Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation (Forschungen zum Alten Testament Book 52) 9783161510939, 9783161492983, 3161510933

Citation preview

JEFFREY STACKERT

Rewriting the Torah

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 52

Mohr Siebeck

F orschungen zum Alten Testament Herausgegeben von Bernd Janowski (Tiibingen) . Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (G6ttingen)

52

Jeffrey Stackert

Rewriting the Torah Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation

Mohr Siebeck

Jeffrey Stackert, born 1977; Ph.D. in Near Eastern andludaic Studies from Brandeis University (Waltham, Massachusetts); currently Assistant Professor of Hebrew Bible at the University of Minnesota.

e-ISBNPDF 978-3-16-151093-9 ISBN 978-3-16-149298-3 ISSN 0940-4155 (Forschungen zumAlten Testament) Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2007 by Mohr Siebeck Tiibingen, 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 typeset by Martin Fischer in Tiibingen, printed by Gulde-Druck in Tiibingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Acknowledgments The idea for this book originated in Professor David P. Wright's graduate seminars on Priestly literature and ancient Near Eastern law at Brandeis University,

where it would then become a doctoral dissertation. I am especially grateful to my dissertation readers, Professors David Wright, Marc Z. Brettler, Tzvi Abusch, and Baruch J. Schwartz, each of whom provided invaluable feedback and sage wisdom in the preparation of this study. Moreover, they have each served as models for me in my teaching and scholarship, and I count it a great privilege to have studied with them. I also wish to thank several others who have aided me in producing this volume. My colleagues in biblical studies at the University of Minnesota, Bernard M. Levinson and Alex Jassen, have generously discussed with me this project, its preparation, and its specific arguments. Spencer Allen graciously read parts of Chapters Two and Three and provided especially helpful comments. I am grateful to the editors of Forschungen zum Alten Testament, Professors Bernd Janowski, Hennann Spieckennann, and especially Mark S. Smith, for accepting this volume in this series and for their helpful comments and feedback. I would also like to thank Henning Ziebritzki, Lektor in Theologie for Mohr Siebeck Publishers, for his judicious guidance of this volume through the publishing process. Beyond conventional interaction with relevant secondary literature, this study builds upon and is especially indebted to the work of several scholars, the conclusions of whom at times concur with or diverge from my own. Especially notable in this regard are Alfred Cholewinski, Michael Fishbane, Israel Knohl, Bernard M. Levinson, Eckart Otto, and David P. Wright, under whose care I have studied (both literally and figuratively) and whose works have not only prepared the way for my own investigations but have also in many cases provided the unique conceptual framework and technical language for my discussions. I hope to demonstrate, not only through fonnal citation but also through imitation, my sincere and deep appreciation for their work and what I have learned from them. Portions of this study were presented at meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature. Part of Chapter Two was presented at the Annual Meeting ofthe SBL in Philadelphia in November, 2005. Parts of Chapter Three were presented at the Annual Meeting of the New England Region of the SBL in Cambridge, MA, in

VI

Acknowledgments

April, 2006 and at the Annual Meeting of the SBL in Washington, DC, in N 0vember, 2006. Additionally, part of Chapter Two was published as "Why Does Deuteronomy Legislate Cities of Refuge?: Asylum in the Covenant Collection (Exod 21:12-14) and Deuteronomy (19:1-13)," Journal of Biblical Literature 125 (2006): 23-49. I am grateful to the Society of Biblical Literature for granting permission to republish that essay as a part of this larger work. I am perhaps most indebted to my family and especially to my wife, Richelle, who has constantly supported me in ways both great and small. Her willingness to talk about the minutiae of biblical law and Hebrew grammar over the past few years has been a tangible sign of her love. She even proofread this entire manuscript, saving me from many errors. For these reasons and many more, I

dedicate this study to her. Minneapolis, lvIN December 15, 2006

Jeffrey Stackert

Abstract This study explores literary correspondences among the pentateuchal legal corpora and especially the relationship between similar laws in Deuteronomy

and the Holiness Legislation (Lev 17-26, the so-called "Holiness Code," as well as significant parts of the Priestly source elsewhere in the Pentateuch). Resemblances between these legislative sources range from broad structure to fine detail, including the treatment of similar topics, correlations with regard to sequence of laws, and precise grammatical and lexical correspondences. Nevertheless, the nature and basis of their similarities persist as debated points among biblical scholars, whose theories for explaining such issues range from

direct, literary dependence of one text upon another (with chronological priority afforded to any of the respective sources) to the complete independence of the different legal corpora. Through a comparative examination of the legal topics of asylum, seventhyear release, manumission for slavery, and tithes, this study argues that the Holi-

ness Legislation depends upon both the Covenant Collection and Deuteronomy. It also elucidates the compositional logic of the Holiness legislators in their interaction with their source texts, showing that these authors do not simply

replicate pre-existing legal content. Rather, they employ a method of literary revision in which they reconceptualize source material according to their own

ideological biases. In the end, the Holiness Legislation proves to be a sort of "super law" that collects and distills the several law collections that precede it. By accommodating, refonnulating, and incorporating various viewpoints of these sources, the Holiness authors create a work that is intended to supersede them all.

Table of Contents Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. VII Chapter One: The Biblical Legal Corpora and their Correspondences: Accounting for Similarities and Differences ...........

1

Chapter Two: The Urbanization of Asylum: Reconceptualizations of Refuge in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation..

31

Chapter Three: Revision in the Pentateuchal Seventh-Year and Slavery Laws: Semitta, Sabbiiton, and YoQil . . . . . . . . . .. 113 Chapter Four: "A Tithe from the Tithe": Revision of the Deuteronomic Tithe in the Holiness Legislation .............. . . . . .. 165 Chapter Five: Literary Dependence and Compositional Logic: Understanding the Motivation for Biblical Legal Revision 209 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 227 Hebrew Index ................................................ 247 Source Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 249 Subject and Authors Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 262

List of Figures Figure 1: Correspondences between Deuteronomy and

the Holiness Legislation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

Figure 2: Rofe's Reconstruction of the Development of Deuteronomic

and Priestly Asylum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

59

Figure 3: The Combination and Supplementation of Source Material in Leviticus 25:6-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 124 Figure 4: The Transformation of Exodus 23: 10-11 in the Septuagint. . .. 137 Figure 5: Lexical Correspondences between the Deuteronomic and

Holiness Tithe Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 183 Figure 6: The Analogy between the Lay Israelite Farmer and the Levite in Numbers 18:25-32 ................................. 187

Chapter One

The Biblical Legal Corpora and their Correspondences Accounting for Similarities and Differences

Introduction Scholars have long recognized the existence ofliterary sources/strata within the canonical Pentateuch. Beginning in the early nineteenth century and continuing to the present, l these sources have been distinguished from each other and fruitfully analyzed with the goal of reconstructing part of the pre-canonical literary history of the Pentateuch. This approach to the canonical Torah, termed by critical scholars the "Documentary Hypothesis," labels the different pentateuchal strands the Yahwistic source (J), the Elohistic source (E), the Priestly source (P), and the Deuteronomic source (0)2 Each of these sources is composed of narrative and legal material and attests within and in addition to these broad genres further literary sub-categories, such as poetry, myth, and ritualistic texts. Within each source's legal material, exegetes have recognized contiguous collections of laws as well as non-contiguous legal texts, all of which are fully assimilated into their present narrative contexts. Though scholars continue to debate their individual compositional histories, the pentateuchal1aw collections are each characterized by unifying literary, linguistic, and ideological features that allow them to be analyzed as discrete textual complexes. Moreover, many 1 Though the Documentary Hypothesis is regularly associated with his name (for he utilized and popularized it), Wellhausen openly describes how he learned of the theory of Karl Heinrich Graf through Albrecht Ritschl (Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel [trans. Allan Menzies andJ. Sutherland Black; New York: Meridian, 1957],3-4). Grafhimselfwas preceded in this view by several scholars, including Edouard Reuss, Johann Friedrich Leopold George, Wilhelm Vatke, and Wilhelm Martin Leberecht DeWette, and even these scholars built upon the works of several predecessors of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. For discussions of the early development of the Documentary Hypothesis, see Ernest W. Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy ofJulius Wellhausen (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 3-28, and especially John W. Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Gennany (philadelphia: Fortress, 1985). 2 The Priestly source is regularly divided into two parts on the basis of many of the same criteria employed in the separation of the other pentateuchal sources. In this division of the Priestly source, one part is labeled P(riestly) and the other H(oliness). See below for further discussion of this division and its implications for lUlderstanding Priestly law and its relation to other pentateuchallaw.

2

Chapter One: The Biblical Legal Corpora and their Cmrespondences

of these laws exhibit marked correspondence across source divisions and even parallel the well-known cuneiform legal collections from ancient Mesopotamia and Anatolia3 The three major legal corpora in the Torah are the Covenant Collection, Deuteronomy, and Priestly law. The general Priestly legislation is further subdivided between P proper and H, the Holiness Legislation 4 Each ofthese groups oflaws is presented as divine revelation, a characteristic that defines biblical law over against other ancient Near Eastern law. 5 Moreover, each of these divine revelations is purportedly given to the same intermediary, Moses, in the same moment 3 For recent English translations of the major ancient Near Eastern legal collections, see Martha T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (2nd ed.; SBLWAW 6; Atlanta: Scholars, 1997). For a discussion of the direct literary dependence of the Covenant Collection upon the Laws of Hammurabi, see David P. Wright, "The Laws of Hammurabi as a Source for the Covenant Collection (Ex 20:23-23:19)," Maarav 10 (2003): 11-87; idem, "The Compositional Logic ofthe Goring Ox and Negligence Laws in the Covenant Collection (Ex 21:28-36)," ZABR 10 (2004): 93-142. See also the much-expanded study of this subject in his forthcoming book from Oxford University Press, where he further develops his view of the relationship between the prologue and epilogue in Hammurabi and the apodictic laws that surround the central casuistic section of the Covenant Collection. 4 The following abbreviations are employed in this study for the sake of clarity and variation: CC (Covenant Collection, refening to Exod 20:23-23:19); P (more traditionally referring to the entirety ofthe Priestly material in the Pentateuch, including H, but here refening only to the non-H portion of the Priestly source); H (Holiness Legislation, referring especially to Lev 17-26 but also to other H laws outside of Leviticus, in addition to the P laws that H edited); D (Deuteronomy). The term "Holiness Code" (das Heiligkeitsgesetz) was coined by August Klostermann ("Beitrage zur Enstehungsgeschichte des pentateuchs," Zeitschriftfiir die gesamte Lutherische Theologie und Kirche 38 [1877]: 401-45). In the following year, Wellhausen presented a similar argument for the distinctiveness of Lev 17-26 and concurred with Klostermann's view that this unit predates the rest of the Priestly corpus (Geschichte Israels, i [Berlin: G. Reimer, 1878], later renamed Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels [=Prolegomena to the History of Israel; also published in English as Prolegomena to the History ofAncient Israel]). Following Baruch J. Schwartz, I employ here the term "Holiness Legislation," a label which, by employing the generally descriptive term "legislation," avoids the inaccurate connotations of other possible titles such as "book" or "code." Moreover, "Holiness Legislation" more easily facilitates a discussion of Holiness laws outside of the traditional "Holiness Code" (Lev 17-26). For a detailed discussion of the various names attached to this corpus and their implications, see Baruch J. Schwartz, The Holiness Legislation: Studies in the Priestly Code (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999), 17-24 (in Hebrew). 5 Moshe Greenberg, "Jewish Conceptions of the Human Factor in Biblical Prophecy," in Justice and the Holy: Essays in Honor of Walter Hmrelson (ed. Douglas A. Knight and Peter J. Paris; Atlanta: Scholars, 1989), 145-62; Bernard M. Levinson, "The Human Voice in Divine Revelation: The Problem of Authority in Biblical Law," in Innovation in Religious Traditions: Essays in the Interpretation of Religious Change (Religion and Society 31; ed. Michael A. Williams, Collett Cox, and Martin S. Jaffee; BerliniNew York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1992), 35-71 (at 40-41); Marc Z. Brettler, How to Read the Bible (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2005), 61-62. For discussion of the divine revelation of biblical law in traditional Jewish interpretation, see Abraham Joshua Heschel, Heavenly Torah: As Refracted Through the Generations (ed. and trans. Gordon Tucker with Leonard Levin; NewYorkiLondon: Continuum, 2005), 423-38, 517-37.

Introduction

3

in Israel's exodus experience, the Sinaiffioreb event. 6 As even a cursory reading of these texts reveals, however, the shared details of revelation assumed for these texts have not produced matching legal collections, betraying their stereotyped narrative setting as a literary fiction and concurrently prompting multiple questions concerning the origin, purpose, and compositional histories of these laws. One of the most fascinating subsets of questions that emerges from an examination of the various pentatuechallegal corpora concerns the extensive literary correspondence that can be observed among them. Even scholars who engage in studies of the individual pentateuchal legal corpora primarily in order to elucidate the nature of one or more of the individual law collections regularly seek to clarify the perspectives of these laws by means of a comparison with topically siroilar laws elsewhere in the Torah. One well-known example of such comparison concerns the three major annual religious celebrations, legislated in Exod 23:14-19 (CC), Num 28-29, Lev 23:1-44, and Exod 12:1-20 (PIH), and Deut 16: 1-177 Though in agreement concerning the basic number and character of the three major festivals, these three legal exemplars differ significantly with regard to the names, dates, nature, and modes of observation for these religious events. 8 Moreover, Lev 23 places the three major festivals of Exod 23 and Deut 16 in the context of several other cultic celebrations that are not mentioned in the Covenant Collection or Deuteronomy. Still, in spite of their dissimilarities, each text's festival laws are most fruitfully examined in light of those festival laws that differ from them. Indeed, the festival laws demonstrate well that what is distinctive about one particular set of prescriptions can often be appreciated only in light of a competing set of directives.

6 In the case of the Deuteronomic laws, of course, Moses does not actually deliver this legislation until forty years after the Horeb event. 7 For analyses of the different pentateuchal festival laws, see, e. g., Bernard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Henneneutics o/Legal Innovation (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 53-97; Israel Knohl, "The Priestly Torah versus the Holiness School: Sabbath and the Festivals," HUCA 58 (1987): 65-117; Bernard R. Goldstein and Alan Cooper, "The Festivals of Israel and Judah and the Literary History of the Pentateuch," JAOS 110 (1990): 19-31; Alfred Cholewinski, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium: Eine vergleichende Studie (AnEib 66; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1976), 179-216; Christophe Nihan, "The Holiness Code between D and P: Some Comments on the Function and Significance of Leviticus 17-26 in the Composition of the Pentateuch," in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (ed. Eckart Otto and Reinhard Achenbach; FRLANT 206; G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 81-122 (at 88-91); Shimon Bar-On, "The Festival Calendars in Exodus XXIII 14-19 and XXXIV 18-26," VT 48 (1998): 161-95. 8 Thus, for example, PIH prescribe only two pilgrimages (Unleavened Bread, Booths) while CC and D each require three (Unleavened Bread, Weeks, Booths). Nevertheless, Pill allude to the COlUlting ofweeks/Sabbaths (Num 28:26; Lev 23:15-16) and thus clearly present a corresponding religious observance to the Feast ofHarvestlWeeks in CC and D. For discussion of the Feast of Weeks inPIH, see Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27 (AB 3b; New York: Doubleday, 2001),1990-2011.

4

Chapter One: The Biblical Legal Corpora and their Cmrespondences

Fueled by the claims of the Documentary Hypothesis, such a contrastive approach is especially helpful in analyzing the unique perspectives of the individual sources and their laws. Yet this approach also inevitably leads to the question ofthe nature and origin ofthe similarities observed between texts from different legal collections. This problem is a particuliarly vexing one, for while resemblances bet\veen these legislative corpora range from broad structure to fine detail and include corresponding treatments of similar topics, correlating sequences oflaws, and precise grammatical and lexical parallels, the significant differences already discussed are not diminished by such resemblances. For this reason, it is rarely clear at first glance what the nature of the relationship is among such laws. How can such similarities and differences be explained? Is there a direct literary relationship between these laws, in which case an author employs one or more source texts in the composition of his own laws, or do other factors more plausibly account for such correspondences? Simply stated, what is the relationship - if any - among these texts and the larger schools ofthought from which they emerge? Do corresponding legal texts show evidence of dependence upon each other? If so, what is the nature of this dependence? Which text serves as a source and which text serves as receptor of legal traditions? What is the method of reuse exhibited by the dependent text? And, as far as possible, what are the motivations that drive the later author's reconceptualization of his source? Complicating such questions and nuancing their solutions are issues of the independent development of the legal corpora and the various redactional layers that are evidenced in these texts. This study will address these questions and others related to them by exploring several legal parallels among the pentateuchallegal corpora and especially the relationship bet\veen corresponding laws in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation. Specifically, I will offer a new comparative analysis of the pentateuchal asylum, seventh-year, manumission, and tithe laws that is informed by more recent understandings oflegal formulation and the scope and nature of the Holiness corpus itself. In this way, I hope to offer a solution to the impasse that currently exists among scholars regarding the nature and basis of the similarites that exist between the biblical law collections. Current scholarly explanations for such correspondence range from direct literary dependence of one text upon another (with chronological priority given to any of the respective collections of law) to a common cultural ethos and historical experience that mitigates the need to posit any dependence whatsoever between laws that treat similar topics. 9 In the following chapters, I will offer examples of the direct literary relationship that exists bet\veen Deuteronomy and the Covenant Collection and demonstrate that the Holiness Legislation draws upon the laws of both the Covenant Collec9 See below for a discussion of the various scholarly views of potential relationships between the pentateuchallegal corpora.

The History ofPentateuchal Legal Scholarship and the CUlrent State of the Question

5

tion and Deuteronomy in its composition. These chapters further demonstrate that the Holiness authors are not only the direct inheritors of pre-existing legal content. They also employ a hermeneutic of literary revision similar to those already attested in the legal sources they exploit. The contributions of this study are several: in addition to the primary benefit of an improved understanding of the relationship among the pentateuchallegal corpora, this study contributes new and significant insight into the practice of legal innovation in ancient Israel, the intellectual history of the Deuteronomic and Holiness schools of thought, and the composition and dating of the Torah as a whole.

The History of PentateuchaI Legal Scholarship and the Current State of the Question Previous Studies of Pentateuchal Legislation Correspondences between the pentateuchallegal corpora have engaged biblical interpreters from even the pre-canonical period and continue to occupy modern readers. As befits such a lengthy and diverse history of interpretation, studies of such issues have varied widely in their methodologies, conceptions of the issues involved, and conclusions. Modern, critical studies of legal parallels in the Torah are no less varied. For example, in his highly provocative and influential Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, Julius Wellhausen argues for an evolutionary model of religious development in ancient Israel, evidenced in part by the differences observable in the pentateuchal sources' treatments of similar legal topics. This study, though ultimately less concerned with interactions between specific literary texts and focused instead upon the development of what Wellhausen perceives to be real, historical religious institutions, includes only brief comparative readings of biblicallaws. lO Wellhausen takes up the issue of literary dependence between the pentateuchal sources in a more systematic way in his Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der Historischen Bucher des Alten Testaments , although even here his analysis oflegal parallels is often brief. !! Samuel R. Driver outlines in his Deuteronomy commentary the many correspondences bet\veen Deuteronomy and other pentateuchallegal sources and concludes that, while Deuteronomic law depends directly upon the Covenant Collection, no precise relationship exists between Deuteronomic and Priestly law1 2 In his well-known rebuttal to Wellhausen's conception of Israelite reWellhausen, Prolegomena, 17-167. Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der Historischen Bucher des Alten Testaments (4th ed.; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1963). 12 Samuel R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC; 3rd ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901), xi-xv. 10 11

6

Chapter One: The Biblical Legal Corpora and their Cmrespondences

ligion, Yehezkel Kaufmann is even more conservative in his assessment than Driver. He contends that the correspondences that many scholars observe between pentateuchallegal collections do not imply any direct literary relationship whatsoever between these texts. Indeed, for Kaufmann, the pentateuchallegal corpora are completely independent of each other and thus exhibit no literary connection at all. 13 More recently, scholars such as Norbert Lohfink, Bernard M. Levinson, and Eckart Otto have argued convincingly that a direct literary relationship exists bet\veen the Covenant Collection and Deuteronomy and that the Deuteronomic author is the inheritor of Covenant Collection traditions. I4 These exegetes have also analyzed Deuteronomy's method of rewriting its "textual patrimony," a term Levinson has coined to describe the source employed in biblical legal revisions. Building upon and applying the method of his teacher, Michael Fishbane, Levinson concludes that the Deuteronomic legislators exploit the language of their source text and borrow its prestige in order to subvert its message. In this way, Deuteronomy masks its legal innovation in the cloak of authoritative citation. The result is a text that simultaneously invokes and denies its source, presenting its message as consonant with the very legal precedents it seeks to replace. IS Even if some of the details of this relationship between the Covenant Collection and Deuteronomy remain to be explained, Levinson's study effectively quells any question regarding the existence and direction of dependence between these legal corpora. I6 The state of the inquiry regarding Deuteronomy and Priestly law is significantly less settled. It must be acknowledged from the beginning that there are 13 Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion ofIsrael: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (trans. and abr. by Moshe Greenberg; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960),205. 14 See, e. g., Norbert Lohfink, "ZurdeuteronomischenZentmlisationsfonnel," Bib 65 (1984): 297-328; idem, "Fortschreibung? Zur Technik von Rechtsrevisionen im deuteronomischen Bereich, er6rtert an Deuteronomium 12, Ex 21, 2-11 und Dtn 15, 12-18," in Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen (ed. Timo Veihola; Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft62; G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 133-81; Levinson,Deuteronomy and the Henneneutics, passim; Eckart Otto, "Aspects of Legal Reforms and Reformulations in Ancient Cuneiform and Israelite Law," in Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneifonn Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development (ed. Bernard M. Levinson; JSOTSup 181; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), 160-96 (at 192-96). There are a few scholars, including John Van Seters, who see CC (in part or as a whole) as post-exilic (and thus subsequent to D). Van Seters even argues that CC borrows from D (A Law Bookfor the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003]). 15 Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Henneneutics, 16. 16 For a survey of the various scholarly positions concerning the relationship between CC and D, see Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Henneneutics, 6-13. My analysis of the relationship between asylum laws in CC and D in Chapter Two is very much in the vein of Levinson's study and even a continuation of his comparative approach. That study is also published in a slightly different form as "Why Does Deuteronomy Legislate Cities of Refuge? Asylum in the Covenant Collection (Exodus 21: 12-14) and Deuteronomy (19: 1-13)," JBL 125 (2006): 23-49.

The History ofPentateuchal Legal Scholarship and the CUlrent State of the Question

7

relatively few examples of legal correspondence bet\veen Deuteronomy and P. Indeed, with the exception of the food laws in Deut 14:3-21, there seems to be no significant literary connection at all between Deuteronomy and p.I7 Such is not the case, however, when Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation are compared. Figure 1 below outlines several significant legal correspondences that exist bet\veen Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation. Is Figure 1: Correspondences between Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation Legal Topic

Deuteronomy

Holiness Legislation

Centralization

11:29 12:31

Lev 17:1 15

MOlllTIing

14:1 2

Lev 19:28

Holiness

14:2 (cf. 7:6)

Lev 19:2; 20:7

Tithes

14:22 29; 26:12

Lev 27:30 33; Num 18:20 32

Seventh-year

15:1 11

Lev 25:2 7

Manumission

15:12 18

Lev 25:39 55

Firstlings

15:19 23

Num 18:17 18

Festivals

16:1 18

Lev 23; Exod 12:1 20

Just Judgment

16:19 20

Lev 19:15

Cultic Installations

16:21 22

Lev 26:1

17 William L. Moran, who provides a compelling analysis of the relationship between Lev 11 :2-23 and Deut 14:3-21, contends that the Deuteronomic food laws are based in part upon a pre-Lev 11 Priestly version of the food laws now found in Lev 11 :2-23 ("The Literary Connections Between LV 11,13-19 andDT 14,12-18," CBQ28 [1966]: 271-76). Other scholars have offered other, less persuasive analyses of the relationship between these chapters. For example, Milgrom argues that Deut 14 pares down Lev 11 and does so on the basis ofthe entirety of this chapter (Leviticus 1-16, 698-704). Others have suggested that D andH here rely on a common but independent source (e. g., Driver, Deuteronomy, 163-64; so also the recent important study ofNaphtali Meshel, "Pure, hnpure, Permitted, Prohibited: A Study of Classification Systems in P," in Perspectives on Purity and Purification in the Bible [ed. Baruch J. Schwartz and David P. Wright; LondonlNew York: T &T Clark International, 2007], forthcoming). Other purported ties between Deuteronomy and P, such as those espoused by Milgrom ("Profane Slaughter and a Formulaic Key to the Composition of Deuteronomy," HUCA 47 [1976]: 1-17), are highly suspect. 18 Creating a list of correspondences between legal corpora is a somewhat arbitrary exercise, for such a list necessitates a prior distinction of the boundaries of the legal collections considered and an evaluation of the texts considered analogous. In this list, I have limited my consideration of Deuteronomy to its central legal core (chs. 12-26), even as I have included texts from outside of the traditional bounds of the Holiness Code. This list is meant to demonstrate the extent of correspondence between Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation but is not necessarily comprehensive. For other lists oflegal parallels betweenD and H, see Cholewinski, Heiligkeitsgesetz, ix-xii; and Charles F. Kent, Israel's Laws and Legal Precedents: From the Days of Moses to the Closing of the Legal Canon (The Student's Old Testament; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1907), vii-xxvii.

8

Chapter One: The Biblical Legal Corpora and their Cmrespondences

Legal Topic

Deuteronomy

Holiness Legislation

Priestly Prebends

18: 1 8

Lev 7:32 34; Num 18:1 20

Molech

18:10

Lev 18:21; 20:2 5

Magic

18:10 11

Lev 19:26,31; 20:27

Asylum

19:1 13

Num 35:9 34

Witnesses

19:15 21

Lev 19:16

Rebellious Children

21:18 21

Lev 20:9

Mixtures

22:9 12

Lev 19:19

Tassels

22:12

Num 15:37 41

Adultery

22:22 27

Lev 18:20; 20:10

Camp Cleanness

23:2 9

Num 5:1 4

Vows

23:22 24

Num 30:3 16

Ethical Justice

24:17 18

Lev 19:33 34

Gleaning

24:19 22

Lev 19:9 10; 23:22

Measures

25:13 16

Lev 19:35 36

First-fruits

26:1 11

Num 18:12 13

Blessings and Curses

28:1 69

Lev 26:1 46

Recognizing many of these parallels - especially between Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code proper - scholars have attempted to clarifY the nature of the relationship between these laws. However, as Jan Joosten observes, detailed analysis has not been the nonn in considerations ofD and H: Earlier scholars have usually assessed the relationship between H and Deuteronomy on the basis of very general considerations. On the one hand, H appears to presuppose several places of worship and was therefore said by some to antedate Deuteronomy. To others, on the other hand, Deuteronomy seemed more primitive, more natural, and therefore earlier than H.19

Bruno Baentsch provided the earliest detailed comparison between D and H and concluded that Deuteronomy acts as a source for the Holiness author. 20 In critique ofBaentsch, yet also partially accepting his conclusions, Christian Feucht develops a more complex relationship between Deuteronomic and Holiness law, arguing that the Holiness Code can be divided into two layers (Lev 18-23~HI

19 Jan Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study ofthe Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17-26 (VTSup 67; LeidenlNew YorkIK61n: Brill, 1996), 10-11. See also the discussion of Hans Jochen Boecker in Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient East (trans. Jeremy Moiser; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980), 186-87. 20 Bruno Baentsch,Das Heiligkeits-Gesetz Lev. XVII-XXVI: eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung (Erfurt: Hugo Glither, 1893),76-80.

The History ofPentateuchal Legal Scholarship and the CUlrent State of the Question

9

and Lev 25-26~H2), the first of which predates D while the second follows and depends upon Deuteronomic law. 21 In more recent critical research, Alfred Cholewinski's Das Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium: Eine vergleichende Studie stands as the most comprehensive analysis of parallels between Deuteronomy and the Holiness Collection. In this study, Cholewinski provides an extensive redactional analysis of the Holiness Collection and argues that this legal corpus depends directly upon Deuteronomy. As evidence of such dependence, he offers detailed analysis of the legal topics of centralization and slaughter (Deut 12; Lev 17), the pilgrimage festivals (Deut 16; Lev 23), seventh-year release and manumission (Deut 15; Lev 25), and several other, less extensive parallel topics, arguing that the Holiness authors exploit the themes and language of Deuteronomy in their own composition. 22 However, like those that precede it, Cholewinski's study suffers from several limitations. For example, his redactional analysis of the Holiness Collection is at times implausible, for it relies heavily upon questionable stylistic features in order to differentiate multiple strata. Moreover, the successive stages of development that he posits at times fail to cohere in their proposed pre-canonical forms. This problem casts significant doubt upon the integrity of the stages of textual growth that he proposes. Further, Cholewinski's view ofthe scope of the Holiness Legislation as a whole is limited to Lev 17-26 and does not consider the significant parallels between Deuteronomy and Holiness texts outside of the "Holiness Code." Due in part to these issues, his conclusions have failed to convince many scholars. Subsequent to Cholewinski's work, consensus has grown concerning the existence of a direct literary relationship bet\veen D and H, but disagreement over the direction of this dependence has not waned. In addition, a significant minority of scholars remains who admit of no connection between these texts whatsoever.23 Those who accept the view that Deuteronomy serves as a source for the Holiness Collection are mainly European and American and include Klaus GrUnwaldt, Stephen A. Kaufinann, Levinson, Christophe Nihan, and Ott0 24 In many cases, these scholars have attempted to develop Cholewinski's 21 Christian Feucht, Untersuchungen zum Heiligkeitsgesetz (Theologische Arbeiten 20; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1964), 166-80. 22 Cholewinski, Heiligkeitsgesetz, passim. 23 See, e. g., Joosten, People and Land, 200-03; Baruch J. Schwartz, "'Profane' Slaughter and the Integrity of the Priestly Ccxle," HUCA 67 (1996): 15-42 (at 38-42). Earlier scholars likewise saw no connection between D and H. See, e. g., L.E. Elliott-Binns, "Some Problems of the Holiness Code," ZAW 67 (1955): 26-40 (at 29-30). 24 Klaus GrUnwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17-26: Ursprungliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie (BZAW 271; BerlinlNew York: de Gruyter, 1999), 376; Stephen A. Kaufman, "Deuteronomy 15 and Recent Research on the Dating ofP," inDas Deuteronomium: Enstehung, Gestalt und Eotschaft (ed. Norbert Lohfink; Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1985), 273-276 (at 276); Bernard M. Levinson, "The Birth of the Lemma: The Restrictive Reinterpretation ofthe Covenant Ccxle's Manumission Law by the Holiness Code (Leviticus 25:44-46),"

10

Chapter One: The Biblical Legal Corpora and their Cmrespondences

approach and to solidify his conclusions while eliminating problematic aspects of his study. Scholars who argue for dependence between Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation in the opposite direction are oftentimes Israeli and/or sympathize with the work of Kaufinann and include George Braulik, Michael Fishbane, Sara Japhet, Israel Knohl, Jacob Milgrom, and Moshe Weinfeld. In their estimation, at least some Holiness texts predate Deuteronomy and serve as a source for the latter. 25 A few scholars advocate for a reciprocal relationship bet\veen Deuteronomic and Holiness laws. 26 The question thus remains mired in dispute, and the reasons for this disagreement range from the details of the existing scholarly analyses and their methodologies and assumptions to the nature of the biblical material itself. The Limitations of Previous Studies of Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation Though it does not mitigate its shortcomings, one positive aspect of Cholewinski's study is its attempt to be comprehensive within the limits of the Holiness Collection. By contrast, some scholarly discussions of legal correspondences in the Pentateuch, though they attempt to draw such comprehensive conclusions, are too limited to deduce anything meaningful about the larger relationship among the law collections. In fact, some scholars have attempted to draw such conclusions on the basis of even a single shared legal topic. The result is a lack of consistent and thoroughgoing analysis and thus unsubstantiated generaliza-

JBL 124 (2005): 617-39 (at 630); Christophe Nihan, "The Holiness Ccxle between D and P," passim; Eckart Otto, Theologische Ethik des Alten Testmnents (Theologische Wissenschaft 3,2; StuttgartlBerlinlK6ln: W. Kohlhammer, 1994),240--53; idem, "Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz," 125-96. 25 Georg Braulik, "Die dekalogische Redaktion der deuteronomischen Gesetze. Ihre Abhangigkeit von Leviticus 19 am Beispiel von Deuteronomium 22, 1-12; 24, 10-22; 25, 13-16," in Bundesdokument und Gesetz: Studien zum Deuteronomium (HBS 4; ed. G. Braulik; FreiburglNew York: Herder, 1995), 1-25; idem, "Weitere Beobachtungen zur Beziehung zwischen dem Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium 19-25," in Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen (Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft 62; ed. T. Veijola; Helsinki: Finnische Exegetische Gesellschaft; G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 23-55; Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985); Sara Japhet, "The Relationship between the Legal Corpora in the Pentateuch in Light of Manumission Laws," in Studies in Bible (ScrHier 31; ed. S. Japhet; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986),63-89; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22 (AB 3a; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1357-61 (Milgrom offers eleven points of contact between D and H in which he views H as a source for D, and he concludes that the direction of dependence is clear: "It is indisputable that there are no traces of D's language or concepts in H" [1357]); Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972; repr.,Winona Lake, Ind.: EisenbrallllS, 1992), 180-83. 26 Alexander Rofe, Introduction to Deuteronomy: Part I and Further Chapters (2nd rev. ed.; Jerusalem: Akademon, 1988), 16 (in Hebrew); Giuseppe Bettenzoli, "Deuteronomium und Heiligkeitsgesetz," VT34 (1984): 385-98.

The History ofPentateuchal Legal Scholarship and the CUlrent State of the Question 11

tions concerning the pentateuchallegal collections.27 This is particularly the case for studies that have drawn conclusions concerning the relationship between Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation. In addition to this problem of overgeneralization, the studies of those scholars who have previously offered comparative analyses of D and H are often hampered by one or more of the following problems: 1. In their analyses of biblical law, many scholars follow Wellhausen in directing their attention primarily toward the reconstruction of Israelite religion. Comparative investigations of legislative topics thus center upon the recovery of real, historical Israelite religion and ethics and not upon the literary interaction of biblical texts. Considerations of literary interactions between texts in such studies are often abbreviated or undetailed. 28 2. Virtually every scholar who has addressed the issue of the relationship between D and H has limited hislher analysis of H to the Holiness Collection proper. However, as discussed further below, Israel Knohl and others have recently argued for a more expansive H corpus that includes material outside of Lev 17-26 and exhibits some of the most incisive parallels with D texts 29 3. Some scholars are unsystematic in their comparisons between D and H, oftentimes because their comments on such issues are imbedded within discussions of different issues related to these texts. The result is a lack of clarity concerning an overall, or even largely comprehensive, understanding of the relationship between D and H. 30 4. Some scholars fail to engage seriously the arguments of others when offering their analyses ofthe relationship of the different pentateuchallegal corpora3 ! The result is an incomplete and thus ultimately unconvincing argument. This study is intended to fill the gap in current scholarship by directly addressing the issue of the literary relationship between Deuteronomy and a more broadlyFor example, Japhet, "The Relationship between the Legal Corpora," 63-89. For a brief discussion of the issue of biblical versus Israelite religion, see Stephen A. Geller, SacredEnigmas: Literary Religion in the Hebrew Bible (LondonlNewYork: Routledge, 1996),4-6. As discussed further below, I consider the issue of real historical religious development in ancient Israel as different from the development of biblical thought and the process by which the biblical authors achieved the latter. 29 Scholars have long recognized "Holiness-like" material outside of Lev 17-26, but it is Knohl who has demonstrated the extent ofH outside of the Holiness Code. See below for further discussion of the scope ofH. 30 For example, see Jacob Milgrom's various comments, especially within the exegetical sections of his commentary (Leviticus 17-22; Leviticus 23-27). 31 For example, see Van Seters, A Law Bookfor the Diaspora. See also Bernard M. Levinson's critique of Van Seters, in which he notes that Van Seters does not adequately engage the scholarship that already exists concerning the topics he addresses (even when the existing scholarship supports his own thesis) ("Is the Covenant Ccxle an Exilic Composition? A Response to John Van Seters," in In Search ofPre-Exilic Israel [ed. John Day; New York and London: T&T Clark, 2004], 272-325). 27 28

12

Chapter One: The Biblical Legal Corpora and their Cmrespondences

conceived Holiness Legislation, delineating especially any genetic relationships that exist among these pentateuchallegal traditions. In contrast to many of the existing studies of the development of biblical legislation, my priority will not be, as far as possible, the reconstruction of an hypothesized historical or social context for the application of the laws examined. Indeed, I will attempt to avoid the question of the application of biblical law in the religious and social life of ancient Israel. Rather, I will focus my investigation upon the literary/textual and intellectual level in order to measure the influence of source texts in the process oflegal (re)formulation.

The Existence, Scope, and Dating of the Holiness Writings Leviticus 17-26 and the Question of an Expanded Holiness Corpus The existence and scope of the Holiness Collection have been points of debate among scholars for decades.32 While some scholars continue to view the socalled "Holiness Code" as a part ofP as a whole and not as an independently-authored body of texts separable from P,33 a majority now accepts the existence of a discrete collection of Holiness writings within the larger pentateuchal Priestly corpus. However, even among those scholars who have accepted its existence, there has been significant debate concerning the extent of the Holiness Collection, especially with regard to its beginning and end. Graf, for example, viewed Lev 17 as a late addition to Lev 18-26,34 and this view has been rehearsed several times in the annals of pentateuchal scholarship. However, as noted by Wellhausen (and regularly repeated afterward), the structure of Lev 17-26 parallels (to some extent) that of the Covenant Collection and Deuteronomy. Such similarity has suggested to many scholars that Lev 17-26 stands as a distinct corpus within the larger Priestly source. Specifically, each ofthese legal collections opens with cultic laws, including concern for sacrificial location, 32 For a more comprehensive history of scholarship regarding the Holiness Code, see the helpful Forschungsgeschichten of GrUnwaldt (Heiligkeitsgesetz, 5-22) and Andreas Ruwe (Heiligkeitsgesetz und Priesterschrift: literaturgeschichtliche und rechtssystematische Untersuchungen zu Leviticus 17,1-26,2 [FAT 26; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999],5-35). 33 For example, Volker Wagner, "ZurExistenz des sogenannten 'Heiligkeitsgesetzes,'" ZAW 86 (1974): 307-16; Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; BerlinlNew York: Walter de Gruyter, 1990), 318-32; Rainer Albertz, A History o/IsraeliteReligion in the Old Testament Period (trans. John Bowden; 2 vols.; OIL; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994),2: 629 n. 100; Frank Criisemann, The Torah: Theology and Social History o/Old Testament Lmv (trans. Allen W. Mahnke; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996),277-82; Andreas Ruwe, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Priesterschrift, 39-52; Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Leviticus: A Commentary (OTL; trans. Douglas W. Stott; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1996), 18. 34 Karl H. Graf, Die geschichtlichenBiicher des Alten Testaments: Zwei historisch-kritische Untersuchungen (Leipzig: T.O. Weigel, 1866), 66.

The Existence, Scope, and Dating of the Holiness Writings

13

and concludes with exhortatory material. In the cases of Deuteronomy and the Holiness Collection, this closing exhortation takes the form of blessings and curses, making these conclusions especially comparable (Deut 27-28; Lev 26).35 In summary, Joosten enumerates four main reasons for distinguishing Leviticus 17-26 as a discrete unit: 1. Leviticus 17's concern with the place of sacrifice, which parallels the Covenant Collection and Deuteronomy, as well as this chapter's other characteristic Holiness features. 2. Leviticus 26's blessings and curses, which parallel the Deuteronomic law collection. 3. The use of paranesis in H, which is absent in other pentateuchal Priestly legislation. 35 Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 149-52, 167-69. For discussion of the connection between the blessings and curses in Deut 28 and the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon, see, e. g., Rintje Frankena, "The Vassal-treaties ofEsarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy," DtSt 14 (1965): 123-54; Eckart Otto, "Das Deuteronomium als archimedischer Punkt der pentateuchkritik: Auf dem Wege zu einer Neubegriiudung der de Wette'schen Hypothese," in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: F estschrijt C. H. W Brekelmans (ed. M. VelVenne and J. Lust; Leuven: Peeters, 1997),321-40; Hans Ulrich Steymans, "Eine assyrische Vorlage fur Deuteronomium 28, 20-44," in Bundesdokument und Gesetz: Studien zum Deuteronomium (ed. G. Braulik; FreiburglNewYork: Herder, 1995), 119-41; idem, "Dieneuassyrische Vertragsrhetorik der 'Vassal Treaties ofEsarhaddon' und das Deuteronomium," inDas Deuteronomium (ed. G. Braulik; OBS 23; Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2003), 89-152. Note, however, the important objections of Schwartz, who argues against comparison between the Covenant Collection, the Deuteronomic Code, and the Holiness Collection especially on the basis of the larger conceptual differences between these legal texts within their larger sources (Holiness Legislation, 17-24, 32-33). Specifically, Schwartz argues that H was never an independent legal collection, as scholars have suggested for the Covenant Collection and Deuteronomic Code. Nor was it ever an independent literary source: H was written from the beginning as a supplement to P. Fllliher, because the Priestly pentateuchal source, including H, does not conceive of its law as the stipulations of a covenant, the structure claimed to be present in Deut 12-26 and its purported analogy to ancient Near Eastern treaties should not apply to H. These objections are helpful and highlight well the differences between the legal collections in the Pentateuch. As exhibited throughout this study, I accept Schwartz's views ofH as a supplement to P and not as an independent source or legal collection and even have adopted here his technical designation ofH law as the "Holiness Legislation," a moniker that reflects such views. Nevertheless, as I will argue below, revising authors at times take over structural elements from their source texts without adopting the larger perspective of that source. Thus, the correspondences between Deut 12 and Lev 17, on the one hand, and Deut 27-28 and Lev 26, on the other, need not be wholly discarded because Pill does not conceive of its laws as stipulations of a Sinai covenant. Rather, the "remnants" of this covenant model can linger in H on account of its exploitation of a source that does attest such a covenant model. For this reason, I am hesitant to attribute no significance to the overall structural similarities between the pentateuchallegal collections and especially those observable between Deut 12-26 and Lev 17-26. Schwartz rejects the possibility of any literary interaction between the Deuteronomic and Priestly sources ofthe Pentateuch, and thus he rightly sees aneed to address this presumed structural similarity between D and H legislation.

14

Chapter One: The Biblical Legal Corpora and their Cmrespondences

4. The overall distinctiveness of Holiness tenninology, style, and theological perspectives. 36 Even from the time of Klostennann, however, scholars have recognized that there are Priestly passages outside of the Holiness Collection (Lev 17-26) that exhibit marked continuity with the ideology and language of these chapters. In early considerations of this issue, significant texts identified as "Holiness-like" were Exod 6:6-8; 31:13-17; Lev 11:44-45; Num 10:8-10; 15:38-41,37 each of which is characterized generally by divine speech in the first person and the stereotypical H phrase 11111' 'lll "I am the LORD."38 Additionally, several of these texts discuss the holiness ofthe Israelite laity, another chief concern of the Holiness Collection. Early scholars disagreed with regard to the origin of these "Holiness-like" passages outside of the Holiness Collection, but their different solutions nonnally accord with one of two basic views (each of which presumes the priority of Hover Pl. Either a later Priestly author removed portions of the Holiness Collection and introduced them into P legislation, or a later Priestly author imitated the style of the Holiness Legislation and inserted such "Holiness-like" material into P laws. Karl Elliger was the first to argue that Leviticus 17-26, as well as the Holiness-like passages outside of the Holiness Collection, postdate P and were written as a continuation of the existing Priestly source. 39 Building upon and expanding this position, Knohl argues that the "Holiness School" is responsible for the Holiness Collection as well as significant portions of the Priestly source in Exodus and Numbers. Beginning with the festivals and their appointed sacrifices, as enumerated in Lev 23 and Num 28-29, Knohl focuses upon the ideology and literary style of the Holiness Legislation and identifies specific perspectives and language that characterize H texts over against those belonging to P. Such features are identifiable in many Priestly passages outside of the Holiness Collection and in interpolations added to P texts·o Knohl thus convincingly demonstrates that H texts exist outside of the Holiness Collection proper and that, in its entirety, H postdates and reconceptualizes existing Priestly law. Knohl Joosten, People and Land, 6-7. See Joosten, People and Land, 15-16. G.P' Moore lists Bxod 6:6-8; 12: 12 f; 29:38-46; 31:13f.; Lev 5:1-6, 21-24a; 6:2-5a; 10:10f.; 11 (in part); 12; 13:1-46; 14:1-8a; 15; Num 3:11-13; 5:11-31; 6:2-8; 10:9f; 15:38-41; 19:11 f ("Leviticus," Encyclopaedia Biblica 3: 2776-93 [at 2787]). See also the lists and discussions of "Holiness-like" passages in Samuel R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature oj the Old Testament (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891),45-46,54-55. 38 See Knohl's discussion of the divine first person and its importance for the Holiness Legislation (Sanctuary oj Silence, 169). 39 Karl BUiger, "Heiligkeitsgesetz," RGG 3: 175-76; idem, Leviticus (HzAT 4; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966), 14-20 and passim. 40 See Knohl's helpful summary of text identifications (P and H) and his description and listing of stereotypical language and style in P and H (Sanctuary ojSilence, 104-10). 36 37

The Existence, Scope, and Dating 0/ the Holiness Writings

15

even suggests that the Holiness School is responsible for editing the Pentateuch as a whole:! a position that is at least partially accepted by Otto and Nihan (although these scholars view the overall dating ofH differently than Knohl)42 Jacob Milgrom has accepted Knohl's theory in the main, revising and applying it systematically in the latter volumes of his Anchor Bible Leviticus commentary43 For his part, Gliinwaldt, though he also views its composition as subsequent to the Priestly narrative, contends that the Holiness Legislation is an independent legal collection and was not written as a sequel to p.44 Scholarly arguments concerning the existence ofH are sound, as are the views of Knohl, Milgrom, and others who advocate for a widely diffuse Holiness corpus in the Priestly pentateuchal source. As such, these perspectives form the basis for the legal comparisons that follow. In Chapters Two and Four, in which I consider Holiness texts outside of Leviticus 17-26, I will offer more specific justification for the ascription ofthese pericopae to the Holiness legislator. However, aside from internal clues, the legal correspondences identified in this study between Deuteronomic and Holiness laws may be viewed as a further corroboration of the Holiness origin of the Priestly texts in question. As I have noted, P texts exhibit no direct literary parallels with Deuteronomic law; however, those texts that can otherwise be identified as Holiness texts by internal ideological and stylistic criteria regularly exhibit correlation with Deuteronomic legislation. Such a confluence of evidence suggests that a possible Holiness origin must be considered for any Priestly text that corresponds with Deuteronomic law, even when internal clues are less than conclusive. 45 The arguments of the several scholars who view the Holiness Legislation as subsequent to P is likewise sound, and though not a prominent part ofthis study, those points of intersection between P and H examined here similarly point Knohl, Sanctuary o/Silence, 101-03. Eckart Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch: Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 183 n. 133; idem, "Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17-26," 65-80; Nihan, "The Holiness Ccxle between D and P," 105-22. 43 Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22, passim; idem, Leviticus 23-27, passim. See also Milgrom's rejoinder to Knohl in Leviticus 23-27, 2440-46. 44 GrUnwaldt, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 121-30, 375-98. For critique of GrUnwaldt's assertion of the original independence of Lev 17-26, see Reinhard Achenbach, "Das Heiligkeitsgesetz im nachpriesterschriftlichen Pentateuch. Zu einem Buch von Klaus Griinwaldt," ZAER 6 (2000): 341-50; Nihan, "The Holiness Code between D andP," 99-100. 45 Saul M. Olyan notes the difficulty that often exists in distinguishing between P and H texts because of the strong similarities between these works ("Exodus 31 :12-17: The Sabbath According to H, or the Sabbath According to P and H?," JBL 124 [2005]: 201-09). With regard to correspondence with Deuteronomy, note that Ezekiel corresponds closely with the Holiness Legislation and that it also employs Deuteronomic language. This prophetic book thus provides another example of an early sixth century combination of Priestly and Deuteronomic language and ideology (cf. Risa Levitt Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah [JSOTSup 358; Sheffield: Sheffield Acadernic, 2002], 28-29, 86-104). 41 42

16

Chapter One: The Biblical Legal Corpora and their Cmrespondences

to the chronological priority of P over H. For example, in my analyses of the manumission and tithe laws (see Chapters Three and Four), I argue that the Holiness author draws upon not only the Covenant Collection and Deuteronomy but also P narrative and legal texts. Such Holiness dependence upon P (in addition to the Covenant Collection and Deuteronomy) shows that H is anthological and accommodationist in his approach, combining both legal and narrative source material. This Holiness dependence upon P also provides further substantiation for the chronological priority ofP over H. Dating the Holiness Legislation While the relative dating of the Holiness Legislation vis-i-vis the other pentateuchallegal corpora is a fundamental issue in determining the nature of the literary relationships among them, the question of dating these texts absolutely does not factor prominently in this study. It is enough here simply to discuss the chronological relationship of the laws under investigation, leaving aside what is generally one of the most difficult aspects of historical analysis - determining absolute dates for biblical texts. Nevertheless, though there is little scholarly consensus regarding what constitutes a reliable method for dating texts absolutely:' it is possible to offer some insight regarding absolute dates for the biblical legal corpora, including the Holiness Legislation. 46 For more than three decades, scholars have been developing a more empirically-based method for dating biblical texts that seeks to analyze the language rather than the content ofthe text in order to determine its age. Such an approach requires a historical description and dialect geography of biblical Hebrew against which texts can be compared in order to situate them along a linguistic continuum, and significant advances have been made in developing such a description of biblical Hebrew. Nevertheless, there is still substantial work that must be done to hone this method oflinguistic dating. For this reason, in this study I do not rely upon an analysis of the language itselfto date the pentateuchallegal corpora. For discussion ofthe linguistic approach to dating biblical texts, see, e. g., Avi HUlVitz, "The Use of the Priestly Term 'il1,ll' in Biblical Literature," Tarbiz 40 (1970): 261-67 (in Hebrew); idem, "The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code: A Linguistic Study in Technical Idioms and Terminology," RB 81 (1974): 24-56; idem, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship Benveen the Priestly Source and the Book ofEzekiel (CahRB 20; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1982); idem, "Dating the Priestly Source in Light ofthe Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew a Century After Wellhausen," ZAW 100 (1988): 88-99; idem, "Continuity and Change in Biblical Hebrew: The Linguistic History of a Formulaic Idiom from the Realm of the Royal Court," in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives (ed. Steven E. Fassberg and Avi HUlVitz; Jerusalem: Magnes; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 128-33; Mark F. Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel (JSOTSup 90; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990); Joseph Blenkinsopp, "An Assessment of the Alleged Pre-Exilic Date of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch," ZAW 108 (1996): 495-518; Robert Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology ofBiblical Hebrew Prose (HSM 12; Missoula: Scholars, 1976); BaruchA. Levine, "Late Language in the Priestly Source: Some Literary and Historical ObselVations," in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1983),5: 69-82; Ziony Zevit, "Historical Linguistics and the Dating of Hebrew Texts," HS 46 (2005): 321-26; idem, "Sym-

The Existence, Scope, and Dating of the Holiness Writings

17

David P. Wright has recently argued that the Covenant Collection exhibits a direct literary dependence upon the Laws of Hanunurabi and perhaps other cuneiform sources and that, based on the available evidence of contact between Assyria and Israe1iJudah, this literary borrowing most likely occurred as a single compositional event in the late eighth or seventh century B.C.E. Historical evidence of contact between Assyria and IsraeVIudah is strongest for precisely this period 47 With regard to the date of Deuteronomy, scholars have largely accepted the DeWette hypothesis that connects at least the core of the book of Deuteronomy with the Iosianic restoration of the Ierusalem Temple in 622 B.C.E. Otto has recently highlighted further support for this seventh-century dating for Deuteronomy on the basis of its connections with the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon. 48 The internal evidence of revision that forms the basis for a relative dating of Deuteronomy and the Covenant Collection is wholly consistent with these external clues for dating these texts absolutely. Although there is no similar extra-biblical evidence to support an absolute date for the Holiness Legislation, its dependence upon the Covenant Collection and Deuteronomy, as argued in this study, and the absolute dates that can be ascertained for these texts combine to establish a terminus post quem for the Holiness writings. That is, if the Iosianic date for Deuteronomy is accepted, the Holiness Legislation must postdate 622 B.C.E. Without an accompanying redactional argument,49 proposed dates for this corpus prior to the very end of the seventh century or even the beginning of the sixth century B.C.E. are thus

posium Discussion Session: An Edited Transcription," HS 46 (2005): 371-76; Jan Joosten, "The Distinction Between Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew as Reflected in Syntax," HS 46 (2005): 327-39; idem, "The Disappearance of Iterative WEQATAL in the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System," in Biblical Hebrew in Its Nortmvest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives (ed. Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz; Jerusalem: Magnes; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006),135-47; Ian Young, ed., Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (JSOTSup 369; Edinburgh: T &T Clark, 2(03); idem, "Biblical Texts Cannot be Dated Linguistically," HS 46 (2005): 341-51; Mats Eskhult, "Traces of Linguistic Development in Biblical Hebrew," HS 46 (2005): 353-70. 47 Wright, "The Laws ofHammurabi as a Source," 58-67. For fiuther discussionofNeo-Assyrian contact with Syro-Palestine in the eighth and seventh centuries, see, e. g., Hayim Tadmor, "Assyria and the West: The Ninth Century and its Aftermath," in Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East (ed. H. Goedicke and J.J.M. Roberts; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975),36-48; K. Lawson Younger, Jr., "Recent Study on Sargon II, King of Assyria: Implications for Biblical Studies," in Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Explorations (ed. M.W. Chavalas and K.L. Younger, Jr.; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 288-329. 48 Otto, "Das Deuteronomium als archimedischerPunkt," 321-40. 49 From a purely methodological standpoint, Holiness texts that exhibit no dependence upon laws in the Covenant Collection or Deuteronomy may be viewed as antedating these legal corpora lUlless they can be shown to belong to the same compositional layer as laws that do revise the Covenant Collection or Deuteronomic legislation.

18

Chapter One: The Biblical Legal Corpora and their Cmrespondences

untenable, while a late exilic or even a post-exilic date for the Holiness Legislation is not excluded. 50

Methodological Approach Historical and Literary Issues My approach in this study is essentially historical, but it does not adhere exclusively to any of the classic historical-critical methodologies. Rather, I employ a wide-ranging historical method for analyzing biblical and other ancient Near Eastern texts, advancing a variety oftext-, source-, fonn-, and redaction-critical arguments in support of my larger thesis concerning biblical legal development and the specific interactions between individual laws that I observe. Throughout the study, I rely heavily upon philological and comparative analyses, the foci of which range from detailed granunatical features to broad conceptual ideas. I also consider the literary features of the texts under examination, especially with regard to questions of interpolation and redaction. Because my main focus is potential literary dependencies, I consistently weigh evidence and make judgments concerning the relative chronology of the pericopae examined. Such detenninations are fundamental to the identification of examples of what has been tenned inner-biblical exegesis and can be contrasted with a strictly intertextual approach, which does not necessarily seek to answer the question of genetic dependence or the direction of influence between related texts. 51

50 Recent scholars who offer a similar exilic or post-exilic date for the Holiness Legislation include Cholewinski, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 339--44; GrUnwaldt, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 379-81; Bernard M. Levinson, "The Mamunission ofHenneneutics: The Slave Laws of the Pentateuch as a Challenge to Contemporary Pentateuchal Theory," in Congress Volume, Leiden 2004 (VTSup 109; ed. A. Lemaire; LeidenIBoston: Brill, 2006), 281-324 (at 316-24); Nihan, "The Holiness Code between D and P," 112-15; Eckart Otto, "Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17-26," inLevitikus als Buch (BBB 119; ed. H.-J. Fabry andH.-W. Jiingling; Berlin: Philo, 1999), 125-96; idem, "Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17-26 in der Pentateuchredaktion," in Altes Testament, Forschung und Wirkung: Festschriftfor Henning Gra/Reventlow (ed. Peter Mommer and Winfred Thiel; Frankfurt am MainlNewYork: P. Lang, 1994),65-80. Israel Knohl and Jacob Milgrom contend that the Holiness corpus consists of several strata that date from the late eighth century to the sixth century B.C.E . However, because oftheir estimation of the relationship between Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation, they do not limit the texts to which they assign a pre-Deuteronomic date to pericopae that do not correlate with Deuteronomy. See Knohl, Sanctuary o/Silence, 200-04; Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22, 1361-64. 51 Contrast Lyle Eslinger, "Inner-biblical Exegesis and Inner-biblical Allusion: The Question of Category," VT 42 (1992): 47-58. For a critique of Eslinger, see William H. Schniedewind, '''Are We His People or Not?': Biblical Interpretation During Crisis," Bib 76 (1995): 540-50; BenjaminD. Sommer, "Exegesis, Allusion, and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: AResponse to Lyle Eslinger," VT 46 (1996): 479-89. See below for further discussion of inner-biblical exegesis.

Methodological Approach

19

My historical determinations, however, are based upon the available eVIdence, i. e., the texts themselves, and not upon a reconstructed history of Israel and its religion. While the latter may appear helpful for interpreting texts, and may even be useful in the fonnulation of theories concerning the relationship between the legal corpora, to rely upon a reconstruction of the history of Israel and its religion is to rely upon a scholarly construct and not upon real, tangible evidence. The most reliable foundation, therefore, from which to proceed is one that is squarely centered in the biblical text itself. Moreover, if the relationship between the pentateuchallegal corpora can be established at the literary level, reconstructions of Israelite history can proceed from such analyses with greater certainty. Indeed, this was the process that produced the first and most influential critical history of Israelite religion, Wellhausen's Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. As noted already, the documentary hypothesis had already been essentially formulated before Wellhausen, most notably by Graf. Wellhausen then employed this source-critical theory to reconstruct history, demonstrating the usefulness ofliterary/source criticism for this exercise. 52 I thus avoid considerations of historical legal practice because there is no evidence to corroborate claims for the application of biblical law in ancient Israel. 53 Neither is there significant extra-biblical evidence that sheds light on ancient Israelite practices related to most of the social and religious institutions described in the biblical legal corpora. For this reason, no assertion that contemporary social or religious practice influenced the fonnulation of pentateuchallegislation can be sustained. Rather, I attempt to distinguish consistently between literary (biblical) sources and the historical milieu of the biblical legislator in my evalu-

52 This is not, of course, to advocate a wholesale acceptance of Well hausen's conclusions. Rather, I am suggesting that Wellhausen's approach has been productive in moving the scholarly conversation forward and in elucidating both the biblical text and the history of biblical and ancient Israel. 53 Scholars have not adequately established a Sitz im Leben for biblical law. It has often been assumed that biblical laws were actually practiced, just as scholars have often assumed that cuneiform law collections were applied. More recently, scholars have argued that neither biblical nor cuneiform law collections were normative in their respective societies. Such contentions are based on several clues: first, there is only one citation of a cuneiform law collection in attested records of lawsuits, and even this example is disputed. Second, the ancient Near Eastern law collections, including the biblical law collections, are not comprehensive in scope. For example, although there are laws that address specific examples of homicide, there is no general homicide law in the Laws of Hammurabi, suggesting that this legal collection could not by itself serve the purpose of adjudication in Hammurabi's Babylon. Third, several ancient Near Eastern legal collections are accompanied by a prologue and epilogue that sets their civil laws in an explicitly royal and self-aggrandizing context, suggesting that these law collections may have served a propagandistic purpose. See, e. g., the chapter entitled "The 'Code' of Hammurabi" in Jean Bottero, Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning and the Gods (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 156-84; Raymond Westbrook, "Biblical and Cuneiform Law Codes," RB 92 (1985): 247-Q4 (esp. 248-51).

20

Chapter One: The Biblical Legal Corpora and their Cmrespondences

ation of biblical legal development. In this respect, an analogy to the general problem of differentiating between biblical and historical Israel is helpful. For biblical Israel, scholars have access to the evidence. However, for historical Israel, scholars rarely have access to such sources (to say nothing of the challenges that attends such evidence when it is available). 54 Moreover, in those cases in which extra-biblical sources are available, the latter rarely agree with the biblical text. Such a pattern of evidential disagreement makes it necessary to proceed most carefully when assessing the biblical text's value for history and should require that its witness be corroborated through archaeological evidence and/or non-biblical textual evidence. When biblical and non-biblical sources conflict, the reliability of each source must be evaluated, but experience shows that the biblical text's ideological nature and updated state generally make it a problematic source for recovering the history of ancient Israel. 55 The present study makes a similar distinction between biblical and ancient Israelite law: my aim is the elucidation of biblical law and specifically the relationship between similar pentateuchallaws. I am also attempting to explicate the compositional logic of dependent texts. I do not, however, presume that biblical law necessarily reflects real, ancient Israelite legal practice. Thus, while I am pursuing an historical issue - biblical legislators' interaction with other biblical texts - I am also testing the hypothesis that such legal development can be explained primarily as an intellectual exercise. Immediately recommending such an approach is the comparative wealth of evidence available for this study, for the historical data in this case is the biblical text itself, and my argrunents operate on the literaryltextuallevel. This is not necessarily to deny that there are other sources and influences that drive the formulation of biblical law. But because there is no evidence to support claims to that effect, they cannot be meaningfully evaluated. Likewise, it is not always possible to confirm the state ofa dependent author's source text vis-a-vis the canonical texts now available. 56 Nevertheless, it seems better to pursue a course such as this one when describing 54 For discussion of the use of archaeological evidence in reconstructing ancient Israelite history, see, e. g., Gosta W. Ahlstrom, "The Role of Archaeological and Literary Remains in Reconstructing Israel's History," in The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israel's Past (ed. Diana V. Edelman; JSOTSup 127; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 116-42; Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts (New YOlk: Free Press, 2(01), 14-24,340-55. 55 For discussion of the use of sources for reconstructing Israelite history and diverse opinion on the value of the biblical text in this exercise, see the several essays in Can a 'History of Israel' Be Written? (ed. Lester L. Grabbe; JSOTSup 245; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997). 56 The text-critical evidence available from the ancient translations and from Qumran partially mitigate such concerns regarding the current state of the biblical text vis-a-vis its ancient condition. Moreover, there are times when literary dependence between texts actually provide evidence for correct ancient readings that are questioned by modem scholars. See, e. g., Levinson, "The Birth of the Lemma," 633.

Methodological Approach

21

the development of biblical law, for it proceeds according to the evidence, which is to say, the literary evidence. The goal in this study is thus to understand the development of biblical law, not the actual legal practice of ancient Israel. Such an approach preserves the possibility that future archaeological discoveries may provide evidence for historical influences on the biblical legal corpora (which would, by necessity, require alteration of the hermeneutic employed here and almost certainly the conclusions drawn), even as it attempts to offer a compelling explanation of the evidence currently available. Moreover, based upon the relative success of such a literary analysis, it is possible to gain further insight into the historical intellectual processes in which ancient scribes engaged. This approach can also help to avoid offering unsubstantiated historical explanations for biblical laws that are not as compelling as equally plausible and evidentially supported literary ones. It thus follows that one should always exhaust possible literary/textual explanations before attempting to offer an historical explanation for which there is no direct evidence. The Comparative Method and Literary Dependence In terms of modem interpretive methodology, questions of literary dependence - both within the Bible and outside of it - fall under the larger rubric of comparative analysis and rank among the most fascinating and difficult issues related to the origin, history, and meaning of biblical and other ancient Near Eastern literature 57 This is especially true in the case of biblical and cuneiform law, where correspondences between the legal collections extend from these texts' general structure and fonnulation to their fine details. However, direct interaction bet\veen texts is not limited to legal collections: there are revealing examples of such dependence across the spectrum of literary genres, including wisdom, myth, historiography, and cultic texts - both in poetry and in prose. 58 57 For a discussion of the comparative method as it applies to biblical and ancient Near Eastern law, see Meir Malul, The Comparative Method in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Legal Studies (AOAT 227; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990). See also William W. Hallo, "Compare and Contrast: The Contextual Approach to Biblical Literature," in The Bible in the Light o/Cuneifonn Literature: Scripture in Context III (ed. William W. Hallo et al.; Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 8; Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1990), 1-30; Shemaryahu Talmon, "The Comparative Method in Biblical Interpretation: Principles and Problems," in Literary Studies in the Hebrew Bible: Form and Content: Collected Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1993), 11-49. 58 Within the Bible, the most straightforward and compelling examples of literary revision occur in the book of Chronicles over against its sources of Samuel and Kings. The correspondences between these texts are so extensive that there is no question that the Chronicler had copies of Samuel and Kings before him as he worked. For a helpful parallel presentation of these texts, see Abba Bendavid, Parallels' in the Bible (Jerusalem: Carta, 1972). For a discussion of the Chronicler's use of sources, see, e. g., Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), 14-23 and passim.

22

Chapter One: The Biblical Legal Corpora and their Cmrespondences

Still, for all of these literary parallels, many of which raise the question of direct genetic connection, detennining the nature of the relationships among texts is especially difficult because of the multiple factors involved and because of the interrelatedness of the conclusions drawn. Do texts A and B exhibit a direct literary relationship? What are the necessary conditions for positing such dependence? Once such a genetic relationship is reasonably established, which text serves as the source for the other's refonnulation? What are the criteria for ascertaining the direction of dependence between such texts? The foregoing questions form the most basic level of inquiry and can be multiplied several times over, for the number of possible explanations for similarities between disparate texts increases exponentially when additional issues, such as the possiblity of oral versus written sources or an author's interaction with multiple sources (some of which may no longer be extant), are considered. 59 The following chapters demonstrate this complexity in the case of biblical legal revision and seek to clarifY how the biblical legislators rewrite their sources. Attendant to and underlying questions of literary dependence, particularly when extra-biblical texts are evaluated but also in cases of intra-canonical rewriting, are considerations of the proverbial "motive, means, and opportunity" for the hypothesized exploitation of a source. 60 Does the author have a plausible reason to undertake such a revision? Would the author have the necessary capabilities (e. g., linguistic acumen) to utilize the purported source? Is interaction between the author and the source text in question likely or even possible? Securing a positive answer to each of these questions, though not always possible due to a lack of data, greatly bolsters the strength of a claim of literary dependence. Accordingly, the inability to demonstrate motive, means, and opportunity undennines a scholarly claim for a direct literary relationship between texts. For example, while there are several more or less significant parallels between biblical and Hittite laws, both thematically and in terms oflegal formulation, the considerable geographical, chronological, and linguistic distance between these compositions argues against a theory of direct literary dependence to explain their correspondence. 61 In other words, it is implausible to contend - without 59 For discussion of the multiple types of connections that may exist between texts, see Malul, Comparative Method, 81-91. 60 Malul identifies similar bases for judgment, calling for evaluation of the nature of the proposed dependence, the likelihood of uniqueness rather than coincidence in correspondence, and substantiation for the possibility of dependence (Comparative Method, 87-112). As I discuss below, some scholars have attempted to develop further criteria for determining dependence between texts and the direction of that interaction, many of which are useful for evaluating some ancient texts. 61 For example, Hittite laws §§ 105-07 exhibit significant correspondence with Exod 22:4-5. However, without greater evidence of contact between ancient Israel and Hittite literature, it is highly implausible to suggest that the Covenant Collection author exploited these laws in his composition. See, e.g., Wright, "Laws of Hammurabi," 28; Malul, Comparative Method, 83 n. 3.

Methodological Approach

23

concrete evidence to the contrary - that similarities between biblical and Hittite laws are the result of direct literary dependence. Even though the chronology of the texts in question is undisputed (and thus the direction of any posited dependence would be easily settled), it is unlikely that an Israelite author would have been able to read Hittite legal texts or would even have had access to them. This example highlights the fact that, of the criteria of authorial motive, means, and opportunity, the latter two conditions are more concrete and thus more significant for establishing a direct literary relationship between texts. By contrast, motive is often ambiguous in the composition, collection, and transmission of ancient texts and is therefore an issue especially vulnerable to the creativity of the modern scholar. Still, motive is important once a direct literary relationship is established between two texts, for determining the reason for an author's reformulation of a text can significantly contextualize the content of both source and revision. Likewise, motive is related to and can shed light upon the issue of a revising author's view ofhislher source and its future existence and status. Some scholars, in an attempt to provide a more objective starting point for judging potential literary connections bet\veen ancient texts, have developed criteria that can guide the evaluation of such comparisons. This is especially true in the context of New Testament studies. Richard B. Hays outlines seven criteria for identifYing "intertextual echoes" to Hebrew Bible texts in the letters of Paul. These criteria are (1) availability (the accessibility of the source text to the revising author and/or original readers of the dependent text); (2) volume (the strength ofthe proposed echo, determined on the basis of its strict adherence to its source or the cultural prominence of the text echoed); (3) recurrence (the frequency of references to a particular source by an author); (4) thematic coherence (how the intertextual reference fits into the revising author's argument and how it compares with other examples of intertextuality in the author's work); (5) historical plausibility (the likelihood that the author would have intended an identified intertextual reference); (6) history of interpretation (the extent to which previous interpreters have identified what are presently viewed as intertextual echoes); and (7) satisfaction (the extent to which a proposed example of intertextuality contributes to understanding the text that purportedly contains an intertextual reference). 62 Dennis R. MacDonald develops a similar set of principles for determining dependence between the gospel of Mark and Homer's Iliad and Odyssey. MacDonald's criteria are (1) accessibility (the availability of the source text to the revising author); (2) analogy (the existence of other similar examples of dependence upon the source); (3) density (the number and significance of the contacts between the compared texts); (4) order (the sequence ofthese contacts); 62 Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New HaveniLondon: Yale University Press, 1989),29-32.

24

Chapter One: The Biblical Legal Corpora and their Cmrespondences

(5) distinctiveness (shared idiosyncracies between the texts compared); and (6) interpretability (the marmer in which a dependent text explains or alters its source, or what I have referred to as its "compositional logic"). 63 In the context of synoptic gospel studies, Robert K. McIver and Marie Carroll have recently attempted to apply modem memory research to the question of a text's use of oral versus written sources. They conclude that, outside of specialized literary genres such as poetry, aphorism, and musical lyrics (each of which tends to aid memory), a correspondence of sixteen or more consecutive words unambiguously indicates direct literary dependence of one written text upon another written text. In cases of dependence through memory, the overall meaning of a text is normally transmitted, while changes are introduced into the wording of the source.64 John C. Poirier has critiqued the approach of McIver and Carroll, especially as it applies to the New Testament synoptic problem, pointing out several complicating factors for evaluating textual dependence, including issues of revision and redaction. 65 In the context of pentateuchaI studies, David Carr's work on Exod 34:11-26 directly addresses the question of literary dependence. In his study of this text and its literary parallels, he develops six criteria for detennining the direction of dependence between texts by examining post-biblical examples of revision in which the existence and direction of dependence is undisputed. On the basis of these post-biblical examples, he offers the following criteria, which he then applies to Exod 34: 11-26: A text tends to be later than its "parallel" when it: 1. Verbally parallels that text and yet includes substantial pluses vis-a-vis that text. 2. Appears to enrich its parallel (fairly fully preserved) with fragments from various locations in the Bible (less completely preserved). 3. Includes a plus that fills what could have been perceived as an apparent gap in its parallel.

4. Includes expansive material in character speeches, particularly theophanic speech. 5. Has an element which appears to be an adaptation of an element in the other text to shifting circlllllstances/ideas. 6. Combines linguistic phenomena from disparate strata of the Pentateuch. 66

63 Dennis R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (New HaveniLondon: Yale University Press, 2000), 8-9. 64 Robert K. Mclver and Marie Carroll, "Experiments to Develop Criteria for Determining the Existence of Written Sources, and their Potential Implications for the Synoptic Problem," JBL 121 (2002): 667-87. 65 John C. Poirier, "Memory, Written Sources, and the Synoptic Problem: A Response to Robert K. Mclver and Marie Carroll," JBL 123 (2004): 315-22. 66 Carr, "Method in Determination," 126. For a detailed and convincing study of the relationship between the festival legislation in the Covenant Collection and Exod 34:18-26 and the influence of Priestly and Deuteronomic sources in Exod 34, see Bar-On, "The Festival Calendars," 161-95.

Methodological Approach

25

In a study of Exod 13, Molly M. Zahn employs and slightly modifies these criteria for application to biblical law. But she also makes the important observation that the applicability of Carr's criteria may not extend to examples of dependence in which the texts under consideration are each relatively early. Zahn suggests further that problems associated with a redacted Pentateuch may be a major motivation for the type of textual conflation recognizable in post-biblical and very late biblical texts. The implication, then, is that the pre-redacted status of the texts that pentateuchal authors revise may lead to partially or completely different methods of literary reuse. 67 In other words, it cannot be assumed that earlier biblical revision and that of the late-biblical and post-biblical period reflect an identical method of revision. To be sure, there are points of contact betw"een literary revisions from these different eras, as evidenced in the texts examined in this study, which exhibit some of the characteristics of dependence that Carr highlights. However, because the criteria that Carr and Zahn employ derive from texts that post-date many biblical texts by several centuries, they almost certainly understand their sources in a significantly different way (i. e., in tenns of the developing canon) than the biblical legislators whose compositions are examined in this study, an issue to which I will retum in the concluding chapter of this study. This different view of source material and its status partially calls into question the usefulness of these criteria, as well as many of those developed in the context of New Testament studies. Though my analysis considers many of the measures developed by other scholars in their considerations of literary dependence among various ancient texts, I have chosen not to apply any existing set of criteria for characterizing the legal revisions examined here. Instead, I will focus upon the particularities of each example of proposed literary reuse, and my method of analyzing legal parallels will grow out of these textual comparisons. Put differently, this study presumes no litmus tests for determining literary dependence. While my analysis exhibits a certain methodological consistency across the three major topics examined, it also confirms that the contingencies of each example of revision necessitate a slightly different approach. Some textual features, such as common sequence and extended syntactic parallels,68 are more reliable indicators ofliter-

67 Zahn, "Reexamining Empirical Models: The Case of Exodus 13," inDas Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (ed. Eckart Otto and Reinhard Achenbach; FRLANT 206; G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 36-55. See also Cynthia Edenburg's study of 1 Sam 24 and 26, where she also offers criteria for determining dependency between texts and applies them to these two David stories ("How (not) to Murder a King: Variations on a Theme in 1 Sam 24; 26," SJOT 12 [1998]: 64-83). Fora discussionofthe Psalmist's reuse ofPentateuchalliterary sources, see the recent dissertation of Jeffery M. Leonard ("Historical Traditions in Psalm 78" [Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 2006], 48-63). 68 See, e. g., Lyle Eslinger, "Inner-biblical Exegesis and Inner-biblical Allusion," 55.

26

Chapter One: The Biblical Legal Corpora and their Cmrespondences

ary connection, but the absence of such features does not necessarily preclude dependence. As I discuss especially in the context of slavery laws (Chapter Three), differences in detail do not a priori undennine arguments for literary dependence between texts. This study instead confirms that biblical legislators reserve for themselves great freedom in their reconceptualizations of source material. Their revisions are often quite complex and so extensive that the final product differs markedly from its legal patrimonies. Still, traces of literary dependence are often left behind by a revising author, both advertently and inadvertently. Intentional references are normally overt and at times even polemical. In any event, they are generally more easily recognized than unintentional or sublimated markers of dependence. Inadvertent traces of reuse, as discussed in the following chapters, are identifiable through a combination of their correspondence with elements in a potential source text and their not-fully-integrated status in their current context. 69 Some inadvertent or sublimated markers of dependence are fonnal, as I argue with regard to the legal formulation of material borrowed from the Covenant Collection in the Deuteronomic asylum law (Chapter Two). In this case, the stereotypical style of the Deuteronomic author yields to the legal formulation of his source. Similarly, some examples of Numeruswechsel in Lev 25 point to the adoption of differently formulated source material and thus direct literary dependence (Chapter Three). Other inadvertent markers of dependence relate to content (or lack thereof), as I discuss in my treatment of the Holiness Legislation's tithe law and its omission of a(n expected) command requiring all lay Israelites to tithe (Chapter Four). The harsh treatment of foreigners permitted in Lev 25 is uncharacteristic of the Holiness legislator's approach to foreigners more generally and thus also points to the non-Holiness origin of this perspective (Chapter Three). In these instances and others, details that typifY one law or legal source prove not-fully-integrated into and thus inappropriate to another law. Because they otherwise correspond with details in thematically related laws, not-fully-integrated features within biblical laws are oftentimes especially important markers of reuse .

69 A paradigmatic example of such an inadvertent marker of dependence outside of the legal corpora is the use of the term C'rD''?W in Prov 22:20. As scholars have long recognized, Prov 22:17-24:11 (and probably also vv. 12-22 in chapter 24) exhibit marked similarity to the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope. In light of the strong thematic and even extended verbal correspondences between these texts, the enigmatic use ofC'rD"7rD in Prov 22:20 is best explained as a borrowing from Amenemope 30, which refers specifically to the thirty paragraphs of its text (thus reading MT as C'~). In its Egyptian context, the reference to thirty sections is fully coherent. However, it is not well-integrated into Prov 22. Thus, in addition to the thematic and literary correspondences between Amenemope and Prov 22:17-24:22 that suggest a direct, literary relationship between them, the appearance of the poorly integratedC'rD''?W inProv 22:20 becomes the proverbial "smoking gun" that demonstrates dependence. For recent discussion of these issues, see John A. Emerton, "The Teaching of Amenemope and Proverbs xxii 17-xxiv 22: Further Reflections on a Long-Standing Problem," VT 51 (2001): 431-65.

Methodological Approach

27

Such intense focus upon individual instances of legal comparison and their own unique characteristics necessitates a flexibility to pursue the evidence as it appears and a willingness to analyze it creatively. This flexibility is methodologically justifiable because, as noted already, the purpose of this study is not to apply a modem method of interpretation consistently but rather to discover the various techniques undertaken by biblical authors to revise their sources. I will therefore seek to create an explanation that plausibly accounts for both the connections perceived between the texts in question and the process by which such literary ties were formed. Hypotheses can then be tested against the literary evidence marshaled in support of them, as well as any direct or indirect historical evidence that may apply to the texts under examination. Moreover, through an examination of multiple examples of literary dependence, tentative patterns emerge, even if precise and detailed criteria for detennining dependence cannot be consistently applied. Inner-biblical Exegesis

Though my method differs from that of others who have examined hypothesized cases ofliterary dependence, it does not chart an entirely new course. Rather, my approach reflects and is informed by the studies of several scholars who have sought to demonstrate the existence of literary revision not only in the post-biblical period but also within the Bible itself. In his groundbreaking study of Psalm 89, Nahum Sarna coins the tenn "inner biblical exegesis" to describe evidence of the psalmist's midrashic-type engagement with an authoritative source text (2 Sam 7:4-17). Sarna compares this exegetical method to similar interpretive revisions that date from the Old Babylonian period to the early Common Era70 Since this early study, the label "inner-biblical exegesis" has been adopted by biblical scholarship generally to describe the phenomenon of interpretational revision that is observable between what are now canonical texts, and the task of identifying such ancient interpretation has been successfully pursued by many scholars, most notably Michael Fishbane and Bernard Levinson 71 Fishbane's

70 Nahum Sarna, "Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis," in Biblical and Other Essays (ed. Alexander Altmann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963),29-46. 71 For a brief description of inner-biblical exegesis, see Michael Fishbane, "Inner-biblical Exegesis," inHebrewBible!OldTestament: The History o/its Interpretation (2 vols.; ed. Magne Srebo; G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 1: 33-48. As Fishbane demonstrates, examples of inner-biblical exegesis have been identified across the canon. For an up-to-date overview of important works on inner-biblical exegesis generally and especially pertaining to legal revision, see the helpful bibliographical essay in Bernard M. Levinson, L 'Henmineutique de l'innovation: Canon et exegese dans I 'Israel biblique (Le livre et Ie rouleau 24; trans. V. Senechal and J.-P. Sonnet; Brussels: Editions Lessius, 2006), 69-98. For examples of innerbiblical exegesis in the Prophets, see, e. g., Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998); Mark J. Boda and

28

Chapter One: The Biblical Legal Corpora and their Cmrespondences

various studies of inner-biblical exegesis, the most extensive and prominent of which is his magisterial Biblica!Interpretation in Ancient Israel, grow out of a tradition-historical approach. He thus conceptualizes legal development in terms of the growth of ancient Israelite traditions, employing terminology such as traditio and traditum to describe the process of exegetical refonnulation and the literary source that is revised.72 One general critique ofFishbane's analysis is his failure to address the viewpoints of source critics in his conclusions concerning literary dependence among biblical texts. Tradition-historical analysis is a fundamentally different (and some would suggest irreconcilably opposed") starting point to that of source criticism. While Fishbane is certainly cognizant of the Documentary Hypothesis, he does not interact significantly with it in his attempt to delineate historical relationships between Torah texts. A beneficial addition to his approach, which I apply here in my own analysis, is a definition and arrangement of posited examples of inner-biblical exegesis according to pentateucha! source. Such an overarching theory concerning the origin and identity of texts compared serves as an important control for portions of this study. Beyond identifYing examples of direct literary dependence and describing the extent of the connections between the texts in question, I will attempt to reconstruct what David P. Wright has termed the "compositional logic" of the revising authors - the manner in which these legislators use their sources and the reasoning that undergirds their legal refonnulations. In my view, compositionallogic extends from an author's broad reconceptualization of his source to the mechanical details of rewriting his literary forebear. Thus to describe the compositional logic of a revisionary text is to attempt to reconstruct its author's modes and progressions of thought as he creatively engaged his source. As Wright notes, such a task involves a measure of conjecture,74 but the availability of both source and receptor text compels at least an attempt at describing the process of literary revision. The potential benefits of reconstructing a text's compositional logic are substantial. Ideally, such an analysis will provide a window on the intellectual world of the revisionary author, thereby contributing to the larger pursuit of understanding what the Bible is and what its contents meant in antiquity. Moreover, such an assessment provides a point for comparison with other examples of ancient Michael A. Floyd, ed., Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9-14 (JSOTSup 370; London: Sheffield Academic, 2003). 72 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 6. For Fishbane, the term traditum describes the content that is borrowed by an author from an extant source, while traditio describes the process ofthis borrowing and interpretive revision. 73 RolfRendtorff, The Problem ofthe Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch (trans. John J. Scullion; JSOTSup 89; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 11. 74 Wright, "The Compositional Logic ofthe Goring Ox and Negligence Laws," 96-97.

Methodological Approach

29

literary revision, both biblical and extra-biblical, providing important data for understanding ancient literature. Finally, because all of the evidence employed in such an argument is readily accessible, the narrative created to describe the later author's exegetical composition can be easily evaluated. The core of this analysis appears in Chapters Two through Four, where I address the topics of asylum, seventh-year release and manumission, and tithes in their various appearances in the pentateuchallegal corpora. In these chapters, I focus my attention primarily upon the biblical texts themselves and argue for a direct literary relationship between topically related laws. However, as I have noted, my concern goes beyond simply demonstrating that a direct literary relationship exists among these texts. This study seeks to make a larger statement concerning the biblical authors' method of revision. The final chapter of this book brings together these various methodological observations in order to offer a more comprehensive view of pentateuchal legal revision and especially the intent of biblical legislators toward the source texts that they reconceptualize.

Chapter Two

The Urbanization of Asylum Reconceptualizations of Refuge in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation Although recent scholarship has renewed attention to similarities among the pentateuchallegal corpora, the fruits of such studies have not led to appreciable consensus. In the case of biblical asylum laws, a survey of current studies of these texts reveals widely differing opinions concerning relationships among the laws themselves (Exod 21: 12-14, Deut 19: 1-13, and Num 35:9-34) as well as continued disagreement on the relationship of this legislation to the narrative of its implementation in Josh 20: 1-9. This disagreement extends from the broad conceptualization of asylum to the interpretation of peculiarities in the various laws and includes debate concerning the existence and nature of any potential literary relationships between these texts. In fonning their conclusions, scholars have asked several important questions, such as, What is the nature ofthe refuge prescribed in the different laws? Is asylum an actual historical institution once practiced in ancient Israel, or is it an unpracticed, literary creation? If asylum was actually practiced in ancient Israel, do the pentateuchal laws accurately reflect historical custom? And, whether asylum was a historical institution or not, what motivates the biblical legislators' diverse asylum models? What is the chronology of the different asylum laws? Is there evidence of internal development within the individual texts that offers clues for their interpretation and/or historical import? Are the similarities between the asylum laws close enough to posit a literary relationship bet\veen these texts? If so, which texts serve as sources for subsequent compositions, and how do the authors of the latter texts use and revise their sources? While the special focus ofthis project is the relationship between the Deuteronomic and Holiness Legislation, the case of asylum requires a detailed examination of asylum in the Covenant Collection as well, for the relative chronology of Deut 19:1-13 and Num 35:9-34 can be demonstrated by examining the literary development from altar asylum to city asylum in the biblical legal corpora. The revision of Exod 21: 12-14 also provides important data for understanding biblical legal revision more broadly. So too does an analysis of Josh 20, which proves to be a continuation and further development of the methods of creative revision observable in both Deut 19: 1-13 and Num 35:9-34. In the following

32

Chapter Two: The Urbanization ofAsylum

pages, then, I shall offer a new analysis of the relevant texts in order to clarifY the relationship between the pentateuchal asylum laws; to highlight the significance of each law's peculiarities, including Josh 20's fulfillment narrative; and to shed light upon the nature and practice of legal composition and revision in ancient Israel.

Asylum in Exodus 21:12-14 and Deuteronomy 19: 1-13 Exod 21: 12 contains a succinct legal prescription instituting capital punishment for homicide, which is then immediately followed in vv. 13-14 by conditions regarding the intentionality of the killer: Exod 21:12 14

C'pO 1? 'MID' ,,'? nlM C'n?Mm n'~ M? 'IDM' 13 no,' n,c no, ID'M n~o 12 n,c? unpn 'n~lo C»O no,»~ 'l,n? .,», ?» ID'M ,r ,~, 14 nOID OU' 'IDM 12 One who strikes a person, who then dies, shall surely be put to death. 13 But he who did not lie in wait, but rather God moved his hand I will set up a place for you to which he may flee. 14 But if a man plots against his neighbor to kill him craftily, you shall take him from my altar to die.

Deut 19: 1-13 likewise addresses the issue of asylum for manslaughter, but its law omits an initial prohibition against homicide, even as its treatment of intent and the accompanying requirements for accommodating the manslayer are more extensive than those of the Covenant Collection: Deut19:113 C~iM nM 1" lru 1'il"M m,' i0M C''Ili nM 1'rr,M mil' n'i:l' ':l 1 no,' 'IDM 1~'M 1'n~ 1? ?"~ C',» ID'?ID 2 cn'~' cn"»~ ~ID" enID," nw 1?'nl' 'IDM 1~'M ?,:Jl nM rIIl?ID' 1"n 1? pn 3 nnlD'? 1? 1nl 1'n?M nM il:l' i0M 'm ilO!%) 01~' i0M n~iil i~i m1 4 n~i":l il00 01~" il'il1 1'il"M ~~n? ,»,~ ,n», nM M~' 'IZIM' 5 CID?ID?one,? MlID "? M." n», '?~ 10»' M,n no, ,n», nM M~O' r»n 10 ?l'~n 7IIl' r»n m~? 11'l~ ", nml' C'~» 1)'0il1 cn' ':l ~iil 'inM C'il .,~ t'J'i' 1!J 6 'n1 il"Mil C'i.uil nnM "M OU'

m"

?» 7 C'fD?1D ?,one ,? M,n MllD M? ,~ n,o ~~!DC )'111 ,?, IDm ,mm 1"" "~" ,~ 1?:Jl nM 1'n?M mn' ~'n" CM' 8 1? ?"~ C',» ID?ID 'OM? 1'~C '~lM P n" ,01Dn '~9 1'roM? nn? ,~, 'IZIM r'Mn ?~ nM 1? 1nl' 1'roM? »~lDl 'ID"~ ro??, 1'n?1II mn' nM n~nM? c,'n 1'~C '~lM 'IZIM nnlD»? nMm n1llcn ?~ 'Pl C, 1~1D' M?, 10 n?Mn ID?lDn ?» C',» ID?ID 'UI 1? n!lO" c'c'n ?~ ,,~,,~ ~0 0'M il'il'

':l,

11 0'01

1'''.1' il'il1 il"m 1" 1m 1'il"M m1' i0M 1~iM :Jip:J

'lpl ,n?ID' 12 ?Mn c',»n nnM ?M Ol' no, !D~l .'~m ,'?» cp, ,? ~'M' ,n»,? c, m»~' ,'?» 1l'» 0111n "? 13 ne, c,n ?"l ,,~ ,nM unl' CIDO ,nM ,np?, ",» 1? ~,~, ?M'ID'C 'pm 1 \¥hen the LORD your God cuts off the nations whose land the LORD your God is giving to you, and when you possess them and dwell in their cities and in their houses, 2 you shall set aside three cities for yourself in the midst of your land which the LORD your

Asylum in Exodus 21:12-14 and Deuteronomy 19:1-13

33

God is giving to you to possess. 3 You shall measure the way and divide into thirds the border of your land which the LORD your God is causing you to inherit, that every killer may flee thither. 4 Now this is the stipulation concerning the killer who may flee thither and live: (he must be) one who strikes his neighbor without knowledge and who did not hate him previously, 5 or one who, when he goes with his neighbor into the forest to chop wood, his hand swings the ax to cut the wood, but the iron slips from the wood and finds his neighbor, who dies. He is one who may flee to one of these cities and live, 6 lest the blood avenger pursue the manslayer in his rage and overtake him and kill him because the way is great even though it was not a capital case, for the manslayer had not hated him previously. 7 Therefore I am commanding you, saying, 'You shall set aside three cities.' 8 But when the LORD your God expands your border, just as he swore to your fathers, and he gives to you all of the land that he promised to give to your fathers 9 (if you are careful to do all of this commandment which I am commanding you this day to love the LORD your God and to walk in his ways at all times), you shall add for yourself another three cities in addition to these three. 10 And thus innocent blood shall not be shed in the midst of your land which the LORD your God is giving to you as an inheritance, which would cause bloodguilt upon you. 11 But if a man hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and rises against him and strikes him mortally, and he dies, and he (i. e., the killer) then flees to one of these cities, 12 the elders of his to-wn shall send for him and take him from there and give him into the hand of the blood avenger, and he shall die. 13 You shall not have pity upon him, but you shall purge the innocent blood from Israel, and it shall go well for you.

Considered by many scholars to be the clearest example of literary dependence among the biblical asylum laws, the genetic relationship posited between Exod 21: 12-14 and Deut 19: 1-13 has recently been called into question. In her book, Homicide in the Biblical World, l Pamela Barmash investigates the development of what she calls "the places of refuge" (in order to include both altar and city asylum under a single moniker) in the Hebrew Bible 2 Barmash examines the key pentateuchal texts concerning unintentional homicide (Exod 21: 12-14; Num 35:9-34; Deut 4:41-43; 19: 1-13) as well as several other biblical texts that address similar issues (1 Kgs 1:50-53; 2:28-34; Josh 20:1-9; Neh 6:10-13; Pss 15:1; 17:8; 27:5; 57:2; 59:17-18; 61:5; 144:2). She argues against the widely held view first espoused by Wellhausen that the institution of asylum in ancient Israel developed from altar refuge to city refuge. 3 1 Pamela Bannash, Homicide in the Biblical World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). I cite Bannash's analysis regularly for two reasons. First, it is the most recent contribution to the discussion of biblical asyhlln laws. Second, it was in the context of evaluating her work that my views on Deuteronomic asyhlln developed. Thus while I disagree significantly with Bannash's analysis, I am indebted to her presentation of the evidence and to her discussion ofthe issues. 2 Bannash, Homicide in the Biblical World, 71-93. 3 Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 33, 162. In addition to the commentaries, see the several studies devoted specifically to the pentateuchallhexateuchal asylum laws, including N.M. Nicolsky, "Das Asylrecht in Israel," ZAW 48 (1930): 146-75; M. David, "Die Bestirnmungen fiber die Asylsilidte in Josua XX," DtSt 9 (1951): 30-48; Moshe Greenberg, "The Biblical Conception of Asylum," JBL 78 (1959): 125-32; Henry McKeating, "The Development of the Law on

34

Chapter Two: The Urbanization ofAsylum

Exodus 21: 12-14 and the Question of Altar Asylum

Barmash first seeks to make a clear distinction between two fundamentally different types of asylum: (1) the political sanctuary sought by Adonijah, Joab (1 Kgs 1:50-53; 2:28-34), and Nehemiah (Neh 6:10-13); and (2) asylum for homicide, which is the subject of the pentateuchal refuge legislation as well as Josh 20:1-9 4 She also argues that refuge for homicide in Exod 21:13-14 is not clearly altar asylum. Specifically, she notes thatthe word C1ptl in Exod 21: 13 has an ambiguous meaning, for C1ptl ("place") can contextually carry the technical sense of "sacred site," as is the case in Exod 20:24 and in many instances, for example, in Deuteronomy. C'P1:l can also have the specific sense of ".1' "city; town" (Deut 21:19; Ruth 4:10)5 However, C1ptl often retains its general sense Homicide in Ancient Israel," VT 35 (1975): 46-68; A. Graeme Auld, "Cities of Refuge in Israelite Tradition," JSOT 10 (1978): 26--40; Michael Fishbane, "Biblical Colophons, Textual Criticism and Legal Analogies," CEQ 42 (1980): 438--49; Jacob Milgrom, "Sancta Contagion and Altar/City Asylum," in Congress Volume Vienna 1980 (VTSup 32; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 278-310; Alexander Rofe, "Joshua 20: Historico-Literary Criticism Illustrated," in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (ed. Jeffrey H. Tigay; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 131-147; Alexander Rofe, "The History ofthe Cities of Refuge in Biblical Law," in Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation (London and New York: T&T Clark, 2002), 121-47; repro from Studies in Bible ScrHier 31 (1986); Cornelius Houtman, "Der Altar als Asylstatte im alten Testament: Rechtsbestimmung (Ex. 21, 12-14) und Praxis (I Reg. 1-2)," RB 103 (1996): 343--66; Timothy M. Willis, The Elders ofthe City: A Study ofthe Elders-Laws in Deuteronomy (SBLMS 55; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 89-144; Ludwig Schmidt, "Leviten- undAsylsilidte in Num. XXXV und Jos. XX; XXI 1-42," VT 52 (2002): 103-21. 4 Such a distinction between asylum for political intrigue and asylum for homicide seems hypercritical, especially in narrative texts (the Joab and Adonijah stories) for which no particular extant legislative corpus is nonnative or even consistently operative. The lUlderlying motivation is the same in both cases of political intrigue and homicide: the perpetrator seeks refuge from a socially legitimated fonn of revenge. It is certainly no accident that Adonijah and Joab each seek asyhun at the sanctuary/altar (and that Nehemiah is encouraged to do so) and not in some other context. 5 BaruchA. Levine similarly notes that the noun C'lpO can mean both "cult site" and "city" ("l'), citing the same two verses that Bannash cites (Deut 21: 19; Ruth 4: 10). However, contra Bannash, Levine views ancient Israelite asylum as developing from altar to city refuge in response to Deuteronomic cult centralization. Levine also argues that these asylum cities were chosen precisely because, prior to centralization of worship, they had housed cultic shrines. This seems to be the import of the parallel he draws between C,PC and ,',Ll (Numbers 21-36 [AB 4A; New York: Doubleday, 2000], 566-68). However, note his (potentially contradictory) statement concerning the asylum cities in Deut 4:41-43: "It is somewhat ironic that the towns selected under the Deuteronomic policy, echoed by the Deuteronomist, may have had a history as legitimate cult sites at an earlier time. In fact, they may have continued to operate, but cultic references are consistently avoided in Deuteronomy precisely in order to deny them legitimacy. In summary, it can be stated that the right of asylum is cultic in origin, and that changes in the allocation of sacred space created the need to adapt the asyhun system, affording new venues of access" (568). Thus for Levine, it appears that Deuteronomic refuge cities are paradoxically both sacred and secular: the Deuteronomic author was constrained to choose cities of refuge based on their previous sacred character, even as he asserted their secular character. For my own views on these issues, see below.

Asylum in Exodus 21:12-14 and Deuteronomy 19:1-13

35

of "place," as evidenced both throughout the Bible generally as well as in the Covenant Collection (Exod 23:20,' referring to the land). Barrnash claims that the sense of C1pO in Exod 21: 13 remains unclear but that it certainly does not refer to the nJto ("altar") in Exod 21:14, for if Exod 21: 13 meant "altar," it could simply have employed the term nJto 7 She similarly rejects the possibility that n:m~ in v. 14 is a synecdochic reference to t:npc in the previous verse. Instead, the use of different terminology in vv. 13 and 14 suggests to Barrnash that the two locations should be distinguished from each other. She concludes that Exod 21: 14 confirms only that an intentional killer can be arrested anywhere, even at an altar, a ritual area normally restricted to all but authorized cultic personnel, and cannot be equated with the C1pO in v. 13. Barmash goes on to suggest later that Exod 21: 13-14 could even envision either sanctuary asylum or city asylum, for other biblical legislation concerning homicide refuge does not present its city asylum as fundamentally innovative 8 These issues all relate to the interpretation of asylum in the Covenant Collection alone and should be addressed on their own terms before turning to the Deuteronomic asylum law. Barrnash's discussion of the word C1pO in Exod 21:13 does not adequately consider all of the available evidence, and thus her conclusion for its meaning is at one point overly conservative and at another harrnonistic. Her complete separation of Exod 21: 13 from Exod 21: 14 is equally unwarranted. With regard to C1pO in v. 13, it is important to note that the homi6 The parameters of the Covenant Collection are debated, and some scholars view Exod 23:20 as outside of the strict boundaries of the Covenant Collection proper. For a discussion of the boundaries of the Covenant Collection and especially the place ofExod 23:20-33, see, e. g., Criisemann, Torah, 112-15, 178-81, 195-200. 7 On this point, Bannash follows Greenberg, "The Biblical Conception of Asylum," 125. Cf. also Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 121-22 n. 15. Haran's conclusions are similar to those of Bannash: he suggests that city asylum and altar asylum coexisted in ancient Israel and that Exod 21:13 refers to city asyhun. He states, "The characteristic, quasi-technical expressions 10' ~iidah, 'aser yiinils siimmiih, which emerge both in v. 13 and in the P and D sections dealing with the cities of refuge (cf. Num 35: 11, 15,20,22,25-26; Deut 19:3-4; Josh 20:3,6,9), as well as additional considerations, give good reason for believing that only a city of refuge is meant in this verse" (Temples and Temple Service, 121 n. 15). He also suggests that Exod 21:13-14 represent an ascending order of asyhun power: the altar (v. 14) is a more powerful refuge than the city (v. 13), translating in v. 14, "You shall take him from my very altar." Haran's arguments are lUlconvincing. In the first case, it is hardly clear that the "characteristic, quasi-technical expressions" in Exoo 21: 13 that accord with other pentateuchal asylum legislation require this verse to refer to city asylum. Moreover, Haran leaves undefined what the "additional considerations" are that suggest city asylum in this verse. In the second case, the syntax ofv. 14 and the logic ofvv. 12-14 do not necessitate a translation of'TOrc in v. 14 as "my very altar." Neither is an adverb such as t:ll or t'JM, which would substantiate such a translation, attested. Finally, even if such a translation is accepted, it does not justify lUlderstanding vv. 13-14 as legislating city and altar asylum, let alone a hierarchical relationship between these disparate places of refuge. 8 Bannash, Homicide in the Biblical World, 76-80.

36

Chapter Two: The Urbanization ofAsylum

cide law in Exod 21: 12-14 seems to be related to the altar law in Exod 20:24-26. Though she does not address it at length, Barmash considers and rejects such a connection, for she critiques Ludger Schwienhorst-Schonberger's contention that, in light of Exod 20:24-26, the tl1pl:l in v. 13 and the n:J11:l in v. 14 refer to the same place. For Schwienhorst-SchOnberger, the distinction is that the tl1pl:l is chosen by the deity while the n:J11:l is constructed by humans.' Several scholars, however, including David P. Wright, have argued that the homicide law in the Covenant Collection is related to and borrows from the altar law that precedes it. Such a connection is evidenced by the strong lexical correspondences between these laws, the partial second person formulation ofthe laws, and the first person speech of the deity in both the altar law and the homicide law. Such second person formulation and first person speech is otherwise unattested in the central casuistic section of this legal collection but finds its natural analogue in the apodictic formulation of Exod 20:24-26. 10 The following display highlights the correspondence between Exod 20:24 and Exod 21:13-14: 11 9 Ludger Schwienhorst-Sch6nberger,Das Bundesbuch (Ex 20,22-23,33): Studie zu seiner Entstehung und Theologie (BZAW 188; BerliniNew York: Walter de Gruyter, 1990),40--41. Note, however, that Schwienhorst-Sch6nberger considers Exod 21:13-14 to be literarily secondary (40). Moshe Weinfeld similarly argues that Exod 21 :13-14 refer to the same cultic location: "C1pC in this context, like the Arabic maqam, refers to a holy place and a temple, and thus the reference is to a temple that affords refuge" (Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East [2nd ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000], 123). 10 Wright, "The Laws ofHammurabi as a Source," 18. Several scholars have argued that the participial laws in Excxl21: 12, 15-17 (and for some, 22: 17-19) were originally independent of the casuistic laws that characterize Exod 21 :2-22:16 (see, e. g., Criisemann, Torah, 144-51) and that Excxl21 :13-14, which introduce the issues of inadvertent killing and asyhun, are a later, even post-Deuteronomic/post-Priestly, addition to the Covenant Collection (see, e. g., MosM Anbar, "L'infiuence deuteronomique sur Ie Ccxle de l' Alliance: Ie cas d'Exode 21: 12-17," ZAER 5 [1999]: 165-66). Admitting the relation between Excxl21: 13-14 and Exod 20:24-26, it can then be argued that the altar law is also a later addition to the Covenant Collection. Ifthis is the case, then the direction of dependence argued in this study - Deuteronomy depends upon Exodus - would have to be reversed. However, Wright's study of the Covenant Collection in relation to the Laws ofHammurabi (cited previously in this note) effectively quells this issue: Wright argues that the Covenant Collection employs the Laws ofHammurabi (LH) as a source and controlling template for its composition, following the sequence of laws in Hammurabi in its arrangement both of material it culls from Hammurabi as well as material it derives from other sources. Thus, the fact that LH 206-207 concerns inadvertent homicide suggests that Exod 21 :13-14, while likely mcxlifying a participial law that the Covenant Collection author derives from another, perhaps native source, does not arise from a different compositional event than the one in which LH selVes as the template for the Covenant Collection author (Wright, "The Laws ofHammurabi as a Source," 17-18). Likewise, because ofthe clear correspondence between Exod 21: 13-14 and Exod 20:24-26, it is unnecessary to presume that the altar law is a late addition (cf. DavidP. Wright, "The Compositional Logic of the Goring Ox and Negligence Laws," 111 n. 42; 141 n. 117; Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Henneneutics, 11-52; idem, "Is the Covenant Code an Exilic Composition? A Response to John Van Seters," in In Search of Pre-exilic Israel [ed. John Day; London: Continuum, 2004], 272-325 [esp. 297-315]). For discussion of the relation of the altar law to LH, see Wright, "The Laws of Hammurabi as a Source," 43-44; Wright, "The Compositional Logic of the Goring Ox and Negligence Laws,"

Asylum in Exodus 21:12-14 and Deuteronomy 19:1-13 Exod 20:24 12

37

"llll~ nM "l'0~1D nil' "l'n~» nil "~» nn~l1 ,~ nlD»n nO'1l n~lO l'ro,~, "l'~M M'~ ,CID nM "~lM 'IDM !llRlm ~~~ "l'P~ nM'

You shall make an earthen altar for me, and you shall sacrifice upon it your burnt offerings and your well-being offerings, your sheep and your cattle. In every place in which I declare my name I will corne to you and bless yoU. 13 Exod 21: 13 14

,IDM ~ "l~ 'nolD' "'~ nlM o'n~t\n1 n'~ ~ 'IDM' 13 m07 unpn ~n:ltO 0.1'0 i10'D::l ,~,i17 'i1D' 7.1' tD'M ,r' ':J, 14

nOID O'l'

13 But he who did not lie in wait, but rather God moved his hand, I will establish for you a place to which he may flee. 14 But if a man plots against his neighbor to kill him treacherously, you shall take him from my altar to die.

For her part, Barmash recognizes that 011'0 in Exod 20:24 is obviously cullic in nature,14 but she does not consider this verse important for understanding 01pO in 21:13. In light of the connection between the altar and homicide laws, however, considerable clarity is shed upon the meaning of01PO here. The most natural reading of 01pO in Exod 21: 13 is as a cultic site at which there would be an altar. 15 The suggestion that the background for the legislation in Exod 21: 13-14 could be either sanctuary asylum or city asylum can likewise be refuted. While she rightly recognizes that I:l1pO can carry the precise meaning of 1'll "city, town," the only examples of I:l1pO as "city, town" that Barmash adduces are very far removed from the verse under examination. 16 In fact, it is unlikely that one would ever even consider rendering C,PO in Exod 21: 13 as "city, town" if not for the influence of the asylum legislation in Num 35:9-34 and Deut 4:41-43; 19: 1-13, for 01pl:l does not carry the sense of "city, town" anywhere else in the 2-3 n. 3. I thank Professor Wright for generously sharing with me an advance copy of this manuscript. 11 Second person forms are underscored with a single line. First person forms are lUlderscored with a double line. Lexical correspondences are marked with shading or wavy lines. 12 All translations of biblical texts are my own. 13 For a grammatical discussion ofthe phrase tlf!Oi1 ":J:t and ajustification for its rendering as "in every place," see Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics, 32 n. 18; Zakovitch, "Boomerang," *60. 14 The cultic connotation of the O,PO in Exod 20:24 is indicated by the presence of an altar and the sacrifices performed as well as by the deity's corning (*M':t) there and blessing (*~~) the people, all activities integrally connected to a sanctuary and not necessarily to a city. 15 So also Otto: "Ex 21 , 13 meintmit,ich habe dir einen Ort (OiP~) bestimmt, an den erfiieht' ein Lokalheiligturn. Die F ortsetzlUlg in Ex 21, 14,von meinem Altar ('t:T~tp) sollst du ibn reWen' 11i13t keinen Zweifel an diesem Verstandnis von Oip~ als,Heiligtum'" (Das Deuteronomium: Politische Theologie und Rechtsrefonn in Judah und Assyrien [BZAW 284; Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999], 254). 16 As noted above, Bannash cites Deut 21: 19 and Ruth 4: 10. Additionally, O,PO unambiguously carries the specific meaning of,'.v in Gen 18:24,26; 19:12, 14; 28:19; Jer 19:12; and Amos 4:6.

38

Chapter Two: The Urbanization ofAsylum

Covenant Collection or in the Sinai narrative in which it is embedded. The possibility that Exod 21: 13-14 could envision city asylum originates from just such a conflationary interpretation oftl1pC and should therefore be rejected.!7 Exodus 21: 12-14, Deuteronomy 19: 1-13, and the Origin of City Asylum Notwithstanding the foregoing arguments, one should not completely disregard a harmonistic interpretation oftl1pC in Exod 21: 13, for it points to a problem in the prevailing view that altar asylum preceded and gave way to city asylum in ancient Israel. Like the scholars with whom she disagrees, Barmash's concern is the historical development of the places of refuge in ancient Israel, and she addresses this development from altar asylum in Exod 21:12-14 to city asylum in Deut 19:1-13 by rejecting the argument that Exod 21:12-14 refers to altar asylum at all. Curiously, though she claims that these texts share the conception ofthe city as refuge place and admits to extensive Deuteronomic borrowing from elsewhere in the Covenant Collection (e.g., the slavery laws in Exod 21:2-11 and Deut 15:12-18), Barmash contends that there is no genetic relationship at all between Exod 21: 12-14 and Deut 19: 1_13 18 As will be demonstrated below, this view is untenable. Nevertheless, the underlying issue remains. Even if it is accepted that Exod 21:12-14 establishes the altar as a place of refuge, the question of how one moves from altar asylum to city asylum persists. In other words, why does Deuteronomy innovate with regard to the place of refuge for the unintentional killer? Several, mutually exclusive responses have been offered to this question. Some scholars, such as John Van Seters, offer the radical and implausible solution that Deuteronomic city asylum predates and serves as a source for asylum in the Covenant Collection. 19 Others, such as Moshe Greenberg, assert that Deuter-

17 M. David approaches this issue differently, arguing that extended altar asyhun itself is unrealistic and that a larger geographical space is necessary for the one who flees to find refuge. Thus the Covenant Collection and Deuteronomic asyhun laws can be viewed as complementary ("Die Bestimmungen fiber die Asylstiidte," 38). Greenberg takes a similar view: to his mind, Num 35:9-34 predates Deut 19:1-13, and thus the Priestly law complements Exod 21:13-14. The altar provides temporary asylum while the city provides more permanent protection ("The Biblical Conception of Asylum," 130). See below for a critique of these views. 18 Bannash, Homicide in the Biblical World, 79-80. 19 See Van Seters, A Law Bookfor the Diaspora, 106-08. Van Seters lUlderstands Exoo 21 :12-14 to rely on the altar law in Exod 20:24-26; however, he lUlderstands each text as referring to a single sanctuary in its use of the term C'lpO. Moreover, for Van Seters, the Covenant Collection's conception of cult centralization is directly borrowed from and thus subsequent to Deuteronomy. For critique of Van Seters, see Levinson, "Is the Covenant Code an Exilic Composition?," passim; Eckart Otto, "Review of A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code," RBL 7 (2004) (www.bookreviews.org/pdf/3929_3801.pdf); and David P. Wright, "Review of A Law Bookfor the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code," JAGS 124 (2004): 129-31.

Asylum in Exodus 21:12-14 and Deuteronomy 19:1-13

39

onomyborrows its cities of refuge from Num 35:9-34.20 The majority of biblical critics, as noted above, see Deuteronomy's city asylum as a development from altar asylum in the Covenant Collection in light of the former's larger program of cult centralization 2 1 They argue that because a multiplicity of altars is explicitly outlawed in Deut 12, legislation that has significant and far-reaching influence in the Deuteronomic legal COrpUS,22 altar asylum is no longer a viable option for refuge from c,n ?lIIl ("the blood avenger"), for the central sanctuary could potentially be too far for the manslayer to reach, leaving him too vulnerable to the revenge ofC,n ?lIIl. Deuteronomy 19:6 is particularly concerned about this latter possibility: Deu! 19:6

1"il il~" ,~

')'ton1

'D? en' ,~ n~'il ''111~ e'il ?~) ~'" lEl

C11D?0 ~1cnc 1~ M1n MlID M~ ,~ n'!l ~~IDC l'M 1~1 lD~l 1n~n1

Lest the blood avenger pursue the manslayer in his rage and overtake him and kill him because the way is great even though it was not a capital case, for the manslayer had not hated him previously.

Therefore, Deuteronomy establishes multiple asylum cities so that unintentional killers may be afforded similar protection to that established by Exod 21: 12-14. Barmash critiques this explanation of Deut 19:1-13 on the grounds that the Deuteronomic text does not exhibit enough marked verbal correspondences with Exod 21: 12-14 to demonstrate that it depends upon this latter text and because the formula that the Deuteronomic legislator regularly employs to refer to cult centralization23 is unattested in Deut 19, as is any other polemic to indicate that Deut 19: 1-13 is a legal il1llovation. 24 Before turning to these issues directly, it is 20 M. Greenberg, "The Biblical Conception of Asyhun," 131-32. For a critique of this view, see Rofe, "History of the Cities of Refuge." Briefly, the assumption that Num 35:9-34 selVes as a source for (all of) Deut 19:1-13 does not adequately explain why the Priestly law is more developed conceptually than the Deuteronomic law. Nor does it explain why Num 35:9-34 answers questions that logically arise from Deut 19:1-13: for example, how long must the manslayer remain in the city of refuge? And, what are these cities called? Without further explanation, it is implausible that the Deuteronomic legislator would have left out these details from his own composition ifhe were relying upon one that included such elements. Moreover, as demonstrated below, Deut 19: 1-13 invents the concept of asylum cities based upon its interpretation of Exod 21:12-14. No such invention can be demonstrated for Num 35:9-34. 21 See discussion below. 22 Centralization is an important factor in Deuteronomy's (re)formulation of several laws, including its legislation on tithes, slaves, festivals, the judiciary, and Levites. Among the many treatments of such issues, see, e. g., Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 191-243; Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Henneneutics, 23-143. 23 With some variation, this formula is aD "OlD e~~~ ilit" in~' '!Zllll C'Pr.:lii "the place in which the LORD shall choose to place his name." See Deut 12:5, 11, 14, 18,21,26; 14:23,24, 25; 15:20; 16:2,6,7,11,15,16; 17:8, 10; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11. For discussion of this formula and its origin, see, e. g., Lohfink, "Zur deuteronomischen Zentralisationsformel," 297-328; Sandra L. Richter, The Deuteronomistic History and the Nmne Theology: zesakken sema slim in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (BZAW 318; BerliniNewYork: de Gruyter, 2002). 24 Bannash, Homicide in the Biblical World, 79.

40

Chapter Two: The Urbanization ofAsylum

worth adding one further objection to this standard explanation of the development of city asylum. Even if it is determined that cult centralization did motivate the shift from altar to city asylum, the question remains: Why city asylum at all? In other words, Deuteronomic centralization precludes the possibility of altar asylum, but it hardly requires that its replacement be city asylum. What motivates the innovation of city asylum? Weinfeld demonstrates that city asylum is widely attested in the ancient Near East generally, citing examples from Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Egypt, SyroPalestine, and Greece. He thus sees a diffuse legal tradition in the ancient Near East concerning asylum that is incorporated into the pentateuchal asylum laws. 25 But certainly there are other viable methods of providing asylum than the two biblical options, altar refuge and city refuge. For example, there is evidence that several nations in the eastern Mediterranean employed the island of Alashia! Cyprus as an asylum/exile place during the second millennium B.C.E 26 Thus "island asylum" and/or "foreign nation asylum" could be added to the list of possible places ofrefuge. 27 Limiting considerations to the ideological world of Deuteronomy, the author could have retained the asylum function of the former sanctuary sites throughout the land while abolishing their cultic function 28 Such modification would be comparable to the redefinition of animal slaughter in the local towns from sacred to secular in nature (Deut 12:15, 21)29 However, the Deuteronomic legislator does not offer such a redefinition in the case of asylum. The question thus remains: Why did Deuteronomy choose city asylum? Bannash's observations concerning Deut 19:1-13 are often quite astute; however, the data can be interpreted differently, which issues in a more plausible solution to the problems associated with biblical asylum in the Covenant Collection and Deuteronomy. I shall begin by re-examining the lexical correspondences between Exod 21: 12-14 and Deut 19: 1-13, which prove both more subtle 25 Moshe Weinfeld, Social Justice, 97-132 (esp. 120-32). As will become apparent in the following discussion, it is important to note that all the extra-biblical examples of asylum that Weinfeld cites transparently associate city asylum with a temple located within the refuge city. Moreover, because cultic asyhun extended to different boundaries - from altar to temple to temple city - Weinfeld argues that one need not recognize a development in the Bible from altar asylum to city asylum. Instead, as noted above, Weinfeld argues that the "altar" in Exoo 21:14 is housed within the "place" in Exod 21:13 (Social Justice, 123-24). See below for my response to this view. 26 Michael Heltzer, "Asylium on Alashia (Cyprus)," ZAER 7 (2001): 368-73. 27 In his discussion of Num 35:9-34, Greenberg rejects the possibility of foreign nation asylum for ancient Israel because of the religious separation that it would cause the manslayer ("The Biblical Conception of Asylum," 128). 28 This is essentially the argument of Weinfeld, except that the number of asyhun cities is limited by Deuteronomy: asylum cities predate Deut 19: 1-13 in ancient Israel and originate as temple cities (Social Justice, 125, 131). See below for a critique of this view. 29 Note the secular redefinition of the verb *n:n ("to sacrifice") in these verses. See Jacob Milgrom, "Profane Slaughter and a Formulaic Key," 1-17; for critique of Milgrom, see Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Henneneutics, 38, 41-43.

Asylum in Exodus 21:12-14 and Deuteronomy 19:1-13

41

and more complex and integral to the Deuteronomic revision overall than in some other examples oflegal innovation. Even so, there are several simple, exact verbal correspondences. First, Exod 21: 13 employs the clause mllD 01l' 11Dl'1 "to which he may flee," which is paralleled exactly in Deut 19:4. Additionally, variations of this phrases appear several times in Deut 19: 1-13: Deu! 19:3

n~i ?~ i7QID 01J? i7'il1

It shall be for any killer to flee there

Deu! 19:5

i7?~i7 tl'i-Vi7 nn~ ?M 0')' ~'i7

He shall flee to one of these cities

Deu! 19:11

"Mn

c',»n nnM

?M Ol1

He shall flee to one of these cities

Moreover, the root and Deut 19:11: 30 Exod 21:12

*'~l

(C stem) appears in Exod 21:12, Deut 19:4, Deut 19:6,

n01' n10 n01 !D'M n:;>1;l

One who strikes a man, who then dies, shall surely be put to death

Deu! 19:4

n-v, '?D 'ii-Vi nR ii~~ itDM

who strikes his neighbor llllintentionally

Deu! 19:6

n10 ~~!DC l'M 1"1 !DEll 1nfi)1

and he strikes him fatally, but he had not committed a capital crime

Deu! 19:11

n01 !D~l \':fi)1

and he strikes him fatally, and he thus dies

Verbal forms from the roots *mo and *np'? as well as the noun .11'1 plus the third masculine singular possessive pronominal suffix also appear in equivalent contexts in both pericopae: *mo Exod 21:12

no1' n10 no1 !D'M n:lO

One who strikes a man, who then dies, shall surely be put to death Exod 21:14

nlO" 1lnpn

You shall take him to die

Deu! 19:5

no1 1n», nM M~01

r»n 10 "l'~n

?Illl1

and the iron slips from the wood and finds his neighbor, who then dies

30 While *':» is certainly a common verbal root, it is noteworthy that it is not necessary in this context. A root such as *liii could be substituted for *':» in several of these examples without changing the meaning of the text.

42

Chapter Two: The Urbanization ofAsylum

Deu! 19:6

n1l.l ~ElaIC )'R ,~, IDDl 'n~m

and he strikes him fatally, but it was not a capital crime Deu! 19:11

rn1 tom 1i1:Jin

and he strikes him fatally, and he thus dies Deu! 19:12

no, C"1n ~"l "1':1 lnR Ulll'

they shall give him into the hand of the avenger, and he shall die

*m"z Exod 21:14

unpn

n'c~

You shall take him to die Deu! 19:12

CIDC ~ 'np~' They shall take him from there

\'1'1

31

Exod 21:14

'l.'"

,n», ~» ID'R ,r ,~,

But if a man plots against him neighbor to kill him Deu! 19:4

rl.1."

~?~ 1n.vi nM i1:l' itDM

who strikes his neighbor llllintentionally Deu! 19:5

nc, \'», n" M~C' r»n 1c ~n:J,' ~lDl' and the iron slips from the wood and finds his neighbor, who then dies

Deu! 19:11

1n,Vi? ~ to'M il'il' ':>1 But if a man hates his neighbor

The Covenant Collection and Deuteronomy also express intentionality in a similar manner. In the case of inadvertency, each text focuses upon both a lack of premeditation and the involuntary nature ofthe blow inflicted. For intentional cases, both texts focus on premeditation as the major indicator for judging culpable murder: Unintentional homicide:

Exod 21:13

,,1? mM C1n?Mm n'::l W, ..,0M' But he who did not lie in wait, but rather God moved his hand

31 As David Wright has suggested to me, the appearance of the noun»'" ("friend, neighbor") in the Covenant Collection homicide/asylum law likely originates in its author's translation of the clause summa awllum awllamlana awllim + verb in the laws ofHammurabi, which is regularly rendered in the Covenant Collection as ID'M '~(') + imperfect verb + (preposition) + 'II'»'" (cf. Wright, "Laws of Hammurabi as a Source," 17-35). The appearance of this construction in Deuteronomic laws certainly reflects the Covenant Collection author's translation ofLH.

Asylum in Exodus 21:12-14 and Deuteronomy 19:1-13 Deu! 19:4

CID?0 ~cnc ,~ IIlID M~ lIt,m n~' '~D 'n~'

nllt

43

n~' 'lDlit

(the one) who strikes his neighbor without knowledge, for he did not hate him previously Deu! 19:6

C1I!)',1D ~1Onc ,~

lit., IIlID

lIt~ ,~

for he did not hate him previously Intentional homicide: Exod 21:14

nC'~:l 'l'n~

.,»,

~~ lD'lIt

,r ,~,

But if a man plots against his neighbor to kill him craftily Deu! 19:11

td~ 'il;:)il1 "",1)

Cp, ,,, ~,~, 'il,1)'" ~tD

tD'~ il'il' ';:)'

But if a man hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and rises up against him and strikes him fatally

Finally, the casuistic formulation of primary and secondary laws in Deut 19: 1-13 corresponds closely with that in Exod 21:13-14. On this point, Otto observes, The unusual order 0[';:)' with the following ,tdttc in 19.4b, 5, 11 hints at a direct literary dependence ofDeut. 19.2 13* upon Exod. 21.12 14. In the BC [Book of the Covenant] the general rule of the case of killing in Exod. 21.12 was followed by Exod. 21.13 14, which differentiated between fatal bodily injury and murder. Deut. 19.2 13* reversed the order and placed the asyhnn regulations at the fore because they were relevant with regard to the hermeneutical key of cult-centralization. 32

Otto's description of the casuistic fonnulation in Deut 19: 1-13 is imprecise: there is no "1 in Deut 19:4b (v. 4b begins with ,1ZiM), and v. 5 begins with ,tDl'I1. V 11 begins with "1 but is not followed by ,1ZiM. Moreover, his description of a Deuterononllc reversal of the Covenant Collection's legal sequence is erroneous: it is true that Exod 21: 12-14 begins with a general murder law and then moves to unintentional and intentional cases. However, Deut 19: 1-13 does not reverse the order of murder - manslaughter that Otto observes in the Covenant Collection; rather, the Deuteronomic legislator assumes the nonnative status of blood revenge and with it Exod 21: 12's murder law, even though he does not rehearse this law in his asylum legislation. Consideration of intentionality, by contrast, is found in both Exod 21:13-14 and Deut 19:1-13, and each text follows the same sequence: unintentional (Exod 21: 13; Deut 19:4-6, 10) - intentional (Exod 21:14; Deut 19:11-13).33

32 Otto, "Aspects of Legal Reforms and Reformulations," 195. Otto notes also that he views 19: 1, 2b, 7-9 as deuteronomistic additions to an original pre-exilic asylum text in Deut 19:2a, 3-D, 10-13. 33 Something is amiss in Otto's statement, for as demonstrated here, the situation is actually the reverse of what the paragraph cited says. Such basic errors suggest that there may have been a mistake in the translation of Otto's work. Nevertheless, once corrected, the thrust of Otto's observations remains and is helpful.

44

Chapter Two: The Urbanization ofAsylum

Notwithstanding these issues, Otto's observations are helpful, for they highlight further similarities between these laws. Note the correspondences between the casuistic formulation of Exod 21: 13-14 and Deut 19: 1-13: Exod 21:13

;,OID OU' 1IDIII c1po 17 'MlDl 11'7 mill C';'7I1101 ;'1~ 1117 lIOMl

But he who did not lie in wait, but rather God moved his band, I will establish for you a place to which he may flee. Deu! 19:5

7IDll r~;, n1::>71nn 11' nn1l1 C'~ ::.~n7 1~':l '1~1 nM M:l' 1I!)Ml 'nl n7111n C'1~n nnlll 7111 ou' III., rnl ln~1 nM ~01 r~n 10 711::.n

And the one who goes with his neighbor into the forest to chop wood and

his hand swings the ax head to cut the wood, but the ax head slips from the wood and finds his neighbor, who then dies, he may flee to one of these cities and live.

The sequence of elements in these two verses is analogous: (1) The law is introduced with pronominal ,1Zi1'l (preceded by wiiw)34 (2) An example of UllY\ The corresponding usage of pronominal iIZM in Exod 21: 13 and Deut 19:4-5 underscores the literary relationship between these verses, for, as several scholars have noted, the formulation of Exod 21 :13-14 is anomalous in the Covenant Collection but is nevertheless influential inDeut 19:4-5. Incidentally, the origin of this lUlconventional formulation, as David Wright has pointed out to me, is the introduction of participial law in Exod 21 :12. Because the participle cannot be negated, the author employs pronominal itmIc + W, + finite verb in v. 13. Deut27:24 vis-a-vis 27:26 is a parallel example: Deut27:24 10M CVil 7::;) ,~, 1nO:l wi.D' il::;)C "'M "Cursed is the one who strikes his neighbor in secret," and all the people said, "Arnen!" Deut27:26 10M CVil 7::;) ,~, cn1M n1tD.D7 nMTi1 il,ni ":11 nM O'p' w"tDM "'M "Cursed is he who does not uphold the words of this teaching to do them," and all the people said, "Arnen!" In this list of curses, the participle is employed in the positive construction. In the negative construction, the author employs the pronoun iIl7M + M7 + finite verb. Exod 9:20-21 provides an analogous case in a narrative context. This explanation ofiIDM, in Exod 21:13 mitigates somewhat the problem of the introduction of a secondary case in v. 14 with the preposition ,~. ,::;) otherwise introduces only primary cases in the Covenant Collection, while CtI; is normally employed to introduce secondary cases. However, only ,~ is used in Exod 21: 12-14, and then for a secondary case rather than a primary case. The solution to this problem is that the author, by employing the participial construction in v. 12 and the corresponding negative construction with iWM in v. 13, creates a unique compositional circumstance: v. 14 is a secondary law and thus, if it is to be introduced by a preposition, that preposition should be CM. However, ,~ has not yet been employed in this subset of laws. He thus follows the rule that'~ comes first in a casuistic law (i. e., before OM), even though v. 14 is a secondary law. An interesting scenario obtains in Deut 19:4-5: as in Exod 21 :13, where the antecedent for 'rDM is the participle il::;)C in Exod 21:12, the antecendent for 'rDM in both Deut 19:4b and 5a is the participle n~' in v. 4a (thus v. 5 is a direct continuation of v. 4). This scenario suggests that the author of Deut 19: 1-13 may have chosen the participle~' to describe the killer in his asylum law not only because the root *~, could apply to either an intentional or unintentional killer but also because, even as he desired to give greater specificity to Excxl21:12's i1~.c, he also sought to preserve the participial form of his source text's moniker.

Asylum in Exodus 21:12-14 and Deuteronomy 19:1-13

45

intentional killing is offered. (3) Permission is granted to the killer to flee for asylum. In Exod 21:13, the actual establisInnent of the asylum place appears (anacoluthically: ,,, 'nl:lfD1) between elements 2 and 3. In Deut 19: 1-13, by contrast, the asylum cities and their purpose is introduced (topicalized, as it were) prior to v. 5 (19:2-4). Similar correspondences can be observed in the case of intentional killing: Exod 21:14

me':> unpn 'n~te T.l~e "T.l"~~ 1l.,,,':> ".,~., ':>~ f!l'~ .,r ':>1 But if a man plots against his neighbor to kill him craftily, you shall take him from my altar to die.

Deu! 19: 11 12

f!l~l ,':>01 1'':>~ T.lp1 1':> ~'~1 1n~'':> I\lIZI ID'~ n'n' ':>1 11 1n~ 111P':>11"~ 'lpt m':>f!l1 12 ':>~n T.l"~n nn~ ':>~ Ol1 M1

no, tlii1 7~ i'::J 1n&f! 'lru'

But if a man hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and rises up against him and strikes him mortally, and he dies, and he then flees to one of these cities, the elders of his city shall send and take him from there and give him into the hand of the blood avenger, and he shall die.

As in the previous example, these verses share a common sequence: (1) The law is introduced by ':01. (2) An example of intentional killing is offered. (3) The killer flees to the asylum place (assumed in Exod 21: 14; stated overtly in Deut 19: 11). (4) The killer is denied refuge and is sentenced to death. While the examples from Deut 19:1-13 cited above certainly differ at points from those found in Exod 21:12-14, the similarities are quite extensive and do point to the direct literary dependence of Deut 19:1-13 upon Exod 21:12-14. Moreover, it is possible at points to reconstruct the compositional logic of the Deuteronomic author and his method of textual reuse. First, Deuteronomy updates the language of its source, replacing the verbs *,,~ and *')M, which are very rare in the Hebrew Bible generally and do not appear at all elsewhere in the book of Deuteronomy.35 Second, in comparison with Exod 21:13, the Gershon Brin offers a different explanation for the legal formulation in Exod 21:12-14: he suggests that the combination of two sources - one participial (Exod 21: 12) and the other casuistic (Exod 21: 13-14) - necessitated the reversal ofvv. 13-14. To his mind, v. 14 should precede v. 13, but the author of CC reversed this sequence because when placed immediately after v. 12, v. 14 appears redundant (Studies in Biblical Law: From the Hebrew Bible to the Dead Sea Scrolls [JSOTSup 176; trans. Jonathan Chipman; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994], 33). While such an explanation is potentially attractive, there are no other examples of laws beginning with ,~ followed by subordinate laws intnxluced by ittM1 in biblical casuistic legislation. Thus Brin's solution is as exceptional as Exod 21: 12-14 as attested. 35 The verb *"~ appears only twice in the Hebrew Bible: Exod 21: 13; 1 Sam 24: 12. The verb H:lM; appears four times in the Hebrew Bible: Exod21:13; 2 Kgs 5:7; Ps 91:10; Prov 12:22. Michael Fishbane describes the scribal practice of lexical substitution, best evidenced in texts that borrow extensively from other biblical texts (e. g., between Chronicles and SamuellKings) (Biblical Interpretation, 55-57). In the book of Deuteronomy, one can observe this phenomenon both in legal texts, as noted here, and in narrative texts. For examples of the latter, see the

46

Chapter Two: The Urbanization ofAsylum

author of Deut 19:6 reverses the sequence of criteria for judging a homicide unintentional: 36

1"'=' i1.j~ tl'i1':l~i11 i1i~ WI

Exod 21:13 Deu! 19:4

1mll!'

>
= 1';> M~ M'? 111m n»1 '';>;p 1,1»1 nM n~' 110M

-7

MlfD becomes Deuteronomy's preferred description of intention throughout the rest of its pericope. This explains the recurrence ofthis phrase in Deuteronomy's description of intentional homicide (Deut 19: 11), where it replaces the verb *1'l (Exod 21: 14). Note, however, that even in this revision, Deut 19: 11 borrows the term 1M»' from Exod 21: 14 and integrates it into its description of intentional homicide with Ml.fD:

-7

lO~ll;,~m 1'';>>> 0Pll';> J1Ml .1»1';> ~ IO'M ;,,.,, '~1

-7

Moreover, Deut 19:11 complements its MlfD clause with the verb *:l'M, a more frequently attested synonym to the verb *',~,37 which the author already replaced in Deut 19:6 with the tIIlfD clause. Finally, Deut 19:11 omits the adverbial phrase Ml;ll~:;J in Exod 21:14. There are presumably two reasons for this deletion: (1) MI;l"W is an unusual biblical word and is unattested elsewhere in Deuteronomy;38 and (2) the author deemed Ml;ll~:;J unnecessary, for its function in Exod 21:14 parallels the Ml~ clause in Deut 19: 11. Analysis of the compositional logic of Deut 19: 1-13 can be extended further by comparing the portions of the law that correspond directly with Exod 21: 12-14 with those portions that find no direct literary parallel in the Covenant Collection law. Deut 19:3b-6, 11-12 exhibit lexical correspondence with Exod 21: 12-14, as demonstrated already. By contrast, Deut 19: l-3a, 7-10,13 contain no direct lexical parallels with Exod 21:12-14. Interestingly, the formulation of Deuteronomy's asylum legislation can be divided according to grammatical person in the same way: Deut 19:3b-6, 11-12 exhibit third person, casuistic formulation, while Deut 19: l-3a, 7-10, 13 exhibit second person formulation that is a combination of casuistic and apodictic style. In other words, the content that the Deuterononllc legislator takes over without significant alteration is expressed in the language of his textual patrimony and in third person casuistic fonnulation. When Deuteronomy innovates, however, the author regularly reverts to his preferred second person, apodictic style. Analogous is the Deuteronomic

-7

-7

chapter entitled "Deuteronomy as Interpretation" in Marc Z. Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (London: Routledge, 1995), 62-78. 36 This may be an interpretive variation of the inverted quotation technique commonly called Seidel's law after its discoverer. See Moshe Seidel, "Parallels between Isaiah and Psalms," Sinai 38 (1955-56): 149-72,229-40,272-80,335-55 (in Hebrew); Pancmtius C. Beentjes, "Inverted Quotations in the Bible: A Neglected Stylistic Pattern," Biblica 63 (1982): 506-23. 37 Cf. Bannash, Homicide in the Biblical World, 23 n. 6. 38 i1~~ appears five times in the Hebrew Bible, twice with a negative connotation ("craftiness": Exod 21 :14; Josh 9:4; "prudence": ProVo 1:4; 8:5, 12).

Asylum in Exodus 21:12-14 and Deuteronomy 19:1-13

47

revision of the Exod 21:16's kidnapping law: Deut 24:7 converts the Covenant Collection's participial law into third person casuistic form and strictly follows this legal style until introducing its own characteristically second person, apodictic rationale clause (lJ'PC ll';' mllJl "you shall expunge the evil from your midst''), The changes in granunatical person and legal style mark the shift from dependence upon source material to original composition. 39 Note also that, with respect to legal formulation, there is a middle road for the Deuterononllc legislator. Specifically, Deuteronomy need not follow its source text slavishly even when it borrows lemmas directly from it With regard to in Exod 21: 14 is in the second person asylum laws, observe that the verb form (1l!Jwl'l), By contrast, Deut 19: 12 attests a third person form of the same verb (1"P71), undoubtedly due to the added context in the Deuteronomic law (i, e" the introduction of the city elders as the subject of this verb), This change in context allows the author of Deut 19: 12 simultaneously to borrow and to innovate, preferring the diction of his source even as he smoothes its legal fOflllUlation to confonn to his larger composition. The result is consistent use of third person casuistic fonnulation in instances in which the author of Deut 19:1-13 borrows from the Covenant Collection asylum law, even though the latter is not characterized by such consistency Similar is the example ofDeut 24:7,just cited, The legal patrimony for this text - the participial law in Exod 21: 16 - is converted into a third person casuistic law. This revision is particularly striking because the asylum law in Exod 21: 13-14 is introduced by and builds upon the participial homicide law in Exod 21:12, suggesting that Deuteronomy at times employs a similar methodology for revising various participial laws and those subordinate to them.

*"p"

39 To my knowledge, scholars have not previously recognized that the Deuteronomic asylum law's dependence upon Exod 21:12-14 is recognizable in the variation between third person casuistic and second person apcxiictic legal formulation of this unit. My inquiry into this issue was spurred by the preliminary thoughts that my teacher, David Wright, shared with me in relation to his own study of literary sources in Deuteronomy. For example, in addition to the Covenant Collection, Wright has considered the possibility that a third person casuistic corpus oflaws can be extracted from Deuteronomy 21-25 that deals with women and family (for similar judgments about groupings of family laws, see Alexander Rofe, "Family and Sex Laws in Deuteronomy and the Book ofthe Covenant," Henoch 9 [1987]: 131-59 [at 131-32]; Eckart Otto, "Rechtsreformen in Deuteronomium xii-xxvi und im MittelassyrischenKodex der Tafel A (KAV 1)," in Congress Volume: Paris 1992 [ed. J.A. Emerton; LeideniNew YorkIK61n: Brill, 1995], 239-73 (esp. 257-61); idem, "False Weights in the Scales of Biblical Justice?: Different Views of Women from Patriarchal Hierarchy to Religious Equality in the Book of Deuteronomy," in Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East [ed. Victor H. Matthews et al.; JSOTSup 262; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press], 128-46 [at 131-32]). The remaining (second person) apodictic laws in Deut 21-25 form a coherent sequence oflaws following upon chapters 12-20. It was inmy interactions with such ideas that I re-examined the legal formulation of De uteronomic asylum and discovered the technique of its author vis-a-vis Exod21:12-14.

48

Chapter Two: The Urbanization ofAsylum

The shift from second person 1lnpn in Exod 21: 14 to third person 1np'?1 in Deut 19: 12 may also indicate a substantive shift in the Deuteronomic law. In light of the connection between the Covenant Collection altar and asylum laws, the imagined referents of the second person form in Exod 21: 14 are the same as those to whom the altar laws are directed in Exod 20:24-26 40 In the latter case, the recipient of the law is the nation ofIsrael as a whole (cf. Exod 20:22). Thus, in the Covenant Collection law, the adjudication of the asylum seeker's case (implied in Exod 21: 13-14) and the execution of the penalty in v. 14 are the responsibilities of the national administrative body. By contrast, Deut 19: 12 clearly assigns to the city elders jurisdiction over both the trial and punishment phases of the asylum seeker's case. By employing the form 1np'?, then, the Deuteronomic author modifies the second person verbal form of his source text and, by so doing, marks his own composition as a revision. But by making this revision, he also subverts the legal process that his source text prescribes, introducing instead a new adjudication procedure for the case of the asylum seeker. Such nuanced revision - integrating and even subsuming significant content alterations within a grammatical pattern that marks textual reuse - exemplifies the Deuteronomic author's keen understanding of his legal patrimony as well as his skillful method of literary revision. The introduction of the city elders also betrays the Deuteronomic author's strong orientation toward an imagined application of this legislation in the land ofIsrael (cf. Deut 19:1)41 The preceding discussion demonstrates the intricacy of the Deuteronomic author's creative utilization and modification of his source text and highlights three different compositional techniques in Deut 19: 1-13 for such revision: 1. Direct borrowing without revision of legal fonnulation. 2. Direct borrowing of content with revised legal fonnulation. 3. Creative revision of content and interpolations in the preferred style of the author. Distinguishing clearly between portions of the Deuteronomic asylum law that have been influenced by the Covenant Collection and those parts that have not been so influenced may at first suggest the combination of two originally independent sources or strata, one containing third person casuistic law and the other containing second person apodictic and/or casuistic law. Further investigation, however, demonstrates that positing multiple, originally independent legal sources in the case of Deutero nomic asylum is not warranted, for those sections I thank David Wright for calling my attention to this point. It is possible that the Deuteronomic author finds further substantiation for introducing the city elders here in light of their role at Sinai in Exod 19 and 24 (19:7; 24:1, 9, 14). That is, Exod 20:22 clearly states that Moses is to speak to the children of Israel, but the elders play an especially prominent and representative role in Exod 19 and 24, suggesting that they should represent the people in the fulfillment of Moses , command in Excxl21: 14. 40 41

Asylum in Exodus 21:12-14 and Deuteronomy 19:1-13

49

ofDeut 19: 1-13 without parallel in the Covenant Collection (i. e., Deut 19:1-3a, 7-10, 13) are infused with characteristically Deuteronomic language 42 The Reconceptualization of C1pO in Deuteronomy 19: 1-13

The foregoing reconstruction of the compositional logic of the Deuteronomic asylum law adds further weight to the lexical and sequential ties adduced between Exod 21:12-14 and Deut 19:1-13. However, the most compelling piece of evidence recommending a direct, literary relationship bet\veen these asylum laws concerns the issue oftheC1pO in Exod 21:13 and its reflex in Deut 19: 1-13. The suggestion that C1pO in Exod 21: 13 may refer to a city and not a cultic site suggests a possibility for understanding the relationship between the asylum laws in the Covenant Collection and Deuteronomy. Although a modern, historical-critical reading ofC1p1:l in Exod 21: 13 precludes the meaning of "city, town" (1'l1), as shown above, Barmash likely (unknowingly) uncovered the logic of the Deuteronomic legislator in his revision of the homicide and asylum laws in the Covenant Collection. The question is, Is it possible that the author of Deut 19: 1-13 exploited the biblical semantic parallel between C1pl:l and 1'l1 discussed above in order to reorient the Covenant Collection law? Did he recognize that a claim for city asylum rather than altar asylum can indeed be found in Exod 21: 13? Barmash certainly does: as noted already, she goes even further, suggesting that C1pO in Exod 21: 13 actually does mean 1'l1. Her conclusion, however, recognizes no literary relationship between these two laws: No evidence exists for the dependence of Deut 19:1 13 on Exod 21:12 14. It appears, then, that Deut 19: 1 13 assumes that the cities of refuge were an institution oflong standing, not an innovation ... There are no texts that depict cities of refuge as a radical discontinuity. The cities of refuge are presented as having continuity with past practice.43

A different conclusion is more plausible: with regard to city asylum, the Deuteronomic legislator need not innovate, for he finds just such a long-standing institution in (his interpretation of) his source text. In other words, Deut 19: 1-13 does not assume that asylum cities were a well-established institution; it asserts this claim from documented fact. Moreover, Deuteronomy's asylum law need not polemicize strongly against its source in order to present its innovation, for it can simply declare that C1pl:l in Exod 21:13 always meant 1'l1.44 This is the 42 See Weinfeld's helpful compilation of De uteronomic phraseology (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 320-65). 43 Bannash, Homicide in the Biblical World, 80. Milgrom similarly argues that Deuteronomic asylum is unrelated to centralization and does not innovate but rather presumes a longstanding tradition of city asylum ("Sancta Contagion and Altar/City Asyhun," 302-03; cf. also Jacob Milgrom, Numbers ,~,~ [JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia and New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1990], 506). 44 In some ways, though he views the chronology of the relationship between the pentateuchal asylum laws differently, Greenberg comes closest to this interpretation in his conclu-

50

Chapter Two: The Urbanization ofAsylum

reason that there is no explicit link between asylum and centralization in Deuteronomy: in the case of the centralization law itself, the Deuteronomic legislator understands that he is presenting boldly reformative ideas, and thus while he certainly borrows from the altar law in Exod 20:24, he also polemicizes against his source text in order to discredit it. 45 By contrast, in our text, the author need only highlight the continuity between his asylum legislation and that found in the Covenant Collection. For Deuteronomy, centralization and city asylum need not be linked, for while the latter may (and does - see below) in actuality arise in response to the fonner, the Deuteronomic author can simply read city asylum into Exod 21: 12-14 through his creative interpretation oftl1p046 Further support for this understanding of Deuteronomy's cities of refuge is the correspondence between Deut 19: 1-13 and the law concerning a rebellious son that follows soon after it (21:18-21; esp. v. 19). These two texts are easily compared for two reasons: first, they each belong to a larger group of laws in which cases are adjudicated by the elders of the city rather than by a centralized judiciary47 Thus, Deut 21:18-21 highlights the role ofi'll;' 'lpT in its law (vv. concerning the relationship between Exod 21:12-14 and Num 35:9-34. He states, "The law of Numbers is to be understooo as amplifying the vague 'place' to which Exodus promises that the manslayer will be able to flee" ("The Biblical Conception of Asyhllll," 132). 45 Cf. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Henneneutics, 46-48. Perhaps the best example of such polemic against Exod 20:24 is Deut 12:13: iiMin iIDlIc C'P~ ,,:>~ 1'n".1' n'.1'n 1!!l l' '~ti:)n "Be carefullest you offer up your burnt offerings in any place that you see." As Levinson rightly observes, Exod20:24-25 do not allow such casual sacrifice, yet the author ofDeut 12: 13 cleverly uses the precise language of Exod 20:24 to produce a straw man interpretation of his source text that he can then discredit. 46 Otto similarly argues that Deuteronomy's asylum law reformulates the Covenant Collection's asyhllll law (Das Deuteronomium, 253-56). Recognizing the parallel between the altar law in Exod 20:24-26 and the asylum law in Excxl21:12-14, he contends that Deuteronomy understood the C'P~ in Exod 21: 13 as its single sanctuary and thus legislated cities to serve the function ofthe local sanctuary refuge places envisioned by the Covenant Collection. Otto even claims to identify a Deuteronomic terminological distinction between the asylum city, which is labeled ".1', and the non-asylum city in the land, which is referred to synecdochically as '.1'!Zl ("gate") (Das Deuteronomium, 255 n. 248). However, even a cursory examination of the attestations of , '.v in Deuteronomy reveals that such a distinction cannot be maintained. Nevertheless, his conclusion accords with my own view: "Das dtn Asylgesetz bedient sich der Autoritiit des entsprechenden Gesetzes des Bundesbuches und gibt sich als dessen Refonnulierung und Refonnierung zu erkennen" (Das Deuteronomium, 253, italics his). Otto does not recognize, however, that the origin of the idea itseljfor cities of asyhllll originates in the Deuteronomic interpretive process, as argued here. Therefore, the question of why Deuteronomy legislates cities of asylum, as opposed to another form of refuge, is also left unanswered by Otto. 47 Levinson argues that, in a homicide case lacking evidence, Deut 17:8-13 seeks to replace the local judiciary (which, in his view, is professionalized and not a court of elders) with the central judiciary (Deuteronomy and the Henneneutics, 125-29). Several scholars have critiqued this view. For example, see Bannash, Homicide in the Biblical World, 36; Carolyn Pressler, "A Response to Bernard Levinson's Deuteronomy and the Henneneutics ofLegal Innovation," ZABR 6 (2000): 314-19. It is unlikely that the Deuteronomic author(s) would include legislation such as Deut 19: 1-13 in their work if their aim were to supplant completely the local elder judiciary in the precise cases that the asylum law addresses. SiOllS

Asylum in Exodus 21:12-14 and Deuteronomy 19:1-13

51

19-20) in a manner analogous to that in the asylum law (Deut 19: 12)48 Second, as Barmash notes, Deut 21: 19 explicitly places t:l1pl:l and 1'» in parallel: Deu! 21:19

lOpC ,ll0 ~M' "'ll 'lpr ~M 1M 'M'~"" 10M' "~M

~ 'lD~n'

His mother and father shall seize him and take him out to the elders of his and to the gate of his place.

m

This verse is especially important for understanding the development of city asylum in Deut 19: 1-13 because it demonstrates that the Deuteronomic author recognizes the parallel between t:l1pl:l and 1'» and does so in a judicial context comparable to that of the refuge law. In light of such evidence, it is likely that the Deuteronomic legislator intentionally omits the word t:l1pl:l from his discussion of cities of refuge in order to contrast his vision of city asylum with the altar asylum found in his source text. This also explains why explicit reference to cult centralization, as well as the stereotypical centralization fonnula found in several Deuteronomic laws, is absent from Deut 19: 1-13: because the author is reinterpreting the term t:l1pl:l to mean "J:', he avoids making any reference to C,PO as a cultic site - its technical meaning in the centralization fonnula. Note too that, with respect to its cultic character:9 t:l1pl:l is fundamentally singular for the Deuteronomic legislator. In 48 There are several Deuteronomic laws that elucidate the judicial function of the city elders. Particularly comparable to the asylum law is the iTEl",tI iT,ll' (broken-neck heifer) rite in Deut 21:1-9, the concerns, procedures, and players of which are analogous to Deut 19:1-13 (note also that many scholars assign these two texts to the same layer within the compositional history of Deuteronomy; cf. Rofe, "History of the Cities of Refuge," 126-27). As in the asylum text (esp. 19: 10, 13), the interest ofDeut 21: 1-9 is the shedding of innocent blood ('pJ Ci lEXd) and its potential effects (Deut 21:7-9, 13). Moreover, the city elders playa fundamental role both in assessing the guilt or innocence of the killer in Deut 19: 12 and in determining which town must participate in the elimination rite inDeut21 :1-9 and in facilitating that rite (Deut 21 :2-3). Note in this regard that each text commands the measurement ofthe land between cities (Deut 19:3; 21:2). Additionally, both the asylum text and the iTEl'~ i"f?ll' rite employ the same verb to describe the killing *'~J, C stem (Deut 19:4, 6, 11; Deut 21:1). For further discussion of the judicial function ofthe elders, cf. Jacob Milgrom, "The Ideological and Historical Importance of the Office of Judge in Deuteronomy," in Isac Leo Seeligmann Volume: Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World (ed. A. Rofe and Y. Zakovitch; 3 vols.; Jerusalem: E. Rubenstein, 1983),

3: 129-39. 49 Deut 23: 17 employs the term C,PC in the singular in the context of a slave choosing a place to live and the Israelites' obligation not to return him to his master. In this verse, I:l'lpC does not have a cultic connotation. However, it is interesting to note that the slave's choice of a "place" to dwell among the Israelites is described in terms that parallel the centralization formula almost exactly. Cf. Jeffries M. Hamilton, Social Justice and Deuteronomy: The Case of Deuteronomy 15 (SBLDS 136; Atlanta: Scholars Press), 117-21. Note also that Deuteronomy rarely uses C,PC in reference to the land of Israel as a whole (e. g., Deut 26:9). Thomas C. Romer suggests that such texts are exilic in origin and therefore link Temple and land together, for the restoration of the former requires the restoration of the latter ("Cult Centralization in Deuteronomy 12: Between Deuteronomistic History and Pentateuch," in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomististchem Geschichtswerk [FRLANT 206; ed. Eckart Otto and Reinhard Achenbach; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004], 168-80 [172-73]).

52

Chapter Two: The Urbanization ofAsylum

fact, the only attestation ofn1C1PC ("places") in the book of Deuteronomy is the proverbial exception that proves this rule. Deuteronomy 12:2 states, Deu! 12:2

1:1'11)" em 'IDM 1:1'11' 1:111) ,,~ 'II)M n1l:lpcn ~~ nM J1'~Mn ,~ p»' r» ~~ nnn, n'»~n ~», l:I'c,n 1:I',nn ~» I:In'n~M nM cnM You shall destroy all of the places in which the nations that you are possessing worshipped their gods those upon the high lllOlllltains and upon the hills and under every leafy tree.

This single example ofl:llpC in the plural, found at the beginning of Deutero nomy's centralization law, appears in the context of prohibited worship. For the Deuteronomic legislator, the proper locale for worship is essentially singular, and he underscores such cultic ideology by contrasting the singular "place that the LORD your God shall choose" with the plural "places" in which the Canaanites worshipped their gods. Thus Deut 12:2's n1C1PC serve as a foil for the ensuing details of cult centralization. In light ofthis fundamental tie between its cultic connotation and singularity, the word 1:l1pC is effectively rendered ineligible for the Deuteronomic author's discussion of asylum: to speak of multiple, non-cultic "places" undercuts too severely the driving ideological principle that stands behind the Deuteronomic legal corpus 50 The author of Deut 19:1-13 is thus forced to reinterpret his source text's use of what has become to him a vital and technical term -1:l1pc. 51 The foregoing arguments make it possible to contrast Deuteronomy's centralization law with its asylum law as follows: the author ofDeut 12 takes over the basic meaning ofl:llpC in his legal patrimony of Exod 20:24 without change. In

Romer's suggestion that Cipr.:! in Deut 12: 11 may mean "land," however, is dubious and may even cast doubt upon his larger historical reconstruction. 50 An analogous example of "reselVing" a particular word/verbal root for a specific, technical usage (and refusing to use it otherwise) is the attestation of the verb *tD1p in Pill. In contrast to other biblical authors, pentateuchal Priestly writers never employ this verb for simple cleaning/washing. Instead, Pill reserves *~ for specialized use within its ideological framework of cult and morality. For discussions of the Priestly use of *tD1P, see Schwartz, Holiness Legislation, 251-58; idem, "Israel's Holiness: The Torah Traditions," in Purity and Holiness: The Heritage o/Leviticus (ed. Marcel J.H.M. Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz; Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 2; LeidenIBoston: Brill, 2(00), 47-59 (esp. 47-50); Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 967. 51 The import and flexibility of the term C'lpr.:! in asylum legislation is further exemplified by its attestation in Josh 20:4. This verse states, "He shall flee to one of these cities and stand at the opening of the gate and speak his words into the ears ofthe elders of that city. They shall gather him to themselves into the city and they shall provide a place (C'lpr.:!) for him, and he shall dwell with them/under their protection." Meir Malul argues that in this verse, C1pr.:! is not simply a physical place but rather takes on a spacially-nuanced sense of social status ("CAqeb 'Heel' and 111 1:JJl "eternal slave" for such a servant. 150 Similarly, in the asylum laws, the H author denies the requirement of permanent residence at the asylum city, a condition he assigns to the Deuteronomic law, in favor of an extended, but temporary, residency requirement. In the case of the Israelite who sells himself because of his poverty, Lev 25:40 requires that, in the worst case, he work for his fellow Israelite until the Jubilee year - up to fifty years - but not indefinitely. After the Jubilee, he may return to his ancestral possession. Note the similar description of this homecoming in these two chapters: 151 Lev 25:41

J~' 1'nJII omM ':>Ml 1nn~IIO ':>11 Jill 11:1» 1'Dl Ill" 10»0 ~'1

He shall go out from with you, he and his children with you, and he shall return to his clan. He shall return to his ancestral possession.

Num35:28

',nMl ':>'l" l"J" 011:1 ,» JI)' 1~':>pO "»J 'J 10lnM f'M ':>M n~'" JllZ)' ':>'l" l"J" 011:1 For in his city of refuge he shall dwell until the death of the high priest, and after the death of the high priest, the killer may return to the land of his ancestral possession.

The verbal root 'II~' , also attested in Lev 25:41 , is paralleled in Num 35:26 's consideration of the manslayer's premature departure from the asylum city: Num35:26

ilOtD ctl~ itDM 1t:l'pO i~J) ,~ nM n~'il ~~ M~~ I:lM1

But if the manslayer should leave the bOlllldary of his asylum city to which he flees,

On a more general level, the verbal root *'t'!~ is especially prominent in these two chapters, appearing ten times in Lev 25 and seven times in Num 35:9-34. In each ofthese attestations, the actions ofthe so-called "kinsman redeemer" are envisioned. Outside of these two texts, *,MJ appears only thirteen times in all of H. Similarly, the monikers JlZiln and 1l ("resident alien"), which appear together in Num 35: 15 and Lev 25:23, 35, 47, are otherwise unattested together in H. 152 150 Leviticus 25:39-55 innovates in several ways vis-a-vis Deut 15:12-18. For example, Lev 25:39-40 denies the slave-status ofthe impoverished Israelite, calling him instead "a hired laborer." For a discussion of the relationship of these texts, see Chapter Thee. 151 Contrast, however, the possible redemption ofthe slave in Lev 25:39-55 with the prohibition on ransom in Num 35:32. The'Mj, plays a different role in these laws. In Lev 25:39-55, the 'Ml's role is freeing his kinsman from servitude through economic redemption. In Num 35:9-34, however, the ~'s role is avenging the death of his kinsman. Recognizing the difference between these activities, some scholars have argued that these two C'~ are actually different persons. According to this view, the""" is to be distinguished from C1n ,til): the "kinsman redeemer" vs. the "blooo avenger." See, e. g., Anthony Phillips, Ancient Israel's Criminal Law: A New Approach to the Decalogue (New York: Schocken, 1970), 102-04; Bannash, Homicide in the Biblical World, 23-27, 50-52. 152 In these examples from Lev 25, these two nouns are connected by a conjlUlCtive waw and are usually construed as a hendiadys; however, in Num 35:15, each nolUl is accompanied

90

Chapter Two: The Urbanization ofAsylum

These several thematic and lexical connections between Lev 25 and the H asylum laws suggest that Lev 25 is a generative text for the Holiness author of Num 35, who reduces the duration ofthe manslayer's residence in the refuge city in a manner analogous to H's reduction of the potential duration of Israelite en-

slavement. In both cases, H revises D's "forever" (1:l?'Ul, Deut 15: 17, implied in H 's interpretation ofDeut 19:4-5) by instituting a limit on the period oftime that the "slave" and the manslayer must be separated from his ancestral1and. 153 Noting the internment overtones of the manslayer's extended asylum, Levine sUlTIlises that, ifNum 35 reflects real practice, the protected manslayer may func-

tion in the refuge city like an indentured servant to compensate for his aCCOffimodations. 154 Whether or not Num 35 reflects actual historical realia in ancient Israel is impossible to demonstrate. However, it is clear that asylum was a real institution in the ancient Near East,155 and knowledge of such asylum practices

certainly may inform the author's organization of asylum in Num 35:9-34 and the correlations he draws between asylum and slavery/Jubilee laws in Lev 25. The next logical question is, why is the manslayer free to return to his own

property only after the death of the high priest? If the Holiness legislator indeed draws an analogy between the manumission of the Hebrew slave and the

release of the manslayer from the asylum city, it might follow that the Jubilee should serve as the date of release for the the manslayer, as it does for the slave.

However, this is not the case. Instead, Num 35 prescribes the death of the high priest as the release date for the manslayer. Wellhausen suggests that the high priest's death be understood by analogy to the accession of a new king: a new era is introduced, and thus just as a new king in the ancient Near East traditionally proclaims an amnesty (Akk. anduriiru; Heb. 1i11; cf. Lev 25: 10), so the death of the high priest serves as the occasion for a general pardon. Such an explana-

tion supports an exilic/post-exilic dating for the pentateuchal Priestly source:

by the preposition -'?, suggesting that they are understood as distinct from each other. :::lm'ln also appears in Lev 22:10; 25:6, 40, 45. Gen 23:4 attests the unparalleled construction:uzmr-U (with maqqe]2). Note that the nouni1tnM also appears in Gen 23:4, prompting the question of this text's relationship with Lev 25 and Num 35. For a discussion of the relationship of the nouns ~ and ~~n, see Joosten, People and Land, 73-74. 153 As noted above, Rofe argues that the Deuteronomic asyhun law conceives of the asylum city only as a refuge, as does Num 35:9-15, while Num 35:24-28 introduces the new concept of asylum city as confinement/place of exile for the unintentional killer. For this reason, Rofe identifies these two sections ofNum 35 as different redactional layers. The foregoing analysis demonstrates that an author with access to Deut 19: 1-13 could understand the asylum city both as place of refuge and place of confinement (albeit without penal connotations). Therefore, while Num 35 :9-15 and 24-28 do indeed stem from different hands, as argued above, one need not posit compositional layers based upon these two views of the asylum city. 154 Levine, Numbers 21-36,570-71. 155 See the discussion ofExcxl21: 12-14 and Deut 19:1-13 above.

Analysis ofNum 35:9-34 and its Relation to Exod 21:12-14 and Deut 19:1-13

91

the high priest in this scenario takes on royal responsibilities in the absence of a Judean monarchy.156 Unconvinced by Wellhausen, several scholars have argued that Num 35:25, 28 rely upon an understanding of the high priest and his vestments like that found in Exod 28:36-38 (cf. also Exod 29:6; 39:30-31; Lev 8:9):

mn'? Il'P enn 'n1n~ "?~ nnrnl' "n~ :mt r'~ n'Il~' 36

Exod 28:36 38

i7'i7'

n~Ci7 '~E)

"1C ?M

n~Ci7

?.u i7'm n?:>n ?'nE) ?.u 1nM nC!V1 37

'l:l ,1l"P' 'IDM C'Il'P;' 1'~ nM 1';'M Mill' 1';'M n~ 0,» ;,'m 38 m;,' 'lEl? C;'? J1~'? "C!1 'n~o ?~ ;,'m C;"Il'P nlnO ?:l? ?M'Il' 36 You shall make a pure gold rosette, and you shall inscribe upon it the seal engraving, "Holy to the LORD." 37 You shall place it upon a blue cord, and it shall be upon the front of the turbin. 38 It shall be upon Aaron's forehead, and he shall bear the iniquity from the holy offerings which the children ofIsrael consecrate, for all of their holy gifts. It shall be upon his forehead continually for their favor before the LORD.

Weinfeld, for example, argues that the death of the high priest expiates the sin of the manslayer, "for the high priest was the one who bore the sins of the people, expiating them with the plate on his forehead (Ex. 28:38)."157 Greenberg focuses upon the lack of sacrifices in the case of the manslayer and, like Weinfeld, highlights the expiatory role of the golden plate on the high priest's headdress in Exod 28:36-38. Based on texts such as Gen 9:5 and Exod 21:28, he concludes that sacrificial blood cannot atone for murder. Instead, no matter the intent associated with the act, only a life can expiate for the loss of human life. He concludes, "The sole personage whose religious-cultic importance might endow his death with expiatory value for the people at large is the high pries!."I58 Greenberg adds, however, that the forced exile of the manslayer also serves an expiatory function.159 Liehard Delekat offers a mediating position, arguing that just as an ancient Near Eastern slave was often freed upon his master's death, the asylum seeker is freed upon the death of the high pries!. In support of this view, he notes that Egyptian texts demonstrate that the high priest was responsible for the safety of the asylum seekerl60 Notwithstanding the foregoing explanations, the case of the manslayer and the high priest's role in Num 35 is more complex than these solutions allow. To begin, though Exod 28 :36-38 do provide a precedent for understanding the high priest's involvement in expiating p» ("sin/guilt") - and one that is independent 156 Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 150. For discussion of the Mesopotamian concept of andurilru and its relation to the biblical release laws, see, e. g., Weinfeld, Social Justice, 152-68. 157 Weinfeld, Social Justice, 126. Cf. also Nikolsky, "Das Asylrecht," 169. 158 Greenberg, "The Biblical Conception of Asyhlln," 130. 159 Greenberg, "The Biblical Conception of Asyhlln," 129. 160 Lienhard Delekat, Katoche, Hierodulie und Adoptionsfreilassung (MBPF 47; Miinchen: Beck, 1964), 156ff.

92

Chapter Two: The Urbanization ofAsylum

of sacrifice - the role of the priestly vestments are not cited at all in Num 35. Neither is the case of manslaughter and expiation of the blood guilt arising from it considered in Exod 28:36-38 (or any other biblical text concerning the Priestly r'~/'rl "rosette/crown"). Implicitly admitting as much, Greenberg cites the Talmudic dictum, "Just as the clothing of the high priest expiates, so the death of the righteous man expiates."161 While thought-provoking, such an explanation ultimately suffers from both anachronism and a lack of critical control. The reader of Num 35:25-28 is thus left with several questions: what is the precise nature of the high priest's role in relation to the manslayer's action? Does the priest indeed "bear the guilt" of the manslayer? If so, why must the manslayer remain in the city of refuge until the high priest dies? And relatedly, if the high priest bears the guilt of the manslayer, why may the blood avenger still kill him ifhe leaves the asylum city? Does the manslayer bear his own guilt right up until the death of the high priest, when it is finally transferred to the dying cultic official? If the high priest does not bear the guilt of the manslayer, is there another way of conceptualizing the efficacy ofthe high priest's death for canceling the culpability of the manslayer? Lev 10:16-20 is an important text for determining the nature of the high priest's role in Num 35. These verses, like Exod 28:36-38, describe the expiatory role of the priests and especially of the high priest:

Lev 10:16 20

mm

'1~?t\ ~~ 9~P'1 9'1!) nl!)o I!)" I!)" nM~nn "~I!) nM' 16 nM~nn nM en~~M M~ m,o 17 'O~ e,nlln 1,nM 'l~ ,on'M ~~, n;~n ]1~ M nMI!)~ m~ ]nl nM' M,n e'I!)'p I!)'P ,~ I!)'pn e,po~ nO'l~ I!)'pn ~M no, nM ~'n M~ 1n 18 'l~~ en'~~ ,~~~

m,'

em 1n nl!)o ~M 1,nM ,~'" 19 'n"~ 'I!)M~ I!)'p~ nnM '~~Mn ~'~M 'n~~M' n~~ 'nM mM'pn, mn' 'lEl~ en~~ M' enM~n nM '~"pn "~'.L':J :J~'"

iT!VO .vOID'i 20 iniT'

'~'.L':J :J~"il

Ci'il

n~t!ln

16 Then Moses sought out the goat of the purification offering, but it had been burned! And he was furious with Eleazar and Itharnar, the remaining sons of Aaron, saying, 17 "\¥by did you not eat the purification offering in the holy place, for it is most holy, and he gave it to you to bear the sin of the congregation, to make purgation for them before the LORD. 18 Its blood was not brought inside the holy place! You should have eaten it in the holy place just as I commanded!" 19 And Aaron spoke to Moses, "Look: today they presented their purification offering and their burnt offering, and things such as these happened to me! If I were to eat the purification offering today, would it be good in the eyes of the LORD?" 20 Moses listened, and it seemed good in his eyes.

The context of this text is the inauguration of the priests and specifically the aftermath of the death of Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu, who offered "strange fire" before YHWH. In Lev 10:16-20, Moses becomes angry with the priests 161

Greenberg, "The Biblical Conception ofAsylurn," 130 (cited from b. MoJed Qat 28a).

Analysis ofNum 35:9-34 and its Relation to Exod 21:12-14 and Deut 19:1-13

93

because they did not eat the people's ntOtt::ln ("purification offering"), implying that it is the consumption of the offering that effectively disposes ofthe impurity it is meant to absorb. 162 What is difficult about this text is its anomalous nature vis-a-vis other Priestly texts that treat similar issues. As Milgrom notes, Aaron treats the nl'lC!ln of the people here as if it were a nl'lC!ln whose blood was brought into the sanctuary and thus was not to be eaten, as prescribed in Lev 6:23. 163 However, there is some ambiguity - centered upon Moses' accusation against the priests in Lev 10: 18 - concerning even this evaluation. That is, is it the command in Lev 6:23 that Moses references when he asks why the priests did not eat the peoples' purification offering? There is no explicit command to eat this nl'lt!ln in Lev 8-10, a detail that prompts one to look further back into the sacrificial instructions in Leviticus. However, examination ofthese instructions does not sufficiently clarify the issues. The instructions concerning the nl'lt::ln of the entire congregation in Lev 4: 1321 require that its blood be brought into the Tent of Meeting and that the entire animal be burned. Presumably the nl'lt!ln in Lev 9-10 is of the entire people (cf. Lev 8:3), but if this is the case, Lev 4: 13-21 prescribe that it should be a bull. In Lev 9-10, by contrast, the nl'lt!ln ofthe people is a goat, which corresponds better with the instruction for a chieftain in Lev 4:22-26 (male goat) or an individual Israelite in Lev 4:27-31 (female goat). With respect to these purification offerings, the priests are to eat the meat of the goat (Lev 6: 19,22). In the H revision of Lev 4's ntOtt!ln ritual, the purification offering brought for the entire community is a male goat (Num 15:24-25), and it is to be accompanied by a bull for a burnt offering (;r,ll), unlike the calf and lamb in Lev 9:3 164 Further complicating the issue in Lev 9-10 is the description of the sacrifices in Lev 9:7-22. The exact procedure followed by Aaron and his sons in these

162 David P. Wright, The Disposal ofImpurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS 101; Altanta: Scholars, 1987), 132-33 and esp. n. 22 on pp. 133-34; Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 636-39. See also Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 46-52. Kiuchi disputes the the view that the consumption of sacrificial flesh in this verse is expiatory. Instead, he views Lev 10:17b as refening to the priests' manipulation of the ~ blood. Moses' question in 10: 17a is not why the priests did not eat the meat but rather why they did not eat it in a holy place, for the ~n is most holy in character. Problematic for this interpretation is the fact that Aaron responds as if the question indeed were, "Why did you not eat the nMton at all?", for this is what happened. That is, the offering was burned, not eaten. Kiuchi's solution to this problem is that Aaron believed his family's sin, i. e., that of Nadab and Abihu, disqualified him from eating the peoples' nlllton. Moreover, further purgation was necessary to expiate the priestly sin whose priority exceeds that of the people. This is then the impetus for the Day of Atonement rite (cf. 72-77). 163 Milgrom,Leviticus 1-16, 639. 164 For a discussion ofH's revision ofP's ntllt!ln law, see Ismel Knohl, "The Sin Offering Law in the 'Holiness School' (Numbers 15.22-31)," in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (ed. Gary A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan; JSOTSup 125; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 192-203.

94

Chapter Two: The Urbanization ofAsylum

verses is unclear when compared to Lev 4. 165 For example, to which altar is Aaron applying the blood into which he dipped his finger in Lev 9:9? The verse reads, Lev 9:9

,~

"'M c,"

c,~ 1J)~M ,~~" nM )1nM 'l~ '~'p" n~lC" "0' 'M p~' c," nM' n~lC" nu,p The sons of Aaron brought the blood to him, and he dipped his finger in the blood and placed it upon the horns of the altar, and the blood he pomed out at the base of the altar.

In',

There seems to be no differentiation between two altars in this verse, as if Aaron applied the blood to the horns of the inner, incense altar while pouring out the rest of the blood at the outer altar of burnt offering. Such differentiation characterizes the instructions for the nll~n in Lev 4 (cf. vv. 6-7, 17-18,25, 30) but is absent from the Day of Atonement rite in Lev 16:1-29 166 Milgrom solves this problem by asserting that older priestly n~n customs are preserved in this peri cope, and their divergence from the nonnative Priestly sacrificial laws is tolerable because this dedicatory ceremony is unique within the larger narrative world ofthe Priestly author. Therefore, it is acceptable that no blood from either the priests' or the peoples ' purification offering is brought into the Tent of Meeting and that proper hand placement upon the animals is absent. Likewise, the atypical burning of all the sacrificial meat outside ofthe camp is not problematic because the priestly inauguration represents an exceptional case. 167 Milgrom's solution - that an older priestly nMC!ln tradition is preserved in Lev 9-10 and tolerated because of the special circumstances in which it is placed in the narrative - is possible. It is certainly clear that there were different and even competing cultic perspectives in ancient Israel and that fragments of less dominant traditions remain in the biblical witness. 168 However, Milgrom's explanation does not adequately address all of the problems created by this text. In fact, after reviewing the various prescriptions and rituals offered in the Priestly legal corpus for the purification offering, one is left to wonder whether Aaron could possibly know whether he and his sons should eat the peoples' nll~n or what the purpose was for eating it (cf. Lev 10: 17). As noted already, Lev 6: 17-23 offers instructions for the priestly consumption of the purification offering, but in this latter text, there is no rationale offered for the instruction that the priests should eat the n~n. Only the scenario described in Lev 10: 16-20 offers any indication that priestly consumption of the offering is expiatory. In fact, it is only in light 165 Num 15:22-29 provide no help in this case, for these verses do not detail the ritual to be performed. 166 Knohl, Sanctuary o/Silence, 29 n. 62. 167 Milgrom,Leviticus 1-16, 583, 636-37. 168 For examples from Ezekiel, see, e. g., Menahem Haran, "The Law Code of Ezekiel XL-LXVIII and its Relation to the Priestly School," HUCA 50 (1979): 45-71. See also Hag 2: 11-14 and its divergence from pentateuchal Priestly law with regard to holiness contagion.

Analysis ofNum 35:9-34 and its Relation to Exod 21:12-14 and Deut 19:1-13

95

of Lev 10: 17 that Lev 6: 17-23 must be understood as prescribing requirements rather than privileges for the priests. In the end, the impression given by Lev 10: 17 is that the relationship between priestly consumption of the sacrifice and its expiatory function is loose, undefined, and peripheral in Priestly thought. Lev 10:16-20 thus resemble the Priestly asylum law with regard to the role of the high priest. That is, Num 35 leaves the function of the high priest wholly undefined, and, as in Lev 10: 17, it is not even clear that his role is expiatory at all. In light of the prevalent talionic conceptualizion of murder in both Priestly and non-priestly biblical homicide laws, it is more likely that the high priest is inserted into the H asylum law because a life is necessary to pay for the life of the manslayer's victim (cf. Gen 9:6; Num 35:33Jl69 The high priest is chosen because of the intrinsic value placed on his life: he is the representative of the people before the deity,170 and he seems to be available in other biblical contexts, as demonstrated above, for substitutionary/expiatory scenarios. That a nM:l!ln sacrifice is either impractical or unacceptable in the case of manslaughter then requires the Holiness author to address the problem of blood revenge by inventing a new role for the high priest. On analogy to the Jubilee law and its limited confinement rule, and in light of the high priest's expiatory role in explicitly cullic contexts (Exod 28; Lev 10), H invokes talion law, introducing a vicarious role for the high priest with regard to the feud between manslayer and blood avenger. This solution is preferable to previous interpretations of Num 35 because it explains why the manslayer can be killed at any time he leaves the asylum city before the death of the high priest: in such a case, there has not yet been any blood (metaphorically) spilt in payment for the blood of the manslayer's victim. Therefore, the blood avenger may rightfully retaliate against the manslayer with impunity. The high priest does not bear the sin of the manslayer immediately upon the assembly'S detennination of inadvertance. If this were the case, there should theoretically be no need for the manslayer's extended stay in the refuge city. Once his act was judged unintentional, the manslayer would be released of his guilt, which would fall to the high priest. Such is not the case, however, in 169 With regard to talion, note that Num 35:27 uses the verb *n~' for the blood avenger's justified slaughter of the manslayer who strays from the asylum city before the death of the high priest. In other words, he may literally "kill the killer," turning his own act against him. Perhaps the significance of *n~' here, as opposed to *n11:l (C stem; cf. Num 35:19, 21), is that the scenario imagined here is more analogous to the act of the manslayer himself: upon encOlllltering the manslayer, the blood avenger is so overcome by his rage and sense of justice that his act is unavoidable and thus tacitly permitted, while in the case of the intentional killer, the blood avenger's action is official and publicly sanctioned. 170 My analysis concerning the role of the high priest in Num 35 was anticipated in part by Baruch J. Schwartz, "Asylum," in The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (ed. R.J. Zwi Weblowsky and Geoffrey Wigoder; New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 77. However, Schwartz and I came to our conclusions independently.

96

Chapter Two: The Urbanization ofAsylum

Num 35. Rather, the Holiness author appears to be synthetic and acconuuodationist in his approach to blood guilt and asylum, combining originally umelated systems of thought and doing so somewhat incompletely, even as he attempts to adhere to an overarching value of justice. Therefore, the high priest does in the end bear the guilt ofthe manslayer, but the blood avenger retains the right to kill him ifhe goes outside of the asylum city. H thereby acknowledges the clan system of blood revenge and, though seeking to subvert it, does not completely discard it. [fthe preceding explanation of the high priest's role in Num 35 is correct, an important observation concerning the interaction of pentateuchal Priestly and Deuteronomic thought can be observed. In the case of asylum, H expands and innovates with regard to a P concept in response to DP71 That is, H uses the P concept of the high priest's expiatory function in the sacrificial sphere and, in response to D's view of permanent residence for the manslayer at the asylum city, reformulates and extends this function to apply to the limited duration of the manslayer'S refuge. In his revision, the author draws upon H traditions from Lev 25 and both P and H understandings ofmllZi (Lev 4 and Num 15:22-31). Thus he endorses an integrationist approach that freely borrows from disparate ideological schools and reworks their viewpoints in the process of his own legal innovation.

Asylum in Joshua 20 and its Relation to Pentateuchal Asylum Legislation Unlike the pentateuchal asylum laws, which exhibit a relatively high level of coherence in their canonical fonn, the fundamental incomprehensibility of Josh 20: 1-9 encourages investigation ofthe possibility that this chapter is composite. The main difficulty relates to vv. 4-6 and is centered in v. 6: Josh 20:6

,'w

il'il' ilZM ':l"~il lil:::>il mo '.1' t!)ooo':l il,.vil 'jE3':l '.1' tIl'ilil i'J!I::l ::ltD" CtDO OJ iWM i'.vil ':lM 1n':l ':lM1 1i'.v ':lM t01 n~1"11' :l1W' tM Cilil C'fJ'::l He shall dwell in that city lllltil he stands before the congregation for judgment, until the death of the high priest who is in office in those days. Then the killer may return to his city and his horne to the city from which he has fled.

171 GrUnwaldt similarly recognizes that the Holiness authors attempt to accommodate both P and D in their compositions (Heiligkeitsgesetz, 367). There are, of course, some examples of Holiness revisions ofP, such as that of the rR!In in Nrun 15:22-31, for which there is no evidence that any external influences prompted the modifications introduced. If such external influences do exist in such cases of Holiness revisions ofP, they are not readily identifiable.

Asylum in Joshua 20 and its Relation to Pentateuchal Asylum Legislation

97

The verses immediately preceding Josh 20:6 offer procedural instructions concerning the killer's admission into the city of refuge, ensuring that only a manslayer may enter the city, not a murderer. Verse 6 presumably adds a second step in the manslayer's adjudication, requiring that once admitted to the refuge city, the manslayer may dwell there "until he stands before the congregation for judgment, until the death of the high priest who is in office in those days," This second level of judgment is redundant and thus unnecessary, for v. 5 clarifies that, once admitted, the manslayer may live in the refuge city under its protection. Moreover, what is the meaning ofthe two asyndetically joined prepositional phrases in v, 6a? Certainly the trial before the congregation would not always (or ever!) coincide with the death of the high priest! Thus, while the reader can certainly make some sense of Josh 20 in its final fonn, significant problems are unexplained by a synchronic reading, Scholars who have attempted source-critical work on Josh 20 have successfully isolated an original layer and subsequent redactional layers for this text, as well as the sources for these editorial additions. Best known in this regard is the work ofRofe. However, many of his conclusions were anticipated by Fishbane, who demonstrates compositional layers in Josh 20 on the basis of this text's colophon in v. 9. 172 In his analysis, Fishbane tests the theory that "summary-lines in the Hebrew Bible accurately reflect the topics of the preceding text" and may "also serve as a valuable index to the redactional history oflegal texts,"!73 On this basis, he isolates Josh 20: 1-3, 6a~, 7-9 as the earliest layer in this chapter and finds explicit corroboration for this theory in LXXB+mss, which reflect this reconstructed layer perfectly He identifies two additional conceptual layers of tradition in the chapter: vv. 4-5 is characterized by Deuteronomic language, while additions to v, 6 (i, e" v, 6 aa+b) correspond with Num 35:25, 28,32, Fishbane does not commit to a specific temporal sequence for these additions and even considers the possibility that these disparate traditions may have been integrated into Josh 20 in the same redactional event. 174 Rofe agrees in the main with Fishbane, arguing that LXXB reflects a more original text that was subsequently expanded by a Deuteronomistic editor. 175 Michael Fishbane, "Biblical Colophons," 443--49. Fishbane, "Biblical Colophons," 439. 174 Fishbane, personal connmUlication. 175 Following the views of Noth, Richard D. Nelson argues that Josh 20 serves as the source for Num 35:9-15 (Joshua: A Commentary [OIL; Louisville: WestrninsteriJohn Knox, 1997], 229). Ludwig Schmidt also views the entire relationship of biblical asylum legislation differently, including its fulfillment in Josh 20. Often closely following Noth, he argues that LXXB does not provide corroboration for an earliest layer of Josh 20 that was subsequently expanded in MT. Rather, he sees the original layer ofJosh 20 as a fulfillment to Deut 19:1-13 that was later reworked to correspond with Num 35:9-15 ("Leviten- undAsylstiidte," 103-13). Amajor problem for Noth's view is the nature and content of the divine command in Josh20:2b: 172 173

98

Chapter Two: The Urbanization ofAsylum

However, he views the additions made by this Deuteronomistic editor differently. For example, Rofe sharpens Fishbane's analysis by noting that the phrase ',,:0 n1l1 in v. 3af1 is not reflected in LXXB and is thus not part ofthe original Priestly layer of this law. Rather, it is a Deuteronomic addition that is to be equated with the immediately preceding phrase M 5 But if the blood avenger pursues after him, they [i. e., the city elders] shall not turn over the killer into his hand (for he struck his neighbor inadvertently and did not hate him previously) 6 until he stands before the congregation for judgment. He shall then live in that city until the death of the high priest who is in office in those days. Only then rnaytbe killer return to his city and to his house to the city from which he fled.

Unfortunately, no manuscript evidence exists to corroborate such an emendation. Still, the correspondence between Josh 20:6aa+b and Num 35:25ba makes positing this correction the most plausible solution for reading the incoherent MT of Josh 20:6, even though a hypothesized process of textual corruption cannot be offered. To sununarize, while no redactional analysis of Josh 20 can be unimpeachable, the coherence of the entire chapter minus v. 6aa+b, the absence of non-Deuteronomic influence in vv. 4-5, and the plausibility of the proposed emendation in v. 6 combine to suggest that there is an intermediate redactional layer in Josh 20. This intermediate layer, which includes vv. 1-5, 6a~, 7-9, corresponds with the Deuteronomic asylum law even as it innovates beyond that text. The addition in v. 6aa+b represents a final redaction and can be viewed in at least two different manners: (1) The interpolation is a somewhat clumsy attempt to integrate secondary Priestly material, influenced also by a knowledge of Deuteronomic thought,188 into a text that already represented an amalgamation of Priestly and Deuteronomic ideology; or (2) due to a textual corruption, v. 6aa has been displaced from its original position immediately following v. 6af1 and preceding its logical continuation in v. 6b, as supported by its textual patrimony, Num 35:25ba. In either case, though v. 6aa+b draws explicitly from a Priestly source, this final interpolation is not strictly "Priestly." Instead, it reflects the combination of originally distinct sources (H and D) and thus an early stage in the canonical process,189 for it is an attempt to integrate more recent additions to Num 35 (vv. 16-34) while employing relevant Deuteronomic language. This compositional method exhibits a lack of regard for the distinctiveness of Priestly and Deuteronomic ideology and, in its place, offers a perspective on pentateuchal legislation that is holistic and integrative. It is thus likely that, for the author of 188 Rofe ("Joshua 20," 138) notes that the reference to the high priest inJosh20:6 represents a combination of Priestly and Deuteronomic language, as noted above. 189 For discussion of the term "canonical process" and its distinction from the "canon" properly so-called, see Eugene Ulrich, "The Notion and Definition of Canon," in The Canon Debate (ed. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders; Peabody, Mass.; Hendrickson, 2002), 21-35 (aI30).

Asylum in Joshua 20 and its Relation to Pentateuchal Asylum Legislation

103

Josh 20:6aa+b, the Holiness Legislation and Deuteronomy are part of a single Torah, the constituent parts of which are viewed as equally authoritative. 190 The following chart illustrates the redactional layers posited for Josh 20: 191 nM tD? 1ln 10M'? ?1I11D' 'D ?II 1:l1 2 101l? VID1'" ?II """ 1:l1'1 1 '?:l:l TllllD:l IDEll n~o n~11 nOID 01i:> J nlDO 1':l tD'?1I 'n1:l1 11Dl1 ~?pon '1V n?lIn C'1VnO nnM ?II Ol1 4 [n~1n nl0' M'?1 J C1n ?lIl0 C?PO? C~? 1'T11 nv1 t:li1~?~ iT'~DiT 1n~ ~OM1 1~':11 nM tfI~iTil '~DiT ~JPt ~jttfl:1 i:1" i~DiT iDtD nrm 101'1

,~ 11':l n~"1 nil 11l0' M'?1 1'1nll C1n ?Ml ~11' '~1 5 COV :l1D'1 CWO 1? Unll 110V 1V lI'nn 1'V:l :l1D'1 6 CliD?1D ?1OM 1? 11\1 MlID 1I?1 .1V1 nil n~n nv1 '?:l:l n~'iiT :11tD~ I'M CiTiT C~O~:1 iT~iT~ '0M ?1'liT liT~il n1tJ toEltl:)O? iT'Dil ~JEl? 1n:l ?'?l:l1D1P nil l1D1P'1 7 CIDO Ol 1IDII 1'vn ?M In':l ?Ml 11'V ?II M:ll ':W01 8 iT",' iiT::l 11':1n M'iT D::li~ n'ip nM1 tl'iEl~ iiT:1 tl~tD ntfl1 '?nElJ 1V?l:l neM1 nMl 1:l1M1 ncoo 11D'0:l 1:l10:l 1~:l nil 1lnl nn1tc In'1' )11'? 1m 1l?1 ?1I11D' 'D ?~? n1V1Cn '1V 1'n n?1I 9 nlDlO ncoo 11D:l:l 11?l nlll 1l ncoo n1vn 'lD? 110V 1V C1n ?lIl 1':l nl0' M'?1 nlllD:l IDDl n~o ?~ nOID Ou? C~1rn

'1'

1 The LORD spoke to Joshua, saying, 2 "Speak to the children ofIsrael, saying, 'Appoint for yourselves the cities of refuge which I commanded you through Moses, 3 that a killer (one who strikes down a life) inadvertently (without knowledge) may flee there. They shall be yours for refuge from the blood avenger, [that the killer might not die]. 4 But he should flee to one of these cities and stand at the opening of the gate of the city and speak his words to the elders of that city. They shall take him into the city to themselves and give sanctuary to him and he shall dwell with them. 5 And if the blood avenger pursues him they shall not deliver the killer into his hand. for he killed his neighbor without knowledge and did not hate him previously. 6 And he shall dwell in that city lllltil he stands before the congregation for judgment, lllltil the death of the high priest who is in office in those days. Then the killer may return and corne to his city and to his house to the city from which he fled. 7 And they sanctified Kedesh in the Galilee, in the hill country ofNaphtali, and Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim, and KiriatArba that is, Hebron in the hill COlllltry of Judah. 8 On the other side of the Jordan, east of Jericho, they appointed Bezer in the wilderness, in the plain, from the tribe of Reuben, and Ramot in Gilead from the tribe of Gad, and Golan in Bashan from the tribe of Manasseh. 9 These were the cities of appointment for all the children of Israel and for the alien sojourning in their midst, to which everyone who struck down a life inadvertently could flee so that he might not die by the hand of the blood avenger until he stood before the congregation.

190 The quality of the first interpolation in Josh 20, which attempts to further revise the pentateuchal asyhun legislation, may suggest that its author accepted the notion of a Hexateuch rather than a Pentateuch. The second interpolation, however, which attempts to integrate key pentateuchal asylum ideas that were omitted from prior rescensions ofthis text, seems to privilege the Pentateuch. For treatment of the ancient debate concerning a Tetrateuch, Pentateuch, or Hexateuch, see, e. g., Thomas C. Romer and Marc Z. Brettler, "Deuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch," JBL 119 (2000): 401-19. 191 Non-underlined material corresponds with LXXB and represents the earliest layer of this text. Text underlined once comprises a first redactional layer. The end ofv. 3, in brackets, was likely omitted by this same redactor. Text underlined twice is part of the final redaction ofthis passage.

104

Chapter Two: The Urbanization ofAsylum

One possible objection l92 to the preceding redactional analysis may arise in light of the seeming influence ofH and CC on Josh 20:4 rather than simply D. Josh 20:4 attests the roots and ':ltD', verbs that appear analogously in Num 35: 12 and Num 35:25, 28 but that are completely absent from Deut 19: 1-13. Likewise, the noun t:l1pO in this verse, so carefully avoided in the Deuteronomic asylum law (see above) but central to that of the Covenant Collection (Exod 21:13), suggests that the author of Josh 20:4 may have even known the Covenant Collection asylum law. However, closer examination suggests, as Rofe argues, that the author of Josh 20:4 makes use of language from Deut 22:2 and especially Deut 23: 16-17 to compose his legal revision. Similarly, his use ofthe phrase "1'J)M 'J)ID nnE) parallels this sarne phrase in Josh 8:29, a Deuteronomistic composition. 193 The verb "0)), though certainly appearing in the Holiness asylum law, is also attested in a judicial context in Deut 19:17. The latter verse is part of a casuistic law concerning false testimony and, following closely upon the Deuteronomic asylum law, may have been utilized by the author of Josh 20:4. Alternatively, the introduction of the verb "0)) in Josh 20:4 may not be related to any specific source, for the verb *,1:lJJ is a technical term used for the parties in a trial and thus especially appropriate to this interpolation. 194 In any case, the introduction of into Josh 20:4 need not suggest dependence upon Num 35: 12. Thus, while the lexical parallels between Josh 20:4 and non-Deuteronomic pentateuchal asylum laws are suggestive at first, further study reveals that Num 35 and Exod 21 did not exert significant influence over the composition of this verse. 195

',Oll

',Oll

192 There are, of course, many possible objections to any redactional analysis, each dependent upon how much of the analysis is accepted. For example, one might argue that because the material in Josh20 can be traced either to Priestly or Deuteronomic sources, one should simply divide them according to pentateuchal source. However, such an analysis would fail on several counts. First, the LXXB recension of Josh 20 does not correspond with either ofthese proposed Priestly versus Deuteronomic layers. Second, while the proposed Priestly layer of Josh 20 in such a scenario would likely have to be the earlier layer, it does not read coherently. Reversing the chronology of the sources does not help, for neither do the Deuteronomic portions of Josh 20 exhibit coherent flow on their own. Another potential objection might be that LXXB does not represent an earlier recension of Josh 20 but is rather an abbreviated text subsequent to MT Josh 20. In light of the evidence, however, this possible analysis likewise proves untenable, for it is lUlclear why LXXB would omit the greater part of vv. 4-6 if its Vorlage reflected this text. Moreover, producing such a coherent text by only excising words and not adding to it or rearranging at all is unlikely. Finally, if one were to argue that the LXXB text reflects scribal mistakes (i. e., haplography), the evidence of the text itself argues against such a view. 193 Rofe, "Joshua 20," 137-38. 194 Bannash notes the technical use of the verb *'~.v in the context of legal proceedings, citing Num 27:2; Deut 19:17; Josh20:6; Isa 50:8 (Homicide in the Biblical World,21). 195 It cannot be ruled out completely, however, that the appearance ofC'1p~ in Exod 21: 13 provided extra impetus for its appearance here in Josh 20:4. There is simply not enough evidence to make such an assertion.

Asylum in Joshua 20 and its Relation to Pentateuchal Asylum Legislation

105

Having established the Deuteronomi(sti)c origin of Josh 20:4-5, I shall turn now to reconstructing, as far as possible, the intellectual processes involved in the author's crafting of his interpolation,196 First, it is clear that legal analogy is operative in both vv, 4 and 5, Fishbane notes that the only explicit example of non-cultic legal analogy in the Torah is found in Deut 22:26, which makes a direct correlation between its law concerning the rape of a betrothed virgin and that of the manslayer in Deut 19:1-13, There are, however, many examples of implicit legal analogy in the Pentateuch, and if we include the case of Josh 20:4, in the Hexateuch. l 97 In our case, several common themes are shared by the author's conception of asylum for inadvertent homicide and the laws he exploits in his revision of Josh 20, For example, by introducing the city elders into his novel admission procedure for the asylum seeker, the author borrows from Deut 19:12 (and likely other Deuteronomic laws in which the city elders appear) even as he significantly transforms his source, In Deut 19: 12, the elders referenced are those of the killer's hometown, not those of the asylum city.198 However, these different elders play an analogous role in their respective laws: throughout Deuteronomy as well as in Josh 20:4, the elders perform local judgment, normally located explicitly in the city gate, By introducing the city elders, the author of Josh 20:4-5 not only inaugurates a two-step adjudication process for the asylum seeker but also differentiates between the judicial bodies that preside over the two hearings. The elders are not the ultimate arbiters in the case of murder; rather, the author of Josh 20:4-5 makes the "'ll ("congregation"), already present in the earliest layer ofJosh 20, the final authority for determining the killer's culpability For Num 35:9-15, the "'ll is a national judicial body, and the situation in Josh 20 is presented comparably, Thus, the author of Josh 20:4-5 differentiates between the two judicial bodies - the elders and the con-

196 Emanuel Tov inaccurately characterizes the interpolation in vv. 4--6 as "a direct quote" ofDeut 19:4-6 ("The Growth of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Evidence of the LXX Translation," in Studies in Bible [ed. Sara Japhet; ScrHier 31; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986], 321-41 [at 335]). As demonstrated here, these verses actually contain two separate interpolations, neither of which is "a direct quote" ofDeut 19:4-6 but instead interacts creatively with this and other source texts. 197 The interpolation in Josh 20:4-5, in distinction from that in v. 6, is actually an attempt to revise pentateuchallegislation rather than simply to hannonize the fulfillment narrative in Josh 20 with the pentateuchal texts that it ostensibly references. Such attempted legal revision suggests that, by the time of his composition, the author of Josh 20:4-5 may have found the Pentateuch closed to alteration. Alternatively, this interpolator may have espoused a Hexateuch rather than a Pentateuch, with Joshua fulfilling the Mosaic role of lawgiver (cf. Deut 18: 15-22). If the latter is the case, the author likely perceived no strong division between pentateuchal law and its fulfillment in Joshua, making the latter an appropriate location for further revision of asylum law. For the problem of a Pentateuch versus a Hexateuch, cf. Romer and Brettler, "Deuteronomy 34 and the Case," passim. 198 Bannashrecognizes this difference between the elders referenced in Deut 19:12 and Josh 20:4 (Homicide in the Biblical World, 92).

106

Chapter Two: The Urbanization ofAsylum

gregation - based upon their respective jurisdictions: the elders are local judges, while the congregation is the supreme judicial body of the land. Interestingly, by introducing a two-tiered judicial process and by making such a jurisdictional/geographical distinction between its two levels, Josh 20:4-5 is able to integrate partially and thus to harmonize the competing visions of judicial procedure presented in Deuteronomy. In D, there is a lack of clarity concerning the role ofthe local elders vis-a-vis the professional judiciary established in Deut 16: 18-20. Moreover, Deut 17:8-13 establishes a centralized judiciary as a sort of "supreme court" for hearing the most difficult cases from the local sphere. Recognizing the potential incompatibility of the local professional judiciary and elder justice, scholars offer varied solutions to the problem of the local judiciary in Deuteronomy. Like others before him, Rofe argues for a development from pre-Deuteronomic, local elder justice to the professional judiciary ofDeut 16:18-20; 17:8_13 1 99 Levinson contends that Deut 16:18-20, by its appointment of professional judges to serve precisely in the location in which the elders would normally preside (i. e., the city gates), attempts to deny that local elder justice ever existed at all. Such revisionist history is achieved by the Deuteronomic legislator'S "polemical silence" concerning any prior judicial role for the elders. In Levinson's reading, then, elder justice and professional local justice are not to exist contemporaneously in Israe1. 200 Others, such as Otto, eschew the argument that elder law texts are pre-Deuteronomic and suggest that these two judicial systems could and did co_exist. 20I In my opinion, neither of these options can adequately account for Josh 20. Rather, it seems that the author of Josh 20:4-5 strikes a balance between Deuteronomy's two mutually exclusive judicial systems, adopting a !\vo-tiered judiciary that, while borrowing from its various sources, does not correspond completely with any of them. Specifically, Josh 20:4 discards the local professional judges of Deut 16:18-20, replacing them with the city elders of Deut 19: 12. But Josh 20:4 also retains the 11'» ofthe earliest layer of Josh 20 and with it replaces the central high court ofDeut 17:8-13. The author of Josh 20:4-5 draws further legal analogies in his conceptualization of asylum. Deut 22:2 offers instructions for handling lost livestock, requiring the Israelite to "gather in" (*!l01'l) the wandering ox or sheep of his brother until the latter seeks it out. The parallels with asylum are transparent: the author of Josh 20:4-5 contends that the one who is fleeing/wandering and 199 Alexander Rofe, "The Organization of the Judiciary in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 16.18-20; 17.8-13; 19.15; 21.22-23; 24.16; 25.1-3)," in Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation (LondonlNewYork: T&T Clark, 2002),103-19. Rofe's argues for a nuanced development, taking into accOllllt factors of later editors and redactors borrowing from earlier conceptions of judicial organization. 200 Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Henneneutics, 124-25. 201 Eckart Otto, ''"1Jl!!j,'' TWAT 8: 358-403 (at 375-76).

Asylum in Joshua 20 and its Relation to Pentateuchal Asylum Legislation

107

thus displaced, like the stray animal, must be "gathered in" (*!l0l'l). Contrasting, however, is the procedure he offers for turning over the refugee: in the case of the animal, it is to be turned over to the one who seeks it. The manslayer, however, is not to be delivered up to the blood avenger who seeks him. Similar parallels exist between Josh 20:4-5 and Deut 23:16-17, which contain instructions for harboring escaped slaves. The Israelite must refuse to "hand over" (*1l0, C stem) the escaped slave (presumably if his master seeks him out), instead allowing the slave "to live with you in the place he should choose" (1n:r 1tDM 01ptl:l lOll :ltD'). The parallels between this law and the case of manslaughter are similarly manifest, and the author of Josh 20:4-5 informs his revision of Josh 20:1-3, 6a~, 7-9 in light of this slave law. But he does so in creative ways: in addition to incorporating precise lexical borrowings (*1l0, ltlll :liD'), the author of Josh 20:4 makes metaphorical use of the noun 01ptl in order to emphasize the implication ofthat "place" as a "sanctuary" from the blood avenger seeking him 202 Within the wider scope of biblical asylum legislation, the introduction of the term 01ptl in Josh 20:4 is especially innovative: Exod 21:12-14 employs the noun 01ptl cultically, referring specifically to a sanctuary place that houses an altar. Deut 19:1-13, in its attempt to divorce asylum from the sanctuary and to introduce refuge cities, carefully avoids using the noun C,PO even as it creatively reinterprets this term in its legal patrimony. Num 35:9-15 adopts the notion of asylum cities innovated by Deuteronomy and serves as the main source for the composition of the original layer of Josh 20. This original layer of Josh 20 is subsequently edited in light of other Deuteronomic laws, and in this editing process the term 01ptl, now fully secularized (note that Deut 23:17 employs a variation of the Deuterononllc centralization fonnula in a secular context), is reintroduced into the context of asylum legislation, signifYing "asylum" not in the concrete sense of a cultic installation but rather in the sense of protected social status (defined spacially). The secondary layer(s) in the H asylum law (Num 35:16-34), which informs the final redactional layer in Josh 20:6, attempts to undermine the strong spacial limitations of the asylum granted to the manslayer, providing him an opportunity to escape physical exile and to return to his familial inheritance. 203 Another, more basic innovation of this interpolation responds to and revises the main verse culled by the author of Josh 20:5 - Deut 19:6. In the latter verse, reference to the potential blood avenger's pursuit of the asylum seeker comes Cf. Malul, '''Aqeb 'Heel' and CAqab 'To Supplant,'" 210. In light of the literary layers discernible in Josh 20 and their contribution to the larger reconstruction of asylum legislation in the Torah, it is possible to trace the development of asylum texts more fully. I posit that the sequence of asylum legal texts is as follows: Exod 21: 12-14; Deu! 19:1-13, Num 35:9-15; Josh 20: 1-3 (minus nv, ,~~), 6a~, 7-9; Josh 20:4-5; Num 35:16ff.; Josh 20:6aa+b. 202 203

108

Chapter Two: The Urbanization ofAsylum

in the form of a rationale clause introduced by lEl "lest/so that not." As charted below, the author of Josh 20:5 transforms this rationale clause into a standard third person casuistic law, excising from it infonnation he deems unnecessary as well as replacing phrases with thematic equivalents in order to sununarize the larger context of his source more effectively. Note also that, in line with the convention of Deuteronomy, this newly fonnulated subordinate law is introduced by ';)(1), a practice generally avoided in the Covenant Collection but stereotypical of Deuteronomic casuistic fonnulation. 204 Josh 20:5

9'"

':J 'i':J. n~'i1 r1M "~C' MI;!, 1'inM tliil ?Ml ':J1 C11D?2I ~1Cno 1~ "1n MlID "~1 "ll·Ltl",,~nJJ)I""~

And if the blood avenger pursues him, they shall not hand over the killer into his hand, for he struck his neighbor inadvertently and had not hated him previously_ Deu! 19:6

on' ':J n~ji1 'iI1M Oiil ?Ml -]1i' lEl C11D?2I ~lOnc 1~ "1n MlID "~ ,~ nlO ~ElIDC )'" 1~1 IDEll 1n~m

liiil iT:J.i' ':J 1l'tDi'i1 1D?

204 See Bernard M. Levinson and Molly M. Zahn, "Revelation Regained: The Hermeneutics of':I andCM in the Temple Scroll," DSD 9 (2002): 295-346 (at 314-21). Levinson and Zabn distinguish between the convention of the Covenant Collection, where main conditions are introduced by'~ while subordinate conditions are introduced byCM, and that of Deuteronomy, where ':;' often marks a subordinate condition of a main law, the latter of which is often formulated apodictically. Such a distinction between the casuistic formulation of the Covenant Collection vs. Deuteronomy holds in the main; however, a notable exception is the anomalous example ofExcxl21:14, which, though introducing a subcondition ofvv. 12-13, is introduced by ':Jl Note in this case that v. 14 follows a main clause formulated participially and a negatively formulated subcondition that begins with pronominal iidMl As noted above, it is possible that the author ofExod21:12-14 employs':;' in v. 14 because, to his mind,':;' must always precede OR in casuistic formulation. If this is the case, the distinction that Levinson and Zabn observe in Deuteronomy can be nuanced a bit: it is not necessarily that Deuteronomy innovates a new role for':;' as marking subordinate legal conditions. Instead, because of Deuteronomy's preference for mixed legal formulations, which begin with an apodictic law that is then conditioned by casuistic, subordinate laws, these subordinate conditions can be expressed with ':;' if':;' has not appeared previously in the legal set. Note in Levinson's and Zabn's chart on p. 319 that D laws in which the main clause is marked by ':;,11':;, never attest a subordinate clause marked by':;'. Likewise, laws which begin apodictically normally do not mark a subcondition with OR (for a single exception to this rule, see Deut22:2). Therefore, even though the casuistic formulation of the Covenant Collection (in which ':J marks main conditions and OR marks subordinate conditions) is much more consistent than that of Deuteronomy and is thus rightly distinguished from Deuteronomic legal formulation, the evidence of Exod 21: 12-14 points to a rather consistent overall method between these two legal corpora: ':;' precedes OM in a topicalized set of laws, whether it marks the main condition or a subordinate condition. On the whole, Levinson and Zabn's article is very insightful and certainly elucidates well several of the features of the Temple Scroll's compositional technique. Especially pertinent to this study are their observations concerning the Temple Scroll's reformulation of the tithe in Deut 14:24-25, where they recognize that llQT seeks to clarify the successive ':;'-clauses in its source text by either reformulating or even eliminating them (321-23). In a somewhat analogous fashion, Josh 20:5 reformulates the rationale clause of its source and creates from it a new casuistic legal subcondition. However, unencumbered by the Temple Scroll's compositional strictures, the subcondition that Josh 20:5 introduces is a ':;'-clause!

Asylum in Joshua 20 and its Relation to Pentateuchal Asylum Legislation

109

Lest the blood avenger pursue the manslayer in his rage and overtake him and kill him because the way is great even though it was not a capital case, for the manslayer had not hated him previously.

Deu! 19:4b

Oll?al ~Ont:l 'I? RlII M~ M,m nlll'~:XD'll~J"lIn='ro~). Deut 12:11 and 17 both include the rural Levite as they envision tithe consumption, which is explained more fully in 14:22-29. Levites appear without reference to the tithe regularly throughout the central Deuteronomic legal core (12:19; 16:11, 14; 17:9, 18; 18: 1-8; 21 :5; 24:8), alternatively as priests (or potential priests) or as part of the underclass. 17 Jagersma rightly notes that Deuteronomy's third-year tithe, which is given to the poor, supplants the regular annual tithe in the third year ("The Tithes in the Old Testament," 119). In defense of such an interpretation, Jagersma makes an appeal to logic, arguing that a double tithe in the third year is unlikely. A more defensible argument that derives from the text itself can be made on the basis ofv. 28, which commands the Israelites to bring out in the third year lnwan itu»C 7:l rIM ("the entire tithe of your produce"). Oddly, Jagersma also suggests that

172

Chapter Four: "A Tithe/rom the TIthe"

(1) bringing the tithe and firstborn animals to the central sanctuary will teach the Israelites to fear YHWH; and (2) giving the third-year tithe to the poor will produce divine (agricultural) blessing. Deu! 14:22 29 'l~~ n~~M' 23 nX! mID n"llDn M~'n lV'l nll'~n ~~ nll 'IDvn 'IDV 22 m~~' l'n~" llD,'n lll' 'IDDO OlD 1r.l1D p~ 'n~' '1D1I o,\?ro l'n~M 100 n~" ,~, 24 o'c'n ~~ l'n~M nw nM nM"~ ,c~n lDC~ llM~' l'P~ 'OID OYII~ l'n~lI nw 'n~' 'IDM o11'on 100 pm' ,~ 1I1MID ~~111 M~ ,~ 1"n o'pcn ~11 ro~m 1"~ ~c~n n'~' ~c~~ nnnl' 25 l'~M mn' 1~'~' ,~ OlD 1~~' 'p~ llD~ mlln 'IDM ~~~ ~c~n nnnl' 26 ,~ 1'~11 nw 'n~' 'IDM nnll nnolD' l'n~M mn' 'l!l~ OlD n~~M' llDm l?lIlDn 'IDM ~~~, ,~~, 1"~'

mn'

n~po

28 lCD

'IDM '1?m 27 In'~' 'IDVC ~~ nll lI'~'n O'X! ID~ID lCD n~nl' p~n ,~ )'M ,~ nlDDn 'IDM 1" nlDDC ~~~ l'n~M nln' 1~'~' lDC~

n~nl1 p~n ,~

)'M

,~

lD1Dn

M~ l"VID~

"~n 1I~' 29 l"DID~ nnlm M,nn mlD~ lM'~ 'D~ID' '~~1I' l"VID~ 'IDM mO~Mm 01l1'm

,m,

22 You shall present a tithe from all of the produce of your seed which comes from the field each year, 23 and you shall eat it before the LORD your God in the place in which he shall choose to place his name the tithe of your grain, your new wine, and your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock in order that you may learn to fear the LORD your God for all time. 24 But if the way is too great for you, so that you are not able to carry it (because the place that the LORD your God will choose to place his name is too distant for you since the LORD your God will bless YOu), 25 you shall convert it into money and bind it in your hand and go to the place which the LORD your God will choose, 26 and you shall give the money in exchange for whatever you desire cattle, sheep, wine, strong drink:, or whatever your soul should desire. You shall eat it there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice you and your household. 27 As for the Levite who is in your gates, do not leave him behind, for he has no portion or inheritance with you. 28 At the end of three years you shall bring out the entire tithe of your produce from that year and you shall deposit it in your gates. 29 The Levite for he has no portion or inheritance with you and the alien and the orphan and the widow who is in your gates shall corne

the third-year tithe in Deuteronomy is not properly a charity tithe and intimates that its practice may differ from the tithe of the first two years only in the location in which it is eaten: years 1-2 in Jerusalem; year 3 at the local sanctuary. He appeals to the fact that a similar charity tithe is not attested in other ancient Near Eastern literature; however, such an argument relies on the presurnption that the Deuteronomic tithe reflects real historical practice, an assertion for which there is no evidence. As David Wright has suggested to me, there is, however, a charity connection between the Deuteronomic tithe and ancient Near Eastern law generally. The Laws of Hammurabi refer to the trio ensum, ekUtum, and almattum (poor, orphan girl, and widow), which are cited by the Covenant Collection author as 'l, mc"~, and C'lM' (Exod 22:20-21). Deut 14:29 includes the Covenant Collection's three personae miserables and adds to them the Levite. Thus charity toward the poor - albeit not in the form of the tithe - has ancient Near Eastern roots, but the connection between the specific underclasses mentioned is literary rather than being grounded in specific historical practice. For a discussion of the poor in ancient Near Eastern law, see F. Charles Fensham, "Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature," JNES21 (1962): 129-39.

173

The Revision of Deuteronomy 14:22-29 in Numbers 18:20-32

and they shall eat and be sated, so that the LORD your God will bless you in all the word of your hand that you do.

According to Deut 26: 12-15, after the Israelite farmer gives his full tithe for the underclasses to consume, he must swear an oath before YHWH confirming his proper manipulation and distribution of the third-year tithe. This oath, sworn in "the year of the tithe" (1tDllO;J nlW), refers to the tithe as "the holy part" (1Zi1p;J). Based on its reference to Deut 14:22-29, Deut 26:12-15 must be considered logically subsequent to the main Deuteronomic tithe law. IS As noted already, there is no basic Priestly law that enjoins Israelites to pay the tithe. However, two Holiness texts do offer legislation concerning the tithe's status, redemption, and distribution. They do not fully agree in their details 19 Numbers 18:20-32 assigns every Israelite tithe to the Levites but makes reference only to a tithe on produce. The rationale provided for assigning every tithe to the Levites is twofold: the Levites receive the tithe in view of their landless status among the Israelites and in exchange for the duties they perform and the danger they encounter with regard to the Tent of Meeting. For this reason, the tithe is considered their wage. However, the Levites are also required to give a tithe to the priests from the Israelites' tithe, after which they may consume the remainder as they choose. By following this procedure, they will not incur punishment, nor will they profane the holy offerings of the Israelites and thereby be subj ect to death. Num 18:20 32 1p~n 'lM m,rn 1~ n'n' M~ p~n1 ~nln M~ o~,~ 1,nM ~M mn' 'OM" 20 ~~n n~nl~ ~M'ID':l 'lDllO ~~ 'ml mn ,,~ 'l:l~' 21 ~M'ID"]:l 1m 1n~nl' ~nM ~ ~M'ID' ']:l "ll ,:l'P' ~, 22 'll'O ~nM n"OJl nM O',:lll on ,IDM Om:lll npn Ol'll 'MID' om 'll'O ~nM m:lll nM M,n "~n ,:lll, 23 n1O~ M~n n~ 'll'O

'0'"

'IDM ~M'ID' 'l:l 'lDllO nM ,~ 24 n~nl '~nl' M~ ~M'ID' 'l:l 1m, o~'m'~ O~'ll n~nl '~nl' M~ ~M'ID' 'l:l 1,m O~ 'mOM p ~ll n~nt.> O"~~ 'ml no"n n'n'~ 'l:l nMO mpn ,~ on~M mOM' ':l,n c"~n ~M' 26 'OM~ nlDc ~M mn' ,:l," 25 1C 'lDllO mn' ncnn "OO onc,m c:ln~nl:l onMC o~~ 'ml 'IDM 'lDllon nM ~M'ID' Ol 1O',n p 28 :lp'n 1C nM~c:l' 1"n 1c Jl'~ o~nc"n c:l~ :llDnl' 27 'lDllon no"n nM ',CC onnl' ~'ID' 'l:l nMC mpn 'IDM c:l'mlDllO ~~C nw nc"n onM 1tDipO nM 1:J.?n ?:JO i11il' rn1in ?:J nM 10'in tD'mno ?:JO 29 lil:Jil pilM? i11il'

nM':ln~' 1'] nM1:lrO O''''~ :llDnl' uco 1:l~n nM o~o"n:l on~M mOM' 30 ~nM:l o~m:lll ~~n o~~ M,n ~ ,~ o~n':l' onM C1pO ~~:l ,nM on~~M' 31 '~~nn M~ ~M'ID' ']:l 'ID'P nM' UCO ':l~n nM o~o"n:l M~n "~ll 'MlDn ~, 32

"OO :lp' 'll'O ,n1On M~'

18 Verse 13 's '~n":::I: iWM 1rn:::l:r.:l ,:l:l ("according to your entire commandment which you commanded me") is an internal reference to the law in 14:22-29. Although some of its conclusions are questionable (e. g., his view that Deut 12:21 cites Priestly ritual slaughter rules and that the Deuteronomic leprosy law similarly cites Priestly law), see Milgrom's helpful discussion of D's method of citing its sources ("Profane Slaughter and a Formulaic Key," 1-17). 19 Regarding the source ascription of Lev 27:30-33 and Nrun 18:20-32, see the discussion below.

174

Chapter Four: "A Tithe/rom the TIthe"

20 The LORD said to Aaron, "In their land you shall not inherit, and you shall have no portion in their midst. I am your portion and your inheritance in the midst of the Israelites. 21 And to the Levites I have assigned every tithe in Israel as an inheritance in exchange for their service which they perform, the labor of the Tent of Meeting. 22 Thus the Israelites shall no longer approach the Tent of Meeting and thereby bear the threat of deadly trespass. 23 Rather, it is the Levite who should perform the labor of the Tent of Meeting, and it is they who should bear their iniquity an eternal statute for your generations. But in the midst of the Israelites they shall not receive an ancestral heritage, 24 for I have given the tithe of the Israelites which they present to the LORD as a contribution to the Levites as an inheritance. This is why I said concerning them, 'In the midst of the Israelites they shall not receive an ancestral heritage. ,,, 25 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 26 "Now to the Levites you shall speak and say to them, '\¥hen you take the tithe from the Israelites, which I have given to you from them as your inheritance, you shall offer from it a contribution to the LORD a tithe from the tithe. 27 It shall be considered for you as your contribution, like the grain from the threshing floor and like the flow from the vat. 28 Thus you also shall present the contribution of the LORD from all of your tithes which you take from the Israelites, and you shall give the contribution of the LORD from it to Aaron the priest. 29 From all of your gifts you shall give every contribution of the LORD; from all its fat, its holy part from it." 30 You shall say to them, "\¥hen you have given its fat from it, it shall be considered for the Levites like produce from a threshing floor or vat. 31 You may eat it in any place, you and your household, for it is your wage in exchange for your service in the Tent of Meeting. 32 You shall bear no guilt over it once you have offered its fat from it. Thus you will not profane the sacred offerings of the Israelites and thereby die.

Differing are Leviticus 27:30-33, which state that every tithe, whether vegetable or animal,20 belongs to YHWH. Moreover, these verses explicitly designate these tithes as holy21 While the vegetable tithe may be redeemed by adding 20% to its value,22 the animal tithe may not be manipulated or redeemed. Any attempted substitution for the animal tithe results in the sanctification of both the original tithe animal and the substitute.

20 On the basis of its use of fiM ("land") instead of n,rv ("field," i. e., fiMil iID»~ "~')' Milgrom argues that Lev 27:30's vegetable tithe applies to any vegetable or fruit, not only to (specific) cultivated crops (as in Deut 14 and Num 18) (Leviticus 23-27,2396). However, ascribing such weight to the use of the noun fiM instead ofmw is unwarranted. As demonstrated in the case of seventh-year laws, Lev 25:3 substitutes the nouns mw and 0':;' ("vineyard") for Exod 23: 10's nolUl fiM, yet both ofthese verses apply only to cultivated produce and logically cannot refer to uncultivated land or wild growth. 21 The meaning of this designation, which I will explore below, is something of a crux interpretatum for understanding the relationship between Leviticus 27:30-33 and Numbers 18:20-32. 21 Compare the similar addition of20% in the case of inadvertent lay consumption of holy contributions (Lev 5:16; 22:14-16) and redemption of vows and dedicated items (Lev 27:13, 15, 19,27).

The Revision of Deuteronomy 14:22-29 in Numbers 18:20-32

175

Correspondences Between Deuteronomy 14:22-29 and Numbers 18:20-32 The tithe laws in Deuteronomy and Numbers exhibit significant thematic, lexical, and syntactic parallels that persist throughout each respective pericope. As detailed below, these correspondences and their distinctive nature demonstrate that a direct literary relationship exists between these texts. The character of these similarities also reveals that the Holiness tithe laws depend upon the Deuteronomic laws and do not serve as a source for the latter. But this correspondence can be defined even further: even though H contains two different sets of laws concerning the tithe, Deut 14:22-29 have discernable ties only with Num 18:20-32. Similar parallels do not exist between the Deuteronomic laws and Lev 27:30-33. The alternative perspective represented by Lev 27 draws further attention to the similarities between Num 18:20-32 and the Deuteronomic laws and demonstrates that a nonnative view did not necessarily limit the pentateuchal legislators' vision of the tithe. At the general level, thematic similarities bet\veen the Deuteronomic and the Holiness tithe laws are readily observable. To begin, the chief concern of each set of laws is the proper distribution and consumption of the tithe, and thus neither text treats the tithe comprehensively. Indeed, the same basic questions attend each of these sets oflaws: how should the tithe be calculated? What is the tithe responsibility of those whose primary profession is not agriculture? Neither text sufficiently addresses such issues. To detail this similarity further, though the nature and extent of this connection differs in each text, both D and H explicitly link the agricultural tithe with the Levites. In D, Levites share in every tithe, just as in H. These texts also share a basic understanding of the Levitical socioeconomic status: for each legislator, the Levites occupy a place between laity and priesthood and possess no ancestral heritage comparable to that of other Israelites. This is not to deny the differences that also exist in these texts' views of the Levites, but such differences are logically subsequent to the commonalities that underpin their Levitic laws. Finally, the tithe's holiness is at issue for both D and H and requires certain protocols for its distribution. The extent and significance of these thematic correspondences can be explored further through an examination of the lexical ties between the D and H laws. There are nine main lexical correspondences between Deut 14:22-29 and Num 18:20-32, summarized in the chart below (Figure 5). Some of these parallels do not extend beyond the basic thematic correlation already discussed (such as these texts' corresponding use of the root *,1D1I and the noun ,1D1I1:I or their contextually appropriate use of the common verb *lnl). However, other lexical parallels between these laws are more distinctive and thus worthy of detailed examination. Still, seemingly insignificant correspondences, whose appearance might nonnally be considered coincidental and thus merit no special attention (such as those between common biblical words or topic-based vocabulary),

176

Chapter Four: "A Tithe/rom the TIthe"

should not simply be dismissed. When combined with clearer examples of correspondence, these "minor" parallels are often significant because of the ways in which they are articulated or modified in each text. Moreover, even parallels bet\veen conventional1exica contribute to the density of the overall correspondence between the passages in question and thus cumulatively bolster the strength of connection bet\veen them. Many of the lexical ties between Deut 14:22-29 and Num 18:20-32 occur in thematically and syntactically analogous contexts and share characteristics that suggest that their correspondences are not simply coincidental. For example, in these texts' respective descriptions of eating the tithe, several common lexica in each law are similarly combined to form larger corresponding units. D and H each offer a prescription characterized by the verb ''':JIII + prepositional phrase oflocation + (reference to) tl1pr.l + 111'::1' n11l11m11'::1' tlnlll (Deut 14:23,26; Num 18:31):23 Deu! 14:23aa 11D»C CID 1C1D 1~ 1n::1' 1IDM C1PC::1 " n?M mn' 'l~? n?~M1 11n~'1 11D1'n lll1

You shall eat before the LORD your God in the place where he shall choose to place his name the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil. Deu! 14:26b

111'::11 nnlll nnCID1 Tu7M n1n' 'l~? CID n?~1111

You shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, YQl! and your household. Num 18:31a

C~n'::11 C1JM CpO ?~::1 1nM C1J?~1!1

You shall eat it in any p lace, you and your household.

The correspondence here is complex, for the Holiness text attests both direct and inverse correlations with its Deuteronomic source. To begin, the use of the verb *'~tfI is analogous in each text: each fonn is a second person converted perfect in the G stem with contextually appropriate grammatical number (D: singular; H: plural). In each case the command to eat is immediately preceded by a specific reference to agricultural produce (nI'lDn, Deut 14:22; Num 18:30). The prepositional phrase "before the LORD your God" (1'n"l11 mn' 'lEl") in Deut 14:23 and 26 correlates inversely with the phrase "in any place" (tl,pr.l ":J::1) in Num 18:31: in each case, a location is designated for eating the tithe. The Deuteronomic author initially limits tithe consumption to the central sanctuary, but the Holiness author permits the Levite to eat the tithe wherever he wishes. Yetthe Deuteronomic legislator provides further details in vv. 28-29 concerning the location of tithe consumption, for in these verses the author designates the 23 MT ofDeut 14:23 contains no direct object for the verb *7~M. However, both the Samaritan Pentateuch and LXX include a direct object pronoun, making their respective formulations of this verse more similar to Nrun 18:31 (MT).

The Revision of Deuteronomy 14:22-29 in Numbers 18:20-32

177

third-year tithe as wholly for the indigent. This tithe is to be consumed "in your gates" (1'1llIZiJ), i. e., in any place - not solely at the central sanctuary24 Thus, D offers two directives concerning the location in which the tithe should be eaten. H, by contrast, offers a single instruction, and this single instruction corresponds conceptually with D's prescriptions for the third-year tithe. The phrase tl1pO '?:JJ in Num 18:31 correlates further with the Deuteronomic centralization formula in Deut 14:23: ~ 10IV plV'? 1nJ' 11V1'I tl1pOJ ("in the place in which he will choose to place his name"). As in the case of1'OI'?1'I mOl' 'l!l'?, H's correlation with the Deuteronomic centralization fonnula is conceptually inverse: what is geographically restrictive in D (eat in the single sanctuary place) is pennissive in H (eat in any place). However, the Holiness legislator achieves this conceptual revision through a manipulation and reuse of the language of his source. The limited tl1pO ofDeut 14:23 becomes the unconstrained tl1pO of Num 18:3!. Yet the phrase tl1pO '?:JJ in v. 31 proves more complex, for the Holiness author here does not only enlist the language of his Deuterononllc source. Rather, such use of the noun C,PO is common in Priestly commandments concerning eating holy contributions 25 Indeed, pentateuchal Priestly legislation carefully outlines parameters for consumption of holy sacrificial portions and contributions. Depending upon the sacrificial portion or contribution under consideration,26 places for consuming these foods are designated either as holy (1Zi1POl1lZi11p tl1PO) or pure (11010 tl1pO).27 tl1pO '?:JJ in Num 18:31, however, is unique to pentateuchal Priestly literature: nowhere else does P or H employ the term tl1pO in the context of eating without positive reference to the place's holiness or purity. Yet Num 18:31 does correlate with these other Priestly place designations, for this verse addresses the parameters for Levitic consumption of the Israelite tithe contribu-

24 Deut 12: 13 implicitly defines the Israelite towns as "any place" (C'p~ '?:;':J) and contrasts them with the central sanctuary. Note the progression of thought in Deut 12:13-15: v. 13 do not sacrifice in any place; v. 14 instead sacrifice in the single place; v. 15 but you may eat meat whenever you wish "in any of your gates" (T'l'tD ?::J:J). 25 For a discussion ofthe tithe as a holy contribution, see below. 26 The consumable most holy sacrifices, portions of which are assigned to the priests and must be eaten in a holy place, are the nMln (Lev 6: 18, 22, 23; 10:17), the ctDM (Lev 7:6), and the nM:l~ (Lev 2:3; 6:9-10; 7:9-10; 10:12; 24:9 [the regular loaves D. Lesser holy offerings, portions of which are assigned to and may be eaten by laypersons or priests and which may be cOllSlUlled in a profane place, include theC'O';:t.D (Lev 7:16-18; 19:5-8), the n1,n (Lev 7:12-15; 22:29-30), and the nCE (Exod 12: 1-14). For the lesser holy offerings whose consumption is limited to the priests and their households, see Wright, Disposal of Impurity, 232 n. 1; 235-36 n. 5. 27 For tD1pn C,PC ("the holy place") in PIH, see Lev 10:17 and 14:13. For tD11p C,PO ("a holy place") in pm, see Exod 29:31; Lev 6:9, 19,20; 7:6; 10:13; 16:24; 24:9. fIl1,p C1pO also appears in Ezek 42:13 and Qoh 8:10. For'''1~ C1pC ("a pure place") inPIH, see Lev 4:12; 6:4; 10: 14; Num 19:9. ROt!! C1pC ("an impure place") also appears in pm in Lev 14:40,41,45. For a discussion ofthese different place designations (what he calls "cultic topography") and their function within the Priestly cultic system, see Wright, Disposal of Impurity, 231-43.

178

Chapter Four: "A Tithe/rom the TIthe"

tion and specifically outlines the tithe's desanctification. 28 Such desanctification becomes the key to understanding this Holiness innovation vis-a-vis other examples ofPIH tl1pl:l designations. Nowhere else in pentateuchal Priestly literature is an edible offering portion or contribution desanctified, and thus insistence upon the holy or pure status of the place of its consumption can be regularly applied. That this agricultural contribution is assigned to Levites as their regular income, however, requires that it be desanctified. If it were not, the Levite in a state of impurity could potentially be forced to go hungry until his purification 29 The motivation for this desanctification, and the language employed in its accomplishment, is thus a combination of Priestly and Deuteronomic language and ideology. While P+H is otherwise concerned with the status of the place of consumption, H must innovate in the case of the tithe on account of its unique circumstances. This innovation is at least partly motivated by the Deuteronomic law and its language and directives concerning the tithe and its consumption: the third-year tithe in Deut 14:28-29 may be eaten "in your gates," i. e., in any place. Moreover, this tithe is the exclusive right of the poor, of whom the paradigmatic example is the Levite. In the case of the tithe, by employing the Leitwar! of the Deuteronomic centralization fonnula - C,PO - and turning it on its head, the Holiness author effectively out-secularizes D, whose vision of cult centralization is regularly accompanied by secularizing instructions. 28 See Wright's brief but important note concerning the tithe and its desanctification in his discussion of the phrase I:I"ipO ":>:1 in Num 18:31 (Disposal of Impurity, 236 n. 5). Following Milgrom, Wright assumes that the biblical tithe laws reflect real historical realities and argues that Lev 27:30--33 reflect an "original" circumstance in which tithes were holy and assigned to the priests. Only later were the Israelites' tithes reassigned to the Levites (Num 18:20-32), at which point the animal tithe was no longer practiced. Concerning the tithe's desanctification, however, Wright offers potentially contradictory statements: When the pnxluce tithe was transferred to the Levites, it was, in effect, desanctified. Only the tenth which was to be given to the priests remained holy (Num 18:32). When the Levites removed this tenth from the tithe they received, their tithe becomes profane,just as the produce of the Israelites from which the tithe has been taken (vv. 27, 30). At the level of the narrative, the question is, does the act itself of transferring the tithe to the Levites desanctify it, or is it the Levites' gift of ''the tithe from the tithe" that effects this desanctification? Wright seems to have it both ways, for he understands that, as a lesser holy contribution that "belongs to the LORD" (Lev 27:30), the tithe should rightfully belong to the priests and should be eaten in a pure place. That it is tmnsferred to the Levites at all suggests that its holiness is somehow diminished. However, the text makes clear that it is actually only through the removal of the tenth-part of the tithe that the Levites' remaining nine-tenths of the tithe is desanctified (Num 18:30--32). Before this, the entire tithe tmnsferred to the Levites is holy. However, as Wright has suggested to me (private communication), if one understands this change historically, it is possible to argue that NlUll 18 offers a legal-cultic mtionale for a historical development. In the historical shift from priestly to Levitic claims on the tithe, NlUll 18 is an ideological justification for a contradiction that arose in historical practice. 29 If the tithe were not desanctified, the impure Levite's diet would presumably be limited to non-sacrificial meat (i. e., game animals or tom flesh, cf. Lev 17: 13-16) or vegetables that are not part of his regular income, the tithe.

The Revision of Deuteronomy 14:22-29 in Numbers 18:20-32

179

A further lexical and conceptual correlation between these laws concerns their reference to and division of agricultural produce according to grain and fruit. Deut 14:23 delineates the stereotypical tripartite agricultural list of grain, wine, and oil (1"~" 1D1'n 1l1), while Num 18:27 and 30 similarly differentiate produce from the threshing floor (J1l) and the vat (:JP'). Additionally, though v. 27 specifies only the noun 111 (grain), the tripartite list of1"~"1D1'n 111 appears in the Holiness author's inunediately preceding legislation concerning priestly perquisites. In fact, Num 18:12a contains the only instance of this agricultural list in all of pentateuchaI Priestly literature. By contrast, these three foodstuffs are stereotypical in Deuteronomy, appearing six times (7:13; 11:14; 12:17; 14:23; 18:4; 28:51) - more than in any other biblical book 30 Even more important, however, is the sequence of this tripartite list in its sole Priestly attestation. Ofthe twenty times these three agricultural products appear together in biblical texts, Num 18: 12a contains the only instance in which they are attested in reverse order: Num 18:12a

p"

lZ)",n :l~n ~:l'

'm!'

:l~n ~:l

All the best of the oil and all the best of the wine and grain

Such a reversal of sequence distinguishes this occurrence of the tripartite list as a textual citation according to Seidel's law. 31 Moreover, the most plausible source for this citation is the regular Deuteronomic attestation of 1~" tv1'n p1, for outside ofNum 18:12a, the only occurrences of this tripartite list in the Torah are in Deuteronomy. References to Levi (',.,) in these laws are equally noteworthy, especially in the case of Num 18:23 vis-a-vis similar references in the Deuteronomic tithe laws. Num 18:20-24 are addressed to Aaron (v. 20) and regularly refer to the Levites as a group in the third person plural. Verses 25-32 contain direct address from the deity to the Levites and exhibit contextually appropriate second person plural construction. 32 Such consistency, coupled with the quick and somewhat

30 In addition to the Deuteronomic and Holiness attestations already referenced, ,.~~ 1'D'~n p' appear together in 2 Kgs 18:32; Jer 31: 12; Hos 2:10, 24; Joel 1:10; 2:19; Hag 1: 11; Neh 5: 11; 10:40; 13:5, 12; 2 Chr 31:5; 32:28. 31 As discussed further below, it is likely that Num 18:12a exhibits direct literary dependence upon Deut 18:4, but it is not inconceivable that the appearance of the tripartite list in the Deuteronomic tithe law was influential in the composition ofthis verse as well. In any case, the division between grain and fruit is operative in both Deut 14:22-29 and Num 18:20-32. 32 The third person reference to the Levites in v. 30 (C""" :~WTm) is not overly awkward, for though it might be more appropriate contextually if this verse read like v. 27 (C:::;l7 :JWm1 "it shall be considered for you"), the character of the legislation and its import for non-Levites here likely prompts the author to break from his narrative conceit and make a declarative statement with third person reference to the Levites. A similar break from the narrative conceit of the text is found in v. 23b, where the legal duration formula is addressed to Israel as a whole, even though there the deity is ostensibly speaking only to Aaron.

ISO

Chapter Four: "A Tithe/rom the TIthe"

awkward return to plural construction after it, makes this text's one grammatically singular reference to ',?;r (Num IS:23oo) especially unexpected: 33 Num 18:23

,~,c

?nM

m~~

nM lIt,n ',?n

,~,

But it is the Levite who shall do the labor of the Tent of Meeting

The abnormality of the singular reference to the Levite in this verse is only heightened when it is recognized that nowhere else in all of the Holiness Legislation is the Levite referred to individually with regard to his sanctuary labor.34 What is the impetus, then, for this singular reference to the Levite and his sanctuary labor?35 There are two contextually appropriate singular references to Levi in the Deuteronomic tithe laws, both of which are identical to this anomalous example from Num IS:23aa: Deu! 14:27

'l~l»n

M?

l"~ID~

,IDM ',?o1

But the Levite who is in your gates Deu! 14:29

lC~

n?m1 p?n ,? )'M

,~

',?n

you shall not abandon him

M~'

And the Levite shall corne, for he has no portion or inheritance with you 33 The awkwardness ofNum 18:23aa could suggest that this clause is a secondary interpolation. However, such a redactional analysis creates as many problems as it solves, for in such a scenario the pronoun CM in v. 23ap is then very far removed from its antecedent and might suggest that ~,(D' '~:l in v. 22 is its referent, though this is logically impossible in light of v. 22's content. Y\ For references to Levitic labor inH, all of which are plural except Num 18:23, see Exoo 38:21; Num 7:5; 8:11,15,19,22,24,26; 18:6,21,23. For a discussion of the meaning ofLevitical M'~, see Jacob Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Tenninology, 1: The Encroacher and the Levite; the Term 'Aboda (Near Eastern Studies 14; BetkeleylLos AngeleslLondon: University of California Press, 1970), 60--87. 35 Milgrom aptly recognizes this issue: "The literary critics have been asking the wrong question. The problem is not why cm follows '1?M, but why, in a unit where the Levites occur only in the plural, is there an abrupt change to ,t.m in the singular?" (Studies in Levitical Terminology, 26 n. 87). Milgrom's solution, however, is problematic. He erroneously argues that "the text could not have been written differently," suggesting that the shift from plural to singular emphasizes the communal responsibility of the Levites for the actions of the individual Levite (Studies in Levitical Tenninology, 25-26). Such an interpretation is lUllikely, for if this were the intent ofv. 23ap, it should read *UW 1Mtz)' cm "and they shall bear his iniquity," i. e., the iniquity of the individual Levite - not cnv "their iniquity." Moreover, there is little to commend such a shift from plural to singular if the reason is, as Milgrom claims, to show that every Levite is responsible for the encroaclnnent of every other Levite. A plural construction is perfectly adequate for expressing this idea. My solution is similar to Milgrom's in two respects: first, I agree with him concerning the basic meaning of the verse (that the Levites bear the responsibility for Israelite encroaclnnent; cf. Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Tenninoiogy, 22-33). Second, I do not suggest an interpolation for v. 23aa. However, rather than offering a wholly internal explanation for the construction of v. 23, I am suggesting that it is in the Holiness legislator's interaction with his source text that produces the awkward Numeruswechsel in this verse. This awkwardness survives as evidence of the author's revision of pre-existing legislation.

The Revision of Deuteronomy 14:22-29 in Numbers 18:20-32

181

Deuteronomy also regularly references the individual Levite outside of its tithe legislation, for Deuteronomic Levites are not necessarily tied to the sanctuary cult. They are envisioned as indigents scattered across the land and dwelling individually in Israelite towns, dependent upon local charity.36 In light of the customary plural reference to Levites and Levitical labor in Num 18:20-32 and elsewhere in H, the precise parallel between the reference to ',?i1 in Num 18:2300 and Deut 14:27, 29, and the numerous other lexical ties between these texts, it is likely that the singular construction of the Deuteronomic text has influenced the singular construction of Num 18 :23aa and specifically its use of

',?n 37

The analogous use of the word pair n?m, p?n ("portion and inheritance") in Deut 14:27, 29 and Num 18:20, as well as the repetition ofn?m alone in Num 18:21,23,24,26, also suggest a direct literary connection between these texts. n?m, p?n is not attested in P at all and only appears in the Holiness Legislation in Num 18:20. By contrast, this word pair appears six times in Deuteronomy, including twice in its main tithe legislation (Deut 10:9; 12:12; 14:27,29; 18:1; 32:9 38). This lexical tie is especially important for understanding both the Holiness legislator's reaction to the Deuteronomic view of Levitical service and his reconceptualization of the tithe. Note, for example, that the Holiness author is careful to apply n?m, p?n only to Aaron and the priests and not to the Levites, for whom only a i1?m is considered. By contrast, the Deuteronomic legislator applies the word pair n?m, p?n to the Levites generally (an issue to which I shall return below). As in the case of ',?i1 above, it is enough here to recognize the anomalous use ofn?m, p?n in Num 18:20, its more natural fit in Deuteronomy generally, and its specific correspondence with Deut 14:27, 29 - details that all point to H's dependence upon D. Finally, reference to the tithe itself in Deut 14:28 and Num 18:21 is enlightening. In each of these verses, 'lDlltl is modified by?' "every, all": 36 For singular references to the Levite in Deuteronomy, see Deut 10:9; 12:12, 19; 14:27, 29; 16:11, 14; 18:6; 26:11, 12, 13. The reference to the Levite in 18:6 is particularly instructive: in this verse, a scenario is envisioned in which an individual Levite "from one of your towns" would come to the central sanctuary to serve as a priest. As clarified in v. 7, the Levite here is an isolated figure who only finds companionship with other Levites at the central sanctuary. 37 Note also that, in all likelihood, '1'?il in NlUll 18:23 is not a simple error (compositional or scribal). The singular form ''I'm agrees grammatically with both the singular verb that precedes it (Ul.") and the singular pronoun (M'il) that immediately follows it. As BHS indicates, the Peshitta, the Targumim, and the Vulgate emend the text here so that it reads consistently in the plural. However, such changes, which reflect the translators' recognition of the inappropriateness of the singular formulation in this verse, are surely editorial attempts at harmonization. Additionally, the most reliable text-critical source, LXX, reflects a Vorlage identical to MT in this verse. 38 Deut 32:9 is a poetic text that, while employing p'?n and i't'?m in parallelism, does not employ them as the standard word pair observed elsewhere in Deuteronomy. Deut 32:9, as well as Deut 4: 19-20, employ the terms p'?n and i't'?m to describe the assignment of deities and nations to each other and do not make any reference to the Levites.

182 Deu! 14:28

Chapter Four: "A Tithe/rom the TIthe"

l"»ID~ nnlm

lit""

nllD~ lnM~

'ID»C 0,:> nllt lIt'~'n C'llD ID?ID

"~pC

At the end of three years you shall bring out all of the tithe of yoill produce from that year and leave it in your tmvns. Num 18:21

C"~

C" 'lDlit Cn1~ 9?n n?nl? o,M'ID'~ 'ID»C 0,:> 'nnl nl" ,,0, ,~?' '»'0 ?"M n1~ nM

But to the Levites I have given every tithe in Israel as an inheritance in exchange for the labor which they perform the labor of the Tent of Meeting.

In the Deuteronomic text, the designation "all the tithe of your produce" is a

meaningful one, for the tithe is divided in the first and second years among the Israelite farmer's family and the indigent Levite (Deut 14:26-27), In the Holiness text, by contrast, "every tithe in Israel" is not wholly accurate, for the Levites do not actually retain the right to every tithe, Rather, Num 18:25-32 requires the Levites to pay a "tithe of the tithe" to the priests, Thus "every tithe in Israel" does not belong to the Levites,39 However, the designation 11D»C ." ?M'ID':J may carry an even greater significance for the Holiness author vis-a-vis the Deuteronomic tithe, In Deuteronomy, the tithe is divided among the Israelite family and the Levite in the first two years, but Deuteronomic tithing practice is also divided between first- and second-year practice and third-year practice, It is only in the third year that the Levites (and other indigent classes) receive the entire tithe, Num 18:21 may represent a response to the Levites' limited rights to the tithe, Rather than receiving 11D»C ." every third year, the Levites in H receive 'W.110 ?~ every year. 40 The extensive and contextually analogous lexical ties elucidated above represent strong evidence for a direct literary relationship between the Deuteronomic and Holiness tithe laws. Moreover, the nature of these connections identifies the Holiness Legislation as the inheritor of Deuteronomic traditions and rules out the possibility of a reversed relationship, As highlighted above in the cases of the Holiness laws' use of the terms 11D»C "::1, '1"n, and tl1pC ":>::1, what is contextually and ideologically appropriate in Deut 14:22-29 is problematic in Num 18:20-32 41 Such incoherence, though subtle, points to the Holiness legis39 In response to this inconsistency, it might be argued that vv. 25-32 should be viewed as a later addition to vv. 20-24. However, as argued below, vv. 20-24 anticipate vv. 25-32, suggesting that they arise from the same compositional event, making the possibility that vv. 25-32 are a later addition to vv. 20-24 very lUllikely. 40 A similar explanation may apply to ilD1:'O ~ in Lev 27:30: clarification that "every tithe" is holy may be an implicit response to Deuteronomic tithing practices. However, it is also possible that this verse's designation ,fD.ro ?~ anticipates and encompasses the division between grain and fruit that immediate follows it and perhaps also the animal tithe in vv. 32-33. In this regard, it is noteworthy that Num 18:21 takes no explicit notice of any agricultural divisions within the tithe, making such an explanation for ,fD.ro ?~ in Numbers unlikely. 41 Note that I am not suggesting a reversal of the text-critical tenet of lectio difficilior, for I am arguing that, while the Holiness reading is not fully coherent, it is original to this pericope

183

The Revision of Deuteronomy 14:22-29 in Numbers 18:20-32

1ator's use of source material and attendant failure to integrate fully this external infonnation into his composition. As noted in Chapter Three, similar ideological inconsistency is introduced into the Holiness slavery laws due to its author's use of sources. Leviticus 25:44--46 allow the pennanent enslavement of foreigners, including those who dwell as resident aliens (0'1l) in IsraeL Such a view is not fully compatible with prescriptions elsewhere in H concerning proper treatment of 0'1l (e, g" Lev 19:34), In these cases, ideological consistency becomes the victim of the legistator's reliance upon sources that do not necessarily share his viewpoint, and the resultant incongruence marks the author's composition as a revision of existing legislation. Figure 5: Lexical Correspondences between the Deuteronomic and Holiness Tithe Laws Lexica

Deuteronomy 14:22 29 'iD~n 'iD~ 14:22 '1D~0 14:23,28 l~'t nM'~n

lnM~ '1D~0

0,:>

14:22 14:28

Numbers 18:20 32 'iD~o

nM=

l'l

On?:>M'

18:31

14:23

0'1'00,:>:>

18:31

o'l'on 14:24,25 lll' 14:23 nml' 14:25,26

p':>

18:27

O'po~

In':>, nM 14:26

',o,m ',o,n no,m, po,n

18:30

:>p' nM=' 18:30

no,:>M' 14:23,26 ,o,:>M' 14:29 o'po

18:21,24,26 18:28

o:>'mlD~o

n?nl' po,n

14:27 14:29

14:27,29

'nnl

18:21,24,26 om, 18:28 o:>'nlnc 18:29

o:>n':>, onM 18:31 ,,0, 'l:lo" 18:21 ',o,n 18:23 0"0,0, 18:24,30 O',o,n 18:26 10, n'n' Mo, po,mo,mn Mo, 18:20 lno,nl11po,n 'lM 18:20 n?mo, 18:21,24 n?m ,o,nl' Mo, 18:23,24 o:>no,m~ 18: 26

and arises at the compositional level. I am not addressing the issue of scribal transmission at all in this scenario. The Deuteronomic reading is preferred compositionally because it is more coherent, while the less coherent Holiness reading is the result of its author's use of an external source.

184

Chapter Four: "A Tithe/rom the TIthe"

The Analogies for the Tithe in Numbers 18:27 and 30 Numbers 18:27 and 30 offer analogies for the tithes thatthe Levites are instructed to give to the priests (v. 27) and for the remainder of the tithe that the Levites enjoy as their compensation for cultic service (v. 30). These analogies, expressed by means of similes (introduced in each case by the preposition -~ "like, as"),42 shed important light on the compositional logic of this text and its connection to Deut 14:22-29. According to Num 18:27, the Levites' "tithe on the tithe" is to be considered their "contribution" (111:l1,n)43 It is "like grain from the threshing floor and like produce from the vat." This comparison immediately prompts the question, how is this mandatory contribution "like grain from the threshing floor and like produce from the vat?" What is the import of this analogy? Leaving aside for the moment the status of the tithe as a 111:l1,n (an issue that will be addressed below), the analogy between the Levitical tithe and grain and wine is relatively straightforward. Though the Levites have no land from which to produce an agricultural yield, they nonetheless receive a wage from their sanctuary service - the Israelite tithe (Num 18:31). In actuality, then, the Levitical tithe is not only "like grain and produce": it is grain and produce. It is a portion of the Israelite tithe. However, by affirming that the Levitical tithe is "like grain from the threshing floor and like produce from the wine vat," the Holiness author makes a conceptual connection not only bet\veen the two tithes

42 Interpretation of the similes in vv. 27 and 30 is complicated by the difficulties that exist in the verse/thought division ofvv. 25-32 as a whole. Modem translations reflect this difficulty especially with regard to vv. 27-28: while KN, RSV, NRSV, NIV each follow the verse division ofMT, NJPS connects v. 27b with v. 28a. Note the NJPS translation of Numbers 18:27-28: This shall be accOllllted to you as your gift. As with the new grain from the threshing floor or the flow from the vat, 28S0 shall you on your part set aside a gift for the LORD from all the tithes that you receive from the Israelites; and from them you shall bring the gift for the LORD to Aaron the priest. This translation's line division finds a single syntactic precedent elsewhere in H. Numbers 15:20 attests a simile introduced by the preposition -~ + the adverb p + the verb *0" (G stem): ilrnll '!C'"1n P 1~ M1'ro illil1in '!C'"1n n7n l:J~noi.t.' n"0M' From the firstfruits of your dough you shall offer a loaf as a contribution; like the contribution of the threshing floor so shall you offer it. Arguing against this line division in Numbers 18:27-28, however, is the syntax ofvv. 30-31. In both vv. 27 and 30, the simile is immediately preceded by a converted perfect form of the verb *~n (N stem) + -" with an analogous meaning. While the simile in v. 27 can theoretically introduce the clause in v. 28a, the simile in v. 30 cannot introduce the clause in v. 31a. Such a theoretical line division for vv. 30-31 is syntactically impossible because the converted verbal form that begins v. 31 must be clause initial. Therefore, the analogy in v. 27 is truly between the Levitical tithe, which is the subject of the verb :::wnl1, and "the grain from the threshing floor and the produce from the vat." 43 For a discussion of the term ilc"n and its meaning in pentateuchal Priestly literature, see Baruch A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Tenns in Ancient Israel (SJLA 5; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1974), 17; Jacob Milgrom, Studies in Cultic Theology and Tenninology, 159-72.

The Revision of Deuteronomy 14:22-29 in Numbers 18:20-32

185

but also between the Israelite farmer and the Levite. Just as the Israelite farmer gives a tithe, so also does the Levite. This analogy thus points beyond itself, prompting the question, why must the Levites offer a tithe from their wages like the Israelite laypersons? And, why are the priests exempt from paying a tithe? In other words, what is the significance of the tithe for the Holiness legislator, and why does it apply to Levites and Israelite laypersons but not to priests? To answer these questions, it is necessary to consider the cultic status of the tithe. According to the preceding and succeeding prescriptions, the tithe that the Israelite farmer brings is dedicated to YHWH as a contribution (MW? Mtl"n, v. 24; MW Mtl"n, v. 28). As a Mtl"n, the tithe is equivalent to the portions of the lesser holy sacrifices that are dedicated to YHWH. Like these portions, the tithe is infused with holiness. Leviticus 27:30 makes this holy status explicit: 44 Lev 27:30

n;,'~

ID'P M., n1n'~ r»n "~o f'Mn »'10 f'Mn 'ID»O ~~,

All the tithe of the land from the seed of the land to the fruit of the tree belongs to the LORD. It is holy to the LORD.

Such consumable contributions (n'tl"n), having been duly dedicated to the deity, are normally designated as priestly perquisites and are to be eaten by the priests and their families in a state of ritual purity (Num 18: 11-13). The Levites in H are not priests and thus, with the exception of the tithe, do not share the priestly right to the laity's various "contributions." Indeed, though designated for special sanctuary service in H, the Levites are never called holy but are seemingly part of the Israelite laity45 Such is the import of the Korah rebellion story 44 Some scholars view the status of the tithe in Leviticus 27:30-33 and Numbers 18:20--32 differently, arguing that the former text's designation m"7 tz,I'p means that its tithe is reserved for the priests alone (cf., e. g., Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 55-57; Zevit, "Converging Lines," 488 n. 30). However, as argued below in the context of its desanctification in Num 18:25-32, the tithe is similarly holy in both Lev 27 and Num 18. As a ilO"n, it should rightly belong to the priests in Num 18. The institution of a desanctificationritual in this chapter achnits as much, for it presumes the holy status of the tithe. Moreover, v. 32 clearly states that such a desanctification rite prevents the Levites from defiling the holy offerings of the Israelites, i. e., their tithes. The question of an animal tithe, however, cannot be hannonized between these texts. One possible approach to the problem of the animal tithe might be to view it as a widening of the definition of the tithe that is analogous to the non-literal/metaphorical usage of'!VJ!lO (see the discussion of tithing practice in ancient Israel above). Specifically, the animal tithe in Lev 27:32-33 could be an attempt to address the issue of tithe responsibility for non-farmers. In such a scenario, the concept of the tithe could have been appropriated by the author of Lev 27 and applied to animal husbandry. Unfortunately, there is not enough evidence to trace the history or to determine the literary origin of the tithe in Lev 27:30-33. 45 Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Tenninology, 13 n. 46. The issue of the Levites' cultic holiness is a difficult one, for they really do not fit among either the priests (holy) or the laity (profane). The implications ofNum 18:20-32 for understanding the status of the Levites will be discussed below.

186

Chapter Four: "A Tithe/rom the TIthe"

in Num 16-17: this narrative demonstrates that any Levitic (or other laic) claim to priestly prerogatives is wholly invalid. The second analogy in the Levitical tithe law directly addresses the problem of the lay status of the Levites and their enjoyment ofIsraelite "contributions." According to Num 18:30, after the Levites offer their tithe from the Israelites' tithe (literally, "its fat," 1:l'?n), the remainder should be considered "like the produce of the threshing floor and like the produce of the wine vat." As in the previous analogy, the question is, how is the remainder of the Israelite tithes that the Levites retain like the produce of the Israelite threshing floor and wine vat? The answer to this question can be deduced from the literary context of the analogy. According to the preceding verse, the Levites must give from the tithes they receive their own "contribution to YHWH" (t11rT' n01,n), which is defined further as "its (i. e., the tithe's) sanctified part" (1tzi1pO)46 This conception is elaborated further in the continuation of the analogy in vv. 31-32: C~n1:lll ~?n ~? M1n '~IU ,~ C~n':l1 cnM C1PC ?~:l 1nM cn?~M1 J 1 '!DiP n~' 1:l00 n':ln n~ tDO'ii1:J tIl!!)n "'?.1' 1Mtl1n M'=" 32 '.1'10 ?i1M:J

1n1cn M?1 1??nn M? ?M'IU'

'l;)

31 You may eat it in any place, you and your household, for it is your wage in exchange for your service at the Tent of Meeting. 32 You will bear no guilt concerning it once you have given from it its best part, for the sacred offerings of the Israelites you must not profane so that you do not die.

The Holiness author's concern here is the status of the tithe - YHWH's contribution - once it is given to the Levites. If it really is dedicated to YHWH (t11rT' nr.mn), it is a holy contribution and thus should not be given to the Levites, for it is comparable to the priestly portion ofthe thanksgiving offering (n11n, Lev 7: 14) or the well-being offering ([l'O'?IZi, Lev 7:32). In other words, it is one of the sacred offerings of the Israelites, and the Holiness author admits as much in v. 32. In order to make the tithe appropriate for Levitical consumption, it must be desanctified. The author ofNum 18 provides a method for such desanctification by introducing the Levitical tithe: by giving a tithe from the Israelite tithe, the Levitical wage is equated with the profane produce of the Israelite farmer47 That the Levite's income (i. e., the Israelite tithe) is indeed desanctified by means of the Levitical tithe is confirmed by v. 31's permission to consume it "in any place," i. e., not in the sanctuary or even in a clean place or only in a state of purity48 The analogies in Num 18:27 and 30 serve to equate the Levites with lay Israelites, but as discussed below, actually fail to do so fully. 46 For a discussion onlll"7pO and its meaning in Num 18:29, see Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 14-15. 47 See Kaufmann, Religion 0/ Israel, 191; Knohl, Sanctuary o/Silence, 80. 48 Compare the restrictions placed upon consumption of the priestly perquisites in Num 18:8-13.

The Revision of Deuteronomy 14:22-29 in Numbers 18:20-32

187

Figure 6: The Analogy between the Lay Israelite Farmer and the Levite in Numbers 18:25-32 Lay Israelite fanner works T Fanner's yield is agricultural produce T Fanner must tithe on his yield T The remainder is his unrestricted income

(Lay) Levite works T Levite's yield is fanner's tithe T Levite must tithe on his yield T The remainder is his unrestricted income

By assigning the Israelites' tithes to the Levites, the Holiness legislator makes an exception to the priests' exclusive claim to holy contributions/perquisites (cf. Num 18:8), but he attempts to mitigate this deviation from the Priestly norm by requiring a Levitical tithe 49 By introducing such a tithe from the tithe, H actually underscores the distinction bet\veen priests and Levites, for the priests are not bound to offer a tithe at alL Ironically, because it becomes the sole entitlement of the priests, the Levitical tithe actually conforms more fully to the category ofrTI,J"n than the Israelite farmer's tithe, Such a legal innovation highlights the acconunodationist approach of the Holiness legislator in his interaction with his sources: Num 18:25-32 is a hybrid-type construction of legal precedents, formulated anew to serve the Holiness author's ideological goals. In a seeming attempt to justify this innovation, the Holiness author calls further attention to the distinction between priests and Levites by designating their income differently, According to Num 18, the priests and the Levites are to receive special perquisites for their sanctuary service. Priestly and Levitical rights to special income is further justified by their lack of ancestral heritage among the Israelites: 1p~n 'l~ 0~1m 1~ ",", M~ p~n1 ~mn M~ 0~1~ P"M ~~ .,,", 10~'1 ~M11D' ,~ 11n:l 1n~m1

Num 18:20

The LORD said to Aaron, "In their land you shall not inherit, and you shall not have a portion in their midst; I am your portion and your inheritance in the midst of the Israelites." Num 18:23 24 11n:l1 0~'n11~ O~'» npn el1» 1MID' 0." 1»1I:l ~"M m:l» m M1" '1~" 1:l»1 23 "011n "'"'~ 10'1' 1IDM ~~11D' 'l:l 11D»0 nM ,~ 24 "~m 1~nl' M~ ~M11D' 'l:l mm 1~nl' M~ ~~11D' 'l:l 11m on~ 'n10~ p ~» "~m~ o''''~ 'nnl

23 It is the Levite who shall perform the service of the Tent of Meeting, and they shall bear their iniquity an eternal statute for your generations. 49 P does allow Israelite laypersons to partake of portions from their lesser holy well-being offerings (Lev 7:11-21). However, these are sacrificial portions that are separate from those allotted to the priests from well-being offerings. There is thus no competing claim for this portion. Note also that the portion deemed a nc"n (7: 14) is clearly allotted to the officiating priest.

188

Chapter Four: "A Tithe/rom the TIthe"

In the midst of the Israelites they shall not inherit an ancestral possession, 24 for the tithe of the Israelites which they give to the LORD I have given to the Levites as an ancestral possession. Therefore I have said to them that in the midst of the Israelites they will not inherit an ancestral possession.

As noted above, the Holiness author employs the terms p'?n and n?Ml to describe the ancestral heritage that is denied to the priests (Num 18:20), but he only uses the term n'?Ml when describing the Levite's land deficiency (Num 18:21,23,24, 26). These alternative descriptions for priests and Levites and the concomitant differentiation that the Holiness author maintains between them suggest that his omission of a Levitical p'?n is purposeful. Why does the Holiness legislator here avoid the term p'?n in his description of Levitical inheritance? Scholars have long recognized that the word pair n'?Ml1 p'?n (literally, "portion and inheritance") regularly functions in the Bible as a hendiadys and denotes an ancestral land heritage. p'?n and n'?Ml are also linked in poetic and non-poetic parallelism (e. g., Deut 32:9; 2 Sam 20: 1), suggesting a synonymous meaning 50 Additionally, the noun n?Ml is employed alone (i. e., outside of the hendiadys construction and outside of a parallel relationship with p'?n) with the meaning "ancestral land heritage" (e. g., Num 18:23, 24b). When used in reference to the priests and Levites, however, this sense of ancestral heritage is simultaneously invoked and replaced: neither priests nor Levites receive an ancestral1and parcel as an inheritance. Instead, special perquisites are afforded to each of these social groups in lieu of this heritage, and thus in such contexts both the hendiadys n'?nl1 p'?n and the individual use of n'?nl are essentially metaphorical. When used to describe the allotroent that these cultic officials do receive, p'?n and n?Ml do not refer to land at all. Indeed, in the case of the priests, YHWH himself is defined as "your portion and inheritance" (Num 18:20). Grasping the import of this metaphor proves the key for understanding H's omission ofp'?n with regard to the Levites even as it sheds light on the competing conceptions of Levites in D andH. The meaning of n'?m1 p'?n is clarified by Deuteronomy's consideration of priestly perquisites (Deut 18:1-8). Throughout the book of Deuteronomy, the noun p'?n is employed in a human context only with regard to Levites 5 ! By contrast, in their description of Israelite inheritance, the Deuteronomic authors employ both n'?Ml (4:21, 38; 12:9; 15:4; 19:10, 14; 20:16; 21:23; 24:4; 25:19; 26:1; 29:7) andnlZi1' (2:12,19; 3:20). Mattitiahu Tsevat, "p'?O II," TDOT4: 447-51; Edward Lipinski, "71J~," TDOT9: 319-35. appears six times in the Hebrew Bible in an uninflected form. Five of these attestations are found in Deuteronomy (Gen 31 :14; Deut 10:9; 12:12; 14:27,29; 18: 1). 51 Deut 32:9 uses p7n to describe Israel as YHWH's portion. For a discussion of Israel as YHWH's inheritance, see Samuel E. Loewenstamm, "'i1 n7m," in Studies in Bible (ScrHier 31; ed. S. Japhet; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986), 155-92. 50

i17nl'l p7n

The Revision of Deuteronomy 14:22-29 in Numbers 18:20-32

189

The multiple appearances of the word pair n'?m1 p'?n fit this terminological distinction, and its appearance in Deut 18:1 is especially instructive, for this verse describes the main compensation for the Levites' lack of ancestral heritage. This verse also reveals that n'?m1 p'?n is not simply a hendiadys, for its constituent parts also carry independent nuances. Specifically, while n'?m1 p'?n refers to land inheritance in v. la, its meaning is transformed in v. lb. p'?n takes on the specialized meaning sacrificial portion, evidenced by the explicit parallelism between p'?n and ;'I1n' '1ZiII ("the food offerings of the LORD',):52 Deut 18: 1 11'?:J~' m'?m, inil' ,~ '?~itD' tlD i'f;lm, j2.2n ",? ~:J.tD '?:J tl','?il tl'jil:J'? il'il' ~'? b' a' b a The Levitical priests all the tribe of Levi shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel. They shall eat the food offerings of the LORD and his inheritance.

As part of the word pair that forms the hendiadys, 1n'?m also undergoes a transformation of meaning, taking its cue from the synonym miT' 'd~ that replaced p'?n. Rather than referring to land inheritance, n'?m here also connotes sacrificial offerings. The third person singular possessive pronominal suffix, the antecedent of which is iT1iT', clarifies that the "inheritance" referenced here is the possession of the deity that may be concretely designated to the priests. In other words, the offerings designated ;'I1n''? "to the LORD" - the deity's possessions - become the entitlement of the priests. In this redefinition ofn'?m1 p'?n, it is important to note that it is the first half of the hendiadys that drives its reconceptualization. Both in pentateuchal Priestly literature and Deuteronomy, iT'?m only carries specific sacrificial overtones in the context of the word pair. On its own, i1?m carries no such connotation. This technical use ofp'?n is the key for understanding its restrictive use in Num 18. Indeed, the assignment of sacrificial portions to the priests and not to the Levites in Num 18, and the reference to p'?n solely with regard to the priests, reveal that this term carries the same specialized meaning for the Holiness author. Outside ofNum 18:20, the only other pentateuchal Priestly attestation ofp'?n is found in Lev 6: 10 (P), which describes the priestly share of the most holy nmo sacrifice as "their portion" (tlp'?n).53 H recognizes that both P and D specifically associate the term p'?n with sacrificial portions, but the Holiness legislator carefully assigns these sacrificial portions to the priests only and not to the Levites. Therefore, to challenge the Deuteronomic tithe legislation, the Holiness author 52 Note that this interpretation also explains the awkward syntax of l'l'?:JM' mm1 m,' 'tDlIc in Deut 18:1b. The waw that precedes 1n'?m need not be read as waw explicativum, viz. "the offerings of the LORD, that is, his inheritance, they may eat" (cf. GKC § 154a n.l). Rather, as discussed here, 1n'?m1 is part of the word pair that functions as a hendiadys and is thus preselVed even when the first member of the word pair is replaced by a contextually appropriate synonym. 53 P+H otherwise employs the terms jjj~ (Exod29:26; Lev 7:33; 8:29) and~ (Lev 7:35; Num 18:8) for sacrificial portions designated to the priests.

190

Chapter Four: "A Tithe/rom the TIthe"

employs Deuteronomy's full word pair ;r'?m1 p'?n in the context of priestly benefits but scrupulously divides it in his description of Levitical perquisites, referring only to their ;r'?m, In so doing, the Holiness author also anticipates the desanctification ofthe Israelites' tithes that is accomplished through the Levites' separation of a tithe from the tithe for the priests, By designating the tithe as the Levite's ;r'?m, its holy status is alreadyunderrnined in v, 23 - before any mention is made of the tithe that the Levites must give to the priests, H's two analogies concerning the Levitical tithe also provide evidence for testing the view espoused by Kaufinann and Haran that the tithe in PIH is a votive offering and thus not mandatory, Several scholars have challenged this opinion, arguing that the Priestly tithe is obligatory, and several of their argnments are very helpful. 54 Zevit, for example, notes that interdictions against substitutions for the animal tithe are only meaningful if the tithe is compulsory, Further, Leviticus 27:30-33 exhibit no explicit reference to vows or voluntary gifts. 55 While Zevit's arguments rely solely upon the textual presentation ofthe tithe and should therefore be retained, many scholarly argnments - both for and against a mandatory Priestly tithe - assume that the various biblical texts concerning the tithe reflect real historical practice, 56 U garitic and Babylonian evidence adduced in such arguments, as well as other biblical texts cited, do provide conceptual parallels, but they cannot serve as direct evidence for any real history of an ancient Israelite tithe, At best, they suggest that the tithe as described in D and H is historically possible or even plausible, but neither possibility nor plausibility is historicity. 57 H's analogies between the Levite and the Israelite farmer and each one's respective yield and tithe can effectively quell this debate and do so without resorting to historical arguments that rest on dubious evidence. Numbers 18:26 clearly mandates the Levitical tithe, which is compared to the Israelite farmer's tithe in v, 27, In light of the extensive correlation between the lay Israelite and 54 See, e. g., Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 55-58; Knohl, Sanctuary o/Silence, 80 n. 60; 211. Moshe Weinfeld is somewhat ambivalent on this question, but, viewing the Pill material as prior to D, concludes, "It seems that the tithe, whose main purpose was the maintenance of the Temple and its personnel. .. was provided byway of an obligatory tax as well as by voluntary donation. It is only Deuteronomy which stripped the tithe of its original purpose and turned it into an obligatory gift to the destitute and the poor" ("Tithe," 1158). 55 Zevit, "Converging Lines," 487 n. 29. 56 Some ofthese arguments are rather dubious, such as Milgrom's contention that "the very fact that the tithe inD is annual and compulsory (Deut 14:22 ff.) implies that it rests on an earlier tradition" (referring to Pill) and his reference to an animal tithe inD (Cult and Conscience, 56). Nevertheless, as demonstrated here, there is enough evidence within Numbers 18:25-32 itself to demonstrate the mandatory nature of the H tithe. 57 David Hackett Fischer describes the attempt to make such arguments under the rubric "the fallacy ofthe possible proof." Fischer aptly contends, "Valid empirical proof requires not merely the establishment of possibility, but an estimate of probability" (Historians' Fallacies: Toward aLogic o/Historical Thought [New York: HarperTorchbook, 1970],53-55).

Excursus 2: Source Ascription

191

the Levite implied in this analogy and the analogy in v. 30, it is implausible to suggest that the Levitical tithe is mandatory while the lay Israelite tithe is voluntary. Indeed, if the lay Israelite tithe is wholly voluntary, the Levitical tithe is the only mandatory tithe in the Priestly system. This scenario makes the analogy between the lay Israelite tithe and the Levitical tithe too fragile to be meaningful at all. In light of the extensive ties between Deut 14:22-29 and Num 18:20-32, it is probable that the Holiness author's reliance upon the Deuteronomic tithe led him to omit such a basic directive in his own legislation.

Excursus 2: Source Ascription in Leviticus 27:30-33 and Numbers 16-18 While there is no question regarding Deut 14:22-29's source ascription, scholars are divided concerning whether Lev 27:30-33 and Num 18:20-32 belong to P or to H. Though some view these texts as complementary, the conceptual differences between them lead many scholars to conclude that they arise from different hands or even from different schools of thought. That the two texts are Priestly is hardly in dispute. Nevertheless, deciding which Priestly author composed each of these texts has proven quite difficult. The source attribution ofthe Priestly portions ofNum 16-17 is equally debated: does the KorahiLevite rebellion originate from P or H?58 58 The source division of these chapters (between Priestly and non-Priestly sources) has been an issue of significant debate among biblical scholars, who regularly distinguish three or more stories within Num 16-17. For detailed discussion of these issues, see, e.~., Jacob Milgrom, "Korah's Rebellion: A Study in Redaction," in De la Torah au Messie: Etudes d'exegese et d'henneneutique bibliques offertes a Henri Cazelles pour ses 25 annees d'enseignement a l'Institut Catholique de Paris (Octobre 1979) (ed. Maurice Canez et a1.; Paris: Desclee, 1981), 135-46; RobertAlter, The Art of Biblical Nmrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 133-37; Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester: Hauptlinen der Traditionsbildung und Geschichte des israelitisch-jiidischen Kultpersonals (G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 171-84; Jacob Liver, "Korah, Dathan and Abiram," in Studies in the Bible (ed. Chaim Rabin; ScrHier 8; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), 189-217. My own lUlderstanding of the strata within these chapters is similar to that ofKnohl (Sanctumy of Silence, 73-85). Knohl argues that the non-Priestly Dathan and Abiram rebellion story consists ofNum 16: 12-15, 25, 27b-34 (subtracting references to Korah). The Chieftain Revolt story includes Num 16:2-7a, 18, 35; 17:6-18:32 (again, subtracting references to Korah). The KorahlLevite rebellion (16:7b-ll, 16-17, 19-24, 26-27a; 17: 1-5) represents the latest stratum within the rebellion narratives and serves in part to bring them together. However, the Korahl Levite rebellion itselfrepresents an inner-Levitical dispute concerning the rights of priesthood within the tribe of Levi alone. As noted, it was introduced at the final stage of combining the various rebellion stories, and thus Korah has been intnxluced into the Dathan and Abiram rebellion as well as the Chieftain Revolt in an attempt to unify the text. Critiquing this view, David Frankel argues that the KorahlLevite material was not added at the stage of combining the different rebellions but rather is a post-editorial addition, characterized by a clumsiness that betrays itself as a superficial set of interpolations (The Murmuring

192

Chapter Four: "A Tithe/rom the TIthe"

In his latest commentary volume, Milgrom assigns Lev 27:30-33 to H and Num 18:20-32 to P. Thus Num 18 predates Lev 27 59 However, it is not clear why Milgrom assigns Num 18 to P or why this text should predate Lev 27. Instead, it seems that what he views as irreconcilable differences bet\veen these texts' respective conceptions of the tithe, coupled with his decision that Lev 27 is H, requires him to attribute Num 18 to p60 Milgrom's acceptance of Knohl's theory concerning the chronological relationship ofP and H then requires his P text - Num 18 - to predate Lev 27. Such conclusions are at odds with Milgrom's earlier view concerning the relationship between these texts. For example, in his 1970 monograph, Studies in Levitical Terminology, 1: The Encroacher and the Levite, the Term 'Aboda, Milgrom argues for the chronological priority of the tithe in Lev 27 :30-33 over that in Num 18:20-32 and specifically concludes that Num 18 "is a later development than Lev. 27:30ff."61 Paradoxically, though his more recently issued view of the tithe laws (Lev 27:30-33~H; Num 18:20-32~P) reverses his earlier view, some of the arguments accompanying this later assessment reflect his earlier view. For example, in his discussion of the development of the tithe in ancient Israel, Milgrom reconstructs a history of tithe recipients that requires a sequence of Lev 27 - Num 18 - Deut 14,62 contradicting his expressed statement concerning the priority ofNum 18 over Lev 27. Thus, while Milgrom maintains his position that the tithe in both Lev 27 and Num 18 must be considered annual and mandatory throughout his various treatments of these texts, his various studies both reflect and contribute to the difficulty inherent in an attempt to create a chronology of the Priestly tithe laws. Stories of the Priestly School: A Retrieval ofAncient Sacerdotal Lore [VTSup 89; LeidenIBostonIK6ln: Brill, 2002], 203-61 [esp. 212-24]). It seems likely that there were multiple redactions of Numbers 16-18 and that this serialization of editing, coupled with the conservative approach of late redactors, best accounts for the problems encOlllltered in the canonical version of these chapters. Dating these different layers is similiarly difficult. Because the inner-Levitical dispute in these chapters over the rights of priesthood finds its most incisive parallel in Ezek 44, I would tentatively offer a date for this material in the late exilic or early post-exilic period. The nonPriestly Dathan and Abiram material as well as the Chieftain Revolt could thus originate (in some form) in the pre-exilic or exilic period, with the final redaction of Num 16-18 likely occurring in the post-exilic period. 59 Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2397. Milgrom identifies here a possible polemic in Lev 27 vis-a-vis Num 18 with regard to the collection of the tithe: in Num 18, the Levites may collect the tithe themselves away from the sanctuary and outside of its oversight, while, according to Milgrom, Lev 27 requires all tithes to be deposited with the priests at the sanctuary. 60 Milgrom assumes that Lev 27 is a compositional unity and states concerning its origin, "It probably stems from the school of H, as indicated by its style: its introduction follows H usage elsewhere ... and its use of extraneous, ostensibly redundant, phrases .. .is typical ofH's quest for structural symmetry" (Leviticus 23-27, 2407). Likewise, its reference to the Jubilee (vv. 17, 18,21,23, and 24) almost surely require an H ascription. 61 Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology, 67; see also Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 17. 62 Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2425.

Excursus 2: Source Ascription

193

Knohl, by contrast, sidesteps the issue of source ascription between these tithe laws by offering a source ascription for Num 18:20-32 (H) but not for Lev 27:30-33. 63 Nevertheless, he does offer a brief comment concerning the development of the tithe in Priestly thought. For Knohl, Lev 27:30-33 predates Num 18:20-32, for the holiness of the tithe elucidated in Lev 27 is assumed and modified by the author ofNum 18. 64 In defense of his assigmnent ofNum 18 to H, Knohl marshals thematic, stylistic, and linguistic evidence: 65 1. The appearance of the tell-tale H pleonasm O:l'm"" O'?'ll npn ("an eternal statute for your generations") in v. 23. 2. The use ofMnlllo for "portion" (v. 8) and individual address of Aaron (vv. 1, 8),66 features that only appear in Priestly texts that attest the phrase 0'?1)) MJ,n cn,,'?/m'm,'? (cf. Lev 7:35; 10:8). 3. The connection between vv. 15-16 and the firstborn prescriptions in Num 3: 11-51, a passage characterized by stereotypical H expressions in vv. 13,41, 45 (cf. Lev 25:55). 4. The warning against profaning holy offerings in v. 32, 'l:l 'W'p n~ ,'?'?nn ~,?, '?~'W' ("and thus you will not profane the holy contributions of the Israelites") is similar to other H references to profanation (cf. Lev 19:8; 20:3; 21: 12,23; 22:15, 32)67 and contrasts with the P idiom '?llO '?'llO'? (cf. Lev 5: 15,21).68 Additional evidence consistent with Knohl's arguments is this chapter's concern for the Levites, whom Knohl contends do not appear at all in P, for the priests are the only servants of the sanctuary in p.69 Thus the Priestly portions of chapters

63 Knohl, Sanctuary o/Silence, 105. Knohl betrays his ambivalence toward Lev 27 by completely omitting this chapter from his discussion of Priestly sources. Indeed, he only references this chapter twice in his entire study, and then only in footnotes (80 llll. 60--61). 64 Knohl, Sanctuary o/Silence, 80 n. 66. 65 Knohl, Sanctuary o/Silence, 53-54. 66 Though Knohl does not cite it, Num 18:20 similarly contains an indication of direct address to Aaron. 67 Knohl's citation of Lev 21 :32 should be corrected to Lev 22:32 (Sanctuary 0/ Silence, 54). 68 Knohl's citation of Lev 5:14 should be corrected to Lev 5: 15 (Sanctuary 0/ Silence, 54). It should also be noted that the clause 7l.'r.l 7"WrJ7 also appears in Num 5:6, a text that Knohl attributes to H, and Num 5: 12, 27, each attributed to P (Sanctuary 0/ Silence, 87). It may be argued, however, that these instances in Num 5 differ from those in Lev 5 because of the context of marital infidelity in Num 5 and not the misappropriation of holy things. 69 Knohl terms a significant portion of the book of Numbers the "Levite Treatise" (i. e., those portions that address Levitical issues) and ascribes it to the Holiness School. He also surmises that, although now scattered throughout the Priestly pentateuchal source, it once formed an independent source (Sanctuary o/Silence, 71-85). Milgrom also makes a distinction between Leviticus and the Priestly portions of Numbers: the book of Leviticus can aptly be described as "the torat kohiinim 'the priestly manual', in distinction to the laws (not the narrative) in the book of Numbers, which, in the main, could be called torat halewiyyim 'the levitic manual '" (Leviticus 23-27, 2402).

194

Chapter Four: "A Tithe/rom the TIthe"

16-17 also derive from a Holiness author, evidenced further by their distinctive H ideology and language 70 Saul M. Olyan, who alongside Milgrom and Schwartz7l offers significant critique ofKnohl,72 cautiously agrees that Num 18: 1-7 may be H. However, he argues that the conception of holiness exhibited in the rebellion story of Num 16: 1-17:5 -the Priestly portions of which Knohl assigns to a late H stratum - fits better with P than with H.73 Specifically, Olyan suggests that an attempt to limit holiness to the priesthood is antithetical to H rhetoric, which includes the Israelite laity within the purview of holiness. Thus, although Olyan admits that Hand P each restrict priestly duties and the holiness associated with them to the priests alone, he views the Korah rebels' rhetorical and ritualistic aspirations to holiness and priestly status unobjectionable to H. Olyan also identifies linguistic evidence that he suggests marks Num 16:1-17:5 as P and notH74

70 Knohl, Sanctuary o/Silence, 81-85. These ideological and linguistic features relate to the following words and phrases: C'!D1P 01;1::;, n1m 7::;' '::;' and m1' tD1n:l1 (16:3); OO?-.:J' (16:7); M.:I (16:8,26); "'"",' 'n'M andm,' p~O (16:9); MlM' CJ) (17:6); ~l"1:l Ct1IO n'~M1 (17:10); '~1M '~M no~ " (17:19); n'~n ,nM (17:22, 23); n1,m (17:25); and MlM' l~O (17:28). 71 See, e. g., Baruch J. Schwartz, "The Priestly Account of the Theophany and the Lawgiving at Sinai," in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. Michael V. Fox et al.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 103-34 (esp. 126 ll. 52; 131 ll. 61); idem, The Holiness Legislation: Studies in the Priestly Code (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999), 17,24-25; idem, "The Literary and Ritual Unity of Leviticus 16" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL, Denver, Colo., November 18,2001). 72 See Olyan's monograph Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000) and his recent article "Exodus 31 :12-17." Olyan critiques both Milgrom and Knohl, especially with regard to the Holiness Legislation and its ideology. 73 Olyan, Rites and Rank, 136 n. 63. Earlier, Olyan states that Num 18 (presumably in its entirety) "is probably to be attributed to the Holiness School" (Rites and Rank, 135 n. 54). On p. 30, he explicitly attributes vv. 8-19 to H. 74 Olyan states that there is no distinctive H terminology in this text; that *~ in 16:22 is not a marker ofH but appears in the P text Lev 10:16 (I cannot find any reference in Knohl to *~p as a distinctively H term); thatn~nnt:I in 16:6 is P (cf. Lev 10: 1; 16: 12); that Num 16:6-7 is very similar to the P text Lev 10:1; and that 16:35 is very similar to the P text Lev 10:2 (Olyan, Rites and Rank, 136 n. 63). There is a potential problem of logic, however, with some of Olyan's arguments: because Knohl argues that P precedes and is edited by H, identification of so-called P language in H is only possible ifH regularly employs an alternative word or phrase to that ofP. Otherwise, H is privy to the full vocabulary ofP and regularly employs it in its own composition, as Knohl readily achnits. Methodologically, I am influenced here by Baruch J. Schwartz (private communication), who expresses great suspicion with regard to stylistic bases (including the identification of so-called "stereotypical lexica") for distinguishing pentateuchal sources. As Schwartz argues, each of the authors of the different pentateuchal strands knew Hebrew well and was thus well acquainted with the full Hebrew lexicon. Stylistic arguments should therefore be accompanied by other pieces of evidence to corroborate them. In the case ofNum 16-17, Olyan's ideological argument is dubious, leaving his stylistic argument to stand precariously on its own.

Excursus 2: Source Ascription

195

There are several problems with Olyan's analysis ofNum 16-18 and with his critique of Knohl's arguments, To begin, there is a problem with Num 16-17 if at least vv, 1-7 of chapter 18 are not included with them, Num 17:27-28 state, 1l':lM 1l?;:' 1l'~~ U»1l 1n 'OM? nl!)c ?M ?M'I!)' 'l~ 1'C~'1 27 »U? 1m OMn n"IJ' nw PI!)C ?M ~'pn ~'pn ?;:, 28 27 The Israelites said to Moses, "Surely we will die! We are perishing all of us are perishing! 28 Everyone who would draw near to the sanctuary of the LORD will die! Surely we will utterly perish!

While one might argue that P intended this stark ending to the narrative in order to emphasize the unqualified danger the priests encounter in their work, the folly of the peoples' rebellion, and the complete separation between priests and laypersons, the legislation that follows in Num 18 is a specific response to the peoples' fearful clamoring and dejection, As Milgrom notes, Num 18 does not simply reiterate the duty of the Levites as sanctuary guards (of Num 1:53; 3:6-8); it also introduces the Levitical role of bearing the guilt of the people in future cases of "encroachment." This reference to future Levitical responsibility for the Israelites' guilt is a direct response to the plague in Num 17:9-15 and the peoples' fear in 17:27-28 75 Without Num 18, the Israelites' outcry in the preceding chapter is left unanswered - there is no resolution for their panicked objection, To this extent the story would be incomplete,76 In other words, the chieftains' rebellion and the plague that ensues in Num 16-17 are completed by and serve primarily as an introduction to the legislation that immediately follows them. For this reason, it is unlikely that any source division exists bet\veen the end ofNum 17 and the beginning ofNum 18, A second problem attendent to Olyan's argument that Num 16-17 is not H is his own admission that H does not extend priestly prerogatives to the laity or to the Levites, This acknowledgment significantly undercuts the logical problem he identifies with regard to proposed H authorship in Num 16-17, As Olyan correctly observes, "The people's separation and holiness in Holiness texts does not privilege them in any concrete way vis-a-vis the priesthood; it seems mainly to be rhetoricaL"77 Thus to argue that H would not object to the rebels' views of priesthood and holiness in Num 16-17 is a misunderstanding of H's view of holiness as elucidated by Olyan himself Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Tenninology, 18-20. Olyan focuses upon the Priestly portions ofNum 16:1-17:5 alone and thus does not explicitly address the issue of the connection between Num 16-17 and Num 18, as discussed here. 77 Olyan, Rites and Rank, 122. See also the similar views of David P. Wright, who distinguishes between the cultic holiness of the priests and the theological holiness of the laity ("Holiness in Leviticus and Beyond," 351-64), and Knohl, who also draws lines of convergence between the conceptions of lay holiness in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation (Sanctuary o/Silence, 189-92). 75 76

196

Chapter Four: "A Tithe/rom the TIthe"

By introducing the rebellion stories in Num 16-17, the Holiness author does not seek to undermine P's conception of cultic!priestly holiness, In fact, his goal appears to be just the opposite, H agrees that only the priests are holy in a cultic!absolute sense, Num 16-17 are part of the Holiness author's larger argument concerning a separate, theological/ethical type of holiness that is available to laypersons. 78 As such, these chapters function specifically as a safeguard against a misunderstanding of this lay holiness. In other words, the Holiness rebellion stories in Num 16-17 serve as a warning to the Levites and to the lay Israelites against presuming that their own holiness status is equivalent to that of the priests, They therefore fit squarely within the ideological program ofR79 By contrast, ascribing the Priestly portions ofNum 16-17 to P raises significant logical and even ideological problems, For example, why would P write a story about the potential holiness of the laity at all? P is generally unconcerned with laypersons and, in all of its considerations of holiness, never considers the possibility of lay sanctification. 80 Recognition of this omission in P prompts the question: if the Priestly portions of Num 16-17 are P, does this mean that P is responding in these chapters to D or E, each of which claims that the people are a holy nation (Exod 19:6; Deut 7:6; 14:2,21; 26: 19; 28:9)?81 Given its distinctive cultic agenda and relative lack of concern for laypersons, it seems implausible that P would address the issue oflay holiness at all, and thus Num 16-17 would be ideological misfits in p,82 78 For a general discussion of lay holiness in H, see, e. g., Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 180-92; Schwartz, "Israel's Holiness," 52-59; idem, Holiness Legislation, 250--266; Wright, "Holiness in Leviticus and Beyond," 351-64; Eyal Regev, "Priestly Dynamic Holiness and Deuteronomic Static Holiness," VT 51 (2001): 243-61. It should be noted, however, that Regev overstates the difference between Priestly (i. e., H) and Deuteronomic lay holiness, for in the case of Deuteronomy, the Israelites' holy status still requires them to observe the commandments, as does H. For an elucidation of these issues, see Schwartz, "Israel's Holiness," 58-59. 79 Schwartz observes that the non-priestly claim to holiness in Num 16:3 (C?:;' il1J:1il 1;1:;, C'tD1P "all of the congregation - all of them! - are holy") is attributed to Komh and his il1J:1 alone and not to the people of Israel generally. Because Korah and his congregation are condemned by the author of the story, Schwartz contends that the author cannot be H (Holiness Legislation, 261). To my mind, the attribution of the claim to Israelite lay holiness to Korah and his fellow rebels does not ipso facto eliminate the possibility of Holiness authorship for this text. The issue in Num 16-18 is the implication of lay holiness, not its existence: does such holiness include priestly privileges or not? The answer of this text is that lay holiness does not include priestly privileges, and this is a view that P and H share. For this reason, placing the claim to lay holiness in the mouths of those condemned in this narrative has no definitive bearing upon its source ascription. &) Contrast Ezek 44: 19, where the high priest is instructed to remove his sacred vestments lest they sanctify the laypersons who might come into contact with them. 81 For a discussion of the meaning of the non-Priestly notion of Israel's holiness, see Schwartz, "Israel's Holiness," 50-52. 82 As Schwartz notes, all of the Priestly consideration of lay holiness in the Pentateuch appear in the Holiness Legislation and, in his words, "marks a development in priestly thought" vis-a-vis P ("Israel's Holiness," 52-53). The concept of lay holiness, introduced by the Holiness

Excursus 2: Source Ascription

197

01yan is hesitant to assign the Priestly portions of Num 16-17 to H because this text is negative toward the laity (i. e., the claim to pan-Israelite cullic holiness is denied) while other H texts are often very positive toward the Israelite people. Indeed, unlike other H passages, this pericope does limit the people rather than expanding their religious role and self-understanding. Yet, like Olyan observes, the Holiness Legislation hardly grants the Israelite people carte blanche. H clearly endorses much of the existing P corpus and its strict cullic prescriptions and inserts what are relatively minor revisions and supplements. Moreover, the large addition of the Holiness Collection (Lev 17-26), much of which is ethical in nature, introduces significant new obligations upon the laity. The Holiness authors' approach to laypersons thus seems quite balanced: they establish new legal strictures as well as new legal privileges. It is therefore wholly plausible that the Holiness authors could acknowledge the fact that their liberality toward the laity could lead to abuse and thus provide Num 16-17 as a clarification of their views. Such a view accords with Knohl's redactional analysis of these chapters, for he argues that Num 18 predates the stories of the Levite and Korah rebellions in Num 16-17 and instead is the logical sequel to the rebellion of the chieftains, the plague, and the sign of Aaron's staff. This means that the Korah and Levite rebellions in Num 16: 1-17:5 are later additions and are logically out of place in their current position. As Knohl notes, "The chieftains' rebellion stems from the people's objection to the privileges ofthe tribe of Levi, whereas the rebellion of Korah was an internal conflict among Levite families."83 To sununarize, details of these chapters point to the Holiness origin of all of Num 18 as well as the Priestly portions ofNum 16-17, albeit in stages. As for the tithe in Lev 27:30-33, there is very little evidence available for attributing these verses to a particular Priestly source. As part of Lev 27, other sections of which attest characteristic marks of the Holiness author, it is likely that these verses derive from H.84 However, the discrepancies between Lev 27:30-33 and Num 18:20-32 cannot be reconciled, strongly suggesting that these texts stem from different strata in the Holiness corpus. As discussed in Chapter Two, similar stratification in H is observable in Num 35: Josh 20 demonstrates that author into the larger Priestly cultic system, violates the strict distinction between holy and profane that is fimdamental to P 's worldview. As argued fiuther below, the Levites similarly violate this binary distinction: for P, the priests are holy, while the Israelite laity are profane. Introducing the Levites into this binary opposition creates a third category. Although H attempts to integrate them, Levites are not properly laypersons or priests. Such a breakdown of binary distinctions is a recurring theme of the Holiness Legislation and actually characterizes well the thesis ofthis study: H seeks to make an accommooation between P and D, integrating the latter into his revision and expansion of the former. 83 Knohl, Sanctuary o/Silence, 79. 84 For a discussion of the source attribution of Lev 27 as a whole, see Milgrom, Leviticus

23-27,2407-09.

198

Chapter Four: "A Tithe/rom the TIthe"

an earlier version of the Holiness asylum law included only Num 35:9-15. Only subsequently were vv. 16-34 added to this pre-existing law. In the case of the Holiness tithe laws, however, it is not possible to detennine priority between Lev 27:30-33 and Num 18:20-32.

Excursus 3: The Levites in the Torah and Ezekiel As discussed already, the pentateuchal tithe laws each make a close connection between the Levites as a group and the distribution ofthe tithe. However, just as the tithe laws themselves present numerous difficulties, so also do the numerous Deuteronomic and Priestly portrayals of the Levites. A survey of the Hebrew Bible as a whole reveals that biblical authors variously depict Levites as religious heroes (Exod 32:26-28) and religious apostates (Ezek 44: 10-14); full priests - or at least potentially so (Deut 18:1-8) - and mere furniture movers (Num 4:15); cultic musicians (1 ehr 15:16) and firstborn proxies (Num 3:12-13); roaming cultic functionaries (Judg 17:9-10) and members of the underclass (e. g., Deut 12:12).85 Such diverse depictions create significant problems for a historical description of the Levites in ancient Israel. Further complicating such a task is the continued development of views concerning Levites in the post-biblical period. The Qururan Temple Scroll (11 QT), for example, attempts to combine various biblical perspectives on Levites, even as it innovates beyond them. Other

85 The secondary literature concerning the Levites and their history is voluminous. In addition to the connnentaries, see the several studies dedicated to the Levites, including G. Ernest Wright, "The Levites in Deuteronomy," VT 4 (1954): 325-30; J.A. Emerton, "Priests and Levites in Deuteronomy," VT 12 (1962): 129-38; Aelred Cody, A History of the Old Testament Priesthood (AnEib 35; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969); Diether Kellermann, Die Priesterschrift von Numeri 1: 1 bis 10: 1 0 literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht (BZAW 120; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1970); Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Tenninology; Raymond Abba, "Priests and Levites in Ezekiel," VT 28 (1978): 1-9; McConville, Law and Theology in Deuteronomy, 124-53; Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 58-148; Rodney K. Duke, "The Portion ofthe Levite: Another Reading of Deuteronomy 18:6-8," JBL 106 (1987): 193-201; idem, "Punishment or Restoration: Another Look at the Levites of Ezekiel 44:6-16," JSOT 40 (1988): 61-81; Stephen L. Cook, "Innerbiblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44 and the History ofIsrael's Priesthood," JBL 114 (1995): 193-208; Kalinda Rose Stevenson, The Vision ofTransfonnation: The Territorial Rhetoric ofEzekiel 40-48 (SBLDS 154; Atlanta: Scholars, 1996); Risto Nunnela, The Levites: Their Emergence as a Second-Class Priesthood (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 193; Atlanta: Scholars, 1998); Gary N. Knoppers, "Hienxlules, Priests, or Janitors? The Levites in Chronicles and the History of the Israelite Priesthood," JBL 118 (1999): 49-72; Deborah W. Rooke, Zadoks Heirs: The Role andDevelopment of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel (Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). Knoppers' discussion is a good and recent slUllmary of the various positions of the biblical texts on Levites and of the history of scholarship concerning them.

Excursus 3: The Levites in the Torah and Ezekiel

199

Qumran texts, as well as the pseudepigraphal Testament of Levi and the New Testament, also engage in such post-biblical Levitical developments. 86 Much of the last century's scholarly debate concerning tithes and Levites is a development from and a reaction to Wellhausen's influential arguments in his Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. In this foundational study, Wellhausen claims that the biblical portrayal of the Levites and their sometime distinction from the priests are fundamental to understanding the development of ancient Israelite religion. He thus attempts to sort out the contradictory depictions of priests and Levites according to biblical sources and presumes that these differing presentations reflect historical realities at different points in Israelite history. In fact, Wellhausen arranges the various biblical presentations of the Levites on a chronological continuum with virtually no overlap and identifies Ezek 44:6-16 as an Archimedean point for understanding Levitical history and their relationship to the priesthood. To his mind, it is this text that introduces the cultic distinction between priests and Levites: it differentiates between Zadokites (p'~ 'l:l) and Levites and reserves the priesthood for the Zadokites. The Levites are thus demoted from their previous place as altar priests and are not simply returned to an original subordinate position vis-a-vis the priests. In order to justify this innovation, Ezekiel polemically argues that Levitical service at the high places was sinful, and that they must bear their own guilt by serving as Temple guards and slaughterers. The Levites can thus be identified with "the priests from the high places" (mo.:lOI 'lrl.:l) who, according to the Deuteronomistic historian, did not approach the altar at the Jerusalem Temple (2 Kgs 23:8-9). Josiah's centralization ofthe cult provided the condition for distinguishing between the Jerusalemite priesthood and those who would become the non-priestly Levites. Deuteronomy, which encodes Josiah's centralization measures, concurrently insists that there be only one, centralized sanctuary in the land and that all Levites be allowed to serve at the single worship site (Deut 18:6). This provision, however, proved unenforceable, and Wellhausen argues that the resulting division between the priestly classes that Ezekiel first legislates 86 See, e. g., 11QT 22:9-11, where the priests are allotted the foreann of the sacrifice, while the Levites are afforded the shoulder. Cf. Jacob Milgrom, "A Shoulder for the Levites," in The Temple Scroll (3 vols. and suppl.; ed. Y. Yadin; Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society et al., 1983), I: 169-76; idem, "Studies in the Temple Scroll," JBL 97 (1978): 501-23; Robert C. Stallman, "Levi and the Levites in the Dead Sea Scrolls," JSP 10 (1992): 163-89; George J. Brooke, "Levi and the Levites in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament," in Mogilany 1989: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls offered in Memory ofJean Carmignac (ed. Z.J. Kapera; 2 parts; Krak6w: Enigma, 1993), 1: 105-30; Robert Kugler, "The Priesthood at Qumran: The Evidence of References to Levi and the Levites," in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Refonnulated Issues (ed. D.W. Parry and E. Ulrich; STDJ30; Leiden: Brill, 1999),465-79; Lawrence H. Schiffman, "Priestly and Levitical Gifts in the Temple Scroll," in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Refonnulated Issues (ed. D.W. Parry and E. Ulrich; STDJ 30; Leiden: Brill, 1999),480--96.

200

Chapter Four: "A Tithe/rom the TIthe"

is subsequently retrojected into the time of the wilderness by the pentateuchal Priestly source. Such a retrojection is evidenced, for example, in the Korah rebellion story and its aftermath (Num 16-18). As a priestly author, Ezekiel would likely know the Korah rebellion story - if this story existed at the time of the composition of Ezek 44. Following Kuenen, Wellhausen concludes that Ezekiel's omission ofNum 16-18's ancient precedent for the division of priests and Levites suggests that he does not know it, for if a valid historical argument for the division of cultic personnel had already existed at the time of Ezekiel, he would simply have repeated it. 87 Thus, although the language of Ezek 44 and Num 16-18 shows significant similarity, the stories they narrate differ markedly. The context of the pentateuchal narrative requires Num 16-18 to tell an ancient story, not a contemporary one. Therefore, the Holiness author has a significant motive for recasting and resetting the tale of Ezek 44:6-16 so that it fits his wilderness story. In many ways, all subsequent investigations of the Levites are colored by Wellhausen's early and important study. Even Kaufinann, whose disagreements with Wellhausen are numerous and well-known, initially acknowledges the relative strength of Wellhausen's analysis of the biblical priesthood: "The one pillar of Wellhausen's structure that has not been shaken by later criticism is his reconstruction of the history of the Levites and the priesthood."88 Still, Kaufinann as well as other scholars have not hesitated to challenge these views. 89 For example, G. Ernest Wright argues that the distinction between priests and Levites is recognizable even in Deuteronomy,90 thus contradicting the view ofWellhausen and others, most notably S.R. Driver.91 I.A. Emerton presents a modification of Wright's argument, but he agrees that Deuteronomy distinguishes between priests and Levites 92 Raymond Abba and Rodney K. Duke likewise attempt to demonstrate that Deuteronomy does not consider all Levites at least potential priests. 93 Deuteronomy 18: 1-8 is the key text for understanding Deuteronomy's view of the Levites. It is also this book's most complex passage on this subject. Apart

Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 123-51. Kaufmann, Religion of Israel, 193. 89 For studies that contest Wellhausen's view of Ezek 44:6-16, see, e. g., Abba, "Priests and Levites in Ezekiel," 1-9; Duke, "Punishment or Restoration," 61-81; Cook, "Innerbiblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44," 193-208; Kalinda Rose Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation, 66-78; Nunnela, The Levites, 104--D6. 90 Wright, "The Levites in Deuteronomy," 325-30. 91 Driver, Deuteronomy, 213-21. Others who see no distinction between priests and Levites in Deuteronomy include Menahem Haran (Temples and Temple Service, 58-111) and Jacob Milgrom ("Profane Slaughter and a Formulaic Key," 11-12). 92 Emerton, "Priests and Levites in Deuteronomy," 129-38. 93 Abba, "Priests and Levites in Deuteronomy," 257-67; Duke, "The Portion ofthe Levite," 193-20l. 87

88

Excursus 3: The Levites in the Torah and Ezekiel

201

from the passage in question, Deuteronomy presents the Levite in several different ways: 1. As one who serves as a priest94 (10:8; 17:9,95 18; 21:5; 24:8; 27:9, 14; 31:9, 25; 33:8) 2. As one without a portion or inheritance (10:9; 12:12, 19; 14:27,29)

3. As part of the household of an Israelite (12:12, 18; 16:11, 14; 26:11) 4. As one of the underclasses (14:29; 16:11, 14; 26:11 13)

Deut 18:1-8 includes all of these Levitical roles and thus exhibits a comprehensiveness unprecedented among other Deuteronomic texts concerning priests and Levites. Deut 18:1 8 l1?:JM' 1n?m1 il1il' 'illM ?Miill' Ql' il?m1 p?n '1? t!l:J.ill ?:J tl'1?il tl'Jil:J? il'il' tt? 1 il'il' iln 3 1? i:J.' iiZlM:l 1n?m M1il m,' 1'nM :J.ip:J. 1? il'il' tt? il?m1 2 c"n~m v,m 1n~~ 1nl1 ;W C~ '11D CM n:lm 'n:ll n~c cvn n~ C'ln~n ~~IDC mn' ,n:l l:l ,~ 5 1~ 1m ll~~ II n'IDM'1 l'n~'1 llD,'n lll' n'ID~' 4 n:lpm '1~n M:l' '~1 6 c'c'n ~~ 1'l:l1 Min no,' CID:l n'~ 'cv~ 1'~:l1D ~~C l'n~M ,m' ,~ mpcn ~M 1ID~l mM ~~:l M:l1 CID 'l M" ,~ ~~'ID' ~~C l"VID ,nMC p?n:J p?n 8 m,' 'JEI? tlill tl"Cl)il tl'1?il 1'nM ?:J:J 1'il?M mil' tliZl:J. niiZl1 7 mil' nl:lMn ~v 1"~CC ':l~ 1~~M'

1 The Levitical priests all the tribe of Levi shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel. They shall eat the offerings of the Lord and his (i.e., God's) inheritance. 2 Nor shall he have an inheritance in the midst of his brothers. The LORD is his portion, just as he spoke to him. 3 Now this is the ordinance of the priests: among the people, the ones offering the sacrifice whether bull or sheep he shall give to the priest the ann and the cheeks and the stomach. 4 The firstfruit of your grain, your new wine, and your oil, and the first sheering of your sheep you shall give to him, 5 for the LORD your God has chosen him from all your tribes to stand to serve in the name of the LORD, he and his sons for all time. 6And when the Levite comes from one of your towns who sojourns anywhere in Israel, corning because of the desire of his soul to the place which the LORD shall choose, 7 he may serve in the name of the LORD his God like all his brothers, the Levites, who stand there before the LORD. 8 Equal portions shall they eat, not counting what he inherits.

A comparison of this passage with Wellhausen's key text, Ezek 44:6-16, highlights the differences between the Priestly/Ezekelian and Deuteronomic perspectives. Ezek 44:6-16 distinguishes between the (Zadokite) priests and the Levites according to whom they serve. 96 Verse 11 legislates that the Levites shall stand before the people and serve them: 94 Note also that Deuteronomy's preferred designation for the priests is C""il C'm~il, as attested in 17:9, 18; 18:1; 24:8, 27:9. Additionally, they are called''it 'J:J. C'Jil:Jil in 21:5 and

31:9. 95 The Levitical priests here act as judges. However, they are located at the central sanctuary and specifically offer a ilim in response to the difficult case presented to them (17:8, 10-12). 96 Driver recognizes this distinction between the priests' standing before/serving God and the Levites' standing before/serving the people or the priests (Deuteronomy, 123). However,

202 Ezek44:11

Chapter Four: "A Tithe/rom the TIthe" n'~il n~ C'n1ttlC1 n':1il '1J.1IV ?R n1'pEl n~m nM'

CmlD? ~"l~? "0»' nom c»?

C'n'tt:lC 'W'PC:1 1'in n?»n nM '~nID' non

They shall be servants in my sanctuary, guards over the gates of the Temple and servants of the Temple. It is they who shall slaughter the blllTIt offering and the sacrifice of the people, and it is they who shall stand before them to serve them.

By contrast, Ezekiel's Zadokite priests stand before God and serve him: Ezek44:15 16

?M'ID"~ n'»n~ 'ID'PO mOlDo M "OID 'IDM P"~ 'l~ C',?n C'ln~mI5 mn' 'nM CIIl c" ~?n '? :l',pn? 'l~ no», 'lmlD? '?I\ ,:l1p' nil' '?»O 'n,olDo nl\ "OID' 'lmlD? 'm?1D ?M ,:l,P' nom 'ID'PO ?I\ ,~, non 16

15 But the Levitical priests, the sons of Zadok, who kept the watch of my sanctuary when the children of Israel wandered from me they shall approach me to serve me, and they shall stand before me to offer to me fat and blood, saying of the Lord GOD. 16 It is they who shall enter my sanctuary, and they shall approach my table to serve me and to keep my watch.

Deut 18:5 says of the priest - and thus of the Levite, who is synonymous with the priest in this text - "YHWH your God has chosen him from all your tribes to stand to serve in the name of the LORD." Moreover, Deut 18:7 contains the exact phrase in question: "He may serve in the name ofYHWH his God like all his brothers, the Levites, who stand there before YHWH" (cf. also Deut 10: 8). It seems that Ezekiel uses the language of Deuteronomy to reverse its perspective n For Ezekiel, tl'ln::m tl','?n are not ",? t!I:!t!i-?:l, as in Deut 18: 1; rather, they are P"~ 'l:! (Ezek 44: 15).98 Likewise, Ezekiel's c','?n are not to stand before he does not address the issue of these texts' relationship to each other or the significance of the different receiver of action in each source. Neither does he note the peculiarity of the use of 'j!l' i/:ll' in priestly texts for describing cultic activity. Abba, who does recognize the infrequency of the latter phrase in pm, calls Driver's analysis of'j!l' iOJ,l "quite misleading" ("Priests and Levites in Deuteronomy," 265); however, I will demonstrate that it is Abba who is in error in this case, not Driver. 97 Outside ofNum 16:9 and Ezek 44:11, 15, Priestly literature does not employ the formula as a technical term for formal priestly service to YHWH. Ezek 8:10-11 does employ this terminology for the seventy elders of Israel and Jaazaniah, but this is in the context of illicit worship toward idols. As Kohn demonstrates, Ezekiel regularly employs not only Priestly idioms but also Deuteronomic ones (A New Heart and a New Soul, 28-29, 86-104). 98 Jacob Milgrom argues that the words ", to~~~ c'"n C'jn~n in Deut 18:1 "have a polemical thrust" that is directed against P's (H's!) exclusion of the Levites from altar service. Thus, "it may be concluded that in this verse D shows its awareness of and opposition to P's discrimination against the Levites" ("Profane Slaughter and a Formulaic Key," 11-12). I agree with Milgrom that these words are polemical; however, I do not think that they are a response to H (his P). That is, the polemic that Milgrom sees in Deut 18:1 is not against a formal, literary reality (i. e., H). Rather, it is an anticipation of the problems that D's centralization law will cause. Thus D introduces the term C"'il C'jil~il throughout its legislation in order to consistently argue against an anticipated limitation of priesthood to the Jerusalemite clerics. Ezekiel seems to adopt D's c'r,n C'jn~n terminology, but adds its own appositive to define

'm,Olh

Excursus 3: The Levites in the Torah and Ezekiel

203

YH\VH and serve him, as they are in Deut 18:5, 7. Instead, it is C')il~il as distinguished frome',";, who may stand before YHWH to serve him (Ezek44: 15-16). e',";, are to stand before and to serve the people (Ezek 44: 11). In his discussion of Deut 18:6-8, Duke argues that the verbs mID and 11:111 (')~') do not necessarily refer to altar service. 99 However, he does not recognize the significant difference in the use of these verbs in Deuteronomy vs. Ezekiel (and H), as outlined above. Instead, he follows and builds upon the analysis of Abba, who contends that these terms do not necessarily refer to priestly activities. loo Examination of the claims of Duke and Abba reveals their shortfalls. To begin with the latter, Abba misunderstands the usage of the verb mID in pentateuchal Priestly literature. For example, he claims, "It is noteworthy that in Numbers this term [i.e., n.,lDj is used only of the service of Levites."lOl This statement reveals that Abba misreads Num 3:31, 4:9, 12, 14, which describe the Temple furniture and utensils with which the priests serve (mID) and which the priests must cover before the Kohathites can hoist them for transport. Moreover, Abba contends, In its cultic use ciimad may be followed by either le§ii,ref (which may also precede it) or !ipni or by both. "When, however, it occurs alone, the context shows that it still implies standing before Yahweh to minister to him; and it is used in this way of Levites as well as ofpriests. 102

Curiously, Abba does not cite any texts that illustrate this contention. Moreover, he fails to recognize that P, H, and Ezekiel do not regularly use the verb 11:1)) for formal priestly service. The exceptional nature ofNum 16:9 and Ezek 44:11, 15, in which ')El' ,o.v does refer to priestlyiLevitical service,103 becomes even more acute when one recognizes that Pill uses this phrase for lay actions (e. g., Lev. 9:5; 18:23). Once this distribution is recognized, the use of this phrase for formal priestly/Levitical actions in Num 16:9 and Ezek 44:11,15 suggests that the authors of the latter verses are in conversation with Deuteronomy and its view of the Levites. Duke similarly misconstrues the biblical attestation of11:1l1 and mID. He argues that biblical authors regularly employ the verb mID for Levitical service, a point that is readily conceded (although he, like Abba, misreads Num 3:31 and 4:9, texts he cites as examples ofthe verb mID with the Levites as subject). However, this term -P'1:::1: 'J:l (Ezek 43:19; 44:15), thus responding to D's provision that all Levites may selVe at the central sanctuary. 99 Duke, "The Portion of the Levite," 199. 100 Abba, "Priests and Levites in Deuteronomy," 265-66. 101 Abba, "Priests and Levites in Deuteronomy," 265. 102 Abba, "Priests and Levites in Deuteronomy," 266. 103 It should be noted that the estern of1/lP with'm7 also appears with regard to the Levites in Num 3:6 and 8:13. However, these attestations do not affect the substance of the argument here.

204

Chapter Four: "A Tithe/rom the TIthe"

Duke does not recognize the significance of the different objects of this verb according to sources, as noted already. Moreover, he argues that, because '~El? 101' does not necessarily have a technical cultic meaning in every biblical usage, it does not carry such a meaning in Deut 18:7. As evidence for this argument, Duke offers 2 Chr 29:4-11 as a text "that maintains the distinction between priests and Levites" but which "addresses them both as ones chosen by Yahweh to stand CmdJ before him to serve (srt) him."lo4 Such an argnment, however, is overly simplistic, for it ignores the wide use of sources in Chronicles and its depictions of priests and Levites that differ from both D and H. For example, Chronicles portrays some of the Levites as musicians (e.g., 1 Chr 15:16-22), a Levitical profession wholly uuknown in the Torah. Moreover, 2 Chr 29:34 positively portrays Levitical assumption of priestly duties. Similarly, the D term I:i,,':m I:i'ln~n appears four times in Chronicles (1 Chr 9:2; 2 Chr 5:5; 23:18; 30:27), even though its authors maintain P's distinction between priests and Levites. Finally, 2 Chr 29: 11 , which Duke cites as a reference to both priests and Levites, states that God has chosen them "to stand before him, to minister to him, and to be his ministers and incense burners." The inclusion of burning incense here is the best evidence of the Chronicler's variance with pentateuchal Priestly tradition, for the C stem of the verb it!lp ("to make smoke, burn incense") appears in H with the Levites as its subject only in the Korah rebellion story (Num 17:5). The result of this incense burning, of course, is tragic for the Levites, and Num 17:5 polemically emphasizes the exclusive right of the priests to offer incense. Such disagreement with and transparent blending of pentateuchal source perspectives in Chronicles requires a more precise analysis than Duke offers. In the end, the arguments of Abba and Duke presume that because there are both cultic and non-cultic biblical attestations ofnitD and 1W, the precise sense of these verbs' usage in Deut 18: 1-8 is ambiguous. However, the foregoing analysis according to source confirms that the objections ofAbba and Duke are imprecise and thus do not undermine the cultic sense ofnitD and 1W in Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, or Numbers. Instead, the cullic attestations of nitD and 1Cll in these sources exemplify the significant differences between Priestly and Deuterononllc views of Levites even as they suggest a relationship between these sources.

Conclusions

General Conclusions Concerning the Deuteronomic and Holiness Tithes The foregoing analysis demonstrates that a direct literary relationship exists between Num 18:20-32 and Deut 14:22-29 and that it is the Holiness text that creatively exploits the Deuteronomic law for its own reconceptualization of the 104

Duke, "The Portion of the Levite," 199.

Conclusions

205

tithe. To do so, the Holiness legislator draws extensively from the themes, lexica, and syntactic structure of the Deuteronomic tithe law and even assumes its basic directive enjoining all Israelites to set aside the tithe annually. Through this imitation, revision, and assumption of key elements in the Deuteronomic tithe, the Holiness author paradoxically solidifies the prestige and canonical importance of the source text that he seeks to marginalize completely. Without the Deuteronomic tithe, there is no pentateuchallaw that requires every lay Israelite to tithe his produce. Thus, from a canonical perspective, the Deuteronomic tithe law is arguably more important than the Holiness prescriptions that so assiduously seek to govern the tithe's collection, distribution, and consumption. The Holiness author's revision of the Deuteronomic tithe, however, differs in key ways from his revision of asylum, seventh-year laws, and manumission. This is likely due to the extent of the reconceptualization accomplished in the case of the tithe. H does not necessarily seek to answer questions that arise from the Deuteronomic tithe law, as is the case in Holiness asylum. Neither does H retain the basic structure or modalities of the Deuteronomic tithe. Instead, the Holiness legislator attempts to implement an entirely new tithing system, one that accords better with P than with D. To some extent this is to be expected: while asylum and manumission laws are generally non-cultic in nature, the tithe as a holy contribution is closely related to other cultic concerns and thus more easily integrated with P. The Holiness author's source allegiance is thus demonstrated: P's cultic program is strongly impressed upon the Holiness tithe, even though H does not fully adhere to P's strict limitations. Those who attempt to harmonize the pentateuchal tithe legislation misunderstand the intentional and ideologically-motivated revisions ofthe Holiness author in his interaction with the Deuteronomic tithe. The rabbis rightly concluded that the different conceptions of the tithe in D and H are fundamentally irreconcilable: their solution to this problem - the multiplication of tithes - bears witness to the wide divergence between D and H. Still, as demonstrated in the foregoing chapters, differences do not necessarily belie literary dependence. Rather, they demonstrate the extent ofthe liberty claimed by the revising author and the scope of his reconceptualization vis-a-vis his source. It is thus often only in the vestiges that remain after a legislator's interaction with his textual patrimony that the compositional logic of such texts can be reconstructed. In some cases, clues of literary revision are identifiable only on the basis oftheir not-fully integrated status in their current literary contexts. In other cases, larger syntactic units are taken over with relatively little revision, providing more recognizable signs of literary dependence. In the case of the tithe, both traces left behind from the process of the Holiness author's revision and instances of overt borrowing characterize the connection between Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation. Num 18:20-32 thus proves to be another example of the Holiness author's utilization of Deuteronomic legal traditions in service of its own larger theological program.

206

Chapter Four: "A Tithe/rom the TIthe"

Centralization and Levitical Holiness Status The analysis above demonstrates that the tithe is inextricably tied to the Levites and their well-being in both Deut 14:22-29 and Num 18:20-32. For both the Deuteronomic and the Holiness legislator, the tithe functions within a larger configuration of Levitical service and sustenance. As in the cases of asylum and manumission laws, Deuteronomy's tithe laws clearly reflect and are a response to its larger program of cult centralization. The Levite may share in the Israelite household's tithe feast because he possesses no ancestral1and heritage from which he can harvest his own yield and thereby provide his own tithe feast. Likewise, the Levite is entitled with the other underclasses to the entire thirdyear tithe, for the Deuteronomic legislator implicitly recognizes the inadequacy of his legislation concerning the right of every Levite to serve in the central sanctuary (Deut 18:6-8). The centralization formula and its larger implications are thus prominent and recurring features in Deuteronomy's regulation of Israelite tithing practice. In the Holiness Legislation, by contrast, there is no consideration of cult centralization, but this is not because centralization does not inform the Holiness laws generally or its tithe laws specifically. Centralization is instead assumed in H based on the narrative setting of its composition. Situated in the wilderness, the Priestly pentateuchal narrative and the legislation set within it only ever envision a single sanctuary. For this reason, a centralized cult is taken for granted throughout the Priestly pentateuchal sources (P and H).105 Still, conceptually speaking, centralization is at the fore of the narrative and law in Num 16-18. The question undertaken in these texts concerns priestly authorization and is thus one of centralization, conceived not (primarily) geographically but rather socially and hierarchically. Is the priesthood to be centralized in the person of Aaron and his sons, or is it possible to widen the circle to include non-Aaronid Levites within the priestly ranks? The answer for both P and H is that the priesthood is limited to Aaronids alone and that Levites serve in a lesser capacity as sanctuary maintenance staff. This conclusion differs markedly from the viewpoint of the Deuteronomic author, who would allow the Levites who do not normally serve in the central sanctuary to assume cultic functions there (Deut 18:7). Though its focus is upon the centralization of cultic personnel and not the centralization of worship sites, Priestly centralization also manifests a geographical component. For Pill, the priests serve in the sanctuary, which is situated literally in the middle of the Israelite camp (Num 2:2). Access to the ritual functions of the sanctuary cult thus locates the priests in the center of the Priestly view of Israel's world: they are the inner circle, as it were, around the very center, the deity. The Levites are charged with surrounding the sanctuary, camping about 105

See Schwartz, '''Profane' Slaughter," 25-28.

Conclusions

207

it and preventing any encroacher from improperly accessing its domain (Num 1:50-53). Consonant with this pentateuchal Priestly viewpoint is Ezek 44:11-16, where the service ofthe priests and Levites in the sanctuary is focused in directly opposite directions. The priests serve YHWH at his table and are thus turned inwardly toward him. The Levites, on the other hand, serve the Israelites and are turned outwardly toward them. The special role that the Levites perform "in between" the priests and the Israelite laity places them in a liminal position both geographically and conceptually, an observation that has significant implications for understanding the Holiness tithe. Olyan rightly argnes that the language of privilege and separation employed for the Levites (,,:1, :1'P, C stems, Num 16:9-10) corresponds with the language used generally to describe priestly privilege in the Bible. Even linguistically, then, the Levites possess "an intennediate status" between the priesthood and the Israelite laity. 106 They are not priests, but Levites are not simply laypersons either. Their initiation ritual in Num 8:5-22 and, more specifically, their designation there as a OIEmn ("wave/elevation offering") confirms their elevated status among the Israelites.107 This intennediary position, I contend, has implications for the Levites' remuneration and, by extension, for their holiness status. It thus infonns the compositionallogic of the tithe in Num 18:20-32 and the accommodations made for the Levites in this text. As argued above, the Holiness author makes an exception to the Priestly norm concerning the entitlement of the priests alone to holy contributions. Through the analogies in Num 18:27, 30 and the introduction of the innovative "tithe from the tithe," the Holiness legislator provides, if only literarily, a procedure for desanctifying the tithe that underscores the non-priestly status of the Levites. Even so, such an exception with regard to a holy contribution creates an internal incoherence in the Priestly conception of holiness: the holiness status of the priests is extended, in small measure and often by implication only, to the Levites as well. In light of both the direct literary connection demonstrated here between Deut 14:22-29 and Num 18:20-32 and the larger Deuteronomic conception of the Levites, it is likely that the special dispensation toward the Levites in H is the result ofthe Holiness author's interaction with his Deuterononllc source, where the Levites enjoy the full privileges ofthe priesthood. H's revisions of Deuteronomy's tithe and the latter 's view of Levites betray an acconunodationist approach similar to that already observed in its revision of asylum, seventh-year, and slavery legislation. Phas no Levites at all; D's Levites Olyan,Rite and Rank, 29. The Levites' substitution for the (holy) firstborn also distinguishes the Levites from the Israelite laity (Num 8:16-18). For a discussion of the initiation ritual of the Levites and its contribution to the intermediate position of the Levites in Israelite society, see Phillip P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (JSOTSup 106; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 130-35. 106

107

208

Chapter Four: "A Tithe/rom the TIthe"

are all potentially fully-privileged priests. H takes a moderating position, installing Levites as inferior sanctuary laborers whose remuneration echoes the Deuteronomic tithe laws even as it corresponds to their new, intennediate position. The Holiness author's Levites do not receive a p'?n like the priests. Rather, their entitlement is only a ;r,m, like the Israelite laity. Still, the Levitical ;J'?m is the tithe, a holy contribution. The Levites are thus positioned in between the Israelite priests and laity, alternately leaning in one direction and then the other.

Chapter Five

Literary Dependence and Compositional Logic Understanding the Motivation for Biblical Legal Revision

In the foregoing chapters, I have attempted to demonstrate that the Holiness authors exploit literary sources in their legal compositions and that, alongside the Covenant Collection, one of the main sources employed is Deuteronomy. I

have also described the logic that guides the Deuteronomic and Holiness legislators in their revisions of their textual patrimonies. The basic question that has

driven my consideration of each of the major legal topics explored is: How do the biblical authors appropriate and revise pre-existing material? As discussed

in Chapter One, the method of investigation employed in service of this goal has been eclectic: it is broadly historical-critical, employing text-, source-, fonn-, and redaction-critical approaches. But it is ultimately less concerned with

implementing a particular interpretive methodology than with discovering and detailing the revisionary method of the biblical authors themselves. It is thus a study in inner-biblical exegesis - the interpretation and reconceptualization of

one biblical text by another biblical author - but all within a pre-canonical context. Its concern is henneneutics - modes of interpretation - but ancient modes rather than modem ones.

To summarize briefly the findings of the foregoing chapters, there are extensive thematic, lexical, syntactic, and larger sequential correspondences among the pentateuchallegal corpora. The nature ofthese correspondences recommends a conclusion of direct literary dependence among these texts. In the case of ref-

uge for manslaughter (Chapter Two), the Deuteronomic legislator introduces the concept of city asylum through a creative revision of the Covenant Collection's

altar asylum law. This shift from altar asylum to city asylum conforms with Deuteronomy's larger program of cult centralization and becomes the basis for the Holiness Legislation'S asylum laws. However, just as the Deuteronomic legislator freely reconceptualizes his source, so too does the Holiness author, whose modification of Deutero nomic asylum reflects his own unique ideological perspective even as it betrays dependence upon its source. The authors of Josh 20 then introduce further revisions of these pentateuchal asylum laws, even as

they narrate their implementation in the land of Canaan. The pentateuchal seventh-year and manumission laws (Chapter Three) attest equally extensive dependence and revision. The Covenant Collection's laws

210

Chapter Five: Literary Dependence and Compositional Logic

are appropriated by the Deuteronomic and Holiness legislators, each of whom reworks them in significant ways. Deuteronomy completely divorces ill:!)Otz.i from its agricultural context and introduces similarly radical changes with regard to manumission for slavery. In addition to demonstrating dependence upon the Covenant Collection, examination of the Holiness laws yields extensive evidence of their reliance upon and revision of the Deuteronomic seventh-year and slavery laws. The Holiness author freely draws upon multiple sources as he institutes a seventh-year Sabbath for the land and as he seeks wholly to eliminate the institution of slavery for Israelites. Finally, the pentateuchal tithe laws again show evidence of the Holiness Legislation's revision of Deuteronomic law (Chapter Four). In light of his subordination of the Levites vis-a-vis the priests, the Holiness author radically modifies the Deuteronomic tithe, appropriating for regular Levitical support this cultic contribution that, according to Deuteronomy, is either to be consumed by its offerer or given to the needy. In so doing, the Holiness author institutes a tithe from the tithe, to be given to the priests by the Levites, in order to desanctify the holy contribution that is now the Levites' rightful due. In addition to its other extensive ties to the Deuteronomic law, the Holiness Legislation's omission of a basic tithe command for the Israelite laity betrays this text's reliance upon its source. What has been largely overlooked in the foregoing chapters is a consideration of the overarching purpose of legislation that exploits sources. What is the goal of the author who reconceptualizes pre-existing legal material? In other words, why revise? Examination of the texts demonstrates that the objectives of the ancient Israelite legislators are not necessarily forthcoming, and it is often especially difficult to discern the attitude of a revising author toward the text that he appropriates and reworks. Is this author attempting wholly to subvert the earlier text and its message, or is he seeking only to provide an additional view? Moderating between these extremes is the possibility that revision represents an attempt to provide and even to enforce a nonnative interpretation for a literary precursor, preserving the earlier text's prestige yet limiting its scope or import. Each of these options, and the several variations of them that can be imagined, are hypothetically possible. Moreover, the lines between these different characterizations can be fine: interpretive revisions often undennine discrete categorization, for they can simultaneously invoke and deny a literary source and its authority. Such complicated compositional methods may also create outcomes unintended by the biblical authors, which in turn occasion further interpretation and reconceptualization. There are also other issues that complicate the evaluation of biblical legal revision. For example, "scripturalization," canonization, and their implications, not the least of which is the authority such processes impart to texts, can

Biblical Legal Revision: Replacement or Supplementation?

211

potentially impact their interpretation and revision. 1 Likewise, the question of the implementation of the biblical laws themselves can influence how the legal collections are understood. In this final chapter, I will take up the question of the biblical legislators 'intentions for their sources, drawing examples especially from the foregoing chapters in order to clarifY further the nature of the legal revision attested in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation.

Biblical Legal Revision: Replacement or Supplementation? The motivation for biblical revision goes to the heart ofthe question of compositionallogic: what are the pentateuchallegislators attempting to do when they rewrite existing texts, and specifically, what do they intend for the sources that they revise? The two poles ofthe continuum of motivation are replacement, in which the source text is viewed as wholly expendable and is perhaps even intended to be discarded, and supplementation, in which the revisionary text becomes a sort of commentary upon its source or an expansion of it. Attention has been drawn to the question of replacement vs. supplementation in legal revision especially by Hindy Najman, who addresses this issue in her discussion of Deuteronomy's revision of the Covenant Collection. In her recent monograph, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism, Najman critiques the view that the Deuterononllc author's goal is to replace his Covenant Collection source. Responding especially to Levinson, who views Deuteronomy as a subversive attempt to displace the Covenant Collection and to do so in part by borrowing the latter's authority,2 she argues that the replacement theory reflects an anachronistic view of textual authority, for it requires an author who 1 I employ here the term "canon" and related forms (e.g., "canonical," "pre-canonical," "non-canonical") intentionally even though some have argued that such terms should not be used prior to the Christian period (see, e. g., Ulrich, "The Notion and Definition of Canon," 21-22). As I discuss further below, although the notion of canon is not considered explicitly in biblical literature, its effects are felt, especially through the combination of originally independent pentateuchal sources. Thus, though the notion of "scripture" as authoritative, sacred text adclresses in part the issues that I am considering here, it does not fully engage the idea of inclusion and exclusion that I wish to highlight in this chapter. Moreover, it is not clear that the biblical legislators viewed their sources as "scriptural." Canon is a useful intellectual construct here precisely because it includes notions of inclusion and exclusion. In Ulrich's terminology, my focus is on the "canonical process" that precedes and leads up to more definitive considerations of canon that emerge at the beginning of the Common Era. 2 Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics, 149-53. Levinson is certainly not alone in this view. For example, a century earlier Driver argued that "the legislative kernel of the book [of Deuteronomy] (c. 12-26.28) may be described broadly as a revised and enlarged edition of the 'Book of the Covenant'" (Deuteronomy, xix, italics his). Driver goes on to explain that Deuteronomy seeks to deal with a social situation that the laws of the Covenant Collection could not sufficiently address (xxxviii).

212

Chapter Five: Literary Dependence and Compositional Logic

consults a source either to reproduce that source text accurately or to supplant it completely. N ajman seeks to demonstrate that a third option is historically more plausible and better accords with the biblical evidence. She argues that the revisions of Deuteronomy are a continuation of "Mosaic discourse" in which earlier traditions are preserved by authors who provide an "authentic exposition" for them. Such reworkings are not meant to replace their sources but rather to serve as a lens through which these sources are to be understood. In Najman's consideration of Deuteronomy, especially problematic for the replacement theory are the selective revision ofthe Covenant Collection in Deuteronomy, the Deuteronomic legislator's close dependence upon the language of the Covenant Collection, and references to stories and events that the Deuteronomic author does not himself narrate but that do appear elsewhere in the Torah. For N ajman, each ofthese problems is alleviated by discarding the theory that Deuteronomy is attempting to replace the Covenant Collection. In her view, then, Deuteronomy's revisionary contents are more plausibly characterized as expositions and expansions of the Covenant Collection that are not intended to replace that source. 3 Najman's analysis shares much in common with the studies of several other scholars who have recently addressed the issue of literary revision in both biblical and post-biblical texts. Like N ajman, Carr, Zahn, and Levinson himself have each developed theories of literary dependence based in part upon examples of reuse observable in post-biblical literature (e. g., Qumran material and Jubilees). They have then applied these "empirical models" especially to what they view as some ofthe very latest texts in the Hebrew Bible 4 As noted in the first chapter of 3 Najman, Seconding Sinai, 19-29. A somewhat less significant objection that Najman offers is that while Levinson's arguments assume that the Covenant Collection's text was substantially fixed by the seventh centruy B.C.E ., there is a lack of evidence to corroborate this view (24). In rebuttal, it should be noted that there is no evidence supporting a substantially different Covenant Collection text at this time. Neither does Levinson's argument concerning the revision of the Covenant Collection require that the Deuteronomic author work from an exact replica of MT, despite what Najman suggests. In a footnote, Najman provides a caveat to her objections: "My thesis is not that there is no possibility whatsoever that Deuteronomy is intended as a replacement. My thesis is rather that it has not been proven that Deuteronomy is intended as a replacement if the reworking of older tradition serves as the only evidence" (Seconding Sinai, 24 n. 49). In this chapter, I will argue that not only do the revisions of Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation point to their authors' intent to replace their sources but that the Covenant Collection provides an empirical model for understanding the intent ofthese texts' revisions. 4 David Carr, "Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34, 11-26 and its Parallels," in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32-34 und Dtn 9-10 (ed. M. K6ckert and E. Blum; Giitersloh: Giitersloher Verlagshaus, 2001), 107-40; MollyM. Zahn, "Reexamining Empirical Models: The Case of Exodus 13," in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (ed. Eckart Otto and ReinhardAchenbach; FRLANT 206; G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004),36-55; eadem, "New Voices, Ancient Words: The Temple Scroll's Reuse of the Bible,"

Biblical Legal Revision: Replacement or Supplementation?

213

this study, Carr even outlines six criteria for determining the direction of dependence bet\veen texts on the basis of post-biblical examples of reuse. However, as Zahn notes, emerging notions of canon and their influence over the interpretation of biblical texts present a problem when applying these criteria to all but the latest of biblical texts 5 Similar issues must be considered when posing the question of replacement vs. supplementation in biblical law generally, for the pre-redactedlpre-canonical state of legal source texts exploited by biblical authors renders the assumptions of canon anachronistic for these texts. In her arguments against the view that Deuteronomy is intended to replace the Covenant Collection, Najman does not adequately address these issues. As she herself notes, the core of Deuteronomy is likely a pre-exilic - and thus a pre-canonical- text. 6 However, it seems that, because the main focus of her study is interpretation in the Temple Scroll, Jubilees, Philo, and early rabbinic literature, Najman overlooks the fact that the constraints of canonization that already exert a powerful influence over the perception and interpretation ofthe Bible in the post-biblical texts she examines are not operable for Deuteronomy. Indeed, there is no evidence that the Deuteronomic legislator perceives the Covenant Collection as "scriptural" or "canonical" literature in a sense that post-biblical authors do with regard to Torah texts 7 The earlier time period in which the Deuteronomic authors and other biblical authors (including the Holiness legislators) work, as well as the different perceptions of source texts and their authority that prevailed in such a pre-canonical setting, thus shape these authors' literary revisions and their intentions for their compositions in a way that is different than that of the post-biblical era. In this light, two questions must be posed: (1) how does redaction/the canonical process affect the interpretation of biblical texts and especially pentateuchallegal texts?; and (2) what do the examples of revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation reveal about their authors' views of and intentions for their sources? By answering these questions, I hope to demonstrate that the Deuteronomic and Holiness legislators each intend to replace their sources with their own composi-

in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (ed. John Day; LondonlNew York: T &T Clark, 2(05), 435-58; Levinson and Zahn, "Revelation Regained," passim. For discussion of the application of "empirical models" in the field of biblical and ancient Near Eastern studies, see Jeffrey H. Tigay, ed., Empirical Models/or Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985); Zahn, "Reexamining Empirical Mcxlels," 36-42. 5 Zahn, "Reexamining Empirical Models," 54. 6 Najman, Seconding Sinai, 19-22. 7 Deuteronomy's revision of the Covenant Collection does suggest that the Deuteronomic author seeks to benefit from the prestige of his source. However, as I will argue below, the authority attributed to the individual words ofthe Covenant Collection derives from their presentation as divine revelation: they are the very words of the deity and thus infused with power.

214

Chapter Five: Literary Dependence and Compositional Logic

tions and that the theory of supplementation does not adequately account for the differences among the pentateuchallegal corpora. Competing and Complementary Modes of Textual Authority: Canon and Revelation In the late- and post-biblical period, redaction and canonization, though certainly not neat or uniform processes, significantly influenced interpreters' views of (what would become) biblical texts 8 Moreover, in the case of the Pentateuch, redaction and canonization are accompanied by and complicated by yet another claim to authority - divine revelation. Throughout its legal sections (but also elsewhere), the Pentateuch purports to record the direct revelation of the deity, a narrative feature that has considerable impact upon the interpretation and use of the redacted Torah as well as its pre-redacted forebears. There are thus multiple and interwoven claims to authority in these texts, and these issues prove significant for answering the question of the pentateuchal1egislators' views of their textual patrimonies.

8 The scholarly literature on biblical canonization and the historical processes that surrounded it in both Judaism and Christianity is voluminous. The purpose of this discussion is not so much to argue the details of the history of canonization but rather to consider the broader implications of setting conflicting texts side by side and imparting to them a privileged status. Thus, I refer at times here to "redaction/canonization" because the act of combining the various pentateuchal sources is itself a major step toward the eventual scripturalization and canonization of these texts (cf. Michael Fishbane, "Law to Canon: Some 'Ideal-Typical' Stages of Development," in MinlJ,ah Ie-Nahum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M Sarna in Honour ofhis 70th Birthday [ed. Marc Brettler and Michael Fishbane; JSOTSup 154; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993],65-86). For discussions of the history of canonization and its import in interpreting biblical texts, see, e. g., James Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983); James A. Sanders, Torah and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972); idem, Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); idem, "Intertextuality and Canon," in On the Way to Nineveh: Studies in Honor of George M Landes (ed. Stephen L. Cook and S.c. Winter; ASOR Books 4; Atlanta: Scholars, 1999),316-33; John J. Collins, "Before the Canon: Scriptures in Second Temple Judaism," in Old Testament Interpretation: Past Present, and Future: Essays in Honor of Gene M Tucker (ed. James Luther Mays, et al.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 225-41; John Barton, "The Significance of a Fixed Canon of the Hebrew Bible," in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation (ed. Magne Saebo; 2 vols.; G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 1: 67-83 (see also the literature cited there); James E. Brenneman, Canons in Conflict: Negotiating Texts in True and False Prophecy (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997); Benjamin D. Sommer, "Unity and Plurality in Jewish Canons: The Case ofthe Oral and Written Torahs," in One Scripture or Many?: Canon from Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Perspectives (ed. Christine Helmer and ChristofLandmesser; OxfordiNew York: Oxford University Press, 2004),108-50; and the essays inLee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002). For a discussion of canon in the general literary sphere, albeit with consideration of sacred texts, see, e. g., Jan Gorak, The Making of the Modern Canon: Genesis and Crisis of a Literary Idea (London: Athlone, 1991).

Biblical Legal Revision: Replacement or Supplementation?

215

Before turning to redaction, canonization, and the effect of these processes upon texts and their interpretation, however, it is important to contrast redaction! canonization with divine revelation as claims to textual authority.9 Specifically, the locus of authority differs between these two modes of legitimation. In the case of divine revelation, the claim of authority is internal to the text itself: the very words of the deity are contained in that text. By contrast, the authority of canon is external to the texts canonized: it is not the text's own claim but rather a secondary authorization that legitimizes such a text. 10 Note also that canon does not necessarily imply an internal claim to divine revelation, a point for which there is ample evidence within the Bible. For example, the historical and wisdom books in the Bible as well as the Psahns rarely contain direct speech from the deity, yet they are deemed fully canonical. Thus, the NT text 2 Tim 3: l6a, which claims that "all scripture is God-breathed," makes an assertion concerning the Bible (likely the LXX) that is not at all clear from the texts it describes. N evertheless, biblical law is defined by both canonicity and divine voicing, and thus these !\vo modes of authorization must be considered. One of the most significant effects of redaction and canonization upon textual interpretation is the new literary environment provided by these processes that then guides the texts' interpretation. That is, by placing certain texts side by side (to the exclusion of others) and subsequently imputing to them an authoritative status, their interpretation is contextualized, for they are given privileged conversation partners as they are interpreted. ll The result is often a perceived equality of authority as well as a perceived necessity of application for all canonical parts. In light of these effects, it is no surprise that hannonistic interpretations, though 9 I will delay the majority of my discussion of revelation until my consideration of precanonical texts and the origin of divinely-voiced laws in the Covenant Collection. It should be noted here, however, that the text's claim to divine revelation obtains for pentateuchallegal texts in both the pre-canonical and canonical periods. 10 The rabbis in the post-biblical period would make a claim to divine revelation for not only the biblical text but also for the interpretive tradition of "oral torah" that developed around it. However, as Fishbane notes, this claim to divine revelation "did not so much obscure the distinction between Revelation and Interpretation as lUlderscore it" (Michael Fishbane, "Inner Biblical Exegesis: Types and Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient Israel," in Midrash and Literature (ed. Geoffrey H. Hartman and Sanford Budick; New HavenILondon: Yale University Press, 1986), 19-37 (at 20). 11 Scholars have long noted that canonization limits the debate by providing a range of acceptable alternatives and thus an implicit rejection of other, non-canonical possibilities. For example, Collins argues that such a pragmatic approach likely guided the rabbis in their consideration of authoritative books as they encountered competing Jewish sectarians in the late Second Temple period ("Before the Canon," 239-40). Note too that redaction in and of itself begins this privileging of conversation partners by, as it were, forcing the conversation between such texts to the exclusion of others. Thus, even though the redactor(s) seeks to create a chronologically coherent narrative, his composition can be read in other manners. In the case of the biblical legal corpora, an immediate alternative is reading comparatively, and eventually, canonically.

216

Chapter Five: Literary Dependence and Compositional Logic

deficient from the perspective of modern critical scholarship, are plentiful in traditional biblical interpretation. Such interpretations meet those intertextual discrepancies that beg for explanations with authoritative - i. e., canonicallyinformed - solutions. The products of this ancient "canonical" interpretive approach are illuminating for the present study precisely because of their failure to resolve the contradictions between the texts that they treat. As is well-known, halakhic hannonizations do not adequately smooth the dissimilarities between competing legislation, an observation implicitly made by the rabbis themselves when they claim concerning competing halakhic rulings, O"t! O'mM ,':>M' ,':>M ("Both of these are the words ofthe living God").!2 But the pressures of canon also prevent early Jewish interpreters from preserving the integrity of the individual laws they treat, for conflicting texts are not allowed to remain directly contrastive. Still, the texts that are interpreted are preserved discretely, and the conclusions drawn concerning their meaning are just that - commentary that seeks to explain, and judgments that attempt to apply, the instructions of the authoritative source (viewed as a unified whole). Two well-known examples pertaining to topics encountered in this study illustrate the interpretive tendencies of the post-canonization era. In the case of slavery and manumission, the Meldlfa equates the perpetual servitude of the cf. Deut 15: 17) with the maximum voluntary slave in Exod 21:5-6 (O':>W':> term of the slave whose release is secured by the Jubilee in Lev 25: 10 (50 years).13 The effect of this conflation is the complete elimination of perpetual Israelite servitude on the basis that the different manumission laws, viewed as mutually normative and applicable, inform the interpretation of each other. In this case, rather than viewing the seventh-year release in the Covenant Collection and Deuteronomy as analogous to the Holiness Legislation's Jubilee release, the Mekilfa equates perpetual slavery with service until the Jubilee.!4 The only

'.,:1,

":lJl,,

12 B. cErub. 13b; b. Gif. 6b. The example of this quotation from cErubin is particularly instructive because it comes in the context of a dispute between the houses of Hillel and Shammai. Although both are validated, the perspective of the house of Hillel is accepted and defended as halakhah on the basis of its members' humility. This example shows the impossibility of reconciling opposing viewpoints and the eventual preference of one over the other. For discussion of the acceptance of Hillel over Shannnai, see, e. g., David Weiss Halivni, Revelation Restored· Divine Writ and Critical Responses (Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1997),87-89. 13 Mek. Nez. 2:83-90. As discussed in Chapter Two regarding Num 35:9-34, a concern for limiting perpetual asylum may motivate the Holiness author's initiation ofthe death ofthe high priest as a date of release for a refugee. However, in that case, it is not the constraints of canon and the attempt to apply its laws that motivate this view. Indeed, Num 35 is not simply an interpretation: it is a revision that seeks to alter the legal norms of its source. Its presentation is thus not simply citation and interpretation. It is instead interpretive revision, anticipating and rejecting the implications of its source. 14 Because of the Mekilta s hannonistic approach to the slave laws, it here completely overlooks the lack of seventh-year release in Lev 25. Rather, the two slavery options of the Covenant Collection (seventh-year release and perpetual slavery) are brought into conversation

Biblical Legal Revision: Replacement or Supplementation?

217

perpetual servitude that remains is Lev 25's provision for foreign slaves (Lev 25:44-46). Such interpretation effectively silences the distinctive voices of each of the pentateuchal manumission laws through one possible conflation of them. A different method of harmonization is effected through multiplication or serialization, evidenced in this study by the rabbinic understanding of the tithe. Recognizing the fundamental discrepancies bet\veen the Deuteronomic and Holiness tithes, the rabbis forego an attempt to conflate the tithes completely (although they do equate Lev 27:30-33 with the Deuteronomic tithe). Instead, as detailed in Chapter Four, they multiply the tithe so that no choice must be made regarding who is the proper recipient of this Israelite contribution: a tithe is to be given to the Levites (the first tithe), and a tithe is to be consumed by its owner (the second tithe). In the third and sixth years of the sabbatical cycle, this second tithe is to be doled out to the poor (the third tithe). As in the case of conflicting slavery laws, where the unifonn authority imputed to these texts forces a radical interpretive solution upon the Mekilta's author, so also do the differing tithe prescriptions motivate the rabbis to develop an ingenious but implausible tithe halakhah. Such conflationary readings reveal the sense of comprehensiveness that canonization imputes to a literary collection, a factor intensified by the status of revelation claimed by pentateuchallaw. Indeed, the perceived immutability of the canon and the self-asserted divine origin of its statutes combine to relativize any call for further legislation. The Deuteronomic legislator's warning 1ElOn tt.'? 1ll:ll:l 1ll1m tt.'?1 c:lntt. m~1:l ':Jltll 11Vtt. 1:J1;' '?ll ("Do not add to this word that I am commanding you, and do not take away from it" Deut 4:2; cf. Deut 13:1b), viewed canonically, provides an emphatic exclamation point in this regard. I S Moreover, if further legislation were to be proposed and canonized, the henneneutics of canon espoused by the rabbis (e. g., hannonization or multiplication) would only create greater irrationalities. As it stands, the boundaries of canon maintain that every question can be resolved through its current content, and the whole is fittingly sealed with the divine imprimatur. No less important is the sense of incompleteness that canonical comprehensiveness attributes to its constituent parts. In light of its status as a literary unity, no single peri cope can necessarily provide the final word on a particular subject, for it is accompanied by the rest of the Torah and its other relevant laws. Addiwith the Holiness law, whose Jubilee provision is then used to redefine perpetual slavery. For a discussion of the Mekilta's understanding of Scripture, see, e. g., Jack N. Lightstone, "Form as Meaning in Halakic Midrash: A Programmatic Statement," Semeia 27 (1983): 23-35. 15 For comparative and historical details regarding this command, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1-11, 200. See also Brettler's discussion of this verse's import for Deuteronomy as a whole (Creation of History, 62-78) and Levinson's consideration of revelation and biblical legal authority ("You Must Not Add," 14-16).

218

Chapter Five: Literary Dependence and Compositional Logic

tionally, when a canonical set oftexts is infused with divine authority, the source

of which is a single deity, the ability ofthe constituent parts ofthe canon to speak independently is, for all intents and purposes, logically eliminated. Ironically, the Deuteronomic author anticipates the challenge of alternative views and attempts

to subvert them by clarifYing that all voices that would compete with Deuteronomy - royal, prophetic, divine, or otherwise - are illegitimate. 16 Yet once the boundaries of its composition are expanded, Deuteronomy's parochial claims are

relativized by the application of its views to the entire Pentateuch. Pre-Canonical Legal Revision and a New Empirical Model Pre-redactedlpre-canonical texts should not be expected to view their sources in

ways identical to texts that emerge after the redaction and canonization of the Torah. Among the texts examined in this study, the only passage that betrays the concerns and effects of redaction/canonization is Josh 20. As demonstrated in Chapter Two, this text conflates the Deuteronomic and Holiness asylum laws and even innovates beyond them by attempting to harmonize its conflicting source texts and by applying to them legal ideas drawn from other, unrelated Deuteronomic laws. In this sense, Josh 20 can be viewed as at least partially supplemental to Deut 19:1-13 and Num 35:9-34. By contrast, every example of revision identified in this study from Deuteronomy or the Holiness Legislation is most plausibly explained as an attempt to subvert and replace its source(s). Such a conclusion is implied by the nature of the revisions themselves: both Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation introduce legal innovations that, while informed by their predecessors, cannot logically co-exist alongside of them. This observation is perhaps most defendable in reference to Deuteronomic revision. In the Holiness Legislation, there are instances in which the author attempts to integrate material from multiple source texts (i. e., the Covenant Collection, Deuteronomy, and even Priestly narrative; see Chapter Three). However, even such examples of integration are not attempts to preserve, hannonize, or enact these disparate source texts. The latter are instead treated as resources for a new legislation that will entirely supplant them. For Deuteronomy, the asylum law provides a good example of the irreconciability of its innovations vis-a-vis its source. As I argued in Chapter Two, the Deuteronomic directives concerning city asylum cannot be hannonized with the Covenant Collection's altar asylum law: Deuteronomy's reconceptualization of I:l1pO as city and careful avoidance of any reference to the central sanctuary completely eliminates the altar from consideration as a refuge. Neither can Deuteronomy's seventh-year ormanunllssion laws be seen as operating alongside of 16 See Bernard M. Levinson, "The First Constitution: Rethinking the Origins of Rule of Law and Separation of Powers in Light of Deuteronomy," Cardozo Law Review 27 (2006): 1853-88.

Biblical Legal Revision: Replacement or Supplementation?

219

their corresponding laws in the Covenant Collection (see Chapter Three). This is not to say that the Deuteronomic author denies that this or other Covenant Collection laws that he revises ever existed. I7 His close citation of this source and at times polemical response to it make clear that the Deuteronomic legislator intends his audience to hear echoes of the Covenant Collection. Still, the fundamental differences between the Covenant Collection and its revision in Deuteronomy do not make co-existence and complementation a plausible intention for the Deuteronomic legislator. As the newcomer, Deuteronomy cannot avoid being judged in comparison with its source by those familiar with the Covenant Collection. However, Deuteronomy is also written to convince an audience with no knowledge of its legal patrimony. Regarding his intent toward the Covenant Collection, the most plausible conclusion is that the Deuteronomic author takes a pragmatic approach: if some who encounter it are persuaded on the basis of this new legal collection's similarity with its prestigious source, Deuteronomy is a success. If others are won over on the merits of Deuteronomy alone, its authors likewise achieve their goal. In either case, Deuteronomy's intent is to make its own distinctive vision the authoritative view and to marginalize the Covenant Collection and other sources to whatever extent possible. IS However, as Levinson notes, the redaction of the Pentateuch undercuts this aim by laying source and revision side by side. I9 The nature of the Holiness Legislation's revisions similarly suggests that this legal corpus is meant is to replace its sources. 20 The examples of slavery 17 Though Deuteronomic author does not deny the existence of the Covenant Collection, he certainly does deny the legitimacy of its laws as the revelation ofYHWH at Horeb (I thank Professor Baruch J. Schwartz for his input on this issue). This is the import of the re-imagination of the Horeb event in Deut 5 (see esp. vv. 22-33). It is also possible to read Deut 5:3 as an implicit polemic against the (old) Covenant Collection (M'-o., i!lO, Exod 24:7) in favor of the new Deuteronomic law. In other words, Deuteronomy is not your fathers' legal collection. 18 As N ajman notes, Deuteronomy does occasionally reference stories ofIsraelite history that are not narrated within it. However, such references to extra-Deuteronomic narratives have the quality of general calls to the memory of an informed reader or audience and are not necessarily meant as citations of specific texts otherwise available to its addressees. In all cases of "citation" in Deuteronomy, the author does not intend for his readers/audience to check his sources. Such an act would highlight the differences between source and revision and potentially undermine the new composition in the eyes of those whose allegiance is to the old. Instead, pre-canonical revisions such as those found in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation seek to make their sources superfluous, replacing them with a new normative view. 19 Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Henneneutics, 153. 20 Contra Nihan, who argues that the Holiness Legislation is meant to supplement but not to replace Deuteronomy. Nihan's view is more intricate, however, for he argues that the Holiness authors intend to elevate their own composition and to "downgrade" Deuteronomy, presenting the latter as a supplement to H. Nevertheless, the Holiness Legislation is, historically speaking, actually a supplement to Deuteronomy that seeks in part to reassert Covenant Collection viewpoints against their Deuteronomic revisions ("The Holiness Code between D and P," 105-07). On the latter point, Nihan presents the Holiness seventh-year law as an

220

Chapter Five: Literary Dependence and Compositional Logic

and tithe laws make this conclusion especially clear. With regard to slavery, the Holiness legislator completely discards the notion of a seventh-year release, even though his sources each contain such a measure. Instead, he institutes a system of redemption and Jubilee release that is wholly incompatible with the Covenant Collection and Deuteronomy. The Holiness manumission laws thus do not supplement their literary forebears or provide an authoritative interpretation of them. They are instead meant to supplant these sources completely. Similar are the Holiness tithe laws vis-a-vis their Deuteronomic counterparts. \¥bile they attest correspondences in language and broad concept, these two tithing systems conflict in virtually every respect. The rabbis' attempt at reading them together demonstrates well their basic incompatibility. In addition to these internal clues that suggest that the biblical legislators intend to replace their source texts, the new empirical model of legal revision provided by Wright's groundbreaking study of the Covenant Collection and its reuse ofthe Laws ofHammurabi has specific import for the question ofreplacement vs. supplementation. 2 1 Though closely dependent upon Hammurabi, several factors suggest that the Covenant Collection author intends his composition to stand independently from its Babylonian forebear. For example, an Israelite/ Judean audience would likely not have had access to the Laws of Hammurabi. Thus, as much as it borrows from and even interprets these cuneiform laws, the Covenant Collection cannot be rightly viewed as a commentary or supplement to them. 22 Moreover, the Covenant Collection completely rejects Hammurabi's example; however, as I have argued in Chapter TIrree, the Holiness seventh-year law is not a reassertion of the Covenant Collection seventh-year law. Rather, it is a further innovation that draws from the seventh-year laws in both the Covenant Collection and Deuteronomy but does not conform with either. 21 Wright, "The Laws of Hammurabi as a Source." Wright's study also demonstrates that Deuteronomy does not initiate its method of rewitten legislation in ancient Israel but is anticipated by the author of its own source, the Covenant Collection. Thus, in one sense, Deuteronomy is properly deutero-nomos, a "second law," for it does rewrite the laws of the Covenant Collection, the earliest extant legal collection in the Bible. In anon-canonical world, however, Deuteronomy is at least a third incarnation of law, and it is likely not even this high on the hierarchy of revision. Based on their own compositional features and their similarities to other ancient Near Eastern legal collections, it is almost certain that the Laws ofHammurabi themselves rely upon literary sources (see, e.g., Roth, Legal Collections, 71-72). That the Holiness author adopts a similar methcxl to reformulate his textual patrimonies only extends the chain of legal revision that originates in second millennilUll Babylon and continues through the biblical period and into the late Second Temple period (early Jewish rewritten Bible). For a discussion of post-biblical interpretive methcxl and its relation to biblical revision, see Avigdor Shinan and Yair Zakovitch, "Midrash on Scripture and Midrash Within Scripture," in Studies in Bible (ed. Sara Japhet; ScrHier 31; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986),257-77. 21 For discussion of the Covenant Collection author's access to the Laws ofHammurabi, see Wright, "The Laws ofHammurabi as a Source," 58-71. Because of their lack of access to the Laws of Hammurabi, it is lUllikely that an Israelite audience would understand the Covenant Collection's connection to its legal patrimony. In this way, the revisionary methcxls of the Covenant Collection and Deuteronomy likely differ. However, this difference does not substantially

Biblical Legal Revision: Replacement or Supplementation?

221

theological and political views (such as polytheistic worship, the specific gods cited, and the role of the king as lawgiver). These fundamental objections make it extremely unlikely that the Covenant Collection author intends his work to stand alongside its source text. In light of this new empirical model and the continuity in revisionary method observable among the biblical legislators, Najman's specific objections to the replacement theory can be meaningfully addressed. First, it is significant that the Covenant Collection does not attempt to be comprehensive in its treatment of the topics addressed in the Laws of Hanunurabi. Rather, the revising author is free to treat only those topics that he chooses, leaving aside others that might otherwise be meaningful to his audience. It is notable in this regard that there is nothing inherent to many of Hanunurabi's laws that the Covenant Collection author overlooks that would necessarily lead him to neglect them. The Covenant Collection author thus proves to be similar to the Deuteronomic legislator: neither author reproduces a significant portion of his source text in his revision. As noted above, Deuteronomy's failure to offer equivalent legislation for many of the Covenant Collection's laws suggests to Najman that it should not be understood as an attempt to replace its source. However, the Covenant Collection's example effectively counters the assumption that Deuteronomy or the Holiness Legislation is constrained to reproduce a source comprehensively, even if its intent is to replace it. In fact, the omission of some laws in a revisionary composition is undoubtedly intentional, as I have argued in the case of the Deuteronomic ;Jt!lotll law (Chapter Three). However, even apart from the empirical model provided by the Covenant Collection, the view that a revisionary composition must comprehensively treat the content of its source in order to replace it is problematic because it falsely assumes that the biblical legal corpora were actually practiced or were at least meant to be enacted. Otherwise, there would be no reason that a revision of a legal source should need to be comprehensive. As I have argued especially in Chapters Two and Three, there is insufficient evidence to defend this view for the era ofthese texts' composition. While it is true that later interpreters understood biblical laws as nonnative for religious and social life, such halakhic concerns reveal a canonical mindset, as discussed already. Thus, apart from additional evidence, there is no reason to assume that the biblical legislators were constrained to treat all of the topics addressed by their sources. The Covenant Collection presents itself as an independent composition, and it addresses social and legal issues from its own unique ideological perspective, encoding its own values (if only on a theoretical level). These same features characterize Deuteronomy and

weaken the analogy that the Covenant Collection provides for understanding the legal revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation.

222

Chapter Five: Literary Dependence and Compositional Logic

the Holiness Legislation: each of these legal collections exhibits its own coherent system of thought and is not constrained to preserve or idealize its sources. The model of revision provided by the Covenant Collection also applies to the issue of Deuteronomic and Holiness reuse of their source texts' language and literary constructions. As noted already, Najman suggests that by carefully reusing the language of his source, the Deuterononllc author creates a continuity between his own work and the Covenant Collection that ultimately prevents the subversion of that source. However, as I argued above, Deuteronomy does not deny the existence of the Covenant Collection but rather its legitimacy. The Deuteronomic author is thus pragmatic in his rhetorical appeal: he creates a composition that will convince audiences who are familiar with the Covenant Collection as well as those who are not. Citation of source language is fully consonant with this goal. Moreover, as Wright demonstrates, the Covenant Collection author uses much of the language and grammatical constructions of his source (albeit in translation). The reuse of specific words and phrases therefore need not be understood as an attempt to preserve a legal source. Equally important for understanding the reuse of the Covenant Collection's language in Deuteronomy is the replacement of the royal1awgiver in the Laws of Harnmurabi with the Israelite deity in the Covenant Collection 23 The result - divinely-revealed legislation - is a legal novum in ancient Near Eastern literature. 24 This divine voicing of biblical legislation, however, also constrains any who would revise it, for a divinely-voiced text claims for itself an authority that is virtually irrefutable. The (self-proclaimed) divine origin of these laws also makes the words themselves all the more important: like the Decalogue, 23 Wright, "Laws of Hammurabi," 40--41. See also Mario Liverani, Israeis History and the History of Israel (trans. Chiara Peri and Philip R. Davies; London: Equinox, 2(05), 342--44. Wright notes that bothLH and CC offer exhortations concerning visiting a cult place for justice, although Hammurabi and his stela stand in the place occupied by the Israelite deity in Cc. Likewise, the king is regularly referred to as "lord" (hilum), a title reserved for YHWH in CC 0'''0', Exod23:17). Wright has also noted the strong conceptual and linguistic parallels between LH47:79-48:2 andExcxl20:24: each of these texts addresses the establishment of a monument to the lawgiver (stela vs. altar) and the memorial of the lawgiver's name (each using the root *zkr) (Wright, "Ethical Perspectives," 7-8). The issue in CC is thus not simply one of the intermediary between deity and humanity (i. e., the king) being removed from the lawgiving process. Indeed, though Hammurabi invokes many deities in the prologue and epilogue to LH, no deity actively or directly provides laws to Hammurabi. Rather, Marduk is said to have commanded the king to provide justice, whereupon Hammurabi does so (5:14-24). Similarly, Shamash is credited with providing Hammurabi "truth" (kinatlm, 48:95-98), but it is the king himself who is the author and source ofthe laws. The closest statement concerning divine authorship of legal material in LH is found in the curse section ofthe epilogue (50:14-18), where Shamash is called "the great judge who secures justice for humanity" (dayyiinum rabium sa same u er~etim musteser saknat napistim). This amounts to a general statement, however, and does not refer directly to the divine origin ofthe verdicts of this legal collection. 24 See Chapter One.

Biblical Legal Revision: Replacement or Supplementation?

223

purportedly carved in the stone tablets "with the finger of God" (Exod 31:18; Deut 9:10), the Covenant Collection's laws are presented as the very words of God," Their authority, even individually, is innate, and because they purportedly originate from the deity, they almost demand reuse. 26 Viewed in this light, the question of the canonical status of the Covenant Collection is of secondary importance, for this text's authority does not derive at the rhetorical level from an external factor like canonization. Its presentation as divine revelation is self-authorizing. Yet because the constraints of canon are not operative for the pentateuchallegislator who rewrites a source, it is possible simply to replace an "old" revelation with a "new" one.27 Paradoxically, the authority of the divinely-revealed source is easily challenged and even denied precisely because it is self-proclaimed and not externally asserted, In the revision of such a text, the mode of composition - divine revelation - is retained, but its content is replaced, In this way, fundamentally differing laws that pertain to the same situations and institutions can emerge. They are simply not meant to co-exist. The contest between divine words is well-known from the prophetic sphere: which divine message is the final or authentic one? The biblical authors implicitly debate this issue, for they alternatively evaluate prophetic utterances on the basis of their content, their mode of revelation, their fulfillment, or a combination of these criteria (Deut 13:2-6; 18:15-22; Jer 23:9-40; 26: 1-28: 17), In the case of pentateuchallegislation, however, the choice is not between messages delivered by different deities or even different prophets, Each law purportedly comes from the Israelite deity YHWH and is mediated by the same "prophet," Moses. The laws must, therefore, be evaluated on their own merits, for in each case the deity is recreated by the revisionary author in his own image, and both are ultimately subsumed in the product of their "collaboration," Just as the phenomenon of canonization does not undermine the earlier, exclusivist claims of competing prophets, neither does it affect the pre-canonical intent of competing pentateuchal authors. These legislators, imbuing their compositions with the ultimate authority of the divine voice, do not anticipate 25 Note the use ofthe divine first person in Excxl20:24-26; 21 :13-14; 22:22-24, 26, 28-30; 23:7,13-15,18. 26 Levinson discusses the importance of the individual words that are lemmatically cited: "The lemma is viewed atomistically: legal or textual authority operates at the level of individual words that, even when recontextualized, retain their operative force" (Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics, 46). 27 This is a type of serialization that is similar to the notion of old and new covenants and hearts in the Hebrew Bible. For various reasons, the prophet Jeremiah understands the "old" covenant between God and Israel as no longer functional. In response, he introduces a new covenant that is meant to replace the old one, not merely to supplement or rehabilitate it (Jer 31:31-34). The prophet Ezekiel, though less emphatic than Jeremiah, also speaks of a new heart/spirit for Israel and of the deity's (re)establislunent of covenant with Israel (Ezek 11:19; 16:60-62; 18:31; 34:24-26; 36:26).

224

Chapter Five: Literary Dependence and Compositional Logic

the inclusion oftheir compositions alongside the very texts they seek to supplant. It is only subsequent to the pentateuchallegislators that an anthological approach to their legal collections becomes dominant and textual authority comes to be understood primarily in terms of canon.

Conclusions The foregoing discussion leads to the conclusion that reconciliation of topically related laws, and the supplementary view of their composition, are inextricably linked to and are the effects of redaction and canonization. In the pre-redactional! pre-canonical setting of Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation, these issues are foreign and even illogical. Thus, while providing important clues for understanding biblical texts, post-biblical material cannot be an absolute lens through which earlier material is to be understood. The Covenant Collection and its reuse ofthe Laws ofHammurabi serves as evidence ofthis view, as do the examples of revision from Deuteronomy and the Holiness Collection examined in this study. While it is not clear that the Deuteronomic legislators knew or recognized that the Covenant Collection was itself a revision of pre-existing ancient Near Eastern law, it is clear that Deuteronomy did not introduce its method of interpretive revision in ancient Israel. Rather, Deuteronomy stands as the inheritor of both the content and the compositional method of its legal patrimony, the Covenant Collection. The Holiness legislators, then, who reconceptualize the Covenant Collection and Deuteronomy, exploit the precedent of their sources to introduce further revisions aimed at undennining the existing legal tradition. The production of legislation in ancient Israel is thus shown from its inception to be an exercise in bringing forth "treasures both new and old" (Matt 13 :52; cf. Song 7:14), a practice continued and developed further in the post-biblical interpretive tradition. The exception to this mode of legal composition in the Bible seems to be the non-Holiness Priestly legislation, which, unlike other pentateuchal law, does not exhibit a direct literary relationship with other attested biblical and extra-biblical legislation. P is strongly self-oriented and does not, as far as I can tell, employ a discemable revisionary method for its legal composition. In this way, P can be viewed as unique among pentateuchallaw collections, although this observation does not necessarily support the view that P was originally an esoteric or hidden document. 28 What can be said is that the Holiness Legislation, 28 For the view that P was originally a hidden document accessible only to a priestly elite, see, e. g., Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 11, 143; Chaim Cohen, "Was the P Document Secret?," JANESCU 1 (1969): 39--44. Knohl distinguishes between P, which he views as the product of a closed, priestly faction whose concerns are limited to the cult, and H, which attempts to engage wider societal issues in ancient Israel (Sanctuary of Silence, 203).

Conclusions

225

through its simultaneous revision of existing Priestly law on the one hand and the Covenant Collection and Deuteronomy on the other, creates a thoroughly "learned" composition, a sort of "super law" that collects and distills the several law collections (CC, D, P) that precede it. By acconnnodating, reformulating, and incorporating various viewpoints from these sources, the Holiness authors

create a work that is intended to supersede them all.

Bibliography Abba, Raymond. "Priests and Levites in Deuteronomy." Vetus Testamentum 27 (1977): 257 67 . . "Priests and Levites in Ezekiel." Vetus Testamentum 28 (1978): 1 9. Achenbach, Reinhard. "Das Heiligkeitsgesetz irn nachpriesterschriftlichen Pentateuch. Zu einern Buch von Klaus Griinwaldt." Zeitschrift for altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 6 (2000): 341 50. Ahlstrom, G6sta W. "The Role ofArcbaeological and Literary Remains in Reconstructing Israel's History." Pages 116 42 in The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israel's Past. Edited by Diana V. Edelman. JOlllTIal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 127. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Albertz, Rainer. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. Translated from the German by John Bowden. 2 vols. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994. Alter, Robert. The Art ofBiblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. Amit, Yairah. "The Jubilee Law An Attempt at Instituting Social Justice." Pages 47 59 in Justice and Righteousness: Biblical Themes and their Influence. Edited by H. Graf Reventlow and Y. Hoffman. JOlllTIal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 187. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1992. Anbar, Moshe. "L'influence deuteronomique sur Ie Code de l' Alliance: Ie cas d'Exode 21: 12 17." Zeitschrift for altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 5 (1999): 165 66. Anderson, Gary A. Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel: Studies in their Social and Political Importance. Harvard Semitic Monographs 41. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Auld, A. Graeme. "Cities of Refuge in Israelite Tradition." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 10 (1978): 135 46. Baentsch, Bnmo. Das Heiligkeits-Gesetz Lev. XVII XXVI: eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung. Erfurt: Hugo Guther, 1893. Bar-On, Shimon. "The Festival Calendars in Exodus XXIII 14 19 and XXXIV 18 26." Vetus Testamentum 48 (1998): 161 95. Bannash, Pamela. Homicide in the Biblical World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Barr, James. "A Puzzle in Deuteronomy." Pages 13 24 in Reading from Right to Left: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour ofDavid JA. Clines. Edited by J. Cheryl EXlllll and H.G.M. WIlliamson. JOlllTIal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplment Series 373. LondonlNew York: Sheffield Academic, 2003 . . Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983. Barton, John. "The Significance of a Fixed Canon of the Hebrew Bible." Pages 67 83 in vol. 1 of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation. Edited by Magne Saebo. 2 vols. G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996.

228

Bibliography

Baumgarten, JosephA. "On the Non-Literal Use ofMa 'aserIDekate." Journal a/Biblical Literature 103 (1984): 245 51. · "The First and Second Tithes in the Temple Scroll." Pages 5 15 in Biblical andRelated Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry. Edited by A. Kort and S. Morschauser. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbralllls, 1985. Beentjes, Pancratius C. "Discovering a New Path of Intertetuality: Inverted Quotations and Their Dynamics." Pages 31 50 in Literary Strncture and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by L.J. de Regt et al. WInona Lake Ind. Eisenbralllls, 1996. · "Inverted Quotations in the Bible: A Neglected Stylistic Pattern." Biblica 63 (1982): 506 23. Bendavid, Abba. Parallels in the Bible. Jerusalem: Carta, 1972 (in Hebrew). Bettenzoli, Giuseppe. "Deuteronornirun lllld Heiligkeitsgesetz." Vetus Testamentum 34 (1984): 385 98. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. "An Assessment of the Alleged Pre-Exilic Date of the Priestly material in the Pentateuch." Zeitschrift for die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 108 (1996): 495 518. Bhun, Erhard. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 189. BerlinlNew York: de Gruyter, 1990. Boda, Mark J. and Michael A. Floyd, ed. Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9 14. JOlllTIal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 370. London: Sheffield Academic, 2003. Boecker, Hans Jochen. Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient East. Translated from the German by Jeremy Moiser. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980. Boling, Robert G. and G. Ernest Wright. Joshua. Anchor Bible 6. Garden City: Doubleday, 1982. Bornstein, David J. "Ma'aser Sheni." Pages 652 54 in vohune 11 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. Edited by Cecil Roth. 16 vols. JerusalernlNew York: MacMillan, 1972. · "Ma'aserot." Pages 651 52 in vohune 11 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. Edited by Cecil Roth. 16 vols. JerusalemlNew York: MacMillan, 1972. Bottero, Jean. Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Braulik, Georg. "Die dekalogische Redaktion der deuteronomischen Gesetze. rhre Abhangigkeit von Leviticus 19 am Beispiel von Deuteronomirun 22, 1 12; 24, 10 22; 25, 13 16." Pages 1 25 in Bundesdokument und Gesetz: Studien zum Deuteronomium. HBS 4. Edited by Georg Braulik. FreiburglNew York: Herder, 1995. · "Weitere Beobachtungen zur Beziehung zwischen dem Heiligkeitsgesetz lllld Deuteronomium 19 25." Pages 23 55 in Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen. Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft 62. Edited by Timo Veijola. Helsinki: Finnische Exegetische Gesellschaft; G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Brenneman, James E. Canons in Conflict: Negotiating Texts in True and False Prophecy. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Brettler, Marc Z. How to Read the Bible. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2005. · The Creation ofHistory in Ancient Israel. LondonlNew York: Routledge, 1995.

Bibliography

229

Brin, Gershon. Studies in Biblical Law: From the Hebrew Bible to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 176. Translated from the Hebrew by Jonathan Chipman. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Brooke, George J. "Levi and the Levites in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament." Pages 105 30 in Part I of Mogilany 1989: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls offered in Memory ofJean Cannignac. Edited by Zdzislaw J. Kapera. Krakow: Enigma, 1993. Bm-wn, Francis, Samuel R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1906. Cardellini, Innocenzo. Die biblischen "Sklaven" -Gesetze im Lichte des keilschriftlichen Sklavenrechts. Bonner Biblische Beitrage 55. Bonn: Peter Hanstein Verlag, 1981. Carmichael, Calmn M. Law andNarrative in the Bible: The Evidence ofthe Deuteronomic Laws and the Decalogue. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 1985 . . The Laws of Deuteronomy. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 1974. Carr, David. "Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34, 11 26 and its Parallels." Pages 107 40 in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32 34 und Dtn 9 10. Edited by M. Kockert and E. Blum. Giitersloh: Giitersloh Verlaghaus, 2001. Cazelles, Henri. Etudes sur Ie Code de ['Alliance. Paris: Letouzey etAne, 1946. . "La Dime Israelite et les Textes de Ras Shamra." Vetus Testamentum 1 (1951): 131 35. Chavel, Simeon. '''Let My People Go! ': Emancipation, Revelation, and Scribal Activity in Jeremiah 34.8 14." Journalfor the Study of the Old Testament 76 (1997): 71 95. Chirichigno, Gregory C. Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 141. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1993. Cholewinski, Alfred. Heiligkeitgesetz und Deuteronomium: Eine vergleichende Studie. Analecta biblica 66. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976. Cody,Aelred. A History of Old Testament Priesthood. Analecta Biblica 35. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969. Cohen, Chayim. "Was the P Document Secret?" Journal ofAncient Near Eastern Studies of Columbia University 1, no. 2 (1969): 39 44. Cole, Steven W. "The Destruction of Orchards in Assyrian Warfare." Pages 29 40 in Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 7 11, 1995. Edited by Simo Parpola and R.M. "Whiting. Helsinki: The Project, 1997. Collins, John J. "Before the Canon: Scriptures in Second Temple Judaism." Pages 225 41 in Old Testament Interpretation: Past Present, and Future: Essays in Honor of Gene M Tucker. Edited by James Luther Mays et al. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995. Cook:, Stephen L. "Innerbiblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44 and the History of Israel's Priesthood." Journal ofBiblical Literature 114 (1995): 193 208. Cowley, Arthur E. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B. C Oxford: Clarendon, 1923. Crossan, John Dominic. The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998. Criisemann, Frank. The Torah: Theology and Social Hisotry of Old Testament Law. Translated by Allan W. Mahnke. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.

230

Bibliography

Dalley, Stephanie. "Ancient Mesopotamian Military Organization." Pages 413 22 in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Jack M. Sasson. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 2000. Dandamaev, M.A. "Der Ternpelzehnte in Babylonien warend des 6. 4. Jh.v.uZ." Pages 82 90 in Beitrdge zur Alten Geschichte und deren Nachleben, Festschrift for Franz Altheim 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969. Daube, David. Studies in Biblical Law. Cambridge: University Press, 1947. David, M. "Die Bestunllllllllgen tiber die Asylstadte in Josua XX." Oudtestamentische Studien 9 (1951): 30 4S. · "The Manumission of Slaves under Zedekiah (A Contribution to the Laws about Hebrew Slaves)." Oudtestamentische Studien 5 (1948): 63 79. Delekat, Lienhard. Katoche, Hierodulie und Adoptionsfreilassung. Miinchener Beitrage zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte. Miinchen: Beck:, 1964. Dietrich, Manfred, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquin Sanmartin, eels. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Textsfrom Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syren-Palastinas undMesopotamiens 8. MUnster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995. Driver, Samuel R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. International Critical Commentary. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901. · Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. 9th ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1899. · The Book of Exodus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911. Duke, Rodney K. "Punishment or Restoration? Another Look at the Levites of Ezekiel 44:6 16." Journal/or the Study a/the Old Testament 40 (I98S): 61 S1. · "The Portion of the Levite: Another Reading of Deuteronomy 18:6 8." Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 193 201. Edenburg, Cynthia. "How (not) to Murder a King: Variations on a Theme in 1 Sam 24; 26." ScandanavianJournal of the Old Testament 12 (1998): 64 83. Ehrlich, Arnold B. Randglossen zur Hebrdischen Bibel. 7 vols. Leipzig: I.e. Heinrichs, 1905. · The Bible According to its Literal Meaning. 3 vols. New York: Ktav, 1969 (in Hebrew). Eissfeldt, Otto. "Zum Zehnten bei den Babyloniern." Pages 163 74 in Abhandlungenzur semitischen Religionsgeschichte und Sprachwissenschaft. Edited by W. Frankenberg and F. Kuchler. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 33. Giessen: Alfred T6pelmann, 1918. Elliger, Karl. "Heiligkeitsgesetz." Pages 175 76 in vol. 3 of Religion in Geschichte und Gegemvart. Edited by K. Galling. 7 vols. 3rd ed. Tubingen, 1957 65. · Leviticus. Handbuch zumAlten Testament 4. Tubingen: J.e.B. Mohr, 1966. Elliott-Binns, L.E. "Some Problems of the Holiness Code." Zeitschriftfor die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 67 (1955): 26 40. Emerton, John A. "Priests and Levites in Deuteronomy." Vetus Testamentum 12 (1962): 129 3S. · "The Teaching ofAmen em ope and Proverbs xxii 17 xxiv 22: Further Reflections on a Long-Standing Problem." Vetus Testamentum 51 (2001): 431 65. Eslinger, Lyle. "Inner-biblical Exegesis and Inner-biblical Allusion: The Question of Category." Vetus Testamentum 42 (1992): 47 58. Fensham, F. Charles. "Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and WIsdom Literature." Journal ofNear Eastern Studies 21 (1962): 129 39.

Bibliography

231

Feucht, Christian. Untersuchungen zum Heiligkeitsgesetz. Theologische Arbeiten 20. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1964. Finkelstein, Israel and Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts. New York: Free Press, 2001. Firmage, Edwin B. "The Biblical Dietary Laws and the Concept of Holiness." Pages 177 208 in Studies in the Pentateuch. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 41. Edited by JA Emerton. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Fischer, David Hackett. Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought. New York: HarperTorchbook:, 1970. Fishbane, Michael. "Biblical Colophons, Textual Criticism, and LegaIAnalogies." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42 (1980): 438 49. · Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. · "Inner-Biblical Exegesis." Pages 33 48 in vol. 1 of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation. 2 vols. Edited by Magne S::eb0. G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. · "Inner Biblical Exegesis: Types and Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient Israel." Pages 19 37 in Midrash and Literature. Edited by Geoffrey H. Hartman and Sanford Budick; New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1986. · "Law to Canon: Some 'Ideal-Typical' Stages of Development." Pages 65 86 in MinlJ,ah le-NalJ.um: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M Sarna in Honour of his 70th Birthday. Edited by Marc Brettler and Michael Fishbane. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 154. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Frankel, David. The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School: A Retrieval of Ancient Sacerdotal Lore. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 89. LeidenlBostonlK6ln: Brill, 2002. Frankena, Rintje. "The Vassal-treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy." Oudtestamentische Studien 14 (1965): 123 54. Geller, Stephen A. Sacred Enigmas: Literary Religion in the Hebrew Bible. LondonIN ew York: Routledge, 1996. Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Leviticus: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Translated from the German by Douglas W. Stott. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1996. Gesenius, Wilhelm. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. Edited and enlarged by Emil F. Kautzsch. 2nd English ed., rev. in accordance with the 28th German ed. by Arthur E. Cowley. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966. Gibson, John c.L. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, Volume 1: Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971. Giovinazzo, G. "The Tithe esru in Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Period." Pages 95 106 in Le tribut dans ['empire perse. Actes de la Table ronde de Paris 12 13 Decembre 1986. Edited by P. Briant and C. Herrenschrnidt; Paris: Peeters, 1989). Goldstein, Bernard R. and Alan Cooper. "Exodus and Massot in History and Tradition." Maarav 8 (1992): 15 37. · "The Festivals ofIsrael and Judah and the Literary History of the Pentateuch." Journal of the American Oriental Society 110 (1990): 19 31. Gorak, Jan. The Making of the Modem Canon: Genesis and Crisis of a Literary Idea. London: Athlone, 1991. Grabbe, Lester L., ed. Can a 'History ofIsrael' Be Written? Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 245. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997.

232

Bibliography

Graf, Karl H. Die geschichtlichen Bucher des Allen Testaments. Zwei historisch-kritische Untersuchungen. Leipzig: T.O. Weigel, 1866. Greenberg, Moshe. "Jewish Conceptions of the Hlllllan Factor in Biblical Prophecy." Pages 146 62 in Justice and the Holy: Essays in Honor a/Walter Harrelson. Edited by Douglas A. Knight and Peter J. Paris. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. · "The Biblical Conception of Asyhnn." Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 125 32. Greenstein, EdwardL. "Kirta." Pages 9 48 in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Edited by Simon B. Parker. Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Grtinwaldt, Klaus. Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17 26: Ursprilngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie. (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 271. BerlinlNewYork: de Gruyter, 1999. Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. Leviten und Priester: Hauptlinien der Traditionsbildung und Geschichte des israelitisch-judischen Kultpersonals. G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Halivni, David Weiss. Revelation Restored: Divine Writ and Critical Responses. Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1997. Hallo, William W. "Compare and Contrast: The Contextual Approach to Biblical Literature." Pages 1 30 in The Bible in the Light of Cuneifonn Literature: Scripture in Context 111. Edited by William W. Hallo et al. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 8. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1990. Hamilton, Jeffries M. Social Justice and Deuteronomy: The Case of Deuteronomy 15. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 136. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Haran, Menahem. Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting ofthe Priestly School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978. Repr., Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1985. · "The Law Code of Ezekiel XL LXVIII and its Relation to the Priestly School." Hebrew Union College Annual 50 (1979): 45 71. · "Tithe." Pages 204 12 in vol. 5 of The Encyclopaedia Miqra'it. 9 vols. Jerusalem: MosadByalik,1950 88 (in Hebrew). Harrington, Hannah. "Review of Impurity and Sin in Ancient Israel." Review of Biblical Literature 6 (2003) (www.bookreviews.org/pdf/1452_3267.pdf). Hasel, Michael G. "The Destruction of Trees in the Moabite Campaign of2 Kings 3:4 27: A Study in the Laws of Warfare." Andrews University Seminary Studies 40 (2002): 197 206. · Military Practice and Polemic: Israel's Laws of Warfare in Near Eastern Perspective. Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 2005. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1989. Heltzer, Michael. "Asylum on Alashia (Cyprus)." Zeitschrift for altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 7 (2001): 368 73. · The Rural Community in Ancient Ugarit. Wtesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1976. Herman, Menachem. Tithe as Gift: The Institution in the Pentateuch and in Light of Mauss's Prestation Theory. San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press, 1991.

Bibliography

233

Heschel, Abraham Joshua. Heavenly Torah: As Refracted Through the Generations. Edited and translated from the Hebrew with commentary by Gordon Tucker with Leonard Levin. New York/London: Continmun, 2005. Hossfeld, F.L. "n~1." Pages 630 40 in vol. 13 of Theological Dictionary ofthe Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck et al. Translated from the German by David E. Green. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerchnans, 2004. Houten, Christiana van. The Alient in Israelite Law. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 107. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Houtman, Cornelius. Das Bundesbuch: Ein Kommentar. Documenta et Momunenta Orientis Antiqui 24. LeidenlNew York!Koln: Brill, 1997. · "Der Altar als Asylstatte im alten Testament: Rechtsbestirmmlllg (Ex. 21,12 14) und Praxis (I Reg. 1 2)." Revile Biblique 103 (1996): 343 66. · Exodus. 3 vols. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Translated from the Dutch by Sierd Woudstra. Louvain: Peeters, 2000. Hurowitz, Victor Avigdor. "Ancient Israelite Cult in History, Tradition, and Interpretation." AJS Review 19 (1994): 213 36. · "Hammurabi in Mesopotamian Tradition." Pages 497 532 in "An Experienced Scribe "Who Neglects Nothing": Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor ofJacob Klein. Edited by Yitschak Sefati et a1. Bethesda, Md.: CDL, 2005. · '''His Master Shall Pierce his Ear with an Awl (Exodus 21:6)': Marking Slaves in the Bible in Light of Akkadian Sources." Proceedings ofthe American Academic for Jewish Research 58 (1992): 47 77. Hurvitz, Avi. A Linguistic Study of the Relationship Between the Priestly Source and the Book ofEzekiel. Cahiers de laRevue Biblique 20. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1982. · "Continuity and Change in Biblical Hebrew: The Linguistic History of a Formulaic Idiom from the Realm of the Royal Court." Pages 128 33 in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives. Edited by Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz. Jerusalem: Magnes; WInona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbralllls, 2006. · "Dating the Priestly Source in Light of the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew a Century After Wellhausen." Zeitschrift for die alttestamentliche Wzssenschajt 100 (1988): 88 99. · "The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code: A Linguistic Study in Technical Idioms and Terminology." Revue Biblique 81 (1974): 24 56. · "The Use of the Priestly Term 'ii',V' in Biblical Literature." Tarbiz40 (1970): 261 67 (in Hebrew). Jagersma, Henk. "The Tithes in the Old Testament." Oudtestamentische Studien 21 (1981): 116 28. Japhet, Sara. I &II Chronicles: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993. · "The Relationship between the Legal Corpora in the Pentateuch in Light ofManrunission Laws." Pages 63 89 in Studies in Bible. Edited by Sara Japhet. Scripta Hierosolymitana 31. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986. Jenson, Philip P. Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 106. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.

234

Bibliography

Jotion, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated from the French and revised by TakamitsuMuraoka. 2 vols. Subsidia biblica 14/1 2. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991. Joosten, Jan. People andLand in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study ofthe Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17 26. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 67. LeidenlNew York:JK6In: Brill, 1996. · "The Disappearance of Iterative WEQATAL in the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System." Pages 135 47 in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives. Edited by Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz. Jerusalem: Magnes; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006. · "The Distinction Between Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew as Reflected in Syntax." Hebrew Studies 46 (2005): 327 39. Kaufman, StephenA. "Deuteronomy 15 and Recent Research on the Dating ofP." Pages 273 76 inDas Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt undBotschaft. Edited by Norbert Lohfink. Bibliotheca epherneridrun tbeologicarum lovaniensium 68. Louvain: University Press, 1985. Kaufmann, Yehezkel. The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile. Translated and abridged by Moshe Greenberg. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Kellermann, Diether. Die Priesterschrift von Numeri 1:1 bis 10:10 literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wtssenschaft 120. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1970. Kent, Charles F. Israels Laws and Legal Precedents: From the Days ofMoses to the Closing a/the Legal Canon. The Student's Old Testament. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1907. Kiuchi, N. The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning andFunction. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 56. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Klawans, Jonathan. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. OxfordlNew York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Klostermann, August. "Beitrage zur Enstehungsgeschichte des Pentateuchs." Zeitschrift for die gesamte Lutherische Theologie und Kirche 38 (1877): 401 45. Knohl, Israel. "The Priestly Torah versus the Holiness School: Sabbath and the Festivals." Hebrew Union College Annual 58 (1987): 65 117. · The Sanctuary ofSilence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Translated from the Hebrew by Jackie Felchnan and Peretz Rodman. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. · "The Sin Offering Law in the 'Holiness School' (Nrunbers 15.22 31)." Pages 192 203 in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel. Edited by Gary A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 125. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Knoppers, Gary N. "Hierodules, Priests, or Janitors? The Levites in Chronicles and the History of the Israelite Priesthood." Journal ofBiblical Literature 118 (1999): 49 72. Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner and J.J. Stamm. The HebrewandAramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated under the supervision ofM.E.J. Richardson. 5 vols. LeidenlBostonlKoln: Brill, 1994 99. Kohn, Risa Levitt. A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 358. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002.

Bibliography

235

Kuenen, Abraham. An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (Pentateuch and Book of Joshua). Translated from the Dutch by Philip H. Wicksteed. London: Macmillan, 1886. Kugler, Robert. "The Priesthood at Qumran: The Evidence of References to Levi and the Levites." Pages 465 79 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Refonnulated Issues. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Lauterbach, Jacob Z., trans. MikUta de-Rabbi Ishmael. 3 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1976. Lemche, Neils Peter. "The Hebrew Slave: Comments on the Slave Law in Ex xxi 2 11." Vetus Testamentum 25 (1975): 129 44. · "The Manumission of Slaves the Fallow Year the Sabbatical Year the Jobel Year." Vetus Testamentum 26 (1976): 38 59. Leonard, Jeffery M. "Historical Traditions in Psalm 78." Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 2006. Levenson, Jon D. ""Who Inserted the Book of the Torah?" Harvard Theological Review 68 (1975): 203 33. Levine, BaruchA. In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Tenns in Ancient Israel. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 5. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1974. · "Late Language in the Priestly Source: Some Literary and Historical Observations." Pages 69 82 in vol. 5 of Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress ofJewish Studies. 5 vols. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1983. · Numbers 21 36. Anchor Bible 4A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Levinson, Bernard M. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. · "Is the Covenant Code an Exilic Composition? A Response to John Van Seters." Pages 272 325 in In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel. Edited by John Day. New York/London: T &T Clark, 2004. · L 'Hermeneutique de l'innovation: Canon et exegese dans I 'Israel biblique. Le livre et Ie rouleau 24. Translated from the English by V Senechal and J.-P. Sonnet. Brussels: Editions Lessius, 2006. · "The Case for Revision and Interpolation within the Biblical Legal Corpora." Pages 37 59 in Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development. Edited by Bernard M. Levinson. JOlllllal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 181. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. · "The 'Effected Object' in Contractual Legal Language: The Semantics of 'If You Purchase a Hebrew Slave' (Exod. xxi 2)." Vetus Testamentum 56 (2006) (485 504). · "The First Constitution: Rethinking the Origins of Rule of Law and Separation of Powers in Light of Deuteronomy." Cardozo Law Review 27 (2006): 1853 88. The Hermeneutics ofInnovation: The Impact of Centralization upon the Strncture, Sequence, and Reformulation ofLegal Material in Deuteronomy. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1991. · "The Human Voice in Divine Revelation: The Problem of Authority in Biblical Law." Pages 35 71 in Innovation in Religious Traditions. Edited by Michael A. Williams, Collett Cox, and Martin S. Jaffee. Religion and Society 31. BerlinlNew York: de Gruyter, 1992.

236

Bibliography

· "The Manumission ofHenneneutics: The Slave Laws of the Pentateuch as a Challenge to Contemporary pentateuchal Theory." Pages 281 324 in Congress Volume: Leiden 2004. Edited by Andre Lemaire. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 109. LeidenlBoston: Brill, 2006. · "You Must Not Add Anything to "What I Command You: Paradoxes of Canon and Authorship in Ancient Israel." Numen 50 (2003): 1 51. Levinson, Bernard M. and Molly M. Zahn. "Revelation Regained: The Hermeneutics of ,~ and C~ in the Temple Scroll." Dead Sea Discoveries 9 (2002): 295 346. Lightstone, Jack N. "Form as Meaning in Halakic Midrash: AProgramrnatic Statement." Semeia 27 (1983): 23 35. Lindenberger, James M. "How Much for a Hebrew Slave? The Meaning of Misneh in Deut 15:18." Journal ofBiblical Literature 110 (1991): 479 82. Lipinski, E. Pages 319 35 in vol. 9 of The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G.J. Botterweck et al. Translated by D.E. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Liver, Jacob. "Korah, Dathan andAbiram." Pagees 189 217 in Studies in the Bible. Edited by Chaim Rabin. Scripta Hierosolyrnitana 8. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961. Liverani, Mario. Israel s History and the History ofIsrael. Translated from the Italian by Chiara Peri and Philip R. Davies. London: Equinox, 2005. Lockshin, Martin L Rashbam s Commentary on Exodus: An Annotated Translation. Brown Judaic Studies 310. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Loewenstamm, Samuel E. "'il nn"t" Pages 155 92 in Studies in Bible. Edited by Sara Japhet. Scripta Hierosolymitana 31. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986. Lohfink, Norbert. "Fortschreibung? Zur Technik von Rechtsrevisionen im deuteronomischen Bereich, er6rtert an Deuteronomium 12, Ex 21, 2 11 und Dtn 15, 12 18." Pages 133 81 in Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen. Edited by Timo Veihola. Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft 62. G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. · "Zur deuteronomischen Zentralisationsformel." Biblica 65 (1984): 297 328. MacDonald, Dennis R. The Homeric Epics and the Gospel ofMark. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2000. Malul, Meir. "CAqeb 'Heel' and CAqab 'To Supplant' and the Concept of Succession in the Jacob-Esau Narratives." Vetus Testamentum 46 (1996): 190 212. · The Comparative Method in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies. Alter Orient lllld Altes Testament 227. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990. McConville, IG. Law and Theology in Deuteronomy. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 33. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. McDonald, Lee Martin and James A. Sanders, eds. The Canon Debate. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. McIver, Robert K. and Marie Carroll. "Experiments to Develop Criteria for Determining the Existence of Written Sources, and their Potential Implications for the Synoptic Problem." Journal ofBiblical Literature 121 (2002): 667 87. McKeating, Henry. "Development of the Law on Homicide in Ancient Israel." Vetus Testamentum 25 (1975): 46 68. Meshel, Naphtali. "Pure, Impure, Permitted, Prohibited: A Study of Classification Systems in P." In Perspectives on Purity and Purification in the Bible. Edited by Baruch

""m."

Bibliography

237

J. Schwartz and David P. Wright. LondonlNew York: T &T Clark International, 2007 (forthcoming). Milgrom, Jacob. "A Shoulder for the Levites." Pages 169 76 in vol. 1 of The Temple Scroll. Edited by Yigael Yadin. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society et al., 1983. · Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentence. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 18; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976. · "First-born." Pages 337 38 in the supplementary vol. of The Interpreter sDictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated Encyclopedia. Edited by Keith Crim et al. 3 vols. and 1 suppl. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976. · "Firstfruits-OT." Pages 336 37 in the supplementary vol. of The Interpreter s Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated Encyclopedia. Edited by Keith Crim et al. 3 vols. and 1 supp!. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976. · "Korah's Rebellion: A Study in Redaction." Pages 135 46 in De la Torah au Messie: Etudes d'exegese et d'hermeneutique bibliques offertes aHenri Cazelles pour ses 25 annees d'enseignement a I'Institut Catholique de Paris (Octobre 1979). Edited by Maurice Carrez et al. Paris: Desclee, 1981. · Leviticus 1 16. Anchor Bible 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. · Leviticus 17 22. Anchor Bible 3a. New York: Doubleday, 2000. · Leviticus 23 27. Anchor Bible 3b. New York: Doubleday, 2001. · Numbers 1:1'0:1. The IPS Torah Commentary. PhiladelphialNew York: Jewish Publication Society, 1990. · "Profane Slaughter and a Formulaic Key to the Composition of Deuteronomy." Hebrew Union College Annual 47 (1976): 1 17. · "Sancta Contagion and Altar/City Asylum." Pages 278 310 in Congres Volume: Vienna 1980. Edited by J.A. Emerton. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 32. Leiden: Brill, 1981. · Studies in Cultic Theology and Tenninology. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 36; Leiden: E.I. Brill, 1983. · Studies in Levitical Terminology, 1: The Encroacher and the Levite; the Term' Aboda. Near Eastern Studies 14; Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1970. · "Studies in the Temple Scroll." Journal ofBiblical Literature 97 (1978): 501 23. · "The Alleged 'Demythologization and Secularization' in Deuteronomy." Israel Exploration Joumal 23 (1973): 156 61. · "The Cultic ii~~ and its Influence in Psalms and Job." Jewish Quarterly Review 58 (1967): 115 25. · "The Ideological and Historical Importance of the Office of Judge in Deuteronomy." Pages 129 35 in vol. 2 of Isac Lev Seligmann. 3 vols. Edited by Alexander Rofe and Yair Zakovitch. Jerusalem: Rubenstein, 1983. Moor, Johannes C. de. The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Afyth of Ba 'lu according to the Version of Ilimilku. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 16. Kevelaer: Butzon & BerckerlNeukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971. Moore, G.F. "Leviticus." Pages 2776 93 in vol. 3 of Encyclopaedia Biblica: A Critical Dictionary of the Literary Political and Religious History the Archaeology Geography and Natural History ofthe Bible. Edited by Thomas K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black. 4 vols. New York/London: MacMillan, 1899 1903. Moran, WIlliam L. "The Literary Connections Between LV 11, 13 19 andDT 14, 12 18." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966): 271 76.

238

Bibliography

Muffs, Yohanan. Studies in Biblical Law II, IV. Lectures at the Jewish Theological Seminary. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1965. Myhnnan, David W. "Die Labartu-Texte: Babyloniscbe Beschw6rungsfonneln nebst Zauber-verfahren gegen die Damonin Labartu." Zeitschriftfor Assyriologie 16 (1902): 141 200. Najrnan, Hindy. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. LeidenIBoston: Brill, 2003. Nelson, Richard D. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville! London: Westminster/John Knox, 2002. · Joshua: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1997. Nicholson, Ernest W. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Nicolsky, N .M. "Das Asylrecht in Israel." Zeitschrift for die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft48 (1930): 146 75. Nihan, Christophe. "The Holiness Code between D and P: Some Comments on the Function and Significance of Leviticus 17 26 in the Composition of the Torah." Pages 81 122 in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk. Edited by Eckart Otto and Reinhard Achenbach. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 206. G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Noth, Martin. Exodus: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Translated from the German by J.S. Bowden. London: SCM, 1962. · Leviticus. Old Testament Library. Translated from the German by J.E. Anderson. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965. · Numbers. Old Testament Library. Translated from the German by James D. Martin. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968. Nougayrol, Jean. Le Palais Royal d'Ugarit, vol. 3: Textes accadiens et hourrites des Archives Est, Ouest et Centrales. Edited by C.P.A. Schaeffer. 2 vols. Paris: Irnprimerie Nationale, 1955. Nunnela, Risto. The Levites: Their Emergence as a Second-Class Priesthood. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 193. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Olmo Lete, Gregorio del and Joaquin Sanmartin. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Translated by Wilfred G.E. Watson. 2 vols. 2nd rev. ed. LeidenlBoston: Brill, 2004. Olyan, Saul M. "Exodus 31 :12 17: The Sabbath According to H or the Sabbath According to P and H?" Journal a/Biblical Literature 124 (2005): 201 09. · Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. Oppenheimer, A'haron. "Terumot and Ma'aserot." Pages 1025 28 in vohune 11 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. Edited by Cecil Roth. 16 vols. JerusalemlNew York: MacMillan, 1972. Otto, Eckart. "Aspects of Legal Reforms and Reformulations in Ancient Cuneiform and Israelite Law." Pages 160 96 in Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, interpolation and Development. Edited by Bernard M. Levinson. JOlllllal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 181. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994.

Bibliography

239

· "Das Deuteronomimn als archimedischer Punkt der pentateuchkritik: Auf dem Wege zu einer Neubegri.indllllg der de Wette'schen Hypothese." Pages 321 40 in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W Brekelmans. Edited by Marc Vervenne and Johan Lust. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. · Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch: Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens. Forschungen zmn Alten Testament 30. Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. · Das Deuteronomium: Politische Theologie und Rechtsre/orm in Juda und Assyrien. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 284. BerlinlNew York: de Gruyter, 1999. · "Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17 26 in der Pentateuchredaktion." Pages 65 80 in Altes Testament, Forschung und Wirkung: Festschrift for Henning Gra/ Reventlow. Edited by Peter Mommer and WInfred Thiel. Frankfurt am MainlNew York: P. Lang, 1994. · "False Weights in the Scales of Biblical Justice? Different Views ofWomen from Patriarchal Hierarchy to Religious Equality in the Book of Deuteronomy." Pages 128 146 in Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Victor M. Matthews et al. JOlllllal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 262. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. · "Gesetzesfortschreibung lllld Pentateuchredaktion." Zeitschrift for die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 107 (1995): 373 92. · "Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17 26." Pages 125 96 in Levitikus als Buch. Edited by Heinz-Josef Fabry and Hans-Winfried Jtingling. Bonner Biblische Beitrage 119. Berlin: Philo, 1999 · "Rechtshermeneutik in der Hebraischen Bibel: Die innerbiblischen Urspriinge halachischer Bibelauslegung." Zeitschrift for altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 5 (1999): 75 98. · "Rechtsreformen in Deuteronomium xii xxvi und im Mittelassyrischen Kodex der Tafel A (KAV 1)." Pages 239 73 in Congress Volume: Paris 1992. Edited by J.A. Emerton. LeidenlNew York:JKoln: Brill, 1995. · Review of A Law Book/or the Diaspora: Revision in the Study o/the Covenant Code. Review a/Biblical Literature 7 (2004) (www.bookreviews.org/pdf/3929_3801.pdf). · Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments. Theologische Wissenschaft 3,2. Stuttgart! Berlin!Koln: Kohlhammer, 1994. · "Town and Rural Countryside in Ancient Israelite Law: Reception and Redaction in Cuneiform and Israelite Law." Journal/or the Study o/the Old Testament 57 (1993): 3 22. · "1l'td." Pages 358 403 in vol. 8 of Theologisches WorterbuchzumAlten Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck et al. Stuttgart/BerlinlKoln: W. Kohlhamrner, 1995. Paran, Meir. Forms o/the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch: Patterns, Linguistic Usages, Syntactic Strnctures. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989 (in Hebrew). Perlitt, Lothar. Deuteronomium-Studien. Forschungen zumAlten Testament 8. Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Phillips, Anthony. Ancient Israel s Criminal Law: A New Approach to the Decalogue. New York: Schocken, 1970. · "The Laws of Slavery: Exodus 21.2 11." Pages 96 110 in Essays on Biblical Law. JOlllllal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 344. LondonlNew York: Sheffield Academic, 2002.

240

Bibliography

Poirier, John C. "Memory, Written Sources, and the Synoptic Problem: A Response to Robert K. McIver and Marie Carroll." Journal of Biblical Literature 123 (2004): 315 22. Porten, Bezalel. The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change. Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 22. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Porten, Bezalel and Ada Yardeni. Textbook ofAramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Department of the History of the Jewish People, 1986 89. Pressler, Carolyn. "A Response to BemardLevinson'sDeuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation." Zeitschrift for altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 6 (2000): 314 19. Propp, William H.C. Exodus 19 40. Anchor Bible 2a. New York: Doubleday, 2006. Rad, Gerhard von. Deuteronomy. Old Testament Library. Translated from the German by Dorothea Barton. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966. · Studies in Deuteronomy. Translated from the German by David Stalker. Studies in Biblical Theology 9. London: SCM, 1953. Rendtorff, Rolf. The Problem ofthe Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch. Translated from the German by John J. Scullion. JOlllTIal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 89. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Richter, Sandra L. The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology: lesakken sema slim in the Bible and the Ancient Near East. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 318. BerlinlNew York: de Gruyter, 2002. Ringgren, Helmer. "i1~O." Pages 324 44 in vol. 4 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated from the German by David E. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerchnans, 1980. Ringgren, Helmer et al. "':;I~." Pages 376 405 in vol. 10 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated from the German by Douglas W. Stott. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1999. Rofe, Alexander. "Family and Sex Laws in Deuteronomy and the Book of the Covenant." Henoch 9 (1987): 131 59. · Introduction to the Book of Deuteronomy: Part I and Further Chapters. 2nd rev. ed. Jerusalem: Akademon, 1988 (in Hebrew). · "Joshua 20: Historico-Literary Criticism Illustrated." Pages 131 47 in Empirical Modelsfor Biblical Criticism. Edited by Jeffrey H. Tigay. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1985. · "Methodological Aspects of the Study of Biblical Law." Pages 205 19 in Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation. Old Testament Studies. LondonlNew York: T &T Clark, 2002. · "The Book of Deuteronomy: A Summary." Pages 1 13 in Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation. Old Testament Studies. LondonlNew York: T&T Clark, 2002. · "The History of the Cities of Refuge in Biblical Law." Pages 121 47 in Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation. Old Testament Studies. LondonlNew York: T &T Clark, 2002. · "The Organization of the Judiciary in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 16.18 20; 17.8 13; 19.15; 21.22 23; 24.16; 25.1 3)." Pages 103 19 in Deuteronomy: Issues andInterpretation. Old Testament Studies. LondonlNew York: T&T Clark:, 2002.

Bibliography

241

· "The Strata of the Law about the Centralization of Worship in Deuteronomy and the History of the Deuteronomic Movement." Pages 221 26 in Congress Volume: Uppsala, 1971. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 22. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Rogerson, John W. Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Romer, Thomas C. "Cult Centralization in Deuteronomy 12: Between Deuteronomistic History and Pentateuch." Pages 168 80 in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk. Edited by Eckart Otto and Reinhard Achenbach. Forschllllgen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten lllld Neuen Testaments 206. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Romer, Thomas C. and Marc Z. Brettler, "Deuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch." Journal ofBiblical Literature 119 (2000): 401 19. Rooke, Deborah W. Zadok's Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel. Oxford Theological Monographs. OxfordiNew York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Rooker, Mark F. Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel. JOlllTIal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 90. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Roth, Martha T. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. 2nd ed. Society of Biblical Literature Writings of the Ancient World 6. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Ruwe, Andreas. Heiligkeitsgesetz und Priesterschrift: literaturgeschichtliche und rechtssystematische Untersuchungen zu Leviticus 17,1 26,2. Forschllllgen zum Alten Testament 26. Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Salonen, Erkki. "Uber den Zehnten in alten Mesopotamien. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Besteuerung." Studia Orientalia 43, no. 4 (1972): 1 62. Sanders, JamesA. Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. · "Intertextuality and Canon." Pages 316 33 in On the Way to Nineveh: Studies in Honor of George M Landes. Edited by Stephen L. Cook and S.C. Winter. ASOR Books 4. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. · Torah and Canon. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972. Sarna, Nahum. "Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis." Pages 29 46 in Biblical and Other Essays. Edited by Alexander Altmann. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963. · "Zedekiah's Emancipation of Slaves and the Sabbatical Year." Pages 143 49 in Orient and Occident: Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday. Edited by Harry A. Hoffner. Alter Orient undAltes Testament 22. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973. Schenker, Adrian. "The Biblical Legislation on the Release of Slaves: The Road from Exodus to Leviticus." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 78 (1998): 23 41. Schiffman, Lawrence H. "Priestly and Levitical Gifts in the Temple Scroll." Pages 480 96 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Schmid, R. "~"pl:l." Pages 552 556 in vol. 8 of The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G.J. Botterweck et al. Translated from the German by Douglas W. Stott. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

242

Bibliography

Schmidt, Ludwig. "Leviten- und Asylstadte in Nlllll. XXXV und Ios. XX; XXI 1 42." Vetus Testamentum 52 (2002): 103 21. Schniedewind, William M. '''Are We His People or Not?': Biblical Interpretation During Crisis." Biblica 76 (1995): 540 50. Schwartz, Baruch J. "Asylum." Page 77 in The Oxford Dictionary a/the Jewish Religion. Edited by R.I. Zwi Weblowsky and Geoffrey Wigoder. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. · "Israel's Holiness: The Torah Traditions." Pages 47 59 in Purity and Holiness: The Heritage a/Leviticus. Edited by Marcel J.H.M. Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz. Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 2. LeidenlBoston: Brill, 2000. · '''Profane' Slaughter and the Integrity of the Priestly Code." Hebrew Union College Annual 67 (1996): 15 42. · "The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature." Pages 3 21 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by David P. Wright et al. WInona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbralllls, 1995. · The Holiness Legislation: Studies in the Priestly Code. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999 (in Hebrew). · "The Literary and Ritual Unity of Leviticus 16." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL. Denver, Colo., Nov. 18,2001. · "The Priestly Account of the Theophany and the Lawgiving at Sinai." Pages 103 34 in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran. Edited by Michael V. Fox et al. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996. · "The Prohibitions Concerning the 'Eating' of Blood in Leviticus 17." Pages 34 66 in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel. Edited by Gary A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 125. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Schwienhorst-Sch6nberger, Ludger. Das Bundesbuch (Ex 20,22 23,33): Studie zu seiner Entstehung und Theologie. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche WIssenschaft 188. BerlinlNewYork: de Gruyter, 1990. Seidel, Moshe. "Parallels between Isaiah and Psalms." Sinai 38 (1955 56): 149 72, 229 40,272 80,335 55 (in Hebrew). Seidl, T. "il~~m!tJ." Pages 397 405 in vol. 14 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck et al. Translated from the German by Douglas W. Stott. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004. Shinan, Avigdor and Yair Zakovitch. "Midrash on Scripture and Midrash Within Scripture." Pages 257 77 in Studies in Bible. Edited by Sara Japhet. Scripta Hierosolyrnitana 31. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986. Sommer, Benjamin D. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40 66. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998. · "Exegesis, Allusion, and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger." Vetus Testamentum 46 (1996): 479 89. · "Unity and Plurality in Jewish Canons: The Case of the Oral and Written Torahs." Pages 108 50 in One Scripture or Many?: Canon from Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Perspectives. Edited by Christine Helmer and Christof Landmesser. OxfordIN ew York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Bibliography

243

Sonsino, Rifat. Motive Clauses in Hebrew Law: Biblical Fonns and Near Eastern Parallels. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 45. Chico: Scholars Press, 1980. Speiser, Ephraim A. "Leviticus and the Critics." Pages 29 45 in Yehezkel Kaufinann Jubilee Volume: Studies in Bible and Jewish Religion Dedicated to Yehezkel Kaufinann on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Menahem Haran. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960. Stackert, Jeffrey. "\Vhy Does Deuteronomy Legislate Cities of Refuge? Asyhnn in the Covenant Collection (Exodus 21:12 14) and Deuteronomy (19:1 13)." Journal of Biblical Literature 125 (2006): 23 49. Stallman, Robert C. "Levi and the Levites in the Dead Sea Scrolls." Journal for the Study ofthePseudepigrapha 10 (1992): 163 89. Stevenson, Kalinda Rose. The Vision of Transfonnation: The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel40 48. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 154. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Steymans, Hans Ulrich. "Die neuassyrische Vertragsrhetorik der 'Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon' lllld das DeuteronomiUlll." Pages 89 152 in Das Deuteronomium. Edited by Georg Braulik. Osterreichische biblische Studien 23. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2003. · "Eine assyrische Vorlage fur Deuteronomium 28, 20 44." Pages 119 41 in Bundesdokument und Gesetz: Studien zum Deuteronomium. Edited by Georg Braulik. Freiburg/ New York: Herder, 1995. Tachnor, Hayim. "Assyria and the West: The Ninth Century and its Aftermath." Pages 36 48 in Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East. Edited by H. Goedicke and J.J.M. Roberts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975. · The Inscriptions ofTiglath-Pileser III King ofAssyria: Critical Edition, with Introductions, Translations and Commentary. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994. Talmon, Shemaryahu. "The Comparative Method in Biblical Interpretation: Principles and Problems." Pages 11 49 in Literary Studies in the Hebrew Bible: Form and Content: Collected Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1993. Tigay, Jeffrey. Deuteronomy 0'1:1.'. The IPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. , ed. Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. Tov, Emanuel. "The Gmwth of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Evidence of the LXX Translation." Pages 321 41 in Studies in Bible. Edited by Sara Japhet. Scripta Hierosolymitana 31. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986. · Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd, rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen: Royal Van GorCUlll, 2001. Tsevat, Matitiahu. "The Hebrew Slave According to Deuteronomy 15:12 18 : His Lot and the Value of his Work:, with Special Attention to the Meaning ofjj~~Q." Journal of BiblicalLiterature 113 (1994): 587 95. · "p'tO II." Pages 447 51 in vol. 4 of The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G.J. Botterweck et al. Translated by D.E. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerchnans, 1997.

244

Bibliography

Ulrich, Eugene. "The Notion and Definition of Canon." Pages 21 35 in The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. Van Selrns, Adrianus. "The Goring Ox in Babylonian and Biblical Law." Archiv Orientaln! 18 (1950): 321 30. Van Seters, John. A Law Book/or the Diaspora: Revision in the Study a/the Covenant Code. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. · "The Law of the Hebrew Slave." Zeitschriftfor die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 108 (1996): 534 46. Wagner, Volker. "Zur Existenz des sogenannten 'Heiligkeitsgesetzes'." Zeitschriftfor die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 86 (1974): 307 16. Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O'Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. WInona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbralllls, 1990. Weyers, John William. Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series 30. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy 1 11. Anchor Bible 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. · Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Repr., WInona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbralllls, 1992. · "On 'Demythologization and Secularization' in Deuteronomy." Israel Exploration Journal 23 (1973): 230 33. · Social Justice in Ancient Israel and the Ancient Near East. Minneapolis: Fortress; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995. · "The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East." Journal of the American Oriental Society 90 (1970): 184 203. · The Place ofthe Law in the Religion ofAncient Israel. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 100. LeidenIBoston: Brill, 2004. · "Tithe." Pages 1156 62 in volume 15 of EncyclopaediaJudaica. Edited by Cecil Roth. 16 vols. JerusalernlNew York: MacMillan, 1972. Weingreen, Jacob. "The Deuteronomic Legislator a Proto-Rabbinic Type." Pages 76 89 in Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gl1)mne Henton Davies. Edited by John L Durham and J.R. Porter. Richmond: John Knox, 1970. Wellhausen, Julius. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der Historischen Bucher des Alten Testaments. 4th ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963. · Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. Translated by Allan Menzies and J. Sutherland Black. New York: Meridian, 1957. Westbrook, Raymond. "Biblical and Clllleifonn Law Codes." Revue Biblique 92 (1985): 247 64. · Property and the Family in Biblical Law. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 113. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. · Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Law. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 26. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1988. Wevers, John William. Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 30. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. · Text History of the Greek Exodus. Abhandlungen der Akademie der WIssenschaften in G6ttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, 3d series, 192; Mitteilllllgen des Septuaginta-Untemehrnens 21. G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992.

Bibliography

245

· "The Interpretive Character and Significance of the Septuagint Version." Pages 84 103 in vol. 1 of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation. Edited by Magne Saebo. 2 vols. G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Willis, Timothy M. The Elders of the City: A Study of the Elders-Laws in Deuteronomy. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 55. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Wilson, J. Christian. "Tithe." Pages 578 80 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D.N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Wright, G.E. "The Levites in Deuteronomy." Vetus Testamentum 4 (1954): 325 30. Wright, Christopher J.H. ""What Happened Every Seven Years in Israel? Old Testament Sabbatical Institutions for Land, Debts and Slaves." Evangelical Quarterly 56 (1984): 129 38, 193 202. Wright, DavidP. "Ethical Perspectives in the Covenant Code (Exodus 20:23 23:19): The Rationale of Laws about the Poor." Paper presented at the conference entitled "Religion and Violence." Wellesley, Mass., February 20, 2005. · "Holiness in Leviticus and Beyond: Differing Perspectives." Interpretation 53 (1999): 351 64. · Review of A Law Bookfor the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code, by John Van Seters. Journal of the American Oriental Society 124 (2004): 129 31. · "The Compositional Logic of the Goring Ox and Negligence Laws in the Covenant Collection [Ex 21:28 36J." Zeitschrift for altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 10 (2004): 93 142. · The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 10 1. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. · "The Laws of Hammurabi as a Source for the Covenant Collection (Exodus 20:23 23: 19)." Maarav 10 (2003): 11 87. · "The Relation of the Seventh Year Laws of the Covenant Code, Deuteronomy, and the Holiness School: A Tribute to Jacob Milgrom." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL. Denver, Nov. 19,2001. · "The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity." Pages 150 81 in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel. Edited by Gary A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 125. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. · "Two Types of Impurity in the Priestly Writings of the Bible." Koroth 9 (1988): 180 93. Yadin, Yigael, ed. The Temple Scroll. 3 vols. and suppl. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society et aI., 1983. Young, Ian, ed. Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 369. Edinburgh: T &T Clark, 2003. · "Biblical Texts Cannot be Dated Linguistically." Hebrew Studies 46 (2005): 341 51. Younger, Jr., K. Lawson. "Recent Study on Sargon II, King of Assyria: Implications for Biblical Studies." Pages 288 329 in Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Explorations. Edited by Mark W. Chavalas and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. Zahn, Molly M. "New Voices, Ancient Words: The Temple Scroll's Reuse of the Bible." Pages 435 58 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel. Edited by John Day. London! New York: T&T Clark, 2005.

246

Bibliography

· "Reexamining Empirical Models: The Case of Exodus B." Pages 36 55 in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk. Edited by Eckart Otto and Reinhard Achenbach. Forschllllgen zur Religion lllld Literatur des Alten lllld Neuen Testaments 206. G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Zakovitch, Yair. "The Book of the Covenant Interprets the Book of the Covenant: The "Boomerang Phenomenon." Pages *59-*64 in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran. Edited by Michael V. Fox et al. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996 (in Hebrew). Zevit, Ziony. "Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date ofP." Zeitschriftfor die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft94 (1982): 481 511. · "Historical Linguistics and the Dating of Hebrew Texts" Hebrew Studies 46 (2005): 321 26. · "Symposium Discussion Session: An Edited Transcription." Hebrew Studies 46 (2005): 371 76.

Hebrew Index lOll

'l1':lR 123, 124 116n 11'M 222 nM 145, 154 mnM 110, 156, 159n ~~M 123, 132n, 176, 183[5 eM 44n, 108n, 124n nCM 124, 124n, 125n, 156 'lM 45 ~OM 106, 133 ~M 135n f1M n, 115 116, 117n, 131 132, 135n, 137[4, 174n n1il"~ 189 eWM 177n ,IZIM 44 In':l1 nnM 183[5

111' 90

i10'~

, initial 115 '~1 43 n:ll 40n n'l 116n, 13 5n 1CI 117 11 125n ~11 116, 133 nM~n

77,92 95,116, 177n 123, 124 "n 84, 85, 86, 87 88 p~n 187,188,189 n~nll p~n 181,183[5,187,188 190

n'n

11n~

177 178

:l preposition 74,75 76,98, 118, 119,

132n, 158, 159n, 177, 178 rul' '~:l:l 74, 98

M~'

150 151

'il~' 179

~':l (C stern) 53n

nWl" 188

ncn:l 123, 124n, 125n Ml:l 110 n':J 116n nl11~:l 171n n'WM' v. e'11~:l 171n elpC ~~:l 53n, 176, 177, 178n, 182 ~n:l 73 nllW:l 74,75 76,98 1',llIZI:l 177, 178

:l1Zl' 85,86,8788,99, lOin, 104

~Ml 89, lOOn ~1:ll

nn

~m ln~ 63 n'IZIC ln~ 63 e"1~ e'ln~ 201,202 204 ,~ 44 45,108,145 146,184 ~M11D':l 'lD~c ~~ 182 nlD~n p 135 1~~ 77n e1~ 115,116,117, 135n, 174n '1~ 179 182,183[5

np~ 42,47,48

'1l 125 ' l 63,64,89 90, 124n, 183 :lWlnl'l 89 90n

l1C 145, 146, 148, 157

p'

nle 41 42, 72n, 73, 74n, 84,85,95n n:lIC 35,36, 111

179, 183[5

e, nn

jl:~C

44n

248

Hebrew Index

145 146n, 147, 157, 163 132n ;]mo 177n, 189 ?J)O 193 ,1DJ)0 175,181 182 ,~O

1~

10

no~

nn

1IlI0

81,104,107, lll, 176, 177 178,182, 183[5,186 MOe C1pO 177n ;]l'Ji0 148 ~mio

nn

~~1Zi0

"J);] 'J)1Zi "~

C,PO 34 38,49,50,51 52,53,54 56,69,

mo

108 177n 1'~ 158, 159

45,46

1Zi"p 52n, 53n, Inn, 177 178 lZi'p (C stern) 53n ,~

(C stern) 204

'lP 157,162

"p (C stern) OP"

'lC (C stern) 99, 107

,~

C?'J)

121 74n, 89, 124, 146, 156, 158, 159n, 161 '~J) 89, 156, 159n

"::JJ!I 154n ;]~"J) ;]?lll 51n,

nn

?'l;] 1;]~;] n,o 'J) 98 99 ;],J) 77 78, 105 106 J1J) 91 "J) 34,37 38,49,51, 54n, 55 56,69,74, 104,110 ~?p0 "J) 69 C?J) 156 99, 104 'l~? 'OJ) 202, 202n, 203 204 n'oJ) 145, 145n lOll 85 86 10~ 125n plll 160n rJ) 73 ~?P 0 "J) 74 ;]O'J) 46 ,IDJ) 169 170,175,183[5

'Cll

104

53n

88

IDll 155n C'l 71 "tl 121 r'~htl 92 C?m 181,187,188,189 190,208 J)~l 116n lZi~l 128, 131, 134, 136n '~l 41, 51n, 73, 74n "~l 155n 1nl 175,183[5

n'~c

nn~

160

J)' 145n,42 n~'

44n, 61,62, 72, 73,95n

nJ)'~1Zi

13 1, 13 2

mlZi 125, 126, 137 ;]lllZi 74 76,77,96 plZi 63

C'IZi'?ID 26n C'O?iD 177n, 186 ~01Zi

120,125 126,127,129 133,134, 136 137, 140 141 samlltu (Akkadian cognate) 132 133, 140 141 ;]~01Zi 121,122,128,138,140 141,144, 162 miDmll!i~ 118 ;]~OIZi;] nlI!i 122 ,llIZi 50n

lmi nn mfli 202, 203 204

;],ID 115, 116n, 117, 132n, 174n "~ID 124, 125n, 140, 148, 149 1Il1D 46, nn ;]M'~n

116n, 135 136, 176, 183[5 132 133, 136, 137[4 ;]"n 177n, 186, 201n ~1Zi'n 89 90, 125n, 126 1Zi,,'n 179, 186 ;]~'ln 207 ;]o"n 184,185,186 m~Oflin 118,119,129,130,131,133, 136, 137[4 "nM'~n

Source Index Gen.

1:24 25 2:2 2:2 3 2:20 3:14 3:17b 3:2300 7:14 7:21 8:1 9:5 9:6 18:24 18:26 19:12 19:14 23:4 26:12 27:23 28:19 31:14 42:2 43:8 47:19

125n 120 77, 119n 125n 125n 132n 132n 125n 125n 125n 91 58n, 62, 76n, 95 37n 37n 37n 37n 90n 116n 116n 37n 188n 85n 85n 85n

12:1 14 12:1 20 12:12 12:43 45 12:43 48 12:45 12:48 12:49 13 13:13 16:23 16:30 19:6 19:7 19:12 20:10 20: lOa 20:22 20:23 23:19 20:23 23:19 20:23 26 20:24 20:24 25 20:24 26

Exod. 1:13 14 1:14 1:14b~

3:7 3:20 22 5:6 5:10 5:13 5:14 6:6 8 9:20 21

142,151,154,158,160, 164 159n, 161 159, 159n 155n 160, 160n 155n 155n 155n 155n 14, 14n 44

21:2 21:2 6 21:2 11 21:2 22:16 21:2b 21:3 4 21:5 6 21:6 21:6b~

21:12 21:12 13

177n 3,7fl 14n 132n 124 125n 125 132n 61n, 125 25 14n 122n 119n 196 48n 41 120, 124n 118, 119 47,48n 139n (see also Covenant

Collection (CC)) 139n 34,3637,37n,50,53n, 57n, 81, 81n, 222n 50n 3536,36n,38n,47, 50n,53,223n 147, 147n, 154n, 161, 162 142, 150n, 154, 163, 164 38,138,141,144,151 36n 151 151 147n, 153,216 88,161 159, 159n 32,36n,41,43,44,44n, 45n, 47, 74n, 166 108n

250 21:12 14

21:13

21:13 14

21:13b 21:14

21:15 21:15 17 21:16 21:17 21:23b 25 21:28 22:4 22:4 5 22:17 19 22:20 21 22:20 23:19 22:20 30 22:22 24 22:26 22:28 30 23:1 8 23:1 12 23:7 23:9 19 23:10 23:10 1 23:10 11

23:10 lla 23:10b

Source Index

31,32,33,35 36,38, 39,40 41,43,44n, 45n, 46,4950n,53,54,54n, 55,56n, 57n, 58,59, 59n, 60,61,69, 71, 73, 78n, 79n, 82, 107, 111, 153 34,3536,37,38,4On, 41,42,43,44,44n, 4546,45n,49,5On, 53,53n,54,55,69,69n, 104n, III 34,3536,3637,36n, 38,38n,43,44,45n,47, 54,54n, 56n, 59n, 61, 74,223n 73 35,4On,43,44n, 45,46, 47,48,48n,69n,108n, 111,147n 74n 36n 47,74n 74n 54n 91 116n 22n 36n Inn

139n 139n 223n 223n 223n 139n 139 223n 139n 115,116,117,119,120, 129, 135, 174n 134 115, 116n, 117, 119 120, 121, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 133n, 135, 138, 140, 143 134 133n

23:11

23:11a 23:11a~ 23:11a~-b

23:11b 23:12 23:12a 23:13 15 23:14 19 23:16 23:17 23:18 23:20 24:1 24:7 24:9 24:12 24:14 25:8 28 28:36 38 28:38 29:6 29:26 29:31 29:38 46 29:45 46 31:12 17 31:13 17 31:15 31:17 31:18 32:10 11 32:26 28 34:11 26 34:15 34:18 26 34:21a 35:2 35:25 28 38:21 39:30 31 40:17

117, 117n, 119, 121, 124, 12413, 129 130, 130 131, 133, 134, 135 137, 136n, 141 117 118 121, 123 133n 115, 116, 134 118, 119, 120, 137 118, 119 223n 3 116n 222n 223n 35 48n 219n 48n 48n 63 95 91 92 91 91 189n 177n 14n 63 120 14 119n, 120, 122n 119n, 120 223 123 198 24 132n 24n 118, 119 119n, 120, 122n 92 180n 91 118n

251

Source Index Lev.

2:3 4 4:2 4:3 4:5 4:6 7 4:12 4:13 21 4:16 4:17 18 4:22 4:22 26 4:25 4:27 4:27 31 4:30 5:1 6 5:6 5:12 5:15 5:18 5:21 5:27 5:212 24a 6:2 5a 6:4 6:9 6:9 10 6:10 6:15 6:17 23 6:18 6:19 6:20 6:22 6:23 7:6 7:9 10 7:11 21 7:12 15 7:14 7:16 18 7:32 7:32 34 7:33 7:35

177n 93,96 75 63n 63n 94 177n 93 63n 94 75 93 94 75 93 94 14n 193n 193n 75, 193, 193n 75 193 193n 14n 14n 177n 177n 177n 189 63n 94,95 177n 93, 177n 177n 93, 177n 93, 177n 177n 177n 187n 177n 186, 187n 177n 186 8fl 189n 189n, 193

8:3 8:9 8:29 9:3 9:5 9:7 22 9:9 910 10 10:1 10:2 10:8 1O:1Of 10:12 10:13 10:14 10:16 20 10:17 1O:17b 10:18 11 11:2 11:44 45 12 13:1 46 14:1 8a 14:13 14:40 14:41 14:45 15 15:31 16:1 29 16:1 34 16:16 16:24 16:29 16:31 17 17:1 15 17:5 7 17:10 17:11 12 17:12 17:13 17:13 16 17:14 17 26

93 91 189n 93 203 93 94 94 93 95 194n 194n 193 14n 177n 177n 177n 92 93,94,95 94,95, 177n 93n 93 14n 123n 14 14n 14n 14n 177n 177n 177n 177n 14n 63 94 77 63 177n 125 120, 122n 9, 13, 13n, 60n 7fl

67 125 67 67, 125 125 178n 67 13n

252 18:20 18:21 18 23 18:23 18:25 29 18:26 19:2 19:5 8 19:8 19:9 10 19:11 19:13 19:15 19:16 19:17 19:18 19:19 19:24 19:25 19:26 19:28 19:31 19:33 19:33 34 19:34 19:35 36 20:2 20:2 5 20:3 20:7 20:9 20:10 20:27 21:6b~

21:10 21:12 21:23 22:10 22:14 22:15 22:29 30 22:32 23 23:1 44 23:3 23:15 16 23:22 23:24

Source Index

8f!, 145n 8f! 8 203 63 125 7ft 177n 193 8f! 145n 145n 7f!, 145n 8f!, 145n 145n 145n 8f!, 116n 118n 118n 8f! 7ft 8f! 148n 8f! 125, 183 8f! 125 8f! 193 7ft 8f! 8f!, 145n 8f! 152n 63n 193 193 90n, 125 75 193 177n 193, 193n 7ft,9, 14 3 119n, 120, 122n 3n 8f! 120, 122n

23:32 23:39 23:42 24:8 24:9 24:17 24:19 24:21 25 25:1 2 25:2 25:2 7

25:2a~

25:2b 25:3 25:3 4 25:3 5 25:4 25:4 5 25:4 6 25:4a 25:4b 25:4b 5a 25:5 25:5a 25:5b 25:6 25:6 7

25:6aa 25:7 25:10 25:12b 25:14 25:15 25:17 25:20 25:20 21 25:21 25:23 25:25 25:25a

63n, 120, 122n 120, 122n 67n 119n 177n 166n 145n 166n 9,66,88 89, 115, 116n 126 120 7ft, 115, 120, 125, 126, 127, 127n, 128, 129, 135,137 138,141,144, 152,161,162 128 119n, 127 115,116, 116n, 117, 136n, 138, 174n 116n, 117 126 116, 118n, 122n, 126 138 120 117118,119,122 117,137 122 119, 119n, 122n, 133n, 137 121, 137 122, 126 9On, 124, 125, 156 1413, 120, 121, 123, 124, 124n, 125n, 126, 127, 137 128 117n, 124n 90,216 132n 145n 145n 145n 118n, 121n, 138n 133n, 138n, 139n 118n 89 145n 148

253

Source Index

25 26 25:32 33 25:35 25:35 36 25:35 38 25:35a 25:36 25:38 25:39 25:39 40 25:39 42 25:39 43 25:39 46 25:39 55

25:40 25:40b 25:41 25:41a 25:42 25:42b 46 25:43 25:43a 25:44 25:44 45 25:44 46

25:44a 25:45 25:45 46 25:45b 25:45b 46 25:46 25:46a 25:46a~ 25:46a~-b

25:46b 25:46b~

25:47 25:47 55 25:47b

9, 120 110 89, 145n, 148n 85, 86, 87 85 148 145n 145, 161 145, 145n, 146, 147, 147n, 148, 148n, 157 125n, 150 151, 152, 153n, 154, 155n, 160 144 145, 152, 154, 155n, 161 143, 155, 163 7f!, 89, 89n, 114, 125n, 126, 141, 142, 143 144, 149, 155n, 162 163, 164 88, 89, 90n, 125, 148, 150 149, 150 89, 124n, 150 151 151 149,151,156 155n 151, 158, 160 152n 125n, 156, 157 161, 164 125n, 151, 152, 153n, 154 155, 155n, 156, 157,159 160n, 161, 162,183,217 152n 9On, 125 159n 156 156 145n, 154n, 157, 158 156 159 158, 159 154 152n 89, 145n 143 148

25:48 25:54 25:55 26 26:1 26:1 46 26:4 5 26:11 26:16 26:19 20 26:32 35 26:34 35 26:37 27:30 27:30 33

27:32 27:32 33

145n 151 149, 156, 193 13,13n 7ft 8f! 138n 63 138n 138n 138n 145n 145n 174n, 178n, 182n, 185 7f!, 174, 175, 178n, 185n, 190, 191, 192 193, 197 198,217 170 171n, 185n

Num.

1: 1 1:50 53 1:53 2:2 3:6 8 3:11 13 3:11 51 3:12 13 3:13 3:31 3:41 3:45 4:9 4:12 4:14 4:15 4:19 5:1 4 5:3 5:11 31 6:2 8 7:5 8:5 22 8:11 8:15 8:19 8:22

118n 207 195 206 195 14n 193 198 193 203 193 193 203 203 203 198 85 8f! 63 14n 14n 180n 207 180n 180n 180n 180n

254 8:24 8:26 9:1 9:14 10:8 10 10:9[ 10:11 lOb 14 14:27 14:29 15:15 15:16 15:20 15:22 29 15:22 31 15:24 15:24 25 15:25 15:26 15:27 15:28 15:29 15:32 15:37 41 15:38 41 16:1 17:5 16:2 7a 16:3 16:6 16:7 16:7b 11 16:8 16:9 16:9 10 16:12 15 16:14 16:16 17 16 17 16 18 16:18 16:19 24 16:22 16:25 16:26 16:26 27a 16:27b 34 16:35 17:1 5

Source Index

180n 180n 118n 61n 14 14n 118n 66 181 181 125 61n, 125 184n 94n 96,96n 75 93 75 61n, 75,125 75 75 75, 125 119n 8f! 14, 14n 194, 195n 191n 63,63n, 194n, 196n 194n 194n 191n 194n 194n, 202n, 203 207 191n 116n 191n 191,195 200,206 191n 191n 194n 191n 194n 191n 191n 191n 191n

17:5 17:6 17:6 18:32 17:10 17:19 17:22 17:23 17:25 17:27 28 17:28 18: 1 18:1 7 18:1 20 18:6 18:8 18:11 13 18:12 13 18:12a 18:15 22 18:16 18 18:17 18 18:20 18:20 24 18:20 32

18:21 18:23 18:23 24 18:23aa 18:24 18:24b 18:25 32 18:26 18:27 18:27 28 18:28 18:28a 18:29 18:30

204 194n 19ln 194n 194n 194n 194n 194n 195 194n 193 194 8f! 180n 187, 189n, 193 185 8f! 179,179n 105n 207n 7ft 179,181,183[5,187, 188, 189, 193n 179,182n 167, 16~ 169, 171 172, 173174,175176,I78n, 179n, 181, 182n, 185n, 191,192 193,197 198, 204205,206,207 180n, 181, 182, 183[5, 188 179,180, 180n, 181, 183[5,187,188,193 187 180,181 181,183[5,185,188 187 179,182, 182n, 184n, 186,187,190n 181,183[5,188,190 178n, 179, 183[5, 184, 186,190,207 184n 183[5,185 184n 183[5 178n, 179, 183[5, 184, 186,191,207

Source Index

18:30 31 18:31 18:31 32 18:31a 18:32 19:9 19:10 19:11f 20:17 21:22 25:9 15 27:2 28:26 28 29 30:3 16 35 35:9 lOa 35:9 14 35:9 15

35:9 24 35:9 29 35:9 34

35:10 35:10 14 35:10b 35:11 35:11a~

35:11ba 35:12 35:12a 35:13 35:13 14 35:13b 35:14 35:14 15 35:14b 35:14b 15a

184n 176,177, 183f5, 184, 186 186 184n 178n, 185n, 186, 193 177 125 14n 116n 116n 105 100n 3n 3,14 8fl 66,92,95, 197 67 58,62,62n, 64,65,66, 67 58n,61,62,66,67,68, 9On,97n, 107, 110 111, 198 52n 64 8fl, 31, 33, 37, 38n, 39, 39n,40n,4950n,53n, 58,59,60,61,62,62n, 68, 70, 72, 74, 77, 77n, 81,85,86,89, 89n, 98, 99n, 100, 112, 216n, 218 ll1n III

71 35n, 53n, 62,65,69,73, 74,75, 98n, ll1n 65 72 62,64,69,70,74,77, 98n,99, lOOn, 104 lOOn 65,69, 74,80n, llln 58,7980,81 65 65,69,70,74,llln 64 65 65

35:14b 15aa 35:15

35:15aa 35:15b 35:16 35:16 18 35:16 19 35:16 24 35:16 29 35:16 34 35:17 35:18 35:19 35:20 35:20 21 35:20 23 35:20 24 35:21 35:22 35:22 23 35:24 35:24 28 35:24 29 35:25

35:25 26 35:25 28 35:25 29 35:25 32 35:25 34 35:25b 35:25ba 35:26 35:26 27 35:27 35:28

35:28a 35:29 35:30 35:30 33 35:30 34 35:31 35:31 33

255 65 35n, 62, 63, 64, 65 66, 6667,69,70,73,75, 89 90n, 111 65 72,73 64,65,73,74n 70, 73, 74n, 78 62, 79 61,62 68 102, 107 73, 74n 73, 74n 73, 95n, lOOn 35n 78 70 62 73,74n,95n 35n 62, 78 70,73,77, lOOn 69,90n 58,62,62n,66 54n, 6On, 62, 63, 69, 77,88,91,97, 98n, 99, lOOn, 104, 110 35n 61,64,82, 101 61,62,64 61 62,98 109,110 101,102 62,69,74,89 69, 109 62,69,73, 74,95n, lOOn 54n,6On,63n, 69,74, 91,97,98n,99,104, 109,110 101 63, 63n, 64 61,73 62 61,62,68 69,74n 77n

256 35:32 35:33 35:33 34 35:34

Source Index

54n, 69, 74,83, 89n,97, 99, 101 62,62n, 76, 78,95 62, 76, 76n, 77 62,63,64, 76n, 77, lOin

Deut.

1 3 2:12 2:19 3:20 4:2 4:19 20 4:21 4:38 4:41 43 5:3 5:14 5:14a 5:22 33 6:11 6:24 7:1 7:6 7:13 9:10 10:8 10:9 11:14 11:29 12:31 12 12:2 12:5 12:6 12:7 12:9 12:11 12:12 12:13 12:13 15 12:13 19 12:14 12:15 12:17 12:18 12:19

79n 188 188 188 217 181n 188 188 33,34n, 37,58,59, 82, l11n 219n 120, 124n 118,119 219n 116 86 79n 196 179 223 201,202 181, 181n, 188n, 201 179 7fl 9,13n,39,53n,57n 52 39n 170n 17On, 17ln 188 39n, 171n 17On, 181, 181n, 188n, 198,201 50n, 173n, 177n 177n 81,81n 39n,l77n 40,I77n 171n, 179 39n, 17On,201 171n, 181n, 201

12:20 12:20 28 12:21 12 26 12:26 12:29 13:1b 13:2 6 14:1 2 14:2 14:3 21 14:21 14:22 14:22 23 14:22 27 14:22 29

14:23 14:24 14:24 25 14:25 14:26 14:26 27 14:27 14:28 14:28 29 14:29 15 15:1 15:1 11 15:1 18 15:2 15:2 3 15:2b 15:3 15:4 15:9 15:12

81, 82n 81, 81n 39n,40, 173n 13n,79n 39n 79n 217 223 7fl 7fl, 196 7 196 183[5,19On 166 167 7fl, 79n191, 168, 17l1n,173n,175 176, 179n, 182, 184, 191,204,206,207 39n, 17On, 176, 177, 179,183[5 39n,183[5 108n 39n,183[5 170n, 176, 183[5 182 180,181, 181n, 183[5, 188n, 201 170n, 17ln, 181 182, 183[5 176,178,I78n 170n, Inn, 180, 181, 181n, 183[5, 188n, 201 9, 115, 144 120, 141 7fl, 120, 125, 129, 138, 144 128 120, 131n, 141 155n 127 120, 131n, 136, 136n, 141 188 120, 122, 141 118n, 146, 146n, 147, 147n, 148, 149, 150, 154n

Source Index

15:12 13 15:12 15 15:12 18

15:13 15:13 14 15:13 15 15:14 15:15 15:16 15:16 17 15:16 18 15:16a~

15:17 15:17 18 15:17b 15:18 15:19 15:19 23 15:20 16 16:1 17 16:1 18 16:2 16:6 16:7 16:11 16:14 16:15 16:16 16:18 20 16:19 20 16:21 22 17:2 17:8 17:8 13 17:9 17:10 17:10 12 17:18 18: 1 18:1 8

155n 144,152, 155n, 161 7ft, 38, 55, 56, 89n, 126, 141,142,154, 154n, 155, 155n, 160, 160n, 163 150, 155n, 160 150 160n 160, 160n 149,151,160,161 151, 157, 157n 147n, 153, 155, 155n, 156 154, 155n 151 89,90, 152n, 156, 159n, 216 123, 124, 12413, 127 116, 135n, 159n 124, 148, 149, 150, 152, 155n, 161 146n 7ft 39n 9

18:4 18:5 18:6 18:6 8 18:7 18:10 18:10 11 18:15 22 18:21 18:23 19:1 19:1 3 19:1 3a 19:1 7 19:1 12 19:1 13

3

19:2 19:2 3 19:2 7 19:2 13 19:2a 19:2b 19:3 19:3 4 19:3 5 19:3 6 19:3a 19:3b 19:3b 6 19:4 19:4 5

7ft 39n 39n 39n 39n, 171n, 181n,201 17ln, 181n, 201 39n 39n 78,106 7ft 7ft 146n 39n, 78, 146n,201n 5On, 78, 106 99,171n,201,201n 39n 201n 17ln, 201, 201n 181, 188n, 189,201n, 202,202n 8ft, 17ln, 188, 198, 200201,204

19:4 6 19:4a 19:4b 19:5 19:5a 19:5b

257 179,179n 202,203 39n, 181n, 199 203,206 181n,203,204,206 8f! 8f! 223 181 182 181n 43,48,71, 79n, 80n 77, 166n 46 59,62,I11n 105 8f!, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39,40 41,43, 44n, 46, 47,48,49,50,52,53, 53n,54,54n,55,56,57, 58,59,60,61,69,70, 72, 72n, 73, 74, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 87, 88, 97n, 98,99n, 100, 104, 105, 107,111,112,153, 218 53n, 79n, 80n 55 58,59 43,56n 43 43 46,51n,8On,84,85 35n, 100 84 43 79n 72, 73, 74, 79n 46 41,46,51n, 73, 74 44,44n, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87,90 43,64, 79n, 105n 72 43,44n, 109 43,44,55,70,73,74, 79n,87 44n 72, 82

258 19:6

19:6b~

19:7 19:7 8 19:7 9 19:7 10 19:8 19:8 9 19:9 19:9a 19:9b 19:10 19:10 13 19:11 19:11 12 19:11 13 19:11a~

19:11b 19:12

19:13 19:14 19:15 21 19:17 20:16 20:19 20 21:1 21:1 9 21:2 21:2 3 21:5 21:7 9 21:13 21:18 21 21:19 21:23 21 25 22:2 22:6 22:9 22:9 12 22:12 22:22

Source Index

39,41,42,46,51n, 54 55,62,71,73, 8On, 81,83,88,107 108, 109 109 53n, 79n 79n 43,79n 46 79n, 82 58,59,79, 79n, 80, 81 55,79n,80n 79n 79n 43, 51n, nn, 78,188 43,59,79n 41,42,43,45,46,51n, 64, 70, 73, 79n, 88 45,46,99 43 73n

n 42,47,48,51,51n, 69, 70,77, 82n, 83, 84, 85, 88,99, 105, 105n, 147n 51n,78,88 188 8fl 104, 104n 188 140 51n, 146n 51n, 78 51n 51n 171n,201n 51n 51n 8fl,50 34,37n 188 47n 104, 106 146n 116n 8fl 8fl 146n

22:22 27 22:26 22:26ba 23:2 9 23:16 17 23:17 23:22 24 24:4 24:7 24:8 24:17 18 24:19 22 25:11 25:13 16 25:19 26:1 26:1 11 26:2 26:3 26:9 26:11 26:11 13 26:12 26:12 15 26:13 26:19 27:9 27:14 27:24 27:26 27 28 28:1 69 28:9 28:51 29:7 29:22 31:9 31:11 31:25 32:9 32:49 33:6 33:8 Josh. 8:29 20 20:1 3

8fl 73, 105 73n 8fl 87,99, 104, 107 51n, 107 8fl 188 47, 146n 171n, 201, 201n 8fl 8fl, 140 146n 8fl 188 79n, 188 8fl 39n 99 51n 181n, 201 201 7fl, 170n, 181n

In 181n 196 201,201n 201 44 44 13n 8fl 196 179 188 116n 201,201n 39n 201 181, 181n, 188, 188n 80n 85n 201 104 58n, 61 62, 82, 197 198,218 97,99, 107

259

Source Index

20:1 5 20:1 9 20:2 20:2 3 20:2b 20:3 20:3a~

20:3b 20:4 20:4 5 20:4 6 20:5 20:5 6 20:5+6a~ 20:5a~

20:5b 20:6

20:6aa 20:6aa+b 20:6a~

20:6b 20:7 20:7 8 20:7 9 20:9 24:13 Iud. 8:26 9:27 15:5 17:9 10 20:18 28

102 31,33,34,96 ll1n III

97 98n 35n, 74n, 75,98n, 100 98 100, lOOn 52n, 84n, 87, 99 100, 104, 105, 105n, 106, 107 97,98,99,100,101, 102,105 106,107,109 71,96,98n,99,104n 100,105,107,108 102 99 100, 101 99 99 35n,9697,98,98n, 100,101,102,I04n, 107 108, 110 101, 102 101, 102 103, 109, 110 97,99, 102, 107 109 110 53n 64 65n, 80, 111 97, 102, 107 35n,61n,64 65,75 116 160n 116n 116n, 117n 198

1 Sam.

8:14 22:7 24 24:12 26

116n 116n 25n 45n 25n

2 Sam. 6:6 7:4 17 20:1

131n 27 188

1 Kgs 1:50 53 2:28 34 5:1 5 22:20

33,34 33,34 82n

2Kgs 5:7 5:26 9:33 11:4 18:9 18:32 19:29 20:1 23:8 9 23:15 20

45n 116n 131n 118n 118n 85n, 179n 116n 85n 199 82n

Isa 5:6 30:23 37:30 38:1 50:8

117 116n 116n 85n 104n

Jer.

7:4 7:9 14 17:4 19:12 23:9 40 26:1 28:17 31:12 31:31 34 34:8 22 35:7 49:1

56n 56n 131n 37n 223 223 179n 223n 56 116n 86

Ezek.

8:10 11 11:19 16:60 62 18:24 26 18:34 20:1 36:26 42:13 43:19

202n 223n 223n 223n 223n 118n 223n 177n 203n

260 44 44:6 16 44:10 14 44:11 44:11 16 44:15 44:15 16

Source Index

Inn, 199 200 199,201 198 201, 202n, 203 207 202, 202n, 203, 203n 201, 202, 203

Has.

2:10

26n 26n 116n 116n

Job

24:6

116n

Song

179n

4:9 7:14

179n 179n

Ruth

37n

Qoh

Joel

1:10 2:19

22:20 24:12 22 24:30 31:16

2:14 4:10

160n 224

132n 34,37n

Amos

4:6 Mic

1:6

116n

Hag

1:11 2:11 14

179n 94n

Mal.

3:10

Ezra

7:8

5:11 6:10 13 9:6 10:32 10:40 13:5 13:12

33 33 33 86 86 33 33 33 160n 45n 116n 85n 33

2 Ch,

160n 45n 26n

5:5 23:18 29:11 29:34 30:27 31:5

Provo

1:9 12:22 22:17 24:11

75 86 177n 75

118n

Neh.

170

Ps.

15:1 17:8 27:5 33:19 41:3 57:2 59:17 18 61:5 73:6 91:10 107:37 118:17 144:2 145:16

5:5 7:12 8:10 10:5

116n, 179n 33, 34, 56n 86 118n,131n 179n 179n 179n

1 Ch,

9:2 13:9 15:16 15:16 22 23:15 17

204 131n 198 204

204 204 204 204 204 179n

261

Source Index

31:5 6 32:28

170 179n

1 Mace 10:3 1 10:43

56n 56n

Er. 13b

216n

llQT 22:9 11

Gil.

6b

Qum= Temple Scroll 198 199, 170 199n

216n

[nstruction of Amenernope Mek. Nez. 2:83 90

26n30 157n, 216n

Matt

Laws of Harnmurabi (LH)

13:52

5: 14 24 47:79 48:2 50: 14 18

224

Mark 2:27

120n Targurn N eofiti I 122n, 126n

2 Tim 3: 16a

222n 222n 222n

215

Subject and Authors Index Aaron (high priest) 2 94, 179, 181, 193 Abba, Raymond 200, 202n, 203 Adonijah 34 altar asy hun city asylum 38 40,49,51,60,71, 209 cult centralization 37,39 40,55 dating of 38, 38n determination of 34 37 secularization of 55 56. see also city asylum Amit, Yairah 114 Anbar, Mosh< 60 61 animal tithes 171,174,182, 185n, 190 apodictic formulations 36 37,46,4 7n, 108, 139, 146 48, 150 asyhnn 8f1 distance between asylum cities 39, 51n, 54,55, 70, 79,109 extra-biblical sources for 40 Jubilee laws in Lev 25 88 89 multiplicity of 39,59 60, 59f2, 60, 68, 79 80 preliminary hearing for asylum seekers 64, 78, 84, 100 secularization of 35,40,53,55 56,71 as social status 107. see also blood avenger manslayer sanctuaries asy hun seekers nationalization of 105 6 preliminary hearing for 64,78, 84, 100 wandering livestock:, analogy with 106 7 Baentsch, Bruno 8 Bannash, Pamela altar law in Exodus 35 36 on asylum law 33,39,58,62

attributions of verses to P and H sources 64 historical development of the places of refuge 38 on Num 35 65, 66 Barungarten, Joseph A. 170 biblical law historical practice and 164, 170 71, 170n blood as pollutant 63,71 72,76 78, 100 101 in sacrifices 91,94 spilled blood 66 blood avenger in Deuteronomy 43,54 55,63,71 72, 77,78 kinsman redeemer 89n length of manslayer's residence in asylum cities 83 release of manslayer 102 retaliation of 39,88,95. see also manslayer Boling, Robert G. 109n Book of the Covenant (BC) 43 Braulik:, George 10 Brin, Gershon 45n broken neck heifer rite 51n, 72n

canonization divine revelation and 214,215, 222 23 inner-biblical exegesis 27 28 interpretation 216 17 legal revisions 210 11,220 21 replacement theory in biblical revision 211 12,218 20,221 capital crimes 32, 88 Carr, David 24,25,212 13 Carroll, Marie 24

Subject and Authors Index

casuistic laws 36n, 45 47, 80n, 107 8, 139, 145, 148 Cazelles, Henri 134n Chieftain Revolt 191n, Inn, 197 Chirichigno, Gregory 130n, 142, 142n, 163 Cholewinski, Alfred 9 11, 113, 151n city asylum achnission to 74 altar asylum and 38 40,49,51,60,71, 209 confinement in 9On, 95 dating of 38, 4On, 59 60 determination of 34 35 distance between 39, 51n, 54, 55, 70, 79, 109 impurity of 100 101 length of stay in 54n, 69, 78, 82 83, 86,88, 157n 3 + 3 asylum cities 33,59£2,68, 79 80, 81 in Transjordan 68, 70, 77, 78, 80 81 city elders in Deuteronomic law 48,50, 51n, 105, 106 intentional killer 83 judicial responsibilities of 48, 5On, 51n, 70, 77 78, 82, 105 6 unintentional killer sheltered by 102, 103 Covenant Collection asylum law asylum in 32,34 35 dating of 36n, 38n, 59 61 Deueronomic asylum law and 43, 4547,50n intentionality 42 43 Priestly asylum laws and 60. see also altar asylum Covenant Collection (CC) on animals 2, 128, 140n apodictic laws in Exod 22:20 23:19 139n authority of 212,213,222,223 cultic laws 12 13 dating of 17 Deuteronomic revisions of 6, 38,43, 4750,53,211,219,222

263

Holiness Legislation and 12, 17n, 117 18 as independent legal collection 13n Josh 20 influenced by 104 Laws ofHanunurabi (LH) 2n, 17, 36n, 139n, 164,22021 legal formulations in 108n poverty in Inn religious festivals, legislation of 3 in replacement theory 212 Tiglath-Pileser III text and 132n Covenant Collection seventh-year law 115,118,137 38 agricultural activity 138 animals and poor highlighted in 128 Deuteronomic reconceptualization of 119 21,139 fallow interpretation of 135 gathering crops 128 Holiness Legislation and 121 22 Covenant Collection slave laws permanent Israelite slavery (H) and 153, 154 Covenant Collection slavery and manumission laws 144,151,154,161 Crossan, John D. 112n cult centralization altar asylum 39 40,55 desanctificationpractices 177 78,185, 186 in Deuteronomy 39,49 53,55,71, 178,2023,206,209 diasporic temples 56 geographical component of 206 7 HolinessLegislation 71,206 by Josiah 199 Levites and 199 200 multiple asylum cities 39,59 60,68, 79 80 in Priestly legislation 66,206 secularization of asylum 71. see also city asyhnn clUleiform sources 2, 17, 19n, 21 Dandarnaev, M. A 170 Dathan and Abiram rebellion 191 92n

264

Subject and Authors Index

dating of asylum legislation 36n, 38n, 4On, 58, 59 61, 59n biblical Hebrew used in 16 18, 16n, 38,59n ofDeuteronorny 10,17 18 of Holiness Collection 8 10, 14 18, 62, 162 of rebellion stories 185 86,191 92n, 197 Daube, David 160n Day of Atonement 77, 93n death of high priest 76n, 77, 90 92, 95 97,102,103,110 debt release 85 86,120,128,138,144, 155n, 157 Decalogue 79n, 119, 124n, 222 23 deity altar as cultic site 37n Covenant Collection (CC) as words of 223 divine revelation 2 3,214,215, 222 23 Israelites and 63,66 68, 128 in Laws ofHamrnurabi 222 second person plural in deity's address to Israelites (H) 128 as source of revelation 223. see also YHWH Delekat, Liehard 91 dependence. see literary dependence desanctification practices 177 78, 185, 186 Deuteronornic asylum laws adjudication of the llllintentional killer's case 69 asylum city as refuge 90n city elders in 48, 48n, 50, 5On, 51n, 70, 105, 106 dependence on Exod 21:12 14 45 47 H asyhnn law, reciprocity with 58 59 intentionality in 42 43, 46 Josh 20 and 87,99 100, 102 3, 104, 107 length of stay of manslayer in asylum city 82 83, 88 pre-exilic layer of 79n

Priestly asylum laws and 58 59, 61 62 secularizatrion ofasyhnn in 71 3 + 3 asylum cities 33,59£2,68, 79 80,81 Deuteronomic redaction (DtrD) 79n Deuteronomic seventh-year law agricultural release 138 CC seventh-year law and 119 21, 139 debt release 13 8 fallow law 138 H seventh-year law and 121 22 Deuteronomic slavery and manumission laws debt release 155n egalitarian treatment of slaves 159n Exod 3:20 22 elements in 160 Hebrew slaves in 142 43 Holiness slavery and manumission laws 113 14, 128, 141, 143 44, 148, 151 55,163 Lev 25:39 55 114 perpetual slavery 155 56, 159 Deuteronomic tithe law defined 171 distribution of 172 73 division of tithe in 182 grammatical number 176 Holiness Legislation and 178,205, 217 for lay Israelites 166 Levites in 167, 171n, 172 73,175, 180 location of consumption of 176 77 Near Eastern literature 172n third-year tithe 171 73,17677,178, 182,217 Deuteronomy audience for 219n authorial techniques 6,45,48 Covenant Collection (cq 6,38, 4750,53,211,219,222 cultic laws 12 13 dating of 10, 17 DeWette hypothesis 17 food laws 7 grammatical person forms 46 47, 146 47

Subject and Authors Index

legal formulations in 108n, 146, 148, 166 lexical substitution in 45 46n revision of Exod 21:16 kidnapping law 47 DeWette, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht In, 17 DeWette hypothesis 17 divine revelation 2 3,214,215, 215n, 223 Documentary Hypothesis 1,4,28 Driver, Samuel R. 5 6, 130n, 200, 201 2n,211n Dtr2 109n Duke, Rodney K. 200, 203 4 ear rite 123 24, 143 Edenburg, Cynthia 25n Egyptian bondage 143, 149, 155n, 158 61 Ehrlich, Arnold B. 99n, 130n elder judiciary 48, 5On, 51n, 70, 77 78, 105 6 Elephantine, Jewish colony at 56 Elliger, Karl 14, 128n, 155n Elohistic source (E source) 1,16On Emerton, J. A. 200 eternal slave. see perpetual slavery extra-biblical sources Akkadian texts 86 for asylum 40 for biblical Israel 20 clllleiform sources 2,17, 19n, 21 Hittite laws 22 23 literary dependence in 22, 26 Ugaritic references to tithes 169. see also Hammurabi, Laws of fallowing-land practice and legislation in Covenant law 129 41 debt release laws (D) 138 Deuteronomy 138,139,140 in Holiness Legislation 137 sixth-year crop 13 8n feasting associated with tithes 169 70, 171 festival legislation 3, 7f1, 9, 14 Feucht, Christian 8

265

Fischer, David Hackett 190n Fishbane, Michael 6 on Deuteronomy-Holiness legislation dependence 10 on divine revelation 215n on function of summary lines in Hebrew Bible 97 on inner-biblical exegesis 27 28, 53n on Josh 20 64,97,99 on lexical substitution 45n on LXXB 97 98 non-cultic legal analogy in Deut 22:26 105 traditio, traditum 28 foreign nation asylum 40, 40n foreign slaves 125n, 154 55, 157 59, 183 Frankel, David 191 nn fruit trees 132 33, 135, 140 George, Johann Friedrich Leopold In gleaning practices 8f1, 127 28 Graf, Karl Heinreich In, 12, 19 grammatical formulations in Covenant Collection 146 47, 152 53 inadvertency in 152 53 participiallaws/formulations 36n, 44n, 45n perfect verbal form 64 65n pronominal forms 44n, 130, 131 32, 136n, 152, 189 Greenberg, Moshe on asylum law 35n, 3 8n, 4On, 49n, 60 Deuteronomy borrowings from Numbers 38 39,49 50n expiatory role of high priest 91,92 sacrifices lacking for manslayer 91 GIiinwaldt, Klaus 9, 15, 96n, 114 halakhah 59,167,216 Hammurabi, Laws of (LH) 19n, 132n apodictic laws in Exod 22:20 23:19 139n audience for 220 charity tithes in 172n Covenant Collection 2n, 17, 36n, 139n, 164,22021

266

Subject and Authors Index

deities in 222n homicide in 19n,36n as propagandistic work 164 royal law giver in 222 sources for 220n Haran, Menahern 35n, 190 hannonistic interpretations 215 16,217 Harrington, Hannah 76n harvesting 121,126 27n, 138, 17ln Hays, RichardB. 23 hendiadys 89 90n, 134, 134n, 136n Hexateuch l03n, 105 high priests 63,64,66, 7ln accession of new king 90 91 expiatory role of 91 92, 95 96 identification of 60n manslayer and death of 76n, 77, 82, 90 92,97, 102, 110 Holiness asylum laws blood imagery in 69, 71 nn, 78, 96 dating of 62 Deuteronornic asyhnn laws and 58 59, 85,8687 duration of asyhnn 78,85, 88 Josh 20:6 107 Jubilee laws (Lev 25) and 88 90, 125 26 judicial proceedings in asyhnn law 69, 70, 77 78 multiple asylums in 59 60, 68 Nurn 35 and 61,62 63 Priestly asylum laws and 58,62 63, 66 ransom payments 69 secularization of asyhnn 71 slave laws (Lev 25) and 88 90 Holiness Legislation dating of 10,14 15,16 18,62 defining characteristics of 2n, 3, 8 9, 13,66,77, 148 Deuteronornic revisions and 96, 18283,2192Oll grammatical formulations in 14, 118 19,152,156 lay holiness 196 97 P source and 15 16,96 reuse of source texts by 146 48,162, 222

Holiness seventh-year law agricultural activity during 128, 137 animals in 123, 124, 125 Covenant Collection and 115 16, 121 22 debt-release law (D) 128 innovations of 219 20ll land in 137 the poor in 123 24, 128, 130, 133, 134 35, 138n shabbat shabbaton (H) 118 19,120, 122, 126n slave-release law CD) 128 Holiness slavery and manumission laws chattel slavery 156 57 Convenent Collection slavery laws and 151,154,161 dating of 162 Deuteronomic slavery laws and 113 14,128,141,143 44,148,151 55, 163 Egyptian enslavement in 158 61 foreign slave in 155 hired labur 146, 148 49, 163 Israelite slaves 146,148 49,156 57, 163 Jubilee in 143, 144 as a learned text 164 narrative address in 161 62 P as narrative source of 160 61 perpetual slavery in 90, 155, 157 58, 183 Holiness tithe law agricultural produce in 179 desanctification of 177 78 D tithe law influence on 178 grammatical number 176 Israelite tithe v. Levitical tithe 184 legal assumptions in 166 67 Levites in 167, 17ln, In 73,176 location of consumption 176, 177 location of tithes consumption 176 as ten-percent tithe 171n tithe law (D) conflation with 217 homicide law 35 blood avenger 39, 54n, 55, 63, 69 compensation to victims' families 54n, 69,83

Subject and Authors Index

grammatical formulations in 36 intentionality 32 33,42 46,62,78, 100 101,166 judicial proceedings SOn, 77, 78 Laws ofHarnmurabi (LH) 19n,36n legal responsibility, measures of 70 pollution of the land 77, 78 Houtman, Cornelius 134n, 136n Hurwitz, Avi 58 impurity asylum city 100 101 blood 63,71 72,76 78, 100 101 expiatory role of high priests 91 92, 95 intentional killer 100 101 moral impurity 76n pollution of sanctuaries 75 77 Instruction ofAmenemope Proverbs 26n Israelites in asyhun law 70 contamination 72n in divine speech 66 68, 128 Egyptian bondage 149, 155n, 158 61 holy status of 195n, 196 97 Levites' relationship with 185 87, 195,2012,206,2078 purity ofland nn, 75 76 tithes and 166,171 73,182,184 87, 190 91,206 YHWH relationship with 63,76 77, 138 39n, 143, 185 Israelite slaves abolition by H 154 55 earrite 123 24,143 Egyptian bondage 149, 155n, 158 61 as hired labor 143, 148 50, 163 Jubilee release of 143, 144 45, 157n, 162,216,220 master's responsibility towards 148 poverty of 148 treatment of 51n, 143, 158 Jagersma, Henk 171 72n Japhet, Sara 10, 114, 148 49 Jerusalem 17,56,76,77 Joab 34

267

Joosten, Jan 8, 67n, 76, 141 42, 163 Josh 20 Deuteronomic asylum law and 87, 99 100, 102 3, 104, 107 9 Holiness asylum laws and 107 interpolations 102, 103n LXXB recension of 104n Num 35 64,97n, lOOn, 109 10 Priestly language in 98n Josiah, King 17,58, 82n, 199 J source 1, 160n Jubilee 192n asy hun laws 88 89 in Lev 25 88,90, 110, 126, 216 manumission of slaves 143, 157n, 162, 216,220 judicial system capital cases 88 centralization of 50,70,78, 106 city elders 48, 48n, 5On, 51n, 70 development of 105 6 geographic distinctions in 105 6 in H asylum law 69 70 homocide law SOn, 77, 78 manslayer in 77 78,96 97, 100 preliminary hearing for asylum seekers 64,78, 84, 100 Kaufman, Stephen A. 9 Kaufmann, Yehezkel on centralization of cult in PIH 60n on Deuteronomy-Holiness Legislation dependence 10 on independence of pentateuchallegal corpora 5 6 tithe in PIH as votive offering 190 on Wellhausen's scholarship 115,200 Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi 93n Klawans, Jonathan 75 76n Klostermann, August 2n, 14 Knohl, Israel accessibility of documents 224n chronological relationship ofP and H 192 94 Dathan and Abiram rebellion 191n Deuteronomic slavery laws compared to H slavery laws 114

268

Subject and Authors Index

on the Holiness corpus 10, 11, 14 15, 17, 18n, 62 63,66 on Levites absence from P 193 94 source attributions of tithe texts 192, 193 kohanirn. see priests Kohn, Risa Levitt 202 Korah rebellion 185 86,191 nn,197, 200,204 Kuenen, Abraham 200 land blood pollution in 63, nn, 76n, 77, 78 expansion of 79 83 fertility of 138 39n inheritance of 188 89 Sabbath and 120, 122 seventh year laws 116, 137 Temple in Jerusalem 77 legal formulations 105,106 7,146,148, 161,166 67 legal practice in ancient Israel 19,138 39 Levine, Baruch 34n, 59 60, 90 Levinson, Bernard M. authority ofDeuteronornic author 219 on canonization of Covenant Collection text 212n casuistic formulations lOSTI, 145 CC sources ofH permanent slavery legislation 154 Deuteronomy as source of Holiness Collection 9 on Deuteronomy-Covenant Collection relationship 6,211 evidence in hornocide case SOn geographical distinction as sign of rev ision in Deuteronomy 81n on inner-biblical exegesis 27,53n on judicial role of local elders 106 on lemmatic citations 223n on Lev 25:46a~ 159n on literary history of laws 53 54n on slave laws in D 114, 149 Levites absence from P 193 94 agricultural tithes 171 n, 175, 178n ancestral heritage lacking 187 88, 189,206

in book of Ezekiel 199 200 centralization of cult 199 in cultic fimctions 206 Ezekelian perspective of 199 201 geographic location of 206 7 Israelites' relationship with 185 87, 195,2012,206,2078 Israelite tithe and 184,185 87,190 91,206 as judges 201n kohanim distinguished from 202 4 Korab rebellion 185 86,191 nn lay status of 185 86 plural construction in address 179 80 post-biblical texts on 198 99 priests relations with 182,184,185 87,19192,199,200204,207 sanctuary service of 187 88,194,206 socioeconomical status 175 Tent of Meeting service of 173 74 tithes given to priests by 182,184, 185 87 as underclass 181,182,201,206 Zadokites 199,200,201,202 lexical borrowings 107 lexical substitution 45n literary dependence 18, 23 24, 25 26, 36n, 152 asylum laws 33 34,70 71 of Covenant Collection upon laws of Hamrnurabi 17 of Deuteronomy on Covenant Collection in asylum laws 43,45 47 empirical models of 212 13 Fishbane on 28 ofH slave and manumission laws on CC andD 154n markers of 26, 128 Near Eastern texts 21 22 Proverbs 22 26n relationships between H and D texts 153 54 literary parallelism 22 23, 24 26,46, 145, 146 Lohfink, Norbert 6 LX]( 134 37, 154n, 176n, 181n LX](B 97 98,99,100,101, l03n, l04n, ll1n, 112

Subject and Authors Index

MacDonald, Dennis R. 23 24 Malul, Meir 22n, 52n, 163 n manslayer access to property 82, 90, 103, 107,

269

pronominal suffixes used by 136n on singular fonnation of Lev i (Nwn 18:23) 181n Muffs, Yohanan 86 87

ll O compensation for victims' families 54n, 69, 83 death of high priest 76n, 77, 90 92, 95 97, 102, 103, 1I0 fate of 73 74 intentionali ty 32 33, 42 46,62,78, 100 101, 166 judicial system and 77 78, 96 97, 100 length of stay in asylum city 54n, 69, 78, 8283 , 86, 88, 109 mamunission. see slavery an d manumission laws Melver, Robert K. 24 Mekhilta on slave laws 2 16n,2 17 Milgrom, Jacob 7n animal firstborn offerings 171n on da ting the Holiness corpus 18n on Deuteronomy-Holiness Legislation dependence 10, 1I4 on harvesting v. eating 126 27n on historica l reconstruction of asylum law 60 on identifi cation ofH texts 15 on Korah re belli on 19l 92 on Lev 25 122n, 126 27, 159n on Levitical service 195, 202n on manumission of slaves 124n on sanchtary cities LO I on tithe texts 174n, 19On, 192 Moab 70 71 Molech 8tl Moran, William L. 7n Moses 2 3,66 68, 92 93, Ill, 143,2 12, 223 MT 89, 99, llin Deut 14:23 176n Exod 23:10 II 129 30 Josh 20:4 6 71 Josh 20:6 102 Josh 20:4 5 deletions from v.3 (MT) 100 LXXB 101 NLUn 18:3 1 176n

Nadab and Abihu, deaths of 92, 93 Najman, Hindy 2 ll 12, 21 3, 219n, 221, 222

Near East literature asyJlun in 40 literary depe ndences in 21 22 scholastic nature of 164 tithes in 169, 172n. see also Hammurabi, Laws of Nelson, Richard D. 97 98n, I lln, 17ln New Testament studies 23 , 24, 12On, 224 Nihan, Christopher 9, I S, ll4, 219 20n Noth , Martin 97 98n, l3 0n Numeruswechsel 26, 128, 155n, 180 Olyan, Saul M. 15n, 194, 195, 207 Onkelos 126n oracular inquiry 78 oral v. \vritten sources 24 Otto, Eckart on agriculhUa llaws in Lev 25 127n on asyhun law 43 44, s On, 55, 56 on dating of Deuteronomy 17 on Deuteronomic slave laws 113 Deuteronomy as source of Holiness Collection 9 on Deuteronomy-Covenant Collection re lationship 6 on H texts, identifi cation of 15 on literary dependence of Deuteronomy on Exodus 43 44 post-exilic Deuteronomic redaction fD trH) 79 80n pre-Deuteronomic ev idence for local elders 106 perpehlal slavery Deuteronomyon 155 56, 159 ear rite of 123 24, 143 foreign slave (H) ISS, 157 58,183 in Holiness Legislation 88 90, 155, 157 58, 183 Israelite slaves 143, 153 , 154

270

Subject and Authors Index

post-canonization interpretation of 216 17 Peshitta on singular formation of Levi (Num 18:23) 181n planting activity 122, 13Sn Poirier, John C. 24 pollution. see impurity poor/underclasses charity tithes in Hamrnurabi, Laws of (LH) Inn in Covenant Collection 172n debt slavery 151n, 157 Deuteronomy third-year tithe 171 73, 17677,178,182,217 in Holiness seventh-year law 123 24, 128,130,133,134 35, 138n Levites as 181,182,201,206 Sabbath rest 139 40n in tithe law 167 post-exilic Deuteronornic redaction (DtrH) 79 80n prestige of source texts 6, 53, 131, 154, 165,205,219 Priestly asyhnn laws configuration of refuge cities in 59£2 Covenant Collection and 60 D asylum laws and 58 59,61 62 dating of 58,62 H asylum laws 58,62 63,66 high priest in 95 intentionality evaluated by 64 length of stay ofrnanslayer 82, 88 Num 35:9 34 62 Priestly Legislation cult centralization in 66, 206 dating of 90 91 defining characteristics of 1, 2n, 3, 197n, 224 Holiness Collection 2, 12 16 holiness/profane binary of 197n Korah rebellion in 191 92 lay holiness 196 Levites absent from 193 94 as narrative source of slavery laws (H) 160 61 Nurnbers verses attributed to 61,64, 192 93

on priestly service 63,202 as source ofNurn 35:9 34 61 tithe payments 173. see also Holiness Legislation priests Aaron 92 94,179,181,193 ancestral heritage lacking 187 88, 189 apportioning of sacrifices to 177n, 189 90 centralization of priesthood 206 7 Deuteronomic designation for 201n geographic location of 206 7 Levites relations with 182,184, 18587,19192,199,200204,207 service to YHWH 201 3 tithe distribution to 167 tithes of 167, 178n, 182, 184, 185 87 vestments of high priests 91,921 Wellhausen's analysis of priesthood 200 Zadokites as 199, 200, 202 Propp, William H. C. 130n protasis (D) 146n, 147, 148 Pseudo-Jonathan 126n, 130n purity. see impurity

Qumran 20n rabbinic Judaism on divine revelation 215n on seventh-year laws 134n on tithe law 216,217 rainfall 138n rebellion stories 185 86, 191 92n, 196, 197 rebellious son 8fl,50 51 redaction canonization and 215n divine revelation 214,215 emphatic construction 134, 134n intellectual engagement with literary sources 164,17071, 170n lexical correspondences 36,40 41,72, 74,175 76,183f5 Numeruswechsel 26, 128, 155n, 180 parallelism 22 23,24 26,46, 145, 146 prepositional formulations 66

Subject and Authors Index

redundancy 66 67, 133 34 replacement theory in biblical re vision 2ll 12, 218 20, 221 textual interpretation 215 verse structure 146 48. see also grammatical formulations literary dependence refuge cities. see city asylum Regev, Eya l 196n reishit (first-process crop) 171n release of manslayer deatll of high priests 76n, 77, 82, 90 92, 102, 103, llO replacement theory in biblical revision 2ll 12, 218 20,221 resident aliens 67, 70, 72n, 76 Reuss, Edouard In I rhetoric of concea lment 53 54n Ritschl, Albrecht 10 Rofe, Alexander on asylum law 54n, 55, 56, 58 59, 6162, 84n, 9On, 99n development of the judiciary system 106 Josh 20 9, 97 98 LXX· 97 98 on NlUn 35 65, 66, 81, lOOn on the preliminary hearing 100 on resolution of blood feud 83 textual dating by 590 Romer, Thomas C. 51n Sabbath in Holiness Legislation 119 20, 123 25, 123 26, 128 as personification of the land 120 the poor 139 400 temporality 120 Sabbath day command ll 8 20 Sabbath year. see seventh-year legislation beadings sacrifices 76n,91 94, 177,189 90 Samaritan Pentateuch 176n sanctuaries asyltun and 35,37,55, 60,101 centralization of cult 199 200 high priests associated with 60n Levitic labor in 180n

271

multiplicity of 39, 59 60, 68,79 80 pollution of 75 77 Sarna, NahlUll 27 Schmidt, Ludwig 64, 970, 98n, lOOn, lOin Schwartz, Baruch J. 2n, 13, 13n, 129, 194n, 196n Schwienhorst-Schonberger, Ludger 36, 133n second person formulations 36, 37n, 48 apodictic laws 46, 4 7n, 146, 147 gender in 136n, 160 imperfect verbal forms 119 masculine plural imperfect verb (D) 160 plural fonns 66 67, 126, 128, 152, 156, 158 second-to-third person shift 47 48 singular styles 126, 127, 1360,152, 156 secularization ofasyllUll 40, 53, 55 56, 71 Seiders law (inverted quotations) 46, 179 Seidl, T. 75 Septuagint. see LXX seventh-year laws. see fallowing-land practice and legislation Jubilee seventh-year headings slavery and manumission headings shabbat shabbaton (H) ll8 19,120,122, 126n Sinai narrative 130, 38, 48 sixth-year crop 133 , 133n, 138n sla very debt slavery 151n, 157 Egyptian bondage 143, 149, 155n, 158 6 1 escaped slaves 107 foreign slaves 1250, 154 55, 154n, 157 59, 183 hired laborers 143 , 148 50, 163 master's role in 91 , 148, 157,158 59. see also Israelite slaves specific slavery and manumission law headings Speiser, Ephraim 85 86, 124n synoptic gospel stucties 24

272

Subject and Authors Index

Tachnor, Hayirn 132n talion law 54n, 76n, 77, 95,159 Targumirn on singular formation of Levi (Num 18:23) 181n Temple in Ierusalern 17,76,77 Temple Scroll compositional techniques in 108n ten-percent tithes 169 70, 171n third person formulations apodictic laws 47n in casuistic law 47,107 8,145,146, 147,148 Deuteronornic adaptions ofCe 153n feminine singular pronOlllls (Exod 23:11a) 136 feminine singular verbal suffixes 129 on LXXB I11n plural formulations 66,111 pronornial suffixes 130, 189 third-year tithes 171 nn, 17677,178 3 + 3 asylum cities 33,5912,68,79 80, 81 Tiglath-Pileser III 132n, 133, 140 tithe laws animal tithes 171, 174, 182, 185n, 190 chronology of In, Inn conflation of 217 distribution in 167,169 70 extra-Biblical examples of 169 70 historicity of 178n, 190 lexical correspondences in 175 76, 183f5 locations for 172n rabbinic understanding of 216,217 as ten-percent 169 70, 171n. see also seventh-year beadings Tov, Emanuel 122n Transjordan, asylum cities in 68,70,77, 78,8081

unintentional homicide adjudication of 78, 82, 102 asylum city as confinement/place of exile 90n cities of refuge 103 length of stay in asylum city 54n, 69, 83,88

redactional layers in Josh 20 102 3 survival of 84 85 van Routen, Christiana 160n Van Selm, Adrianus 163n Van Seters, John 6, 11,38,60, 141 Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon 17 Vatke, Wilhelm 1n1 Vulgate on singular formation of Levi (Num 18:23) 181n Weinfeld, Moshe 10 on asylum law 40, 53n, 54n, 60, 83 on death of high priest 91 on obligation of tithe 190n on tithes in the ancient Near East 169 Wellhausen, Julius 11 on asylum 33 on biblical portrayals of Levites 199 200 his reconstruction of Israelite religious law 115 Yehezkel Kaufmann on 5 6, 115,200 on Lev 17 26 (Holiness Code) 2n4 on the pentateuchallegal corpora 5 6, 19 on the priesthood 90 91, 199 200 on religious development in ancient Israel 5 on scope ofRoliness Collection 12 on seventh-year produce distribution 134n Westbrook:, Raymond 54n Wevers, John WIlliam 136n Willis, Timothy M. 54n Wright, David P. apodictic laws in Exod 22:20 23:19 139n on charity connection between Deuteronomic and Near Eastern law 172n on compositional logic of revising authors 28 on de sanctification oftithes 178n formulations of asylum law 44 on homicide law in Covenant Collection 36

Subject and Authors Index

on Laws ofHammurabi 17, 36n, 132n, 139n, 164 on pollution of the sanctuary 77n third person casuistic formulation extracted from Deut 21 25 47n Wright, G. Ernest 109n,200 Yahwistic pentateuchal source 1, 160n YHWH

Israelites and 63,76 77,138 39n, 143, 185

273

Levites service to 202 3 Moses as intermediary for 2 3,111, 143,223 priests service to 189,201 3,206 7 tithes and 174,185,222 Zadokites 199,200, 201n, 202 Zahn, Molly 25, 108n, 213 Zakovitch, Yair 59n Zevit, Ziony 190