36. For this reason, Elliger proposed separating v. 26–27 from 28–32 and to assign them to distinct layers but in this case no prohibition of work is stated, contrary to what applies for all other festivals! In order to solve this difficulty, Körting (as already Knohl before her) wants to include v. 28a a in the primary layer of ch. 23;408 yet, except perhaps for v. 32, the dissociation of v. 28ab–31 from v. 26–28aa seems uncalled for.409 To be sure, the prescription of v. 27–32 is somewhat unlike the SUN, Investigation, 399ff.; most recently KÖRTING, Schall, 95–105; and WAGENAAR, Festival Calendar, 233ff.; further now ID., Origin, 78–90. HARTLEY, Leviticus, 372–374, also regards v. 9–21, 22 and 39–43 (together with the law on the Sabbath in v. 3) as additions to Lev 23. 407 See in particular ELLIGER, Leviticus, 307–309 and 311–312; CHOLEWIN &SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 83ff. (though he must nonetheless admit that this layer lacks unity, see on p. 83); and KÖRTING, Schall, 98–102. That the date of Firstfruits in v. 10–21 is relative and not fixed, as in the case of the other festivals, merely betrays the fact that the beginning of harvest may significantly vary not only from one year to another, but also from a region to another, as noted by several scholars (see, e.g., WAGENAAR, Calendar Innovations, 12ff., on the basis of the classical work by Dalman). In addition, the relative dating certainly does not characterize a distinct layer in Lev 23, as assumed by Körting (Ibid., 99), since a fixed date is given both for the Day of Purifications in v. 26–32 (v. 27, 32: from the evening of the ninth day of the seventh month to the evening of the tenth) and for Sukkôt in v. 39–43 (v. 39aa, taking up v. 34). The remark that in both v. 9–22 and 39–43 the feast is not mentioned by name is hardly significant either. First, this statement is incorrect in the case of v. 15–22, see the designation hwhyl Myrwkb in v. 17b. Besides, as noted by Körting, the mention of the name was unnecessary in the case of v. 39–43, since this supplement follows directly the law on Sukkôt in v. 34–36. Similarly, the observation that both v. 9–22 and 39–43 offer a detailed description of the festal rites (Cholewin8ski, Körting) does not apply to v. 27–32. Also, the nature of these details is entirely different; contrary to v. 9–22, v. 39–43 show absolutely no concern for the nature of the sacrifices to be offered. Against Körting (Ibid., 101), the use of the terms tb# and Nwtb# in Lev 23 hardly corroborates the alleged identification of two layers in ch. 23. The pair Nwtb# tb# comes in 23:3 and 32 exclusively (otherwise in H in 25:4); and Nwtb# alone does not only occur in 23:39 but also in 23:24, a passage she regards as belonging to the earliest layer in Lev 23, which forces her in turn to view the occurrence of this term in v. 24 as a later interpolation (Ibid., 111). The phrase Mlw( tqx is found in v. 14, 21 and 31, but not in v. 39–43; hence it may not be regarded as distinctive of a given layer. Finally, the parallel between v. 10a and 39aa 2 (reference to the harvest) cannot justify by itself the attribution of the two sections to the same hand (pace ELLIGER, Leviticus, 307). 408 KÖRTING, Schall, 112–117. She is followed now by WAGENAAR, Origin, 79.83ff. 409 Since the phrase “a permanent decree throughout your generations in all your settlements” in v. 31 usually signals the conclusion of the other instructions (v. 14, 21; cf. also v. 43), it is likely that v. 32 is a later insertion. Note also that the phrase Nwtb# tb# occurs exclusively in v. 3 (ELLIGER, Leviticus, 310), which has been identified above as a supplement, and that in the previous verses (cf. 26–31) the Day of Purifications is not associated with the Sabbath. V. 32a is almost identical to 16:31a and could have been introduced together with

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

501

rules for the other feasts because of its emphasis on the prohibition of any work in v. 29–31.410 Yet this device aligns with the fact that already in v. 28aa the formulation of the prohibition of work (hk)lm-lk) differs from that used elsewhere in ch. 23, hdb( hkl)m-lk, see v. 7, 21, 25, 35–36. In v. 28 (and 31), it is apparently intended to be absolute,411 which justifies in turn the development found in v. 29–31.412 Above all, the absence of a law on Firstfruits in the original form of Lev 23 is problematic. This feast is mentioned in all the calendars of the previous codes upon which H depends (see further below), namely, the CC, Ex 34 and D (see Ex 23:16; 34:22; Deut 16:10, 16). One can hardly see why H would have omitted it, especially since this feast fits entirely with his own agricultural concern (Lev 19:5–8, 23–25; Lev 25!).413 Elliger could only surmise that here the second redactor had replaced an earlier legislation, of which a trace was preserved, according to him, in v. 21ab , g (sic);414 yet the somewhat awkward syntax of v. 21 alone cannot bear the weight of such an assumption. It is true, though, that in H, Firstfruits is no longer presented as a h9ag, a pilgrimage festival, as is the case in the other calendars. Apparently, the feast is now celebrated “at home” by the people (cf. the phrase “in all your settlements” [Mkytb#wm-lkb] in v. 21, and already in v. 14), but an offering comprising the first sheaf of barley (v. 10–13) and two loaves of bread from the new wheat (v. 17–20) “from your settlements” (Mkytb#wmm, v. 17) are nonetheless presented at the central sanctuary on behalf of the entire community, together with other sacrifices.415 That the celebration of Firstfruits, in H, is no 16:29–34a, when the H school edited ch. 16 and identified the ceremony of v. 1–28 with the Day of Purifications prescribed in Lev 23 (above, § 4.3.1.2., p. 347–350, and further below, § 5.4.2.2.b). Note that the statement, in v. 32b, that the Day of Purifications extends from the evening of the ninth to the evening of the tenth has no parallel in ch. 23, but is found in the supplement to the Passover instruction in Ex 12:14–20 (v. 18), which should also be assigned to H (below, § 5.4.2.2.). 410 In addition to Körting, see already KNOHL, Sanctuary, 13 and 27ff.; and SUN, Investigation, 403–404, who similarly regard v. 29–31 as a later addition to v. 27–28. 411 See already BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 413; KILIAN, Untersuchung, 107. 412 Knohl’s argument (ID., Sanctuary, 13) that v. 28ab–31 have no parallel in Num 29:7– 11 (Knohl actually refers to Num 28:7–11, but this is clearly a mistake) is not decisive in my view. Since the author of Num 28–29 focused on the sacrifices to be offered in each feast, he could easily ignore the motivation given in H, which begins in 23:28ab; besides, it is relevant only if Lev 23 depends on Num 28–29, which is unlikely; see below, page 510, note 445. 413 A point correctly emphasized by WEYDE, Festivals, 74 (with n. 11). 414 ID ., Leviticus, 308.311. He is followed by CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 92, and KÖRTING, Schall, 102. Note that some critics already regarded v. 21a as an isolated fragment of a prior priestly legislation: see, e.g., BAENTSCH , Leviticus, 415. Elliger also assigns the introduction in v. 9–10aa to the earlier legislation. 415 Thus, pace M ILGROM, Leviticus, 1991.1992.1995 and passim, it is not entirely correct to state that H would simply abolish the notion of a pilgrimage for the wheat offering, converting it instead into “collective public sacrifices” offered by the central sanctuary. Some-

502

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

longer associated with a pilgrimage festival does not mean, however, that it is secondary in Lev 23! Rather, this transformation of the Firstfruit festival has probably both practical and theoretical reasons. On one hand, it should be viewed as a concession to farmers for whom the period of grain harvest was certainly the worst time to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, as proposed by Milgrom.416 On the other hand, however, the effect achieved by this transformation, in Lev 23, is that it offers a compromise between two originally distinct calendar traditions. One is attested in Ex 23; Ex 34 and Deut 16 and involves a division of the year into three pilgrimage festivals; another is found in Ez 45, and shows affinities with the Babylonian tradition of a division of the year according to a semi-annual layout, centered around the first and seventh months417. We shall return to this issue below, when discussing further the question of the origin of Leviticus 23. thing of the ancient pilgrimage festival has nevertheless survived in the bringing of an offering of new grain to the sanctuary, probably by representatives of the community. W EYDE, Festivals, 72–74, argues for his part that H would retain the notion of a pilgrimage festival associated with Firstfruits, yet at different sanctuaries and probably at different times because of regional and annual variations in the beginning of harvests. In his opinion, the phrase “in all your settlements” in 23:21 would refer to the obligation for every farmer to offer new barley and new wheat at the sanctuary, though not necessarily at the same sanctuary and on the same occasion. However, this suggestion is unlikely and cannot explain satisfactorily the wording of Lev 23:10–21. First, one does not understand, in this case, why H did not characterize Firstfruits as a h9ag, a pilgrimage festival. Second, it cannot be a coincidence that the only other occurrence of the phrase “in all your settlements” in Lev 23 is in the context of a festival which is not a h9ag (the Day of Purifications, see v. 31), whereas it is conspicuously omitted from the two pilgrimage festivals, Unleavened Bread and Sukkôt (see 23:5–8, 34–36, further v. 39–43). Hence, “in all your settlements” refers more likely to the observance of a given festival at home, not at the central sanctuary. Besides, this is consistent, with the use of this phrase elsewhere in the Torah (see Ex 35:3; Lev 3:17; 7:26; Num 35:29); the only ambiguous evidence concerns Ex 12:14–20, where the feast of Unleavened Bread is also presented as a h9ag (v. 14), but must nevertheless be simultaneously observed “in all your settlements” (v. 20). Note also that the formulation of Lev 23:17–20 appears to imply that only two loaves of bread from the new wheat are brought “from your settlements”, as in the case of the first sheaf of barley already (v. 10–13). It is not, therefore, an individual offering to be brought by every farmer, as in Deut 26:1–2, but rather a collective one, which could be presented by some representatives of the community. 416 MILGROM, Leviticus, 1991 and passim. Milgrom, however, takes this as an indication that the wheat offering in Lev 23:15-21 does not correspond to the end of the wheat harvest, as traditionally assumed. As argued above (page 497, note 390), the issue should probably be nuanced: it is likely that the wheat offering was expected to correspond to the conclusion of the wheat harvest, but that it was not infrequent that it went on beyond the seven-week interval defined by Deut 16 and Lev 23. This explains why D could consider the requirement to celebrate the wheat harvest after seven weeks with a pilgrimage to the sanctuary to be a legitimate one, while H, for his part, apparently regards it as unrealistic. (In the Covenant Code, the situation considered is still different: the wheat harvest was celebrated at different times in local sanctuaries, which is probably the reason why no date is indicated for this festival). 417 Against WAGENAAR , Festival Calendar, 239ff.; ID ., Origin, 78–90 and 124ff., for whom the original draft of Lev 23 would have comprised exclusively such a semi-annual lay-

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

503

In short: the sections on Firstfruits and the Day of Purifications may not be assigned to the hand responsible for the interpolation of v. 3 and 39–43, but should be retained on the contrary within the original legislation, as in the previous calendars, even though the celebration of Firstfruits, in H, no longer involves a pilgrimage at the central sanctuary. Even though it is quite likely in my opinion that v. 10–21 are not a free creation but are based on a former tradition, as the distinct formulation and the differences with other feasts in ch. 23 suggest, the latter can probably no longer be reconstructed.418 These observations are also valid against Knohl’s proposal, since he must similarly assume that v. 9–22 have replaced an earlier law (of which nothing remains except v. 21*), and that the section on the Day of Purifications has out, on the model of what is found in Ez 45:18–25. Wagenaar accepts the notion that the present form of Lev 23 reflects a “compromise”, within priestly circles, between the two calendar traditions. But for him this compromise would correspond to a later revision of chap. 23, introducing Firstrfuits in v. 9–22 together with the supplement on Sukkôt in v. 39–43. Once it is recognized that the classical arguments for viewing Firstfruits as a later insertion are not compelling, and that v. 9–22 cannot belong to the same layer as v. 39–43 (see above), this complicated scenario is, however, no longer necessary. Besides, Wagenaar’s reconstruction meets with several additional difficulties. First, as he must admit, there is a manifest discrepancy between the festivals in the first month (Lev 23:5–8!) compared to those in the second; his suggestion to take Exod 12:1–13 into account in order to re-establish a balance between the two parts of the year (cf. ID., Festival Calendar, 238–239; ID., Origin, 130–134) is unconvincing, all the more because Lev 23:5–8 is already a correction of Exod 12:1–13 (see below). Last but not least, this explanation fails to account for the fact that all of ch. 23, and not only v. 9–22 and 39–43, betrays the influence of the calendars of the Covenant Code and of D (further on this below). Ez 45:18-25, on the contrary, stands apart from the Torah’s calendars and apparently represents an entirely distinct tradition. Actually, Wagenaar’s reconstruction in Lev 23 is related to his more general view that the relocation of Passover and Unleavened Bread from the second month of a vernal year to the first month led to disconnection of the Festival of Firstfruits from its original agricultural background and to the adoption, in priestly circles, of a semi-annual layout originally. Even if this development accounts for the origin of Ez 45 (a point which cannot be discussed here), it does not mean that the same calendar tradition has to be hypothesized behind Lev 23 as well, especially once it is recognized that the literary-critical isolation of a semi-annual layout is not substantiated. 418 V. 9–22 are so thoroughly permeated with H’s language that the distinction between “tradition” and “redaction” is virtually impossible to make. The main attempt to do so is by ELLIGER, Leviticus, 307–309, but he is able to identify only fragments of the source used by H (see his reconstruction on p. 302). The criteria are often problematic and, even in the text he assigns to his source, some passages still bear the mark of H (as, e.g., v. 10, or 21b). On the whole, the reconstruction has little plausibility. CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 86(ff.), presumes the existence of a Vorlage but no longer attempts to reconstruct it. Similarly, KNOHL, Sanctuary, 25–26, holds that the language and complexity of this ritual suggest that “at the foundation of this passage lies an ancient popular law”, but then must recognize that “it is difficult to distinguish between the ancient folk elements and the editorial additions of HS”. MILGROM also attempts the reconstruction of H’s source in v. 9–21 but can only identify a few fragments in v. 15–21 (see ID., Leviticus, 1948.1990ff. and 2054–2055). GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 287–291, apparently assigns the first draft of v. 9–22 to the author of ch. 23. On the text- and literary-critical problems raised by v. 18–20, see below, page 506 n. 434.

504

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

been heavily reworked by the H redactor.419 In addition, his proposal raises a further problem, since the passages in Lev 23 which he regards as original and attributes to P (PT) are actually already influenced by H’s terminology.420 Finally, the possibility sometimes put forward that the calendar of Lev 23 initially existed independently from H421 should also be rejected. First, in several passages, such as v. 9–22 and 26–32, the reconstruction of a discrete document free from H’s features appears to be impossible, as noted above.422 Second, the narrative context implied by the introductions to each law (v. 1– 2aa, 9–10aa, 23–24a, 26, 33–34a) is often presupposed in these laws themselves (see, e.g., Yahweh’s reference to himself in the first person in v. 22b, 30, 43, and further 23:10a [compare with 19:23aa!]).423 The conclusion reached here regarding the unity of v. 4–38 is that the complex structure of this calendar does not result from its literary history. Instead, following Noth’s seminal suggestion,424 it is more likely to reflect the attempt to combine and harmonize originally distinct festival traditions. In particular, as Noth had already observed, Lev 23 conflates the pre-exilic tradition of a division of the (agricultural) year in three pilgrimage festivals, each of which corresponds to a major agricultural event,425 with another tradition in which the year is divided into two equal halves, introduced by festivals in the first and seventh months. The first tradition is reflected in the CC (Ex 23:14– 17, see also 34:18–24), and reinterpreted in D in light of the commandment of cultic centralization in Deut 12 (see Deut 16:1–17). The second is found in Ez 45:18–25, and was probably popular within priestly circles after the exile. It betrays the influence of Babylonian festival calendars, where the same semiannual division of the year is found.426 In Lev 23, these two traditions are united for the first time; in addition, the new calendar significantly comments and expands upon the earlier legislation. 419

See ID., Sanctuary, 12–13 and further 23ff.27ff. This is particularly clear in 23:26–32, where Knohl is forced to regard only v. 26–28aa as belonging to P (ID., Sanctuary, 13ff.), which, as argued above, is unconvincing. Methodologically, one of the main problems in Knohl’s approach is that his reconstruction of PT in Lev 23 is systematically based on his comparison with Num 28–29, which he also assigns to PT. Yet the assumption that Num 28–29 is older than Lev 23 in its present form is quite doubtful; see below, page 510 n. 445. Besides, Knohl is not consistent on this point, since in some places (e.g., on 23:18–19), he assigns the parallels with Num 28–29 to HS (Ibid., 26). 421 This is apparently the view held by SUN, Investigation, 399ff. 422 This point is acknowledged by MILGROM, who states (Leviticus, 2056): “In sum, Lev 23 is totally the product of the H source. […] There is no trace of P in this entire chapter”. 423 Pace, e.g., SUN, Investigation, 399, and similarly GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 76– 77, who both regard the introductions to the different laws as a secondary development. 424 NOTH, Leviticus, esp. 166–167. 425 Though it also seems to be partly connected to the vernal and autumnal equinoxes; on this issue, see now the discussion by WAGENAAR, Origin, 7–34. 426 See the status quaestionis by WAGENAAR, Origin, 108ff.121ff., with further references. 420

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

505

The instruction in v. 5–8 takes up the connection of Passover with Unleavened Bread attested for the first time in D (see Deut 16:1–8;427 compare with Ex 23:15) and combines it with the date given for Passover in P (see Ex 12:6).428 Besides, the influence of P’s Passover instruction is manifest in the fact that Passover, in Lev 23:5, is not defined as a h9ag, a pilgrimage festival, as it was the case in D (see Deut 16:2!), and that this designation is reserved to the feast of Unleavened Bread (23:6).429 Lastly, whereas in D the connection between Passover and Unleavened Bread was made possible by the fact that each of the two celebrations was linked separately to the tradition of the exodus (for twcm, cf. Ex 23:15, and for xsp the pre-P tradition found in Ex 12:21–23),430 in H, on the contrary, this connection is already well established, and the reference to the exodus is no longer required to motivate the celebration of these two feasts. The celebration of Firstfruits in 23:9–22 similarly resumes the tradition of a seven-week interval between the first harvest and the celebration of the feast in Deut 16:9–12 (where it is named for this reason tw(b# gx, and no longer 431 rycqh gx as in Ex 23:16). However, H considerably transforms the legis427 The issue of the diachrony of Deut 16:1–8, which is still the subject of considerable discussion, need not be addressed in the context of this study. For a convenient survey of recent scholarship, see W EYDE , Festivals, 32–39. The reference to the xsph gx xbz in Ex 34:25bb, which also appears to presuppose some sort of connection with Unleavened Bread, mentioned immediately before, is traditionally viewed as a late interpolation (see for example GERTZ, Exoduserzählung, 43 n. 68; WAGENAAR, Origin, 40; pace WEYDE, Festivals, 43ff.). 428 In P, Passover is clearly presented as a domestic ritual, see Ex 12:6; for this reason, it is not designated as a sacrifice and the term xbz is found only in the non-P portion of Ex 12 (v. 21–23). The reference to a pilgrimage festival in v. 14 can only refer to the festival of Unleavened Bread, described in v. 14–20, not to Passover; besides, it has long been noted that v. 14– 20 were a later addition to v. 1–13; see below, § 5.4.2.2.a. The influence of Ex 12:1–13 accounts for the observation by OTTO , art. pa4sah9, 18, who correctly notes that Lev 23:5–8 goes beyond Deut 16:1–8 by identifying xsp and twcm as two separate ceremonies. But against Otto (following on this point CHOLEWIN &SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 214), this does not mean that we should also assume a cultic setting for the celebration of Passover, as is the case for Unleavened Bread (see 23:6–8). As correctly observed by KÖRTING (Schall, 104): “Passa ist weder als gx bezeichnet, noch werden #dq-)rqm oder Opfer gefordert”. As argued here, this reinterpretation of Deut 16:1–8 simply reflects the influence of Ex 12:1–13. Otto also suggests that the instruction to offer a sacrifice in Lev 23:8a, which has no equivalent in Deut 16, would reflect the influence of Ez 45:21–24. This is quite possible; yet, pace Otto, it is certainly unlikely that v. 8a is a secondary element in its present context, as he surmises, since the offering of sacrifices is part of the basic pattern for all festivals in Lev 23, see above. 429 A point observed for example by GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 286. 430 For a recent restatement of the pre-Priestly origin of Ex 12:21–23, see GERTZ, Exoduserzählung, 38–50; as well as GRÜNWALDT, Exil, 78ff. The formulation of Deut 16:1–8 (see v. 1, 6b) makes it clear that it is because of its connection with the exodus specifically that Passover may function as the overture of the seven days of the Unleavened Bread celebration. 431 On this, see also now WAGENAAR , Origin, 136; against MILGROM , Leviticus, 1999, who is forced to coin an ad hoc, rather fanciful explanation so as to avoid this conclusion.

506

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

lation on the wheat harvest celebration found in the CC and in D.432 On one hand, Firstfruits is no longer defined as a h9ag, a pilgrimage festival. Whereas this may reflect a practical concession to farmers, as argued above along with Milgrom, the effect achieved by this transformation is to reserve pilgrimage festivals for the first and seventh months in the year, thus enhancing a semiannual division of the year that conforms to the pattern already found in Ezekiel 45. On the other hand, however, the offering of wheat from the new harvest at the central sanctuary is maintained in H, although it does no longer need to be brought by each farmer individually. Furthermore, the suppression of a pilgrimage festival during Firstfruits is compensated for by various innovations in the ritual. In particular, H adds a rite for the offering of the First Sheaf of barley, that officially marks the beginning of the seven weeks (v. 10– 14). This rite is clearly based on the older prescriptions found in Ex 23:19; 34:26 and Deut 26:1ff., and probably also on Lev 2:14–16;433 but the latter are still unconnected with the celebration of the first harvest, and this connection represents therefore H’s innovation. Another new custom is the prescription to offer together with the First Sheaf a one-year old lamb as a burnt offering, accompanied by auxiliary offerings (cereal offering and libation, v. 12–13). Also, the instruction for the wheat harvest festival itself in 23:15–21 is considerably more developed than in Deut 16:9–12. A specific instruction is given in particular regarding the nature of the sacrifices to be offered and the rite to be performed by the priest on this occasion (v. 17–20). As in the previous offering of the First Sheaf, the sacrifices combine cereal and animal offerings, and the language of these verses clearly refers to P’s sacrificial terminology.434 At the same time, however, the instruction to bring two leavened 432

In his recent analysis of ch. 23, WEYDE, Festivals, 69–88, similarly stresses this aspect. See, e.g., GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 287–288; KÖRTING, Schall, 107–108; and WEYDE, Festivals, 70(ff.). All three authors point out the manifest parallel between the heading of Deut 26:1 and Lev 23:10. On the connection between Lev 2:14–16 and 23:10–14 and the reason for assuming that Lev 23 presupposes Lev 2, see above, page 211 and note 444. 434 As traditionally acknowledged, v. 18–20 are overloaded and have obviously been edited; see in particular the formulation of v. 20. While several solutions have been advocated (see the survey by GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 83–84), the most convincing seems to be the one proposed by ELLIGER, Leviticus, 308 (followed by GRÜNWALDT, Ibid., 84). He suggests that the mention of the seven lambs in v. 18 is a revision inspired by the parallel law in Num 28–29 (28:27–30), as is that of the t)+x in v. 19 (whereas the Myml#-xbz in this same verse is a further supplement). Originally, according to Elliger, the instruction probably mentioned only two lambs as a burnt offering in v. 18, which accounts for the formulation preserved in v. 20; the two lambs were then reinterpreted and transformed into a well-being offering coupled with the t)+x prescribed in Num 28. V. 20, before it was edited, would have read something like: My#bk yn#-l( hwhy ynpl hpwnt Myrwkbh Mxl-t) Nhkh Pynhw, i.e. the bread was waved over the two lambs (Grünwaldt offers a somewhat different and more speculative reconstruction). The later origin of v. 19 is corroborated by the concluding statement of v. 18, “a pleasing/soothing odor to Yahweh”, which elsewhere in P always concludes sacrificial 433

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

507

breads (Cmx) in v. 17 innovates with respect to Lev 2:14–16, the to=ra= for the Myrwkb txnm; above all, it appears to contradict the central prohibition, in Lev 2:11, of offering leaven on the altar. Both in the case of the sheaf offering (v. 10–14) and of the wheat harvest celebration (v. 15–21), the presence of detailed instructions for offerings as well as the conclusion of each section by the formula “a permanent decree throughout your generations in all your settlements” (v. 14b, 21b) underline H’s specific concern for the land and its produce. This also accounts for the repetition of the agricultural law of 19:9b– 10 at the end of the section on Firstfruits, in 23:22a.435 The focus on sacrifices in v. 10–21, unparalleled in the rest of ch. 23, corresponds to H’s emphasis on Yahweh as the land’s sole owner (Lev 25:23), to whom the first fruits must be consecrated (19:23–25). Finally, the other major innovation of H against D concerns the computation of the seven weeks, which no longer simply begins with the first harvest (Deut 16:9) but extends now from the day after the Sabbath following the first harvest (Lev 23:10–11) to the day after the Sabbath seven weeks later (23:15–16).436 This development betrays a remarkable arrangement between the economic necessity to keep a flexible date for the festival and the attempt to relate it to the most basic structure in the year for H, namely, the Sabbath. In the case of the third traditional festival, H adopts D’s designation as t(w)ksh gx (Deut 16:13, 16) against the older P(y)s)h gx, “feast of ingathering” (Ex 23:16; 34:22) but adds for it a specific date in the year (Lev 23:34) as with twcm-xsp previously (23:5). The festival’s duration, seven days from prescriptions. The resulting sequence, i.e., v. 18* (with only two lambs), 20* parallels the sacrifices prescribed for the Sheaf Offering in v. 12–13. The significant point is that even in the text thus reconstructed, P’s influence is unmistakable, as in v. 12–13 (contra Grünwaldt); see, e.g., the reference to the rite of the hpwnt, or the phrase hwhyl xxyn-xyr h#) at the end of the offering (cf. Lev 1:9, 13, 17; 2:2, 9; 3:5, 16; further Num 15; 18:17 and 28–29). 435 As observed by GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 85, v. 22aa builds an inclusion with v. 10ag, thus framing the entire law on Firstfruits in v. 10–22. Furthermore, 23:10 itself is clearly modeled on 19:23 (W ELLHAUSEN, Composition, 163; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 85 n. 312), the introduction to the law which, in ch. 19, forms the structural parallel to 19:9–10 (see above, § 5.2.2.2.). WEYDE, Festivals, 84–87, sees an echo of the mention of the personae miserae in Deut 16:11, but this seems less convincing since the same persons also appear in the context of the celebration of Sukkôt in Deut 16:12. 436 The traditional dispute in antiquity on whether the Sabbath of v. 11 fell during Passover, during the festival of Unleavened Bread, or immediately after (thus the Temple Scroll) is too complex to be discussed in this context. Most likely, however, the “Sabbath”, here, originally referred to the first Sabbath after the farmer had begun the harvest, exactly as in Deut 16:9, thus allowing for possible variations from one year to another and from one region to another. See especially ELLIGER, Leviticus, 314–315; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 194–196; RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 82; W AGENAAR, Origin, 135–136. If I understand him correctly, this is also the position argued now by MILGROM, Leviticus, 2056–2063 (see on p. 2060). The debate on the identity of this Sabbath would have arisen at a later stage, probably partly because of the literary connection between v. 9–22 and v. 5–8.

508

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

the 15th to the 21st in the seventh month, makes it the exact equivalent to the festival of Unleavened Bread in the first month (23:6–8), thus enhancing the importance of the first and seventh months and the division of the year into two halves in the calendar of Lev 23. However, the celebration of Sukkôt in Lev 23 differs from the celebration of Unleavened Bread by the addition of an eighth day (23:36b), which concludes the feast not only with a holy convocation and the offering of sacrifices, as in the case of Unleavened Bread (23:8b), but also with a trc(, a term referring to the closure of a festival and probably involving a solemn assembly.437 The introduction of this eighth day is an innovation over D, which still knows only of a seven-day celebration (Deut 16:13, 15). In addition, the prescription of a trc( in D does not concern the celebration of the last day of Sukkôt, but of Unleavened Bread (Deut 16:8); in Lev 23, this clause is now re-applied to Sukkôt.438 This development, together with the introduction of the eighth day, highlights the importance of the conclusion of the celebration of Sukkôt. This device is probably linked to the fact that Sukkôt represents the last festival of the year. Yet it may also reflect, more specifically, the unique significance of the seventh month in Lev 23, as some authors have suggested.439 Its importance is also evinced by the fact that H includes two additional festivals, not mentioned in the previous calendars of Ex 23 and Deut 16: the “Day of Blowing the Horn” (v. 23–25) on the first day of the seventh month and the Day of Purifications (v. 26–31 [32]) on the tenth.440 These two celebrations are clearly reminiscent of the New Year festivals in the Babylonian tradition, which also involved purification ceremonies 437

On trc(/hrc( as meaning an official assembly in a cultic context, see 2 Kgs 10:20– 21; Joel 1:14; 2:15–16; Neh 8:18; and further Isa 1:13; Jer 9:1; Am 5:21; 2 Chr 7:9. On the basis of the classical study by KUTSCH, Wurzel, CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 188 n. 35, proposed understanding this term in the Torah’s calendars as designating a “besonderer Feiertag”, as opposed to “normal” festal days, referred to as #dq-)rqm ; this idea is resumed by WEYDE, Festivals, 113ff. Yet this is explicitly infirmed by the number and nature of the offerings prescribed in Num 29:36–37 for this same eighth day when compared with the offerings prescribed for the first seven days. It is clear, therefore, that trc( in these calendars is always associated with the conclusion of a feast, as in Lev 23:36, see Deut 16:8; Neh 8:18, which probably accounts for the term’s translation in the LXX. 438 Although the dependence of Lev 23:36b on Deut 16:8 was frequently noted, the meaning and implications of the transfer of the term trc( from Unleavened Bread to Sukkôt has retained little interest. On this point, see in particular W EYDE , Festivals, 113ff.; pace W AGENAAR, Origin, 133 n. 53. Against earlier critics (e.g., CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 83), there is no reason to regard v. 36b as a later addition, as correctly noted by KÖRTING, Schall, 109–110 (whose position is misinterpreted by WEYDE, Festivals, 118–119). 439 See WEYDE, Festivals, 113–130; e.g., p. 115: “It [the term trc(, C.N.] occurs only in v. 36 in order to emphasize the significance of the sukkôt festival in the Leviticus calendar”. 440 The literary homogeneity of 23:26–32, except perhaps for v. 32, was already discussed previously. The unity of the brief section on the “cultic shout” in v. 23–25 is acknowledged even by the most critical commentators (e.g., ELLIGER, Leviticus, 309–310 [except for Nwtb#]).

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

509

and, like the ak|4tu festival, could be celebrated not only in the first, but also in the seventh month; the same tradition is found in Ez 45:18–25.441 In the calendar of Lev 23, however, the connection with the celebration of the New Year has receded to the background, mainly because H has adopted P’s spring calendar (cf. Ex 12:2; further Num 28:16). But the importance of the festivals celebrated in this month as well as the presence of a specific purification ceremony (cf. Myrpkh Mwy, v. 27) still point towards its importance as the autumnal equinox, and therefore as a period of special significance for the people and the land.442 The connection also survived in the blowing of the horn on the first day of the seventh month, which was probably a typical means of announcing the beginning of a year (see Lev 25:9).443 Therefore, as this analysis demonstrates, Lev 23 is built on the systematic reception of all previous biblical calendars, which it supplements and reformulates into a new, original festal legislation. It is, as such, another remarkable instance of inner-biblical exegesis in H. Apart from adding several new features (such as the date for Passover, the Sabbatical comput for the celebration of Firstfruits as well as the description of a detailed ritual, or the association of a closing ceremony with Sukkôt rather than with Passover/ Unleavened Bread, as in Deut 16:1–8), the festal calendar of Lev 23 introduces into the Torah the semi-annual layout derived from Ez 45 (itself adapted from the Neo-Babylonian festal tradition) by adapting the tradition of three pilgrimage festivals during the year inherited from other pentateuchal calendars. The central feature of this sophisticated synthesis, as argued above, resides in the transformation and re-interpretation of the celebration of First441 See, e.g., C OHEN , Cultic Calendars, 437; VAN DER T OORN, New Year Festival, 332; W AGENAAR, Origin, 112ff.119–120. An autumnal ak|4tu festival was also celebrated at Uruk during the first millenium BCE. 442 On this, see KNOHL, Sanctuary, 37; ID., Sabbath, 95; and WEYDE, Festivals, 123ff. As observed by Knohl, the connection between the use of trc( in Lev 23:36 and the autumn festival is supported by the occurences of this term in Joel (1:14; 2:15), since the prophet calls a trc( to stir God’s mercies, with the result that God sends rain and provides an abundant harvest (2:22ff.). In the case of Lev 23, Knohl argues, “the presence of these customs in the holidays of the seventh month came about as a result of the belief that it was in this month that all creatures are judged and the annual rainfall is determined”. As he notes, this notion is preserved in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Lev 23:36, as well as in the Jewish liturgy. 443 On this, see further in particular WAGENAAR, Origin, 125–127. Wagenaar presumes, in addition, that the date of Sukkôt (tenth day of the seventh month) would equal “the epact, the difference between a 354/5-day lunar year and a 365-day solar year” so that the first ten days of the seventh month would function as “‘days of uncertainty’ with respect to the question whether an additional thirteenth month would have to be intercalated before the autumnal equinox” (Ibid., 128–129). The proposal is attractive but nevertheless quite speculative. More simply, other passages in the HB, such as especially Ez 40:1 (pace WAGENAAR, 126) but also Ex 12:3b (and Lev 25:9) may suggest that there was a traditional connection between the tenth day of the seventh month and the beginning of the year, which is still reflected in the date for the Day of Purifications in Lev 23:27.

510

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

fruits, which is no longer a h9ag, a pilgrimage festival. Thus, against Ez 45, a celebration of the firstfruits is maintained, as in Exod 23:16a; 34:22a and Deut 16:9–12, but the principle of a division of the year into two equal halves, introduced by festivals in the first and seventh months, is nevertheless established by reserving the command to perform a pilgrimage at the central sanctuary for the celebration of Unleavened Bread and Sukkôt, contrary to what was the case in all previous pentateuchal calendars. Besides, this division of the year is further enhanced by the intentional symmetry between Unleavened Bread and Sukkôt, each festival beginning on the 15th day of the month and lasting for seven days (with an additional closing ceremony on the eighth day in the case of Sukkôt). Simultaneously, the way in which this calendar has been devised links it closely to the remainder of Lev 17–26.444 As the content of 23:5–8, 24–25, 27–32 and 34–36 makes clear, H has no interest in details of the ceremony such as the nature of the sacrifices to be offered, except in the case of v. 9–22, which probably reflect an earlier tradition as argued above. At a later stage in the composition of the Torah, this will lead to the introduction of Num 28–29, which is not a new calendar, as incorrectly assumed by some scholars, but rather a supplement to Lev 23 which specifies the nature of the offerings to be presented for each feast.445 Instead, H’s main concern was to set a specific date for each celebration (except in the case of Firstfruits offering where it was not possible, and where an alternative solution had to be found), and to emphasize the feasts’ holiness, each festival being opened and closed by a #dq-)rqm. While the connection with the remainder of Lev 17–26 is immediately obvious in this latter case, it is also implied, in a more subtle way, in the mention of dates. In Lev 23, the feasts are no longer simply conceived as climactic events in the agricultural cycle, as in the previous calendars (Ex 23 and Deut 16); rather, they are defined in the super- and subscript to the original calendar (v. 4, 37–38) as hwhy yd(wm, “appointed times of Yahweh”, i.e., times set apart in the year by Yahweh himself. This expression, which occurs otherwise only in postexilic literature (Ezra 3:5; 2 Chr 2:3),446 is conspicuously missing from the earlier calendars; very likely, it reflects a typically priestly conception (see Gen 1:14; Ez 44:24).447 The fact that exact dates are 444 The almost exclusive focus on the problem of the literary dependence of the calendars of the CC, of D and of H as well as of their relative chronology has often led to the neglect of this point; see the recent studies by KÖRTING, Schall, and WEYDE, Festivals, for example. 445 For a criticism of Knohl’s view as to the dependence of Lev 23 on Num 28–29, see GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 297; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 602ff.; and especially now W AGENAAR , Origin, 146–155, arguing that it is on the contrary Num 28–29 that is derived from Lev 23. On the recent attempt by WEYDE, Festivals, to establish that Lev 23 would be later than both Deut 16 and Num 28–29, may I refer to my review in Bib 87, 2006, 555–559. 446 As noted by GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 295. 447 On yd(wm in Gen 1:14 as referring to sacred times in the year: e.g., VOGELS, Calendars.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

511

now supplied in H’s calendar corroborates this device. For the first time, the celebration of festivals obeys a fixed, immutable pattern that can be predicted from one year to another. In other words, the division of the year is now part of the creational order. In this respect, Lev 23 offers a perfect introduction to the second part of the holiness legislation in Lev 17–26. 5.2.4.2. Leviticus 24 a. Leviticus 24:1–9: A Complement to the Festival Calendar The first part of this chapter, v. 1–9, deals with a sub-theme of Lev 23 since it contains two instructions for daily (v. 2–4) and weekly (v. 5–9) rites to be performed inside the sanctuary.448 For this reason, it is not necessary to assume that it betrays a later interpolation between ch. 23 and 25. It may also have been conceived by the author of H as a sub-section, or an appendix, to the legislation of Lev 23, making its present position quite logical.449 The two instructions are based on two passages in Ex 25–31, thus evincing once again H’s dependence upon P. Lev 24:2–3 takes up almost verbatim Ex 27:20–21 (itself a late insert in ch. 27) but expands it with an additional prescription in v. 4.450 Lev 24:5–9 is based on the instruction of Ex 25:30 though, curiously, this connection has often been missed by commentators. Whereas Ex 25:30 concludes the section on the golden table inside the inner-sanctum in 25:23– 30 by commanding that the “bread of the presence”, Mynp Mxl, be “perpetual ly” placed upon it, Lev 24:5–9 now develops this general requirement by supplying detailed instruction on how breads are to be made (v. 5), how they are to be disposed on the golden table (v. 6) along with frankincense (v. 7),451 448

This is the division usually adopted in commentaries. LUCIANI, Sainteté, 1. 165–170, proposes for his part a threefold division (v. 2–4, 5–7, 8–9) with a chiastic arrangement, but the arguments for this (such as the return of the 3rd ps in 8–9) are superficial. Above all, this division does not do justice to the connection between 8–9 and 5–7, though it does point to the fact that the end of the second section was deliberately conceived so as to echo the first. 449 With RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 294–326, esp. 323, against OTTO, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 182 n. 231, who regards all of ch. 24 as a later interpolation in Lev 17–26. Contra Ruwe, however, I would not view 23:1–24:9 as a single unit in H. The structural division between the ch. 23 and 24:1–9 is clearly signaled by the compliance report concluding Lev 23 (v. 44). 450 If Lev 24:2–3 is based on Ex 27:20–21, the arguments advanced by BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 419 (cf. also KILIAN, Untersuchung, 112; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 327), to consider v. 4 as secondary are not conclusive. The use in v. 4 of the plural twrn for the lamps instead of the collective rn in v. 2–3, as in Ex 27:20–21, is found elsewhere in late stratums of P, see Ex 30:7–8 and Num 8:2–3. For a similar conclusion, see GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 91. 451 The instruction of v. 7 is generally explained by commentators in connection with the legislation on the cereal offering in Lev 2. Indeed, the use of the term hrkz) is an unmistakable reference to Lev 2:2. However, it must also be observed that 24:7 goes beyond Lev 2:1–3 since the latter prescribes the addition of frankincense (hnbl) only in the case of raw cereal offerings, not of baked offerings as is the case of the bread of the presence in Lev

512

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

how they are to be replaced each Sabbath (v. 8), and how they are to be eaten by Aaron and his sons (v. 9). The connection between the two instructions consists in the lamp and the golden table being the only two items inside the inner-sanctum which use perishable material (oil and bread respectively).452 Hence, the need to replenish them calls for a continuous (dymt , v. 3b, 9b) rite.453 This fixed, regular character accounts for the relation of Lev 24:1–9 with the calendar of Lev 23. In addition, the command to replace the bread of the presence on “the day of the Sabbath” (v. 8) connects the two laws even more tightly.454 Simultaneously, the instructions of 24:1–9 also build a contrast with the calendar of ch. 23, since contrary to the rites required for the festivals in Lev 23 occurring only at fixed dates in the year the rites for the sanctuary are permanent and therefore independent of the other annual celebrations.455 Thus, although fully integrated into the festive life of the community, the sanctuary has nevertheless its own specific temporality. In this respect, the juxtaposition of Lev 23 and 24:1–9 is quite reminiscent of the general structure of ch. 18–22, with ch. 18–20 being devoted to the holiness of the community, and ch. 21–22 (i.e., 21:1–22:16) to the holiness of the sanctuary in particular. b. Leviticus 24:10–23: The Talionic Legislation in H The fact that the second part of ch. 24, v. 10–23, is unrelated to the general theme of ch. 23–25 (sacred times in the year) suggests that it has probably been introduced at a later stage. This is corroborated by the fact that the account of a case which Moses cannot settle on the basis of the existing legislation and thus requires further instruction from Yahweh is exclusively found in the late “Priestly” portions of the book of Numbers (see Num 9:6–15; 15:32– 24:5ff. (compare with Lev 2:4–10). This development probably points to the superiority of the Mynp Mxl presented weekly over the other baked offerings of the Israelites. 452 See H ARTLEY, Leviticus, 398, although he fails to note that among the objects inside the inner-sanctum, this concerns only the lamp and the table. Because he fails to notice that the matter of interest, here, is restricted to the inner-sanctum, RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 326 n. 91, creates a false problem in wondering why the dymt offering of perfume on the inner altar commanded in Ex 30:1–10 is not also taken up in Lev 24. 453 The connection between the two instructions as two dymt rites has been noted by several commentators; see, for example, BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 418; HOFFMANN, Leviticus, 2. 305–306; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 326; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 91. HARTLEY, Leviticus, 398, notes several further terminological connections between the two instructions and correctly concludes that they must necessarily have been composed together, pace for example SUN, Investigation, 417. 454 On this point, see in particular GANE, Bread, 198–203; and RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 326, who even speaks in this respect of a “Sabbatisierung des Heiligtums”. 455 This was noted by HOFFMANN , Leviticus, 2. 305–306, commenting: “Nur das Lichtund das Brotopfer bleibt stets dasselbe (dymt) und wird durch die Festtage nicht alterirt”.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

513

36; 27:1–11), and is therefore characteristic neither of P nor of H.456 Nevertheless, the insertion of the episode recounted in Lev 24:10ff. at this place has some logic, as was already shown earlier in this study (§ 2.3.1.). Yahweh’s sacred name, which lies at the heart of this story, is not only a central concern in H (see Lev 20:3!); together with the Sabbath and the sacred feasts, it is also the only other major sanctum that lies outside the sanctuary. Interpreting the interpolation of 24:10–23 is complicated by the fact that the narration within which the legislation of v. 15–22 is embedded has always been regarded, traditionally, as being itself a secondary accretion.457 Yet this view is problematic in several respects. First, its case is mostly based on the observation (in itself correct) that the narrative in v. 10–12, 14, 23, bears all the marks of “P”;458 this criterion is irrelevant if, as previously argued in this study, H is post-P. Besides, as we will see below, the legal instruction in v. 15–22 is also clearly dependent on P, so that the classical assumption that an earlier pre-P tradition underlies this section should be abandoned. For the rest, there is hardly any tension between the narrative in v. 10–14 and the legal instruction in v. 15–22 likely to demand their separation.459 Quite to the con456

On this specific literary device within the “priestly” legislation, see in particular FISHBiblical Interpretation, 99ff.; also CRÜSEMANN, Tora, 120–126. On the attribution of Num 9; 15 and 27 to a later, post-H revision in Numbers, see now ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 443ff., and further below § 5.4.2.2. 457 See, e.g., W ELLHAUSEN , Composition, 163–164; BAENTSCH, Heiligkeits-Gesetz, 51–53; ID ., Leviticus, 420; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 84–85; REVENTLOW, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 119ff.; KILIAN, Untersuchung, 113ff.; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 329–333; THIEL, Erwägungen, 60; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 98–100; most recently, GRÜNWALDT , Heiligkeitsgesetz, 92ff.; and even R UWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 56–57.70–71, and passim. Alternatively, a few scholars have suggested the opposite view, i.e., the narrative would be earlier than the legislation itself; thus, e.g., SUN, Investigation, 436–438. This, however, seems most unlikely. Although the literary homogeneity of 24:15b–22 itself has sometimes been disputed in the past (see in particular REVENTLOW , Heiligkeitsgesetz, 119ff.; and KILIAN, Untersuchung, 113ff.), it is now widely acknowledged; see already ELLIGER, Leviticus, 329–333, and now GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 94–97. The kind of reconstruction advocated by Reventlow and Kilian is based on problematic criteria and does not even take into account the manifest chiastic structure of v. 15b–22. On this structure, see for instance RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 328–330; several authors, such as JACKSON, Semiotics, 291–292 (following WELCH, Chiasmus, 7–9) extend the chiasm to include all of v. 13–23; see similarly MILGROM, Leviticus, 2128–2130; LUCIANI, Sainteté, 1. 170–176. This is another indication that the usual division between “law” and “narrative” in Lev 24 is arbitrary, see further below. 458 See the above observation on the parallel between Lev 24:10–23 and the stories recounted in Num 9:6–15; 15:32–36; 27:1–11; and for further details on the terminology of v. 10–14 betraying the influence of P (such as for instance the expression hwhy yp-l( in v. 12), see in particular CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 97–98. 459 Pace GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 93–94, who has correctly seen that the case for the later origin of the narrative in v. 10–14 can no longer be based on the sole assumption of the pre-P origin of H, and who tries consequently to build his case on the inner tensions between v. 10–14, 23 and 15–22. However, his remarks are not conclusive. Grünwaldt conBANE ,

514

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

trary, the story of v. 10–14, 23 and the divine instruction in v. 15–22 are so closely tied that it is entirely arbitrary to dissociate them.460 The identification of v. 14 as a later insertion between v. 13 and 15 is unjustified on literarycritical grounds, although it is needed in order to save the original independence of the legislation of v. 15ff. In v. 15 itself, the commission formula found in 15a, rm)l rbdt l)r#y ynb-l)w, is not typical of H but has a parallel in Num 27:1–11 (see 27:8).461 Most commentators regard it as a secondary element belonging to the narrative framework;462 but this solution also raises a difficulty because elsewhere in H a new legislation, such as v. 15b–22, is always introduced by a commission formula. Finally, the sanction of v. 23 is clearly anticipated by the instruction of v. 16ab, according to which the entire community is to stone the blasphemer. This last observation forced many scholars to view v. 16ab as secondary, which is of course unfounded.463 Above all, the main ground for retaining the narrative framework in Lev 24 as original is due to the fact that the situation described in v. 10–11 accounts for the connection between blasphemy and injury resulting from a fight in v. 15–22 (15b–16, 17–21): i.e., 24:10–23 actually opens with a story in which a quarrel between two men eventually leads to blasphemy.464 We may take this observation one step further if we consider the inner-biblical background of Lev 24. Critics have traditionally noted that the legislation in v. 17–21 is based on the talionic law in Ex 21:23b–25 (see also Deut 19:21),465 which it expands in various ways (see further below). Yet it has generally been overlooked that the case described in 24:10 takes up the situation recounted in Ex 21:22 – a quarrel between two men, each time with the same verbal form, 466 wcny –, the very case introducing the legislation on talion in the CC. Here also, therefore, we have another obvious instance of sophisticated innerbiblical legal exegesis in H. As in the CC, a quarrel between two men leads to vincingly demonstrates that the story of v. 10ff. has been composed from the perspective of the following legislation, but not that it has to be later than this legislation. 460 As admitted in a sense by CHOLEWIN&SKI, Ibid., 98, who states that v. 15–16 were surely edited to fit the narrative context of v. 10–14, but recognizes that the reconstruction of the original law is “[eine] sehr komplizierte Frage”. 461 Otherwise only in Ex 30:31; Lev 9:3. Quite significantly, the LXX harmonizes with the usual pattern found elsewhere in Leviticus; see on this WEVERS, Notes on Leviticus, 395. 462 BAENTSCH , Leviticus, 421; KILIAN , Untersuchung, 113; ELLIGER , Leviticus, 330; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 95 n. 357; see also CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 96ff. 463 See BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 421; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 84 (both of whom also include 16b); KILIAN, Untersuchung, 113–114; most recently GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 96. Note further that the use of M#h as a circumlocution for Yahweh in v. 16bb, which has no real parallel in the HB, is anticipated in v. 11. 464 This point is well perceived by JACKSON, Semiotics, 292. 465 On this, see for example recently GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 301ff. On the ANE background to the talionic principle, see OTTO, Geschichte, 107–117; ID., Ethik, 75–78. 466 For this judicious observation, see JACKSON, Semiotics, 292.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

515

the promulgation of the principle of talion. But in Lev 24, the case is now complicated by a further issue: in the context of the quarrel, the divine name is uttered (bqn ) 467 and cursed (llq ). This development then calls for the introduction of a new instruction in v. 15b–16, which is aptly included between the quarrel’s account and the legislation on talion itself. Significantly, this instruction repeats the two verbs of v. 11 but the latter appear in reverse order, and form the subject of two distinct laws. Anyone cursing (llq ) his god, or his gods (wyhl) ), must bear his sin (w)+x )#n, v. 15b); but anyone uttering (bqn) Yahweh’s name – presumably, in a contemptuous way, as in Ex 20:7 – must be put to death by the entire community, whether he is a resident alien or an Israelite (v. 16).468 In this way, the legislation of v. 15b–16 takes up the prohibition of Ex 22:27 on cursing “God” (Myhl)); but it refines it by distinguishing between cursing one’s deity in general terms and blaspheming Yahweh’s holy name.469 467

Earlier critics (BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 420; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 85) often surmised that the form bqyw in v. 11 should be derived from bbq, but this conclusion is precluded by the formulation of v. 16, reading bqnw (thus correctly for example WEINGREEN, Blasphemer, 118; SUN, Investigation, 423, further notes that the root bbq is never found with M# , contrary to bqn ). Since the verb bqn itself does not necessarily imply contempt, GABEL/WHEELER, Redactor’s Hand, interpret this passage as the first prohibition on uttering the tetragrammaton, as later Jewish tradition will do. However, the notion of contempt clearly seems to be part of the narrative context. In the course of a quarrel, the divine name is hardly expected to be pronounced respectfully. LIVINGSTON, Leviticus XXIV 11, goes even further and, on the basis of Talmudic tradition, suggests that the formulation of v. 11 shows that the offender had cursed Yahweh by using Yahweh’s own name; however, this proposal is openly contradicted by v. 16, where bqn occurs alone, thus making clear that the pronouncement of the divine name alone is condemned. In a recent reassessment of the issue HUTTON, Case, correctly concludes that the use of bqn refers to an “illegitimate” or “inappropriate” use of God’s name, as in Ex 20:7 (Ibid., 537). Another problem is to decide whether the syntax of v. 11 indicates two discrete actions or a single one. Many recent commentators are inclined towards the latter solution; yet it is not obvious to understand how blasphemy and curse can be equivalent. Admittedly, a possibility would be to take the verb llq, here, in the primary sense of “degrading, demeaning”, as argued by HUTTON, Case, 538–539. Against Hutton, however, it is certainly not possible to read v. 15b–16 as referring to a single offense, as we shall see below; there, bqn and llq clearly refer to two discrete actions. Thus, it is logical to assume that the same already applies in v. 11, especially if it is accepted that the narrative frame and the law are from the same hand. 468 As most scholars have recognized, the two laws address distinct issues, and there is therefore not necessarily a tension between them (pace REVENTLOW, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 120; KILIAN, Untersuchung, 119; cf. also ELLIGER, Leviticus, 331). 469 Pace HUTTON, Case, 538, holding that 15b and 16 refer to the same offense; however, he can account neither for the repetition nor, above all, for the difference between the two sanctions. Instead, he is forced to assume that reference to the “bearing of sin” in v. 15 would indicate that bloodguilt will attach to the community putting the blasphemer to death in v. 16, which can hardly be correct. If so the redactor of Lev 24 would have used the common phrase wymd (hyhy) w#)rb (on which, see above, pages 449–450 note 213); besides, this statement

516

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

The reading wyhl), in 15b, is significant since, in the context of a law for both Israelites and resident aliens (v. 22a), it suggests the reinterpretation of the prohibition of Ex 22:27 from a more universalistic perspective.470 V. 16, for its part, probably echoes the Decalogue’s prohibition on using Yahweh’s name in vain (Ex 20:7; Deut 5:11). The emphasis on the fact that the law applies to both the rg and the xrz) alike at the end of v. 16 (v. 16b) is somewhat redundant with the general statement of v. 22a, but it does make sense, of course, in the context of the previous narrative. As regards the choice of a non-Israelite in this story, not only does it illustrate the principle of the inclusion of the resident alien into Israel’s law, but it also allows the author of this story to avoid recounting how an Israelite would have blasphemed Yahweh’s holy name and would have cursed the deity.471 The sanction is then applied in v. 23, conforming to Yahweh’s instruction in v. 16. In between, the author of Lev 24:10–23 has introduced his own version of the talionic law (v. 17–21), thus completing his réécriture of Ex 21:22–25. But the statement of the talionic principle in v. 17 is a fitting transition between v. 16 and the collection formed by v. 17–21 (itself framed by the repetition of v. 17 in v. 21b), since both v. 16 and 17 deal with the death penalty and contain the formula tmwy twm. Yet a closer examination of the version of the talionic law found in 24:17–21 indicates an even more essential connection between the law of v. 15b–16 and v. 17–21. Vis-à-vis the CC, the general tendency in Lev 24 is the re-interpretation of talion from a distinctively priestly perspective.472 V. 17 introduces the talionic legislation by using Ex 21:12, but replaces the term #y) by the phrase Md) #pn-lk473. Not only is the would have occurred after the sanction, not before. The “bearing of sin” has a completely different judicial and theological meaning; see on this above, § 3.5., p. 242, note 602. 470 Against HUTTON, Case, 537. For H, exclusive worship of Yahweh is mandatory only for the Israelites (Lev 19:4a), since it is the distinctive mark of their consecration to him. For this view, see, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 421; further SCHULT, Lev 24,15b. The LXX, which reads qeo/n, without the suffix, probably seeks to harmonize v. 15b with Ex 22:27. Note, however, that Lev 17:8–9 implies the interdiction to sacrifice to other gods in Israel’s land. 471 As perceived by BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 420. Whether the fact that the text underlines the Israelite origin of his mother (see v. 11b!) reflects a move away from strict patriarchalism is difficult to tell, although it cannot be excluded. NOTH, Leviticus, 179, is probably correct when he assumes that the mother’s identity primarily serves to explain, in the narrative context of Lev 24, why the son of an Egyptian is living among the Israelites; but this does not account for the indication of the mother’s genealogy in v. 11b. However, the genealogy itself looks somewhat intrusive after v. 10 and could be a later insert (e.g., BAENTSCH, 420). It appears to consist of a sophisticated pun, on which see DOUGLAS, Leviticus, 207–208; and especially DUPONT, Women, 173–180. 472 As noted by RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 330ff.; OTTO, Geschichte, 125–127. 473 The dependence on Ex 21:12 probably explains that the author of Lev 24:17–21 neglected to specify that the law applies only if a man (or an animal) is striken to death (compare the LXX in v. 17, 18 and 21!), as this point was already made in Ex 21:12.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

517

phrase Md) #pn typically priestly,474 but it occurs namely in Gen 9:5–6, P’s prohibition on murder, which contains itself a reference to the principle of talion (see 9:6a).475 Thus, the author of Lev 24:10–23 reformulates Ex 21:12 in the light of Gen 9:5–6. The inclusion immediately following, in v. 18, of the case of an animal, is similarly characteristic of the priestly reflection on creation; this device is all the more significant because it has no equivalent in the other codes. Although the sanction makes a clear difference between killing a man and an animal, and although the law of v. 18 also secured the owner’s rights by obliging the responsible person to make restitution (Ml#) for the animal killed, the parallel between the formulation of v. 17 and 18 does suggest a comparison between killing an animal and a man, as some scholars have noted.476 It is further enhanced by the use in both cases of the term #pn with the verb hkn : Md) #pn (v. 17) and hmhb #pn (v. 18). In this respect, the law of Lev 24:18 continues the revision, initiated in Lev 17 (above, § 5.2.1.), of the permission of profane slaughter granted to man in P (Gen 9:3).477 As such, it also participates in the restoration in Israel of an order more closely conformed to the original creation (see Gen 1:29–30). The resumption, in chiastic order, of the law of v. 17–18 in v. 21 frames v. 19–20 forming the center of the legislation on talion in Lev 24.478 In v. 19–20 themselves, the statement of the general principle of talion in v. 19, 20b builds a further frame around the concrete formula in v. 20a illustrating this principle:479 “fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth”. Together, v. 19– 20 appear to promote a literal understanding of talion against the possibility of koper (i.e., compensation for damage suffered) which, as several scholars have argued, was probably de facto permanently allowed.480 The statement of the general principle, v. 19b, 20b, takes up Deut 19:19a481 while the concrete formula in v. 20a has a close parallel in Ex 21:24–25 (further Deut 19:21).482 If Jackson’s suggestion that the r#)k formula implies qualitatively equivalent retribution and the txt formula quantitative equivalence is correct,483 then the 474

Gen 9:5; Num 9:6, 7; 19:11, 13; 31:35, 40, 46; Ez 27:13; 1 Chr 5:21. For the parallel, see already HOFFMANN, Leviticus, 2. 315; further OTTO, Geschichte, 125–126; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 304–305. 476 E.g., HARTLEY, Leviticus, 411; see also RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 331.336–337. 477 RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 331–332. 478 Note that v. 21a is missing in the LXX ; however, as suggested by WEVERS, Notes on Leviticus, 399, it could be a case of omission by homoiarchton. 479 For the distinction between “talionic principle” and “concrete formula”, see in particular JACKSON, “An Eye For an I?”, 134–135. 480 See in particular JACKSON, Essays, 85–86; WESTBROOK, Studies, 45–47.71–77. 481 As pointed out, e.g., by RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 334. Note, however, that in Deut 19:19a this principle is limited to the specific case addressed by the law of 19:15–21, the malicious witness; in Lev 24:19b and 20b, it has become a general principle for retaliation. 482 However, Deut 19:21 uses b instead of txt, as in Ex 21:24–25 and Lev 24:20a. 483 JACKSON, Semiotics, 269–280. 475

518

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

unique combination of the two formulas in v. 19–20 means that in case of bodily injuries at least, true proportionality, and therefore justice, lies in strict, quantitative equivalence.484 Only in the case of animals (v. 18, 21a) is restitution, Ml#, considered. This conception not only agrees with Ex 21:24–25, it is also quite consistent with the priestly worldview. In Gen 9:5–6, the talionic principle “a life for a life” is already justified through a reference to the fact that man was created in God’s “image”. The implication of Gen 9:6 is that precisely because man was created in the image of God, a man’s murder can be compensated only through the murderer’s death. This point appears even more clearly if we accept the rendering of the beth in Md)b (v. 6ab) as a beth pretii, i.e., “for the sake of (this) man”, instead of the usual rendering as a beth instrumenti (“by man”).485 That this tradition underlies the talionic legislation in Lev 24 is explicitly shown by the formulation of 24:17 which, as observed above, reinterprets Ex 21:12 to harmonize it with Gen 9:5–6. Against this background, the literal understanding of the talion principle as applying to both lethal and non-lethal aggression in 24:19–20, following Ex 21:23b–25 (and Deut 19:21), develops further P’s anthropological and criminal doctrine as laid out in Gen 9:6. This could also account for the use of the term Mwm in both v. 19b and 20b, since elsewhere in H it typically refers to blemishes forbidding men

484

Pace S CHWIENHORST -SCHÖNBERGER , Auge, 169–171; and OTTO, Geschichte, 126– 127, both of whom basically advocate a non-literal rendering of the talionic principle (as the rabbinic tradition already). On the basis of the formulation of talion in Codex Hammurapi Schwienhorst-Schönberger’s arguments are fragile; the statement that the HB would not know mutilation as a sanction is unsupported (see already Ex 21:24–25), and his argument based on the occurrence of the phrase #pn txt #pn in v. 18 does not distinguish sufficiently between the case of man and animal. Pace Otto, the idea that Lev 24 would imply that any injury excluding someone from the cultic service should be punished by death is unlikely. Although there may be indeed an allusion to the list of priestly blemishes in Lev 21:18–20 (see below), the idea that the sequence formed by v. 20b and 21 would suggest including the injuries described in v. 20a in the death penalty fails to convince. Besides, in this case, the law would necessarily be restricted to Aaron’s sons, who are the only ones eligible to priesthood! Note that the separation between the two cases is already highlighted by reverting to the example of a man striking an animal to death, which builds an inclusion with v. 18 and thus prepares for the chiasm between v. 21b and v. 17. GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 306– 307, correctly rejects Otto’s interpretation but similarly interprets the injuries of v. 20 from the perspective of the list of 21:18–20. In his view, the reciprocity implied in the formulation of v. 20b should not be understood as meaning a corresponding mutilation but the person’s exclusion from the cult. Yet this is even more unconvincing since, according to H (Lev 21), the blemished priest is not excluded from the cult, but from service at the altar. 485 For this second possibility, see for instance JACKSON, Essays, 46; MILGROM, Leviticus, 705, and the arguments advocated by these two authors. This rendering of Gen 9:6 is also more coherent in the immediate context of v. 5, which presupposes that Yahweh personally sees to the reparation of the bloodshed.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

519

(priests, Lev 21:16–23) or animals (22:17–25) to approach Yahweh.486 The use of this terminology does not so much indicate a focus on injuries excluding someone from cultic service, as argued by Otto.487 This view is too restrictive, and it is not clear how such a law could apply to the resident alien since he is on principle excluded from priesthood. Rather, the allusion may serve to remind the reader that for the priestly writers, injuries disfiguring man destroy his likeness to the divine (Gen 1:27; 5:1–2), and thus distance him from God.488 For such a transgression of the cosmic order, no human koper may apply in the priestly view. Returning to v. 15b–16, these observations on the reinterpretation of the legislation on talion taking place in Lev 24:17–21 suggest that the connection established between talion and blasphemy in Lev 24 similarly indicates distinctively priestly concerns. A first remark is that it parallels God, men and animals, in order to reflect upon their differences from the perspective of criminal law. Ruwe has finely observed that the division between v. 15b–16 and 17–21 highlighted the major difference between the crimes against Yahweh and those against other men or animals: contrary to the latter, the former are not adjudicated according to the principle of talion.489 But we may go even further: there is also a difference within v. 17–21 between crimes against other men and against animals, since in the latter case a diminished form of the lex talionis applies (substitution of an animal for another). Only in the instance of a crime against another human being (Md)) does the sanction need to be proportionate. For crimes against God or animals, the very disproportion between the offense and its sanction denotes the asymmetry characterizing the relationship between God, men and animals. Because animals are subordinated to men (Gen 1:28; 9:2–3), the sanction is lighter than the crime; and because men themselves are subordinated to God, the sanction is necessarily heavier.490 In short, the connection of 24:17–21 with v. 15b–16 transforms the priestly legislation on talion into a comprehensive reflection on the nature of 486

Note also that the term rb#, “fracture”, inserted first in the enumeration of 24:20a but missing from the parallel lists in Ex 21:24–25 and Deut 19:21, also occurs in the lists of ch. 21–22 (see 21:19; see also 22:22 with the hapax rw@b#f instead of rbe#e). 487 See OTTO, Geschichte, 126–127; similarly GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 307. 488 For a similar idea, see also now LUCIANI, Sainteté, 1. 176. 489 RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 333. 490 This point has also been perceived to some extent by M. Douglas in her analysis of Lev 24:10–23 (see DOUGLAS, Leviticus, 205ff.); but she uses instead the disproportion between crime and punishment in the case of the blasphemer to interpret the entire episode as a criticism against what she views as a “legalistic” understanding of the talionic principle. Not only is this assumption rather unconvincing, and does not sufficiently stress the difference between the cases in v. 15b–16 and 17–21, but it is entirely based on a questionable postulate, i.e., that the author of Leviticus “does not deserve to share the odium that attaches to the law of talion as a primitive and violent system” (ID., Leviticus, 212). Both this understanding of the talion and the notion that it would be wholly rejected by the author of Lev 24 cannot be supported.

520

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

justice in the context of the relationship of humans to God, to animals and to other humans. Ultimately, this legal system is itself founded on a distinctive theology of creation evincing a specific concern for the value of life (#pn). The comparison between men and animals in v. 17–21 underlines that both are creatures of God, whose lives cannot be disposed of freely; for its part, the narrative framework of v. 10–16, 23, and the connection it builds between talion and blasphemy, reminds the reader of ch. 24 that reverence for life begins with reverence for Yahweh himself, the creator of all creatures. In this respect, the insertion of this story at a later stage in H adds a fundamental dimension to the overall theology of this code. 5.2.4.3. Leviticus 25 This chapter has been the subject of considerable scholarly interest in recent years, and entire monographs have been devoted to it.491 In the context of this study, these various readings cannot be discussed in detail; the following analysis is deliberately limited to the most significant features of this legislation. In spite of the law’s complexity, the structure of ch. 25 is clear. After an introduction (v. 1–2aa), Lev 25 presents the Sabbatical Year (v. 2ab–7) and the Jubilee (v. 8–22). This first part ends quite fittingly by returning to the issue of the land’s fallow (cf. v. 4–6) during the Jubilee (v. 20–22), since the latter, occurring every seventh Sabbatical Year (v. 8), appears to be also a Sabbatical Year during which nothing should be sowed (v. 11–12).492 This inclusion is judiciously introduced by the promise of v. 19 concluding the the Jubilee regulation: “the land shall give its fruit, and you shall eat in abundance”.493 The second part of the chapter deals with various cases in which a fellow Israelite (designated as “your brother”) is indebted and must sell a portion of his estate (v. 25–28), must borrow money to subsist (35–38), or is sold as a slave (39–54) either to another Israelite (39–46) or to a wealthy resident 491

See FAGER, Land Tenure; ROBINSON, Jobel-Jahr; LUCIANI, Jubilé; LEFEBVRE, Lv 25. With the majority of commentators, I accept that the Jubilee Year corresponds to the seventh Sabbatical Year, i.e., it is itself a Sabbatical Year. For a detailed review of the discussion on this issue, see esp. LEFEBVRE, Lv 25, 154–166, who himself argues for this solution; see also, e.g., C HIRICHIGNO, Debt-Slavery, 317–321; and more recently B ERGSMA, VT 55. Two decisive arguments, in my opinion, are, first, the instruction of v. 20–22 which implies, (a) that the Jubilee falls on a seventh year, and (b) that there is only one year without sowing, and not two as would be expected if the seventh Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee were distinct; second, the math of Lev 23:15–16, according to which the interval of seven weeks from the day after the Sabbath to the day after the seventh Sabbath is identified as “fifty days”. 493 These observations on the place of v. 20–22 within the first half of ch. 25 go against the view of several commentators for whom these verses are unrelated to their immediate context (see e.g. GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 343; pace also LEFEBVRE, Lv 25, 119, stating “le v. 20 […] n’a pas de rapport direct avec le v. 19”). 492

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

521

alien (v. 47–54). Here again, this section is delimitated by the obvious inclusion between the two essential motivations of the law in v. 23 (the land belongs to Yahweh exclusively) and v. 55 (the Israelites belong to Yahweh). This subdivision is confirmed by the fact that each of these three cases is introduced by the same formula: “if your brother becomes weak, impoverished” (Kyx) Kwmy-yk),494 followed by the statement of the case (v. 25, 35, 39).495 As some authors have observed, although the three cases refer to three different situations and are dealt with separately, they can also be understood as describing the gradual economic and social decline of an impoverished Israelite who begins by mortgaging his ancestral estate, then must get into debt because he can no longer benefit from the fruit of his own land, and is finally constrained to sell himself as a slave.496 In v. 29–31, the case of the sale of one’s estate is completed by that of a house located inside a walled town (and henceforth independent from a given estate). To this subcase itself is appended a further instruction for the case of levitical houses within levitical towns (v. 32–34). The two instructions must be regarded as part of the first case.497 V. 23–24 introduce the second half of ch. 25 by stating the general principle commanding the instructions of v. 25–34, 35–38 and 39–54 – namely, land may not be sold in a definitive manner and the possibility of redemption is permanent –, and by motivating it with what may be regarded as the central theological statement of Lev 25: the land is Yahweh’s exclusive

494 Probably from the Kwm (“to be low, depressed”, and, by extension, “to grow poor”), as usually assumed by the commentators (see for instance HARTLEY, Leviticus, 420). 495 For a similar structure, see in particular HARTLEY, Leviticus, 422ff.; MILGROM, Leviticus, 2148–2149; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 97–104; R UWE , “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 343–349; and LEFEBVRE, Lv 25, passim. The only point of disagreement concerns the inner structuring of the first part, v. 2–22, although several of these authors have noted the inclusion between v. 2–7 and 20–22. However, this issue may be left aside in the context of this study. Note that a similar division of the second half of ch. 25 was already suggested by the Masoretes, who placed a setumah between v. 25–34, 35–38 and 39ff. (but also between v. 39–46 and 47–54). Among other proposals, see also the recent study by LUCIANI, Jubilé. However, his suggestion that Lev 25 would be arranged as a gigantic chiasm centered around v. 20–22, with further chiasms within each section and sub-section, is hardly convincing. In particular, several of the inclusions which he identifies have little in common and are obviously forced. 496 See in particular CHIRICHIGNO, Debt-Slavery, 323ff.; MILGROM, Leviticus, 2147–2148. 2191–2193(ff.); and LEFEBVRE , Lv 25, esp. 260–261. As noted by Milgrom (p. 2150), this scenario was already obvious to the rabbinic tradition. For their part, JAPHET, Relationship, 75, and SCHENKER, Biblical Legislation, identify four stages: v. 24–34, 35–38, 39–43, 47–51; yet it is clear (as Japhet and, to some extent, Schenker have to admit) that v. 39–43 and 47ff. consider basically the same socio-economic situation. Therefore, and despite the Masoretic division, these two paragraphs are best understood as sub-units of the same section. 497 As understood by the Masoretes, who divided between v. 25–34 and 35–38 but not between v. 25–28 and 29–34.

522

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

possession (Cr)h yl-yk, v. 23). Finally, the legislation is concluded by a reminder of the exodus event and of its meaning (v. 55). These remarks on the structure of Lev 25 underline the coherence and the logic of this legislation. Although the chapter’s literary homogeneity was long disputed by former critics, the classical arguments for this are all problematic. The earlier assumption that the connection between Sabbatical Year and Jubilee is not original within ch. 25 and that the Jubilee legislation is a later addition498 is unsupported and has now been abandoned.499 The attempt by authors such as Elliger and Cholewin8ski to identify discrete sources and layers on the basis of changes in address and formulation has led to no compelling results.500 The resulting texts are too fragmentary to be coherent and in many cases the systematic alternation between singular and plural address (see, e.g., v. 13–17!) or between personal and impersonal formulation requires the text of Lev 25 to be significantly emended to fit the theory.501 As already noted, in H as in other legal codes such alternation is mainly a stylistic or a rhetoric device which cannot be used alone as a literary-critical criterion.502 Thus, outside a few obvious interpolations such as, most likely, the section on levitical towns in v. 32–34, Lev 25 should be viewed as a coherent composition.503 498 See already WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 167; HORST, Leviticus XVII–XXVI, 27–30; BAENTSCH, Heiligkeits-Gesetz, 53ff.; BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 86–87; KILIAN, Untersuchung, 141.147–148; and for further references CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 115–116 n. 30. 499 As observed by CHOLEWSINKI , Heiligkeitsgesetz, 116, this hypothesis rests upon a mere methodological apriori: since the Sabbatical Year is attested in earlier sources (cf. Ex 23:10–11 and Deut 15:1–11), but the Jubilee is not, this portion of Lev 25 had to be earlier than the Jubilee legislation. NOTH, Leviticus, 118, had also correctly observed that the “disproportion” between the sections on the Sabbath and the Jubilee was obviously due to the fact that “the complicated Jubilee Year arrangements needed more detailed directions”. 500 ELLIGER, Leviticus, 335–349; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 101–118. SUN, Investigation, 548ff., also regards all the passages with a plural address as interpolations. Most recently, BULTMANN, Fremde, 180ff. reconstructs a Vorlage with a singular address in the case of the so-called “slave-law” (v. 39–54). GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 341, surmises on the contrary that those passages would have initially formed the “Grundlage” of ch. 25. NOTH, Leviticus, 184, also assumed that the Numeruswechsel betrays the chapter’s compositional history, but already observed that the latter could no longer be reconstructed. 501 For a criticism of such reconstructions, see GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 105–106. 502 See, e.g., the case of Lev 19 (above, § 5.2.2.2.) and on this device in H, JOOSTEN , Sections. Pace GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 106–107, it is therefore needless to speculate that the alternation between singular and plural betrays different traditions behind ch. 25. 503 Although the position of this section after v. 29–31 is logical (against many critics, see for example ELLIGER, Leviticus, 339–340), the tradition about levitical towns is not mentioned in P or in H, and occurs only in two very late “Priestly” texts, Num 35:1–8 and Josh 21 (see also 1 Chr 6:39–66); see BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 422–423; KILIAN, Untersuchung, 128. The other interpolations suggested are less likely in my opinion. The tension between v. 5 and 6–7 perceived by some authors (GRÜNWALDT, Exil, 212–213; ID., Heiligkeitsgesetz, 107) is non-existent. The case of the relationship between v. 20–22 and 4–6 was discussed above;

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

523

From the perspective of redaction criticism, a major issue, however, concerns the relationship of Lev 25 with the parallel regulations in the CC and in D on the Sabbatical Year and the release of slaves (Ex 21:2–6, 7–11; 23:10– 11; Deut 15:1–11, 12–18).504 It is on this basis that the significance of this law needs to be assessed first and foremost. Whereas the dependence of Lev 25 on the CC is normally not disputed,505 the chronological priority of Deut 15 has been questioned by some scholars. Yet the arguments produced in favor of D’s dependence on Lev 25 are quite inconclusive in my opinion.506 Besides, as noted, the two passages should be seen as complementary. Finally, the provision allowing Israelites to take slaves from the other nations in v. 44–46 has often been viewed as an interpolation (e.g., E LLIGER , Leviticus, 341; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 113; KORNFELD, Levitikus, 98; CARDELLINI , “Sklaven”-Gesetze, 302; FABRY, Deuteronomium 15, 100; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 109–112), but this is also doubtful as we shall see below when discussing this passage (see especially note 534). 504 For this approach, see in particular CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 217–251; OTTO, Innerbiblische Exegese, 164–172. For the systematic dependence of Lev 25 upon the CC and D, see also the detailed analyses by CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, esp. 246–251, and now GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 312–333.334–345. 505 A major exception is VAN S ETERS , Hebrew Slave. For a critical discussion of this view, see OTTO, Deuteronomium, 405–406 n. 451; as well as LEVINSON, Manumission. 506 Cf. JAPHET, Relationship, esp. 70–74; CHIRICHIGNO, Debt-Slavery, 329; MILGROM, Leviticus, 2254–2257 and passim. Their arguments are mainly based on the so-called “slave” or “manumission” laws in 25:39–55. Japhet’s observations on the parallels between H and D, as already noted by various scholars (e.g., KAUFMAN, Deuteronomy 15, 274–275), can hardly decide the direction of dependence. Thus, for instance, the unique occurrence of ryk# in Deut 15:18 is meaningless; in addition, it is introduced there by the issue of the comparison of the rk# , the hire wages of the loan worker, and the cost of a slave, which on the contrary is not addressed in H, so that the mention of ryk# at this point in D is actually quite logical. The other arguments stated by Milgrom are no more convincing. Some of the statements are incorrect, such as the idea that “the term (ebed does not appear in D except in the passage dealing with the life-long slave (Deut 15:16–17)”; the law opens with a mention of the verb db( Qal, “to serve (as a slave)”, v. 12, cf. also v. 18, and the noun (ebed actually already occurs in v. 15. Similarly, I fail to see the reason why (imma4k/me4(imma4k in Deut 15:12–18 should mean “under your authority” and thus have a different meaning than in the rest of D, betraying H’s influence. Note, besides, that even in Lev 25 this meaning is not obvious; see on this the relevant comments by LEFEBVRE, Lv 25, 232–234. For the rest, the idea that “D devised its law for debt-release (Deut 15:1–3) as a supplement to H’s law for land release (25:1–7)” is difficult to admit; the argument for this case on p. 2245 (that the phrase “s]e6mit[t[a= laYHWH” in Deut 15:2 would have been modeled on “s]abbat laYHWH” in Lev 25, cf. Ibn Ezra) is quite doubtful. Contrary to what is stated by Milgrom, the use of a noun followed by le5 + Yahweh is not unique in D, see, e.g., hwhyl xsp (Deut 16:1, 2), hwhyl trc( (Deut 16:8), hwhyl rdn (23:22), etc. The last argument, based on the assumption that in some cases D would explicitly refer to P as its source is at best indirect, but problematic in my view at any rate, as Milgrom himself partially acknowledges. On a more general level, finally, while the existence of a practice similar to that of the Mesopotamian andura4ru(m) in the pre-exilic period is almost certain (see Jer 34:8ff.), I simply fail to see why this should support a pre-exilic dating for Lev 25, as repeatedly argued by some scholars; note, on the contrary, how Yahweh

524

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

the previous analysis in this chapter has underlined that H was consistently dependent upon D, and there is no reason to presume a different relationship in the case of Lev 25. On the contrary, as we shall see in detail, the traditional view that Lev 25 presupposes not only Ex 21 and 23, but also Deut 15, offers the best explanation of this legislation. While Deut 15:1–18 reinterprets the seven-year cycle of Ex 23:10–11 by transforming the h+m# from an instruction on the fallow land with a social dimension (whatever grows upon it may be eaten by needy persons) into a purely socio-economic instruction (debt-release in the seventh year) with no agricultural implication, and by combining it explicitly with the instruction on slave-release every seven years found in Ex 21:2–11507 (cf. Deut 15:12– 18),508 Lev 25, on the contrary, rehabilitates against D an interpretation of the has now replaced the king in his traditional function. The complete absence of reference to a state context in Lev 25 then forces these scholars to assume that the Jubilee legislation in Lev 25 would reflect a premonarchic setting (i.e., characteristically, WRIGHT, What Happened; similarly MILGROM , Leviticus, 2242). Not only is this historically unlikely, but in this case the traditional problem of why the Jubilee would have been ignored by the CC and D grows even more insoluble. On the other hand, the case construed by Japhet, Milgrom and a few others hardly acknowledges the various indications of the direct dependence of Lev 25:39–55 upon the manumission laws in the CC and in D. For instance, H’s statement that the same legal procedure applies to both “your male and female slave” in 25:44a (Ktm)w Kdb(w) contradicts the CC, which states that the protocol for male slaves is invalid for female slaves and details a separate procedure for them (see Ex 21:7, 8–11), but corresponds to the provision apparently introduced by D in an emphatic statement that revises the Covenant Code’s manumission law: Nk h#(t Ktm)l P)w, “Even with respect to your female slave you shall do likewise” (Deut 15:17b). On this, see now LEVINSON, Birth of the Lemma, 630–631; and for further instances of H’s dependence on Deuteronomy’s manumission law, see especially LEVINSON, Manumission; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 329–330; and further below. Lastly, a more general issue has to do with the fact that, very much like in Braulik’s studies (see above), the analyses by Japhet, Milgrom and others are methodologically problematic insofar as they focus on one aspect of Lev 25 instead of comparing first the laws of Ex 23; Deut 15 and Lev 25 as a whole. In particular, such an approach overlooks the uniqueness of the slave legislation in H, which can itself only be understood against the background of the entire legislation of ch. 25. As we shall see below, H actually abolishes de facto slavery for Israelites, reserving it to foreign nations – hence the term “manumission laws” is actually misleading in the case of Lev 25:39ff. Such development goes well beyond the slave laws in the CC and in D, and can only be viewed as a critical revision of the latter. 507 See CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 221–222; CARDELLINI, “Sklaven”-Gesetze, 337– 344; CHIRIGNO: Debt-Slavery, 256ff. The combination of the two instructions in Deut 15:1– 18 is significant since, as Otto and Lohfink have observed, Ex 21:2–11 and 23:10–11 compose the inner frame of the CC, the outer frame consisting of the cultic laws in 20:23–26 and 23:13–19: OTTO, Vom Bundesbuch, 269; LOHFINK: Fortschreibung?, 151–152. These authors disagree on the redactional stage to which this frame belongs, but this may be left aside here. 508 Even if the seventh year in Deut 15:12ff. is not identical to the seventh year mentioned in 15:1–11, as classically observed.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

525

seventh year as serving exclusively for the “rest” of the land (v. 2–7). The law of 25:2–7 is clearly modeled upon Ex 23:10–11, as various scholars have noted.509 Simultaneously, the seventh year of Ex 23 is reinterpreted from H’s distinct perspective. While the connection between the seventh year and the seventh day, as a day of rest, was already made in the CC (Ex 23:10–11, 12), the seventh year is now interpreted as a Sabbatical Year for the land (25:2, 4, 5), on the model of the transformation of the seventh day of rest into the fixed weekly Sabbath after the exile.510 According to this development, the fallow year, which was probably not intended to be practiced simultaneously by the Israelites in Ex 23,511 has now become a fixed institution in Israel’s calendar, to be observed at the same time by the entire community. Moreover, the transformation of the seventh year into a Sabbatical Year in Lev 25 emphasizes its religious function and significance; like the seventh day (Ex 20:10), it is not only a Sabbath for the land, but first and foremost a “Sabbath for Yahweh” (hwhyl tb#, 25:4ab).512 In Lev 25, the fallow year is explicitly defined as a means to consecrate Israel’s land to Yahweh and thus prepares for the central statement of v. 23 that the land remains Yahweh’s exclusive possession. This motivation has replaced the former “humanitarian” motivation (concern for the poor) of Ex 23:11,513 even though one need not assume that the two laws are contradictory.514 Rather, they are probably meant to be complementary: 509 See especially LEMCHE, Manumission, 48–49; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 224– 225; CHIRICHIGNO, Debt-Slavery, 302ff.; MILGROM, Leviticus, 2154–2156 (with a synopsis). 510 On this development, closely connected to the partial transition from a lunar to a solar calendar during the Neo-Babylonian period, see, e.g., LEMAIRE, Sabbat; KÖCKERT , Gebot; 172; KÖRTING/SPIECKERMANN, art. Sabbat I; as well as BAUKS, Shabbat, esp. 474–480. 511 This has sometimes been disputed; see C HIRICHIGNO, Debt-Slavery, 306ff.; CRÜSEMANN, Tora, 174 n. 198; most recently LEFEBVRE, Lv 25, 133–134. But it is mainly because these authors incorrectly interpret the seventh day of Ex 23:12, which was initially a septennary day of rest following a pattern found elsewhere in the ancient Near East, in the sense of the fixed weekly structure of the postexilic Sabbath; see the previous note. 512 This point has been emphasized by several authors; see MEINHOLD, Beziehung, 257– 258; R OBINSON, Jobel-Jahr, 483–484 (with earlier references); RUWE , “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 352–353; LEFEBVRE, Lv 25, 78–79. 513 In v. 6, the instruction to eat of whatever grows upon the land in the seventh year is now extended to the whole house. To be sure, as pointed out for instance by CHIRICHIGNO, Debt-Slavery, 305, the seventh year in Ex 23 does not have a merely agricultural or humanitarian character, as some scholars have tended to believe (see already WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena, 112–116), but is also already religious in nature. Nevertheless, the difference between the motivation of the two laws remains. 514 This latter view mainly arose from the assumption that the formulation of Ex 23:11 would restrict to the poor the permission to eat from whatever grows upon the land in the seventh year (thus still recently MILGROM, Leviticus, 2060; for earlier references see SCHENKER , Boden, 129 with n. 14). Yet if so, no means of subsistance would be allowed for the landowner himself or his house, which seems quite unlikely; for a similar view, see, e.g., SCHENKER, Ibid., 129–130.

526

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

the permission granted to the poor in Ex 23:11 is maintained, but the concern of the law in Lev 25:2–7, by expanding the section addressed to the landowner and his house, is specifically to underline the fact that, during the Sabbatical Year, his condition is identical to that of the landless as defined in the CC.515 This is entirely consistent with the overall conception underlying ch. 25, according to which Israelite landowners are themselves resident aliens and dependent workers (Myb#wtw Myrg)516 on Yahweh’s land (v. 23b).517 As legal exegesis of Ex 23:10–11, the legislation on the Sabbatical Year in Lev 25 thus acts as a concrete reminder, every seven years, of this reality. With the rehabilitation of the strictly agricultural function of the seventh year, the social dimension of this year in D is thus carried over to the Jubilee Year of Lev 25:8–55, which, although it is also a Sabbatical Year,518 is no longer primarily concerned with the rest of the land (the expression Cr)l tb# does not occur in 25:8–55) but with the remission of all debts and the liberation from slavery. Although there are many terminological parallels between the Jubilee legislation of Lev 25:8–55 and Deut 15:1–18 indicating that Lev 25 is a further case of reception of D, the law of v. 8–55 is considerably more developed than its Deuteronomic counterpart and offers a systematic reinterpretation of the latter. As already observed by Cholewin8ski,519 the general structure of the Jubilee legislation is clearly reminiscent of Deut 15:1–18. Both texts open with the mention of the year of release (Deut 15:1; Lev 25:8–12) followed by the description of its socio-economic implications (Deut 15:2–3; Lev 25:13–17), itself concluded by an exhortation in which the prosperity of the land is made conditional upon obedience to (rm#) and enactment of (h#() Yahweh’s laws (Deut 15:4–6; Lev 25:18–19): a distinctively Deuteronomistic terminology.520 In the second half of Lev 25, the instruction pre515

As perceived by LEFEBVRE, Lv 25, 142: “Si la récolte organisée par le propriétaire est interdite (que ce soit la moisson ou la vendange), le glanage (ou le grapillage) reste possible, mais un glanage étendu à tous – du plus pauvre au propriétaire – et à toute la terre”. 516 As noted by MILGROM , Leviticus, 2187, the expression b#wtw rg is probably a hendiadys designating an alien who “has taken root and settled in a community” since, except in 1 Kgs 17:1 (but cf. the LXX ), the term b#wt does not occur alone. This view has now been taken up and developed by LEFEBVRE, Lv 25, 237–244, who concludes that the expression refers to an “immigré-résident, c’est-à-dire immigré demeurant de façon stable dans une communauté, soumis à la corvée et vivant de façon indépendante”. In addition, JOOSTEN, People, 73–74 (unfortunately missed by Lefebvre in his discussion), makes the insightful suggestion that b#wt would describe the social position and rg the juridical condition of the alien. 517 On the representation of the Israelites as “resident aliens” in Yahweh’s land, see further RAMÍREZ KIDD, Alterity, 99–102. 518 See v. 11–12 corresponding to the instructions of v. 4–6, as well as v. 20–22, and on this point above, note 495. 519 ID., Heiligkeitsgesetz, 242–243. 520 For the combined use of the verbs rm# and h#( to express obedience, see also Deut 15:5; note also that the expression “to dwell (b#y) in security (x+bl )” in Lev 25:18b,19 is

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

527

scribing support for the impoverished Israelite “brother” (x)) by lending him what he needs in order to survive (v. 35–38) parallels Deut 15:7–11, while the legislation on debt slavery in v. 39–55 corresponds to Deut 15:12–18. Besides, as noted by Cholewin8ski,521 the two slave laws are introduced by the same formulation (compare Lev 25:39a and Deut 15:12aa1), and in both the treatment of the slave is motivated by reference to the exodus (Deut 15:15; Lev 25:42, further 25:55). However, the casuistic in the second half of the Jubilee legislation (v. 25–55) is considerably more sophisticated and developed. The author of H accepts the connection made by D between debt-release (Deut 15:1–11) and slave-release (Deut 15:12–18). But he takes it further, first, by including several additional cases, in particular the sale of one’s estate (v. 25–28) or of one’s house in a walled town (v. 29–31), or the enslavement of an Israelite by a non-Israelite, and, second, by arranging these cases to represent three successive stages in a scenario of gradual economic destitution, as recalled above after Chirichigno, Milgrom and Lefebvre.522 Yet, the previous observations concern only the general structure of Lev 25 and Deut 15. More importantly, the major innovation of the Jubilee legislation vis-à-vis both the CC and D lies in the general rationale of this legislation, according to which one’s ancestral estate can never be sold in a definitive manner. This rationale is laid down in the first part of the Jubilee legislation (v. 8–22). The Jubilee Year opens with a proclamation of rwrd, “liberty”,523 which corresponds to the return of every Israelite to his land (cf. v. 10) and, therefore, to the cancellation of all debts. In v. 13–19, the implications of this conception are developed. Since the land cannot be sold (v. 13, taking up v. 10b), only its usufruct may be the object of a commercial transaction (v. 14– 16). In this case, the value of the land thus mortgaged is logically determined as a function of the number of years remaining before the Jubilee (v. 14–16). In the central parenesis of v. 23–24 which, as argued above, forms the transition between the two halves of the Jubilee legislation, this core principle is justified by the assertion that Yahweh is the exclusive owner of the land; the Israelites are only resident aliens upon it. This conception, however, is not new. Rather, it corresponds to P’s view of the land in Gen–Exod,524 which is thus now included into the biblical legislation on debt-release by being conmainly found in Ezekiel (28:26; 34:25; 34:28; 38:8, 11, 14; 39:6, 26) and in the Dtr literature (Deut 12:10; Judg 18:7; 1 Sam 12:11; 1 Kgs 5:5; with Nk#: Deut 33:12, 28; Judg 8:11). 521 ID., Heiligkeitsgesetz, 241–242. 522 I.e., mortgaging one’s ancestral estate (v. 25–28), borrowing money to pay the interests of loans (35–38), lastly, selling oneself to a fellow Israelite or to a wealthy foreigner (39–54). 523 See Jer 34:8, 15, 17; Isa 61:1 and Ez 46:17. On the meaning of this term, see for instance NORTH, art. de6ro=r. On the parallel with the andura4ru(m) in Mesopotamia, see below. 524 See above, § 1.3., p. 66–68, and the discussion of the studies by KÖCKERT (Land) and BAUKS (Peuple et Terre; ID., Landkonzeption) on the term hzx) in P. Both scholars also comment on the reception of P’s conception of the land in the legislation of Lev 25.

528

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

nected to the statement of the land’s inalienability, the latter forming the basic rationale not only of the first part of ch. 25 but even of the entire legislation. In v. 24, a further implication is drawn from the assertion of the land’s inalienability: not only will the land automatically return to its owner at the Jubilee, but the possibility of redemption (hl)g) is permanently available in the interval between two Jubilees. This forms the general theme of the second half of the Jubilee legislation (v. 25–55), where the root l)g – which does not occur before v. 24 – is predominant.525 The first case (v. 25–28) takes up and develops the instruction of v. 24: Cr)l wntt hl)g Mktzx) Cr) lkbw. Redemption may be effected either immediately by a close kin (v. 25)526 – a notion in conformity with the legal practice attested elsewhere in the HB (see the case of the go)e4l in Jer 32; Ruth 4)527 –, or later by the owner himself if he finds the means to pay off his debts (v. 26–28). To this law are then attached two complementary instructions on the redemption of houses in walled towns (29–31 and 32–34); the second, as noted above, is probably an interpolation. Simultaneously, the principle of the land’s non-alienation also implies that the Israelite never ceases to be a landowner. For this reason, he can never fully lose his freedom and be enslaved; this notion commands the entire legislation on debt-slavery in v. 39ff.528 If an Israelite is sold (rkmn) to another Israelite,529 he will serve him (cf. Km( db(y, v. 40), but not as a slave, as is stated in v. 39 MT: db( tdb( wb db(t-)l, literally, “you shall not make him work the work of a slave”. Instead, this Israelite will live until the Jubilee like (ke6) a ryk# or a b#wt (v. 40), i.e., like a hired worker; he is not the property of the master of the house.530 Thus, contrary to the CC (Ex 21:2–6, 7–11) and to 525 l)g Qal in Lev 25:25, 26, 33, 48, 49 (2x); l)g Niphal in 25:30, 49, 54; hl)g in 25:24, 26, 29 (2x), 31, 32, 48, 51, 52. More exactly, the issue of redemption, hl)g, applies to two specific cases (redemption of land or of a house, v. 25–34, and redemption of an Israelite sold to a non-Israelite, v. 47–54); see further on this below. 526 wyl) brqh, as in Lev 21:2. 527 See in particular the classical study by W ESTBROOK, Redemption; and for a detailed analysis of Lev 25:25 in this context, with a comparison with Jer 32 and Ruth 4, cf. recently LEFEBVRE, Lv 25, 190–199. 528 Among the commentators who have correctly noted this point, see in particular JOOSTEN, People and Land, 159; MILGROM, Leviticus, 2212ff.; and LEFEBVRE, Lv 25, 321ff. 529 The verb rkm Niphal is often interpreted here in a reflexive sense (to sell oneself; but see ELLIGER, Leviticus, 358ff.); however, as argued by SCHENKER, Biblical Legislation, 141, in the majority of the other occurrences of this form a passive rendering is clearly required. Some passages in the HB appear to indicate that a debtor unable to pay off his debts could be sold by his creditor, see 2 Kgs 4:1; Ex 22:2 and Neh 5:2–5 (pace CHIRICHIGNO, Debt-Slavery, 330 with n. 4, who, in his analysis of slave laws in the HB, tends to systematically deny the existence of this practice). See also further on this question MILGROM, Leviticus, 2226–2227 and passim; and LEFEBVRE, Lv 25, 270–276. 530 This point has now been correctly observed by various authors; see for instance LEVINSON, Birth of the Lemma, 619.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

529

D (Deut 15:12–18), Lev 25:39–55 is actually no longer a slave-law, since it abolishes the very notion of slavery for the Israelites. As with the land before (see v. 13–16), even when an Israelite is sold to another Israelite, what his master buys is in fact only the temporary usufruct of his working force.531 In 25:42, this innovation is justified through a reference to the exodus. The Israelites who have been led out of Egypt are Yahweh’s slaves (see also v. 55) and as such cannot become the slaves of anyone else; to enslave another Israelite is, in other words, to take on a divine privilege. This reception of the exodus in Lev 25 is simultaneously a reinterpretation and a revision of Deut 15:15, where this same reference was used as a theological motivation for the legislation on the release of slaves in the seventh year in v. 12–14. From the perspective of Lev 25, on the contrary, such instruction has become pointless and is logically omitted by the legislator (contrast Ex 21:2–6; Deut 15:12–18).532 Similarly, the absence of any provision for redemption in v. 39– 531

As correctly observed for instance by JAPHET , Relationship, 84; RIESENER, Stamm 124; MILGROM, Leviticus, 2215; LEFEBVRE, Lv 25, 268–269. 532 This point is unfortunately missed by MILGROM, Leviticus, 2254–2255, when he claims that the absence of such an instruction is “irrefutable” (sic) proof that H is earlier than D, even though he correctly observed that Lev 25 actually abolishes slavery, contrary to D. The interpretation advocated here also goes against the attempt by CHIRICHIGNO, DebtSlavery, 330, and further p. 352–353, and 354–357, partly followed by SCHENKER, Biblical Legislation, who wants to regard the “slave” law of Lev 25 as completing, and not revising, the slave laws of Ex 21 and Deut 15. (Note, however, that for Chirichigno the law of Lev 25 is probably older than Deut 15 anyway, although he gives few arguments for this; the issue of the chronological relationship between Lev 25 and Deut 15 is left open by Schenker. For a review of earlier attempts to harmonize the biblical slave laws, see HARTLEY, Leviticus, 431–433). For Chirichigno, these laws would deal in fact with different situations: whereas Ex 21:2–6 considers the case of a male child sold by his father, Lev 25 concerns a paterfamilias who has to sell himself as slave. In this view, the slave law of Lev 25 would only apply to the case of the paterfamilias, who must be treated as a resident alien and a hired worker (cf. 25:39–40) and be allowed to return to his estate at the year of the Jubilee. The whole argument of Chirichigno presupposes, however, that an Israelite citizen could only be sold by his father, and not by force (a view which he borrows from NOORDTZIJ, Leviticus, 259), which, as Schenker himself acknowledges (p. 28–29), is openly contradicted by other biblical passages (see 2 Kgs 4:1; Ex 22:2; Neh 5:2–5; see above, note 529). Also, the fact that Ex 21 specifies, in the case of the daughter, that she is sold by her father (21:7ff.), whereas the same information is missing for the Israelite male (21:2–6), goes against the assumption that he, too, would have been sold by his father. Besides, the question becomes somewhat irrelevant if the creditor had the right to seize the children of his debtor, as elsewhere in ANE. Leaving aside the problem of determining whether Deut 15 was originally intended to complete or replace Ex 21, there is hardly anything in v. 12–18 suggesting that the situation considered would also be that of a child sold by the paterfamilias. For all these reasons, I prefer retaining the traditional view and to regard Lev 25 as a revision of both Ex 21 and Deut 15. If the interpretation of the “slave” law in Lev 25:39–43 argued here is correct, it simply renders superfluous the provisions of the parallel laws in the CC and in D. Although Schenker is entirely right to raise the question of the hermeneutics of the biblical legislators and of the effect db(,

530

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

43 should be explained by the fact that, from the perspective of Lev 25, even though an Israelite sold because of his debts loses temporarily the usufruct of his working capacity, he does not really lose his freedom.533 The innovation introduced by H raises two new issues comprising the remainder of v. 39–55. On the one hand, the problem posed by the drastic diminution in the number of slaves (since Israelites can no longer be enslaved) is partly compensated, in v. 44–46, by the authorization to use foreigners as slaves.534 As has been demonstrated by B. Levinson in a recent article, Lev 25:44–46 takes up achieved by the juxtaposition, in the same document, of seemingly contradictory legislations, I cannot accept his claim that a principle of non-contradiction between the biblical laws should be taken for granted. Already in H, there are numerous examples of laws which simply cannot be harmonized with parallel legal traditions, such as Lev 17 and Deut 12 for instance. Besides, this assertion tends to forget that within the Torah itself, the Deuteronomic legislation is not given the same significance as the Sinaitic laws; on this issue, see further below, § 5.3. On the issue of the comparison of Ex 21; Deut 15 and Lev 25, see now the discussion by LEFEBVRE, Lv 25, 301–330, whose own view, although more detailed and nuanced, is basically equivalent to the one advocated here. For a compelling analysis of Lev 25:39–46 (with special emphasis on v. 44–46) as a critical revision of the CC’s manumission law, see also in particular the recent article by LEVINSON, Birth of the Lemma. 533 Pace C HIRICHIGNO , Ibid., 340, who offers another explanation on this point, in my opinion less convincing. 534 Against a widespread opinion (see above, note 503), v. 44–46 should therefore be retained as original. As in the remainder of ch. 25, the occurrence of the plural address in this section is not a sufficient indication; besides, it is actually combined with a singular address in v. 44a and 46b, giving us a further example of the irrelevance of this criterion. Some authors have argued that this instruction was in tension with the conception stated elsewhere in H that the same law should apply to the rg and the xrz) (Lev 24:22; see GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 357; FABRY, Deuteronomium 15, 101), but this argument is unconvincing. As correctly observed by GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 110: “[…] Der Grundsatz […] ‘einerlei Recht bestehe für euch, wie (für) den Fremden so (für) den Schutzbürger bestehe (es)’ (Lev 24,22a) bedeutet nichts mehr, als daß das kodifizierte Recht gleichermaßen für Israeliten wie für die Fremden gilt. Sollte also im Recht in gewissen Fällen eine Ungleichbehandlung zwischen Einheimischen und Fremden festgelegt sein, so hatte diese Ungleichbehandlung für Fremde den Status geltenden Rechtes”. Note, in addition, that the law of v. 44–46 concerns among others the enslavement of the children of the resident aliens (v. 45), not the resident aliens themselves. That v. 44–46 are a complement to v. 39–43 does not mean that they have to be later, all the more once it is seen that they serve to balance the radical revision, in H, of the previous slave laws in the CC and in D by compensating for the prohibition against enslaving Israelites. Note, finally, that v. 44–46 are built in parallel with 39–43, cf. the comparison by MILGROM, Leviticus, 2217–2218. Indeed, as finely stated by LEFEBVRE, Lv 25, 267.278ff., the sequence formed by v. 39–43, 44–46 evinces the same technique of counter example already found in v. 25–34 (rather, 25–31 if, as argued above, the section on levitical towns in v. 32–34 is an interpolation): “Après l’exposé du cas lui-même (v. 39–43; cf. v. 25–28) vient le contre-exemple qui permet de préciser les différences entre un esclave et un Israélite au service de l’un de ses frères (v. 44–46; cf. v. 29–34)” (267). This means that the Wiederaufnahme of v. 43a in v. 46b cannot be used, here, as a source-critical criterion; more likely, it is an exegetical technique bracketing this development. For a detailed demonstration of this point, see now the study by LEVINSON, Birth of the Lemma, 634–637.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

531

the protasis of Ex 21:2–6, “If you purchase a male Hebrew slave…” (Ex 21:2aa), as well as the law’s conclusion in 21:6: “he may serve him forever”, but suppresses any reference to the Hebrew slave – since H, contrary to the CC and to D, denies that Israelites can be slaves – and re-applies instead the Covenant Code’s provisions to foreign nations.535 As Levinson has excellently perceived, the Covenant Code’s slave law thus receives in H a new interpretation, quite at odds with its original intent, that restricts it to nonHebrew slaves.536 Possibly, this rule could be based on the precedent found in Deut 15:3a. In addition, the observation that the expression in v. 44, “the nations surrounding you” (Mkytbybs r#) Mywgh), is characteristically Deuteronomistic,537 could suggest an allusion here to the traditional promise in the Dtr and prophetic literature that Israel will dominate over foreign nations, which is also found in the context of the legislation of Deut 15 (v. 6). On the other hand, a specific law is devised for the case when an Israelite is sold to a wealthy non-Israelite residing in Israel (v. 47–54), in which case the right of hl)g applies. In effect, since the rg, contrary to the Israelite, is not subject to the law of v. 39–43, the situation of the Israelite sold to him is de facto that of a slave,538 whence the necessity of a permanent possibility of redemption.539 Even if this right is not used, however, by the family of the man or by this man himself (v. 48–49), he will automatically be freed in the year of the Jubilee. In passing, this provision is a very clear illustration that Lev 25 was composed in a historical context in which “Israel” is no longer a state, with a central authority capable of imposing its rule on all its subjects without exception, but rather as an association of free citizens (landowners) with ethnic, religious and economic bonds, that has to acknowledge the existence of wealthy and politically influent foreigners inside its land. 535

For a detailed analysis of this device, see LEVINSON, Birth of the Lemma, 620–623. As demonstrated by LEVINSON , Birth of the Lemma, 623–625, in v. 46a the phrase Ml(l must be taken with what follows, not with what precedes; hence: “Forever – them – may you make work as slaves”, wdb(t Mhb Ml(l. This understanding is preserved by the Masoretic punctuation (placing the za4qe4p qa4t[o=n over hzx) , with Ml(l introducing a new clause), but has been commonly misunderstood since antiquity, starting with the LXX : see LEVINSON, Ibid., 625–630. The syntax of v. 46ab makes perfect sense once it is realized that H’s slave law is actually a revision of the CC: Ml(l wdb(w, Ex 21:6bb . The emphasis on “them” in this construction signals H’s restriction of the CC’s permission of permanent indenture to the foreign nations (25:44b) or to the children of resident aliens in Israel (v. 45). 537 With Mywg, see Deut 17:14; 2 Kgs 17:15; otherwise, mostly in Ezekiel (Ez 5:6, 7, 14, 15; 11:12; 36:4, 6, 7, 36; 37:21; Neh 5:17; 6:16). With Mym(, only in Deut 6:14; 13:8; Judg 2:12. 538 As correctly pointed out by several recent commentators; see SCHENKER, Biblical Legislation, 143–144; MILGROM, Leviticus, 2216; LEFEBVRE, Lv 25, 292–294. 539 Hence this legislation is closely closely tied to the rest of Lev 25, and there is no reason to presuppose the existence of an earlier hl)g tradition, as it has been suggested (REVENTLOW, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 136; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 342–343; CARDELLINI, “Sklaven”-Gesetze, 303–304). For the redactional origin of all of v. 47–54: GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 331. 536

532

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

Finally, the introduction of a brief instruction in v. 35–38 on loans, parallel to Deut 15:7–11, completes the laws on redemption of land and houses in v. 25–31 (32–34) and on debt-slavery in v. 39–54 by dealing with an intermediate case. V. 35 appears to refer to a situation in which an Israelite cannot subsist by himself and must borrow money from a fellow Israelite.540 In the scenario of gradual economic decline construed by Lev 25, it corresponds to the case of a landowner forced to mortgage his land until the Jubilee (v. 25– 28) and thus to deliver to someone else part or all of the usufruct of his own estate (see v. 14–16), and who, for this reason, is no longer able to subsist by himself on his own land. The occurrence of the expression b#wtw rg in v. 35b has often been regarded as a later and somewhat awkward interpolation,541 but it actually does make sense in this context. Since the former landowner now exploits his own estate for his creditor, the latter is required to support (qzx Hiphil) him by treating him as if he were a dependent worker.542 He cannot receive a salary, though, since he has already mortgaged the produce of his land until the next Jubilee, but he must be lent further money without interest (v. 36–37), so that he may continue to live on his land without having to be sold to his creditor (v. 39–43).543 With respect to the law of Deut 15, we have here another fine example of inner-biblical exegesis from the perspective of the Jubilee legislation. The exhortation to lend money in Deut 15:7–11 is reinterpreted by being combined with the prohibition on loans with interest in Deut 23:20–21 (see also Ex 22:24),544 itself revised to be transformed into a 540 The rendering of the phrase Km( wdy h+mw in v. 35 is somewhat unclear but most likely refers to a gesture of begging (see the discussion by LEFEBVRE, Lv 25, 233). On the significance of the expression b#wtw rg in v. 35, see below. 541 See for instance BAENTSCH , Leviticus, 428; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 337, who considers this phrase as “beziehungslos” in its context. 542 That the phrase b#wtw rg must be understood in a comparative sense was already proposed by the LXX, and is accepted by the vast majority of modern commentators. SCHENKER, Biblical Legislation, 139–140, interprets it similarly but he misses the fact that in the case of v. 35–38 the impoverished Israelite is still residing on his own ancestral land, which he exploits for another; only in the further stage of impoverishment (v. 39ff.) will he be forced to work on the land of someone else. Otherwise, in Schenker’s understanding, the two laws would have become virtually identical. 543 With most commentators (and already the ancient versions), qzx Hiphil must probably be rendered by “fortify”, even though this meaning is mainly attested in the Piel (but note that the SamP does read a Piel); this has been recently disputed (MILGROM, Leviticus, 2206), but the alternative translation (“to hold”, cf. already JPS) is unsatisfactory in this context; see the criticism by LEFEBVRE, Lv 25, 234–235. In addition, one may note that Milgrom’s rendering involves taking the phrase b#wtw rg in the protasis, which is questionable; more likely, it is part of the apodosis, i.e., “as a resident alien, he shall live with you”. 544 Compare: Klk) Ntt-)l tybrtbw K#nb wl Ntt-)l Kpsk-t) (Lev 25:37; reading tybrtb with the SamP). K#y r#) rbd-lk K#n lk) K#n Psk K#n Kyx)l Ky#t-)l (Deut 23:20).

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

533

general prohibition against any kind of interest since it includes not only the 545 K#n , as in D, but also the tybrt . This development is consistent with the general intention of the Jubilee law, which specifically seeks to prevent any form of personal enrichment at the expense of another Israelite.546 Exactly as with v. 23 closing the first part of the Jubilee legislation in v. 8–22, the second part of this chapter ends, in v. 55, with a general assertion giving a religious/theological motivation to the laws in v. 24ff. This motivation actually takes up, with greater emphasis, the statement already found in v. 42 (Yahweh has freed the Israelites from Egypt so that they will become his personal slaves), thus rounding off appropriately the laws on debt slavery in v. 39–54. Furthermore, it builds a connection with the last exhortation of the first part of H (Lev 17–22) in 22:31–33, which also closes with a reference to the exodus (v. 33);547 since 25:55 concludes the second part of this legislation, ch. 23–25, the two halves are thus ended in the same way. However, whereas in 22:33 the purpose of the exodus was reinterpreted from the viewpoint of Yahweh’s engagement towards Israel (“I made you go out of Egypt in order to be your God; I am Yahweh”, see Ex 6:7), in 25:55 it is now done with a Contrary to Deut 23:20, mentioning the ban on taking interest on loans of money, food, or “any other thing” (rbd-lk ), Ex 22:24 refers to money exclusively. On the terms nes]ek and tarbît, see the following note. 545 Pace BRAULIK, Weitere Beobachtungen, 195–216, who argues for the dependence of Deut 23:20–21 on Lev 25:35–38, but does not consider this element. The meaning of the two terms is disputed, see the survey of the discussion by LEFEBVRE, Lv 25, 248–252. At any rate, there is a consensus that both terms refer to interest due at the end of the loan. The most likely solution seems to be that nes]ek refers to the interest on a loan of money whereas tarbît refers to a loan on victuals, as cuneiform parallels would indicate (cf. CARDELLINI, “Possessio”). Lefebvre (Ibid., 251) basically holds the same view but refines it in order to account for other elements suggesting that tarbît is more specifically related to the adjustment required by the fluctuations inherent to loans on victuals. According to him, “nes]ek désigne dédommagement [sic] perçu par le prêteur sur l’argent. Cet avantage est purement et simplement l’intérêt, le coût du prêt. […] tarbît désigne le dédommagement perçu par le prêteur sur les denrées. Cet avantage comporte d’une part le coût du prêt, c’est-à-dire l’intérêt, et d’autre part l’ajustement du capital dû à la fluctuation du cours de la denrée entre le moment du prêt et le moment du remboursement. Le tarbît est la somme du nes]ek et de cet ajustement”. If so, the difference between H and D would be that H prohibits not only taking interest on loans, as D already, but the ban on tarbît in Lev 25 requires in addition that the creditor renounces the adjustment allowing him to compensate for the expected fluctuation in the price of food. As Lefebvre observes (contra Braulik), Lev 25 is clearly more demanding than its parallel in Deut 23:20–21: “Il s’agit d’un soutien actif au frère appauvri, dans lequel le prêteur s’implique jusqu’à accepter d’y perdre financièrement”. 546 The effect achieved by the assertion of the inalienability of one’s ancestral estate is basically to make impossible any form of land speculation. Actually, the sale of the land’s usufruct represents a form of loan without interest (as noted, e.g., by CARDELLINI , “Possessio”, 138, speaking of a “voluntary mortgage”; similarly LEFEBVRE, Lv 25, 260–261): it is only a form of temporary mortgage of one’s estate, automatically cancelled at the Jubilee. 547 On Lev 22:31–33, see above, § 5.2.3.

534

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

view towards Israel’s obligations to Yahweh. The statement that the Israelites have been freed to become Yahweh’s personal slaves goes well beyond Ex 6:7. It summarizes fittingly the general conception underlying the legislation of Lev 25. Not only the land (v. 23), but also the Israelites themselves are Yahweh’s personal and exclusive property. Yet there is a further subtlety in the conclusion of this legislation by a reference to the exodus, since in P, the exodus itself is presented as an event through which Yahweh acts as the redeemer (go)e4l) of his people Israel (see Ex 6:6). The connection between the laws on redemption in Lev 25 and Ex 6 is all the more unmistakable because, with the exception of Ex 15:13 (itself an echo of Ex 6:6), the root l)g does not occur in-between in Exodus and Leviticus. Such intertextuality offers a fitting conclusion to the law on redemption in Lev 25. Whenever an Israelite redeems a kinsman, and prevents him from losing his land or from becoming enslaved, he somehow imitates Yahweh himself by re-enacting the inaugural liberation of Israel at the exodus. This last observation raises the question of the connection of ch. 25 to the rest of H. It was observed above that Lev 25, because it introduces additional stipulations for specific years consecrated to Yahweh, forms the climax to the second part of H after the festival calendar of ch. 23. Yet, with respect to its distinctive reception of the earlier laws of Ex 23 and Deut 15, Lev 25 may also legitimately be viewed as the conclusion to the entire legislation on holiness in Lev 17–25. The Sabbatical Year in Lev 25:2–7 reinterprets Ex 23:10– 11 against Deut 15:1–11 as a “Sabbath for the land” consecrating it to Yahweh (cf. 25:2, 4). It serves as a concrete exemplification of the Israelites’ dependence on Yahweh, who is responsible for giving the land to them (v. 2ab). The Jubilee legislation in 25:8–55, for its part, systematically re-formulates the slave laws in the CC (Ex 21:2–6, 7–11) and in D (Deut 15:12–18) in the light of the consecration of all Israel to Yahweh. The return of each Israelite to his ancestral estate in the year of the Jubilee highlights Yahweh’s sovereinty not only upon the land but also upon the Israelites themselves. While the assertion that the land belongs to Yahweh exclusively (25:23–24) permeates the entire Jubilee legislation and represents its basic rationale, the theme of Yahweh’s dominion over the Israelites is expressed in particular by the last section of the Jubilee legislation, the law on slavery (v. 39–55). As observed above, the general principle underlying it is the abolishment – against the earlier legislation (CC and D) – of the possibility of an Israelite enslaving another Israelite; and this innovation is itself justified through a reinterpretation of the exodus according to which the Israelites have been freed from Egypt to become Yahweh’s own slaves (v. 42, 55). This end development goes beyond the issue of sacred times in the second half of H and should be regarded in fact as the climax of the re-definition of Israel’s holiness in this legislation. The first part of H, ch. 17–22, calls Israel to holiness

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

535

and ends with two exhortations reinterpreting the exodus as a process of consecration of the people to Yahweh (Lev 20:24b–26 and further 22:33a; see above). The legislation on slavery in Lev 25:39–55 and, more generally, the entire law of 25:8–55 now concretely illustrate the ultimate purpose of this process for the Israelites: to become dependent workers (v. 24) on Yahweh’s estate, cultivating the land for him. This idea, although it continues in a sense P’s conception of the land,548 is quite unique in the Torah. Its closest parallel is the model of temple estates in Mesopotamia, as observed by some scholars already.549 Such estates are specific areas within the estate belonging to the crown, which are theoretically independent of it and placed under the exclusive jurisdiction of the temple’s deity. In Lev 25, however, it is the entire land of Israel which has somehow become such a temple estate, while the Israelites themselves are identified with the servants (Mydb(, v. 42 and 55) of the temple. As such, they are subject to the laws of the deity residing inside the temple and governing the land. It was often noted that the divine command to practice the release of all debts at the Jubilee typically recalls the royal practice of the m|4s]arum and andura4ru(m) in Mesopotamia.550 But such release is no longer an occasional decision, it has become instead a fixed cosmic event, signaling forever Yahweh’s permanent rule over his land and his people. In this respect, the reference to the exodus in the motive clause concluding Lev 25 becomes quite meaningful. Each Jubilee brings Israel back to the situation which applied when it was brought by God into the land and thus to the scheme initially devised by Yahweh for Israel at the exodus. Thus, Lev 25 concludes H’s legislation by giving the key to the fundamental conception underlying the relationship between people, land and holiness in Lev 17–26. Yahweh is king over his land, and the Israelites are defined as a temple community whose role is to serve Yahweh, the God of the universe, inside his sanctuary; in order to perform this task, this community must permanently sanctify itself by obeying Yahweh’s laws. This last point will be significantly emphasized in the great exhortation of ch. 26 concluding H, to which we shall turn now.551 5.2.5. Leviticus 26 As in D (Deut 28), H ends in Lev 26 with a detailed description of the blessings and curses awaiting Israel in case of obedience or disobedience of the law respectively. This device, as classically observed, imitates a widespread pattern in ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties (especially Hittite and Assyr548

See above, § 1.3., especially p. 66–68. Cf. JOOSTEN, People, 181ff.; see also BAUKS, Landkonzeption. 550 On the m|4 s ] a rum and andura4 r u(m) in Mesopotamia, see, e.g., OTTO , Gottes Recht, 195–239, with a detailed study of the related Old and New Babylonian texts. 551 On the socio-economic background of the Jubilee legislation, see further below, § 5.3. 549

536

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

ian). Yet it must be observed that therein blessings and (mainly) curses are called by the suzerain upon the party observing or trespassing the treaty’s stipulations; both blessings and curses are to be enforced by the gods themselves. The same situation applies to Deut 28 which stands very close to this pattern, except that Moses has replaced the ancient Near Eastern ruler.552 In Lev 26, on the contrary, blessings and curses are now pronounced by Yahweh himself and have thus become prophetic announcements of what he will execute in case of obedience or disobedience to the law.553 Thus, although Lev 26 draws abundantly upon the genre of ancient Near Eastern treaties,554 this tradition is actually reinterpreted and reformulated into a prophetic oracle delivered to Moses.555 This accounts in particular for the inclusion at the end of Lev 26 of a promise of restoration (v. 40–45), which has no parallel in Deut 28 (compare v. 64–68!) and represents an innovation over the traditional pattern of blessings and curses. As suggested recently by H.-U. Steymans, it would therefore be better to speak of “promises” and “threats” rather than of “blessings” and “curses” in Lev 26. The stipulation of these promises and threats (v. 3–45) is itself introduced by a brief exhortation (v. 1–2) building an inclusion with Lev 19, thus rounding off the entire legislation of H from ch. 19 (the first exhortation to holiness) to the exhortation closing ch. 25 (v. 55). The prohibition against worshiping “nothings” (M[y]lyl)) in 26:1a takes up the wording of 19:4a,556 and combines it with other expressions designating (anthropomorphic) statues, images and idols from other legal traditions. lsp is characteristic of the Decalogue (Ex 20:5; Deut 5:8); hbcm could be an allusion to the parallel exhortation of Deut 16:21–22;557 and the rare term tyk#m is also found in Ez 8 (v. 11).558 In a sense, therefore, H is “bookended” by the reception of the first two commandments of the Decalogue, 26:1a developing further the exegesis of these commandments already begun in 19:4a. 26:2a is a literal quote of 19:30, thus building another inclusion with ch. 19; at the same time, the connection established between the ban on worshipping other gods and the commandment to observe the Sabbath repeats chiastically the sequence found in 19:3–4. On the whole, the reference to Lev 19 in 26:1–2 functions as a signal that the legislation has come to a close, thus preparing for the concluding exhortation in 552 For the suggestion that blessings and curses in Deut 28 should be read as “Wunschformen”, cf. STEYMANS , Deuteronomium 28, 207–220(ff.). This is shown in particular by the regular introduction of the sentences with a yiqt[ol, corresponding to a jussive. 553 For this observation, see especially STEYMANS, Lev 26, 273. 554 See, e.g., KORPEL, Epilogue. 555 STEYMANS, Ibid., taking up a similar observation by Wellhausen. 556 M(y)lyl) otherwise several times in Isa 1–39; in the Torah, only in Lev 19:4; 26:1. 557 Thus also CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 267–269; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 349; OTTO, Innerbiblische Exegese, 140. 558 In a cultic context, otherwise only in Num 33:52, a late passage dependent on H.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

537

26:3–45. Furthermore, the transition is eased by the close connection between 25:55 (the exhortation ending the last legislation in H, ch. 25) and 26:1–2. The sequence formed by 25:55; 26:1a is reminiscent of the Decalogue, which similarly opens with a reference to the exodus (Ex 20:2; Deut 5:6), and the two verses both conclude with the formula “I am Yahweh, your God”.559 The interpretation of 26:3–45 raises several questions of detail which cannot be addressed in the context of this study.560 I will focus instead on the main aspect introduced by this section, i.e., the connection between the keeping of the law and the upholding of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel.561 Three observations, in particular, may be made in this regard. 1. In a brief but seminal study on Lev 26, Lohfink made the decisive observation that the promises in 26:9, 11 and 12 take up several elements from the Priestly narrative but reinterpret them from a distinct perspective.562 The pro559

Lev 25:55b; 26:1b. In 26:2b, one has the short formula: “I am Yahweh”. Lev 26 has been the subject of some studies recently, see in particular BAUMGART, Lev 26,3–45; and STEYMANS, Lev 26. 561 Form critics have usually assumed that an earlier, formulaic tradition with a metric arrangement underlay the series of blessings and curses in this chapter, supplemented at a secondary stage by the addition of the passages in prose, in particular the so-called “Plagensteigerungsschema” in v. 14–39. See REVENTLOW, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 142–161, esp. 146–148; further KILIAN, Untersuchung, 148–163, especially 155–159; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 363–372; and CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 119–130; but contrast already FEUCHT, Untersuchungen, 51–52, who regards Lev 26 as a literary unity. THIEL, Erwägungen, 62ff., although he presumes the existence of several layers, also admitted that the “Plagensteigerungsschema” could be original. In recent research, however, the use of the distinction between poetry and prose as a form- and source-critical criterion is generally rejected, and Lev 26 is commonly regarded as a coherent composition, possibly with a few interpolations; see already SUN , Investigation, 551ff., as well as the discussion by GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 115–121; further KORPEL, Epilogue, 146; BAUMGART, Lev 26,3–45; STEYMANS, Lev 26, esp. 271–274; and note that this position means a return to the view of older critics (cf. e.g. Baentsch). A partial exception is represented by LEVINE, Epilogue, who considers v. 39–40a, 44–45 and 33b–37 as two successive additions made to the original text of ch. 26 after the exile. MILGROM, Leviticus, 2323.2363–2365, similarly holds now that ch. 26 has been edited by a postexilic redactor, especially as regards the conclusion in v. 39–45. However, there is no ground for dissociating v. 39–45 from what precedes, and this view misses the profound connection between 26:39–45 and the rest of the chapter (see below). To be sure, v. 39–45 have no parallel in Deut 28, but to remove them for this reason is precisely to miss the very innovation introduced by Lev 26 against Deut 28! As observed above, that the two chapters are not simply parallel is already shown by the fact that Lev 26, contrary to Deut 28, is no longer composed as a series of blessings and curses but as prophetic announcements of what will befall the people in case of obedience or disobedience to the law. Actually, the entire case for regarding v. 39–45 as a later interpolation rests upon the premise that the core of Lev 26 would have to be late pre-exilic; once H is seen as a post-P (and post-exilic) composition (see further on this below, § 5.3.), references to the exile no longer need to be eliminated. 562 See LOHFINK, Abänderung. However, Lohfink himself – mainly because he shares the classical approach that H must be pre-Priestly –, assumes that these verses are not original but 560

538

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

mise to “make you fruitful and multiply you” in 26:9a is typical of P and corresponds to the commandment given to humanity before (Gen 1:28) and after (Gen 9:1, 7) the Flood, resumed in the promise made to the Patriarchs (Abraham: Gen 17:6, 7; Ishmael: Gen 17:20; Isaac: Gen 26:4, 24; Jacob: Gen 28:3; 35:11; 48:4), and fulfilled by Israel during its sojourn in Egypt (Ex 1:7 Pg). The establishment (Mwq Hiphil)563 of the treaty (tyrb) between God and the Israelites in 26:9b refers to the treaty concluded with Abraham in Gen 17 (cf. 17:7, 19, 21, and further Ex 6:4).564 The allusion to the dwelling (Nk#m)565 established in the midst of Israel in 26:11a is a clear reference to the promises of Ex 25:8 and 29:45–46.566 Finally, Yahweh’s promise that he will “walk amidst” the Israelites (Mkkwtb ytklhthw) in 26:12 appears to conflate two different motifs in P. The term “in your midst” (Mkkwtb) is found, in P, in reference to the tent of meeting allowing Yahweh to reside in the midst of his community (cf. Ex 25:8; 29:45–46). The use of the verb “to walk” (Klh) recalls, for its part, the relationship between God and men before the Flood in the P version of Gen 1–11, where certain privileged ancestors are described as “walking with Yahweh” (Gen 5:22, 24; 6:9).567 This ultimate promise, which, in the sequence formed by v. 11–12, appears to extend the divine presence from the sanctuary (see v. 11a) to the entire community, adequately concludes already belong to a secondary layer in ch. 26. See also further in particular CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 121–123; LEVIN, Verheißung, 222–234; RÖMER, Väter, 548–550; GROSS, Zukunft, 90ff. (see also ID., “Rezeption”); GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 366ff.; and OTTO, Innerbiblische Exegese, 176–179, all of whom build on the essay by Lohfink. 563 Although Mwq Hiphil can be used to describe not only the establishment, but also the “upholding” of a covenant (LEVINE, Leviticus, 183–184; MILGROM, Leviticus, 2343–2346), it is not necessary to adopt this rendering here in order to avoid the contradiction raised by the fact that both in P (Gen 17) and in the non-P tradition (Ex 24), a tyrb has already been concluded between Yahweh and his people. The same tension arises in v. 11a (MT), when Yahweh promises that he will place his dwelling in Israel, which seemingly contradicts the narrative of Ex 25–40 (see Ex 40:34). As will be argued below, this device must be understood as part of a literary and rhetorical strategy emphasizing the conditional character of the covenant and of the divine presence. 564 The use of Mwq Hiphil with the term tyrb is characteristic of P, see also Gen 6:18; 9:9, 11, 17; 17:7, 19, 21; Ex 6:4; otherwise in the Torah only in Gen 21:32; Deut 8:18; 31:16. 565 Contra MILGROM: Leviticus, 2299–2301, I see no reason to translate here the expression ynk#m by “my presence”, a rendering which, as Milgrom himself acknowledges, has no parallel elsewhere in P or H. 566 Part of the Greek tradition (the LXX A and B) reads th\n diaqh/khn mou = ytyrb instead of the MT, reading ynk#m, but this is probably to primarily avoid the contradiction represented by the fact that according to Ex 25–40 the dwelling had already been built. 567 See BLUM, Studien, 291–292, and above, § 2.3.3., p. 105–107, for the use of Klh Hith. Cf. also the LXX: kai\ e0mperipath/sw e0n u9mi=n. There may also be an allusion to the non-P story of Gen 3, where Yahweh’s voice is described as “walking about” in the Garden (3:8), as noted by MILGROM, Leviticus, 2301. This observation may be of interest if, as will be argued below at length (§ 5.3.), H already belongs to one of the redactions of the Pentateuch.

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

539

the series of blessings in ch. 26 before the reminder of the exodus event in v. 13. Whereas in P the establishment of Yahweh’s sanctuary in Israel represented a partial restitution of the divine presence, H’s concluding exhortation goes even further and alludes to the complete re-establishment of the initial relationship between God and man in Israel. But contrary to P, where Yahweh’s covenant is still unconnected with the Sinai legislation, the restoration of the divine presence is now conditioned to Israel’s obedience to the statutes (tqx) and the commands (twcm) given by Yahweh to Israel (26:3).568 In P, as traditionally observed, the tyrb is no longer conceived as a treaty concluded between two parties but was “given” by Yahweh to Abraham and his offspring (Gen 17:2). To be sure, this tyrb is not simply “unconditional”, as is often uncorrectly stated, but must be kept by man (Gen 17:9–10). Yet it is nevertheless a Mlw( tyrb, a “permanent” tyrb for Israel (17:7, 19), a complete novelty over the previous tradition, meaning that its transgression does not affect Israel as such but leads only to the exclusion of the culprit, as is explicitly stated in the case of the rite of circumcision in 17:11–14.569 As was already observed by Lohfink, the connection in Lev 26 of P’s tyrb with the laws revealed to Moses on Mt Sinai implies on the contrary an unmistakable revision of P from the perspective of the Deuteronomistic tradition of the law and the covenant.570 This conclusion is corroborated by the language of Lev 26 which combines Priestly and Deuteronomistic terminology and was manifestly conceived as a parallel to Deut 28.571 It 568 hqx systematically occurs in all of H’s exhortations in Lev 18–20 (cf. 18:3, 4, 5, 26, 30; 19:19, 37; 20:8, 22, 23; see also 25:18). twcm should refer to the exhortation of 22:31, closing ch. 17–22, since it is the only other occurrence of this term previously in Lev 17–25. 569 For this interpretation see the detailed study by GROSS, Zukunft, 45–70, esp. 52ff., with a good summary of the earlier discussion. Pace KNOHL, Sanctuary, 143–144 n. 80; JOOSTEN, People, 107–120, esp. 110–112; ID., Covenant Theology; and MILGROM, Leviticus, 2339– 2340, the difference in this respect between P and the earlier tradition cannot be denied, even though some of their criticisms of the traditional assumption of a pure “Gnadenbund” in P, completely disconnected from the law’s observance, are correct. (Note, however, that it is excessive to state that the command of Gen 17:1 is a “condition” for the covenant in P; see the remarks by GROSS, Ibid., 54 n. 17.) On P’s view of the be6rît, see already above, page 195. 570 LOHFINK, Abänderung, 135: “Hier ist Pg in die deuteronomische Theologie integriert worden […] So wird man sagen können, daß sich […] zwar die Sprache von P durchgesetzt hat, aber mit der Theologie von D”. 571 For a detailed comparison of Lev 26 and Deut 28, see CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 310–319; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 348–365, esp. 355ff. There are some close terminological parallels between the description of the blessings and curses in Lev 26 and Deut 28. Lev 26:16a (“I will bring upon you confusion, consumption [tpx#] and fever [txdq], wearing out the eyes [Myny( twlkm ] and drying out the throat [#pn tbydmw]”), which opens the series of divine punishments in Lev 26, combining elements taken from the beginning and the end of the sanctions of Deut 28. The two terms tpx# and txdq are found elsewhere in the HB only in Deut 28:22 (GRÜNWALDT , Heiligkeitsgesetz, 355, with earlier references), while the expression #pn tbydmw Myny( twlkm has a close parallel in the conclusion of Deuteronomy 28, in

540

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

probably also accounts for the surprising formulation of v. 11–12, in which the promises already realized in the previous Priestly narrative (the building of Yahweh’s sanctuary and the transformation of Israel into God’s people, see Ex 25:8; 29:45–46; 40:34) are now presented as being conditional upon Israel’s obedience to the laws. 2. Simultaneously, Lev 26 goes further than Deut 28. As in D, the section on the curses brought by disobedience to Yahweh’s laws in Lev 26:14–39 ends with an announcement of the exile (Lev 26:27–39; Deut 28:58–68). Both passages are concluded by a description of Israel’s life outside its land (Lev 26:36–39; Deut 28:64–67).572 In H, however, this description is preceded by a statement on the land itself, which will enjoy a Sabbatical rest (v. 34–35); this motif, absent from D, reinterprets the exile from the perspective of H’s central concern for the land’s purity, and builds a fine inclusion with the beginning of ch. 17–26, and especially with the parenetic frame of ch. 18 (18:2b–5, 24–30; see also 20:22–26). But whereas Deut 28 ends with the prospect of the exile (cf. the threat of a return to Egypt in v. 68, abolishing the exodus), the curse section in Lev 26 is itself completed by a final paragraph considering return from exile (v. 40–45).573 The return is preceded by a confession of the iniquity 28:65; see on this STEYMANS, Lev 26, 270–271. See also for example Lev 26:19b and Deut 28:23, and on this STEYMANS, Deuteronomium 28, 284–291. However, the clearest case for the dependence of Lev 26 on the Dtr tradition concerns the introduction to the lists of blessings and curses in 26:3 and 26:14–15 respectively. In Lev 26:3, the combination of the verbs h#( and rm# with the term twcm (otherwise only in Lev 22:31) parallels Deut 28:1, 15; besides, in 28:15 (MT), the same combination of twcm and tqx as in Lev 26:3 is also found. This combination further occurs in Lev 26:14–15, although in a more developed construction; in this passage, the combined use of the verbs (m# and h#( is also typical of Deuteronomy. Hence, the view that the two texts would draw on a common tradition (e.g., NOTH, Leviticus, 195–196; still recently MILGROM, Leviticus, 2346–2348) should be rejected. 572 The question of the literary homogeneity and relative chronology of 28:58–68 has to be left open here; see further for instance STEYMANS, Deuteronomium 28, 339ff. 573 The closest parallel to Lev 26:40–45 would actually be Deut 30:1–10, itself probably a late insertion into the book of Deuteronomy. As L UST , Exile and Diaspora, has observed, there is an unmistakable parallel between the text of Deut 30 and the oracles in Ezekiel proclaiming a gathering from diaspora which, according to Pohlmann (followed on this point by Lust), form one of the book’s latest layers. As regards Lev 26:40–45, the unity of this passage has sometimes been disputed, but there is hardly any textual basis to identify inner tensions; see already for this conclusion ELLIGER, Leviticus, 369–370; CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 124–125, who attribute this section in its entirety to the H redactor. Several attempts have also been made to regard these verses as a whole as a later addition in Lev 26 (cf. ZIMMERLI, Sinaibund, 212; as well as Levine, Elliger and Cholewin8ski). But the parallel with Deut 28 is no argument, especially since, as noted above, Lev 26 belongs to a different literary genre; and as pointed out by Elliger and Cholewin8ski, v. 40–45 bear several marks distinctive of the author of H. Furthermore, v. 40–41 are closely connected with v. 39, as traditionally observed, through the repetition of the word Nw( so that authors assuming the secondary character of v. 40–45 must include v. 39 as well, which is possible but unprovable (note

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

541

(Nw() of Israel and of its fathers (v. 40–41), which, in the previous section (v. 27–39) had been presented as the reason for their punishment and their sojourn in exile (v. 39);574 the confession reminds us of the importance of this motif in the Priestly legislation (cf. Lev 5:5; further 16:21).575 V. 41 ends with the announcement that, after this confession, the iniquity of the Israelites will be “atoned” (see further v. 43). This announcement clearly recalls the opening statement of Second Isaiah, since the use of hcr with Nw( as object occurs in the HB only here and in Isa 40:2. There follows in v. 42 the promise by Yahweh that he will “remember” (rkz) his tyrb with Jacob, Isaac and Abraham.576 This expression is characteristic of P (cf. Gen 9:15, 16), as long noted, and suggests more specifically a reference to Ex 2:24; 6:5. Against P, however, the unique tyrb established with Abraham (Gen 17) and repeated to Isaac and Jacob is apparently viewed as a tyrb concluded with each patriarch personally.577 Possibly, this is in order to stress the importance of individual observance of the covenant.

that the omission of v. 39b in the LXX suggests that it is a later addition). Finally, as observed by CRÜSEMANN , Tora, 354 (cf. also STEYMANS , Lev 26, 274ff.), the return of the exodus motif in v. 45 builds a close parallel with the conclusion of the promise section in v. 3–13 (cf. v. 13). The reading of v. 41a in the LXX differs from the MT, but the idea that Yahweh would have exterminated Israel in the land of its enemies is already implied in v. 38. 574 For the interpretation of the we6-qa4t[al form in v. 40 as marking a new beginning, see the analysis of v. 39–41 by STEYMANS, Lev 26, 279–284. 575 hdy Hith., in the Torah only in Lev 5:5; 16:21; 26:40, and Num 5:7 (which is based on Lev 5:5). Otherwise: Dan 9:4, 20; Ezra 10:1; Neh 1:6; 9:2; 2 Chr 30:22, all postexilic texts. 576 The present MT is grammatically difficult. The LXX solves the difficulty by omitting the pronominal suffix, but the reading ytyrb is very likely to be original, since it also occurs at the beginning of the section on curses, in v. 15. Syr supplies M( (see BHS), whereas modern scholars have suggested various emendations (tyrb instead of ytyrb [BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 436, following an earlier study by Valeton], or t) ytyrb instead of ytyrb t) [thus already BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 96; further ELLIGER, Leviticus, 378 n. 75, who remarks that at the end of v. 42 the statement that Yahweh will “remember the land”, rkz) Cr)h, does not take t) either]). However, as noted by some authors, a similar formula is also found in Jer 33:20 (see already BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 436; further GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 363), and the present MT could also be retained. Pace NOTH, Leviticus, 200, this can certainly not be taken as an indication that tyrb is secondary in v. 42, since in this case the entire logic organizing v. 42–45 is lost (see below). Elliger also suggests the possibility that the references to a tyrb with Isaac and Abraham would have been added later (Leviticus, 378), but the HB never mentions a tyrb with Jacob alone (RÖMER, Väter, 548 n. 367). The order in which the patriarchs are listed, which is unparalleled in the HB, probably serves as a literary device to suggest a gradual return to the origins (thus also RÖMER, Väter, 549: “ein ‘Zurückschreiten’ in der Geschichte […] von den ungehorsamen Vätern seit Ägypten zurück über Jakob zu Abraham”). In addition, one could also interpret it as a free application of the principle of inverted quotations in the HB (thus BEENTJES, Quotations, 511–512). 577 For this observation, see in particular CHOLEWIN &SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 125–126, although it was already noted by earlier commentators (Baentsch, etc.).

542

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

In Lev 26, therefore, Israel’s restoration after the exile is not presented as a divine initiative, as is systematically the case in the prophetic literature, but as a consequence of the former covenant with the Patriarchs in P. This reference to the tyrb concluded with the Patriarchs introduces a further reflection on God’s covenant in Israel in v. 43–45. Here, it is no longer the Priestly conception of the tyrb which is reinterpreted from the perspective of the Dtr conception, as in v. 3–13, but rather the Dtr conception that is integrated into the Priestly one. The core of this restatement of the two traditions is found in v. 44: although Israel has indeed broken the covenant by “rejecting” (s)m) his statutes and “loathing” (#pn l(g) his laws (v. 43b, taking up chiastically v. 15a, the introduction to the second section), Yahweh will not act in the same way. He will not reject (s)m) or “loathe” (l(g) them, and he will therefore not break the covenant on his own side (v. 44).578 Thus, the possibility of the covenant’s break is acknowledged as a concession made to the Deuteronomistic and prophetic traditions, but Yahweh’s tyrb eventually remains a tyrb Mlw(, as in P. With this development, the two conflicting traditions on the tyrb in the Torah are now united for the first time into a single, unified conception.579 This development is apparently taken one step further in the next verse, v. 45, where Yahweh’s “remembrance” is applied to the tyrb concluded with the exodus generation, hence actually implying the equivalence of the two covenants.580 Therefore, immediately before the final subscription in 26:46, Lev 26 (and with it all of H) ends by mediating between Sinaitic tyrb and Abraham’s tyrb and by defining the nature of their relationship. Already here, the context for such a development is transparent: it represents an attempt to solve the most obvious difficulty facing the scribes who composed the Torah when they combined Priestly and non-Priestly traditions into a single, comprehensive document.581 578

The contrast between v. 43 and 44 is unmistakable, see for instance OTTO, Innerbiblische Exegese, 178. 579 Thus also GROSS, Zukunft, 99, stressing the unique character of Lev 26 in this regard. 580 With the vast majority of commentators, I understand Myn#)r in v. 45 as applying to the exodus generation and not to the Patriarchs. The latter solution, recently defended by GROSS, Zukunft, 97–98, is grammatically almost impossible given the following clause (as is already apparent in his own translation); see recently MILGROM, Leviticus, 2338–2339. Following Joüon, Milgrom also notes that, “where r|4s]o4n|4m does not take the article […], it carries the plural sense of ‘previous generations’”. The fact that the use of this term to designate the exodus generation implies a contradiction within H’s narrative framework (since the “previous generations” are in fact the addressees of the code) corresponds to H’s tendency to “step out of its fictional framework so as to address its real addressees directly” (JOOSTEN, People, 152, following Elliger; see also GRÜNWALDT , Heiligkeitsgesetz, 373), and is quite fitting in the context of the code’s conclusion. Finally, in the rendering adopted by Groß, v. 45 would simply be a restatement of Ex 2:24 (P). 581 For the observation of the attempt in Lev 26:40–45 to conflate P’s tradition of the covenant with the Sinai tradition, see already CHOLEWIN&SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 126–127,

5.2. The Exegesis of P, D, and Other “Legal” Traditions in H

543

3. One last observation concerns the literary depiction of the promises and threats in v. 3–13 and 14–39. As frequently observed, both sections contain many parallels with the prophetic literature, in particular Amos, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. In the section on promises, v. 4–6, 13 have a close parallel in Ezekiel 34:25–30,582 a prophecy about the land’s restoration by Yahweh in the near future, after he has concluded a Mwl# tyrb with his people. It is generally acknowledged that Lev 26 depends on Ez 34.583 Several details support this indeed, in particular the fact that other central prophecies in Ezekiel are combined in Lev 26:3–13 with the reception of Ez 34.584 In the section on threats, the plagues described in v. 18–33 do not only have parallels in Am 4:6–11 (a passage generally recognized as a late addition to Amos) and in Deut 28, but also in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The triad composed of sword, pestilence, and hunger (Lev 26:25–26) is commonly found in both Jeremiah and Ezekiel, although most frequently in a different order (sword, hunger, pestilence).585 In 26:19a, the association of Nw)g and z( is only attested in Ez 30:6, 18; 33:28.586 26:22 has several parallels in Ezekiel, as has frequently been observed.587 The image of Yahweh “bringing a sword” (with )wb Hiphil) against his people in 26:25a is not rare in Ezekiel (Ez 5:17; 6:3; 11:8; 14:17; 33:2; in 29:8, against Egypt).588 The whole hemistiche also has a close echo in Ez 21:6–22. The expression “when I break your staff of bread” in 26:26a has a literal parallel in Ez 4:16; 5:16 and 14:13 (see further Ps 105:16). 26:29 corresponds to Deut speaking in this regard of the attempt “die Pg-Theologie zu korrigieren”. RÖMER, Väter, 549– 550, followed Cholewin8ski in this respect, but already observed against him that this development should be situated at a stage when the P and Dtr traditions were being combined: “Damit kommen wir in der Nähe einer nachpriesterlichen Pentateuch-(End)-Redaktion in ‘dtr’ Gewand”. For this idea, see further now GROSS, Rezeption, 61; ID., Zukunft, 99. 582 For a synopsis of the parallels, see for instance GRÜNWALDT, Leviticus 17–26, 349. 583 Thus already BAENTSCH, Heiligkeits-Gesetz, 125; more recently, LEVIN, Verheißung, 224–225; GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 349–351. Pace MILGROM, Leviticus, 2348–2349. 584 See LEVIN, Ibid. In particular, Lev 26:11–12 corresponds to Ez 37:26–27; the sequence formed by Lev 26:9–10 is equivalent to Ez 36:9–10, and the promise in 26:9a that Yahweh will “turn his face” towards Israel compares verbatim to what is found in Ez 36:9. In v. 4–6, the oracle of Ez 34 is enriched by the addition in v. 6bb of the phrase “no sword shall pass through your land”, a typical Ezekielian metaphor (cf. Ez 21) which also has a direct parallel in Ez 14:17. The literary relationship between Lev 26 and Ezekiel makes more sense if the author of H has the various oracles in Ezekiel before his eyes; the contrary assumption that the prophet (or his disciples) would have scattered their source throughout the book, as Milgrom, for instance, would have it, is difficult to admit. 585 Thus Jer 14:12; 21:9; 24:10; 27:8, 13; 29:17, 18; 32:24, 36; 38:2; 42:17, 22; 44:13; Ez 6:11; 7:15; 12:16. See MILGROM, Leviticus, 2313. The only parallel to the order found in Lev 26:25–26 is in Jer 34:17, which, interestingly, also follows an instruction on slave release (Jer 34:8–16), as in Lev 25:8–55. With a different sequence, see Jer 21:7; Ez 5:12; 6:12; 7:15. A fourth element, wild beast, is attested in Ez 5:17 and 14:13–20, 21; it has a counterpart in Lev 26:22, although less closely than the other three elements. 586 GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 357. 587 Cf. BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 431. See also GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 358. 588 GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 358.

544

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

28:53 (ff.), where the motif of eating one’s own children is considerably more developed but it exists, too, in Jer 19:9 (see further 2 Kgs 6:28–29; in a different formulation, Ez 5:10). 26:30 has a clear counterpart in Ez 6:3–6,589 while 26:31 appears to conflate several passages in Ez 4–7.590 Yahweh’s announcement in Lev 26:32a that he will make the land (Cr)) desolate, with Mm# Hiphil, has its closest parallel in Ez 30:12, an oracle against Egypt. Finally, Lev 26:33 is likewise reminiscent of several passages in Ezekiel. 26:33a (“I shall scatter you [hrz Pi.] among the nations, and I shall draw the sword after you”) recalls specifically Ez 12:14 (“I shall scatter them [hrz Pi.] to every wind, and I shall draw the sword after them” (compare also the similar passages in Ez 5:2, 12), whereas 26:33b, for its part, takes up Ez 12:20 in reverse order.591 Further connections with Ezekiel may be found in v. 34ff. Thus, v. 38, with the mention of the land of the enemies which will “devor” (lk)) the exiled Israelites, echoes Ez 36:1–15 (cf. 36:13–14; see also Num 13:32). In both Lev 26 and Ezekiel, Israel’s punishment culminates with the reference to the Israelites “rotting” (qqm Niphal) in their crimes (cf. Lev 26:39 and Ez 24:23; 33:10), followed soon after by prospects of restoration (Lev 26:40; Ez 33:10– 12, itself taking up Ez 24:23).592 However, in H, the Israelites are said to be “rotting” in exile not only because of their crimes (26:39a), but also because of their fathers’ crimes (39b). The discussion with the doctrine of the book of Ezekiel on the responsibility of sons for their fathers’ crimes (Ez 18) is evident here.593 In this regard, it may not be a coincidence that the language of Ez 18:24 (with l(m-r#) wl(mb; see also 17:20 and 39:26) is found immediately after, in Lev 26:40.594 Finally, Lev 26:41 explicitly refers to the motif of the circumcision of the heart, which is a central theme in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (cf. Jer 4:4; 9:25; Ez 44:7, 9; see also Deut 10:16; 30:6), as Wellhausen had already observed.

Although the dependence of Lev 26 on Jeremiah and Ezekiel cannot be consistently demonstrated for each of these parallels taken individually, on the whole, this examination suggests that H has deliberately sought to allude to the traditions on Jerusalem’s destruction in these two prophetic books. As (Lev 26:30)  Mkytwmb ytdb)w (Ez 6:3bb ); Mkynmx-t) ytrkhw  (Ez 6:4ab ); Mkylwlg yrgp-l( Mkyrgp-t) yttnw  Mkylwlg ynpl Mkyllx ytlphw (Ez 6:4b) + Mhylwlg ynpl l)r#y ynb yrgp-t) yttnw (Ez 6:5a MT). 590 Lev 26:31aa // Ez 5:15 (although with a different formulation; but Ntn + hbrx also occurs in Ez 25:13); Lev 26:31ab // Ez 6:4aa; Lev 26:31b // Ez 6:13. 591 See Ez 12:20a: hyht hmm# Cr)hw hnbrxt twb#wnh Myr(hw, and compare with the announcement in Lev 26:33b: hbrx wyhy Mkyr(w hmm# Mkcr) htyhw. 592 It has long been noted that the threefold division of Ez (ch. 1–24; 25–32; and 33–48) is probably late, the obvious link between Ez 24 and 33 suggesting instead a twofold division originally: judgment (1–24) and salvation for Israel (33–48): KRÜGER, Geschichtskonzepte, 298ff. The collection of oracles against the nations in 25–32 was inserted at a later stage, in order for Ez to conform to the so-called “eschatological scheme” also found in Isa 1–39, Zeph and Jer LXX. The fact that Lev 26:39–40 imitates Ez 24:23 + 33:10 may indicate that H’s author was still aware of a version of Ez in which 1–24 and 33–48 were more closely linked. 593 The dependence on Ezekiel is further highlighted if v. 39b is an interpolation, as its omission from the LXX and its rather loose connection with v. 39a would suggest. In this case, H initially adopted Ezechiel’s view on individual responsibility but was later corrected by a scribe who rejected the radical teaching of Ez 18. 594 Note further that in Ez 39:26–27, this expression is combined with the mention of the “lands of the enemies” (pl.), as in Lev 26:40–41 (where it is used however in the singular). 589

Mkytmb-t) ytdm#hw

Mkynmx wrb#nw

5.3. H and the Redaction of the Torah in Fifth-century Yehud

545

observed by Grünwaldt, Lev 26:27–33, in particular, has manifestly been modeled upon Ez 5–6.595 What, then, is the significance of such parallels? For the main, they serve to align the prophetic traditions about the doom and the restoration of Israel with the Torah of Moses. Zion’s fall and the exile are now reinterpreted as the consequence of Israel’s inability to observe the laws specifically revealed at Mt Sinai. Similarly, Ezekiel’s program of restoration in Ez 34 is taken up in Lev 26; but contrary to the eschatological outlook distinctive of the book of Ezekiel, where Israel’s restoration is based exclusively on Yahweh’s intervention,596 in Lev 26 it depends instead on Yahweh’s 597 tyrb (v. 40–45), as well as on the people’s obedience to the law (v. 3ff.). The choice to replace the traditional conclusion of vassality treaties, still reflected in Deut 28, by a prophetic oracle stated by Yahweh himself further highlights this device. In this way, the entire prophetic tradition is now anticipated in the Torah of Moses, who reveals to Israel all it needs to know about its future. The debate, here, between the redactor of H and the editors of Ezekiel, reflects the two major theological options of the political and religious elites of the Persian period: eschatological prophecy vs. Torah-based observance.598 It is certainly no coincidence that Lev 26 concludes H and, beyond, the entire revelation at Mt Sinai, with the reassertion of the latter option. This last observation raises in turn the more general question of the historical and literary context of H’s composition, which we are now going to address.

5.3. H and the Redaction of the Torah in Fifth-century Yehud Let us briefly summarize the results of our analysis of Lev 17–26. These chapters form a remarkably complex and elaborate set of legislation, that is nevertheless homogeneous and coherent. Except for Lev 18:7–17a, where it is likely that H has taken up an earlier priestly instruction (oral or written) on forbidden sexual relationships, the rest of this legislation must be viewed as a 595

ID ., Heiligkeitsgesetz, 359–361: “In V. 27–33 fußt der Verf. des Heiligkeitsgesetzes auf den Ankündigungen des Gerichts über Jerusalem und das Land Israel Ez 5–6” (360). 596 A further problem is raised, in Ez 34, by the messianic motif introduced in v. 23–24; but this passage is probably a later insert, see for instance POHLMANN, Hesekiel, 2. 467. 597 For a similar conclusion, although with a somewhat different interpretation of the reception of Ez 34 in Lev 26, see in particular OTTO, Innerbiblische Exegese, 182. Otto, however, places more emphasis on the anti-messianic and anti-royal reading of Lev 26, because of Ez 34:23–24. Yet, as observed in the previous note, these verses may be a very late addition to Ez 34 and at any rate only have a limited significance in the oracle as a whole. 598 The seminal insight by CRÜSEMANN , Pentateuque, that eschatological circles were deliberately excluded from the composition of the Torah in the Persian era remains correct (with a few exceptions such as Num 11 and 24:16ff.), even though we need no longer accept the hypothesis of the so-called “imperial authorization” in Yehud (see above, § 4.4.2.).

546

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

literary composition. The most significant interpolation identified is in Lev 24:10–23; otherwise, only a few interpolations were found (such as 23:3, 39–43 or 25:32–34), all of which are limited in scope. This suggests that, contrary to the other biblical codes (the CC and D), the holiness legislation was only slightly edited, an observation already quite significant in itself. Against the classical model, recently reasserted by Grünwaldt, the detailed analysis has corroborated the view that Lev 17–26 never existed as a separate document prior to its insertion in Leviticus. On one hand, the literary-critical separation between the holiness legislation in Lev 17–26 and the Sinai narrative is entirely artificial (§ 5.1.); on the other hand, close examination of the legislation itself evinces consistent dependence upon the Priestly source in Gen 1–Lev 16 (§ 5.2.). In particular, several laws have manifestly been intended as complements, or supplements to the P legislation in Lev 1–16; this observation also weakens the view advanced by some critics for whom H would exclusively know the so-called “narrative” portions of P. At the same time, this analysis has also confirmed that in many aspects the holiness legislation in Lev 17–26 stands in tension with P, and apparently seeks to correct or revise it. On the level of individual laws, this is obvious, for instance, in the reception of Lev 7:16–18 in Lev 19:5–8 and of Lev 11:39– 40 in 17:15–16, or in the reinterpretation of Ex 27:20–21 in Lev 24:2–4. More generally, H revises P on many fundamental issues, such as the prohibition of profane slaughter and the significance of the sacrificial cult (Lev 17), the conception of holiness and its extension to the entire community (Lev 18–20), as well as the reinterpretation of the Mlw( tyrb in Lev 26. In addition, H is systematically characterized by a more “popular” form of theology than P, which is manifest in particular in the concern for the land’s fertility (Lev 26:4ff., but also more generally Lev 23), for brotherly ethics (see in particular Lev 19 and 25:8–55), or with a greater anthropomorphism in the representation of the deity, evidenced for instance in the description of the offerings as Yahweh’s “food” (Mxl) in Lev 21.599 We will return to some of these issues below. For the moment, it is sufficient to observe that it is unlikely that the redactor of H belongs to the same priestly school as the one responsible for the composition of Lev 1–16. Instead, the differences between P and Lev 17– 26 are best explained if this legislation is regarded as a later, post-P composition, as already argued by Knohl and Milgrom. This conclusion accounts for the traditional observation that the differences between H and P both in terminology and theology are too many to assign them to the same redactional layer.600 Yet, as noted by Knohl and Milgrom,601 on the linguistic 599

See KNOHL, Sanctuary, 168–198; as well as GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 129. Thus, e.g., KILIAN, Untersuchung; more recently GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 126– 130. Pace Grünwaldt, however, I can hardly see how the fact that H revises P by including elements of the Dtr theology (as in Lev 26, for example) would be easier to consider if it is 600

5.3. H and the Redaction of the Torah in Fifth-century Yehud

547

level as well, H not only exemplifies a distinct terminology but also makes frequent creative use of P’s phraseology, combining for instance distinct terms or giving a new semantic range to some central expressions. See, for example, the use of l(m alone to qualify the people’s apostasy in Lev 26:40, whereas P uses l(m l(m for sancta desecration requiring an M#) offering (Lev 5:15, 21) exclusively; and compare, e.g., with Deut 32:51. Similarly, in P the term qx initially refers specifically to the sacrificial portion assigned to the priests (see Ex 29:28; Lev 6:11, 15; 7:34; 10:13, 14, 15; 24:9); in H this meaning is preserved in Lev 24:9, but 26:46, the subscription to H, uses qx in the sense of “decree, statute”. Likewise, the term hdn refers exclusively to menstrual discharges in P (Lev 12:2, 5; 15:19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 33); the same meaning occurs in H (Lev 18:19), but the term is also used as a metaphor for impurity (20:21, as in Ez 7:19, 20; Zech 13:1; and Ezra 9:11). The same observation is true for the term )m+, which in H does no longer denote only ritual impurity, as in P (Lev 11–15), but can be applied to moral transgressions (see, e.g., 18:20, 23; 19:31, etc.).

Against Knohl and Milgrom, however, the analysis of Lev 17–26 has also reasserted the traditional view of the dependence of this collection on earlier biblical codes, including D. Detailed examination of the reception of these codes in H does not merely indicate that H is chronologically posterior, as classically held since Graf, Kuenen and Wellhausen. Rather, as was already suggested by Cholewin8ski, the nature of the dependence implies a systematic, comprehensive reception and reinterpretation of these codes in H. This applies not only to the formulation of individual laws in Lev 17–26, but also, in several instances, to the arrangement of these laws. Although both in ch. 17–26 as a whole, and in each chapter individually, it is always possible to identify a coherent structure, the connection between two laws inside a chapter (as especially in Lev 19!) or even between two or more chapters (as in Lev 18–20) is also frequently modeled on the structure of the Decalogue, the CC or D. On the whole, this analysis suggests that H is a remarkable case of creative exegesis of earlier biblical codes, which explains in many respects the complexity as well as the sophistication of this legislation. regarded as a discrete document (Ibid., 130). Note that even BLUM, Studien, 319ff, somehow admits the distinct character of Lev 17–26 within his “KP ”, speaking for instance of its “besondere Farbe” (p. 319) or referring to Lev 17 as the introduction to a new group of laws after ch. 16 (p. 325). Similarly, RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, gives many arguments to identify ch. 17 as the beginning of a distinct collection within Leviticus. Note, however, that Blum’s assertion that the distinctive “exhortative” style of H (“religiös-paränetisch”, cf. Wellhausen) would be the “Hauptargument” for separating it from P (Ibid., 319, also 321) is hardly accurate, as was shown throughout this chapter. Finally, the fact that Lev 17–26 offers a coherent sequel to the P narrative in Gen 1–Lev 16 does not yet mean that it was necessarily part of the same composition as Blum would argue. The point is not only that the conception of Israel’s sanctification in Lev 17–26 is new in Leviticus (if one excludes 11:43–45), which may indeed be explained as a literary device, it is above all that it implies a significant reinterpretation of P’s theology, as was already demonstrated in several places in this chapter. 601 KNOHL, Sanctuary, esp. 108–110; and MILGROM, Leviticus, 35–42.1325–1332.

548

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

If so, and once the post-P and post-D origin of this collection is acknowledged, the historical and literary context for such a process of systematic reception and inner-biblical exegesis should be sought in a first edition of the Torah in the Persian period, as argued by Otto, probably in the second half of the fifth century BCE.602 The frequent mixture of Priestly and Deuteronomistic phraseologies and concepts found throughout H characteristically reflects the attempt by the editors of the Torah to mediate between the major traditions received. In Lev 17–26, the main aspects of the Priestly theology in Gen 1–Lev 16 are systematically taken up, but are now combined for the first time with elements from the Dtr tradition.603 This development is most obvious in Lev 26 which, as shown above, endeavors to reconcile the P and Dtr conceptions of the tyrb (cf. § 5.2.5.). Dtr influence is no less obvious in H’s structuring through exhortations, as earlier authors such as Cholewin8ski and Thiel observed, and as the above analysis has recalled. In particular, the continuous exhortation to “do” (h#() and “keep” (rm#) Yahweh’s laws, framing ch. 18– 22 (see 18:4, 5, 26, 30; 19:19, 37; 20:8, 22; 22:31) and repeated at two strategic places in ch. 23–26 (25:19; 26:3), has no equivalent earlier in P604 but unmistakably recalls the phraseology of the Deuteronomistic school. In the literary and historical context for the composition of H outlined here, the redactional activity of inner-legal exegesis which can be consistently identified in Lev 17–26 corresponds to the necessity of dealing with the ten602

See OTTO, Heiligkeitsgesetz; ID., Innerbiblische Exegese; ID., Deuteronomium, 196– 211. This thesis has also been accepted by WAGENAAR, Leviticus 19,19, esp. 330–331. For a dating of H in the second half of the 5th century BCE, see further below, § 5.4.2.2. A terminus ad quem for the composition of H is given by the reception of Lev 23:39–43 in Neh 8 (v. 13– 18). Yet the dating of Neh 8 is disputed and this text should not be taken as a reliable historical source prima facie; besides, Lev 23:39–43 is itself a later interpolation, as argued above (§ 5.2.4.1.). Otto’s argument for a precise dating of the edition of the Pentateuch in 398 BCE, which rests partly on this observation (ID., Deuteronomium, 196ff.), needs to be revised. 603 This point is also correctly noted by Grünwaldt in his recent study, although he does not infer the logical consequence as regards the place of H in the redactional history of the Torah. See ID., Heiligkeitsgesetz, 367: Lev 17–26 reflects an attempt at a “comparison” (Ausgleich) between the theologies of P and Dtr, so that we have in H for the first time a combination of the two traditions “wie sie später für die Pentateuchredaktion charakterisch wird” (emphasis added). ALBERTZ, Religion, 2. 629 n. 100, likewise acknowledges the distinctiveness of Lev 17–26 within “P” because of the influence of Dtr traditions, and suggests attributing it to a distinct scribal circle among the Torah’s editors in the Persian period, namely, “members of the group of reform priests who derived from the disciples of the prophets or the priests orientated on the Deuteronomists”. A similar view was already advanced by Cholewin8ski who, though adhering to Elliger’s view that H was composed as a supplement to P, assigns its redaction to a priestly circle influenced by D and seeking to bring it into conformity with P. This is also the view adopted now by L’HOUR, L’Impur, II, 40–53. 604 In Gen 17:9–10, rm# is used in connection with the keeping of Yahweh’s tyrb. Ex 16:28 is commonly recognized as a late interpolation in ch. 16. On Ex 12:14–20 and 31:12– 17, see below § 5.4.2.2.

5.3. H and the Redaction of the Torah in Fifth-century Yehud

549

sions which were automatically created by the juxtaposition within a single, unified document (although certainly already divided into several scrolls)605 of the Decalogue, the CC, D and P. In this respect, it is clear that H was never composed simply in order to replace the earlier codes, but rather to complete them. In some instances, H merely supplements the Decalogue, the CC, D or P. For example, the law on the betrothed slave girl in Lev 19:20–22 adds a specific case unforeseen by the previous legislation in Deut 22:23ff. The series of tmwy twm laws in 20:9ff. continues the original list in Ex 21:12–17, and this device is explicitly signaled by the resumption of the last case (i.e., Ex 21:17) at the beginning of the series (Lev 20:9). The law on the purity of priests in Lev 22:1–16 supplements the to=ra= of Lev 6–7 (especially 7:11–21); and the laws on forbidden sexual relationships in Lev 18 and 20 fill a gap in the other biblical codes by reintepreting and developing the brief prohibition of Deut 23:1. All these examples, among many others, do confirm that Lev 17–26 was never intended as a self-contained legislation but was conceived from the beginning as part of a complementary reading of the biblical laws. Elsewhere, H’s redactor attempts to harmonize contradictory instructions, suggesting the necessity of a unified interpretation of such laws. An admirable illustration of this device is found, inter alia, in the legislation on carrion in Lev 17:15–16, which reinterprets all the previous laws in Ex 22:30; Deut 14:21a and Lev 11:39–40 (P); but several other cases have been identified, especially in the various laws composing Lev 19. In still other instances, earlier, parallel laws in the CC and in D are not simply combined and harmonized, but are integrated and reformulated into a largely new legislation. This is true, in particular, of the calendar of Lev 23, which joins the traditional pattern of three annual pilgrimages in the CC and in D with a bipartite division of the year inherited from the Babylonian festival tradition and already found in Ez 45, or in Lev 25, which completely reinterprets the conflicting traditions about the seventh-year h+m# in Ex 23:10–11 and in Deut 15:1–11, 12–18, the latter being already a reinterpretation of the CC). Finally, in some cases, H specifically amends or even rejects the earlier legislation, especially the innovations brought by the Deuteronomic law. This is the case, in particular, for the permission of profane slaughter in Deut 12, criticized and rejected in Lev 17, or for the interpretation in Deut 15 of the h+m# from a strictly economic perspective, corrected in Lev 25:2–7 by the return to a primarily agricultural understanding of the seventh year conforming to Ex 23. Simultaneously, however, this complex process of reception and reinterpretation of earlier laws is not simply motivated by the editorial necessity to harmonize between conflicting laws in the context of a first edition of the Torah; on this point, Otto’s general approach to this code as well as its assignment to the “pentateuchal redactor” need to be qualified, as we shall see in 605

At least for material reasons, but see further the comments above, § 2.1., Excursus 1.

550

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

detail below (§ 5.4.1.). On the contrary, legal exegesis in Lev 17–26 is consistently unified by a pivotal, comprehensive issue, namely, Israel’s holiness. It is explicitly addressed in the parenetic framework of the first half of this legislation, ch. 17–22 (see 19:2; 20:7–8, 22–26 and 22:31–33). Yet more generally, as the previous analysis has already suggested, it also systematically informs the formulation of each of the separate laws composing Lev 17–26 and even the global organization of this collection. Holiness is the common theme of the various laws collected in Lev 19, all of which exemplify somehow the requirements of the call to lead a holy life in the opening exhortation of 19:2. The inclusion between Lev 18 and 20, with the transition from mere prohibitions to practical sanctions in ch. 20, concretizes the implications of the call to holiness in the central law of Lev 19: the holy community may not tolerate in its midst transgressors of the divine law. The legislation of ch. 21–22 completes the rules for the community by a set of regulations whose common concern is the priests’ responsibility to preserve the holiness of the cultic realm. The second half of Lev 17–26, ch. 23–25, is entirely concerned – in its original form, i.e. without 24:10–23 – with sacred times. In particular, the calendar of ch. 23 defines Israel’s festivals as -)rqm #dq, “sacred convocations”, whereas the Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee in ch. 25 exemplify the consecration of the land and the people to Yahweh. In Lev 17–26, therefore, the inner-biblical exegesis of earlier legal traditions is invariably determined by the post-Priestly attempt to define, or better to redefine, the meaning of Israel’s holiness, which is gradually revealed by the sequential arrangement of both the individual laws and their exhortations. In this respect, the traditional designation since Klostermann of “Holiness Code” for this collection remains entirely fitting in my opinion, even though it no longer refers to an originally independent legislation. Instead, in the interpretation advocated here for the composition of H, the theme of the community’s sanctification actually forms the very foundation for the insertion of P into the Pentateuch and for its harmonization with other legal traditions. On one hand, the extension of holiness beyond the sphere of the sanctuary to the community itself complies with the Deuteronomistic tradition (Deut 7:6; 14:1–2, 21; see also Ex 22:30) against P, which restricted holiness to the sanctuary and the priests. On the other hand, against D, this assertion is now conditional upon the observance of all of Yahweh’s commands, that is, the entire Torah (Lev 19:2, 37; 20:7–8; further, 20:22–26). Holiness, or imitatio dei, is no longer the motivation of observance of the law, as in Deut 7 and 14 (and Ex 22:30), but on the contrary its ultimate purpose. Consequently, ascribed, or “innate” holiness is now consistently reserved for the sanctuary, its belongings and its officiants, as stated in the legislation of Lev 21–22 (see § 5.2.3.). In this way, P’s strict distinction between the priests and the community is not simply abolished (see further the polemics against any con-

5.3. H and the Redaction of the Torah in Fifth-century Yehud

551

fusion of the two realms in Num 16:3). Rather, it is reinterpreted from a wider perspective, in which the sanctuary is consistently represented as the very center of a sphere of holiness gradually enlarged to include the entire community if the latter observes God’s laws (see Lev 19:30; 26:2). Hence, sanctification through observance of the totality of the Law does not simply replace the mediation of the sacrificial cult: it completes it. Accordingly, the insertion of Lev 17–26 was conceived as a further stage in the general process, initiated in Gen 1–Lev 16, of restitution of the divine presence in Israel, the law becoming now the medium of a more eminent form of relationship with the divine, as was observed in Chapter Two of this study (§ 2.3.3.). The relationship thus defined between cult and Torah typically betrays the concerns of the priestly editors of the Pentateuch who, in the context of a first edition of the Pentateuch, are willing to find a compromise between the two main forms of mediation of the divine presence in Persian period Jerusalem. Another central aspect of the reception of other codes in H has to do with the specific place of this legislation in the Sinaitic account, to which too little attention has been given in general. Whereas in the classical conception, the sudden occurrence of the reference to Mt Sinai in the last speech of Yahweh to Moses (Lev 25–26) was always a blind motif, it makes on the contrary perfect sense from the perspective advocated here.606 Indeed, it corresponds to the fact that H has been conceived from the beginning as the conclusion, one might even say, the editorial closure of the Sinaitic revelation. Some commentators take the mention of ynys rhb in 25:1 and 26:46 to imply that Moses climbed once more on Mt Sinai to receive the instruction contained in ch. 25–26.607 However, it is impossible that the reference in 26:46 to “the statutes (Myqx), the ordinances (My+p#m), and the instructions (trwt)”608 given at Mt Sinai merely refers to the revelation in ch. 25–26, or even to Lev 17–26 (no 606

The mention of Mt Sinai as the place of Yahweh’s revelation to Moses frames the entire section comprising ch. 25–26 (see 25:1 and 26:46) which forms a single discourse. In general, this reference was either left unexplained (thus, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 437, on 26:46; see however BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 89, who had manifestly noted the problem here and ingenuously suggests: “ynys rhb steht nicht müssig; nach 24 11 war Mose im Lager”), or, more frequently, eliminated as an editorial gloss (thus KILIAN, Untersuchung, 121.155; still recently L EVIN , Verheißung, 227 n. 111; and especially GRÜNWALDT, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 126). As a matter of fact, the reference to Mt Sinai can hardly be explained as long as H is regarded as a separate code originally since this reference is not presupposed earlier than the rest of ch. 17–26. Once it is clear that the narrative framework of H (report of the divine speeches) must be retained as original (see above, § 5.1.), there is no longer any reason to eliminate the reference to Mt Sinai in 25:1, or, by way of consequence, in 26:46 since the two mentions are clearly meant to go together and must stem from the same hand. Rather, as some authors have noted (H ARTLEY , Leviticus, 433; L EFEBVRE , Lv 25, 32–33), this reference underlines the distinctiveness and importance of the concluding section in ch. 25–26. 607 See for instance recently LEFEBVRE, Lv 25, 32–33. 608 Thus the MT, but note, significantly, that the LXX reads the singular!

552

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

more that the phrase twcmh hl) in the colophon of 27:34 could be taken as a reference to the law of chapter 27 exclusively). The use of Myqx in the sense of “laws, statutes” never occurs earlier in H where it is always the feminine, h9uqqa=, which is found;609 instead this usage is present primarily in the Dtr tradition,610 as well as in some late passages in the Pentateuch such as Ex 15:25, 26. Similarly, the term trwt is never found earlier in ch. 17–26 and most likely refers to the cultic legislation of Lev 1–16.611 Thus, the phraseology of 26:46 confirms that this colophon was intended not merely for H but for the entire Sinaitic legislation starting in Ex 19ff.612 This conclusion is consistent with the observation made earlier in this chapter that Lev 26 as a whole does not relate the conclusion of a tyrb between God and Israel, contrary to what is sometimes incorrectly stated, but predicts instead the consequences of the observance (v. 3–13) or non-observance (v. 14–39) respectively of an already existing tyrb including not only the tyrb made with the Patriarchs in P but also the one concluded with the generation of the exodus at Mt Sinai in Ex 19–24. Hence ch. 26 has been devised as the conclusion not only to ch. 17–26, but to the entire revelation made at Mt Sinai; and with the introduction of Lev 17–26, this revelation has now been brought to an end. Only the legislation of Lev 27 will be added at a later stage, essentially because the issue with which it deals, the possibility to de-consecrate a person, an animal or a thing consecrated to Yahweh, was regarded as a fitting complement to the legislation on holiness in ch. 17–26 and, more generally, to the Leviticus scroll.613 Even in this case, however, the fact that the colophon of ch. 27, 609

See Lev 17:7; 18:3, 4, 5, 26, 30; 19:19, 37; 20:8, 22, 23; 23:14, 21, 31, 41; 24:3; 25:18; 26:3, 15, 43. In 24:9, qx is used with its traditional meaning in P, i.e. as “attributed portion”. 610 See Deut 4:1, 5, 6, 8, 14, 40, 45; 5:1, 31; 6:1, 17, 20, 24; 7:11; 11:32; 12:1; 16:12; 17:19; 26:16, 17; 27:10. In the Dtr literature, see also, e.g., Josh 24:25, or 2 Kgs 17:15, 37! 611 This point is missed by STEYMANS, Lev 26, 265ff., in his treatment of the subscript in 26:46. He argues that the reference is primarily to Lev 17–26, but curiously discusses only the terms My+p#m and Myqx and omits the reference to Yahweh’s trwt. Note, in addition, that he also misses the distinction between qx and hqx in H. 612 As in Lev 7:37–38, ynys rhb in 26:46 should be rendered by “at Mt Sinai” rather than “on”, following BLUM, Studien, 313–314 (see above, § 3.6., p. 263–264), thus avoiding the contradiction with the location given in Lev 1:1. Admittedly, once H is identified as post-P (contra Blum and Ruwe), the notice in Lev 26:46 could also be interpreted in principle as a correction of the theory of revelation exposed in Lev 1:1 (ff.). Yet this is unlikely, and it does not concur with the witness of 7:37–38, which – at least in its present form – is also editorial. 613 The literary homogeneity of Lev 27 is generally admitted by critics; see inter alia BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 437ff., who considers the possibility that v. 14–25 are later additions but recognizes that, “doch lassen sich Schichten hier nicht mit Sicherheit abheben” (437); BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 97ff. (following WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 172); NOTH, Leviticus, 203ff. (“self-contained in subject matter”); ELLIGER, Leviticus, 380–385 (who nevertheless regards v. 26–33 as later supplements). Ch. 27 presents a clear structure: (1) consecration of living beings (animate; v. 2–13: persons, v. 2–8; animals, v. 9–13); (2) consecration of belongings (inanimate; v. 14–25: houses, v. 14–15; fields, v. 16–24, with further distinctions);

5.3. H and the Redaction of the Torah in Fifth-century Yehud

553

although obviously modeled on 26:46, does not replace this elaborate subscription but rather completes it by adding a reference to Yahweh’s mis[wot signals that for the final editors of Leviticus it was conceived as a mere supplement to the previous legislation. From Num 1ff. onwards, the further instructions revealed to Moses are no longer located at Mt Sinai but “in the wilderness of Sinai” (Num 1:1). Concretely, this means that the composition of H participates, more generally, in the elaboration of the complex hermeneutics of revelation unifying the different prescriptions contained in the Torah. In this hermeneutics, Deuteronomy has now become a second legislation (a notion still preserved in the Greek tradition). Contrary to the view advocated now by some authors, this does not mean that Deut was simply intended as a commentary of sorts on the Sinaitic revelation in Ex–Lev; this view is based on problematic arguments and appears to be too restrictive.614 The divine origin of the laws promulgated (3) appendix: restriction on consecrated possessions (v. 26–33, animals and things). For this division, see, e.g., HARTLEY, Leviticus, 480; or MILGROM, Leviticus, 2367. On the relationship between Lev 27 and the rest of the book, see above, § 2.2., Excursus 2. 614 For this conclusion, see also recently the detailed study by LOHFINK, Prolegomena. The alternative view has been held in particular by E. Otto in a series of publications, see especially ID., Deuteronomium 1,5; ID., Wie “synchron”, esp. 473–477; see also SKA, Structure, 351; I had also adopted it previously in NIHAN, Holiness Code, 105–107. This problem is too complex to be addressed here, and I can only indicate the main reasons for which I now find unconvincing the idea that, for pentateuchal redactors, the book of Deuteronomy had become simply a commentary of the Sinaitic law by Moses. Even if one accepts the rendering of r)b Piel in Deut 1:5 as “to comment, expound”, the phrase t)zh hrwth-t) in this same verse refers most likely to what follows, as traditionally assumed, and not to the Torah as a whole (thus also L OHFINK, Prolegomena, 30). The connection with Ex 24:12 (see OTTO, Deuteronomium 1,5, 281–282) is weak in my opinion, all the more because there is hardly any terminological parallel between these two passages. If Deut 1:5 (ff.) was indeed conceived by pentateuchal redactors as the fulfillment of the command to teach (hry Hiphil) all the laws transmitted after Ex 24, and especially Lev 17–26, as argued by Otto, one would expect a more obvious reference. A more significant parallel is actually the one identified by Lohfink between Deut 1:3 and Ex 25:22, on which see the following note. Above all, the entire hypothesis rests upon the idea that the laws revealed to Moses after Ex 24 have not been disclosed to Israel before Deuteronomy, see already OTTO, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 79; ID., Gesetzesfortchreibung, 387ff. Yet this is quite unsatisfactory. First, since there are actually compliance reports in Lev 17–26 (cf. 21:24 and 23:44), Otto is obliged to regard them as still later interpolations, which is methodologically unsound. Second, even the inference that the absence of a compliance notice would indicate the non-report of the laws by Moses is unfounded. This is already shown by the fulfillment notice in Lev 16:34b, stating that the community did “according to what had been ordained by Yahweh to Moses”, while Yahweh’s instructions concerning the ceremony of ch. 16 are nowhere explicitly reported to the people. Obviously, therefore, such a report is implied. Similarly, this is also implied in some passages of Numbers referring to the legislation of Leviticus. A very clear case is provided by the story of Zelofehad’s daughters in Num 27 and 36; here also, the legislation given to Moses by Yahweh is not explicitly reported, but it is nevertheless known by the chiefs of Zelofehad’s clan

554

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

by Moses in Deuteronomy was more likely acknowledged by the pentateuchal editors, but these laws are now presented as a complementary revelation for the second generation of the exodus which is on the point of entering the land, after the death of the first generation as recounted in the book of Numbers.615 The question of the exact profile of the book of Numbers at the time of the composition of H would deserve a study of its own and will be left open here. But it should have included at least a first version of the wilderness wanderings and rebellion narratives in Num 11–25* building the literary link between Sinai (Ex 19–Lev 26) and Moab (Num 22:1; 25:1ff., see Deut 1:1ff.). This corresponds to the extent of the pentateuchal redaction recently identified by R. Achenbach in Numbers.616 Achenbach also convincingly demonstrates, in my opinion, that the laws traditionally attributed to “P” in Numbers (ch. 1–10; 15; 18–19; 27–36) actually go back to a later edition of in Num 36 (cf. v. 2)! All in all, therefore, the idea that the laws received by Moses after Ex 24 were not revealed to Israel before Deut 1:5ff. should be rejected; on this point I concur with the criticism of JOOSTEN, Moïse. For the rest, the mere observation of the shift from Yahweh to Moses does not suffice to conclude to the transition from law to commentary (thus Ska). More generally, the idea that Deuteronomy was somehow defined as the “authorized commentary” of the Sinaitic legislation by pentateuchal redactors seems to me to be precluded by the nature of the differences between these two collections, many of which are actually irreconciliable. When Otto states, e.g., that “alles kommt in der Fabel des Pentateuchs darauf an, daß die von Mose gegebene Toraauslegung (Dtn 1,5) identisch ist mit der von Gott gegebenen Tora” (Deuteronomium 1,5, 282), how should this be concretely understood when contradictory laws in H and D are compared? The idea that Deut 12 could be read, for the editors of the Torah, as a commentary on Lev 17, or the slave legislation of Deut 15 as an exegesis of Lev 25, seems hard to believe. To be sure, this interpretation is historically correct in the case of the relationship of D to the CC. But this is not the case with H since, as argued here (and already by Otto himself!) the relationship goes in the opposite direction, with H representing the exegesis of D. Here, Otto’s recurrent assertion that the chronological arrangement of biblical codes in modern pentateuchal research corresponds to the understanding of the Torah’s redactors when they transformed Deuteronomy into Moses’ exegesis of the Sinaitic law (see ID., Scribal Erudition, 21–22) is actually false. 615 For this interpretation of the place of Deuteronomy in the final form of the Pentateuch, see especially SONNET, Book. As LOHFINK, Prolegomena, 19–20(ff.) has pointed out in his recent essay, Deut 1:3, “Moses spoke to the Israelites according to all what Yahweh had commanded him (to tell) them”, is an unmistakable reference to Ex 25:22 (“All what I command you [to tell] to the Israelites”). Outside Lev 27:34, these are the only two passages in the Pentateuch where this specific phrasing is found. The reference to Ex 25:22 makes perfect sense from the perspective of Deuteronomy as the conclusion of the Sinaitic revelation for the second generation, as advocated here. Deut 1:3 implies that it is actually only with Moses’ discourse in the plains of Moab that the command invoked by Ex 25:22 to report to the Israelites all the commands given for them by Yahweh from his sanctuary at Mt Sinai is actually brought to completion. 616 See ACHENBACH, Vollendung, esp. 37–442, even though I would disagree on some points as regards the precise identification of this pentateuchal redaction. Yet this issue is not significant in the context of the present study.

5.3. H and the Redaction of the Torah in Fifth-century Yehud

555

the book, which he identifies as the “theocratic revision”.617 We shall return briefly to the question of the final edition of Numbers at the end of this chapter (see below, § 5.4.2.2.). This complex hermeneutical move developed by the editors of the Torah, which was made necessary by the grouping of different and, in several respects, conflicting legal codes, also accounts for many significant aspects of the reception of other codes in Lev 17–26. An obvious case is the Decalogue, whose prominent position for the editors of the Torah as the Grundnorm of the biblical law is invariably reflected in H. This is particularly manifest in Lev 19, the very center of the legislation on the community’s holiness in ch. 18–20, as was argued above. After the general exhortation to holiness in v. 2, Lev 19 does not only open with a comment on the Decalogue’s main prescriptions (v. 3–4), but ch. 19 can even be understood in its entirety as an elaborate commentary on the observance of the Decalogue. Similarly, H’s position in the Sinaitic revelation is also manifest in the reception of the CC and of D. Cholewin8ski had correctly noted in his study the general tendency of H to rehabilitate the CC alongside, or even at times against D. This observation has also been verified in many places in the previous analysis (see, e.g., the case of the Sabbatical Year in Lev 25:2–7). In Cholewin8ski’s own model for the redaction of H, however, this observation was difficult to account for; yet it makes perfect sense, on the contrary, if H was devised from the start as the conclusion to the Sinaitic revelation as opposed to the later revelation of Deut in the plains of Moab. For the priestly redactors of the Torah responsible for the composition of H, Deuteronomy’s definition as a supplement, although divinely revealed, to the Sinaitic legislation for the second generation of the exodus allowed them to justify its inclusion in the pentateuchal narrative while simultaneously rejecting many of Deuteronomy’s legal innovations such as, paradigmatically, the permission of profane slaughter (Lev 17). In this respect, the introduction of H at a strategic place within the Torah (namely, between Ex 20–24 and D) may be viewed as laying out the herme617

“Theokratische Bearbeitung”, see Ibid., esp. 443–628. That the connection between Lev 17–26 and Deuteronomy requires some kind of literary transition from Sinai to Moab is obvious. Alternatively, the idea that Lev 17–26 could once have been the conclusion of a “Tritoteuch” (thus in particular RÖMER, Buch Numeri; somehow similarly AULD, Leviticus; tentatively NIHAN, Holiness Code, 121–122) is difficult to sustain. The elaborate reception, in H, of the Deuteronomic legislation, together with the CC, can only make sense if these three Codes were intended to be grouped into a single document. This is particularly obvious in the few instances where H simply supplements an existing law in D, as in Lev 19:20–22 for example (see Deut 22:13ff.). In addition, the reference to the forthcoming entry into the land plays a major role in H (see above, § 5.1.), contrary to what is the case in P in Gen 1–Lev 16 (above, § 1.3.). Here also, this development is best explained if Lev 17–26 is no longer the conclusion to the account begun in Gen 1 but already presupposes the connection of Gen–Lev with the wilderness account in Numbers.

556

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

neutical program for reading (and learning) the entire Torah. Because the Pentateuch is a document of compromise between conflicting traditions on Israel’s origins, tensions and even open contradictions between all these traditions are not concealed;618 but these conflicting traditions themselves are nevertheless organized according to a distinctive scheme. The authority of the Deuteronomic legislation is acknowledged, but this legislation can no longer be read separately. On the contrary, it needs to be consistently referred to the previous legislation revealed to the Israelites during their sojourn at Mt Sinai, which – as its central position in the Torah already indicates – forms the heart of the divine revelation, to which Deuteronomy is simply an appendix. Here, the fact that H in its reception of D systematically revises it, either supplementing it with new commands – see, e.g., the laws on illicit sexual intercourse in Lev 18 and 20 (compare with Deut 23:1), the calendar of Lev 23 (compare with the three traditional feasts of Deut 16), or even the sanctuary laws in Lev 21–22 –, or radicalizing others – see the rejection of profane slaughter in Lev 17, the abolition of slavery in Lev 25, and likewise the to=ra= of ch. 19 –, takes its full meaning. In a sense, one might say that the more lenient laws of Deuteronomy appear, in the context of the pentateuchal narrative as a whole, as a concession made to the second generation, after the first failed to keep the requirements of the Sinaitic legislation in the wilderness. But for the reader of the Torah, obedience to God requires observing the totality of his laws, including the more stringent ones found in H. This, as we have seen, is precisely the doctrine defined in H, where sanctification is now conditioned to the observance of all of Yahweh’s laws (cf. Lev 19:37 [20:8 SamP!]; further 26:14–15). Quite significantly, this notion has been interpolated by the Torah’s editors in two decisive places in Deuteronomy, namely in 26:19 and 28:9.619 By means of this device, Deuteronomy is now integrated 618

On the Torah as a document of compromise, see especially BLUM, Studien, 333–360; ALBERTZ, Religion, 2. 466ff.; CRÜSEMANN, Prolégomènes; ID., Tora, 381ff.; most recently RÖMER, Pentateuque; pace OTTO, Protorabbinic Scribal Erudition, 27–28. 619 See also OTTO, Deuteronomium, 119 with n. 53; as well as ACHENBACH, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 350. The first passage, Deut 26:19, is a reference to Lev 19:2 (Otto) but also to the promise of Ex 19:6 which is explicitly quoted at the end of v. 19b (cf. rbd r#)k), though Israel is designated by M( and no longer by ywg, as in Ex 19:6, since the latter term is used in this same verse for the other nations in conformity with the prevailing usage elsewhere in Deuteronomy. With this interpolation, a great redactional inclusion is now created between the introduction to the Sinaitic legislation, the hermeneutical center of the Torah in Lev 17–26 and the exhortation concluding D. The post-P origin of 26:19 is manifest in particular in the language of v. 19a, especially the reference to Yahweh as the creator of all nations. The same notion is found in Deut 4, as is, more generally, the idea of the establishment of Israel’s superiority over the nations by means of the Torah’s revelation. On the post-P origin of Deut 4, see especially OTTO , Deuteronomium 4. Note furthermore that the concern for Israel’s “praise” (hlht), “name” (M#) and “pride” (hr)pt) in this verse (usually attributes of Yahweh himself!) is quite unique in Deuteronomy.

5.3. H and the Redaction of the Torah in Fifth-century Yehud

557

into a comprehensive view of sanctification, whose core lies not in D, but in H. In this respect, Lev 17–26 may truly be viewed as the center of the Torah. The above observations, however, should not be taken to imply that H is merely a scribal achievement, a creative synthesis by Second Temple literati at the time of a first edition of the Torah. In many respects, the ambitious compromise worked out by the redactors of Lev 17–26 has a social and economic dimension as well. This is manifest, in particular, in the relationship defined in this code between law and land. As was already observed by F. Crüsemann in his insightful study,620 in H Israel is no longer defined by its possession of the land but exclusively by the event of the exodus, reinterpreted as an act by which Yahweh separated Israel from the nations in order to consecrate it to himself (see Lev 20:22–26 in particular; further 22:33; 25:42 and 55). Although the exodus does lead, of course, to entry into the promised land (see 18:3; 18:24ff.; 19:23; 25:2), the land itself does not belong to Israel but remains Yahweh’s exclusive possession (25:23). In the law of ch. 25, the climax of the entire legislation in Lev 17–25 as argued above, the Israelites are eventually presented as resident aliens and dependent workers on Yahweh’s land; as the deity’s servants on his temple estate, they are in charge of cultivating this estate in his name (see above, § 5.2.4.3.). Whereas the Jubilee legislation systematically takes up D’s “brotherly ethics”, it develops it into an even more egalitarian conception since Lev 25 states that the original division of the land between the Israelites remains permanently valid, and is reinforced at each new Jubilee (25:10, 13ff.). The socio-economic situation underlying this conception is transparent: as several commentators have already noted, Lev 25 is very clearly an attempt to deal with the problem of latifundia, the concentration of the rural estates in the hands of a few wealthy families, which continued to prevail throughout the Persian era due to cyclical periods of drought and, most of all, to the Achemenid taxation policy.621 Domains too small to produce the required surplus were automati620

CRÜSEMANN, Exodus. Since Darius, this tax was fixed independently of the effective harvests and had to be paid in silver coin (cf. HERODOTUS, Hist. 3.89), which meant that the provinces that did not produce silver had to produce an important surplus of natural products. See especially KIPPENBERG, Klassenbildung, 51–52; DANDAMAEV/LUKONIN , Ancient Iran, 177–195; AL BERTZ, Israelite Religion, 2. 495–497. Kippenberg also emphasizes the fact that the royal tax was all the more heavy in a region such as Judah whose economy was essentially rural and not very diversified. According to HERODOTUS, Hist., 3.91, the total sum imposed by Achemenid administration on the district of ‘Abar-Nahara amounted to 350 silver talents. On the relationship between Lev 25 and the socio-economic crisis of the 5th century, see ALBERTZ, Hintergrund; as well as ID., “Antrittspredigt”. This is quite distinct from the idea sometimes expressed that Lev 25 would be a postexilic attempt to reclaim lands for former exiles, a position recently criticized, e.g., by BERGSMA, Jubilee. While I would agree with several of the criticisms raised by Bergsma in this regard, the rejection of this hypothesis still does not guarantee a pre-exilic attribution of the Jubilee, or of the tradition underlying it! 621

558

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

cally bankrupted, and the vast majority of small farmers were taken in the mechanism of debt; in Judah as in the rest of the ANE, loan rates were quite high, and their non-reimbursement gave the right to the creditor to seize the property and the family of the debtor. The text of Neh 5, where this situation is specifically addressed, makes it evident that by the middle of the fifth century BCE the economic crisis had become a major issue and presented a threat to the social order which could no longer be ignored by Judean authorities.622 Read against this background, the legislation of Lev 25 explicitly supports the claims of the small landowners, whose existence as a social class was continuously endangered by the economic crisis. More generally, the socalled “provincial outlook” of H, on which Knohl and a few other authors have insisted623 and which is apparent in particular in the calendar of ch. 23,624 probably betrays the same concern to gain the support not only of the Jerusalem elite, where H and the Torah were composed, but also of the small farmers outside Jerusalem. The reason for this is obvious: as a document of compromise, the Torah does not merely attempt to mediate between conflicting traditions on Israel’s origins issued from distinct circles in Persian period Yehud; it also seeks to overcome or at least to bridge socio-economic divisions. In H, this is realized by promoting the ideal of a people/community ((am) of landowners of equal status, solely organized by the observance of the Torah to the exclusion of any other political or economic factor. Thus, the Jubilee legislation constitutes in a sense the central expression of an original conception, according to which the Torah is presented as the foundation for a new equality between members of the community beyond their social and 622

The text reports the complaints of three distinct groups. The first had to mortgage its children in order to survive (5:2; emending Mybr to Mybr( with BHS), the second had to mortgage its fields, vineyards and houses in order to buy wheat in a context of drought (5:3), while the third not only had to mortgage its fields and its vineyards, but also to sell its children as slaves (5:4–5). The burden imposed by the royal tax (Klmh tdm) is explicitly mentioned by the third group in 5:4. Following the suggestion of KIPPENBERG, Klassenbildung, 55ff., one may surmise that the literary arrangement of these complaints reflects successive stages in a process of social and economic decline caused by the mechanism of debt. At any rate, the text of Neh 5 clearly implies that the social class responsible for this situation is the political and economic elite, cf. the Myrx [“nobles”] and the Myngs [“officials”, or “magistrates”] mentioned in 5:7. Nehemiah’s response to the crisis, an edict ordaining the general release of debts in the traditional manner of ANE kings, could only have been a temporary solution (if it was ever applied!), as is clear from the aggravation of the economic crisis later in the Persian period; see on all this ALBERTZ, Hintergrund. On the connection between Lev 25 and Neh 5, see also BULTMANN, Der Fremde, 189–190, who similarly suggests dating ch. 25 to the second half of the fifth century BCE, after Nehemiah’s reform. 623 KNOHL, Sanctuary, 204ff.; see also, with some differences, JOOSTEN, People, 154–164. 624 See especially the legislation on the firstfruits offering in 23:9–22, but also more subtly the emphasis on the importance of the seventh month as the time of the autumnal equinox and thus the period during which the annual rainfall was divinely determined (above, § 5.2.4.1.).

5.4. The Case for the “Holiness School” in the Torah/Pentateuch

559

economic differences.625 In this respect also, and not only in its exegesis of other legal codes, H comprises the hermeneutical center of the Pentateuch.

5.4. The Case for the “Holiness School” in the Torah/Pentateuch 5.4.1. H’s Distinctiveness, and its Implications for Pentateuchal Scholarship Whereas the previous paragraph has argued that H should be viewed as a post-D and post-P composition and that the most likely literary and historical context for this legislation was the edition of the Torah/Pentateuch in the second half of the Persian period (post-Nehemiah), a comprehensive interpretation of Lev 17–26 (27) needs also to account for the distinct literary and theological profile of this collection within the Torah. As long observed, several conceptions in H are unique and have no real parallel elsewhere in the Torah or even, for some of them, in the HB in general; rather, they appear to reflect the concerns of a specific group of priestly scribes among the editors of the Torah. This is obvious, for example, in the case of the rejection of profane slaughter and the distinct conception of the sacrificial cult expressed in Lev 17, of the view of the priests and their responsibilities stated in the legislation of ch. 21–22, or of Israel’s re-conceptualization as a temple community in Lev 25 and the corresponding reinterpretation of the exodus. Another case in point is H’s theory of pollution; although it clearly builds on P (see in particular Lev 4) and has several affinities with Ezekiel, it nevertheless remains singular in the Pentateuch. As noted above in the analysis of Lev 18; 20 (§ 5.2.2.1.), the concern for pollution accounts for the inclusion in this legislation of detailed laws on illegitimate forms of sexual intercourse which, as in Ez 22, are perceived as a major form of pollution. More generally, disobedience to the law is now repeatedly conceived of as leading to the pollution not only of the sanctuary (Lev 20:2, 4), as in P (Lev 4; 16), but of the entire land (Lev 18:24–30; 20:22ff.; and 26:34–35!), a notion unparalleled elsewhere in the Torah although here again it is reminiscent in some respects of the theology of the book of Ezekiel where a similar view is found with regard to the city of Jerusalem (see, e.g., Ez 22). In Lev 17–26 the general concern for the land’s purity is further highlighted by the personification of the land, especially in the parenetic framework of Lev 18–20. Whereas the HB knows of a tradition of the land “devoring” its inhabitants (Num 13:32 625 While I would regard Lev 25 primarily as a theological statement, not as a concrete law in the modern sense of the term, this does not mean that it was purely utopian, as is sometimes incorrectly stated. As some authors have shown, both the Sabbatical and Jubilee laws would actually have been practicable from a socio-economic and agricultural perspective; see in particular the discussion of this issue by LEFEBVRE, Lv 25, 333–342.

560

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

and Ez 36:13–14),626 which is also taken up in Lev 17–26 (see 26:38), H goes further and introduces the conception of a land reacting to pollution caused by its inhabitants by “vomiting” them outside its boundaries (Lev 18:24–30; 20:22). The effect of such a conception is to suggest an almost organic relationship between the land and its inhabitants, very much as in the case of P’s sanctuary according to Lev 4 (above, § 3.2.2.3.d.). The same conception is expressed in the final exhortation of ch. 26. The land’s inability to enjoy its Sabbatical rest (26:34–35) because of the people’s crimes will eventually lead to their expulsion and their dispersion among the nations. Although the land is not yet conceived as being holy in H, most likely in order to preserve a clear distinction from the sanctuary, H, as already observed in particular by Knohl, is much more sensitive than P to the effect of Yahweh’s presence in the land. This point is implied in particular by the formulation of the blessings in 26:3–13, but also in other passages such as the law on the First Sheaf and the firstfruits offering in 23:9–22. If the interpretation suggested above of 26:12 as a reference to the relationship between God and man before the Flood is correct, one can even say that for H Yahweh’s presence is no longer restricted to the sanctuary, as is the case in P, but fills somehow the entire land of Israel.627 Finally, the centrality of the land in H probably also accounts for the inclusion of the rg in several passages. Because the resident alien lives in the same land as the “native” (xrz)), i.e., the Israelite, his presence has implications for the entire community of Israel. For this reason, although he is not fully integrated into the cultic community, he is nevertheless subject to some fundamental prohibitions intended to preserve this community’s purity, see for example Lev 17:8–9, 10–12, 13–14, 15–16; 20:2–5; 22:18–19, etc.628 The same observation applies to H’s terminology. As 19th century critics already pointed out, several terms, expressions or even stylistic constructions occur almost exclusively in Lev 17–26, with the exception of a few passages elsewhere in the Torah on which we shall return below. Detailed lists of this 626 Ez 36:13–14 is connected with the concern for Israel’s honor in the face of the other nations, which is characteristic of the “diaspora redaction” in Ezekiel (second half of the Persian period), see POHLMANN, Hesekiel, 2. 473ff. According to ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 383, Num 13:32 is from the hand of the pentateuchal redactor, who should be located in the same historical and scribal context as the “diaspora redaction” in Ezekiel. 627 On this, see already above, § 2.3.3. 628 See, e.g., WEINFELD, Deuteronomic School, 231: “P imposes on the rg only those obligations which affect the sanctity and purity of the congregation. […] It does not require the rg to observe the regulations and ceremonies which are part of Israel’s special religious heritage and which do not particularly involve ritual purity”; further RAMÍREZ K IDD, Alterity, 60ff., esp. 62–64, who quotes this passage (p. 63), although he mistakenly assumes that the land has a sacred character in H whereas this notion is never found in Lev 17–26 (in the HB, it only occurs in Zech 2:16 [#dqh tmd)]). Ramírez Kidd also correctly notes the difference with the measures concerning the rg in Deuteronomy, see Ibid., 64 with note 124.

5.4. The Case for the “Holiness School” in the Torah/Pentateuch

561

distinctive terminology can be found in several manuals, and I limit myself here to a brief sample.629 – Mkyhl) hwhy yn), “I am Yahweh, your God”;630 – Mkytrdl Mlw( tqx, “a permanent statute throughout your generations”;631 – systematic use of the 1 ps in the divine discourse, manifested in particular in H’s use of the possessive pronoun: yttb#,632 y+p#m,633 ytwcm,634 ytqx,635 etc.; – combined mention of the rg (“alien”) and the xrz) (“native resident”),636 as well as the expression Mkwtb /Mkkwtb rgh rgh;637 – combined reference to the ryk# and the b#wt;638 – the expression Mkytb#(w)m lkb, “in all your dwellings”;639 – the phrase M# /Mk#dqm hwhy yn) (yk), “(for) it is I, Yahweh, who sanctifies you/them”;640 – the divine threat … b ynp yttnw,“I will set my face against (such or such person)”;641 – recurrent use throughout H of several specific expressions, such as: Nwtb# tb#;642 hmz (“depravity”);643 tym( (“neighbor”);644 r)# (“flesh”) in the sense of “next-of-kin”;645 etc.

Together, all these observations on H’s conceptual and lexical distinctiveness militate against Otto’s attribution of this code to the same “pentateuchal redactor” (Pentateuchredaktor) as the one responsible for, e.g., the post-Priestly redaction of Ex 19–24 or the final edition of Deuteronomy.646 What we have rather in H is the work of a distinct school, obviously of priestly origin. This 629

See e.g. DRIVER, Introduction, 49–50; and HOLZINGER, Einleitung, 411–412. Ex 6:7; 16:12; 29:46; Lev 11:44; 18:2, 4, 30; 19:2, 3, 4, 10, 25, 31, 34, 36; 20:7, 24; 23:22, 43; 24:22; 25:17, 38, 55; 26:1, 13, 44; Num 10:10; 15:41; Deut 29:5. 631 Ex 27:21; Lev 3:17; 7:36; 10:9; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 31, 41; 24:3; Num 10:8; 15:15; 18:23. See also Ex 12:14, 17, in reverse order. The formula is never found outside these passages. 632 Ex 31:13; Lev 19:3, 30; 26:2. Outside the Pentateuch, it is found mainly in Ezekiel, see Ez 20:12, 13, 16, 20, 21, 24; 22:8, 26; 23:38; 44:24; otherwise in Isa 56:4. 633 Cf. Lev 18:4, 5, 26; 19:37; 20:22; 25:18; 26:15, 43. Compare with the systematic use of the form wy+p#m in D’s parenetic framework: Deut 8:11; 11:1; 26:17; 30:16; 33:21. 634 Gen 26:5; Ex 16:28; 20:6; Lev 22:31; 26:3, 15; Num 15:40; Deut 5:10 (Q); 5:29; 11:13. 635 Gen 26:5; Lev 18:4, 5, 26; 19:19, 37; 20:8, 22; 25:18; 26:3, 15, 43. Otherwise in 1 Kgs 11:38; Jer 44:10. 636 Ex 12:19 (48), 49; Lev 16:29; 17:15; 18:26; 19:34; 24:16, 22; Num 9:14; 15:29, 30. Outside the Pentateuch: only in Josh 8:33; Ez 47:22. 637 Ex 12:49; Lev 16:29; 17:10, 12, 13; 18:26; Num 9:14; 15:26, 29; 19:10. See also Lev 17:8; Num 15:14; 35:15. Outside the Pentateuch: Josh 20:9; Ez 47:22 (plural). 638 Ex 12:45; Lev 22:10; 25:6, 40. 639 Ex 12:20; 35:3; Lev 3:17; 7:26; 23:3, 14, 21, 31; Num 35:29. Cf. also Ez 6:6, 14; 37:23. 640 Ex 31:13; Lev 20:8; 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32. See also Ez 20:12; 37:28. 641 Lev 17:10; 20:3, 6; 26:17; in 20:5, with My# instead of Ntn. See further Ez 14:8; 15:7. 642 Ex 31:15; 35:2; Lev 16:31; 23:3, 32; 25:4. In Ex 16:23: #dq-tb# Nwtb#. The expression is not attested elsewhere. 643 Lev 18:17; 19:29; 20:14. Otherwise, mainly in Ez 16; 22; 23 and 24:13. 644 Lev 5:21; 18:20; 19:11, 15, 17; 24:19; 25:14, 15, 17; otherwise only in Zech 13:7! 645 Lev 18:6, 12, 13, 17 (hr)#); 20:19; 21:2; 25:49; otherwise only in Num 27:11. 646 See on all this OTTO, Deuteronomium, as well as ID., Pentateuchredaktion. 630

562

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

school’s literary activity is an integral part of the edition of the Torah, and it is clearly composed in close cooperation with the work of other circles at the same time; but it has its own specific phraseology and theology. This finding has important implications for the way in which we conceive the composition of the Pentateuch. In particular, it suggests that the creation of the Torah in the Persian period should not be viewed simply as a compromise between conflicting traditions, united into a single document by an anonymous yet genial redactor, but also between conflicting schools in which these traditions – such as D and P – were continuously copied, reinterpreted, and supplemented. As we shall see now, the attribution of Lev 17–26 to such a “Holiness School” (to adopt the terminology proposed by Knohl),647 working in the context of a first edition of the Torah in the second half of the Persian period, also offers a new approach to a classical problem. 5.4.2. The “Holiness School” and its Editorial Activity outside Lev 17–26 5.4.2.1. Position of the Problem 19th century critics had already quite correctly noted the presence of a few passages, outside H, evincing numerous parallels with the language and the theology of this legislation.648 Within the parameters of the classical conception of H as a pre-Priestly collection, however, they were never able, ex hypothesi, to account for this phenomenon. In general, they tried to solve the difficulty by assuming that such passages had originally belonged to the legislation now preserved in Lev 17–26, before they were separated from it for some unknown reason.649 Even if we were to accept the underlying conception of the composition of the Torah as a mechanical and rather inept undertaking, this solution still remains quite problematic. As we have seen, H forms a coherent composition showing no evidence of omissions. In addition, it is difficult to see where the passages traditionally associated with H outside Lev 17–26, such as Ex 12:14–20; 31:12–17, Lev 11:43–45 or 16:29–34 (see below) originally belonged in this legislation; on the contrary, all of them are firmly anchored in their present literary context. A new path to this classical crux was opened some fifty years ago when H. Cazelles and P. Grelot observed that most if not all of these passages were almost invariably found in 647

Milgrom also previously adopted the hypothesis of a “Holiness School” in the Pentateuch but would reject it now in favor of a “holiness redactor” (HR); see MILGROM, HR. 648 See for example KLOSTERMANN , Ezechiel, 377–379; HORST, Leviticus XVII–XXVI; BAENTSCH, Leviticus, LV and passim; DRIVER, Introduction, 59; etc. 649 Characteristic of this view is the statement by KLOSTERMANN , Ezechiel, 378. “Ich denke […] daß Lev. 18–26 nur Fragmente enthält aus einer umfassenden Gesetzgebung, von der wir auch im Exodus und in Numeri einzelne Stücke wiederfinden […]”.The same view is held by Horst, Baentsch, Driver, and others. Interestingly, Klostermann already mentioned Ex 31:13ff. and Lev 11:43–45 as typical H passages outside Lev (17) 18–26, see below.

5.4. The Case for the “Holiness School” in the Torah/Pentateuch

563

Priestly contexts and were generally regarded as late interpolations, i.e., “Ps” or “Rp”.650 They thus suggested that these passages were part of a comprehensive redaction inside the Pentateuch trying to harmonize the Priestly laws with the general principles of H, most likely in the context of the final edition of the Torah. This proposal by Cazelles and Grelot remained largely unknown (probably in part because it was written in French), even though it anticipates in many respects Knohl’s views. Yet since Cazelles and Grelot still worked with the traditional conception of H they had difficulties in explaining the choice of this code, in particular, as a basis for such a later revision of the Torah. Moreover, Grelot quite correctly noted that even within H several motifs betrayed the hand of pentateuchal redactors, so that he had to assume a rather complicated model of mutual interdependence between late additions both in H and in the rest of the Torah.651 Knohl’s reversal of the traditional relationship between H and P offers a better approach to the problem faced by Grelot and Cazelles. Once it is realized that H never existed independently of P but is the work of a distinct school which edited P to supplement it with its own legislation, the presence of similar passages outside Lev 17–26 can be explained quite logically: it shows that this school’s editorial activity was not limited to the composition of Lev 17–26 but also included the reworking of other sections of the Priestly document. Like Grelot and Cazelles before him (but apparently without being aware of their work), Knohl also noted correctly that some of H’s interpolations include very late passages which can hardly predate the edition of the Torah (which – contrary to Milgrom – he also situates in the Persian period). Yet since he assumes simultaneously a pre-exilic dating not only for P, but even for H, he is confronted with a manifest contradiction obliging him to postulate that contrary to the Priestly school the literary activity of the “Holiness School” (HS) extended over several centuries, from the Neo-Assyrian period down into the Persian era.652 In this respect, Knohl himself does not entirely manage to overcome the difficulty encountered by Grelot and Cazelles. If, on the contrary, the literary and historical context for the redaction of H is already a first edition of the Torah in the Persian period, the relationship between Lev 17–26 and other late redactional inserts elsewhere in the Pentateuch written in the same style makes perfect sense. The same scribes who composed the so-called “Holiness Code” as the conclusion of the Sinaitic legislation gradually extended their redactional activity to other portions of the Torah in order to conform them to the H code. What remains to be examined, then, are the nature and general purpose of this school’s editorial activity outside Lev 17–26. 650

CAZELLES, Mission; GRELOT, Etudes; ID.: Papyrus pascal; ID.: Dernière étape. See in particular for this Grelot’s considerations in ID., Dernière étape. 652 See KNOHL, Sanctuary, ch. 5; and for this assertion, in particular p. 200ff. 651

564

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

5.4.2.2. HS Additions in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers: A Brief Reassessment The problems posed by the identification of interpolations by the HS in the Torah are already signaled by the observation that Knohl and Milgrom arrive at quite different results. Knohl himself assigns a considerable number of texts within P to HS,653 but the criteria for this are often fragile and open to question. On the whole, the identification of “H” texts outside Lev 17–26 raises a methodological issue, insufficiently discussed by Knohl in my opinion, insofar as it necessarily implies some form of circularity. That is, the terminology characteristic of H is first defined by comparing Lev 17–26 with P and then used to identify H texts within P. For this reason, caution requires us to attribute to the HS only those passages where several terms characteristic of Lev 17–26 can be found and which are demonstrably late additions to P. My own analysis tends to favor a minimal view of the extent of H interpolations in the Torah, which is closer to Milgrom’s proposal,654 except in the case of Numbers which presents a specific problem, as we will see. a. Exodus In Exodus, clear evidence of the redactional activity of the HS appears in the following passages: Ex 12:14–20, 43–49; 31:12–17, and 35:1–3. Additional instances of this editorial layer may possibly be found in Ex 25–31 and 35– 40, although with a lesser degree of certitude. Exodus 12:14–20: The secondary origin of this passage has long been observed655, but the influence of H’s terminology throughout was less often noted. Note in particular: whgxt Mlw( tqx Mkytrdl hwhyl gx (v. 14); l)r#ym )whh #pnh htrknw (v. 15);

(Mkl hyhy) #dq-)rqm and h#(y-)l hk)lm-lk (v. 16); Mlw( tqx Mkytrdl hzh Mwyh-t) Mtrm#w, and Myrcm Cr)m …yt)cwh

656

(v. 17);

Cr)h xrz)bw rgb l)r#y td(m )whh #pnh htrknw (v. 19); Mkytb#wm lkb (v. 20). 653

See KNOHL, Sanctuary, passim, and the summary on p. 104–106. Compare with the list proposed by MILGROM, Leviticus, 1337–1344. 655 See, e.g., BAENTSCH, Exodus, 97–98. More recently: LAAF, Pascha-Feier, 11–12.18– 19; GRÜNWALDT, Exil, 90–96; BAR-ON, Ex 12,21–27, 25–26; GERTZ, Exoduserzählung, 31– 37; WAGENAAR, Origin, 93–96. Pace KNOHL, Sanctuary, 19–21, who assigns to H all of v. 1– 20. 656 A recurrent phrase in the parenetic framework of Lev 17–26: see 19:36b; 22:33; 23:43; 25:38, 42, 55; 26:13, 45. The reference to “your armies” (Mkytw)bc-t) ), however, is borrowed from the remainder of ch. 12, see vv. 41, 51, a fine instance of exegetical adaptation. 654

5.4. The Case for the “Holiness School” in the Torah/Pentateuch

565

As a matter of fact, this instruction takes up and develops H’s instruction for Passover and Unleavened Bread in Lev 23:5–8, see 23:5  Ex 12:18a; 23:6a  Ex 12:14; 23:6b  Ex 12:15aa ; 23:7, 8  Ex 12:16. The function of this supplement is clear: in conformity with Lev 23:5–8, it connects P’s legislation on Passover in Ex 12:1–13 with the celebration of Unleavened Bread and thus harmonizes it with H’s calendar (see above, § 5.2.4.1.). At the same time, the inclusion of Ex 12:14–20 was also the opportunity to complete and even revise the law of Lev 23:5–8 by adding several further clarifications. Thus, contrary to what was the case in Lev 23, the celebration of Passover and Unleavened Bread is now explicitly connected with the exodus (12:17), and it is even defined as a “memorial” (Nwrkz, cf. 12:14) of the latter. The ban on all “servile” work in Lev 23:7 (hdb( tk)lm-lk) is transformed into a general prohibition on any kind of work in Ex 12:16 (cf. hk)lm-lk), hence making necessary the following comment, absent from Lev 23: “Only what every person is to eat, this will be made for you”. Also, the celebration of Passover and Unleavened Bread is defined as a Mlw( tqx, a permanent obligation, like the other festivals in Lev 23 (cf. v. 14, 21, 31, 41). Above all, Lev 23 merely juxtaposed the evening celebration of Passover with the seven-day celebration of Unleavened Bread, so that, as noted above, the two feasts still appeared as separate celebrations. Ex 12:14–20, on the other hand, now explicitly specifies that the rite of Passover is the beginning of a unified seven-day celebration extending not from the 15th day of the first month to the 21st, as is apparently the case in Lev 23:6–8, but from the evening of the 14th day to the evening of the 21st (cf. Ex 12:18). This transformation implies a conception of the day as lasting from sunset to sunset, as will be found in later Jewish tradition;657 the same view is apparently reflected in the so-called “Passover Papyrus” from Elephantine (AP 21, dating 419 BCE), which we shall discuss before closing this chapter. It has actually its model in the rule expressed in Lev 23:32 (itself probably a later interpolation within ch. 23, as argued above) according to which the celebration of Myrpk extends from the evening of the ninth day to the evening of the tenth. Once it is recognized that all of Ex 12:14–20 depends on H, the classical assumption of two discrete layers in v. 14–17 and 18–20 is in my opinion unnecessary.658 The two passages are on the contrary complementary: v. 14–17 connect Passover with Unleavened Bread, whereas v. 18–20 fix the precise date of this festival, thus solving the problem still left open by the mere juxtaposition of these two feasts.659 657

On this question, see now especially WAGENAAR, Origin, 139ff. See BAENTSCH , Exodus, 97ff.; GRÜNWALDT , Exil, 90–96; GERTZ, Exoduserzählung, 35–37, 68–69 et 72–73, all of whom attribute v. 18–20 to Ps and v. 14–17 to “Rp”. 659 Pace OTTO, Innerbiblische Exegese, 156–157, who has noted that Ex 12:14–17 is postP and goes beyond Lev 23:5–8 but cannot account for this observation because his own 658

566

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

Exodus 12:43–49: Here also, the late origin of this passage is commonly acknowledged (cf. the resumption of v. 41 in v. 51).660 For H terminology, see the expression rkn-Nb in v. 43 (only in Gen 17:12, 27 and Lev 22:25); the reference to the ryk#w-b#wt in v. 45 (exclusively in Lev 22:10; 25:6, 40); the parallel between the rg and the xrz) in v. 48, as well as the characteristic phrase Mkkwtb rgh rgh in v. 49. V. 43–49 close the Passover legislation in Ex 12 with an instruction on the consumption of meat which basically follows the general rationale laid out in Gen 17: only male members of the community who have been circumcised may partake of the Passover meal because circumcision is the sign of God’s tyrb with Israel (Gen 17:9–14). Since, following Gen 17:12–13, slaves must also be circumcised, they are logically included in the celebration (Ex 12:44) whereas all non-circumcised males are automatically excluded (v. 48b, cf. Gen 17:14). However, the HS introduces two additional cases, not yet considered by Gen 17: the hireling (ryk#w-b#wt) and the rg. While the first is excluded, strikingly the second is authorized to be circumcised if he wishes to take part in the Passover celebration (v. 48). Not only is the inclusion of these two categories characteristic of H, but it can even be shown that the jurisprudence of Ex 12:43–49 is based on principles previously stated by the HS in Lev 17–26. The exclusion of the hireling corresponds to Lev 22:10–11 (itself a development of Gen 17:11–14), following which the ryk#w-b#wt, contrary to the slave, does not belong to the house of a priest and therefore cannot partake of the remains of the sacrificial offerings. The inclusion of the rg,661 for its part, pursues the trend already observable in Lev 17–26. In Ex 12:48, this inclusivity is founded on the principle stated in Lev 24:22 (“a same law for the resident alien and the native”) which is quoted immediately after, in 12:49. If it is remembered that hrwt in P exclusively refers to cultic laws, the replacement of +p#m in Lev 24:22 by hrwt in Ex 12:49 probably serves to justify the extension of a principle of civil law to the cultic sphere.662 With this new development, the resident alien is now included for the first time in Israel’s cultic community, provided he agrees to be circumcised in conformity with the basic requirement of Gen 17. Here, we have one possible origin for the translation of rg by prosh/lutoj in the LXX .663 The model exclusively considers the redactional activity of one “pentateuchal redactor”, not of a school such as the HS. Otto is forced to postulate that this redactor could omit this point in Lev 23 because he had already put it into Ex 12. If so, one wonders why this same redactor would have needed to reproduce other prescriptions of Ex 12 in Lev 23:5–8. All these problems are solved when it is seen that Ex 12:14–20 is a legal-exegetical development of Lev 23. 660 See, e.g., BAENTSCH, Exodus 107ff. (“Ps”); NOTH, Exodus, 72, etc. 661 rg here clearly refers to a resident alien economically non-dependent and therefore excluded from the category of the ryk#w-b#wt; cf. also VIEWIEGER, Vom “Fremdling”, 279–280. 662 For a similar idea, see MILGROM, Leviticus, 2127. 663 Cf. BULTMANN , Der Fremde, 200–207; VIEWIEGER , Vom “Fremdling”, 279. Bultmann’s idea (p. 205) that the reason that the native is designated in 12:48 by the unique syn-

5.4. The Case for the “Holiness School” in the Torah/Pentateuch

567

whole legislation is a fine example of the way in which the edition of the Torah by the HS was an opportunity to develop and refine this school’s legal reflection on the basis of the very principles already stated in Lev 17–26. Exodus 31:12–17: This law is another remarkable instance of the nature of the work of the HS outside Lev 17–26. Significantly, it was already on this passage, in addition to a few others such as Lev 11:43–45 and 16:29–34a, that older critics based their assumption that fragments originally belonging to H had been later disseminated throughout the Pentateuch for some obscure reason. This point has been missed however by more recent commentators who observed correctly that all of Ex 31:12–17 were a very late addition, depending on the other Sabbatical laws in the Pentateuch (31:14ab  Ex 20:8; Deut 5:12; 31:17  Ex 20:11; Gen 2:2–3; etc.), but failed to notice the predominance in this passage of parallels with Lev 17–26 specifically.664 See in particular tb# rm# (31:13, 14, 16), in the Pentateuch only in Lev 19:3, 30 and 26:2 (the parenetic framework around all of ch. 19–26!); yttb# (31:13), also in Lev 19:3, 30; 26:2 (and frequently in Ezekiel; see Ez 20:12, 13, 16, 20, 21, 24; 22:8, 26; 23:38; 44:24; otherwise only in Isa 56:4); the expression Mk#dqm hwhy yn) (yk) (31,13b), with the Piel participle of #dq, only in Lev 20:8; 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32 and in Ezekiel (Ez 20:12; 37:28); the expression Nwtb# tb#, only in Ex 31:15; 35:2; Lev 16:31 (H); 23:3, 32; 25:4 (in Ex 16:23, #dq-tb# Nwtb#); the formula of excommunication characteristic of H: brqm )whh #pnh htrknw hym(, in 31:14b; and finally, the use of the Piel participle of llx ‘desecrate’ (31:14), in the Pentateuch only in Lev 21:9 (otherwise with this meaning only in Ez 24:21; Mal 1:12; Neh 13:17).

Above all, the function and meaning of Ex 31:12–17 can only be understood in relationship to H. In particular, it transforms the Sabbath into the “sign” (tw), see 31:13 and 17) of Yahweh’s permanent tyrb with Israel. The presence of a concrete sign for Yahweh’s tyrb is characteristic of P (Gen 9:12ff.; 17:9ff.), but the giving of a third sign at Mt Sinai goes against P, which rejected the idea that the revelation on Mt Sinai was accompanied by the conclusion of a new covenant after Gen 17. On the contrary, this development is entirely consistent with Lev 26 where, as observed above (§ 5.2.5.), the non-Priestly tradition of the tyrb concluded between Yahweh and Israel at Mt Sinai in connection with the disclosure of the law was accepted, but nevertheless reinterpreted from the perspective of P’s Mlw( tyrb and harmonized with the latter (cf. 26:42–45).665 In Ex 31:12–17 this inclusive tyrb is now given a tagm Cr)h xrz) is because, as the first occurrence of the couple rg/xrz) in the HB, it served for the redactors to specify the meaning of the term xrz), is seductive. On the gradual interpretation of the rg as a proselyte in post-biblical literature: RAMÍREZ KIDD, Alterity, 64–67. 664 See especially GRÜNWALDT, Exil und Identität, 173–177; further OWCZAREK, Wohnen Gottes, 40–42, both of whom attribute Ex 31:12–17 to the “pentateuchal redactor” (Rp). 665 The relationship between Ex 31:12–17 and Lev 26 has been perceived to some degree by GROSS, Rezeption; ID., Zukunft, 71ff. However, Groß discusses only very briefly the possibility of a real connection between them (see ID., Zukunft, 83–84 n. 41).

568

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

concrete sign, in conformity with the tradition of Gen 9; 17, thus pursuing the post-Priestly alignment of the Sinaitic tyrb with the Priestly tyrb. Observance of the Sabbath becomes somehow the paradigm of obedience to the whole Torah,666 upon which the divine covenant is now conditional for individuals (v. 15b) even though it remains a Mlw( tyrb for Israel as a whole (v. 17).667 Moreover, the insertion of Ex 31:12–17 at this place betrays subtle exegesis of the central exhortation of Lev 19:30 and 26:2 to keep Yahweh’s Sabbath and revere his sanctuary, since Ex 31:12–17 concludes the instructions for the building of the tent in Ex 25–31, while the corresponding compliance report in Ex 35:1–3 introduces ch. 35–40! With this device, the entire account on the building of the sactuary in Ex 25–40 is framed by the instruction to keep the Sabbath, following a combination already found in Lev 19:30 and 26:2.668 Finally, the insertion of Ex 31:12–17 completes Lev 17–26 by including explicitly the Sabbath among the sancta which must not be desecrated (llx Piel, 31:14), together with the divine name (Lev 18:21; 19:12; 20:3; 21:6; 22:2, 32), the sanctuary (Lev 21:12, 23), the offerings (19:8; 22:9, 15) and the high priest’s lineage (21:15). On the whole, interpolations by the HS in Exodus are limited to earlier Priestly laws (Ex 12; 31), which they seek to systematically harmonize with H. In this regard, these interpolations basically carry on the legal and theological revision already initiated in the legislation of H, yet this time by intervening directly in the Priestly laws themselves, thus enlarging the school’s activity to other passages outside Lev 17–26. Since Ex 31:12–17 corresponds to the last addition in Ex 25–31, this suggests that HS is among the final editors of the book of Exodus even though the important textual variants in ch. 35–40 could mean that these chapters continued to be edited separately (above, § 1.2.1.). The Sabbath instruction, although the last of the instructions given to Moses, is the first to be revealed by him to the Israelites in Ex 35:1– 3; this corresponds to the unique importance of this command, but it should also be seen as an editorial device, both passages building a frame around ch. 32–34. This confirms that the interpolation of 31:12–17 and 35:1–3 probably took place at a time when the P tradition of the sanctuary in Ex 25–31 and 35– 40 had already been combined – or was being combined – with the non-P tradition of Israel’s (and Aaron’s!) apostasy in Ex 32–34. Possibly, this could also reflect the attempt by the HS to assert the equal importance, or even the superiority, of the Sabbath command over the Decalogue’s second command (prohibition of images), violated by the people in the account of ch. 32. 666 Note that a similar idea is found in Ex 16:22–28, a late addition to ch. 16 also betraying the influence of H: cf. hwhyl #dq-tb# Nwtb# (v. 23), as well as ytrwtw ytwcm in v. 28. 667 For this reason, I cannot accept the recent suggestion by OLYAN, Exodus 31:12–17, to isolate an older “P” tradition about the Sabbath behind v. 16–17. 668 For this observation, see in particular RUWE, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 121–127.

5.4. The Case for the “Holiness School” in the Torah/Pentateuch

569

b. Leviticus In the previous analysis of the first part of Leviticus, ch. 1–16, additions by the HS have been identified in 3:17; 7:22–27 (28–36?); 11:43–45; 16:29– 34a.669 Ch. 10 of the book is also dependent on H but represents a specific case as we will see briefly in the last chapter of this study. The work of the HS on Leviticus is quite comparable to its work on Exodus and mainly betrays the concern of the HS editors to harmonize the P legislation of ch. 1–16 with H. Lev 3:17 takes up the prohibition of eating fat in 3:16b and adds that of blood, a central concern for H developed in 17:10–14. The combined prohibition of fat and blood in 3:17 is itself repeated and expanded in 7:22–27, the conclusion to the to=ra= for well-being offerings in ch. 6–7. In addition, the ban is general and does not only concern sacrificial animals as in 3:17. Here again, the interpolations of 7:22–27 and 28–36 represent the last editorial interventions in Leviticus, if one excepts the case of ch. 10. 11:43–45 supplement the P to=ra= on clean and unclean animals in ch. 11 with a reference anticipating the exhortation of 20:25. Not only does this highlight the paradigmatic importance of this diet for Israel’s sanctification; but it also builds a redactional framework around ch. 11–20, whose common concern is the purity of the lay community (whereas ch. 21–22 will deal with the purity of priests). The case of the supplement of 16:29–34a is most interesting. With this addition, the HS identifies for the first time the great ceremony of purification prescribed in 16:1–28 with the ritual to be performed during the feast of Myrpk on the seventh month, according to Lev 23:26–32 (cf. v. 29). As a consequence, the meaning of the phrase t(-lkb in v. 2 changes implicitly and the ritual is no longer to be performed whenever required, as was initially the case, but only once a year (v. 34a).670 This accounts for the traditional crux raised by the complete absence of any reference to the celebration of Kippur in the HB,671 even in Neh 8: although the ceremony itself is older (P), identification with the instruction of Lev 23:26ff. is not earlier than the end of the fifth century BCE (see below). Furthermore, here also the interpolation of 16:29–34a was an opportunity for the HS to supplement slightly the instruction given in 23:26–32. In particular, it specifies that the prohibition of work applies to the rg and the xrz) equally (v. 29) and that the rite has to be performed by the high priest (v. 32–33); this latter indication is missing from Lev 23 but clearly refers to the ceremony prescribed by P in 16:2–28, a further indication that in Lev 23, this ceremony was not yet identified with the rite to be practiced on the Day of Purifications. 669

See Chapters Three and Four, on pages 198 (n. 382), 260–262, 298–299, 346–350. Although interestingly, part of the rabbinic tradition has preserved the notion that the ritual could be performed at will by Aaron, as recalled above, § 4.3.1.2., note 353. 671 The first attestations are found in the Temple Scroll (25:10–27:10) and in the Book of Jubilees (34:18–19). 670

570

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

c. Genesis, Numbers and Deuteronomy No trace of H is to be found in Genesis, except possibly in Gen 17:14.672 This makes sense if, as suggested above, the HS was mainly preoccupied to align some central P laws with Lev 17–26 since there are no such laws in Genesis outside ch. 17 (and ch. 9, but this represents a different case since these laws are universal and not specific to Israel). Probably for the same reasons, the book of Deuteronomy was not edited by the HS either. To be sure, there are many post-P additions in Deuteronomy but none of them exemplifies the distinctive style of the HS.673 Either HS scribes were not authorized to intervene editorially on this scroll or, more simply, they were just not interested in it. The case of the book of Numbers is more complicated. On one hand, there are several parallels between H and the so-called “Priestly” passages of Numbers, here again especially in the legal sections of the book (Num 1–10; 15; 18–19; 27–36). The proximity of Num 15 with H, in particular, had already been observed by Wellhausen and Kuenen for instance. Thus, Wellhausen could write: “Kapitel 15 […] scheint von dem Bearbeiteter (nicht von dem Autor) der Sammlung Lev. 17–26 verfasst, denn es finden sich bemerkenswerte Reminiscenzen und Ähnlichkeiten”.674 This is true, namely, for v. 32– 36 (compare with Lev 24:10–23) and 37–41, the latter passage being traditionally counted among the fragments of H disseminated throughout the Torah because of the motivation found in v. 40–41 (compare with Lev 20:7– 8; 22: 33).675 Yet H’s phraseology can also be detected earlier in this chapter, especially in v. 15–16, 29, with the reference to a single law (tx) hrwt) for the rg and the xrz) alike. On the other hand, however, it is usually more difficult to isolate significant H interpolations in Numbers. Outside ch. 15, and except for a few passages such as Num 9:13–14 (= Ex 12:48–49, H), what we 672

See the typical statement hym(m )whh #pnh htrknw, as well as the use of rrp Hi. with “to break the covenant”, as in Lev 26:15, 44; otherwise in the Torah only in Deut 31:16, 20, and with other terms than tyrb in Num 15:31; 30:9, 13, 14, 16, all passages derived from H. Note also that the reference to circumcision as the sign of a “permanent covenant” (tyrb Mlw( ) immediately before, in 17:13, would have offered a fitting conclusion initially to the command of circumcision in v. 9ff. KNOHL , Sanctuary, 102 with n. 145, also wants to add 17:7–8 (in connection with Ex 6:2–8); for the reasons to retain these two passages in P, see above the detailed discussion in § 1.2.2.1., p. 34–35, note 72. 673 On the post-Priestly reworking of Deuteronomy, cf. especially OTTO, Deuteronomium. KNOHL, Sanctuary, 95–96, wants to assign Deut 32:48–52 to the HS, even though this passage lacks HS features. But this is only because in his own model, he systematically identifies the HS with the post-P edition of the Torah; see the discussion below in the case of Numbers. 674 ID ., Composition, 175; see similarly KUENEN, Einleitung, 1. 92–93. Note that since Wellhausen assigned it to the redactor of H, that solution already implied de facto the existence of an editorial recension of the Pentateuch in the style and the spirit of H! 675 See KLOSTERMANN, Ezechiel, 377; BAENTSCH, Numeri, 533; DRIVER , Introduction, 59; the same view is found later for example in the work of FEUCHT, Untersuchungen. tyrb,

5.4. The Case for the “Holiness School” in the Torah/Pentateuch

571

mainly have are several isolated expressions reminiscent of H’s language.676 This observation, however, is consistent with the conclusion reached earlier in this study regarding the scope of the Priestly document in the Pentateuch. If P is no longer found after Lev 16, the attempt to identify HS interpolations in the earlier P legislation becomes irrelevant in the case of the book of Numbers. Our examination of Num 20 and 27 (above, § 1.1., with Excursus 1) has confirmed that the so-called “Priestly” narrative in Numbers actually belongs to a later layer in the Torah combining Priestly and Deuteronomistic traditions. As for the “Priestly” laws in Numbers, most of them are supplements to the laws existing either in P (Gen 1–Lev 16) or in H (Lev 17–26). A good example is provided by the Passover legislation of Num 9; it presupposes Ex in its final form (i.e., after the edition of this Priestly legislation by the HS) since v. 12–14 refer to Ex 12:43–49 (Num 9:14 = Ex 12:48–49; cf. also the prohibition of breaking the bones in Num 9:12 = Ex 12:46), the last supplement to ch. 12 (see above), but introduces a new case unforeseen by the previous legislation (that is, Israelites unable to celebrate Passover at the requested time). The reason that this complement was introduced here, and not in Ex 12, is most likely that at this stage of the composition of the Pentateuch the scroll of Exodus was more or less completed and could no longer be significantly supplemented. In addition, although these laws are usually not introduced awkwardly but at quite strategic places in the Numbers account (see, e.g., Num 15 between 14 and 16), they do frequently interrupt the narrative continuity between two passages. This is clear, e.g., in the case of ch. 18– 19; the insertion of these laws has obscured the reference to the staff placed “before Yahweh” in 20:9, whereas this reference was obvious immediately after Num 17:16–26. Similarly, locating the story of Israel’s ultimate apostasy at Peor, in the plains of Moab (Num 25), initially served to set the stage for Moses’ final speech in Deut 1ff., before the introduction of Num 26–36. Knohl had well perceived that the so-called “P” texts in Numbers are actually post-P. But because he reckons with only one such post-P redaction in the Torah, the HS, he was forced to attribute to it most of the “Priestly” legislation in Num 1–10; 15; 18–19 and 27–36.677 However, he was able to account neither for the observation made above that H’s phraseology is significantly more diffuse in this book than in Exodus and Leviticus nor, above all, for the importance of these supplements. Indeed, the so-called “Priestly” 676

See, e.g., the use of (Mkyhl)) hwhy yn) (Num 3:13, 41; 10:10; 15:41), of the “excommunication formula” (Num 9:13; 15:30, 31; with interesting variants in Num 19: 19:13: l)r#ym; 19:20: lhqh Kwtm), the combined mention of the rg and the xrz) (Num 9:14; 15:26, 29; 35:15; similarly, 19:10), Mkytb#wm lkb in 35:29, or the expression Mkytrdl Mlw( tqx (Num 10:8; 15:15; 18:23). For the assignment of these expressions to H,cf. above, § 5.4.1. 677 See ID., Sanctuary, 71–101, and the summary on p. 105–106. In Numbers, Knohl attributes only 5:11–31*; 6:1–21*; 19; 28–29* to P.

572

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

legislation in Numbers is hardly comparable to the few limited HS interpolations detected elsewhere in Exodus and Leviticus.678 It represents much more a separate composition. Not only does this composition supplement the earlier P and H legislation in Genesis–Leviticus, it also introduces entirely new issues, without equivalent even in H: in particular the military organization of the community around the sanctuary (Num 1ff.; see also further Num 31!), the representation of the march in the wilderness as a military campaign under the guidance of Yahweh himself (10:11–28), or the introduction of the levites as a distinct class of cultic servants (Num 3–4; 8; further Num 18:1ff. and 21ff.). All this points to the activity of a distinct priestly school in Numbers, which basically corresponds to the “theocratic revision” (theokratische Bearbeitung) identified by Achenbach in his detailed analysis of this book.679 This “theocratic” school, later than the HS, was responsible for the final edition of Numbers, at a time when it had become difficult for priestly editors to supplement massively the four other books composing the Torah. The authors belonging to this school are familiar with the phraseology and ideology of the HS, which they partly adopt and freely adapt, but they probably represent a later generation of priestly scribes, with their own religious and political programme. Achenbach is probably right when he designates this programme as “theocratic” (in the sense given to this term by Josephus in Contra Apionem 2:165), considering not only Israel’s depiction as an ecclesia militans organized around the sanctuary (Num 1–2) but also the role conferred to the high priest, who is now explicitly presented as the community’s true leader. In Num 27, he is the one who consults God’s will for all Israel, including Moses’ successor (Num 27:21), and in Num 31, his own son (Pinchas) leads Israel to war (see v. 6). Such ideology most likely reflects the historical development taking place in Jerusalem between the end of the Persian period and the beginning of the Hellenistic era, when the high priest was gradually able to impose himself as the political head of the Judean community. The final revision of Numbers should be dated to about 350 BCE, which also corresponds to the period when coins minted in the name of the high priest of Jerusalem, Yohanan, appear for the first time.680 5.4.2.3. The So-Called “Passover Papyrus” from Elephantine: A Clue for the Historical Setting of the “Holiness School”? So far in this chapter, the editorial activity of the HS in the Pentateuch has mostly been analyzed from the perspective of its meaning and function as a process of inner-biblical reception. Yet a further clue for the historical setting 678

Even though Knohl’s reconstruction of the HS in these two books is more extensive than mine, the difference remains nevertheless unmistakable. 679 See ID., Vollendung, 443–628. 680 Further on this, see ACHENBACH, Vollendung, esp. 130–140.

5.4. The Case for the “Holiness School” in the Torah/Pentateuch

573

of this editorial activity may possibly be found in the Aramaic “Passover Papyrus” of the Jewish community at Elephantine (= Cowley’s AP 21),681 following a suggestion previously made by Grelot.682 This letter confirms that since 419 BCE, the calendar preserved by Lev 23 for the celebration of Passover and Unleavened Bread (from the evening of the 14.1 to the 21.1) had become the official calendar of the Second Temple community in Jerusalem and was imposed as such by the Judean Hananyah to his co-religionists in Elephantine (AP 21, line 8). Admittedly, reconstructing the instruction on Passover before that on Unleavened Bread is speculative given that the corresponding section (l. 4–5) is almost entirely missing. Yet the reference to the beginning of the feast at sunset in l. 8 can only be to the Passover night, since the idea that the celebration of Unleavened Bread should begin on the evening of the 15th day of the first month is nowhere attested. The alternative view, i.e. that by 419 the connection between Passover and Unleavened Bread would not have been firmly established, is unsupported.683 Besides, l. 4 preserves the mention of the number “four” ((rb [)at]), which is best explained, in this context, as a reference to the 14th day of the first month. Finally, the phrase “Now you shall count…” at the beginning of l. 4 typically serves in the HB to introduce the celebration of festivals, as often observed, which confirms that l. 4–5 probably included an instruction for such a festival. For these reasons, the traditional view of a reference to Passover in l. 4–5 remains, in my opinion, the most plausible.684 The fact that in this letter Hananyah can legitimize his directive for the celebration of Passover-Unleavened Bread by reference to an order given by King Darius himself (= Darius II, cf. l. 3) suggests, in addition, that the regulations of the Jerusalem Temple were acknowledged at the time as being authoritative as regards cultic matters. 681

For the edition of the text, see PORTEN/YARDENI, Aramaic Documents, 1. 54; also, PORTEN, Archives, 311–314, where he offers a somewhat different reconstruction. See also further the study by GAß, Passa-Papyrus, 57ff., who presents and discusses a wide range of readings. 682 See especially GRELOT, Papyrus pascal; see also further ID., Dernière rédaction. 683 Thus GASS, Passover-Papyrus, 64–65, who is forced to this solution because he seeks to deny any reference to Passover in l. 4–5. His statement: “Da man also noch nicht weiß, wie beide Feste zur Abfassungszeit zueinander standen, sollte man vorerst die Lücken bewußt offenlassen und nur das Lesbare auswerten” (Ibid., 65), would be correct, from a methodological perspective, only if this connection was not already well established in Deut 16. In this respect, his further statement that “ob also schon vor der Endredaktion [i.e., of the Torah, C.N.] beide Feste verbunden waren, läßt sich wohl nicht fesstellen” (65 n. 56) is simply false. Besides, Gaß cannot account for other observations indicative of Passover, such as reference to the number “four” or the beginning of l. 4, recalling the introduction to festivals in the HB; see below. 684 Apart from GASS, Passa-Papyrus (but cf. the previous note), this reconstruction has usually been accepted. See however recently KOTTSIEPER, Religionspolitik, 150–151 and n. 4, who also questions the reference to Passover in AP 21, though he does not exclude it.

574

Chapter Five: The Composition of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)

This conclusion is actually consistent with Achemenid ideology, according to which each ethnic group within the empire had to be linked to a specific land.685 It is also consistent with the fact that when the Persian administration authorized the rebuilding of the temple of Yahô at Elephantine after its destruction by the priests of H9nu=m, it was only under the condition that no animal sacrifices should be offered there (see AP 33), thus preserving – deliberately or not – the monopoly of the sacrificial cult for the temple in Jerusalem.686 This does not mean, of course, that the “Passover Papyrus” necessarily presupposes the calendar of Lev 23. It could also be based on an earlier form of the legislation devised by priestly scribes at the temple of Jerusalem before its definitive adoption in the calendar of H, as argued by Grelot, although this point is eventually impossible to decide upon.687 What the evidence offered by AP 21 does suggest is that towards the end of the fifth century BCE , the priestly class in Jerusalem had been entrusted by the imperial administration with the codification of some important cultic traditions, such as the celebration of festivals. Although, as noted above, the Torah itself was certainly never officially acknowledged by local imperial administration as the nomos of Persian period Yehud,688 the Passover papyrus is a clear sign that the scribal attempt to unify the ritual practice of the Judean ethnos were favorably regarded by the administration, if not openly encouraged. In all likelihood, it is in this historical and intellectual context that the origin of the HS as a distinct scribal school in the Second Temple should be sought. This would account, in particular, for the nature of this school’s activity inside the Torah and for the fact that it focuses on harmonization and supplementation of ritual prescriptions exclusively, such as Passover (Ex 12) or the Sabbath (Ex 31). If correct, this suggestion means that the editorial activity of the HS does not merely reflect a process of strict inner-biblical exegesis; rather, it was part of 685

On this, see the observations made above, § 4.4.2., where the parallel with Gen 10 is also discussed. 686 This point is also disputed, and cannot be discussed in detail here. Suffice it to say that the alternative explanation, according to which this ban would have sought to accommodate the concerns of the priests of H9nu=m who was represented as a ram seems to me less convincing, since the ram represents only one of the types of animals which would have been sacrificed by the Judean colony at Elephantine. In any event, whatever the reason for this ban ultimately, it would definitely have served the religious and economic interests of the Jerusalem temple. 687 See GRELOT , Papyrus pascal, 250–258. Yet all of Grelot’s argument is based on the postulate that the formulation of the Passover-Unleavened Bread instruction in AP 21 should correspond verbatim to the parallel prescriptions found in the priestly legislation of the Pentateuch (Ex 12 and Lev 23) if the latter already existed. However, the whole postulate appears to me to be dubious. 688 On this point, and more broadly on the hypothesis of a Persian “imperial authorization” in Yehud behind the publication of the Pentateuch and its acceptance as Torah, see above, § 4.4.2., pages 386ff.

5.4. The Case for the “Holiness School” in the Torah/Pentateuch

575

a specific religious and political program at a time when, after Nehemiah’s governorship, the Second Temple in Jerusalem was gradually able to impose itself as the cultic center for all Judeans with the benediction of the Achemenid administration.

Chapter Six

Inner-biblical Exegesis in Leviticus 10 and Editorial Closure of the Book It was shown earlier in this study (§ 3.1.3.) that Lev 10 is a late insert in the book of Leviticus, whose author presupposes, for instance, the post-Priestly genealogy of Ex 6:14–25. It remains to investigate in detail the meaning of this chapter as well as its place in the overall composition of the “book” (i.e., scroll) of Leviticus. As we shall see, this issue involves in particular the reception in this story of many other cultic laws in P, in H and even in Ez 40– 48, the whole chapter representing one of the most interesting cases of innerbiblical exegesis in the “priestly” portions of Leviticus and Numbers. Before this, however, we need to address the problem of the structure and coherence of this account.1

6.1. Structure of Leviticus 10 Lev 10 has traditionally been regarded by critics as a highly composite text betraying a complicated traditio-historical and literary genesis. Basically, the core of the text was sought in the account of v. 1–5, the cultic crime of Nadab and Abihu, which would have been gradually expanded by all sorts of additions of unclear origin, especially in v. 8–20 whose connection to the base account in v. 1–5 appears unclear at first sight.2 This negative assessment of the 1 In many respects, the interpretation of Lev 10 in this chapter agrees with the reading already proposed by ACHENBACH, Leviticus 10; ID., Vollendung, 93–110, especially as regards the dependence of this chapter on both Num 16–17 and Ez 44. Nevertheless, my view of the meaning of the parallels with Ez 44 and, more generally, of the significance of Lev 10 for the final editor of Leviticus differs significantly from his, in particular as regards the story’s stance towards Aaron; this disagreement, as well as other differences in the interpretation, such as the nature Nadab’s and Abihu’s transgression, are dealt with in the course of the analysis. 2 BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 349–353, assigns v. 1–5 as well as 12–14* to P, v. 6–7 to Ps, v. 8– 9 to “Pss”, v. 10 and 16–20 to “Px” (sic, in fact a late addition to P whose origin can no longer be determined, yet still earlier than Rp), and finally v. 15, as well as part of v. 14, to “Rp”, the pentateuchal redactor. This is actually quite close to the analysis already proposed by W ELLHAUSEN, Composition, 147, as well as KUENEN, Einleitung, 1. 79 and 1. 82. The same model, only slightly simplified, may be found sixty years later in Elliger’s commentary (Leviticus, 132–136) assigning v. 1–7 to “Pg1”, v. 8–9 to “Pg2”, and v. 10–11 and 12–20 to two

6.1. Structure of Leviticus 10

577

chapter’s literary and thematic coherence can still be found in some recent studies.3 Yet not only does this view bring little to the understanding of this chapter, but it is not satisfactory on many grounds. As noted in § 3.1.3, it still betrays the source-critical assumption that some passages, such as the story of Nadab and Abihu, are necessarily older than other parts of the chapter which are clearly editorial in nature, such as v. 16–20. Once even v. 1–5 are recognized as a late interpolation in Leviticus, however, the distinction between old sources and late additions in Lev 10 becomes pointless. Moreover, closer examination of this chapter suggests that its literary and thematic coherence is actually greater than may seem at first sight; the commentators’ failure to perceive this is linked in part to their dissociation of the story contained in ch. 10 from its wider narrative context, especially ch. 9. Lev 10 opens in v. 1–5 with the account of the cultic transgression of Nadab and Abihu who presented Yahweh with a “profane” (therefore unholy) offering (v. 1), and of their consequent death (v. 2). After measures have been taken by Moses to remove their corpses from the area of the sanctuary (v. 4–5), the remainder of ch. 10 consists entirely in recounting a series of instructions (v. 6–20), organized in two pairs (v. 6–7, 8–11 and 12–15, 16– 20). The first pair (6–7, 8–11) is closely connected to the story of v. 1–5 since its general concern is to avoid the death of the other priests, as the repeated motivations make clear (wtmt )lw, v. 6; wtmt-Np, v. 7; and again wtmt )lw, v. 9). The second pair contains two instructions dealing with the problem of the disposal of the remains of the offerings presented by Aaron and his sons in Lev 9 (the cereal offering, v. 12–13, the breast and the thigh of the well-being offering, v. 14–15, and the flesh of the purification offering, v. 16–20). These commands are also related to the chapter’s general theme, the observance of cultic rules by the priestly class, since they consistently follow the previous legislation on the disposal of sacrificial remains in Lev 6–7. The connection with the initial account of v. 1–5 is particularly obvious in the last section, v. 16–20, recounting an episode where Aaron’s remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, are also suspected by Moses of violating a major cultic rule, like their elder brothers (v. 16). At the same time, the rules of v. 12–20 move beyond the episode of v. 1–5 and return instead to the ceremony of ch. 9, the disposal of the sacrificial remains, bringing to a close the offering of the first sacrifices and with it the entire account of the eighth day in Lev 9–10. The inclusion thus built is signaled by the reference made by Aaron to “this day” at the very end of ch. 10 (v. 19), which underlines the temporal framework later additions. NOTH, Leviticus, 88, merely comments that, “we are dealing in 10.8–20 with loose and unsystematically attached additions that were gradually appended, probably one after another, in an order which can no longer be determined”. 3 Thus, e.g., GERSTENBERGER , Leviticus, 105, stating that, “Dem Kap. fehlt thematisch wie stilistisch jede Einheitlichkeit”. Very similarly, FREVEL, Kein Ende?, 93–94.

578

Chapter Six: Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Lev 10 and Editorial Closure

uniting the accounts of ch. 9 and 10. In the context of Lev 9–10 and with regard to the story of Nadab and Abihu, v. 12–20 show that, contrary to the illegitimate offering of the two priests, the other offerings were disposed of according to the rule, thus suggesting a return to normalcy after the former transgression. At the same time, in the last section, v. 16–20, this transgression itself is harmonized in a subtle way with the ritual of ch. 9, since the death of his sons is used by Aaron against Moses so as to justify the nonobservance during the ceremony of one of Yahweh’s instructions, i.e., the consumption of the t)+x offering (v. 19–20). We shall deal in detail with this significant case below. For the moment, it suffices to note how it concludes Lev 9–10 by recapitulating both the ceremony of ch. 9 and the transgression related in ch. 10. While these observations show that Lev 10 forms a coherent account with a clear narrative progression, the obvious inclusion between v. 16–20 and v. 1–5 also suggests that the author of this story sought to organize the five sections chiastically. The second and fourth sections (v. 6–7, 12–15) are similarly parallel since both contain instructions given by Moses to Aaron and his two remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar. At the center of the chiasm stands a unique speech (v. 8–11) which is not delivered by Moses but by Yahweh himself and addressed to Aaron alone, a device unparalleled in Leviticus and otherwise occurring only once in the Torah, in Num 18 (v. 1, 8). This suggests the following concentric structure:4 4

For this structure, see HARTLEY, Leviticus, 129; and STAUBLI, Levitikus, 85. Here, I follow Staubli rather than Hartley by regarding v. 1–5 as a distinct unit, whereas Hartley would group v. 4–5 with v. 6–7. Yet his solution does not account for the fact that v. 4–5 and 6–7 form two distinct speeches and that 4–5 are more closely linked with 1–3 since they represent a first resolution of the profanation of the cultic order by Nadab and Abihu. JÜRGENS, Heiligkeit, 263ff.; ID., Fremdes Feuer, offers a similar structure but would keep v. 1–2 outside the concentric structure. The profanation of Nadab and Abihu would form the initial “Disäquilibrium”, which the rest of ch. 10 (v. 3–20) would then serve to solve. This solution is less convincing in my opinion and meets with some serious difficulties. First, it is problematic to understand the entire narrative of ch. 10 as being concerned exclusively with the resolution of the initial transgression of the two priests, especially in the case of v. 12–20. As noted above, these verses should be interpreted in the context of ch. 9–10 and not of ch. 10 alone. Even in the case of v. 6–11, these instructions are meant to prevent another transgression and are thus linked to the story of Nadab and Abihu, but they can hardly be said to “solve” the issue raised by the profanation of the temple in v. 1. Rather, this resolution occurs through (a) the death of the two priests (v. 2), (b) the evacuation of their corpses from the sanctuary (v. 4–5), and finally (c) the cleansing of the sanctuary by Aaron on Yom Kippur, Lev 16:1ff. (cf. 16:1 10:1). Actually, as suggested here, the transgression recounted in v. 1 serves to introduce the general issue of ch. 10, i.e., cultic transgression, ritual observance and the duties of the Aaronites; see further below, especially § 6.3. Finally, setting aside v. 1– 2 from the rest of the chapter is unconvincing on a literary level. The separation of 1–2 from 3–5 is forced; also, isolating 1–2 goes against the obvious inclusion between v. 2 and 19. ACHENBACH, Leviticus 10, 63; ID., Vollendung, 102–103, adopts a division similar to the one advocated here, except that he further distinguishes between v. 12–13 and 14–15, and

6.2. A Close Study of Leviticus 10

579

A. 10:1–5 Transgression of cultic laws by Aaron’s elder sons, sanctioned B. 10:6–7 Instruction by Moses to Aaron and his two remaining sons X. 10:8–11 Instruction by Yahweh to Aaron alone B’. 10:12–15 Instruction by Moses to Aaron and his two remaining sons A’. 10:16–20 Transgression of cultic laws by Aaron’s younger sons, not sanctioned

Together, these observations suggest the possibility of understanding Lev 10 as a complex, yet nevertheless coherent narrative, whose general theme is the priests’ observance of the law, with Nadab’s and Abihu’s initial transgression justifying the introduction of new laws on duties and responsibilities specific to the priests. This view may be confirmed by a closer analysis of the five sections comprising ch. 10, as well as of the logic connecting them. Such analysis will eventually illuminate the function of this chapter in the overall editing of Leviticus, as well as the reason for its interpolation at this place.

6.2. A Close Study of Leviticus 10 6.2.1. Leviticus 10:1–5 1

Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, each took his (censer-)pan, they put fire in it, and laid incense on it, and they offered before Yahweh a profane fire, which he had not commanded them. 2A fire came forth from Yahweh and consumed (literally: “ate”) them, and they died before Yahweh. 3Moses said to Aaron: “This is what Yahweh had said: ‘By those near to me I shall be sanctified (#dq) ybrqb), and before all the people I shall be glorified’”.5 Aaron kept silent (or possibly: began to lament).6 4Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, sons of Uzziel, Aaron’s uncle, and said to them: “Come forward and carry your brothers from before the sacred precinct,7 outside the camp”. 5They came forward and carried them out of the camp by their tunics, as Moses had said.

thus identifies a two part structure (v. 1–11 and 12–20) consisting of A (sin of Nadab and Abihu: v. 1–5), B a (to=ra= by Moses: 6–7), B b (to=ra= by Yahweh: 8–11), B a (to=ra= by Moses: 12–13), B b (to=ra= by Yahweh: 14–15), A (sin of Eleazar and Ithamar: 16–20), the first part (A–B, v. 1–11) dealing with Nadab and Abihu and the second (B–A, v. 12–20) with Eleazar and Ithamar. Yet the separation between v. 12–13 and 14–15 is arbitrary, and v. 14–15 can surely not be compared with v. 8–11, since there it is Moses who is speaking, exactly as in v. 12–13! Conversely, this structure does not do justice to the unique position of v. 8–11 as the sole discourse by Yahweh in ch. 10, moreover directly addressed to Aaron. Lastly, while the contrast between Aaron’s elder and younger sons at the beginning and at the end of ch. 10 is unmistakable (cf. above), to structure all ch. 10 according to this division is excessive; indeed, v. 6–11 are not more specifically concerned with Nadab and Abihu than 12–15, and the rule of v. 6–7 is already addressed to Eleazar and Ithamar, as in 12–15. 5 For the justification of the passive rendering of dbk) and #dq) in 10:3 – against the translation usually adopted, but with some ancient versions such as the LXX – see below. 6 From Mmd II, “to lament”, as proposed, e.g., by PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 162. This rendering is less likely, but it would also make sense in the context of the story of 10:1ff. 7 As correctly noted by MILGROM, Leviticus, 605, #dqh in ch. 10 more likely refers to the sacred precinct than to the sanctuary; although this meaning is less frequent in P it has never-

580

Chapter Six: Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Lev 10 and Editorial Closure

The meaning of the account of v. 1–5 depends essentially on the identification of the exact nature of Nadab’s and Abihu’s crime in v. 1, a classical crux that gave rise to numerous proposals. The rabbinic tradition, which offered no less than twelve alternative explanations, testifies to the fact that it was already a matter of intense speculation in antiquity.8 The formulation of v. 1 indicates unmistakably that this crime lies in the offering of a “profane” (hrz) fire (#)) to Yahweh.9 All other explanations of the death of Nadab and Abihu – such as for instance the assumption (itself based on the prohibition of v. 9) that they approached the altar in a state of drunkenness10 – are mere speculations without any textual basis in v. 1–2 and may be left aside. Yet even regarding the meaning of the expression hrz #), several proposals have been made which cannot be reviewed in detail here. The vast majority of them, however, are unsatisfactory. The idea that Nadab and Abihu would have violated the legislation on the altar of perfumes in Ex 30 either because they presented an offering not in conformity with the recipe of 30:34–36,11 or because they attempted to offer incense on the altar of perfumes (see Ex 30:1–10) outside the daily incense offering prescribed in Ex 30:7–8,12 can hardly be correct. It is true that Ex 30:9 prohibits the offering of “strange incense” (hrz tr+q) on the altar of perfumes but the incense offered by Nadab and Abihu is not burnt on the altar but on individual censer-pans, as v. 1 makes clear.13 Besides, the two priests are not simply condemned for theless some parallels (see for instance HARAN , Temples, 172 n. 50). In v. 18 (MT) it is recalled that Aaron and his sons are to eat the flesh of the purification offering #dqb, which cannot mean “inside the sanctuary” since this would openly contradict the legislation of Lev 6–7, see 6:19 (as correctly perceived by the Greek translator of 10:18). Besides, nowhere in the priestly literature is it stated that priests are allowed inside the shrine, a privilege which seems to be reserved to the high priest (cf. Ex 30:1–10). The opposite is even implied by the legislation of Lev 4. In the case of the major blood rite, the ritual has to be performed by the high priest, but not in the case of the minor rite. Obviously the difference has to do with the fact that only in the former case is blood brought into the shrine. 8 See Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26; Midr. Lev. Rab. 20; and on this S HINAN, Sins (Hebrew); KIRSCHNER, Incident; as well as MILGROM, Leviticus, 633–35. 9 For this rendering of rz in a cultic context: SNIJDERS, art. zu=r, 55–56. 10 This idea, already found in the rabbinic tradition, is adopted by some modern commentators, see e.g. DOUGLAS, Leviticus, 201; KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 81–82; most recently Q UIROGA , “Dos Sacerdotos”. Similarly, the idea that Nadab and Abihu died because they attempted to enter the inner-sanctum (thus KIUCHI, Ibid., 81–84, see already GRADWOHL, Das “fremde Feuer”, 289–292) may be partly correct (see below) but still does not explain why their offering is described as a “profane fire”. 11 E.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 349–50; see also DILLMANN, Leviticus, 471; most recently DEIANA, Levitico, 112 n. 29. Note that this view is already found in Josephus, Ant. III. 209. 12 Thus in particular LEVINE, Leviticus, 59; WENHAM, Leviticus, 155. For the idea of an untimely offering, see also ELLIGER, Leviticus, 137. 13 This point is missed by RENDTORFF, Nadab and Abihu, esp. 362, who seeks to connect the crime of Aaron’s sons to the prohibition of offering “profane” incense upon the inner altar in Ex 30:9; but note his own criticism of this solution in ID., Leviticus, 308.

6.2. A Close Study of Leviticus 10

581

offering “profane incense” but a profane fire, suggesting that it is not the incense per se which was the cause of their death.14 Others have conjectured that the expression hrz #) in 10:1 should be explained by the fact that the rite performed by Aaron’s sons was regarded by the author of ch. 10 as a foreign, non-Yahwistic rite.15 Although the idea of a double entendre on the meaning of the term hrz in the context of Lev 10 is attractive, a reference to foreign cults is allusive at best.16 Above all, this solution faces the problem that elsewhere in the priestly literature the offering of incense on individual censers is perfectly legitimate; see Lev 16:12–13 and Num 17:6–15. The most common solution, finally, has been to interpret the expression as literally as possible, so as to mean that Nadab and Abihu would have put incense on a fire which was not taken from the outer altar and was therefore a “profane fire”.17 This solution actually goes back to the LXX, which rendered hrz #) by pu=r a)llo/trion both in Lev 10:1 and 16:1; it is also found in the rabbinic tradition. It is true that the use of fire from the outer altar is explicitly commanded in the two other accounts of censer-incense offering, Lev 16 (v. 12) and Num 17 (v. 11). Yet, as already observed by Dillmann, if the same notion was intended in Lev 10, the profane provenance of the fire used by Nadab and Abihu should have been specified at the beginning, not at the end of the description of the ritual act undertaken by Aaron’s sons, when the fire they used was mentioned for the first time, exactly as is the case in the instructions of Lev 16:12–13 and Num 17:11.18 Instead, the formulation of 10:1 suggests that the “profane fire” 14

A point correctly stressed by HARTLEY, Leviticus, 132. Thus especially ROBINSON , Strange Fire, 309–310; ZWICKEL, Räucherkult, 280–281; H ARTLEY , Leviticus, 132; LAUGHLIN , “Strange Fire”, who finds a reference to Achemenid rituals. This idea is also resumed, albeit more cautiously, by ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 97ff., who presumes a reference to the concern for the ritual purity of fire in Achemenid religion. 16 This remark also applies to the recent interpretation by Achenbach and his attempt to understand Lev 10:1 as a response to Achemenid fire rites (see the previous note). Although he correctly criticizes Laughlin’s interpretation and offers a fine survey of Iranian sources on this point, the relationship to Lev 10:1 is only very briefly addressed (ID., Vollendung, 100) and remains quite speculative in my opinion. That there is a “subversive-receptive opposition” (sic) of Persian religion in the representation of Yahweh as a firecloud in the Torah is possible (although one should rather start from the observation that fire and cloud are the two traditional attributes of the storm-god in Syria-Palestine, as noted above in the analysis of Lev 16), but to see a connection between this representation and the “profane fire” of Nadab and Abihu, as Achenbach apparently suggests, seems to me obviously forced. 17 Thus already BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 349; further HARAN, Uses of Incense, 115; ID., Temples, 232; NOTH, Leviticus, 84–85; GRADWOHL, Das “fremde Feuer”, 290–291; LAUGHLIN , “Strange Fire”, 560–561; KORNFELD , Levitikus, 41; MILGROM , Leviticus, 598; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 132; STAUBLI, Levitikus, 86; most recently ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 96–97. According to MILGROM, Ibid., 628–633, the obligation to take fire from the sacrificial altar when offering incense would be intended to ensure control of the temple over this practice. 18 DILLMANN, Leviticus, 471. See also for a similar observation PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 161; HEGER, Incense Cult, 80. That is, the text of v. 1 should have read: “Nadab and Abihu each took his pan and put ‘profane’ fire on it…”. Note, interestingly, that this is 15

582

Chapter Six: Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Lev 10 and Editorial Closure

results from the addition of incense (tr+q) on the fire burning in Nadab’s and Abihu’s censers.19 Also, in the context of Lev 9–10 it is more logical that the fire taken by Nadab and Abihu stems from the altar, since their offering follows immediately the offering of the first sacrifices on the altar in Lev 9. Actually, too little attention has been given in general to the fact that the nature of the crimes of the two priests is specified by the narrator himself in a short comment concluding his report of their transgression, v. 1bb. If the fire presented by the two priests is a profane offering, it is because it was not commanded by Yahweh: Mt) hwc )l r#).20 With regard to the previous narrative in Lev 1–9, this assertion is literally true:21 Nadab’s and Abihu’s offering is missing from the instructions given by Moses to Aaron for the first sacrifices in ch. 9 (see v. 2ff.), and even in the to=ra= on the offerings that may be brought by the community in Lev 1–7 it has no counterpart. Moreover, this tension is underlined by the unmistakable contrast between the comment of 10:1bb and the recurring phrase hwhy hwc r#)k in the account of Lev 8–9 stressing the conformity of the ritual performance with the instructions given earlier by Yahweh.22 Read in this light, the story of Nadab and Abihu points the reader’s attention to the complete omission of censer-incense offering from the public cult in Lev 1–9. But why such an omission? The answer to that question may be found when it is observed that in the other accounts on censer-incense offering in the priestly literature (and even in the whole Torah), namely, Lev 16: 12–13 and Num 17:6–15, the performance of this rite is always a competence reserved to the high priest, and even an eminent symbol of the latter’s status as the community’s mediator. In particular, this is the doctrine defined in the context of the story of Num 16 recounting an ordeal opposing Aaron and 250 (!) chieftains of the community, each of whom performs a censer-incense rite. precisely how certain authors adopting this solution are led to paraphrase the Hebrew text. See for instance CLEMENTS, art. qt[r, 16: “Lev. 10,1–7 spricht von der Sünde von Nadab und Abihu, die ‘fremdes Feuer’ ()e4s] za4ra4h) nahmen, um zu räuchern”. 19 DILLMANN, Leviticus, 471. 20 For a similar idea, see DILLMANN, Ibid.; more recently, HEGER, Incense Cult, 57–59. 21 A point also noted by HEINISCH, Leviticus, 48; see further HEGER, Incense Cult, 57–59. IBANEZ ARAMA, El Levitico, 107, similarly comments that this statement is the only clear reason why Aaron’s sons were condemned: “más no sabemos”. 22 For the phrase hwhy hwc r#)k concluding a ritual performance, see Lev 8:9, 13, 17, 21, 29, 31; 9:10; cf. also 8:36; further 8:4 and 9:6. Conversely, the narrator’s final comment in v. 1bb cannot be satisfactorily accounted for by the common view according to which the crime of Nadab and Abihu would lie in the use of fire from outside the altar (see above), since it is stated nowhere in Lev 1–9 (or even earlier in Ex) that fire would necessarily have to be taken from the altar. R OBINSON, Strange Fire, 309–310, is one of the few authors to have noticed the problem. She wants to read v. 1bb as a positive interdiction (i.e., “which he had ordered not to do”), and views it as a reference to a former ban by Yahweh on the kindling of profane fire. Not only is this syntactically difficult, but there is no such prohibition earlier in P. Robinson wants to find it in Ex 35:3a, but she can only do this by radically reconstructing the text.

6.2. A Close Study of Leviticus 10

583

As the text makes clear, this ordeal must determine who will be the “Holy One” within the community, who is authorized to approach Yahweh and to stand before him (16:5, 7). The story ends with the destruction of the 250 chieftains (v. 35), thus demonstrating that only Aaron, the high priest, is permitted to carry out such an offering. This conception is then aptly illustrated by the narrative of Num 17:6–15, in which Aaron saves the community from God’s wrath by offering incense on a censer-pan. Since Kuenen, critics have consistently distinguished three layers in Num 16: the DathanAbiram account, the 250-chieftain tradition, and a story on Korah’s rebellion. In addition, the 250-chieftain layer in Num 16 was generally assigned to the Priestly source (either Pg or Ps), whereas the Dathan-Abiram story was viewed as J or JE.23 Regarding the Korah tradition, Gunneweg demonstrated that it was not original but had been introduced in the latest stage of composition, in connection with the reinterpretation of Num 16 as an inner clerical struggle between priests and levites; this conclusion has usually been followed since.24 The resulting sequence (Dathan-Abiram; 250 chieftains; Korah and the levites) is the subject of a certain consensus and can be found in most recent studies on Num 16.25 Contrary to the usual view, however, the 250-chieftain layer is probably not P but already post-P, as argued now by Achenbach and Seebass.26 The chieftains’ claim in 16:3 combines D and P language and suggests a reference to H, as observed earlier in this study;27 also, the late origin of this layer can 23 See, e.g., BAENTSCH , Numeri, 539ff.; HOLZINGER , Numeri, 65–70; GRAY, Numbers, 186ff.; RUDOLPH, Elohist, 81–84; NOTH, Numeri, 104–16. 24 GUNNEWEG, Leviten und Priester, 173–175, further AURELIUS, Fürbitter Israels, 195– 199; BLUM, Studien, 265–266; KNOHL, Sanctuary, 73–79; FRANKEL, Murmuring Stories, 208ff. The traditional view presupposed that Korah was originally not a Levite, which has no real support in the HB outside 1 Chr 2:43. Z WICKEL, Räucherkult, 296–297, attempted to reconstruct an older Korah-story in Num 16, but he was unable to recover a coherent text. 25 See, e.g., AURELIUS, Fürbitter Israels, 192–202; SCHMIDT, Studien, 115 and 135–146; ARTUS, Etudes, 163–197; SEEBASS, Numeri, 174–189. 26 ACHENBACH Vollendung, 54–66; S EEBASS , Numeri, 178ff. (“Kompositionsschicht”). Yet both authors assume (apparently independently) the existence of an earlier tradition behind the story of the 250 men, which was originally found, according to them, immediately after Lev 9. This hypothesis remains quite speculative and does not commend itself in my opinion. The reasons for suggesting the existence of such a tradition are not quite clear to me, and in any event its reconstruction appears to be almost impossible. Seebass’ proposal, in particular (finding the original account in Num 16:5*; 17:6–15*), has little plausibility. 27 See § 5.2.3., page 486. As was already noted by VON RAD, Priesterschrift, 109–110; further CRÜSEMANN, Tora, 415–416, the notion of the holiness of the entire community in this passage parallels in particular the statement found in Deut 7:6a and 14:2a, 21. At the same time, the justification of the chieftains’ claim by reference to the divine presence amidst the community (cf. hwhy Mkwtbw) in the same verse corresponds to one of P’s central statements (see Ex 29:45–46). The formulation of v. 3 thus apparently combines central motifs of the D and P traditions in order to prevent a possible misunderstanding in defining the community’s holiness. That all members of the community are holy does not imply that priests have become superfluous; on the contrary, the holy community needs cultic intermediaries, who have been chosen by Yahweh himself to serve him (root rxb , possibly an allusion to Deut 18:5 since this term occurs in P otherwise only in Num 17:20) and who possess a higher degree of sanctity than the rest of the community (cf. v. 5 and 7a). This conception coincides with H’s theology, see on this above § 5.2.3.

584

Chapter Six: Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Lev 10 and Editorial Closure

be corroborated by an examination of its vocabulary.28 This solution, we may note in passing, solves the problem that the 250-men layer has no proper introduction (syntactically, v. 2ab offers an awkward opening to a new narrative) but has been fused into the beginning of the Dathan/Abiram story and is therefore redactional.29 If so, the third and last layer, the rebellion of Korah and the levites, is the work of a still later editor, as acknowledged by some recent studies.30 With Achenbach, it may be assigned to the “theocratic revision” in Numbers.31

As often noted, the story of Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10 shows obvious parallels with the story of the 250 chieftains in Num 16. Indeed, the language of Lev 10:1–2 anticipates the two key passages of the story of Num 16, namely the description of the ordeal itself (v. 18) and its conclusion (v. 35). Leviticus 10:1 (MT)

Numbers 16:18 (MT)

wayyiqh9u= be6ne= )aha6ron … )îs\ mah9ta4to= wayyitte6nu= ba4he4n )e4s\ wayya4s8îmu= (a4le=ha4 qe6t[oret wayyaqribu= lipne= YHWH

wayyiqh9u= )îs\ mah9ta4to= wayyitte6nu= (a4le=hem )e4s\ wayya4s8îmu= (a6le=hem qe6t[oret wayya(amdu= petah9 )ohel mo=(e4d

Leviticus 10:2

Numbers 16:35

watte4s[e4) )e4s\ millipne= YHWH watto)kal )o=ta4m wayya4mutu= lipne= YHWH

we6)e4s\ ya4se6[)a= me4)e4t YHWH watto)kal )e4t hah9a6mis\s\îm u=ma4)tayim )îs\ maqrîbe= haqqe6t[oret

The story of Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10:1–2 appears therefore as a kind of digest of the ordeal between Aaron and the 250 chieftains in Num 1632. The interpolation of this story in the book of Leviticus anticipates the more detailed account of Num 16–17, where the doctrine of the priestly editors of the Torah regarding censer-incense offering as a privilege reserved for the high priest exclusively is laid out. In addition, the connection between Lev 10 and Num 16 is also signaled by another aspect of the account of Nadab and Abihu. In Lev 10:4–5, when Moses commands Aaron’s cousins to take the corpses of his sons away from the sanctuary, one would logically expect this task to be incumbent upon the sons of Yizhar, the elder brother of Aaron’s father, Amram, and not upon the sons of Uzziel, the youngest brother (see Ex 28 See in particular on this the analyses by ZWICKEL, Räucherkult, 295; as well as KNOHL, Sanctuary, 81. The expression d(wm y)rq (v. 2b) is unique in the Hebrew Bible and seems to be modeled upon the formula hd(h y)yrq in Num 1:16 and 26:9 SamP. M#-y#n) is only found in Gen 6:4 and, in a slightly different formulation (twm# y#n)), in 1 Chr 5:24 and 12:31. Mklbr (v. 3a, 7b) is not typical of P but occurs in Deut and in Ez (see Deut 1:6; 2:3; 3:19, 26; Ez 44:6; 45:9). Lastly, hwhy lhq is not Priestly terminology either; outside Num 20:4 it is found in Deut 23 (v. 2, 3, 4, 9), Micah 2:5, and 1 Chr 28:8; 29:20. 29 For this assignment of the 250-men layer, see esp. ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 234–243. 30 SEEBASS, Numeri, 188–189 (“Die Bearbeitung gehört der Buchkomposition an”); and F RANKEL , Murmuring Stories, esp. 212–224, who regards it as being “post-editorial” (whatever this designation may mean). 31 ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 66ff. On this revision in Num, see also above, § 5.4.2.2. 32 See also ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 93ff.

6.2. A Close Study of Leviticus 10

585

6:21). Yet the first son of Yizhar is precisely Korah (Ex 6:21) who, in the final edition of Num 16, has become the leader of the rebels disputing Aaron’s supremacy!33 By having Nadab and Abihu buried by Uzziel’s sons Mishael and Elzaphan rather than by Korah and his brothers, the story of Lev 10 thus indirectly announces Korah’s rebellion in Num 16. This last observation shows that the interpolation of Lev 10 is contemporary with the last edition of Num 16–17 which, as argued above, should be assigned to the “theocratic revision” identified in Numbers by Achenbach. The necessity for the editors of the Torah to address the issue of censerincense offering in detail betrays the growing popularity – already discussed earlier in this study – of this type of offering in Persian period Yehud, when the wealthy elite became increasingly involved in the trade of incense with Arabian tribes.34 Yet the reason for reserving it for the high priest, as laid out in detail in Num 16–17, should be related to the representations traditionally associated with censer-incense offering. As observed earlier, if its use is not simply apotropaic (as reflected in Num 17:6–15!), incense typically serves to purify the offerer before approaching the deity.35 This precisely corresponds to the notion stated in Num 16:5 when the purpose of the ordeal opposing the high priest to the 250 chieftains is expressed: The man chosen by Yahweh for offering him incense on a censer is the man whom he will authorize to approach (brq) him. In P, the only occasion when a man may indeed enter the inner-sanctum and approach Yahweh is in Lev 16, when the high priest must perform the ceremony for the complete purification of the sanctuary. Censerincense also plays a major role in this ceremony (see 16:12–13, and on the meaning of this rite above, § 4.3.2.2.). The connection between Lev 16:12–13, Lev 10 and Num 16–17 is all the more unmistakable since, as noted above, in the entire Torah only these three passages mention censer-incense. Furthermore, this connection is explicitly established in Lev 16:1 MT, a late insert depending on Lev 10 and stating that Nadab and Abihu died for approaching (brq) Yahweh (i.e., with their offering of censer incense).36 This statement does not merely link ch. 10 and 16, it also builds a bridge, through the use of the verb brq (absent from 10:1–2, but see v. 3a) with the fundamental con33

Cf. MILGROM , Leviticus, 604; RENDTORFF , Leviticus, 313. Ex 6:18 mentions a third brother, Hebron, but as noted by Milgrom, pentateuchal authors never mention his offspring and were probably unaware of him. Even 1 Chr 23:19 lists his descendants, but not his sons. 34 See above, Chapter Three, especially §§ 3.2.2.4. and 3.3.4. The increase in popularity of incense rites in domestic contexts is attested in particular by the fact that nearly 300 cuboid altars from the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods were found in Palestine, which testifies to a remarkable spread of the cult of incense (WEIPPERT, Palästina, 716–17), and that it is at that time that the cuboid altar definitely supplanted the four-horned altar and became the dominant form (STERN, Limestone Incense Altars; WEIPPERT, Ibid.). 35 See above, § 2.3.2., p. 101ff. and, in the context of Lev 16, § 4.3.2.2. 36 On Lev 16:1 as an interpolation dependent on Lev 10, see above § 3.1.3.

586

Chapter Six: Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Lev 10 and Editorial Closure

ception laid out in Num 16:5. The intertextual network thus created, uniting Lev 10, Lev 16 and Num 16–17 through the interpolation of Lev 16:1, suggests that for the late priestly scribes responsible for these passages the reason for restricting censer-incense offering to the high priest exclusively despite the competing claims of other groups in the Second Temple period – priests (Lev 10), levites (Num 16), and even lay leaders of the community, if we take into account Ez 8:11 – has its legal-exegetical basis in the grand purification ceremony of Lev 16, and in the unique role played by censer-incense there.37 Yet in the context of the first part of Leviticus, ch. 1–10, the story of Nadab and Abihu also has a further function. It illustrates in narrative form the necessity of complete observance of Yahweh’s laws, as well as the consequences of disobedience. It is a didactic story, an “object of lesson”, as finely stated by B. Levine.38 As such, it offers an adequate conclusion to the first collection of laws revealed to Moses (ch. 1–9). Significantly, this exemplary function is stated by Moses himself in 10:3, when the latter briefly comments on the meaning of the death of Nadab and Abihu for Aaron. Moses’ exegesis of the episode consists in quoting a formula attributed to Yahweh himself (note that a similar device is found in Ex 16:2339): “By those near to me I shall be sanctified, and before all the people I shall be glorified”. The quote is apparently presented by Moses as a well-known saying.40 Classically, it was suggested that it was a traditional formula, mainly because of the poetic form,41 yet this is unlikely. Although a similar statement by Yahweh is not 37 ACHENBACH, Vollendung, esp. 100–101, also concludes that Lev 10:1 is linked to the restriction of the offering of censer-incense to the high priest, as in Num 16, but misses the connection with Lev 16:12–13, which he would apparently regard as a late interpolation. Yet his argument for this conclusion (Ibid., 100 n. 226), the parallel with the late legend in 2 Chr 26:16–21, proves nothing regarding the age of Lev 16:12–13. Actually, the account of 2 Chr 26, which differs in the MT and the LXX, is complex because it seems to confuse the offering of incense on censers with that on the altar of perfumes, and even to situate the latter in the inner-sanctum instead of the outer-sanctum as in P (cf. Ex 30). On the reasons to retain v. 12– 13 as original in Lev 16 and on the function of this rite, see above § 4.3.1.3., pages 363–365. 375ff. Yet Achenbach also suggests that the privilege of offering censer-incense included the high priest’s family on the basis of 2 Chr 26:18 (referring to “the priests, sons of Aaron, who have been consecrated for burning incense”), thus seemingly contradicting his own thesis on the same page. Actually, this Chronicles tradition probably reflects a later development. 38 LEVINE, Leviticus, 58. 39 ELLIGER, Leviticus, 137 and n. 7; RENTDORFF, Leviticus, 310. 40 Alternatively, one could also argue that it is an ad hoc statement by God prompted by the incident with Aaron’s sons: thus recently MILGROM, Leviticus, 600, with earlier references; he is followed by SAVRAN, Encountering, 156–157 with n. 28. But this is less likely since in this case it should have been placed in the mouth of Yahweh himself (as in v. 8ff.) rather than of Moses. Note also that this was not the understanding of the ancient versions either; the LXX, e.g., clearly interprets this phrase as a reference to a former divine saying. 41 See BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 350 (“ein früheres Gotteswort); NOTH, Leviticus, 83; ELLIGER , Leviticus, 133 (“offensichtlich aus einem größeren poetischen Zusammenhang”); still recently KORNFELD, Levitikus, 41; GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus, 108.

6.2. A Close Study of Leviticus 10

587

reported earlier in the Torah, it actually fits entirely into the narrative context of Lev 10. The motif of Yahweh’s “glorification” (root dbk) corresponds to 9: 23b, the manifestation of Yahweh’s dwbk before the entire community concluding the offering of the first sacrifices and the climax of the entire account in Lev 1–9, itself prepared by Ex 29:43.42 Note further that in Ex 29:43, the motif of glorification was already linked to that of sanctification (#dq Niphal, as in Lev 10:3), as in the statement of Lev 10:3. That this connection was obvious to ancient readers is confirmed by the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Lev 10:3, in which this passage is conflated with Ex 29:43, reading: “Through those who come before me I shall consecrate the Tabernacle… ” (!).43 Thus, the formula is more likely a creation by the author of Lev 10; its presentation by Moses as a well-known saying should be viewed as a literary device. The reference to Lev 9:23b and further Ex 29:43 in Moses’ comment highlights the meaning of the transgression of Aaron’s sons in the wider context of Lev 1–10. The offering of a “profane”, un-holy fire to Yahweh threatens the new cosmic order inaugurated by the institution of the sacrificial cult, the hallmark of which was precisely the manifestation of Yahweh’s dwbk to all Israel. The first part of the saying, #dq) ybrqb, is also an apt comment on the general function of the cult and of the cultic servants in particular, which thus completes and interprets the account of ch. 1–9. The designation of the priests by the term biqe6robay, a substantive formed on the verb brq, “to draw near”, hence literally, “those near to me”, is unique in the priestly literature. Elsewhere in the HB, qa4ro=b “is a technical term, designating an official who can have access to (qa4rab) his sovereign directly, without resorting to an intermediary (Ez 23:12; Esth 1:14)”.44 The use of this term here in Lev 10 thus suggests the traditional analogy between temple and palace in antiquity, representing God as a king and the priests as his viziers. The phrase in 10:3 ybrqb #dq) recalls in particular the unique statement of Lev 22:32, the conclusion to the first part of the H legislation in ch. 17–26 (Lev 17–22) according to which Yahweh must be sanctified by the community in the midst of which he resides, since they are the only two passages in Leviticus using #dq Niphal;45 42 On the link with Ex 29:43, see also FREVEL, Kein Ende?, 95, speaking of “ein geradezu midraschartiger Bezug von Lev 10,3 auf Ex 29,43f.”; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 101–102. 43 Note also that Ex 29:43 is itself related to the theme of the priests’ consecration to Yahweh’s service, which follows immediately after in v. 44. 44 MILGROM, Leviticus, 600, who also points out the analogy with Akk. qurbu4tu, as in the expression s]a qurbu4ti, the title of an official. Correcting the MT’s vocalization, as suggested by SEGAL, Divine Verdict, who proposes to read the verbal form, biqre4bay, “those who trespass upon me”, is unnecessary. Besides, as noted by Milgrom (Ibid., 601), the verb qa4rab in the Qal conjugation “never takes a direct object but generally requires the preposition )el ”. 45 See above, the comment on Lev 22:31–33 in § 5.2.3., p. 495 with n. 381. The closest parallel to this notion in the Hebrew Bible as a whole would be in a few (late) passages of Ez, see 20:41; 28:22, 25; 36:23; 38:16 and 39:27, although even there the situation is different.

588

Chapter Six: Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Lev 10 and Editorial Closure

in the context of ch. 10, however, it specifically refers to the priests. Although #dq) ybrqb is usually rendered by “through those near to me, I shall sanctify myself”,46 nothing prevents a passive rendering (“through those near to me, I shall be sanctified”), as in 22:32; this was already the understanding of the 47 LXX in particular. Because the priests have been specially sanctified by Yahweh to approach and serve him (Lev 21:6–8), they are also particularly liable to desecrate (llh Piel) the sanctuary, as stated in Lev 21:23.48 Thus, while, in a general sense, it is the duty of the entire community to sanctify the deity residing in its midst by observing his commandments (Lev 22:32), it is even more that of the priests because, as the holiest members of the community, they are in charge of the sanctuary. In this respect, the phrase #dq) ybrqb in 10:3 may be viewed as a comment reapplying the general statement of 22:32 to the priestly class in the context of the incident with Nadab and Abihu and, more generally, of the ceremony of the offering of the first sacrifices in Lev 9–10. Simultaneously, in the context of the account of v. 1–2, the expression #dq) ybrqb is also reminiscent of the use of b #dq Niphal in similar contexts where Yahweh reveals his sanctity by punishing or defeating his enemies.49 In the Hebrew Bible, this use is mostly found in Ezekiel’s oracles of judgments (see Ez 28:22; 38:16, 33), although it has a parallel in Num 20:13, the (post-P) conclusion to the story of Qadesh-Meribat (for the analysis of this passage, see above, § 1.1., Excursus 1). If so, #dq) ybrqb in 10:3, coming after the incident with Nadab and Abihu, might well imply a double entendre: i.e., if Yahweh is not sanctified by his priests, he will sanctify himself “through” them, that is, at their expense, exactly as in Ezekiel’s oracles. This double meaning actually reflects both aspects (positive and negative) of the divine presence in the final form of the account of the eighth day in ch. 9–10, a point also underlined by the deliberate contrast between 9:23–24 and 10:1–2.50 As such, 10:3 concludes the exemplary story of Nadab’s and Abihu’s transgression with an elaborate teaching in the form of a comment placed in Moses’ mouth and alluding to different traditions in P, H and Ez, on the very ambivalence implied by the divine presence inside the community as well as on the general purpose of the sacrificial cult and the priests’ specific responsibility in this regard.

Otherwise in the Pentateuch #dq Niphal occurs only in Ex 29:43 and Num 20:13, as pointed out, e.g., by ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 101–102. 46 See, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 350; E LLIGER , Leviticus, 131; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 126–128; etc.; but see however PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 161–162. 47 Cf. )En toi=j e0ggi/zousi/n moi a(giasqh/somai. Note that the passive rendering is also commonly found in the rabbinic tradition. 48 See further on this issue the above analysis of Lev 21–22 in § 5.2.3. 49 LEVINE, Leviticus, 59–60; MILGROM, Leviticus, 601–602; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 134. 50 For more details, see above, § 2.3.2.

589

6.2. A Close Study of Leviticus 10

6.2.2. Leviticus 10:6–7 6

Moses said to Aaron, to Eleazar and to Ithamar, his sons: “Do not dishevel your hair51 and do not tear your clothes, or you will die and he (Yahweh) will be angry against all the community; but your brothers, all the house of Israel, will weep for the burning which Yahweh has caused.52 7And you shall not go outside the entrance of the tent of meeting, lest you die, for Yahweh’s anointing oil is upon you”. They did as Moses had said.

This instruction on funerary rites follows logically after the account of Nadab’s and Abihu’s death and of the removal of their corpses in v. 1–5. It is also closely related to the issue introduced by the former episode, namely the priests’ responsibility in preserving the sanctuary’s holiness (cf. v. 3). As in Lev 21 already, an essential aspect of the priests’ duty is to avoid desecrating themselves by profane customs, especially in the case of contact with a dead person. Indeed, the interdiction made to Aaron and his sons to mourn the two priests and to leave the sanctuary’s precinct (i.e., during the period of mourning) follows closely the legislation of Lev 21:10–12.53 Leviticus 10:6–7

Leviticus 21:10, 12 …lwdgh Nhkhw

w(rpt-l) Mky#)r

6

wmrpt-)l Mkydgbw w)ct )l d(wm lh) xtpmw 7 Mkyl( hwhy tx#m Nm#-yk

10

(rpy )l w#)r-t) Mrpy )l wydgbw )cy )l #dqmh-Nmw

12

wyl( wyhl) tx#m Nm# rzn yk

The language of 10:6–7 is identical to 21:10–12, except that 10:7 uses lh) instead of #dqm and reads Nm# instead of the compound Nm# rzn. Still, there is one significant difference: in H, this law applies to the high priest exclusively, whereas for the other priests the mourning custom is actually the same as for the rest of the community (cf. 21:6, and compare with 19:27–28a). According to the law of Lev 21:1–4, Eleazar and Ithamar should have been allowed to mourn their own brothers, explicitly included among the r)#, the close kin for whom mourning is permitted (Lev 21:2; cf. also Ez 44:25). In Lev 21, it is only for the high priest that the interdiction to approach a dead person, even a close parent, is absolute. In Lev 10, it is now extended to his two sons, and this development is justified in the motive clause at the end of Moses’ instruction in v. 7, “for Yahweh’s anointing oil is upon you”. Signifid(wm

51

Literally, “unloose the head”, namely, “to unloose the headband so that one’s hair may fall free” (HARTLEY, Leviticus, 128). 52 Namely: hwhy Pr# r#) hpr#h-t), literally, “the burning that Yahweh burnt”. 53 The parallel between the two texts was often noted; see, e.g., BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 350. NOTH , Leviticus, 86, already observed that 10:6–7 was dependent on 21:10. KNOHL, Sanctuary, 68–69, similarly assigns 10:6–7 to H on the basis of the parallel with Lev 21.

590

Chapter Six: Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Lev 10 and Editorial Closure

cantly, exactly the same motivation already served to justify the legislation for the high priest in 21:10–12, see v. 12. The author of H was still relying on the original tradition in P as recounted in Ex 29; Lev 8, in which anointing with oil is indeed Aaron’s exclusive privilege (see Ex 29:7; Lev 8:12); nothing is said about a similar act for his sons. The author of Lev 10, on the contrary, reflects the revision attested in a few later passages in P (Ex 40:14–15; Num 3:3; Ex 28:41?), enjoining the anointing of all the priests and thus tending to equate them in dignity with the high priest. Whether the author of Lev 10 is also the redactor responsible for the interpolation of this revision elsewhere in the “priestly” literature or whether he already presupposes this development cannot be decided.54 At any rate, the story of the death of Nadab and Abihu was for him the occasion to state a legal point against H. If Aaron must abstain from any contact with a dead person because he was anointed with the sacred oil, then the same should apply to the other priests since, in the textual tradition known to the author of Lev 10, they also partake of this dignity, despite the alternative conception expressed in the instruction of Lev 21:1–4. Yet, it should also be noted that this actualization of H, aligning it with the more recent tradition about the anointing of Aaron’s sons, is no longer decreed by Yahweh but placed in the mouth of Moses, apparently speaking here on his own initiative since no previous commission formula is reported in v. 6–7. In other words, we are no longer in the register of legal instruction properly speaking but rather of (authorized) commentary. By means of this device the author of Leviticus 10 may seek to avoid the idea that Yahweh could contradict himself within the to=ra= of Leviticus.55 6.2.3. Leviticus 10:8–11 8

Yahweh spoke to Aaron: 9“Do not drink wine or alcohol, you and your sons, when you are to enter the Tent of meeting, and thus you shall not die; it is a permanent decree throughout your generations: 10it is in order to separate (ldb) between sacred (#dq) and profane (lx), and between unclean ()m+) and clean (rwh+), 11and to teach to the Israelites all the laws that Yahweh has spoken to them through Moses”.

This section was classically regarded as a kind of erratic insert in ch. 10, hardly connected to what precedes (Noth: “quite unrelated to this context”).56 54 However, Lev 10 should probably be assigned to the same redactional layer as Ex 40, which also preserves this tradition (cf. v. 14–15) and is usually regarded as the last major interpolation in Ex 25–40; see above, § 3.1.2., pages 127–128. 55 It should be observed that the reference to Israel as a people of “brothers” presupposed in v. 6 is also characteristic of H (see 19:17; 25:14, 25, 35, 36, 39, 46, 47, 48). One may wonder whether this designation of the people in 10:6 does not also serve a specific function in the context of ch. 10. Namely, Nadab and Abihu, who could not be buried and mourned by their brothers Eleazar and Ithamar as the instruction of Lev 21:2 would have it, will nevertheless be buried by their “brothers” in a wider sense, i.e., the entire house of Israel. 56 Leviticus, 86. See already for this view BAENTSCH, Leviticus, 351.

6.2. A Close Study of Leviticus 10

591

In the rabbinic tradition, this had already generated the idea that Nadab and Abihu would have died for entering the sanctuary while being drunk, a view still adopted by some modern commentators.57 As noted above, the connection is actually given, in the narrative’s logic, by the fact that the prohibition on drinking wine is meant to avoid another possible cause of death, as in v. 6– 7 already (cf. wtmt )lw, v. 9). Yet there is a deeper connection with the overall theme of the story of ch. 10. It has been commonly assumed that the ban on alcohol would have to do with practices of ritual intoxication in antiquity which the author of ch. 10 was eager to condemn.58 Although this cannot be excluded, a more likely ground is that holiness, in the Priestly tradition, is typically associated with notions of permanence and non-corruption; ingestion of alcohol, on the contrary, is an eminent form of (provisional) alteration of one’s physical and psychic state and is thus the antithesis of holiness. For this reason, the nazîr (the ‘separate’) must abstain from ingesting intoxicating drinks during the period of his consecration to Yahweh (Num 6:3–4, see also Num 6:20!). Here, Lev 10 applies the same principle to all priests during their office, that is, during the time when they are in contact with the sacred sphere of the sanctuary. In this regard, the prohibition of v. 8 pursues the theme introduced by v. 1–5 and 6–7, namely, the priests’ responsibility in preserving the holy realm. Some authors also observed that this law has a close parallel in the to= r a= on priestly duties found in Ez 44:15–31 (see v. 21); the correspondence is all the more significant because in Ez 44 the ban on alcohol also follows an instruction on mourning rites for priests in v. 20, yielding the same sequence as in Lev 10:6–7, 8–9.59 Yet Ez 44:21 mentions only the prohibition on drinking wine, while Lev 10:9 enlarges it by using the pairing rk#w Nyy, possibly a merism for all manner of alcoholic drink.60 This development is consistent with the nazir legislation in Num 6:3, but it may also betray the influence of prophetic criticism, where the same pair occurs several times (see Isa 28:7!; further Isa 5:11; 29:9; 56:12; and Mi 2:11).61 The prohibition on alcoholic drinks is then motivated in v. 10–11 by the assertion that priests have to be permanently able to accomplish two fundamental tasks: separating sacred from profane and unclean from clean (v. 10), and teaching the Israelites all of Yahweh’s statutes (Myqx , v. 11). The two statements have a marked editorial character. They can be viewed as a sum57

See the references given above, note 10. NOTH, Leviticus, 87; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 138; and recently RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 314. 59 For this observation, see for example NOTH, Leviticus, 87; and more recently in particular ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 105ff. 60 rk# is sometimes rendered by “ale” (thus, e.g., MILGROM, Leviticus, 611–612), but the pair rk#w Nyy is probably meant as a general designation for all sorts of alcoholic beverages, as is suggested by the other occurrences of this pair elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible; see LEVINE, Leviticus, 61; PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 164; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 135, etc. 61 For a similar suggestion, see ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 107. 58

592

Chapter Six: Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Lev 10 and Editorial Closure

mary of the essence of priestly duty and have been aptly placed in the very center of the chapter – indeed, in the sole speech in the entire book of Leviticus addressed to Aaron alone (v. 8).62 Once again, the connection with v. 9 is logical, although it has usually been missed (thus, among others, Baentsch: “zwischen v. 9 u. 10 besteht kein Zshg”),63 or restricted to the idea that ingestion of alcohol would prevent priests from using their intellectual capacities.64 In reality, a more fundamental association prevails. Since, as noted above, drunkenness is not compatible with a state of holiness, the ban on alcohol offers a perfect introduction to the command made to priests to separate between sacred and profane in v. 10. Here also, the sequence gives another striking parallel with that found in the to=ra= of Ez 44, where a similar command comes shortly after the ban on wine, in v. 23. Yet in two respects, Lev 10 goes beyond Ez 44.65 First, as observed above, the two laws are now closely connected in Lev 10; they are no longer simply juxtaposed, as in Ez 44, but a logical relation is defined between them, i.e., if priests must abstain from alcohol it is because they must be able to separate between sacred and profane and unclean and clean. The association achieved is not merely esthetic, it also betrays an ongoing reflection on the basic categories of priestly thinking, in this case the nature of holiness and its opposition to altered states of consciousness, as suggested above. Second, Lev 10 further develops the instruction of v. 10 by connecting it with the command to teach all of Yahweh’s laws to the Israelites in v. 11. The use of qx in the sense of “law, statute” is quite uncommon in the “priestly” portions of the Torah; in the context of Leviticus, it is very likely an allusion to Lev 26:46, the subscription to the Sinaitic legislation and the only other passage in the book where this term has the same sense rather than its traditional meaning in P, i.e., a sacrificial portion assigned to the priests. The assertion that priests are responsible for teaching (hry!) the people God’s laws has no equivalent in Ez 44, or elsewhere in P or in Ezekiel, although it is to 62 The editorial nature of v. 10–11 is well perceived by MILGROM, Leviticus, 615–618, who proposes for this reason regarding them as an interpolation by H. In the interpretation proposed here for the composition of Lev 10, this is no longer necessary. 63 Leviticus, 351. 64 Thus for example LEVINE, Leviticus, 61; DEIANA, Levitico, 113. 65 HURVITZ , Linguistic Study, 113–15, resuming an earlier study by HANNEMANN , Preposition, argued that the formulation be4yn… le6 in Ez 22:26; 42:20 and 44:23 instead of be4yn… u=be4yn in Lev 10:10 would be an indication of the later origin of Ezekiel. This argument has since been accepted by some scholars. Yet not only does this observation take no account of the possibility of deliberate archaism in Lev 10 but examination of the occurrence of these two formulas in the Hebrew Bible suggests that the evidence is actually much more ambiguous, as is already emphasized by Hannemann himself. Even Hurvitz must eventually acknowledge that “be4 y n… le6 is not a total innovation of the later period. This expression already occurs in classical biblical literature, in Priestly as well as non-Priestly passages” (Ibid., 114, n. 179), making the use of this distinction somewhat problematic.

6.2. A Close Study of Leviticus 10

593

some extent reminiscent of the command given to the priests to “keep” (rm#) God’s instructions (trwt) and statutes (tqx) in Ez 44:24; yet it corresponds to the statement found in Deut 33:10.66 In Lev 10, however, this conception is not only combined with the command to separate between sacred and profane but even presented as an extension of the latter. The very significance of this development can be fully appreciated when it is recalled that the separation between sacred and profane, clean and unclean actually corresponds to the traditional meaning of the term to=ra= in priestly circles, as is also found in Ez 44:23 (cf. Deut 24:8; Ez 22:26; Zeph 3:4; Hag 2:11).67 In Lev 10, the command to teach has now been transferred from ritual matters, specifically, to the totality (cf. Myqxh-lk) of Yahweh’s decrees. In other words, the priests who were traditionally responsible for teaching the cultic to=ra= have now become teachers of the Torah in general. But in Lev 10, this innovation is justified by the skillful juxtaposition of v. 10 and 11, the recalling of the traditional priestly duty in v. 10 leading logically to their presentation as teachers of the Law in the next verse! In many respects, the device that can be observed here comprises the very center of Lev 10. We shall return to it at the end of this analysis. 6.2.4. Leviticus 10:12–15 12

Moses spoke to Aaron and to Eleazar and Ithamar, his remaining sons: “Take what remains of the cereal offering from the (burnt) offerings to Yahweh and eat it unleavened beside the altar for it is most sacred. 13You shall eat it in a sacred place for it is your portion (qx) and the portion of your sons of the (burnt) offerings for Yahweh; for so I have been commanded. 14As to the breast of the elevation offering and the thigh of the contribution, you shall eat them in a clean place (MT) you, your sons, and your daughters (MT ; the LXX reads: “and your house”) after you, for they were given as your portion and the portion of your sons from the wellbeing offerings of the Israelites. 15The thigh of the contribution and the breast of the elevation, they shall bring them along with the fat pieces of the (burnt) offerings in order to raise them as an elevation offering before Yahweh; this shall be a permanent due for you and for your sons after you, as Yahweh has commanded”.

The two remaining sections of ch. 10, v. 12–15 and 16–20, introduce a new motif, namely the disposal of the sacrificial remains of the previous ceremony in ch. 9. As observed above (§ 6.1.), they round off the account of the eighth day in Lev 9–10 and bring it to a close. The underlying logic is obvious: the account of ch. 9 said nothing concerning the disposal of the sacrificial remains, yet for the author of ch. 10 the ritual could not be complete as long as this problem was not addressed. For this reason, v. 12–15, 16–20 now recount 66 The insertion of Moses’ blessing in Deut 33 should probably be assigned to a pentateuchal redactor; see SCHORN, Ruben, 106–114; OTTO, Deuteronomium, 189 n. 154. 67 On this, see above in this study, Chapter Three, especially § 3.6., pages 265 and 268. The same notion is consistently presupposed, of course, throughout Lev 11–15, coming immediately after Lev 10; see above Chapter Four, § 4.1.3., page 300.

594

Chapter Six: Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Lev 10 and Editorial Closure

the assignment of the sacrificial portions to the priests in agreement with the previous to= r a= of Lev 6–7, thus aligning the – chronologically earlier – account of ch. 9 with it.68 At the same time, in a manner distinctive of the kind of skillful legal exegesis practiced by late priestly scribes, this narrative alignment of ch. 9 with ch. 6–7 is also an opportunity to clarify the legislation on the disposal of sacrificial remains, or even to supplement it.69 Regarding the four offerings made by Aaron and his sons on behalf of the community in Lev 9 (v. 15–22), the problem of the disposal of the sacrificial remains did logically not arise in the case of the burnt offering since all the edible portions are burnt on the altar (compare with Lev 6:2–6). The cereal offering and the well-being offering are treated in the first instruction, 10:12–15. Finally, the purification offering presented a specific difficulty because in this case it was no longer possible for the author of ch. 10 to harmonize the account of ch. 9 with the legislation of Lev 6–7. For this reason, it was dealt with in a separate section, v. 16–20; as we shall see in detail below (§ 6.2.5.), the problem raised by the irreconcilable contradiction within Lev 1–9 on this point was used in a creative way by the author of Lev 10 so as to underline the priests’ (relative) freedom in Scripture’s exegesis. Once the wider context of chapters 9–10 as a whole is taken into account, and not simply ch. 10 alone, v. 12–20 should no longer be viewed as a mere appendix disconnected from the previous narrative, as was classically done.70 Rather, the verses pursue the overall theme of ch. 10, the priests’ observance of the law, but this time in connection with the offering of the first sacrifices in Lev 9 and no longer exclusively with the death of Nadab and Abihu as in v. 6–11. Yet there is an even more subtle relationship between v. 12–20 and the previous narrative. After Aaronite priests have been entrusted with the teaching of God’s laws in v. 11, v. 12–15 and 16–20 demonstrate their own scrupulous observance of the law, namely, their eagerness to conform to the legislation on the disposal of sacrificial remains. In v. 12–15, this is emphasized by Moses’ systematic conclusion of the disposal of each offering with comments such as “for so I was commanded” (v. 13, regarding the cereal offering) and “just as Yahweh commanded” (v. 15, concerning the well-being offering), all referring to the to=ra= in Lev 1–9.71 The instruction given by Moses to Aaron and his sons regarding the cereal offering in v. 12–13 (cf. 9:17) corresponds exactly to the rule found in Lev 68

On the relative chronology of ch. 8–9 and 6–7 respectively, see above Chapter Three. One may note that a similar observation applies in the case of post-biblical scribes in the Hellenistic period, as was often observed for the Qumran scrolls; see, e.g., BROOKE, Plain Meaning, who concludes (p. 90): “There is really no neat dividing line between pure exegesis and applied exegesis, between the copying of biblical manuscripts and their interpretation”. 70 NOTH, Leviticus, 87; ELLIGER, Leviticus, 138; FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, 226. 71 This point was well noted by FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, 226, who makes the accurate comment: “In this way the priestly legists speaking through Moses indicate that the praxes of Lev 9:17 and 21 must be supplemented in the light of other established procedures”. 69

6.2. A Close Study of Leviticus 10

595

6:7–11 on the consumption of this offering by the priests.72 It adds however one small detail vis-à-vis its model. While 6:9 simply states that it must be eaten in the sanctuary’s precinct, 10:12 specifies “beside the altar”.73 The case of v. 14–15 is considerably more complicated but also more interesting as regards the technique of legal revision used by the author of Lev 10. Basically, this instruction corresponds to the rule for the consumption of the priestly portions of the well-being offering in 7:28–36,74 according to which not only the breast, as in the custom prevailing so far in P (see Ex 29:22–26; Lev 8:25–29), but also the thigh must be given to the officiating priest (cf. 7:32–34).75 One may note, in addition, that in both passages, and only there in the priestly literature, this prebend (i.e., breast plus thigh) is defined as a “permanent due”, Mlw(-qx (7:34 and 10:15; in 7:36: Mlw(-tqx [MT , but comp. SamP]). Nevertheless, 10:15 introduces a new element since it states that both portions have to be brought by the officiating priest to be “lifted up” (Pynhl) with the characteristic elevation rite, the hpwnt. This command given by Moses to Aaron and his sons has no antecedent in the previous legislation, which presupposes on the contrary that only the breast is subject to the elevation rite and knows nothing of a similar rite for the thigh. Besides, it is for this reason specifically that the breast can be consistently designated as the “breast of the hpwnt” while the thigh is on the contrary the “thigh of the hmwrt”, a technical term which, as argued earlier in this study after other authors, does not refer to a specific rite, contrary to the term hpwnt.76 It is this traditional distinction that we also find in Lev 7:28–36, where the thigh is given to the priests without any particular rite. The sole parallel to the conception stated in 10:15 is to be found in 9:21 where it is reported that at the end of the ceremony of ch. 9 Aaron raised the breasts of the well-being offerings on behalf of the community and the right thigh as a te6nu=pa=, an elevation offering before Yahweh. As shown previously, the mention of the right thigh in this verse is clearly an interpolation, as most commentators admit.77 Very likely, this interpolation is from the hand of the author of Lev 10; within the account of ch. 9 it prepares for the revision, in 10:15, of the legislation of 7:28–36, the latter being still unaware of the offering of the thigh as a hpwnt.

72

This was often observed, see e.g. MILGROM, Leviticus, 618. See xbzmh lc); this statement is unique in Leviticus. 74 For the parallel, see in particular here ELLIGER, Leviticus, 135. 75 As noted in the discussion of Lev 7:28–36 (above, § 3.6., page 262) it may be that even in this passage the mention of the thigh (v. 32–34) has been interpolated, although this is difficult to decide. In any event, the interpolation should necessarily predate Lev 10, since the instruction of 10:14–15 not only presupposes it but actually supplements it; see further below. 76 See above, § 3.1.1., Excursus 1, pages 121–122. 77 See the discussion in § 3.1.1., p. 121–122, and the references given there. 73

596

Chapter Six: Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Lev 10 and Editorial Closure

Milgrom, who is probably the author who has devoted the most attention to this innovation,78 was forced to surmise that either v. 15 as a whole79 or, alternatively, only the mention of the hmwrth qw# in this verse80 had been interpolated in ch. 10. Yet this solution is problematic,81 and considering that all of ch. 10 is likely to be a late insertion into the book of Leviticus, it is no longer necessary. For the final editor of Leviticus, the composition of 10:14–15 recounting how Moses observed the existing legislation on the assignment of the priestly portion of the well-being offering in 7:28–36 was an opportunity to supplement this legislation on one particular point, namely, the inclusion of the thigh in the elevation rite. Here again however, as in v. 6–7 already, this innovation is placed in the mouth of Moses, not of Yahweh directly, in order to avoid any suggestion that Yahweh could contradict himself within the Leviticus revelation.82 One may note similarly that in the case of 9:21 the MT has retained a tradition according to which the presentation of the breasts and the right thigh jointly as an elevation offering was ordained by Moses, and not by Yahweh (21b).83 Most probably, the inclusion of the thigh in the elevation rite served to legitimate the assignment of this portion of the animal to the officiating priest.84 This is all the more obvious when observing that its desig78

See MILGROM , Studies, 159–170; ID., Leviticus, 473–478. By contrast, the problem raised by 10:15 is ignored by most recent commentators; see for instance LEVINE, Leviticus, 62; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 135–136; RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 317–318; DEIANA, Levitico, 113. 79 ID., Studies, 165. 80 ID., Leviticus, 621. 81 The removal of the mention of the thigh in 10:15 creates a difficulty since it is no longer included in the portions given to Aaron and his sons as a Mlw(-qx, contrary to what applies in 7:28–36 (v. 34, v. 36 SamP) and to what is implied by 10:14 where the breast and the thigh together are defined as forming the priests’ portions. The removal of v. 15 is similarly unlikely; in 7:28–36, as well as in all similar passages, the assignment of the breast to Aaron is closely connected to the command to practice the rite of the hpwnt, as in 10:15. 82 To be sure, v. 15 concludes with the classical statement hwhy hwc r#)k (+ h#m-t) in the LXX , see BHS) but this is first and foremost a reference to the sentence immediately preceding, which assigns both the breast and the thigh as a “permanent due” (Mlw(-qx) to Aaron and his sons; this is indeed true to the to=ra= of 7:28–36 (see v. 34). 83 See also for this observation MILGROM, Leviticus, 586. The LXX , SamP and numerous Hebrew mss (34) add the phrase t) hwhy before “Moses”; yet in my opinion this reading is intended to harmonize with the use of the phrase (h#m-t)) hwhy hwc r#)k elsewhere in Lev. Whether v. 21b is from the hand of the editor responsible for the interpolation of the right thigh in 21a or not is impossible to decide; all one can say is that it would have eased the interpolation. Alternatively, it may be that v. 21b initially read (h#m-t)) hwhy hwc r#)k, as in 9:10 (and consistently in Lev 8), as proposed, e.g., by the BHS, and that the interpolator of the right thigh removed the phrase t) hwhy in order to legitimate his innovation while avoiding any contradiction with God’s previous command to Moses regarding the thigh. This solution would then have been adopted by only part of the textual tradition. 84 MILGROM , Studies, 159–170, basically advocates a similar view but also tries to correlate it with a specific historical development taking place in the First Temple period (Ibid., esp. 165ff.; see also ID., Leviticus, 478ff.); the whole scenario is rather unlikely.

6.2. A Close Study of Leviticus 10

597

nation for the priest may be itself a later development within P; it is not found before Lev 7:28–36 (and Ex 29:27–28, which depends on it)85 and the ritual of Ex 29 and Lev 8 initially presumed the designation of the breast only for Moses, acting here as officiating priest.86 Since the assignment of the breast to the officiating priest is consistently justified in P by its being offered with the elevation rite (see Lev 7:30ff.; Ex 29:26; Lev 8:29), it was logical for the editor of Leviticus who composed ch. 10 to secure the innovation including the thigh among the priestly portions by including it in the same rite. It is probably this development that led in turn to the attempt to understand the word hmwrt as a reference to a gesture of motion and to derive it from the verb “to raise, lift”, as is reflected in the interpolation of Ex 29:27–28.87 Finally, one may also note another addition vis-à-vis the legislation on the disposal of the well-being offering in ch. 7, since v. 14 specifies that the offering’s flesh must be eaten in a clean place, rwh+ Mwqmb (MT). Contrary to the case of the other sacrifices in Lev 6–7 (compare 6:9, 19; 7:6; similarly 10:13, 17) this information was missing for the well-being offering. The fact that in 10:14 the MT has a clean place instead of a sacred place, as it reads for the other sacrifices, has to do of course with the fact that the flesh of the wellbeing offering is simply sacred, and not most sacred, and can be eaten by priests and lay members of the community alike; hence probably also the reason for the absence initially of any instruction regarding the place where it has to be eaten in Lev 6–7. Actually, the introduction of such an instruction in Lev 10 concerns only the priests and corresponds to the willingness to differentiate between them and the rest of the community, the former being compelled to a greater purity and sanctity than the latter. The reading of the LXX, kai\ … fa/gesqe e0n to/pw| a(gi/w|, could simply be a harmonization aligning 10:14 with the other similar passages in Lev 6–7 (and 10) that specify where the consumption of sacrificial remains must take place. Yet it may also reflect the fact that this point continued to be debated within priestly circles, even after the final redaction of the book of Leviticus.88 85 On Ex 29:27–28 as a later addition to the instruction of Ex 29, unparalleled in Lev 8 but dependent on Lev 7:28–36, see in detail above, § 3.1.2., pages 130–131. 86 See Ex 29:26 = Lev 8:29. This is also consistent with the formulation of v. 21, once the mention of the right thigh is removed. Admittedly, one could argue that the case of Ex 29 and Lev 8 is somewhat distinct since it concerns the “ordination” offering and not the well-being offering, so that what applies to one need not apply to the other. Yet the ordination offering is consistently modeled on the well-being offering (see above, § 3.2.1., p. 152) and this, at least, was not the understanding of the later editor who interpolated Ex 29:27–28 in order to conform the rite for the ordination offering to the instruction of Lev 7:28–36 for the assignment of the priestly portions in the case of the well-being offering. 87 See above, § 3.1.2., pages 130–131. 88 Contra KNOHL, Sanctuary, 208 n. 11; and MILGROM, Leviticus, 16–17.435–436.473ff., I would not assume any tension between the assignment of the right thigh to the officiating priest in 7:34 and the statement of 10:14–15 that this thigh goes to the entire priestly cadre.

598

Chapter Six: Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Lev 10 and Editorial Closure

6.2.5. Leviticus 10:16–20 16

As regards the goat of the purification offering, Moses led an investigation (#$rAd@F #$rodF@)89 about it and, behold, it had been burned. He became angry at Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s remaining sons, and said, 17“Why did you not not eat the purification offering in a sacred place – for it is most holy?90 He (i.e., Yahweh) has given it to you to bear ()#n ) the crime (Nw() of the congregation in order to make atonement (rpkl) for them before Yahweh. 18Since its blood was not brought into the interior of the sacred precinct, you should have indeed eaten it inside the sacred precinct, as I had ordained.91 19Aaron said to Moses, “Behold, today they have presented their purification offering and their burnt offering before Yahweh, and such things have happened to me! Had I eaten the purification offering today, would it have been considered right by Yahweh?” 20When Moses heard this, he considered it right.

This short and somewhat enigmatic narrative represents one of the most fascinating cases of inner-biblical exegesis in the priestly literature.92 It follows quite logically the previous section since it deals with the last offering, among those presented on behalf of the people in Lev 9, whose remains have not yet been disposed of, that is, the purification offering (cf. 9:15). But here, contrary to what applied for the cereal and well-being offerings in v. 12–15, a difficulty comes up. As we have seen previously in this study (§ 3.6.), the legislation of Lev 6:17–23, accepting the distinction between major and minor blood rites received from Lev 4, prescribes different instructions for the disposal of the remains of the t)+x depending on whether the animal’s blood was brought into the sanctuary or not. In the former case (corresponding to the major rite) the sacrificial remains must be entirely burnt outside the camp (6:23); in the latter case (minor rite) the edible portions are to be eaten by the priests in a sacred place (6:19). Yet, as observed by almost all modern commentators of Leviticus, this fine distinction is entirely blurred in the ceremony of ch. 9 since, although the offering’s blood is not taken into the sanctuary (as one would have expected for a t)+x offered on behalf of the community, see Lev 4:13–21), the remains are apparently nevertheless burnt outside the camp (9:15, cf. 9:11), as with a major t)+x, instead of being eaten.93 This is the Other passages of Lev 6–7 appear to imply that the officiating priest who receives the sacrificial portion may (and will) share it with his entire family; see 6:19, 22, and above all 7:6–7. This is also the meaning of the law found in Lev 22:10ff. 89 The infinitive absolute before the verb often carries a sense of intensity (JOÜON, Grammaire, § 123 j). On the meaning of this phrase as referring, in the context of Lev 10, to a form of technical, non-oracular investigation, see further below. 90 This phrase is missing in some Hebrew mss (see BHS) and could indeed be a later gloss by a scribe willing to recall why the t)+x has to be eaten in a sacred place, cf. 6:17ff. 91 For the rendering of #dqh in Lev 10, and particularly in v. 18, as “sacred precinct” rather than “sanctuary” as usually in P, see above note 7. 92 As well perceived in particular by FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, 226–228, although I nevertheless disagree with his overall interpretation of the episode; see further below. 93 In 9:15, it is simply said that the sacrifice was offered “like the previous one”, i.e., the t)+x on behalf of Aaron and his house, in which case it is specified that the flesh was burnt outside the camp (and therefore not eaten). On this basis, the author of Lev 10 would logi-

6.2. A Close Study of Leviticus 10

599

meaning of Moses’ remark in 10:18 (“since its blood was not brought into the interior of the sacred precinct, you should have indeed eaten it inside the sacred precinct”), quoting here again the previous law in Lev 6:17–23. From a historical-critical perspective, this contradiction is explained by the fact that the author of Lev 9 did not yet know the legislation of ch. 4 but follows an earlier tradition.94 But for the final editor of Leviticus it raised a considerable problem since it implied that the priests, in this case, had not acted in conformity with the law. We thus return to the very issue with which the story of ch. 10 opened, the righteousness of the Aaronites; the parallel is enhanced by the fact, noted above, that Moses accuses not Aaron himself but his remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar.95 Yet this time a significant reversal takes place. In v. 16–20, the hiatus on this point inside Lev 1–9 leads to an argument opposing Moses to Aaron on the interpretation of the law. Moses, on one hand, conducts an investigation. This investigation is apparently of a nonoracular kind since no consultation of Yahweh is mentioned; otherwise, the text should have read hwhy-t) #rd. Besides, this would hardly have been necessary in order to discover that the goat for the purification offering had been burned. Here, the use of the verb #rd conforms to that already found in Deuteronomy where it can designate a legal investigation of a rational, nonoracular sort (see Deut 13:15; 17:4, 9; 19:18). Yet in the case of Lev 10:16 its outcome is actually already known from the account of ch. 9; hence Moses’ investigation simply consists in stating the contradiction found in the Torah between Lev 6:19 and 9:15, as is found in 10:18. One may note, however, that Moses does not simply quote the law, he also comments upon it; here again, one finds the same exegetical technique previously identified in the other sections of Lev 10. Thus, v. 17 begins by resuming the instruction of 6:19 but adds a new motivation to the command to eat the sacrificial remains (v. 17b). If those remains have been given to the priests, it is in order for them to “carry” (i.e., in this context, to remove)96 the iniquity of the congregation and thus to make atonement (rpkl) for them before Yahweh.97 This motivation is cally infer that the flesh of the second t)+x had been disposed of in the same manner, as stated in 10:16. 94 For a detailed discussion, see above, § 3.2.2., pages 160–161. 95 This was already a problem for ancient commentators, who suggested, for instance, that Moses accused Aaron’s sons rather than Aaron himself out of respect for him (thus Rashi). 96 This use of )#n is frequent in the Torah, usually with Yahweh as subject; see, e.g., Ex 32:32; 34:7; Num 14:18, etc. 97 Against some commentators, I see no reason to deny a connection between the flesh’s consumption by the priests and the atonement of sins (thus, e.g., RENDTORFF, Studien, 215– 216; ID, Leviticus, 319; RODRIGUEZ, Substitution, 130ff.; MILGROM, Leviticus, 622–624, correcting his earlier opinion in ID., Studies, 70–71). This is quite consistent with the function of the purification offering as an elimination offering initially (see below), a notion still partly preserved in the legislation of Lev 4 (see above, § 3.2.2.3.). The alternative view that the flesh of the t)+x would simply be a reward for performing the blood rites on behalf of the commu-

600

Chapter Six: Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Lev 10 and Editorial Closure

quite remarkable; in particular, it seems to reflect ongoing speculation within priestly circles on the meaning and function of the purification offering as a rite of elimination. For the author of ch. 10, the consumption of the flesh of the sacrificial victim in the case of the minor rite apparently has the same function, structurally speaking, as when this flesh is burnt outside the camp in the major rite, namely, to eliminate pollution absorbed by the animal’s carcass and thus to remove the community’s iniquity. Simultaneously, the duty incumbent upon the priests to carry the community’s iniquity, with the phrase hd(h Nw(-t) t)#l, unmistakably recalls Ex 28:38 (P) where it is stated that one of the high priest’s responsibilities is to “carry the iniquity” (Nw(-t) )#n) of the Israelites concerning the My#dq, the sacred offerings.98 Quite possibly, this earlier rule served as a legal basis for the innovation introduced by the author of Lev 10; the transfer of what was typically in P a specific competence of the high priest onto the priests is quite consistent with the development already observed above in the reception of Lev 21 in 10:6–7. In this respect, the motivation introduced by Moses in 10:17b might serve several functions jointly. Although it is first of all of a speculative nature, it also has a more “political” function in that it helps to legitimate the claims of the priestly class that their dignified status is equal to that of the high priest: like him, all the priests contribute to bearing the community’s sins every time they eat the flesh of the purification offering. In a second stage (v. 19–20), the contradiction expressed by Moses is then accounted for and justified by Aaron. Although the exact meaning of Aaron’s statement in v. 19 is not entirely clear and has often puzzled exegetes, this point may actually not be so important. It is tempting to assume that the author of Lev 10 wanted to imply that the high priest, himself profaned by the death of his two sons, was not in a state to bear the community’s guilt; this would conclude Lev 10 by building a connection with the ceremony of ch. 16 where Aaron and his house are entirely cleansed from their sins.99 Yet the formulation of v. 19 appears to suggest a much more simple explanation, namely that Aaron felt it inappropriate to eat the purification offering’s flesh nity does not account for the formulation of v. 17b stating explicitly that this flesh is given to the priests to “bear” (= remove) the community’s iniquity and thus to make atonement for the latter. On the recent proposal of GANE, Cult, ch. 5 and passim, for understanding 10:17 in connection with Lev 16, see my criticism above, § 3.2.2.3.d, p. 190 note 354. 98 This parallel is also underlined by MILGROM, Leviticus, 623–624. 99 Thus, e.g., KIUCHI, Purification Offering, 77–85. MILGROM, Leviticus, 635–640, argues that the death of Aaron’s sons would have polluted the flesh of the purification offering, transforming it from a minor t)+x into a major t)+x. Not only is this without any basis in the text of 10:19 itself, but the explanation is unconvincing even with respect to P’s system of graded pollution. That the death of Aaron’s sons could affect the status of the t)+x after the latter had been offered seems to me quite unlikely; in P it is not the animals’ carcass per se that effects the sanctuary’s purification but the rite accompanying it, as described in Lev 4.

6.2. A Close Study of Leviticus 10

601

on the very day of his sons’ death.100 At any rate, the decisive point is that it is clearly an ad hoc solution by the priestly author of ch. 10, who resorts to the exceptional events described at the beginning of his account so as to justify the deviation from the prevailing legislation. In sum, in his reply Aaron opposes a unique situation (the death of his sons) to the other unique situation singled out by Moses, the non-consumption by the priests of the second t)+x in ch. 9; in both cases, the Torah (in this instance, the first section of Leviticus, ch. 1–10) is explained by recourse to itself. In this respect, in addition to the obvious concern for harmonizing the remaining tensions within Leviticus at the time of the book’s editorial closure, the brief account of 10:16–20 establishes a point of legal exegesis – namely, when one passage of the Torah contradicts another, the tension may be clarified by having recourse to a third, a technique which will become common later in midrashic exegesis.101 Aaron’s explanation, and hence by implication his legal exegesis are eventually validated by Moses, proving Aaron to be right. It was proposed by Fishbane that his question in v. 19 (“Had I eaten the purification offering today, would it have been considered right by Yahweh?”) would imply a request for a divine oracle upon whose hearing Moses approved Aaron.102 This, however, is both unlikely and unnecessary. Fishbane is right that there are other passages in the Torah in which Moses, confronted with a case for which no ruling avails, turns to Yahweh for consultation (Lev 24:10ff.; Num 9:6ff.; 15:32–36; 27:1ff.; further 36:1ff.). Yet contrary to those passages any reference to an oracular consultation is missing in Lev 10:19–20; besides, the very idea implied by Fishbane’s hypothesis that Moses’ approval in v. 20 did not concern Aaron’s but Yahweh’s words is clearly untenable.103 In fact, Yahweh’s complete absence from the episode of 10:16–20 is perfectly deliberate. Here, the context is no longer that of an oracular consultation but of a dispute opposing Moses to Aaron regarding the interpretation of Law. It is not a coincidence, in this respect, that the episode opens with a consultation by Moses in which the characteristic term #rd is not used in reference to an oracle, as is usually the case elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, but to a rational-legal investigation by Moses confronting two conflicting passages from the Torah. Both the dispute itself and, even more so, Aaron’s victory over Moses are unparalleled in the pentateuchal narrative. Yet the episode offers a fitting conclusion to the narrative of ch. 10 (and beyond, to the first part of the book, ch. 100 Thus also FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, 227, although he, like part of the rabbinic tradition before him (cf. b. Zebah9 101a, b), holds that it was because Aaron was in mourning. Yet (as corrrectly pointed out by MILGROM , Leviticus, 627.636), Aaron and his sons were explicitly forbidden to mourn according to 10:6. 101 See for instance MAYER, art. Midrasch, 737. 102 ID., Biblical Interpretation, 227–228. 103 As pointed out by MILGROM, Leviticus, 627: “For the text to state that Moses approved the divine decision would be effrontery if not heresy”.

602

Chapter Six: Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Lev 10 and Editorial Closure

1–10) since it illustrates Aaron’s transformation into a teacher of the Law, as proclaimed by Yahweh himself in the center of the chapter, v. 11. For the author of ch. 10, the justification of the Aaronites’ apparent failure regarding the offering of the t)+x in Lev 9 thus becomes the pretext for a much more ambitious assertion: to recount (at least on one occasion) Aaron’s superiority over Moses in the interpretation of the Law. In this respect, the brief episode of v. 16–20 aptly concludes the entire account of ch. 10 on priestly duties by a legend establishing the authority of priestly exegesis of the Torah.

6.3. Leviticus 10 as the Founding Legend of Priestly Exegesis In sum, the study of Lev 10 shows that this story is not a patchwork of traditions, as classically assumed, but forms a complex yet coherent composition inserted by the final editor of Leviticus. As the previous analysis demonstrates, the editor’s purpose in introducing the account of ch. 10 was to complete the book with an elaborate reflection on priestly observance of the law, particularly as regards cultic matters. The decision to close Leviticus with an account entirely devoted to the priests’ duties underlines their importance as intermediaries between God and his community throughout the book. Similarly, the choice to introduce this chapter at this very place, immediately after the consecration of the first priests and the inauguration of the sacrificial cult (Lev 8–9) and prior to the revelation of a new series of to=ro=t not only to Moses but also to Aaron (Lev 11:1; 13:1; 14:33; 15:1), is quite meaningful. The chapter’s overall theme is first introduced negatively by the recounting of the cultic failure of Aaron’s elder sons, Nadab and Abihu, for performing a rite not previously commanded by Yahweh (v. 1). The account illustrates in a didactic way the consequences of such disobedience (v. 2) and justifies the introduction of a general comment by Moses in v. 3 on the purpose of the sacrificial cult and the unique duty of priests in this regard in manifesting Yahweh’s holiness before the whole community. This comment may be regarded as a summary of the overall conception underlying the chapter; it was deliberately composed in reference to two central passages in P’s Sinaitic account (Ex 29:43 and Lev 9:23) but also to other traditions on God’s sanctification in Israel in H and even in Ezekiel. Simultaneously, the story of Nadab and Abihu is not meant only to serve as an example, it establishes a specific point of ritual legislation. As demonstrated in the treatment of this episode (§ 6.2.1.), the account of v. 1–2 has been conceived in parallel with the story of the 250 chieftains in Num 16–17, which it serves to anticipate; the connection thus built defines a coherent doctrine reserving the offering of censer-incense for the high priest, as implied by the ordeal recounted in ch. 16 and, furthermore, by the story of Num 17:6–15. In this respect, in the context of

6.3. Leviticus 10 as the Founding Legend of Priestly Exegesis

603

Leviticus the Nadab-Abihu episode both supplements the sacrificial legislation in Lev 1–9 and prepares for the great ritual of ch. 16, thus linking the two parts of the book (cf. the resumption of 10:1–2 in 16:1) but also marking the difference between both sets of to=ro=t (ch. 1–9 concerning all the priests, Lev 16 being reserved for the high priest exclusively). The fact that 10:1–2 apparently presupposes the account of Num 16–17 in its final form (i.e., after the revision inserting the figure of Korah) suggests that Lev 10 as a whole should be assigned to the final layer of Numbers, the so-called “theocratic revision”, as argued by Achenbach. In the remainder of Lev 10, the death of Nadab and Abihu forms the pretext for a further series of instructions (v. 6– 20), adding new rules for the priests (v. 6–7, 8–11) or demonstrating that they are in conformity with the law in one significant case, the disposal of sacrificial remains (v. 12–15, 16–20). The existing legislation on priestly duties in P (Lev 1–16) and in H is systematically received, but also supplemented and even partly revised (see in particular 10:6–7). The to=ra= on priestly duties in Ez 44 is also received, especially in v. 8–11. This betrays an attempt at exhaustiveness and inclusiveness from the final editor of Leviticus. But it probably also corresponds to the willingness to solve the problem raised by the coexistence of the to=ra= of Ezekiel in the second half of the Persian period by suggesting that the latter is already contained in the Torah of Moses.104 Finally, this reflection on the priests’ relationship to the law was also the opportunity for the editor of Leviticus to solve one major contradiction within the previous narrative in ch. 1–9 (10:16–20). In this respect, all of Lev 10 (and not only some parts of it, such as v. 12–20, as suggested by Fishbane) offers a remarkable instance of inner-biblical legal exegesis within the “priestly” traditions of the Torah. The overall architecture of this composition is quite remarkable. Each of the five sections is logically related to the previous one, on both narrative and conceptual levels, as demonstrated above; yet, considered individually, each also adds a specific point to the legislation on priests scattered throughout the book, and even outside it in the case of Num 16–17 and Ez 44. Simultaneously, in a remarkable way the theme of the priests’ observance of the law becomes itself the occasion for the Leviticus editor to develop a sophisticated reflection, on a meta-level, on the nature of Torah exegesis and above all on the priests’ role in this respect. This development is best seen when considering the overall organization of the sections comprising ch. 10. First, there is an unmistakable shift from the law’s revelation to the problem of its interpretation. Lev 10 recounts only a single divine speech, in v. 8–11, addressed, moreover, solely to Aaron; Moses, on the contrary, is no longer presented as the law’s mediator but as its authorized commentator (see v. 6–7, 12–15; in a similar way also v. 3). This device has some parallels elsewhere in 104

For this idea, see in particular ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 281.

604

Chapter Six: Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Lev 10 and Editorial Closure

the Torah (see in particular the very interesting case of Ex 13:3–16)105 but it is quite unique so far in Leviticus. As suggested above, it serves to supplement or even amend existing laws in Leviticus without having to suggest a contradiction within the divine revelation itself. In this respect, it is not a coincidence that the only laws placed in Yahweh’s mouth in ch. 10 are those which are unparalleled so far in Leviticus but are taken from the rival to=ra= of Ez 44. Yet Moses’ transformation into Yahweh’s exegete in Lev 10 certainly has a more profound meaning. As finely perceived by Fishbane already in the case of 10:12–15,106 Moses’ own exegesis of the law gives a scriptural foundation to the techniques of inner-biblical interpretation practiced by the pentateuchal redactors themselves. This phenomenon makes perfect sense if, as argued here, Lev 10 is composed with the prospect of editorially closing the book of Leviticus, therefore at a time when the Torah was probably in the process of becoming the normative law for the Second Temple community in Jerusalem (i.e., post-Ezra). The reflection of scribal praxes is most obvious in the case of the episode of 10:16–20 concluding the entire account. As recalled above, elsewhere in the Torah, when Moses is faced with a case which he cannot resolve on the basis of the existing legislation, he resorts to an oracular consultation (Lev 24: 10ff.; Num 9:6ff.; 15:32–36; 27:1ff.; further 36:1ff.). Here, on the contrary, he is presented as leading an investigation (#rd) which is not of an oracular kind but consists in comparing Scripture with itself (i.e., 9:15 with 6:19), as Moses’ statement in v. 18 makes plain. Although the use of #rd for a legal, non-oracular investigation has an antecedent in Deuteronomy, as noted above, its application to the Torah is rather reminiscent of Ezra 7:10.107 Significantly, this latter passage is a general comment on Ezra’s perfect observance of the Law that introduces the re-transcription of the (most likely fictive) edict of the Achemenid king in v. 11–26, transforming the Torah into the normative Law for the Judean ethnos. Yet Lev 10 goes even further, since this investigation of the Law by Moses is then disputed by Aaron who uses a further exegetical criterion (the resort to a third passage when a contradiction between two passages cannot be solved, see v. 19), eventually admitted by Moses (v. 20). What emerges here, therefore, is nothing less than the scriptural foundation of midrashic exegesis. Through Moses’ investigation and the ensuing discussion between him and Aaron the very principle of the Torah’s interpretation by itself is asserted and introduced into the Torah at the stage of its editorial closure. In passing, it is of interest to note that the significance of 105 As argued above, § 5.3., pages 553ff., the case of Deuteronomy is different, this book being more than simply a commentary upon the Sinaitic legislation. 106 ID., Biblical Interpretation, 226. 107 As observed by FISHBANE, Ibid., 245, with the relevant comment: “Here the text of divine words serves, as it were, as an oraculum for rational-exegetical inquiry”. Unfortunately, he misses the connection with Lev 10:16.

6.3. Leviticus 10 as the Founding Legend of Priestly Exegesis

605

the episode recounted in 10:16–20 remained obvious for later Jewish tradents, since they managed a calculation in which the phrase #rd #rd in v. 16 would represent the very middle of the Torah according to a division by words.108 This shift within Leviticus from the Law’s revelation to its commentary is accompanied by another development which has usually been missed but is unmistakable when observing the narrative movement achieved by ch. 10. The story opens with a severe transgression of the Law by Aaron’s elder sons (v. 1–5) and concludes with another account forming its symmetrical opposite. Aaron’s remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, are also accused of a cultic crime by Moses but are nevertheless justified by their father, Aaron, who interprets the Law better than Moses himself, as the latter admits. In the meanwhile, Aaron has been instituted by Yahweh himself as teacher of the Law in a statement which, as we have seen, skillfully takes up the classical conception of the to=ra= in the priestly tradition (v. 10) to enlarge it to the totality of Yahweh’s laws (v. 11, in conformity with Deut 33:10), that is, to the Torah as a whole. The crucial significance of this development is underlined by the fact that it stands at the very center of the composition (the third section of five, v. 8–11), it is the only divine speech in this chapter, and it is addressed to Aaron exclusively, a unique device in the Torah outside Num 18.109 It is this new competence granted by God himself to the priests that is eventually illustrated immediately after in the episode of v. 16–20, closing the whole account of ch. 10 on Aaron’s supremacy over Moses in the exegesis of the Law. To be sure, the opening account of 10:1–2 serves as a permanent reminder of the dangers associated with this duty for priests; yet the decisive point is that priestly authority in legal exegesis now has as its reference point God himself at Mt Sinai (and no longer Moses in the plains of Moab, as in Deut 33:10!), and is effectively acknowledged by Moses. In this respect, the whole narrative of ch. 10 – and not only the episode of v. 16–20 – may also be viewed, simultaneously, as forming the founding legend of the priestly tradition of Scripture’s interpretation and commentary.110 For the final editor who composed this chapter, this ultimate development was a perfect means to close the book representing the central contribution of priestly scribes to the Torah, later to be designated as tôrât kohanîm (the “teaching of the priests”, see, e.g., m. Meg. 3:5) in the Jewish tradition, or levitikón in the Greek one.

108

Thus the statement found in the Masorah Gedolah alongside 10:16 (see BHS): ycx

twbytb hrwth. 109 Num 18 is also part of the “theocratic revision” in Numbers: see ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 141–172. 110 The conception of Aaronites as teachers of the Law will continue to play an important role in some writings of the Hellenistic period; see especially Sir 45:17 (note the parallel built with Moses in 45:5 in this respect! On this passage, see, e.g., OTTO, Vom biblischen Hebraismus, 13ff.), as well as in the Qumran mss; see, e.g., the Temple Scroll (11QT), 56:2–6.

606

Chapter Six: Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Lev 10 and Editorial Closure

For this reason, I cannot accept the recent interpretation proposed by Achenbach who, in his otherwise insightful analysis of Lev 10, seeks on the contrary to read this story as the founding legend of the disavowal of Aaronite priesthood in favor of the Zadokide redactors responsible for the composition of the Pentateuch in Persian period Jerusalem.111 In my opinion, this reading does not do justice to the complexity of ch. 10 by focusing on the episode of Nadab and Abihu in v. 1–2 to the detriment of the overall logic of this chapter. Thus, v. 10–11 are exclusively discussed from the perspective of the reception in Lev 10 of the to=ra= of Ez 44,112 while v. 16–20 are simply left out of the discussion. The preeminent place given to Aaron as a teacher of the Law in these two passages already implies that interpreting the dismissal of Nadab and Abihu as that of Aaronite priesthood as a whole is to go beyond the evidence. Nadab’s and Abihu’s dismissal is actually fully consistent with the overall perspective of the theocratic revision in Numbers for which Aaron’s true heir is Eleazar (and, after him, his son Pinchas, see Num 25:10–13). Note that in the theocratic layer in Numbers, Eleazar is also presented as the one in charge of interpreting Yahweh’s will for Joshua, Moses’ successor; see in particular Num 27:21113. The replacement of Nadab and Abihu by Eleazar (and Ithamar) has classically been linked to inner-priestly struggles,114 yet this is quite speculative. More likely, it should be connected to the role played by Nadab and Abihu in the brief episode of Ex 24:9–11, the only other account in the Torah associating them with a major event in Israel’s history. The episode recounts the encounter between Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and seventy elders with God on Mt Sinai in Ex 24:9–11 (i.e., immediately after the conclusion of the tyrb in 24:3–8). The conception reflected in this passage is strongly reminiscent of the ideology of pentateuchal redactors, who assign complementary functions to levitical priests and elders in governing Israel and in keeping the divine law as is shown by 111

See ACHENBACH, Leviticus 10; I D., Vollendung, 93–110. Similarly unconvincing in my opinion is the view that Lev 10 would be built in parallel to Ex 32 and betray the same anti-Aaronite tendency. Thus in particular GRADWOHL, Das “fremde Feuer”, esp. 292–295; see also ACHENBACH, Ibid., 102; DAMROSCH, Leviticus, 70–72 (with a significant confusion between Ex 24 and 32); most recently, MIRGUET, Essai, who, following Damrosch, bases her entire interpretation on this assumption. Although in a very general sense the possibility cannot be excluded that for the final editor of Leviticus the death of Aaron’s sons was also intended to compensate for the (previous) errings of the Aaronite dynasty – while on the contrary, Eleazar’s priesthood would initiate a new era, see further below –, any clear connection between the two episodes is missing, be it on the level of content, of structure or even of the terminology used. Nadab and Abihu are absent from the account of Ex 32, while Lev 10, as argued above, is not at all concerned with Aaron’s sin. In particular, there is no allusion whatsoever to the golden calf in Lev 10. Mirguet’s attempt to correlate Aaron’s non-consumption of the goat of the t)+x in Lev 10 with the calf destroyed by Moses in Ex 32 is unfounded. The usual argument that according to 1 Kgs 14 Nadab is also the name of the son of Jeroboam, the king responsible for the setting of the two calves in Dan and Bethel (Gradwohl, Damrosch) can hardly stand alone to support the parallel between Ex 32 and Lev 10. At most, one could presume that in the priestly tradition the association of Nadab with an infamous episode of Israel’s history would have favored this figure’s rejection to the benefit of Eleazar as is recounted in Lev 10. 112 See Vollendung, 107–108; see similarly ID., Leviticus 10, 63ff. 113 Furthermore, this conception has left its mark in some late “priestly” interpolations in Josh 13–22; see especially 14:1–5 and 19:51 where it is Eleazar, and no longer Joshua, who is responsible for the land’s division by means of the casting of lots. This notion depends upon Num 26:55–56; 33:54; 34:13; 36:2–3, all passages stemming from this same theocratic layer; see ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 459–460. 114 See, e.g., BERTHOLET, Leviticus, 29–30; NOTH, Leviticus, 84, etc.

6.3. Leviticus 10 as the Founding Legend of Priestly Exegesis

607

the programmatic text of Deut 31:9ff.115 Whether or not Ex 24:9–11 should also be assigned to a pentateuchal redactor is not decisive; at any rate, the connection would have been unmistakable for the Torah’s final editors. The theocratic revision, on the contrary, establishes the supremacy of the high priest over the political leader, in this case of Eleazar over Joshua. This is most obvious in its account of the transition from Moses to Joshua in Num 27:15–23, where Joshua, contrary to the previous view still prevailing for the pentateuchal redactors (see Deut 1:38; 31:23, etc.) is no longer responsible for leading the people into the land alone but is now subject to the oracular decision (+p#m) obtained by Eleazar. One may point out in passing that this is also a complete reversal of the relationship between Moses and Aaron as defined by the pentateuchal redactors in the seminal text of Ex 4:1–17: “He (Aaron) shall speak for you to the people, he shall be your mouth and you (namely, Moses) shall be his god (sic)” (4:16).116 Therefore, for the priestly scribes responsible for the “theocratic” revision in Leviticus and Numbers, dismissing the characters of Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10 made it possible to introduce a new figure for the high priest, Eleazar, and thereby to redefine the conception of priestly authority that had prevailed so far in the composition of the Pentateuch. In this respect, the death of Nadab and Abihu prepares for the program of the theocratic revision in Numbers.117

115 On the assignment of Deut 31:9–13 to a pentateuchal redactor, see in particular OTTO, Deuteronomium, 175–196, esp. 189ff. 116 For the assignment of Ex 4:1–17 to a pentateuchal redactor, see in detail GERTZ, Exoduserzählung, 305ff. 117 That this construction of the figure of Eleazar as leader of a “theocratic” community betrays the concerns of Zadokide scribes specifically, as argued by Achenbach following the lead of Otto in numerous publications is possible, yet by no means certain. Addressing the issue would require a thorough discussion of the exact nature of the conflict between Aaronites and Zadokides in the Second Temple period, especially as reflected in Ezekiel (ch. 40– 48), in Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles, and, above all, in extra-canonical literature of the Second Temple period, especially in the Qumran scrolls and related traditions. The recent debate is quite confused in my opinion and only points to the extreme complexity of this question. See, e.g., FABRY, Zadokiden, who offers a useful overall survey of the scholarly discussion, especially as regards the case of Qumran. Suffice it to say that I would agree with Achenbach that the late episode of 1 Sam 2:27–36 in its present shape (whether or not an older tradition underlies it), as well as the late gloss in Judg 20:27b–28 introducing Pinchas (Eleazar’s son) in Bethel, probably stem from the theocratic revision as some terminological parallels would suggest. This means that the theocratic revision sought to connect Eli with Aaronite priesthood in order to re-interpret the replacement of Elides by Zadokides in the Dtr History as a (legitimate) transfer from Aaronites to Zadokides. Admittedly, this is an argument in favor of Zadokide authorship of the theocratic revision. On this issue, see in detail ACHENBACH, Levitische Priester. Yet, despite the contrary assertions of Achenbach, I fail to see evidence of the attempt by the theocratic revision to trace this development inside the Torah itself, be it in Lev 10 (as argued above) or in the book of Numbers.

Summary and Conclusions

From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch By way of conclusion, the main results obtained in this study will be briefly summarized and commented upon. The study’s overall purpose was to reassess the difficult question of the formation history of the book of Leviticus, in relationship to the composition of the Torah as a whole and to the history of the early Second Temple period, during which this book was written. To this end, three relevant issues in particular have been systematically investigated: first, the relationship of Leviticus to the so-called Priestly source in Genesis to Exodus and in Numbers; second, the sources used by the Priestly authors of Leviticus and the way in which these sources have been reinterpreted; third, and lastly, the evidence, within the book itself, for revisions as well as for conflicting perspectives which would allow us to correlate its formation to the activity of competing scribal schools. In particular, the study has corroborated the traditional division established by critics between Lev 1–16 (P) and 17–27 (H). In what follows, I shall therefore address these two sections in turn. Against the traditional scholarly view, it was shown that ch. 1–16 were not conceived originally as part of an ongoing narrative extending from the creation of the world to Moses’ death in the plains of Moab (Deut 34), or even to the conquest of the land (Josh). All the texts commonly assigned to the Priestly Document in the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua no longer evince the unity of language, style and topic that characterizes this document in Genesis, Exodus and, partly, in Leviticus. Instead, they consistently reflect the influence of other traditions, particularly the Deuteronomistic literature, and they usually have a marked editorial character. Close analysis of some key passages in Deuteronomy and Numbers (Num 20 and 27) confirmed the view recently voiced by several scholars that it is actually no longer possible to isolate a separate Priestly narrative in these books; the passages classically attributed to P are more probably all supplements to the non-Priestly account of Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness, after the people’s departure from Mt Sinai in Num 10. On the other hand, it was also demonstrated that the various attempts that have been made to restrict the Priestly Document to the books of Genesis and Exodus (T. Pola and others) are not compelling. Both on literarycritical and thematic grounds, the first part of Leviticus, ch. 1–16, cannot be dissociated from the preceding account, especially in Ex 25–40*. Without the

From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch

609

report of the institution of the sacrificial cult, the Priestly Document remains a torso without a head. Instead, Lev 1–16 – or, more exactly, a first form of those chapters – initially made up the conclusion to P’s account of Israel’s origins, before the addition of Lev 17–27 and the inclusion of P into the Torah. It was as such that the first part of the book of Leviticus was originally devised, and it is as such that, from the perspective of a historical-critical approach to the Hebrew Bible, it demands to be read, as this study has consistently attempted to do. In particular, the position of Lev 1–16 in P mirrors its function as the grand climax of the overall process running through the Priestly account of Israel’s origins. The gradual redefinition in Israel of a cosmic order more in conformity with the original order existing before the Flood, as well as the corresponding transformation of Israel into the “priestly nation” of the universe, culminate with Yahweh’s disclosure to Moses and beyond, to all Israel, of the ritual teachings in Lev 1–16 at Mt Sinai. Furthermore, the analysis also demonstrated that the classical separation since Wellhausen between “legal” and “narrative” elements in Leviticus, in order to reconstruct the original text of P, is fully unsupported. Lev 8–9, which, except for a few additions, should be viewed as literarily homogeneous, can by no means be separated from a first version of the to=ra= on public offerings in Lev 1–7. The many attempts made in recent decades to reconstruct a minimal version of ch. 9 from which any reference to Lev 1–7 and 8 would be missing is simply unfounded. Similarly, the prevailing view that the to=ra= of ch. 1–7 would break the narrative coherence between Ex 40 (the conclusion to the building account) and Lev 8–9 is unconvincing. On the contrary, the revelation of this to=ra= to Moses and beyond, to all Israel, mirrors the structure of the section on the tent of meeting (Ex 25–40), and it has a similar function as the latter. Just as the building of the Tent is a prerequisite for Yahweh’s presence in the middle of his people (cf. Ex 40:34–35), God’s revelation to Israel of the appropriate way to offer him sacrifices is a prerequisite for his revelation to Israel’s cult in Lev 9:23–24. Closer analysis of the text of Lev 1–7 indicates, however, that this section is not of one hand but has been significantly edited. In its original form, it should have consisted in ch. 1–3; Lev 4–5 and 6–7 were initially not part of it, but represent a later supplement to P. Lev 4, on which ch. 5 and 6–7 depend, presupposes the section of the Tabernacle account in Ex 25–31 dealing with the altar of perfumes (ch. 30– 31). As the text- and literary-critical evidence demonstrates, Ex 30–31 is obviously a later addition to ch. 25–29. Moreover, as this study has shown, Lev 4 is also singled out by its distinct terminology and by its unique position in the tradition history of the t)+x sacrifice. Below, we shall return to the historical context for the introduction, within P, of Lev 4–5 and 6–7. In Lev 1–3, several observations indicate that the Priestly writer made use of an earlier document. Contrary to a common view, the latter is not a priestly

610

Summary and Conclusions

instruction intended for laymen but, more likely, a kind of manual serving as a liturgical “aide-mémoire” or a check-list; numerous relevant parallels to this are found in the ancient Near East, especially in the case of so-called “ritual” texts. Although most of the rites themselves are much older, some elements, in particular the instruction to add frankincense (hnbl) on every raw cereal offering in Lev 2 and the use of the compound Myml#-xbz to designate any animal sacrifice other than the hl( offered at the sanctuary, suggest a dating no earlier than the late Neo-Babylonian or early Persian periods, in relation with the prospect of the (official) restoration of the sacrificial cult in Jerusalem. The issue raised by a new generation of Judean priests returning from Babylon and, above all, the considerable challenge raised by the new historical situation after the disappearance of the traditional state-sponsored temple cult in Jerusalem, called for the redefinition of a unified ritual practice. The writing down of a manual identifying the main types of offerings to be brought to the Temple (burnt, well-being, and cereal offerings, probably in this order originally) would typically have answered such a concern. Later, Lev 1–3 was included into P’s narrative by means of Lev 8–9, building an inclusion with Ex 25–29, as well as by various additional redactional devices, such as the envelope created by the motif of Moses’ admission into the sanctuary in Ex 40:35 and Lev 9:23. Apart from changing the order of sacrifices, P did not significantly intervene in the manual itself. Nevertheless, the inclusion by the Priestly writer of Lev 1–3 into his complex myth of origins implied a radical re-interpretation of the former manual. It is quite possible that one of P’s purposes, when editing this manual, was to grant further legitimacy to the cult that had just resumed inside the Temple of Jerusalem, as it has been commonly assumed. However, the decisive aspect does not lie there, but in the fact that the to=ra= for sacrifices, once a distinctively priestly manual, is now revealed, in P’s account, to all Israel at Mt Sinai (Lev 1:1ff.). This significant innovation brings to completion the central theme of the Priestly Document, namely, Israel’s transformation into the “priestly nation” of the world. Among all nations, only Israel, from P’s perspective, is able to honor adequately Yahweh, the creator God who has just taken up residence in the sanctuary built for him by the Israelites (Ex 40:34– 35, a passage taking up the previous promises in Gen 17:7–8; Ex 6:2–8 and 29:45–46) by presenting him the appropriate sacrifices. With Lev 1–9*, a first narrative theme thus reaches a close, the offering of the first sacrifices manifesting the partial restoration, in Israel’s cult, of the original community between God and man at the creation of the world. This aspect is signaled both by the duration of the ceremony recounted in Lev 8–9 (7 + 1 days), recalling unmistakably the creation account (the offering of the first sacrifices on the eighth day somehow taking the place of the first day after the creation of the world), as well as by the unique event of the manifestation of the hwhy dwbk,

From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch

611

the divine “glory” or “splendor”, to the entire community at the end of the ceremony in Lev 9:23–24, after Moses’ and Aaron’s have eventually been admitted into the tent. Furthermore, the revelation of the sacrificial cult to Israel simultaneously corresponds to an improvement of the situation after the Flood with the permission granted by God to man to kill animals freely for his food. Although there are indications that P, contrary to H, does not simply condemn profane slaughter, the possibility given to Israel to sacrifice animals is, as in other ancient cultures, a means of legitimizing the taking of the animal’s life by offering it to the god(s), and therefore a compensation for the violence involved in the animal’s death. In this respect, the institution of the sacrificial cult also implies the restoration, in Israel, of a relationship between God, men and animals superior to that characterizing the post-Flood era, and closer (although not identical!) to that of the original creation (cf. Gen 1:28– 30). In short, by composing Lev 1–9*, the Priestly writer is completely re-interpreting the Sinai tradition, suggesting that the content of the revelation made at Mt Sinai was the sacrificial cult itself, and that such revelation comprised nothing less than the outcome of a process of reconciliation between God and his creation that started after the Flood. That this revision of the Sinai tradition met with considerable opposition in non-priestly (prophetic and Deuteronomistic) circles may still be reflected in Jer 7:22, a late Dtr insert into the book of Jeremiah. The second part of ch. 1–16, Lev 11–16, pursues the general theme of Lev 1–9. P has made use here of two kinds of sources, a collection on bodily impurities in Lev 12–15 on one hand and a classification of animal species into clean and unclean ones in the first part of Lev 11, v. 2–23, on the other. Both traditions have their origin in priestly circles and probably served also as priestly manuals, as in the case of the collection on sacrifices in Lev 1–3. In Lev 11–15, P’s contribution, in addition to transforming these traditions into a revelation made by God to Israel at Mt Sinai, consists of introducing the ritual for the reinstatement into the community of the former (rcm (the person struck by scale disease) in Lev 14:1–20, possibly on the basis of an earlier tradition, and above all in grouping the animal classification of Lev 11 and the collection on bodily impurities in ch. 12–15 in a comprehensive collection on pollution and purification. Apart from the reconstruction of P’s sources and editorial work, the main weight of the discussion has been devoted to understanding the logic and coherence of this collection by using the resources offered by comparative and cross-cultural studies. Both Lev 11 and 12–15 have been the subject of recent scholarly discussion that has considerably enhanced our understanding of the meaning of “uncleanness” in these chapters. Yet most studies have tended to deal with these chapters separately, rather than seeking to offer a comprehensive interpretation of pollution in Lev 11–15. The few proposals made in this direction, such as uncleanness as a

612

Summary and Conclusions

symbol of death, or of death and sexuality, or as being opposite to holiness, are too one-sided and do not account for the complexity of this collection. Although separate treatment of Lev 11 and 12–15 is legitimate in a first-time analysis, it eventually fails to do justice to the intention of the Priestly writer who conceived Lev 11–15 as a coherent collection. In the case of Lev 12–15, it was argued in connection with some recent proposals that natural events are represented as a source of pollution if they are perceived as a significant intrusion of the biological order into the social one and therefore as posing a threat to the latter. Their identification as unclean is thus a means for society to reassert its control on such events; in this regard, the “control factor” behind Lev 12–15, advocated by some scholars (H. Eilberg-Schwartz, R. Malul), bears a correct hint but needs to be replaced within a more comprehensive framework, namely, society’s control over biological events rather than simply the individual’s control over his or her own body. It was shown that this interpretation may not only account for all the phenomena qualified as “unclean” in Lev 12–15, but also for the connection defined between the nature of a given source of uncleanness and the degree of pollution assigned to it. In the context of the Priestly narrative, the edition of this collection is basically intended to exemplify how Israel, as the place of God’s sanctuary and, as such, the center of a new cosmic order, is called to be a model of social control over chaotic, anti-social forces threatening its boundaries. This point is further illustrated by P’s description of the rite for the re-aggregation of the former (rcm in several stages, marking the separation between Israel (the camp) and the outside world (the wilderness). As such, this rite represents the structural counterpart, within ch. 11–16, of the ritual for the consecration of Aaron and his sons in Lev 8, which underlined for its part the separation between the sanctuary and profane space. The homology is enhanced by the obvious parallel between the two rituals, and it highlights the thematic connection between Lev 1–9 and 11–15. As regards the animal classification in Lev 11:2–23, a detailed discussion was devoted to the complex question of the classification’s logic. It was basically argued that its origin should be found in the quadrupeds’ section, in which priestly scientists had noted that all the ruminants normally raised or hunted for food (cf. Deut 14:4b–5) shared common anatomical features and could therefore be grouped in a single zoological taxon, animals excluded from it being designated as “unclean”. The attempt to enlarge this principle to other animal kingdoms (fish and birds, although in the case of birds this was not really possible for reasons which are discussed) reflects the willingness to base the distinction between clean and unclean species upon a cosmological norm and no longer upon local dietary customs, as was usually done in antiquity. This development is unique, and probably reflects the new challenges, both practical and speculative-theoretical, posed to Judeans in the context of

From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch

613

life in diaspora. In this respect, the composition of the animal classification of Lev 11 is profoundly related to the (re-)definition of a distinct Judean ethos in the Neo-Babylonian or early Persian periods, diet being a major cultural discriminant from an anthropological perspective. The choice by the Priestly writer to introduce the entire legislation on impurities with Lev 11 should be understood, here again, against the general background of the Priestly account and of the gradual transformation of Israel into the “priestly nation” of the world. As in the case of sacrifices (see above), God’s revelation to Israel of the distinction between clean and unclean animals involves an improvement on the situation of undifferentiated consumption of meat prevailing after the Flood (Gen 9), and thus corresponds to the restoration of a state more in conformity with (but once again not equivalent to) the vegetarianism of origins. Here also, therefore, P’s editing goes along with a significant reinterpretation of his source. Moreover, the relationship built with Gen 1–11 has implications for the remainder of the collection on impurities in Lev 12–15; the control demanded in these chapters over all forms of major biological intrusions into the social sphere similarly appears as partaking of a general process of re-creation in Israel. Like unclean animals, bodily impurities are represented as deviations from a creational norm defined by the creator God himself, to which Israel must seek to conform in order to fulfill the task for which it was chosen. Finally, the Priestly account was concluded in Lev 16 by a divine instruction, aptly completing the legislation on impurities by a complex ritual for the joint purification of the sanctuary and the community. It has usually been presumed that Lev 16 would betray a complex composition history, and for this reason a long discussion was devoted, in this study, to the problem of the chapter’s literary coherence (§ 4.3.1.). It was demonstrated that although the present ceremony is obviously based on distinct types of rites (an elimination rite, a rite of entrance and a rite for the purification of the sanctuary), it is by no means possible to assign them to different layers and to reconstruct a process of gradual formation, adding one new rite to the other. Except for v. 29– 34a, which are from the hand of an H redactor, for v. 1, as well as for a few limited interpolations, the ceremony itself in v. 2–28 should be regarded as a coherent creation by the Priestly writer. In a further stage of the analysis, it was shown how it is really with Lev 16 that the Priestly account of Israel’s origins finds its proper climax. While ch. 11–15, by keeping Israel out of all major sources of pollution, recreate an order more in conformity with the original creation, the entire ceremony of ch. 16, as the Mesopotamian ak|4tu Festival, corresponds to the re-establishment of cosmic order and may therefore be regarded as a ritual re-enactment of God’s primeval victory over chaos at the creation of the world. This ritual process of re-creation makes possible God’s permanent presence in Israel, which is made concrete by his revelation

614

Summary and Conclusions

to Aaron in the cloud inside the inner-sanctum (Lev 16:2, 13), thus closing the dominant theme of P. From the viewpoint of P’s structure, this aspect is remarkably enhanced by the connection established between the cloud motif in Lev 16 and the two previous cloud theophanies framing the account on the building of the sanctuary in Ex 25–40. Concluding Lev 1–16 with a further cloud theophany rounds off P’s Sinaitic account by recounting the cloud’s move from Mt Sinai (Ex 24:15b–18aa) to the tent of meeting (40:34–35) and finally, to the inner-sanctum (Lev 16:2, 13). The gradual restitution of the divine presence in Israel’s sanctuary is thus structured on the model of an ancient Near Eastern ritual of temple entrance, which finds its climax in the great ceremony of Lev 16. The analysis of the historical context for the composition of the Priestly Document at the end of Chapter Four of this study (§ 4.4.2.) has made clear that P cannot be earlier than the beginning of the Persian period and most likely dates back to the first decades of the fifth century BCE . It is closely linked to the rebuilding of the Temple, the legitimation of the Second Temple community in Jerusalem, and the challenge raised by the new historical situation caused by the emergence of the Persian empire and the disappearance of the traditional form of state organization in Judah. The writing down of P also betrays the claims of the priestly class in Jerusalem in a historical context when, after Zerubbabel’s dismissal, the high priest, represented in P by Aaron’s figure, has become the most important native leader in Judah. Later, the Priestly Document was supplemented by the addition of Lev 4–5 and 6–7. The reference to the altar of perfumes and to the daily offering of incense in Ex 30:1–10 presupposes a situation in which the temple of Jerusalem has become a storage center for precious goods, such as frankincense, and is somehow associated with international trade; this, as argued in § 3.2.2.4., is unlikely before Nehemiah’s governorship (see also Neh 13:5, 9), which suggests a dating for this supplement around 450 BCE, at a time when P was still transmitted as a separate document, but nevertheless shortly before its inclusion into the Pentateuch. The analysis of Lev 4 against the background of other traditions in the Hebrew Bible about the t)+x suggested that this sophisticated regulation reflects the end process of a historical development in which two distinct rituals – one for atonement of individual or collective sin and one for cleansing of sancta – were unified into a single offering. In Lev 4, this fusion of rites is founded upon a unique, comprehensive system of pollution and purification which, along with the interpolation in Lev 16 of v. 16ab and 21ab, permeates all of ch. 1–16. A precise distinction is now made between severe impurities, inadvertent sins, and deliberate sins, according to the degree to which they pollute the sanctuary; this accounts for all the cases when the offering of a t)+x is instructed in Lev 1–16. This system, as defined in Lev 4 (and through

From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch

615

the interpolation of Lev 16:16ab, 21ab), is the most elaborate contribution, from the priestly school, to the reflection on error and transgression in the Hebrew Bible. As the center of a social and moral order that is divinely instituted, the sanctuary, with its internal divisions and boundaries, is the model, or even the scale, of all ethics: only inadvertent (hgg#b) transgressions of this divine order may be forgiven, while deliberate transgressions have no place in the community. Yet, in conformity with the rule set in Gen 17 (see v. 14), punishment is always exclusively individual, and no collective sanction is considered, at least as long as the purification of the temple is correctly performed by the priestly class. Lev 5, for its part, follows first with a complement to the t)+x legislation dealing with borderline cases and introducing a specific clause in case of necessity (v. 1–13), and second with a legislation on the M#) offering, moving here again from basic cases to more intricate ones (v. 14–26). As a whole, ch. 5 shows a complex but perfectly consistent casuistry, completing the legislation of ch. 4 and refining it by addressing more sophisticated instances of transgressions that may nevertheless be atoned for by the sacrificial cult. Finally, the last addition made to P in Lev 1–16 before its inclusion in the Pentateuch is to be found in ch. 6–7. This supplement was introduced very likely by a different scribe than the one responsible for the composition of ch. 4–5; it aptly concludes the sacrificial to=ra= in Lev 1–5 with a specific instruction for the disposal of sacrificial remains. Its original form should be found in 6:1–7:21* (possibly with a subscription in 7:37*). Lev 6:12–16; 7:22–27 and 7:28–36 are later additions, partly from the hand of a redactor dependent upon Lev 17–26 (H). Contrary to the common view, this instruction is not primarily concerned with priestly rights on the offering, but more fundamentally, with the issue raised by the elimination of the animal’s flesh after the latter has been consecrated to Yahweh. In the cases where this flesh is defined as being “most sacred” (My#dq #dq), it may only be disposed of by priests because they have themselves been consecrated to Yahweh and are holier than the rest of the community; otherwise it may be given to the offerer. This aspect also accounts for the classical crux raised by the order of sacrifices in Lev 6–7: the well-being offering being mentioned last because it is actually the only offering whose flesh is merely “sacred” and may be eaten by the offerer. As such, this arrangement has nothing to do with the alleged existence of a distinct “administrative” or “book-keeping” order in opposition to a “didactic” or “prescriptive” one reflected in Lev 1–5, as is sometimes proposed. The insertion of Lev 6–7 actually offers a fitting conclusion to the entire legislation on sacrifices in ch. 1–7; every possible aspect of sacrifice is addressed in the final form of this collection, from the bringing of the animal to the elimination of residual remains after it has been offered upon the altar.

616

Summary and Conclusions

The introduction of the second part of Leviticus, the so-called “Holiness Code” (H) in ch. 17–26, is the most significant revision undergone in the book. A detailed analysis of this code has shown that it represents a coherent composition with a clear two-part structure (ch. 17–22 and 23–25), followed by a general exhortation concluding it (26:3–45). Only in 24:10–23 was it possible to identify a major addition; for the rest, this code has been edited very little. Contrary to the traditional view that has prevailed since Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen, the reconstruction of an earlier, pre-Priestly code has proven to be untenable. This collection has never existed as a separate document but was intended as a supplement to P, combining it with the systematic reception of other codes in the Pentateuch, the Decalogue, the “Covenant Code” (CC), and the Deuteronomic code (D). These codes are not replaced, but rather harmonized, supplemented, and even revised in H. This means that H was actually conceived from the beginning in the prospect of a synoptic reading of the so-called “legal” codes comprised within the Torah/Pentateuch. This observation, as well as the very nature of the process of inner-biblical exegesis reflected in H, demonstrate that the composition of this code should be related to a first edition of the Pentateuch, as suggested by E. Otto. In this literary and historical context, the connection built by H between the Priestly document in Gen 1–Lev 16 and the other biblical codes lies in the observance of the totality of God’s commands – that is, the Torah – now being presented as the condition for the sanctification of the entire community of Israel. This theme is exemplified paradigmatically in the central instruction of ch. 19 (in which part of the rabbinic tradition correctly saw a kind of précis of the entire Torah), but it also dictates more generally the overall structure of the collection, as the analysis has shown, and culminates in the final speech of Lev 25–26. The introduction of the motif of the people’s sanctification does not weaken the central role played by the sanctuary, nor the importance of the cultic-sacrificial mediation, as Lev 21–22, as well as 17 already, make clear; in this regard, the P legislation in Lev 1–16 remains necessary. Rather, P’s ritual tradition is now combined with the possibility of another, more direct type of relationship between God and man through the observance of the Torah, as stated in the concluding exhortation of Lev 26:3–13. As such, the introduction of Lev 17–26, aligning the Priestly tradition with other pentateuchal ones in the context of P’s inclusion into the Torah, was conceived as a further stage in the general process, initiated in Gen 1–Lev 16, of restoring the divine presence in Israel, and even as the climax of this process. This development is the origin of the threefold structure of the book in its canonical form (namely, Lev 1–10, 11–16, 17–27), which was discussed in Chapter Two of this study. The complex articulation resulting from this combination, in which the sanctuary is represented as the center of a sphere of holiness gra-

From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch

617

dually extending to the entire community by means of the Torah’s observance, characteristically betrays the concerns of priestly editors of the Pentateuch. H’s function and significance in mediating between P and other legal traditions inside the Pentateuch is further emphasized by the fact that it was devised as the conclusion to the entire Sinaitic revelation (cf. Lev 25:1; 26:46 [further 27:34], and compare with Num 1:1). As such, it participates in the definition of a complex hermeneutics of revelation transforming Deuteronomy not simply into a commentary of the Sinaitic law, as some scholars would hold now, but more likely into a further transmission by Moses of the same Sinaitic revelation to the second generation of the exodus in the plains of Moab. At the same time, the nature of the relationship between Deuteronomy and the original Sinaitic revelation in Ex 19–Lev 26 is defined through the reception of D into H and through the inclusion of the Deuteronomic legislation into a more general process of sanctification (see Deut 26:19 and 28:9) the core of which lies in H. In this regard, the Holiness Code lays out, so to speak, the program for reading and learning the entire Torah, and may properly be viewed as forming its hermeneutical center. In a different but related way, it was shown how this aspect is also reflected in the manner in which the author of H defines the relationship between law and land, particularly in the legislation of Lev 25. Against E. Otto, the classical observation of H’s distinctive terminology and theology indicates that H is not simply the work of a “pentateuchal redactor”, but rather of a distinct priestly scribal school, as argued by I. Knohl and J. Milgrom, to which the editing of the Priestly document in Gen 1–Lev 16 was entrusted at the time of P’s inclusion into the Pentateuch. This conclusion also accounts for the presence of some interpolations in the style of H in the P laws of Exodus and Leviticus (the book of Numbers representing a distinct case), betraying the editorial activity of this school and its concern for harmonizing the Priestly legislation with the H code in Lev 17–26, as proposed by Knohl. A discussion of the evidence offered by the so-called “Passover papyrus” of Elephantine (AP 21) suggests that the activity of the “Holiness School” took place in the last decades of the fifth century BCE, a time when attempts to unify the ritual and cultic practice of the Judean ethnos would probably have been positively perceived by the imperial administration in Yehud. In a final stage, the book of Leviticus was concluded by the addition of ch. 10 and 27; the two chapters are the work of the book’s final editor, who should belong to the same priestly school responsible for the “theocratic revision” that has been recently identified by R. Achenbach in the book of Numbers. Lev 27, although being a supplement to the H code in Lev 17–26, builds a fine inclusion with the to=ra= on sacrifices in Lev 1ff., and deals with an aspect unforeseen so far in Leviticus, namely the possibility to de-consecrate (that is, to return to the profane world) a person, an animal or a thing conse-

618

Summary and Conclusions

crated to God. As such, its insertion in Leviticus, and even its present position as an appendix rounding off the entire book (cf 27:34 after 26:46), are quite justified. Lev 10, for its part, completes the book with a legislation on priestly duties and responsibilities highlighting the specific role assigned to priests in the observance of the law and also its interpretation. The building of this priestly compendium draws upon several laws elsewhere in Leviticus, in Numbers, and even in Ez 40–48, that are simultaneously reinterpreted, harmonized and supplemented. The report of a cultic transgression by Aaron’s elder sons, Nadab and Abihu, begins the chapter’s overall theme and serves as a narrative pretext to introduce further instructions concerning priestly duties. The account concludes in v. 16–20 with a parallel story in which Aaron’s remaining sons, similarly accused by Moses of committing a major transgression, are saved this time by Aaron, who is exceptionally represented as interpreting the law better than Moses; it exemplifies the major development taking place in this chapter, namely the institution by God himself of the Aaronites as instructors of the Law (see 10:11). The Leviticus editor thus aptly closes this book by inserting into the very middle of the Pentateuch a legend establishing the authority of priestly scribes to interpret and comment upon the entire Torah. On the whole, this study has shown the need for an approach to the priestly literature within the Torah which is capable of taking into account both its profound internal coherence and the evidence for historical development. Although it is clear that many of the traditional source- and literary-critical divisions in Leviticus are no longer tenable, the contrary assumption in many recent studies of the unity of “P” is similarly unsatisfactory and does not explain the specificity of some central texts. This is the case, for example, when Lev 17:11 is read as a faithful statement of the function of the sacrificial cult in P; it may correspond to the intention of the H school but does not reflect the original meaning of the Priestly legislation, nor does it account for the unique character of Lev 17:11 as a midrashic restatement of Lev 1–161. What is at stake, ultimately, for a historical exegesis of the Pentateuch are two related issues: doing justice to the possibility of reformulation, revision and reinterpretation, on one hand, and understanding better the relationship between the texts known as “P” and the historical process leading to the composition of the Torah/Pentateuch in its canonical form, on the other. The present study suggests that we should identify three significant stages in the composition of priestly literature: the original Priestly document in Gen 1

See above, § 5.2.1., esp. page 432. This point was also recognized recently, for example, by GILDERS, Blood Ritual, 158–180, stating on p. 176: “[…] I conclude that Lev 17:11 should not be employed as a key for explaining blood manipulation in P or elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, at least if one’s goal is the historical elucidation of the texts”.

From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch

619

1–Lev 16; P’s editing by the Holiness School at the time of a first edition of the Pentateuch; and, lastly, the editorial work of the “theocratic” revision in Numbers, which also left its mark in the last additions made to Leviticus, ch. 10 and 27, and represents the Torah’s final editing. The classical distinction between “Pg” and “Ps” should preferably be abandoned, or the designation “Ps” should be reserved for those portions of the Priestly document inserted at a later stage, such as Ex 30–31 and Lev 4–5; 6–7. The three stages identified here reflect the activity of priestly scribes in the Temple’s library in Jerusalem from the beginning of the Persian period to its end. Together, they testify to the existence during this period within priestly circles of an ongoing tradition of legal and religious reflection, leading regularly to the revision of older documents as is characteristically demonstrated by the HS’s editing of P. The reconstruction of this three-stage development highlights the unique importance of the book of Leviticus in the overall process. While in its original form (i.e., Lev 1–16*) it formed the grandiose conclusion to P’s account of Israel’s origins, Leviticus was profoundly changed by pentateuchal editors and became the center of the Torah, and therefore of the divine revelation made to Israel, through the introduction of the Holiness code in ch. 17–26; later revisions of the Torah further strengthened this position. In this respect, it is not excessive to state that Leviticus lies at the very heart of the process leading to the formation of the Pentateuch. After the Persian period and the Torah’s canonical closure, this activity continued in priestly scribal circles in the form of a tradition of Torah commentary, such as is reflected in the Temple Scroll (11QT) for example. Yet even this move was prepared in the Torah itself by means of the last addition made to Leviticus, the account of ch. 10. This last observation underlines the profound continuity that exists between the priestly composition of the Pentateuch and the later tradition of Torah commentary and, as well as the unique importance of the book of Leviticus for priestly editors of the Torah.

Bibliography AARTUN, K., “Eine weitere Parallele aus Ugarit zur kultischen Praxis in Israels Religion”, BiOr 33 (1976), 285–289. – “Studien zum Gesetz über den grossen Versöhnungstag Lev 16 mit Varianten: Ein ritualgeschichtlicher Beitrag”, ST 34 (1980), 73–109. ACHENBACH, R., “Levitische Priester und Leviten im Deuteronomium. Überlegungen zur sog. ‘Levitisierung’ des Priestertums”, ZAR 5 (1999), 285–309. – “Das Heiligkeitsgesetz im nachpriesterschriftlichen Pentateuch. Zu einem Buch von Klaus Grünwaldt”, ZAR 6 (2000), 341–350. – Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (BZAR 3), Wiesbaden, 2003. – “Das Versagen der Aaroniden. Erwägungen zum literarhistorischen Ort von Leviticus 10”, in M. Augustin and H.M. Niemann (eds), “Basel und Bibel”: Collected Communications to the XVIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Basel 2001 (BEATAJ 51), Frankfurt a.M., 2004, 55–70. AEJMELAEUS, A., “Septuagintal Translation Techniques – A Solution to the Problem of the Tabernacle Account”, in G.J. Brooke and B. Lindars (eds), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings, Manchester, 1990 (SBL.SCSS 33), Atlanta, GA, 1992, 381–402. AHN, G., “Religiöse Herrscherlegitimation im achämenidischen Iran. Die Voraussetzungen und die Struktur ihrer Argumentation”, Acta Iranica 31 (1992), 255–297. – “‘Toleranz’ und Reglement. Die Signifikanz achämenidischer Religionspolitik für den jüdisch-persischen Kulturkontakt”, in R.G. Kratz (ed.), Religion und Religionskontakte im Zeitalter der Achämeniden (Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 22), Gütersloh, 2002, 191–209. ALBERTZ, R., “Die ‘Antrittspredigt’ Jesu im Lukasevangelium auf ihrem alttestamentlichen Hintergrund”, ZNW 74 (1983), 182–206. – A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, 2 vols, London, 1994. – “KPR: Kultische Sühne und politische und gesellschaftliche Versöhnung”, in R. Albertz (ed.), Kult, Konflikt und Versöhnung. Beiträge zur kultischen Sühne in religiösen, sozialen und politischen Auseinandersetzungen des antiken Mittelmeerraumes (AOAT 285/ AZERKAVO 2), Münster, 2001, 135–149. – “Hintergrund und Bedeutung des Elterngebots im Decalog” (1978), in R. Albertz, Geschichte und Theologie. Studien zur Exegese des Alten Testaments und zur Religionsgeschichte Israels (BZAW 326), Berlin/New York, NY, 2003, 157–185. A LT, A., “Die Ursprünge des israelitischen Rechts” (1934), in A. Alt, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, München, 1953, vol. 1, 278–332. A NDERSEN , F.I./FREEDMAN , D.N., Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 24), New York, NY, 1983. ANDERSON, G.A., Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel: Studies in their Social and Political Importance (HSM 41), Atlanta, GA, 1987.

622

Bibliography

– art. “Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings (OT)”, ABD 5, 1992, 870–886. ANDRÉ, G./RINGGREN, H., art. )m'+f t[a4me4), TDOT 5, 1986, 330–342. A RTUS, O., Études sur le livre des Nombres. Récit, Histoire et Loi en Nb 13,1–20,13 (OBO 157), Fribourg (Suisse)/Göttingen, 1997. ASHLOCK, R.O., As the Lord Commands: Narrative Endings and Closure Strategy in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, Diss. Baylor University, Waco, TX, 2002. AUERBACH, E., “Das Zehngebot – Allgemeines Gesetzes-form in der Bibel”, VT 16 (1966), 255–276. AULD, A.G., Joshua, Moses and the Land: Tetrateuch-Pentateuch-Hexateuch in a Generation since 1938, Edinburgh, 1980. – “Leviticus at the Heart of the Pentateuch?”, in J.F.A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas (JSOTSup 227), Sheffield, 1996, 40–51. – “Samuel, Numbers, and the Yahwist-Question”, in J.C. Gertz, K. Schmid and M. Witte (eds), Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (BZAW 315), Berlin/New York, NY, 2002, 233–246. – “Leviticus: After Exodus and Before Numbers”, in R. Rendtorff and R.A. Kugler (eds), The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (VTSup 93), Leiden/Boston, MA, 2003, 41–54. AURELIUS, E., Der Fürbitter Israels. Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament (CB.OT 27), Stockholm, 1988. AVI-YONAH, M., The Holy Land from the Persian to the Arab Conquests, Grand Rapids, MI, 1977. BAENTSCH, B., Das Bundesbuch Ex. XX,22–XXIII,33. Seine ursprüngliche Gestalt, sein Verhältnis zu den es umgebenden Quellenschriften und seine Stellung in der alttestamentlichen Gesetzgebung, Halle, 1892. – Das Heiligkeits-Gesetz Lev XVII–XXVI. Eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung, Erfurt, 1893. – Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri (HK I, 2), Göttingen, 1903. BAKER, D.W., “Leviticus 1–7 and the Punic Tariffs: A Form Critical Comparison”, ZAW 99 (1987), 188–197. BALENTINE, S.E., The Torah’s Vision of Worship, Overtures to Biblical Theology, Minneapolis, MN, 1999. – Leviticus (Int), Louisville, KY, 2002. BAR-EFRAT, S., Narrative Art in the Bible (JSOTSup 70), Sheffield, 1989. BAR-ON, S., “Zur literarkritischen Analyse von Exod 12,21-27”, ZAW 107 (1995), 18–30. B ARBIERO, G., L’asino del nemico: rinuncia alla vendetta e amore del nemico nella legislazione dell’Antico Testamento (Es 23,4–5; Dt 22,1–4; Lv 19,17–18) (AnBib 128), Roma, 1991. B ASSETT , F.W., “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan: A Case of Incest?”, VT 16 (1971), 232–237. BAUKS, M., “La signification de l’espace et du temps dans l’‘historiographie sacerdotale’”, in T. Römer (ed.), The Future of the Deuteronomistic History (BETL 147), Leuven, 2000, 29–45. – “Genesis 1 als Programmschrift der Priesterschrift (Pg)”, in A. Wénin (ed.), Studies in the Book of Genesis (BETL 155), Leuven, 2001, 333–345. – “Le Shabbat: un temple dans le temps”, ETR 77 (2002), 473–490. – “Die Begriffe mrs]h und )h9zzh in Pg. Überlegungen zur Landkonzeption in der Priestergrundschrift”, ZAW 116 (2004), 171–188.

Bibliography

623

– “Les notions ‘Peuple’ et ‘Terre’ dans l’oeuvre sacerdotale (Pg)”, Transeu 30 (2005), 19– 36. BAUMGART, N.C., “Überkommene Traditionen neu aufgearbeitet und angeeignet: Lev 26,3– 45. Das Heiligkeitsgesetz in Exil und Diaspora”, BZ 43 (1999), 1–25. – Die Umkehr des Schöpfergottes: zu Komposition und religionsgeschichtlichem Hintergrund von Gen 5–9 (HBSt 22), Freiburg i.Br. et al., 1999. BAUMGARTEN, A.I., “h9at[t[a4)t Sacrifices”, RB 103 (1996), 337–342. BEAUCHAMP, P., “Création et fondation de la loi en Gn 1,1 – 2,4a. Le don de la nourriture végétale en Genèse 1,29s”, in L. Derousseaux and F. Blanquart (eds), La création dans l’Orient ancien. Congrès de l’ACFEB, Lille 1985 (LD 127), Paris, 1987, 139–182. B EDFORD, P.R., “On Models and Texts: A Response to Blenkinsopp and Petersen”, in P.R. Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies. 1. Persian Period (JSOTSup 117), Sheffield, 1991, 154–162. – Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah (JSJSup 65), Leiden et al., 2001. BEENTJES, P.C., “Inverted Quotations in the Bible”, Bib 63 (1982), 506–523. BEER, G., Exodus. Mit einem Beitrag von Kurt Galling (HAT I, 3), Tübingen, 1939. BEGRICH, J., “Die priesterliche Thora”, in P. Volz, F. Stummer and J. Hempel (eds), Werden und Wesen des Alten Testaments (BZAW 66), Berlin, 1936, 63–88. B ENZINGER, I., “Das Gesetz über den grossen Versöhnungstag Lev. XVI. Eine pentateuchkritische Studie”, ZAW 9 (1889), 65–89. BEN ZVI, E., “The Closing Words of the Pentateuchal Books: A Clue for the Historical Status of the Book of Genesis within the Pentateuch”, BN 62 (1992), 7–10. BERGMAN, J./RINGGREN, H./LANG, B., art. xbazF za4bhach, TDOT 4, 1990, 8–29. BERGQUIST, B., “Bronze Age Sacrificial Koine in the Eastern Mediterranean? A Study of Animal Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East”, in J. Quaegebeur (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 55), Leuven, 1993, 11–43. BERGSMA, J.S., “Once Again, the Jubilee, Every 49 or 50 Years?”, VT 55 (2005), 121–125. BERNETT, M., “Polis und Politeia. Zur politischen Organisation Jerusalems und Jehuds in der Perserzeit”, in S. Alkier and M. Witte (eds), Die Griechen und das antike Israel. Interdisziplinäre Studien zur Religions- und Kulturgeschichte des Heiligen Landes (OBO 201), Freiburg (Schweiz)/Göttingen, 2004, 73–129. BERQUIST, J.L., Judaism in Persia’s Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach, Minneapolis, MN, 1995. – Controlling Corporeality: The Body and the Household in Ancient Israel, New Brunswick et al., 2002. BERTHELOT, K., “L’interprétation symbolique des lois alimentaires dans la Lettre d’Aristée: une influence pythagoricienne”, JJS 52 (2001), 253–268. BERTHOLET, A., Leviticus (KHC 3), Tübingen/Leipzig, 1901. BETTENZOLI, G., Geist der Heiligkeit (QuSem 8), Florenz, 1979. – “Deuteronomium und Heiligkeitsgesetz”, VT 34 (1984), 385–398. B IDMEAD , J., The Ak|4tu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia (Gorgias Dissertations 2, Near Eastern Studies 2), Piscataway, NJ, 2004. BIGGER, S.F., “The Family Laws of Leviticus 18 in Their Setting”, JBL 98 (1979), 187–203. BLENKINSOPP, J., “The Structure of P”, CBQ 38 (1976), 275–292. – The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (The Anchor Bible Reference Library), New York, NY, 1992. – “An Assessment of the Alleged Pre-Exilic Date of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch”, ZAW 108 (1996), 495–518. – “The Judaean Priesthood during the Neo-babylonian and Achaemenid Period”, CBQ 60 (1998), 25–43.

624

Bibliography

– “Was the Pentateuch the Civic and Religious Constitution of the Jewish Ethnos in the Persian Period?”, in J.W. Watts (ed.), Persia and Torah: The Theory of the Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch (SBL.SymS 17), Atlanta, GA, 2001, 41–62. BLOCH-SMITH , E., Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead (JSOTSup 123), Sheffield, 1992. BLOCH-SMITH, E./SMITH, M.S., The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus (JSOTSup 239), 1997. B LOCK , D.I., “Divine Abandonment: Ezekiel’s Adaptation of an Ancient Near Eastern Motif”, in M.S. Odell, J.T. Strong (eds), The Book of Ezekiel. Theological and Anthropological Perspectives (SBL.SymS 9), Atlanta, GA, 2000, 15–42. BLOME, F., Die Opfermaterie in Babylonien und Israel, vol. 1, Rom, 1934. BLUM, E., Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (WMANT 57), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1984. – Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189), Berlin/New York, NY, 1990. – “Gibt es die Endgestalt des Pentateuch ?”, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (VTSup 43), Leiden et al., 1991, 46–57. – “Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus. Ein Gespräch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen”, in J.C. Gertz, K. Schmid and M. Witte (eds), Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (BZAW 315), Berlin/ New York, NY, 2002, 119–156. BLÜMNER, A., art. “Salz”, in Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neue Bearbeitung begonnen von Georg Wissowa. Zweite Reihe (R–Z). Erster Bd., Stuttgart, 1920, 2075–2099. B ODENDORFER, G., “Der Horizont einer Exegese des Buches Levitikus in den rabbinischen Midraschim”, in H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling (eds), Levitikus als Buch (BBB 119), Berlin/Bodenheim b. Mainz, 1999, 343–371. B OGAERT, P.-M., “L’importance de la Septante et du ‘Monacensis’ de la Vetus Latina pour l’exégèse du livre de l’Exode (chap. 35–40)”, in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation (BETL 126), Leuven, 1996, 399–428. – “La construction de la tente (Ex 36–40) dans le Monacensis de la plus ancienne version latine: L’autel d’or et Hébreux 9,4”, in A. Schenker and P. Hugo (eds), L’enfance de la Bible hébraïque. L’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament à la lumière des recherches récentes (Le Monde de la Bible 52), Genève, 2005, 62–76. BONS, E., Das Buch Hosea (NSK.AT 23, 1), Stuttgart, 1996. BORGEAUD, P., “Le couple sacré/profane. Genèse et fortune d’un concept ‘opératoire’ en histoire des religions”, RHR 211 (1994), 387–418. – “Réflexions grecques sur les interdits alimentaires (entre l’Egypte et Jérusalem)”, 47e lettre circulaire de la Société suisse pour l'étude du Proche-Orient ancien (2001), 4–13. B OTTERO, J., “Le Manuel de l’Exorciste et son calendrier”, in J. Bottéro, Mythes et rites de Babylone (Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Hautes Études, IVe section. Sciences historiques et philologiques, t. 328), Genève/Paris, 1985, 65–112. – Mésopotamie. L’écriture, la raison et les dieux (Folio Histoire 81), 2nd ed., Paris, 1997. BOTTERWECK, G.J., art. hmfh'b@; be6he4ma4h, TDOT 2, 1975, 6–20. BRANDEN, A. VAN DEN, “Lévitique 1–7 et le Tarif de Marseille, CIS I, 165”, Rivista degli Studi Orientali 40 (1965), 107–130. B RAUDE , W.G., KAPSTEIN, I.J., Pe6sik[ta de6-Rab Kaha6na: R. Kahana’s Compilation of Discourses for Sabbaths and Festal Days, translated from Hebrew and Aramaic by William G. (Gershon Zev) Braude and Israel J. Kapstein, 2nd ed., Philadelphia, PA, 1978. BRAULIK, G., Deuteronomium, vol. 1 (NEB 15), Würzburg, 1986. – Deuteronomium, vol. 2 (NEB 28), Würzburg, 1992.

Bibliography

625

– “Die dekalogische Redaktion der deuteronomistischen Gesetze. Ihre Abhängigkeit von Levitikus 19 am Beispiel von Deuteronomium 22,1–2; 24,10–22; 25,13–16” (1995), in G. Braulik, Studien zum Buch Deuteronomium (SBA 24), Stuttgart, 1997, 147–182. – “Weitere Beobachtungen zur Beziehung zwischen dem Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium 19–25” (1996), in Id., Studien zum Buch Deuteronomium, 183–223. B RAULIK , G./LOHFINK , N., “Deuteronomium 1,5 hrwth-t) r)b: ‘er verlieh dieser Tora Rechtskraft’”, in K. Kiesow and T. Meurer (eds), Textarbeit. Studien zu Texten und ihrer Rezeption aus dem Alten Testament und der Umwelt Israels. FS P. Weimar (AOAT 294), Münster, 2003, 35–51. BREMMER, J.N., “Scapegoat Rituals in Ancient Greece”, HSCP 87 (1983), 299–320. – “The Scapegoat between Hittites, Greeks, Israelites and Christians”, in R. Albertz (ed.), Kult, Konflikt und Versöhnung. Beiträge zur kultischen Sühne in religiösen, sozialen und politischen Auseinandersetzungen des antiken Mittelmeerraumes (AOAT 285/AZERKAVO 2), Münster, 2001, 175–186. BRIANT, P., Histoire de l’empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre, Paris, 1996. BRICHTO, H.C., The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible, Philadelphia, PA, 1968. – “On Slaughter and Sacrifice, Blood and Atonement”, HUCA 47 (1976), 19–55. B ROOKE , G.J., “Reading the Plain Meaning of Scripture in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, in G.J. Brooke (ed.), Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible (JSS.S 17), Oxford, 2000, 67–90. BRYAN, D.T., Cosmos, Chaos and the Kosher Mentality (JSPSup 12), Sheffield, 1995. BUCKLEY, T./GOTTLIEB, A., Blood Magic: The Anthropology of Menstruation, Berkeley, CA, 1988. BUDD, P.J., Numbers (WBC 5), Waco, TX, 1984. B ULMER , R., “Why Is the Cassowary Not a Bird? A Problem of Zoological Taxonomy Among the Karam of the New Guinea Highlands”, Man (N.S.) 2 (1967), 5–25. – “The Uncleaness of the Birds of Leviticus and Deuteronomy”, Man (N.S.) 24 (1989), 304–320. BULTMANN, C., Der Fremde im antiken Juda: eine Untersuchung zum sozialen Typenbegriff “ger” und seinem Bedeutungswandel in der alttestamentlichen Gesetzgebung (FRLANT 153), Göttingen, 1992. BURKERT, W., “Greek Tragedy and Sacrificial Ritual”, GRBS 7 (1966), 87–121. – Homo Necans: Interpretationen altgriechischer Opferriten und Mythen (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 32), Berlin/New York, NY, 1972. – Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche (Die Religionen der Menschheit 15), Stuttgart, 1977. CAMPBELL, A., “The Priestly Text: Redaction or Source?”, in G. Braulik, W. Groß and S.E. McEvenue (eds), Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel. FS N. Lohfink, Freiburg i.Br./Basel/Wien, 1993, 32–47. CAPLICE, R., “Namburbi Texts in the British Museum, II”, Or 36 (1967), 1–38. C ARDELLINI, I., Die biblischen “Sklaven”-Gesetze im Lichte des keilschriftlichen Sklavenrechts (BBB 55), Bonn, 1981. – “‘Possessio’ o ‘dominium bonorum’? Riflessioni sulla proprietà privata e la ‘rimessa dei debiti’ in Levitico 25”, Antonianum 70 (1995), 333–348. C ARPENTER, J.E., with G. Harford-Battersby, The Hexateuch, 2 vols, New York, NY, et al., 1900. CAQUOT, A., art. #$bad@: de6bhash, TDOT 3, 1978, 128–131. – “La littérature ugaritique”, SDB 9, 1979, col. 1361–1417.

626

Bibliography

CAQUOT, A./SZNYCER , M./HERDNER , A., Textes ougaritiques. Introduction, traduction et commentaire. Vol. 1: Mythes et légendes (LAPO 7), Paris, 1974. Vol. 2: Textes religieux et rituels. Correspondence (LAPO 14), Paris, 1989. C ARDASCIA , G., “Égalité et inégalité des sexes en matière d’atteinte aux mœurs dans le Proche-Orient ancien”, WO 11 (1980), 7–16. CARMICHAEL, C.M., Law, Legend, and Incest in the Bible: Leviticus 18–20, Ithaca, NY, 1997. – “Death and Sexuality Among Priests (Leviticus 21)”, in R. Rendtorff and R.A. Kugler (eds), The Book of Leviticus. Composition and Reception (VTSup 93/Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature 3), Leiden/Boston, MA, 2003, 225–244. C ARR, D.M., Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches, Louisville, KY, 1996. CARROLL, M.P., “One More Time: Leviticus Revisited”, AES 19 (1978), 339–346. CARROLL, R.P., Jeremiah: A Commentary (OTL), London, 1986. CARTER, C.E., “The Province of Yehud in the Post-Exilic Period: Soundings in Site Distribution and Demography”, in T.C. Eskenazi and K.H. Richards (eds), Second Temple Studies. Vol. 2. Temple and Community in the Persian Period (JSOTSup 175), Sheffield, 1994, 106–145. – The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study (JSOTSup 294), Sheffield, 1999. CAZELLES, H., “La mission d’Esdras”, VT 4 (1954), 113–140. – Le Lévitique (BJ), Paris, 1958. – “Pureté et impureté: Ancien Orient. Ugarit”, SDB 9 (1979), col. 470–473. – “Pureté et impureté: L’Ancien Testament”, SDB 9 (1979), col. 491–508. C HARBEL , A., “Nota a Lev 7,34: Te6 N U" F A" H e Te6 R U" M A" H negli S0e 6L A" M IM”, RivBib 21 (1973), 353–359. C HEYNE , T.C., “The Date and Origin of the Ritual of the ‘Scapegoat’”, ZAW 15 (1895), 153–156. CHILDS, B.S., Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, London, 1979. CHIRICHIGNO, G.C., Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup 141), Sheffield, 1993. CHOLEWIN&SKI, A., Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium. Eine vergleichende Studie (AnBib 66), Rom, 1976. C LEMENS, D.M., Sources for Ugaritic Ritual and Sacrifice. Vol. 1: Ugaritic and Ugarit Akkadian Texts (AOAT 284), Münster, 2001. CLEMENTS, R., God and Temple, Oxford, 1965. – art. r+q qt[r, TWAT 7, 1993, 10–18. CLIFFORD, R.J., “The Tent of El and the Israelite Tent of Meeting”, CBQ 33 (1971), 221–227. CLINES, D.J.A., The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup 10), 2nd ed., Sheffield, 1997. COHEN, M.E., The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East, Bethesda, MD, 1993. CORNILL, C.H. Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Freiburg i.Br., 1891. CORTESE, E., “Dimensione letterarie e elementi strutturali di Pg: Per una Teologia del Documento sacerdotale”, RivBib 25 (1977), 131–141. – Levitico, Casale Monferrato, 1982. – “Tappe della formazione del sistema espiatorio ‘sacerdotale’”, RB 104 (1997), 338–353. – “The Priestly Tent (Ex 25–31.35–40). Literary Criticism and the Theology of P Today”, Liber Annuus. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 48 (1998), 9–30. COTHENET, E., art. “Parfums”, SDB 6, 1960, col. 1291–1331. COWLEY, A., Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford, 1923.

Bibliography

627

C RAIG, J.L., “Text and Textile in Exodus: Toward a Clearer Understanding of b#'$xo h#&'(jma” , JANES 29 (2002), 17–30. CROSS, F.M., “The Priestly Tabernacle”, BA 10 (1947), 45–68. – “The Priestly Work”, in F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, Cambridge, MA, 1973, 293–325. CRÜSEMANN, F., “Der Exodus als Heiligung. Zur rechtsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung des Heiligkeitsgesetzes”, in E. Blum, C. Macholz and E.W. Stegemann (eds), Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte. FS R. Rendtorff, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1990, 117–129. – Die Tora. Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes, München, 1992. – “Menschheit und Volk. Israels Selbstdefinition im genealogischen System der Genesis”, EvTh 58 (1998), 180–195. – “Le Pentateuque, une Tora. Prolégomènes à l’interprétation de sa forme finale”, in A. de Pury and T. Römer (eds), Le Pentateuque en question. Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible à la lumière des recherches récentes (Le Monde de la Bible 19), 3rd ed., Genève, 2002, 339–360. D AHM , U., Opferkult und Priestertum in Alt-Israel. Ein kultur- und religionswissenschaftlicher Beitrag (BZAW 327), Berlin, 2003. D ALMAN , G., “Die Mehlarten im Alten Testament”, in A. Alt et al. (eds), Alttestamentliche Studien. FS R. Kittel, Leipzig, 1913, 61–69. – Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, 6 vols, Gütersloh, 1928–1939. D AM , C. VAN, The Urim and Tummim: A Study of an Old Testament Means of Revelation, Kampen, 1986. D AMROSCH , D., “Leviticus”, in R. Alter and F. Kermode (eds), The Literary Guide to the Bible, Cambridge, MA, 1987, 66–77. D ANDAMAËV , M.A., “The Neo-Babylonian Popular Assembly”, in P. Vavrous] e k and V. Souc$ek (eds), S0ulmu: Papers on the Ancient Near East Presented at the International Conference of Socialist Countries (Prague, Sept. 30–Oct. 3, 1986), Prague, 1988, 63–71. D ANDAMAËV, M.A./L UKONIN , V.G., The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran, Cambridge et al., 1989. DANIEL, S., Recherches sur le vocabulaire du culte dans la Septante (Études et commentaires 61), Paris, 1966. DAUBE, D., Studies in Biblical Law, Cambridge, 1947. – “Error and Accident in the Bible”, RIDA 2 (1949), 189–213. DAVIES, D., “An Interpretation of Sacrifice in Leviticus”, ZAW 89 (1977), 387–398. DAY, J., God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament, Cambridge et al., 1985. – Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament (UCOP 41), Cambridge, 1989. DEIANA, G., “Azazel in Lv 16”, Lateranum (N.S.) 44 (1988), 16–33. – Il Giorno dell’espiazione. Il kippur nella tradizione biblica (Supplementi alla rivista biblica 30), Bologna, 1994. – Levitico. Nuova versione, introduzione e commento (I Libri Biblici. Primo Testamento 3), Milano, 2005. DELCOR, M., “Le culte de la ‘Reine du Ciel’ selon Jer 7, 18; 44, 17–19, 25 et ses survivances. Aspects de la religion populaire féminine aux alentours de l’Exil en Juda et dans les communautés juives d’Egypte” (1982), in M. Delcor, Environnement et Tradition de l’Ancien Testament (AOAT 228), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1990, 138–159.

628

Bibliography

DELITZSCH, F., “Die nordamerikanischen pentateuchkritischen Essays”, Zeitschrift für Kirchliche Wissenschaft 9 (1888), 223–232. D EL O LMO LETE, G., Canaanite Religion: According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit, Bethesda, MD, 1999. D ENNIS, J., “The Function of the t)+x Sacrifice in the Priestly Literature: An Evaluation of the View of Jacob Milgrom”, ETL 78 (2002), 108–129. DETIENNE, M./VERNANT, J.-P. (eds), La cuisine du sacrifice en pays grec, Paris, 1979. D IETRICH , M., “‘(Nur) einer, der von Sünde nichts weiß, eilt zu seinen Göttern’. Der altorientalische Mensch vor seiner Gottheit”, in R. Albertz (ed.), Kult, Konflikt und Versöhnung. Beiträge zur kultischen Sühne in religiösen, sozialen und politischen Auseinandersetzungen des antiken Mittelmeerraumes (AOAT 285/AZERKAVO 2), Münster, 2001, 73–97. D IETRICH , M./L ORETZ , O., Mantik in Ugarit: Keilalphabetische Texte der Opferschau – Omensammlungen – Nekromantie (Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas 3), Münster, 1990. D IETRICH, M./L ORETZ , O./SANMARTIN , J., “Zu s]lm kll im Opfertariff von Marseille (CIS 165)”, UF 7 (1975), 561–562. DILLMANN, A., Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus (KHAT), 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1880. DODD, C.H., “HILASKESTHAI: Its Cognates, Derivatives and Synonyms in the Septuagint”, JTS 32 (1930), 352–360. DOHMEN, C., “Was stand auf den Tafeln vom Sinai und was auf denen vom Horeb?”, in F.L. Hossfeld (ed.), Vom Sinai zum Horeb. Stationen alttestamentlicher Glaubensgeschichte, Würzburg, 1989, 9–50. – “Das Zelt ausserhalb des Lagers. Exodus 33,7–11 zwischen Synchronie und Diachronie”, in K. Klaus and T. Meurer (eds), Textarbeit. Studien zu Texten und ihrer Rezeption aus dem Alten Testament und der Umwelt Israels. FS P. Weimar (AOAT 294), Münster, 2003, 157–169. DÖLLER, J., Die Reinheits- und Speisegesetze des Alten Testaments, Münster, 1917. DOUGLAS, M., Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, London, 1966. – “Pollution”, in M. DOUGLAS , Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology, London/Boston, MA, 1975, 47–59. – “Deciphering a Meal”, in Id., Implicit Meanings, 249–275. – “Self-evidence”, in Id., Implicit Meanings, 276–317. – In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers (JSOTSup 158), Sheffield, 1993. – “The Forbidden Animals in Leviticus”, JSOT 59 (1993), 3–23. – “Poetic Structure in Leviticus”, in D.P. Wright, D.N. Freedman and A. Hurvitz (eds), Pomegranates and Golden Bells. FS J. Milgrom, Winona Lake, IN, 1995, 239–256. – “The Two Bodies”, in M. Douglas, Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology, London/New York, NY, 1996, 69–87. – Leviticus as Literature, London, 1999. – “The Compassionate God of Leviticus and His Animal Creation”, in M. O’Kane (ed.), Borders, Boundaries and the Bible (JSOTSup 313), London, 2002, 61–73. – “Responding to Ezra: The Priests and the Foreigns Wives”, BibInt 10 (2002), 1–23. – “Impurity of Land Animals”, in M. Poorthuis and J. Schwartz (eds), Purity and Holiness: The Heritage of Leviticus (Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 2), Leiden/Boston, MA/Köln, 2002, 33–45. – “The Go-Away Goat”, in R. Rendtorff and R.A. Kugler (eds), The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (VTSup 93), Leiden/Boston, MA, 2003, 121–141.

Bibliography

629

DOZEMAN, T.B., God on the Mountain: A Study of Redaction, Theology and Canon in Exodus 19–24, Atlanta, GA, 1989. DRIVER, G.R., “Birds in the Old Testament”, PEQ 87 (1955), 5–20 and 129–140. – “Three Technical Terms in the Pentateuch”, JSS 1 (1956), 97–105. – “Ugaritic and Hebrew Words”, Ugaritica 6 (1969), 181–184. D RIVER, S.R., An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (International Theological Library), 7th ed., Edinburgh, 1898. – A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ITC), 3rd ed., Edinburgh, 1902. DUMONT, L., Homo hierarchicus. Essai sur le système des castes (Bibliothèque des sciences humaines), Paris, 1967. DUPONT, J.M., Women and the Concept of Holiness in the “Holiness Code” (Leviticus 17– 26): Literary, Theological and Historical Context, Ph.D. Diss. Milwaukee, Ann Arbor, MI, 1989. DURAND, J.-L., “Bêtes grecques. Propositions pour une topologique des corps à manger”, in J.-P. Vernant and M. Detienne (eds), La cuisine du sacrifice en pays grec, Paris, 1979, 133–165. – Sacrifice et labour en Grèce ancienne: Essai d’anthropologie religieuse, Paris/Rome, 1986. DURHAM, J.I., Exodus (WBC 3), Waco, TX, 1987. DUSSAUD, R., Les origines cananéennes du sacrifice israélite (1921), 2nd ed., Paris, 1941. E BERHART , C., “Beobachtungen zum Verbrennungsritus bei Schlachtopfer und Gemeinschafts-Schlachtopfer”, Bib 83 (2002), 88–96. – Studien zur Bedeutung der Opfer im Alten Testament: die Signifikanz von Blut- und Verbrennungsriten im kultischen Rahmen (WMANT 94), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2002. EERDMANS, B.D., Alttestamentliche Studien IV. Das Buch Leviticus, Giessen, 1912. EHRLICH, A., Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, 7 vols, Leipzig, 1908–1914. EILBERG-SCHWARTZ, H., “Creation and Classification in Judaism: From Priestly to Rabbinic Conceptions”, HR 26 (1986–87), 357–381. – The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism, Bloomington, IN/Indianapolis, In, 1990. – “The Problem of the Body for the People of the Book”, in T.K. Beal and D.M. Gunn (eds), Reading Bibles, Writing Bodies. Identity and the Book (Biblical Limits), London, 1997, 34–55. EISING, H., art. xlm mlh9, TWAT 4, 1984, 911–913. E ISSFELDT , O., Molk als Opferbegriff im Punischen und Hebräischen und das Ende des Gottes Moloch, Halle, 1935. – Einleitung in das Alte Testament unter Einschluss der Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen: Entstehungsgeschichte des Alten Testaments (1934), 3rd ed., Tübingen, 1964. – “Biblos Geneseo4s”, in O. Eissfeldt, Kleine Schriften. Vol. 3, Tübingen, 1966, 458–470. EITREM, S., “A Purificatory Rite and Some Allied Rites de Passage”, SO 25 (1947), 36–53. ELAT, M., “Phoenician Overland Trade with the Mesopotamian Empires”, in M. Cogan and I. Eph(al (eds), Ah, Assyria… Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor, Jerusalem, 1994, 21–35. ELLIGER, K., “Das Gesetz Leviticus 18”, ZAW 67 (1955), 1–25. – “Ephod und Choschen. Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des hohepriesterlichen Ornats”, VT 8 (1958), 19–35. – art. “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, RGG, 3rd ed., 1959, 175–176.

630

Bibliography

– “Zur Analyse des Sündopfergesetzes”, in A. Kuschke (ed.), Verbannung und Heimkehr. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie Israels im 6. und 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. FS W. Rudolph, Tübingen, 1961, 39–50. – Leviticus (HAT I, 4), Tübingen, 1966. – “Sinn und Ursprung der priesterlichen Geschichtserzählung” (1952), in K. Elliger, Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament (TB 32), München, 1966, 174–198. – “Ich bin der Herr – euer Gott”, in Id., Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament, 211–231. ELLIOTT-BINNS, L.E., “Some Problems of the Holiness Code”, ZAW 67 (1955), 26–40. ESTEVEZ, E., “Sexualidad, familia y pureza. El incesto en la legislación levítica”, Miscellanea Comillas 57 (1999), 349–384. EWALD, H., Geschichte des Volkes Israels bis Christus, 2 vols (1843–1845), 3rd ed., Göttingen, 1864. FABRY, H.-J., “Deuteronomium 15. Gedanken zur Geschwister-Ethik im Alten Testament”, ZAR 3 (1997), 92–111. – “Das Buch Levitikus in den Qumrantexten”, in H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling (eds), Levitikus als Buch (BBB 119), Berlin/Bodenheim b. Mainz, 1999, 309–341. – “Zadokiden und Aaroniden in Qumran”, in F.-L. Hossfeld and L. Schwienhorst-Schönberger (eds), Das Manna fällt auch heute noch. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments. FS E. Zenger (HBSt 44), Freiburg i.Br. et al., 2004, 201–217. FAGER, J.A., Land Tenure and the Biblical Jubilee. Uncovering Hebrew Ethics through the Sociology of Knowledge (JSOTSup 155), Sheffield, 1993. FALKENSTEIN, A./VON SODEN, W., Summerische und Akkadische Hymnen und Gebeten, vol. 1, Zürich, 1953. FAULKNER, R.O., The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Oxford, 1969. FAUTH, W., “Auf den Spuren des biblischen (Azazel (Lev 16) – Einige Residuen der Gestalt oder des Namens in jüdisch-aramäischen, griechischen, koptischen, äthiopischen, syrischen und mandäischen Texten”, ZAW 110 (1998), 514–534. F ECHTER , F., Die Familie in der Nachexilszeit. Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung der Verwandtschaft in ausgewählten Texten des Alten Testaments (BZAW 264), Berlin/New York, NY, 1998. FELDMAN, E., Biblical and Post-Biblical Defilement and Mourning: Law as Theology, New York, NY, 1977. FEUCHT, C., Untersuchungen zum Heiligkeitsgesetz (TA 20), Berlin, 1964. FINKELSTEIN, J., “The Middle Assyrian S0ulma4nu Texts”, JAOS 72 (1952), 77–80. FINN, A.H. “The Tabernacle Chapters”, JTS 16 (1914–1915), 449–482. F IRMAGE , E., “The Biblical Dietary Laws and the Concept of Holiness”, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Pentateuch (VTSup 41), Leiden, 1990, 177–208. – art. “Zoology”, ABD 6, 1992, 1109–1167. – “Genesis 1 and the Priestly Agenda”, JSOT 82 (1999), 97–114. F ISHBANE , M., “Biblical Colophons, Textual Criticism and Legal Analogies”, CBQ 42 (1980), 438–449. – Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford, 1985. – “Law to Canon: Some ‘Ideal-Typical’ Stages of Development”, in M.Z. Brettler and M. Fishbane (eds), Minh9ah le-Nah9um: FS N.M. Sarna (JSOTSup 156), Sheffield, 1993, 65– 86. FISHER, L., “Creation at Ugarit and in the Old Testament”, VT 15 (1965), 313–324. FITZMYER, J.A., “The Targum of Leviticus from Qumran Cave 4”, Maarav 1.1 (1978), 5–23. FLEMING, D., “The Biblical Tradition of Anointing Priests”, JBL 117 (1998), 401–414.

Bibliography

631

FOSTER, B., “Animals in Mesopotamian Literature”, in B.J. Collins (ed.), A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East (Handbuch der Orientalistik 64), Leiden, 2002, 271–288. FRAHM, E., “Zwischen Tradition und Neuerung. Babylonische Priestergelehrte im achämenidenzeitlichen Uruk”, in R.G. Kratz (ed.), Religion und Religionskontakte im Zeitalter der Achämeniden (Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 22), Gütersloh, 2002, 74–108. FRANKEL, D., The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School: A Retrieval of Ancient Sacerdotal Lore (VTSup 89), Leiden, 2002. F RAZER , J.G., The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. Part 2: Taboo and the Perils of the Soul, 3rd ed., London, 1911. FREI, P./KOCH , K., Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich (OBO 55), 2nd ed., Freiburg (Schweiz)/Göttingen, 1996. F REVEL , C., Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern. Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift (HBSt 23), Freiburg i.Br. et al., 1999. – “Kein Ende in Sicht? Zur Priestergrundschrift im Buch Levitikus”, in H.-J. Fabry and H.W. Jüngling (eds), Levitikus als Buch (BBB 119), Berlin/Bodenheim b. Mainz, 1999, 85– 123. FRIEDL, C., Polygynie in Mesopotamien und Israel. Sozialgeschichtliche Analyse polygamer Beziehungen anhand rechtlicher Texte aus dem 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr. (AOAT 277), Münster, 2000. FRIEDL, E., Women and Men: An Anthropologist’s View (Basic Anthropology Units), New York, NY, 1975. F RIEDRICH , J., Die hethitischen Gesetze: Transkription, Übersetzung, sprachliche Erläuterungen und vollständiges Wörterverzeichnis (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 7), Leiden, 1971. FRIEDRICH, J./KAMMENHUBER, A., Hethitisches Wörterbuch. Zweite, völlig neubearbeitete Auflage auf der Grundlage der editierten hethitischen Texte. Bd. I: A, Heidelberg, 1975– 1984. F RITZ , V., Israel in der Wüste. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Wüstenüberlieferung des Jahwisten (MThSt 7), Marburg, 1970. – Tempel und Zelt. Studien zum Tempelbau in Israel und zu dem Zeltheiligtum der Priesterschrift (WMANT 47), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1977. – “Das Geschichtsverständnis der Priesterschrift”, ZThK 84 (1987), 426–439. FRONZAROLI, P., Testi rituali della regalità (archivio L. 2769) (Archivi reali di Ebla. Testi 11), Roma, 1993. F RYMER -K ENSKY , T., “Pollution, Purification and Purgation in Ancient Israel”, in C.L. Meyers and M. O’Connor (eds), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth. FS D.N. Freedman, Winona Lake, IN, 1983, 399–415. FÜGLISTER, N., “Sühne durch Blut. Zur Bedeutung von Leveticus 17,11”, in G. Braulik (ed.), Studien zum Pentateuch. FS W. Kornfeld, Salzburg, 1977, 143–165. GABEL, J.B./WHEELER, C.B., “The Redactor’s Hand in the Blasphemy Pericope of Leviticus XXIV”, VT 30 (1980), 227–229. GAGARIN, M., “The Organisation of the Gortyn Law Code”, GRBS 23 (1982), 129–146. GANE, R., “‘Bread of the Presence’ and Creator-in-Residence”, VT 42 (1992), 179–203. – art. “Leviticus, Book of”, in J.H. Hayes (ed.), Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, Nashville, TN, 1999, 54–59. – Cult and Character. Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy, Winona Lake, IN, 2005.

632

Bibliography

G ARCIA L OPEZ , F., “Lo purò y lo impuro en la tradición judía”, Revista de Occidente 222 (1999), 51–68. GARNET, P., “Atonement Constructions in the Old Testament and the Qumran Scrolls”, EvQ 46 (1974), 131–163. GASS, E., “Der Passa-Papyrus (Cowl 21) – Mythos oder Realität?”, BN 99 (1999), 55–68. GASTER, T.H., art. “Azazel”, in G.A. Buttrick et al. (eds), The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 1, 1962, 325–326. GEORGE, J., Die älteren jüdischen Feste mit einer Kritik der Gesetztgebung des Pentateuchs, Berlin, 1835. G ERLEMAN, G., “Nutzrecht und Wohnrecht. Zur Bedeutung von hzx) und hlxn ”, ZAW 89 (1977), 313–325. GERSTENBERGER, E.S., “‘Er soll dir heilig sein’. Priester und Gemeinde nach Lev 21,1–22,9”, in F. Crüsemann, C. Hardmeier and R. Kessler (eds), Was ist der Mensch...? Beiträge zur Anthropologie des Alten Testaments. FS H.W. Wolff, München, 1992, 194–210. – Das dritte Buch Mose: Leviticus (ATD 6), Göttingen, 1993. GERTZ, J.C., Die Gerichtsorganisation Israels im deuteronomischen Gesetz (FRLANT 165), Göttingen, 1994. – Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung. Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch (FRLANT 186), Göttingen, 2000. GESE, H., Der Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap. 40–48) traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht (BHTh 25), Tübingen, 1957. – “Erwägungen zur Einheit der biblischen Theologie”, in H. Gese, Vom Sinai zum Zion. Alttestamentliche Beiträge zur biblischen Theologie (BevTh 64), München, 1974, 16–17. – “Die Sühne”, in H. Gese, Zur biblischen Theologie. Alttestamentliche Vorträge (BevTh 78), München, 1977, 85–106. GEVA, H., “Western Jerusalem at the End of the First Temple Period in Light of the Excavations in the Jewish Quarter”, in A.G. Vaughn and A.E. Killebrew (eds), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (SBL.SymS 18), Atlanta, GA, 2003, 183–208. GILDERS, W.K., Blood Ritual in the Hebrew Bible: Meaning and Power, Baltimore, MD/ London, 2004. GILL, D., “Thysia and Shelamim”, Bib 47 (1966), 255–262. GISPEN, W.H., Het Boek Leviticus (Commentar op het Oude Testament), Kampen, 1950. G ITIN, S., “The Four-Horned Altar and Sacred Space: An Archaeological Perspective”, in B.M. Gittlen (ed.), Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, Winona Lake, IN, 2002, 95–123. GLASSNER, J.-J., Mesopotamian Chronicles (Writings from the Ancient World 19), Atlanta, GA, 2004. GOETZE, A., “An Old Prayer of the Divination Priest”, JCS 22 (1968–69), 25–29. G OODING , D.W., The Account of the Tabernacle: Translation and Textual Problems of the Greek Exodus (Texts and Studies. New Series 6), Nendeln/Liechtenstein, 1978. G ORDON , C.H., Ugaritic Literature: A Comprehensive Translation of the Poetics and Prose Texts, Rome, 1949. GÖRG, M., Das Zelt der Begegnung. Untersuchung zur Gestalt der sakralen Zelttraditionen Altisraels (BBB 27), Bonn, 1967. – “Zur ‘Lade des Zeugnisses’”, BN 2 (1977), 14. – “Eine neue Deutung für ka6ppo4ret”, ZAW 89 (1977), 115–118. – “Keruben in Jerusalem”, BN 4 (1977), 13–24. – art. b#$ayf ja4s]ab;, TWAT 3, 1982, 1012–1032. – “Beobachtungen zum sogenannten Azazel-Ritus”, BN 33 (1986), 10–16.

Bibliography

633

– art. d(ayf ya4(ad, TDOT 6, 1990, 135–144. – “‘Asaselologen’ unter sich – eine neue Runde?”, BN 80 (1995), 25–31. GORMAN, F.H., The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology (JSOTSup 91), Sheffield, 1990. – “Priestly Rituals of Founding: Time, Space, and Status”, in M.P. Graham, W.P. Brown and J.K. Kuan (eds), History and Interpretation. FS J.H. Hayes (JSOTSup 173), Sheffield, 1993, 47–64. – Divine Presence and Community: A Commentary on the Book of Leviticus (ITC), Grand Rapids, MI/Edinburgh, 1997. GOSSE, B., “Transfert de l'onction et de marques royales au profit du Grand Prêtre en Ex 25ss.”, Henoch 18 (1996), 3–8. G RABBE , L.L., “The Scapegoat Tradition: A Study in Early Jewish Interpretation”, JSJ 18 (1987), 152–167. GRADWOHL, R., Das “fremde Feuer” von Nadab und Abihu, ZAW 75 (1963), 288–296. G RAF , K.H., Die geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments. Zwei historisch-kritische Untersuchungen, Leipzig, 1866. GRAY, G.B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (ICC), Edinburgh, 1903. – Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice (The Library of Biblical Studies), Reprint, New York, NY, 1971. GRAY, J., I & II Kings (OTL), 2nd ed., Philadelphia, 1964. G RAYSTONE , K., “HILASKESTHAI and Related Words in the LXX”, NTS 27 (1981), 640–656. GRELOT, P., “Études sur le ‘Papyrus pascal’ d’Éléphantine, VT 4 (1954), 349–384. – “Le Papyrus pascal d’Éléphantine et le problème du Pentateuque”, VT 5 (1955), 250–265. – “La dernière étape de la rédaction sacerdotale”, VT 6 (1956), 174–189. G ROTTANELLI , C., “Aspetti del sacrificio nel mondo greco e nella Bibbia Ebraica”, in C. Grottanelli and N.F. Parise (eds), Sacrificio e società nel mondo antico, Roma/Bari, 1988, 123–162. GRINTZ, Y.M., “‘Do Not Eat over the Blood’”, ASTI 8 (1970–71), 1–17. GROSS, W., “‘Rezeption’ in Ex 31,12–17 und Lev 26,39–45. Sprachliche Form und theologisch-konzeptionelle Leistung”, in R.G. Kratz and T. Krüger (eds), Rezeption und Auslegung im Alten Testament und in seinem Umfeld. FS O.H. Steck (OBO 153), Freiburg (Schweiz)/Göttingen, 1997, 45–64. – Zukunft für Israel. Alttestamentliche Bundeskonzepte und die aktuelle Debatte um den Neuen Bund (SBS 176), Stuttgart, 1998. GRÜNWALDT, K., Exil und Identität. Beschneidung, Passa und Sabbat in der Priesterschrift (BBB 85), Frankfurt a.M., 1992. – Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26. Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie (BZAW 271), Berlin/New York, NY, 1999. – “Amt und Gemeinde im Heiligkeitsgesetz”, in K. Kiesow and T. Meurer (eds), Textarbeit. Studien zu Texten und ihrer Rezeption aus dem Alten Testament und der Umwelt Israels. FS P. Weimar (AOAT 294), Münster, 2003, 227–244. G UILLAUME , P., “‘Beware of Foreskins’. The Priestly Writer as Matchmaker in Genesis 27,46–28,8”, in J.-D. Macchi and T. Römer (eds), Jacob. Un commentaire à plusieurs voix de Gen. 25–36. FS A. de Pury (Le Monde de la Bible 44), Genève, 2001, 69–76. GUNNEWEG, A.H.J., Leviten und Priester. Hauptlinien der Traditionsbildung und Geschichte des israelistisch-judäischen Kultpersonals (FRLANT 89), Göttingen, 1965. – “Das Gesetz und die Propheten”, ZAW 102 (1990), 169–180.

634

Bibliography

HAAS, V./WILHELM, G., Hurritische und luwische Riten aus Kizzuwatna (AOAT.S 3), Kevelaer/Neukirchen, 1973. HABEL, N., The Land Is Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies (Overtures to Biblical Theology), Minneapolis, MN, 1995. HALBE, J., “Die Reihe der Inzestverbote Lev 18:7–18”, ZAW 92 (1980), 60–88. H ANNEMANN , G., “On the Preposition Nyb in the Mishna and in the Bible”, Leshonenu 40 (1975–76), 33–53. HANSON, P.L., “Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel, and Heumeristic Heroes in 1 Enoch 6–11”, JBL 96 (1977), 195–233. HARAN, M., “The Uses of Incense in Ancient Israelite Ritual”, VT 10 (1960), 115–116. – art. Minh9a=, in Encyclopaedia Miqra)it, 1968, vol. 5, 23–30 (Hebrew). – Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel, Oxford, 1978. – “Seething a Kid in Its Mother’s Milk”, JJS 30 (1979), 23–35. – “Behind the Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priestly Source”, JBL 100 (1981), 321–333. – “Book-Size and the Thematic Cycles in the Pentateuch”, in E. Blum, C. Macholz and E. W. Stegemann (eds), Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte. FS R. Rendtorff, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1990, 165–176. HARLE, P./PRALON, D., La Bible d’Alexandrie: le Lévitique. Traduction du texte grec de la Septante, introduction et notes, Paris, 1988. HARRINGTON, H.K., The Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis: Biblical Foundations (SBL.DS 143), Atlanta, GA, 1993. H ARRIS , M., Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture, New York, NY, 1979. – Good to Eat: Riddles of Food and Culture, London, 1986. HARRISON, J.E., Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, 3rd ed., Cambridge, 1922. HARRISON, R.K., Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary, Leicester, 1980. HARTLEY, J.E., Leviticus (WBC 4), Dallas, TX, 1992. HARTLEY, J.E./DWYER, T., “An Investigation into the Location of the Laws on Offerings to Molek in the Book of Leviticus”, in J.E. Coleson and V.H. Matthews (eds), “Go to the Land I Will Show You”: Studies in Honor of Dwight W. Young, Winona Lake, IN, 1996, 81–93. HASEL, G.F., art. trAkf@ ka4rat;, TDOT 7, 1995, 339–352. HAUGE, M.R., The Descent From the Mountain Narrative Patterns in Exodus 19–40 (JSOTSup 323), Sheffield, 2001. H AUSSLEITER , J., Der Vegetarismus in der Antike (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 24), Berlin, 1935. HEGER, P., The Development of Incense Cult in Israel (BZAW 245), Berlin/New York, NY, 1997. H EIDEL, A., The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of Creation, 2nd ed., Chicago, IL/London, 1974. HEIDER, G.C., The Cult of Molek: A Reassessment, Sheffield, 1985. – art. “Molech”, in K. van der Toorn, B. Becking and P.W. van der Horst (eds), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden/New York, NY, 1995, 1090–1097. HEINISCH, P., Das Buch Leviticus (HSAT), Bonn, 1935. H ELD , M., Studies in Ugaritic Lexicography and Poetic Style, Ph.D. Diss., John Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 1957. HENNINGER, J., “Pureté et impureté. Première partie: L’histoire des religions”, SDB 9, 1979, col. 398–430.

Bibliography

635

– “L’impureté des aliments et du sang chez les peuples sémitiques”, SDB 9, 1979, col. 473–491. HENTRICH, T., “The ‘Lame’ in Lev 21, 17–23 and 2 Sam 5, 6–8”, AJBI 29 (2003), 5–30. H ERODOTUS, Histories. Translated with Notes by G. Rawlinson, with an Introduction by T. Griffith (Wordsworth Classics of World Literature), Ware, 1996. H ERRMANN, J., Die Idee der Sühne im Alten Testament. Eine Untersuchung über Gebrauch und Bedeutung des Wortes kipper, Leipzig, 1905. HERRMANN, W., “Erneut Kwmk K(rl tbh)w Lev 19,18ab”, in Id., Von Gott und den Göttern. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament (BZAW 259), Berlin/New York, NY, 1999, 105–114. HERSHMAN, P., “Hair, Sex and Dirt”, Man (N.S.) 9 (1974), 274–298. HIMMELMANN, N., Tieropfer in der griechischen Kunst (Vorträge/Rheinisch-Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Geisteswissenschaften G 349), Opladen, 1997. HOBBS, T.R., 2 Kings (WBC 13), Waco, TX, 1985. HOFFMANN, D., Leviticus, 2 vols, Berlin, 1905. HOFTIJZER, J., “Das sogenannte Feueropfer”, in B. Hartmann et al. (eds), Hebräische Wortforschung. FS W. Baumgartner (VTSup 16), Leiden, 1967, 114–134. H OLLADAY , W.L., Jeremiah: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, 2 vols, Philadelphia, PA, 1986–1989. HOLZINGER, H., Einleitung in den Hexateuch, Freiburg i.Br./Leipzig, 1893. – Exodus (KHC 2), Tübingen et al., 1900. – Numeri (KHC 4), Leipzig/Tübingen, 1903. H ORSLEY , R.A., “Empire, Temple and Community – But No Bourgeoisie! A Response to Blenkinsopp and Petersen”, in P.R. Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies. Vol. 1: Persian Period (JSOTSup 117), Sheffield, 1991, 29–38. H ORST, L., Leviticus XVII–XXVI und Hezekiel. Ein Beitrag zur Pentateuchkritik, Colmar, 1881. HOSSFELD, F.-L., Der Dekalog: seine späten Fassungen, die originale Komposition und seine Vorstufen (OBO 45), Freiburg (Schweiz)/Göttingen, 1982. HOUSTON, W., Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law (JSOTSup 140), Sheffield, 1993. – “Towards an Integrated Reading of the Dietary Laws of Leviticus”, in R. Rendtorff and R.A. Kugler (eds), The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (VTSup 93), Leiden/Boston, MA, 2003, 142–161. HOUTMAN, C., Exodus (HCOT), 4 vols, Kampen/Leuven, 1993–2002. HRUBY, K., “Le Yom ha-Kippurim ou Jour de l’Expiation”, OS 10 (1965), 41–74; 161–192. HUBERT, H./MAUSS, M., “Essai sur la nature et la fonction du sacrifice” (1899), in M. Mauss, Œuvres, 3 vols, 1. Les fonctions sociales du sacré, Paris, 1968–1969, 193–307. H UNN , E., “The Abominations of Leviticus Revisited”, in R.F. Ellen and D. Reason (eds), Classifications in their Social Context, London, 1979, 103–116. HURVITZ, A., “The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code – A Linguistic Study in Technical Idioms and Terminology”, RB 81 (1974), 24–56. – A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel (Cahiers de la Revue biblique 20), Paris, 1982. – “Dating the Priestly Source in the Light of the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew: A Century after Wellhausen”, ZAW 100 (1988), 88–100. HUTTON, R.R., “The Case of the Blasphemer Revisited (Lev. XXIV 10-23)”, VT 49 (1999), 532– 541. HYATT, J.P., Exodus (NCBC), Grand Rapids, MI/London, 1980.

636

Bibliography

IBANEZ ARANA, A., El Levitico: introduccion y commentario (Biblia Victoriensia 2), Vitoria, 1974. JACKSON, B.S., Theft in Ancient Jewish Law, Oxford, 1972. – Essays in Jewish and Comparative Legal History (SJLA 10), Leiden, 1975. – “Ideas of Law and Legal Administration: A Semiotic Approach”, in R.E. Clements (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological, and Political Perspectives. Essays by Members of the Old Testament Society, Cambridge, 1989, 185–202. – “‘An Eye for an I?’ The Semiotics of Lex Talionis in the Bible”, in W. Pencak and J.R. Lindgren (eds), New Approaches to Semiotics and the Human Sciences. FS R. Kevelson, New York, NY, 1997, 127–149. – Studies in the Semiotics of Biblical Law (JSOTSup 314), Sheffield, 2000. J ACOBSEN , T., The Sumerian King List (Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Assyriological Studies 11), Chicago, IL, 1939. JAGERSMA, H., Leviticus 19. Identiteit, Bevrijding, Gemeenschap (SSN 14), Assen, 1972. JANOWSKI , B., “Erwägungen zur Vorgeschichte des israelitischen s]e6lamîm-Opfers”, UF 12 (1980), 231–259. – Sühne als Heilsgeschen. Studien zur Sühnetheologie der Priesterschrift und zur Wurzel KPR im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament (BWANT 55), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1982. – “Das Königtum Gottes in den Psalmen. Bemerkungen zu einem neuen Gesamtentwurf”, ZThK 86 (1989), 389–454. – “Azazel – biblisches Gegenstück zum ägyptischen Seth? Zur Religionsgeschichte von Lev 16,10.21f.”, in E. Blum, C. Macholz and E.W. Stegemann (eds), Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte. FS R. Rendtorff, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1990, 97–110. – “Keruben und Zion. Thesen zur Entstehung der Zionstradition”, in D.R. Daniels, U. Glessmer and M. Rösel (eds), Ernten, was man sät. FS K. Koch, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1991, 231–264. – “‘Ich will in eurer Mitte wohnen’. Struktur und Genese der exilischen Shekina-Theologie” (1987), in B. Janowski, Gottes Gegenwart in Israel. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1993, 119–147. – “Tempel und Schöpfung. Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen Heiligtumskonzeption” (1990), in Id., Gottes Gegenwart in Israel, 214–246. – art. “Azazel”, in K. van der Toorn, B. Becking and P.W. van der Horst (eds), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden/New York, NY, 1995, 240–248. – “Der Himmel auf Erden. Zur kosmologischen Bedeutung des Tempels in der Umwelt Israels”, in B. Janowski and B. Ego (eds), Das biblische Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte (FAT 32), Tübingen, 2001, 229–260. JANOWSKI, B./WILHELM, G., “Der Bock, der die Sünden hinausträgt. Zur Religionsgeschichte des Azazel-Ritus Lev 16,10.21f.”, in B. Janowski, K. Koch and G. Wilhelm (eds), Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament. Internationales Symposion Hamburg 17.–21. März 1990 (OBO 129), Freiburg (Schweiz)/Göttingen, 1993, 106–169. JANOWSKI, B./ZENGER, E., “Jenseits des Alltags. Fest und Opfer als religiöse Kontrapunkte zur Alltagswelt im alten Israel”, JBTh 18 (2003), 63–102. JANZEN, D., “Politics, Settlement and Temple Community in Persian-Period Yehud”, CBQ 64 (2002), 490–510. J APHET , S., “The Relationship between the Legal Corpora in the Pentateuch in Light of Manumission Laws”, in S. Japhet (ed.), Studies in the Bible, Jerusalem, 1986, 63–89. JASTROW, M., “The So-Called ‘Leprosy’ Laws”, JQR 4, 357–418.

Bibliography

637

JAY, N., Throughout Your Generations Forever: Sacrifice, Religion and Paternity, Chicago, IL, 1993. JENSON , P.P., Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (JSOTSup 106), Sheffield, 1992. JOOSTEN, J., “Moïse a-t-il recelé le Code de Sainteté ?”, BN 84 (1996), 75–86. – People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26 (VTSup 67), Leiden/New York, NY/Köln, 1996. – “‘Tu’ et ‘vous’ dans le code de sainteté (Lév. 17–26)”, RSR 71 (1997), 3–8. – “Covenant Theology in the Holiness Code”, ZAR 4 (1998), 145–164. – “L’imbrication des codes législatifs dans le récit du Pentateuque: le cas du ‘Code de Sainteté’ (Lévitique 17–26)”, in E. Lévy (ed.), La codification des lois dans l’Antiquité (Travaux du centre de recherches sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce antiques), Strasbourg, 2000, 125–140. – “La non-mention de la fille en Lévitique 18. Exercice sur la rhétorique du Code de Sainteté”, ETR 75 (2000), 415–420. JOÜON, P., Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique, 2nd ed., Rome, 1947. JÜNGLING, H.-W., “Das Buch Levitikus in der Forschung seit Karl Elligers Kommentar aus dem Jahr 1966”, in H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling (eds), Levitikus als Buch (BBB 119), Berlin/Bodenheim b. Mainz, 1999, 1–45. JÜRGENS, B., Heiligkeit und Versöhnung. Leviticus 16 in seinem literarischen Kontext (HBSt 28), Freiburg i.Br., 2001. – “Fremdes Feuer – Das Scheitern eines Übergangsritus (Lev 10)”, http://bibfor.de/archiv/ 98-1.juergens.htm. KAISER, O., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Gütersloh, 5th ed., 1984. – Grundriß der Einleitung in die kanonischen und deuterokanonischen Schriften des Alten Testaments. Bd. 1: Die erzählenden Werke, Gütersloh, 1992. KAISER, W.C., Jr., “The Book of Leviticus”, in The New Interpeter’s Bible. Vol. 1, Nashville, TN, 1994, 985–1191. KAPELRUD, A.S., art. lylik@f ka4lîl, TWAT 4, 1984, 193–195. KAUFMAN, S.A., “Deuteronomy 15 and Recent Research on the Dating of P”, in N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium. Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL 68), Louvain, 1985, 273–276. KAUFMANN, Y., The Religion of Israel: From its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile, Chicago, IL, 1960. K EEL , O., “Kanaanäische Sühneriten auf ägyptischen Tempelreliefs”, VT 25 (1975), 413– 469. – Jahwevisionen und Siegelkunst. Eine neue Deutung der Majestätsschilderungen in Jes 6, Ez 1 und 10 und Sach 4 (SBS 84/85), Stuttgart, 1977. – Jahwes Entgegnung an Ijob: eine neue Deutung von Ijob 38–41 vor dem Hintergrund der zeitgenössischen Bildkunst (FRLANT 121), Göttingen, 1978. – Das Böcklein in der Milch seiner Mutter und Verwandtes im Lichte eines altorientalischen Bildmotivs (OBO 33), Freiburg (Schweiz)/Göttingen, 1980. – “Die Brusttasche des Hohenpriesters als Element priesterschriftlicher Theologie”, in F.-L. Hossfeld and L. Schwienhorst-Schönberger (eds), Das Manna fällt auch heute noch. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments. FS E. Zenger (HBSt 44), Freiburg i.Br. et al., 2004, 379–391. KELLER, M., Untersuchungen zur deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen Namenstheologie (BBB 105), Weinheim, 1996.

638

Bibliography

K ELLERMANN , D., Die Priesterschrift von Num 1,1 bis 10,10 literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht (BZAW 120), Berlin, 1970. – “Bemerkungen zum Sündopfergesetz in Num 15,22ff.”, in H. Gese and H.P. Rüger (eds), Wort und Geschichte. FS K. Elliger, Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1973, 107–113. – art. Cmx h9ms[, TWAT 2, 1977, 1061–1068. – “Apokryphes Obst. Bemerkungen zur Epistulae Jeremiae (Baruch Kap. 6), insbesondere zu Vers 42”, ZDMG 129 (1979), 23–42. – art. hnfbol; le6b;ona4h, TWAT 4, 1984, 454–60. KESSLER, J., “Building the Second Temple: Questions of Time, Text, and History in Haggai 1.1–15”, JSOT 27 (2002), 243–256. KILIAN, R., Literarkritische und Formgeschichtliche Untersuchung des Heiligkeitsgesetzes (BBB 19), Bonn, 1963. – “Die Priesterschrift. Hoffnung auf Heimkehr”, in J. Schreiner (ed.), Wort und Botschaft, Würzburg, 1967, 226–243. KIPPENBERG, H.G., Religion und Klassenbildung im antiken Judäa: eine religionssoziologische Sudie zum Verhähltnis von Tradition und gesellschaftlicher Entwickung (StUNT 14), Göttingen, 1978. KIRSCHNER, R., “The Rabbinic and Philonic Exegesis of the Nadab and Abihu Incident (Lev 10:1–6)”, JQR 73 (1983), 375–393. KIUCHI, N., The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function (JSOTSup 56), Sheffield, 1987. – A Study of h9a4t[a4) and h9a4t[t[a4)t; in Leviticus 4–5 (FAT. Reihe 2, 2), Tübingen, 2003. K LAWANS, J., “Pure Violence: Sacrifice and Defilement in Ancient Israel”, HTR 94 (2001), 133–155. K LINGBEIL , G.A., “The Syntactic Structure of the Ritual of Ordination (Lev 8)”, Bib 77 (1996), 509–519. – “Ritual Time in Leviticus 8 with Special Reference to the Seven Day Period in the Old Testament”, ZAW 109 (1997), 500–513. KLOSTERMANN, A., “Ezechiel und das Heiligkeitsgesetz” (1877), in A. Klostermann, Der Pentateuch: Beiträge zu seinem Verständnis und seiner Entstehungsgeschichte, Leipzig, 1893, 368–418. KNAUF, E.A., Midian: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens am Ende des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästinavereins), Wiesbaden, 1988. – “Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichten der Deuteronomisten”, in T. Römer (ed.), The Future of the Deuteronomistic History (BETL 147), Leuven, 2000, 101–118. KNIERIM, R.P., Die Hauptbegriffe für Sünde im Alten Testament, 2nd ed., Gütersloh, 1967. – art. gg#$ s]gg, THAT 2, 1976, 869–872. – “The Composition of the Pentateuch”, in SBL.SP, Atlanta, GA, 1985, 393–415. – Text and Concept in Leviticus 1,1–9: A Case in Exegetical Method (FAT 2), Tübingen, 1992. KNOHL, I., “The Priestly Torah Versus the Holiness School: Sabbath and the Festivals”, HUCA 58 (1987), 65–117. – “The Sin Offering Law in the ‘Holiness School’ (Numbers 15.22–31)”, in G.A. Anderson and S.M. Olyan (eds), Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (JSOTSup 125), Sheffield, 1991, 192–203. – The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, Minneapolis, MN, 1995.

Bibliography

639

KNOPPERS, G., “An Achaemenid Imperial Authorization of Torah in Yehud?”, in J.W. Watts (ed.), Persia and Torah. The Theory of the Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch (SBL.SymS 17), Atlanta, GA, 2001, 115–134. KOCH, K., “Die Eigenart der priesterschriftlichen Sinaigesetzgebung”, ZThK 55 (1958), 36–51. – Die Priesterschrift von Exodus 25 bis Leviticus 16. Eine überlieferungsgeschichtliche und literarkritische Untersuchung (FRLANT 53), Göttingen, 1959. – “Der Spruch ‘Sein Blut bleibe auf seinem Haupt’ und die israelitische Auffassung vom vergossenen Blut”, VT 12 (1962), 396–416. – “Sühne und Sündenvergebung um die Wende von der exilischen zur nachexilischen Zeit”, EvTh 26 (1966), 217–239. – art. )+fxf cha4t[a4), TDOT 4, 1980, 309–319. – “P – kein Redaktor! Erinnerung an zwei Eckdaten der Quellenscheidung”, VT 37 (1987), 446–467. – “Alttestamentliche und altorientalische Rituale”, in E. Blum, C. Macholz and E.W. Stegemann (eds), Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte. FS R. Rendtorff, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1990, 75–85. – “Some Considerations on the Translation of kapporet in the Septuagint”, in D.P. Wright, D.N. Freedman and A. Hurvitz (eds), Pomegranates and Golden Bells. FS J. Milgrom, Winona Lake, IN, 1995, 65–75. K ÖCKERT, M., “Leben in Gottes Gegenwart. Zum Verständnis des Gesetzes in der priesterschriftlichen Literatur”, JBTh 4 (1989), 29–61. – “Das Land in der priesterlichen Komposition des Pentateuch”, in D. Vieweger and E.J. Waschke (eds), Von Gott reden. Beiträge zur Theologie und Exegese des Alten Testaments. FS S. Wagner, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1995, 147–162. – “Das Gebot des siebten Tages”, in H. Schultze et al. (eds), “…Das tiefe Wort erneuern”. FS J. Henskys, 1989, 170–186. – “Gottesfurcht und Nächstenliebe als Zusammenfassung der Willensoffenbarung Gottes am Sinai”, in M. Köckert (ed.), Der Wahrheit Gottes verpflichtet. FS R. Mau, Berlin, 1993, 143–156. K OHATA , F., Jahwist und Priesterschrift in Ex 3–14 (BZAW 166), Berlin/New York, NY, 1986. – “Die priesterschriftliche Überlieferungsgeschichte von Numeri XX 1–13”, AJBI 3 (1977), 3–34. KONKEL, M., Architektonik des Heiligen. Studien zur zweiten Tempelvision Ezechiels (Ez 40–48) (BBB 129), Berlin/Wien, 2001. KORNFELD, W., Studien zum Heiligkeitsgesetz (Lev 17–26), Wien, 1952. – “Reine und unreine Tiere im Alten Testament”, Kairos 7 (1965), 134–147. – Levitikus (NEB 6), Würzburg, 1983. KORPEL, M.C.A., “The Epilogue to the Holiness Code”, in J.C. de Moor and W.G.E. Watson (eds), Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose (AOAT 43), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1993, 123–150. KÖRTING, C., Der Schall des Schofar: Israels Feste im Herbst (BZAW 285), Berlin/New York, NY, 1999. KÖRTING, C./SPIECKERMANN, H, art. “Sabbat I. Altes Testament”, TRE 29, 1998, 518–521. KOTTSIEPER, I., “Die Religionspolitik der Achämeniden und die Juden von Elephantine”, in R.G. Kratz (ed.), Religion und Religionskontakte im Zeitalter der Achämeniden (Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 22), Gütersloh, 2002, 150–178.

640

Bibliography

K RATZ , R.G., “Die Tora Davids. Psalm 1 und die doxologische Fünfteilung des Psalters”, ZThK 93 (1996), 1–34. – Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments. Grundwissen der Bibelkritik (UTB 2157), Göttingen, 2000. KREISSIG, H., “Eine beachtenswerte Theorie zur Organisation altvorderorientalischer Tempelgemeinden im Achämenidenreich. Zu J.P. Weinberg’s ‘Bürger-Tempel-Gemeinde’ in Juda”, Klio 66 (1984), 35–39. KRONHOLM, T., art. qtanf na4t`aq/qtene net`eq TDOT 10, 1999, 115–119. – art. t(' (e4t` /ht@f(a (atta=, TDOT 11, 2001, 434–451. KRÜGER, T., Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch (BZAW 180), Berlin, 1989. KÜCHLER, S., Das Heiligkeitsgesetz, Diss. Theol. Königsberg, 1929. KUENEN, A., Historisch-kritischen Onderzoek naar het antstaan en de Verzemeling van de Boeken des Ouden Verband, Leiden, 1861. – De godsdienst van Israël, 2 vols, Haarlem, 1869–1870. English translation: The Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish State, London/Edinburgh, 1875. – “Critische bijdragen tot de geschiedenis van den Israëlietischen godsdienst. V. De priesterlijke bestanddeelen van Pentateuch en Josua”, ThT 4 (1870), 391–426; 487–526. – “Dina en Sichem”, ThT 14 (1880), 257–281. – Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Bücher des Alten Testaments, 2 vols, Leipzig, 1885. K UGLER , R.A., “Holiness, Purity, the Body and Society: The Evidence for Theological Conflicts in Leviticus”, JSOT 76 (1997), 3–27. KÜMMEL, H.M., Ersatzrituale für den hethitischen König (StBoT 3), Wiesbaden, 1967. KUTSCH, E., “Die Wurzel rc( im Hebräischen”, VT 2 (1952), 57–69. – )rFq;mi, ZAW 65 (1953), 247-253 – “Erwägungen zur Geschichte der Passafeier und des Massotfestes”, ZThK 55 (1958), 1–35. L AAF , P., Die Pascha-Feier Israels. Eine literarkritische und überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studie (BBB 36), Bonn, 1970. LACH, S., “Le sacrifice zebah9 s]e6la4mîm”, FolOr 11 (1969), 187–194. L AFONT , S., Femmes, droit et justice dans l’Antiquité orientale: contribution à l’étude du droit pénal au Proche-Orient ancien (OBO 165), Fribourg (Suisse)/Göttingen, 1999. LANDERSDORFER, S., Studien zum biblischen Versöhnungstag, Münster, 1923. L ANDSBERGER , B., The Fauna of Ancient Mesopotamia (MSL VIII, 1.2), 2 vols, Rome, 1960–1962. LARIVAILLE, P., “L’analyse (morphologique) du récit”, Poétique 19 (1974), 368–388. LAUGHLIN, J.C.H., “The Strange Fire of Nadab and Abihu”, JBL 96 (1977), 559–565. L EACH , E., art. “Ritual”, in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, New York, NY, 1968, 520–526. – Structuralist Interpretations of Biblical Myth, Cambridge, 1983. – “The Logic of Sacrifice” (1976), in B. Lang (ed.), Anthropological Approaches to the Old Testament (Issues in Religion and Theology 8), Philadelphia, PA/London, 1985. LE BOULLUEC, A./SANDEVOIR, P., La Bible d’Alexandrie. 2, L’Exode, Paris, 1989. LECOQ, P., Les inscriptions de la Perse achémenide (L’aube des peuples), Paris, 1997. LEFEBVRE, J.-F., Le jubilé biblique. Lv 25 – exégèse et théologie (OBO 194), Fribourg (Suisse)/Göttingen, 2003. LELIEVRE, A., “Yhwh et la Mer dans les Psaumes”, RHPR 56 (1976), 253–275. LEMAIRE, A., “Le Sabbat à l’époque royale israélite”, RB 80 (1973), 161–185.

Bibliography

641

– “Histoire et administration de la Palestine à l’époque perse”, in E.M. Laperrousaz and A. Lemaire (eds), La Palestine à l’époque perse (Etudes annexes de la Bible de Jérusalem), Paris, 1994, 12–53. – “Les transformations politiques et culturelles de la Transjordanie au VIe siècle, av. J.-C.”, Transeu 8 (1994), 9–27. – Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes d’Idumée. Vol. 1 (Transeuphratène. Supplément 3), Paris, 1996. – Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes d’Idumée. Vol. 2 (Transeuphratène. Supplément 9), Paris, 2002. LEMCHE, N.P., “The Manumission of Slaves – the Fallow Year – the Sabbatical Year – the Yobel Year”, VT 26 (1976), 38–59. LEVIN, C., Der Sturz der Königin Atalja. Ein Kapitel zur Geschichte Judas im 9. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (SBS 105), Stuttgart, 1982. – Die Verheissung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt (FRLANT 137), Göttingen,1985. – Der Jahwist (FRLANT 157), Göttingen, 1993. LEVINE, B.A., “Ugaritic Descriptive Rituals”, JCS 17 (1963), 105–111. – “The Descriptive Tabernacle Texts of the Pentateuch”, JAOS 85 (1965), 307–318. – In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 5), Leiden, 1974. – art. “Priestly Writers”, in G.A. Buttrick et al. (eds), The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Supplement, Nashville, TN, 1976, 683–687. – “The Descriptive Ritual Texts from Ugarit: Some Formal and Functional Features of the Genre”, in C.L. Meyers and M. O’Connor (eds), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth. FS D.N. Freedman, Winona Lake, IN, 1983, 467–475. – “The Epilogue to the Holiness Code. A Priestly Statement on the Destiny of Israel”, in J. Neusner and E.S. Frerichs (eds), Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel, Philadelphia, PA, 1987, 9–34. – Leviticus (JPS.TC), Philadelphia, PA/New York, NY, 1989. – “Leviticus, Book of”, ABD 3, 1992, 311–321. – Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 4), New York, NY, 1993. – Numbers 20-36 (AB 4A), New York, NY, 2000. – “Leviticus: Its Literary History and Location in Biblical Literature”, in R. Rendtorff and R.A. Kugler (eds), The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (VTSup 93), Leiden/Boston, MA, 2003, 11–23. LEVINSON, B.M., Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, New York, NY/ Oxford, 1997. – “Is the Covenant Code an Exilic Composition? A Response to John Van Seters”, in J. Day (ed.), In Search of Pre-exilic Israel. Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (JSOTSup 406), London/New York, NY, 2004, 272–325. – “The Birth of the Lemma: The Restrictive Reinterpretation of the Covenant Codes Manumission Law by the Holiness Code (Leviticus 25:44-46)”, JBL 124 (2005), 617– 639. – “The Manumission of Hermeneutics: The Slave Laws of the Pentateuch as a Challenge to Contemporary Pentateuchal Theory”, in A. Lemaire (ed.), Congress Volume Leiden 2004 (VTSup 109), Leiden/Boston, MA, 2006, 281–324. LEVI-STRAUSS, C., La pensée sauvage, Paris, 1962. – Les structures élémentaires de la parenté (Collection de rééditions/Maison des sciences de l’homme 2), Paris/La Haye, 1971. LEWIS, T.J., Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (HSM 39), Atlanta, GA, 1989.

642

Bibliography

L’H OUR , J., “L’Impur et le Saint dans le Premier Testament à partir du Lévitique. Partie I: L’Impur et le Pur”, ZAW 115 (2003), 524–537. – “L’Impur et le Saint dans le Premier Testament à partir du Lévitique. Partie II: Le Saint et sa rencontre avec l’Impur et le Pur”, ZAW 116 (2004), 33–54. LIEDKE, G., Gestalt und Bezeichnung alttestamentlicher Rechtssätze. Eine formgeschichtlichterminologische Studie (WMANT 39), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1971. L IPSCHITS, O., “Judah, Jerusalem and the Temple 586–539 B.C.”, Transeu 22 (2001), 129– 142. – “Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE”, in O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp (eds), Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, Winona Lake, IN, 2003, 323–376. L ISS, H., “Kanon und Fiktion. Zur literarischen Funktion biblischer Rechtstexte”, BN 121 (2004), 7–38. LIVIGSTON, D.H., “The Crime of Leviticus XXIV 11”, VT 36 (1986), 352–354. L OHFINK , N., “Die priesterschriftliche Abwertung der Tradition von der Offenbarung des Jahwenamens an Mose”, Bib 49 (1968), 1–8. – “Abänderung der Theologie des priesterlichen Geschichtswerks im Segen des Heilikeitsgesetzes: Zu Lev. 26, 9.11–13”, in H. Gese and P. Rüger (eds), Wort und Geschichte. FS K. Elliger, Neukirchen, 1973, 129–136. – art. #$rAyf ja4ras], TWAT 3, 1982, 953–985. – “Die Priesterschrift und die Grenzen des Wachstums”, in N. Lohfink, Unsere großen Wörter. Das Alte Testament zum Thema dieser Jahre (1977), 3rd ed., Freiburg i.Br. et al., 1985, 156–171. – “The Priestly Narrative and History” (1977), in N. Lohfink, Theology of the Pentateuch, Minneapolis, MN, 1994, 136–172. – “The Strata of the Pentateuch and the Question of War”, in Id., Theology of the Pentateuch, 173–226. – “Fortschreibung? Zur Technik von Rechtsrevisionen im deuteronomischen Bereich, erörtert an Deuteronomium 12, Ex 21,2–11 und Dtn 15,12–18”, in T. Veijola (ed.), Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen (Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft 62), Helsinki/Göttingen, 1996, 127–171. – “Prolegomena zu einer Rechtshermeneutik des Pentateuch”, in G. Braulik (ed.), Das Deuteronomium (ÖBS 23), Frankfurt a.M. et al., 2003, 11–55. L ÖHR, M., Das Ritual von Lev. 16 (Untersuchungen zum Hexateuchproblem III) (Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft 2,1), Berlin, 1925. LORETZ, O., Leberschau, Sündenbock, Azazel in Ugarit und Israel (Ugaritisch-biblische Literatur 3), Altenberge, 1985. LUCIANI, D., “‘Soyez saints, car je suis saint’. Un commentaire de Lévitique 19”, NRTh 114 (1992), 212–236. – “Le jubilé dans Lévitique 25”, RTL 30 (1999), 456–486. – “Le Lévitique: Pause ou temps mort?”, RTL 36 (2005), 72–88. – Sainteté et pardon. Vol. 1: Structure littéraire du Lévitique. Vol. 2: Guide technique (BETL 185), Leuven, 2005. LUNDQUIST, J., “What Is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology”, in H.B. Huffmon, F.A. Spina and A.R.W. Green (eds), The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall, Winona Lake, IN, 1983, 205–219. LURIA, S., “Tochterschändung in der Bibel”, ArOr 33 (1974), 207–208. L UST , J., “Exile and Diaspora: Gathering from Dispersion in Ezekiel”, in J.-M. Auwers and A. Wénin (eds), Lectures et relectures de la Bible. FS P.-M. Bogaert (BETL 144), Leuven, 1999, 99–122.

Bibliography

643

L UX , R., “Der Tod des Mose als ‘besprochene und erzählte Welt’”, ZThK 84 (1987), 395– 425. MACCHI, J.-D., Israël et ses tribus selon Genèse 49 (OBO 171), Fribourg (Suisse)/Göttingen, 1999. MAGONET , J., “The Structure and Meaning of Leviticus 19”, HAR 7 (1983), 151–167. MAIER, J., Das altisraelitische Ladeheiligtum (BZAW 93), Berlin, 1965. – Die Qumran-Essener. Die Texte vom Toten Meer. Bd. 1: Die Texte der Höhlen 1–3 und 5–11, München/Basel, 1996. M ALINA, B.J., “Mediterranean Sacrifice: Dimensions of Domestic and Political Religion”, BThB 26 (1996), 26–44. – “Rituale der Lebensexklusivität. Zu einer Definition des Opfers”, in B. Janowski and M. Welker (eds), Opfer: theologische und kulturelle Kontexte (Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft 1454), Frankfurt a.M., 2000, 23–57. M ALUL, M., Knowledge, Control and Sex: Studies in Biblical Thought, Culture and Worldview, Tel Aviv/Jaffa, 2002. MANN, T.W., The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch, Atlanta, GA, 1988. MARSMAN, H.J., Women in Ugarit and Israel. Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East (OTS 49), Leiden/Boston, MA, 2003. M ARX, A., “Sacrifice pour les péchés ou rite de passage? Quelques réflexions sur la fonction du h;at[t[a4)t”, RB 96 (1989), 27–48. – Les offrandes végétales dans l’Ancien Testament: du tribut d’hommage au repas eschatologique (VTSup 57), Leiden, 1994. – “L’impureté selon P. Une lecture théologique”, Bib 82 (2001), 363–384. – “The Theology of the Sacrifice According to Leviticus 1–7”, in R. Rendtorff and R.A. Kugler (eds), The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (VTSup 93), Leiden/ Boston, MA, 2003, 103–120. – Les systèmes sacrificiels de l’Ancien Testament. Formes et fonctions du culte sacrificiel à Yhwh (VTSup 105), Leiden, 2005. MASSMANN, L., Der Ruf in die Entscheidung. Studien zur Komposition, zur Entstehung und Vorgeschichte, zum Wirklichkeitsverständnis und zur kanonischen Stellung von Lev 20 (BZAW 324), Berlin/New York, NY, 2003. MASSON, O., “A propos d’un rituel hittite pour la lustration d’une armée: Le rite de purification par le passage entre les deux parties d’une victime”, RHR 137 (1950), 5–25. M ATHYS, H.-P., Liebe deinen Nächsten wie dich selbst. Untersuchungen zum alttestamentlichen Gebot der Nächstenliebe (Lev 19,18) (OBO 71), Freiburg (Schweiz)/Göttingen, 1986. – “Bücheranfänge und -schlüsse”, in H.-P. Mathys, Vom Anfang und vom Ende. Fünf alttestamentliche Studien (BEATAJ 47), Frankfurt a.M. et al., 2000, 1–29. MAYER, G., art. “Midrasch/Midraschim”, TRE 22, 1992, 734–744. MAYES, A.D.H., Deuteronomy (NCBC), Grand Rapids, MI/London, 1981. MAYS, J.L., Hosea: A Commentary (OTL), London, 1969. MCCORMICK, C.M., Palace and Temple: A Study of Architectural and Verbal Icons (BZAW 313), Berlin, 2002. MCEVENUE, S.E., The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer (AnBib 50), Rome, 1971. MCKANE, W., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, 2 vols, Edinburgh, 1986– 1996. MEACHAM, T, “The Missing Daughter: Leviticus 18 and 20”, ZAW 109 (1997), 254–259. MEIER, G., Die Assyrische Beschwörungssammlung Maqlu (AfO Beiheft 2), Berlin, 1937.

644

Bibliography

MEIER, S., “Baal’s Fight with Yam (KTU 1.2.I, IV). A Part of the Baal Myth as Known in KTU 1.1, 3–6?”, UF 18 (1986), 241–254. – “House Fungus: Mesopotamia and Israel (Lev 14:33–53)”, RB 96 (1989), 184–192. MEIGS, A.S., “A Papuan Perspective on Pollution”, Man (N.S.) 13 (1978), 304–318. M EINHOLD, A., “Zur Beziehung Gott, Volk, Land im Jobel-Zusammenhang”, BZ 29 (1985), 245–261. MELCHER, S.J., “The Holiness Code and Human Sexuality”, in R.L. Brawley (ed.), Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality, Louisville, KY, 1996. M ERX , A., “Kritische Untersuchungen über die Opfergesetze, Lev. I–VII”, Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie 6 (1863). MESSEL, N., “Die Komposition von Lev. 16”, ZAW 27 (1907), 1–15. METTINGER, T.N.D., The Dethronement of Sabbaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies (CB.OT 18), Lund, 1982. METZGER, , M., “Himmlische und irdische Wohnstatt Jahwes”, UF 2 (1970), 139–158. MEYERS, C.L., “Realms of Sanctity: The Case of the ‘Misplaced’ Incense Altar in the Tabernacle Texts of Exodus”, in M.V. Fox et al. (eds), Texts, Temples, and Traditions: FS M. Haran, Winona Lake, IN, 1996, 33–46. MEYERS, C.L./MEYERS, E.M., Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25B), New York, NY, 1987. MEYERS, E.M., “The Shelomith Seal and Aspects of the Judean Restoration: Some Additional Considerations”, EI 17 (1985), 33–38. MICHAELI, F., Le livre de l’Exode (CAT 2), Neuchâtel, 1974. MILGROM, J., “The Biblical Diet Laws as an Ethical System”, Int 17 (1963), 288–301. – Studies in Levitical Terminology: The Encroacher and the Levite. The Term ‘Aboda, Berkeley, CA, 1970. – “A Prolegomenon to Leviticus 17:11”, JBL 90 (1971), 149–156. – Cult and Conscience: The ASHAM and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (SJLA 18), Leiden, 1976. – “The Concept of ma(al in the Bible and the Ancient Near East”, JAOS 96 (1976), 236–247. – “The Legal Terms s]lm and br)s]w in the Bible”, JNES 35 (1976), 236–247. – “Profane Slaughter and a Formulaic Key to the Composition of Deuteronomy”, HUCA 47 (1976), 1–17. – Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology (SJLA 36), Leiden, 1983. – “The Graduated Purification Offering (Leviticus 5:1–13)”, JAOS 103 (1983), 249–254. – “The Priestly Impurity System”, in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Vol. 1, Jerusalem, 1986, 121–127. – “Ethics and Ritual: The Foundation of the Biblical Dietary Laws”, in E.B. Firmage, B.G. Weiss, J.W. Welch (eds), Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives, Winona Lake, IN, 1989, 159–191. – “Rationale for Cultic Law: The Case of Impurity”, Semeia 45 (1989), 103–109. – “Ablutions”, in E. Blum, C. Macholz and E.W. Stegemann (eds), Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte. FS R. Rendtorff, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1990, 87–96. – Numbers (JPS.TC), Philadelphia, PA, 1990. – Leviticus 1–16: A Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3), New York, NY et al., 1991. – “The Consecration of the Priests: A Literary Comparison of Leviticus 8 and Exodus 29”, in D.R. Daniels, U. Glessmer and M. Rösel (eds), Ernten, was man sät. FS K. Koch, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1991, 273–286.

Bibliography

645

– “The Composition of Leviticus, Chapter 11”, in G.A. Anderson and S.M. Olyan (eds), Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (JSOTSup 125), Sheffield, 1991, 182–191. – “Two Biblical Hebrew Terms: s]eqes[ and t[a4me4)”, Maarav 8 (1992), 7–16. – “The Changing Concept of Holiness in the Pentateuchal Codes with Emphasis on Leviticus 19”, in J.F.A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas (JSOTSup 227), Sheffield, 1996, 65–78. – “Does H Advocate the Centralization of Worship?”, JSOT 88 (2000), 59–76. – Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3A), New York, NY, et al., 2000. – Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3B), New York, NY, et al., 2001. – “The Dynamics of Purity in the Priestly System”, in M. Poorthuis and J. Schwartz (eds), Purity and Holiness: The Heritage of Leviticus (Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 2), Leiden/Boston, MA/Köln, 2002, 29–32. – “HR in Leviticus and Elsewhere in the Torah”, in R. Rendtorff and R.A. Kugler (eds), The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (VTSup 93), Leiden/Boston, MA, 2003, 24–40. MILGROM, J./HARPER, L./FABRY, H.-J., art. trEme#;$mi mis]meret`, TDOT 9, 1998, 72–78. MILLER, J.E., “Notes on Leviticus 18”, ZAW 112 (2000), 401–403. M IRGUET, F., “Essai d’interprétation de Lévitique 10. Le bouc brûlé et non mangé”, ETR 80 (2005), 261–271. MITTMANN, S., Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3 literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht (BZAW 139), Berlin/New York, NY, 1975. MOHRMANN, D.C., “Making Sense of Sex: A Study of Leviticus 18”, JSOT 29 (2004), 57–79. MÖLLE, H., Das “Erscheinen” Gottes im Pentateuch: ein literaturwissenschaftlicher Beitrag zur alttestamentlichen Exegese (EHS.T 18), Bern/Frankfurt a.M., 1973. M OOR , J.C. DE , “The Peace-Offering in Ugarit and Israel”, in Schrift en Uitleg. FS W.H. Gispen, Kampen, 1970, 112–117. – The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth of Ba’lu According to the Version of Ilimilku (AOAT 16), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1971. M ORALDI, L., Espiazione sacrificale e riti espiatori nell’ambiente biblico e nell’Antico Testamento (AnBib 5), Roma, 1956. M ORAN , W.L., “A New Fragment of DIN.TIR.KI = Babilu and Enu4ma elis] VI 61–66”, in Studia Biblica et Orientalia. Vol. 3: Oriens Antiquus, Rome, 1959, 257–265. – “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy”, CBQ 25 (1962), 77–87. – “The Literary Connection between Lv 11,13–19 and Dt 14,12–18”, CBQ 28 (1966), 271–277. MORGENSTERN, J., “The Three Calendars of Ancient Israel”, HUCA 1 (1924), 13–78. – “Supplementary Studies in the Calendars of Ancient Israel”, HUCA 10 (1938), 1–148. – “Two Prophecies from the Fourth Century B.C. and the Evolution of Yom Kippur”, HUCA 24 (1952–53), 1–74. – “The Decalogue of the Holiness Code”, HUCA 26 (1955), 1–27. M OSKALA , J., “Categorization and Evaluation of Different Kinds of Interpretation of the Laws of Clean and Unclean Animals in Leviticus 11”, Biblical Research 46 (2001), 5–41. MULDER, M.J., art. lmer:ka@ karmel, TDOT 7 (1995), 325–336. N EUFELD , E., The Hittite Laws. Translated into English and Hebrew with a Commentary, London, 1951.

646

Bibliography

NIDITCH, S., Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature (Library of Ancient Israel), Louisville, KY, 1996. NIEHR, H., “Zu den Beziehungen zwischen Ritualen und Mythen in Ugarit”, JNSL 25 (1999), 109–136. NIELSEN, E., Deuteronomium (HAT 6), Tübingen, 1995. NIELSEN, K., Incense in Ancient Israel (VTSup 38), Leiden, 1986. – art. “Incense”, ABD 3, 1992, 404–409. NIHAN, C., “The Institution of the Priesthood and the Beginning of the Sacrificial Cult: Some Comments on the Relationship between Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8”, in M. Augustin and H.M. Niemann (eds), “Basel und Bibel”. Collected Communications to the XVIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of Old Testament, Basel 2001 (BEATAJ 51), Frankfurt a.M. et al., 2004, 39–53. – “The Holiness Code between D and P. Some Comments on the Function and Significance of Leviticus 17–26 in the Composition of the Torah”, in E. Otto and R. Achenbach (eds), Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 206), Göttingen, 2004, 81–122. – Review of K.W. Weyde, The Appointed Festivals of YHWH. The Festival Calendar in Leviticus 23 and the sukkôt Festival in Other Biblical Texts (FAT Reihe 2, 4), Tübingen, 2004, Bib 87 (2006), 555–559. – “La mort de Moïse (Nombres 20 et 27) et la rédaction finale du livre des Nombres”, in T. Römer and K. Schmid (eds), Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque (BETL 203), Leuven, forthcoming in 2007. NIHAN, C./RÖMER, T., “Le débat actuel sur la formation du Pentateuque”, in T. Römer, J.-D. Macchi and C. Nihan (eds), Introduction à l’Ancien Testament (Le Monde de la Bible 49), Genève, 2004, 85–113. NÖLDEKE, T., Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments, Kiel, 1869. NOORDTZIJ, A., Leviticus (1955) (BSC), Grand Rapids, MI, 1982. NORTH, R., art. rw$rd@: de6ro=r, TWAT 2, 1977, 283–287. NOTH, M., Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (1943), 3rd ed., Tübingen, 1967. – A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (Scholars Press reprints and translations series no. 5), Atlanta, GA, 1981. – Das zweite Buch Mose. Exodus (ATD 5), Göttingen, 1959. – Das dritte Buch Mose. Leviticus (ATD 6), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1962. English translation: Leviticus: A Commentary, OTL, Philadelphia, PA, 1977. – Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri (ATD 7), 3rd ed., Göttingen, 1977. O’DWYER SHEA, M., “The Small Cuboid Incense-burners of the Ancient Near East”, Levant 15 (1983), 76–109. OLIVA, M., “Interpretación teológica del culto en la perícopa del Sinaí de la Historia Sacerdotal”, Bib 49 (1968), 345–354. OLSON, D.T., The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch (BJSt), Chico, CA, 1985. OLYAN, S.M., “‘And with a Male You Shall Not Lie the Lying Down of a Woman’: On the Meaning and Significance of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13”, in G.D. Comstock and S.E. Henking (eds), Que(e)rying Religion, New York, NY, 1997. – Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult, Princeton, NJ, 2000. – “Exodus 31:12–17: The Sabbath According to H, or the Sabbath According to P and H?”, JBL 124 (2005), 201–209. OORT, T., “De groote Verzoendag”, ThT X (1876), 155–160.

Bibliography

647

OSUMI, Y., Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches Exodus 20,22b–23,33 (OBO 105), Freiburg (Schweiz)/Göttingen, 1991. OTTO, E., art. Nw$y,ci s[ijjo=n, TWAT 6, 1989, 994–1028. – “Die Geschichte der Talion im Alten Orient und Israel”, in D.R. Daniels, U. Glessmer and M. Rösel (eds), Ernten, was man sät. FS K. Koch, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1991,101–130. – “Vom Bundesbuch zum Deuteronomium. Die deuteronomische Redaktion in Dtn 12–26”, in G. Braulik, W. Gross and S. McEvenue (eds), Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel. FS N. Lohfink, Freiburg i.Br., 1993, 260–278. – Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments (ThW 3,2), Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln, 1994. – “Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26 in der Pentateuchredaktion”, in P. Mommer and W. Thiel (eds), Altes Testament. Forschung und Wirkung. FS H. Graf Reventlow, Frankfurt a.M., 1994, 65–80. – “Gesetzesfortschreibung und Pentateuchredaktion”, ZAW 107 (1995), 373–392. – “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im Buch Exodus”, in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation (BETL 126), Leuven, 1996, 61–111. – “Deuteronomium 4: Die Pentateuchredaktion im Deuteronomiumsrahmen”, in T. Veijola (ed.), Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen (Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft 62), Helsinki/Göttingen, 1996, 196–222. – “Die Paradieserzählung Genesis 2–3. Eine nachpriesterschriftliche Lehrerzählung in ihrem religionshistorischen Kontext”, in E. Otto (ed.), “Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit…”. Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Weisheit, FS D. Michel (BZAW 241), Berlin/New York, NY, 1996, 167–192. – “Forschungen zur Priesterschrift”, TRu 62 (1997), 1–50. – Das Deuteronomium. Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien (BZAW 284), Berlin/New York, NY, 1999. – “Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26”, in H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling (eds), Levitikus als Buch (BBB 119), Berlin/Bodenheim b. Mainz, 1999, 125– 196. – Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumsrahmen (FAT 30), Tübingen, 2000. – “Das Heiligkeitsgesetz zwischen Priesterschrift und Deuteronomium. Zu einem Buch von Andreas Ruwe”, ZAR 6 (2000), 330–340. – “Forschungen zum nachpriesterschriftlichen Pentateuch”, TRu 67 (2002), 125–155. – Gottes Recht als Menschenrecht. Rechts- und literaturhistorische Studien zum Deuteronomium (BZAR 2), Wiesbaden, 2002. – art. xsapf pa4sah9/xsape, pesah9, TDOT 12, 2003, 1–24. – “The Pentateuch in Synchronic and Diachronical Perspectives: Protorabbinic Scribal Erudition Mediating Between Deuteronomy and the Priestly Code”, in E. Otto and R. Achenbach (eds), Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 206), Göttingen, 2004, 14–35. – “Wie ‘synchron’ wurde in der Antike der Pentateuch gelesen?”, in F.-L. Hossfeld and L. Schwienhorst-Schönberger (eds), Das Manna fällt auch heute noch. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments. FS E. Zenger (HBSt 44), Freiburg i.Br. et al., 2004, 470–485. – “Vom biblischen Hebraismus der persischen Zeit zum rabbinischen Judaismus in römischer Zeit. Zur Geschichte der spätbiblischen und frühjüdischen Schriftgelehrsamkeit”, ZAR 10 (2004), 1–49. – “Mose, der erste Schriftgelehrte. Deuteronomium 1,5 in der Fabel des Pentateuch”, in D.

648

Bibliography

Böhler, I. Himbaza and P. Hugo (eds), L’Ecrit et l’Esprit. FS A. Schenker (OBO 214), Fribourg (Suisse)/Göttingen, 2005, 273–284. OTTO, E./SCHRAMM, T., Fest und Freude (Biblische Konfrontationen), Stuttgart et al., 1977. OWCZAREK, S., Die Vorstellung vom “Wohnen Gottes inmitten seines Volkes” in der Priesterschrift. Zur Heiligtumstheologie der priesterlichen Grundschrift (EHS.T 625), Frankfurt a.M. et al., 1998. PARAN, M., Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch, Jerusalem, 1989 (Hebrew). PARDEE, D., Les textes rituels (Ras Shamra-Ougarit 12), 2 vols, Paris, 2000. – Ritual and Cult at Ugarit (Writings From the Ancient World 10), Atlanta, GA, 2002. PARDEE, D./BORDREUIL, P., art. “Ugarit: Texts and Literature”, ABD 6, 706–721. PARKER, R., Miasma: Purification and Pollution in Early Greek Religion, Oxford, 1983. PASCHEN, W., Rein und unrein. Untersuchung zur biblischen Wortgeschichte (Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 24), München, 1970. PATON, L.B., “The Relationship of Lev. 20 to Lev. 17–19”, Hebraica 10 (1894), 111–121. – “The Original Form of Leviticus xvii–xix”, JBL 16 (1897), 31–77. – “The Original Form of Leviticus xxi, xxii”, JBL 17 (1898), 149–174. – “The Original Form of Leviticus xxiii, xxv”, JBL 18 (1899), 35–60. PERLITT, L., Deuteronomium (BKAT 5), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1990ff. – “Priesterschrift im Deuteronomium?”(1988), in L. Perlitt, Deuteronomium-Studien (FAT 8), Tübingen, 1994, 123–143. PERSON, R.F., “The Ancient Israelite Scribe as Performer”, JBL 117 (1998), 601–609. PÉTER-CONTESSE, R., Manuel du traducteur pour le livre du Lévitique, Stuttgart, 1985. – “L’imposition des mains dans l’Ancien Testament”, VT 27 (1977), 48–55. – Lévitique 1–16 (CAT 3a), Genève, 1993. PETERSEN, A.R., “Where Did Schaeffer Find the Clay Tablets of the Ugaritic Baal Cycle?”, SJOT 8 (1994), 45–60. P HILLIPS, A., Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law: A New Approach to the Decalogue, Oxford, 1970. – “Some Aspects of Family Law in Pre-exilic Israel”, in A. Phillips, Essays on Biblical Law (JSOTSup 344), Sheffield, 2002, 111–126. PODELLA, T., “Der ‘Chaoskampfmythos’ im Alten Testament. Eine Problemanzeige”, in M. Dietrich and O. Loretz (eds), Mesopotamica – Ugaritica – Biblica. FS K. Bergerhof (AOAT 232), Kevelaer, 1993, 283–329. – Das Lichtkleid JHWHs: Untersuchungen zur Gestalthaftigkeit Gottes im Alten Testament und seiner altorientalischen Umwelt (FAT 15), Tübingen, 1996. POHLMANN, K.-F., Ezechielstudien. Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten (BZAW 202), Berlin/New York, NY, 1992. – Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel). Kapitel 20–48 (ATD 22,2), Göttingen, 2001. POLA, T., Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift. Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von Pg (WMANT 70), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1995. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, B., Ina s]ulmi |4rub. Die kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der ak|4tu-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien im I. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Baghdader Forschungen 16), Mainz am Rhein, 1994. POPPER, J., Der biblische Bericht über die Stiftshütte. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Composition und Diaskeue des Pentateuch, Leipzig, 1862. P ORTEN , B., Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony, Berkeley, CA, 1968.

Bibliography

649

PORTEN, B./YARDENI , A., Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. Newly Copied, Edited and Translated into Hebrew and English. Vol. 1: Letters (Texts and Studies for Students), Jerusalem/Winona Lake, IN, 1986. PORTER, J.R., Leviticus (CBC), Cambridge, 1976. PREUSS, H.D., art. “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, TRE 14, 1985, 713–719. PROPP, W.H.C., “The Rod of Aaron and the Sin of Moses”, JBL 107 (1988), 19–26. – “The Priestly Source Recovered Intact?”, VT 46 (1996), 458–478. – Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 2), New York, NY, 1999. PURY, A. DE, “Abraham: The Priestly Writer’s ‘Ecumenical’ Ancestor”, in S.L. McKenzie and T. Römer (eds), Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible. FS J. Van Seters (BZAW 294), Berlin/New York, NY, 2000, 163–181. Q UIROGA , R., “‘Dos Sacerdotes Temerarios’: ¿Exoneración, exaltación o condenación de Nadab y Abiú? Una perspectiva contextual, comparativa y contrastante de Levítico 9:22– 10:7”, DavarLogos 3 (2004), 117–137. RABAST, K.H., Das apodiktische Recht im Deuteronomium und im Heiligkeitsgesetz, Berlin/Hermsdorf, 1948. RAD, G. VON, Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch literarisch untersucht und theologish gewertet (BWANT 65), Stuttgart/Berlin, 1934. – “Form-Criticism of the Holiness Code”, in G. von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy (SBT 9), London, 1953, 25–36. – Theologie des Alten Testaments (Einführung in die evangelische Theologie 1), 2 vols, München, 1957–1960. – “Zelt und Lade”, in G. von Rad, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Vol. 1 (TB 8), 3rd ed., München, 1965, 109–129. – “Die Theologie der Priesterschrift (1934)”, in G. von Rad, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Vol. 2 (TB 48), München, 1973, 165–188. RAINEY, A., “The Order of Sacrifices in OT Rituals”, Bib 51 (1970), 485–498. RAMIREZ K IDD , J.E., Alterity and Identity in Israel. The rg in the Old Testament (BZAW 283), Berlin/New York, NY, 1999. R ATTRAY, S., “Mariage Rules, Kinship Terms and Family Structure in the Bible”, in K. Richards (ed.), SBL.SP 26, Atlanta, GA, 1987, 537–544. R EDFORD , D.B., “The So-Called ‘Codification’ of Egyptian Law under Darius I”, in J.W. Watts (ed.), Persia and Torah. The Theory of the Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch (SBL.SymS 17), Atlanta, GA, 2001, 135–159. REICH, R./SHUKRON, E., “The Urban Development of Jerusalem in the Late Eighth Century B.C.E.”, in A.G. Vaughn and A.E. Killebrew (eds), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (SBL.SymS 18), Atlanta, GA, 2003, 209–218. R EINER, E., S/urpu: A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations (AfO Beiheft 11), Osnabruck, 1970. R EINMUTH , T., “Reform und Tora bei Nehemia. Neh 10,31–40 und die Autorisierung der Tora in der Perserzeit”, ZAR 7 (2001), 287–317. RENAUD, B., “Les généalogies et la structure de l’histoire sacerdotale dans le livre de la Genèse”, RB 97 (1990), 5–30. RENDTORFF, R., Die Gesetze in der Priesterschrift. Eine gattungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (FRLANT 44), Göttingen, 1963. – Studien zur Geschichte des Opfers im alten Israel (WMANT 24), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1967.

650

Bibliography

– Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW 147), Berlin/New York, NY, 1976. – Leviticus (BKAT 3), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1985. – “Another Prolegomenon to Leviticus 17:11”, in D.P. Wright, D.N. Freedman and A. Hurvitz (eds), Pomegranates and Golden Bells. FS J. Milgrom, Winona Lake, IN, 1995, 23– 28. – “Is it Possible to Read Leviticus as a Separate Book?”, in J.F.A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas (JSOTSup 227), Sheffield, 1996, 22–39. – Theologie des Alten Testaments. Ein kanonischer Entwurf. Bd. 1. Kanonische Grundlegung, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1999. – “Lev 16 als Mitte der Tora”, BibInt 11 (2003), 252–258. – “Nadab and Abihu”, in J.C. Exum and H.G.M. Williamson (eds), Reading from Right to Left. FS D.J.A. Clines (JSOTSup 373), London, 2003, 359–363. RENDTORFF, R./KUGLER , R.A. (eds), The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (VTSup 93), Leiden/Boston, MA, 2003 REUSS, E., L’histoire sainte et la loi: Pentateuque et Josué, Paris, 1879. – Die Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften. Alten Testaments, 2nd ed., Braunschweig, 1890. REVENTLOW, H.G., Das Heiligkeitsgesetz formgeschichtlich untersucht (WMANT 6), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1961. RICHTER, S.L., The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology: le6s]akke4n s]e6mo= s]a4m in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (BZAW 318), Berlin/New York, NY, 2002. RIESENER, I., Der Stamm db( im Alten Testament: Einer Wortuntersuchung unter Berücksichtigung neuerer sprachwissenschaftlicher Methoden (BZAW 149), Berlin/New York, NY, 1979. RINGGREN, H./SEEBASS, H., art. (#$ap,f pa4s]a(, TDOT 12 (2003), 133–151. ROBINSON, G., “The Prohibition of a Strange Fire in Ancient Israel. A New Look at the Case of Gathering Wood and Kindling Fire in the Sabbath”, VT 28 (1978), 301–317. – “Das Jobel-Jahr: Die Lösung einer sozial-ökonomischen Krise des Volkes Gottes”, in E. Blum, C. Macholz and E.W. Stegemann (eds), Die hebräische Bible und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte. FS R. Rendtorff, Neukirchen, 1990, 471–494. RODRIGUEZ, A.M., Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus, Berrien Springs, MI, 1979. – “Leviticus 16: Its Literary Structure”, AUSS 34 (1996), 269–286. ROFE, A., Introduction to Deuteronomy, Part. I, Jerusalem, 1988 (Hebrew). RÖMER, T., “Le cycle de Joseph: sources, corpus, unité”, Foi et Vie (1987), 3–15. – “La redécouverte d’un mythe dans l’AT: La création comme combat”, ETR 64 (1989), 561–573. – Israels Väter. Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO 99), Freiburg (Schweiz)/Göttingen, 1990. – “Exode et Anti-exode. La nostalgie de l’Egypte dans les traditions du désert”, in T. Römer (ed.), Lectio difficilior probabilior? L’exégèse comme expérience de décloisonnement. Mélanges offerts à Françoise Smyth-Florentin, DBAT 12 (1991), 155–172. – “Transformations in Deuteronomistic and Biblical Historiography. On ‘Book-Finding’ and other Literary Strategies”, ZAW 109 (1997), 1–11. – “Pentateuque, Hexateuque et historiographie deutéronomiste. Le problème du début et de la fin du livre de Josué”, Transeu 16 (1998), 71–86. – “Deuteronomium 34 zwischen Pentateuch, Hexateuch und deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk”, ZAR 5 (1999), 167–178. – “Le sacrifice humain en Juda et Israël au premier milénaire avant notre ère”, Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 1 (1999), 17–26.

Bibliography

651

– “La narration, une subversion. L’histoire de Joseph (Gn 37–50*) et les romans de la diaspora”, in G.J. Brooke and J.-D. Kaestli (eds), Narrativity in Biblical and Related Texts. La narrativité dans la Bible et les textes apparentés (BETL 149), Leuven, 2000, 17–29. – “Das Buch Numeri und das Ende des Jahwisten. Anfragen zur ‘Quellenscheidung’ im vierten Buch des Pentateuch”, in J.C. Gertz, K. Schmid and M. Witte (eds), Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (BZAW 315), Berlin/New York, NY, 2002, 215–231. – “Le Pentateuque toujours en question: bilan et perspective après un quart de siècle de débat”, in A. Lemaire (ed.), Congress Volume Basel 2001 (VTSup 92), Leiden/Boston, MA, 2002, 343–374. – “Nombres”, in T. Römer, J.-D. Macchi and C. Nihan (eds), Introduction à l’Ancien Testament (Le Monde de la Bible 49), Genève, 2004, 196–210. – “De la périphérie au centre. Les livres du Lévitique et des Nombres dans le débat actuel sur le Pentateuque”, in T. Römer (ed.), The Books of Leviticus and Numbers (BETL), Leuven, forthcoming in 2007. RÖMER, T.C./BRETTLER , M.Z., “Deuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch”, JBL 119 (2000), 401–419. RÖMER, T./SCHMID, K. (eds), Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque (BETL 203), Leuven, forthcoming in 2007. R OO, J.C.R. de, “Was the Goat for Azazel Destined for the Wrath of God?”, Bib 81 (2000), 233–242. ROSE, W.H., Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period (JSOTSup 304), Sheffield, 2000. ROST, L., “Erwägungen zum israelitischen Brandopfer”, in J. Hempel and L. Rost (eds), Von Ugarit nach Qumran. Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Forschung. FS O. Eissfeldt (BZAW 77), Berlin, 1958, 177–183. – “Die Wohnstätte des Zeugnisses”, in L. Rost (ed.), FS F. Baumgärtel, Erlangen, 1959, 158–165. RÜTERSWORDEN, U., “Die persische Reichsautorisation der Tora: Fact or Fiction?”, ZAR 1 (1995), 47–61. RUDOLPH, W., Der “Elohist” von Exodus bis Josua (BZAW 68), Berlin, 1938. – Micha, Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja. Mit einer Zeittafel von Alfred Jepsen (KAT 13,3), Gütersloh, 1975. R UWE , A., “Heiligkeitsgesetz” und “Priesterschrift”: literaturgeschichtliche und rechtssystematische Untersuchungen zu Levitikus 17–26 (FAT 26), Tübingen, 1999. – “The Structure of the Book of Leviticus in the Narrative Outline of the Priestly Sinai Story (Exod 19:1–Num 10:10*), in R. Rendtorff and R.A. Kugler (eds), The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (VTSup 93), Leiden/Boston, MA, 2003, 55–78. SANDERSON, J.E., An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan Tradition (HSS 30), Atlanta, GA, 1986. SAVRAN, G.W.E., Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narrative (JSOTSup 420), London/New York, NY, 2005. SAWYER, J.F.A., “A Note on the Etymology of s[a4ra(at”, VT 26 (1976), 241–245. – (ed.), Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas (JSOTSup 227), Sheffield, 1996. SCHÄFER, P., “Tempel und Schöpfung. Zur Interpretation einiger Heiligtumstraditionen in der rabbinischen Literatur”, Kairos 16 (1974), 122–133. SCHÄFER-LICHTENBERGER, C., Josua und Salomo. Eine Studie zu Autorität und Legitimität des Nachfolgers im Alten Testament (VTSup 58), Leiden et al., 1995.

652

Bibliography

S CHAPER , J., “Priestly Purity and Social Organisation in Persian Period Judah”, BN 118 (2003), 51–57. S CHARBERT , J., “Der Sinn der Toledot-Formel in der Priesterschrift”, in H.J. Stoebe (ed.), Wort, Gebot, Glaube. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments (ATANT 59), Zürich, 1970, 45–56. – art. hlf)f )a4la4h, TDOT 1, 1974, 261–266. – Exodus, NEB 24, Würzburg, 1989. S CHART , A., Mose und Israel im Konflikt. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Wüstenerzählungen (OBO 98), Freiburg (Schweiz)/Göttingen, 1990. SCHENKER, A., “koper et expiation”, RB 63 (1982), 31–46. – “Das Zeichen des Blutes und die Gewissheit der Vergebung im Alten Testament. Die sühnende Funktion des Blutes auf dem Altar nach Lev 17,10–12” (1983), in A. Schenker, Text und Sinn im Alten Testament. Textgeschichtliche und bibeltheologische Studien (OBO 103), Freiburg (Schweiz)/Göttingen, 1991, 167–185. – “Once Again, the Expiatory Sacrifices”, JBL 116 (1997), 697–699. – “Welche Verfehlungen und welche Opfer in Lev 5,1–6?”, in H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling (eds), Levitikus als Buch (BBB 119), Berlin/Bodenheim b. Mainz, 1999, 249–261. – Recht und Kult im Alten Testament: achtzehn Studien (OBO 172), Freiburg (Schweiz)/ Göttingen, 2000. – “Der Boden und seine Produktivität im Sabbat und Jubeljahr. Das dominium terrae in Ex 23,10f und Lev 25,2–12”, in Id., Recht und Kult, 123–133. – “What Connects the Incest Prohibitions with the Other Prohibitions Listed in Leviticus 18 and 20?”, in R. Rendtorff and R.A. Kugler (eds), The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (VTSup 93), Leiden/Boston, MA, 2003, 162–185. SCHMID, H.H., art. #$ry jrs], THAT 1, 778–781. SCHMID, K., Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches. Untersuchungen zur Redaktions- und Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jer 30–33 im Kontext des Buches (WMANT 72), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1996. – Erzväter und Exodus. Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments (WMANT 81), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1999. – “Die Josephsgeschichte im Pentateuch”, in J.C. Gertz, K. Schmid and M. Witte (eds), Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (BZAW 315), Berlin/New York, NY, 2002, 83–118. SCHMID, R., Das Bundesopfer in Israel. Wesen, Ursprung und Bedeutung der alttestamentlichen Schelamim, München, 1964. SCHMIDT, L., Studien zur Priesterschrift (BZAW 214), Berlin/New York, NY, 1993. – Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri 10,11–36,13 (ATD 7,2), Göttingen, 2004. SCHMIDT, W.H., Exodus 1–6 (BKAT 2,1), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1988. SCHMITT, H.-C., “Die Suche nach der Identität des Jahweglaubens im nachexilischen Israel. Bemerkungen zur theologischen Intention der Endredaktion des Pentateuch” (1995), in H.-C. Schmitt, Theologie in Prophetie und Pentateuch. Gesammelte Schriften (BZAW 310), Berlin/New York, NY, 2001, 255–276. – “Dtn 34 als Verbindungsstück zwischen Tetrateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk, in E. Otto and R. Achenbach (eds), Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 206), Göttingen, 2004, 181– 192. SCHMITT, R., Zelt und Lade als Thema alttestamentlicher Wissenschaft, Gütersloh, 1972.

Bibliography

653

SCHORN, U., Ruben und das System der zwölf Stämme Israels. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung der Erstgeborenen Jakobs (BZAW 248), Berlin/New York, NY, 1997. SCHOTTROFF, W., “Gedenken” im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament: Die Würzel zakar im semitischen Sprachkreis (BWANT 15), 2nd ed., Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1967. SCHÖTZ, P.D., Schuld- und Sündopfer im Alten Testament, Diss. Breslau, 1930. SCHULT, H.S., “Lev 24,15b und 16a”, DBAT 7 (1974), 31–32. SCHUR, I., Versöhnungstag und Sündopfer im Alten Testament (Commentationes humanarum litterarum 6,3), Breslau, 1930. SCHWARTZ, B.J., “A Literary Study of the Slave-Girl Pericope – Leviticus 19:20–22”, Scripta Hierosolymitana 31 (1986), 241–255. – “The Prohibition Concerning the ‘Eating’ of Blood in Leviticus 17”, in G.A. Anderson and S.M. Olyan (eds), Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (JSOTSup 125), Sheffield, 1991, 34–66. – “The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature”, in D.P. Wright, D.N. Freedman and A. Hurvitz (eds), Pomegranates and Golden Bells. FS J. Milgrom, Winona Lake, IN, 1995, 3–21. – “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai”, in M.V. Fox et al. (eds), Texts, Temples, and Traditions. A Tribute to Menahem Haran, Winona Lake, IN, 1996, 103–134. – “‘Profane’ Slaughter and the Integrity of the Priestly Code”, HUCA 67 (1996), 15–42. S CHWIENHORST -SCHÖNBERGER , L., Das Bundesbuch (Ex 20,22–23,33). Studien zu seiner Entstehung und seiner Theologie (BZAW 188), Berlin/New York, NY, 1990. – “Auge um Auge, Zahn um Zahn”, BiLi 63 (1990), 163–175. SCURLOCK, J., “Animal Sacrifice in Ancient Mesopotamian Religion”, in B.J. Collins (ed.), A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East (Handbuch der Orientalistik 64), Leiden, 2002, 389–403. SEEBASS, H., “Josua”, BN 28 (1985), 53–68. – Numeri (BKAT 4,2), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1993ff. – “Biblisch-theologischer Versuch zu Num 20,1–13 und 21,4–9*”, in P. Mommer and W. Thiel (eds), Altes Testament. Forschung und Wirkung. FS H. Graf Reventlow, Frankfurt a.M. et al., 1994, 219–229. – “Die Ankündingung des Mosetodes. Noch einmal zu Num 27,12–23 und Dtn 32,48–52”, in K. Kiesow and T. Meurer (eds), Textarbeit. Studien zu Texten und ihrer Rezeption aus dem Alten Testament und der Umwelt Israels. FS P. Weimar (AOAT 294), Münster, 2003, 457–467. SEGAL, P., “The Divine Verdict of Leviticus X 3”, VT 39 (1989), 91–95. S EGAL , M.H., The Pentateuch: Its Composition and Its Authorship, and Other Biblical Studies, Jerusalem, 1967. SEIDEL, M., “Parallels Between Isaiah and Psalms”, Sinai 38 (1955–1956), 149–172; 229– 240; 272–280; 335–355 (Hebrew). SEIDL, T., Tora für den “Aussatz”-Fall. Literarische Schichten und syntaktische Strukturen in Levitikus 13 und 14 (ATSAT 18), St. Ottilien, 1982. – art. t(arAcf s[a4ra(at;, TWAT 6, 1989, 1127–1133. – art. hgF#$f s]a4ga4h/ggA#$f s]a4gag, TWAT 7, 1993, 1058–1065. – “Levitikus 16 – ‘Schlussstein’ des priesterlichen Systems der Sündenvergebung”, in H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling (eds), Levitikus als Buch (BBB 119), Berlin/Bodenheim b. Mainz, 1999, 219–248. – art. Mymilf#$; s]e6la4mîm, TDOT 15, 2006, 105–116. SEYBOLD, K., Der aaronitische Segen: Studien zu Numeri 6,22-27, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1977.

654

Bibliography

SHINAN, A., “The Sins of Nadab and Abihu in Rabbinic Literature”, Ta 48 (1979), 201–214 (Hebrew). SHORE, B., “Sexuality and Gender in Samoa: Conceptions and Missed Conceptions”, in S.B. Hortner and H. Whitehead (eds), Sexual Meanings, Cambridge, 1981, 192–215. SIMIAN-YOFRE, H./RINGGREN, H., art. dw( (wd, TDOT 10, 1999, 495–516. SKA, J.-L., “Séparation des eaux et de la terre ferme dans le récit sacerdotal”, NRTh 103 (1981), 512–532. – “La place d’Ex 6,2–8 dans la narration de l’exode”, ZAW 94 (1982), 530–548. – “Our Fathers Have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives (Subsidia biblica 13), Rome, 1990. – “Quelques remarques sur Pg et la dernière rédaction du Pentateuque”, in A. de Pury (ed.), Le Pentateuque en question (Le Monde de la Bible 19), Genève, 1991, 95–125. – “De la relative indépendance de l’écrit sacerdotal”, Bib 76 (1995), 396–415. – Introduction à la lecture du Pentateuque. Clés pour l’interprétation des cinq premiers livres de la Bible (Le livre et le rouleau 5), Bruxelles, 2000. – “La structure du Pentateuque dans sa forme canonique”, ZAW 113 (2001), 330–352. – “‘Persian Imperial Authorization’: Some Question Marks”, in J.W. Watts (ed.), Persia and Torah. The Theory of the Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch (SBL.SymS 17), Atlanta, GA, 2001, 161–182. S KLAR , J., Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement: The Priestly Conceptions (Hebrew Bible Monographs 2), Sheffield, 2005. SMEND, R., Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments, Stuttgart et al., 1978. SMITH, C.R., “The Literary Structure of Leviticus”, JSOT 70 (1996), 17–32. S MITH , D., Religion of the Landless: The Social Context of the Babylonian Exile, Bloomington, IN, 1989. SMITH, M.S., The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Vol. 1: Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary on KTU 1.1–1.2 (VTSup 55), Leiden et al., 1994. – “The Literary Arrangement of the Priestly Redaction of Exodus: A Preliminary Investigation”, CBQ 58 (1996), 25–50. – The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, Oxford et al., 2001. S MITH , W.R., The Religion of the Semites: With a New Introduction by Robert A. Segal, New Brunswick, 2002. SNAITH, N.H., Leviticus and Numbers (The Century Bible. New Edition), London/Edinburgh, 1967. – “The Verbs za4bah9 and s]a4h9at[” VT 25 (1975), 242–246. SNIJDERS, L.A., art. rwz zu=r/rzF za4r, TDOT 4, 1980, 52–58. SODEN, W. VON, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch, Wiesbaden, 1965–1981. – “Mirjam-marion (Gottes-) Geschenk”, VF 2 (1970), 69–72. SOLER, J., “Sémiotique de la nourriture dans la Bible”, Annales ESC, Paris, 1973. – “Les raisons de la Bible: règles alimentaires hébraïques”, in J.-L. Flandrin and M. Montanari (eds), Histoire de l’alimentation, Paris, 1996, 73–84. SOMMER, B., “The Babylonian Akitu Festival: Rectifying the King or Renewing the Cosmos?”, JANES 27 (2000), 81–95. SONNET, J.-P., The Book within the Book. Writing in Deuteronomy (BIS 14), Leiden et al., 1997. S PARKS , K.L., “A Comparative Study of the Biblical hlbn Laws”, ZAW 110 (1998), 594– 600. SPEISER, E.A., “Leviticus and the Critics”, in M. Haran (ed.), Y. Kaufmann Jubilee Volume, Jerusalem, 1960, 29–45.

Bibliography

655

SPIECKERMANN, H., Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit (FRLANT 129), Göttingen, 1982. SPIRO, A., “A Law on the Sharing of Information”, PAAJR 28 (1959), 95–101. SPRONK, K., Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (AOAT 219), Kevalaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1986. STADE, B., Geschichte des Volkes Israels, Berlin, 2 vols, 1887–1888. STAGER, L.E., “The Archeology of the Family in Ancient Israel”, BASOR 260 (1985), 1–35. STAUBLI, T., Die Bücher Levitikus, Numeri (NSK.AT), Stuttgart, 1996. – “Die Symbolik des Vogelrituals bei der Reinigung von Aussätzigen (Lev 14,4-7)”, Bib 83 (2002), 230–237. S TECK , O.H., Der Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift: Studien zur literarkritischen und überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Problematik von Genesis 1,1–2,4a (FRLANT 115), Göttingen, 1975. S TEINS , G., “‘Sie sollen mir ein Heiligtum machen’. Zur Struktur und Entstehung von Ex 24,12–31,18”, in F.L. Hossfeld (ed.), Vom Sinai zum Horeb. Stationen alttestamentlicher Glaubensgeschichte, Würzburg, 1989, 145–167. STERN, E., “Limestone Incense Altars”, in Y. AHARONI (ed.), Beersheba I: Excavations at Tel Beer-sheba. 1969–1971 Seasons (Publications of the Institute of Archaelogy, Tel Aviv University no. 2), Tel Aviv, 1973, 52–53. STEUERNAGEL, C., Das Deuteronomium (GHK.AT 3), 2nd ed., Göttingen, 1923. STEVENSON, W.B., “Hebrew ‘Olah and Zebach Sacrifices”, in W. Baumgartner (ed.), FS. A. Bertholet, Tübingen, 1950, 488–497. STEYMANS, H.U., Deuteronomium 28 und die adê zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons: Segen und Fluch im Alten Orient und in Israel (OBO 145), Freiburg (Schweiz)/Göttingen, 1995. – “Verheißung und Drohung: Lev 26”, in H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling (eds), Levitikus als Buch (BBB 119), Berlin/Bodenheim b. Mainz, 1999, 263–307. STOELLGER, P., “Deuteronomium 34 ohne Priesterschrift”, ZAW 105 (1993), 26–51. STOLZ, F., art. hlx h9lh, THAT 1, 1971, 567–570. STRUPPE, U., Die Herrlichkeit Jahwes in der Priesterschrift. Eine semantische Studie zu kebôd YHWH (ÖBS 9), Klosterneuburg, 1988. STUART, D., Hosea–Jonah (WBC 31), Waco, TX, 1987. SUN, H.T.C., An Investigation into the Compositional Integrity of the So-Called Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–26), Ann Arbor, MI, 1990. T AMBIAH , S.J., “Animals Are Good to Think and Good to Prohibit”, Ethnology 8 (1969), 423–459. TARRAGON, J.-M. DE, Le Culte à Ugarit d’après les textes de la pratique en cunéiformes alphabétiques (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 19), Paris, 1980. – “La Kapporet est-elle une fiction ou un élément du culte tardif?”, RB 88 (1981), 5–12. T AWIL , H., “‘(Azazel The Prince of the Steepe [sic]’: A Comparative Study”, ZAW 92 (1980), 43–59. T ENGSTRÖM , S., Die Toledotformel und die literarische Struktur der priesterlichen Erweiterungsschicht im Pentateuch (CB.OT 17), Uppsala, 1981. THIEL, W., “Erwägungen zum Alter des Heiligkeitsgesetzes”, ZAW 81 (1969), 40–73. THUREAU-DANGIN, F., Rituels accadiens, Paris, 1921. TIGAY, J.H., The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, Philadelphia, PA, 1982. TOEG, A., “A Halachic Midrash in Numbers 15.22–31”, Ta 43 (1973–74), 1–20. T OORN , K. VAN DER, Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia: A Comparative Study (SSN 22), Assen, 1985. – “La pureté rituelle au Proche-Orient ancien”, RHR 206 (1989), 339–356.

656

Bibliography

– “The Babylonian New Year Festival: New Insights from the Cuneiform Texts and their Bearing on Old Testament Study”, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (VTSup 43), Leiden et al., 1991, 331–344. TOSATO, A., “The Law of Leviticus 18:18: A Reexamination”, CBQ 36 (1984), 199–214. TROPPER, J., Nekromantie: Totenbefragung im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament (AOAT 223), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1989. TURNER, V.W., The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (The Lewis Henri Morgan Lectures, 1966), London, 1969. – “Sacrifice as Quintessential Process: Prophylaxis or Abandonment?”, HR 17 (1977), 189– 215. U EHLINGER , C., “Genèse 37–50: le ‘roman de Joseph’”, in T. Römer, J.-D. Macchi and C. Nihan (eds), Introduction à l’Ancien Testament (Le Monde de la Bible 49), Genève, 2004, 157–172. U EHLINGER, C./MÜLLER TRUFFAUT, S., “Ezekiel 1, Babylonian Cosmological Scholarship and Iconography: Attempts at Further Refinement”, TZ 57 (2001), 140–171. ULFGARD, H., The Story of Sukkot. The Setting, Shaping, and Sequel of the Biblical Feast of Tabernacles (BGBE 34), Tübingen, 1998. U TZSCHNEIDER, H., Das Heiligtum und das Gesetz. Studien zur Bedeutung der sinaitischen Heiligtumstexte (Ex 25–40; Lev 8–9) (OBO 77), Freiburg (Schweiz)/Göttingen, 1988. VAN GENNEP, A., Les rites de passage: étude systématique des rites, Paris, 1909. VAN GOUDOEVER, J., Biblical Calendars, Leiden, 1961. VAN SETERS, J., “The Primeval Histories of Greece and Israel Compared”, ZAW 100 (1988), 4–22. – Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis, Zürich, 1992. – The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers, Louisville, KY/Kampen, 1994. – “The Law of the Hebrew Slave”, ZAW 108 (1996), 534–546. – The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary (Trajectories 1), Sheffield, 1999. – A Lawbook for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code, Oxford et al., 2003. VAN STRATEN, F.T., Hiera Kala: Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece (Religions in the Graeco-Roman world 127), New York, NY, et al., 1995. V ATKE, W., Die biblische Theologie wissenschaftlich dargestellt. I. Die Religion des Alten Testament nach den kanonischen Bücher entwickelt, Berlin, 1835. V AUX , R. DE, Les Institutions de l’Ancien Testament. Tome 1: Le nomadisme et ses survivances: institutions familiales, institutions civiles, Paris, 1958. – “Le sacrifices des porcs en Palestine et dans le Proche-Orient ancien”, in J. Hempel and L. Rost (eds), Von Ugarit nach Qumran. FS O. Eissfeldt (BZAW 77), Berlin, 1958, 250–265. – Les Institutions de l’Ancien Testament. Tome 2: Institutions militaires, institutions religieuses, Paris, 1960. – “Les chérubins et l’arche d’alliance, les sphinx gardiens et les trônes divins dans l’Ancien Orient”, MUSJ 37 (1960–61), 91–124. – Ancient Israel, New York, 1961. – Les sacrifices de l’Ancien Testament, Paris, 1964. VEIJOLA, T., Das fünfte Buch Mose. Deuteronomium. Kapitel 1,1–16,17 (ATD 8,1), Göttingen, 2004. VERMEYLEN, J., “La ‘table des nations’ (Gn 10): Yaphet figure-t-il l’Empire perse?”, Transeu 5 (1992), 113–132.

Bibliography

657

– “Tradition et rédaction en Genèse 1”, Transeu 16 (1998), 127–147. VERNANT, J.-P., “À la table des hommes. Mythe de fondation du sacrifice chez Hésiode”, in J.-P. Vernant and M. Detienne (eds), La cuisine du sacrifice en pays grec, Paris, 1979, 37– 132. – “Théorie générale du sacrifice et mise à mort dans la qusi/a grecque”, in J. Rudhardt and O. Reverdin (eds), Le sacrifice dans l’Antiquité (EnAC 27), Vandoeuvres/Genève, 1981, 1–21. VERVENNE, M., “The ‘P’ Tradition in the Pentateuch: Document and/or Redaction? The ‘Sea Narrative’(Ex 13,17–14,31) as a Test Case”, in C.H.W. Brekelmans and J. Lust (eds), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at the XIIIth IOSOT Congress Leuven 1989 (BETL 94), Leuven, 1990, 67–90. – “‘The Blood Is the Life and the Life Is the Blood’: Blood as Symbol of Life and Death in Biblical Tradition (Gen 9.4)”, in J. Quaegebeur (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 55), Leuven, 1993, 451–467. V IEWEGER, D., “Vom ‘Fremdling’ zum ‘Proselyt’. Zur sakralrechtlichen Definition des ger im späten 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr.”, in D. Vieweger and H.-J. Waschke (eds), Von Gott reden. Beiträge zur Theologie und Exegese des Alten Testaments. FS S. Wagner, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1995, 271–286. VIEYRA, M., “Rites de purification hittites”, RHR 119 (1939), 121–153. VINCENT, J.M., Leben und Werk des frühen Eduard Reuss, München, 1990. VINK, J.G., “The Date and the Origin of the Priestly Code in the Old Testament”, in J.G. Vink et al., The Priestly Code and Seven Other Studies (OTS 15), Leiden, 1969, 1–144. V OGELS, W., “The Cultic and Civil Calendars of the Fourth Day of Creation (Gen 1,14b)”, SJOT 11 (1997), 163–180. WAGENAAR, J.A., “You Shall not Sow Two Kinds of Seed in Your Field: Leviticus 19:19 and the Formation of the Holiness Code”, ZAR 7 (2001), 318–331. – “Post-Exilic Calendar Innovations. The First Month of the Year and the Date of Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread”, ZAW 115 (2003), 3–24. – “The Priestly Festival Calendar and the Babylonian New Year Festivals”, in R.P. Gordon and J.C. de Moor (eds), The Old Testament in Its World (OTS 52), Leiden/Boston, MA, 2005, 218–252. – Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar (BZAR 6), Wiesbaden, 2005 WAGNER, V., “Umfang und Inhalt der mo4t yu4mat Reihe”, OLZ 63 (1968), 325–328. – “Zur Existenz des sogenannten ‘Heiligkeitsgesetzes’”, ZAW 86 (1974), 307–316. W ALKENHORST , K.-H., Der Sinai im liturgischen Verstandnis der deuteromistischen und priesterlichen Tradition (BBB 33), Bonn, 1969. W ALSH, J.T., “Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: Who is Doing What to Whom?”, JBL 120 (2001), 201–209. W ANG , T., “Family, Law, and Ethos in Leviticus 18: Lessons from and for Asia/Korea”, AJBI 25 (1999), 3–20. WARNING, W., Literary Artistry in Leviticus (BIS 35), Leiden, 1999. WATTS, J.W., Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative (JSOTSup 139), Sheffield, 1992. – “Rhetorical Strategy in the Composition of the Pentateuch”, JSOT 68 (1995), 3–22. – (ed.), Persia and Torah. The Theory of the Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch (SBL.SymS 17), Atlanta, GA, 2001.

658

Bibliography

– “The Rhetoric of Ritual Instruction in Leviticus 1–7”, in R. Rendtorff and R.A. Kugler (eds), The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (VTSup 93), Leiden/Boston, MA, 2003, 79–100. W EFING, S., Untersuchungen zum Entsühnungsritual am grossen Versöhnungstag (Lev. 16), Diss. Bonn, 1979. WEIMAR, P., “Die Toledot-Formel in der priesterschriftlichen Geschichtsdarstellung”, BZ 18 (1974), 65–93. – Die Berufung des Mose: Literaturwissenschaftliche Analyse von Exodus 2,23–5,5 (OBO 32), Freiburg (Schweiz)/Göttingen, 1980. – “Struktur und Komposition der priesterschriftlichen Geschichtsdarstellung”, BN 23–24 (1984), 81–134; 138–162. – “Sinai und Schöpfung”, RB 95 (1988), 337–385. WEINBERG, J., The Citizen-Temple Community (JSOTSup 151), Sheffield, 1992. WEINFELD, M., “The Worship of Molech and the Queen of Heaven and Its Background”, UF 4 (1972), 133–54. – Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford, 1972. – “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord – The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1–2:3”, in A. Caquot and M. Delcor (eds), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (AOAT 212), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1981, 501– 512. – “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source Against Their Ancient Near Eastern Background”, in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Vol. 5, Jerusalem, 1983, 95–129. – Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 5), New York, NY, et al., 1991. – The Place of the Law in the Religion of Ancient Israel (VTSup 100), Leiden/Boston, MA, 2004. WEINGREEN, J., “The Case of the Blasphemer”, VT 22 (1972), 118–123. W EIPPERT, H., Palästina in vorhellenistischer Zeit, Handbuch der Archäologie. Vorderasien II. Vol. 1, München, 1988. WELCH, J.W., “Chiasmus in Biblical Law”, in B. Jackson (ed.), The Boston Conference Volume (JLSA 4), Atlanta, GA, 1990, 5–22. W ELLHAUSEN, J., Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (1899), 4th ed., Berlin, 1963. – Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, Berlin, 1927 (reprinted 2001). English translation: Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, 4th ed., Cleveland/New York, NY, 1965. WELLS, B., The Law of Testimony in the Pentateuchal Codes (BZAR 4), Wiesbaden, 2004. WENHAM, G.J., “Betulah: ‘A Girl of Marriageable Age’”, VT 22 (1972), 326–348. – The Book of Leviticus (NICOT), Grand Rapids, MI, 1981. WESTBROOK, R., “Redemption of Land”, Israel Law Review 6 (1971), 367–375. – “Biblical and Cuneiform Law Codes”, RB 92 (1985), 247–264. – Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Laws (Cahiers de la Revue biblique 26), Paris, 1988. – “The Deposit Law of Exodus 22,6–12”, ZAW 106 (1994), 390–403. WESTERMANN, C., “Die Herrlichkeit Gottes in der Priesterschrift”, in H.J. Stoebe (ed.), Wort, Gebot, Glaube. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. FS W. Eichrodt (ATANT 59), Zürich, 1970, 227–250. – Genesis (BKAT 1,1), 3rd ed., Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1983. WETTE, W.M.L. DE, Beiträge zur Kritik des Alten Testaments, 2 vols, Halle, 1806–1807. WEVERS, J.W., Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (SCS 30), Atlanta, GA, 1990. – “The Building of the Tabernacle”, JNSL 19 (1993), 123–131.

Bibliography

659

– Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus (SCS 44), Atlanta, GA, 1997. WEVERS, J.W./QUAST, U., Exodus (Septuaginta 2,1), Göttingen, 1991. WEYDE, K.W., The Appointed Festivals of YHWH. The Festival Calendar in Leviticus 23 and the sukkôt Festival in Other Biblical Texts (FAT Reihe 2, 4), Tübingen, 2004. WHITEKETTLE, R., “Leviticus 15.18 Reconsidered: Chiasm, Spatial Structure and the Body”, JSOT 49 (1991), 31–45. – “Leviticus 12 and the Israelite Woman: Ritual Process, Liminality and the Womb”, ZAW 107 (1995), 393–408. – “Levitical Thought and the Female Reproductive Cycle: Wombs, Wellsprings, and the Primeval World”, VT 46 (1996), 376–391. – “Rats Are Like Snakes, and Hares Are Like Goats: A Study in Israelite Land Animal Taxonomy”, Bib 82 (2001), 345–362. – “Where the Wild Things Are: Primary Level Taxa in Israelite Zoological Thought”, JSOT 93 (2001), 17–37. – “All Creatures Great and Small: Intermediate Level Taxa in Israelite Zoological Thought”, SJOT 16 (2002), 163–183. WIESEHÖFER, J., “‘Reichsgesetz’ oder ‘Einzelfallgerechtigkeit’? Bemerkungen zu Peter Freis These von einer achaimenidischen Reichsautorisation”, ZAR 1 (1995), 36–46. – “Kontinuität oder Zäsur? Babylonien unter den Achaimeniden”, in R.G. Kratz (ed.), Religion und Religionskontakte im Zeitalter der Achämeniden (Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 22), Gütersloh, 2002, 29–48. WILHELM, G., “Reinheit und Heiligkeit. Zur Vorstellungswelt altanatolischer Ritualistik”, in H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling (eds), Levitikus als Buch (BBB 119), Berlin/Bodenheim b. Mainz, 1999, 197–217. W ILLIAMSON, H.G.M., “Judah and the Jews”, in M. Brosius and A. Kuhrt (eds), Studies in Persian History: Essays in Memory of David M. Lewis, Leiden, 1998, 149–163. WILLI-PLEIN, I., Opfer und Kult im alttestamentlichen Israel: Textbefragungen und Zwischenergebnisse (SBS 153), Stuttgart, 1993. – “Opfer im Alten Testament”, in A. Gerhards and K. Richter (eds), Das Opfer: biblischer Anspruch und liturgische Gestalt (QD 186), Freiburg i.Br. et al., 2000, 48–58. WILLIS, R.G., “Pollution and Paradigms”, Man (N.S.) 7 (1972), 369–378. W ITTE, M., Die biblische Urgeschichte. Redaktions- und theologiegeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Genesis 1,1–11,26 (BZAW 265), Berlin, 1998. W RIGHT, C.J.H., “What Happened Every Seven Years in Israel? Old Testament Sabbatical Institutions for Land, Debts, and Slaves”, EQ 56 (1984), 129–138; 193–201. W RIGHT , D.P., The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBL.DS 101), Atlanta, GA, 1987. – “Observations on the Ethical Foundations of Biblical Dietary Laws: A Response to Jacob Milgrom”, in E. Firmage, B.G. Weiss and J.W. Welch (eds), Religion and Law: BiblicalJudaic and Islamic Perspectives, Winona Lake, IN, 1990, 193–198. – “The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity”, in G.A. Anderson and S.M. Olyan (eds), Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (JSOTSup 125), Sheffield, 1991, 150–181. – art. “Unclean and Clean”, ABD 6, 1992, 729–741. – “Holiness, Sex and Death in the Garden of Eden”, Bib 77 (1996), 305–329. – “Holiness in Leviticus and Beyond: Differing Perspectives”, Int 53 (1999), 351–364. W RIGHT, D.P./JONES, R.N., “The Gesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and in Hittite Literature”, JAOS 106 (1986), 433–446. WURSTER, P., “Zur Charakteristik und Geschichte des Priestercodex und Heiligkeitsgesetzes”, ZAW 4 (1884), 112–133.

660

Bibliography

YARDENI, A., “Remarks on the Priestly Blessing on Two Ancient Amulets from Jerusalem”, VT 41 (1991), 176–185. YERKES, K.Y., “The Unclean Animals of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14”, JQR 14 (1923– 24), 1–29. YERKES, R.K., Sacrifice in Greek and Roman Religions and Early Judaism, New York, NY, 1952. Z ATELLI , I., “The Origin of the Biblical Scapegoat Ritual: The Evidence of Two Eblaite Texts”, VT 48 (1998), 254–263. Z ENGER , E., “Tradition und Interpretation in Exodus xv 1–21”, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Vienna 1980 (VTSup 32), Leiden, 1981, 452–483. – Israel am Sinai. Analysen und Interpretationen zu Exodus 17–34 (1982), 2nd ed., Altenberge, 1985. – Gottes Bogen in den Wolken. Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie der priesterschriftlichen Urgeschichte (SBS 112), Stuttgart, 1983. – “Die Bücher der Tora/des Pentateuch”, in E. Zenger (ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1,1), Stuttgart et al., 1995; 19962; 19983; 20014; 20045 [Pagination and content differ in each edition]. – “Der Pentateuch als Tora und Kanon”, in E. Zenger (ed.), Die Tora als Kanon für Juden und Christen (HBSt 10), Freiburg i.Br. et al., 1996, 5–34. – art. “Priesterschrift”, TRE 27, 1997, 435–446. – “Das Buch Levitikus als Teiltext der Tora/des Pentateuch. Eine synchrone Lektüre mit kanonischer Perspektive”, in H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling (eds), Levitikus als Buch (BBB 119), Berlin/Bodenheim b. Mainz, 1999, 47–83. Z EVIT, Z., “Philology, Archaeology, and a Terminus A Quo for P’s h;at[t[a4)t Legislation”, in D.P. Wright, D.N. Freedman and A. Hurvitz (eds), Pomegranates and Golden Bells. FS J. Milgrom, Winona Lake, IN, 1995, 29–38. ZIJL, P.J. VAN, Baal: A Study of Texts in Connexion with Baal in the Ugaritic Epics (AOAT 10), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1972. ZIMMERLI, W., “Ich bin Yahweh”, in Geschichte und Altes Testament. FS A. Alt (BHTh 16), Tübingen, 1953, 179–209. – “Die Eigenart der prophetischen Rede des Ezechiel”, ZAW 66 (1954), 1–26. – “Sinaibund und Abrahambund. Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Priesterschrift”, in W. Zimmerli, Gottes Offenbarung. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament (TB 19), München, 1963, 205–216. – “‘Heiligkeit’ nach dem sogenannten Heiligekeitsgesetz”, VT 30 (1980), 493–512. ZIPOR, M., “Restrictions on Marriage for Priest (Lev 21, 7.13–14)”, Bib 68 (1987), 259–267. ZISKIND, J.R., “Legal Rules on Incest in the Ancient Near East”, RIDA 35 (1988), 79–107. – “The Missing Daughter in Leviticus XVIII”, VT 46 (1996), p. 125–130. Z OHAR , N., “Repentance and Purification: The Significance and Semantics of t)+x in the Pentateuch”, JBL 107 (1988), 609–618. ZWICKEL, W., Räucherkult und Räuchergeräte: exegetische und archäologische Studien zum Räucheropfer im Alten Testament (OBO 97), Freiburg (Schweiz)/Göttingen, 1990. – “Zur Frühgeschichte des Brandopfers in Israel”, in W. Zwickel (ed.), Biblische Welten. FS M. Metzger (OBO 123), Freiburg (Schweiz)/Göttingen, 1993, 231–248. – (ed.), Edelsteine in der Bibel, Mainz am Rhein, 2002.

Source Index The following table includes a selection of relevant passages. The use of italics indicates that a given passage is mentioned in the footnotes of the corresponding page(s). Boldface font refers to pages within the book that are specifically devoted to the analysis of the relevant passage.

Genesis 1–11 1:1–2:3 1

1:6–10 1:14 1:27 1:28 1:29–30 1:29 1:31 2:1–3 3 3:8 4:7 5 5:1–2 5:22 5:24 6–9 6:1–4 6:3 6:9 6:11–12 6:11 6:12 7–8 8:21 9

22, 34, 61, 234–237, 336–338, 413, 538, 613 54, 58, 61, 123, 233, 311 55, 56, 58, 61, 64, 75, 234, 237, 288, 293, 310, 326, 337, 340, 379, 380 60, 310 510 519 62, 63, 64, 307, 519, 611 62, 413, 517, 611 337 54, 58, 61 54, 233 305, 307 106, 109, 538 374 62, 383 519 63, 106, 109, 538 106, 109, 538 20, 21, 57, 233 22 22, 23 63, 106, 109, 538 61 413 61 310 57, 233 63, 64, 83, 234–236, 326, 327, 336–338, 380, 381, 425, 613

9:1 9:2–4 9:2–3 9:3 9:4–6 9:4 9:5–6 9:5 9:6 9:7 9:12–17 9:15 9:16–17 9:16 10 10:5 10:20 10:31 11:10–32 11:10 12–50 12:1–3 17 17:1 17:3 17:7–8 17:7 17:8 17:9–14 17:9–10 17:11–14 17:14 17:19

62, 63, 64, 307, 383 424 519 62, 328, 329, 336, 337, 517 62, 234–235, 413 235, 419, 420, 421, 423, 424, 425, 426, 429 517, 518 235 413, 517, 518 62, 63, 64, 383 63, 233, 567, 568 541 63 541 63, 64, 383, 384, 388 383 383 383 62 63 61, 72 72 34, 46, 64, 339, 383, 388, 401, 538, 539, 541 63 46 34–35, 65, 195, 610 63, 64, 65, 538, 539 63, 66, 68 195, 566, 567, 568 539, 548 539 570, 615 538, 539

662 17:21 17:22 17:23 23 25:9–10 25:19ff. 26:34–35 27:46 28:1–2 28:2 28:3–4 28:3 28:4 28:8–9 35:9–15 35:12 35:13 35:14 35:22–29 35:27–29 36 36:43 43:32 46:8–26 49–50 50:13 Exodus 1:7 2:23–25 2:24 4 4:1–17 4:11 4:13–16 4:16 4:17 6:2–8 6:2 6:3 6:4 6:5 6:6–8 6:6 6:7 6:8 6:9 6:10–12 6:14–27 6:14–25

Source Index 538 46, 63 46 67, 374, 385, 387 67, 374, 385 63 21, 384 21, 384 384 385 64 388 67, 68 384 46, 64 66, 67 63 57 63 67, 374, 384 385 68 334 148–149 71 67, 374, 385

63, 64 20, 21, 34 63, 64, 541, 542 25, 30 27, 30, 607 473 27 607 27 21, 34–35, 65, 66, 387, 610 20, 46 65 68, 538 21, 541 65 534 63, 64, 388, 496, 533, 534 65, 66, 67, 68, 387 65 148 148–150 576

6:18 6:21 6:28–30 7–11 7:7 12 12:1–13 12:1 12:2 12:3 12:6 12:14–20 12:15 12:18 12:19 12:21–23 12:23 12:27 12:43–49 13:2 13:3–16 13:12–13 14 14:8 14:10–15 14:16 14:31 15:1–18 15:13 15:17 15:25–26 16 16:3 16:10 16:22–28 16:23 16:28 17:1–7 17:2 17:3 17:5–6 19–40 19–24 19:1 20–23 20 20:2–17 20:2 20:3–12 20:3

585 584–585 148 20, 21 22 51, 57, 72, 236, 339 503 51 509 509 236, 412, 505 501, 502, 505, 562, 564–565, 574 407 501, 565 407 505 374 57 564, 566–567, 571, 574 438 604 438 20, 21, 55, 60, 365 164 21 26, 30 30 66 66, 534 66 552 72, 28 92, 233 568 568, 586 548, 568 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 72 28 28 27 21, 30, 31–58, 70, 72, 552 108, 401, 552 53, 58, 66, 74 98, 466 49, 467 462 537 472 463, 467

Source Index 20:4 20:5 20:7 20:8–11 20:8 20:10 20:12 20:14 20:15 20:16 20:17 20:24–26 21:2–6 21:2 21:6 21:7–11 21:12–17 21:12 21:17 21:22 21:23–25 21:37 22:2 22:3 22:9–10 22:15 22:18 22:19 22:20 22:24 22:27 22:29 22:30

23:1–8 23:3 23:4–5 23:6 23:7 23:8 23:9 23:10–11 23:11 23:12 23:14–17 23:15 23:16

467 463, 536 99, 250, 467, 473, 515, 516 463, 567 467, 478 525 463, 468 480 463, 472, 473 463 436 98, 401 523, 524, 528, 529, 531, 534 531 531 523, 524, 528, 529, 534 450, 549 516, 517, 518 450, 451, 459 514, 516 514, 516, 517, 518, 519 251 528, 529 251 250–251 469 449, 480 413, 415, 452 475, 476 532, 533 515, 516 492 287, 295, 296, 427, 428, 430, 455, 475, 478, 488, 549, 550 473, 474 473 474, 475 473 473, 474 473 475, 476 523, 524, 525, 526, 534, 549 471, 525, 526 525 502, 504, 508, 509 505 211, 471, 472, 501, 505, 507, 509

23:19 24–25 24:3–8 24:5 24:9–11 24:12–15a 24:12 24:15–18 24:15b–18aa 24:15b–16a 24:16 24:17 25–40

25–31 25–29 25–27 25 25:2–7 25:8–9 25:8 25:9 25:10–40 25:10–22 25:10–16 25:10 25:16 25:17–22 25:17 25:18–20 25:19 25:20 25:21 25:22

25:23–30 25:31–39 25:40 26–27 26:1–27:8 26 26:1–30 26:1–14 26:1–6

663 471, 472, 492, 506 105, 109, 379, 381–382 606 226 606–607 49 553–554 104, 105, 109 158, 232, 365, 377–379, 381, 393, 614 36, 53, 54 60, 61, 92, 233, 365 53–54, 60, 91, 92, 105, 233 31–58, 60, 73, 84, 105, 108, 109, 158–159, 232–234, 365, 376, 388, 608, 609, 613 15, 31–58, 564, 568 34–58, 59, 157–159, 365, 610 34–51 80 44 35, 38, 39, 44 34, 36, 47, 54, 90, 194, 371, 392, 495, 538, 540 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 48, 54 32, 38, 40, 43, 44 43, 44–51 48 52 48–50 44, 45, 48, 382 45–46 46, 390 48 390 48–50 37, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 65, 105, 109, 378, 379, 390, 552, 553, 554 44, 511 44 41, 42, 48, 54 41–42, 44 41, 42 39–41, 51 41, 42 40, 41 38, 39, 40

664 26:7–14 26:7–11 26:11 26:15–29 26:30 26:31–37 26:33–35 26:34 26:35 27 27:1–19 27:1–8 27:8 27:9–19 27:19 27:20–21 28–29 28 28:1 28:3–5 28:6 28:6–41 28:15–30 28:29–30 28:30 28:36–37 28:36 28:38 28:39 28:41 28:42–43 29

29:1–37 29:1–3 29:1 29:2 29:4–6 29:5 29:6 29:7 29:8–12 29:8–9 29:9 29:10–18 29:10–14 29:12

Source Index 39, 40, 368 35, 41 40 39, 41 35, 41, 42, 51, 54 32, 39, 42, 44 43 44 32 40 41 41, 42, 51, 119 35, 42, 48, 51, 54 42 51 42, 73, 511, 546 51–53, 56, 231–232, 394 52, 393, 394 52 52 52 53 393 393 137 138 52, 138 600 52 52, 590 52, 53 15, 31, 34, 53, 56, 73, 107, 112, 124–148, 150–159, 215, 263, 267, 279–280, 484 51 134–135 51, 128, 138 145, 146, 153 135–138 52, 135–138 52, 138 52, 127, 129, 130, 138, 590 393 138 137 116 138–143, 160, 186, 190 116, 140, 141, 142–143, 147

29:13 29:14 29:15–18 29:17–18 29:20–34 29:20 29:21 29:22–26 29:22–25 29:22–24 29:22 29:23 29:24 29:26 29:27–30 29:27–28 29:29–30 29:31–32 29:35 29:36–37 29:38–42 29:40 29:42 29:43–46 29:43–44 29:43 29:44 29:45–46 29:45 30–31 30:1–10 30:7–8 30:9 30:10 30:11–16 30:15, 16 30:17–21 30:22–38 30:22–33 30:28–29 30:30 30:34–38 30:34–36 30:34 30:36 31:1–11

141 116, 139, 142, 180 143–144, 150–152 143–144 144–146 144 128–130 144, 156, 595 130 122 122, 152 145, 146, 153 122, 143 156, 262, 597 130–132 130–131, 156, 262, 597 131–132 145–146 116, 133–134, 146 132–134, 179, 180, 184 36–37, 259 260 36–37, 47 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 51, 53, 56, 364 36, 37, 38 25, 36, 37, 38, 47, 48, 53, 587, 602 41, 51, 53, 587 34, 35, 36, 47, 63, 64, 65, 538, 540, 583, 610 54, 64–65, 65, 90, 194, 371, 392, 495 31–33, 44, 52, 609 32–33, 103, 161–163, 196–197, 580, 614 196, 222, 511, 580 196, 580 32, 163, 175–176, 179, 180, 184 33, 73 420 33, 127 33 33 133 33 33, 103, 196, 222 101, 580 196, 376 196 33, 52, 58

Source Index 31:12–17 31:14 31:17 31:18 32–34 32 32:15–16 32:15 33:7–11 33:9–11 34:6–7 34:14–26 34:17 34:18–24 34:19 34:22 34:25 34:26 34:29 35–40 35–39 35:1–36:8 35:1–3 35:3 36:8 38:25–26 39–40 39 39:8–21 39:32 39:43 40

40:1–15 40:2–8 40:9–15 40:9–11 40:10 40:14–15 40:17 40:18 40:20 40:33–35 40:33 40:34–35

33, 562, 564, 567–568, 574 406, 407 50 49, 50 49, 568 606 49 49 47, 393, 399 47 83 467 467 502, 504 438 211, 501, 507, 510 505 471, 472, 492, 506 49 15, 58, 73, 126, 158–159, 564, 568 58, 126 52 564, 568 502, 582 52 73, 54, 56, 58 15 137 54, 58, 125 54, 58, 125 14, 31, 53, 55, 58, 74, 77, 90, 157–158, 378–379, 393, 609 90, 127 128 128 127, 128 128, 133 590 53, 55, 58, 70, 73, 74, 90, 95 58 49 91 31, 36, 58 53, 54, 57, 58, 74, 100, 104, 105, 110, 365, 378–379, 381, 609, 610, 614

40:34

40:35 40:36–38 Leviticus 1–27 1–17 1–16

1–10

1–9

1–8 1–7

1–3

1 1:1–2 1:1

1:2 1:3–9 1:3 1:4 1:5–9 1:7 1:8–9 1:8 1:9 1:10 1:12–13 1:12 1:13

665 31, 36, 47, 53, 56, 58, 64, 91, 158, 194, 233, 538, 540 90, 91, 109, 159, 232, 378, 393 57, 73, 232, 365

70 2, 79 8, 9, 11–13, 14, 76, 77, 84, 87, 97, 340, 379– 382, 391, 466, 552, 608–609 19, 89, 90, 93, 95, 96, 99–105, 106, 108, 109, 111–268, 602 53, 56, 57, 91, 104, 231–237, 280, 323, 336, 338, 376, 380, 382, 412, 582, 610 111, 115 13, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 88, 90, 91, 94, 95, 96, 109, 112, 113, 139–140, 142, 147, 150–159, 336–338, 370, 380, 582, 609 150–159, 198–231, 231–237, 380, 391, 609–610 150–152, 153–155, 198–206 78 53, 57, 70, 74, 77, 83, 88, 90, 91, 123, 158, 159, 205, 232, 263, 264, 552 198, 201, 205, 232 150–152 230 45, 170, 229, 422 154 201–203 143 201, 203, 205 201, 202, 205 203 143 201, 203, 205 205

666 1:14–17 2

2:1–3 2:1–2 2:1 2:2 2:4–10 2:4–7 2:4 2:8–10 2:8 2:9 2:11–12 2:11 2:13 2:14–16 2:15 3

3:1–5 3:9–10 3:13–14 3:14 3:16 3:17 4–5 4:1–5:13 4

4:3–21 4:3–12 4:2 4:3 4:6 4:7 4:11 4:13–21 4:13–14 4:14 4:15 4:17

Source Index 204–205, 244, 252, 280, 408 84, 153, 198–200, 206–215, 222, 230, 511, 610 156–157, 207, 208–210, 511 220, 244 198 103, 157, 209, 231, 511 208–210 230 153 209 140, 209 208, 231 212–213, 372 507 207, 213–214 210–212, 506, 507 103, 220 152–153, 155–156, 198–206, 222–228, 230, 267, 408, 410 204 152 152 206 199, 569 198–199, 257–258, 261, 419, 502, 569 87, 160–161, 382, 609, 614 172–174, 186 96, 97, 160–198, 237– 239, 241, 242, 243, 248, 249, 252, 254, 360, 361, 371, 372, 479, 559, 560, 580, 599, 600, 614–615 161–164, 186, 187, 188, 189, 193, 361 120, 160, 187 164–165, 186, 195, 247 52, 165, 238 188 162, 188, 361 142 160, 598 237–238, 240 187 165 188

4:18 4:19–20 4:20 4:22–35 4:22–26 4:22–23 4:22 4:26 4:27–35 4:27–32 4:27–28 4:27 4:28 4:31 4:32 4:35 5 5:1–13 5:1–6 5:1–4 5:1 5:2–4 5:2–3 5:2 5:4 5:5 5:6 5:7–13 5:7 5:9 5:10 5:11–13 5:14–26 5:14–16 5:14 5:15 5:16 5:17–19 5:17 5:18 5:19 5:20–26 5:21–22 5:21 5:23 5:24

188, 361 184 185, 186 163–164, 186, 188, 189, 361 253 237, 240, 249, 253 166 184, 187 243, 245, 247–248, 252, 253, 254 253 237, 240, 249, 253 166 249 181, 182, 184, 187 249 184, 187 160–161, 237–256, 615 198, 239–245, 615 239–244, 252, 254 239–244, 252, 253, 254 239, 247, 249 239–241 239–241 295 241 239, 254 243–244, 249, 253, 254 244–245, 254, 280 245, 249, 408 140 155 222, 281 161, 198, 245–252, 254–255, 279, 470, 615 171, 173, 244, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255 245 244, 246–247, 253, 470 246 244, 247–249, 253, 254, 255 238, 247 248, 249 249 249–252, 253, 255, 470 249–250, 470 244, 253, 470 250 250, 251

Source Index 6–7

6:1–7:21 6:1–7:10 6:1–2aa 6:2–6 6:7–11 6:7–8 6:8 6:9 6:10 6:11 6:12–16 6:12 6:13 6:14 6:15–16 6:17–23 6:17–18aa 6:17 6:18 6:19 6:20 6:21 6:22 6:23 7:1–7 7:2–5 7:6–7 7:6 7:7 7:8–10 7:11–36 7:11–21 7:11–18 7:15 7:16–18 7:19–21 7:21 7:22–36 7:22–27 7:23 7:24 7:26–27 7:26 7:28–36

86, 88, 198, 216, 256–268, 486, 487, 488, 490, 549, 577, 580, 593, 594, 597, 609, 614–615 264–268, 615 86 86, 216 37, 202, 594 258, 595 266 220 490, 595, 597 256 265 258–260, 263, 615 260 259 260 259 160, 177, 180, 185, 191, 266, 598, 599 260 260 256, 266 183, 193, 262, 265, 490, 580, 597, 598, 599, 604 191, 192 191, 192, 220 193, 256, 262, 598 164, 194, 598 266–267 266 262, 598 256, 490, 597 265 257 257 257, 266, 267, 268, 549 493, 494 493 468, 493, 546 469, 488 488, 257–258, 260–262, 268, 569 258, 261, 569, 615 407 295 419 502 95, 131, 156, 258, 261– 262, 569, 595–597, 615

7:28–34 7:28–29a 7:30 7:32–34 7:34 7:35–38 7:35–36 7:35 7:36 7:37–38 7:37 7:38 8–10

8–9

8

8:1–5 8:1–2 8:1 8:2 8:4 8:6–10 8:7 8:10–11 8:12 8:14–21 8:14–17 8:14 8:15

8:16 8:17 8:18–21 8:20–21 8:22–32 8:23–24 8:25–29 8:25 8:26

667 121, 122 262 156 121, 262, 595 131, 595, 597 83 95 259 261, 595 77, 78, 82, 88, 95, 106, 258, 263–264, 552 83, 95, 259, 264, 615 82, 263 13, 14, 17, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 89, 95, 96, 101, 111–150 51, 53, 56, 80, 84, 90, 92, 116, 150–159, 215, 231–237, 301, 370, 372, 375, 378, 380, 382, 393, 582, 602, 609, 610 15, 53, 58, 74, 89, 90, 95, 107, 112, 118, 123, 124–148, 263, 279–280, 357, 484, 609, 612 134–135 86 123 134 135 135–138 52, 136–138 127–128 52, 128, 129, 130, 138, 279, 590 116, 117 138–143, 160, 186, 190, 192 140 116, 129, 139, 140, 141, 142–143, 147, 175–176, 177–178, 180, 181, 184, 192 116, 141 116, 142, 180 143–144, 150–152 143–144 144–146 144, 279 128, 144–145, 156, 595 152 122, 145, 153

668 8:27 8:29 8:30 8:31 8:33–36 8:33–35 8:33 8:34–35 8:34 8:35 8:36 9–10

9

9:1–7 9:1 9:2–4 9:2 9:3–4 9:3 9:4 9:6–7 9:6 9:7 9:8–21 9:8–14 9:8–11 9:9 9:10 9:11 9:12–14 9:15–21 9:15 9:16 9:17 9:18–21 9:19 9:20 9:21 9:22–24 9:22 9:23–10:3

Source Index 143 132, 156, 262, 597 128–130, 132 146, 220 133–134 113, 116 116, 133–134, 146 133–134 133 90, 133 132, 133–134, 146 89, 90, 92, 95, 105, 108, 577–578, 582, 588, 593, 594 3, 31, 53, 74, 90, 91, 92, 93, 100, 101, 104, 109, 111–124, 127, 134, 350, 357, 382, 577, 578, 582, 593, 594, 595, 598, 599, 601, 602, 609 112 53, 70, 74, 89, 90, 95, 116, 122, 123, 233 114, 115, 122 117 117 117, 122 119, 120 123 119, 120, 121 120, 121, 175, 230, 357 112, 113, 114, 115, 116 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 153 160, 186, 190 141, 147 596 116, 142, 180, 598 154 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 594 117, 183, 598, 599, 604 117, 154–155, 157 121, 156–157, 594 116, 155–156 116 155–156 122, 155–156, 131, 262, 595, 596 112, 113, 380 113, 117, 118 92

9:23–24

9:23

9:24 10

10:1–5 10:1–3 10:1–2 10:1 10:2 10:3 10:4–5 10:4 10:6–7 10:7 10:8–11 10:8 10:10–11 10:10 10:11 10:12–15 10:14–15 10:16–20 10:17 10:18 10:19–20 10:19 11–27 11–20 11–17 11–16

48, 53, 86, 91, 93, 100, 103, 104, 105, 109, 158, 159, 233, 365, 588, 609, 610 53, 91, 92, 102, 113, 117, 118, 119, 159, 161, 378, 393, 587, 602 91, 92, 112, 117, 118, 119 15, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 89, 90, 92, 93, 97, 99–105, 108, 148–150, 283, 344, 346, 350, 376, 576–607, 618 3, 148–150, 579–588, 591, 605 92, 93, 376 101, 580–586, 588, 602–603, 605, 606 92, 93, 101, 103, 580–582, 586 92 25, 92, 107, 150, 495, 586–588, 602–603 584–585 100, 103 589–590, 591, 596, 603 33, 52, 589, 590 590–593, 603, 605 77 80, 95, 110, 283, 591–593, 605, 606 93, 108, 265, 268, 306, 333 602, 618 3, 131, 593–597, 598, 603, 604 121, 156, 262, 595–597 160, 185, 593, 598–602, 603, 604–605, 606, 618 190, 599, 600 599, 604 600–601, 604 93, 95, 577 89, 93, 95, 108 94, 95, 108, 299, 459 79 9, 18, 19, 76, 77, 95–98, 99–105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 301, 371–375, 376, 380, 611

Source Index 11–15

11–12 11

11:1 11:2–23 11:2–8 11:2 11:3 11:4–7 11:4 11:7 11:8 11:9–12 11:9 11:10–12 11:10 11:11 11:12 11:13–19 11:13 11:14 11:15 11:17–18 11:18 11:20–23 11:20 11:23 11:24–42 11:24–40 11:24–38 11:24–28 11:27 11:29–31 11:31–33 11:32–38 11:39–40 11:41–42 11:43–45

11:44–45 11:46–47

2, 13, 15, 16, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 86, 87, 93, 95, 96, 97, 100, 101, 108, 109, 269, 270–301, 301–307, 338–339, 371–375, 380, 382, 391, 488, 490, 611–613 84, 87, 88 15, 77, 84, 94, 283–299, 301–307, 311, 312, 321, 324–339, 380, 611–612 51, 77, 89, 95 293, 300, 611, 612 298 285, 293 285, 329 329, 330 292 335 286 285, 286 285, 286 285 286, 293, 297, 298, 324, 326 285, 291 291 286, 288, 290, 293 286, 291 290 290 290 290 286, 297, 326 286, 291 286 291, 336 287, 294–297 287, 296–297, 301, 321 294, 296 294, 326 291, 296, 324, 326 191 296–297, 321 14, 287, 295–296, 336, 427, 430, 546, 549 287, 291, 297–298, 336 77, 94, 96, 98, 108, 287, 298–299, 305, 328, 339, 562 82 276, 298

11:46 12–15

12 12:1–2aa 12:1 12:2–4 12:2–3 12:2 12:3 12:4 12:5 12:6–8 12:6 12:7 12:8 13–15 13–14 13 13:1 13:2–46 13:2 13:45–46 13:46 13:47–59 14:1–32 14:1–20 14:1 14:2–8 14:3 14:4–7 14:8–20 14:10–20 14:11 14:13 14:14 14:15–17 14:18 14:19 14:21–31 14:23 14:33–53 14:33–34 14:33

669 189 88, 270–283, 299–300, 301–307, 307–323, 335, 338–339, 380, 488, 611–613 84, 88, 281–282, 308, 310, 317, 318 270 281–282 310 319 84, 88, 447, 454 281 213, 281 281, 311, 316, 319 180–181, 186, 189 270, 281, 320 178, 281, 320, 447, 452 281, 408 84, 87, 88 1, 13, 86, 271–281, 300, 302, 317, 323 318, 333 51, 95, 270 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277 270 84, 308, 320, 323 270, 275 271, 272, 273–274, 275, 276, 277, 321 274–275, 278–281 278–280, 301, 320, 323, 611 270, 274, 275 274–275, 276, 278, 301 270 273, 274–275 278–280 278–279, 280, 323 270 270, 280 279 279 279 178 280–281, 320 270 271, 272, 273–274, 276, 277, 321 276 51, 95, 270

670 14:34 14:49–53 14:52 14:53 14:54–57 14:54 14:55 14:56 14:57 15 15:1–2a 15:1 15:2–15 15:14–15 15:14 15:15 15:16–17 15:18 15:19–24 15:19 15:24 15:25–30 15:29–34 15:29–30 15:29 15:30 15:31 15:32–33 15:33 16–17 16

16:1

16:1–2 16:1–2aa 16:2–28

16:2

Source Index 270, 276 175, 273, 274, 275 274 175, 275 271–272 271–272 271–272, 277 271–272 272 88, 282–283, 310, 311, 312, 316, 317, 320, 321 270 51, 95, 282 282, 308, 309, 316, 318 189, 316, 320 270, 282 178 282, 283, 314, 321 88, 282, 283, 309, 310, 311, 317, 321 282, 310 88, 316 282–283, 308, 437 282, 308, 310, 318, 320 281 189, 316, 320 270, 282 178 96, 191, 193, 213, 270, 282–283, 361, 372 82 282 81, 82, 83 3, 13, 14, 15, 31, 32, 43, 44, 45, 46, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 93, 95–97, 99–105, 106, 108, 109, 283, 340–379, 380–382, 393, 423, 501, 559, 585, 586, 600, 603, 613–614 80, 99, 100, 102, 105, 150, 162–163, 192–193, 194, 198, 346, 350, 578, 581, 585, 586, 600, 603 82, 346 77, 83, 89, 97, 99, 150 340, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350–379, 379–382, 569, 613 82, 87, 101, 104, 105, 109, 346, 347, 350,

16:3–10 16:3 16:4 16:5–10 16:5

16:6

16:7–10

16:7 16:8 16:9 16:10 16:11–28 16:11–19 16:11

16:12–13

16:12 16:13 16:14–19 16:14–15 16:14 16:15 16:16–19 16:16

16:16a, 21a

16:17 16:18–19 16:18

364–365, 366, 368, 370, 375–379, 382, 393, 569, 614 341, 345, 355 350, 354, 355, 357, 366 342, 366, 370 345, 355, 356 182, 341, 345, 352, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 362, 366, 373 341, 343, 351, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 360, 361, 362, 363 341, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 358, 359, 360, 362, 363, 373 82 353 353, 354, 356, 358, 359 175, 353, 355, 356, 368, 373 341, 355, 356 351, 359, 361, 362 343, 351, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 360, 361, 362, 363 101, 104, 109, 342, 343, 354, 363–365, 366, 368, 375–379, 382, 581, 582, 585, 586 162, 363 350, 370, 614 180, 182, 191, 360, 367, 368–369, 371, 378 176, 175–176, 188, 360, 374 45, 188, 354, 356, 357, 359, 360, 361, 363 45, 354, 356, 358, 359, 360, 361, 363 162–163, 359, 360 45, 83, 85, 93, 96, 97, 175–176, 181, 184, 184, 188, 189, 190, 191, 361, 367 189, 192–193, 195, 360–361, 366, 368, 371, 614, 615 175, 182, 357, 359, 360, 361, 362, 366 129, 142–143, 162–163 141, 175–176

Source Index 16:19 16:20–22

16:20 16:21–22 16:21 16:23–24 16:24 16:25 16:26 16:27–28 16:27 16:29–34

16:29–31 16:29 16:30 16:31 16:34 17–27

17–26

17:1–26:2 17–24 17:1–24:9 17–22

17:1–22:16 17–20 17

17:1–2a 17:2 17:2a

82, 184, 367 179, 182, 190, 341, 351, 356, 361, 368–369, 371, 372, 373 191, 356, 360 353, 354, 355, 357, 359, 362, 374 83, 96, 184, 190, 351, 369 355, 356, 357, 366, 367, 370 170, 190, 354, 355, 367 193–194, 362, 366, 367 82, 367 172, 367 142, 194, 367 80, 83, 87, 341, 345, 346–350, 375, 500–501, 562, 569, 613 87, 347 80, 83, 85, 348, 349, 350 182, 348 348, 500–501 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 97, 347, 379, 553, 569 9, 19, 76, 77, 80, 81, 85, 94, 97, 107, 108, 109, 608, 609 1, 3, 4–11, 13, 18, 19, 35, 76, 77, 81, 97, 98–99, 105–108, 109, 349, 350, 382, 395–574, 587, 616–617 106 81 80 81, 98, 299, 397, 477, 493, 495, 533, 534–535, 550, 587 84, 87 299, 481 2, 8, 9, 77, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 94, 97, 236, 261, 327, 329, 398, 401, 402–430, 455, 492, 493, 494, 530, 546, 547, 549, 554, 555, 556, 559, 560 82, 97, 397 87, 398 87, 89, 98, 481, 492

17:3–9 17:3–7 17:3–4 17:3 17:4 17:5–7 17:5 17:6 17:7 17:8–9 17:8 17:9 17:10–16 17:10–14 17:10–12 17:10 17:11

17:12 17:13–14 17:13 17:15–16 17:15 18–27 18–26 18–25 18–24 18–22 18–20

18

18:1–5 18:2–5 18:2 18:5 18:6–23 18:6–18 18:6

671 399, 404, 405, 406–418, 423, 424, 425 236, 406–413, 414, 415, 424, 425, 429, 469 406, 407, 408, 409, 410 82, 407, 409 82, 412 408–410, 424 82, 410, 411 82, 409–410 411–412, 417, 451 410, 413–415, 424, 425, 429, 516 414, 415 82 404, 405, 418–428 261, 418–426, 430 83, 235, 419–423, 424, 425, 426, 429 406, 420, 422, 423, 451 17, 82, 87, 176–177, 187, 230, 419–422, 423, 425, 426, 430, 618 423 235, 329, 425–426 418 295–296, 426–428, 478, 488, 546, 549 261, 488 87 2, 417 400 84 87, 512, 548 79, 80, 82, 86, 87, 93, 98, 107, 108, 299, 397, 399, 428, 430–481, 450–454, 455–459, 477, 478–481, 484, 485, 489, 491, 494, 539, 546, 547, 555, 559 5, 78, 79, 85, 430–446, 450–459, 480, 549, 550, 556, 559 5 431, 441, 445–446, 455, 458, 478, 479, 540, 557 82, 398 445, 446 430, 432, 455, 478 432–436, 454 442

672 18:7–17 18:7–16 18:7–8 18:7 18:9–11 18:9 18:10 18:11 18:12–13 18:14–18 18:14 18:15 18:17–18 18:17 18:18 18:19–23 18:19 18:20 18:21 18:22 18:23 18:24–30

18:24 18:25 18:29 19–22 19–20 19

19:1 19:2

19:3–4 19:3 19:4 19:5–10 19:5–8 19:9–10 19:11–18 19:11–12 19:12 19:13–18 19:13–14

Source Index 545 442–443, 480 433–434 443, 451, 454, 467, 480 434 447 451, 454 455 435, 448, 452 435 448 450 439–441, 442–443, 480 449, 452, 455 447, 450, 451, 454 436–439, 439–441, 444–445, 451, 454 308, 447, 448, 454, 547 449, 454 451, 454, 456, 480 452, 454 449, 452, 454, 480 5, 94, 431, 441, 445–446, 455, 458, 478, 479, 481, 540, 557, 560 445, 446 445, 446 445, 446 493 494 78, 79, 80, 85, 397, 428, 455, 456, 457, 458, 460–478, 479, 546, 547, 549, 550, 555, 556 85 82, 397, 398, 455, 456, 459, 462, 466, 467, 478, 479, 481, 493, 495, 550, 555, 556 461, 462, 464, 465, 467–468, 472, 536, 555 452, 463, 466, 479, 496 463, 476, 479, 516, 536 461 77, 461, 468–469, 471, 479, 489, 493, 494, 501 461, 471–472, 479, 507 7, 461, 472–475, 479 462, 463, 472 250 464 465, 472

19:15–16 19:17–18 19:19 19:20–25 19:20–22 19:23–25 19:26–28 19:26 19:27–28 19:28 19:29–36 19:29–31 19:29 19:30 19:31 19:32 19:33–36 19:33–34 19:35–36 19:36 19:37 20 20:2–6 20:2–5 20:2 20:3 20:6 20:7–8

20:8 20:9–21 20:9 20:10–21 20:10–16 20:10 20:11 20:13 20:14 20:15–16 20:17–21 20:17

464, 472–473, 476 474 456, 461, 462, 465, 466, 468 461 77, 461, 469–471, 549, 555 9, 399, 400, 461, 471– 472, 479, 501, 507 7, 462, 463, 465, 476–477 463 463–464, 483, 589 322 464 464, 465, 477–478 483, 485 107, 478, 479, 481, 491, 496, 536, 551, 568 322, 451, 456, 465 465, 475, 477, 479 465, 475–476, 479 464, 475–476 464, 476 79 456, 457, 461, 462, 478, 479, 494, 496, 556 79, 85, 94, 446–459, 480, 549, 550, 556, 559 451, 456–458, 460 431–432, 451, 454, 479, 480 82, 406, 407 406, 407, 513 322, 407, 431, 432, 451, 480 431, 456, 457–458, 460, 468, 494, 495, 496, 550, 570 494 450–454, 457, 460, 549 431, 450, 451, 454, 457, 467, 468, 549 431, 451, 452 447, 449–450, 453, 457 454, 480 442, 452, 454, 480 452, 454 454, 455, 458 452, 480 447, 448–449, 452 455

Source Index 20:18 20:19 20:21 20:22–26

20:22 20:24–26 20:25–26 20:25 20:27 21–25 21–24 21–22

21:1–22:16 21 21:1–15 21:1–9 21:1–4 21:1–2 21:1 21:5 21:6–8 21:6 21:7 21:8 21:9 21:10–15 21:10–12 21:10 21:12 21:14 21:15 21:16–23 21:16–17 21:17 21:18–20 21:21 21:22 21:23 21:24 22 22:1–16 22:1–9

308, 452 431, 452, 453 448–449 94, 299, 339, 431, 458– 459, 460, 478, 479, 480, 482, 496, 540, 550, 557 494, 495, 496, 560 535 82, 298, 299, 306 94, 108, 299, 459 322, 431, 432, 459–460, 480 79 79 77, 79, 81, 82, 86, 299, 398, 458, 459, 477, 481–496, 556, 559, 616 86, 98, 459, 481–491 86, 482, 483, 488, 490, 546, 600 87, 399, 481, 482, 483–486, 487 483–485 322, 483, 484, 589, 590 86 77, 82, 481, 483, 490 483, 485 483–484, 485, 588 589 484, 485 482, 483, 485, 486, 487 482, 484 483–485 322, 589–590 52, 84, 348, 349, 484 84 484 482, 483, 485, 487 87, 213, 396, 398, 400, 481, 486–487, 519 396, 481 398, 486, 487 486, 487, 492, 518 398, 486, 487 486, 487, 488, 490 398, 482, 486, 487, 488, 491, 588 85, 86, 482, 490, 553 86, 482, 490 87, 396, 398, 400, 428, 481, 482, 487–490, 549 482, 488

22:1–2 22:3 22:4–8 22:5 22:9 22:10–16 22:10–11 22:15 22:16 22:17–33 22:17–30 22:17–28 22:17–25 22:17–18a 22:18a 22:18a 22:18a–25 22:21–24 22:26 22:27–28 22:27 22:29–30 22:31–33

22:32 22:33 23–27 23–26 23–25 23–24 23:1–24:9 23

23:1–2 23:2–3 23:2 23:3 23:4 23:4–38 23:5–8 23:5 23:6–8 23:6 23:8

673 396, 481, 488 407, 488 488 488 398, 482, 488 482, 489–490, 598 566 398, 488 482, 488 84, 86, 87, 88, 481, 491–496 86, 94, 107, 397, 398, 407, 490, 491, 493, 494 481 398, 519 397, 481 398 98, 492 491–492 492 481 491, 492–493 84, 407 481, 491, 493 30, 481, 482, 490, 491, 494–496, 533, 539, 550, 587 25, 107, 482, 587, 588 535, 557, 570 81, 82, 86 81, 83, 86, 548 79, 81, 94, 107, 109, 477, 495, 496–535, 550 83, 87 84, 511 8, 9, 77, 78, 81, 85, 86, 87, 88, 98, 496–511, 512, 546, 549, 556, 558, 565, 574 82, 498 498, 499 498 98, 477, 496, 498, 500, 503, 546 498, 504, 510 497, 498, 499, 504 497, 500, 502, 503, 505, 565, 566 505, 507 508 505 508

674 23:9–22

23:9–14 23:9–10 23:10–21 23:10–14 23:10–13 23:10–11 23:10 23:15–22 23:15–21 23:17–20 23:17 23:18–20 23:21 23:22 23:23–25 23:23–24 23:26–32 23:27–28 23:27 23:28–31 23:28 23:29–31 23:29–30 23:31 23:32 23:33–34 23:34–36 23:36 23:37–38 23:37 23:38 23:39–43 23:44 24 24:1–9 24:2–4 24:2–3 24:5–9 24:7 24:9 24:10–23

Source Index 471, 497–498, 499, 500, 503, 504, 505–507, 510, 558, 560 497 82 211, 399, 400, 500, 502, 503, 507 501, 506, 507 501, 502 507 503, 504, 506, 507 497, 500 502, 503, 506, 507 501, 506 507 503, 506–507 501, 502, 503 507 497, 500, 508 82 85, 347, 348–350, 375, 497, 500, 504, 569 340, 501 349, 508 499, 500 501 501 349 500 499, 500, 508 82 497, 498, 499, 500, 502, 507–509 508, 509 498, 504, 510 498 499 498, 499, 500, 502, 503, 546, 548 85, 86, 498, 512, 553 7, 86, 89, 98–99, 496, 511–520 79, 81, 84, 496, 511–512 79, 546 511 80 151, 222, 511 95, 151, 547 9, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86, 89, 99, 457, 477,

24:10–14 24:10–11 24:14 24:15–22 24:15–16 24:17–21 24:18 24:22 24:23 25–27 25–26 25

25:1–2aa 25:1 25:2–7 25:8–55 25:8–22 25:8 25:9 25:10 25:13–19 25:14–16 25:23–24 25:23 25:24 25:25–28 25:29–31 25:32–34 25:35–38 25:36–37 25:39–55 25:39–43 25:42 25:44–46 25:44 25:45 25:47–54 25:48–49 25:55 26

26:1–2 26:2

496, 512–520, 546, 550, 570, 601, 604, 616 513, 520 514 514 513, 514, 516 515, 519, 520 516–519, 520 421 530, 566 513, 514, 516 80, 81, 83, 84, 85 106, 398, 551, 552, 616 8, 68, 80, 81, 85, 87, 88, 98, 400, 496, 501, 520– 535, 549, 556, 557–559, 617 82, 398 83, 263, 398, 551, 617 471, 496, 521, 525–526, 534, 549, 555 471, 496, 526–535, 543, 546 527 340 500, 508 527, 557 527, 557 527, 532 68, 521, 527–528, 534 507, 521, 522, 526 528 527, 528, 530, 532 521, 527, 528 521, 522, 528, 530, 546 532–533 532 523, 524, 527, 528–534 528–530, 531, 532 533, 534, 535, 557 530–531 524, 531 531 531 531 85, 521, 522, 529, 533–535, 536, 557 79, 80, 81, 85, 86, 87, 106, 108, 109, 400–401, 535–545, 546, 548, 552 477, 496, 536–537 107, 477, 478, 551, 568

675

Source Index 26:3–45 26:3–13 26:3 26:9 26:11 26:12 26:13 26:14–39 26:14 26:15 26:16 26:25–26 26:27–39 26:27–33 26:31 26:34–35 26:38 26:39 26:40–45 26:40–41 26:42 26:43–45 26:44–45 26:45 26:46

27 27:1–2 27:16–24 27:23 27:25 27:27 27:34

Numbers 1–10 1:1–10:10 1–4 1 1:1 1:46 2 3–4 3:3 3:4 4:18–20 4:20

400, 495, 536, 537 401, 541, 542, 543–544, 560, 616 494, 539, 540 537, 538 283, 537, 538 106, 107, 109, 537, 538, 560 539 107, 401, 540, 543–544 494, 556 494, 541, 542, 556 539 543 540, 541 545 429 540, 560 560 537, 540, 541 536, 537, 540–542, 545 541, 544 401, 567 542, 567 81 79, 401 83, 88, 94, 95, 106, 109, 263, 398, 542, 547, 551, 592, 618 76, 77, 80, 81, 85, 94, 246, 552–553, 617–618 82 85 246 246 246 70, 82, 83, 88, 109, 263, 552, 554, 618

70, 72, 73 72, 553 73, 572 73 70, 73, 74, 90, 553, 617 73 73 73 590 103 407 376

5–6 5:1–4 5:2–4 5:2 6:3–4 6:11 6:12 6:19 6:20 6:22–24 7 7:1 7:89 8:1–4 8:2–3 8:5–19 8:21 9:1–14 9:12–14 9:13–14 9:6–15 9:15–23 10–21 10:1–10 10:11–21:35 10:11–28 10:11–12 10:11 10:12 10:29–32 11–25 11 11:16 11:17 11:24 11:25 12 12:4 12:5 12:9 12:12 13–14 13:32 14:18 14:29–35 14:37 15 15:3–4 15:15–16 15:22–31 15:29 15:30–31

73 320 322 309 591 173 173 220 591 232 73, 105 73 73, 105 73 511 73 179 72, 73 571 570 512, 601, 604 57, 73 72 73 72 572 90 73, 74 74 72 554 72 41 47 41 47 308 41 41, 47 41, 279 308, 320 72 544, 559, 560 83 72 28 182, 278, 570, 571 278 570 164, 167, 186, 194 570 189, 195

676 15:32–36 15:37–41 16–17 16 16:3 16:5 16:7 16:18 16:35 17–18 17:6–15 17:16–26 17:20 17:27–28 18–19 18 18:1, 8 18:16 18:19 19 19:11–22 19:13 19:20 20:1–13 20:1 20:2–5 20:8–11 20:9 20:10–11 20:12 20:13 20:22–29 20:29 22–36 25:10–13 26–36 27:1–11 27:8 27:12–23 27:12–14 27:15–23 27:21 28–29 28:16 28:27–30 29:7–11 29:36–37 31 31:6

Source Index 512–513, 570, 601, 604 570 103, 582–586, 602, 603 103, 576, 582, 602 28–29, 486, 551, 583 103, 583, 585, 586 103, 583 584 583, 584 28 102, 103, 376, 581, 582, 583, 585, 602 29, 571 583 28 571 605 578 246 214 180, 309 309, 322 407 407 25, 26–30, 72, 571, 608 26, 28 28–29 26–28, 29 571 29–30 25, 26, 495 25, 26, 588 24, 25, 30 25 72 606 571 384, 513, 514, 553–554, 601, 604 514 30, 571, 608 24 23, 24, 25, 607 572, 606 9, 349, 501, 504, 506, 510 509 506 349, 501 508 572 572

31:50 32:6–15 33:3 33:52 35:29 36:1–12 36:13 Deuteronomy 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:8 1:17 1:37 3:23–28 4:17–18 5:6–21 5:6 5:7 5:8 5:9 5:11 5:12–15 5:12 5:16 5:19 5:20 5:21 7:1–6 7:3–4 7:5–6 7:6 7:26 10:1–5 10:19 12–28 12–26 12

12:5 12:13–14 12:15–16 12:15 12:16 12:20–28 12:20–25 12:20–22 12:21 12:22

420 22 164 536 502 384, 553–554, 601, 604 70

70 23, 553, 554 553–554 71 473 29 29 324 462–463, 467 537 463, 467 467, 536 463 467, 473, 516 463 467, 478 463, 468 463, 472, 473 463 436 428 386 467, 475, 476, 478, 479, 480 550, 583 291 49, 50, 51, 389 475 98 397, 466 8, 98, 227, 235, 389, 401, 429, 504, 530, 549, 554 389 411 410, 411, 425, 429 235, 411, 426 235, 412, 419, 426 426 429 425 411, 412 235, 426

Source Index 12:23–25 12:23 12:24 12:27 12:29–31 13 14 14:1–2 14:1 14:2 14:3–20 14:3 14:4–5 14:4 14:6 14:7–8 14:7 14:8 14:9–10 14:9 14:10 14:11–20 14:11–18 14:11–12a 14:11 14:12–18 14:19–20 14:20 14:21

15:1–11 15:1 15:2–3 15:3 15:4–6 15:5 15:6 15:7–11 15:12–18 15:15 15:17 16:1–17 16:1–8 16:2 16:8

235, 425 419, 420, 421, 423, 425, 426, 430 426 226 412, 480 412 1, 270, 324, 326, 328, 330, 331, 335, 336, 459 293, 477, 478, 480, 485, 550 322, 463, 477 475, 477, 479, 583 284–294, 324 285, 287, 288, 291, 293, 328, 334 284, 292, 293, 330, 612 285, 407 285 287, 288 292, 293 286, 335 285 285 286 286 286 291 287, 288 288–290 286 288 287, 295, 427, 428, 430, 455, 475, 478, 479, 488, 492, 549, 550, 583 523, 524, 526, 527, 534, 549, 554 526 526 531 526 526 531 527, 532 523, 524, 526, 527, 529, 534, 549 527, 529 524 504, 508, 510, 556 509 505 508

16:9–12 16:9 16:10 16:11 16:12 16:13–17 16:13 16:15 16:16 16:18–20 16:21–22 18:5 18:9–14 18:10 18:11 19:15–21 19:19 19:21 21:18–21 22:1–4 22:6–7 22:9–11 22:13–29 22:22 22:23–27 23 23:1 23:13–14 23:20–21 23:22–24 24:8 24:14–15 24:19–22 25:5–10 25:13–16 26:1–2 26:14 26:19 27:16 27:18 27:20–23 28 28:9 28:22 28:53–57 28:58–68 28:64–68 28:64–67 28:65 29:16 30:1–10

677 211, 505, 506, 510 507 501 507 507 508 507, 508 508 501, 507 473 536 583 374, 477, 480 463 322 473, 517 517, 519 517 450 474, 475 493 468 555 449, 480 469, 549 28 480, 549, 556 315 532–533 241 2, 265, 268, 300, 593 473 471, 472 448–449 476 471, 472, 502, 506 322 556 450 473, 556 480 401, 535–536, 537, 539, 540, 543, 545 556 539 544 540 536 540 540 291 540

678

Source Index

31:9–13 31:14–23 31:14 31:15 31:16 31:17 31:21 31:29 32 32:48–52 33 33:10 34 34:1 34:4 34:6 34:7–9 34:10–12

607 47 41, 71 47 71 71 71 71 71 23, 571 71, 593 229, 265, 268, 593, 605 21–24, 71, 75, 608 22 71 71 22–24 30

Joshua 13–24 13–22 21:43–45 22:9–34 22:23 22:27 22:34 23 23:12

21 606 67 22 226 222 22 67, 386 386

Judges 2:1–5 3:5–6 6:19–21 6:21 11:29–40 13:19–20 14:8–9 19 20:27b–28

67, 386 386 231 118 241 231 212 485 607

1 Samuel 2:12–17 2:13–15 2:27–36 6 7:9 10:8 11:14–15 11:15 13:9 14:31–35

220 220 607 171, 246, 247, 279 229 226, 227 224 223, 226, 227 226 235, 411, 429, 463

20:26 26:19 28:3–25

321 169 322, 460

2 Samuel 3:29 24

300, 322 375

1 Kings 5:2 6–8 6:2–3 6:23–28 6:27–28 6:27 8 8:9 8:13 8:63 14 18:38

208 43, 109 43 44 390 46 389 51 66 226 606 118

2 Kings 3:27 4:1 5:27 6:25 12:17 16:13 16:15 21:6 22 23:24

438 528, 529 279 330 167, 171, 246, 247, 255 201, 230 37, 226 322, 463, 477 392 322

Isaiah 6 6:1 8:16 8:19 11:2 13:21–22 25:6–8 28:7 34:11–15 40:2 43:23–24 45:7

66 66 66 322 22 352 55 591 352 541 222 375

Jeremiah 6:20 7:1–15 7:18

222 392 213, 230, 231

679

Source Index 7:21–28 7:22 18:18 19:13 21:7 32:35 33:20 34:8–22 34:8–16 34:17 41:4–5 44:15–19 44:17–19 44:19 Ezekiel 4–7 4:12–15 4:13 5–6 5:17 6:3–6 7:26 8–11 8:11 14:1–11 14:15 14:21 16:13 18 18:13 20 20:25–26 22:10–11 22:26 24:23; 33:10 33:23–29 33:24 33:25 34 34:13–14 34:23–24 34:25–30 36:1–15 36:13–14 36:16–38 40–48

42:13 43:7

232 232, 611 216, 265, 268 231 543 438 541 523, 527, 528 543 543 212 230 231 213, 231

544–545 315 334 544–545 543 544 216, 265, 268 194, 195, 372 221, 536 405 543 543 208 195, 544 449 66, 494 438 435, 437, 442, 443, 478, 481, 559 216, 265, 268, 300, 593 544 65, 385, 386 65, 67, 387 463 545 66 545 543 544 544, 560 494 166, 167, 170, 174, 179–180, 183, 186, 220, 223, 227, 576, 607, 618 183, 184, 490 392, 494

45:18–20 45:18–19 45:20 45:21–25 45:21–24 46:13–15 46:20–24

494 392 132, 174 179, 183 174 179, 362, 367 179, 183 213 576 483, 591–592, 603, 604, 606 183 137 591 591 265, 268, 300, 333, 592, 593 510, 593 322, 589 174 183, 184 476 476 230, 422 230, 422 180, 341, 502, 503, 504, 506, 509, 510 174, 179, 183 362 174, 176 174, 183 505 37 220

Hosea 3:1 4:6 4:8 9:3 12:8

208, 213 216, 265, 268 167, 168, 171, 182, 184 334 476

Amos 4:4–5 4:5 4:6–11 5:22 5:25 7:17 8:5

208 212 543 230 230 334 476

43:8 43:9 43:18–27 43:19–21 43:20 43:21 43:22 43:24 44 44:15–31 44:15 44:18 44:20 44:21 44:23 44:24 44:25 44:27 44:29 45:9–12 45:10 45:15 45:17 45:18–25

680 Micah 6:7 Micah 6:7 Zephaniah 1:7ff. Zephaniah 3:4 1:7ff. 3:4 Haggai 1Haggai 1:1–15 1 1:2–11 1:1–15 1:2 1:2–11 2:1–9 1:2 2:11 2:1–9 2:15–19 2:11 2:15–19 Zechariah 1–8 Zechariah 2:10–17 1–8 2:14 2:10–17 2:15 2:14 3:7 2:15 6:9–15 3:7 8:1ff. 6:9–15 8:3 8:1ff. 8:8 8:3 8:8 Malachi 1:8, 13 Malachi 2:7 1:8, 13 2:7 Psalms 9:12 Psalms 29:10 9:12 51:21 29:10 68:17 51:21 74:12–17 68:17 78 74:12–17 89:10–15 78 93 89:10–15 132:13 93 132:13 Proverbs 7:14 Proverbs 9:8 7:14 11:1 9:8 16:31 11:1 19:25 16:31 20:10 19:25 20:23 20:10 20:29 20:23 20:29

Source Index

167 167 55 216, 55 265, 268, 300, 593 216, 265, 268, 300, 593 391 392 391 392 392 392 265, 392 268, 300, 333, 593 392 265, 268, 300, 333, 593 392 391 392 391 392 392 394 392 394 392 394 392 392 392 492 216, 492 265, 268 216, 265, 268 66 55 66 229 55 66 229 55 66 66 55 55 66 55 66 55 66 226 474 226 476 474 475 476 474 475 476 474 476 475 476 475

23:22 25:12 28:23 29:24

475 474 474 239

Job 40–41

375

Ruth 4 Lamentations 5:12

528 475

Qohelet 5:4

241

Daniel 1

334

Ezra 1:2ff. 2:59–62 3:5 3:12 4:14 7:10 8 8:25 9:4

391 387 510 390 213 604 387 44 37

Nehemiah 5 5:2–5 7:61–64 8 8:13–18 10:30–40 10:34 10:40 13:5, 9 13:16

558 528, 529, 558 387 569 548 260 37, 260 196 33, 196, 222, 614 331

1 Chronicles 2:43 21 21:26 23:19 28:11

583 375 112, 118 585 46

2 Chronicles 2:3 7:1

510 112, 118

681

Source Index 13:5 26:16–21 26:18–21 30:22 33:6 33:16

213 586 279 226 463 226

Sirach 45:6–22 45:7–13 45:17 49:10

134 134 605 76

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Jub 34:18–19 569 Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Texts CD 4:20–21 435 CD 5:8–10 433 CD VII:15–16 75 1Q30 75 4Qpaleo 32, 76 Gen–Exod1 76 4QEx–Levf 76 4QLev–Numa 4QtgLev 45 4Q180 352 11QT 25:10– 27:10 569 11QT 26 352 11QT 56:2–6 605 Mur 1 76 Rabbinic Literature Mishna Zebah9 10:2 181 H9ul 3:6 326, 332 Meg. 3:5 605 Yoma 4:2, 9–10 358 Yoma 4:3 363 Yoma 5:3 363 Yoma 5:5 162 Other Tannaitic Sources b. H9ul 16a–17a 410 b. Zebah9 7b 170 b. Zebah9 109b 415

b. Zebah9 101 t. Para 1:1

601 170

Midrash Lev. Rab. 20 580 Lev. Rab. 24:1 302 Lev. Rab. 24:5 467 Num. Rab. 10:11 173 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26 580 Aramaic Sources Cowley 21 565, 572–575, 617 30 166, 390 33 574 Eblaitic Sources ARET XI 1 351 ARET XI 2 351 Greek Sources Aristotle Post. Analytics 2.98 335 Hist. Animalium 642b–644a 335 663ff. 335 Herodotus 1.198 310 2.37 334 2.47 331 2.64 306 3.89 557 3.91 557 Letter of Aristeas 128–171 324, 327 Philo 75 Abr. 1 Aet. 19 75 Plato Soph. 226d 93 Hittite Sources Hittite Law 44b 179 Latin Sources Josephus C. Ap. 1:38–39 2:165

75 572

682

Source Index

Mesopotamian Sources CH 8 251 15–20 252 154–158 434 206–207 194 278–282 252 Enu4ma elis] IV 47ff. IV 134ff. IV 134 V 1ff. V 120 VI 60–61 VI 62 VI 63 VI 71ff. VI 113

55 55 224 55 59 55 59 59 55–56, 233–234 60

Gilgamesh 11.156–162 11.160

102 57

Punic Sources KAI 76 B 3 Ugaritic Sources KTU 1.1–1.6 55 KTU 1.3. 55 KTU 1.4. 56, 61 KTU 1.14 III 26– 27 (par.) 223–224 KTU 1.23 217 KTU 1.40:26, 34, 43 330 KTU 1.106:30 330 KTU 1.119:16 330 KTU 1.127:29–31 345, 351 RS 1.001:4 223 RS 1.002 184 RS 1.003:13, 29 223 RS 1.009:7, 15 223 RS 24.253:10, 15, 28 223 RS 24.277 351 RS 24.298:4 223

Author Index Aartun, K. 340, 341, 344, 345, 348, 351, 367 Achenbach, R. 1, 11, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 47, 148, 149, 221, 349, 380, 382, 510, 513, 554, 556, 560, 572, 576, 578, 581, 583, 584, 585, 586, 587, 588, 591, 603, 605, 606, 607, 617 Aejmelaeus, A. 58 Ahn, G. 383, 386 Albertz, R. 9, 20, 166, 176, 334, 390, 392, 438, 467, 548, 556, 557, 558 Alt, A. 7 Andersen, F.I. 168 Anderson, G.A. 121, 167, 223, 224, 225, 230 André, G. 304, 324 Artus, O. 26, 28, 29, 583 Ashlock, R.O. 94 Auerbach, E. 460 Auld, A.G. 13, 31, 57, 71, 555 Aurelius, E. 26, 28, 30, 583 Avi-Yonah, M. 385 Baentsch, B. 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, 29, 31, 36, 37, 49, 52, 57, 65, 76, 111, 112, 119, 120, 121, 122, 126, 127, 129, 132, 136, 137, 142, 144, 146, 148, 153, 155, 160, 161, 196, 198, 199, 200, 204, 207, 232, 239, 240, 243, 247, 248, 250, 254, 255, 257, 259, 261, 263, 264, 266, 268, 269, 271, 272, 273, 279, 280, 281, 283, 284, 294, 295, 297, 298, 299, 307, 308, 324, 341, 346, 347, 348, 349, 360, 368, 395, 396, 399, 401, 402, 407, 408, 409, 414, 416, 434, 438, 441, 442, 445, 448, 451, 452, 453, 459, 460, 470, 482, 484, 486, 490, 493, 494, 495, 498, 499, 501, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 522, 532, 537, 541, 543, 551, 552, 562, 564, 565, 566,

570, 576, 580, 581, 583, 586, 589, 590, 592 Baker, D.W. 218 Balentine, S.E. 73, 77 Bar-Efrat, S. 91 Bar-On, S. 564 Barbiero, G. 460, 461, 469, 470, 473, 474, 476 Barthélémy, D. 75 Bassett, F.W. 434 Bauks, M. 31, 35, 54, 60, 66, 67, 388, 525, 527, 535 Baumgart, N.C. 54, 59, 537 Beauchamp, P. 234, 235 Bedford, P.R. 197, 390, 392 Beentjes, P.C. 541 Beer, G. 39 Begrich, J. 207, 256, 265, 484 Ben Zvi, E. 70 Benzinger, I. 340, 341, 342, 346, 350, 354, 355, 359, 362, 363 Bergman, J. 222 Bergquist, B. 170, 171 Bergsma, J.S. 520, 557 Bernett, M. 166 Berquist, J.L. 228, 302, 317, 321 Berthelot, K. 204, 324 Bertholet, A. 4, 12, 76, 111, 112, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 141, 145, 159, 160, 162, 198, 207, 239, 240, 243, 250, 253, 260, 263, 272, 280, 281, 282, 294, 295, 298, 299, 307, 341, 355, 362, 365, 367, 399, 402, 408, 409, 413, 416, 441, 457, 499, 513, 514, 515, 522, 541, 552, 606 Bettenzoli, G. 8, 473, 476 Bidmead, J. 371 Bigger, S.F. 434, 443, 444

588,

472,

380,

347,

119, 135, 200, 259, 284, 348, 407, 482, 551,

684

Author Index

Blenkinsopp, J. 8, 10, 22, 54, 69, 71, 75, 76, 386 Bloch-Smith, E. 71, 72, 73, 74, 88, 322 Block, D.I. 194 Blome, F. 212 Blum, E. 7, 9, 10, 20, 21, 24, 28, 29, 32, 47, 53, 54, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 69, 72, 73, 89, 92, 93, 106, 107, 108, 149, 264, 387, 401, 407, 414, 423, 459, 538, 547, 552, 556, 583 Blümner, A. 213 Bodendorfer, G. 467 Bogaert, P.-M. 32 Bons, E. 168 Bordreuil, P. 216, 217 Borgeaud, P. 15, 337 Bottéro, J. 219 Botterweck, G.J. 285 Branden, A. van den 218 Braulik, G. 8, 284, 468, 469, 471, 473, 474, 476, 480, 524, 533 Bremmer, J.N. 345, 351 Briant, P. 386 Brichto, H.C. 239, 420, 422, 424 Brooke, G.J. 594 Bryan, D.T. 325, 326, 328 Buckley, T. 308 Budd, P.J. 30, 304 Bulmer, R. 325 Bultmann, C. 402, 407, 415, 457, 471, 475, 476, 480, 522, 558, 566 Burkert, W. 171, 235 Caplice, R. 172, 218 Cardellini, I. 523, 524, 531, 533 Carpenter, J.E. 126, 207, 253 Caquot, A. 212, 213, 216, 217, 219 Cardascia, G. 434 Carmichael, C.M. 433, 485 Carr, D.M. 20, 383 Carroll, M.P. 232, 297, 325, 326, 328 Carter, C.E. 197, 387, 390 Cazelles, H. 210, 322, 562, 563 Charbel, A. 121 Cheyne, T.C. 341, 352 Childs, B.S. 76 Chirichigno, G.C. 520, 521, 523, 524, 525, 527, 528, 529, 530 Cholewin8ski, A. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 395, 396, 399, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 409, 411, 414, 418, 419, 425, 429, 440, 442, 444, 445, 446,

451, 457, 466, 471, 473, 475, 476, 477, 480, 482, 484, 486, 490, 498, 499, 500, 501, 503, 505, 507, 508, 513, 514, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 542, 543, 547, 548, 555 Clemens, D.M. 216, 217 Clements, R. 389, 582 Clifford, R.J. 41 Clines, D.J.A. 69, 70 Cohen, M.E. 351, 369, 509 Cornill, C.H. 4, 111, 124, 207 Cortese, E. 34, 44, 48, 51, 113, 114, 115, 123, 345 Cothenet, E. 102 Cowley, A. 573 Craig, J.L. 136 Cross, F.M. 20, 47 Crüsemann, F. 7, 9, 10, 29, 98, 168, 397, 401, 402, 458, 513, 525, 541, 545, 556, 557, 583 Dahm, U. 77, 161, 198 Dalman, G. 208, 210, 497, 500 Dam, C. van 393 Damrosch, D. 13, 76, 606 Dandamaëv, M.A. 390, 391, 557 Daniel, S. 205, 223, 231 Daube, D. 194, 195, 251, 450 Davies, D. 91 Day, J. 55, 56, 438 Deiana, G. 76, 94, 114, 120, 125, 155, 168, 198, 231, 256, 263, 340, 345, 348, 354, 355, 358, 359, 364, 580, 592, 596 Delcor, M. 231 Delitzsch, F. 4 Del Olmo Lete, G. 216, 217, 219 Dennis, J. 178, 184, 187 Dietrich, M. 168, 229, 238, 351 Dillmann, A. 103, 112, 118, 119, 121, 122, 126, 130, 198, 200, 202, 206, 264, 271, 281, 284, 289, 298, 302, 304, 340, 347, 446, 580, 581, 582 Dodd, C.H. 45 Dohmen, C. 47, 49 Döller, J. 324 Douglas, M. 15, 16, 17, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84–85, 88, 91, 94, 97, 213, 234, 269, 270, 280, 291, 293, 294, 302, 303, 304, 308, 311, 312, 315, 318, 324–

Author Index 329, 331, 336, 339, 351, 417, 455, 487, 516, 519, 580 Dozeman, T.B. 20, 377 Driver, G.R. 121, 151, 231, 289, 290, 352 Driver, S.R. 98, 281, 284, 298, 299, 561, 562, 570, 303 Dumont, L. 317 Dupont, J.M. 516 Durand, J.-L. 234, 235 Durham, J.I. 136, 137 Dussaud, R. 4, 218, 354 Dwyer, T. 438 Eberhart, C. 16, 17, 151, 152, 163, 173, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 182, 184, 185, 187, 220, 225, 234, 366 Eerdmans, B.D. 9, 49, 132, 284, 292, 416 Ehrlich, A. 118, 119 Eilberg-Schwartz, H. 15, 293, 302, 308, 309, 310, 312–317, 321, 612 Eising, H. 213 Eissfeldt, O. 5, 69, 383, 437 Eitrem, S. 172 Elat, M. 220 Elliger, K. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 21, 22, 26, 49, 52, 56, 76, 106, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 127, 128, 130, 134, 135, 136, 137, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 150, 155, 156, 159, 162, 163, 164, 175, 186, 189, 192, 194, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 209, 210, 211, 214, 230, 232, 240, 242, 243, 244, 246, 247, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 269, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 290, 291, 293, 294, 295, 297, 307, 319, 324, 342, 343, 344, 345, 347, 348, 349, 354, 355, 356, 359, 360, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 377, 395, 397, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 411, 412, 413, 414, 419, 420, 421, 424, 431, 432, 433, 434, 436, 440, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 449, 450, 452, 453, 454, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461, 463, 469, 481, 483, 484, 485, 486, 488, 489, 492, 494, 498, 499, 500, 501, 503, 506, 507, 508, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 522, 523,

685

528, 531, 532, 537, 540, 541, 542, 548, 552, 576, 580, 586, 588, 591, 594, 595 Elliott-Binns, L.E. 8 Estévez, E. 435 Ewald, H. 150, 157 Fabry, H.-J. 1, 133, 523, 530, 607 Fager, J.A. 520 Falkenstein, A. 54 Faulkner, R.O. 102 Fauth, W. 375 Fechter, F. 433, 435, 439, 440, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 451, 453 Feldman, E. 304, 308 Feucht, C. 5, 6, 403, 404, 407, 440, 444, 446, 451, 459, 537, 570 Finkelstein, J. 225, 331 Finn, A.H. 32 Firmage, E. 299, 303, 305, 326, 329, 331, 332, 334, 336, 337 Fishbane, M. 247, 271, 272, 426, 468, 513, 594, 598, 601, 603, 604 Fisher, L. 59, 61 Fitzmyer, J.A. 45 Fleming, D. 124, 125, 129, 394 Foster, B. 332 Frahm, E. 384 Frankel, D. 26, 28, 583, 584 Frazer, J.G. 269, 329 Freedman, D.N. 168 Frei, P. 386 Frevel, C. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 38, 41, 47, 49, 51, 53, 56, 65, 66, 114, 115, 122, 123, 124, 148, 150, 233, 383, 577, 587 Friedl, C. 443, 454, 455 Friedl, E. 308 Fritz, V. 12, 29, 32, 34, 39, 40, 48, 58 Friedrich, J. 170, 179 Frymer-Kensky, T. 16, 309 Füglister, N. 420, 421 Gabel, J.B. 515 Gagarin, M. 252 Gane, R. 15, 33, 122, 151, 161, 163, 164, 172, 173, 175, 178, 179, 182, 184, 187, 188, 189, 190–192, 194, 195, 340, 346, 347, 352, 353, 359, 369, 375, 376, 512, 600 García López, F. 304 Garnet, P. 175

686

Author Index

Gaß, E. 573 Gaster, T.H. 351 Gaventa, B.R. 94 George, J. 2, 498, 499 Gerleman, G. 66 Gerstenberger, E.S. 7, 8, 16, 69, 114, 125, 204, 207, 208, 209, 230, 253, 255, 256, 258, 264, 265, 277, 278, 294, 296, 368, 402, 403, 404, 419, 437, 440, 451, 460, 461, 482, 483, 489, 492, 520, 522, 530, 577, 586 Gertz, J.C. 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 30, 148, 166, 387, 505, 564, 565, 607 Gese, H. 168, 176, 177, 179, 185, 186, 187, 354, 423 Geva, H. 221 Gilders, W.K. 17, 45, 172, 176, 177, 179, 191, 618 Gill, D. 170 Gispen, W.H. 493 Gitin, S. 220, 221 Glassner, J.-J. 62 Goetze, A. 102 Gooding, D.W. 32, 33 Gordon, C.H. 217 Gorman, F.H. 15, 16, 77, 90, 94, 114, 123, 187, 233, 242, 279, 308, 359, 370, 371, 374, 376, 377, 422 Görg, M. 37, 38, 39, 40, 45, 48, 50, 66, 352, 403, 404 Gosse, B. 394 Gottlieb, A. 308 Grabbe, L.L. 351 Gradwohl, R. 103, 580, 581, 606 Graf, K.H. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 21, 98, 395, 396, 417, 547, 615 Gray, G.B. 151, 171, 213, 583 Gray, J. 167 Graystone, K. 45 Grelot, P. 562, 563, 573, 574 Grintz, Y.M. 463 Groß, W. 195, 538, 539, 542, 543, 567 Grottanelli, C. 334 Grünwaldt, K. 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 396, 398, 399, 400, 401, 403, 407, 409, 410, 411, 413, 415, 416, 420, 425, 426, 427, 429, 432, 438, 442, 445, 446, 449, 450, 451, 452, 457, 459, 460, 461, 465, 466, 468, 469, 470, 471, 473, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 488, 489, 491, 492, 493, 494, 497, 498, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 510, 511,

512, 513, 514, 518, 519, 521, 522, 523, 524, 530, 531, 536, 537, 538, 539, 541, 542, 543, 545, 546, 548, 551, 564, 565, 567 Guillaume, P. 384, 385 Gunneweg, A.H.J. 47, 583 Haas, V. 170, 275 Habel, N. 67 Halbe, J. 434, 442, 444 Hannemann, G. 592 Hanson, P.L. 351 Haran, M. 14, 15, 16, 32, 40, 41, 43, 46, 71, 75, 76, 101, 102, 196, 222, 230, 231, 468, 493, 580, 581 Harper, L. 133 Harrington, H.K. 308 Harris, M. 325 Harrison, J.E. 171 Harrison, R.K. 76 Hartley, J.E. 13, 14, 76, 85, 100, 106, 114, 119, 120, 122, 124, 136, 140, 143, 146, 151, 154, 155, 177, 198, 199, 200, 202, 204, 207, 210, 230, 238, 239, 240, 241, 244, 246, 247, 250, 253, 254, 256, 257, 259, 260, 264, 279, 282, 283, 284, 304, 345, 348, 349, 354, 358, 397, 403, 406, 410, 415, 420, 421, 431, 432, 433, 434, 438, 439, 447, 448, 449, 450, 459, 469, 472, 474, 482, 484, 486, 487, 492, 493, 495, 496, 498, 500, 512, 517, 521, 529, 551, 553, 578, 581, 588, 589, 591, 596 Hasel, G.F. 406 Hauge, M.R. 105 Haussleiter, J. 334, 337 Hayes, C.E. 483 Heger, P. 162, 163, 196, 365, 377, 581, 582 Heidel, A. 55 Heider, G.C. 438 Heinisch, P. 13, 112, 118, 198, 271, 376 Held, M. 155 Henninger, J. 269 Hentrich, T. 486 Herdner, A. 216, 217, 219 Herrmann, J. 176, 243 Herrmann, W. 472 Hershman, P. 314 Hildenbrand, M. 447 Himmelmann, N. 235

Author Index Hobbs, T.R. 167 Hoffmann, D. 119, 146, 204, 264, 272, 352, 512, 517 Hoftijzer, J. 151 Holladay, W.L. 231 Holzinger, H. 1, 2, 3, 21, 29, 31, 52, 98, 126, 129, 132, 561, 583 Horsley, R.A. 390 Horst, L. 299, 562 Hossfeld, F.-L. 49 Houston, W. 235, 284, 285, 286, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 302, 303, 305, 324, 325, 326, 328, 329– 333, 334, 336, 337, 338, 384 Houtman, C. 136 Hruby, K. 340, 341, 355 Hubert, H. 4, 91 Hunn, E. 293, 330, 331 Hurvitz, A. 14, 592 Hutton, R.R. 515, 516 Hyatt, J.P. 124, 129 Ibanez Arana, A. 124, 198, 582 Ibn Ezra 149, 162, 211, 244, 435, 493 Jackson, B.S. 245, 247, 250, 251, 513, 514, 517, 518 Jacobsen, T. 62 Jagersma, H. 10, 460, 473 Janowski, B. 12, 24, 34, 38, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 66, 97, 113, 115, 117, 124, 163, 164, 165, 170, 171, 175, 176, 177, 179, 180, 182, 183, 185, 186, 187, 189, 194, 223, 224, 225, 226, 229, 237, 345, 351, 352, 353, 354, 374, 376, 382, 390, 420, 421, 423 Janzen, D. 384 Japhet, S. 521, 523, 524, 529 Jastrow, M. 271 Jay, N. 171 Jenson, P.P. 15, 16, 40, 41, 90, 93, 233, 279, 374 Jones, R.N. 354 Joosten, J. 7, 399, 406, 409, 435, 522, 526, 528, 535, 539, 542, 554, 558 Joüon, P. 446, 542, 598 Jüngling, H.-W. 1, 69, 75 Jürgens, B. 16, 83, 86, 87, 90, 100, 101, 176, 189, 233, 370, 371, 374, 376, 402, 578

687

Kaiser, O. 30 Kaiser, W.C., Jr. 76, 472 Kammenhuber, A. 170 Kapelrud, A.S. 229 Kaufman, S.A. 523 Kaufmann, Y. 13, 14, 175, 300 Keel, O. 54, 102, 375, 390, 393, 492, 493 Keller, M. 389 Kellermann, D. 163, 208, 212, 220, 222 Kessler, J. 392 Kilian, R. 5, 6, 7, 22, 395, 396, 399, 400, 402, 404, 414, 417, 434, 438, 440, 442, 444, 445, 450, 457, 460, 468, 482, 484, 486, 489, 490, 494, 498, 499, 501, 511, 513, 514, 515, 522, 537, 546, 551 Kippenberg, H.G. 557, 558 Kirschner, R. 580 Kiuchi, N. 100, 103, 164, 173, 175, 176, 177, 182, 184, 187, 188, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 248, 249, 376, 420, 421, 422, 580, 600 Klawans, J. 305 Klingbeil, G.A. 124, 147 Klostermann, A. 3, 298, 299, 401, 550, 562, 570 Knauf, E.A. 22, 65, 220, 222, 383, 388, 391 Knierim, R.P. 69, 70, 73, 164, 165, 167, 189, 204, 206, 216, 219 Knohl, I. 9, 10, 11, 14, 34, 98, 107, 162, 163, 164, 211, 236, 261, 262, 276, 283, 298, 349, 373, 375, 401, 469, 475, 479, 486, 491, 493, 495, 496, 498, 499, 500, 501, 503, 504, 509, 510, 539, 546, 547, 558, 562, 563, 564, 570, 571, 572, 583, 584, 589, 597, 617 Knoppers, G. 386 Koch, K. 12, 20, 21, 38, 39, 40, 45, 53, 112, 113, 118, 124, 127, 142, 158, 160, 163, 164, 167, 168, 176, 183, 198, 200, 201, 202, 204, 205, 207, 209, 210, 215, 216, 218, 228, 256, 260, 265, 271, 272, 277, 280, 281, 284, 288, 289, 294, 342, 344, 347, 356, 359, 360, 382, 386, 449 Köckert, M. 24, 31, 63, 66, 67, 68, 382, 383, 460, 525, 527 Koehler, L. 210 Kohata, F. 26, 65, 67 Konkel, M. 174

688

Author Index

Kornfeld, W. 6, 7, 264, 269, 271, 304, 324, 345, 411, 426, 435, 445, 449, 469, 523, 581, 586 Korpel, M.C.A. 536, 537 Körting, C. 150, 340, 342, 343, 344, 346, 350, 356, 357, 359, 360, 363, 364, 367, 498, 500, 501, 505, 506, 508, 510, 525 Kottsieper, I. 573 Kratz, R.G. 9, 10, 13, 25, 31, 75 Kreissig, H. 390 Kronholm, T. 271, 346, 354 Krüger, T. 544 Küchler, S. 9, 498 Kuenen, A. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 21, 22, 31, 32, 111, 124, 128, 149, 150, 157, 160, 161, 236, 253, 264, 266, 267, 278, 281, 284, 287, 340, 341, 395, 547, 570, 576, 583, 615 Kugler, R.A. 1, 306, 491, 495 Kümmel, H.M. 170, 172 Kutsch, E. 497, 499, 508 Laaf, P. 564 Lach, S. 222 Lafont, S. 434 Landersdorfer, S. 340, 342, 352, 355 Landsberger, B. 334 Larivaille, P. 91 Laughlin, J.C.H. 581 Leach, E. 17, 91, 338 Le Boulluec, A. 37 Lecoq, P. 383 Lefebvre, J.-F. 520, 521, 523, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 551, 559 Lelièvre, A. 55 Lemaire, A. 384, 385, 525 Lemche, N.P. 525 Levin, C. 149, 167, 538, 543, 551 Levine, B.A. 13, 14, 16, 30, 45, 46, 76, 94, 124, 136, 139, 144, 151, 152, 162, 169, 181, 182, 183, 185, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 240, 242, 246, 247, 250, 267, 300, 331, 352, 354, 358, 376, 410, 420, 432, 497, 537, 538, 540, 580, 586, 588, 591, 592, 596 Levinson, B.M. 148, 427, 467, 498, 523, 524, 528, 530, 531 Lévi-Strauss, C. 15, 436 Lewis, T.J. 322, 463

L’Hour, J. 10, 93, 479, 548 Liedke, G. 206 Lipschits, O. 197, 387 Liss, H. 17, 109, 388 Livigston, D.H. 515 Lohfink, N. 11, 21, 22, 26, 35, 41, 58, 61, 62, 64, 67, 114, 236, 392, 429, 524, 537, 538, 539, 553, 554 Löhr, M. 192, 340, 345 Loretz, O. 229, 345, 351, 352 Luciani, D. 16, 57, 74, 78, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 95, 97, 419, 424, 431, 445– 446, 449, 455, 458, 460, 461, 462, 464, 482, 485, 511, 513, 519, 520, 521 Lukonin, V.G. 391, 557 Lundquist, J. 59 Luria, S. 434 Lust, J. 540 Lux, R. 23 Macchi, J.-D. 394 Magonet, J. 460 Maier, J. 49, 75 Malina, B.J. 171, 230 Malul, M. 15, 302, 309, 314–317, 321, 612 Mann, T.W. 69 Marsman, H.J. 441 Marx, A. 16, 77, 173, 178, 180, 181, 182, 208, 211, 223, 234, 235, 237, 256, 257, 270, 281, 304, 305, 307, 311, 325, 337 Massmann, L. 7, 432, 450, 453, 457 Masson, O. 172 Mathys, H.-P. 5, 10, 70, 98, 396, 397, 460, 472, 474 Mauss, M. 4, 91 Mayer, G. 468, 601 Mayes, A.D.H. 284, 289 Mays, J.L. 168 McCormick, C.M. 109 McEvenue, S.E. 62 McKane, W. 231 Meacham, T. 435 Meier, G. 216 Meier, S. 55, 274 Meigs, A.S. 311, 317 Meinhold, A. 525 Melcher, S.J. 433 Messel, N. 340, 341, 342, 345, 347, 355, 356, 358, 362, 363, 366, 367 Mettinger, T.N.D. 47, 66, 389

Author Index Metzger, M. 55, 59, 390 Merx, A. 253 Meuli, K. 235 Meyers, C.L. 32, 394 Meyers, E.M. 394 Michaeli, F. 49, 124, 137 Milgrom, J. 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 29, 30, 34, 45, 66, 78, 93, 94, 97, 98, 100, 102, 103, 106, 107, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 127, 128, 131, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 154, 155, 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 168, 169, 170, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 194, 196, 198, 199, 203, 205, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 222, 223, 226, 227, 230, 231, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 269, 271, 272, 274, 276, 278, 279, 282, 283, 284–288, 290, 291, 292, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 300, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 308, 309, 319, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 336, 337, 339, 346, 347, 348, 349, 351, 352, 353, 354, 358, 359, 364, 365, 368, 369, 373, 376, 382, 397, 401, 403, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 412, 413, 414, 415, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 424, 426, 427, 428, 429, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 455, 458, 463, 464, 465, 466, 468, 469, 470, 471, 474, 475, 476, 478, 479, 482, 483, 484, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 507, 513, 518, 521, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 537, 538, 539, 540, 542, 543, 546, 547, 553, 562, 563, 564, 566, 579, 580, 581, 585, 586, 587, 588, 591, 592, 595, 596, 597, 599, 600, 601, 617 Miller, J.E. 436 Mirguet, F. 606 Mittmann, S. 26, 28, 54 Mohrmann, D.C. 436, 440, 441

689

Mölle, H. 114, 119, 120, 123 Moor, J.C. de 223, 224 Moraldi, L. 164 Moran, W.L. 59, 284, 286, 288, 289, 290, 472 Morgenstern, J. 124, 340, 460, 499 Moskala, J. 325 Müller-Truffaut, S. 228 Neufeld, E. 468 Niditch, S. 147 Niehr, H. 217, 219 Nielsen, E. 284, 289 Nielsen, K. 101, 102, 221, 350, 376, 377 Nihan, C. 30, 31, 55, 126, 129, 161, 380, 400, 407, 553, 555 Nöldeke, T. 2 Noordtzij, A. 529 North, R. 527 Noth, M. 4, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, 44, 48, 49, 51, 52, 57, 58, 69, 73, 76, 94, 111, 113, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 132, 137, 138, 142, 150, 152, 153, 156, 157, 164, 165, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 209, 216, 225, 239, 246, 247, 250, 253, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 262, 263, 264, 265, 267, 269, 271, 281, 284, 288, 295, 298, 307, 324, 343, 344, 345, 354, 357, 360, 362, 364, 366, 368, 376, 394, 403, 406, 407, 409, 411, 414, 418, 432, 434, 438, 443, 444, 445, 447, 449, 450, 456, 460, 463, 482, 487, 494, 498, 499, 504, 516, 522, 540, 541, 552, 566, 577, 581, 583, 586, 589, 590, 591, 594, 606 O’Dwyer Shea, M. 221 Oliva, M. 53, 54 Olson, D.T. 30, 70 Olyan, S.M. 93, 194, 313, 436, 568 Oort, T. 340, 341, 346, 354 Osumi, Y. 427 Otto, E. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 25, 29, 31, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 56, 58, 65, 66, 98, 99, 124, 126, 164, 344, 356, 359, 380, 382, 383, 402, 411, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 469, 470, 474, 477, 479,

690

Author Index

480, 496, 505, 511, 514, 516, 517, 518, 519, 523, 524, 535, 536, 542, 545, 548, 549, 553, 554, 556, 561, 565, 566, 570, 593, 605, 607, 616, 617 Owczarek, S. 32, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 58, 125, 147, 567 Paran, M. 205 Pardee, D. 184, 216, 217, 219, 223, 224, 225 Parker, R. 93, 172, 306, 311, 318, 337, 373 Paschen, W. 269, 304 Paton, L.B. 402, 435, 441, 442, 451, 457, 482, 494, 499 Perlitt, L. 22, 23, 24 Person, R.F. 147 Péter-Contesse, R. 76, 124, 127, 134, 136, 139, 140, 152, 208, 211, 213, 239, 240, 246, 247, 248, 254, 257, 258, 259, 262, 265, 274, 281, 345, 354, 364, 579, 581, 588, 591 Petersen, A.R. 219 Phillips, A. 239, 433, 448 Podella, T. 46, 47, 55 Pohlmann, K.-F. 494, 540, 545, 560 Pola, T. 21, 23, 24, 25, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 51, 56, 58, 66, 124, 126, 380, 383, 608 Pongratz-Leisten, B. 371, 381 Popper, J. 32, 124 Porten, B. 573 Porter, J.R. 259 Preuss, H.D. 9, 10 Propp, W.H.C. 13, 22, 29, 148, 149 Pury, A. de 65, 385 Quast, U. 32 Quiroga, R. 580 Rabast, K.H. 6, 444 Rad, G. von 6, 7, 26, 29, 30, 31, 39, 47, 63, 112, 113, 116, 117, 119, 120, 123, 269, 304, 342, 355, 389, 395, 583 Rainey, A. 219, 256, 267 Ramban 170 Ramírez Kidd, J.E. 415, 475, 476, 526, 560, 567 Rashbam 149 Rashi 45, 149, 247, 435, 599 Rattray, S. 196, 432, 433, 434, 435

Redford, D.B. 386 Reich, R. 221 Reiner, E. 216 Reinmuth, T. 260 Renaud, B. 63 Rendtorff, R. 1, 6, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 39, 114, 118, 120, 125, 129, 130, 132, 133, 151, 155, 163, 164, 165, 167, 168, 173, 174, 176, 179, 180, 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 198, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, 209, 211, 213, 214, 215, 216, 222, 223, 225, 226, 227, 229, 231, 238, 239, 241, 242, 244, 245, 246, 248, 250, 253, 254, 256, 257, 263, 277, 284, 287, 292, 293, 294, 342, 355, 356, 359, 415, 420, 422, 580, 585, 586, 591, 596, 599 Reuss, E. 2, 4, 340 Reventlow, H.G. 6, 400, 403, 404, 406, 418, 440, 443, 444, 446, 451, 452, 460, 482, 484, 490, 492, 513, 515, 531, 537 Richter, S.L. 389 Riesener, I. 529 Ringgren, H. 189, 304, 324 Robinson, G. 520, 525, 581, 582 Rodriguez, A.M. 240, 265, 359, 369, 422, 599 Rofé, A. 426 Römer, T. 1, 18, 21, 29, 31, 55, 68, 335, 380, 386, 387, 392, 438, 478, 538, 541, 543, 555 Roo, J.C.R. de 352, 353 Rose, W.H. 394 Rössler, O. 12 Rost, L. 49, 170, 171 Rudolph, W. 26, 27, 29, 167, 583 Rütersworden, U. 386 Ruwe, A. 7, 8, 9, 16, 61, 73, 74, 77, 89, 90, 92, 93, 95, 98, 99, 264, 396, 397, 401, 402, 403, 406, 407, 410, 411, 413, 414, 417, 418, 419, 420, 423, 424, 426, 428, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 442, 443, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 454, 457, 460, 461, 462, 463, 465, 468, 469, 477, 478, 481, 482, 490, 493, 507, 511, 512, 513, 516, 517, 519, 521, 525, 547, 552, 568 Sanderson, J.E. 32

Author Index Sandevoir, P. 37 Sanmartin, J. 229 Savran, G.W.E. 586 Sawyer, J.F.A. 14, 271 Schäfer-Lichtenberger, C. 24, 25 Schäfer, P. 59, 65 Schaper, J. 270 Scharbert, J. 49, 63, 239 Schart, A. 28, 29, 72 Schenker, A. 7, 16, 17, 164, 170, 173, 176, 177, 184, 187, 234, 242, 243, 244, 248, 249, 250, 251, 418, 420, 421, 422, 424, 432, 435, 436, 437, 438, 445, 446, 447, 449, 521, 525, 528, 529, 532 Schmid, H.H. 67 Schmid, K. 21, 31, 70, 71, 75, 76, 386, 387 Schmid, R. 170, 222 Schmidt, L. 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 583 Schmidt, W.H. 65, 67, 148, 473 Schmitt, H.-C. 47 Schmitt, R. 47 Schorn, U. 593 Schottroff, W. 231 Schötz, P.D. 281 Schramm, T. 344 Schult, H.S. 516 Schur, I. 340 Schwartz, B.J. 13, 20, 45, 46, 49, 77, 182, 190, 236, 242, 346, 347, 403, 404, 405, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 426, 445, 455, 469, 470, 493 Schwienhorst-Schönberger, L. 287, 427, 428, 518 Scurlock, J. 331, 334 Seebass, H. 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 189, 583, 584 Segal, P. 587 Segal, M.H. 69, 89 Seidel, M. 467 Seidl, T. 13, 97, 165, 189, 222, 271, 274, 276, 277, 278, 280, 340, 346, 348, 368, 374, 376 Seybold, K. 117 Shinan, A. 580 Shore, B. 314 Shukron, E. 221 Ska, J.-L. 20, 21, 24, 60, 62, 65, 69, 71, 89, 91, 110, 386, 391, 553, 554

691

Simian-Yofre, H. 50 Sklar, J. 177, 237, 238, 239, 242, 248, 406, 407, 419, 420, 421, 422, 424 Smend, R. 12 Smith, C.R. 70, 80, 81, 85, 87, 88 Smith, D. 387 Smith, M.S. 55, 60, 71, 72, 73, 74 Smith, W.R. 4, 213, 235, 269 Smyth, F. 335 Snaith, N.H. 308, 410 Snijders, L.A. 580 Soden, W. von 45, 54, 121 Soler, J. 325 Sommer, B. 371, 372, 380 Sonnet, J.-P. 70, 71, 554 Sparks, K.L. 427 Speiser, E.A. 246 Spieckermann, H. 219, 525 Spiro, A. 239, 242 Spronk, K. 463 Stade, B. 4, 250, 341 Stager, L.E. 433 Staubli, T. 76, 274–275, 578, 581 Steck, O.H. 61 Steins, G. 34, 35, 37, 42, 43, 44, 51, 52 Stern, E. 221, 585 Steuernagel, C. 284, 285 Stevenson, W.B. 222 Steymans, H.U. 536, 537, 540, 541, 552 Stoellger, P. 23, 24 Stolz, F. 169 Struppe, U. 12, 26, 27, 34, 35, 37, 41, 51, 54, 113, 114, 115, 117, 120, 123, 233 Stuart, D. 168 Sun, H.T.C. 4, 5, 6, 89, 92, 95, 106, 108, 399, 402, 403, 405, 406, 408, 409, 414, 416, 418, 419, 425, 426, 432, 434, 435, 440, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 450, 452, 460, 462, 481, 482, 484, 486, 489, 492, 495, 500, 501, 504, 512, 513, 515, 522, 537 Sznycer, M. 216, 217, 219 Tambiah, S.J. 325 Tarragon, J.-M. de 45, 46, 48 Tawil, H. 352 Tengström, S. 20, 383 Thiel, W. 8, 9, 395, 396, 397, 399, 416, 460, 513, 537, 548 Thureau-Dangin, F. 351, 364, 369 Tigay, J.H. 57 Toeg, A. 163

692

Author Index

Toorn, K. van der 238, 279, 310, 319, 322, 334, 369, 371, 373, 381, 509 Tosato, A. 435, 436, 440 Tropper, J. 322 Turner, V.W. 15 Uehlinger, C. 21, 228, 335 Ulfgard, H. 498 Utzschneider, H. 12, 48 Van Gennep, A. 15, 90, 181, 318 Van Goudoever, J. 497 Van Seters, J. 13, 20, 22, 69, 427, 523 Van Straten, F.T. 235 Vatke, W. 2 Vaux, R. de 121, 168, 222, 226, 248, 389, 390 Veijola, T. 287, 336, 427 Vermeylen, J. 20, 384 Vernant, J.-P. 171, 234, 235 Vervenne, M. 20 Vieweger, D. 566 Vieyra, M. 168 Vincent, J.M. 2 Vink, J.G. 383 Vogels, W. 510 Wagenaar, J.A. 8, 349, 468, 497, 500, 502, 503, 504, 505, 507, 508, 509, 510, 548, 564, 565 Wagner, V. 9, 10, 81, 89, 93, 98, 99, 107, 450, 459 Walkenhorst, K.-H. 124, 127, 128, 138, 153 Walsh, J.T. 436, 437 Wang, T. 442, 444 Warning, W. 16, 77, 88, 89, 97 Watts, J.W. 17, 73, 77, 216 Wefing, S. 150, 179, 340, 342, 343, 344, 346, 348, 349, 355, 356, 357, 359, 360, 363, 365, 366, 367 Weimar, P. 11, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43, 44, 51, 54, 58, 63, 114, 115, 123, 148, 383 Weinberg, J. 390 Weinfeld, M. 55, 59, 60, 168, 169, 183, 221, 334, 389, 438, 560 Weingreen, J. 515 Weippert, H. 221, 222, 585 Wellhausen, J. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13,17,18, 21, 22, 30, 31, 32, 33, 39,

49, 98, 111, 112, 124, 126, 127, 128, 141, 142, 144, 145, 148, 150, 157, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 220, 232, 235, 236, 253, 278, 281, 284, 287, 340, 395, 401, 407, 411, 417, 441, 451, 490, 499, 507, 513, 522, 525, 536, 544, 547, 552, 570, 576, 615 Wells, B. 238, 239, 240, 242, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252 Wenham, G.J. 14, 77, 282, 294, 304, 308, 420, 432, 462, 484, 485, 487, 580 Westbrook, R. 219, 250, 470, 517, 528 Westermann, C. 47, 62, 113, 383 Wette, W.M.L. de 1, 2, 112, 119 Wevers, J.W. 32, 119, 120, 129, 134, 135, 140, 142, 209, 259, 514 Weyde, K.W. 498, 501, 502, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510 Wheeler, C.B. 515 Whitekettle, R. 15, 282, 296, 309, 310, 311, 319, 324, 374 Wiesehöfer, J. 386 Wilhelm, G. 168, 170, 351, 352, 353 Willi-Plein, I. 152, 177 Williamson, H.G.M. 390 Willis, R.G. 314 Wilson, B. 187 Witte, M. 22, 383 Wright, C.J.H. 524 Wright, D.P. 15, 16, 100, 102, 172, 174, 192, 193, 275, 287, 291, 298, 300, 304, 305, 307, 319, 340, 346, 351, 352, 353, 354, 373, 382, 408 Wurster, P. 4, 271, 274, 275, 409 Yardeni, A. 232, 573 Yerkes, K.Y. 289, 291, 292 Yerkes, R.K. 171 Zatelli, I. 351 Zenger, E. 11, 13, 16, 20, 26, 27, 31, 53, 54, 60, 61, 62, 63, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 81, 82, 83, 86–87, 88, 95, 97, 115, 123, 148, 189, 374, 376, 380, 402 Zimmerli, W. 50, 397, 407, 429, 540 Zipor, M. 484 Ziskind, J.R. 434, 480 Zohar, N. 172, 190, 191, 422 Zwickel, W. 169, 196, 197, 208, 220, 393, 581, 583, 584

Subject Index Aaron – Anointing of 33, 165, 589–590 – in Connection with Moses 51, 95, 104–105, 379, 381, 393, 601–602, 603–605 – Consecration of 90, 124–148 – see also Purification Offering – Primacy of 104–105, 113, 379, 381, 392–394, 584–586, 606–607 – Vestments of 135–138 – and Zadok 606–607 Achemenid – Achemenid Empire and Policy 383, 385–386, 573–574 ak|4tu – ak|4tu Festival in Uruk and Babylon 351, 369, 373, 380 Altar – of Burnt Offerings 128, 161–164 – Central Altar 227, 235, 410, 413–414 – Incense Altar in P 32–33, 161–164 – Fire upon 202–203, 581–582 – and Offering of Leaven and Honey 212–213 – and Offering of Salt 213–214 – Purification of, see Purification – see also Offering, Temple, Tent of Meeting Animals – Birds 274–275 – Killing of 234–237, 304–305, 327–329, 337, 406–408, 411–413 – see also Sacrificial Cult – Relationship between Men and Animals 236–237 – Value of Cattle 253 – Vegetarianism, see Diet – see also Clean/Unclean Ark 43–44, 48–51

– as a Container for the Stone Tablets 48–50 – the expression )aro=n ha4(e4dut 48–51 – see also ka4ppore4t Atonement – Day of (Yôm Kippur) 189–190, 192–193, 340–379 – see also Blood, Offering, Purification Offering Azazel 351–354, 358–359, 374–375 Babylon – ak|4tu Festival, see ak|4tu – Sojourn in 228, 334–335 – Return From 228–229, 384–385 Blood – and Atonement 420–424 – as Carrier of Impurity 191–192 – Prohibition against Eating of 261, 418–428 – as a “Ritual Detergent” 175–177, 423 – Symbolic Interpretation of 176–177, 187, 274 – Blood Rites, see Ritual Centralization Law, see Altar Clean/Unclean – as Anthropological Concepts 269, 302–307, 307–323 – Birth as a Source of Pollution 281–282, 319 – Clean and Unclean Animals 283–299, 324–339 – Defilement by Touch and/or by Ingestion 286–287, 296–297, 321–322 – Distinction between Clean/Unclean as Priestly Competence 300

694

Subject Index

– Genital Discharges as a Source of Pollution 282–283, 310–311, 312– 317, 319–320 – Pollution and Classification 311–312, 324–326 – Purity and “imitatio dei” 303–307 – Reinstatement of the Former me6s9ora4( 279–280 – Separation between Clean/Unclean 94, 177 – So-Called “Scale Disease” (s9a4ra4(at) 271ff., 279, 320 – Uncleanness and Boundaries 280, 301, 304, 310–311, 311–323, 370– 375, 437–438, 441 – Uncleanness and Sexuality 305–307, 308–310 – Uncleanness and Social Control over the Body 312–323 – Uncleanness as Symbol of Death 269, 302–307, 308–310, 324 – see also Pollution, Purification, Purification Offering Cosmology – Creation Account in P 61–63, 106, 233, 234–237, 336–339, 380–382 – of the Priestly Document 194–195, 323, 333–335, 336–339, 371–375, 380–382, 441 Covenant – at Mount Sinai 400–401, 541–542, 552–553 – “Permanent” Covenant (be6rît (ola4m) in P 195, 541–542 Diet 234–237, 336–339 – Consumption of Carrion 295–296, 426–428, 488 – see also Holiness – as Ethnic Marker 334–335 – Prohibition Against Eating of Blood and Suet 261 – Vegetarianism 234, 236–237, 337 – see also Sacrificial Cult Divine Speeches – as a Structural Device 77, 88–89, 95, 396–399 Eighth Day 89–93, 95, 116, 117, 123, 233, 234, 279

Exile, see Babylon Ezekiel, Book of 2, 443, 481, 494, 506, 509–510, 543–545 Festivals 98, 106, 496–511 – see also Jubilee Form Criticism – of Leviticus 6–7, 12–13, 216, 277, 293, 342, 356, 402–406, 443–444, 450–453 – as a Method 16–17 – So-called “Ritual Genre” in Leviticus, see Ritual Food – “Food Gift” ()is]e=), see Offering – see also Diet Holiness – and Boundaries 437–438, 441, 464, 466, 480 – Concepts of Holiness 479, 550–551 – of the Community 98, 106–107, 108, 428, 455–456, 459, 466–478, 478–481, 485–486, 488, 491, 494–496, 550–551 – of Priests 428, 483–488 – Consecration of Priests, see Aaron – Degrees of Holiness 40–42, 485–486, 550–551 – Distinction between Sacred and Most Sacred 256 – Division between Sacred and Profane 107, 109–110, 591–593 – and Eating Carrion, see Diet – and Observance of the Law 456–459, 466, 478–480, 494–496, 539–540, 545, 550–551 – its Relationship with Purity 108 – Sacred Times, see Festivals Holiness Code 4–11, 395–574 – “H” Passages in Leviticus 261, 268, 298–299, 347–350 – and the Land 471–472, 479, 527– 528, 534–535, 557–559 – and Other Biblical Codes 8–10, 401–402, 410–412, 425–426, 427– 428, 429–430, 466–478, 504, 505– 510, 514, 516–518, 523–533, 548– 551, 553–557

Subject Index – its Relationship to P 395–401, 401– 402, 412–413, 416, 417–418, 423, 425, 427–428, 429–430, 496, 537– 540, 546–547 – Structure of 98–99, 405–406, 430– 432, 446–450, 460–465, 481–482, 491–492, 496–498, 520–522, 536–537 Incense – Altar of, see Altar – Cloud of 92, 104–105, 363–365, 375–379, 381 – Cult of 33, 101–102, 195–196, 221, 231, 375–379, 580–586 – Trade of 33, 196–197, 220–222 Incest – Incest Prohibitions, see Sexuality Inner-Biblical Exegesis – in Leviticus 429–430, 466–467, 548–557, 576–607 – see also Holiness Code Inner-Sanctum – Admission inside 104, 363–365, 375–379, 584–586 Instructions for Sacrifices 198–231 – their Original Function 215–219 – Historical Context 220–231 – Position of the Legislation on Sacrifices 158–159 – Edition by the Priestly Writer 231–237 Israel – as a “Priestly Nation” 65, 233, 234– 237, 323, 335, 338–339, 375, 388–392 – its Relationship to Other Nations 63–66 Jubilee 520–535 ke6bod YHWH47, 53, 60, 90, 91–92, 104–105, 120, 233 ka4ppore4t 44–48, 105, 382 – see also Ark Land – P’s Conception of 66–68, 384–387 – in H, see Holiness Code Laws – Distinction between “Legal” and “Narrative” Sections in Leviticus 3–4,

695

11–12, 76–77, 80–81, 85, 111–124, 396–401 Leviticus – and Ancient Literacy 147 – as the Center of the Torah 71–75 – “Comprehensive” Approaches to Leviticus 15–16 – Method of Analysis 16–19 – in the Narrative of the Pentateuch 88–93, 103, 108–110 – Structure of 76–110 Moses – Death of 22–24 – Encounter between Moses and Yahweh 46–47, 48 – Rebellion of 25–30 – Staff of 30 Nadab and Abihu, see Priests Offering – and Atonement 168–171, 229, 278, 420–423 – (Whole) Burnt Offering 143–144, 153–155, 169–170, 229 – Cereal Offering 145, 153, 156–157, 206–215, 230–231, 256–257, 258–260 – Consumption by the Deity 118–119 – Difference between Raw and Baked Cereal Offering 208, 230, 260 – Disposal of Remains 256–268, 593– 597, 598–602 – Eating the Offering 257, 468–469, 487–490 – of First Fruits 210–212 – “Food Gift” ()is]e=) 151–152 – King’s Role 223, 227, 228 – of Leaven and Honey 212–213 – Order/Hierarchy of 200, 234, 256–258, 267 – “Ordination” Offering 95, 144–146, 152–153 – Poverty Clause 244–245 – of Purification, see Purification Offering – of Reparation ()a4s]am) 160–161, 245–256, 470 – of Salt 213–214

696

Subject Index

– “Sin” Offering, see Purification Offering – of “Well-Being” 155–156, 222–228, 230 Priests – Anointing of 33, 129, 589–590 – Consecration of 124–148, 232–233 – Death of Nadab and Abihu 579–588 – Division of Roles between Priests and Offerer 201 – Division of Roles among Priests 202–204 – their Prerogative as Teachers of tôrâ 216, 265, 268, 591–593, 594, 600–602, 602–607 – their Share in Sacrifices 130–131, 209–210, 258, 262, 268, 595–597 Priestly – Israel as a “Priestly Nation”, see Israel – Priestly tôrâ 201, 215–216 Priestly Document (P) 20–68, 379–382 – the Problem of P’s Conclusion 21–30 – Execution Formulas” in P 56, 195 – P’s View of the Land 66–68, 384– 387 – its Historical Context 383–394 – see also Cosmology Pollution – System of 96, 97, 163–164, 186–195, 197, 302–307, 307–323, 324–339, 360–361 Punic Tariffs 218, 229, 244, 268 Purification – of the Altar 132, 142, 161–164, 181 – of the Community 96, 371–375 – Offering of, see Purification Offering – Rituals of 96–97 – of Sancta, see Purification Offering – of the Sanctuary 96–97, 100, 371–375 – System of 96, 97, 163–164, 186–195, 197, 302–307, 307–323, 324–339, 360–361 – “Two-Phase” System of 190–192 Purification Offering (h9at[t[a4)t) 96–97, 138–143, 160–198, 598–602 – and Atonement of Sin 182–184, 185–186 – and Atonement of Inadvertent Sins 186–195

– Blood Rites 174, 175–177, 178–179, 191–192, 598–599 – in Connection with the (Whole) Burnt Offerings ((ola=) 180–182 – in the Context of Aaron’s Consecration 138–143 – Distinct Categories of 172–186 – as an Elimination Rite 179–180, 181, 183–184, 185–186, 599–600 – Historical Context 195–197 – its History 166–195 – and Other Offerings of Purification/Atonement 168–171 – and Preliminary Purification of Persons 178–181, 184, 185–186 – and Purification of Sancta 172–177, 179–181, 183–184, 185–186 – in Relationship with Non-Inadvertent Sins 242–244 – in Relationship with Reparation Offerings 255 – as a Rite of Passage 181 Ritual – of Blood Disposal 129, 174, 175–177, 178–179, 191–192, 424 – of Dedication 121–122, 411–412 – of Elimination 171, 274–275, 351– 354 – Leaning of Hands 122 – of Passage 90, 101, 181, 232–233, 279–280, 318, 339, 370–371 – So-called “Ritual Genre” 12–13, 215–219 – Ritual Purification 96–97 – Sequence of Ritual Acts 151–152 Sacrificial Cult – Communication with the Divine 90–92, 93, 103–104, 106, 108, 229– 230, 232–234 – and Dietary Rules 329–330, 332– 334, 336 – and “Foreign” Influences 213, 230– 231, 235 – and Food 468–469, 487–491 – Institution/Inauguration of 88–93, 105, 108, 232–233, 576–578, 586–588 – in the Priestly Document (P) 56–57, 231–237

Subject Index – Non-Sacrificial (“Profane”) Slaughter 236–237, 261, 406–413, 424–426, 429 – Restoration of 100–101, 104, 105, 108 – Resumption of 228–229, 391–392 – and Violence against Animals 234–237, 406–413 Sanction 457–458 – “Bearing of Sin” (na4s%a4) (awon) 242 – kare4t Punishment 406–407, 456– 457 – “Lex Talionis” 512–520 Sexuality – as a source of Pollution, see Clean/ Unclean – Prohibition of Sexual Relationships 430–455, 480–481 Sinai – P’s Account of the Revelation to Moses at Mount Sinai 31–58, 231– 234, 378–379 – Setting of the Laws at Mount Sinai 199–204, 209, 263–264, 278, 301, 323, 335, 399–401, 551–553 Sins – Awareness of 241–244, 252 – Bearing of 242, 248–249 – Categories of 96–97, 163–164, 186–195, 241–244 – Confession of 243, 252, 253 – Defiant 97, 189, 193, 194–195 – Guilt ()a4s]am) 237–239 – Hidden 247–249, 249–252, 255 – Inadvertent 96, 164–165, 186–195, 253 – of Omission 242 – and Repentance 249–252 – Unintentional 247–249 – against Yahweh’s Sancta 245, 252, 253, 255, 470 – “Sin Offering”, see Purification Offering – of Nadab and Abihu, see Priests – see also Offering, Sanction Source Criticism – of the Laws on Sacrifices 150–198, 198–231

697

– of the Laws on Uncleanness 270–301 – of the Day of Atonement 340–370 – Common Source behind Leviticus and Deuteronomy 284–294 Temple – Relationship between Heavenly and Earthly Temples 47, 54–55 – Relationship with Creation in Ancient Near East/in P 54–55, 59–60 – P’s View of the Temple 388–390 – see also “Tent of Meeting”, Sacrificial Cult “Tent of Meeting” – Moses’ Admission inside 53, 90–91, 104–105, 118 – outside of P 47 – as Part of P’s Account 35–41 – as a “Utopian” Construct 43 – see also Temple Textual Criticism 32–33, 57–58, 289–290, 291–292 Torah – Chronological Framework 73–74, 123–124 – Concentric Structure of 71–73 – Division into Five “Books” 69–76 – Material Division 75–76 – its Original Meaning in Priestly Circles 216, 265–268, 300, 593 Vegetarianism, see Diet Yahweh – Encounter with 46–47, 48, 65–66, 102–104, 375–379, 381, 393 – Justice of 194–195, 197, 374–375 – Name of 99, 388–389, 439, 494, 514–515 – Presence of in Israel/ in the Sanctuary 41, 46, 47, 106, 109–110, 338, 372, 375–379, 388–390, 538–539, 586–588 – Theophanies in P 46–48, 104–105, 112, 119–120, 375–379 – see also ke6bod YHWH