The Holiness Composition in the Book of Exodus (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161551901, 3161551907

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Herausgegeben von Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (Princeton) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

98

Paavo N. Tucker

The Holiness Composition in the Book of Exodus

Mohr Siebeck

Paavo N. Tucker Long, born 1983; educated at Freed-Hardeman University, Harding School of Theology, and Asbury Seminary; currently adjunct professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at Lipscomb University.

ISBN 978-3-16-155190-1 ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2017 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Acknowledgments This book is a revision of my doctoral dissertation which was completed at Asbury Theological Seminary in 2016. I am indebted to my doctoral supervisor Dr. Bill T. Arnold for being a friend, mentor, and teacher throughout the process of writing this book. I am grateful to Dr. John A. Cook as the reader of the dissertation, as well as Dr. Thomas B. Dozeman as the examiner, for their input and suggestions to improve the manuscript. I am also thankful for Dr. Angela Roskop Erisman, who suggested numerous improvements to the manuscript. I am grateful to all of the scholars who have devoted their lives to study and write on the books of Moses before me and whose works I cite in this book. I have learned much from all of your work. Thank you to Dr. Konrad Schmid for his feedback for improving the manuscript, as well as to him and the other editors of Forschungen zum Alten Testament, Drs. Hermann Spieckermann and Mark S. Smith, for accepting the book for publication. I am also grateful to Dr. Henning Ziebritzki, Klaus Hermannstädter, and their associates at Mohr Siebeck for their help in the publishing process. Sections of this manuscript are developed based on ideas I presented at the Society of Biblical Literature conference in Seoul, Korea in 2016, and San Antonio, TX in 2016. Parts of chapter four are developed from ideas in my earlier article “The Priestly Grundschrift: Source or Redaction? The Case of Exodus 12:12–13,” Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 129.2 (2017): 205–219. I am grateful to the entire community at Asbury Seminary for providing a supportive environment for research and writing. I am especially thankful for the friendship and encouragement of my cohort friends, Dr. Shawn Craigmiles, Wes Crouser, Ryan Giffin, Jordan Guy, Scott Henson, Thomas Lyons, and Adrian Reynolds. Thank you to Professors Fred Long, Lawson Stone, Michael Matlock, and John Oswalt for teaching me. Thanks to fellow Asbury scholars Joseph Hwang, Jim Wilson, Kei Hiramatsu, Unsung Kwak, Kevin Burr, T. Wright, Ben Snyder, and Garrett Best, and everyone else I shared meals and coffee with during my time at ATS. I am grateful to everyone at Harding School of Theology, especially Dr. Allen Black and the library staff, my friends at Freed-Hardeman University for supporting me on my academic journey, and everyone at Lipscomb University for your current support as I have finished this project. Thank you to the communities of faith that have nurtured me, especially Crieve Hall Church of Christ and Natchez

VI

Acknowledgements

Trace Church of Christ. Thanks to the Frizzell family, the Brock family, especially Linda for your editorial support, the Bennie family, my Finnish relatives, and the Tani family for your love and support. Thank you to Miika, Anne, and Eliel Tucker, as well as to Dr. Mark and Barbara Tucker for your encouragement and support. I am grateful to my father Dr. Tim Tucker, and my mother Maria Tucker (z’’l), for teaching me Hebrew and raising me to delight in the Torat Adonai and to walk in the way of Jesus of Nazareth. I am most thankful for my loving and patient wife, Dr. Laurie Tucker; truly you are a woman of valor. It is to her that I dedicate this book. Nashville, TN August 8, 2017

Paavo N. Tucker

Table of Contents Preface……………………………………………………………………. ......V

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Relationship between the Priestly Narratives and the Holiness Code…… ….. .... 1 Chapter 2: History of Research on the Relationship between the Priestly Narratives and the Holiness Code………. …10 A. The Holiness Code (H), the Priestly Narrative (PG), and Priestly Supplements (PS) in the History of Research on the Priestly Material… ....... 10 I. The Priestly Materials from de Wette to Wellhausen………… ..... ..10 II. The Search for the End of the PG Narrative…………………… .... ..14 B. The Relationship of the Holiness Code to the Priestly Narrative……. …..18 I. The Pre-Priestly Holiness Code…………………………………….18 II. The Holiness Code as a Post-Priestly Redaction or Supplement ... ..20 III. The Holiness Code as an Integral Part of the Priestly Literature…. .24 C. Conclusions and Proposal Based on the History of Research……….. .…28

Chapter 3: Objections against the Continuity of the Priestly Narrative and H………………………………………...35 A. Gen 1:1–2:4a as Holiness Preamble………………………………….…..35 B. Refutation of Proposed Inconsistencies between P G and H…………… …44 I. Different Views of Land Ownership…………………………. ... ….44 II. The Identity of Israel as the People or Slaves of YHWH………… .46

Contents

VIII

III. Conceptions of the Covenant…………………………………… ….47 IV. The Presence of So-Called “Deuteronomistic” Terminology…. …. 59 V. The Question of Profane vs. Sacred Slaughter……………….. ……60 VI. Passover Instructions in Exod 12 and Lev 23………………………62 VII. Theological Differences……………………………………….. .. …63 C. Conclusion: The H Composition……………………………………......... 64

Chapter 4: The H Composition in Exod 1–14: You Shall Know That I am YHWH………………………………..…67 A. Introduction to the Priestly Texts in Exod 1–14……………………. ........ 67 B. The Priestly Base Layer in Exod 1–14……………………………… …....69 I. II. III. IV.

Exod 1–2……………………………………………………… .... …69 Exod 6:2–7:7………………………………………………….......... 73 Exod 12……………………………………………………….. ........ 77 Exod 14……………………………………………………….. ...... 107

C. The Function of the Priestly Material as the H Composition in Exod 1–14……………………………………. . …110

Chapter 5: The H Composition in Exod 16–40: Keep My Sabbaths and Revere My Sanctuary……………….... …118 A. The Priestly Texts in Exod 16………………………………………… …118 I. Exod 16 in the Priestly Narrative…………………………….. . ….119 II. The Function of the Priestly Manna-Sabbath Narrative In Exod 16…………………………………………………….... …121 III. The Function of Exod 16 as Part of the H Composition……… ..... 126 B. The Priestly Narrative and the Sinai Texts (Exod 19–40)….……… .. …128 I. II. III. IV.

Exod 20:8–11…………………………………………………. ...... 128 Exod 24:15b–18a……………………………………………… ..... 130 Exod 25:1–2a, 8; 29:43–46……………………………………. ….139 Exod 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33–35………………………………… . …142

Contents

IX

C. The Sabbath Texts of Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3 as Part of the Priestly Narrative……………………………………………………………….. …. .145 I. On the Unity of Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3……………………… ... ..146 II. The Function of Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3 as Part of the Priestly Tabernacle Narrative……………………..…155 D. The Function of the Priestly Base Layer in the Tabernacle Narrative. ... 159 I. The Integration of Earlier Traditions and Link to the Priestly Narrative………………………………………………. . …159 II. The Relationship of the Priestly Tabernacle Account to the non-Priestly Exod 32–34…………………………………. …166 E. The Priestly Tabernacle Account as the H Composition……………... ...176 F. The H Composition in Lev 1–16……………………………………… …180

Chapter 6: Conclusion……………………………………………….....185 Bibliography………………………………………………………………... 191 Index of References……………………………………………………… …209 Index of Modern Authors……………………………………………… .. …223 Index of Subjects………………………………………………………… …227

Chapter 1

Introduction to the Relationship between the Priestly Narratives and the Holiness Code Since the classic identification of the Priestly writings in the Pentateuch by Theodor Nöldeke,1 debate has ensued over the extent and purpose of these Priestly writings. According to the view popularized in the nineteenth century by August Klostermann, Abraham Kuenen, and Julius Wellhausen, the Holiness Code (H = Lev 17–26) was the earliest Priestly literature, followed by the Priestly narrative PG (Grundschrift), to which various laws were added as supplements labeled PS.2 This view was reversed in the twentieth century by Karl Elliger, Israel Knohl, and Jacob Milgrom, who have argued that the Holiness Code post-dates the Priestly narrative.3 Still other scholars, following David Hoffmann and Bernardus Eerdmans, have rejected the distinctions between H, PG, and PS and argued for a unified understanding of the Priestly literature, as proposed recently by Erhard Blum and Andreas Ruwe.4 These different understandings of the Priestly literature revolve around a few unresolved questions. There is no agreement as to what constitutes the 1 Theodor Nöldeke, Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments (Kiel: Schwers, 1869), 143–44. 2 August Klostermann, “Ezechiel und das Heiligkeitsgesetz,” ZLTK 38 (1877): 401–45; Abraham Kuenen, Historisch-Kritisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de Boeken des Ouden Verbonds (3 vols.; Leiden: 1861–65); English translation: An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (vol. 1, 2nd ed., trans. P. Wicksteed; London: MacMillan, 1886); Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (4th ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963); Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (2nd ed.; Berlin: G. Reimer, 1883). 3 Karl Elliger, Leviticus (HAT 4; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966), 14–20; Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995); Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 13–15, 61–63; Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1349–55. 4 David Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus (vol 2.; Berlin: M. Poppelauer, 1906), 1–8; Bernardus Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche Studien IV: Das Buch Leviticus (Gießen: Töpelmann, 1912), 84–86; Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990); Andreas Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz’ und ‘Priesterschrift’ (FAT 26; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999).

2

Chapter 1: Introduction

purpose and ending of the Priestly narrative (PG), especially whether its goal is the establishment of the cult at Sinai or the occupation of the promised land envisioned in the patriarchal promises.5 How much legislative material belongs to the original PG is also a matter of debate, and one’s answer depends on how one views the purpose of the narrative. With regard to the Holiness Code, the question of the internal development of the laws of Lev 17–26 and how these laws relate to Priestly narratives and texts outside of Lev 17–26 that evince the same style and theology as Lev 17–26 (e.g., Exod 6:2–8; 29:43–46) remains a matter of debate. Was Lev 17–26 an originally independent law code inserted into the Priestly Sinai narrative as Wellhausen argued?6 Or is it a supplement mediating the laws of the Book of the Covenant, Deuteronomy, and other Priestly laws?7 Are the texts outside of Lev 17–26 that evince the stylistic and theological characteristics of Lev 17– 26, such as Exod 6:2–8 and 29:43–46, to be considered H texts,8 or are they P texts that H has imitated in Lev 17–26? What are valid criteria for determining what is H material outside of Lev 17–26? This study will consider these problems through an analysis of the Priestly texts in Exodus and how they relate to the Holiness Code in Lev 17–26. It has long been noted that key Priestly texts in Exodus – such as Exod 6:2–8, which recounts the revelation of the name YHWH to Israel and the covenant promises, and its continuation in the establishment of the tabernacle and the presence of God promised in 29:43–46 – evince stylistic and theological parallels to the Holiness Code in Lev 17–26. These texts contain many of the characteristic features of H: divine address in first person, the refrain “I am YHWH,” the covenant promises of YHWH and the identification of Israel as the people of YHWH, the exodus formula, the presence of YHWH dwelling among the Israelites, and the continuation of the promises and blessings

Suggestions for the end of PG range from Exod 29:45–46; 40; to Lev 8–9, 16; to Deut 34 and Joshua. For an overview of recent proposals, see Christian Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern: Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift (HBS 23; Freiburg: Herder, 2000), 1–209, and Erich Zenger, “Das priester(schrift)liche Werk (P),” in Einleitung in das Alte Testament (ed. Erich Zenger et al.; 8th ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008): 163–66. 6 So recently Klaus Grünwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26: Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie (BZAW 271; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999). 7 Recently Eckart Otto, “Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26,” in Levitikus als Buch (ed. H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling, BBB 119; Berlin: Philo, 1999), 125–96; Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments (ThW 3/2; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1994), 233–56; Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch (FAT 25; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). 8 So Knohl, Sanctuary, 104–5; Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1337–44. 5

Chapter 1: Introduction

3

initiated in the Priestly creation account.9 This characteristic H material in Lev 17–26 situates the H legislation into the setting of the Priestly narrative at Sinai between the exodus and entrance into the promised land, where it functions as the parenetic conclusion to the Sinai Torah.10 The thesis of this study is that the foundational Priestly texts in Exod 6:2–8 and 29:43–46, as well as the remaining Priestly narratives in Exodus that are thought to belong to this same narrative sequence and typically assigned to PG, are part of the same compositional stratum as the characteristic H material in Lev 17–26; thus, the main Priestly narrative texts in Exodus should be assigned to H. The same can be said of the Priestly narratives in Gen 1:1–2:4a; 6–9; 17; and following. Rather than being a beginning for a P narrative, these texts from Genesis are better understood as establishing the conditions for the concerns of the H legislation.11 Following the model of Blum and Ruwe, I contend that the Priestly materials in Gen 1–Lev 26 form a coherent composition that 9 The quintessential theology of the Holiness Code is expressed in the climactic exhortation of Lev 26, and similar texts that share these “H” characteristics within Lev 17– 26, particularly the parenetic frames to the laws (Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 277–79; Wellhausen, Composition, 150–51). Lev 17–26 is structured by the characteristic H material as a framework of parenetic statements in Lev 18:1–5, 24–30; 19:1–4; 20:7ff, 22–27; 22:9, 31–33; 25:18ff, 38, 42, 55; 26:1ff. (Otto, Theologische Ethik, 237–41; “Innerbiblische Exegese,” 172–76). 10 Otto, Theologische Ethik, 237–41; “Innerbiblische Exegese,” 172–76; Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 397–401; Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 57–68. 11 Several texts in Genesis have been assigned to H by various scholars, such as Gen 1:1–2:4a according to Jacob Milgrom, “HR in Leviticus and Elsewhere in the Torah,” in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (VTSup 93; ed. Rolf Rendtorff and Robert Kugler; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 33–39; Yairah Amit, “‫הבריאה ולוח הקדושׁה‬,” in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg (ed. Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey Tigay; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 13*–29* (in Hebrew); Alan Cooper and Bernard Goldstein, “The Development of the Priestly Calendars (I): The Daily Sacrifice and the Sabbath,” HUCA 74 (2003): 5, 14; Edwin Firmage, “Genesis 1 and the Priestly Agenda,” JSOT 82 (1999): 110; and Bill T. Arnold, “Genesis 1 as Holiness Preamble,” in Let Us Go Up to Zion: Essays in Honour of H. G. M. Williamson on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. Iain Provan and Mark J. Boda; VTSup 153; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 331–43. The Priestly covenant in Gen 9 is proposed to be a composition of a Holiness redactor by Bill T. Arnold, “The Holiness Redaction of the Flood Narrative (Genesis 6:9-9:29),” in Windows to the Ancient World of the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of Samuel Greengus (ed. Bill T. Arnold, Nancy Erickson, and John Walton; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 13–41. Angela Roskop Erisman, “Mythologizing Exile: Life, Law, and Justice after the Flood,” in Windows to the Ancient World of the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of Samuel Greengus (ed. Bill T. Arnold, Nancy Erickson, and John Walton; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 108– 109, considers the scribal profile of the covenant text of Gen 9 to be “very much in the spirit of Knohl’s Holiness School.” Gen 17 has been suggested to be an H composition by Bill T. Arnold, Genesis (NCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 167–74.

4

Chapter 1: Introduction

develops the themes of creation, Sabbath, sanctuary, and covenant to their climactic expression in Lev 17–26. Nöldeke was correct in seeing the Priestly narratives as being composed “for the explication of the emergence of various legal conditions,”12 but the laws that are set in the context of the Priestly narrative are best understood in light of the H laws of Lev 17–26. The foundational themes of the Priestly narrative find their culmination in the legal promulgation and ethical parenesis of H, calling for Israel to respond to Torah as the realization of the goal of creation, the divine promises, and the covenant of YHWH with Israel in their reverence for creational order, the Sabbath, and the sanctuary. Therefore, rather than being a “P-Komposition,” as Blum argues, it is more fitting to see the Priestly narrative as part of an H composition which has utilized various priestly traditions in forming the composition but whose main themes of creation, Sabbath, covenant, and sanctuary reverence are features of H. The H composition from creation to Sinai centers around the theme of the presence of God, which culminates in YHWH dwelling among the Israelites, and the implications of the presence of God for Israel’s identity and ethics in the call to be holy. What has in previous scholarship been considered the Priestly narrative (PG) is thus better understood as an H narrative that forms the backbone of the H composition. This composition includes various portions of H narrative and legislation and has integrated non-Priestly traditions (traditionally J or E), as well as other Priestly traditions which do not evince the characteristic features of H, especially within the tabernacle materials in Exod 25–40 and cultic laws in Lev 1–16. This main H composition has been supplemented by legal traditions which show signs of being a later stage of legal development within the H School. This study will continue in Chapter 2 with a history of research on the Priestly materials of the Pentateuch, with a focus on how the relationship between the Priestly narratives and the Holiness Code has been understood. After mapping out the various positions in scholarship, I will locate my own proposal of an H composition as it relates to the perspectives that have been developed so far. In order for the thesis of an H composition to be viable, the consistency of the Priestly narratives of Genesis–Exodus with the characteristic H material in Lev 17–26 needs to be demonstrated. Chapter 3 is a critique of the arguments for supposed irreconcilable differences between PG and H, as proposed by Wellhausen and earlier scholars and recently by Alfred

12 “Zur Erläuterung des Entstehens jenes gesetzlichen Zustandes” (Nöldeke, Untersuchungen, 108).

Chapter 1: Introduction

5

Cholewinski, Eckart Otto, Erich Zenger, and Jean-Louis Ska among others.13 The proposed contradictions between PG and H, such as different views of the promise of the land, the relationship between YHWH and Israel, covenant theology, and the supposed influence of Deuteronomistic language in H but not in PG will be shown to be insufficient for differentiating between P G and H. The dissolving of proposed inconsistencies between PG and H will open up the possibility for making a positive case for the PG narratives being better understood as H narratives. Chapter 3 will also consider what constitute satisfactory criteria for assigning a text outside of Lev 17–26 to H. The use of language and phrases traditionally assigned to H alone is insufficient; there should also be a demonstrable affinity with the theology and ethics of H, with a function to serve as a foundation for the H legislation in Lev 17–26. These criteria are illustrated in Gen 1:1–2:4a. The creation account in Gen 1:1–2:4a is a Holiness preamble that is not only linguistically linked to H but also establishes the foundational conditions for H laws, especially introducing conditions for the Sabbath and festivals of Lev 23. The Priestly flood account in Gen 6–9 and the covenant with Abraham in Gen 17 establish the dynamics of the H concept of the covenant which reaches its culminating expression in Lev 26. The analysis of key Priestly texts in Genesis which shows their affinity with and function in relation to H will establish the plausibility of considering the Priestly narrative from Exodus also as part of an H composition. Chapters 4 and 5 will apply the method used to study Priestly texts in Genesis to the Priestly texts in Exodus. Key Priestly texts in Exodus, such as Exod 6:2–8 and 29:43–46, have already been identified as having linguistic and theological affinities with Lev 17–26 and have thus been assigned to H by Knohl and Milgrom. However, the assignment of these texts to H has not been largely accepted, especially among scholars who hold to a conception of PG that requires Exod 6:2–8 and 29:43–46 as its pillars in the book of Exodus.14 Suspending the traditional notion of a PG narrative, however, allows one to consider the Priestly narratives in Exodus as part of an H composition, and this study will show that the latter is a more fruitful understanding of the theology and function of the Priestly narratives in 13

Alfred Cholewinski, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium (AnBib 66; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976), 334–38; Otto, Theologische Ethik, 237; Jean-Louis Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 152–53; Zenger, “Das priester(schrift)liche Werk (P),” 173. 14 As noted by Erhard Blum, “Issues and Problems in the Contemporary Debate Regarding the Priestly Writings,” in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (ed. Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009), 34.

6

Chapter 1: Introduction

Exodus than the traditional view. The Priestly texts in Exodus develop the H themes of creation, covenant, Sabbath, and sanctuary, which can be understood as part of an H composition from Gen 1–Lev 26. Because I am arguing for the adoption of the label of an H composition that is previously unused in scholarship, I will need to be clear in chs 4 and 5 on how I use terminology, and especially on how I understand the H composition to relate to previous delineations of the Priestly literature. In these chapters (ch 4: Exod 1–14; ch 5: Exod 16–40) I will proceed with a textual analysis that initially defines what previous scholars have considered to be the Priestly narrative (PG). In this analysis, I will continue to initially use the term P G to describe the Priestly narratives in these sections, because I will be interacting with the work of other scholars who use this terminology in analyzing the Priestly texts. Once I have made a case for what should be considered the PG narrative, the second part of each chapter will label this PG narrative an H composition, in order to argue that what scholars have originally identified as the PG narrative is better understood as an H composition. Chapter 6 will summarize and conclude the study, pointing to further implications of this thesis for Pentateuchal research. Provisionally, the conception of the H composition advocated for Gen–Exod–Lev can be portrayed as follows. The H composition texts are understood to be supplements to the non-Priestly narratives on which they depend. They have central structuring functions that have accentuated the particular emphases of the Holiness Code, while integrating Priestly and non-Priestly traditions from the surrounding narratives.15 Within the book of Genesis, Gen 1:1–2:4a is a Holiness Preamble that describes the creation of the world with a view to establish the Sabbath and festival legislation of the Holiness Code, as well as portray humanity as created in the image of God, which is foundational for the commands for Israel to imitate YHWH in H. Gen 1:26–28 also initiates the mandate to “be fruitful and multiply”; this theme of creational blessing carries through the covenant promises of Gen 9, 17, 28, and 35, leading to Israel becoming a nation in Exod 1:7, before finally the promise of fruitfulness and multiplication is extended to the addressees of the H composition in Lev 26:9–13. The H composition flood narrative culminates 15

The non-Priestly traditions here refer to what is traditionally called J or E materials, which form a continuous narrative running parallel to the Priestly account. The Priestly traditions have either been taken up and utilized by the H composition, particularly the tabernacle materials in Exod 25–29 and cultic laws in Lev 1–16. Also, later supplements have been added to the Holiness Composition, such as with the genealogies of Moses and Aaron in Exod 6:13–30, and the tabernacle supplements in Exod 30–31 and 35–40. These additions come from a later stage of activity that Lev 17–26 and the H composition, and are identified with what scholars traditionally describe as PS that form later legal supplements to the traditional PG .

Chapter 1: Introduction

7

in Gen 9 with the establishment of the first covenant and the sign of the rainbow, accompanied by restrictions on violence against animals and humanity (9:4–6). This first covenant initiates a process of God seeking to restore his relationship with the world in a sequence of covenants that begin with the entire creation and humanity in general at the time of Noah, and is subsequently narrowed down to the descendants of Abraham in Gen 17, and finally Israel in Exod 6:2–8; 29:43–46; 31:12–17. Each of the covenants includes a promise, a sign, and obligations on behalf of the human recipients, which increase concomitantly to the increasing proximity of the human counterparts to God. Within the primeval history, the H composition has utilized a priestly genealogy in Gen 5 and 10, as well as integrated the prePriestly primeval history traditions as a foundation on which to build its own composition. The covenant with Abraham in Gen 17 and its extension to Jacob in 28:1–9; 35:11–15 sets the non-Priestly ancestor traditions of Gen 12–50 into the perspective of the H composition and its notion of covenant and blessing rooted in creation. Within the book of Exodus, Exod 1:7 sets the scene for the following narratives. Israel has attained the blessings of creation in being fruitful and multiplying, despite Egyptian oppression. The Egyptian oppression is thus characterized as directed against God’s creational intentions. Exod 1:13–14 further specifies the Egyptian oppression as harsh and illegal, using the terms from slave laws in Lev 25:43, 46, 53. The salvation that is promised to Israel in Exod 2:23aβ–25 is based on God remembering his covenant with the patriarchs. The revelation of the name of YHWH to Israel in Exod 6:2–8 and the promise of the land supplements the earlier Moses- and covenant traditions of Exod 2–5 by introducing the covenant to Israel as the final circle of covenant recipients in the H composition covenant scheme linked to Gen 9 and 17. Thus Exod 6:2–8 is a central H text that connects the exodus with the patriarchal and creation narratives from Genesis. The text also introduces the motif of the recognition of YHWH which frames the non-Priestly plagues and sea miracle account of Exod 7–14. The themes of creational blessings (Gen 1:28; Exod 1:7), YHWH remembering his covenant (Gen 17; Exod 2:23aβ–25; 6:2–8), and Israel coming to know YHWH (Exod 6:2–8; 29:45– 46) point forward to the parenesis of the Holiness Code, specifically Lev 26:9–13, 40–45, where the promise of the creational blessings continuing is extended to Israel and the hope of restoration is rooted in God remembering his covenant. The social laws of the Holiness Code are grounded in the identity of Israel as the people liberated by YHWH (Exod 1:13–14; 6:2–8; Lev 25), and the presence of God dwelling among Israel as promised in Exod 29:45–46 is foundational for the requirement for Israel to be holy. Exod 12:1–14 supplements earlier Passover traditions in Exod 12 in order to establish the foundations for observance of the Passover in the H festival calendar of Lev 23:5. Later additions were made in Exod 12:15–17 as the counterpart

8

Chapter 1: Introduction

of the Holiness Scribes to the Deuteronomistic Feast of Unleavened Bread; these additions are close to Lev 23:6–8, but go beyond the H festival calendar in details. Exod 12:18–20 was added to align the Unleavened Bread festival with the dating scheme of Ezek 45:21, before finally 12:43–49 were added to account for the inclusion of foreigners in the Passover as a response to including the mixed multitudes who depart Egypt with the Israelites in Exod 12:38. The salvation of Israel at the sea in Exod 14 supplements the prePriestly account by forming the salvation into a cosmic event linked with the H creation and primeval traditions, and also forms the narrative as a culmination of the Egyptians coming to know YHWH (Exod 14:4, 18). This recognition motif is paralleled in Lev 26:45, where the promise of Israel’s salvation is accompanied by a recollection of Israel’s salvation “in the sight of the nations,” as in Exod 14. On the way to Sinai, the H composition narrative of Exod 16 supplements the earlier wilderness traditions by introducing the Sabbath to Israel, thus preparing Israel to observe the Sabbath before the command of the Sabbath is revealed in Exod 20:8–11, as Israel discovers the Sabbath in the wilderness as part of the H design of introducing the Sabbath as initiated at creation and culminating in Lev 23–25. Exod 16 functions as an important transitional hinge between the exodus and the Sinai narratives by connecting the H motif of the recognition of YHWH with the motif of the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬dwelling among Israel leading to the Sinai narratives. Exod 19–40 contain the account of the giving of the laws at Sinai and establishment of the sanctuary, with H texts in Exod 25:1–2a, 8; 29:43–46; 31:12–17; 35:1–3; 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33–35 structuring the entire account around the H themes of creation, covenant, Sabbath, and sanctuary. In the Sinai narratives of the H composition, Exod 24:15b–18a integrates the presence of God from the pre-Priestly mountain of God as the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬into the H concept of revelation at Sinai and the establishment of the tabernacle that culminates with the colophon in Lev 26:46. Exod 25:1–2, 8 introduce the command to Moses to build a ‫ מקדשׁ‬for YHWH to dwell (‫ )שׁכן‬among the people of Israel, and with 29:43–46, these verses bracket various pre-Priestly Vorlagen with ‫משׁכן‬, ‫תבנית‬, and ‫ אהל מועד‬traditions for the tabernacle, particularly the Mosaic “ark-dwelling” conception of Exod 25:22, and the consecration rituals for Aaron and the priesthood in Exod 28–29. Exod 29:43–46 integrates the pre-Priestly ‫ יעד‬and ‫ שׁכן‬tabernacle traditions and Priestly inauguration traditions from Exod 25:9–29:42 into the Priestly conception of ‫קדשׁ‬/‫ מקדשׁ‬holiness. Thus Exod 25:8 and 29:43–46 are H texts that link various Priestly traditions of the sanctuary (‫אהל מועד‬, ‫משׁכן‬, ‫ )כפרת‬under the rubric of the ‫ מקדשׁ‬and interpret the sanctuary as the place where YHWH dwells among all Israel as the foundation of the demand for holiness in the laws of Lev 17–26. It also connects the tabernacle and indwelling of YHWH as the goal of the exodus to the covenant blessings in Gen 17 and Exod 6:2–8 as the fulfillment of YHWH becoming the God of Israel through his indwell-

Chapter 1: Introduction

9

ing among the Israelites, and culminates the recognition statements of Exod 6:7 and 16:12. Exod 30:1–31:11 are later supplements describing the golden incense altar and the participation of Bezalel and Oholiab in the building process, which are motifs from the later development of Exod 35–40 that have been inserted into the instruction section of Exod 25–31. Exod 31:12–17 builds on the developing revelation of the Sabbath to Israel from Gen 1:1– 2:4a; Exod 16; 20:8–11, as it forms the Sabbath into a sign (‫ )אות‬of Israel’s sanctification and relationship with God for the Sinai covenant, in the sequence of the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants and their respective signs of the rainbow and circumcision in Gen 9 and 17. Exod 31:12–17 is linked with Exod 35:1–3, which begins the execution report for the building of the tabernacle, to bracket the non-Priestly golden calf and covenant renewal narratives of Exod 32–34 with the concept of the Sabbath. These Sabbath brackets juxtapose the H tabernacle account with the non-Priestly narratives of Exod 32– 34 and invite a comparison of several themes shared between these texts, most notably the presence of YHWH, the meaning and viability of the covenant, and the status of Aaron and the priesthood. The brackets of 31:12–17 and 35:1–3 also form Exod 25–40 into a chiastic structure around Exod 32– 34, with the commands for building the tabernacle in Exod 25–31 interrupted by the golden calf narrative, before the execution report for building the tabernacle in 35–40. Exod 31:12–17 and 35:1–3 bracket the non-Priestly account of the golden calf and renewal of the covenant in Exod 32–34, structuring the entire Sinai account according to the H concerns for the importance of Sabbath observance and reverence of the sanctuary to maintain the covenant relationship with YHWH (Lev 19:30; 26:2). The original culmination of the execution report is in Exod 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33–35, where the completion of the tabernacle is formed in analogy to the completion of creation in Gen 1:31–2:3, and the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬indwells the sanctuary, fulfilling the theme developing from Exod 24:15b–18a and 29:45–46. Later post-Priestly supplements were then added in Exod 35–40. The H texts thus occur at key junctures in Exodus and serve as links connecting various traditions; Exod 6:2–8, for example, connects the patriarchal and exodus narratives, Exod 16 connects the exodus and Sinai traditions, Exod 25:8 and 29:43–46 synthesize tabernacle traditions, and Exod 31:12–17 and 35:1–3 structure the tabernacle texts around the nonPriestly account of the golden calf in Exod 32–34. The H composition texts of Exodus depict the foundational event of the revelation of YHWH to Israel and the liberation that enables Israel to become the people of God. This places the ethical demands of Lev 17–26 on Israel, as the laws of H are motivated repeatedly by the refrains “I am YHWH” and recollection of the liberation from Egypt; thus the H composition in Exodus lays the theological foundations for obedience to the legislation of the Holiness Code in Lev 17– 26.

Chapter 2

History of Research on the Relationship between the Priestly Narratives and the Holiness Code A. The Holiness Code (H), the Priestly Narrative (PG), and Priestly Supplements (PS) in the History of Research on the Priestly Material I. The Priestly Materials from de Wette to Wellhausen What later became known as the Priestly literature of the Pentateuch was originally described as Elohistic literature due to the use of ‫ אלהים‬in Gen 1:1–2:4a.1 The earliest studies of the Elohist literature by Wilhelm M.L. de Wette and Heinrich Ewald argued for a close relationship between the narratives of the Elohist and the priestly laws in Exodus and Leviticus.2 According to Ewald, the goal of the work is to describe the origin of the nation of Israel among other nations with a particular concern for the emergence of its priestly institutions and laws.3 The laws at Sinai were the 1

For an overview of seventeenth-century scholarship that resulted in the first theories of source distinctions in the Pentateuch based on the divine names ‫ אלהים‬and ‫ יהוה‬in Gen 1–3, see Jean-Louis Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 102–4. 2 The question of the relationship between the narratives and the laws in the Elohist literature was first investigated by W.M.L. de Wette in his Kritik der Israelitschen Geschichte Erster Teil: Kritik der Mosaischen Geschichte (Halle: Schimmelpfennig, 1807). According to de Wette, the Elohist wrote the national epic of the Hebrew theocracy to recount the origins and constitution of the people, with the history of the world laying the foundations for the theocracy whose laws emerge from creation. So, for example, the Sabbath is deduced from the creation narrative in Gen 1:1–2:4, the prohibition of blood consumption and the laws for moderating vengeance (Gen 9:4-6) emerge as a response to the flood, and circumcision accompanies the covenant of Gen 17 (Kritik, 32, 43, 47, 51). Heinrich Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (Vol 1; 3rd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1864); The History of Israel (trans. R. Martineau, 2nd ed.; London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1869), 74–92, continued along these lines in his identification of a source called the “Buch der Ursprünge”, which corresponds roughly with what later became known as P in the Pentateuch 3 Ibid., 78.

H, PG, and PS in the History of Research

11

high point of the narrative, and the gradual introduction of the laws from creation to the Mosaic era was the “fine strong thread” which held the “Book of Origins” together, giving it its “deepest and loftiest interest.”4 Karl H. Graf, however, argued for a separation of narrative and law in the Elohist literature in his Die geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testament in 1866.5 Following criticism by Abraham Kuenen and Theodor Nöldeke against separating the early Elohist narrative from the Priestly laws, Graf modified his position and connected his Elohist Urschrift (the material later identified as P) narrative with the priestly laws of Exodus and Leviticus and situated it after Deuteronomy, understanding it as a revision of an older Jehovistic source. Thus Graf laid the foundations for the understanding of the Priestly writings that would be developed further and popularized by Kuenen and Julius Wellhausen. Nöldeke’s model of a Priestly Grundschrift formed the parameters of what classically became known as the P source from Gen 1 to Deut 34.6 According to Nöldeke, the purpose of the Grundschrift narrative is to establish the foundations for the cult at Sinai and other rituals such as the Sabbath and festivals in Gen 1:1–2:4a7 by using narratives to inculcate the laws by providing illustrations of them.8 Kuenen also objected to Graf’s separation of the Priestly narratives and laws and defended Nöldeke’s view of the unity of

4 Ibid., 86. Once the sanctuary and sacrifices are established at Sinai, the narrative “attains its full dignity, and undertakes regularly to teach what rules must guide the conduct of men in this community … what is holy or unholy, clean or unclean, to the God indwelling in it,” in Lev 11–27 (88–89). 5 Karl H. Graf, Die geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments: Zwei historischkritische Untersuchungen (Leipzig: T.O. Weigel, 1866), 1–4, 93. In his view, the Priestly laws in narrative contexts such as the establishment of circumcision in Gen 17 were the basis for the later composition of the law collections in Leviticus. Nevertheless, the priestly laws in Exodus–Leviticus were disconnected from the narratives in Genesis– Exodus and contained diverse materials, with Lev 1–16 being a collection of sacrificial, priestly, and purity laws, and Lev 18–26 constituting a collection of laws with a peculiar form and expressions with beginning (Lev 18:2–5) and concluding exhortations (Lev 26), which had been brought together from various older law collections by Ezekiel (75–76, 81–83). 6 Theodor Nöldeke, Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments (Kiel: Schwers, 1869), 143–44. 7 Ibid., 9. 8 Ibid., 62. E.g., Exod 16 and 35:1–3 illustrate the Sabbath and Exod 12 the Passover, and the two are brought together in Lev 23 into a “coherent overview of all the feasts.” Elsewhere he states, “Das Buch will gar nicht ein Geschichtswerk sein, sondern das Geschichtliche ist nur das Beiwerk, das Gesetzliche das Wesentliche. So ist die ganze Vorgeschichte kurz gefasst, zur Erläuterung des Entstehens jenes gesetzlichen Zustandes” (108).

12

Chapter 2: History of Research

the Priestly literature.9 According to Kuenen, P2 – that is, the Priestly narrative – was a “historico-legislative work” that had a “lively interest in religious ceremonies and usages” within narratives such as Gen 2:1–3; 9:4; 17; Exod 12 and 16.10 In his view, Lev 17–26 belongs to P in its general form but differs in language, style, and substance.11 In 1877, August Klostermann refuted Graf’s view of Ezekiel as the author of Lev 18–26, which he called the “Holiness Code” (Heiligkeitsgesetz).12 In his view, the compiler of the Pentateuch took pieces of this law and inserted them into appropriate locations in the narratives of Genesis–Numbers.13 Kuenen adopted Klostermann’s view of Lev 17–26 as a “code” which was based on an older stratum of priestly legislation and was fused with later priestly ordinances when introduced into its present position.14 Kuenen also suggested that fragments of Lev 17–26 are found outside of this law code, where the characteristic expression “I am YHWH” or the demand for holiness are found, in texts such as Exod 6:6–8; 12:12; 29:38–46; 31:12–14; and Lev 11:41–47.15

9

Abraham Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (vol. 1, 2nd ed., trans. P. Wicksteed; London: MacMillan, 1886), 170–73, 272–73, 288–98. The second edition contains extensive supplements and responses to scholarship between 1865 and 1885. Kuenen defended Nöldeke’s view of the unity of the Priestly narrative and legislation but introduced the sigla P1, P2, and P3 to describe the literature, with P1 being Lev 17–26 as the oldest priestly material, P2 corresponding to Wellhausen’s Q narrative, and P3 being various later supplements (64, 87). 10 Ibid., 72, 81, 87, 298–302. The instructions for the building of the tabernacle in Exod 25–29 originally had a brief report of the execution of the commands, which was expanded secondarily in Exod 35–40 and Lev 1–8 before the continuation of the original narrative in Lev 9–10, and again in Lev 16, with the laws in Lev 11–15 inserted between (73–82). 11 Ibid., 87. The criteria for distinguishing between P1 and P2 within Lev 17–26 are based on original P1 material being related in form and substance to Lev 26:3–45 (277 n. 5). The parenetic exhortations of Lev 18:1–5, 24–30; 19:37; 20:22–27; 22:31–33; and 25:18–22 are thus considered to be from this P1 material related to 26:3–45 (279 n. 6). 12 August Klostermann, “Ezechiel und das Heiligkeitsgesetz,” ZLTK 38 (1877): 401–45; expanded in 1893 in “Ezechiel und das Heiligkeitsgesetz,” in Der Pentateuch: Beiträge zu seinem Verständnis und seiner Entstehungsgeschichte (Leipzig: Böhne, 1893), 368–418. The following references are from the 1893 version. 13 Klostermann, “Ezechiel,” 375–77. So, e.g., Exod 6:6–8; 12:12; 29:38–46; 31:13ff; Lev 11:43–45; Num 3:12–13; 10:8-10; and 15:38–41 are pieces broken off from the Holiness Code. 14 In his second edition, Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 87–90, 275–76 incorporates the term Heiligkeitsgesetz coined by Klostermann. 15 Ibid., 278 n. 5.

H, PG, and PS in the History of Research

13

Wellhausen developed Graf’s hypothesis further while popularizing Nöldeke’s understanding of the parameters of the Priestly narrative.16 According to Wellhausen, the Priestly material consisted of a Grundschrift narrative which he calls Q.17 This narrative was expanded with legal supplements into the Priestercodex.18 The third element of Wellhausen’s Priestly material is an older Holiness Code in Lev 17–26.19 According to Wellhausen, Q depicts everything in history as preparation for the laws of Moses, with history divided into periods of four covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham, and finally Moses.20 Thus the world is created in Gen 1 for the purpose of the Priestly Torah. The post-flood covenant and laws (Gen 9:1– 17), circumcision (Gen 17), and the Sabbath legislation in the wilderness (Exod 16) overwhelm the storyline, which reaches its true goal with the extensive Priestly legislation at Sinai.21 Wellhausen’s view quickly became normative, such that Heinrich Holzinger could affirm in his 1893 Einleitung in den Hexateuch that there is “complete agreement” about three layers within P: the priestly narrative (PG), the older Holiness Code (PH), and legislative supplements (PS).22 16

Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (4th ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963), 61 n. 1. 17 This symbol is based on his Wellhausen’s view of Q as containing four (quatour) covenants (Wellhausen, Composition, 1–2). The original kernel of the Q narrative is sparse in Genesis compared to JE, but Q begins to dominate in Exodus and following, originally containing legislative material at Sinai from Exod 25–29; Lev 9, 10, and 16 before continuing again in the narrative in Numbers (Ibid.,144–48). 18 Ibid., 184. 19 Wellhausen, Composition, 149–50 follows Graf in considering Lev 17–26 an older law collection taken up into the Priestly Codex, which differs from Q in its similarities with Deuteronomy and Ezekiel. It consists of earlier sources that have been edited into an independent collection with a religious-parenetic tone (Ibid., 150–51, 169). Wellhausen was also responsible for decisively making the case for including Lev 17 in the collection, though this had already been suggested by Kuenen. 20 Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (2nd ed.; Berlin: G. Reimer, 1883), 332, 358–59. 21 Ibid., 328–29, 360–63, 374, 383–84. See Composition, 134–48 for his arguments for the growth of the Priestly legislation from its original kernel. 22 Heinrich Holzinger, Einleitung in die Hexateuch (Freiburg: J.C.B. Mohr, 1893), 334. According to Holzinger, PG is a combination of law and narrative whose purpose is to show the emergence of religious institutions in sacred antiquity (335). Despite its peculiarities, the Holiness Code belongs to the circle of P, as all of the P materials were produced in the same “priesterlichen Schule” (409–10). Holzinger is influenced here by the work of Paul Wurster, “Zur Charakteristik und Geschichte des Priesterkodex und Heiligkeitsgesetzes,” ZAW 4 (1884): 112–33. Rejecting attempts to excise the legislative material from the PG narrative, Wurster argues that the purpose of the Q narrative (PG ) as an Offenbarungsgeschichte is to show the historical emergence of religious practices such

14

Chapter 2: History of Research

II. The Search for the End of the PG Narrative Following the classic expression of the PH/PG/PS distinctions by Wellhausen, studies of the Priestly material focused on finding the original ending of the PG narrative and on the formation of the Holiness Code as a distinct question. Martin Noth and Karl Elliger made decisive contributions to the understanding of the PG narrative.23 Noth proposed that Deuteronomy was to be broken off from the Pentateuch as an introduction to the Deuteronomistic History.24 The Pentateuchal sources including PG did not continue into the book of Joshua, as PG had no interest in the conquest because the main focus of the narrative is on the Sinai cult.25 PG, however, was originally a purely narrative work, and the symbol PS should be reserved for texts that were supplemented to the independent PG narrative.26 Elliger took up the argument ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– as the Sabbath (Gen 2:2–3; Exod 16), circumcision (Gen 17), and the Passover (Exod 12) prior to Sinai and the establishment of the temple cult in order to support religious practices for exiles (127–28). 23 Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948); English translation: A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (trans. Bernard Anderson; Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1972); Karl Elliger, “Sinn und Ursprung der priesterlichen Geschichtserzählung,” ZTK 49 (1952): 121–143. 24 Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft: Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse 18, 1943), 43–266; English translation: The Deuteronomistic History (2nd ed.; JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981). 25 Martin Noth, Das Buch Josua (HAT 7; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1938), 8–11; A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, 8–19. PG nevertheless extends beyond Sinai to the death of Moses (Deut 34:1aα, 7–9) due to its faithful mirroring of earlier traditions. According to Noth, the Pentateuchal redactor used P G as the narrative framework to which older traditions were added but omitted from PG what originally followed the death of Moses. 26 Noth, History of Pentateuchal Traditions, 10–11. Noth rejected Gerhard von Rad’s solution to the problem of unevenness in PG and argued that the PG narrative has taken up traditions and sources which it integrated without smoothing over all of the irregularities. Von Rad, Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch literarisch und theologisch gewertet (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1934), 160–61 had postulated two parallel narrative strands of PA and PB within P and argued for the use of various sources by P. In doing so, von Rad opposed the views of Paul Volz, “P ist kein Erzähler,” in Der Elohist als Erzähler, ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? (ed. Paul Volz and W. Rudolph; BZAW 63; Gießen: Töpelmann, 1933), 135–42 and Max Löhr, Untersuchungen zum Hexateuchproblem I: Der Priesterkodex in der Genesis (BZAW 38; Gießen: Töpelmann, 1924), 1–2, 29–32, who questioned the independence of the P narrative and argued for the fragmentary and supplementary nature of the Priestly literature. According to von Rad, Priesterschrift, 162–64, 85, the main distinctions between PA and PB are in Numbers and Joshua, where there are divergent views of the priesthood, with PA supporting Levitical priesthood and PB elevating the Aaronides. This criterion for distinghuishing between them however is not applicable in

H, PG, and PS in the History of Research

15

for an ending of PG in Deut 34 and advanced the thesis that the high point of the narrative is the promise of the land to the patriarchs, while the cult is only of marginal interest.27 PG depicts the promise of the land as something to be realized in the future rather than narrating its attainment, as the PG sections of Numbers and Deut 34:1, 7-9 tell the story of the failure of the leadership and the people to reach the goal.28 Frank Moore Cross also argued for the end of PG with the death of Moses.29 He also understands the cult to be only a peripheral interest of PG, which focuses on a system of covenants with Noah (Gen 9:7), Abraham (Gen 17:6), and Moses (Lev 26:9), all of which are associated with the creation blessing of “be frutiful and multiply” (Gen 1:28).30 Following Noth and Elliger, it became firmly established that PG does not continue into Joshua, and Elliger’s understanding of the narrative as intentionally open-ended was largely accepted.31 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Genesis–Exodus, where the distinction is based on style: the style of PA follows the simplicity of JE and is less theologically burdened and thus forms a livelier narrative, whereas PB tends to be more complex and detail oriented. The cult, though important, is not the primary theme of P but only one of its many concerns. 27 Elliger, “Sinn,” 135–41. 28 Ibid., 140–41. 29 Frank M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 320. 30 According to Cross, Canaanite Myth, 296–97, 305–6, this blessing formula is linked to the promise of the land and to Israel multiplying in the land, as seen from the peroration of the covenant in Lev 26:9. Each covenant is accompanied by a sign: the rainbow, circumcision, and the Sabbath. The covenant formularies at Sinai begin with Exod 6:2–8 and extend to the closing exhortation of blessings and curses in Lev 26:3–45; Cross understands Lev 26 as H material reworked by P. P presupposes the non-P covenant of Exod 24, of which the Sabbath in Exod 31:13–17 functions as the sign, and Exod 29:45–46 expresses the central benefit of the covenant of YHWH dwelling in the midst of Israel, which is reaffirmed in Lev 26:11–13. P evinces gaps and omissions that indicate it is a redactional layer that never existed as an independent narrative apart from the JE traditions. 31 See Christian Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern: Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift (HBS 23; Freiburg: Herder, 2000), 29–42. A number of scholars have taken exception to this view and argued that PG continues into Joshua. Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Structure of P,” CBQ 38 (1976), 276, 290; idem., The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 237–39 argues against Noth that P does have an interest in the land of Canaan. He takes the concluding formulae in Gen 2:1; Exod 39:32; and Josh 19:51 (each with the root ‫ )כלה‬as forming a tripartite division of the Priestly narrative into the categories of creation, sanctuary, and establishment of sanctuary and division of the land. Blenkinsopp does not consider Lev 17–26 to be a distinct document that existed apart from Leviticus and the P corpus of which it is now a part (Pentateuch, 224). Norbert Lohfink, “The Priestly Narrative and History,” in Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 145 n. 29–30

16

Chapter 2: History of Research

The next significant turning point in PG research was Lothar Perlitt’s 1988 article “Priesterschrift im Deuteronomium?”32 Perlitt argued that the Priestly portions of Deut 34:1a, 7–9 depend on what he considered post-PG texts in Numbers and evince a post-PG mixture of Priestly and Deuteronomistic language, thus they cannot be the conclusion to the original PG. In Perlitt’s view, the PG narrative is concerned not with the land of Canaan but only with the Sinai cult.33 The tendency to cut back the ending of PG continued in the next decade. A few scholars such as Christian Frevel, Ludwig Schmidt, Peter Weimar, Christian Macholz, Joel S. Baden, and Jason M. Gaines still contend for the traditional ending of PG in Deut 34,34 whereas Perlitt, Jean-Louis Ska, Bernd –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

likewise suggested that PG continues into Joshua, with Num 32:22, 29 and Josh 18:1 and 19:51 providing a fulfillment of the promise from Gen 1:28 of the land being subdued (‫ )כבשׁ‬and the completion of the division of the land. Horst Seebaß, “Josua,” BN 28 (1985): 56–61, also contends for the continuation of PG in Joshua, arguing that there is a PG land division in Josh 18:1, 3, 4, 6b, 8a, 9*, 10a. Finally, Philippe Guillaume, Land and Calendar: The Priestly Document from Genesis 1 to Joshua 18 (LHBOTS 391; London: T & T Clark, 2009), 157–74 understands the themes of land and Sabbatical calendar to be the central concerns of PG , which thus includes most of texts such as Lev 23 and 25 where the themes of land and Sabbath are interwoven (174, 195). The cult is insignificant for PG , as Guillaume considers only Exod 25:1–2; 35:22–23*, 25; 36:8–13; 40:17, 34b; and Lev 16* as part of PG between Exod 25 and Lev 16 (194–95). David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 296–97 also considers that key PG texts such as Exod 6:8 point to the land as the central theme and suggests that “some sort of P source may well have included a land-possession narrative” as a counterpart to the non-P Hexateuch (296). 32 Lothar Perlitt, “Priesterschrift im Deuteronomium?” ZAW 100.3 (1988): 65–88. Perlitt’s view is further supported by Thomas Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift: Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von PG (WMANT 70; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995), 13–14, who argues that the texts that had been traditionally assigned to P in Deut 1:3; 32:48–52; and 34:7a, 8 are a later frame that identifies the day in which Moses dies, thus forming Deuteronomy into a testament of Moses with no connection to the Tetrateuchal Priestly literature. 33 Perlitt, “Priesterschrift,” 86–87. 34 Cf. Frevel, Mit Blick, 349–87; Peter Weimar, Studien zur Priesterschrift (FAT 56; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 16–17; Ludwig Schmidt, Studien zur Priesterschrift (BZAW 214; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), 257–71; Christian Macholz, Israel und das Land (Habilitationsschrift; Heidelberg, 1969), 77–88; Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 176; Jason M. Gaines, The Poetic Priestly Source (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015). Gaines, Poetic Priestly Source, 2, however, differs from the traditional understanding of PG , as he argues that the Priestly literature contains two distinct strata, one written in poetry (“Poetic-P”) and the other in prose (“Prosaic-P”). According to Gaines, Prosaic-P was added to a previously independent Poetic-P, and the two run side by side from Gen 1 to Deut 34:9, with the Poetic-P also possibly including Josh 21:43–45*

H, PG, and PS in the History of Research

17

Janowski, and Erhard Blum argue for an ending of PG in the book of Numbers,35 but scholars increasingly seek the conclusion to PG in the Sinai pericope between Exod 25 and Lev 16. According to Matthias Köckert, the establishment of the cult and the system of atonement are essential for restoring the presence of God in PG; consequently, Lev 16 should be considered the climactic end of PG.36 Köckert is followed by Christophe Nihan, who argues that the Priestly narrative from Gen 1–Lev 16 follows a traditional ancient Near Eastern literary pattern that combines a creation account with victory in battle and the building of a temple.37 The day of atonement ritual in Lev 16 functions as a culmination of the restoration of the presence of God and forms the climactic ending of P G.38 Erich Zenger considers the theophany in Lev 9:23–24 as the end of PG and the climax of the Priestly narrative aimed at establishing the cult. For Zenger, the cult expresses the fulfillment of the promise of God’s presence in the midst of the people (Gen 17:7–8; Exod 6:2–8; 29:45–46) and also is the fulfillment of the promise of the land to the patriarchs.39 Thomas Römer also advocates for an

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– (294, 456; cf. 310-446 for his delineation of Poetic-P and Prosaic-P). Gaines’ proposal is helpful in identifying significant portions of the literary style of the Priestly authors as poetic, but his stylistic criteria for distinguishing different strata based on poetry vs. prose leads to inconsistencies in view of the overall coherence of the Priestly narrative at crucial junctures. For example, Gaines assigns Gen 17:1b–2a, where God appears to Abraham as ‫אל שׁדי‬, to Poetic-P, but Exod 6:3–5, which explicates the revelation of the divine name from ‫ אל שׁדי‬to ‫יהוה‬, is assigned to Prosaic-P (329, 362–64). Also, the theme of the land promise to Abraham in Gen 17:8 is found in Poetic-P, but the notion of the land promise is missing from the Poetic-P account of Exod 6:2–8 due to the assignment of Exod 6:3–5, 8 to Prosaic-P (330, 362). 35 For Num 27:12–14, see Perlitt, “Priesterschrift,” 87–88 and Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 227. According to Ska, Introduction, 148–51, PG is found in Num 13-14*, 20:1–13; 20:22–29 and 27*. Bernd Janowski, “Tempel und Schöpfung: Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen Heiligtumskonzeption,” in Gottes Gegenwart in Israel: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993), 224–25 mentions as PG texts Num 10:11–12*; 20:1*, 22b; and possibly Deut 34:9, though supplied with a question mark. 36 Matthias Köckert, Leben in Gottes Gegenwart: Studien zum Verständnis des Gesetzes im Alten Testament (FAT 43; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 104–6. 37 Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch (FAT 25; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 61. 38 Ibid., 379–82. 39 Erich Zenger, “Das priester(schrift)liche Werk (P),” in Einleitung in das Alte Testament (ed. Erich Zenger et al.; 8th ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008): 164.

18

Chapter 2: History of Research

ending of PG in Leviticus, either in Lev 9 or Lev 16.40 Thomas Pola, Reinhard G. Kratz, and Albert de Pury see the ending of PG at the completion of the construction of the tabernacle in Exod 40, which forms an inclusio with the creation narrative in Gen 1:1–2:4a.41 The most limited extent of PG is proposed by Eckart Otto, for whom Exod 29:43–46 forms the conclusion to a PG that promises the presence of God amidst Israel at Sinai and the inauguration of the Aaronic priesthood and cult.42 This survey of proposed endings for PG shows that what scholars understand as the main theme of PG – the promise of the land or the cult – influences what they understand as the original ending of PG and what materials are considered original in the narrative. The following section will look at how the Holiness Code has been understood in relation to PG before drawing preliminary conclusions from the history of research on the Priestly materials.

B. The Relationship of the Holiness Code to the Priestly Narrative I. The Pre-Priestly Holiness Code In the earliest studies on the Priestly texts of the Pentateuch, it was common to see the Holiness Code as part of the main Priestly literature, such as Ewald, who considered Lev 11–27 part of his Book of Origins,43 and Nöldeke, who considered Lev 1:1–26:2 as belonging to his PG.44 Starting with Graf, however, Lev 18–26 was considered a besonderes Buch separate from the Priestly narrative.45 With the works of Klostermann, Kuenen, and Wellhausen, it became widely accepted that Lev 17–26 constitutes a prePriestly law code which was integrated into the Priestly narrative.46 A few 40

Thomas Römer, “The Exodus Narrative According to the Priestly Document,” in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (ed. Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009), 160. 41 Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 309, 325; Reinhard G. Kratz, The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament (London: T & T Clark, 2005), 229; Albert de Pury, “Pg as the Absolute Beginning,” in Les Dernières Rédactions du Pentateuque, de L’Hexateuque, et de L’Ennéateuque (ed. Thomas Römer and Konrad Schmid; BETL 203; Leuven: University Press, 2007), 111. 42 Eckart Otto, “Forschungen zur Priesterschrift,” TRu 62 (1997): 35. 43 Ewald, History, 88–89. 44 Nöldeke, Untersuchungen, 144. 45 Graf, Die geschichtlichen Bücher, 75–76, 81–82. 46 This view is summarized by Holzinger, Einleitung, 406–11 in 1893 as the commonly accepted view at his time. At this stage, Bruno Baentsch, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Lev. XVII–

The Relationship of the Holiness Code to the Priestly Narrative

19

scholars – including David Hoffmann, Bernardus Eerdmans, and Siegfried Küchler – contested this developing consensus, arguing that Lev 17–26 does not evince the internal ordering of an independent law code and, due to the presence of H texts outside of Lev 17–26, should not be considered distinct.47 Despite the objections of Hoffmann, Eerdmans, and Küchler, the majority of scholars followed the Kuenen-Wellhausen view of Lev 17–26 as an independent lawcode that originated after Deuteronomy and before PG. Following Albrecht Alt’s essays on form criticism and Israelite law and Gerhard von Rad’s essays on form criticism of the Holiness Code, several scholars shifted their attentions to form criticism of Lev 17-26.48 This phase ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– XVI: Eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung (Erfurt: Güther, 1893); Exodus–Leviticus (HKAT 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903) shifted attention to the redactional formation of earlier collections within Lev 17–26. For Baentsch, H was formed from a combination of earlier law collections: H1, which comprised Lev 18–20 and 23–25*; H2, which comprised Lev 21–22; and H3, which combined H1 and H2, and added Lev 17 and 26 from pre-existing materials (Heiligkeitsgesetz, 69–71). Lev 23:1–8, 23–38 and 24:1–14, 23 were added by P before a Pentateuchal redactor (RP) placed the whole collection into P and added various P retouches (Heiligkeitsgesetz, 69). For Alfred Bertholet, Leviticus Erklärt (KHC III; Tübingen & Leipzig: Mohr, 1901), ix, Lev 17–26 formed an independent section whose kernel H is older than PG ; Lev 17–26 was combined from twelve different collections of laws and the concluding parenesis 26:3–45, which was taken up and edited by a P redactor (x). Some scholars such as Louis Horst, Leviticus XVII–XXVI und Hezekiel: eine Beitrag zur Pentateuchkritik (Colmar: Barth, 1881), 86 still maintained that Ezekiel was involved as the redactor of Lev 17–26. 47 David Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus (vol 2.; Berlin: M. Poppelauer, 1906), 1–8 argued against the separation between PG and H, because traces of PG are found throughout Lev 18–27 and H texts are found outside of Lev 18–27, indicating that there is not a substantive distinction between PG and H. Bernardus Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche Studien IV: Das Buch Leviticus (Gießen: Töpelmann, 1912), 84–85 noted that Lev 17 is not a fitting beginning for an independent law code, that Lev 17–26 is comprised of groups of originally independent and partially parallel laws, and that the references to holiness, which are not peculiar to the laws in H, are not found in Lev 17, 18, 23–26, which makes the label of Holiness Code unfitting for these chapters. Siegfried Küchler, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Lev 17–26: Eine literarkritische Untersuchung (Königsberg: Kümmel, 1929), 11, 61 contended against the view of Lev 17–26 as an independent law code due to its diverse addressees (priests, Israelites), situations (the camp, Sinai, temple, land), and content, as well as the lack of an overarching internal organizing principle. 48 Albrech Alt, Die Ursprünge des israelitischen Rechts (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1934); ET: “The Origins of Israelite Law,” in Albrecht Alt, Essays on Old Testament History and Religion (trans. R.A. Wilson; Oxford: Blackwell, 1966), 79–132 and Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomium-Studien (FRLANT 58; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1947); ET: Studies in Deuteronomy (trans. D.M.G. Stalker; SBT 9; London: SCM Press, 1953), 25– 36. According to von Rad, the laws of Lev 17–26 had their origins as oral instruction given by Levites (Studies in Deuteronomy, 31). Karlheinz Rabast, Das apodiktische Recht im Deuteronomium und im Heiligkeitsgesetz (Berlin: Heimatdienstverlag, 1949) briefly

20

Chapter 2: History of Research

of research combined literary criticism with form criticism, postulating literary developments of the laws based on formal differences.49 For the most part, scholars maintained the original independence of a pre-P Holiness Code, but the focus of research shifted away from form criticism to literary criticism in the following decades.50 II. The Holiness Code as a Post-Priestly Redaction or Supplement A decisive turning point in research on the Holiness Code came with Elliger in the mid-twentieth century.51 He conceived of H as a series of post-P redactional expansions added to the PG narrative in order to supplement the cultic PG Sinai laws with ethical material.52 Elliger’s thesis was not initially accepted; a few years later Winfried Thiel still considered an independent pre-P Holiness Code as an “inalienable result of scholarship.”53 With the ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– investigated the apodictic laws of Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code. Walter Kornfeld, Studien zum Heiligkeitsgesetz (Vienna: Herder, 1952]) 7–12, 135–38 analyzed the prescriptions in Lev 18 and 20, though he also proposed an overall view of the development of the laws of Lev 17–26, which he considered an independent law book though it does not stand out strongly from its surroundings. 49 So for Leonard Elliott-Binns, “Some Problems of the Holiness Code,” ZAW 67 (1955): 28 the formal criteria of H as “terse and compact” and hortatory, in comparison with P as “stereotyped, measured, and prosaic” is a decisive distinction between them. 50 From a form-critical perspective, Henning G. Reventlow, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz: formgeschichtlich untersucht (WMANT 6; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961), 30, 162–63 proposed that the Holiness Code came from the liturgy of a pre-exilic covenant festival. Rudolf Kilian, Literarkritische und Formgeschichtliche Untersuchung des Heiligkeitsgesetz (BBB 19; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1963), 12, 27, 65 contended that various parts of H, such as Lev 17, 18, and 19, constitute ancient materials utilized to form the Holiness Code. These collections were combined by what Kilian calls an “Ru” redactor into an Ur-Holiness Code, followed by an “Rh” redaction adding parenetic admonitions, the festival calendar, and the conclusion in Lev 26*, before Priestly additions such as Lev 17 were made (166–73). Christian Feucht, Untersuchungen zum Heiligkeitsgesetz (TA 20; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1964), 64–73 also investigated H from a form-critical perspective, arguing that two originally independent law collections, H1 (Lev 18–23*) and H2 (Lev 25–26) were combined to form the Holiness Code. Lev 17, 23*, and 24 did not belong to the original Holiness Code (64). 51 First in an article “Heiligkeitsgesetz,” RGG 3:175–76 and then in his 1966 commentary Leviticus (HAT 4; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966), 14–20. 52 Elliger, Leviticus, 16. The basic form Ph1 was mainly a collector of older laws, comprising most of Lev 17–19 and 25-26. Ph2 redacted Ph1 and added its own laws in Lev 20 and 21:1–15, which Ph3 expanded with 21:16–24; 22:17–22, 25b and most of Lev 23, before Ph4 finally inserted 22:1–16, 26–30; 24:1–9, 10–22 and reworked the festival calendar of Lev 23 (17–19). 53 Winfried Thiel, “Erwägungen zum alter des Heiligkeitsgesetz,” ZAW 81 (1969): 41. According to Thiel, the Holiness Code is divided into ancient laws, the H style parenesis,

The Relationship of the Holiness Code to the Priestly Narrative

21

adoption of Elliger’s views by Alfred Cholewinski however, the understanding of H as a post-P supplement became mainstream in German scholarship. Cholewinski saw Lev 17–26 as consisting of small collections of laws that were added to P in six redactional stages.54 The completed Holiness Code came from a circle of reform priests in Jerusalem who corrected and modified the views of P and Deuteronomy.55 This view became the starting point for studies by Otto, Klaus Grünwaldt, and Christophe Nihan. Otto argued in a series of studies that the Holiness Code seeks to mediate the legal hermeneutics of the Priestly laws from Sinai with the laws of the Covenant Code (Exod 21:1–23:33) and Deuteronomic laws from Moab (Deut 12:1– 26:19) as part of the final stage of the formation of the Pentateuch.56 The tensions in the text result from the use of P, CC, and D materials that are mediated through inner-biblical exegesis and structured by a redactional framework in Lev 18:1–5, 24–30; 19:1–4; 20:7ff, 22–27; 22:9, 31–33; 25:18ff, 38, 42a, 55; 26:1ff..57 Similarly, Grünwaldt understands H to modify traditions from P, CC, D, the prophets, Psalms, and wisdom literature, though he contends for the independence of the Holiness Code. 58 H has utilized various traditions and framed them with parenesis in order to form a new law ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– and characteristic phrases that redacted together the earlier laws and which reflect a prePriestly Deuteronomic style of preaching (70), and the P redaction which located H in the Priestly narrative at Sinai (44–45). 54 Alfred Cholewinski, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium (AnBib 66; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976), 131–41. 55 Ibid., 338. Especially the concepts of centralization, festivals, and redemption and release laws in Lev 17, 23, and 25 modify the Deuteronomic views in Deut 12, 15, and 16 (145–251). 56 “Innerbiblische Exegese,” 125–96; Theologische Ethik, 233–56; “Forschungen zur Priesterschrift,” 50; “The Holiness Code in Diachrony and Synchrony in the Legal Hermeneutics of the Pentateuch,” in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (ed. Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden; AThANT 95; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009), 135–56. Reinhard Achenbach, “Das Heiligkeitsgesetz und die sakralen Ordnungen des Numeribuches im Horizont der Pentateuchredaktion,” in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers (ed. Thomas Römer; BEThL 215; Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 155 is also in agreement with Otto in seeing H as representing the mediating hermeneutics of the Pentateuchal Redaction. 57 Eckart Otto, Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments (ThW 3/2; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1994), 237. 58 Klaus Grünwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26: Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie (BZAW 271; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 130, 375–79. Grünwaldt sees H as an independent unity originally not intended for insertion into the Pentateuch. Therefore he considers the narrative framework that integrates Lev 17–26 into the P Sinai narrative as secondary; for this view he is critiqued by Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 398– 99, who shows that the laws are permeated with the narrative setting at Sinai, and the narrative framework cannot be removed from the laws.

22

Chapter 2: History of Research

code for life in the postexilic community.59 H was then added into the Sinai pericope by a Priestly redactor who desired to emphasize ethics in addition to the cult. Nihan argues that H is a supplement to P legislation in Lev 1–16 that is involved in legal exegesis that mediates CC, D, and P laws and that aims to revise the theology of P.60 Lev 17–26 is a post-P redefinition of the meaning of Israel’s holiness, which abolishes P’s distinction between priests and community and complements the sacrificial cult of P with the concept of sanctification through observance of the totality of Torah.61 H editorial activity extended beyond the laws of Lev 17–26 and included supplements to P in Gen 17:14; Exod 12:14–20, 43–49; 31:12–17; 35:1–3; Lev 3:17; 7:22–27 (28–36?); 11:43–45; 16:29–34a.62 Jeffrey Stackert’s study of H likewise focuses on its reception of laws from P, CC, and D. He understands H as a work intended to replace the earlier laws, but which was originally added only to an independent P source.63 Baruch J. Schwartz also understands H as a supplement to P. He follows closely the arguments of Jacob Milgrom and Israel Knohl, according to whom the language and concepts of H are derived from and expand on preceding P material, to which Lev 17–26 and other H texts in narrative contexts were added.64 Schwartz proposes that Lev 17–26 should be called “Holiness Legislation” rather than the “Holiness Code,” because it never existed independently as a lawcode.65

59

Grünwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz, 385. Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 401, 546–47. 61 Ibid., 550–51. By its positioning between the laws of Exod 20–23 and Deuteronomy, H also functions as a hermeneutical program for reading the entire Torah (556). 62 Ibid., 564–70. 63 Jeffrey Stackert, Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation (FAT 52; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 221–25. Stackert’s study compares the laws of P, CC, D, and H on cities of refuge (Exod 21:12–14; Deut 19:1–13; Num 35:9–34; Josh 20:1–9), the seventh-year release and slavery laws (Exod 21:2–11; 23:10–11; Deut 15:1–18; Lev 25:1–55), and tithe laws (Exod 21:12; Deut 14:22–29; Num 18:30–32), concluding that H is not a work of inner-biblical mediating exegesis and thus of the Pentateuchal redactor, as it originally was only added to the P materials. Rather, H intends to replace earlier laws as a “super law.” Cf. also his “The Holiness Legislation and its Pentateuchal Sources: Revision, Supplement, and Replacement,” in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (ed. Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden; AThANT 95; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009), 187–204. 64 Schwartz, “Introduction: The Strata of the Priestly Writings and the Revised Relative Dating of P and H,” in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (ed. Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden; AThANT 95; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009), 5–7; “Leviticus,” in The Jewish Study Bible (ed. Adele Berlin and Mark Brettler; New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 247. 65 Schwartz, “Introduction,” 6. Despite Schwartz’ proposal, “Holiness Code” remains a useful concept for describing Lev 17–26 even as a supplement that never existed inde60

The Relationship of the Holiness Code to the Priestly Narrative

23

Following Elliger’s view of a post-P Holiness Code, Knohl and Milgrom argue for H as the product of a school of scribes whose activity to reform P extends beyond Lev 17–26 into Priestly narratives, and they have further refined the criteria for distinguishing differences between an earlier P and an H revisionist priestly school.66 Knohl and Milgrom have offered the most exhaustive treatments of the differences between P and H in matters of the cult, theology, and ethics, though they differ slightly in their assessments.67 Identifying H material outside of Lev 17–26 had already been proposed by scholars such Kuenen and Klostermann in the nineteenth century, especially regarding Exod 6:2–8; 29:43–46; and 31:12–17.68 The unique style and theology of Lev 17–26 could be distilled to yield a list of characteristic phrases that was then used as a standard to identify texts outside of Lev 17– 26 that shared these terms as coming from the same body of material.69 From the perspective of the earlier view of Lev 17–26 as an independent lawcode, the texts that evince the language and theology of H outside of Lev 17–26 had to be understood as texts that originally belonged with Lev 17–26 from which they were broken off.70 As Knohl and Milgrom argued however, the presence of H material outside of Lev 17–26 is better understood as the result of H as a school of scribes or scribal tradition that extended its activity over centuries and which was responsible for the final redaction of the Pentateuch through strategic insertions of H texts into the Pentateuch outside of Lev 17– 26 that functioned to combine non-P traditions, P, and Deuteronomy with the laws of H.71 Knohl and Milgrom assign texts outside of Lev 17–26 to H more ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– pendently of its context, due to the structural parallels it shares with the other law codes of Deuteronomy and the Book of the Covenant; cf. Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 401. 66 Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995); Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000). 67 For a discussion of their disagreements, see Knohl, Sanctuary, 225–30; Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1426–33. 68 Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 278 n. 5; Klostermann, “Ezechiel,” 377. 69 See the discussion in Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 561–63. The most common H phrases are the divine self-identification ‫ ;אני יהוה אלהיכם‬the legal terminology of ‫חקת‬ ‫ ;עולם לדרתיכם‬the use of first-person possessive suffixes in divine discourse with terms such as ‫שׁבתתי‬, ‫מצותי‬, and ‫ ;חקתי‬the combination of ‫ גר‬and ‫ ;אזרח‬the phrase ‫הגר הגר‬ ‫ ;בתוככם‬the combination of ‫ שׁכיר‬and ‫ ;תושׁב‬the phrase ‫ ;בכל משׁבתיכם‬and the statement ‫אני‬ ‫יהוה מקדשׁכם‬. 70 So for example Klostermann, “Ezechiel,” 377–78. 71 Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1439–43. For Milgrom, who disagrees with Knohl’s conception of H as a school, H consists of four stages of activity: 1. Pre-H1 is preHezekian; 2. H2 is a series of glosses on H1; 3. H is the main stratum from the eighth century and accounts for most of the H-material, and 4. HR (Lev 23:2–3, 42–43; 26:1–2, 33b–35, 43–44) is exilic and its main contribution is to emphasize the Sabbath and Feast of Booths to be kept in exile (Leviticus 17–22, 1345). See also Jacob Milgrom, “HR in Leviticus and Elsewhere in the Torah,” in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and

24

Chapter 2: History of Research

than previous scholars had and reflect most comprehensively on the methodology for detecting H materials outside of Lev 17–26 based on language and theology.72 They have been followed by Thomas King, who argues that most of the Priestly narratives in Exodus are assigned to H, whereas the Priestly narratives in Genesis constitute an earlier “Pn” source.73 Though the distinctions between P and H legislation by Knohl and Milgrom have largely been accepted, their arguments for the extensive presence of H materials outside of Lev 17–26 are often rejected due to the consequences these assignments would have for the understanding of PG.74 III. The Holiness Code as an Integral Part of Priestly Literature Following the work of Hoffmann, Eerdmans, and Küchler, several scholars have rejected the distinction between PG and H by arguing that H is an integral part of Priestly literature. Volker Wagner suggested that the lack of a ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Reception (VTSup 93; ed. Rolf Rendtorff and Robert Kugler; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 29–40, where Milgrom suggests the HR redaction may also be found in Gen 1:1–2:4; Exod 6:2–8; 16:22–30; 20:8–11; 29:38–46; 31:12–17; 35:1–3. Knohl’s views are found in Sanctuary, 100–3, 200–3 and “Who Edited the Pentateuch?” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz; FAT 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 359–67. 72 For complete lists of H texts outside of Lev 17–26 as proposed by Knohl and Milgrom, see Knohl, Sanctuary, 59–106 and the more limited extent of Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1332–44. 73 For Thomas King, The Realignment of the Priestly Literature: The Priestly Narrative in Genesis and its Relation to Priestly Legislation and the Holiness School (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009), 125–51, Exod 6:2–8 is a key H text that integrates earlier Priestly traditions with H. Gen 17:1, 8, 14; 36:8–14, 43; Exod 1:1–7, 13–14; 2:23–25; 6:2–8, 28– 30; 7:1–6, 17a, 19–20a, 21b–22; 8:1–3, 12–14, 18 (MT); 10:2; 11:9–10; 12:1–20, 49; 14:1–4, 15–18; 15:26; 16:4–34; 20:11; 25:1–9; 27:21; 29:42, 45–46; 31:1–17; 35:1–19 also evince signs of H in the Priestly narratives in Genesis-Exodus. 74 Particularly contested H texts include Exod 6:2–8 and 29:38–46, which are usually considered cornerstones of PG , as well as Gen 1:1–2:4a for Milgrom, “HR in Leviticus,” 33–39 and Gen 17:7–8 for Knohl, Sanctuary, 102. Taking Exod 6:2–8 and 29:38–46 as H has been widely rejected, as seeing them as such would leave the PG narrative “a torso without a head” as described by Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 34 n.72, and would be the “coup de grâce,” to a PG narrative as noted by Erhard Blum, “Issues and Problems in the Contemporary Debate Regarding the Priestly Writings,” in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (ed. Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009), 34. Likewise, taking Gen 2:2–3 and 17:7–8 as part of H leads to a drastic re-evaluation of PG , which Knohl and Milgrom do not carry through in their analysis. For objections to Gen 1:1–2:4a as H, see Jeffrey Stackert, “Compositional Strata in the Priestly Sabbath: Exodus 31:12–17 and 35:1–3,” JHS 11 (2011): 8 n. 26, and for Gen 17:7–8 as H, see David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 134 n. 37.

The Relationship of the Holiness Code to the Priestly Narrative

25

clear break in Lev 17 and lack of internal order within Lev 17–26 argues against its independence as a law code.75 Blum further developed Wagner’s perspective in his Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. In his view, the Priestly material is a “P composition” (KP) that blends originally independent Priestly sources and redactional material.76 KP uses a diverse range of compositional methods, and hence it is unwarranted to limit it to being exclusively either an independent source or a supplemental redaction. In places it is understood as a supplemental layer to the pre-Priestly narratives and laws, which it builds on and interacts with. Elsewhere it stands independently and is not harmonized with the pre-Priestly traditions with which it is juxtaposed to contrast and correct the pre-Priestly traditions.77 Blum is critical of the tendency to distinguish between PG and PS based on PG being understood as a purely narrative source, because he views KP as a response supplemented to the underlying KD (non-Priestly) tradition that contains both narrative and law, and therefore it can be presumed that KP likewise contains a combination of narrative and law.78 KP develops its main theme of the presence of God and supplements the pre-Priestly traditions according to its own coherent inner logic from Gen 1 to Lev 26. Lev 11–26 contains the climax of this theme with instructions for maintaining sacred space for YHWH to restore his nearness to humanity, culminating in the promises of Lev 26 which envision the return to the good order of creation in Gen 1:1–2:4a.79 Especially the covenant texts of KP – Gen 1:1–2:4a; 9; 17; Exod 6:2–8; 29:45–46; 31:12–14 – form a logical development of the theme of Gottesnähe which climaxes in Lev 26:9–13, 42–45.80 Blum thus rejects diachronic distinctions between H and P and calls for a renewed critical examination of the alleged distinctions between H and P.81

75

Volker Wagner, “Zur Existenz des sogennanten ‘Heiligkeitsgesetzes,’” ZAW 86 (1974): 307–16. Wagner contends that Exod 25–Lev 26 contains four units with distinct themes, with the natural divisions of Lev 11–22 forming a section on cultic impurities, and Lev 23–25 a section on sacred times (312–14). Exod 25–31 form a unit on the theme of building instructions, and Lev 1–7 on sacrifices. 76 Blum, Studien, 220–22. 77 Ibid., 222. 78 Ibid., 221–224. Though KP contains diachronic distinctions and later additions such as Exod 30–31, it comes from the same coherent school forming Priestly traditions. 79 Ibid., 318–32. 80 Ibid., 325–29. Blum argues for an integral connection between the covenant formula in Exod 6:2–8 and Lev 26:12, noting that Exod 6:2–8 is clearly associated with H but, at the same time, that removing Exod 6:2–8 from PG would destroy the coherence of PG (Blum, “Issues,” 34). A solution to this situation that will be posed below is that both texts belong to H. 81 Blum, “Issues,” 34.

26

Chapter 2: History of Research

Blum’s view of the unity of the Priestly literature has been accepted by several scholars. Rolf Rendtorff contends for the importance of the links between Lev 26:9–13, 42–45 and central Priestly texts in Gen 1, 17, 35; Exod 1:7; 25:8; 29:45 as foundational for understanding the Priestly narratives.82 Though Rendtorff is open to diachronic distinctions within the Priestly literature, the criteria for making these distinctions are questionable, and Rendtorff prefers a holistic approach to reading Lev 17–26 as an integral part of the Priestly literature.83 Rainer Albertz accepts Blum’s KP theory of a unified Priestly literature and likewise cautions against attempts to distinguish between different conflicting Priestly strata, affirming that, “[w]ithin this draft [KP] we can recognize traces of a lengthy growth and slightly different accents which in turn indicate a process of discussion within the group of tradents. But they are not marked enough to put the unity of the group in question.”84 Following Blum, Albertz sees Lev 26 as the thematic climax of several essential themes of Priestly theology. Albertz considers the Priestly literature including P and H as reflecting a unified perspective, but he nevertheless distinguishes diachronically between different phases of Priestly literary activity.85 Frank Crüsemann has also rejected the distinctions between P and H.86 In his view, “[a]ttempts to demonstrate a special position for Lev 17–26 within the great mass of priestly laws by means of contradictions with other portions must be regarded as failures … Lev 17–26 fits best in the compositional structure of the priestly legislation from Sinai, which unfolds

82 For Rolf Rendtorff, “Is it possible to read Leviticus as a separate book?” in Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas (JSOTSup 227; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 33–34, these texts evince “intertextual signs showing that there are theological and literary concepts embracing the Pentateuch as a whole” . 83 Rolf Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 145. 84 Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, Volume II: From the Exile to the Maccabees (trans. John Bowden; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 482. Following Wagner and Blum, Albertz rejects the notion of an originally independent Holiness Code (629 n. 100). 85 Albertz, Exodus 1–18 (ZB AT 2.1; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2012), 13 notes that Lev 26 culminates “eine theologische Argumentationslinie” of an integrally linked Priestly composition at which “gewisse erzählerische Abrundung der Geschehensabfolge erreicht”. Nevertheless, he delineates distinctions between Priestly redactional layers in his commentaries on Exodus; see Exodus 1–15, 21–26. According to Albertz, Exodus 19–40 (ZB AT 2.2; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2015), 379, PB1 (the earliest Priestly narrative from Gen 1ff.) ends in Lev 16. 86 Frank Crüsemann, The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law (trans. Allan W. Mahnke; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 277–79, following the work of Blum and Wagner (278 n. 10).

The Relationship of the Holiness Code to the Priestly Narrative

27

itself with an inner logical consistency.”87 The most extensive advancement of Blum’s thesis is by Andreas Ruwe, who likewise sees Lev 17–26 as an integral part of the Priestly Sinai composition.88 Ruwe shows that the laws of Lev 17:1–26:2 are characterized by the aspects of Trennung/Scheidung und Zuordnung established at creation in Gen 1:1–2:4a. Lev 17–22 contains laws dealing with spatial categories of separations, distinctions, and ordering of holiness around the sanctuary, and Lev 23–25 relates to the sacred ordering of time, with Lev 26:2 a subscript reflecting this twofold focus of the laws is expressed as observing the sacred time of the Sabbath and revering the sacred space of the sanctuary.89 Obedience to the laws of Lev 17–26 allows the partial restoration of the created order in Gen 1:1–2:4a. Thus Ruwe has established the coherence of the creation account in Gen 1:1–2:4a with the laws of Lev 17–26. Other scholars have also investigated the significance of Gen 1:1–2:4a for the Holiness Code. Yairah Amit has argued that Gen 1:1–2:4a is an H text that establishes the importance of the Sabbath in creation for the H laws.90 From a different perspective, Edwin Firmage proposes that the purpose of Gen 1:1–2:4a is “to establish the philosophical underpinnings … of all of the holiness regulations contained in the so-called H document.”91 Milgrom, Alan Cooper, and Bernard Goldstein have likewise suggested that the establishment of the Sabbath in Gen 1:1–2:4a belongs to H as the foundation of the future legislation on the Sabbath in Lev 17–26.92 Most extensively, Bill T. Arnold has further developed the observations of Amit, Milgrom, Firmage, and Cooper and Goldstein in his article “Genesis 1 as Holiness Preamble.”93 87

Ibid., 278. Crüsemann also strongly opposes literary criticism that removes legislation from the Priestly narrative based on the presupposition of P as solely a narrative (282). 88 Andreas Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz’ und ‘Priesterschrift’ (FAT 26; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 32–35. 89 Ibid., 365–66. As noted by Ruwe, Exod 25–40 is structured by the same themes of reverence of the sanctuary and keeping the Sabbath (123–27). 90 Yairah Amit, “‫הבריאה ולוח הקדושׁה‬,” in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg (ed. Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey Tigay; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 13*–29* (in Hebrew). 91 Edwin Firmage, “Genesis 1 and the Priestly Agenda,” JSOT 82 (1999): 110. 92 Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1344; Milgrom, “HR in Leviticus,” 33–39; Alan Cooper and Bernard Goldstein, “The Development of the Priestly Calendars (I): The Daily Sacrifice and the Sabbath,” HUCA 74 (2003): 5, 14; Guillaume, Land, ix, notes the important connection between Gen 1:1–2:4a and the Sabbath laws in Lev 23 and 25, based on which he assigns parts of Lev 23 and 25 to PG . 93 Bill T. Arnold, “Genesis 1 as Holiness Preamble,” in Let Us Go Up to Zion: Essays in Honour of H. G. M. Williamson on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. Iain Provan and Mark J. Boda; VTSup 153; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 331–43.

28

Chapter 2: History of Research

The integral connections between Gen 1:1–2:4a and Lev 17–26 argued for by Blum, Ruwe, Amit, Firmage, Cooper and Goldstein, Philippe Guillaume, and Arnold are of fundamental importance to the assessment of the character of the Priestly narrative in Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus. Their arguments point to the possibility that Gen 1:1–2:4a and the following Priestly narrative belongs to the H stratum; this view then makes obsolete the notion of a PG narrative that is distinct from H. From a different perspective, other scholars have denied the distinctions between P and H and the existence of an independent Holiness Code due to the lack of internal coherence and distinctiveness of Lev 17–26. Henry T. Sun argues that Lev 17–26 does not comprise an independent law code, as its various parts have no unifying principle. 94 The present form of the text developed in a long process of supplementing, beginning with a “protoHoliness Code” in Lev 18–20 to which materials were added successively before Lev 17 was finally added to the beginning to incorporate it into P.95 John Hartley, Erhard Gerstenberger, Gordon Wenham, Wilfried Warning, and Philip Jenson likewise argue based on the lack of clear independence of Lev 17–26 and its integration within Leviticus as a whole that it does not constitute an independent law code, but belongs as an integral part of the P literature.96 There is thus a significant contingency of scholars who deny the independence and distinctiveness of Lev 17–26 from the Priestly materials in Genesis–Leviticus, either seeing Lev 17–26 as an integral part of Priestly literature, or seeing the Priestly narrative in Gen 1:1–2:4a and following as H material.

C. Conclusions and Proposal Based on the History of Research As seen from this history of research, the question of the extent and parameters of PG is connected with the question of its purpose. Determining the scope of PG is thus a conceptual and theological issue and not simply a matter of assigning individual verses to PG, PS, or H based on vocabulary and

94

Henry T. Sun, “An Investigation into the Compositional Integrity of the So-Called Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–27),” PhD Diss., (Claremont Graduate University, 1990). 95 Ibid., 560–64. 96 John Hartley, Leviticus (WBC 4; Dallas: Word Books, 1992), 259; Erhard Gerstenberger, Leviticus: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 18; Gordon Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 6–8; Philip Jenson, Graded Holiness:A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (LHBOT 106; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992), 24–25; Wilfried Warning, Literary Artistry in Leviticus (BIS 35; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 177–80.

Conclusions and Proposal

29

style.97 The question of how much legal material is allowed in the Priestly narrative is likewise determined by the understanding of its purpose, and the question of the relationship of the Priestly narrative in Genesis–Leviticus to the Holiness Code in Lev 17–26 is influenced by what the purpose of the Priestly narrative is understood to be. In the following, I will contend for a slightly different understanding of PG for the Priestly narratives in Exodus. To anticipate my conclusions, I present the following points: First, in agreement with Blum, Crüsemann, and Ruwe, I will argue that Lev 17–26 is best understood as an integral part of the Priestly narrative from Gen 1 to Lev 26. This material forms a coherent composition consisting of diverse narrative and legal materials and supplemented to the earlier nonPriestly sources. Blum’s understanding of this Priestly material (KP) as utilizing diverse composition techniques and resulting in a composition that is neither a source nor a redaction exclusively is thus a fitting description. Second, as has often been noted by scholars since Kuenen and Klostermann, various texts evincing affinities with H form key structuring functions within the Priestly narrative in Exodus, especially Exod 6:2–8; 29:43–46; and 31:12–17.98 Most recently, these texts have been assigned to H by Knohl, Milgrom, and King. Adding this to the increasing tendency to assign Gen 1:1–2:4a to H, I will argue that assigning Exod 6:2–8; 29:43–46; and 31:12–17 to H is correct, though it is usually rejected specifically regarding Exod 6:2–8 and 29:43–46 due to the fact that assigning these texts to H would remove key pillars of a PG narrative. Third, to mediate the first and second points, the Priestly material in Gen 1–Lev 26 forms an integral literary connection that is fittingly described as an “H composition,” as Holiness Torah that instructs through narrative and law.99 The history of research on the Priestly narratives has shown that, though identified as priestly, the narrative contains many non-cultic concerns 97

Frevel, Mit Blick, 84. Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 278 n. 5; Klostermann, “Ezechiel,” 377. 99 Scholars such as James W. Watts, Reading Law: The Rhetorical Shaping of the Pentateuch (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999); Calum Carmichael, Illuminating Leviticus: A Study of its Laws and Institutions in Light of Biblical Narratives (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006); and Gershom Hepner, Legal Friction: Law, Narrative, and Identity Politics in Biblical Israel (New York: Peter Lang, 2010) have recently called for a synthetic understanding of the relationship between Pentateuchal narratives and laws rather than bifurcating them as is common in modern critical approaches. According to Watts, Reading Law, 29–33, 88 the narratives are an integral part of the rhetoric of Torah intended to persuade its audience to observe the commands. According to Carmichael, Illuminating Leviticus, viii, “the key to comprehending biblical legal material is the recognition that what inspires the formulation of biblical rules are incidents in biblical narratives.” 98

30

Chapter 2: History of Research

such as the covenants and land promises. These juxtaposed concerns have led to the bifurcation between narrative and law, or to the need to decide between the cult at Sinai or the land of Canaan as the fitting ending of PG.100 Beginning with Gen 1:1–2:4a, the Priestly narrative is composed “zur Erläuterung des Entstehens jenes gesetzlichen Zustandes.”101 The crucial question on the relationship between narrative and law in the Priestly literature is, which laws are the Priestly narratives in Gen–Exod intended to support? My assessment of the Priestly narratives in Exodus here will show that these narratives do not have particularly priestly concerns but fit better with the interests of the Holiness Code in their language and function. A case will be made for understanding the Priestly narrative as an H composition, specifically establishing the foundations for the laws of the Holiness Code, as noted in the studies on the function of Gen 1:1–2:4a for the legal foundations of Lev 17–26. If Gen 1:1–2:4a is assigned to H, it follows that the subsequent Priestly narratives previously considered PG should also be H material. Therefore, Knohl and Milgrom are correct in assigning Exod 6:2–8; 29:43– 46; and 31:12–17 to H as the same body of material as Lev 17–26. As noted by Nihan, assigning texts such as Exod 6:2–8; 29:43–46; 31:12–17 to H within the Priestly narratives as Knohl and Milgrom do raises the methodological problem of circularity: the distinctive H material is identified by comparing Lev 17–26 with P, and then this material is used as a standard to identify H texts within P.102 Beyond the criteria of language, style, and theology that guide the method of Knohl and Milgrom, I will argue particularly that the function of the text is decisive in whether to assign it to H. The Priestly texts in Exodus can be shown to not only contain language and theology coherent with Lev 17–26, but also they function in order to establish the foundations for obedience to the laws of Lev 17–26. As Ruwe and others have shown for Gen 1:1–2:4a and its function for establishing the foundations for the laws of Lev 17–26, I will argue that the Priestly narratives in Exodus likewise establish the foundations for the laws and theology of Lev 17–26. Thus in Exodus the PG narrative is better understood as an H narrative, forming the backbone of the H composition that has integrated diverse Priestly and non-Priestly traditions.103 The case will be made that 100

Weimar, Studien, 2–5. Nöldeke, Untersuchungen, 108. 102 Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 564. 103 The view I am proposing is closest to Blum’s understanding of P as the “P Komposition”: “Leviticus 17–26* form an essential part of the overall conception of P. The main priestly strand in Genesis to Leviticus (apart from Einschreibungen in Exod 30– 31*; 35–40*; Lev 27) is, therefore, consistent and coherent in its compositional design. The given differences are due to and in accordance with the internal logic of God’s implementation of his berit with Abraham/Israel in P. Certainly, the composers had to 101

Conclusions and Proposal

31

every portion of what is identified as the PG narrative in the book of Exodus can be read insightfully as connected to the laws and parenesis of Lev 17–26, and hence it is useful to identify what Blum calls the “P-Komposition” as an H composition instead. The theological and conceptual perspective seen in the texts that give Lev 17–26 its particular character as the Holiness Code,104 is also seen in the texts of the Priestly narratives in Gen 1–Lev 26, and the PG narrative spanning Genesis and Exodus is aligned with the interests of Lev 17–26 rather than with the Priestly interests of the cult and priesthood. The language used in the Priestly narratives to describe the growth and oppression of the Israelites (Exod 1:7, 13–14), YHWH remembering his covenant and redeeming Israel (Exod 2:24–25; 6:2–8), the recognition motif seen throughout Exod 1–14, the description of the Passover (Exod 12), the crossing of the sea (Exod 14), the Sabbath in the wilderness (Exod 16), and the PG narrative through Exod 25–40 which juxtaposes reverence for the sanctuary and observance of the Sabbath around the non-Priestly narrative of idolatry and covenant renewal (Exod 32–34) all relate directly to the laws or parenesis of the Holiness Code in language and in function. Thus reading these Priestly narratives in Exodus in light of the laws of H yields a better understanding of the function of these texts than reading them in light of the Priestly interests of rituals and priesthood that dominate Exod 25–Lev 16. The Holiness Code legislation and parenesis is imbued with the themes of creation and exodus from the Priestly narratives in Genesis and Exodus, ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– build their work by integrating quite diverse material” (“Issues and Problems,” 39 n. 29). As demonstrated by Stephen Kaufman, “The Temple Scroll and Higher Criticism,” HUCA 53 (1982): 34, ancient scribes used a wide range of compositional methods, forming original compositions, conflating other texts, or using quotations from other texts in their compositions. Angela Roskop Erisman, “Mythologizing Exile: Life, Law, and Justice after the Flood,” in Windows to the Ancient World of the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of Samuel Greengus (ed. Bill T. Arnold, Nancy Erickson, and John Walton; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 108–109 has illustrated the diversity of compositional methods of the Priestly scribes in her work on Gen 9, where she shows that scribes produced a composition “of various elements of cultural repertoire” that were used to develop the character and theme of Gen 9. There is a “complex fusion of repertoire – myth, law, prophetic imagery – from different background contexts. But it is all blended together, tightly linked to the development of the narrative.” Erisman considers the Priestly account of Gen 9 to be “very much in the spirit of Knohl’s Holiness School.” As I am arguing, the H composition utilized a wide range of compositional methods as it integrated various Priestly and non-Priestly traditions and developed complex compositional goals. There may also be multiple later strata of H material added to the main layer of H material, as argued by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1345. 104 E.g., the characteristic H material functioning as a redactional framework of parenetic statements in Lev 18:1–5, 24–30; 19:1–4; 20:7ff, 22–27; 22:9, 31–33; 25:18ff, 38, 42, 55; 26:1ff. (Otto, Theologische Ethik, 237–41; “Innerbiblische Exegese,” 172–76).

32

Chapter 2: History of Research

which are linked by the developing concept of covenant and the presence of God which comes to a climax in the concluding covenant exhortation in Lev 26. Applying the concept of an H composition rather than Blum’s KP to the Priestly narrative is thus insightful and worthwhile, given the understanding that doing so gives to every section of what has been called the PG narrative in Exodus, as will be shown below. Though scholars since Kuenen and Klostermann – most recently, Knohl, Milgrom, and King – have suggested that key Priestly texts in Exodus such as Exod 6:2–8; 29:42–46; 31:12–17; and 35:1–3 belong to H based on their language, it has not been systematically investigated how these texts function in their contexts as part of the Priestly narrative from Gen 1–Lev 26 from the perspective of how they lay the foundations for the H laws in Lev 17–26. The H composition from Gen 1–Lev 26 is focused on the themes of creation and the presence of God, with the covenants and accompanying revelation of the will of God forming the backbone of the plotline. Within the H composition, the Priestly texts in Exodus describe the liberation from Egypt and the revelation of the divine name YHWH (Exod 6:2–8), followed by the establishment of the sanctuary and the presence of God among the Israelites (Exod 29:45–46) and granting of the Sabbath as the sign of the Sinai covenant (Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3), as foundational for the H laws in Lev 17–26. The following analysis will identify the base layer of the Priestly text traditionally known as P G, which will be seen in its sections in Exodus to contain linguistic and conceptual links to the Holiness Code, with a function to establish the foundations of the laws of the Holiness Code. This understanding of the Priestly materials in Genesis through Lev 26 as an H composition has consequences that will impact the literary criticism of the Priestly texts, because how one understands the purpose of the Priestly narrative influences the way one answers the question of how much legal material is considered to be originally embedded in the narrative. If the purpose of the Priestly narrative as an H composition is to establish the foundations for the laws of Lev 17–26, then we would expect legal material to be included in the H narrative from Gen 1–Lev 26, as is the case with Gen 1:1–2:4a.105 We must therefore be cautious about arguing that the H composition has a main purpose or goal, such as the establishment of the cult or entrance into the promised land, with a determination that leads to the a priori exclusion of other themes or legal materials from the narrative. If the purpose of the H composition as narrative Torah is to establish the foundations for the legislation in Lev 17–26, then we would expect H legal materials to be interwoven into the H narratives of Genesis–Exodus. 105

Crüsemann, Torah, 282.

Conclusions and Proposal

33

Additionally, the character of the Priestly narrative as an H composition influences the approach to the question of the presence of language with Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic resonances in the Priestly narrative.106 Often the presence of Deuteronomistic language is used as a criteria for considering a text to be later addition to the Priestly narrative, as in Gen 17:9–14 and Exod 6:6–8.107 But because the H legal materials in Lev 17–26 evince close connections with Deuteronomy and Deuteronomistic expressions and vocabulary,108 we can expect this same scribal profile of Deuteronomistic language within the H narratives in Gen 1–Lev 26.109 Whether or not the Priestly narrative in Genesis–Exodus is an independent source or a redaction, it is often noted that it was aware of the non-Priestly tradition or even used it as a Vorlage.110 Thus the Priestly narrative is 106 A distinction is made in scholarship between Deuteronomic (deuteronomisch) and Deuteronomistic (deuteronomistisch) language and texts, though often they are used inconsistently. Deuteronomic refers to texts relating to the early formation of Deuteronomy, whereas Deuteronomistic refers to texts relating to the formation of the Deuteronomistic History and later redactions of the book of Deuteronomy; for a discussion of the use of this terminology, see Jan Christian Gertz, “The Partial Compositions,” in T & T Clark Handbook of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Literature, Religion and History of the Old Testament (ed. Jan Christian Gertz, Angelika Berjelung, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte; London: Continuum, 2012), 310–11. 107 So Klaus Grünwaldt, Exil und Identität: Beschneidung, Passa und Sabbat in der Priesterschrift (BBB 85; Frankfurt: Hain Verlag, 1992), 27–31 considers ‫ שׁמר ברית‬in Gen 17:9–10 as secondary because it is “deuteronomistisch” (31) and the same applies to Exod 6:6–8 according to Otto, “Forschungen,” 9 n. 43, 10 n. 45. 108 So for Cholewinski, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 343 the main HG redaction of Lev 17–26 can even be considered from within the D movement; cf. also Thiel, “Erwägungen,” 70. 109 Cf. Meg Warner, And I Will Remember my Covenant with Abraham: The Holiness School in Genesis (Th.D. Diss.; Melbourne College of Divinity, 2011), 23, whose study of H texts in Genesis suggests that various texts in Genesis that have “semi-Deuteronomistic” features can be assigned to H, since Deuteronomistic language is also seen in the laws of Lev 17–26. 110 For a recent state of the question, see Thomas Römer, “Zwischen Urkunden, Fragmenten und Ergänzungen: Zum Stand der Pentateuchforschung,” ZAW 125 (2013): 16–17 and de Pury, “PG as Absolute Beginning,” 105 n. 20. Scholars who argue for the Priestly narrative as a redaction of non-P are Cross, Canaanite Myth, 305–6; Blum, Studien, 221–24; Rendtorff, The Problem of the Process of Transmission of the Pentateuch (trans John Scullion; JSOTSupp 89; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 156–77; Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 21–26; Christoph Berner, Die Exoduserzählung: Das literarische Werden einer Ursprungslegende Israels (FAT 73; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010); and Jakob Wöhrle, Fremdlinge im eigenen Land: Zur Entstehung und Intention der priesterlichen Passagen der Vätergeschichte (FRLANT 246; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012). On Exod 25–40, see Helmut Utzschneider, Das Heiligtum und das Gesetz: Studien zur Bedeutung der sinaitischen Heiligtumstexte (Exod 25–40; Lev 8–9) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), 107–8.

34

Chapter 2: History of Research

involved in the process of interpreting or responding to the pre-Priestly narrative, which is considered to be in some sense “deuteronomistisch” or “jehowistisch-deuteronomistisch.”111 Taking Priestly texts as later additions based on the presence of Deuteronomistic language should thus be resisted cautiously, especially given the close similarities between H and the language of Deuteronomy, and the likely extended processes of mutual influencing that took place among various scribes.112 Likewise, the presence of language that resonates with Deuteronomy in Lev 17–26 should not be used as a criteria for distinguishing the Priestly narratives in Genesis–Exodus as distinct from the Holiness Code.113 Finally, what can be said of the differences within Priestly materials, if Gen 1–Lev 26 are considered a unified H composition? Against Knohl and Milgrom, who contend that P and H represent competing priestly schools with distinct theologies,114 and also against Cholewinski and Otto, who describe the relationship of H to P as polemical,115 the differences within the Priestly materials involve relatively minor cultic matters.116 The differences in terminology are to be understood as the utilization of earlier Priestly texts that have variant expressions, particularly with regard to cultic rituals.117 The focus of this study however will be on the Priestly narratives. As will be shown below, the Priestly narratives in Genesis–Exodus are consistent with the characteristic H material that structures Lev 17–26 and brings the themes of the H composition to its climax in Lev 26.

111

Weimar, Studien, 10–12. Carr, Formation, 299. 113 The approach of Otto, Theologische Ethik, 237 and “Forschungen zur Priesterschrift,” 9 n. 43, 10 n. 45 is therefore problematic, as he removes Exod 6:6–8 from PG due to its D language and then distinguishes between PG and H based on the absence of D language in his PG and the presence of such in H. 114 Knohl, Sanctuary, 6–7; Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1349–57. 115 Cholewinski, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 334–38 and Otto, Theologische Ethik, 237. 116 Blum, “Issues,” 34–38; Blum, Studien, 335–36 n. 10; and Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 30–32. 117 Crüsemann, Torah, 278 n. 8; Blum, “Issues,” 39. 112

Chapter 3

Objections against the Continuity of the Priestly Narrative and H This section will respond to objections raised against the unity of P G and H based on proposed linguistic, conceptual, and theological differences in order to clear the way for making a positive case for the Priestly narratives in Exodus as belonging to H. I will first argue for the function of Gen 1:1–2:4a as a Holiness Preamble and establish criteria by which the rest of the Priestly narrative can also be considered as H material. I will then turn to objections to the continuity between H and P. These objections have already been refuted by Erhard Blum and Andreas Ruwe1 but will be presented here as a basis for my positive case for the unity of the PG narrative and Lev 17–26 as the H composition. Contrary to these objections, it can be shown that there are no linguistic, conceptual, or theological reasons to consider the main Priestly narrative from Gen 1 onward as inconsistent with the characteristic H material of Lev 17–26. The slight differences can be explained as integral to the developing storyline of the relationship between God and Israel which unfolds itself with an inner logical consistency that the H composition expresses.2

A. Gen 1:1–2:4a as Holiness Preamble Any theory about the purpose and extent of the Priestly narratives must begin with determining the function of Gen 1:1–2:4a as the foundation of the narrative, because it sets the parameters and context for understanding all that

1 Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 335–36 n. 10; Andreas Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz’ und ‘Priesterschrift’ (FAT 26; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 30–31; Frank Crüsemann, The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law (trans. Allan W. Mahnke; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 278. 2 On the developing storyline from Gen 1–Lev 26, see Crüsemann, Torah, 278; Blum, Studien, 300–32.

36

Chapter 3: Objections Against the Continuity of PG and H

follows in the narrative.3 Gen 1:1–2:4a can be considered as the beginning of the H narrative based on two points. As noted already by Theodor Nöldeke, a central purpose of Gen 1:1–2:4a is to establish foundations for ritual ordinances, especially the Sabbath and festivals.4 These two concerns point to the H provenance of Gen 1:1–2:4a. It is commonly affirmed that two central features of the Holiness Code are its emphasis on the Sabbath (‫ )שׁבת‬and holiness (‫)קדשׁ‬.5 These terms are combined in Gen 2:3: ‫ויברך אלהים את יום השׁביעי ויקדשׁ אתו כי בו שׁבת מכל‬ ‫מלאכתו‬. The roots ‫ שׁבת‬and ‫ קדשׁ‬are found in close connection further in Exod 16:23; 20:8–11; 31:13–17; 35:2 and in Lev 17–26. Each of these texts in Exodus is often considered secondary to the Grundschrift of P and assigned to PS or H, as the roots ‫ שׁבת‬and ‫ קדשׁ‬are otherwise uncharacteristic of what is considered PG.6 Yet, if Gen 2:2–3 is essential for the creation account in Gen 1:1–2:4a,7 and these central terms do not occur elsewhere in 3 Gen 1:1–2:4a describes the “ethos of the cosmos” in which the Priestly narrative unfolds, exhibiting the fundamental values for the formation of a community’s identity, worldview, and ethics; see William P. Brown, The Ethos of the Cosmos: The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 12 and Mark S. Smith, The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010), 1–4. 4 Theodor Nöldeke, Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments (Kiel: Schwers, 1869), 9. 5 Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 189– 96; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1397–1407; Eckart Otto, Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments (ThW 3/2; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1994), 237–40; Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 90–103. 6 The root ‫ קדשׁ‬is only found in Exod 29:43–44 among texts that are traditionally considered part of the Priestly Grundschrift. Knohl, Sanctuary, 104 and Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1338 assign this text to H, whereas it is considered the climactic ending of PG by Eckart Otto, “Forschungen zur Priesterschrift,” TRu 62 (1997): 26–27, 35, and secondary to PG by Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 309, 325. See Thomas Krüger, “Genesis 1:1–2:3 and the Development of the Pentateuch,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz; FAT 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 130–31 for a consideration of all of Gen 2:2–3; Exod 20:8–11; and 31:13–17 as secondary to the Priestly Grundschrift. 7 Sometimes Gen 2:2–3 is also considered secondary within Gen 1:1–2:4a; e.g., Thomas Krüger, “Genesis 1:1–2:3,” 130–31. As noted by Krüger, however, the current scholarly discussion prefers a unifying reading of the text; cf. Smith, Priestly Vision, 175–76, for a discussion of various proposals on the unity of the text. The view of Gen 2:2-3 as secondary can be rejected based on the importance of the motif of rest in parallel ancient Near Eastern creation accounts; the climactic importance of the seventh day, without which the creation week would be incomplete; and the fact that a creation account that does not include the seventh day as a climactic day of rest cannot be coherently reconstructed from Gen 1:1–2:4a. As noted especially by Alexandra Grund, Die Entstehung des Sabbats: Seine Bedeutung für Israels Zeitkonzept und Erinnerungskultur

Gen 1:1–2:4a as Holiness Preamble

37

PG, the presence of ‫ שׁבת‬and ‫ קדשׁ‬would create the problem of Gen 2:2–3 introducing the motif of ceasing from work on a sanctified day as a “blind motif” – a motif that is prominently introduced but not further developed or explained in the narrative.8 The solution to this problem proposed here is that all of these Sabbath texts, beginning with Gen 2:2–3 and continuing in Exod 16:23; 20:8–11; 31:13–17; and 35:1–3 present a coherent system of gradual revelation of the Sabbath in the world and can be considered part of an H composition.9 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– (FAT 75; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 233–37, the creation of humanity and the concept of divine rest are closely associated in the Enuma elish, where humans are created in order for the gods to rest. This parallel suggests an integral connection between the creation of humanity in Gen 1:26–28 and divine rest in Gen 2:2–3, with the Genesis account transforming typical ancient Near Eastern notions of the role of humanity and divine rest. On the integrity of Gen 2:2–3 as part of the creation account of Gen 1:1–2:4a, see also Moshe Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord – The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1–2:3,” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (ed. André Caquot and Mathias Delcor; AOAT 212; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 501–12; Klaus Grünwaldt, Exil und Identität: Beschneidung, Passa und Sabbat in der Priesterschrift (BBB 85; Frankfurt: Hain Verlag, 1992), 158 n. 7, 159; Jacob Milgrom, “HR in Leviticus and Elsewhere in the Torah,” in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (VTSup 93; ed. Rolf Rendtorff and Robert Kugler; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 33–34; Odil Hannes Steck, Der Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift: Studien zur literarkritischen und überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Problematik von Genesis 1:1–2:4a (2nd ed.; FRLANT 115; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 178–99. 8 It is unlikely that Gen 2:2–3 would introduce such a prominent motif as a climax of the creation account without developing the motif further in the narrative; see Steck, Der Schöpfungsbericht, 190–191 n. 808. 9 Cf. Milgrom, “HR in Leviticus,” 33–40 and Bill T. Arnold, “Genesis 1 as Holiness Preamble,” in Let Us Go Up to Zion: Essays in Honour of H. G. M. Williamson on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. Iain Provan and Mark J. Boda, VTSup 153; Leiden: Brill, 2012),” 334–36 on the connection between these verses. Jeffrey Stackert, “Compositional Strata in the Priestly Sabbath: Exodus 31:12–17 and 35:1–3,” JHS 11 (2011): 8 n. 26 objects to the notion of assigning Gen 2:1–3 to H as follows: “The suggestion that the Priestly creation story [Gen 1:1–2:4a] is H and not P creates significant problems for understanding P as a whole and provides a push down the slippery slope toward reassigning all of the P narrative to H.” As I am contending here, the best understanding of Gen 1:1–2:4a is as the beginning of the H composition, with the logical outcome being reassigning all of the P narrative to H. Stackert, “How the Priestly Sabbaths Work: Innovation in Pentateuchal Priestly Ritual,” in Ritual Innovation in the Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism (ed. Nathan MacDonald; BZAW 468; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), 79-111, has also argued that the Sabbath from P (Gen 1:1–2:4a) is developed in H in ways that stand in stark contradiction to P. In his view, the “mutually exclusive conceptualizations” of the Sabbath in P and H are the time of the Sabbath blessing on the seventh day in P (Gen 2:1–3) versus the sixth day in H (Exod 16:22–25, developed to the

38

Chapter 3: Objections Against the Continuity of PG and H

Gen 2:2–3 does not contain a command for humans to keep the Sabbath, but it does present ‫אלהים‬, as the creator of the world, sanctifying (‫ )קדשׁ‬the seventh day and resting or ceasing from work (‫ )שׁבת‬on the seventh day.10 God thus establishes the seventh day as sacred and exemplarily models the ordinance of sanctifying the seventh day and resting from work as it would later be revealed to Israel in the Sabbath commands.11 The anthropomorphism expressed in the notion of God keeping the Sabbath is consistent with the theology of H and is presupposed in the H parenesis, which emphasizes the possibility and necessity of Israel imitating YHWH (Lev 19:2–3). The subsequent Sabbath texts in Exod 16; 20:8–11; 31:13–17 can be read as a coherent narrative development of Israel discovering the Sabbath which has been hidden since creation (Exod 16), receiving the Sabbath as a command in Exod 20:8–11, and receiving the Sabbath as a sign of the Sinai covenant and ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– sixth year in Lev 25:20–22), the nature of the blessing as the purpose or result of observance in P in contrast to the blessing as a facilitator of observance in H, and the purpose and orientation of the Sabbath as a reminder to God to bless Israel in P and for Israel to obey God in H (104). According to Stackert, these changes reorient the Sabbath toward the Israelites and their holiness (107). Stackert nevertheless notes that “H is able to accomplish its re-orientation of P’s Sabbath sign without excessive disruption. This is at least partially due to the fact that P’s Sabbath, both conceptually and textually, is well suited to H’s aims” (109). None of these features identified by Stackert need be considered disruptions that render the Sabbath conceptions in texts traditionally assigned to P and H as mutually exclusive and irreconcilable. The differences can also be understood as reflecting the narrative development of the concept of the Sabbath from its inception at creation to its application in various ways to Israel as a nation, beginning with the establishment and blessing of the Sabbath as divine rest in Gen 2:1–3 to its revelation to Israel in the wilderness in Exod 16 and expression as a command at Sinai in Exod 20:8–11, leading to the Sabbath as a sign that has a function both for God and for the sanctification of Israel in Exod 31:12–17, and culminating in the full implications of the Sabbath for Israel in Lev 17–26. 10 Due to the absence of a command to observe the Sabbath in Gen 2:1–3, scholars such as Peter Weimar, Studien zur Priesterschrift (FAT 56; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 132–33 and Bernd Janowski, “Tempel und Schöpfung: Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen Heiligtumskonzeption,” in Gottes Gegenwart in Israel: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993), 234– 38 see no connection between Gen 2:2–3 and the Sabbath commands in Torah, understanding Gen 2:2-3 instead as connected with the sequence of six + one days that are associated with building the sanctuary in Exod 24:15–18. Against this understanding, however, speaks the fact that Gen 2:2–3 contains a combination of terms that occur in Sabbath law texts such as ‫שׁבת‬, ‫קדשׁ‬, and ‫מלאכה‬, which an ancient Israelite would hardly have failed to associate with the Sabbath laws; see Steck, Der Schöpfungsbericht, 190; Grünwaldt, Exil, 159–61; Werner H. Schmidt, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift. Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte von Genesis 1:1–2:4a und 2:4b–3:24 (2nd ed.; WMANT 17; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967), 156. 11 Steck, Der Schöpfungsbericht, 191; Grünwaldt, Exil, 158.

Gen 1:1–2:4a as Holiness Preamble

39

their sanctity (Exod 31:13–17), as part of the foundational narrative of the H composition, building up to the prominence of the Sabbath which permeates all of life in the H Torah of Lev 17–26.12 It is specifically in the Holiness Code where Israel is called to imitate YHWH and be holy as YHWH is holy, with observance of the Sabbath as fundamental to this imitation (Lev 19:2– 3). In addition to laying the grounds for future observance of the Sabbath, Gen 1:14 describes the purpose of the celestial bodies as signs for “appointed times” (‫)מועדים‬, that is, for festivals that are linked to an astronomical calendar. The only place in the Torah where the term ‫ מועדים‬is used to define festivals is in the H festival calendar in Lev 23:2, 4, 37, 44.13 If the ‫ מועדים‬in Gen 1:14 is not intended to establish the grounds for the ‫ מועדי יהוה‬in Lev 23, then it also constitutes a blind motif that is introduced prominently but not developed elsewhere. The connection between the festivals and Sabbath in Gen 1:14 and 2:1–4a further solidifies the link to the H festival calendar in Lev 23:1–4, where the festivals are closely associated with the Sabbath. The ‫ אתת‬of Gen 1:14 most likely also anticipates the Sabbath as an ‫ אות‬in Exod 31:12–17,14 which I will argue below is likewise an H text. The manner in which the world is created by God through separations, distinctions, and ordering in Gen 1:1–2:4a is also formative for the laws of the Holiness Code. This is demonstrated by Ruwe, who shows that the 12

On the connection between these Sabbath texts, see Milgrom, “HR in Leviticus,” 39; Crüsemann, Torah, 299–300; Grünwaldt, Exil, 159; Daniel C. Timmer, Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath: The Sabbath Frame of Exodus 31:12–17; 35:1–3 in Exegetical and Theological Perspective (FRLANT 227; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 47–51. 13 Cf. Arnold, “Genesis 1,” 339–41. This connection is noted by Alfred Bertholet, Leviticus Erklärt (KHC III; Tübingen & Leipzig: Mohr, 1901), 79; Smith, Priestly Vision, 98; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27 (AB 3B; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 1955; John Hartley, Leviticus (WBC 4; Dallas: Word Books, 1992), 375; and Klaus Grünwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26: Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie (BZAW 271; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 295–96. Other occurrences of ‫ מועד‬associated with festivals are in Exod 23:15, where the Feast of Unleavened Bread is to be kept at its time (‫ )מועד‬in the month of Aviv; Num 9, where there is concern for making the proper sacrifices at the appropriate time during Passover (‫ ;)במועדו‬Num 10:10 and 15:13, which mention undetermined ‫ ;מועדים‬and Num 28:2 and 29:39, where certain rituals are to be presented at their proper times (‫)במועד‬. The focus of the use of ‫ מועד‬in the calendar in Num 28–29 is on performing the proper rites at the appointed times rather than determining what the ‫ מועדי יהוה‬are, as in Lev 23. The concern of Gen 1:14 thus points to Lev 23 as the only Pentateuchal text that develops the theme of what the ‫ מועדים‬are. 14 David P. Wright, “Law and Creation in the Priestly-Holiness Writings of the Pentateuch,” in Laws of Heaven – Laws of Nature: Legal Interpretations of Cosmic Phenomena in the Ancient World (ed. Konrad Schmid and Christoph Uehlinger; OBO 276; Göttingen/Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht/Academic Press, 2016), 85.

40

Chapter 3: Objections Against the Continuity of PG and H

rationales for the laws of Lev 17–25 consist of the same principles of “Trennung/Scheidung und Zuordnung” that God uses in the original creation.15 The laws of Lev 17–25 can be summarized under the heading of keeping the Sabbath and revering the sanctuary (‫את־ שׁבתתי תשׁמרו ומקדשׁי‬ ‫תיראו‬, Lev 19:30; 26:2),16 with Lev 17:1–22:33 focused on laws that constitute revering the sanctuary, and Lev 23:1–25:55 on honoring the Sabbath.17 Observing the Sabbath and revering the sanctuary creates sacred space and time, which constitutes the partial restoration of the conditions of the original creation, enabling the presence of God to dwell among the Israelites.18 As the Israelites imitate the holiness of YHWH by keeping the commands that revere the sanctuary and observe the Sabbath (‫קדשׁים תהיו כי‬ ‫קדושׁ אני‬, Lev 19:2), they are imitating the process of making separations, distinctions, and order in the world by which God created and ordered the world and thus are participating in the restoration of the conditions of creation. Thus Gen 1:1–2:4a provides the foundations for obedience to all of the laws of Lev 17–25 by modeling the tasks that Israel is to execute in order to imitate God in obedience to the laws of the Holiness Code. 19 As will be shown in the discussion of ‫ ברית‬in the H composition below (Chapter 4), the blessings of creation in Gen 1:26–28 (‫פרה‬, ‫ )רבה‬are the starting point for the series of developing ‫ ברית‬statements in the Priestly texts, including Gen 9:1–17; 17:1–27; Exod 1:7; 2:23aβ–25; 6:2–8; 29:42– 46; 31:13–17, and culminating in Lev 26:9–13. Following the laws of Lev 17–25, which demand observing the Sabbath (‫ )שׁבת‬and revering the 15 Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 103–20. See also Grünwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz, 345, 395, for the importance of Gen 1:1–2:4a creation theology in the laws of H. 16 Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 90–103; Bertholet, Leviticus, xv. According to Ruwe, Lev 26:2 with 19:3, 30 combine the two main parts of Lev 17–26 into a statement regarding honoring the sanctuary and observing the Sabbath. Leviticus 17:1–22:33 is a combination of laws on the cult, justice, and ethics, pointedly expressed in the prohibition of idolatry, and Lev 23–25 is structured and characterized by the Sabbath command in 23:3. 17 The conception of the Sabbath permeates all of the laws in Lev 23–25; see Otto, Theologische Ethik, 240. 18 Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 115–20. 19 Significant in this regard is also the concept of humanity being created in the image of God. As developed by Edwin Firmage, “Genesis 1 and the Priestly Agenda,” JSOT 82 (1999): 101–106, being in the image of God at least implies the ability to be like God and imitate God in the function of ruling over creation (Gen 1:26–28). This anthropology is also foundational for Israel’s potential to be holy as YHWH is holy (Lev 19:2), through making the proper distinctions and separations in the world. In Lev 11:44–45 (H) this injunction implies observing dietary laws that can be understood as imitating God’s diet; cf. also Arnold, “Genesis 1,” 336–38. On the imitation of God as foundational for the ethics of holiness in H, see Firmage, “Genesis 1,” 110; Knohl, Sanctuary, 173 and Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1398, 1438, 1722, 1761-62.

Gen 1:1–2:4a as Holiness Preamble

41

sanctuary (‫ )מקדשׁ‬as part of the process of making distinctions, separations, and ordering that enables the restoration of creation and the presence of God among the Israelites, Lev 26 is the logical culmination of the Priestly narrative as the actualization of the creation blessings to the current generation that enables returning to the pre-diluvian relationship that humanity had with God.20 The creation account in Gen 1:1–2:4a is thus the Holiness Preamble for the H composition, which also contains central ‫ברית‬ texts in Gen 9:1–17 and 17:1–2721 and Priestly narratives in Exodus, and 20

Blum, Studien, 325–26. Bill T. Arnold, “The Holiness Redaction of the Flood Narrative (Genesis 6:9–9:29),” in Windows to the Ancient World of the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of Samuel Greengus (ed. Bill T. Arnold, Nancy Erickson, and John Walton; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 13–40 has contended for the Priestly material in Gen 6–9* being an H composition, and Angela Roskop Erisman, “Mythologizing Exile: Life, Law, and Justice after the Flood,” in Windows to the Ancient World of the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of Samuel Greengus (ed. Bill T. Arnold, Nancy Erickson, and John Walton; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 109, has suggested that it is a composition “very much in the Spirit of Knohl’s Holiness School.” Regarding Gen 17, scholars have proposed that various portions of it are of H origins; for Gen 17:7–8, 14, see Knohl, Sanctuary, 102–104; for Gen 17:8b, 10, 11–12, 13b, 14, see Saul Olyan, Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of the Cult (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 154–55 n. 23; for Gen 17:9–14, 23–27, see Jakob Wöhrle, “The Integrative Function of the Law of Circumcision,” in The Foreigner and the Law: Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (ed. Reinhard Achenbach, Rainer Albertz, and Jakob Wöhrle; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011), 81–84; and Mark Brett, “The Priestly Dissemination of Abraham,” HeBAI 3 (2014): 90 (following Wöhrle). Taking portions of Gen 17 as H, however, raises the question of the unity of the chapter. Scholars such as Weimar, Studien, 185–200 and Grünwaldt, Exil, 18–62 have proposed complex models of redactional development of the chapter from an original kernel. But their criteria for carving up the chapter are questionable and unpersuasive. Portions of Gen 17 are removed as secondary due to the presence of language with the characteristics of H; see Weimar, Studien, 190– 91. If the chapter is understood as an H composition, however, this approach is flawed, and the chapter can be read as a unified coherent composition. Scholars such as Konrad Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story (Siphrut 3; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 238–40; Albert de Pury, “Pg as the Absolute Beginning,” in Les Dernières Rédactions du Pentateuque, de L’Hexateuque, et de L’Ennéateuque (ed. Thomas Römer and Konrad Schmid; BETL 203; Leuven: University Press, 2007), 109 (apart from Gen 17:14); Sean McEvenue, The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer (AnBib 50; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1971), 145–60; Christophe Nihan, “The Priestly Covenant, Its Reinterpretations, and the Composition of ‘P’,” in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (ed. Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden; AThANT 95; Zürich: Theologische Verlag, 2009), 98–102; Crüsemann, Torah, 294–95; Norbert Lohfink, “The Priestly Narrative and History,” in Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 145 n.29 (apart from 17:14); David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis, 82– 21

42

Chapter 3: Objections Against the Continuity of PG and H

comes to a climax in Lev 26. The H narratives in Genesis form the foundations for the H laws in Lev 17–25 and covenant parenesis in Lev 26 as part of the H composition that integrates narrative and law in order to form the theological and philosophical underpinnings of the H laws and thus present rationales and motivate obedience to the H laws for Israel to maintain its responsibility to the ‫ברית‬. Thus the language and theology of Gen 1:1– 2:4a are fitting for H, and the text functions as the foundation for the laws of Lev 17–26, most prominently in this case for the Sabbath and festival theology of H.22 If Gen 1:1–2:4a functions as the Holiness Preamble, we must consider that all subsequent Priestly narratives that continue the plot of Gen 1:1–2:4a are also part of the H composition. Bill T. Arnold and others have already argued that other Priestly texts in Genesis function as part of the H literature to inculcate obedience to the laws of H and commitment to the ‫ברית‬.23 The Priestly narratives function, as Nöldeke argued, “zur Erläuterung des Entstehens jenes gesetzlichen Zustandes.”24 Similarly, Julius Wellhausen stated, “Das Gesetz ist der Schlüssel zum Verständnis auch der Erzählung des ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 85; and Benjamin Ziemer, Abram–Abraham: Kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Gen 14, 15 und 17 (BZAW 35; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 374–76 view the text as unified. As noted by Schmid, Genesis, 238–40, Gen 17 forms a unified concentric structure with vv. 9–14 as its center. Thus it contains the command that is being emphasized in its center; see also the structural observations by McEvenue, Narrative Style, 145–60; Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (WMANT 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984), 420–22; and Michael V. Fox, “The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of the Priestly 'ôt Etiologies,” RB 81 (1974): 589. The chapter coincidentally shows the same concentric structure that is seen in the Sabbath covenant sign text in Exod 31:12–17, which is assigned to H. As proposed by Bill T. Arnold, Genesis (NCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 167–74, because Gen 17 is unified with the H-like portions essential to its structure, the chapter can be read as consistent with the development of the theme of the covenant as part of H. See also Ziemer, Abram–Abraham, 375, who assigns Gen 17 to a redaction on the same level with Exod 31:12–17. If Gen 17 is assigned to the H composition, the other patriarchal promise texts that develop the ‫ אל שׁדי‬theology in Gen 28:1–4; 35:9–12; 48:2–4 leading up to Exod 6:2–8 would also be from the same layer of material; see Blum, Vätergeschichte, 420 on the connection of these ‫ אל שׁדי‬texts. 22 Arnold, “Genesis 1,” 334–36. 23 Arnold, “Holiness Redaction,” 13–40 on Gen 9, and idem., Genesis, 168–171 on Gen 17. Additionally on assigning texts in Genesis to H, see Milgrom, “HR in Leviticus,” 29– 40; Meg Warner, And I Will Remember my Covenant with Abraham: The Holiness School in Genesis (Th.D. Diss.; Melbourne College of Divinity, 2011), 1–42, who argues that the work of H redactors is seen in Gen 18:17–19; 22:15–18, and 26:3b–5; and Mark Brett, “Priestly Dissemination,” 106–7 who suggests an extensive presence of H material in Genesis. 24 Nöldeke, Untersuchungen, 108.

Gen 1:1–2:4a as Holiness Preamble

43

Priesterkodex. Mit der Einwirkung des Gesetzes hängen alle unterscheidenden Eigentümlichkeiten derselben zusammen; überall macht sich die Theorie, die Regel, das Urteil geltend.”25 Nöldeke and Wellhausen contended that the PG narrative was foundational for the priestly laws, generally focusing on cultic laws. No attention, however, was given to the possibility that the PG narrative is foundational for the legislation of the Holiness Code. More recently, Simeon Chavel’s study of Lev 24:10–23; Num 9:1–14; 15:32– 36; and 27:1–11 shows how law and narrative are intertwined in what he calls priestly “oracular novellas.”26 Chavel contends that “One should not underestimate the significance of the nexus of law and narrative to the oracular novellas, to the Priestly history, to priestly life and conceptualization, or as a formative aspect of societies at large.”27 As he proposes, the Priestly narratives form a normative world that is imbued with Torah: One may say that the Priestly work brings law and narrative into mutual relation more richly, continuously, and organically than do the others [Pentateuchal sources]. It weaves a legal, legislative strand into the fabric of the history it narrates, and accentuates the strand at critical junctures that alter the patterns of history as it unfolds…. On the cosmic plane, the universe itself pulsates with legal potency from its very inception. The deity – as Elohim – first establishes the character of procreation, sustenance and diet, even time (Gen 1:26–30 and 2:1–3). Subsequently he recasts these features of existence as matters of law and obedience, first for all humanity...then for the descendants of Abraham (Gen 17). 28 Ultimately … he reifies them as full-blown, fully articulated law for Israel specifically.

The law toward which the Priestly narratives point however is not the priestly cultic law of Sinai but the law of the Holiness Code. This will be indicated in the analysis below based on the coherence between the language, themes, and theology of the Priestly narratives and H laws, and particularly from the fact that a case can be made for each segment of the Priestly narrative as functioning to establish the foundations for the laws of H. Thus not only the Priestly laws in Exod–Lev but also the narratives in Gen–Exod should be 25 Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (2nd ed.; Berlin: G. Reimer, 1883), 383–84. 26 Simeon Chavel, Oracular Law and Priestly Historiography in the Torah (FAT 2/71; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 265. 27 Ibid., 265. 28 Ibid., 268–69. Cf. also Wolfgang Oswald, “Die Exodus-Gottesberg-Erzählung als Gründungsurkunde der judäischen Bürgergemeinde,” in Law and Narrative in the Bible and in the Neighboring Ancient Cultures (ed. Klaus-Peter Adam, Friedrich Avemarie, and Nili Wazana; FAT 2/54; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 35–49 on the non-Priestly Exod 1–24 as a “Gründungsurkunde der judäischen Bürgergemeinde” with narrative and law linked for the purpose of grounding the legal ordinances and covenant from Exod 20–24 (35).

44

Chapter 3: Objections Against the Continuity of PG and H

seen as a foundational part of the development of the legal program of H. The Priestly narratives in Gen–Exod form the normative world of the laws of the Holiness Code and inculcate the required conditions, attitudes, and emotions to sustain the ethical demands of the Holiness Code. As suggested by Terence E. Fretheim, the narrativity of biblical law functions to highlight the theological foundations of law, as well as to instruct Israel in obedience to the law.29 The narratives develop a portrait of God as the subject who stands behind the law, which is a gift of God’s graciousness that enables a relationship with God. The narrative also models and motivates Israel to keep the law, as instruction that is not abstract but integrated with the very identity and life of Israel. The combination of narrative and law thus allows Torah to function as instruction that shapes the life of Israel. Thus the criteria for assigning texts like Gen 1:1–2:4a to the H composition involve linguistic, theological, and conceptual coherence with the characteristic H material in Lev 17–26, as well as a demonstrable function to prepare the foundations for the H Torah of Lev 17–26.

B. Refutation of Proposed Inconsistencies between PG and H The modern arguments for the inconsistency between PG and H go back to Alfred Cholewinski’s view that H polemicizes against PG, as reiterated recently by Eckart Otto, Erich Zenger, and Jean-Louis Ska.30 Likewise, Israel Knohl and Jacob Milgrom have developed detailed classifications of the differences between P and H, based mostly on differences in cultic and ritual matters. These ritual differences can, however, be explained by the use of diverse cultic materials in the overarching H composition.31 What is of primary interest here is the relationship between the PG narrative and H, which I am arguing present a unified conceptual and theological whole as an H composition. The following points have been proposed as irreconcilable differences between PG and H. I. Different Views of Land Ownership First, Cholewinski contends that Lev 25:23–24 (H) advances the view that the land of Canaan belongs exclusively to YHWH and that the Israelites are 29

Terence E. Fretheim, Exodus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 201–7. Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (4th ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963), 149–50 already argued against the consistency of P and H due to the parenetic tone of H, as well as its reception of Deuteronomy and similarities with Ezekiel as distinguishing it from P. 31 Blum, Studien, 336–37 n. 10; Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 30–31. 30

Refutation of Proposed Inconsistencies between PG and H

45

strangers and sojourners on the land (‫)כי לי הארץ כי גרים ותושׁבים אתם עמדי‬, which is a “correction of the view advocated by P,” since he considers that according to P the land is given as an unconditional possession to the Israelites (Exod 6:4 ‫הקמתי את בריתי אתם לתת להם את ארץ כנען את ארץ מגריהם אשׁר‬ ‫ ;גרו בה‬Exod 6:8 ‫והבאתי אתכם אל הארץ אשׁר נשׂאתי את ידי לתת אתה לאברהם‬ ‫)ליצחק וליעקב ונתתי אתה לכם מורשׁה אני יהוה‬.32 Against this supposed difference, it can first be mentioned that Lev 25:38 shares the notion of YHWH giving Israel the land with Exod 6:4, 7–8: ‫אני יהוה אלהיכם אשׁר הוצאתי אתכם‬ ‫מארץ מצרים לתת לכם את ארץ כנען‬.33 Thus, within H, the views of YHWH owning the land and YHWH giving it to the Israelites are not contradictory, as it is also affirmed that the Israelites “inherit” (‫ )ירשׁ‬the land of Canaan (Lev 20:24). The same double perspective is seen in the PG narratives as well. As has been noted by Matthias Köckert, Michaela Bauks, and others, the P conception of the land as an ‫ אחזה‬denotes the right to use the land (Gen 17:8; 48:4) though the land remains in the possession of YHWH.34 The patriarchs acquire possession (‫מורשׁה‬, ‫ ירשׁ‬Gen 28:4; Exod 6:8) of the land as an inheritance,35 but the land on which the patriarchs live as sojourners can still be called an ‫ אחזת עולם‬as well as ‫( ארץ מגרים‬Gen 17:8; 28:4; Exod 6:4).36 Therefore, just as in H, in the PG narratives the land ultimately belongs to YHWH, and the patriarchs are ‫ גרים‬on the land. Thus the H conception of the land is consistent with the PG narratives, and it can be said that Lev 25:23–24 affirms the PG view of the land.37 In PG, the patriarchs can leave the land, but 32

Alfred Cholewinski, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium (AnBib 66; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976), 334; Otto, Theologische Ethik, 237; Jean-Louis Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 152; Erich Zenger, “Das priester(schrift)liche Werk (P),” in Einleitung in das Alte Testament (ed. Erich Zenger et al.; 8th ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008): 173. 33 Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 30. 34 Matthias Köckert, Leben in Gottes Gegenwart: Studien zum Verständnis des Gesetzes im Alten Testament (FAT 43; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 78 n. 21; Michaela Bauks, “Die Begriffe ‫ מורשׁה‬und ‫ אחזה‬in PG : Überlegungen zur Landkonzeption in der Priestergrundschrift,” ZAW 116 (2004): 174–76; Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch (FAT 25; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 66–68; Jakob Wöhrle, Fremdlinge im eigenen Land: Zur Entstehung und Intention der priesterlichen Passagen der Vätergeschichte (FRLANT 246; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 197–98; Thomas Römer, “Zwischen Urkunden, Fragmenten und Ergänzungen: Zum Stand der Pentateuchforschung,” ZAW 125 (2013): 18. 35 On this meaning of ‫ירשׁ‬, see Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 67 n. 244. 36 Ibid., 68; Wöhrle, Fremdlinge, 197–98; Köckert, Leben, 78. 37 Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 68; Cf. also Janowski, Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Traditions- und religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur priesterlichen Sühnetheologie (WMANT 55; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000), 321, on the similarity between Lev 25:34 and Gen 17:8 in view of the land. For Römer, “Zwischen Urkunden,”

46

Chapter 3: Objections Against the Continuity of PG and H

the land remains the possession of YHWH, and the promise of the return of the Israelites to the land remains open for the future. The same perspective is fundamental to the H view of the land in Lev 25–26, as developed by Klaus Grünwaldt; though disobedience can lead to Israel’s temporary removal from the land, it does not sever Israel’s ties to the land.38 Just as the Israelites were removed from the land during the Egyptian slavery and restored to the land by YHWH remembering his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (‫זכר‬, Exod 2:23; 6:5), so also in H, YHWH will remember the covenant with the patriarchs and bring an exiled Israel back to the land (‫זכר‬, Lev 26:42–45).39 II. The Identity of Israel as the People of YHWH or Slaves of YHWH A second proposed conflict between PG and H is the suggestion that H corrects the PG notion that the exodus took place in order to make the Israelites the people of YHWH (‫ לקחתי אתכם לי לעם‬Exod 6:7) in favor of the perspective that the Israelites were defined as slaves or servants of YHWH in the exodus (‫לי בני ישׂראל עבדים עבדי הם‬, Lev 25:55).40 It is true that Lev 25:55 expresses the relationship between Israel and YHWH in terms of servitude, a characterization not found previously in the PG narrative. However, this difference does not reflect a conflict between PG and H. This nuanced expression of the relationship between Israel and YHWH can be understood in the context of the developing logic of the H composition and the intention of Lev 25 to offer a rationale for its law against Israelites compelling their kinsmen to slavery. Consistent with PG, H understands the exodus as the event at which YHWH becomes the God of Israel and separates Israel from the nations to be his people (‫אני יהוה אלהיכם אשׁר הבדלתי אתכם מן העמים‬, Lev 20:24). In Lev 26:9–13, H expresses the same perspective on the relationship between YHWH and Israel as seen in Exod 6:2–8: –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

17–18, Lev 25:23–24 is consistent with PG and clarifies the PG conception of the land as ‫ ארץ מגרים‬in Gen 17:7–8 and Exod 6:4–8. 38 Grünwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz, 345, 395. 39 As argued by Thomas Römer, Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO 99; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 549 n. 367, “Jacob” in Lev 26:42 refers to a covenant with the people of Israel. The “land” in the sequence of “Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, and the land in Lev 26:42 likely refers to the Noahic covenant, as noted by Walter Gross, “‘Rezeption’ in Exod 31:12–17 und Lev 26:39–45: Sprachliche Form und theologisch-konzeptionelle Leistung,” in Rezeption und Auslegung im Alten Testament und seinem Umfeld: Ein Symposium aus Anlass des 60. Geburtstags von Odil Hannes Steck (ed. Reinhard G. Kratz and Thomas Krüger; OBO 153; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 59. 40 Cholewinski, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 334; Otto, Theologische Ethik, 237; Ska, Introduction, 152.

Refutation of Proposed Inconsistencies between PG and H Lev 26:9, 12–13 ‫והקימתי את בריתי אתכם‬ ‫והייתי לכם לאלהים‬ ‫ואתם תהיו לי לעם‬ ‫אני יהוה אלהיכם אשׁר הוצאתי‬ ‫אתכם מארץ מצרים‬ ‫מהיות להם עבדים‬

47

Exod 6:4, 7 ‫הקמתי את בריתי אתם‬ ‫ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם‬ ‫והייתי לכם לאלהים‬ ‫וידעתם כי אני יהוה אלהיכם המוציא‬ ‫אתכם מתחת סבלות מצרים‬

Exod 6:4, 7 and Lev 26:9–13 share a set of concepts: the covenant with Israel will be maintained (‫)קום‬, YHWH will be God for Israel, Israel will be the people (‫ )עם‬of YHWH, and YHWH brings Israel out of Egyptian slavery.41 According to Blum, these texts form a “kompositorische Klammer in dem Komplex ‘Exodus und Sinai’” that functions as an announcement and retrospect.42 In H, Israel is the people of God just as in the PG narrative (Exod 6:2– 8), but the implications of this status attained at the exodus are expressed in two further specifications that place an ethical impetus on Israel:43 First, Israel is set apart by God from among the nations (‫בדל‬, Lev 20:24) in the exodus from Egypt and therefore must be holy. Second, Israel is transferred from slavery to the Egyptians into a position of servitude to YHWH (Lev 25:55), a position which implies ethical obligations.44 Exod 6:2–8 and Lev 17–26 thus share the perspective of Israel being the people of YHWH, but in Lev 25, H expresses this relationship in nuanced ways as rationales for ethics in order to serve its rhetorical purposes. There are no grounds for saying H corrects the PG notion of Israel as the people of YHWH in Exod 6:2–8, because H affirms the notion that Israel is the people of YHWH (Lev 26:12).45 III. Conceptions of the Covenant It is likewise argued that the PG and H concepts of covenant differ.46 Two influential studies have led to this understanding of the relationship between 41 Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2298. Due to this similarity, Milgrom, Knohl, and many earlier scholars have affirmed that Exod 6:2–8 is an H text. Conversely, others have argued that Lev 26:9, 12–13 is a P text due to its similarity with Exod 6:2–8. 42 Blum, Studien, 328. 43 Crüsemann, Torah, 302; Jan Joosten, “Covenant Theology in the Holiness Code,” ZAR 4 (1998): 158. 44 Crüsemann, Torah, 304–6; Grünwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz, 343–45, 390. 45 According to Cholewinski, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 334, Lev 25:55 deepens (vertieft) the PG covenant formula from Exod 6:7. Otto, Theologische Ethik, 237 expresses the difference as H correcting (korrigiert) PG . 46 Cholewinski, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 334–35; Otto, Theologische Ethik, 237; Ska, Introduction, 152; Zenger, “Das priester(schrift)liche Werk (P),” 173.

48

Chapter 3: Objections Against the Continuity of PG and H

the PG and H covenants. First of all, Walther Zimmerli’s study of the relationship between the Sinai covenant and the Abrahamic covenant in the Priestly narrative led him to conclude that PG knows only a Noahic (Gen 6–9) and an Abrahamic (Gen 17) covenant.47 There is no Sinai covenant in PG; rather Israel stands instead under the conditions of the Abrahamic covenant. Thus PG disassociates the covenant from obedience to Sinaitic law, and understands it as a covenant of grace granted to Abraham independent of his obedience, in which Israel now stands. 48 A second contribution by Norbert Lohfink argues that the ‫ ברית‬in Lev 26:9–13 represents a development beyond the PG covenant of Gen 17 which has been blended with the Deuteronomic concept of the covenant as dependent on obedience to Torah.49 The proposals of Zimmerli and Lohfink have been critiqued from various perspectives but remain influential.50 In order to understand the relationship between the ‫ ברית‬in the Priestly narratives of Gen–Exod and Lev 26, the term itself needs to be examined. First of all, ‫ ברית‬is related to promises of blessing (‫ )ברכה‬initiated at creation (Gen 1:28), where ‫ אלהים‬blesses humanity for the task of being fruitful (‫)פרה‬ and multiplying (‫)רבה‬.51 These blessings come under threat in the flood (Gen 6–9*). Following the flood, God reiterates the blessing (‫ )ברכה‬of fruitfulness (Gen 9:1) and gives a further promise to the whole creation (Gen 9:9-10), this time called a ‫ברית‬, that he will not destroy the world in a flood. The promise is accompanied by the rainbow as a sign of the covenant (‫אות ברית‬, Gen 47

Walther Zimmerli, “Sinaibund und Abrahambund: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Priesterschrift,” in Gottes Offenbarung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament (München: Kaiser Verlag, 1963), 205–16. 48 Ibid., 213. 49 Norbert Lohfink, “Die Abänderung der Theologie des priesterlichen Geschichtswerks im Segen des Heiligkeitsgesetzes: Zu Lev 26,9, 11–13,” in Wort und Geschichte: Festschrift für Karl Elliger zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. H. Gese and H. Rüger; AOAT 18; Kevelaer: Butzon & Berker, 1973), 129–36. 50 Blum, Studien, 326–27; Jan Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26 (VTSup 67; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 117–18; Jeffrey Stackert, “Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction: Leviticus 26 as a Test Case,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz; FAT 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 375–76, 380–81; Crüsemann, Torah, 305–6; Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2298. 51 Cf. recently Ziemer, Abram–Abraham, 299–300; idem., “Schöpfung, Heiligtum und Sabbat in der priesterlichen Bundeskonzeption,” in Ex Oriente Lux: Studien zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Festschrift für Rüdiger Lux zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Angelika Berjelung and Raik Heckl; ABG 39; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012), 39–42; Frank M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 296–97.

Refutation of Proposed Inconsistencies between PG and H

49

9:12–17) that will remind God (‫ זכר‬Gen 9:16-17) of the promise. This eternal self-obligation of God (‫ברית עולם‬, Gen 9:16) however is accompanied by two commandments for humans: abstaining from eating blood, and prohibition of murder (Gen 9:4-6). Violating these commands is punishable by death, which removes the individual from the blessings of the covenant promise. Thus, for the individual offender, the blessings of the promise of the covenant are conditional upon obedience to the conditions. The relationship between God and the world to whom the eternal promise was made, however, remains intact.52 The same twofold dynamic continues in the ‫ ברית‬with Abraham in Gen 17. The creation blessings of fruitfulness and multiplying are once again central to the ‫( ברית‬Gen 17:6, 20). Abraham has reached the age of ninety-nine and remains without a child with Sarah. El Shaddai promises to make him fruitful (‫)פרה‬, but the creation promise is also extended to include the gift of the land of Canaan (Gen 17:8) and the commitment to be the God of Abraham and his descendants (‫והייתי להם לאלהים‬, Gen 17:7–8). The promise is unconditionally an everlasting promise (‫ ברית עולם‬Gen 17:7) but, as in Gen 9:4-6, it is accompanied by a command. Abraham and his descendants are to observe the covenant by circumcision (‫בריתי תשׁמר‬, Gen 17:9–13), which is the sign of the covenant (‫ )אות ברית‬to be observed eternally (Gen 17:13). The blessings of the covenant are conditioned by the command; violating the commandment of circumcision leads to an individual being removed (‫ כרת‬Gen 17:14) from the promises for breaking (‫ )פרר‬the covenant conditions, though the covenant promise itself stands unconditionally. The promise of the covenant narrows the recipients from the world in Gen 9 to the family of Abraham – that is, both Isaac (17:19, 21) and Ishmael (17:20) – and adds the notion of ‫ אלהים‬being God for Abraham’s family and the grant of the land of Canaan as a promise (Gen 17:7–8).53 God makes unconditional promises in both of the covenants of Gen 9 and 17, in both instances accompanied by human obligations. Violation of the conditions removes the individual from the community that shares the blessings of the promises but does not annul the promises. As the circle of recipients of the promises narrows from the world to Abraham’s descendants, the content of the promise adds the land and the special relationship with God, accompanied by an increase in obligations with circumcision.54 The next development in the Priestly covenants is in Exod 1:7; 2:23aβ–25; 6:2–8. In this sequence, the promise of the descendants of Abraham multiplying has led to the sons of Jacob (cf. Gen 35:9–12) becoming a nation in Egypt 52

Nihan, “Priestly Covenant,” 102. For a discussion of the relationship between Ishmael and Isaac as recipients of the ‫ ברית‬in Gen 17, see Ziemer, Abram–Abraham, 309–11. 54 Nihan, “Priestly Covenant,” 101–2. 53

50

Chapter 3: Objections Against the Continuity of PG and H

(‫ בני ישׂראל פרו … וירבו‬Exod 1:7). They cry out in slavery, and God hears them and remembers (‫ )זכר‬his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (2:23– 25). God appears to Moses and reveals himself as ‫יהוה‬, reiterating his promise to Abraham to give his descendants the land and to be their God (Exod 6:2–8). The salvation of Israel from Egypt is therefore triggered by YHWH remembering (‫ )זכר‬his covenant promises (Exod 2:24; 6:5). Following the exodus, the Priestly covenant theme continues when Israel reaches Sinai in the climactic speech of Exod 29:43–46. Here YHWH further specifies the promise by affirming that he will dwell among the Israelites (Exod 29:45– 46). The presence of God requires Israel to be holy and thus entails the obligations of sanctification.55 This Sinai promise is accompanied by the Sabbath as the ‫ אות ברית‬which is a sign of the sanctification of Israel, and therefore of the presence of God among the Israelites (Exod 31:13, 17).56 Violation of the Sabbath by an individual leads to the removal of the violator from the midst of the people and thus from the blessings of the presence of YHWH amidst the people (Exod 31:14). Thus the Priestly covenant texts present a well-structured, consistently developing plan in Gen 9:1–17; 17:1–27; and Exod 6:2–8; 29:45–46; 31:12–17. In each of these texts, ‫ ברית‬is used in the sense of a divine promise which is given to a narrowing circle of addressees, from the world, to Abraham’s descendants, to Israel. The promise extends from fruitfulness and multiplication and the stability of heaven and earth (Gen 1:1–2:4a; 9:1–17), to the promise of the land and El Shaddai being God for Abraham’s descendants (Gen 17:1– 27), to the promise of YHWH revealing himself to Israel and dwelling among the Israelites and sanctifying them (Exod 6:2–8; 29:45–46, 31:12–17). Each 55 According to Eckart Otto, “Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26,” in Levitikus als Buch (ed. H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling, BBB 119; Berlin: Philo, 1999), 175, Exod 29:42–46 is “Der Ausgangspunkt” of the parenesis for holiness in Lev 17–26. Cf. also Crüsemann, Torah, 306–8; and Blum, Studien, 299; idem., “Issues,” 39, on the implications of YHWH dwelling among Israel in Exod 29:45–46 demanding holiness on Israel’s part. 56 It is usually assumed that Exod 31:12–17 does not belong to the same stratum as the covenant statements in Gen 9:1–17; 17:1–27; and Exod 6:2–8; 29:43–46 due to its affinity with H language and its inclusion of a covenant at Sinai with obligations, which has been considered since Zimmerli and Lohfink to be contrary to the Priestly theology of grace; cf. Groß, Zukunft, 46–47. As will be developed more extensively below, there are no imminent grounds to distinguish diachronically between these covenant statements, as argued for example by Ziemer, Abram–Abraham, 302–3; Cross, Canaanite Myth, 296–99; Steck, Der Schöpfungsbericht, 191; and Erhard Blum, “Issues and Problems in the Contemporary Debate Regarding the Priestly Writings,” in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (ed. Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009), 35, who consider Exod 31:12–17 as a whole or in part as an integral continuation of the Priestly covenant statements.

Refutation of Proposed Inconsistencies between PG and H

51

covenant is accompanied by a sign that symbolizes an aspect of the divine promise.57 The rainbow is a symbol of God committing to no longer use a flood to destroy the world (Gen 9),58 circumcision is associated with the promise of fruitfulness extended to Abraham (Gen 17), 59 and the Sabbath is a sign of YHWH’s commitment to be Israel’s God and to dwell among the Israelites, hence of Israel’s sanctification (Exod 29:43–46; 31:13–17). The signs function as reminders to God and the human counterparts in the covenant, and consequently as symbols of membership to those in the covenant community who are recipients of the promises of God.60 According to Gen 9:15–16, the sign of the rainbow will remind YHWH of his commitment not to destroy Israel; in Exod 2:24; 6:5, YHWH remembers his promise to Abraham, based on which he saves Israel from Egypt; and observing the Sabbath as an expression of repentance and commitment to holiness as the epitome of the Torah will enable Israel’s restoration from exile (cf. Lev 26:34–45). Each covenant promise is also accompanied by the required observance of various conditions which increase in accordance to the increasing proximity to God: The prohibitions against blood consumption and murder apply to all of humanity (Gen 9:4–6), circumcision is for Abraham’s descendants (Gen 17:9– 14), and the Sabbath and sanctification is for Israel (Exod 29:45–46; 31:12– 17). Failure to comply with the obligations leads to the offending individuals breaking or annulling their side of the covenant and a subsequent removal

57

Already Nöldeke, Untersuchungen, 55 and Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 358–59 considered the signs of the rainbow, circumcision, and Sabbath as forming an integral connection. Cf. the occurrence of ‫ ביני וביניכם‬+ ‫ אות‬in Gen 9:12; 17:11 and Exod 31:13, as well as ‫ ברית‬in Gen 9:12; 17:13; and 31:16. Each of the signs is connected to the Gen 1:1– 2:4a blessings of creation: the rainbow as a symbol for the preservation of creation, circumcision as a symbol of the blessing of fruitfulness of creation, and the Sabbath as an imitation of the rest of God at creation; see Ziemer, Abram–Abraham, 314–16; idem., “Schöpfung,” 41. These shared elements among the covenant signs in Gen 9:1–17; 17:1– 27; and Exod 31:13–17 suggest that they form an “übergreifendes System” (Ziemer, “Schöpfung,” 40–41). 58 Arnold, “Holiness Redaction,” 32–34; Fox, “Sign,” 573. 59 Fox, “Sign,” 590–96; Ziemer, Abram–Abraham, 305. 60 The slight differences between the signs can be understood as resulting from the developing narrative logic. Each of these signs, including Exod 31:13–17, function as cognitive signs for recollection of the relationship between God and the recipients of the signs and share a similar chiastic pattern; see Fox, “Sign,” 576, 582–83, 595–96. They both have two aspects: they mark the recipients of the covenant promises (world, Abraham, Israel) and remind the recipients of their obligations to the promises (limit violence, circumcise sons, sanctification). So, according to Timmer, Creation, 55, the Sabbath is the sign to remind Israel of its distinctive relationship and standing before God that was made possible at the exodus.

52

Chapter 3: Objections Against the Continuity of PG and H

from the blessings of the covenant promises, but it does not annul the promises. How does this developing Priestly view of the covenant relate to the covenant statements in Lev 26? As is often noted, many of the covenant statements in Lev 26 are indistinguishable from those in the PG narratives, which has often in the history of research led to their assignment to PG.61 The same ‫ ברית‬theme developing in Gen 1:1–2:4a; 9:1–17; 17:1–27; Exod 6:2–8; 29:45–46; 31:13–17 continues in Lev 26, which is closely connected to the covenant texts in Exod 6:2–8; 29:45–46; 31:13–17. The similarity of Exod 6:2–8; 29:45–46; 31:13–17 has resulted in all of these texts in Exodus being assigned to H by Knohl and Milgrom.62 Blum, Ruwe, and Frank Crüsemann have further contended that Lev 26 is the climax of the ‫ ברית‬statements in the Priestly composition KP that actualizes the history of the covenants of God with the world, Abraham, and Israel for the present generation addressed in the composition.63 The ‫ ברית‬statements in Lev 26 contain the same dynamic of promises and obligations seen in the ‫ ברית‬statements of Gen 9:1–17; 17:1–27; Exod 6:2–8; 29:45–46; 31:13–17. Lev 26:9–13 picks up the theme of fruitfulness and multiplication (‫פרה‬, ‫ )רבה‬from Gen 1:28 that forms the foundation of the Priestly covenant promises (Gen 9:1, 6; 17:6, 20; 35:11; Exod 1:7). The promise of YHWH being God for Israel is also taken up (Lev 26:12; cf. Gen 17:7–8; Exod 6:2–8; 29:45–46), along with the promise of YHWH dwelling among the Israelites (Lev 26:11–12) in the promised land. Thus all of the promises of the Priestly covenant statements in Gen–Exod reach their climax in Lev 26.64 In Lev 26, the blessings of these promises are made conditional upon Israel’s obedience to the ‫ חקות‬and ‫ מצות‬of the Sinai Torah (Lev 26:3, 14–15). Disobedience to these commandments constitutes breaking or annulling (‫פרר‬, Lev 26:15, 44) the covenant and leads to loss of the blessings of creation and loss of the land (26:16–33). Since the proposal by Lohfink, it has been common to argue that the PG concept of covenant in Lev 26 has been subjected to a “Deuteronomizing” of the covenant, making it conditional on the keeping of Sinai Torah, and there61 Rudolf Kilian, Literarkritische und Formgeschichtliche Untersuchung des Heiligkeitsgesetz (BBB 19; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1963), 174; Cross, Canaanite Myth, 296–97. 62 Knohl, Sanctuary, 104; Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1343. 63 Blum, Studien, 325–26; Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 31; Crüsemann, Torah, 278–80, 304–5. According to Rainer Albertz, Exodus 1–18 (ZB AT 2.1; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2012), 13, with Lev 26, “gewisse erzählerische Abrundung der Geschehensabfolge erreicht” and the chapter also draws to conclusion “eine theologische Argumentationslinie” that begins in the Priestly texts of Genesis and Exodus. 64 Blum, Studien, 325–26.

Refutation of Proposed Inconsistencies between PG and H

53

fore PG and H contain conflicting notions of the ‫ ברית‬that cannot be from the same stratum.65 Using the same logic, however, it could also be argued that Gen 17:1–27 subjects the Noahic covenant in Gen 9:1–17 to the condition of circumcision, and that they are conflicting notions of covenant.66 This view does not take into consideration the developing logic of the Priestly covenants within the narrative. In contrast to Lohfink, Lev 26 can be read as consistent with the earlier Priestly covenant statements in Gen 9:1–17; 17:1– 27; Exod 6:2–8; 29:45–46; 31:13–17 as part of a gradual narrowing down of the addressees to the Israelites which coincides with an increase in obligations going beyond the world and the Abrahamic descendants in Gen 9:1–17 and 17:1–27. In all of the Priestly covenant statements, including Lev 26, the ‫ ברית‬as a promise is unconditional. Israel may disobey their side of the covenant obligations of the Sinai Torah, which constitutes breaking (‫ פרר‬Lev 26:15, 44; cf. Gen 17:14) the covenant on their part and leading to loss of the blessings for those responsible, but the promises of the covenant are unconditional.67 As noted by Thomas Hieke, Der Bund [in Lev 26] bleibt trotz des Ungehorsams Israels intakt, insbesondere weil Gott die geschehene Geschichte überspringt (ohne sie zu ignorieren oder ungeschehen zu machen) und an die Zeiten der Erzväter anschließt. Mithin ist diese Bundesverheißung auch die einzige, die in den folgenden Flüchen nicht ins Gegenteil verkehrt wird.68

Lev 26 is formed in a symmetrical structure, in which the covenant blessings of Lev 26:3–13 are systematically threatened to be revoked in the curses section of vv. 14–39.69 As Hieke states, the “Bundesverheißung” is the only blessing that is not revoked in the section on curses; the covenant thus remains intact. The basis of it is YHWH’s remembrance of the patriarchal 65

Lohfink, “Abänderung,” 129–36. So for example Grünwaldt, Exil, 58–59 contends that the circumcision command in Gen 17 is secondary due to its imposition of conditions onto the purely one-sided Noahic blessing ‫ברית‬. 67 According to Grünwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz, 373, in Lev 26:42–45, “Das Heiligkeitsgesetz klingt mit einer unbedingten Heilszusage (v. 45) aus.” See also HansUlrich Steymans, “Verheissung und Drohung: Lev 26,” in Levitikus als Buch (ed. H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling; BBB 119; Bodenheim: Philo, 1999), 297–301 on God maintaining the covenant despite the disobedience and exile of Israel. 68 Hieke, Levitikus 17–27 (HThKAT 6.2; Freiburg: Herder, 2015), 1072. Cf. also Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2345. 69 Cf. also Hieke, “The Covenant in Leviticus 26: A Concept of Admonition and Redemption,” in Covenant in the Persian Period (ed. Richard J. Bautch and Gary N. Knoppers; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 78, who notes that Lev 26:14–29 lists the consequences for Israel’s disobedience, after which “God will take back all the promises mentioned in the first part, with one exception: the promise to uphold his covenant is not mentioned and therefore not withdrawn in the second part. Although the covenant is broken by one party (Lev 26:15), God does not dissolve the covenant.” 66

54

Chapter 3: Objections Against the Continuity of PG and H

promise:70 as affirmed in Lev 26:42–45, the bond between YHWH and Israel cannot be broken, as YHWH on his part will never break his promise (‫פרר‬ ‫ ברית‬Lev 26:44) to be their God.71 The covenant promises stand eternally for the Israelites to attain, if they submit to their obligations to the ‫ברית‬.72 Within the context of Lev 26, what has led to the breaking (‫ )פרר‬of the promises is more generally rejecting the ‫משׁפטים‬, ‫חקות‬, and ‫מצות‬, indicating the laws of Sinai or the Holiness Code as a whole, but also epitomized in observance of the Sabbath (Lev 26:15, 34, 43).73 This understanding of the covenant in Lev 26 is correlated with the Sabbath as a sign of the covenant in Exod 31:12–17, which has led to many scholars assigning these texts to the same stratum. On the other hand, according to Christophe Nihan, Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3 represents a post-Lev 17–26 layer of material that presupposes a late connection between Priestly and non-Priestly texts such as Gen 2:2–3; Exod 20:8–11; Exod 23:12, and Deut 5:12–15.74 In Exod 31:12–17 the Sabbath alone is determinative for the sanctification of Israel, in contrast to Lev 17–26, where observance of the laws of Lev 17–26 as a whole are the basis for Israel’s sanctification. Nihan further supports his view that Exod 31:12–17 is not fully aligned with Lev 17–26 by stating that the view of the Sabbath as a ‫ברית‬ ‫ עולם‬in Exod 31:12–17 is unparalleled in Lev 17–26, and that grounding the Sabbath parenesis in creation in Exod 31:12–17 is without correspondence in 70

Groß, Zukunft, 100; Hieke, Levitikus 17–27, 1072. These verses are often considered secondary based on presuppositions about conditionality vs. unconditionality of the covenant, as with Lohfink, “Abänderung,” 134– 36, for whom these verses represent a rejection of the “Deuteronomized” Lev 26:3–39 with a return to the pure Priestly grace theology. The current trend, however, sees the chapter as unified, with no compelling reasons to remove vv. 42–45. Cf. Georg Fischer, “A Need for Hope? A Comparison between the Dynamics in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28–30*,” in Current Issues in Priestly and Related Literature: The Legacy of Jacob Milgrom and Beyond (ed. Roy E. Gane and Ada Taggar-Cohen; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015), 373–74; Stackert, “Distinguishing,” 374 n. 15; Steymans, “Verheissung,” 273; Marjo Korpel, “The Epilogue to the Holiness Code,” in Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose (ed. J.C.de Moor and W.G.E. Watson; AOAT 42; Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993), 123–50; Jan Joosten, “Covenant Theology,” 151 n. 30; Nihan, “Priestly Covenant,” 106–9. For detailed objections against removing vv. 40–45, see Blum, Studien, 327 n. 147, especially based on the key linking words found in vv. 1– 39 and 40–45. 72 Steymans, “Verheissung,” 298–99. 73 Ibid., 299; cf. Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 552 on Lev 26:46 including the entire Sinaitic law from Exod 20–Lev 26 within the conditions of the covenant. 74 Christophe Nihan, “Das Sabbatgesetz Exodus 31:12–17, die Priesterschrift und das Heiligkeitsgesetz: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit neueren Interpretationen,” in Wege der Freiheit: Zur Entstehung und Theologie des Exodusbuchs; Die Beiträge eines Symposions zum 70. Geburtstag von Rainer Albertz (ed. Reinhard Achenbach, Ruth Ebach, and Jakob Wöhrle; AThANT 104; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2014), 140–45. 71

Refutation of Proposed Inconsistencies between PG and H

55

H, because the parenetic framework of H motivates commands to holiness with appeals to the exodus.75 I agree with Nihan that Exod 31:12–17 presents a singular perspective of the Sabbath within the Pentateuch. However, the differences between Exod 31:12–17 and Lev 17–26 can be understood by positing an opposite direction of development than Nihan does: from the perspective of the narrative logic as part of the developing Sabbath revelation of the H composition, Exod 31:12–17 introduces the Sabbath theology and significance of the Sabbath for the Sinai covenant that is presupposed in and culminates in Lev 26. Further, if the H composition is understood as a redactional supplement to the nonPriestly material as I will argue below, the combination of texts such as Gen 2:2–3; Exod 20:8–11; 23:12; Deut 5:12–15 that is presupposed in Exod 31:12–17 is not an indication that Exod 31:12–17 comes from a later stage of material than the covenant texts of Gen 9:1–17; 17:1–27 as Nihan argues.76 Rather, Exod 31:12–17 has integrated various Sabbath traditions into the foundation for the perspective of the Holiness Code Sabbath laws. Lev 26, which is the culmination of the parenetic framework of H, connects the Sabbath (26:2, 34–35, 43) with creation theology as well as the with the exodus

75

Nihan, “Das Sabbatgesetz,” 140. Ibid., 132, 140. The same scribal profile of mixing various traditions is seen also in the covenant texts of Gen 9; 17, and Exod 6:2–8. So for example according to Erisman, “Mythologizing Exile,” 109, the Priestly flood narrative of Gen 9 “exhibits a fusion of non-Israelite traditions with laws and other elements of Israelite cultural repertoire drawn eclectically from H, D, and prophetic backgrounds,” with especially similarities with Ezekiel evident. If this is also an H text, it shows the same scribal profile as Exod 31:12– 17. As noted by Ziemer, Abram-Abraham, 375–76, the central section of the covenant promise of Gen 17:9–14 can be assigned to an “Endkomposition” that is a mixture of Deuteronomistic and Priestly language and seeks to mediate non-Priestly traditions from the primeval and patriarchal narratives of Genesis as well as the Pentateuch. Also as argued by McEvenue, Narrative Style, 152–55, and Carr, Reading, 81–85, Genesis 17 is dependent on the non-Priestly texts of Gen 15 and 18:10–14. Exod 6:2–8, which is usually considered as part of the sequence of covenant texts from Gen 9 and 17, contains a combination of prophetic and Deuteronomistic language similar to that seen in Exod 31:12–17, again with similarities with Ezekiel; cf. Johan Lust, “Exodus 6:2–8 and Ezekiel,” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation (ed. Mark Vervenne; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 209–24. The presence of Deuteronomistic language in fact is why Otto, “Forschungen,” 9 n. 43, 10 n. 45, and Grünwaldt, Exil, 27–30, remove Exod 6:6–8 from their PG . Each of these texts (Gen 9, 17; Exod 6:2–8; 31:12–17) are compositions that contain a complex blending of non-Priestly language formed into the developing Priestly covenant theology, with Gen 9; Exod 6:2–8; 31:12–17 each particularly showing similarities with Ezekiel; therefore the fact that Exod 31:12–17 presupposes the connection of Priestly and non-Priestly material such as Gen 2:2–3; Exod 20:8–11; Exod 23:12; Deut 5:12–15 as Nihan argues, cannot be used as a criterion for assigning Exod 31:12–17 to a later stage of composition than Gen 9, 17; Exod 6:2–8. 76

56

Chapter 3: Objections Against the Continuity of PG and H

(26:9–13).77 However, Lev 17–26 nowhere motivates Sabbath observance with reference to the exodus as it is in Deut 5:12–15. Thus against Nihan, it is not a matter of Exod 31:12–17 differing from Lev 17–26 by motivating the Sabbath in creation as Nihan states. Lev 17–26 builds on the significance of the Sabbath for the sanctification of Israel introduced in Exod 31:13 by expressing observance of the Sabbath as a representative for all the laws of Lev 17–26. Within Lev 26, the only violation that is mentioned specifically is failure to keep the Sabbath, described in 26:34–35, 43 as the cause of the exile.78 This suggests that the Sabbath functions as the sign of the Sinai covenant, as it is in Exod 31:12–17, but with Lev 26 extending the importance of Sabbath observance as expressed with the warnings of the individual death penalty (Exod 31:14–15) to impact the nation of Israel with exile.79 Thus rather than Exod 31:12–17 being a later development of the Sabbath theology of Lev 17–26 as Nihan argues, the direction of development can be reversed to understand Exod 31:12–17 as part of the developing Sabbath theology that culminates in Lev 26. In Exod 31:12–17, the Sabbath is a sign (‫ )אות‬that is a ‫( ברית עולם‬Exod 31:16) between YHWH and Israel that YHWH sanctifies Israel (‫כי אות הוא ביני וביניכם לדרתיכם לדעת כי אני יהוה מקדשׁכם‬, Exod 31:13).80 Failure to keep the Sabbath results in being removed from the promise of YHWH to sanctify Israel and, thus, from the possibility of living in the presence of YHWH (31:14). Exod 31:12–17 can therefore be understood as the Sinaitic counterpart to the Priestly covenants and signs from Gen 9:1–17; 17:1–27, the full meaning of which is developed in the conclusion to the Sinai legislation in Lev 26.81 According to Hans-Ulrich Steymans, “in Lev 26 gehe is bei ‫ ברית‬um Verheißung, die aber gebunden sei an den Sabbat als Bundeszeichen”; the Sabbath functions as the sign of the covenant that becomes the decisive criterion of whether Israel will attain the covenant promises in Lev 26, in the way that circumcision is the sign for attaining the promises of Gen 17.82 It is possible for Israelites who have broken the covenant to be restored to the blessings of the covenant through repentance (Lev 26:40– 77

On Lev 26:1ff. as part of the parenetic framework of the Holiness Code, see Otto, Theologische Ethik, 237–41; “Innerbiblische Exegese,” 172–76. 78 Norbert C. Baumgart, “Überkommene Traditionen neu aufgearbeitet und angeeignet: Lev 26:3–45. Das Heiligkeitsgesetz in Exil und Diaspora,” BZ 43 (1999): 22–23. 79 Steymans, “Verheissung,” 299; Cross, Canaanite Myth, 296–98. As argued by Gnana Robinson, The Origin and Development of the Old Testament Sabbath: A Comprehensive Exegetical Approach (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1988), 261, in Lev 26 the Sabbath becomes the sign of covenant keeping, as “whoever keeps the covenant keeps the Sabbath, and whoever profanes the Sabbath breaks the covenant.” 80 Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 126. 81 Cross, Canaanite Myth, 296–98; Steymans, “Verheissung,” 299. 82 Steymans, “Verheissung,” 299.

Refutation of Proposed Inconsistencies between PG and H

57

41).83 The possibility of restoration is triggered by YHWH remembering (‫)זכר‬ his promises to the patriarchs and exodus generation (Lev 26:42, 45; cf. Gen 9:15–16; Exod 2:24; 6:5).84 In summary, Lev 26 stands in a consistent line with the Priestly covenant theology from Gen 9:1–17; 17:1–27 and Exod 6:2–8; 29:45–46; 31:13–17. A gradual narrowing of the circle of addressees from the world, to Abraham, to Israel coincides with an increase in both promises to and obligations from humans due to increasing proximity to God in order to maintain their part of the covenant.85 This narrative development is also characterized by a movement from individual responsibility in Gen 17, to communal responsibility in Lev 26, once the establishment of Israel as a nation occurs in Exod 1:7.86 The special relationship that Israel has with YHWH and the presence of YHWH among the Israelites demands holiness, as expressed by observance of the Sinaitic Torah, in order for the Israelites to maintain their side of the covenant.87 In all of the covenants, the promises of YHWH are unconditional, as YHWH is committed to maintaining the covenant, though individuals or Israel as a community may violates the conditions of the covenant which leads to loss of the blessings.88 Observing the Sinaitic Torah is the climactic expression of Israel’s response to the promises of God and enables the restoration of the original conditions and promises of creation and the presence of

83

On the function of repentance in Lev 26, see Hieke, “Covenant,” 80–81. Steymans, “Verheissung,” 297; Crüsemann, Torah, 305–6. 85 Ziemer, “Schöpfung,” 40; Blum, Studien, 328. 86 Hieke, Levitikus 17–27, 1059–62. The national perspective of the final circle addressing the covenant responsibilities for which Israel is accountable in Lev 26 is the cause for the difference in perspective from individual responsibility to communal responsibility in Lev 26 and is the main conceptual difference between Lev 26 and the previous covenant texts of Gen 9, 17; Exod 6:2–8; 29:43–46; 31:12–17; see Steymans, “Verheissung,” 297; Joosten, People, 117–18; Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1421–23. On the comparison of the individual sanctions of Gen 17 with the communal perspective of sanction and restoration in Lev 26, see also Michael B. Hundley, Keeping Heaven on Earth: Safeguarding the Divine Presence in the Priestly Tabernacle (FAT 2/50; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 176–78. This difference however need not be a diachronic distinction, but can also be understood as part of the developing narrative logic of the story of Israel moving from individuals in the patriarchal era to the nation of Israel as a morally culpable community at Sinai. 87 As noted by Crüsemann, Torah, 305, this narrative context of the presence of a Holy God among Israel as a nation living in the land is seen in the covenant of Lev 26, with the consequences of covenant violation necessarily impacting Israel on a communal level. 88 The phrase ‫ הקים ברית‬relates to the upholding of the promises from creation found in Gen 9:11; 17:7, 19; Exod 6:4; and Lev 26:9 (Blum, Studien, 325–33) or maintaining an already existing covenant. As noted by Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2343–45, the antonym of ‫ הקים‬in Lev 26 is ‫פרר‬, which does not indicate that the covenant is annulled. 84

58

Chapter 3: Objections Against the Continuity of PG and H

God.89 What is stated by David Carr in his study of the P narrative in Genesis fits as an understanding of the H composition that climaxes in Lev 26: P builds a bridge between these two layers of time [primeval and present time] by using the themes of eternity and memory. God “establishes” “eternal” covenants with Noah and Abraham, and then “remembers” them at crucial junctures. On the other side, Israel is “reminded” of its paradigmatic history (as conceived by P) by elements such as circumcision (an “eternal covenant”) and Passover (“an eternal decree”)…. The world has certain created and covenantal structures. God has always remembered. Now Israel, standing at the brink of possible return to the land and reestablishment of its cult, must remember as well.90

It is Lev 26, as the exhortative climax of the H composition, which “builds a bridge” between primeval and present time, reminding Israel of its paradigmatic history and the eternal creational and covenantal structures of God’s promises, and calling Israel to remember and obey Torah. Lev 26 is thus parenetic preaching of the traditions of the covenant from the primeval, patriarchal, and exodus era to the addressees of the H composition, which draws out the implications of the H covenant theology from the history of the world, the patriarchal history, and the exodus account for members of the present generation, offering them hope of restoration and exhorting them to Torah observance.91 89

Blum, Studien, 325–33; Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, Volume II: From the Exile to the Maccabees (trans. John Bowden; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 492. This is seen especially in the theme of the walking (‫ )הלך‬of God with humans in the Priestly writings as traced by Blum. In the pre-diluvian world, Enoch and Noah are blameless and walk with God (‫הלך את אלהים‬, Gen 5:22–24; 6:9). Following the corruption of the world in the flood, Abraham is only able to walk before YHWH (‫הלך לפני‬, Gen 17:1). This theme comes to a climax in Lev 26. YHWH will walk among the Israelites (‫התהלכתי‬, Lev 26:12) and has broken the bonds of Israel and enabled them to walk upright (‫אולך אתכם קוממיות‬, Lev 26:13). Thus the motif of walking expresses the restoration of relationship with God as made possible by obedience to the Torah. Regardless of whether this theme is also influenced by 2 Sam 7:6 (‫אהיה‬ ‫ )מתהלך באהל ובמשׁכן‬in Lev 26:12 as Christophe Nihan, “Heiligkeitsgesetz und Pentateuch: Traditions- und kompositionsgeschichtliche Aspekte von Levitikus 26,” in Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte (ed. Friedhelm Hartenstein and Konrad Schmid; VWGTh 40; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 2015), 200–1 argues, due to the other connections of Lev 26 to the primeval history (‫פרה‬, ‫ )רבה‬and the covenant contexts of Gen 6–9 and 17 which develop the motif of ‫הלך‬, it is likely that Lev 26:12–13 intended this motif as a development of the ‫ הלך‬theme from Gen 5:22–24; 6:9; 17:1. 90 Carr, Reading, 140. 91 Steymans, “Verheissung,” 300. So, according to James W. Watts, Reading Law: The Rhetorical Shaping of the Pentateuch (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 58–60, Lev 26 is the climactic exhortation expressing the rhetorical intentions of the entire Priestly Torah. The blessings of the earlier promises from creation and the origins of Israel in Gen 9:1–17; 17:1–27; and Exod 6:2–8 as linked in Lev 26 are now attainable for those

Refutation of Proposed Inconsistencies between PG and H

59

IV. The Presence of So-Called “Deuteronomistic” Terminology Another argument presented by Cholewinski, Otto, and Ska is that the presence of Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic terminology in Lev 17–26 distinguishes H from PG, because PG does not show influence of Deuteronomy, whereas H does.92 I agree with Cholewinski, Otto, and Ska that there is a distinction between Deuteronomistic and Priestly language evident in the Pentateuch, with the language of Lev 17–26 sharing features of Deuteronomistic language. The “pure” Priestly language that does not show features of Deuteronomistic language however is in the Priestly laws seen in Exod 25– Lev 16, whereas various sections of the PG narrative, such as Gen 9:1–17; 17:9–14; Exod 6:6–8, do contain language similar to Deuteronomy. According to Angela Roskop Erisman, the Priestly flood account of Gen 9 “exhibits a fusion of non-Israelite traditions with laws and other elements of Israelite cultural repertoire drawn eclectically from H, D, and prophetic backgrounds.”93 As noted by Benjamin Ziemer, the central section of the covenant promise of Gen 17:9–14 shows evidence of Deuteronomistic language as it mediates nonPriestly traditions from the primeval and patriarchal narratives of Genesis as well as the Pentateuch.94 Exod 6:2–8, which is part of the Priestly sequence of covenant texts with Gen 9 and 17, also contains a combination of prophetic and Deuteronomistic language.95 The presence of Deuteronomistic language in fact is why Otto and Grünwaldt among others excise verses such as Gen 17:9–14; Exod 6:6–8 from PG.96 As noted by Thomas Römer however, since verses like Exod 6:6–8 cannot be removed from PG, this raises the question of whether PG knows and utilizes Deuteronomistic phraseology.97 This is the conclusion that Rainer Albertz draws, noting that the priestly covenant making and formulae in Gen 9, 17, Exod 6, and including Lev 26:12 each have a “Deuteronomic origin” with their two-sided covenant theology.98 As will be argued here, the PG narrative expands and interprets the non-P narrative and ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– who observe the Torah. The Priestly narratives persuade hearers to observe the Torah by describing its origins in creation, by specifying the ideal divine-human relationship that it makes possible, and by promising blessings and threatening curses. 92 Otto, Theologische Ethik, 237; Ska, Introduction, 152; cf. already Wellhausen, Composition, 149–50. 93 Erisman, “Mythologizing Exile,” 109. 94 Ziemer, Abram-Abraham, 375–76. 95 Cf. Lust, “Exodus 6:2–8,” 209–24. 96 Otto, “Forschungen,” 9 n. 43, 10 n. 45; Grünwaldt, Exil, 27–30. 97 Thomas Römer, “Von Moses Berufung zur Spaltung des Meers: Überlegungen zur priesterschriftlichen Version der Exoduserzählung,” in Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der pentateuchdebatte (ed. Friedhelm Hartenstein and Konrad Schmid; VWGTh 40; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 2015), 142. 98 Albertz, Religion, 2: 480, 628 n. 95.

60

Chapter 3: Objections Against the Continuity of PG and H

occasionally reflects the sometimes “Deuteronomistic” language of the non-P narrative.99 If the PG narrative is a complex of materials that relates to the non-Priestly narrative, then “Deuteronomistic” language and concepts can also be seen in genuine Priestly narratives of Gen–Exod such as Exod 6:6–8 and Gen 17:9–14. Especially if the Priestly narrative is a compositional layer added to a non-Priestly composition that is in some sense “Deuteronomistic” as argued for example by Blum,100 Thomas B. Dozeman,101 and Wolfang Oswald and Helmut Utzschneider,102 the non-Priestly language of the Deuteronomistic composition would influence the Priestly composition. Both Lev 17–26 as well as the central covenant statements of the traditional PG narrative have the same linguistic profile of language similar to Deuteronomy. It is the Priestly tabernacle and ritual texts of Exod 25–Lev 16 that are “pure” priestly language without Deuteronomistic influence. The distinction in language between PG and Lev 17–26 based on the presence of Deuteronomistic language in Lev 17–26 but not in PG that Cholewinski, Otto, and Ska argue for is thus unfounded.103 V. The Question of Profane vs. Sacred Slaughter Another objection to the continuity between PG and H is the argument that, in Lev 17, H revises the P notion of the allowance of profane slaughter from Gen 9:3–6 in view of centralization in Deuteronomy 12.104 According to Gen 99

See the discussion in Weimar, Studien, 10–12, who notes that whether the Priestly narrative is considered a redactional layer added to the non-Priestly narrative, or an independent narrative that stands on its own, the influence of the non-Priestly narrative, which is considered to be “deuteronomistisch bearbeitete jehowistische” or “jehowistischdeuteronomistich” is evident in PG . As a redactional layer PG would comment on, interpret, extend, and correct the non-Priestly account, and as an independent source it would still be formed in interaction with the non-Priestly narrative. In the words of Albertz, Religion, 2: 481, the priestly composition is in a “dialogue which in part confirms, enlarges, corrects and even contests the D composition.” Thus we would expect it occasionally to reflect the language of the underlying D composition it is in dialogue with. 100 Blum, Studien, 7–207. 101 Thomas B. Dozeman, Exodus (ECC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 38–43. 102 Wolfgang Oswald and Helmut Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15 (IECOT; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2014), 40–41. 103 So also for Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 33, the presence of Deuteronomistic or nonPriestly language cannot be used as a criterion for distinguishing between P and H. 104 Paul Wurster, “Zur Charakteristik und Geschichte des Priesterkodex und Heiligkeitsgesetzes,” ZAW 4 (1884): 120; Bertholet, Leviticus, 57; and Bruno Baentsch, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Lev. XVII–XVI: Eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung (Erfurt: Güther, 1893), 22 n. 1 early on argued for the incoherence between the views of slaughter in Gen 9 and Lev 17:3–4, and one finds this view more recently in Cholewinski, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 177; Otto, Theologische Ethik, 241; and Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 411–13. According to these scholars, the laws of Lev 17 are a critical revision of the laws

Refutation of Proposed Inconsistencies between PG and H

61

9:3–4, post-flood humanity is allowed to consume every living thing (‫רמשׂ‬ ‫)חי‬, with the only limitation placed on the consumption of blood (‫בשׂר בנפשׁו‬ ‫)דמו‬. The legislation continues in Gen 9:5–6 by regulating a talion punishment against murder of humans: ‫שׁפך דם האדם באדם דמו ישׁפך‬. According to Lev 17:4–5, slaughtering an ox, lamb, or goat and not bringing it to the tent of meeting is equated with the murder of a human, expressed in terms from Gen 9:6 (‫)דם יחשׁב לאישׁ ההוא דם שׁפך‬, and results in the ‫ כרת‬penalty. As argued by Blum, Ruwe, and Crüsemann, these texts are to be understood as developing the notion of a restored creation within the Priestly composition, of which Lev 17 is an essential component. Profane slaughter does not yet exist in the narrative situation of Gen 9, because the alternative of sacral slaughter does not exist yet in the chronology of the narrative. Therefore viewing Gen 9 as allowing profane slaughter and Lev 17 as limiting it are not necessarily contradictory notions, if the texts are read together in sequence as a developing narrative.105 According to the original creation in the Priestly narrative, humans were limited to a vegetarian diet in peaceful co-existence with animals (Gen 1:29–30).106 Following the introduction of violence into the world and the ensuing flood, God places boundaries on violence against the animal world and humanity (Gen 9:4–6). With the restoration of the presence of God among the Israelites in the sanctuary and the sanctification of Israel as a place for YHWH in the world as seen in the program of Lev 17– 26, the limitation of slaughter to the cultic realm in Lev 17 “steht damit deutlich im Zusammenhang mit dem kosmologischen Grundproblem der priesterlichen Urgeschichte, nämlich der in der Tiertötung thematisierten Gewaltproblematik.”107 The significance of this concept for the H composition is expressed in equating the inappropriate killing of animals with the murder of humans. Violence against animals is limited to the cultic realm in the case of animals dedicated to God (Lev 17:4–6), leading to the possibility ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– for profane slaughter in D and P. Whether or not Lev 17 is an intentional revision of D does not, however, affect the consideration of it as integrally connected to the inner logic of the Priestly composition developing from Gen 9:3–6. 105 Blum, Studien, 336 n. 10; cf. Crüsemann, Torah, 278, 291–93. So already August Dillmann, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus (3rd ed.; KEH 12; Leipzig: Hirzel, 1897), 585. The objections of Wurster, “Zur Charakteristik,” 120 and Baentsch, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 22 n. 1 do not take into account the significance of narrative development within the Priestly narrative. 106 Blum, Studien, 289–90 and Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 61–62, 413. Nihan agrees with this understanding of the development of dietary restrictions in the Priestly narrative as part of the restoration of creation but contends that H “radicalizes” P and thus cannot be from the same stratum (413). 107 Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 143. The dietary regulations in Lev 11 are also to be understood in this context; see Blum, Studien, 323–24; Firmage, “Genesis 1,” 101–6. Cf. also Erisman, “Mythologizing Exile,” 108–9; Arnold, “Holiness Redaction,” 29.

62

Chapter 3: Objections Against the Continuity of PG and H

that peaceful relations between humanity and creation might be restored (Lev 26:3–6).108 VI. Passover Instructions in Exod 12 and Lev 23 The Passover instructions in Exod 12 are commonly held to contradict those in Lev 23:5–8, as the Lev 23 H festival calendar supposedly seeks to reconcile the P Passover ritual of Exod 12 with the Deuteronomic instructions for the Passover in Deut 16.109 As is often noted, however, the Passover instructions in Lev 23:4–5 are remarkably laconic. Lev 23:4–5 merely states that the Passover is counted among the ‫( מועדי יהוה מקראי קדשׁ‬Lev 23:4) and that it takes place on the fourteenth day of the first month at twilight (‫בין הערבים‬ Lev 23:5). The understanding of Exod 12 in itself is a complex issue, and how it relates to Lev 17–26 will be discussed more extensively below. At this point, however, it can be provisionally argued that there is no contradiction between the statements on the Passover in Exod 12 and Lev 23, and the absence of information on how to perform the Passover in Lev 23 can be explained if one understands Lev 23 to presume the instructions in Exod 12.110 As noted by Grünwaldt, there is no contradiction between Lev 23 and P traditions of the Passover, though Lev 23:5 transforms Exod 12:1–14 by transferring the family festival to the central sanctuary.111 This difference between the family festival in Exod 12 and the central sanctuary ‫ מקרא קדשׁ‬in Lev 23 is not a contradiction that necessitates literary-critical distinction. The instructions in Exod 12:1–14 are for the family passover ritual of choosing and slaughtering the lamb and its consumption in the urgent circumstances of the departure from Egypt as necessitated by the narrative context, whereas Lev 23:5 is about the collective public celebration of the Passover as a communal

108

Blum, Studien, 325. It is possible, however, for humans to partake of meat as part of ‫ שׁלמים‬offerings, as well as the meat of an animal that is ‫ טרפה‬or ‫( נבלה‬Lev 17:5, 15–16). 109 Otto, Theologische Ethik, 237; “Innerbiblische Exegese,” 154–57; Ska, Introduction, 153; Cholewinski, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 214–15; Bertholet, Leviticus, 79. 110 Several scholars considered Lev 23:5 part of PG ; e.g., Karl Elliger, Leviticus (HAT 4; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966), 314; Abraham Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (vol. 1, 2nd ed., trans. P. Wicksteed; London: MacMillan, 1886), 89; and Kilian, Untersuchung, 110. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 1968, Dillmann, Exodus, 639, Christian Feucht, Untersuchungen zum Heiligkeitsgesetz (TA 20; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1964), 46, and David Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus (vol 2.; Berlin: M. Poppelauer, 1906), 7, 143–44 consider Exod 12:1–20 to be the presumed historical background of Lev 23:5–8. Knohl, Sanctuary, 104 assigns Exod 12:1– 20 to H. 111 Grünwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz, 129.

Refutation of Proposed Inconsistencies between PG and H

63

festival in the promised land. This difference in perspective is not a conceptual difference that would necessitate that one see them as incompatible.112 VII. Theological Differences Knohl and Milgrom have also postulated a series of theological differences between P and H.113 A pivotal issue here is the assignment of Exod 6:2–8 to H by both of these scholars.114 Exod 6:2–8 however is inextricably connected to previous Priestly texts such as Gen 1:1–2:4a; 17:1–27, and thus Knohl and Milgrom are inconsistent when they consider the preceding Priestly narratives in Gen 1:1–2:4a; 6–9*, and 17 as P/PT, as distinct from H in Exod 6:2– 8; 29:45–46.115 According to Knohl, the Priestly narratives (PT) in Genesis portray ‫ אלהים‬personally and anthropomorphically and as relating to humans through mutual covenants (‫ברית‬, Gen 9:1–17; 17:1–27), whereas in the Mosaic era PT eliminates all anthropomorphic notions of ‫יהוה‬, who now encounters (‫ )יעד‬Israel through the impersonal ‫ כבוד‬and relates to Israel through a unilateral ‫ עדות‬pact described in Exod 25:22.116 However, Knohl contends that H rejects the PT notion of an impersonal God in the Sinai era, where H reaffirms the PT notion of an anthropomorphic, direct, active, and personal God seen in the Genesis PT narratives. According to H, YHWH relates to Israel again through a bilateral ‫ ברית‬and addresses Israel in first person, as in the Genesis PT theology.117 Given the fact that the central text that describes the progressive revelation from ‫ אלהים‬to ‫ אל שׁדי‬to ‫( יהוה‬Exod 6:2–8) is of H origin, and because it is inextricably linked to the preceding Priestly narratives in Genesis, a better solution would be to consider all of the texts that reflect a consistent anthropomorphic notion of God, the gradual revelation of the name of God (Exod 6:2–8), and the sequence of bilateral covenants (Gen 9:1–17; 17:1–27; Exod 6:2–8; 29:45–46; Lev 26) as H texts. Rather than seeing Knohl’s impersonal PT at Sinai as a radical departure from an anthropomorphic PT theology in Genesis, with H then returning to the Genesis PT 112

Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 30, 304–7; Blum, “Issues,” 37 n. 24; Blum, Studien, 336 n. 10; Hoffmann, Leviticus II, 7, 143–44. 113 Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 16–21. 114 Knohl, Sanctuary, 104; Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1343. 115 Though Milgrom, “HR in Leviticus,” 33-40 considers Gen 1:1–2:4a to be H, this creates inconsistency in relation to Gen 17:1–27, which he considers P. Thomas King, The Realignment of the Priestly Literature: The Priestly Narrative in Genesis and its Relation to Priestly Legislation and the Holiness School (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009), 77–108, 125–51 seeks to alleviate this problem by assigning the Genesis Priestly narratives to a Pn source, with the Priestly narratives following Exod 6:2 from H. 116 Knohl, Sanctuary, 125–36. 117 Ibid., 168–70.

64

Chapter 3: Objections Against the Continuity of PG and H

anthropomorphic theology, the impersonal PT Sinai theology is better understood as the use of traditions that reflect a different priestly perspective. These traditions are seen primarily in Exod 25–29* and other ritual texts within Exod–Lev–Num which have been integrated within a consistently anthropomorphic H theology seen in the composition spanning from Gen 1–Lev 26. Based on ritual texts in Exod 25–Lev–Num which Knohl assigns to PT, he further develops his opposition between PT and HS, such as in differences between rewards and punishments, and the separation of morality and the cult.118 Milgrom follows Knohl in many regards, proposing that a characteristic feature of H is first person divine speech directed to the addressee in second person, and Milgrom likewise contends that P makes an effort to avoid anthropomorphism.119 But this pattern of divine address and theology is also reflected in what he considers to be P texts in Gen 9, 17.120 Milgrom is nevertheless open to considering H material in Genesis, such as Gen 1:1–2:4a, and he sees the election of Israel as holy for YHWH as expressed in H as a natural continuation and climax of the process of creation.121 The natural consequence of assigning Gen 1:1–2:4a, as well as Exod 6:2–8; 29:38–46, to H as Milgrom does, however, is the assignment of all of the Priestly narratives in Genesis, such as Gen 9 and 17, to H.

C. Conclusion: The H Composition The remaining proposed differences between the PG narrative and Lev 17–26 involve cultic regulations.122 Following this analysis of the proposed incon118

Ibid., 174–75. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 59; Leviticus 17–22, 1326. However, as noted by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1434, Moses is the mediator of divine speech for both P and H. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 is also less certain than Knohl about using first-person address as a criterion for determining between H and P (17) and rejects Knohl’s view that P is averse to describing YHWH as dwelling among the Israelites, as he assigns Exod 24:15–18; 40:35– 36 to P, in contrast to Knohl’s H assignment (58–59). Milgrom, “HR in Leviticus,” 33 n. 35 does, however, sustain anthropomorphism as a criterion for distinguishing between P and H when he takes Gen 1:1–2:4a as H, which contains extensive anthropomorphism; nevertheless, he still considers the Priestly covenant of Gen 9 as P, which also contains anthropomorphism. 120 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 15. 121 Milgrom, “HR in Leviticus,” 33–39. 122 Most of the differences between P and H proposed by Knohl and Milgrom are differences in the understanding of the cult; see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 35–38 and Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1325–26, 1349–55. As noted by Nihan, “Priestly Covenant,” 87–88 and From Priestly Torah, 546, a process of revision and expansion has generated 119

Conclusion: The H Composition

65

sistencies between the PG narrative and H, it can be affirmed that there are no contradictions between the PG narrative and the characteristic H material in Lev 17–26 that would require assigning them to different strata due to conflicts between them. This leaves open the possibility that there are integral connections between the PG narrative and the characteristic H material which would justify treating the two together as a unified H composition. Now that the objections against the coherence of PG and H have been addressed, a positive case can be made for the coherence of PG and H. I will first outline the main themes of the logically developing Priestly narrative in Genesis and Exodus. Having shown how the Priestly narrative begins with the Holiness Preamble in Gen 1:1–2:4a to provide the narrative foundation for the Sabbath and festival legislation of the Holiness Code, I will show how the Priestly narratives in the book of Exodus function similarly in relation to the laws of Lev 17–26. The Priestly narratives of Gen–Exod will be shown to be a necessary foundation for the Holiness Code and part of what can fittingly be called the H composition. Though it has often been noted that key Priestly texts in Exod 6:2–8; 29:43–46; and Exod 31:12–17 have language that resembles H, the case for their attribution to H has not been settled. I will make a positive case for understanding them as integral theological and motivational foundations for the laws of Lev 17–25 and the exhortation in Lev 26. This will confirm what was stated by Nöldeke regarding the Priestly narrative: its nature is to use narratives to establish and inculcate laws.123 As I will argue, the Priestly narrative is best understood as an H composition, intended to inculcate the H legislation. The Priestly texts of Exodus develop the foundational H composition themes from Genesis, such as creation theology and the covenant, but add important themes that likewise permeate the H laws and covenant theology, with the revelation of the name YHWH to Israel resulting in the exodus event (Exod 1–14), and the subsequent indwelling of YHWH among the Israelites and the demand for holiness (Exod 16–40). Analysis of the Priestly texts will be divided into two sections, with the first focusing on Egypt (Exod 1–14) and the second on wilderness and Sinai texts (Exod 16–40). Each of these sections contain narratives that constitute ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– terminological and conceptual distinctions within the Priestly literature in cultic matters. Likewise for Bruno Baentsch, Exodus–Leviticus–Numeri (HKAT 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1903), 388–89, 404–405, 412 and Bertholet, Leviticus, xv, differences between P and H are also found in cultic matters, in Lev 17, 21–22, and 23. As noted in the critiques of Knohl and Milgrom by Blum, “Issues,” 33–39 and Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 32, these differences pertain only to cultic matters and involve nuances of expression indicating the use of various cultic traditions. Grünwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz, 129–30 finds no contradictions with P in Lev 17–20, 23–25. Only in Lev 21–22 does he consider there to be slight differences with other Priestly laws. 123 Nöldeke, Untersuchungen, 62, 108.

66

Chapter 3: Objections Against the Continuity of PG and H

the backbone of the H composition in Exodus. These texts will be identified based on the presence of H language, as well as a function that is consistent with the H composition in Genesis and which establishes the foundations for H legislation and theology in Lev 17–26. These chapters will also consider how H has integrated Priestly and non-Priestly traditions into the overarching H composition from Gen 1–Lev 26. Because I am arguing for the adoption of the label of an H composition that is previously unused in scholarship, I will need to be clear in chs 4 and 5 on how I use terminology, and especially on how I understand the H composition to relate to previous delineations of the Priestly literature. In these chapters (ch 4: Exod 1–14; ch 5: Exod 16–40) I will proceed with a textual analysis that initially defines what previous scholars have considered to be the Priestly narrative (PG). In this analysis, I will continue to initially use the term PG to describe the Priestly narratives in these sections, because I will be interacting with the work of other scholars who use this terminology in analysing the Priestly texts. Once I have made a case for what should be considered the PG narrative, the second part of each chapter will label this PG narrative an H composition in describing how it relates to Lev 17–26, in order to argue that what scholars have originally identified as a PG narrative is better understood as an H composition.

Chapter 4

The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14: You Shall Know That I Am YHWH A. Introduction to the Priestly Texts in Exod 1–14 From the time of the classic identification of the Priestly literature by Theodor Nöldeke, Abraham Kuenen, and Julius Wellhausen, there has been widespread agreement over its broad contours within the book of Exodus.1 Traditionally, Exod 1:1–5, 7, 13–14; 2:23a–25; 6:2–7:13; 7:19–20a, 21b–22; 8:1–3, 12–15; 9:8–12; 11:9–10; 12:1–20, 28, 43–51; and 14* have been considered part of the Priestly narrative within the first part of the book (Exod 1– 15). Recent studies by Jan Christian Gertz and Christoph Berner have argued that the texts of Exodus developed in a process of gradual supplementation, and this approach has brought increasing scrutiny of the strata and character of the Priestly writings in Exodus.2 Though recently the view of continuous J 1

Cf. the chart in Heinrich Holzinger, Einleitung in die Hexateuch (Freiburg: J.C.B. Mohr, 1893), appendix 6–8. A few scholars deny the presence of sources in the Exodus narrative due to the high level of coherence in the narrative; e.g., Benno Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus, Interpreted by Benno Jacob (trans. Walter Jacob; Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1992) and Georg Fischer, “Exodus 1–15: Eine Erzählung,” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction-Reception-Interpretation (ed. Marc Vervenne; BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 149–50, 176–77; and Georg Fischer and Dominik Markl, Das Buch Exodus (NSKAT 2; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009), 20. This coherence can, however, also be explained as the result of a redactor who has shaped the narrative into a coherent unity using different materials. 2 Jan Christian Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch (FRLANT 186; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000) and Christoph Berner, Die Exoduserzählung: Das literarische Werden einer Ursprungslegende Israels (FAT 73; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010); cf. also the contributions in A Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (ed. Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid; SBLSymp 34; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006) and Thomas B. Dozeman, Exodus (ECC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). For a recent summary of the state of the discussion on the Priestly texts, see the contributions in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (ed. Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden; AThANT 95; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009) and Abschied von der

68

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

and E sources as defined by the Documentary Hypothesis has come under heavy scrutiny, the view of a continuous Priestly narrative that encompasses at least material in Genesis and Exodus has been maintained. This chapter will analyze the character of the Priestly narrative in Exodus in order to investigate its relationship to the Holiness Code. The analysis will proceed in three steps: First, I will identify the Priestly Grundschrift narrative in Exod 1–14. Several detailed studies focused on defining the Priestly texts in Exodus have appeared in the last twenty years, and there is no need to undertake a comprehensive new assessment.3 My understanding of the base layer of the Priestly texts will largely follow what is commonly agreed to be PG, modified at certain points. In particular, I will argue for departing from generally held views by removing a Priestly plague narrative, and including Exod 12:1–14 as a whole. The result of the analysis will distinguish three layers of material within the Priestly literature of Exod 1–14: 1) a base layer (traditionally PG) which I will contend is aligned with the Holiness Code and thus part of the H composition, which presupposes non-Priestly materials in Exod 1–14; 2) Priestly supplements, primarily in Exod 1:1–5*; 6:13–30; 7:8–11:10* which accentuate themes already present in the base narrative or establish the authority of Aaron as a foundation for his role in the tabernacle and cultic texts in Exod 25–Lev 16; and 3) H supplements that represent a later stage of material from the Holiness School, and that were added primarily in Exod 12:15–20, 43–49 as a response to the Deuteronomistic ritual developments in Exod 12–13. The second stage of investigation will consider how the identified PG narrative relates to and functions in its literary context. What is the character of these narratives? How do these texts advance the storyline? Why were they added to the non-Priestly texts? Considering the function of the Priestly texts in their context will support the proposal that they are better understood as H texts, as their function will be seen to advance the concerns of the laws in ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte (ed. Friedhelm Hartenstein and Konrad Schmid; VWGTh 40; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 2015). 3 In addition to the works of Gertz and Berner mentioned above, see also Fujiko Kohata, Jahwist und Priesterschrift in Exodus 3–14 (BZAW 166; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986); Thomas Römer, “The Exodus Narrative According to the Priestly Document,” in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (ed. Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009), 157–74; idem., “Von Moses Berufung zur Spaltung des Meers: Überlegungen zur priesterschriftlichen Version der Exoduserzählung,” in Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte (ed. Friedhelm Hartenstein and Konrad Schmid; VWGTh 40; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 2015), 134–60; and Jaeyoung Jeon, The Call of Moses and the Exodus Story (FAT 2/60; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013).

Introduction to the Priestly Texts in Exod 1–14

69

Lev 17–26 and thus to establish the foundations of the Holiness Code. I will thus argue that what scholars have previously identified as the PG narrative should be considered an H composition. Third, I will consider how the H composition relates to the laws of the Holiness Code. This section will build on the conclusion of chapter 3, namely that there are no inconsistences between the PG narrative and the Holiness Code, by showing that what has been considered the PG narrative in Exodus can justifiably be seen as foundational to the Holiness Code as part of an H composition that provides the narrative foundations that motivate and establish the grounds for obedience to the laws in the Holiness Code. In order to avoid confusion or misrepresenting other scholars, I will continue to describe the Priestly narrative as PG or Priestly in the course of the analysis while delineating the base layer of the Priestly narrative. Following the delineation, I will show that it is justifiable and better to consider the PG narrative an H composition. The identification of the Priestly narrative with H will be made based on H language and theology, as well as a function to support H laws and parenesis. Reading the Priestly narrative as a composition that is integrally linked to the Holiness Code will impact the criteria used to determine which texts are considered part of the H composition, just as scholars who consider PG and H to be distinct reflect this difference in their exegesis. So for example the proposed distinction between PG and H influences analyses of Gen 17, where parts of vv. 9–14 that resemble the language of H are often removed as secondary; nevertheless, Gen 17 can also be read as a coherent unity including vv. 9–14 if H-like material is not removed as secondary. If it is assumed that Gen 1:1–2:4a is a foundational text for the Holiness Code as was argued above, we are justified in starting from the assumption that the Priestly texts in Exodus are likewise consistent with H and functioning as part of the H composition. This judgment will impact the assessment of layers in Exod 12 in particular. If the possibility is considered from the outset that the PG narrative could belong to the stratum of the Holiness Code and is intended to establish the foundations of the laws for the Holiness Code, there is no reason to remove material that aligns with the Holiness Code as secondary when there are no compelling syntactical grounds to do so.

B. The Priestly Base Layer in Exod 1–14 I. Exod 1–2 Within Exod 1–2, 1:1–5, 7, 13–14; and 2:23aβ–25 have traditionally been identified as Priestly texts. There is some question about whether the genealogical list in 1:1–5 belongs to the earliest Priestly narrative due to its de-

70

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

pendence on both the Priestly genealogy in Gen 35:22b–26 and what is considered a post-Priestly list of Jacob’s descendants who wandered into Egypt in Gen 46:8–27.4 Due to the influence of Gen 46:8–27 it should be considered a later addition which emphasizes the smallness of Israel in entering Egypt and thus highlights the magnitude of their proliferation in 1:7. Exod 1:7 should be maintained as part of the Priestly base narrative, despite its use of ‫ ויעצמו‬that is encountered in the non-P narrative in 1:9, 20.5 Almost every word of the statement ‫ובני ישׂראל פרו וישׁרצו וירבו ויעצמו במאד מאד ותמלא‬ ‫( הארץ אתם‬Exod 1:7) is linked to key Priestly narratives in Genesis.6 The verbs ‫ פרה‬and ‫ רבה‬describe the fulfillment of the Priestly creational blessing in Gen 1:22, 28; 9:1, 7; 35:11; 47:27 as Israel becomes a nation in Egypt. The use of ‫ שׁרץ‬together with ‫ פרה‬and ‫ רבה‬is found only in the Priestly flood narrative (Gen 8:17; 9:7), and ‫ ותמלא הארץ אתם‬corresponds to the imperative ‫ ומלאו את־הארץ‬in Gen 1:28. Exod 1:7 likewise takes up the promise of El 4 Berner, Exoduserzählung, 38–41; idem., “Der literarische Charakter der Priesterschrift in der Exoduserzählung (Exod 1–14),” in Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte (ed. Friedhelm Hartenstein and Konrad Schmid; VWGTh 40; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 2015), 96–97; and Gertz, Tradition, 354–57. Christoph Levin, Der Jahwist (FRLANT 157; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 315, assigns Exod 1:1–7 to a redactional layer that post-dates the final compilation of the Pentateuch. A number of scholars see 1:1–5 as an integral part of the Pcomposition; see Erhard Blum, “Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus: Ein Gespräch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngeren Diskussion (ed. Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte; BZAW 315; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 149–50; Rainer Albertz, Exodus 1–18 (ZB AT 2.1; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2012), 43 (for 1:1a, 2– 5a); Wolfgang Oswald and Helmut Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15 (IECOT; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2014), 57. Werner Schmidt, Exodus 1–7 (BK 2.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 11 argues that 1:1–5 are required as part of the Priestly narrative because 1:7 would be an unfitting opening for P. But this concern is ameliorated if the Priestly narrative presupposes the non-P narrative. 5 So Gertz, Tradition, 352–53; Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 39, and especially Jakob Wöhrle, “Frieden durch Trennung: Die priesterliche Darstellung des Exodus und die persische Reichsideologie,” in Wege der Freiheit: Zur Entstehung und Theologie des Exodusbuchs; Die Beiträge eines Symposions zum 70. Geburtstag von Rainer Albertz (ed. Reinhard Achenbach, Ruth Ebach, and Jakob Wöhrle; AThANT 104; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2014), 93, according to whom the use of ‫ ויעצמו‬is evidence of the Priestly narrative being a supplement to the non-Priestly narrative. Arguing for a later assignment are Berner, Exoduserzählung, 15; Levin, Der Jahwist, 315; and William Propp, Exodus 1–18 (AB 2A; New York: Doubleday, 1999), 125–27. Schmidt, Exodus, 12 removes ‫ ויעצמו‬as being added by a later redactor. August Dillmann, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus (3rd ed.; KEH 12; Leipzig: Hirzel, 1897), 3 and Georg Beer and Kurt Galling, Exodus (HAT 3; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1939), 14 remove ‫ ויעצמו‬and ‫ וירבו‬as redactional additions. 6 See the discussions in Gertz, Tradition, 352–53; Peter Weimar, Studien zur Priesterschrift (FAT 56; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 25–36; and Jacob, Exodus, 9.

The Priestly Base Layer in Exod 1–14

71

Shaddai to Abraham from Gen 17:2, 6 to multiply Abraham’s descendants exceedingly (v. 2 ‫ ;וארבה אותך במאד מאד‬v. 6 ‫)והפרתי אתך במאד מאד‬, pointing to Exod 1:7 as the fulfillment of these promises and even going beyond their magnitude with the addition of ‫ ותמלא הארץ אתם‬and ‫שׁרץ‬.7 Exod 1:7 is thus a necessary conclusion to the themes of the first part of the Priestly narrative arc which binds together the primeval and patriarchal narratives from Genesis with the history of the nation of Israel in Exodus.8 The next Priestly text is Exod 1:13–14. Here the Priestly account describes the oppression of the Israelites in Egyptian slavery:9 ‫ויעבדו מצרים את־בני ישׂראל בפרך‬ ‫וימררו את־חייהם בעבדה קשׁה‬ 10 ‫בחמר ובלבנים ובכל־עבדה בשׂדה‬ ‫ אשׁר־עבדו בהם בפרך‬11‫את כל־עבדתם‬

1:13 1:14

The Priestly account emphasizes the harshness (‫ )פרך‬of the labor (‫ )עבדה‬to which the Israelites are subjected, intensifying the non-P account of v. 11.12 As noted by Thomas B. Dozeman, vv. 13–14 go beyond the non-P account and emphasize the legal background of the oppression of Israel in Egyptian slavery: the Egyptian oppression of Israel suppresses the creational blessings (1:7) and, in the Holiness Code, harsh treatment of slaves (‫ )פרך‬is described as illegal.13 This connection situates the Egyptian oppression in a legal context and defines Pharaoh’s actions as tyrannical.14 The concluding verses of Exod 2:23aβ–25 likewise develop key themes in the Priestly narrative, ex-

7 Moshe Greenberg, Understanding Exodus: A Holistic Commentary on Exodus 1–11 (2nd. ed.; Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2013), 29–30. 8 Weimar, Studien, 35–36; Greenberg, Understanding, 30. 9 These verses are assigned to P by most scholars. Berner, Exoduserzählung, 36–37, argues for v. 14b being a later addition. 10 The phrase ‫ בחמר ובלבנים ובכל־עבדה בשׂדה‬is considered a later supplement by Schmidt, Exodus, 16 and Dillmann, Exodus, 13. 11 Dillmann, Exodus, 13 takes ‫ את כל־עבדתם‬as a secondary addition from from a late redactor. 12 So, according to Houtman Exodus II (trans. Johan Rebel and Sierd Woudstra; HCOT; Kampen: Kok, 1993), 249, Exod 1:13–14 is a broadening and intensification of the labor described in the non-Priestly 1:11. ‫ פרך‬is related to the Akkadian paraku, which stands for violent and harsh treatment; see Jacob, Exodus, 16. 13 The phrase anticipates the legal language of Lev 25:43, 46, 54, highlighting the illegal nature of the oppression from the perspective of the Holiness Code, and Exod 1:7 as the background of the oppression highlights the anti-creational nature of the oppression; see Dozeman, Exodus, 57, 72. 14 Jacob, Exodus, 16. On this connection, see also Greenberg, Understanding, 53–55.

72

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

panding the theme of the servitude (‫ )עבדה‬from 1:13–14 to describe the psychological and social conditions of Israel’s slavery:15 ‫ויאנחו בני־ישׂראל מן־העבדה ויזעקו ותעל שׁועתם אל־האלהים מן־העבדה‬ ‫וישׁמע אלהים את־נאקתם ויזכר אלהים את־בריתו‬ ‫את־אברהם את־יצחק ואת־יעקב‬ ‫ אלהים‬16‫וירא אלהים את־בני ישׂראל וידע‬

2:23aβ 2:24 2:25

The notion of God remembering (‫ )ויזכר‬his covenant (‫ )בריתו‬with the patriarchs recalls the Priestly patriarchal history in Genesis and links to the other Priestly texts of Gen 9:15–16 and Exod 6:5, which associate the act of God remembering his covenant with the salvation of humanity in Gen 9, and Israel in Exod 6.17 This text presents the patriarchal covenant as the main reason for God intervening on behalf of the Israelites to rescue them from slavery.18 It also points forward to Israel’s remembrance of the exodus in the establishment of the Passover as a ‫ זכרון‬in response to YHWH’s act of remembering and saving Israel (12:12–14). Exod 2:23aβ–25 is an important transition in the Priestly salvation history from slavery to liberation, pointing to the future acts of God in rescuing his people.19 Whereas God’s promise to multiply the descendants of the patriarchs (Gen 17:2, 6; 28:3; 35:11; 48:4) is fulfilled in Exod 1:7, the covenant in Exod 2:24 recalls the promise of land to the patriarchs (Gen 17:8; 28:4; 35:12; 48:4) which is yet to be fulfilled.20 Though the Israelites live in the land of Goshen as an ‫ אחזה‬in which they are fruitful and multiply (Gen 47:27), the oppression of the Egyptians urgently raises the question of Israel needing its own land for the fulfillment of the promises.21 15 Dozeman, Exodus, 92. The repetition of ‫ עבדה‬in 2:23aβ–25 connects the passage with 1:13–14; see Greenberg, Understanding, 54. Against the proposals of Gerhard von Rad, Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch literarisch und theologisch gewertet (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1934), 42–43, the repetitions within 2:23aβ–25 should not be used as criteria to divide the text into two strands of P, since such repetition can also be the typical style of P; see Schmidt, Exodus, 90. 16 The Qal ‫ ַויֵּדַ ע‬of the MT could be read with the LXX (ἐγνώσθη) as a Nifal ‫ ַו ִיּוָּדַ ע‬, also following Ezek 20:5 ‫וָאִ וָּדַ ע להם בארץ מצרים‬, against Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 240 n. 43 and Berner, Exoduserzählung, 64–65, who maintain the Qal of the MT as the more difficult reading. 17 Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 106; here also Lev 26:40–45 is notably similar. 18 Römer, “Von Moses Berufung,” 146. 19 Berner, Exoduserzählung, 63. 20 Greenberg, Understanding, 44; Konrad Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story (Siphrut 3; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 240. 21 Christoph Dohmen, Exodus 1–18 (HThKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2015), 93–94, 100– 101.

73

The Priestly Base Layer in Exod 1–14

The Priestly texts Exod 1:7, 13–14; 2:23aβ–25 function in the literary context of Exod 1–2* to place the beginnings of Israel’s Egyptian slavery into the coherent structure of the Priestly narrative by linking it to the creational blessings from Gen 1:26 (Exod 1:7 ‫רבה‬, ‫)פרה‬. This connection characterizes the oppression by the Egyptians as anti-creational. The Israelites have fulfilled the divine blessing to be fruitful and multiply, but they are in a foreign land and being oppressed by Egyptian slave masters (1:13–14 ‫ויעבדו מצרים‬ ‫)את־בני ישׂראל בפרך‬. Israel responds by crying out, and their cry ascends to God, who remembers (‫ )ויזכר‬his covenant with the patriarchs (2:23aβ–25).22 II. Exod 6:2–7:7 Following Exod 2:23aβ–25, the Priestly narrative picks up in Exod 6:2–7:7*, with intervening non-Priestly materials in Exod 3:1–6:1. Exod 6:2–8 is a unified and coherently structured divine speech that forms the center of Priestly theology as the revelation of the name of God as YHWH for Israel:23 ‫וידבר אלהים אל משׁה ויאמר אליו אני יהוה‬ ‫וארא אל־אברהם אל־יצחק ואל־יעקב באל שׁדי ושׁמי יהוה לא נודעתי להם‬ ‫וגם הקמתי את־בריתי אתם לתת להם את־ארץ כנען את ארץ מגריהם אשׁר־גרו בה‬ ‫וגם אני שׁמעתי את־נאקת בני ישׂראל אשׁר מצרים מעבדים אתם ואזכר את־בריתי‬ ‫לכן אמר לבני־ישׂראל אני יהוה והוצאתי אתכם מתחת סבלת מצרים‬ ‫ ובשׁפטים גדלים‬24‫והצלתי אתכם מעבדתם וגאלתי אתכם בזרוע נטויה‬ ‫ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם והייתי לכם לאלהים וידעתם כי אני יהוה אלהיכם‬ ‫המוציא אתכם מתחת סבלות מצרים‬ ‫והבאתי אתכם אל־הארץ אשׁר נשׂאתי את־ידי לתת אתה לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב‬ ‫ונתתי אתה לכם מורשׁה אני יהוה‬

22

6:2 6:3 6:4 6:5 6:6 6:7 6:8

Dozeman, Exodus, 111. Against the proposal of Eckart Otto, “Forschungen zur Priesterschrift,” TRu 62 (1997): 10 n. 45, who removes the land theme from the Priestly narrative, there is no reason to remove vv. 6–8 as secondary. Against Jason M. Gaines, The Poetic Priestly Source (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), 362, who assigns vv. 2b–5, 8 to a later Prosaic-P, vv. 2–8 are formed in a tight structural correspondence that precludes source divisions. Cf. Anja Diesel, “Ich bin Jahwe”: Der Aufstieg der Ich-bin-Jahwe-Aussage zum Schlüsselwort des alttestamentlichen Monotheismus (WMANT 110; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2006), 95–112; Ludwig Schmidt, Studien zur Priesterschrift (BZAW 214; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), 4; Weimar, Studien, 15; Gertz, Tradition, 244–50; Schmid, Genesis, 241–43; and Römer, “Von Moses Berufung,” 140–42. 24 Occasionally ‫ בזרוע נטויה‬is removed as a secondary addition which is understood as being designed to connect Exod 6:2–8 to the pre-Priestly context of 6:1; cf. Berner, Exoduserzählung, 158; Gertz, Tradition, 243. 23

74

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

The speech is part of a series of divine speeches that structure the Priestly history from creation through the patriarchal narratives and beyond the exodus (Gen 1:1–2:4a; 9:1–17; 17; 28; 35; 46; Exod 29:45–46); this speech in particular continues the storyline from Exod 2:23aβ–25.25 It develops the theme of the gradual revelation of the divine name in the Priestly history from ‫ אלהים‬in the primeval history, to ‫ אל שׁדי‬in the patriarchal narratives, and finally to ‫ יהוה‬in the national history of Israel.26 The structure of the speech with the fourfold ‫ אני יהוה‬emphasizes the identity of YHWH as the God who is faithful to his promises to the patriarchs for the good of Israel.27 In the ancient Near East self-revelation formulae like ‫ אני יהוה‬function in royal and divine speeches to establish the authority and power of the speaker, which are manifest in the actions of the speaker.28 The self-revelation formula in Exod 6:2–8 links to YHWH’s covenant promise to give the land of Canaan to the patriarchs (Gen 17:8a ‫ונתתי לך ולזרעך אחריך את ארץ מגריך את כל־ארץ‬ ‫ )כנען לאחזת עולם‬as well as the promise to be the God of the descendants of Abraham (Gen 17:8b ‫)והייתי להם לאלהים‬, as YHWH commits to maintaining (‫ )הקים‬these promises (Exod 6:4).29 The land is depicted as the heart of Israel’s identity and relationship with YHWH. The speech affirms that YHWH has heard the cries of the Israelites in Egyptian slavery (‫שׁמעתי את־נאקת בני‬ ‫ )ישׂראל‬and will remember his covenant (‫ ;)ואזכר את־בריתי‬the text thus continues the Priestly narrative from Exod 2:23aβ–25. YHWH’s remembrance of the covenant leads to him rescuing (‫ )והצלתי‬and redeeming (‫ )וגאלתי‬Israel from slavery with an outstretched arm and great judgments (‫בזרוע נטויה‬ ‫)ובשׁפטים גדלים‬. The use of ‫ גאל‬evokes a kinship relationship between YHWH and Israel.30 Salvation from Egypt results in Israel becoming the people of YHWH, and YHWH being their God (‫)ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם והייתי לכם לאלהים‬, as well as YHWH bringing Israel into the land promised to the patriarchs 25

See Schmid, Genesis, 240–43 and Thomas Römer, Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO 99; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 546, for the connection of Exod 2:23aβ–25 and 6:2–8. This integral connection between Exod 2:23aβ–25 and 6:2–8 highlights the problematic assignment of 2:23aβ–25 to PT and 6:2–8 to H by Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 60–61. 26 Römer, “Exodus Narrative,” 162–64; Schmid, Genesis, 238–42. 27 Diesel, “ Ich bin Jahwe,” 108–9; Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 205. 28 Diesel, “Ich bin Jahwe,” 184–85. According to Reinhard Müller, “The Sanctifying Divine Voice: Observations on the 'anî-Yhwh-formula in the Holiness Code,” in Text, Time, and Temple: Literary, Historical, and Ritual Studies in Leviticus (ed. Francis Landy, Leigh M. Trevaskis, and Bryan Bibb; Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2015), 76–81, the phrase is a liturgical formula used to convey the rhetorical effect of the divine authority behind the laws. 29 On the translation of ‫ הקים‬as “maintain” or “fulfill,” see Jacob, Exodus, 157. 30 Ibid., 158.

75

The Priestly Base Layer in Exod 1–14

(‫)והבאתי אתכם אל־הארץ‬. The links back to the Priestly patriarchal narratives in Genesis, and the links forward to the key Priestly text in Exod 29:43–46 make Exod 6:2–8 an important pivot in the Priestly narrative.31 Exod 6:9–12 contains the continuation of the Priestly narrative after the speech in 6:2–8 with Moses’ response to the divine speech:32 ‫וידבר משה כן אל בני ישראל ולא שמעו אל משה מקצר רוח ומעבדה קשה‬ ‫וידבר יהוה אל משה לאמר‬ ‫בא דבר אל פרעה מלך מצרים וישלח את בני ישראל מארצו‬ ‫וידבר משה לפני יהוה לאמר‬ ‫הן בני ישראל לא שמעו אלי ואיך ישמעני פרעה ואני ערל שפתים‬

6:9 6:10 6:11 6:12

Moses conveys the content of the divine speech to the Israelites, who do not listen due to the hard labor imposed on them (‫ )מקצר רוח ומעבדה קשה‬and their broken spirit. YHWH sends Moses to command Pharaoh to let Israel go, and Moses objects to this commission: because not even the Israelites listened to him, why would Pharaoh listen? The resistance of the Israelites in 6:9–12 leads to Moses’ authorization as the spokesman for YHWH in 7:1–7, with the intervening genealogy in 6:13–30 being a later addition.33 The concern of 7:1–7 is to affirm Moses’ commission to Pharaoh following his rejection by the Israelites and to establish an introductory framework for the ensuing plague narratives: ‫ויאמר יהוה אל משה ראה נתתיך אלהים לפרעה ואהרן אחיך יהיה נביאך‬ ‫אתה תדבר את כל אשר אצוך ואהרן אחיך ידבר אל פרעה‬ ‫ושלח את בני ישראל מארצו‬ ‫ואני אקשה את לב פרעה והרביתי את אתתי ואת מופתי בארץ מצרים‬ ‫ולא ישמע אלכם פרעה ונתתי את ידי במצרים‬ ‫והוצאתי את צבאתי את עמי בני ישראל מארץ מצרים בשפטים גדלים‬ ‫וידעו מצרים כי אני יהוה בנטתי את ידי על מצרים והוצאתי את בני ישראל מתוכם‬ ‫ויעש משה ואהרן כאשר צוה יהוה אתם כן עשו‬ ‫ומשה בן שמנים שנה ואהרן בן שלש ושמנים שנה בדברם אל פרעה‬ 31

7:1 7:2 7:3 7:4 7:5 7:6 7:7

Weimar, Studien, 77 n. 167, 223–24. Römer, “Von Moses Berufung,” 142. 33 Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 171. The genealogy of Exod 6:13–30 is an insertion identified by the Wiederaufnahme in 6:13, 30, the purpose of which is to establish and elevate the status of Aaron in relation to Moses; see Otto, “Forschungen,” 9 n. 43 and Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 155, 167. According to Knohl, Sanctuary, 61, the genealogy is the work of a Holiness School editor. Fischer, “Exodus 1– 15,” 154–55 argues for the originality of the genealogy as fitting to the context because it estabishes the authority of Aaron and Moses in response to the objections of the people of Israel in Exod 6:12; see also Fischer and Markl, Exodus, 93–97. 32

76

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

Exod 7:1–7 reaffirms Moses as the divinely authorized spokesman for YHWH. Moses will be like “god” to Pharaoh (v. 1 ‫)נתתיך אלהים לפרעה‬, whereas Aaron will be subordinated to Moses as a prophetic spokesman (‫)ואהרן אחיך יהיה נביאך‬. Verses 2, 4–5, however, present a different conception of the ensuing plagues than v. 3. According to vv. 2, 4–5a, Moses and Aaron are to speak everything that YHWH commands them to Pharaoh and, when Pharaoh does not listen, YHWH will place his hand against Egypt (‫ )ונתתי את ידי במצרים‬and bring Israel out of Egypt with great judgments (‫)בשפטים גדלים‬. The reference to “great judgments” develops the theme from Exod 6:6 and points to a violent blow by YHWH that is intended to result in the departure of the Israelites; this motif is picked up in the Priestly Passover account with the killing of the firstborn (Exod 12:12 ‫ועברתי בארץ מצרים בלילה‬ ‫הזה והכיתי כל בכור בארץ מצרים מאדם ועד בהמה ובכל אלהי מצרים אעשה שפטים‬ ‫)אני יהוה‬.34 The recognition statement, that the Egyptians will know YHWH (‫ וידעו מצרים כי אני יהוה‬7:5), points to the destruction of Egypt in the Red Sea (‫וידעו מצרים כי אני יהוה‬, Exod 14:4, 18).35 Thus the conception of 7:2, 4–5 points to a fulfillment in Exod 12:12; 14:4, 18 and contains the notion that Moses and Aaron are to speak to Pharaoh. According to v. 3, YHWH will harden (‫ )אקשה‬the heart of Pharaoh and increase signs and wonders in the land of Egypt (‫)אתתי ואת מופתי‬.36 Verse 3 thus presents the conception of the exodus as a result of signs and wonders, and introduces the contest of five wonders between Aaron and the Egyptian magicians.37 The five signs do not involve Moses and Aaron speaking to Pharaoh; Aaron simply causes the wonders at the command of YHWH.38 Thus vv. 2, 4–5 and v. 3 present different conceptions of the subsequent events.39 The contest between Aaron and the magicians in the series of five wonders has an independent character, which has led to suggestions by Joseph Reindl and Erhard Blum that it is a

34

Klaus Grünwaldt, Exil und Identität: Beschneidung, Passa und Sabbat in der Priesterschrift (BBB 85; Frankfurt: Hain Verlag, 1992), 77 and Schmidt, Exodus, 278, 316. 35 Blum, Studien, 254 and Houtman, Exodus I, 528. 36 Berner, Exoduserzählung, 163. 37 These are the Serpent (7:8–13), Blood (7:19–20a, 21b–22), Frogs (8:1–3), Lice (8:12–15), and Boils (9:8–12). 38 Houtman, Exodus I, 526; Jean-Louis Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 147. 39 Gertz, Tradition, 252; and Christoph Berner, “Der Literarische Charakter der Priesterschrift in der Exoduserzählung (Exod 1–14),” in Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte (ed. Friedhelm Hartenstein and Konrad Schmid; VWGTh 40; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 2015), 103; idem., Exoduserzählung, 163–64. Cf. Otto, “Forschungen,” 9 n. 43, who assigns 7:3 to a secondary layer.

The Priestly Base Layer in Exod 1–14

77

Vorlage utilized by P.40 Following Berner, the conception of the signs and wonders beginning with 7:3 and containing the five wonder signs should be considered a secondary addition to the Priestly narrative.41 The Priestly narrative introduces the non-P plagues with 7:1–2, 4–7, and then continues in Exod 12. The prefixing of 7:1–2, 4–7 to the non-Priestly plague narratives places all of the plagues under the theological theme of the recognition of YHWH for the Israelites, a motif that is taken up from the pre-Priestly account of the recognition of YHWH by Pharaoh and the Egyptians (Exod 7:17; 8:22).42 The purpose of the supplement of the wonder contest initiated in 7:3 is to establish the status of Aaron as superior to the Egyptian magicians and elevate his status in the cult.43 III. Exod 12 The great judgments (‫ )שפטים גדלים‬and recognition of YHWH promised in Exod 6:2–7:7* point to the culmination of the Priestly narrative in Exod 12:12–14 and 14:4, 18, which emphasize the recognition of YHWH introduced in 6:2–8.44 The Passover and Unleavend Bread connected with the exodus and killing of the Egyptian firstborn in Exod 12–13 (with a prePriestly narrative connecting it to the exodus event from 11:4–8 through to 12:29–33) reflects multiple stages of development with back-and-forth inter40 Joseph Reindl, “Der Finger Gottes und die Macht der Götter: Ein Problem des ägyptischen Diasporajudentums und sein literarischer Niederschlag,” in Dienst der Vermittlung: Festchrift zum 25-jährigen Bestehen des Priesterseminars Erfurt (ed. Wilhelm Ernst, Konrad Feiereis, and Fritz Hoffmann; ETS 37; Leipzig: St. Benno, 1977), 49–60; Blum, Studien, 252. 41 Berner, “Der Literarische Charakter,” 103, 132. 42 Kohata, Jahwist, 246–47. Additionally, according to Knohl, Sanctuary, 17 n. 24, 62 n. 7, the Holiness School is responsible for the insertion of Exod 10:1–2, which integrates the ‫ אות‬motif from the wonder contest with the recognition motif ‫וידעתם כי אני יהוה‬. This text however is more likely a later stage of H material which integrates the Aaron vs. Egyptian magicians wonder narratives with the non-Priestly plague traditions. 43 Propp, Exodus 1–18, 310. 44 Against Jean-Louis Ska, “Les plaies d’Egypte dans le récit sacerdotal (PG )” Biblica 60 (1979): 30–35, and Norbert Lohfink, “The Priestly Narrative and History,” in Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 145 n. 29 who remove the Priestly Passover account in Exod 12 from the Priestly narrative, Exod 12:1–14* is connected with keywords to the narratives of Exod 6:2–8 and 7:1–7 and must be considered to be from the same layer; see Matthias Köckert, Leben in Gottes Gegenwart: Studien zum Verständnis des Gesetzes im Alten Testament (FAT 43; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 88–93; Grünwaldt, Exil, 77; and Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 212. So according to Peter Weimar, “Exod 12:1–14 und die priesterschriftliche Geschichtsdarstellung,” ZAW 107 (1995): 214, the Priestly portions of Exod 12:1–14 are a “notwendiges kompositorisches Element.”

78

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

action between Priestly and Deuteronomistic traditions.45 The question of the purpose of the Priestly narrative and how it relates to diachronic analysis comes to a point in Exod 12–13: Is the Priestly narrative considered a narrative source with no interest in ritual, such that it would only relate material that fits in the original narrative situation of the night of the exodus? Or is the Priestly narrative concerned with ritual and cultic issues that extend beyond the narrative context of the situation in Egypt?46 How scholars view the purpose of the Priestly narrative thus impacts how much ritual from Exod 12 is included in the base narrative. The approach developed here will be based on an understanding of the Priestly narrative as an H composition, as has been proposed for Gen 1:1–2:4a. The purpose of this narrative is to establish the foundations for the observance of the Passover legislated in the H festival calendar in Lev 23:5 (Exod 12:1–14). In the history of scholarship, Exod 12:1–20, 28, 40–51 are broadly considered Priestly,47 but it is possible to identify various stages of development within them, including multiple stages of development of H materials. To anticipate the results of this analysis, the base layer of Priestly narrative is to be found in Exod 12:1–14, and 28, with 12:15–20 and 43–51 comprising later supplements. The starting point of analysis is Exod 12:1–14 and its relationship to vv. 21–27. Though some scholars argue for a unified understanding of 12:1–14,48 most recognize that there is a distinction between material in third person plural address and material in second person plural address. The most common explanation for this distinction is that the difference results from the use

45

So, according to Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 275: “The P Composition counteracts the DtrH’s complex system of festivals, dedications, and rituals that are all designed to actualize the exodus with an equally complex proposal in Exod 12:1–13, 18– 20.” For a recent survey of interpretations, see Benjamin Kilchör, “Passah und Mazzot – Ein Überblick über die Forschung seit dem 19. Jahrhundert,” Biblica 94 (2013): 340–67. 46 See the discussion in Philippe Guillaume, Land and Calendar: The Priestly Document from Genesis 1 to Joshua 18 (LHBOTS 391; London: T & T Clark, 2009), 89– 91. As noted by Clemens Leonhard, “Die Erzählung Exod 12 als Festlegende für das Pesachfest am Jerusalemer Tempel,” JBTh 18 (2003): 253. “Die literarkritische Analyse von Exod 12 ist darin Zirkelschlüssen ausgeliefert.” 47 Mark S. Smith, “The Literary Arrangement of the Priestly Redaction of Exodus: A Preliminary Investigation,” CBQ 58 (1996): 37 n. 55; Brevard Childs, Exodus (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 184; and Dozeman, Exodus, 251. Knohl, Sanctuary, 21 assigns the whole section to H, though in different layers. 48 John Van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 114–19 takes all of 12:1–28 as a unified P composition, and Theodor Nöldeke, Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments (Kiel: Schwers, 1869), 144 takes 12:1–23 as part of his Grundschrift; see also Dozeman, Exodus, 262, for a unified understanding of vv. 1–14.

79

The Priestly Base Layer in Exod 1–14

of a Vorlage.49 The phrases in the impersonal third person plural address in 12:3a, 6b, 7a, 8a, 11bβ can be isolated into a series of ve-qatal x instructions as a ritual prescription:50 ‫ויקחו להם איש שה לבית אבת‬ ‫בין הערבים‬...‫ושחטו אתו‬ ‫ולקחו מן הדם ונתנו על שתי המזוזת‬ ‫ועל המשקוף‬ ‫ואכלו את הבשר בלילה הזה‬ ‫פסח הוא ליהוה‬

12:3b 12:6b 12:7a 12:8a 12:11bβ

It is also agreed that Exod 12:1, 3a, 11–13 integrates this ritual into the Priestly exodus narrative by making it a speech of YHWH (vv. 1, 3a) and placing it in the context of the exodus departure and killing of the Egyptian firstborn (vv. 11–13).51 Beyond this, however, there are no clear criteria for identifying the PG narrative that links to the exodus history; as a consequence, proposals diverge widely. I will argue for a fundamental unity of the Priestly material in Exod 12:1–14 that integrates the third person plural ritual Vorlage into the exodus event. Following the analysis of the relationship between Exod 12:21–27 and the Priestly Passover account in 12:1–14, I will consider two connected points that are debated regarding the unity of 12:1–14. First, does v. 14 relate to the preceding Passover instructions or the following Unleavened Bread instructions, and is it part of the original Priestly narrative? Second, what is the place of the dates for the Passover established in vv. 2, 3ab, and 6a? In order to determine the character of Exod 12:1–14, it must be considered in relationship to 12:21–27 as well as to the pre-Priestly 12:29–33. There is 49

Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 199. According to Peter Laaf, Die Pascha-Feier Israels (BBB 36; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1970), 10–18, the Vorlage is incorporated by PG in vv. 1, 3aα, 12, 13, and later supplemented with vv. 2, 3aß, bß, 4, 5, 6a, 6b*, 9, 10, 11abα, 14. Kohata, Jahwist, 262–67 sees in vv. 4, 7–8 extensions of a Passover ritual Vorlage connected with 1, 3a, 9–13 to PG , and later supplemented with vv. 2, 3aß, 5, 6a, 14. For Köckert, Leben, 88–94, vv. 1, 3a, 4, 9–11abα, 12–14a are extensions to the Vorlage by PG , and vv. 2, 3aß, 5–6a, 8b, l4aß, b are PS supplements. Gertz, Tradition, 31–37 sees a base form in vv. 1, 3aαb–5, 6b–8a, b*, 9–13, 28 which takes up an ancient Passover regulation in vv. 3b*, 6b*, 7a, 8a, 11bβ, with later supplements added in vv. 2, 3aβ, 6a, 8b*. According to Otto, “‫ פסח‬pāsaḥ,” ThWAT 6:9–10, the base form of P has preserved in 12:3b*, 6b*, 7a, 8a, 11bβ an old pre-Deuteronomic ritual in third plural address, distinguishable from the later second plural additions, with 7b and 8b as later additions. This ancient Passover rite was taken up by a Priestly redaction in 12:1–14. Von Rad, Priesterschrift, 48 argues that his PA is found in Exod 12:1, 2, 4bβ, 5, 6a, 9–11, 13ff, and PB in 12:3, 4abα, 6b, 7-8, 12. 50 Laaf, Pascha-Feier, 15; Otto, “‫ פסח‬pāsaḥ,” 9–10. 51 Weimar, “Exod 12:1–14,” 198.

80

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

no agreement about the unity of Exod 12:21–27 or whether it is pre-Priestly or post-Priestly.52 Though most scholars consider vv. 21–27 to be a prePriestly account of the Passover, it has recently been argued that they are post-Priestly.53 In their present form, these verses constitute an execution report for the divine instructions of 12:1–14* and conclude with the Priestly execution formula in 12:28. Verses 1–14 and 21–27 have extensive correspondences, strongly suggesting that they are related.54 These correspondences are found in vv. 21–23, which mirror the central ritual actions from 1–14 but are noticeably limited to the third person plural Vorlage in vv. 1–10. Likewise, the statements in vv. 11–14 are paralleled in vv. 23–27 in the sections that provide the interpretive framework for the Passover event:

52 See the discussion in Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 271. According to Laaf, Pascha-Feier, 21, Exod 12:21–23 is the oldest (J) ritual, to which vv. 24–27 were added as a D supplement. Rainer Schmitt, Exodus und Passa: Ihr Zusammenhang im Alten Testament (2nd ed.; OBO 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 21 summarizes that Exod 11:1–8; 12:21–23, 27b, 29–39 form the oldest, pre-Deuteronomy form of the Passover. J. Schreiner, “Exodus 12:21–23 und das israelitische Pascha,” in Studien zum Pentateuch: Festschrift für W. Kornfeld (ed. G. Braulik; Vienna: Herder, 1977), 86 contends that JE added the Passover (Exod 12:21–23) and Unleavend Bread (12:39) to the exodus tradition. According to Baentsch, Exodus–Leviticus–Numeri, 100, vv. 21–23 are an older tradition taken up by J. Rainer Albertz and Rüdiger Schmitt, Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 400 summarize that “It is widely agreed that Exod 12:21–23* represents the most ancient preexilic core of the Passover ritual, later adopted by P in Exod 12:1–13.” 53 For this view, see Berner, Exoduserzählung, 286–89. According to Gesundheit, Three Times a Year: Studies on Festival Legislation in the Pentateuch (FAT 82; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 68–72, Exod 12:21–27 is the P continuation of vv. 1–11, whereas vv. 21– 27 have influenced a later Priestly addition in vv. 12–13 in the opposite direction. Most scholars, however, consider at least parts of vv. 12–14 as part of the original Priestly narrative which is required to incorporate the Passover ritual into the exodus event; removing vv. 12–13 from the Priestly account as a later addition would thus fracture its connection to the Priestly narrative. Verses 12–14 feature crucial content for the Priestly narrative that links it to the Priestly texts in Exod 2:24–25; 6:2–7:7*. As will be argued below, there are problems with the post-Priestly assignment of Exod 12:21–27. Exod 12:21–27 can also be seen as part of the non-P composition from 11:4–8 and 12:29–33. As shown by Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 271–73, 12:21–27 can be read coherently as a Deuteronomistic supplement to the non-P narrative tradition between 11:4– 8 and 12:29–33. Verses 21 and 27 are brackets that integrate the section into the pre-P narrative; see Otto, “‫ פסח‬pāsaḥ,” 10. 54 Gesundheit, Three Times, 56, 61–71, 82 and Benjamin Kilchör, Mosetora und Jahwetora: Das Verhältnis von Deuteronomium 12–26 zu Exodus, Levitikus und Numeri (BZAR 21; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2015), 171–72.

The Priestly Base Layer in Exod 1–14 Instructions from YHWH to Moses

81

Instructions of Moses to Israel

‫ויקחו להם אישׁ שׂה לבית אבת שׂה לבית‬ ‫ושׁחטו אתו כל קהל עדת ישׂראל‬ ‫בין הערבים‬ ‫ולקחו מן הדם ונתנו על שׁתי המזוזות‬ ‫ועל המשׁקוף‬ ‫על הבתים אשׁר יאכלו אתו בהם‬

3 6

‫משׁכו וקח לכם צאן למשׁפחתיכם‬ ‫ושׁחטו הפסח‬

21

7

22

‫ואכלתם אתו בחפזון פסח הוא ליהוה‬

11

‫ועברתי בארץ מצרים בלילה הזה‬ ‫והכיתי כל בכור בארץ מצרים מאדם‬ ‫ועד בהמה ובכל אלהי מצרים‬ ‫אעשׂה שׁפטים אני יהוה‬ ‫והיה הדם לכם לאת על הבתים‬ ‫אשׁר אתם שׁם‬ ‫וראיתי את הדם ופסחתי עלכם‬ ‫ולא יהיה בכם נגף למשׁחית‬ ‫בהכתי בארץ מצרים‬ ‫והיה היום הזה לכם לזכרון‬ ‫וחגתם אתו חג ליהוה‬ ‫לדרתיכם חקת עולם תחגהו‬

12

‫ולקחתם אגדת אזוב וטבלתם בדם‬ ‫אשׁר בסף הגעתם אל המשׁקוף‬ ‫ואל שׁתי המזוזות מן הדם אשׁר בסף‬ ‫ואתם לא תצאו אישׁ מפתח ביתו‬ ‫עד בקר‬ ‫ואמרתם זבח־פסח הוא ליהוה אשׁר‬ ‫פסח על־בתי בני־ישׂראל במצרים‬ ‫בנגפו את־מצרים ואת־בתינו הציל‬ ‫ועבר יהוה לנגף את מצרים‬

27

23

13 ‫וראה את הדם על המשׂקוף‬ ‫ועל שׁתי המזוזות ופסח יהוה על הפתח‬ ‫ולא יתן המשׁחית לבא אל בתיכם לנגף‬ 14

‫ושׁמרתם את הדבר הזה‬ ‫לחק לך ולבניך עד עולם‬

24

The ritual features shared between vv. 3b, 6b–7 and vv. 21–23 are those found in the third person plural Vorlage that is said to be found in Exod 12:1–14. But determining the relationship between the ritual actions in vv. 3, 6–7 and vv. 21–23 is difficult. As Benjamin Kilchör has noted in his comparison of laws from the Exod-Lev-Num and Deuteronomy, it is difficult to determine the character of a relationship between two texts without a further reference point.55 Arguments for the direction of dependence between two legal texts, such as the Passover rituals of Exod 12:1–11 and vv. 21–27, can be argued in reverse: is the Priestly account modifying the non-Priestly vv. 21–27 according to its own interests, or is the non-Priestly vv. 21–27 modifying the Priestly account in a direction departing from Priestly interests?56 The 55

Kilchör, Mosetora, 37–38. So for example according to Jeon, Call of Moses, 164, vv. 24–27a approve of a situation with lay people participating in a Passover sacrifice that includes priest-like activity, which is “exactly the situation that the Priestly Passover law (12:1–14) is attempting to avoid; although P uses the term ‫( שׁחט‬v. 6), the detailed description of this 56

82

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

clearest starting place to determine the relationship between the texts is the narrative and didactic material of vv. 11–14 and 21–27, where it can be established that vv. 11–14 are an interpretation of vv. 21–27 that integrate the prePriestly narrative from 12:29–33. The criterion of conflation is thus decisive in determining the relationship between these texts. 57 Before investigating this understanding of the text further,58 I will first consider the arguments of Christoph Berner, who takes vv. 21–27 as a post-Priestly supplement,59 and Shimon Gesundheit, who considers vv. 21–27 to be a continuation of vv. 1– 11 as part of P.60 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– activity (vv. 8–9) is clearly differentiated from the temple sacrifice performed by priests.” While Jeon argues that the redactor of vv. 21–27 intended to reject the notion of the Priestly account by introducing the Passover as a sacrifice and extending participation to laity, it can also be argued in the opposite direction that, because vv. 21–27 describe “exactly the situation that the Priestly Passover law (12:1–14) is attempting to avoid,” the Priestly account in vv. 1–14 would have intentionally avoided this situation by prefixing its own account to vv. 21–27 to modify the interpretation of vv. 21–27 in line with its interests. So according to Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 243, 275, vv. 1–11 “contain a series of ritual regulations that in numerous ways evoke sacrificial regulations, indeed they are actually sacrificial regulations. On the other hand, they counteract the sacrificial regulations and thus the sacrificial character of the slaughter of the Passover animal, even while not completely excluding the association.” With this modification of vv. 21–27, the Priestly account counteracts the “complex system of festivals, dedications, and rituals” of the non-Priestly account. 57 On the use of conflation as a criterion for determining direction of dependence, see David M. 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 Exod 32–34 und Dtn 9–10 (ed. Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum; VWGTh 18; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001), 126, and Kilchör, Mosetora, 39– 41. According to Carr, “Method,” 126, a text tends to be later than its “parallel” when it: 1) verbally parallels that text and yet includes substantial pluses vis-à-vis that text; 2) appears to enrich its parallel (fairly fully 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 circumstances/ideas; and 6) combines linguistic phenomena from disparate strata of the Pentateuch. Exod 12:12–13 satisfies all of these criteria in relation to vv. 23, 29–33. 58 Much of the following discussion is based on my earlier work Paavo N. Tucker, “The Priestly Grundschrift: Source or Redaction? The Case of Exodus 12:12–13,” ZAW 129.2 (2017): 205–19. This article investigates the relationship between Exod 12:12–13 and 12:21– 27, 29–33, arguing as I do here that vv. 12–13 is a supplement that conflates the non-Priestly 12:21–27, 29–33, for the purpose of making the case that the Priestly narrative in 12:12–13 is a supplement that depends on the non-Priestly Passover texts. This earlier work however does not consider how Exod 12:12–13 relates to the Priestly narrative as a whole, or to the Holiness Code, as I do here in carrying that earlier research further. 59 Berner, Exoduserzählung, 278–293. 60 Gesundheit, Three Times, 46–72.

The Priestly Base Layer in Exod 1–14

83

Christoph Berner’s view of the post-Priestly origins of vv. 21–27 is based on the following arguments:61 The presence of the definite article with the mention of the Passover as ‫ הפסח‬in the speech of Moses in v. 22 suggests that the Passover is a definite and known entity presupposed from the Priestly account in vv. 1–13, since it is not introduced elsewhere in the narrative. Also Moses’ instructions to the elders in vv. 21–23 seems to presuppose the prior divine revelation of the instructions from the Priestly account of vv. 1–13, which Moses passes on to the elders in vv. 21–23. Additionally, Berner argues that vv. 21–23 presuppose the announcement of the danger of the killing of the firstborn from vv. 1–13, since he considers Exod 11:4–8, which is traditionally understood to be a pre-Priestly announcement of the danger for the infants, to be a post-Priestly supplement. Berner also considers that the ritual details of vv. 21–23 expand the Priestly instructions from vv. 1–11, and that ‫ המשׁחית‬in v. 23 expresses a post-Priestly theology of an intermediary figure who is the agent responsible for the destruction, instead of YHWH as the agent in vv. 1–13. Gesundheit adds another reason based on the terminology of ‫שׁחט‬, ‫אזוב‬, and ‫ טבל‬in vv. 21–23, which he argues are Priestly terms that have been taken up from vv. 1–11 in the midrashic interpretation of vv. 21–23.62 Each of these reasons however can be explained with an alternative argument or are reversible. The definite ‫ הפסח‬in v. 21 is not necessarily a reference to vv. 1–13 as noted by Gertz.63 The article can also be used to express a use of uniqueness as indicated by the context, such as ‫“ הסנה‬the bush” in Exod 3:2, which is introduced with the definite article as a previously unmentioned bush.64 Regarding the configuration of Moses speaking to the elders of Israel, Wolfgang Oswald and Helmut Utzschneider have argued that this speech-address is typical of Deuteronomistic texts, and hence vv. 21–23, which they and others consider part of a Deuteronomistic Passover account in vv. 21–27, would not necessarily presuppose the divine instructions of the Priestly account in vv. 1–11.65 Oswald and Utzschneider among others have also supported the traditional view of considering Exod 11:4–8 as a prePriestly announcement of the danger of the killing of the firstborn that is connected with Exod 12:29–33, which serves as the background for the need 61

See Berner, Exoduserzählung, 286–89. Gesundheit, Three Times, 62. 63 Gertz, Tradition, 50. 64 See Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (ed. Emil Kautsch, trans. Arthur Ernest Cowley; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), 126q–r for an explanation and examples of this usage. 65 Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 271. As also suggested by Ulrike Dahm, Opferkult und Priestertum in Alt-Israel (BZAW 327; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 130, a case could be made that Exod 12:1–14 reframe the speech of Moses to the elders from vv. 21– 23 into a divine speech, thus giving vv. 1–14 greater authority. It is also possible that a nolonger extant non-Priestly account of divine instructions has been replaced by the Priestly instructions of vv. 1–13. 62

84

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

for the protective rituals of vv. 21–23.66 Therefore vv. 21–23 would not necessarily require the Priestly account of vv. 1–13 to introduce the situation that gives rise to the apotropaic ritual. Berner’s proposal that the ritual instructions of vv. 21–23 expand on the details from vv. 1–13 and that ‫ המשׁחית‬in v. 23 expresses a more advanced theological perspective than vv. 12–13 with a mediating figure as the agent of destruction can also be reversed to argue that the Priestly rituals in vv. 1–11 have modified vv. 21–23 to fit Priestly interests,67 and that vv. 12–13 have transformed a tradition of an independent ‫ המשׁחית‬as the agent of destruction into a Yahwistic framework.68 Also, Gesundheit’s argument that vv. 21–23 represents a post-Priestly usage of what he considers to be uniquely Priestly terminology of ‫שׁחט‬, ‫אזוב‬, and ‫ טבל‬limits the use of these common terms as special language of the Priestly literature.69 The occurrence of these terms is not limited to the Priestly literature, and their use in this context is conditioned by the need for terminology to express common actions required for the ritual. Gesundheit and others before him have nevertheless argued that vv. 23–27 have influenced vv. 11–13,70 where a redactional tendency to modify vv. 23– 27 in light of the concerns of the Priestly narrative and theology can be identified:71 Exodus 12:11–14

66

Exodus 12:23–24, 27

‫ואכלתם אתו בחפזון פסח הוא ליהוה‬

11

‫ועברתי בארץ מצרים בלילה הזה‬ ‫והכיתי כל בכור בארץ מצרים מאדם‬ ‫ועד בהמה ובכל אלהי מצרים‬ ‫אעשׂה שׁפטים אני יהוה‬ ‫והיה הדם לכם לאת על הבתים‬

12

‫ואמרתם זבח־פסח הוא ליהוה אשׁר‬ ‫פסח על־בתי בני־ישׂראל במצרים‬ ‫בנגפו את־מצרים ואת־בתינו הציל‬ ‫ועבר יהוה לנגף את מצרים‬

27

23

13

Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 273. Also Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 188–192, 197, argues for the pre-Priestly connection of Exod 11:4–8 and 12:29–33, as part of his pre-Priestly “Exoduskomposition KEX ”. 67 Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 271. 68 Gertz, Tradition, 49–50. 69 Ibid., 50. 70 Gesundheit, Three Times, 68–72. Gesundheit, who argues that vv. 21–23 are a postPriestly supplement to vv. 1–11*, nevertheless contends that vv. 21–27 have influenced the Priestly texts in vv. 11–14*. Verses 11–14, however, are crucial for linking the Priestly Passover account in 12:1–14* to the larger Priestly exodus narrative and cannot be separated from it; thus it is inconsistent to argue that vv. 23–27 are prior to vv. 11b–14 but also a revision of vv. 1–11a. 71 For a similar analysis and assessment, see Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 243–46.

The Priestly Base Layer in Exod 1–14 ‫אשׁר אתם שׁם‬ ‫וראיתי את הדם ופסחתי עלכם‬ ‫ולא יהיה בכם נגף למשׁחית‬ ‫בהכתי בארץ מצרים‬ ‫והיה היום הזה לכם לזכרון‬ ‫וחגתם אתו חג ליהוה‬ ‫לדרתיכם חקת עולם תחגהו‬

85

‫וראה את הדם על המשׂקוף‬ ‫ועל שׁתי המזוזות ופסח יהוה על הפתח‬ ‫ולא יתן המשׁחית לבא אל בתיכם לנגף‬ 14

‫ושׁמרתם את הדבר הזה‬ ‫לחק לך ולבניך עד עולם‬

24

The following considerations support the traditional view that the Priestly account of vv. 1–13 refashions vv. 21–27* from the perspective of the Priestly narrative, as advocated for example by Eckart Otto, Peter Laaf, Matthias Köckert, and Gertz among others:72 First, in the narrative of v. 23, YHWH passes through the land to strike Egypt (‫)ועבר יהוה לנגף את מצרים‬, while preventing ‫ המשׁחית‬from entering the Israelite houses to strike (‫)ולא יתן המשׁחית לבא אל בתיכם לנגף‬. Thus vv. 23, 27 reflect the a tradition of a destroyer combined with the concept of a ‫נגף‬. This tradition is integrated in the Priestly account in vv. 11–14. The emphasis on the action of YHWH with first-person verbs (‫ועברתי‬, ‫והכיתי‬, ‫וראיתי‬, ‫ופסחתי‬, ‫ )בהכתי‬in vv. 11–14, including the emphatic ‫אני יהוה‬, stresses the fact that YHWH is the active subject.73 This emphasis on the action of YHWH in the priestly account suggests a more likely interpretation, than proposals that ‫ המשׁחית‬is a post-Priestly supplement in v. 23. The phrase ‫לא יהיה בכם נגף‬ ‫ למשׁחית‬in the Priestly account in 12:13 is superfluous to the context of YHWH passing through (‫ )עבר‬the land in striking (‫ )נכה‬all the firstborn in Egypt as described in 12:12–13, which suggests that ‫ נגף למשׁחית‬has been introduced in v. 13 to modify the concept of ‫ המשׁחית לבא אל בתיכם לנגף‬from v. 23.74 Second, the account in vv. 21–27 expresses the notion that YHWH’s destruction is not specifically directed only at the firstborn, but that YHWH would strike all of Egypt. Hence it contains the prohibition against Israelites going outside their houses, where they would be subject to the destruction (v. 22). This interpretation is also seen in the statement in v. 27 that YHWH 72 Laaf, Pascha–Feier, 10–21; Otto, “‫ פסח‬pāsaḥ,” 9–10; Köckert, Leben, 88–94; Gertz, Tradition, 50, though hesitant, concludes that this is the more likely alternative. Cf. Gesundheit, Three Times, 68–73, on the influence of vv. 21–27* on vv. 11–13. 73 So according to Weimar, “Zum Problem der Entstehungsgeschichte von Ex 12:1–14,” ZAW 107 (1995): 15 n. 58, the Priestly account is concerned with accentuating the actions of YHWH. 74 ‫ נגף‬is only found in Exod 7:27 (non-Priestly) and 12:13, 23, 27 in the exodus narrative; it is therefore improbably that the Priestly narrative would have introduced the term ‫ נגף‬into Exod 12:13 as it goes contrary to the general Passover conception of the Priestly account of the strike against the firstborn, unless it were taking it from 12:23, 27.

86

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

saved the whole houses of the Israelites.75 The Priestly account clarifies that the destruction is aimed at the firstborn (‫)והכיתי כל בכור בארץ מצרים‬, suggesting that the Priestly account took up the concept of a ‫ נגף‬coming on all those who are not protected within houses from vv. 21–27 and integrated it with the striking (‫ )נכה‬of the firstborn from the pre-Priestly narrative in vv. 29–33. It is difficult to explain the alternative direction of dependence according to which vv. 21–27 would have extended an original attack that is limited to the firstborn to anyone who goes outside a house protected house in the land of Egypt. The crucial criterion for determining the relationship between the Priestly and non-Priestly accounts is the combination of these two reasons relating to the different conceptions of the ‫ נגף‬in contrast to ‫ נכה‬and YHWH in contrast to ‫המשׁחית‬. This combination is seen in the integration of v. 29 conflated with v. 23 into vv. 12–1376 as strong evidence that vv. 12–13 is a revision of vv. 23 and 29: 12:12–13 ‫ועברתי בארץ מצרים‬ ‫בלילה הזה‬ ‫והכיתי כל בכור בארץ מצרים‬ ‫מאדם ועד בהמה‬ ‫ובכל אלהי מצרים‬ ‫אעשׂה שׁפטים אני יהוה‬ ‫והיה הדם לכם לאת על הבתים‬ ‫אשׁר אתם שׁם‬ ‫וראיתי את־הדם‬ ‫ופסחתי עלכם‬ ‫ולא יהיה בכם נגף למשׁחית‬ ‫בהכתי בארץ מצרים‬

12:29–30

12:23 ‫ועבר יהוה לנגף את מצרים‬

‫ויהי בחצי הלילה‬ ‫ויהוה הכה כל־בכור בארץ‬ ‫מבכר פרעה הישׁב על־כסאו‬ ‫עד בכור השׁבי אשׁר בבית‬ ‫הבור וכל בכור בהמה‬ ‫כי־אין בית‬... ‫אשׁר אין שׁם מת‬ ‫וראה את־הדם על־המשׁקוף‬ ‫ועל שׁתי המזוזות‬ ‫ופסח יהוה על־הפתח‬ ‫ולא יתן המשׁחית‬ ‫לבא אל־בתיכם לנגף‬

75 Gesundheit, Three Times, 71–72; Loewenstamm, The Evolution of the Exodus Tradition (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992), 191. 76 Jacob, Exodus, 311; Dillmann, Exodus, 118, and Berner, “Der literarische Charakter,” 122 note the influence of v. 29 on 12:12, and Heinrich Holzinger, Exodus (Tübingen: Mohr, 1900), 38 notes the influence of v. 23 on 12:12–13. Suzanne Boorer, The Promise of the Land as Oath (BZAW 205; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992), 163, argues that the Priestly account has combined parts of vv. 21–27, 29–39 into a tight unity in vv. 12–13 through linking the blood of the Passover ritual from v. 23 with the killing of the firstborn described in v. 29, as well as combining the ‫ נגף‬by the ‫ משׁחית‬expressed in v. 23 with the ‫ נכה‬by ‫ יהוה‬from the non-Priestly v. 29.

The Priestly Base Layer in Exod 1–14

87

This chart shows that vv. 12–13 is the recipient text of the conceptions of vv. 21–27 and 29–33. It has conflated the smiting (‫ )נכה‬of the firstborn in the night (‫ )כל־בכור‬from the pre-Priestly account in vv. 29–33 with the description of YHWH passing through to strike (‫ )נגף‬Egypt from v. 23 ( ‫ועבר יהוה‬ ‫)לנגף את מצרים‬. It has taken up the blood protection rite from v. 23 and formed it into a sign in line with the earlier Priestly covenant signs of the rainbow and circumcision. Such conflation points to the dependence of vv. 1– 14 on both vv. 29–33 and vv. 21–23. This redactional technique also suggests that the Priestly narrative at this point is a supplement linking the nonPriestly materials. A third reason for the Priestly account being later is in vv. 27 and 11, which express different nuances of ‫פסח הוא ליהוה‬: Exodus 12:11 ‫ואכלתם אתו בחפזון פסח הוא ליהוה‬

Exodus 12:27 ‫ואמרתם זבח־פסח הוא ליהוה אשׁר‬ ‫פסח על־בתי בני־ישׂראל במצרים‬ ‫בנגפו את־מצרים ואת־בתינו הציל‬

Verse 27 reflects the apotropaic notion of the Passover seen in vv. 21–27, where YHWH “passed over” the houses of Israel and spared them from destruction. The Priestly account modifies this etymology of ‫ פסח‬by associating it with “eating with haste” (‫ )בחפזון‬and omits the description of the Passover as a ‫זבח‬, thus modifying the notion of the Passover as a sacrifice taking place outside a temple in which laity participate in priest-like activities.77 The Priestly account deviates from the ritual requirements of a sacrificial meal centered at the temple but nevertheless involves aspects of a sacrifice without the presence of a tabernacle or priesthood.78 In summary, the Priestly account is committed the wording and conceptions of the non-Priestly texts of vv. 23, 29–33, but it takes them up in a process of modification as it integrates them into its larger concerns. The segment of vv. 12–13 that does not have a parallel in vv. 23, 29–33 (‫והיה הדם‬ ‫ )לכם לאת ובכל אלהי מצרים אעשׂה שׁפטים אני יהוה‬emphasizes the particular concerns of the Priestly narrative. The blood rite in vv. 21–27 is understood as an 77

Gesundheit, Three Times, 72–73. As noted by Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1– 15, 243, 275, vv. 1–11 “contain a series of ritual regulations that in numerous ways evoke sacrificial regulations, indeed they are actually sacrificial regulations. On the other hand, they counteract the sacrificial regulations and thus the sacrificial character of the slaughter of the Passover animal, even while not completely excluding the association.” 78 William Gilders, “Sacrifice before Sinai and the Priestly Narratives,” in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (ed. Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden; AThANT 95; Zürich: Theologische Verlag, 2009), 60–62.

88

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

apotropaic rite which prevents the destruction of the Israelites. The Priestly account in vv. 11–14 takes up this understanding but prefixes it with ‫והיה הדם‬ ‫לכם לאת‬, which de-emphasizes the apotropaic aspect of power in the blood to thwart the destruction and makes the blood a sign of cognition.79 Understanding the blood as a sign (‫ )אות‬for the Israelites places the Passover in the tradition of the Priestly signs of the rainbow and circumcision (Gen 9:11–16; 17:9–14), each of which reflect a process of de-mythologization that is carried out also with the blood of the Passover in Exod 12:13.80 The use of ‫ראה‬, ‫אות‬, and ‫ שׁחת‬also link the Passover to the Priestly flood account (Gen 9:11– 16), with the establishment of the rainbow as a sign that preserves Israel from destruction. As noted by Köckert, vv. 12–14 corresponds to the themes from the Priestly account of circumcision in Gen 17:9–13; it also has strong linguistic connections with the covenant sign of the rainbow in Gen 9:12–15.81 The shared lexemes between Gen 9:12, 16; 17:9–13, and Exod 12:13 ‫אות‬, ‫דור‬, and ‫עולם‬, and Gen 9:16 and Exod 12:13–14 further have ‫ ראה‬and ‫ זכר‬in common, as seen from this chart: Gen 17:9, 11–13 ‫ואתה את־בריתי תשׁמר‬ ‫אתה וזרעך אחריך לדרתם‬ ‫ונמלתם את בשׂר ערלתכם‬ ‫והיה לאות ברית ביני וביניכם‬ ‫ובן־שׁמנת ימים ימול לכם‬ ‫כל־זכר לדרתיכם‬ ‫ברית בבשׂרכם לברית עולם‬

Gen 9:12, 15 ...‫זאת אות־הברית‬ ‫לדרת עולם‬ ‫והיתה הקשׁת בענן‬ ‫וראיתיה לזכר ברית עולם‬

Exod 12:13–14

‫והיה הדם לכם לאת‬ ‫וראיתי את־הדם‬ ‫והיה היום הזה לכם לזכרון‬ ‫וחגתם אתו חג ליהוה‬ ‫לדרתיכם חקת עולם תחגהו‬

The similarities of these texts indicate that the Priestly authors desire to establish each of these signs (‫ )אות‬as eternal ordinances (‫)לדרתיכם עולם‬.82 Verses 11–14 also have other important connections to the preceding Priestly narrative in Exodus. The passover as a ‫( זכרון‬v. 14) is an important counterpart to YHWH remembering (‫ )זכר‬Israel in bondage and saving them because 79

Gesundheit, Three Times, 68–69. Gesundheit, Three Times, 69–70; Michael V. Fox, “The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of the Priestly ‘ôt Etiologies,” RB 81 (1974): 575; Loewenstamm, Evolution, 202–3. On the rainbow, see Bill T. Arnold, “The Holiness Redaction of the Flood Narrative (Genesis 6:9-9:29),” in Windows to the Ancient World of the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of Samuel Greengus (ed. Bill T. Arnold, Nancy Erickson, and John Walton; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 31–35. 81 Köckert, Leben, 89; Fox, “Sign,” 575; Gesundheit, Three Times, 69 n. 55. 82 Cf. Karl Elliger, “Sinn und Ursprung der priesterlichen Geschichtserzählung,” ZTK 49 (1952): 121, 125, 140, who assigns 12:14 to PG , as part of the sequence with the other signs from Gen 9 and 17. 80

The Priestly Base Layer in Exod 1–14

89

of the covenant (‫ )ברית‬with Abraham (2:23–25).83 The act of remembrance expresses the hope that YHWH will be true to his promises and covenant. It also corresponds to the Priestly narratives leading up to the exodus, with YHWH executing judgments (‫ בכל אלהי מצרים אעשה שפטים אני יהוה‬v. 12) against the gods of the Egyptians as a culmination of his self-revelation in Exod 6:2–7:7*.84 It is often argued that v. 14 belongs with the later addition for the Unleavened Bread in vv. 15–17 due to description of the Passover as a ‫ חג‬and the conclusion that v. 14 is similar to v. 17 with ‫ לדרתיכם חקת עולם‬as a bracketing phrase for inserting vv. 14–17.85 However, “this day” most naturally refers back to the day on which Israel will perform the Passover in vv. 6, 13.86 As noted by Köckert, “this day” of v. 14 “ohne weiteres auf v. 12ff. bezogen werden muß.”87 From the perspective of the instructions in vv. 1–13, the “day” relates to the future celebration of the day of the Passover as “this [Passover] day,”88 as suggested also by the formal parallel between v. 14 and v. 13, as well as from the chiastic structure of v .14b:89 ‫לכם לאת‬ ‫והיה הדם‬ ‫והיה היום הזה לכם לזכרון‬

12:13 12:14

Some scholars maintain v. 14a (‫ )והיה היום הזה לכם לזכרון‬as part of the base narrative of vv. 1–14a, which establishes the passover as a “remembrance” (‫ )לזכרון‬that implies an interest in future observance of the day for the base layer of the Priestly narrative, but remove the second part of the verse, which

83

Schmitt, Exodus, 83–85. Diesel, “Ich Bin Jahwe,” 201–4 and Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 295; cf. also Dillmann, Exodus, 118 on the connection of Exod 12:12 to 6:6; 7:4. 85 Berner, Exoduserzählung, 323; Gertz, Tradition, 36; Laaf, Pascha-Feier, 16; Karl William Weyde, The Appointed Festivals of YHWH: The Festival Calendar in Leviticus 23 and the sukkot Festival in Other Biblical Texts (FAT 2/4; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 60–61 notes the ambiguity of the reference of “this day” in v. 14, as it points back to the fourteenth day in vv. 1–13, but can also be seen as connected to the fifteenth day of v. 17. 86 Schmitt, Exodus, 80 n. 253. This is noted by Gesundheit, Three Times, 77, who nevertheless goes on to argue that v. 14 belongs with what follows in vv. 15–17. As noted by John Durham, Exodus (WBC 3; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987), 157–58, the meaning of v. 14 in this context is fittingly ambiguous, as it refers both to the day of the departure, as well as to the Passover evening, and also functions as the day for future “actualizing” of the Passover. 87 Köckert, Leben, 93 n. 83. 88 Houtman, Exodus II, 185; cf. Childs, Exodus, 196–97. 89 Gesundheit, Three Times, 76–77. Gesundheit appears ambivalent on the issue of the referent of “this day”, as he states that v. 14 points backward to the preceding material, but that “this day” nevertheless belongs to the Unleavened Bread section of vv. 15–20. 84

90

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

specifies the ‫ זכרון‬as a ‫חג‬.90 There are, however, no compelling reasons to divide the verse.91 The word ‫ זכרון‬requires the further explication of what this remembrance involves provided by ‫וחגתם אתו חג ליהוה‬. Gesundheit overlooks the parallel between v. 14 and v. 24 in his analysis, though he nevertheless presumes that 12:24–25 has been revised in 12:14:92 Exodus 12:14 ‫והיה היום הזה לכם לזכרון‬ ‫וחגתם אתו חג ליהוה‬ ‫לדרתיכם חקת עולם תחגהו‬

Exodus 12:24 ‫ושׁמרתם את הדבר הזה‬ ‫לחק לך ולבניך עד עולם‬

The specification of the ‫ הדבר הזה‬of v. 24 as ‫ היום הזה‬that is a ‫ חג‬in v. 14, as well as the combination of ‫ חק‬and ‫ עולם‬of v. 24 into ‫ חקת עולם‬in v. 14 support the view that v. 24 has influenced v. 14.93 Just as it was shown that vv. 21–23, 27 have influenced vv. 1–13, it appears also that v. 24 has influenced v. 14.94 There are no compelling grammatical reasons to deny what Gesundheit calls a “natural inclination” to read v. 14 as the conclusion to the preceding Passover account, with ‫ זה‬referring to something preceding and already known, and allow that the introduction of the blood as an ‫ אות‬would include a statement regarding its significance for future generations as with the signs in Gen 9:11–16 and 17:9–14. The ambiguity that has led many scholars to assign v. 14 with what follows in vv. 15–17 results from the imitation of v. 14 in v. 17 when vv. 15–17 were added to incorporate the Feast of Unleavened Bread into the ‫ היום הזה‬of the Passover remembrance in v. 14. The objection that v. 14 cannot belong with the preceding Passover instructions because the Passover is not called a ‫ חג‬anywhere else begs the question and can be explained by considering Exod 12:1–14 as intended from the start to provide 90

Grünwaldt, Exil, 74–75 and Köckert, Leben, 89, 93. Others such as Schmitt, Exodus, 80; Beer and Galling, Exodus, 60–61; Holzinger, Exodus, 34, 38; Elliger, “Sinn,” 121; and Martin Noth, Exodus (trans. J.S. Bowden; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 92–94 take v. 14 as a whole as part of PG . 91 Weimar, “Zum Problem,” 11. 92 Gesundheit, Three Times, 82–83. 93 So according to Gesundheit, Three Times, 82–83, “the original conclusion to the Pesah pericope, which makes the Pesah a law for all time (vv. 24–25), was dislocated then replaced by v. 14, which presents ‘this day’ as the ‘festival for YHWH, throughout your generations,’ ‘an eternal law.’” Also Gesundheit states, “The original conclusion to the Pesah pericope (vv. 24–27a, 28), which enjoins performing ‘this rite’, the one performed in Egypt, throughout all future generations, allows for no divergence from the laws in force that night. Not so the revised conclusion in v. 14”. 94 Berner, Exoduserzählung, 327–28, assigns v. 24 to the same late supplemental layer as v. 14 but does not discuss their relationship in more detail. The differences between v. 24 and v. 14 however suggest different origins of the notices.

The Priestly Base Layer in Exod 1–14

91

the instructions for observing the Passover ‫ חג‬as part of the festival calendar of Lev 23.95 The connections of 12:12–14 with the key terms ‫אני יהוה‬, ‫שׁפטים‬, and ‫ זכר‬from Exod 2:23–25; 6:2–7:7* suggest that vv. 12–14 as a whole can be preserved in the Priestly narrative, unless it is presumed from the start that the narrators would not have been interested in legislating for future observance of the Passover. Because the non-P account in v. 24 contains instructions to memorialize the Passover as a “statute for you and your sons forever” (‫)לחק לך ולבניך עד עולם‬, to be observed and remembered once Israel enters the land (vv. 25–27), it is fair to say that the Priestly account would include its version of this orientation toward future observance in v. 14: ‫חג‬ ‫ליהוה לדרתיכם חקת עולם תחגהו‬.96 At this point, we can summarize the following: The differences between vv. 23, 27 and vv. 11–14 are due to a redactional process in which vv. 11–14 have modified the concepts from vv. 23, 27 in line with the concerns of the Priestly narrative and conflated them with the pre-Priestly narrative in vv. 29–33. To argue for the opposite direction of dependence, one would have to explain why vv. 21–27 extended the threat of destruction beyond the firstborn to everyone in Egypt, and why the blood ritual is made apotropaic in vv. 21– 27 over against the Priestly account in vv. 1–14, which reflect a concern to modify the apotropaic use of the blood into a sign in line with other signs of the Priestly narrative.97 Based on the criteria of Carr, the conflation of divergent strata from vv. 23, 29–30 supplemented with expansions aligning with the concerns of the Priestly narrative decisively point to vv. 12–13 being dependent on vv. 23, 29–30.98 As discussed above, there are significant reasons presented by arguments by Berner and Gesundheit for the direction of dependence from the Priestly account in vv. 1–11 to the non-Priestly vv. 21– 27. However, those reasons could be explained otherwise with arguments in the opposite direction, as noted above. The conflation of vv. 21–27 and 29– 33 in vv. 12–13 however is of a stronger type of evidence that is not reversible, and strongly suggests that vv. 21–27, 29–33 have influenced vv. 11–14 95

The suggestion by Berner, Exoduserzählung, 323 that v. 14 depends on the instructions for Unleavened Bread in 13:3 can be reversed and an argument made that dependence goes in the opposite direction, especially because other features of 13:3–16 can be explained as interpretations of 12:1–14, 21–27. 96 Cf. Grünwaldt, Exil, 74–78 who suggests that 12:21–23 have influenced vv. 1–14, which supports the idea of including v. 14 in the PG layer (though he removes the second half of the verse). 97 Gertz, Tradition, 49–50. 98 Carr, “Method,” 126. Exod 12:12–13 satisfies all of the criteria proposed by Carr, as it substantially parallels vv. 23, 29–30, yet includes additions in the form of divine speech that fill in information and align the non-Priestly Passover with the theology of the Priestly narrative of Genesis–Exodus.

92

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

which, in turn, are integral to the Priestly narrative and its conception of the Passover. Thus the Priestly account in vv. 1–14 is a redactional composition that integrates vv. 21–27, 29–33.99 Two conclusions can be drawn from this which relate to the overall interpretation of Exod 12–13: First, because it was shown that Exod 12:21–27 has influenced vv. 12–13, these verses can be presumed to have also influenced the Priestly ritual instructions in vv. 1–11. Second, given the fact that the prePriestly account in 12:21–27 contains a concern for establishing the Passover remembrance for future generations, the Priestly account in vv. 1–14 would also have a concern for establishing its own system of festivals, dedications, and rituals for the observance of the Passover for future generations.100 What, then, is the explanation for the similarities between vv. 21–22, 27 and vv. 1–11, which are seen in the following chart?101 Exodus 12:3b, 6b, 7a ‫ויקחו להם אישׁ שׂה לבית אבת שׂה לבית‬ ‫ושׁחטו אתו כל קהל עדת ישׂראל‬ ‫בין הערבים‬ ‫ולקחו מן הדם ונתנו על שׁתי המזוזות‬ ‫ועל המשׁקוף‬ ‫על הבתים אשׁר יאכלו אתו בהם‬

‫ואכלתם אתו בחפזון פסח הוא ליהוה‬ 99

Exodus 12:21b–22, 27 ‫משׁכו וקח לכם צאן למשׁפחתיכם‬ ‫ושׁחטו הפסח‬ ‫ולקחתם אגדת אזוב וטבלתם בדם‬ ‫אשׁר בסף הגעתם אל המשׁקוף‬ ‫ואל שׁתי המזוזות מן הדם אשׁר בסף‬ ‫ואתם לא תצאו אישׁ מפתח ביתו‬ ‫עד בקר‬ ‫ואמרתם זבח־פסח הוא ליהוה אשׁר‬

The influence of the killing of the firstborn in Exod 12:29–33 as combined with the Passover blood ritual of vv. 21–23 seen in vv. 12–13 indicates that Exod 12:12–13 is familiar with and uses the language from the non-Priestly texts. The extent of these commonalities supports a direct literary dependence between these texts, and not just familiarity with the non-Prieslty terminology and traditions by the Priestly authors. 100 Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 275. As noted by Dahm, Opferkult, 126–27, there are no literary breaks between the ritual instructions in 12:21–23 and the parenesis in vv. 24–27, and hence the section vv. 21–27, should be taken as a unified whole prior to its incorporation into the account of vv. 1–14. Though there may be internal growth within vv. 21–27, the section can nevertheless be considered as a whole to preceed the Priestly account, as shown especially from the influences of vv. 21–24, 27 on vv. 1–14. Whether vv. 24–27 reflects Deuteronomistic language as Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 200-201; Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 270–73; David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 267, and Blum, Studien, 38–39, argue, or Deuteronomistic language with a mixture of phrases that resemble Priestly language as Jeon, Call of Moses, 162–64 and Gertz, Tradition, 39–41 contend, the section as a whole can be considered preceding vv. 1–14. 101 For the discussion of the following discussion regarding the Vorlage in vv. 1–11, see my earlier work “The Priestly Grundschrift,” forthcoming.

93

The Priestly Base Layer in Exod 1–14 ‫פסח על־בתי בני־ישׂראל במצרים‬ ‫בנגפו את־מצרים ואת־בתינו הציל‬

This chart indicates that the parallels between vv. 3–11* and vv. 21–27 correspond with the extent of proposals for the reconstructed third person plural Vorlage in vv. 1–11: Reconstructed Vorlage

Exodus 12:21b–22, 27

‫ויקחו להם אישׁ שׂה לבית לבית‬ ‫בין הערבים‬...‫ושחטו אתו‬ ‫ולקחו מן הדם ונתנו על שׁתי המזוזות‬ ‫ועל המשׁקוף‬ ‫ואכלו את הבשר בלילה הזה‬ ‫פסח הוא ליהוה‬

‫משׁכו וקח לכם צאן למשׁפחתיכם‬ ‫ושׁחטו הפסח‬ ‫ולקחתם אגדת אזוב וטבלתם בדם‬ ‫אשׁר בסף הגעתם אל המשׁקוף‬ ‫ואל שׁתי המזוזות מן הדם אשׁר בסף‬ ‫ואתם לא תצאו אישׁ מפתח ביתו‬ ‫עד בקר‬ ‫ואמרתם זבח־פסח הוא ליהוה אשׁר‬ ‫פסח על־בתי בני־ישׂראל במצרים‬ ‫בנגפו את־מצרים ואת־בתינו הציל‬

There is no need to propose the existence of an independent ritual Vorlage as the source of the instructions in vv. 3b, 6b, 7a, 8a, 11bβ. As seen from the compositional method of vv. 12–13 integrating the language and concepts from the non-Priestly vv. 21–27, 29–33, it can be argued here that the Priestly narrative has incorporated the instructions from vv. 21–27 as the basis for its own instructions.102 The Priestly account took up ‫וקחו לכם‬, ‫ושׁחטו‬, ‫מן־הדם‬...‫ולקחתם‬, and ‫ פסח הוא ליהוה‬from 12:21, 22, 27 as the basis for its own instructions in 12:3–11: ‫בעשׂר לחדשׁ הזה ויקחו להם אישׁ שׂה לבית־אבת שׂה לבית‬ ‫ואם־ימעט הבית מהית משׂה ולקח הוא ושׁכנו הקרב אל ביתו במכסת נפשׁת‬ ‫אישׁ לפי אכלו תכסו על־השׁה‬ ‫שׂה תמים זכר בן־שׁנה יהיה לכם מן־הכבשׁים ומן־העזים תקחו‬ ‫והיה לכם למשׁמרת עד ארבעה עשׂר יום לחדשׁ הזה‬

12:3 12:4 12:5 12:6

102 This is suggested by Dillmann, Exodus, 125, who argues, following Gottlieb Klein, “Die Totaphot nach Bibel und Tradition,” JPTh 8 (1881): 667, that the author of 12:1–10 had vv. 21–24 as a source when composing the ritual instructions of vv. 1–11. Kohata, Jahwist, 271, proposes origins in a common stream of tradition for the pre-Priestly instructions in vv. 21–23 and the Vorlage in vv. 1–11. Dahm, Opferkult, 162–172, argues for the presence of two underlying ritual Vorlagen in v. 3b, 6b, 7, 8a, 11bβ and in v. 21b– 22, 27aβ that were originally independent of the exodus narrative, which were added into larger narrative complexes in 12:1–14, 28 and 12:21–27, before these two conceptions were combined.

94

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14 ‫ושׁחטו אתו כל קהל עדת ישׂראל בין הערבים‬ ‫ולקחו מן־הדם ונתנו על־שׁתי המזוזות ועל־המשׁקוף‬ ‫על הבתים אשׁר־יאכלו אתו בהם‬ ‫ואכלו את־הבשׁר בלילה הזה צלי־אשׁ ומצות על־מררים יאכלהו‬ ‫אל־תאכלו ממנו נא ובשׁל מבשׁל במים‬ ‫כי אם־צלי־אשׁ ראשׁו על־כרעיו ועל־קרבו‬ ‫ולא־תותירו ממנו עד־בקר והנתר ממנו עד־בקר באשׁ תשׂרפו‬ ‫וככה תאכלו אתו מתניכם חגרים נעליכם ברגליכם ומקלכם בידכם‬ ‫ואכלתם אתו בחפזון פסח הוא ליהוה‬

12:7 12:8 12:9 12:10 12:11

The Priestly author of 12:1–14 integrated the ritual instructions from vv. 21– 27 into vv. 3b, 6–8, 11bβ, which he developed into a ritual in vv. 1–14 while conflating the ritual with the setting of vv. 29–30 and integrating the whole into the Priestly narrative with vv. 12–13. Verses 1–14 were prefixed to the pre-Priestly section of vv. 21–27, with vv. 21–27 becoming an execution report for the Priestly instructions in vv. 1–14 with the command-execution formula in v. 28.103 Thus the Priestly Passover account forms a coherent redactional composition that is faithful to the pre-Priestly traditions on which it depends, but supplements them with interpretations according to Priestly interests. Due to the combination of ritual instructions and parenesis that interprets the Passover in the context of the exodus and points to future observance in the land in 12:21–27, it can be presumed that the Priestly author of 12:1–14 who took up the ritual instructions and interpretation in vv. 21–27 would likewise offer his own account with rituals and instructions for future observance.104 The use of the third person plural instructions in vv. 3, 6–8 alongside the second person plural instructions in vv. 4–6, 9–11 does not necessitate considering the second person plural instructions as secondary; rather, they can be considered as the Priestly interpretation added to the nonPriestly ritual instructions taken up from vv. 21–27.105 The inclusion of the

103

Blum, Studien, 39 n. 149. Grünwaldt, Exil, 74–78. 105 So, according to Frank Crüsemann, The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law (trans. Allan W. Mahnke; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 297: “With very few exceptions… the essential portions of these verses, including the actual killing of the passover, are part of the basic document. We can entirely disregard here the questions, whether the priestly writings thus adopted earlier ritual texts and to what degree they can be reconstructed. In contrast, the fading away [= removal P.T.] of all provisions that formulate ritual particulars, such as, for example, the date (verses 2, 6a), the advance selection (verse 4), the unblemished state of the animal (verse 5) or the instructions regarding preparation and eating (verses 9ff.) can be seen as arguing in a circle.” Also 104

95

The Priestly Base Layer in Exod 1–14

second person plural instructions from vv. 4–6, 9–11 in the original layer is also supported by the fact that the Priestly interpretation of the Passover in vv. 12–14 continues in second person plural address, which makes the third person plural instructions stand out from the otherwise consistent second person plural address in vv. 1–14. It is therefore inappropriate to remove material from vv. 1–14 as secondary based on the criterion that it points to a later observance of Passover that does not fit the narrative situation of the night of the Passover.106 Two questions relating to the unity of vv. 1–14* can now be addressed. As noted above, v. 14 is formulated based on the pre-Priestly v. 24: Exodus 12:14 ‫והיה היום הזה לכם לזכרון‬ ‫וחגתם אתו חג ליהוה‬ ‫לדרתיכם חקת עולם תחגהו‬

Exodus 12:24 ‫ושׁמרתם את הדבר הזה‬ ‫לחק לך ולבניך עד עולם‬

The Priestly v. 14 goes beyond v. 24 by establishing the remembrance of the Passover (‫ )זכרון‬as an annual festival, ‫חג ליהוה‬.107 A ‫ חג‬that is based on the remembrance of the Passover requires a fixed date for its celebration, in contrast to festivals based on agricultural cycles. In order for Israel to remember ‫היום הזה‬, there must be a fixed calendar for its observance, which leads to the question of how the establishment of the ‫ חג‬in v. 14 relates to the dates found in vv. 2, 3ab, and 6a. The establishment of the Passover as a ‫ חג‬is inextricably linked with the series of dates in vv. 2, 3ab, and 6a, which establish an annual calendar based on the event of the exodus and the correct dates for carrying out the ritual sequence.108 The dates in vv. 2, 3ab, and 6a seem to fit awkwardly into the setting of the Passover night, which is why they are often removed along with v. 14 as secondary.109 However, it can also be argued that the awkwardness results from the integration of the third person plural ritual instructions from vv. 21– 23 and that the dates are original to the Priestly account, because v. 14 is determined to be a part of this layer. The usual ritual language for specifying ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– according to Dahm, Opferkult, 121, “Die Ergänzung in 2. pers. ist deshalb kein Indiz für eine sekundäre literarische Schicht.” 106 Grünwaldt, Exil, 74, 78. 107 On the connection of ‫ זכרון‬as a festival, see Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 283. Likewise, Holzinger, Exodus, 38 argues that v. 14 belongs with vv. 1–13 as identifying the Passover as a one-day festival. 108 Weimar, “Zum Problem,” 10 and Crüsemann, Torah, 297. 109 So Berner, Exoduserzählung, 326; Gertz, Tradition, 35–36; and Köckert, Leben, 94.

96

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

a timeframe for a ritual followed by an instruction with ‫ לקח‬is the temporal phrase + yiqtol form of ‫לקח‬:110 ‫בעשר לחדש הזה ויקחו להם‬ ‫וביום השמיני יקח‬ ‫וביום השמיני יקח לו‬ ‫וביום השמיני תקח לה‬

Exod 12:3 Lev 14:10 Lev 15:14 Lev 15:29

According to Otto, an original ‫ וקחו‬from v. 21 has been changed to ‫ ויקחו‬due to its integration with ‫בעשר לחדש הזה‬.111 Thus the sequence ‫בעשר לחדש הזה‬ ‫ ויקחו להם‬can be considered appropriate.112 The awkwardness in the syntax results from v. 2 being addressed to Moses and Aaron, with v. 3 introducing the commands they are to relate to the people with ‫לאמר‬. Though it is said to interrupt the typical speech-command formula in vv. 1, 3 (‫ויאמר יהוה‬ ‫דברו‬...‫)אל‬,113 this can be explained contextually because the primary concern of the narrative is to establish the foundations for the Israelite calendar. So according to Ulrike Dahm, v. 2 emphatically demands the establishment of the beginning of the year in a chiastic formulation, followed by the grounding of this interest in v. 3ff.: “In dieser Argumentation stehen Interesse (v. 2) und Begründung (12:3ff.) in so engem Zusammenhang, dass man sie unterschiedlichen literarischen Schichten nicht zuordnen kann.”114 ‫ויאמר יהוה אל משה ואל אהרן בארץ מצרים לאמר‬

12:1 12:2

‫דברו אל כל עדת ישראל לאמר‬

12:3 12:4

‫החדש הזה לכם ראש חדשים‬ ‫ראשון הוא לכם לחדשי השנה‬ ‫בעשׂר לחדשׁ הזה ויקחו להם‬

110 Cf. Dahm, Opferkult, 122, according to whom ‫“ ויקחו‬ist eine typische Aufforderung, die relative häufig einen alttestamentlichen Opferritus einleitet.” 111 Otto, “‫ פסח‬pāsaḥ,” 10. Otto considers the possibility that the date is added by the PG redaction (17–18). So also in the discussion by Gesundheit Three Times, 51–55, who argues for a smooth connection from ‫ בעשר לחדש הזה‬to ‫ ויקחו להם‬in proposing that ‫בעשר‬ ‫ לחדש הזה‬belongs to the base layer of the Priestly account. 112 Against Weimar, “Zum Problem,” 4, who removes ‫לאמר בעשר לחדש הזה‬. The use of the irreal yiqtol can indicate either a deontic yiqtol or a jussive. The difference between the imperatives in the second plural sequence and the irreal yiqtol form marks the difference between the subjective modal deixis of God’s command to Moses, and the objective modality of the instructions for observing the Passover; see John A. Cook, Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb: The Expression of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Biblical Hebrew (LSAWS 7; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 333. 113 Noth, Exodus, 94; Weimar, “Zum Problem,” 3. 114 Dahm, Opferkult, 124.

The Priestly Base Layer in Exod 1–14

97

In vv. 1–2, YHWH speaks to Moses and Aaron and relates the information that calibrates the Israelite calendar to the exodus event and sets the discourse pragmatic context for the following imperative to speak to the Israelites.115 As in ancient Near Eastern literature, such calendrical dating was esoteric knowledge for cultic professionals and not intended for the general public. 116 In v. 3, the command of YHWH to Moses and Aaron to speak the message to the Israelites follows with ‫דברו אל כל עדת ישראל לאמר‬, which integrates the third person plural ritual instructions from vv. 21–23 as a divine speech into the Priestly exodus narrative. Thus the awkward ‫ לאמר‬to introduce indirect speech results from the incorporation of the third person plural instructional material from vv. 21–23.117 The establishment of the month and timing of the exodus departure in 12:2 with ‫ החדש הזה לכם ראש חדשים ראשון הוא לכם‬sets the stage for preparing the lamb on the tenth of the month in v. 3 (‫ )בעשׂר לחדשׁ הזה‬and slaughtering the lamb on the fourteenth of the month in v. 6 (‫והיה לכם למשׂמרת עד ארבעה עשׂר‬ ‫)יום לחדשׁ הזה‬, and thus provides the calendrical basis for the future observance of the Passover as a ‫ חג‬in v. 14.118 The ‫ היום הזה‬in v. 14 links the ritual instructions in vv. 1–14 to the night of the departure in 12:41 as the day that is to be memorialized.119 If it is recognized that vv. 1–14 is based on vv. 21–27 and is thus also concerned with establishing the future observance of the Passover, there are no syntactical reasons to remove the dates in vv. 2, 3b, 6a even though they point beyond the narrative situation of the night of the Passover.120 The address of Israel as ‫ עדת ישׂראל‬in 12:2 suggests an effort to establish Israel’s identity as a religious and cultic community that has been freed to serve YHWH. According to Philippe Guillaume, who traces the development of the Priestly calendar as the foundational criterion for literary criticism, the dates in Exod 12:2, 3, 6 are an integral part of the agenda of the Priestly narrative.121 If it is correct that the Priestly narrative is concerned with establishing the foundations of the laws of the Holiness Code, especially the cultic calendar in Lev 23, then it makes sense to preserve the calendrical 115

Cook, Time, 333. Propp, Exodus 1–18, 384; Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 276. 117 Cf. also Num 9:2. The proposal of Gesundheit, Three Times, 51 n.14, to remove ‫ לאמר‬in v. 3 in order to make a smooth connection between ‫ דברו אל כל עדת ישראל‬and ‫ בעשׂר לחדשׁ הזה ויקחו להם‬does not explain why ‫ לאמר‬would have been inserted to disrupt this connection. 118 Weimar, “Zum Problem,” 4 and Gertz, Tradition, 35. 119 Jacob, Exodus, 314. 120 Cf. Dillmann, Exodus, 112 and Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 206; Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 275–76. 121 Cf. Guillaume, Land, 89–95, who includes most of Lev 23, 25 as part of his PG due to the integral connections among the calendar dates. 116

98

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

dating system that points beyond the night of the exodus as part of the original narrative, unless there are compelling syntactical grounds to remove it. The calendrical dating system established in Exod 12:2 is also an important link in the overall Priestly structuring of history with its connection to Gen 8:13 and Exod 40:17. 122 As noted by Dozeman, these texts provide insight into the theology of the Priestly narrative: ‫ויהי באחת ושש מאות שנה בראשון באחד לחדש חרבו המים מעל הארץ‬ ‫החדש הזה לכם ראש חדשים ראשון הוא לכם לחדשי השנה‬ ‫ויהי בחדש הראשון בשנה השנית באחד לחדש הוקם המשכן‬

Gen 8:13 Exod 12:2 Exod 40:17

The dates link the cessation of the flood, the exodus departure, and the establishment of the tabernacle to the first month of the year, with the flood cessation and the tabernacle being established on New Year’s day.123 Each of these events begins a new era in the Priestly history, and together they mark the exodus event as a watershed. They mark a transition from the post-flood period of Noah and the subsequent patriarchs, to the epoch of Israel and the establishment of YHWH’s presence in the tabernacle.124 So, according to Albertz, the Priestly author understood “die Befreiung aus Ägypten als einen so tiefgreifenden zeitlichen Einschnitt in der Geschichte Israels verstand, dass er ihm auch kalendarisch für alle Zukunft den Charakter einer Zeitenwende geben wolle.”125 This analysis suggests that the Priestly account in vv. 1–14 is essentially unified. The slight unevenness results from the diverse interests of the narrative, and from the integration of the ritual instructions from the pre-Priestly account in vv. 21–27, whose ritual instructions are used in vv. 1–11 to form the third person plural instructions for the Passover.126 Thus the Priestly account integrates vv. 21–27 as an execution report to its own instructions with 122

Ibid.; Dozeman, Exodus, 262–64; Propp, Exodus 1–18, 383–84. Dozeman, Exodus, 263. The Passover itself, however, does not occur on New Year’s day, but on the fifteenth of the first month; see Propp, Exodus 1–18, 383 and Jacob, Exodus, 1045. Thomas Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift: Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von PG (WMANT 70; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995), 341 also recognizes the importance of Exod 12:2 in establishing the date of Exod 40:17a but nevertheless considers 12:2 as secondary due to its position in the text. Pola also considers that the establishment of the tabernacle in 40:17a at Sinai allows Israel to celebrate “das erste ‘richtige’ Passa am ‘richtigen’ Ort.” 124 Dozeman, Exodus, 264. 125 Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 206. 126 Dahm, Opferkult, 125, concludes that with vv. 1–14 “liegt eine geschlossene literarische Konzeption vor. Mehrere literarische Schichten sind nicht nachzuweisen. Wohl aber sind verschiedene Interessen in einer homogenen Erzählung zusammengeführt worden.” 123

The Priestly Base Layer in Exod 1–14

99

v. 28.127 The account establishes enduring foundations for the observance of the Passover for future generations, with the etiological concern of the narrative taking precedence over the narrative situation through metalepsis that disrupts the temporal framework of the narrative.128 The concern of Exod 12:1–14 is to describe a ‫ חג‬Passover festival in Egypt in a manner that links the temporal horizon of the narrative in Egypt with the time of the narrator and his audience.129 The ritual reflects details that would be expected in a ritual instruction for a ‫ חג‬with a centralized slaughter at a temple.130 The use of ‫ שׁחט‬for slaughter carried out by ‫ כל קהל עדת־ישׂראל‬suggests that it is a centralized communal event, after which the meal is eaten at homes.131 The second person plural ritual instructions in vv. 1–14 develop the third person plural instructions in vv. 3, 6–8 with detailed instructions relating to the eating of the meat (vv. 4–6a) and specifying the roasting of the lamb and disposal of the meat that is not eaten (vv. 9–10).132 The structure of vv. 1–14 has the closest parallel in Lev 23:10–14 with multi-staged instructions for the ritual of the Feast of Firstfruits, and the correlation of the key dates to the tenth and the fourteenth days of the month reflect the same ritual sequence of initiating the ritual on the tenth day and culminating it on the fourteenth as seen in the 127

Blum, Studien, 39 n. 149. So also David P. Wright, “Law and Creation in the Priestly-Holiness Writings of the Pentateuch,” in Laws of Heaven – Laws of Nature: Legal Interpretations of Cosmic Phenomena in the Ancient World (ed. Konrad Schmid and Christoph Uehlinger; OBO 276; Göttingen/Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht/Academic Press, 2016), 84–85, according to whom the PH account of Exod 12:1–20 is a “rather unified composition” that is “built on” the non-Priestly Passover and Unleavened Bread prescriptions of 12:21–27 13:3–10. The influence of vv. 21–27; 13:3–10 in 12:1–20 accounts for the change of number in addressees within vv. 1–20. 128 Jacob, Exodus, 291; Ilsa Müllner, “Celebration and Narration: Metaleptic Features in Exod 12:1–13:16,” in Narratology, Hermeneutics, and Midrash: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Narratives from the Late Antiquity through to Modern Times (ed. Constanza Cordoni and Gerhard Langer; Vienna: Vienna University Press, 2014), 29; Bernd Janowski, “Was sich Wiederholt: zu einem vernachlässigten Aspekt des alttestamentlichen Zeitverständnisses,” in “Ich werde meinen Bund mit euch niemals brechen!” (Ri 2,1): Festschrift für Walter Gross zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. Erasmus Gass and Hermann-Josef Stipp; Freiburg: Herder, 2011), 329–30; Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 289; and Leonhard, “Die Erzählung,” 258. 129 Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 300 and Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel (2nd ed.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 347–48. 130 Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 271. 131 The designation of Israel as an ‫ עדה‬presents an understanding of Israel as a national, legal, and cultic community that “gathers” for worship, anticipating the future establishment of Israel as a religious community centered around the tabernacle; see Crüsemann, Torah, 297; Dozeman, Exodus, 264; Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 240; and Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 292–93. 132 Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 276.

100

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

Day of Atonement instructions in Lev 23:26–32.133 These similarities have led scholars to propose that the instructions for observing the Passover in Lev 23:5 are from the same literary layer as Exod 12:1–14, and that the Passover instructions in Lev 23:5 are so brief because it presumes the ritual instructions from Exod 12:1–14:134 Exodus 12:2, 6, 11 ‫החדשׁ הזה לכם ראשׁ חדשׁים‬ ‫ראשׁון הוא לכם לחדשׁי השׁנה‬ ‫והיה לכם משׁמרת‬ ‫עד ארבעה עשׂר יום לחדשׁ הזה‬ ‫ושׁחטו אתו כל קהל עדת ישׂראל‬ ‫בין הערבים‬ ‫פסח הוא ליהוה‬

Leviticus 23:5 ‫בחדשׁ הראשׁון‬

‫בארבעה עשׂר לחדשׁ‬ ‫בין הערבים‬ ‫פסח ליהוה‬

These parallels suggest that Lev 23:5 and Exod 12:1–14 are related. This view is further supported by the evidence that the best explanation for the temporal structure of the ritual in Exod 12:1–14 with its events prescribed to the tenth and fourteenth days is that it coincides with the temporal structure of the ritual calendar and Day of Atonement in Lev 23. 135 There are no contradictions between Exod 12:1–14 and Lev 23:5 that would require assigning them to different layers. Consistent with the argument developed for the Priestly narratives in Exod 1–7, the Priestly base layer of the Passover in Exod 12:1–14 can be understood as establishing the foundations for observ133

Kilchör, Mosetora, 182. Christian Feucht, Untersuchungen zum Heiligkeitsgesetz (TA 20; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1964), 46; David Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus (vol 2.; Berlin: M. Poppelauer, 1906), 7; Rudolf Kilian, Literarkritische und Formgeschichtliche Untersuchung des Heiligkeitsgesetz (BBB 19; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1963), 110; Holzinger, Einleitung, 396–98; and Kilchör, Mosetora, 182. According to Weyde, Appointed Festivals, 57–58 Lev 23:5 also presupposes various earlier Passover instructions. 135 This is the most plausible explanation for the choice of the tenth and fourteenth dates in Exod 12; cf. Otto, “‫ פסח‬pāsaḥ,” 17–18; Köckert, Leben, 94; and Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 240. So Jan Wagenaar, “Passover and the First Day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread in the Priestly Festival Calendar,” VT 64.2 (2004): 258 on the relationship between Exod 12:1–14 (including vv. 15–20) and the festival calendar in Lev 23: “New year on the first day, the selection of the passover-sacrifice on the tenth day, the slaughter of the passover-sacrifice on the fourteenth day and the start of the seven day festival of unleavened bread on the fifteenth day of the first month, are mirrored by the memorial day on the first day, the day of atonement on the tenth day, the start of the seven day festival of huts on the fifteenth day and an additional festival day on the twentysecond day of the seventh month.” 134

The Priestly Base Layer in Exod 1–14

101

ing the Passover laws in the Holiness Code; indeed, the whole calendar in H is calibrated to the calculation of months from Exod 12:2.136 Thus Lev 23 is dependent on the details of Exod 12:1–14, and there is no need to see a literary-critical distinction between these chapters. The base layer of the Priestly narrative in Exod 12 is thus justifiably called an H composition. It contains the instructions for the Passover in vv. 1–14 and the execution report in v. 28, as well as the notice of the Israelites’ departure in vv. 40–41. Following the integration of the pre-Priestly Passover account from vv. 21–27, 29–33 into the H composition account of the Passover in vv. 1–14,137 Exod 12–13 underwent further stages of development as the Deuteronomistic instructions for the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the consecration of the firstborn were added. This stage is seen in the narrative notices in 12:34, 39138 which recount that Israel took the unleavened dough and baked unleavened cakes as they departed Egypt in haste and in the instruc-

136

Cf. Wright, “Law,” 84, who assigns 12:2 to H due to this connection and Guillaume, Land, 89–95, who assigns Exod 12:1–8 and most of Lev 23, 25 to his P base layer due to this connection. 137 As noted by Berner, “Der literarische Charakter,” 122, and Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 208, the account of vv. 1–14, 28 depends on the non-Priestly description of the killing of the firstborn in vv. 29–33 for its narrative coherence. Thus the H composition Passover account of Exod 12:1–14, 28 should be understood as a supplement that maintains a commitment to the wording and concepts of the non-Priestly Passover traditions in vv. 21–27, 29–33 to which it was added in order to mediate between these non-Priestly traditions. Boorer, Promise, 165, argues that the Priestly narrative was originally independent, and thus also Exod 12:1–20 was originally independent of the non-Priestly Passover traditions because it repeats elements from the non-Priestly account of 12:21–27, 29–39; 13:3–16. However, the Feast of Unleavened Bread texts of 12:15–20 and 13:3–16, which admittedly repeat elements, should be removed from consideration in this comparison because 12:15– 20 is widely considered to be a later addition (Berner, Exoduserzählung, 320-321). The texts that should be considered for comparison and potential repeating of material are thus 12:1–13, 21–27, 29–39. In comparing the Passover accounts however, 12:21–27 is not necessarily a doublet to vv. 1–13 as it can also be read logically as a sequence to vv. 1–13, as seen from the occasional tendency to assign vv. 21–23 to P (e.g. Gesundheit, Three Times, 46–72). Though the language of v. 29 is anticipated in the Priestly account of vv. 12–13, this again does not mean that these are repetitions of material that would require considering vv. 1–13 and vv. 29–39 as originally independent traditions. Thus, against Boorer, vv. 1–14 and vv. 21–27 are not mutually exclusive repetitions of material that would have necessarily been originally independent; rather, as argued here, the similarities can be explained by proposing that vv. 1–14 are a supplement that is added to mediate the non-Priestly traditions of vv. 21–27 and 29–33. 138 Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 202 considers these verses part of his older KEX pre-Priestly narrative tradition, whereas Berner, Exoduserzählung, 336 and Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 269–70 consider them isolated insertions into the earlier narrative tradition that prepares for the Feast of Unleavened Bread in Exod 13.

102

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

tions for observing the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the dedication of the firstborn in 13:3–16*.139 The analysis of Exod 13:3–16* by Gesundheit and Kilchör has shown that the latest form of the instructions for the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the dedication of the firstborn are developed from the material in 12:14, 21–27, as seen in the following chart:140 Exod 12:12,14, 24–27 ‫והיה היום הזה לכם לזכרון‬ ‫ושׁמרתם את הדבר הזה‬ ‫לחק לך ולבניך עד עולם‬ ‫והיה כי תבאו אל הארץ‬

‫אשׁר יתן יהוה לכם‬ ‫כאשׁר דבר‬ ‫ושׁמרתם את העבדה הזאת‬

‫והיה כי יאמרו אליכם בניכם‬ ‫מה העבדה הזאת לכם‬ ‫ואמרתם זבח פסח‬ ‫הוא ליהוה‬ 139

Exod 13:3, 5–9

Exod 13:10–16

‫זכור את היום הזה‬

‫והיה כי יביאך יהוה אל ארץ‬ ‫הכנעני והחתי והאמרי‬ ‫והחוי והיבוסי‬ ‫אשׁר נשׁבע לאבתיך לתת לך‬ ‫ארץ זבת חלב ודבשׁ‬ ‫ועבדת את־העבדה הזאת‬ ‫בחדשׁ הזה‬ ‫שׁבעת ימים תאכל מצת‬ ‫וביום השׁביעי חג ליהוה‬ ‫הימים מצות יאכל את שׁבעת‬ ‫ולא יראה לך חמץ‬ ‫ולא יראה לך שׂאר בכל גבלך‬ ‫והגדת לבנך ביום ההוא‬ ‫לאמר בעבור זה עשׂה‬ ‫יהוה לי בצאתי ממצרים‬

‫ושׁמרת את החקה‬ ‫הזאת‬ ‫למועדה מימים ימימה‬ ‫והיה כי יבאך יהוה אל ארץ‬ ‫הכנעני‬ ‫כאשׁר נשׁבע לך‬ ‫ולאבתיך ונתנה לך‬

‫והיה כי ישׁאלך בנך מחר‬ ‫לאמר מה זאת‬ ‫ואמרת אליו‬ ‫בחזק יד הוציאנו יהוה‬

There are slight disagreements over the internal layering of 13:3–16, though most scholars see the section as essentially unified; see Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 201; and Dozeman, Exodus, 250; Gertz, Tradition, 57–73. Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 269–70 remove vv. 8–10 as secondary. Berner, Exoduserzählung, 293–301, 313–20 takes 12:34, 39; 13:3–6* as an earlier stage of material with the Unleavened Bread instructions, followed by 13:11–16* as instructions for the firstborn dedication. 140 The sections marked with single underlining are found in two of the parallel texts, and the double underlinging indicates parallels in each of the three texts. Cf. Gesundheit, Three Times, 208–22; Kilchör, Mosetora, 175–78. Also according to Molly M. Zahn, “Reexamining Empirical Models: The Case of Exodus 13,” in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (ed. Eckart Otto and Reinhard Achenbach; FRLANT 206; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 43–46, Exod 13:1–16 is a post-Priestly text.

The Priestly Base Layer in Exod 1–14

‫ממצרים מבת עבדים‬ ‫ויהי כי הקשׁה פרעה‬ ‫לשׁלחנו ויהרג יהוה‬

‫אשׁר פסח על בתי בני ישׂראל‬ ‫במצרים בנגפו את מצרים‬ ‫ואת בתינו הציל‬ ‫והכיתי כל בכור בארץ מצרים‬ ‫מאדם ועד בהמה‬

‫והיה הדם לכם לאת‬ ‫על הבתים‬ ‫והיה היום הזה לכם לזכרון‬

103

‫והיה לך לאות על ידך‬ ‫ולזכרון בין עיניך‬ ‫למען תהיה תורת יהוה בפיך‬ ‫כי ביד חזקה הוצאך‬ ‫יהוה ממצרים‬

‫כל בכור בארץ מצרים‬ ‫מבכר אדם ועד בכור בהמה‬ ‫על כן אני זבח ליהוה‬ ‫כל פטר רחם הזכרים‬ ‫וכל בכור בני אפדה‬ ‫והיה לאות על ידכה‬ ‫ולטוטפת בין עיניך‬ ‫כי בחזק יד הוציאנו‬ ‫יהוה ממצרים‬

The instructions for Firstfruits (vv. 3–9) and dedication of the firstborn (vv. 11–16) are closely linked with the Passover account in 12:21–27, as well as with 12:1–14.141 Exod 13:3 calls for Israel to “remember this day” (‫זכור את־‬ ‫)היום הזה‬, recalling ‫ והיה היום הזה לכם לזכרון‬from 12:14, 40–41,142 and 13:4 identifies the month of departure as ‫חדשׁ האביב‬, specifying the unnamed month in 12:2.143 Exod 13:9, 16 have likewise transformed the ‫ אות‬and ‫זכרון‬ from 12:12–14 into terms for a physical marker carried on the body, which evinces connections to Deut 6:8 and 11:18.144 The use of ‫ אות‬and ‫ זכרון‬here, however, indicates an inner disposition to remember the exodus event. These modifications suggest that Exod 13:1–16 has been conceived as a Deuteronomistic alternative to the Passover in 12:1-14, which introduces the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the dedication of the firstborn as the way to memorialize the exodus. The divine speech in 13:1–2 that introduces the commandments develops the concept of killing the firstborn into a foundation for consecrating the Israelite firstborn.145 In its present condition, 13:1–2 prepares for the instructions for consecrating the firstborn in vv. 11–16 and in Deut 15:19–23 (‫ קדשׁ‬in Exod 13:2; Deut 15:19).146 Exod 13:3–16 along with 12:21–27 function to provide the regulations in Deut 15:19–23; 16:1–8 with “a historical-theological justification” within the context of the Deuterono141

Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 201 and Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 309. Müllner, “Celebration,” 35. 143 Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 309. 144 Gesundheit, Three Times, 193–94. 145 Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 272. 146 Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 219. Exod 13:1–2 is also closely related to Num 3:12–13, as argued by Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 263. 142

104

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

mistic History, associating the dedication of the firstborn, the Unleavend Bread festival, and the Passover.147 Following the introduction of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and dedication of firstborn in 13:1–16, it is widely agreed that the Priestly literature responded with its own account of the Feast of Unleavened Bread in 12:15– 20,148 within which vv. 15–17 and 18–20 reflect two stages of development.149 Exod 12:15–17 coincide with the instructions for observing the Feast of Unleavened Bread in the Holiness Code (Lev 23:6–8) and also develop the instructions for Unleavened Bread from 13:3, 6–7, 10: Lev 23:6–8 ‫ובחמשׁה עשׂר יום לחדשׁ הזה‬ ‫חג המצות ליהוה‬ ‫שׁבעת ימים מצות תאכלו‬

‫וביום הראשׁון מקרא קדשׁ‬ ‫יהיה לכם‬ ‫כל מלאכת עבדה לא תעשׂו‬ ‫והקרבתם אשׁה ליהוה‬ ‫שׁבעת ימים‬ ‫ביום השׁביעי מקרא קדשׁ‬ ‫כל מלאכת עבדה לא תעשׂו‬

Exod 12:15–17

‫שׁבעת ימים מצות תאכלו‬ ‫אך ביום הראשׁון‬ ‫תשׁביתו שׂאר מבתיכם‬ ‫כי כל־אכל חמץ‬ ‫ונכרתה הנפשׁ ההוא מישׂראל‬ ‫מיום הראשׁון עד־יום השׁבעי‬ ‫וביום הראשׁון מקרא קדשׁ‬ ‫וביום השׁביעי מקרא־קדשׁ‬ ‫יהיה לכם‬ ‫כל־מלאכה לא־יעשׂה בהם‬ ‫אך אשׁר יאכל לכל־נפשׁ‬ ‫הוא לבדו יעשׂה לכם‬ ‫ושׁמרתם את־המצות‬ ‫כי בעצם היום הזה‬ ‫הוצאתי את־צבאותיכם‬ ‫מארץ מצרים‬ ‫ושׁמרתם את־היום הזה‬ ‫לדרתיכם חקת עולם‬

147

Exod 13:3, 6–7, 10 ‫שׁבעת ימים תאכל מצת‬ ‫וביום השׁביעי חג ליהוה‬ ‫מצות יאכל את שׁבעת‬ ‫הימים‬ ‫ולא־יראה לך חמץ‬ ‫ולא־יראה לך שׂאר‬ ‫בכל־גבלך‬

‫ושׁמרת את־החקה הזאת‬ ‫למועדה מימים ימימה‬ ‫זכור את־היום הזה‬ ‫אשׁר יצאתם ממצרים‬

Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 274. On the Deuteronomistic character of the passage, see Dozeman, Exodus, 290–95 and Blum, Studien, 35–37, 167–68. 148 Berner, Exoduserzählung, 320. 149 Against Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch (FAT 25; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 564–65, who argues for a unified vv. 14–20. Advocating for an understanding of two stages of growth are Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 247; Gertz, Tradition, 35–37, 68–69, 72–73; and Grünwaldt, Exil, 90–96. According to Knohl, Sanctuary, 19–21, vv. 1–17 form an original stratum of HS material followed by a later addition of vv. 18–20.

105

The Priestly Base Layer in Exod 1–14

This chart shows that Exod 12:15–17 takes up the regulations for observing the Feast of Unleavened Bread from Lev 23:6–8, conflates them with the concern to remove leaven from the houses of the Israelites seen in Exod 13:7, sharpens them with a threat of being “cut off” from among the people for disobedience (Exod 12:15), and allows the prohibition of ‫ כל מלאכת עבדה‬in Lev 23:7–8 to be violated in order to prepare the required food in the context of the exodus (12:16).150 Exod 12:17 goes beyond Lev 23:5–8 by utilizing the parenesis of 13:3–10 to include Unleavened Bread in vv. 15–17 as part of the remembrance of the exodus in Exod 12:1–14 by repeating ‫לדרתיכם חקת עולם‬ from 12:14.151 Thus Exod 12:15–17 reflects a post-Holiness Code (Lev 23:6– 8) layer of material by an author nevertheless in the Holiness School. The purpose of this author was to respond to the instructions of the Feast of Unleavened Bread in 13:1–16 by providing regulations for the observance of the festival in line with the Holiness Code (Lev 23:6–8) and, in doing so, to combine the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread into a unified festival commemorating the exodus.152 Following the insertion of 12:15–17, vv. 18–20 were added, which can likewise be considered from the Holiness School, but which reflect a later stage of legal development. This text links the observance of the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the same fourteenth day of the month as Passover (12:18; cf. v. 6) and thus goes beyond Lev 23:5, 6 and Exod 12:1–14 + 15–17 in establishing an explicit date for eating the Unleavened Bread on the day after the Passover, namely, the fourteenth.153 This date is consistent with the combination of Passover and the Unleavened Bread in Ezek 45:21: Exodus 12:18 ‫בראשׁון בארבעה עשׂר יום לחדשׁ בערב‬ ‫תאכלו מצת‬ ‫עד יום האחד ועשׂרים לחדשׁ בערב‬

Ezekiel 45:21 ‫בראשׁון בארבעה עשׂר יום לחדשׁ‬ ‫יהיה לכם הפסח חג‬ ‫שׁבעות ימים מצות יאכל‬

The unusual ‫ בראשׁון בארבעה עשׂר יום לחדשׁ‬is typical of Ezekiel, and only in Exod 12:18 and Ezek 45:21 is it related to the combination of the Passover and Unleavened Bread. Therefore 12:18–20 were likely added as a more complete identification of the Passover and Unleavened Bread with a melding 150 On how Exod 12:14–20 goes beyond the instructions of Lev 23:6–8, see the discussion in Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 564–65. 151 Eckart Otto, “Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26,” in Levitikus als Buch (ed. H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling, BBB 119; Berlin: Philo, 1999), 156–57. 152 Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 565. 153 For a discussion of the different dating, see Berner, Exoduserzählung, 324.

106

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

of the day of eating Unleavened Bread to the fourteenth of the month to align it with the dating system and instructions of Ezek 45:21.154 The latest Priestly literary activity in Exod 12 is found in vv. 43–51, which is a ‫ חקת הפסח‬instruction from YHWH to Moses and Aaron regarding who is allowed to participate in the Passover ritual.155 The text is marked out as a later insertion by the Wiederaufnahme in 12:50–51 that takes up the earlier frame markers in the Passover narrative from vv. 28, 41:156 ‫וילכו ויעשׂו בני ישׂראל כאשׁר צוה יהוה את־משׁה ואהרן כן עשׂו‬ ‫ויהי בעצם היום הזה יצאו כל־צבאות יהוה מארץ מצרים‬ Night of watching ‫חקת הפסח‬ ‫ויעשׂו כל־בני ישׂראל כאשׁר צוה יהוה את־משׁה ואת־אהרן כן עשׂו‬ ‫ויהי בעצם היום הזה הוציא יהוה את־בני ישׂראל מארץ מצרים על־צבאתם‬

12:28 12:41 12:42 12:43–49 12:50 12:51

The ‫ חקת הפסח‬shares the concerns of the Holiness Code to define participation in rituals for non-Israelites living among the Israelites.157 The strange location of the passage is best explained by the statement preceding it in 12:38, according to which a “mixed multitude” (‫ )ערב רב‬of non-Israelites accompanied Israel in the exodus.158 The inclusion of the mixed multitude in 12:38 is itself a later addition to the context likely intended to prepare for the situation of foreigners living among Israel.159 Placing the addition in vv. 43– 49 fits in with the narrative logic of the night of the exodus: The initial Passover would not have included foreigners; only once Israel departed Egypt did non-Israelites decide to join them, giving rise to the need for additional legislation for future observance including the mixed multitudes.160 In summary, I propose that the stages of development in Exod 12–13 be understood as follows: Exod 11:4–8; 12:29–39* form the earliest narrative of 154

Ibid., 324–25 and Knohl, Sanctuary, 19–21. The identical opening of 12:1 and 12:43 suggests that the instructions in vv. 43–51 are to be seen as attaining equal authority to those in 12:1–14. 156 Berner, Exoduserzählung, 331. 157 Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 566–67. 158 So Levin, Der Jahwist, 339–400; Gertz, Tradition, 57 n. 124; Dozeman, Exodus, 285; Childs, Exodus, 202; Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 258; and Fischer and Markl, Exodus, 142. 159 Cf. the later H text in Lev 24:10–23 where there is a legal case involving a man of mixed Israelite-Egyptian descent; Berner, Exoduserzählung, 273. Lev 24:10–23 is widely considered to be a later addition to the Holiness Code; see the discussion in Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 512–13. Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 217 and Noth, Exodus, 99 associate the foreigners of Exod 12:38 with the grumbling crowd of Num 11:4. 160 Childs, Exodus, 202. 155

The Priestly Base Layer in Exod 1–14

107

the killing of the firstborn as the final plague. To this was added the prePriestly apotropaic blood ritual in vv. 21–27 with parenesis for observance in future generations. The Priestly passover account in 12:1–14 integrated the killing of the firstborn from vv. 29–39* with the apotropaic ritual from vv. 21–27 into the overarching theology of the Priestly narrative, making the event a culmination of the great judgments promised at the beginning of the plague narratives (6:6; 7:4; 12:12) and making the blood ritual and Passover observance a sign in line with Priestly signs in Gen 9:11–16 and 17:9–14. By observing the Passover, Israel memorializes for perpetuity YHWH’s remembrance of his covenant with the patriarchs in saving Israel from Egypt (Exod 2:24–25; 12:12–14). This account of the Priestly Passover in 12:1–14 aligns with the festival calendar of the Holiness Code (Lev 23:5) and provides the details missing there but needed in order to perform the Passover festival. This understanding of vv. 1–14 is consistent with the thesis of this study in taking what is traditionally considered the PG narrative in Exod 1–14 as part of the H composition. Following the H composition’s establishment of the Passover in 12:1–14, the Deuteronomistic Feast of Unleavened Bread and dedication of the firstborn were added in 13:1–16 in order to establish the foundations for the festival in Deut 16, building on the language of Exod 12:21–27 and 12:1–14. The Holiness School then responded with instructions for the Feast of Unleavened Bread in 12:15–17, aligned with Lev 23:6–8 but integrating aspects from Exod 13 as well. A later stage of Holiness School instruction was added in 12:18–20, coinciding with the complete conjoining of the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread seen in Ezek 45:21. Finally, following the addition of the notice that a “mixed multitude” departed from Egypt (12:38), the Holiness scribes added instructions for the observance of the Passover by non-Israelites in 12:43–49. IV. Exod 14 Following the Passover and the departure from Egypt, Israel makes its way to the Sea of Reeds.161 There is general agreement as to what constitutes the Priestly portions of Exod 14.162 Though there is debate over whether the 161

The Priestly narrative also likely includes brief itinerary notices in Exod 13:18, 21– 22 on the journey out of Egypt; see Dozeman, Exodus, 303, 309. 162 See the slightly varying delineations of Gertz, Tradition, 396: 14:1, 2abα, 3, 4, 8a, 10abβ, 15, 16*, 17abα, 18a, 21aα*, 21b, 22, 23aα, 26, 27aα*, 28a, 29; Berner, Exoduserzählung, 403–5: 14:1, 2a, 4, 8a, 10a, bβ, 15, 16*, 17abα, 18a, 21aαb, 22–23aαb, 26abα, 27aα, 28–29; Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 304–14: 14:1–4, 7–9, 15–18, 21aα, 21b–23, 26–27aα, 28–29; Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 226–27, 236: 14:1–4, 8–10a, bβ, 15–18, 21aα, 21b–23, 26–27aα, 28–29; Dozeman, Exodus, 303: 13:18b, 21–22; 14:1–4, 8b, 9b, 16ab, 17–18, 19b, 20ab, b, 21b, 22b, 24ab, 29b; Childs, Exodus, 220: 13:20; 14:1–4, 8,

108

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

Priestly version of the sea miracle should be considered a redaction or an independent source,163 its significance in the overall Priestly narrative of Exod 1–14 is not affected by this decision. The Priestly and non-Priestly reports of the sea miracle represent two accounts with different emphases.164 Two particular emphases emerge from the Priestly account of the crossing of the sea. First, the sea is where the motif of the Egyptians recognizing YHWH who intervenes to save the Israelites, initiated in 7:5, concludes:165 ‫וידעו מצרים כי־אני יהוה בנטתי את־ידי על־מצרים‬ ‫והוצאתי את־בני־ישׂראל מתוכם‬ ‫וחזקתי את־לב־פרעה ורדף אחריהם ואכבדה בפרעה ובכל־חילו‬ ‫וידעו מצרים כי־אני יהוה‬ ‫וידעו מצרים כי־אני יהוה בהכבדי בפרעה ברכבו ובפרשׁיו‬

Exod 7:5 Exod 14:4 Exod 14:18

The resolution of the narrative arc of the PG exodus narrative of Exod 1-14* with the sea miracle culminates with the goal of the recognition of YHWH for the Egyptians and Pharaoh (7:5; 14:4, 18). The recognition of YHWH by Israel introduced in Exod 6:7 points further to Exod 16 and following for its culmination in the Priestly narrative.166 The recognition motif is also con-

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 9aβb, 15–18, 21aαb, 22–23, 26, 27a, 28–29; Propp, Exodus 1–18, 461–63: 14:1–4, 8–9, 15–18, 21a, bβ, 22–23, 26–27a, 28a, 29; Römer, “Von Moses Berufung,” 157–58: 14:1, 2*, 3–4, 8–10a, 15*, 16*, 17–18, 21a*, b, 22–23, 26–27a, 28–29; and Jeon, Call of Moses, 179–80: 14:1–4, 8–9, 10*, 15–18, 21-23*, 26–27aα*, 28–29. 163 See Angela Roskop Erisman, “Literary Theory and Composition History of the Torah: The Sea Crossing (Exod 14:1–31) as a Test Case,” in Approaches to Literary Readings of Ancient Jewish Writings (ed. Klaas Smelik and Karolien Vermeulen; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 76, and Marc Vervenne, “The ‘P’ Tradition in the Pentateuch: Document and/or Redaction?: The ‘Sea Narrative’ (Ex 13,17–14,31) as a Test Case,” in Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at the XIIIth IOSOT Congress, Leuven 1989 (ed. Christian Brekelmans and Johan Lust; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), 87, who argue for a supplemental understanding of the Priestly account. Römer, “Von Moses Berufung,” 157–59, among others, argues for an independent source model. 164 For a discussion of these differences, see Kohata, Jahwist, 296–301 and Berner, Exoduserzählung, 400. In the pre-Priestly account, the battle is presented as the beginning of the wilderness wandering, and the sea is parted by a strong wind blowing through the night at the command of YHWH, whereas in the Priestly account, Moses brings about the parting of the sea, and the battle is presented as the culmination of YHWH’s conflict with Pharaoh; see Dozeman, Exodus, 303–4 and Berner, Exoduserzählung, 400. 165 Fischer and Markl, Exodus, 154 and Childs, Exodus, 140. 166 Alexandra Grund, Die Entstehung des Sabbats: Seine Bedeutung für Israels Zeitkonzept und Erinnerungskultur (FAT 75; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 245.

The Priestly Base Layer in Exod 1–14

109

nected with the concept of the glory (‫כבוד‬, vv. 4, 18) of YHWH that will be developed further in the Priestly narrative (cf. Exod 16 discussed below). 167 A second distinctive feature of the Priestly sea miracle is its emphasis on creation theology, with links to the Priestly creation in Gen 1:1–2:4a and flood in Gen 6–9.168 The concept of separation (‫ בדל‬in Gen 1; ‫ בקע‬in Gen 7:11; Exod 14:16, 21), dry ground as conducive to life (‫ יבשׁה‬in Gen 1:9–10; Exod 14:16, 22, 29), and life as emerging from the midst of the sea with ‫בתוך‬ ‫( הים‬Gen 1:6; Exod 14:16, 22, 23, 27) suggest that the Priestly account of Exod 14 uses terminology from the Priestly creation and flood narratives to portray Israel’s deliverance through the sea as a new creation.169 The passing through the sea for Israel is thus an “ur-geschichtlicher” event with mythical connotations rooted in creation theology.170 The new creation of Israel as a nation171 in the Priestly account in Exod 14* is a fitting culmination to the narrative arc introduced in Exod 1:7, where Pharaoh’s oppression of Israel in Egypt is introduced as suppression of the creational blessings.172 In the words of Terence E. Fretheim, Pharaoh is the “historical embodiment of cosmic forces of evil, threatening to undo God’s creation,” thus the salvation of Israel at the sea is a “cosmic” event that establishes the conditions for Israel’s “fundamental purposes for life and well-being inherent in the creation of the world.”173 The deliverance is thus the concluding act of YHWH remembering his covenant with the patriarchs (Exod 2:23aβ–25) and rescuing Israel from Egypt, which restores the possibility of the creational blessings for Israel (Exod 1:7) that will ultimately be realized in the promised land (Exod 6:2–8).

167 Jean-Louis Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 157–58. 168 Ibid., 156; Römer, “Exodus Narrative,” 168. 169 Römer, “Exodus Narrative,” 168; Dozeman, Exodus, 304. Erisman, “Literary Theory,” 73, considers that the motif of the legitimation of Moses as a prophet like Elijah and Elisha is more prominent than the new creation concepts in Exod 14. 170 Ernst Axel Knauf, “Der Exodus zwischen Mythos und Geschichte: Zur priesterschriftlichen Rezeption der Schilfmeer-Geschichte in Exod 14,” in Schriftauslegung in der Schrift: Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (ed. Reinhard Kratz, Thomas Krüger, and Konrad Schmid; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 77; see also Römer, “Exodus Narrative,” 168. 171 On Exod 14 as the “birth of the people,” see Fischer and Markl, Exodus, 161 and Jean-Louis Ska, La Passage de la Mer. Ètude de la construction, du style et de la symbolique d’Exod 14:1–31 (CAB 109; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986), 103–5, 175; Römer, “Von Moses Berufung,” 159. 172 Terence E. Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005), 123–26. 173 Ibid., 124.

110

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

C. The Function of the Priestly Material as the H Composition in Exod 1–14 The preceding section has identified the layers within the Priestly literature of Exod 1–14 and suggested that the base layer is aligned consistently with the Holiness Code. This proposal will be corroborated here by showing how the function of the Priestly texts in their non-Priestly contexts aligns with the purposes of the Holiness Code. The following description summarizes how the Priestly portions of Exod 1–14* function to enrich their contexts with the particular concerns of the Holiness Code. It can be shown that each of the texts traditionally assigned to PG in 1:7, 13–14; 2:23aβ–25; 6:2–7:7*; 12*; 14* can be seen as functioning in their context as part of the H Composition related to Lev 17–26.174 Each of these texts is intricately connected with the Holiness Code, not only in vocabulary, themes, and theology but also in function, as was seen in the discussion of Gen 1:1–2:4a in relation to the Holiness Code. The H texts from Exod 1:7, 13–14; 2:23aβ–25; 6:2–7:7*; 12*; 14* function on two levels in relation to Lev 17–26. The first level is theological or philosophical, establishing the conceptual foundations for the observance of the laws of the Holiness Code. 175 The perspective of the exodus from Exod 1:7; 2:23aβ–25; 6:2–7:7*; 14* points back to the H text of Gen 1:1–2:4a and presents the salvation of the Israelites as connected to creation and covenant theology. The exodus is a foundational event in forming the identity of Israel as the people of YHWH who thus have a responsibility to obey the requirements of the covenant,176 and the Priestly texts in Exod 1–14* define this identity particularly in terms relevant to the polity and theology of Israel as described in the Holiness Code. Exod 6:2–7:7* is the central text in this regard for establishing the foundations for obedience to the H laws. Read in connection with the pre-Priestly call narrative in Exod 3–4, the revelation of YHWH in 6:2–8 adds central 174

Knohl, Sanctuary, 104 considers the following texts within Exod 1–14 to be assigned to H: Exod 4:21b; 6:2–7:6*; 9:35; 10:1–2, 20–23, 27; 11:9–10; 12:1–20, 43–49. In contrast to Knohl, I argue that the outline of the Priestly base layer delineated here should be assigned to H. Contrary to the proposal by Knohl, it is inconsistent to assign Exod 6:2–8 to H and not consider the intricately connected Exod 1:7, 13–14; 2:23aβ–25 as belonging to the same layer. In this regard, King, Realignment, 125–51 is more consistent in his analysis of Exod 1:1–7, 13–14; 2:23–25; 6:2–8, 28–30; 7:1–6, 17a, 19–20a, 21b–22; 8:1–3, 12–14, 18 (MT); 10:2; 11:9–10; 12:1–20, 49; 14:1–4, 15–18 as part of H. 175 Cf. Firmage, “Genesis 1,” 110 on Gen 1:1–2:4a as establishing the “philosophical underpinnings” of the laws of the Holiness Code. 176 Franz Greifenhagen, Egypt on the Pentateuch’s Ideological Map: Constructing Biblical Israel’s Identity (JSOTSup 361; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 8– 12.

The Function of the Priestly Material as the H Composition in Exod 1–14

111

theological aspects that show who YHWH is for Israel.177 The divine speech in 6:2–8 goes beyond the account in Exod 3–4178 and places the exodus in the context of YHWH remembering his covenant with Israel and saving Israel from Egypt as prerequisites for the fulfillment of the promises to the patriarchs as a quintessential revelation of who YHWH is for Israel.179 YHWH is the redeemer who takes Israel to be his people and brings Israel into the promised land; this theology is at the heart of Israel’s relationship to God, and it is also the prerequisite for obedience to the commandments. The revelation of YHWH with the fourfold ‫ אני יהוה‬establishes the authority of YHWH as the God of Israel and the land of Canaan as the possession of YHWH that is granted to Israel. As Anja A. Diesel has argued, Exod 6:2–8 points forward to Sinai by establishing the foundation for God’s commands by initiating the history of YHWH with Israel, which is recalled in the Holiness Code as the main rationale for obedience.180 The theology of Exod 6:2–8 is thus foundational for the ethical parenesis in the Holiness Code, which is 177

Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 206, 216 and Diesel, “Ich Bin Jahwe,” 109. The relationship between Exod 3–4 and the Priestly account in 6:2–8 is a debated question. Various perspectives on the question are found in A Farewell to the Yahwist: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (ed. Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2006). Articles in this volume by Konrad Schmid (“The So-Called Yahwist and the Literary Gap Between Genesis and Exodus,” 29–50) and Jan Christian Gertz (“The Transition between the Books of Genesis and Exodus,” 73–88) argue for a post-Priestly assignment of Exod 3-4*, while David M. Carr (“What is Required to Identify Pre-Priestly Narrative Connections between Genesis and Exodus?” 159–80) and Thomas B. Dozeman (“The Commission of Moses and the Book of Genesis,” 107–30) argue for a pre-Priestly assignment. Following the arguments of Carr; Dozeman; Jean-Louis Ska, “Quelques remarques sur PG et la dernière rédaction du Pentateuque,” in Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible à la lumière des recherches récentes (ed. Albert de Pury; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1989), 99–107; Jeon, Call of Moses, 191–93, 200–207; and Wright, “Law,” 81, the Priestly portions in Exod 2:23aβ–25 and 6:2–8 are better understood as supplements that enrich Exod 3–4, especially due to the addition of the motif of the covenant in Exod 6:2–8 as the basis for Israel’s salvation. Following Ska, “Quelques remarques,” 103–5, I consider that the Priestly account of Exod 6:2–8 is best understood as a response to the preceding events of the non-Priestly narrative of Exod 3–5, where Moses is affirmed in his mission to free Israel, and Pharaoh receives a response to his question, “who is YHWH?” (5:2). As noted by Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1– 15, 155–56, the Priestly account in Exodus 6–7 is narratively and theologically necessary for YHWH to confirm his promises to Moses and Israel following Pharaoh’s rejection in ch 5. 179 Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 205–6. 180 Diesel, “Ich bin Jahwe,” 277–78 shows that this use of the self-revelation statement coincides with ancient Near Eastern royal inscriptions that refer to the authority of a monarch as the basis for an appeal to obedience to the will of the king. 178

112

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

filled with linguistic ties to Exod 6:2–8. Lev 18:2–5 is the first speech introduction within Lev 17–26 and also the first occurrence of ‫ אני יהוה‬in the Holiness Code; it links back to Exod 6:2–8, which is also a speech introduction.181 All subsequent ‫ אני יהוה‬statements in the Holiness Code look back to Exod 6:2–8 as establishing the identity of YHWH as the God of the exodus and authority behind all subsequent laws. The commands of the Holiness Code originate with the God who has saved Israel in the exodus and they are thus grounded in the “Indikativ der Heilstat des Exodus.”182 The ‫אני יהוה‬ statements permeate the Holiness Code, recalling the authority of YHWH as the God who has freed Israel from Egypt and set them apart from other nations. The exodus is viewed as a “Heiligung” of the Israelites, who are to be distinct from the Egyptians and the Canaanites (Lev 18:2–5).183 The Holiness Code concludes in Lev 26:1–2 with YHWH’s exclusive claim on Israel, and Lev 26:44–45 concludes the speech introduced in Lev 18:2–5 with a concluding ‫ אני יהוה‬statement. The ending of the Holiness Code recalls the close historical connection between YHWH and Israel, reminding Israel of YHWH’s exclusive claim to authority and Israel’s identity and responsibility as the people of YHWH.184 The significance of the relationship between YHWH and Israel initiated at Exod 6:2–8 thus permeates Lev 17–26 and comes to its full rhetorical expression in Lev 26, where hope for the future restoration of Israel lies in the identity of YHWH as the God who brought Israel out of Egypt (Lev 26:44–45). The Priestly narratives in Exod 1–14 are thus foundational for the Holiness Code as a paradigm of salvation that is utilized in Lev 26. The salvation of Israel enables Israel to experience the creational blessing of being fruitful and multiplying (Exod 1:7) in their own promised land. The goal of salvation is the fulfillment of the promises of God to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, as well as for the Israelites to have their own land in which to

181

Ibid., 246. As Diesel notes, the speech introduction and subsequent commandments of Lev 18:2–5 blends the historical situation of the speech introduction of Exod 6:2–8 with the Decalogue opening and commandments in Exod 20:2. 182 Grünwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz, 408. For connections of ‫ אני יהוה‬to the exodus from Egypt, see Lev 19:36; 22:33, 43; 25:38, 55; 26:13, 45. 183 Frank Crüsemann, “Der Exodus als Heiligung: zur rechstgeschichtlichen Bedeutung des Heiligkeitsgesetzes,” in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Erhard Blum, Christian Macholz, and Ekkehard Stegemann; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), 127–28 and Diesel, “Ich bin Jahwe,” 246–50. 184 Diesel, “Ich bin Jahwe,” 271–77.

The Function of the Priestly Material as the H Composition in Exod 1–14

113

dwell, as promised to the patriarchs (Gen 17; Exod 6:2–8).185 This perspective on history and salvation is paralleled in Lev 26, the climactic chapter of the Holiness Code: Exodus ‫ובני ישׂראל פרו וישׁרצו וירבו‬ ‫ויעצמו במאד מאד ותמלא הארץ אתם‬ ‫וישׁמע אלהים את־נאקתם‬ ‫ויזכר אלהים את־בריתו‬ ‫את־אברהם את־יצחק ואת־יעקב‬

‫הקמתי את בריתי אתם‬ ‫ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם‬ ‫והייתי לכם לאלהים‬ ‫וידעתם כי אני יהוה אלהיכם‬ ‫המוציא אתכם‬ ‫מתחת סבלות מצרים‬ ‫וידעו מצרים כי־אני יהוה‬ ‫בנטתי את־ידי על־מצרים‬ ‫והוצאתי את־בני־ישׂראל מתוכם‬ ‫וידעו מצרים כי־אני יהוה‬

Leviticus 1:7

2:23

6:4 6:7

7:5

14:4

‫ופניתי אליכם והפריתי אתכם‬ ‫והרביתי אתכם והקימתי את־בריתי‬ ‫אתכם‬ ‫וזכרתי את־בריתי יעקב‬ ‫ואף את־בריתי יצחק‬ ‫ואף את־בריתי אברהם אזכר‬ ‫וזכרתי להם ברית ראשׁנים אשׁר‬ ‫הוצאתי־אתם‬ ‫מארץ מצרים לעיני הגוים‬ ‫להית להם לאלהים אני יהוה‬ ‫והקימתי את־בריתי אתכם‬ ‫והייתי לכם לאלהים‬ ‫ואתם תהיו לי לעם‬ ‫אני יהוה אלהיכם‬ ‫אשׁר הוצאתי אתכם‬ ‫מארץ מצרים מהיות להם עבדים‬ ‫וזכרתי להם ברית ראשׁנים‬ ‫אשׁר הוצאתי־אתם‬ ‫מארץ מצרים לעיני הגוים‬ ‫להית להם לאלהים אני יהוה‬

26:9

26:42

26:45

26:9 26:12 26:13

26:45

As has been argued by scholars such as Blum, Rolf Rendtorff, and Rainer Albertz, Lev 26 is a climactic text in the Priestly composition that draws together key elements from the Priestly texts in Gen–Exod.186 Exod 6:4, 7 shares concepts with Lev 26:9–13: the covenant with Israel will be main185

The creational blessings of Gen 1:26–28 are connected with the promise of the land in Gen 17 and Exod 6:2–8 in the parenetic exhortation in Lev 26:9–12, which draws these themes to a conclusion. 186 Rolf Rendtorff, “Is it possible to read Leviticus as a separate book?” in Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas (JSOTSup 227; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 33–34 contends for the importance of the connections of Lev 26:9–13, 42–45 with Gen 1, 17; Exod 1:7; 25:8; and 29:45, which he states contain “intertextual signs showing that there are theological and literary concepts embracing the Pentateuch as a whole.” Cf. Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 13 according to whom not until Lev 26 is “eine gewisse erzählerische Abrundung der Geschehensfolge erreicht,” as Lev 26 is the culmination of a “theologische Argumentationslinie, die nicht nur das Buch Exodus, sondern auch das Buch Genesis einbezieht.”

114

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

tained (‫)קום‬, YHWH will be God for Israel, Israel will be the people (‫ )עם‬of YHWH, and YHWH brings Israel out of Egyptian slavery. As stated by Blum, these texts form a “kompositorische Klammer in dem Komplex ‘Exodus und Sinai’” that functions as an announcement and retrospect, which brings the promise of the land of Exod 6:2–8 to bear for the audience of Lev 26.187 The chapter, which is formulated as an ancient Near Eastern treaty conclusion with blessings and curses related to observance of the treaty, can be divided into the following structure: Lev 26:1–2: Decalogic Prologue: Idolatry, Sabbath, Sanctuary Lev 26:3–13 Blessings for Obedience Lev 26:14–39 Curses for Disobedience Lev 26:40–45 Hope of Restoration Lev 26:46 Colophon to Sinaitic Laws If the Israelites are obedient to the commandments, then YHWH will continue to bless them with the blessings of creation (26:9), and YHWH will dwell among the Israelites as a fulfillment of Exod 29:45–46 (26:11, ‫ונתתי משׁכני‬ ‫)בתוכם‬.188 If they are not, then they will suffer the frustration of the blessings (vv. 14–39). The restoration of Israel will be enabled by repentance and YHWH remembering his promises, restoring Israel in a public display of 187 Blum, Studien, 328. The bracketing function of Exod 6:2–8 with Lev 26:9–12 also suggests that the land theme from Exod 6:2–8 can be seen to reach its culmination in Lev 26:9–12 without continuing into a conquest narrative. 188 According to Christophe Nihan, “Heiligkeitsgesetz und Pentateuch: Traditions- und kompositionsgeschichtliche Aspekte von Levitikus 26,” in Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte (ed. Friedhelm Hartenstein and Konrad Schmid; VWGTh 40; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 2015), 197, 201, the promise of the dwelling of YHWH among the Israelites (‫ )ונתתי משׁכני בתוכם‬in Lev 26:11 for H conflicts with the already realized indwelling of YHWH among the Israelites in the P text of Exod 40. But Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 396–400 also argues that the entire body of H law in Lev 17–26 is depicted as divine speech from YHWH to Israel through its narrative framework in the context of the wilderness wanderings and prior to the entry into the land, presumably spoken by YHWH within the Israelite camp from the ‫( אהל מועד‬cf. Lev 17:1– 4). As noted by Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27 (AB 3B; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 2298–99, Lev 26:9–12 is thus about the “continuity of God’s providence” and “YHWH’s continuous presence,” which depend on Israel’s obedience. Thus both Exod 40 and Lev 26:11 presume the presence of God among Israel. The narrative context of the blessings of Lev 26:3–13 presents the blessings as spoken by YHWH to Moses from the midst of the Israelite camp on the way to the promised land (cf. Lev 20:22–26); thus the presence of God is something that is attained and that God will maintain, with the curses of vv. 14–33 representing an alternative, namely, loss of the presence due to disobedience. It is thus incorrect to say that the presence of God is already realized in Exod 40 (P) but a promise to be realized in the future in Lev 26:9–12 (H). Both Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2299 and Nihan, “Heiligkeitsgesetz,” 197 agree that the meaning of ‫ משׁכני‬in Lev 26:11 is not limited to the tabernacle, but also indicates an abstract meaning of divine presence.

The Function of the Priestly Material as the H Composition in Exod 1–14

115

power as in Exod 1–14, by bringing them out “before the eyes of the nations” (v. 45). The second function of the Priestly narratives in Exod 1–14 is comparable to the function of Gen 1:1–2:4a in establishing the observance of the festivals (1:14) and the Sabbath (2:1–4a). Likewise, the narratives in Exod 1–14 explain the emergence of the Holiness Code legislation, by narrating paradigmatic events that result in formulating laws for slavery (Exod 1:13–14 related to Lev 25:43, 46, 53) and redemption (Exod 6:2–8 related to Lev 25:25–26, 30, 33, 48, 54) or the founding moments of cultic laws (Exod 12* related to Lev 23:5–8). The narratives inculcate the laws by providing illustrations of them and show how law emerges from life, as the Torah uses narratives to motivate obedience.189 This is seen in three ways in Exod 1–14: First, the description of Israel’s slavery in Egypt in 1:13–14 has remarkable similarities with the slave laws in Lev 25:43, 46, 53, which each use the rare word ‫פרך‬, the term ‫עבד‬, and references to the slavery of Israel in Egypt to prohibit harsh treatment of slaves. According to Moshe Greenberg, due to these commonalities Exod 1:13–14 belongs to the “same body of material as Leviticus 25” which, with its narrative links to law, bears “a relation to Lev 25 somewhat like the relation of the narrative of Gen 2:1–4 to later Sabbath laws” and functions to “give the proper overtone” to the laws in Lev 25.190 The language of Exod 1:13–14 anticipates the laws of slavery in Lev 25 in order to highlight the violent and illegal nature of the Egyptian oppression which, in conjunction with Exod 1:7, is understood as contrary to creational blessings.191 A second point at which Exod 1–14 relates to the laws of the Holiness Code is the description of Israel’s salvation as redemption (‫ )גאל‬by YHWH in Exod 6:2–8 in terms of YHWH carrying out a kinship duty.192 As argued by Jean-Louis Ska, the use of ‫ גאל‬in Exod 6:2–8 evinces familial language in which YHWH fulfills the responsibility of a kinsman to redeem Israel.193 Related to this is the principle of YHWH’s ownership of the land established in Exod 6:2–8. Following Exod 6:2–8, the term ‫ גאל‬occurs only in the nonPriestly Song of the Sea (Exod 15:13) to describe the redemption of Israel from Egypt, before it is found in the laws of redemption in Lev 25:25–26, 30, 33, 48, 54 a total of ten times. The basic principle is found in Lev 25:25: If a kinsman (‫ )אח‬becomes impoverished and must sell his land holdings (‫)אחזה‬, the nearest kinsman redeemer (‫ )גאל הקרב‬is required to redeem the property. 189

Fretheim, Exodus, 205–7. Greenberg, Understanding, 53. 191 Dozeman, Exodus, 61, 72. 192 Propp, Exodus 1–18, 273. 193 Ska, “Quelques remarques,” 100. 190

116

Chapter 4: The Holiness Composition in Exod 1–14

This concept of redemption is connected to the notion of YHWH’s ownership of the land (Lev 25:23), according to which Israelite families cannot be alienated from their ancestral lands. The similarities of theme and language in Exod 6:2–8 with the laws of Lev 25 have often been noted, and several scholars have proposed that there is an intentional relationship between the texts.194 The redemption laws of Lev 25 are based on the principle of imitating YHWH’s redemption of Israel in Exod 6:2–8.195 The exodus event in Exod 6:2–8 is a change of ownership from Israel as slaves to Pharaoh to Israel as the people of YHWH. The collective participation of every Israelite in the exodus gives every Israelite equal dignity and status as part of the people of God, which serves as the foundation for interpersonal ethics in the Holiness Code.196 Thus the description of the exodus in Exod 6:2–8 is foundational for the laws regarding slavery and redemption in Lev 25. Finally, Exod 12:1–14, 15–20, 43–49 establish the basis for future observance of the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread. Exod 12:1–14 can be understood as the founding narrative for the Passover festival prescribed in Lev 23:5, and also for the whole calendrical system of the Holiness Code in Lev 23, which is calibrated to the calculation of months from Exod 12:2. Thus Lev 23 is dependent on the details of Exod 12:1–14, and there is no need to see a literary-critical distinction between these chapters. The absence of detailed ritual instructions for observing the Passover in Lev 23:5 suggests that the instructions from Exod 12:1–14 are presupposed in Lev 23:5. The ensuing regulations for the Feast of Unleavened Bread in Exod 12:15–17, on the other hand, are closely related to the instructions for the feast in Lev 23:6–8 but reflect a stage of development beyond Lev 23:6–8 which has integrated details from the non-Priestly account of the Feast of Unleavened Bread in Exod 13. As such, it can nevertheless be considered part of the Holiness School, largely consistent with the conception of Lev 23:6–8 but later than Lev 23:6–8. This analysis of Exod 1:13–14; 6:2–8; 12:1–14 has shown that these texts are intricately linked to various laws in the Holiness Code in peculiar language as well as content. When one considers that 1:7; 2:23aβ–25; 6:2–7:7*; 14* are tied to the H creation account in Gen 1:1–2:4a and are paradigmatic for the salvation of Israel in Lev 26, it becomes evident that all of the texts assigned to the Priestly narrative in Exod 1–14 have a demonstrable function 194 So, e.g., August Klostermann, “Ezechiel und das Heiligkeitsgesetz,” in Der Pentateuch: Beiträge zu seinem Verständnis und seiner Entstehungsgeschichte (Leipzig: Böhne, 1893), 377; Houtman, Exodus II, 502; and Fischer and Markl, Exodus, 90–91. These connections are also noted by Schmidt, Exodus, 285. 195 Grünwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz, 333 and Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1408. 196 Crüsemann, “Exodus,” 127–28; Grünwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz, 281, 330–33; Otto, Theologische Ethik, 256.

The Function of the Priestly Material as the H Composition in Exod 1–14

117

as part of the H composition, connected with the laws and parenesis of the Holiness Code.

Chapter 5

The H Composition in Exod 16–40: Keep My Sabbaths and Revere my Sanctuary A. The Priestly Texts in Exod 16–40 The salvation of Israel in Exod 14–15 is the structural turning point in the book of Exodus. Following the Song of the Sea in Exod 15, the focus of the narrative shifts toward the covenant and revelation of the law at Sinai in Exod 19–40. Before arriving at Sinai, Exod 16–18 recounts events from Israel’s wilderness wanderings. As noted by Cornelius Houtman, Israel is introduced to the concept of divine instruction beginning with Exod 15:25–26:1 ‫שׁם שׂם לו חק ומשׁפט ושׁם נסהו ויאמר אם־שׁמוע תשׁמע לקול יהוה אלהיך‬ ‫והישׁר בעיניו תעשׂה והאזנת למצותיו ושׁמרת כל־חקיו‬ ‫כל־המחלה אשׁר־שׂמתי במצרים לא־אשׂים עליך כי אני יהוה רפאך‬

The events at Marah in Exod 15:22–26 foreshadow the covenant at Sinai in miniature, containing the benefits, stipulations, curses, and blessings of the later Sinaitic covenant.2 The wilderness journey introduces the Israelites to the basic tenets of their responsibilities to YHWH; now freed from Egypt, they learn to trust YHWH and observe his commandments in the wilderness. The wilderness thus functions as a preparation for the Sinai lawgiving and covenant.3 As such, the wilderness journeys (Exod 16–18) are an important link between Egypt (Exod 1–15) and Sinai (Exod 19–40). The wilderness prepares Israel for the reception of the law and covenant at Sinai by testing and educating Israel about the importance of Torah.4

1 Houtman, Exodus II, 301–15 and Christoph Dohmen, Exodus 1–18 (HThKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2015), 380–81. 2 William Propp, Exodus 1–18 (AB 2A; New York: Doubleday, 1999), 581. 3 Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 369. 4 Rainer Albertz, “Wilderness Material in Exodus (Exodus 15–18),” in The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Craig A. Evans, and Joel N. Lohr; VTSup 164; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 153.

The Priestly Texts in Exod 16–40

119

I. Exod 16 in the Priestly Narrative Exod 16 is the first wilderness text considered to contain Priestly material.5 Scholars are divided over how to identify the Priestly material in the chapter, especially whether it originally included the Sabbath material at the end of the chapter.6 There are, however, no literary-critical grounds for removing the Sabbath texts at the end of the chapter as secondary, as demonstrated most recently by Alexandra Grund.7 As noted by Grund, removing all references to the Sabbath by ending the Priestly narrative at 16:15 does not bring the narrative motifs developed in the beginning of the narrative in 16:1–15 to a satisfactory conclusion.8 The original problem of the hunger of the Israelites has not been satisfied at v. 15, nor has there been a culmination to the expectation of the recognition of YHWH by the Israelites that is the central motif of 16:6,

5

Eckart Otto and Thomas Pola exclude Exod 16 from the Priestly narrative due to its connection with supposedly later Priestly elements: Otto, “Forschungen zur Priesterschrift,” TRu 62 (1997): 40 due to its connection with Exod 6:6–8, which he considers a late Priestly text, and Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift: Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von PG (WMANT 70; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995), 134–36 due to the supposedly late description of the community of Israel as an ‫עדה‬. In opposition to Otto and Pola, see Ludwig Schmidt, “Die Priesterschrift in Exodus 16,” ZAW 119 (2007): 487–88. As argued above, Exod 6:6–8 cannot be removed from its context in the Priestly narrative in 6:2–8, and Exod 12:2 already establishes Israel as an ‫ ;עדה‬thus this concept is not out of place in Exod 16. Joel S. Baden, “The Original Place of the Priestly Manna Story in Exodus 16,” ZAW 122 (2010): 491–504 argues that the Priestly account of Exod 16 originally appeared later in the Priestly narrative near Num 15:32–36. Baden’s case (496–99) is based on the anachronism of ‫ עדת‬in v. 34, as well as on the supposedly anachronistic references to ‫לפני‬ ‫יהוה‬, ‫כבוד יהוה‬, and the ‫שׁבת‬. But v. 34 is part of a section usually considered a later priestly addition to the chapter; cf. Rainer Albertz, Exodus 1–18 (ZB AT 2.1; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2012), 263; Eberhard Ruprecht, “Stellung und Bedeutung der Erzählung vom Mannawunder (Exod 16) im Aufbau der Priesterschrift,” ZAW 86 (1974): 274–78. Contrary to Baden, a case can also be made that the Priestly sections of Exod 16 with an emphasis on the Sabbath are fitting for the purposes of Exod 15–18 to bridge the exodus event with the Sinaitic laws, preparing Israel for the reception of Torah including laws for the Sabbath (Exod 20:8–11), and encountering YHWH at Sinai; see Albertz, “Wilderness,” 156 and Schmidt, “Die Priesterschrift in Exodus 16,” 490–91. The possibility of the appearance of Israel ‫ לפני יהוה‬apart from the sanctuary undermines the necessity of the priesthood, and also supports the assignment of the text to the H composition, as I am arguing here. 6 E.g., Peter Weimar, Studien zur Priesterschrift (FAT 56; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 41 n. 62, 65, 327–39, who removes all references to the Sabbath as secondary. 7 Alexandra Grund, Die Entstehung des Sabbats: Seine Bedeutung für Israels Zeitkonzept und Erinnerungskultur (FAT 75; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 240–57. 8 Ibid., 244.

120

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

12.9 The hunger of the Israelites is not satisfied until Moses commands them to collect the manna (v. 16ff.) and they eat it, and it is with the revelation of the Sabbath rest in vv. 23–27, 30 that the theological significance of the manna as facilitating the recognition of Israel as the people of YHWH is made known, as Israel participates in the rhythm of rest on the Sabbath given by God at creation.10 Also Grund notes significant links from the Priestly portions of Exod 16:16–27, 30, to other texts such as Gen 1:1–2:4a; Exod 6:2–8; 12:1–12; 20:9–10 that are considered part of the Priestly narrative, as seen from this chart:11 Exodus 16

Parallel Priestly Texts

‫בין הערבים‬

12 12

‫בין הערבים‬

‫שׁמעתי את־תלונת בני ישׂראל‬

12

‫שׁמעתי את־נאקת בני ישׂראל‬

‫ערב בקר‬

‫וידעתם כי אני יהוה אלהיכם‬ ‫נתן לכם אכלה‬ ‫אישׁ לפי אכלו‬ ‫אל־יותר ממנו עד־בקר‬ ‫הניחו לכם למשׁמרת עד‬ ‫שׁשׁת ימים תלקטהו‬

‫ערב בקר‬

Gen 1:5 Exod 12:6 Exod 6:5, 7

‫וידעתם כי אני יהוה אלהיכם‬

15 16 19 23 26

‫נתן לכם אכלה‬ ‫אישׁ לפי אכלו‬ ‫לא־תותירו ממנו עד־בקר‬ ‫והיה לכם למשׁמרת עד‬ ‫שׁשׁת ימים תעבד ועשׂית‬

Gen 1:29, 30 Exod 12:4 Exod 12:10 Exod 12:6 Exod 20:9, 10

‫כל־מלאכתך‬ ‫וביום השׁביעי שׁבת‬

‫ויום השׁביעי שׁבת ליהוה אלהיך‬

‫לא יהיה־בו‬ ‫וישׁבתו העם ביום השׁבעי‬ ‫וישׁבתו העם‬

‫לא תעשׂה כל־מלאכה‬

30 30

‫וישׁבת ביום השׁביעי‬ ‫ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם‬

Gen 2:2 Exod 6:7

The significance of these literary connections will be developed further below. Given the necessity of Exod 16 to connect the ‫ כבוד‬motif from Exod 14:4, 17–18 to Exod 24:15b–18a and the reasons brought forth by Grund for the inclusion of the Sabbath material in Exod 16:16ff. as part of the original Priestly layer of the chapter, I will follow the influential assessment by Eberhard Ruprecht, according to whom Exod 16:1–3, 6–7, 9–27, 30, 35a is a unified Priestly narrative, to which later Deuteronomistic materials have been 9 So also Aaron Schart, Mose und Israel im Konflikt: Eine Redaktionsgeschichtliche studie zu den Wüstenerzählungen (OBO 98; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1990), 128–29 on the absence of a conclusion to the recognition motif in Exod 16:1–15. 10 Grund, Entstehung, 244, 256 11 Ibid., 250–56. As noted by Grund, these parallels connect Exod 16 to the Passover of Exod 12:1–14, the creation theology of Gen 1:1–2:4a, and the promise of Exod 6:2–8 for Israel to come to know YHWH and be the people of YHWH, as well as prepare Israel for the Decalogue revelation of the Sabbath in Exod 20:8–11. Cf. also Schart, Mose, 126–29, who notes the connections of Exod 16 to Gen 1:1–2:4a and Exod 20:9.

121

The Priestly Texts in Exod 16–40

added in 16:4–5, 28–29, 31–32.12 Ruprecht’s analysis is followed by Frank Crüsemann, Erhard Blum, Matthias Köckert, Rainer Albertz, Martin Rose, Volkmar Fritz, and Aaron Schart, among others.13 II. The Function of the Priestly Manna-Sabbath Narrative in Exod 16 The Priestly Manna-Sabbath narrative in Exod 16:1–3, 6–7, 9–27, 30, 35a is not out of place preceding the Sinai narrative as sometimes is argued; the chapter actually develops several important themes for the Priestly narrative and connects the exodus with the revelation at Sinai.14 The first part of the chapter (vv. 1–3, 6–7, 9–11) introduces the theme of the ‫כבוד יהוה‬. The Israelites have travelled to the wilderness of Sin, where they complain against Moses and Aaron due to a lack of food (vv. 1–2) and long to return to Egypt where they had food, regretting that Moses and Aaron have brought them out of Egypt (‫כי הוצאתם אתנו‬, v. 3). Moses and Aaron respond (vv. 6b–7a): ‫ערב וידעתם כי יהוה הוציא אתכם מארץ מצרים‬ ‫ובקר וראיתם את־כבוד יהוה‬ ‫על־יהוה תלנתיכם תא בשׁמעו‬

Thus a point of contest between the Israelites, on the one hand, and Moses and Aaron, on the other, is over who has brought them out of Egypt.15 The ensuing narrative should be seen as part of the process of Israel coming to the realization that YHWH has brought them out of Egypt, and achieving a deep12 Ruprecht, “Stellung,” 269–307; on the Deuteronomistic character of vv. 4–5, 28–29, 31–32, see Schart, Mose, 132–34. 13 Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 146–48; Schart, Mose, 132, 181–83; Albertz, “Wilderness,” 156; idem., Exodus 1–18, 161–64 (according to whom PB1 may have utilized an earlier Vorlage in vv. 1–15 that can no longer be reconstructed); Matthias Köckert, Leben in Gottes Gegenwart: Studien zum Verständnis des Gesetzes im Alten Testament (FAT 43; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 97 n. 101; Frank Crüsemann, The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law (trans. Allan W. Mahnke; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 299; Volkmar Fritz, Tempel und Zelt: Studien zum Tempelbau in Israel und zu dem Zeltheiligtum der Priesterschrift (WMANT 47; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977), 2 n. 10; and Martin Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den Berührungspunkten beider Literaturwerke (AThANT 67; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1981), 51 n. 38–40. 14 Ruprecht, “Stellung,” 270–71. As noted by Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 383, the location of the events in the wilderness of Sin (16:1) indicates from the beginning that the chapter has a special function in the Priestly theology of revelation, namely, to prepare for the theophany at Sinai. 15 Ludwig Schmidt, Studien zur Priesterschrift (BZAW 214; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), 40–41.

122

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

er understanding of the character of YHWH and what it means for them. The people of Israel are called to assemble ‫ לפני יהוה‬in the wilderness. As is often noted, ‫ לפני יהוה‬is a technical term for appearing before YHWH at the tabernacle in the Priestly literature.16 As noted by Albertz, the Priestly author of Exod 16 wanted to emphasize that the people can appear ‫ לפני יהוה‬and see the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬apart from the construction of the tabernacle.17 The possibility of Israel appearing ‫ לפני יהוה‬apart from the sanctuary, and the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬appearing to all Israel in the wilderness thus undermines the necessity of the priesthood and construction of the tabernacle for access to YHWH, and expresses the theology of all Israel having equal access to the presence of YHWH, with the Sabbath enabling Israel to be close to God apart from the tabernacle.18 This theology is consistent with the values of the Holiness Code and H composition, as will be argued below. Exod 16:7 and 10 combine two notions of the ‫כבוד יהוה‬: v. 7 relating to “JHWHs geschichtliches Rettungshandeln an seinem Volk” in providing salvation for Israel in the wilderness, and v. 10 relating to “die Offenbarung seiner kultischen Präsenz.”19 Thus the ‫כבוד יהוה‬ in Exod 16:7, 10 mediates the “self-glorification” of YHWH through the destruction of the Egyptians at the sea and salvation of Israel from Exod 14:4, 18, with the ‫ כבוד‬as expressing the presence of YHWH,20 thus functioning as a necessary link between the exodus event and the Sinai theophany in Exod 24:15b–18a.21 The text is linked to the sea miracle account in Exod 14:4, 18, where the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬is also associated with knowledge of YHWH:

16

For this reason, Baden, “Original Place,” 496–99, among others, considers the Priestly account of Exod 16 as anachronistic, and therefore out of place, because the tabernacle has not yet been constructed. 17 Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 271. 18 Crüsemann, Torah, 300. 19 Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 270. Ruprecht, “Stellung,” 284, 292–94; Thomas Wagner, Gottes Herrlichkeit: Bedeutung und Verwendung des Begriffs kābôd im Alten Testament (VTSupp 151; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 72. 20 Ruprecht, “Stellung,” 292. 21 If the concept of the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬was not introduced earlier in the narrative, the ‫כבוד‬ ‫ יהוה‬would make an abrupt appearance at Sinai in Exod 24:15b–18a as an expression for the divine presence; cf. Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 262–63, 271; Blum, Studien, 296 n. 31, and Jean-Louis Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 157 but against David P. Wright, “Law and Creation in the Priestly-Holiness Writings of the Pentateuch,” in Laws of Heaven – Laws of Nature: Legal Interpretations of Cosmic Phenomena in the Ancient World (ed. Konrad Schmid and Christoph Uehlinger; OBO 276; Göttingen/Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht/Academic Press, 2016), 93, who follows Baden in his view that the Priestly sequence of the ‫ כבוד‬motif jumps from Exod 14:4, 17 to 24:15b–18a.

The Priestly Texts in Exod 16–40 Exodus 14:4, 18 ‫וחזקתי את־לב־פרעה ורדף אחריהם‬ ‫ואכבדה בפרעה ובכל־חילו‬ ‫וידעו מצרים כי־אני יהוה‬ ‫וידעו מצרים כי־אני יהוה בהכבדי בפרעה‬

123

Exodus 16:6–7, 12 ‫ערב וידעתם כי יהוה הוציא אתכם‬ ‫מארץ מצרים‬ ‫ובקר וראיתם את־כבוד יהוה‬ ‫וידעתם כי אני יהוה אלהיכם‬

Whereas the goal of the sea miracle was to bring YHWH glory and lead to his recognition by the Egyptians, the glory of YHWH becomes a sign of divine accompaniment and provision for Israel in Exod 16, leading to an experiential knowledge of YHWH’s character in his provision for the Israelites as a fulfillment of the recognition motif from Exod 6:2–8.22 The ‫כבוד יהוה‬ appears in the cloud (‫נראה בענן‬, v. 10) and speaks to Moses (v. 12): ‫שׁמעתי את־תלונת בני ישׂראל דבר אלהם לאמר‬ ‫בין הערבים תאכלו בשׂר ובבקר תשׁבעו־לחם‬ ‫וידעתם כי אני יהוה אלהיכם‬

The link to the ‫ כבוד‬appearing in a cloud, as well as the association of provision in the evening and the morning (‫ערב‬, ‫בקר‬, Exod 16:6–7) suggest a mediation of the motifs of ‫ כבד‬from the Priestly account of Exod 14:4, 18 with the non-Priestly ‫ ענן‬from Exod 14:20, 24, which is also associated with the night and the morning (‫בקר‬, ‫)לילה‬.23 The appearance of the glory in the wilderness (v. 10) can be understood as coming from Sinai, where the Israelites are heading, and thus directing the Israelites away from Egypt and toward their goal.24 The recognition motif indicates that the provision in the wilderness is part of the promise of Exod 6:7 that Israel will come to know YHWH. 25 The appearance of the glory also points to how YHWH responds to the complaints of the Israelites by providing manna and quail for them (vv. 14–15). As Albertz notes, however, the purpose of the narrative is not simply to describe YHWH’s provision for Israel but to introduce the Israelites to the Sabbath, which has been hidden from them since creation.26 The appearance of the manna and quail give Israel an opportunity to learn to trust YHWH. The Israelites are to gather a portion of food for one day only and are not to hoard food for the next day, because it would spoil (vv. 16–21). On the sixth day, the Israelites are to gather a double portion that will last for the seventh day 22

Grund, Entstehung, 245; Ska, Introduction, 157–58. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 386 and Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 271. 24 Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 388 and Schart, Mose, 127. 25 Karl Elliger, “Sinn und Ursprung der priesterlichen Geschichtserzählung,” ZTK 49 (1952): 134. 26 Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 273. 23

124

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

as well, as there are to be no provisions on the seventh day (v. 22). As argued by Albertz, the details of the narrative – the temporal limitation and daily provision of manna – serve the purpose of teaching Israel about the Sabbath.27 The Sabbath is thus not a secondary concern; the narrative is designed for the purpose of Israel learning about the Sabbath. It is what Reinhard Achenbach describes as a “Lehrerzählung,” which teaches observance to the Sabbath Torah.28 The vivid descriptions form a compelling memory that will reinforce for later generations Israel’s responsibility to observe the Sabbath and trust in YHWH’s provision.29 Although the Sabbath was established at the creation of the world (Gen 2:1–4a), Israel does not yet know what the Sabbath is. Prior to the revelation of the law of the Sabbath at Sinai in Exod 20:8–11, Israel must have a concept of what the Sabbath is, and therefore the revelation of the Sabbath in Exod 16 is of vital importance for the Priestly narrative.30 The experiences in the wilderness provide an opportunity for Moses to teach Israel about the Sabbath in vv. 23–27, 30: ‫שׁבתון שׁבת־קדשׁ ליהוה מחר את אשׁר־תאפו אפו‬

16:23

‫ואת אשׁר־תבשׁלו בשׁלו ואת כל־העדף הניחו לכם למשׁמרת עד־הבקר‬ ‫ויניחו אתו עד־הבקר כאשׁר צוה משׁה ולא הבאישׁ ורמה לא־היתה בו‬ ‫ויאמר משׁה אכלהו היום כי־שׁבת היום ליהוה היום לא תמצאהו בשׂדה‬ ‫שׁשׁת ימים תלקטהו וביום השׁביעי שׁבת לא יהיה־בו‬ ‫ויהי ביום השׁביעי יצאו מן־העם ללקט ולא מצא‬ ‫וישׁבתו העם ביום השׁבעי‬

16:24 16:25 16:26 16:27 16:30

The references to the Sabbath are not anachronistic; they foreshadow the institution of the Sabbath at Sinai and beyond.31 The revelation of the Sabbath is also an important part of the restoration of creation that is a Leitmotif in the Priestly narrative.32 The instructions point forward to the Decalogue 27

Ibid., 273–74. Reinhard Achenbach, “Das Heiligkeitsgesetz und die sakralen Ordnungen des Numeribuches im Horizont der Pentateuchredaktion,” in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers (ed. T. Römer; BEThL 215; Leuven: Peeters, 2008),” 161 n. 40. Achenbach however considers the Sabbath portions of the chapter which function as the “Lehrerzählung” to be a later addition to an earlier narrative in Exod 16:1–15. 29 Barat Ellman, Memory and Covenant: The Role of Israel’s and God’s Memory in Sustaining the Deuteronomic and Priestly Covenants (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 141–42. 30 Thomas B. Dozeman, Exodus (ECC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 385–86, 491– 92. As noted by Schmidt, “Die Priesterschrift in Exodus 16,” 492, the narrative is concerned with establishing the origins of the legislation for the Sabbath prior to Sinai. 31 Propp, Exodus 1–18, 590. 32 Blum, Studien, 312 and Dozeman, Exodus, 385. 28

The Priestly Texts in Exod 16–40

125

Sabbath laws (Exod 20:8–11) and the Sabbath laws surrounding the tabernacle instructions in Exod 31:12–17; 35:2–3:33 Exod 16:23, 25–26, 30 ‫שׁבתון שׁבת־קדשׁ ליהוה‬

Exod 20:8–11 ‫זכור את־יום השׁבת לקדשׁו‬

‫שׁבת היום ליהוה‬ ‫שׁשׁת ימים תלקטהו‬ ‫וביום השׁביעי שׁבת‬

‫וישׁבתו העם ביום השׁבעי‬

‫שׁשׁת ימים תעבד‬ ‫ועשׂית כל־מלאכתך‬ ‫ויום השׁביעי שׁבת ליהוה‬

‫כי שׁשׁת־ימים עשׂה יהוה‬ ‫את־השׁמים ואת־הארץ‬ ‫את־הים ואת־כל־אשׁר־בם‬ ‫וינח ביום השׁביעי‬ ‫על־כן ברך יהוה את־יום‬ ‫השׁבת ויקדשׁהו‬

Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3 ‫את־שׁבתתי תשׁמרו‬ ‫כי אות הוא ביני וביניכם‬ ‫לדרתיכם לדעת כי אני יהוה‬ ‫מקדשׁכם‬ ‫ושׁמרתם את־השׁבת‬ ‫כי קדשׁ הוא לכם‬ ‫שׁשׁת ימים‬ ‫יעשׂה מלאכה‬ ‫וביום השׁביעי שׁבת שׁבתון‬ ‫קדשׁ ליהוה כל־העשׂה‬ ‫מלאכה ביום השׁבת מות‬ ‫יומת ושׁמרו בני־ישׂראל‬ ‫את־השׁבת לעשׂות‬ ‫את־השׁבת לדרתם ברית‬ ‫עולם ביני ובין בני ישׂראל‬ ‫אות הוא לעלם‬ ‫כי־שׁשׁת ימים עשׂה יהוה‬ ‫את־השׁמים ואת־הארץ‬ ‫וביום השׁביעי שׁבת וינפשׁ‬ ‫שׁשׁת ימים תעשׂה מלאכה‬ ‫וביום השׁביעי יהיה לכם‬ ‫קדשׁ שׁבת שׁבתון ליהוה‬

The theme of the sanctity (‫ )קדשׁ‬of the Sabbath connects these verses to the inauguration of the Sabbath in Gen 2:1–4a and presents a developing sequence of the revelation of the Sabbath to Israel. 34 Exod 16 foreshadows the tabernacle in Exod 25–40 by introducing the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬for the first time, which will take up residence in the midst of Israel (Exod 24:15b–18a; 29:43– 46; 40:34–35), and introduces the Sabbath, which will become a sign of the Sinai covenant and YHWH’s sanctifying presence among the Israelites (Exod 31:13–17). Each of these concepts is also connected with the motif of the recognition of YHWH:

33

Dozeman, Exodus, 386 Ibid., 385; Daniel C. Timmer, Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath: The Sabbath Frame of Exodus 31:12–17; 35:1–3 in Exegetical and Theological Perspective (FRLANT 227; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 44–51. 34

126

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40 ‫ערב וידעתם כי יהוה הוציא אתכם מארץ מצרים‬ ‫בבקר תשׁבעו־לחם וידעתם כי אני יהוה אלהיכם‬ ‫וידעו כי אני יהוה אלהיהם אשׁר הוצאתי אתם מארץ מצרים‬ ‫לשׁכני בתוכם אני יהוה אלהיהם‬ ‫את־שׁבתתי תשׁמרו כי אות הוא ביני וביניכם לדרתיכם‬ ‫לדעת כי אני יהוה מקדשׁכם‬

16:6 16:12 29:46 31:13

Exod 16 is thus an important link in the Priestly narrative between the exodus, the revelation of the Sabbath laws in Exod 20:8–11 and the function of the Sabbath as a sign of Israel’s relationship with YHWH in Exod 31:12–17. It also integrates the indwelling of the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬among the Israelites in the tabernacle in Exod 24:15b–18a; 29:43–46 as part of the developing recognition of YHWH.35 III. The Function of Exod 16 as Part of the H Composition Scholars have long noted the affinities between the Priestly portions of Exod 16 and the Holiness Code. The terminology for the Sabbath coincides with Sabbath terminology in the Holiness Code, which has led several scholars to attribute the Sabbath texts in Exod 16 to H.36 Exod 16:23 in particular defines the Sabbath in terms specific to the Holiness Code: ‫שׁבתון שׁבת־קדשׁ ליהוה‬. Associating the Sabbath with holiness (‫ )קדשׁ‬is considered a special concern of the Holiness Code, as is the use of the term ‫שׁבתון‬: Exod 16:23, 25–26, 30 ‫שׁבתון שׁבת־קדשׁ ליהוה‬

‫שׁבת היום ליהוה‬ ‫שׁשׁת ימים תלקטהו‬ 35

Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3 ‫את־שׁבתתי תשׁמרו כי אות‬ ‫הוא ביני וביניכם לדרתיכם‬ ‫לדעת כי אני יהוה מקדשׁכם‬ ‫ושׁמרתם את־השׁבת‬ ‫כי קדשׁ הוא לכם‬ ‫שׁשׁת ימים יעשׂה מלאכה‬

H Texts ‫שׁבת שׁבתון היא לכם‬ (Lev 16:3137) ‫שׁשׁת ימים תעשׂה‬ ‫מלאכה וביום השׁביעי שׁבת‬ ‫שׁבתון מקרא־קדשׁ‬ (Lev 23:3)

Dozeman, Exodus, 384–86; Weimar, Studien, 328–30. Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 17; Alan Cooper and Bernard Goldstein, “The Development of the Priestly Calendars (I): The Daily Sacrifice and the Sabbath,” HUCA 74 (2003): 16–18; Jacob Milgrom, “HR in Leviticus and Elsewhere in the Torah,” in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (VTSup 93; ed. Rolf Rendtorff and Robert Kugler; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 37–39; Achenbach, “Das Heiligkeitsgesetz und die sakralen Ordnungen,” 161 n. 40, connects the Sabbath of Exod 16 with the Sabbath laws of Lev 25. 37 On Lev 16:29–34 as an H text that supplements the Priestly Day of Atonement in Lev 16:1–28, see Knohl, Sanctuary, 27–29 and Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 39–40. 36

The Priestly Texts in Exod 16–40 ‫וביום השׁביעי שׁבת‬ ‫וישׁבתו העם ביום השׁבעי‬

‫וביום השׁביעי שׁבת שׁבתון‬ ‫קדשׁ ליהוה‬ ‫כי־שׁשׁת ימים עשׂה יהוה‬ ‫את־השׁמים ואת־הארץ‬ ‫וביום השׁביעי שׁבת וינפשׁ‬ ‫שׁשׁת ימים תעשׂה מלאכה‬ ‫וביום השׁביעי יהיה לכם‬ ‫קדשׁ שׁבת שׁבתון ליהוה‬

127 ‫שׁשׁת ימים תעשׂה מלאכה‬ ‫וביום השׁביעי שׁבת שׁבתון‬ ‫מקרא־קדשׁ‬ (Lev 23:32) ‫ובשׁנה השׁביעת שׁבת שׁבתון‬ ‫יהיה לארץ שׁבת ליהוה‬ (Lev 25:4)

The recognition statements in Exod 16:6, 11 are also a feature of the style of the Holiness Code. Not only are there linguistic ties between the Priestly narrative in Exod 16 and the Holiness Code, but Exod 16 is important, conceptually speaking, for establishing the philosophical and theological foundations for the laws of the Holiness Code. Exod 16 takes its place as part of the developing revelation of the Sabbath that begins as a foundational theme of the H composition in Gen 1:1–2:4a, continues through the tabernacle texts in Exod 31:13–17; 35:1–3 as a sign of the sanctification of Israel, and becomes central to the theology of the Holiness Code in Lev 17–26. The Israelites experience the provision of YHWH on the Sabbath and learn to trust that, if they observe the Sabbath, YHWH will provide for their needs, which is why Achenbach describes the narrative as a “Lehrerzählung” that teaches observance to Sabbath Torah.38 This experience prepares Israel to observe the laws of the Holiness Code; Exod 16 can be read as an object lesson for the laws of the Sabbath of the land in Lev 25. Lev 25:2, 4 take up the concept of the ‫ שׁבת ליהוה‬from Exod 16:23, 25 to describe the Sabbath year for fallowing the land.39 Lev 25:1–20 teaches Israel the law of the Sabbath year (25:1– 7) as well as the Jubilee Sabbath year every fifty years (25:9–12). The Israelites are to farm their lands and vineyards for six years, but the seventh year is to be a ‫ שׁבת שׁבתון‬for the land, that is, a ‫( שׁבת ליהוה‬Lev 25:4; Exod 16:23, 25) in which Israel refrains from work and must trust YHWH for provision. This is the same situation the Israelites face in the wilderness in Exod 16: They are to gather food for six days, and on the seventh day they are to rest and trust YHWH’s provision on the ‫שׁבת ליהוה‬.40 The Priestly narrative in Exod 16 can thus be appropriately considered a didactic narrative which undergirds the Torah instruction of Lev 25 and inculcates trust in YHWH’s 38

Achenbach, “Das Heiligkeitsgesetz und die sakralen Ordnungen,” 161 n. 40. Klaus Grünwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26: Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie (BZAW 271; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 334; Cf. also Achenbach, “Das Heiligkeitsgesetz und die sakralen Ordnungen,” 161 n. 40, who connects the Sabbath concept of Exod 16 with the laws of Lev 25. 40 Grünwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz, 334. 39

128

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

provision for the seventh year, functioning like Gen 1:1–2:4a does in establishing the foundations for and motivating obedience to the Sabbath laws and festival calendar in Lev 23. Within the section of Exod 15:22–18:27, which introduces Israel to the concept of divine instruction, the H composition account of Exod 16 elevates the Sabbath to primary importance as Torah of YHWH in the wilderness, with the possibility of Israel appearing ‫לפני יהוה‬ and having access to God through the Sabbath apart from the sanctuary and priesthood. Exod 16 can thus be seen as an integral part of the developing H composition through the book of Exodus, connecting the salvation from Egypt with the revelation of the law and tabernacle at Sinai, with a concern to elevate the significance of observance of the Sabbath Torah by presenting the revelation of the Sabbath instructions prior to Israel’s reception of Torah at Sinai.

B. The Priestly Narrative and the Sinai Texts (Exod 19–40) I. Exod 20:8–11 The Sinai covenant and tabernacle texts in Exod 19–40 can be divided into two parts. First, Exod 19–24 recounts the arrival of the Israelites at Mount Sinai (ch. 19), their reception of the laws of the Decalogue and Book of the Covenant (Exod 20–23), and the concluding covenant ceremony (Exod 24). Each of these chapters contains multiple stages of material that is difficult to assign to particular layers with certainty, but there is general agreement that chapters 19–24 contain very little Priestly material. In Exod 19, generally only the itinerary notices in 19:1, 2aβ (In the third month, after the Israelites had left the land of Egypt, on that very day, they arrived in the wilderness of Sinai…and they camped in the wilderness)41 are considered Priestly. Exod 19:1, 2aβ and 24:15b–18a form a Priestly frame around the non-Priestly Sinai texts in Exod 19:2a–24:14, which find their continuation in Exod 32–34.42 The itinerary in Exod 19:1, 2aβ which recounts Israel’s arrival and encampment at Sinai is generally considered Priestly, and with the Decalogue in Exod 20 there is a growing agreement that vv. 8–11, which describe the Sabbath, should be assigned to a Priestly redaction.43 Comparisons with the Dec41

Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 35. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1395. 43 Dozeman, Exodus, 471. A few scholars maintain that the entire Decalogue in 20:1–17 belongs to a pre-Priestly Elohist, as argued from the perspective of the Documentary Hypothesis; for a discussion of this view, see Jeffrey Stackert, “Compositional Strata in the Priestly Sabbath: Exodus 31:12–17 and 35:1–3,” JHS 11 (2011): 14–15 n. 49 and Joel S. Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (FAT 68; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 42

The Priestly Narrative and the Sinai Texts (Exod 19–40)

129

alogue in Deut 5:6–21 indicate that the main difference between the Decalogues is the rationale for the Sabbath.44 Whereas in Deut 5:12–15 the rationale for Sabbath observance is remembrance of Egyptian slavery, in Exod 20:8–11 the command contains the motifs of the Priestly creation account: Exodus 20:8–11 45

‫זכור את־יום השׁבת לקדשׁו‬ ‫שׁשׁת ימים תעבד ועשׂית כל־מלאכתך‬ ‫ויום השׁביעי שׁבת ליהוה אלהיך‬ ‫לא־תעשׂה כל־מלאכה אתה ובנך־ובתך‬ ‫עבדך ואמתך ובהמתך‬ ‫וגרך אשׁר בשׂעריך‬ ‫כי שׁשׁת־ימים עשׂה יהוה את־השׁמים‬ ‫ואת־הארץ את־הים ואת־כל־אשׁר־בם‬ ‫וינח ביום השׁביעי על־כן ברך יהוה‬ ‫את־יום השׁבת ויקדשׁהו‬

Deuteronomy 5:12–15 ‫שׁמור את־יום השׁבת לקדשׁו‬ ‫כאשׁר צוך יהוה אלהיך‬ ‫שׁשׁת ימים תעבד ועשׂית כל־מלאכתך‬ ‫ויום השׁביעי שׁבת ליהוה אלהיך‬ ‫לא תעשׂה כל־מלאכה אתה ובנך־ובתך‬ ‫ועבדך־ואמתך ושׁורך וחמרך וכל־בהמתך‬ ‫וגרך אשׁר בשׂעריך‬ ‫למען ינוח עבדך ואמתך כמוך‬ ‫וזכרת כי־עבד היית בארץ מצרים‬ ‫ויצאך יהוה אלהיך משׁם ביד חזקה‬ ‫ובזרע נטויה‬ ‫על־כן צוך יהוה אלהיך לעשׂות את־יום השׁבת‬

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 2009), 153–58. Against this view, Rainer Albertz, “Die Sabbatgebote des Dekalogs und ihre Bedeutung für die Komposition des Pentateuch,” in Wege der Freiheit: Zur Entstehung und Theologie des Exodusbuchs; Die Beiträge eines Symposions zum 70. Geburtstag von Rainer Albertz (ed. Reinhard Achenbach, Ruth Ebach, and Jakob Wöhrle; AThANT 104; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2014), 161–62, argues that the language of 20:8–11 connects with the Priestly primeval, patriarchal, and Exodus narratives, as a supplement to a pre-Priestly decalogue. As noted by Albertz, the tendency to resist assigning vv. 8–11 to P from the perspective of the Documentary Hypothesis results from the fact that the verses would not connect well to what would precede and follow them in an independent Priestly narrative, and because the use of ‫ נוח‬in 20:11 shows the influence of the non-Priestly Sabbath command of Exod 23:12 or Deut 5:14. 44 Christoph Dohmen, Exodus 19–40 (HThKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2004), 93. The relationship between the Decalogues in Exod 20 and Deut 5 has been debated extensively. Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 91–93 and Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, Der Dekalog: Seine späten Fassungen, die originale Komposition und seine Vorstufen (OBO 45; Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 161–62 represent the view that Exod 20 is later than Deut 5, whereas Benjamin Kilchör, Mosetora und Jahwetora: Das Verhältnis von Deuteronomium 12–26 zu Exodus, Levitikus und Numeri (BZAR 21; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2015), 43–51, and Grund, Entstehung, 168–69, are recent examples of taking Deut 5 as an interpretation of Exod 20. 45 As noted by Rainer Albertz, Exodus 19–40 (ZB 2.2; Zürich: Theologische Verlag, 2015), 64, the use of ‫ זכור‬implies that the Sabbath is already known to Israel, and the term must refer back to its revelation in Exod 16.

130

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

The most plausible explanation of this phenomenon is that both forms have expanded an original Sabbath command with rationales, and the redaction in Exod 20:8–11 related the Decalogue to the Priestly creation account.46 Following the line of argument I have developed here, if the creation account in Gen 1:1–2:4a is an H composition, Exod 20:8–11 would come from the Holiness School as well.47 II. Exod 24:15b–18a The second part of Exod 19–40 is the tabernacle account in 24:15b–40:38, which is considered Priestly with the exception of the intervening nonPriestly golden calf and covenant renewal narrative in Exod 32–34. The Priestly material in Exod 24:15b–40:38* has, however, undergone a long process of development that continued late into the Hellenistic era, as seen from the variants in the Septuagint of Exod 35–40.48 Exod 25–40 consists of instructions for preparing and building the tabernacle and a corresponding execution report, with a few prominent texts containing narratives and speeches that express the theology and function of the tabernacle. The tabernacle instructions themselves exhibit a variety of traditions which have been combined and gradually developed to include later cultic innovations, as seen from the diverse terminology used for the tabernacle itself, as well as its appurtenances. Most scholars attempt to isolate an earliest Priestly narrative that connects with the Priestly narratives in Genesis–Exodus, which either has assimilated older traditions, or to which later ritual traditions have been added. The following chart illustrates various proposals for the PG narrative in the tabernacle account: 46

William Propp, Exodus 19–40 (AB 2B; New York: Doubleday, 2006), 146; Brevard Childs, Exodus (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 391–92, 415–16; Erhard Blum, “The Decalogue and the Composition History of the Pentateuch,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz; FAT 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 289–301; Dozeman, Exodus, 488–92; Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 29–30, 63–65. 47 Milgrom, “HR in Leviticus,” 38–39. Knohl, Sanctuary, 67 assigns 20:11 to the Holiness Code and maintains 20:8–10 in his PT due to his adherence to the idea of assigning Gen 1:1–2:4a to PT, an idea Milgrom rejects in his later work, when he assigns it to HR. Against separating 20:11 from vv. 8–10, Childs, Exodus, 415, among others, has argued that the whole is a “carefully constructed unit which reveals a clear structure” that should not be taken apart; see also Grund, Entstehung, 158–60, and Albertz, “Die Sabbatgebote,” 154, on the unity of 20:8–11. 48 Natalio Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible (trans. Wilfred Watson; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 99–100; Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch (FAT 25; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 32 n. 68; Dozeman, Exodus, 595–96; and Houtman, Exodus III, 314–15.

The Priestly Narrative and the Sinai Texts (Exod 19–40)

131

Extent of Priestly Narrative in the Sinai Pericope: 49

Eckart Otto Thomas Pola 50 Peter Weimar51

Christian Frevel52

Christophe Nihan 53 Bernd Janowski54 Martin Noth55 Norbert Lohfink56

Karl Elliger57

49

Exod 24:15b–18aα; 25:8ff.; 26:1–27:19*; 28:1–29:46* Exod 19:1; 25:1, 8a, 9; 29:45–46; 40:16, 17a, 33b Exod 19:1; 24:15b, 16, 18a; 25:1a, 2aα, 8, 9; 26:1*, 2a, 6*, 7, 8a, 11a*, 15a, 16, 18*, 20*, 22*, 23a, 30; 29:45–46; 39:32b, 43; 40:17, 34 Exod 19:1, 2a*; 24:15b–16, [17], 18aα; 25:1, 2aα; 25,8f; 26.1– 19*, 29; 26,30; 29:43, 44a*, 45f; 35:1a, 4b; 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33b, 34f. Exod 25–29*; 39:32, 42–43; 40:17, 34–35 Exod 19:1; 24:15b–18aα; 25:1ff., 8–9*; 26:1–27:8*; 29:43– 46*; 39:32b, 43; 40:17, 34–35 Exod 19:1, 2a; 24:15b–18; 25:1–40; 26:1–37; 27:1–21; 28:1– 43; 29:1–46; 31:18; 39:32, (42?), 43; 40:17 Exod 19:1, 2a; 24:15b–18a; 25:1–2, 8, 9*; 26:1–30; 29:43–46; 31:18; 34:29–32; 35:4, 5a, 10, 20–22a, 29; 36:2–3a, 8*; 39:32– 33a, 42–43; 40:17, 33b–35 Exod 19:1, 2a; 24:15b–18a; 25:1–40; 26:1–37; 27:1–19; 28:1–

Otto, “Forschungen,” 26–27. In his later work, Otto, “Nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im Buch Exodus,” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation (ed. Mark Vervenne; BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 80–84 considers Exod 24:15–18 to be a post-Priestly redactional text combining P and D materials. 50 Pola, Ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 298. 51 Weimar, Studien, 22 n. 18. 52 Christian Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern: Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift (HBS 23; Freiburg: Herder, 2000), 145. 53 Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 57–58. 54 Bernd Janowski, “Tempel und Schöpfung: Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen Heiligtumskonzeption,” in Gottes Gegenwart in Israel: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993), 48–50, following Georg Steins, “Sie sollen mir ein Heiligtum machen: Zur Struktur und Entstehung von Exod 24:12–31:18,” in Vom Sinai zum Horeb: Stationen alttestamentlicher Glaubensgeschichte (ed. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld; Würzburg: Echter, 1989), 145–67. 55 Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (trans. Bernard Anderson; Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1972), 17–19 originally maintained that Exod 35:1a, 4b, 5–10, 20–27, 29–31a, 32, 33; 36:2–7; 37:1–24; 38:1–7, 9–22, 24–31; 39:1–32, 43; 40:1, 2, 9, 17–25, 28, 29a, 33 is an execution report for the tabernacle instructions. In Exodus, 274–75, 280, 282, he took the limited view of the execution reports represented in the chart above. 56 Norbert Lohfink, “The Priestly Narrative and History,” in Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 145 n. 29.

132

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

Volkmar Fritz58 Susanne Owczarek59

Klaus Koch60 Georg Steins61

41; 29:1–37; 42b–46; 31:18; 35:1a, 4b–10, 20–29; 36:2; 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33b, 34 Exod 25:1, 10–14, 16–18, 21a, 22a, 23–26, 28, 30; 26:7, 9–11, 14, 31, 33a, 35aα, 36, 37; 27:1, 2, 4, 5a, 6; 40:16–17a, 33b Exod 19:1ff.; 24:15b, 16, 18a; 25:1–2aα, 8–9aαβb; 26:7–11, 15–17, 18b–29, 36ff.; 27:1–8a; 28:2, 6–8, 15ff., 22–28, 31–34, 39; 29:5–7, 29ff., 35a, 44–46; 39:32b, 43; 40:17, 34ff. Exod 25–31*; 34:29–35; 35:20–29; 36:2–7; 39:32b (42ff.); 40:1–16, (17), 33b, 34ff. Exod 25:1, 8–9; 26:1–27:8*; 29:43–44a, 45–46

As seen from this chart, there is general agreement that at least Exod 19:1; 24:15–18*; 25:1, 8–9*; 29:43–46; 40:17, 34 are part of the PG narrative. The main differences in these assessments relate to whether material within Exod 25–29 is considered to be an integral part of the Priestly narrative, to contain traditions utilized by the Priestly narrative, or to be later additions. The second main difference is the extent to which material from the execution report of Exod 35–40 is considered to belong to the original Priestly narrative. On this point there is an emerging consensus represented by Pola, Weimar, Christian Frevel, Janowski, and Christophe Nihan, among others that only minimal portions of Exod 39–40 form the conclusion of the Priestly narrative. Due to the difficulty of source-critical investigations of the Priestly Sinai pericope, several scholars have pursued a tradition-historical approach to understanding the material underlying the final form of Exod 25–40. According to Helmut Utzschneider, the tabernacle texts of Exod 25–40 contain three types of material: Exod 25:16, 21–22 contains an “ark-dwelling” conception and presents Moses in a prophetic office; Exod 25:1–2, 8 represents a “people-sanctuary” conception; and Exod 29:43–46 a “tent of meeting” conception.62 These traditions were added onto each other successively until they ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 57

Elliger, “Sinn,” 121–22. The delineation by Fritz, Tempel, 112–22, contains a tent sanctuary with the ark, table, and altar. 59 Susanne Owczarek, Die Vorstellung vom Wohnen Gottes inmitten seines Volkes in der Priesterschrift (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1998), 319. 60 Koch, Die Priesterschrift von Ex 25 bis Lev 16: Eine Überlieferungsgeschichtliche und literarkritische Untersuchung (FRLANT 71; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959), 98. Koch considers 25:10–31, 37ff.; 26:7–15, 25ff., 29–37; 27:1–8 (9); 28:1–29:35; 30:16–21; 40:1–15 to be ritual Vorlagen (97) . 61 Steins, “Sie sollen,” 166. 62 Helmut Utzschneider, Das Heiligtum und das Gesetz: Studien zur Bedeutung der sinaitischen Heiligtumstexte (Exod 25–40; Lev 8–9) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), 209. 58

The Priestly Narrative and the Sinai Texts (Exod 19–40)

133

were integrated into the Priestly narrative continuing from Genesis–Exodus.63 Earlier studies by Koch, among others, argued for a collection of oral traditions underlying the different tabernacle traditions.64 Most scholars today consider that Exod 25–29 has combined three different conceptions of the tabernacle, with varying degrees of confidence in the ability to reconstruct these traditions:65 1) a tent of meeting tradition with a focus on Moses as a prophet “meeting” (‫ )יעד‬with YHWH; 2) a “heavenly tabernacle” tradition that is similar to ancient Near Eastern traditions of a heavenly sanctuary, focused on the concept of a ‫ תבנית‬seen by Moses (Exod 25:9, 40);66 and 3) the Priestly narrative with its ‫ שׁכן‬and ‫ כבוד‬theology that links to the preceding Priestly narratives in Exodus. On this point, there is widespread agreement that Exod 19:1, 2*; 24:15b–18a; 29:43–46; 40:17, 33–35 connect the Priestly tabernacle account with the Priestly narratives from Genesis–Exodus. 63

Ibid., 230, 252–53. Koch, Priesterschrift, 7–31, 97–98. Childs, Exodus, 530–32; and Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 47–48, also discuss the possibility of oral traditions. Against Koch it can be noted that Exod 25–40 express a one-time establishment of the sanctuary, and not repeated ritual prescriptions; see Blum, Studien, 301 n. 52. 65 Childs, Exodus, 533–35. E.g., Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 12–13 considers all of these traditions as part of his PB1 (Priestly narrative) but nevertheless says that PB1 has utilized various Vorlagen. Both Rainer Schmitt, Zelt und Lade als Thema alttestamentlicher Wissenschaft (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 1972), 225–28 and Bernd Janowski, Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Traditions- und religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur priesterlichen Sühnetheologie (WMANT 55; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000), 328–36 argue that the final Priestly form of the tabernacle account is essentially unified, but they also speak of traditions utilized by the Priestly tabernacle account. According to Otto, “Forschungen,” 26, P has combined and mediated two different sanctuary traditions. According to Weimar, Studien, 279–80, P has combined two conceptions, one focused on “Wohnen” associated with the lexemes ‫שׁכן‬, ‫משׁכן‬, and the other on “Begegnen,” connected with the lexemes ‫ יעד‬and ‫ אהל מועד‬into a “spannungshafte Einheit.” Knohl, Sanctuary, 63– 64 argues that Exod 25–31 is composed of three scrolls of the Priestly Torah (25:10–27:19; 28:1–29:37; 30:1–38) which have been combined at their “seams” (25:1–9; 27:20–21; 29:38–46; 31:1–11) by texts from the Holiness School. 66 As noted by Gerhard von Rad, Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch literarisch und theologisch gewertet (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1934), 181, the ‫ תבנית‬conception is not mentioned in the execution report – the term is found only in 25:9, 40 – which suggests that it represents an older tradition taken up by the Priestly narrative. On the other hand, Konrad Schmid, “Der Sinai und die Priesterschrift,” in “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (Gen 18:19): Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur Religionssoziologie (eds Reinhard Achenbach and Martin Arneth; BZAR 13; Weisbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010), 118, argues that the ‫תבנית‬ motif was added after Exod 35–40 because it is not found in the execution report. On the independence of the ‫ תבנית‬tradition, see also Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 242– 53 and Weimar, Studien, 283 n. 45. According to Houtman, Exodus III, 345 the ‫ תבנית‬is best understood as a “masterplan,” and not a heavenly sanctuary. 64

134

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

I will not undertake a completely new assessment of the stratification of Exod 25–40, just as I did not for Exod 1–16, but will begin my analysis with what is widely accepted as the base layer of the Priestly narrative running through Exod 24–40 at key structuring points of the tabernacle account. There is also widespread agreement that the earliest tabernacle account contained only a minimal version of an execution report that has been preserved in the current account of Exod 35–40. I will address two main points of contention that relate to the analysis of this base narrative: The first question is whether the PG narrative pre-dates or post-dates the various tabernacle traditions that are connected to it in Exod 25–31. Three solutions to this question have been proposed: Either Exod 25–31* constitute an integral part of the Priestly narrative, they are traditions taken up and incorporated into the Priestly narrative, or they are later additions. The second contested point I will address is whether Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3 belong to the PG narrative. These texts introduce the Sabbath as a sign of Israel’s sanctification and bracket the non-Priestly narrative of Exod 32– 34. Though these Sabbath texts are usually excluded from the Priestly narrative as secondary due to their location and language, some scholars have argued that they should be maintained in the Priestly narrative as consistent with and necessary to its developing conception of the Sabbath. I will consider linguistic and conceptual reasons for maintaining the Sabbath texts in Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3 as part of the PG narrative, as well as comparative ancient Near Eastern evidence which supports the view that the notion of rest is closely associated with tabernacle building and should therefore be maintained as part of the original tabernacle account. To anticipate my results, I will conclude that Exod 24:15b–18a; 19:1, 2aβ; 20:8–11; 25:1–2a, 8; 29:43–46; 31:12–17; 35:1–3; 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33–35 form the continuation of the Priestly narratives from Genesis–Exodus. These verses present the completion of the tabernacle and its indwelling by YHWH as the culmination of the promises from Gen 17; Exod 6:2–8, and also link to Gen 1:1–2:4a to represent the restoration of creation. These Priestly texts have utilized older tabernacle traditions in Exod 25–29* – brought together particularly in Exod 29:43–46 – to form a coherent narrative of instructions and completion of the tabernacle. The Sabbath texts in Exod 31:13–17; 35:1– 3 are key to the theme of restoring creation and bracket the Priestly tabernacle account around the non-Priestly account of the golden calf and covenant renewal in Exod 32–34*. I will also show that this base narrative aligns with the interests of the Holiness Code, and is thus fittingly a part of the H composition. Exod 24:15b–18a; 25:1–2a, 8; 29:45–46; 40:17, 34 are usually seen as part of the Priestly Grundschrift in Exod 24–40 and serve as a useful starting point for analyzing the development of the Priestly tabernacle account and its relationship with the Priestly narratives in Genesis–Exodus–Leviticus. The

The Priestly Narrative and the Sinai Texts (Exod 19–40)

135

Priestly material beginning with Exod 24:15b–18a is added to pre-Priestly material that is occupied with the concepts of covenant and law in Exod 19– 24; 32–34.67 Exod 19:3–8 introduces the concept of the covenant, which is broken in Exod 32–33 and renewed in Exod 34:10. The covenant includes the giving of the Decalogue (20:1–23) and the Book of the Covenant (Exod 20:24–23:33) and concludes with a ceremony (Exod 24:1–8). The motif of the tablets of the covenant links Exod 24:12; 31:18; 34:1–5 to the breaking of the covenant in Exod 32–33, which in turn requires a renewed covenant document (34:6–26) and ceremony (34:27–28), accompanied by the renewal of commitment to the Decalogue (34:28). The Priestly material in Exod 24–40 is thus interwoven with this dense web of pre-Priestly material addressing the central theological concepts of the covenant, the Decalogue, and the book of the Covenant.68 Within Exod 24, the Priestly narrative picks up with the description of the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬dwelling on Mount Sinai (24:15b–18a):69

67 Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 151–52. I understand the Priestly material to have been intentionally added to the non-Priestly material in order to supplement it at significant points. This goes against the traditional approach of the Documentary Hypothesis as represented recently by Baruch J. Schwartz, “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai,” in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. Michael V. Fox, Victor A. Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Michael L. Klein, Baruch J. Schwartz, and Nili Shupak; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 117–30, who argues that the Priestly Sinai material is independent and logically mutually exclusive from the nonPriestly material. 68 Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 215. 69 Exod 24:17, which provides a description of the glory of YHWH, is sometimes considered a later addition. Also Eckart Otto, “Nachpriesterschriftliche,” 180–81 considers this entire section as post-Priestly. Schmid, “Der Sinai,” 119–25 likewise argues that Exod 24:15b–18a should be removed from the PG narrative due to many of its expressions that are singular in the Priestly narrative and due to its connections to many non-Priestly texts. According to Schmid, the PG narrative originally understood the giving of the law as taking place in the wilderness of Sinai (Exod 19:1) and not on Mount Sinai, and within this context Exod 24:15b–18a is a post-Priestly mediation of Priestly wilderness texts and the non-Priestly “mountain of God.” In my opinion the developing ‫ כבוד‬texts from Exod 14:4, 17–18; 16:7, 10; 24:15b–18a; 40:34–35 are inextricably connected, as argued by Ursula Struppe, Die Herrlichkeit Jahwes in der Priesterschrift (ÖBS 9; Klosterneuburg: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988), 21, 100–102, who shows that Exod 24:15b–18a is integrally linked to key motifs from Exod 29:43–46; 40:34–35 and should not be removed from this context as secondary. Cf. also Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 36– 38, and Claus Westermann, “Die Herrlichkeit Gottes in der Priesterschrift,” in WordGebot-Glaube: Festschrift für W. Eichrodt zum 80. Geburtstag (AThANT 59; Zürich: Zwingli: 1970), 235–36 on the connections between Exod 24:15b–18a and 29:45–46; 40:34–35.

136

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40 ‫ויעל משׁה אל־ההר ויכס הענן את־ההר‬ ‫וישׁכן כבוד־יהוה על־הר סיני ויכסהו הענן שׁשׁת ימים‬ ‫ויקרא אל־משׁה ביום השׁביעי מתוך הענן‬ ‫ומראה כבוד יהוה כאשׁ אכלת בראשׁ ההר לעיני בני ישׂראל‬ ‫ויבא משׁה בתוך הענן ויעל אל־ההר‬ ‫ויהי משׁה בהר ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה‬

Exod 24 concludes the giving of the law at Sinai with the Decalogue and Book of the Covenant (Exod 20–23) with the covenant ceremony in Exod 24:1–8, where Moses and the elders of Israel go up the mountain and have a covenant meal in the presence of YHWH, and the people affirm their commitment to the covenant (vv. 7–8). This covenant ceremony invites the presence of YHWH to dwell among the Israelites 70 and is part of what Wolfgang Oswald has called the “Exodus-Mountain of God Narrative,”71 and what Albertz has termed an “Exoduskomposition” (KEX). Both view it also as having been extended by a later redaction (Deuteronomistic for Oswald, REX for Albertz) into its present form in Exod 19–24.72 The Priestly tabernacle account in Exod 25–40 presupposes this covenant relationship as a prerequisite for YHWH dwelling among the Israelites.73 In the pre-Priestly Sinai narra-

70

Ada Taggar-Cohen, “Violence at the Birth of Religion in Exod 19–40,” JISMOR 1 (2005): 106. 71 Wolfgang Oswald, “Die Exodus-Gottesberg-Erzählung als Gründungsurkunde der judäischen Bürgergemeinde,” in Law and Narrative in the Bible and in the Neighboring Ancient Cultures (ed. Klaus-Peter Adam, Friedrich Avemarie, and Nili Wazana; FAT 2/54; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 35–49. 72 Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 10–12. According to Albertz, KEX is a pre-Priestly narrative that has integrated various older traditions, and it has the covenant establishment (Exod 19–24), breaking of the covenant (Exod 32), and covenant renewal (Exod 33–34) as its basic features. John Van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in ExodusNumbers (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 247–360 assigns the non-Priestly material to J. 73 Based on the position of Exod 24:16–18 and its function, namely, to connect the covenant ceremony in Exod 24 with the following tabernacle texts, Dohmen, Exodus 19– 40, 215 affirms that “alles, was mit dem Heiligtum zu tun hat, im Kern den Bund Israels mit seinem Gott betrifft.” Cf. Benjamin Ziemer, “Schöpfung, Heiligtum und Sabbat in der priesterlichen Bundeskonzeption,” in Ex Oriente Lux: Studien zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Festschrift für Rüdiger Lux zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Angelika Berjelung and Raik Heckl; ABG 39; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012), 39, 55 and Utzschneider, Heiligtum, 81. The “situation of complete harmony” established by the covenant in Exod 24:3–8 is what Houtman, Exodus III, 298 calls the “basis and condition for the gift of the tablets and the erection of the tent shrine.”

The Priestly Narrative and the Sinai Texts (Exod 19–40)

137

tive, YHWH is present at the sacred mountain in Exod 19.74 Once the relationship between YHWH and Israel is initiated, the Priestly account introduces the motif of YHWH dwelling among the people (24:15b–18; 29:43–46). The Priestly account of the indwelling of YHWH in Israel’s midst represents a further qualification of the non-Priestly account in Exod 19:16–19, where YHWH descends (‫ )ירד‬on the mountain but does not take residence in the midst of Israel.75 As noted by Konrad Schmid, Exod 24:15b–18a references “the cloud” and “the mountain,” which in this context presupposes the nonPriestly cloud and mountain from Exod 19:16–19.76 Exod 24:15b–18a is thus best understood as a redactional supplement to the non-Priestly “mountain of God” traditions that locates the subsequent Priestly legislation on Mount Sinai.77 The Priestly theophany differs from the pre-Priestly account involving the violent natural phenomena of thunder, lightning, and thick clouds (‫קלת וברקים וענן כבד‬, Exod 19:16), by having the presence of God manifest instead in the solemn ‫ כבוד יהוה‬in the midst of the cloud (‫ )ענן‬covering the mountain (Exod 24:15).78 Beginning in Exod 24:12–18, which integrates the first two blocks of the Sinai pericope (Exod 19–24 and Exod 25–31) and points forward to Exod 32–34, two conceptions of Moses’ ascent up the mountain are recounted.79 In the non-Priestly account, Moses is to ascend the mountain to receive the tablets of stone (24:12, 18b); the motif of the tablets then connects with the narrative in Exod 31:18–34:35.80 The tablets also 74

On the pre-Priestly texts of Exod 19, see Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 37–38. Albertz considers 19:2aα, 2b–8, 10–11a, 13b–17a, 18–19 as part of his pre-Priestly KEX Exoduskomposition. 75 Struppe, Die Herrlichkeit, 25–27; Frank Schnutenhaus, “Das Kommen und Erscheinen Gottes im Alten Testament,” ZAW 36 (1964): 5–6, 12–14; Dozeman, Exodus, 590–92; and Wagner, Herrlichkeit, 77. 76 Schmid, “Der Sinai,” 116–17. 77 I agree with Schmid, “Der Sinai,” 125 on the function of Exod 24:15b–18a as mediating and connecting the Priestly instructions of Exod 25–31 with the non-Priestly context of Exod 19–24. Contrary to Schmid I think Exod 24:15b–18a belongs in the narrative sequence with Exod 14:4, 17–18; 16:7, 10; 24:15b–18a; 29:45–46; 40:34–35. The redactional character of Exod 24:15b–18a locating the lawgiving at Mount Sinai supports assigning the text to the H Composition that integrates priestly (Exod 25–31) and nonPriestly traditions (Exod 19–24, 32–34) into an overarching composition that locates all divine law at Sinai, culminating with a colophon at Lev 26:46. 78 Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 152. According to Dozeman, Exodus, 765, the Priestly tabernacle mitigates the danger associated with the presence of YHWH in the non-Priestly Exod 19 texts. 79 Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 206–7. 80 Houtman, Exodus III, 298. As noted by Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 210–11, the motif of the tablets connects diverse material within the Sinai pericope, combining the covenant (Exod 19:3–8; 34:6–26), covenant ceremony (Exod 24:1–8; 34:27–28), and Decalogue (Exod 20:1–17; 34:27–28) which bind together the non-Priestly text-complex of Exod 19–

138

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

represent the presence of God that was experienced by the representatives of Israel in Exod 24 but which can be available to future generations through God’s presence in the written words of the tablets.81 In the Priestly narrative, on the other hand, Moses ascends the mountain to receive the tablets with information for constructing the tabernacle, leading to the indwelling of the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬among the Israelites.82 Exod 24:15b–18 ties the Priestly narrative to the wilderness itineraries and movement of the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬initiated in Exod 16; it also prepares for the indwelling of the tabernacle by the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬that is introduced in Exod 25:8 and 29:43–46 with ‫שׁכן‬,83 and which will mark the completion of the construction of the tabernacle in Exod 40:17, 34.84 Exod 24:15b–18a integrates the non-Priestly “mountain of God” into the Priestly narrative and locates the divine legislation of the Priestly narrative on Mount Sinai. The ‫ כבוד יהוה‬dwells in a cloud on Sinai for six days, after which Moses is called into the cloud on the seventh day. The scheme of six days followed by a seventh day with special significance links the Sinai revelation to Israel’s discovery of the seventh day as the special Sabbath in Exod 16, as well as to the creation of the world.85 The indwelling of YHWH among the Israelites is thus presented as the original intention of God from the creation of the world and initiates the process of transforming the world into the realm of the presence of God through his indwelling in the tabernacle.86 For this reason, Exod 24:15b–18a and the texts that further explicate this scheme in 25:8; 29:42–46; and 40:17, 34 develop the theme of the indwelling ‫כבוד יהוה‬ ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 34. The motif of the tablets in Exod 31:18; 34:29–32 is one of the latest texts in the book of Exodus, likely from a redactor of the Pentateuch who mediated the non-Priestly tablets of stone (‫לחת האבן‬, Exod 24:12) with the testimony (‫ )עדת‬from the Priestly ark traditions in Exod 25:21–22 into the ‫ לחת העדת‬in 31:18; 34:29; see Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 49. 81 Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 214. 82 Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 151 and Houtman, Exodus III, 298. Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 152 notes that the Priestly account fits best here as a supplement to the non-Priestly account. 83 Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 208. 84 Weimar, Studien, 58, 66, 292–93 and Dozeman, Exodus, 590. 85 Moshe Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord – The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1–2:3,” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (ed. André Caquot and Mathias Delcor; AOAT 212; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 506; Erich Zenger, “Das priester(schrift)liche Werk (P),” in Einleitung in das Alte Testament (ed. Erich Zenger et al.; 8th ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008): 171–72. The chronology initiated in Exod 24:15b–18a likewise points to the renewal of the covenant in Exod 32–34 as falling on the Sabbath day; see Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 215. 86 Janowski, “Tempel,” 238–44; Zenger, “Das priester(schrift)liche Werk (P),” 172; and Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 64–65.

The Priestly Narrative and the Sinai Texts (Exod 19–40)

139

and cannot be separated from each other without disturbing the coherency of the sequence. III. Exod 25:1–2a, 8; 29:43–46 Exod 25:1–2a, 8 is the next pericope considered by most scholars to belong to the PG narrative. It is the first to elucidate the purpose of the sanctuary from the Priestly perspective. Following instructions for Moses to command the people to take up a collection of precious materials from which to build the sanctuary (25:2b–7), the people are to build a sanctuary for YHWH to dwell among them: ‫ועשׂו לי מקדשׁ ושׁכנתי בתוכם‬.87 Exod 25:9–40 are then part of the ‫ תבנית‬tradition that has either been added to the Priestly material or utilized by it. The terms ‫ שׁכן‬and ‫ קדשׁ‬link and bracket the tabernacle traditions between Exod 25:8–29:43–46.88 Exod 25:8 emphasizes not YHWH’s desire to dwell in a sanctuary but his dwelling among the people. The sanctuary is thus of ancillary significance in that it only enables YHWH’s dwelling among the people. This emphasis on dwelling among the people is also seen in the fact that it is the people (‫ )ועשׂו‬who are commissioned to build the sanctuary. The emphasis on the people of Israel as participants in the building of the sanctuary coincides with what Utzschneider has called the “peoplesanctuary” tabernacle traditions that describe the sanctuary as being built by the people of Israel, as opposed to the “tent of meeting” and the “arkdwelling” conceptions which do not address the people.89 The differences among these traditions that have been combined in Exod 25–40 are seen most clearly in a comparison of Exod 25:21–22, which address Moses, with Exod 25:8; 29:43–46, which address the Israelites:

87

On Exod 25:8 as part of the Priestly base narrative connected with Exod 24:15b–18a; 29:45–46; 40:17, 34, see Janowski, Sühne, 325 n.280 and Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 34. The intervening vv. 2b–7 are widely considered secondary, because they presuppose the later material in Exod 30–31* and the connection with the ‫ תרומה‬that is a late addition in the execution report in Exod 35; see Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 260–61; Otto, “Forschungen,” 27; Owczarek, Die Vorstellung, 55 and Klaus Grünwaldt, Exil und Identität: Beschneidung, Passa und Sabbat in der Priesterschrift (BBB 85; Frankfurt: Hain Verlag, 1992), 165–66. 88 Janowski, Sühne, 325 n. 280 and Frevel, Mit Blick, 104 n. 103. See also David Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus (vol 2.; Berlin: M. Poppelauer, 1906), 7, on the connection between ‫ שׁכן‬in Exod 25:8 and 29:45–46. 89 Utzschneider, Heiligtum, 209. Utzschneider’s analysis of Exod 25–40 thus seeks to identify the different traditions that have been combined in the text based on the addressees and the descriptions of the tabernacle and its appurtenances.

140

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40 ‫ונתת את־הכפרת על־הארן מלמעלה ואל־הארן תתן את־העדת‬ ‫אשׁר אתן אליך ונועדתי לך שׁם ודברתי אתך מעל‬ ‫הכפרת מבין שׁני הכרבים אשׁר על־ארן העדת‬ ‫את כל־אשׁר אצוה אותך אל־בני ישׂראל‬ ‫ועשׂו לי מקדשׁ ושׁכנתי בתוכם‬ ‫ושׁכנתי בתוך בני ישׂראל והייתי להם לאלהים‬ ‫וידעו כי אני יהוה אלהיהם‬ ‫אשׁר הוצאתי אתם מארץ מצרים לשׁכני בתוכם‬ ‫אני יהוה אלהיהם‬

Exod 25:21–22

Exod 25:8 Exod 29:45–46

Exod 25:21–22 conveys a notion of YHWH encountering or meeting (‫)יעד‬ with Moses in the tent of meeting, whereas Exod 25:8; 29:45–46 describe the presence of God expressed in terms of him dwelling (‫ )שׁכן‬among the Israelites.90 Though the ‫ יעד‬and ‫ שׁכן‬theologies have been integrated in the final form of Exod 25–40, most scholars since Gerhard von Rad have agreed that these two conceptions suggest different theological traditions that have been combined in Exod 29:43–46.91 The term ‫ מקדשׁ‬used for the sanctuary occurs only in Exod 25:8 in the Priestly narrative, though it is frequent in the Holiness Code and later Priestly texts.92 ‫ מקדשׁ‬stands out against the terms ‫אהל‬ ‫ מועד‬and ‫ משׁכן‬that are otherwise found throughout Exod 25–40. In this regard, Manfred Görg has proposed that ‫ מקדשׁ‬is an intentionally neutral expression that encompasses the sanctuary to its full extent with all its accessories, whereas ‫ אהל מועד‬and ‫ משׁכן‬are limited to the sacred dwelling. 93 Accord-

90

In addition to Utzschneider, several scholars see here the presence of traditions with different emphases. According to Otto, “Forschungen,” 27: “Das Offenbarunskonzept von Exod 25:22 differiert mit dem in Exod 29:42–46.” According to Knohl, Sanctuary, 145– 58, 171, the conception with the ‫ עדת‬and ‫ יעד‬in Exod 25:22 represents the theology of the Priestly Torah, whereas the more personal ‫ שׁכן‬theology of indwelling in Exod 29:45–46 is from the Holiness School. 91 So, influentially, Koch, Priesterschrift, 30–31 and Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 230–56, who use the different conceptions as a basis for literary criticism. Also, both Janowski, Sühne, 328–336, and Schmitt, Zelt, 225–28 recognize the distinctive traditions of ‫ שׁכן‬and ‫יעד‬, though they suggest that these conceptions are not in tension in the final form of the text. 92 Janowski, Sühne, 306 n. 172. According to Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (4th ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963), 157, the ‫ מקדשׁ‬represents a more undetermined and lax concept of the tabernacle that is found frequently in the Holiness Code, whereas the later Q conception of ‫אהל מועד‬ represents a later, more refined concept. 93 Manfred Görg, Das Zelt der Begegnung: Untersuchung zur Gestalt der sakralen Zelttraditionen Altisraels (BBB 27; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1967), 35. According to Michael B. Hundley, “Sacred Spaces, Objects, Offerings, and People in the Priestly Texts:

The Priestly Narrative and the Sinai Texts (Exod 19–40)

141

ing to Weimar and Frevel, ‫ מקדשׁ‬also utilizes the root ‫ קדשׁ‬in order to connect the building of the sanctuary with the sanctification of the world in Gen 2:2– 3.94 Exod 29:42–46 contains the key interpretive statement about the function and significance of the dwelling of the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬in the Priestly tabernacle: ‫עלת תמיד לדרתיכם פתח אהל־מועד לפני יהוה‬ ‫אשׁר אועד לכם שׁמה לדבר אליך שׁם‬ ‫ונעדתי שׁמה לבני ישׂראל ונקדשׁ בכבדי‬ ‫וקדשׁתי את־אהל מועד ואת־המזבח ואת־אהרן ואת־בניו אקדשׁ לכהן לי‬ ‫ושׁכנתי בתוך בני ישׂראל והייתי להם לאלהים‬ ‫וידעו כי אני יהוה אלהיהם אשׁר הוצאתי אתם מארץ מצרים לשׁכני בתוכם‬ ‫אני יהוה אלהיהם‬

Exod 29:42–46 provides the framework that interprets the entire Sinai pericope from the perspective of the Priestly narrative.95 Exod 29:45–46 furthers the concept of the restoration of the progressive realization of the presence of God developed through the Priestly texts of Gen 1:1–2:4a; Gen 17; Exod 6:2– 8, and finally pointing to Exod 29:43–46 and beyond even to Lev 26 as its fulfillment.96 The statement in vv. 45–46 fulfills many of the central themes of the Priestly narrative: ‫ושׁכנתי בתוך בני ישׂראל והייתי להם לאלהים וידעו כי אני‬ ‫יהוה אלהיהם אשׁר הוצאתי אתם מארץ מצרים לשׁכני בתוכם אני יהוה אלהיהם‬. It is the fulfillment of God’s promise to dwell in the midst of the people of Israel from Exod 25:8, YHWH’s promise to be God for Israel and the promise of the recognition of YHWH, as well as the culmination of the exodus formula:97 Exod 29:45–46 ‫ושׁכנתי בתוך בני ישׂראל‬

Gen 17:7–8 ‫והקמתי את־בריתי ביני ובינך‬ ‫ובין זרעך אחריך‬ ‫לדרתם לברית עולם‬

Exod 6:6–7; 7:5 ‫אני יהוה והוצאתי אתכם‬ ‫מתחת סבלת מצרים‬ ‫ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם‬

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– A Reappraisal,” JBL 132.4 (2013): 754 and Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 754–55, ‫ מקדשׁ‬refers to the whole temple compound. 94 Weimar, Studien, 287–291; Frevel, Mit Blick, 104 n. 103. 95 Blum, Studien, 297. 96 Blum, Studien, 326; Andreas Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz’ und ‘Priesterschrift’ (FAT 26; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 103–15. 97 Jakob Wöhrle, Fremdlinge im eigenen Land: Zur Entstehung und Intention der priesterlichen Passagen der Vätergeschichte (FRLANT 246; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 159; Konrad Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story (Siphrut 3; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 243–45.

142

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40 ‫והייתי להם לאלהים‬

‫וידעו כי אני יהוה אלהיהם‬ ‫אשׁר הוצאתי אתם‬ ‫מארץ מצרים לשׁכני בתוכם‬ ‫אני יהוה אלהיהם‬

‫להיות לך לאלהים‬ ‫ולזרעך אחריך‬ ‫ונתתי לך ולזרעך אחריך‬ ‫את ארץ מגריך‬ ‫את כל־ארץ כנען לאחזת עולם‬ ‫והייתי להם לאלהים‬

‫והייתי לכם לאלהים‬ ‫וידעתם כי אני יהוה‬ ‫אלהיכם המוציא אתכם‬ ‫מתחת סבלות מצרים‬ ‫וידעו מצרים כי־אני יהוה‬ ‫בנטתי את־ידי על־מצרים‬ ‫והוצאתי את־בני־ישׂראל‬ ‫מתוכם‬

Exodus 29:45–46 intertwines the promise of the land, the promise of the covenant, the self-revelation formula, and the promise of YHWH to be Israel’s God from Gen 17 and Exod 6.98 As noted by Schmid, Exod 29:45–46 emphasizes the indwelling of YHWH among the Israelites rather than land inheritance among the covenant promises.99 The purpose of the exodus in this light is for YHWH to dwell among the Israelites (‫)לשׁכני בתוכם‬, and Exod 29:45–46 can rightfully be seen as the goal of history in the Priestly narrative, as Israel comes to decisively know YHWH as the culmination of the full meaning of the self-revelation formulae.100 This does not mean, however, that Exod 29:43–46 is the end of the Priestly narrative, which requires the completion of the tabernacle and the filling of the tabernacle with the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬in Exod 40:17, 33–35. IV. Exod 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33–35 Since the studies of Noth, scholars have gradually tended to decrease the extent of the Priestly narrative in the execution report in Exod 35–40. A few exceptions to this view include Victor Hurowitz, who argues based on ancient Near Eastern parallel building accounts that we ought to expect the execution report to be more extensive than the instruction report,101 and Rainer Albertz, who argues that the execution report in Exod 35–40 is a well-structured unity and belongs in its entirety to the earliest Priestly narrative.102 Due to the connections in Exod 39:32, 43; 40:17–33b to Gen 1:1–2:4a which cannot be excised from this unity, he argues that all of Exod 35–40 belong to the earliest Priestly narrative. Albertz explains the differences between the instructions in Exod 25– 31 and the execution report in Exod 35–40 by proposing that the Priestly narrative has utilized slightly differing Vorlagen in these sections when they were brought together around Exod 32–34 as a Priestly response to the golden calf 98

Janowski, Sühne, 324; Weimar, Studien, 287. Schmid, Genesis, 244. 100 Janowski, “Tempel,” 243; Frevel, Mit Blick, 185; Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 227–28. 101 Victor A. Hurowitz, “The Priestly Account of the Tabernacle,” JAOS 105.1 (1985): 26–30. 102 Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 379–80. 99

The Priestly Narrative and the Sinai Texts (Exod 19–40)

143

narrative.103 The most radical in diminishing the execution report is Otto, whose Priestly narrative ends in Exod 29:46 due to the discrepancies between Exod 25–29 and 35–40.104 Against Otto, it is noted that the tabernacle account would require a report of its establishment and completion. Pola maintains only a minimal Priestly narrative in the execution report: Exod 40:16, 17a, 33b.105 The view that is gaining most favor understands the conclusion to the Priestly tabernacle to parallel the end the Priestly creation account of Gen 1:1–2:4a; it would thus need to include Exod 39:32, 43 as the conclusion to the “creation” of the tabernacle, as well as Exod 40:17, 33–35 as the culmination to the motif of the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬indwelling the tabernacle.106 Ancient rabbis had already described the building of the tabernacle as the moment in which the creation of the world is completed and the divine intentions for creation are fulfilled, as summarized by Peter Schäfer.107 The parallels with the Priestly creation account can be seen from the following chart:108 Exodus 39:32, 43; 40:33 ‫וירא משׁה את־כל־המלאכה‬ ‫והנה עשׂו אתה כאשׁר צוה יהוה כן עשׂו‬ ‫ותכל כל־עבדת משׁכן אהל־מועד‬ ‫ויכל משׁה את־המלאכה‬ ‫ויברך אתם משׁה‬

Genesis 1:31–2:3 ‫וירא אלהים את־כל־אשׁר עשׂה‬ ‫והנה־טוב מאד‬ ‫ויכלו השׁמים והארץ וכל־צבאם‬ ‫ויכל אלהים ביום השׁביעי מלאכתו‬ ‫ויברך אלהים את־יום השׁביעי‬

103 Against Albertz’ view of including the entire Exod 35–40 in his earliest Priestly execution report, the starting point for the later assignment of Exod 35–40 (and 30–31) is the golden incense altar that occurs in Exod 30; it is separated from the other instruments within the tabernacle described in Exod 25 and is thus presumed to be a later addition. The material in Exod 35–40 in turn presupposes the incense altar and the building activity of Bezalel and Oholiab, who are introduced in Exod 31; see Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 32– 33. 104 Otto, “Forschungen,” 26–27, 36. So also Wöhrle, Fremdlinge, 159. 105 Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 298. 106 The following scholars all more or less follow this line of argument: Weimar, Studien, 22 n. 18: 39:32b, 43; 40:17, 34; Christian Frevel, Mit Blick, 145: 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33b, 34f.; Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 57–58: 39:32, 42–43; 40:17, 34–35; Janowski, “Tempel,” 225–27: 39:32b, 43; 40:17, 34–35; Martin Noth, Exodus (trans. J.S. Bowden; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 274–75, 280, 282: 39:32, (42?), 43; 40:17; Lohfink, “Priestly Narrative,” 145 n. 29: 39:32–33a, 42–43; 40:17, 33b–35; Owczarek, Die Vorstellung, 52: 39:32b, 43; 40:17, 34ff.; and Karl Elliger, “Sinn,” 121–22: 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33b, 34. 107 Peter Schäfer, “Tempel und Schöpfung: Zur Interpretation einiger Heiligtumstraditionen in der rabbinischen Literatur,” Kairos 16 (1974): 132. 108 From Blum, Studien, 306–7.

144

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

The association between creation and temple building is strengthened by ancient Near Eastern parallels. 109 Both Mesopotamian and Egyptian traditions associated the temple with a model of creation. 110 The reference to New Year’s day in Exod 40:17 also associates the building of the sanctuary with the creation account in Gen 1:1–2:4a, following a common ancient Near Eastern literary pattern of creation–combat–temple-building: ‫ויהי בחדשׁ‬ ‫( הראשׁון בשׁנה השׁנית באחד לחדשׁ הוקם המשׁכן‬Exod 40:17). The chronology is linked to the departure from Egypt and YHWH’s victory over Pharaoh at the sea in Exod 14. As noted by Nihan, this follows the pattern of Enuma elish, where the sanctuary of Marduk is built to celebrate his victory over Tiamat one year after the combat.111 Janowski summarizes that ancient Near Eastern ideology views the temple as the earthly model of the divine mountain from the beginning of creation and represents a piece of heaven on earth.112 This ancient Near Eastern literary pattern and the linguistic ties of Exod 39–40 to Gen 1:31–2:3 together point to the inclusion of Exod 39:32, 43; 40:33 in the PG narrative as part of the pattern of creation and restoration of creation developing in the Priestly narrative. Also the motif of the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬culminates in Exod 40; this motif brackets the tabernacle pericope in Exod 24:15b–18a and 40:33b–35, as the ‫ כבוד‬transitions from Sinai into the tabernacle: ‫ויכל משׁה את־המלאכה‬ ‫ויכס הענן את־אהל מועד וכבוד יהוה מלא את־המשׁכן‬ ‫ולא־יכל משׁה לבוא אל־אהל מועד כי שׁכן עליו הענן‬ ‫וכבוד יהוה מלא את־המשׁכן‬

Exod 40:33b Exod 40:34 Exod 40:35

One portion or another of vv. 33b–35 is attributed to the Priestly narrative by Pola (v. 33b),113 Weimar (v. 34),114 Frevel (vv. 33b–35),115 Nihan (vv. 34– 109

Janowski, “Tempel,” 216–23; Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 55–62; Victor A. Hurowitz, I Have Built you an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and North-West Semitic Writings (JSOTSup 315; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 242; and Weinfeld, “Sabbath,” 504–8. 110 Janowski, “Tempel,” 216–23. The creation of the world and sanctuary building is prominently linked in the Gudea Cylinders, and the architecture of temples in Egyptian tradition particularly makes this connection clear. 111 Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 55. The connection with New Year’s day also associates the completion of the tabernacle with the subsiding of the flood in the Priestly flood account in Gen 8:13 and indicates the start of a new era; see Dozeman, Exodus, 764 and Weimar, Studien, 303–4. 112 Janowski, “Tempel,” 221. 113 Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 298. 114 Weimar, Studien, 22 n. 18. 115 Frevel, Mit Blick, 145.

The Priestly Narrative and the Sinai Texts (Exod 19–40)

145

35),116 Lohfink (vv. 33b–35),117 and Elliger (vv. 33b–34).118 Verses 33b–35 are fittingly part of the concluding statement of the Priestly tabernacle narrative as a counterpart to Exod 24:15b–18a. The original execution report of the Priestly narrative, then, consists of Exod 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33b–35, which describes the establishment of the tabernacle as the completion of creation and brings the motif of the indwelling of the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬in the tabernacle to conclusion. The remainder of Exod 35–40* is widely considered secondary to this brief execution report of the tabernacle.119 The tabernacle account of the PG narrative is thus considered to be Exod 24:15b–18a; 25:1–2a, 8; 29:43–46; 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33b–35.

C. The Sabbath Texts of Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3 as Part of the Priestly Narrative Apart from the PG narrative of Exod 24:15b–18a; 25:1–2a, 8; 29:43–46; 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33b–35 delineated above, which corresponds in its main features with the proposals of Otto, Pola, Weimar, Frevel, Nihan, Janowski, Noth, Lohfink, and Elliger, there are good reasons to consider Exod 31:12–17 and 35:1–3 as part of the PG narrative as well. The reasons for excluding these Sabbath texts from the Priestly narrative involve their position following Exod 30:1–31:11 which is widely agreed to be secondary to the Priestly narrative,120 as well as their similarities with the language and Sabbath concepts of the Holiness Code, and the corresponding presumption that the text differs from the covenant theology seen elsewhere in the Priestly narrative.121

116

Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 57–58. Lohfink, “Priestly Narrative,” 145 n. 29. 118 Elliger, “Sinn,” 121–22. 119 It is also possible that an original, more extensive compliance report of building the tabernacle in which the whole community participated (cf. Exod 39:32, 43) has been limited due to the more expansive role of Bezalel and Oholiab in the later supplements; see Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 57–58. 120 Wellhausen, Composition, 137–41; Abraham Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (vol. 1, 2nd ed., trans. P. Wicksteed; London: MacMillan, 1886), 72–73; Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 33; and Köckert, Leben, 98 n. 104. 121 See the discussion in Stackert, “Compositional Strata,” 5–6 and Walter Gross, “‘Rezeption’ in Exod 31:12–17 und Lev 26:39–45: Sprachliche Form und theologischkonzeptionelle Leistung,” in Rezeption und Auslegung im Alten Testament und seinem Umfeld: Ein Symposium aus Anlass des 60. Geburtstags von Odil Hannes Steck (ed. Reinhard G. Kratz and Thomas Krüger; OBO 153; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 46. 117

146

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

The objections against including the Sabbath texts in Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3 in the Priestly narrative are not decisive against their inclusion in the Priestly narrative. The position of Exod 31:12–17 following secondary material in Exod 30:1–31:11 does not necessarily mean that Exod 31:12–17 is from a later layer than PG in Exod 29:43–46.122 In the same way that Exod 29:43–46 is separated from Exod 25:1–2a, 8 by what is considered secondary material in Exod 25–29*, it is possible that Exod 31:12–17 could have been separated from Exod 29:43–46 in the process of inserting Exod 30:1–31:11. Additionally, the presence of language and concepts similar to the Holiness Code in Exod 31:12–17 should not be used as a criterion for assigning the text to a secondary layer, as seen in the discussion of the Passover in Exod 12 and circumcision in Gen 17:9–14 above. If it is considered from the beginning that Gen 1:1–2:4a aligns conceptually with the H composition, then there is no problem seeing references to the Sabbath in Exod 31:12–17 as part of the same layer as Gen 1:1–2:4a and taking Gen 1:1–2:4a and Exod 31:12– 17 together as part of the H composition. Despite the usual approach of excluding Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3 from the Priestly narrative, a few scholars have argued that 31:12–17; 35:1–3, or parts thereof, are an important part of the overall Priestly conception of the Sabbath and Sinai account and should not be removed from the Priestly narrative. I will contend that Exod 31:12– 17; 35:1–3 can be read as a unified whole that has integrated Sabbath traditions into an intentionally structured Sabbath compendium. Though these texts are often explained as composite texts, or assigned to a later stage of priestly literature than the PG narrative, I will make a case that Exod 31:12– 17; 35:1–3 can be read as an important text that integrates Sinai into the PG narrative, particularly into the developing concepts of Sabbath and covenant as they range from the creation of the Sabbath in Gen 1:1–2:4a through the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants. Ancient Near Eastern accounts of temple building which include the notion of rest support the proposal that also the Priestly tabernacle account would have included the notion of divine rest as an integral part. I. On the Unity of Exod 31:12–17 and 35:1–3 Since the work of von Rad, several scholars have proposed to divide Exod 31:12–17 into various strata.123 Recently this has been argued by Jeffrey 122

Stackert, “Compositional Strata,” 7. So, according to Ernst Jenni, Die theologische Begründung des Sabbatgebotes (Zollikon-Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1956), 22, Exod 29:42–46 originally immediately preceded Exod 31:12–17, before 30:1–31:11 was added in between. 123 Von Rad, Priesterschrift, 62–63, 216–17 divides Exod 31:12–17 into PA in vv. 12, 13b, 14; and PB in vv. 13a, 15, 16, 17.

The Sabbath Texts of Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3 as Part of the Priestly Narrative

147

Stackert and Saul Olyan, who divide the section into P and H material, as well as Köckert, who argues for the presence of four different layers in the text.124 Von Rad divides the section based on perceived differences in the addressees,125 whereas Stackert and Olyan base their analyses on the presence of doublets and the notion that P sections of Exod 31:12–17 are consistent in language with an independent Priestly narrative, while H sections of Exod 31:12–17 are consistent with the peculiar terminology of the Holiness Code. Stackert’s view is based on the narrative coherence of P, and he takes 31:15 as the starting point of his identification of P. According to Stackert, knowledge of the Sabbath has not yet been revealed to Israel in the Priestly narrative. He removes Exod 16 and 20:8–11 from his independent Priestly source and takes Exod 31:15 as the first definition of the Sabbath for Israel in P. The references to ‫ שׁבתתי‬and ‫ השׁבת‬in 31:13b, 14 presume knowledge of a definite Sabbath which, according to Stackert, is not defined in the Priestly narrative until 31:15, and therefore 31:13b–14 are secondary and assigned to H.126 Stackert’s analysis of the different strata is thus based on the independent character of the Priestly narrative, which the analysis of Exod 12:12–13 above particularly is strong evidence against, and also based on the questionable proposal that there has been no prior definition of the Sabbath to Israel in the sequence of the Priestly narrative; to argue so requires removing the Sabbath conceptions of Exod 16 and 20:8–11 from preceding Exod 31:12–17 in the Priestly narrative. This, however, is an unwarranted starting point; I argued above for the inclusion of Exod 16 as necessary in the Priestly narrative and, if it is allowed that Exod 16 and 20:8–11 contain references to the Sabbath known prior to Exod 31:15 in the Priestly narrative, the starting point for Stackert’s analysis to isolate a P account of Exod 31:12–17 in which the Sabbath is yet to be revealed breaks down. Verses 13–14, which speak of the Sabbath as a known entity (‫ שׁבתתי‬and ‫)השׁבת‬, as well as v. 15 with ‫שׁבת‬ ‫שׁבתון קדשׁ ליהוה‬, which is almost identical with Exod 16:23, can be read as part of the developing revelation of the significance of the Sabbath in Gen 2:1–4a; Exod 16:16–30; Exod 20:8–11.127 As noted most recently by Nihan, 124

Stackert, “Compositional Strata,” 18–19 considers 31:12, 13a, 15 (apart from ‫שׁבת‬ ‫ שׁבתון‬and ‫)מות‬, 16 as P, and 13b–14, 17 (apart from ‫ )וינפשׁ‬as H. Saul Olyan, “Exodus 31:12–17: The Sabbath According to H, or the Sabbath According to P and H?” JBL 124 (2005): 209–10 takes vv. 12–15 as H and vv. 16–17 as P. Olyan however considers the P material of vv. 16–17 as probably being a supplement to the H material of vv. 12–15. Noth, Exodus, 241 considered the whole section of 31:12–17 to be a late addition, in which vv. 15–17 is a later supplement; cf. Köckert, Leben, 99–102, for a model in which the text grew in multiple stages. 125 Von Rad, Priesterschrift, 62–63. 126 Stackert, “Compositional Strata,” 14–16. 127 Dozeman, Exodus, 492.

148

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

the criteria of dividing the section into P and H material by Stackert and Olyan is unpersuasive.128 Stackert assigns most of v. 15 to P, which verse however is almost identical with the H-text of Lev 23:3 and is therefore assigned to H by Olyan. Also assigning v. 16 with ‫ ברית עולם‬to P and v. 17 with ‫ ביני ובין‬to H as Stackert does separates the association of the ‫ ברית עולם‬with ‫ ביני ובין‬constructions found in the prior Priestly covenants in Gen 9:12–17 and 17: 1–14. Against Olyan’s separation of vv. 12–15 as H from vv. 16–17 as P, the significance of the Sabbath as an ‫ אות‬from v. 13 remains incomplete without the further explanation in vv. 16–17.129 Other criteria for dividing the section include the Numeruswechsel and doublets. These criteria are also unreliable: The former can be explained by focalization and shifts in the perspective of the addressee.130 Also the repetitions of ‫ שׁמר‬in vv. 13–14 and ‫ מות‬in vv. 14–15 are not signs of different literary layers, but rather express the rhetorical strategy of the text to emphasize the significance of Sabbath observance.131 As noted by Grund, the text is linguistically, structurally, and conceptually unified.132 The text is best understood as an intentionally structured chiasm despite its doublets and apparent use of various traditions.133 According to Klaus Grünwaldt, the text is an “artful, chiastic structure” that consists of citations and allusions to Sabbath

128 Christophe Nihan, “Das Sabbatgesetz Exodus 31:12–17, die Priesterschrift und das Heiligkeitsgesetz: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit neueren Interpretationen,” in Wege der Freiheit: Zur Entstehung und Theologie des Exodusbuchs; Die Beiträge eines Symposions zum 70. Geburtstag von Rainer Albertz (ed. Reinhard Achenbach, Ruth Ebach, and Jakob Wöhrle; AThANT 104; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2014), 141–42. 129 Nihan, “Das Sabbatgesetz,” 20. 130 Sabine Van den Eynde, “Keeping God’s Sabbath ‫ אות‬and ‫( ברית‬Exod 31:12–17),” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction – Reception – Interpretation (ed. Marc Vervenne; BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 506. So, according to Van den Eynde, the text is “very well structured” (507). 131 Nihan, “Das Sabbatgesetz,” 136–37. 132 Grund, Entstehung, 275. 133 Cf. the structural observations in Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 567–68; Achenbach, “Das Heiligkeitsgesetz und die sakralen Ordnungen,” 157; Grünwaldt, Exil, 170–72; Michael V. Fox, “The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of the Priestly 'ôt Etiologies,” RB 81 (1974): 576; Jenni, “Die theologische Begründung,” 19–21; Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 247–48, 250; Gross, “‘Rezeption,’” 45–46; Knohl, Sanctuary, 16 as a unified H text and Milgrom, “HR in Leviticus,” 29; Thomas King, The Realignment of the Priestly Literature: The Priestly Narrative in Genesis and its Relation to Priestly Legislation and the Holiness School (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009), 150; Timmer, Creation, 44–45; Van den Eynde, “Keeping God’s Sabbath,” 504–7; and Owczarek, Die Vorstellung, 41.

The Sabbath Texts of Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3 as Part of the Priestly Narrative

149

traditions from the rest of the Hebrew Bible.134 Despite the tensions in the text, the intentional structure suggests that it is unified not only in content but also in form.135 Gen 9 and 17, which introduce signs and eternal covenants, likewise have a chiastic structure, as noted by Michael V. Fox and Daniel C. Timmer.136 The following alignment highlights the chiastic structure of the text, with slightly different assessments as developed by Achenbach, Walter Gross, and Grünwaldt:

v. 13

v. 14

v. 15

v. 16

v. 17

Achenbach ‫אך את־שׁבתתי תשׁמרו‬ ‫כי אות הוא ביני וביניכם‬ ‫לדרתיכם‬ ‫לדעת כי אני יהוה מקדשׁכם‬ ‫ושׁמרתם את־השׁבת‬ ‫כי קדשׁ הוא לכם‬ ‫מחלליה מות יומת‬ ‫כי כל־העשׂה בה מלאכה‬ ‫ונכרתה הנפשׁ ההוא‬ ‫מקרב עמיה‬ ‫שׁשׁת ימים יעשׂה מלאכה‬ ‫וביום השׁביעי שׁבת שׁבתון‬ ‫קדשׁ ליהוה‬ ‫כל־העשׂה מלאכה ביום השׁבת‬ ‫מות יומת‬ ‫ושׁמרו בני־ישׂראל את־השׁבת‬ ‫לעשׂות את־השׁבת‬ ‫לדרתם ברית עולם‬ ‫ביני ובין בני ישׂראל‬ ‫אות הוא לעלם‬ ‫כי־שׁשׁת ימים עשׂה יהוה‬ ‫את־השׁמים ואת־הארץ‬ ‫וביום השׁביעי שׁבת וינפשׁ‬

A

B

Grünwaldt, Gross, Timmer, Propp A my sabbaths B a sign between me and you C for your generations D in order to know… E and observe the Sabbath

C

F shall surely be killed G for anyone who works on it

B’

H six days … and on the seventh day

A’

G’ anyone who works F’ shall surely be killed E’ and observe Sabbath D’ in order to do it C’ for your generations B’ between me and the sons of Israel an eternal sign

A’ and on the seventh day he rested

In the model of Achenbach, sections A and A’ have the Sabbath as a sign (‫ )אות‬as their theme, while sections B and B’ focus on the notion of the holi134

Grünwaldt, Exil, 172, following the model of N. Negretti, Il Settimo Giorno: Indagine critico-teologica delle tradizione presacerdotali e sacerdotali circa il sabato biblico (AnBib 55; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1973), 226. 135 Gross, “‘Rezeption,’” 45–46 and Grünwaldt, Exil, 172. 136 Fox, “Sign,” 571, 589; Timmer, Creation, 44 n. 77.

150

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

ness (‫ )קדשׁ‬of the Sabbath for Israel (v. 14) and for YHWH (v. 15). The center of the chiasm contains the threat of punishment for violation of the Sabbath (v. 14b). The model of Nicola Negretti, Gross, Grünwaldt, and Timmer focuses on the individual phrases of the text and views v. 15a ‫שׁשׁת ימים יעשׂה‬ ‫ מלאכה וביום השׁביעי שׁבת שׁבתון קדשׁ ליהוה‬as expressing the “heart of the author,” with the surrounding verses interpreting this statement.137 The text is best understood as a “Sabbath-compendium”138 that combines diverse texts relating to the Sabbath from throughout the Hebrew Bible:139 Exodus 31:13–17 ‫אך את־שׁבתתי תשׁמרו‬ ‫כי אות הוא ביני וביניכם לדרתיכם‬ ‫לדעת כי אני יהוה מקדשׁכם‬ ‫ושׁמרתם את־השׁבת‬

‫כי קדשׁ הוא לכם‬ ‫מחלליה מות יומת‬ ‫כי כל־העשׂה בה מלאכה‬ ‫ונכרתה הנפשׁ ההוא מקרב עמיה‬ ‫שׁשׁת ימים יעשׂה מלאכה‬ ‫וביום השׁביעי שׁבת שׁבתון‬ ‫קדשׁ ליהוה‬ ‫כל־העשׂה מלאכה ביום השׁבת‬ ‫מות יומת‬ ‫ושׁמרו בני־ישׂראל את־השׁבת‬ ‫ את־השׁבת‬140‫לעשׂות‬ ‫לדרתם‬

Related Sabbath texts ‫את־שׁבתתי תשׁמרו‬ ‫ומקדשׁי תיראו אני יהוה‬ ‫וגם את־שׁבתותי נתתי להם‬ ‫להיות לאות ביני וביניהם‬ ‫לדעת כי אני יהוה מקדשׁם‬ ‫שׁמר שׁבת מחללו‬ ‫ישׁמרו את־שׁבתותי‬ ‫כל־שׁמר שׁבת מחללו‬ ‫שׁמור את־יום השׁבת לקדשׁו‬ ‫ומחללים את־יום השׁבת‬ ‫כל־העשׂה בו מלאכה יומת‬ ‫נכרתה הנפשׁ ההוא מקרב עמיה‬ ‫שׁשׁת ימים תעשׂה מלאכה‬ ‫וביום השׁביעי שׁבת שׁבתון‬ ‫מקרא־קדשׁ‬ ‫כל־מלאכה לא תעשׂו שׁבת הוא‬ ‫ליהוה‬ ‫לעשׂות את־יום השׁבת‬ ‫והיתה הקשׁת בענן וראיתיה‬

Lev 19:30; 26:2 Ezek 20:12 Isa 56:2 Isa 56:4 Isa 56:6 Deut 5:12 Neh 13:17 Exod 35:2 Num 15:30 Lev 23:3

Deut 5:15 Gen 9:16–

137 Grünwaldt, Exil, 172. So also Nihan, “Das Sabbatgesetz,” 134, sees vv. 13–14 as expressing the Sabbath command and vv. 16–17 containing motivations for observing the Sabbath, structured around v. 15 with the prohibition of work as the central message of the text. 138 Grünwaldt, Exil, 185. 139 Achenbach, “Heiligkeitsgesetz und Sakrale Ordnungen,” 158. For a detailed list and discussion of the parallels, see also Grünwaldt, Exil, 170–85 and Gross “‘Rezeption,’” 49– 56. 140 As noted by Shimon Bakon, “Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath,” JBQ 25.2 (1997): 81, ‫ לעשׂות‬also links the text to Gen 2:3.

The Sabbath Texts of Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3 as Part of the Priestly Narrative ‫ברית עולם‬ ‫ביני ובין בני ישׂראל‬ ‫אות הוא לעלם‬

‫כי־שׁשׁת ימים עשׂה יהוה‬ ‫את־השׁמים ואת־הארץ‬ 141

‫וביום השׁביעי שׁבת וינפשׁ‬

‫לזכר ברית עולם‬ ‫בין אלהים ובין כל־נפשׁ‬ ‫זאת אות הברית‬... ... ‫והקמתי את־בריתי‬ ‫ביני ובינך ובין זרעך‬ ‫לדרתם לברית עולם‬ ‫להיות לך לאלהים‬ ‫ונמלתם את בשׂר ערלתכם‬ ‫והיה לאות ברית ביני וביניכם‬ ‫והיתה בריתי בבשׂרכם‬ ‫לברית עולם‬ ‫כי שׁשׁת־ימים עשׂה יהוה‬ ‫את־השׁמים ואת־הארץ‬ ‫את־הים ואת כל אשׁר בם‬ ‫וינח ביום השׁביעי‬

151

17

Gen 17:7

Gen 17:11 Gen 17:13 Exod 20:11

The purpose of Exod 31:12–17 becomes apparent in this comparison chart: to emphasize the importance of the Sabbath through motivational rationales and to establish the Sabbath as a “sign” (‫ )אות‬and a ‫ברית עולם‬, building on the rainbow and circumcision as the respective signs for the eternal covenants with Noah (Gen 9) and Abraham (Gen 17) in the Priestly narrative. 142 The meaning of the Sabbath in this context is difficult to determine due to syntactical ambiguity.143 Verse 13 calls the Sabbath a sign, whereas v. 16 calls it a ‫ברית עולם‬, which is translated variously as “ewigen Bund,”144 “perpetual covenant,”145 “a covenant for all time,”146 and “enduring engagement.”147 The 141

The use of ‫ נפשׁ‬is due to the influence of Exod 23:12 see Köckert, Leben, 101. Achenbach, “Heiligkeitsgesetz und Sakrale Ordnungen,” 159–60; August Dillmann, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus (3rd ed.; KEH 12; Leipzig: Hirzel, 1897), 365–66; Groß, Zukunft, 83; and Grünwaldt, Exil, 179, 185. The concept of the Sabbath as a sign is found also in Ezek 20:12, as seen in the parallels in the chart. On the relationship between Exod 31:12–17 and Ezek 20, see Grünwaldt, Exil, 173; Gross, “‘Rezeption,’” 50–51; Timmer, Creation, 51. 143 See the discussion in Timmer, Creation, 53–54 and Köckert, Leben in Gottes Gegenwart, 101. As noted by Propp, Exodus 19–40, 494, and Köckert, Leben, 101, depending on where the accent is placed, v. 16 can be understood as taking the Sabbath ‫ ברית‬as an “immerwährende Verpflichtung” that is the basis for Israel’s relationship with YHWH, or the ‫ ברית‬can be an “Ausdruck für das Verhältnis zwischen Israel and Jahwe.” Van den Eynde, “Keeping God’s Sabbath,” 511 notes that the Sabbath is not explicitly called a sign of the covenant, as the emphasis is on the Sabbath as a sign of recognition in v. 13. 144 Achenbach, “Heiligkeitsgesetz, 157; Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 279; Grund, Entstehung, 273; Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 248. 145 Childs, Exodus, 522; Dozeman, Exodus, 677. 142

152

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

closest parallel to the text is Gen 17, where circumcision is called a covenant or obligation between Abraham and God (‫ברית‬, v. 10) and a sign of the covenant (v. 11). Gen 17:13 further calls circumcision “my covenant in your flesh, an everlasting covenant” (‫)בריתי בבשׁרכם לברית עולם‬. Thus Gen 17 and Exod 31 share the notion of an underlying eternal covenant (Abrahamic, Sinaitic) with an accompanying sign, the observance of which determines individual participation in the covenant. 148 Due to the connection of Exod 31:12–17 with Gen 17:10–14, sharing the concepts of ‫אות‬, ‫ברית‬, and ‫כרת‬, as well as the function of the Sabbath as defining the reciprocity of the relationship between Israel and YHWH (‫ )ביני וביניכם‬the translation of “covenant” in the sense of an agreement between YHWH and Israel that is based on the Sabbath obligation appears fitting for ‫ ברית עולם‬in Exod 31:16. On this point I agree with Andreas Schüele regarding the translation of Exod 31:16: “It is important to note that ‫ ברית עולם‬in 31:17 [sic, 31:16] stands in apposition to sabbath. The Sabbath is an eternal covenant. Thus, the best rendering here is ‘And the Israelites shall observe the Sabbath by keeping it through the ages; (it is) an eternal covenant.’”149 This is especially the case given the function of Exod 31:12–17 within the Sinai pericope, where it is placed to modify the non-Priestly covenant traditions.150 Thus the ‫ ברית‬that Exod 31:12–17 has in ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 146

Sarna, Exodus, 201. Van den Eynde, “Keeping God’s Sabbath,” 510–11, prefers “engagement” as an expression of the relationship between Israel and YHWH which can be both unilateral and bilateral, rather than the vagueness of “covenant.” 148 Timmer, Creation, 54; cf. also Groß, Zukunft, 81–83, on the form of Exod 31:12–17 formulated based on the covenant signs of Gen 9 and 17. In both Gen 17:14 and Exod 31:14, individuals who break the covenant are threatened with excommunication. 149 So Andreas Schüle, “The ‘Eternal Covenant,’ in the Priestly Pentateuch and the Major Prophets,” in Covenant in the Persian Period (ed. Richard J. Bautch and Gary N. Knoppers; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 56 n. 29; so also for Propp, Exodus 19– 40, 494, the Sabbath as the sign of the covenant is metaphorically equivalent to the covenant itself. 150 David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 300; Nihan, “Das Sabbatgesetz,” 143; Gross, “‘Rezeption,’” 55; Zukunft, 83; Ziemer, “Schöpfung,” 39–56; Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 280; and Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 257. Against Jeffrey Stackert, “How the Priestly Sabbaths Work: Innovation in Pentateuchal Priestly Ritual,” in Ritual Innovation in the Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism (ed. Nathan MacDonald; BZAW 468; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), 95, who considers the ‫ ברית עולם‬as unrelated to the non-Priestly ‫ ברית‬texts of Exod 19–24, 32–34. The understanding of the Priestly narrative developed here as a supplement to the non-Priestly narratives, with Exod 24:15b–18a also evincing signs of being a supplement to the non-Priestly Sinai account of Exod 19–24, supports the view that the ‫ ברית עולם‬in Exod 31:16 is to be read in relationship to the non-Priestly covenant concept delineated in Exod 19–24; 32–34. As noted by Groß, Zukunft, 83, if Exod 31:12–17 is intended as a supplement to the nonPriestly Exod 19–24, 32–34, it can hardly be understood otherwise than as a sign for the non-Priestly Sinai covenant as aligned with the covenants and signs of Gen 9 and 17. 147

The Sabbath Texts of Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3 as Part of the Priestly Narrative

153

mind points to the non-Priestly Sinaitic covenant of Exod 19–24, to which the Sabbath is supplemented as a sign. The text functions to align the Sinaitic ‫ ברית‬with the ‫ ברית‬from Gen 9 and 17, with the observance of the Sabbath becoming paradigmatic for obedience to the entire Torah.151 Exod 31:12–17 gives the Sinai pericope an “interpretive key” that adds observance of the Sabbath as a sign of the Priestly ‫ ברית עולם‬as a requirement for membership in the covenant community. From the perspective of Exod 31:12–17, the Sabbath functions to transfer the Sinai covenant to subsequent generations.152 Though the Sabbath as a sign of the covenant in Exod 31:12–17 is not identical with the language of circumcision as a sign of the covenant in Gen 17 because the Sabbath is explicitly a sign “to know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you,” (31:13), its function coincides with the function of circumcision in Gen 17. As noted by Albertz, the Sabbath sanctifies Israel, that is, sets Israel apart from other nations and binds them to YHWH, the way that circumcision also functions in Gen 17 to bind Abraham and his descendants to a special relationship with God.153 Keeping the command of the Sabbath means acknowledging that YHWH is God and that he sanctifies his people, Israel.154 The eternity of the covenant, both in Gen 17 and Exod 31, indicates that the Sinai Sabbath covenant in Exod 31 is not understood as a new covenant but is related to the eternal Abrahamic covenant as further constituting the relationship between God and the newly established people of Israel.155 The nuanced language of Exod 31:12–17 maintains that failure to observe the Sabbath will not affect the validity of the covenant, though individuals can be cut off from the covenant due to disobedience.156 The Sabbath text of Exod 35:1–3 is closely associated with Exod 31:12– 17. Exod 35:1–3 introduces Moses’ transmission of the Sabbath command as the initial statement of the execution report for the tabernacle, following the intervening account of the golden calf and covenant renewal ceremony in Exod 32–34. Thus Exod 31:12–17 and 35:1–3 together form a Sabbath frame around Exod 32–34. Moses assembles the Israelites (35:1) and conveys a statement almost identical to Exod 31:15 in 35:2:

151

Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 568. Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 280. According to Propp, Exodus 19–40, 492, the Sabbath reminds both Israel and YHWH of their covenant and confers the recurrent benefit of sanctification. 153 Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 256. 154 Van den Eynde, “Keeping God’s Sabbath,” 507. 155 Jenni, “Die theologische Begründung,” 31; Christoph Dohmen, “Der Sinaibund als Neuer Bund nach Exod 19–34,” in Der Neue Bund im Alten: Zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente (ed. Erich Zenger; QD 146; Freiburg: Herder, 1993), 77. 156 Groß, Zukunft, 82; Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 257. 152

154

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40 Exodus 31:15 ‫שׁשׁת ימים יעשׂה מלאכה וביום השׁביעי‬ ‫שׁבת שׁבתון קדשׁ ליהוה‬ ‫כל־העשׂה מלאכה ביום השׁבת מות יומת‬

Exodus 35:2 ‫שׁשׁת ימים תעשׂה מלאכה ובים השׁביעי‬ ‫יהיה לכם קדשׁ שׁבת שׁבתון ליהוה‬ ‫כל־העשׂה בו מלאכה יומת‬

This statement places the Sabbath at a prominent position at the beginning of the tabernacle construction report, reiterating the most important theme of the sanctity of the Sabbath and the prohibition of work from Exod 31:15.157 The differences between 31:15 and 35:2–3 are too slight to suggest that Exod 35:2–3 deviates from 31:12–17. Exod 35:3 does introduce as a novelty the notion that fire is not supposed to be kindled on the Sabbath day: ‫לא־תבערו‬ ‫אשׁ בכל משׁבתיכם ביום השׁבת‬. Despite a few objections to considering Exod 31:12–17 and 35:1–3 as coming from the same stratum of material due to this difference,158 the addition in 35:2–3 can also be understood as presenting Moses as the model exegete who interprets the prohibition of work from Exod 31:15 to the specific context of the lawgiving at Sinai and the construction of the tabernacle.159 Thus it need not be from a later stratum than 31:12– 17. Several scholars have argued that the prohibition of fire relates explicitly to the setting of the construction of the tabernacle. In its present position, the prohibition is read in light of the metalworking of the golden calf that precedes it (Exod 32:20–24)160 Albertz, however, has pointed to the specification ‫ בכל משׁבתיכם‬as limiting the fire prohibition to private dwellings, which could associate it with cooking, as in the Sabbath prohibition from Exod 16:23.161 According to Nihan, the focus of the prohibition is to limit fire on the Sabbath to the central sanctuary.162 From a comparative ancient Near Eastern perspective, the Ugaritic Baal epic associates the notions of divine rest and prohibition of fire with temple building.163 Though, contextually, the Sabbath and fire prohibitions relate immediately to the construction of the tabernacle, the full intended meaning of the fire prohibition is beyond our grasp.164 In its current position, Exod 31:12–17 and 35:1–3 is an intentionally composed Sabbath frame around the non-Priestly account of Exod 32–34 that 157

Timmer, Creation, 57. E.g., Grünwaldt, Exil, 175, who considers Exod 35:2 an older influence on Exod 31:12–17, and Köckert, Leben, 100 n. 111, who takes Exod 35:2–3 as later than Exod 31:12–17. 159 Nihan, “Das Sabbatgesetz,” 139. 160 Grünwaldt, Exil, 188. 161 Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 332. 162 Nihan, “Das Sabbatgesetz,” 139. 163 Weinfeld, “Sabbath,” 504 and Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 79. 164 Grünwaldt, Exil, 192–93. 158

The Sabbath Texts of Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3 as Part of the Priestly Narrative

155

accentuates and structures the Sinai pericope of Exod 25–40 in significant ways.165 II. The Function of Exod 31:12–17 and 35:1–3 as Part of the Priestly Tabernacle Narrative There are two significant reasons to consider the Sabbath texts of Exod 31:12–17 and 35:1–3 as continuing the developing covenant concept of Gen 9, 17; Exod 6:2–8; 29:43–46 as part of the Priestly narrative. First, the Sabbath as a sign of the Sinai covenant is consistent with the covenant theology of Gen 9 and 17, as will be argued below. Second, ancient Near Eastern parallel literature suggests that the concepts of creation, temple building, and rest were closely associated. Following the genre of ancient Near Eastern temple building accounts, the temple building account of Exod 25–40, which also evinces many other links to the Priestly creation account, would be expected to contain an original reference to the concept of Sabbath rest. The main reason Exod 31:12–17 is excluded from the PG narrative is stated poignantly by Nihan: The presence of a concrete sign for Yahweh’s ‫ ברית‬is characteristic of P (Gen 9:12ff.; 17:9ff.), but the giving of a third sign at Mt. Sinai goes against P, which rejected the idea that the revelation of Mt. Sinai was accompanied by the conclusion of a new covenant after 166 Gen 17.

In Nihan’s view, the concept of a covenant at Sinai is inconsistent with the covenant theology of the Priestly narrative but does fit with the language and covenant theology of the later Lev 26, thus the Sinai sign of Exod 31:12–17 is not from the Priestly narrative that encompasses the covenants in Gen 9 and 17. As discussed above, the notion of the Priestly account rejecting the Sinai covenant is based on a conception of the Priestly covenants in Gen 9 and 17 as unconditional covenants without obligations. The problems with this conception of the Priestly covenant as developed influentially by Walther Zimmerli and Lohfink have already been addressed above, where it was shown that the Priestly covenant texts present a well-structured, consistently 165 Grund, Entstehung, 283–85; Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 568; Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 123–24; Timmer, Creation, 43–60; Knohl, Sanctuary, 16; and Childs, Exodus, 542. This is against the view of Schwartz, “The Priestly Account,” 129, whose reading of the formation of the Sinai narratives from the perspective of the Documentary Hypothesis precludes the possibility of the Priestly material being intentionally composed around the non-Priestly golden calf episode. 166 Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 567; cf. also Walter Groß, Zukunft für Israel: Alttestamentliche Bundeskonzepte und die aktuelle Debatte um den Neuen Bund (SB 176; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998), 46–47 for a discussion of the classic view of the Priestly narrative not containing a Sinaitic covenant.

156

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

developing plan in Gen 9:1–17; Gen 17:1–27; and Exod 6:2–8; 29:45–46, including 31:12–17 as well. First of all, in each of these texts, ‫ ברית‬is used in the sense of a divine promise which is given to a narrowing circle of addressees, from the world, to Abraham’s descendants, to Israel. The promise extends from fruitfulness and multiplication and the stability of heaven and earth (Gen 1:1–2:4a; 9:1– 17), to the promise of the land and El Shaddai being God for Abraham’s descendants (Gen 17:1–27), to the promise of YHWH revealing himself to Israel, dwelling among the Israelites, and sanctifying them (Exod 6:2–8; 29:45–46, 31:13–17).167 Second, each covenant promise is accompanied by a sign that symbolizes an aspect of the divine promise. The rainbow is a symbol of God committing to no longer use a flood to destroy the world (Gen 9), circumcision is associated with the promise of fruitfulness extended to Abraham (Gen 17), and the Sabbath is a sign of YHWH’s commitment to be Israel’s God and to dwell among the Israelites; hence, it is a sign of Israel’s sanctification (Exod 29:45– 46; 31:13–17). The signs function as reminders to God and to the human counterparts in the covenant and, consequently, as symbols of membership in the covenant community, or the community of those who have received the promises of God. According to Gen 9:15–16, the sign of the rainbow will remind YHWH of his commitment not to destroy Israel; in Exod 2:24; 6:5, YHWH remembers his promise to Abraham based on which he saves Israel from Egypt; and observing the Sabbath is expressed as the epitome of repentance and obedience that will enable Israel’s restoration from exile (Lev 26). Third, in Gen 9:1–17; 17:1–27; Exod 6:2–8; 29:45–46; 31:12–17, the covenant promise is accompanied by requiring observance of various commands, which increase in scope and demand in accordance to the increasing proximity to God: the commands against consuming blood and murder are applied to all creation (Gen 9); circumcision is for Abraham’s descendants, including Isaac and Ishmael (Gen 17); and the Sabbath and sanctification is for Israel (Exod 31). Failure to comply with the obligations leads to the offending individuals breaking or annulling their side of the covenant and a subsequent removal from the blessings of the covenant promises, but it does not annul the promises. Several scholars have in fact argued that Exod 31:12–17 should be considered in the Priestly series of covenants and signs with Gen 9 and 17. Andreas Schüle writes,

167 Along with Frank M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 296–99, I consider these Exodus texts together as expressing the Priestly Sinai covenant theology counterpart to Gen 9 and Gen 17.

The Sabbath Texts of Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3 as Part of the Priestly Narrative

157

...the Sabbath as a sign of the eternal covenant and the requirement of Sabbath observance for Israel fit well into the covenantal theology of P. It is certainly reasonable to assume that the notion of covenant is anchored in all three parts of P’s pentateuchal narrative: the primeval period (Genesis 9), the ancestral period (Genesis 17), and the Sinai events (Exodus 31). On the other hand, there is no real reason to assume that P’s concept of covenant is strictly unconditional, which may have been the main reason, especially for Protestant exegetes, to assign Exodus 31:12–17 either to a pre-Priestly source or to a post-Priestly redactor.168

August Knobel,169 August Dillmann,170 Theodor Nöldeke,171 Georg Beer, and Kurt Galling172 already argued that Exod 31:12–17 belongs with the Priestly covenants of Gen 9 and 17 as the Priestly sign of the Sinai covenant. Recently, arguing for the inclusion of Exod 31:12–17 as the Priestly sign of the Sinai covenant in the P narrative are Odil Hannes Steck (31:12–14),173 Frank Moore Cross,174 Blum (31:12–14),175 William Brown,176 and Benjamin Ziemer,177 who argue for its inclusion in the series based on consistency with

168

Schüle, “Eternal Covenant,” 45. August Knobel, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus, KEH 12 (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1857), 309–10 assigned most of Exod 31:12–17 to the Grundschrift/Elohist = P, with supplements by the Jehovist. 170 According to Dillmann, Exodus, 366, due to the connections to creation in Gen 2:2– 3 and the Priestly covenants in Gen 9 and 17, “so wird man nicht zweifeln können, dass hier ein Abschnitt aus A [=P] vorliegt, in welchem er Wesen und Bedeutung des Sabbaths den Israeliten zum erstenmal erklärt werden liess.” 171 Nöldeke, Untersuchungen, 55. 172 Georg Beer and Kurt Galling, Exodus (HAT 3; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1939), 151. 173 Odil Hannes Steck, Der Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift: Studien zur literarkritischen und überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Problematik von Genesis 1:1–2:4a (2nd ed.; FRLANT 115; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 190–91 n. 808. See also Utzschneider, Heiligtum, 208 n. 18, 255, who describes Exod 31:12–17 as linking backward to creation, the flood, and Abraham narratives, and forward to the Holiness Code. 174 Cross, Canaanite Myth, 296–99. 175 Erhard Blum, “Issues and Problems in the Contemporary Debate Regarding the Priestly Writings,” in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (ed. Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009), 35 n. 15. 176 William P. Brown, The Ethos of the Cosmos: The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 77–89. 177 According to Benjamin Ziemer, Abram–Abraham: Kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Gen 14, 15 und 17 (BZAW 35; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 302–3: “Innerhalb des Pentateuch gehört Gen 17 damit auf eine Ebene nicht nur mit Gen 1 und 9, sondern auch mit Texten wie Exod 31,12–17 und Lev 26.” 169

158

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

the covenants in Gen 9 and 17 and an expectation that the Priestly narrative would also have an interest in a covenant at Sinai.178 Additional evidence for including the Sabbath in the Priestly tabernacle account comes from comparative ancient Near Eastern literature. Moshe Weinfeld and Hurowitz have especially emphasized this aspect of the Priestly tabernacle texts.179 As they showed, ancient Near Eastern temple building accounts tend to follow a common pattern. Texts where the construction of a temple is associated with the completion of creation, such as Enuma elish, contain the concept of the gods resting in the completed temple.180 As noted by Hurowitz, The motif of the gods resting in their temple, which appears in Marduk’s words and in the words of the gods, is probably related to the motifs of (a) David’s rest found in 2 Sam. 7:1, (b) Israel’s rest found in the Solomonic temple-building story, and (c) perhaps even to the Sabbath command in the Tabernacle story (Exod. 31, 35)…181

Weinfeld notes that the combination of the motifs of rest in the temple as well as the kindling of fire are found in the Ugaritic Baal epic.182 Timmer has also investigated the use of the motif of divine rest from the Baal epic, Enuma elish, the Atrahasis epic, and the Egyptian Memphite Theology and Coffin Texts of Atum.183 Each of these texts share the concepts of creation, temple building, and divine rest. Steck, Blum, and Andreas Ruwe likewise contend that the association of creation, temple, and rest in ancient Near Eastern temple building traditions suggests that the Sabbath should be considered an 178

Cf. also Koch, Priesterschrift, 37; Werner H. Schmidt, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift. Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte von Genesis 1:1–2:4a und 2:4b–3:24 (2nd ed.; WMANT 17; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967), 186, according to whom the Sabbath in Gen 2:2–3 is an intimation or preparation for the Sabbath commands to be given at Sinai; and Jenni, “Die Theologische Begründung,” 20. 179 Weinfeld, “Sabbath,” 502–3; Hurowitz, I Have Built, 95. Cf. also Mark S. Smith, The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010), 105–6. 180 Hurowitz, I Have Built, 94–95. Hurowitz notes the concept of rest in temple building accounts and inscriptions in the Epic of Erra and the Baal epic for example (330–31). 181 Ibid., 95. 182 So, according to Weinfeld, “Sabbath,” 504: “In the description of the building of Baal’s sanctuary, which seems to be associated with creation as well, we hear of a fire burning for six days, which on the seventh day ceases (CTA 4 VI:22f.), whereupon Baal rejoices in his house and his sanctuary. This description brings to mind the command ‘You shall not burn fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath’ (Ex. 35:3), which comes before the account of the construction of the Tabernacle. In addition, the sanctuary of El in Ugarit is conceived, as in Babylonia and as in Israel, as a seat of rest. Thus we read of El who places his feet on his footstool and says… ‘Now I will sit and rest.’ (CTA 6 111:18), and the throne of Baal is also called a throne of rest… ‘Chased him from his throne of kingship, from the restful seat of his dominion’ (CTA 3 D:46–47).” 183 Timmer, Creation, 74–77.

The Sabbath Texts of Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3 as Part of the Priestly Narrative

159

integral part of the Priestly tabernacle account.184 As Blum concludes, keeping the Sabbath is an important part of Israel’s participation in the institution that God has consecrated (Gen 2:3, ‫ )קדשׁ‬as the sanctified cultic community (Exod 31:13, ‫)אני יהוה מקדשׁכם‬, forming an integral part of the restoration of creation that takes place at the completion of the tabernacle.185 In summary, neither the location of Exod 31:12–17 nor the use of language resembling the Holiness Code are valid reasons to consider Exod 31:12–17 secondary to the PG narrative. Due to the coherence between Exod 31:12–17 and the other Priestly covenants with accompanying signs (Gen 9 and 17), and the strong association between creation, temple building, and rest in ancient Near Eastern traditions, Exod 31:12–17 and Exod 35:1–3 can be understood to belong to the single Priestly sequence of covenants that builds on the covenant statements in Exod 6:2–8; 29:43–46, and also encompasses the covenants of Gen 9 and 17.

D. The Function of the Priestly Base Layer in the Tabernacle Narrative I. The Integration of Earlier Traditions and Link to the Priestly Narrative of Genesis–Exodus This analysis of the tabernacle texts in Exod 25–40 suggests that Exod 19:1, 2aβ; 20:8–11; 24:15b–18a; 25:1–2a, 8; 29:43–46; 31:12–17; 35:1–3; 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33–35 form the continuation of the Priestly narrative from Exod 1– 16 outlined above. Apart from the inclusion of Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3, this assessment is uncontroversial and broadly agrees with the analysis presented by Pola, Weimar, Janowski, Frevel, Nihan, Noth, Lohfink, and Elliger delineated above. This Priestly tabernacle narrative of Exod 19:1, 2aβ; 24:15b– 18a; 25:1–2a, 8; 29:43–46; 31:12–17; 35:1–3; 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33–35 framed the non-Priestly account of the Sinai covenant in Exod 19–24 and bracketed the non-Priestly golden calf and covenant renewal account in Exod 32–34, which it framed with the Sabbath texts of Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3. The question that remains to be considered is the relationship between the Priestly tabernacle narratives in Exod 24:15b–18a; 25:1–2a, 8; 29:43–46; 31:12–17; 35:1–3; 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33–35 and the other tabernacle materials found in Exod 25–40, which can be considered either earlier traditions integrated into the Priestly narrative or later supplements designed to fill out the tabernacle account. It is usually agreed that Exod 30:1–31:11 and most of 184

Steck, Der Schöpfungsbericht, 199 n. 837; Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 106; Blum, Studien, 309–10 n. 82. 185 Blum, Studien, 311–12.

160

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

Exod 35–40 reflect a later stage of Priestly tradition added to the PG narratives.186 The main question that will be considered here is the relationship of the traditions in Exod 25–29* to the PG narrative that brackets these traditions with Exod 24:15b–18a; 25:1–2a, 8; and 29:43–46. The starting point of this analysis is the different conceptions of the tabernacle and theology found in Exod 25–29, as mentioned briefly above. Utzschneider most recently, as well as other scholars before him, has pursued a tradition-historical approach to understanding the various traditions underlying the final Priestly form of Exod 25–40. In his view, the tabernacle texts of Exod 25–40 contain three types of material: Exod 25:16, 21–22 gives voice to an “ark-dwelling” conception in which Moses is presented in a prophetic office; Exod 25:1–2, 8, the “people-sanctuary” conception; and Exod 29:43–46 the “tent of meeting” conception.187 These traditions were added onto each other successively until they were integrated into the Priestly narrative continuing from Genesis– Exodus.188 As discussed above, most scholars today consider that the tabernacle account of Exod 25–29 has combined these different conceptions of the tabernacle, with varying degrees of confidence in the ability to reconstruct these traditions based on the distribution of central terminology: First there is a tent of meeting tradition with a focus on Moses in a prophetic office and “meeting” (‫ )יעד‬with YHWH. The distribution of ‫ יעד‬suggests its independence, as it is found only in 25:22; 29:42–43; 30:6, 36. According to Utzschneider, this conception is centered in Exod 25:22, which “ist die Darstellung einer dem Heiligtum verbundenen, an die Traditionen göttlichen Rechts gebundenen Prophetie.”189 As he noted, the sparsity of references to the conception of Exod 25:22 is surprising, given that it is formulated as instructions directed toward a fulfillment.190 Only in Num 7:89 is there a continuation of the conception of Exod 25:22. The disappearance of 186

This has been argued since the work of Julius Popper, Der biblische Bericht über die Stiftshütte (Leipzig: Heinrich Hunger, 1862), 44–46, who assigns Exod 30:1ff. to later supplements. He is followed by Wellhausen, Composition, 135–47; cf. Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 223. An exception here is Hurowitz, “Priestly Account,” 25– 30, who argues based on ancient Near Eastern parallels that the execution report should be considered original; see also Mark George, Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space (SBLAIL 2; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2009), 6. The starting point for the later assignment of Exod 30–31 and 35–40 is the golden incense altar that is found in Exod 30; it is separated from the other instruments within the tabernacle described in Exod 25–27 and is thus presumed to be a later addition. The material in Exod 35–40 in turn presupposes the incense altar and the activity of Bezalel and Oholiab, who are introduced in Exod 31; see Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 32–33. 187 Utzschneider, Heiligtum, 209. 188 Ibid., 230, 252–53. 189 Ibid., 118, 120. 190 Ibid., 122.

The Function of the Priestly Base Layer in the Tabernacle Narrative

161

this Mosaic “prophetische Ladekonzeption” speaks strongly for the fact that it is an older tradition integrated into the Priestly narrative under Priestly ‫שׁכן‬theology, which occurs in Exod 29:43–46 as discussed below, with the integration of the concept of the tabernacle as a ‫אהל מועד‬.191 Second, the “heavenly tabernacle” tradition that is similar to ancient Near Eastern traditions of a heavenly sanctuary is focused on the concept of a ‫ תבנית‬seen by Moses (Exod 25:9, 40).192 The distribution of the terminology of ‫ תבנית‬and ‫ ראה‬describing a viewing of the pattern of the tabernacle revealed to Moses is telling: ‫ תבנית‬is found only in Exod 25:9, 40 and ‫ ראה‬in 25:9, 40; 26:30; and 27:8. The viewing (‫ )ראה‬of the ‫ תבנית‬stands in contrast to the verbal revelation of the building details in the context193 and supports the notion that the ‫ תבנית‬tradition was integrated into the Priestly tabernacle account in Exod 29:43–46 along with the ‫יעד‬-conception.194 Third, Exod 26 combines instructions for a ‫ משׁכן‬in 26:1–6, 15–30 added to an earlier conception of an ‫ אהל‬in 26:7–14.195 This conception has been combined with the ‫ תבנית‬model by the bracketing of Exod 25:9; 26:30, with 25:40, which integrates the instructions for the utensils of the tabernacle (‫)כלים‬:196 ‫ככל אשׁר אני מראה אותך את תבנית המשׁכן‬

Exod 25:9

‫ואת תבנית כל־כליו וכן תעשׂו‬ ‫וראה ועשׂה בתבניתם אשׁר־אתה מראה בהר‬ ‫והקמת את־המשׁכן כמשׁפטו אשׁר הראית בהר‬

Exod 25:40 Exod 26:30

Finally, the Priestly narrative with ‫ שׁכן‬theology forms the basis of Exod 24:15b–18a; 25:8; 29:45–46; 40:17, 33–35. Whereas scholars such as Pola consider everything between the Priestly narrative in Exod 25:9 and 29:45– 46 to be later additions,197 there are good reasons to consider that Exod 25:8– 9 and 29:43–46 are points at which the Priestly account has integrated earlier 191

Otto, “Forschungen,” 25–27 considers the material between Exod 25:9–29:44 as integrated within 29:45–46. Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 264, takes 25:9–29:44 as later additions. 192 Von Rad, Priesterschrift, 181; Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 242–53; and Weimar, Studien, 283 n. 45. 193 Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 253. 194 Otto, “Forschungen,” 25–27; Schmid, “Der Sinai,” 118, and Weimar, Studien, 283 n. 45 consider the ‫ תבנית‬conception in Exod 25:10–40 a later addition. 195 Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 255; Otto, “Forschungen,” 26; and Janowski, Sühne, 335. Also, according to Görg, Zelt, 10–21, this is a pre-Priestly tent conception added into P. 196 On the connection of Exod 25:9 to Exod 26:1–30, see Otto, “Forschungen,” 26–27. 197 Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 262–64.

‫‪Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40‬‬

‫‪162‬‬

‫‪traditions. It was already discussed above how Exod 29:43–46 links the‬‬ ‫‪Priestly tabernacle texts to the Priestly covenant promises of Gen 17:7–8 and‬‬ ‫‪Exod 6:6–7. Additionally, vv. 43–44 connect the text to the pre-Priestly tab‬‬‫‪ernacle traditions in Exod 25–29:‬‬ ‫‪Exodus Parallel Texts‬‬ ‫‪26:9‬‬ ‫‪25:22‬‬

‫‪24:16‬‬ ‫‪40:34‬‬ ‫‪28:1‬‬ ‫‪28:3‬‬

‫‪28:41‬‬

‫‪Gen‬‬ ‫‪17:7-8‬‬ ‫‪Exod‬‬ ‫‪6:6–7‬‬

‫אל־מול פני האהל‬ ‫ונועדתי לך שׁם ודברתי אתך‬ ‫מעל הכפרת מבין שׁני הכרבים‬ ‫אשׁר על־ארן העדת‬ ‫את כל־אשׁר אצוה אותך אל־‬ ‫בני ישׂראל‬ ‫וישׁכן כבוד־יהוה על־הר סיני‬ ‫ויכס הענן את־אהל מועד וכבוד‬ ‫יהוה מלא את־המשׁכן‬ ‫ואתה הקרב אליך את־אהרן‬ ‫אחיך ואת־בניו לכהנו לי‬ ‫ואתה תדבר אל־כל־חכמי לב‬ ‫ועשׂו את־בגדי אהרן‬ ‫לקדשׁו לכהנו־לי‬ ‫והלבשׁת אתם את־אהרן אחיך‬ ‫ואת־בניו אתו ומשׁחת אתם‬ ‫ומלאת את־ידם וקדשׁת אתם‬ ‫וכהנו לי‬ ‫והקמתי את־בריתי‬ ‫‪...‬להיות לך לאלהים‬ ‫‪...‬והייתי להם לאלהים‬ ‫ולקחתי אתכם‬ ‫לי לעם והייתי לכם לאלהים‬ ‫וידעתם כי אני יהוה אלהיכם‬

‫‪Exodus 29:42–46‬‬ ‫‪v. 42‬‬

‫עלת תמיד לדרתיכם‬ ‫פתח אהל־מועד‬ ‫לפני יהוה אשׁר אועד לכם שׁמה‬ ‫לדבר אליך שׁם‬ ‫ונעדתי שׁמה לבני ישׂראל‬

‫‪v. 43‬‬

‫ונקדשׁ בכבדי‬

‫‪v. 44‬‬

‫וקדשׁתי את־אהל מועד ואת־המזבח‬ ‫ואת־אהרן ואת־בניו אקדשׁ לכהן לי‬

‫‪v. 45‬‬

‫‪v. 46‬‬

‫ושׁכנתי בתוך בני ישׂראל‬ ‫והייתי להם לאלהים‬ ‫וידעו כי אני יהוה אלהיהם‬ ‫אשׁר הוצאתי אתם מארץ מצרים‬ ‫אני יהוה אלהיהם לשׁכני בתוכם‬

‫‪Exod 29:43–46 provides both the framework for understanding the Priestly‬‬ ‫‪covenants linking to Gen 17 and Exod 6 and an interpretation of the dwelling‬‬ ‫;‪ among the Israelites (Exod 24:16; 40:34–35‬כבוד יהוה ‪) of the‬שׁכן ‪(vv. 45–46,‬‬ ‫‪cf. Exod 29:43). As noted by Blum, Exod 29:43–46 is a dense web of theo‬‬‫אהל מועד ‪logically significant sanctuary concepts and links the concepts of‬‬ ‫‪ from the tabernacle traditions in Exod 25–29 to combine‬שׁכן ‪, and‬יעד ‪,‬קדשׁ‬

The Function of the Priestly Base Layer in the Tabernacle Narrative

163

the theologies of transcendence and immanence.198 The use of ‫יעד‬, ‫קדשׁ‬, and ‫ שׁכן‬unite the three sanctuary conceptions of ‫מקדשׁ‬, ‫אהל מועד‬, and ‫ משׁכן‬encountered in Exod 25–29.199 Against Pola and Weimar, who argue that vv. 43–44 are later than vv. 45–46,200 and Thomas Wagner, who excludes 29:43– 46 from his PG,201 there is good reason to include vv. 43–46 in the Priestly narrative with Nihan, Lohfink, Elliger, Frevel, Otto, and Janowski.202 Exod 29:43–44 form an inclusio with Exod 25–29* and integrate the Mosaic prophetic-ark conception of the tabernacle from Exod 25:22. Exod 29:43 locates the place of revelation (‫ )שׁמה‬at the opening of the tent of meeting, which appears to require v. 42 and the material that precedes v. 42 included within it,203 and it is no longer Moses alone who encounters YHWH (25:22, ‫ונועדתי‬ ‫ )לך שׁם‬but the Israelites (29:43, ‫)ונעדתי שׁמה לבני ישׂראל‬.204 YHWH’s purpose in the encounter is not to speak to Moses or the Israelites but to dwell among the Israelites, as stated in vv. 45–46. The text is an etiology that explains the previously obscure concept of the ‫ אהל מועד‬but at the same time integrates it with the ‫ שׁכן‬indwelling theology of vv. 45–46.205 As argued by Otto, Exod

198 Blum, Studien, 297–98. Koch, Priesterschrift, 31 has called the text “eine pointierte Zusammenfassung der Gedanken von P über den Sinn des gesamten Heiligtums samt seiner Priesterschaft.” Cf. also Walter Moberly, At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34 (JSOTSup 22; Sheffield: University of Sheffield Press, 1983), 34. 199 Otto, “Forschungen,” 26. 200 Weimar, Studien, 275 n. 22 and Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 255. 201 Wagner, Herrlichkeit, 54. 202 Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 36–38; Lohfink, “Priestly Narrative,” 145 n. 29; Otto, “Forschungen,” 26–27; Janowski, “Tempel,” 225–27; and Elliger, “Sinn,” 121–22. 203 Exod 29:42–46 also evinces a contrast between the opening of the tent of meeting and the ‫ כפרת‬of Exod 25:22 as the location of revelation; Görg, Zelt, 59–60 has ascribed this contrast to the use of Vorlagen. 204 Knohl, Sanctuary, 64–65, 195 and Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 273. Solving these problems by modifying ‫( לכם‬MT) in v. 42 to match the singular σοι in the LXX misses the point that the tension is an intentional result of combining different conceptions of the modes of speaking and encountering; see Utzschneider, Heiligtum, 207. 205 Janowski, Sühne, 326. Cf. Peter Kearney, “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Exod 25–40,” ZAW 89 (1977): 376: “The abrupt sequences caused by the positioning of 27:20–21 and 30:1–10 make it likely that the redactor is working with older blocks of material concerning the garments of Aaron (ch. 28) and his priestly ordination (ch. 29). The prior section on the Dwelling also appears to be a distinct source, especially because the name ‘Dwelling’ does not recur in ch. 25–31 after 27:19. The redactor has strengthened the link between his two major sections on the Dwelling (ch. 25–27) and on Aaron (ch. 28–29) by means of a ‘false conclusion’ (29:42–46), which seems to draw the first speech to a close. Here the mention of Aaron, the altar (of holocausts) and the tent of meeting is joined with God’s promise to ‘dwell’ (škn) among the Israelites. The redactor thus alludes

164

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

29:42b–44 is inseparably connected with 29:1–42a, as well as with much of Exod 26–28.206 Exod 29:42–44 requires the concept of the ‫ אהל‬from Exod 26:7–11 and its combination with the ‫ משׁכן‬tradition to be comprehensible, and the consecration of the priests in Exod 28 is presupposed in 29:44.207 Similarly, Utzschneider notes that Exod 29:43–44 presupposes familiarity with the tent of meeting, the altar, and the priesthood from Exod 25–29.208 The tabernacle conception of Exod 29:43–46 is a type of summary that has integrated various texts from Exod 25–29 and has been redactionally “built over” them.209 The same is argued by Weimar for the relationship of Exod 29:42b–44 with 27:1–29:42a. According to Weimar, 29:42b–44 presupposes 27:1–29:42a but contains language that is unusual to the Priestly narrative and should be considered a later addition.210 Whereas Exod 28:1–41 describes Moses as the one who consecrates the priests to service (28:41, ‫וקִ דשׁת אתם‬ ‫)וכהנו לי‬, in Exod 29:43–44, YHWH himself is the active agent involved in consecration: ‫וקדשׁתי את־אהל מועד ואת־המזבח ואת־אהרן ואת־בניו אקדשׁ לכהן‬ ‫לי‬.211 Exod 29:44 thus links back to Exod 28:1–5, which is a key connecting text between Exod 25–27 and 28–29.212 The sequence of Exod 29:44 thus coincides with the structure of Exod 25–29, with the tent (Exod 26), the altar (Exod 27), and priests (Exod 28-29) consecrated in the same order.213 In summary, Exod 29:43–46 is best understood as a summarizing text that integrates the various Priestly traditions between Exod 25:8 and 29:42 into the Priestly narrative.214 Based on ancient Near Eastern parallels noted by Hurowitz, Cross, and others, the various traditions within Exod 25–29* were

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– to the ‘Dwelling’ of ch. 25–27, thereby drawing together all that has preceded in the first speech.” 206 Otto, “Forschungen,” 26. Otto’s view also goes against Lohfink, “Priestly Narrative,” 145 n. 29 and Frevel, Mit Blick, 103, who argue that the Priestly narrative jumped from Exod 26:30 to 29:43 without the intervening Exod 27–29. Frevel is thus required to remove 29:44b, which presupposes the material of Exod 27–29*. 207 Otto, “Forschungen,” 26. 208 Utzschneider, Heiligtum, 206 n. 13. 209 Ibid., 253. 210 Weimar, Studien, 275 n. 22. 211 Struppe, Die Herrlichkeit, 52–53. 212 Utzschneider, Heiligtum, 218–19, 252–53. On the other hand, Frevel, Mit Blick, 103 argues that the Priestly consecration of Exod 28, presupposed in Exod 29:44b, is secondary to the PG tabernacle narrative; see also Steins, “Sie sollen,” 161 and others. 213 Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 51. Nevertheless, Exod 28–29 has also likely had later additions. 214 These traditions likely continue into Lev 8–9 as well, as noted by Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 53 on the connection of Exod 29:43–44 to Lev 8–9.

The Function of the Priestly Base Layer in the Tabernacle Narrative

165

likely written sources utilized by the Priestly tabernacle account.215 Given what we know of ancient Near Eastern scribal practices, it is unrealistic to expect to reconstruct these sources completely, as they would have been modified as they were integrated into the Priestly narrative.216 Nevertheless, the traces of different terms for and conceptions of the tabernacle evince the presence of these traditions. The Priestly narrative with its integrated materials finally was supplemented by post-Priestly materials in Exod 27:20–21; 30:1–31:11; and 35–40*.217 Whether or not the consecration of the priests is part of the integrated material in Exod 28; 29:44 or is a later addition, the remarks of Frevel on the Priestly narrative in Exod 25–40 are significant: Nicht die Legitimation der Priester bildet das Zentrum der Priesterschriftlichen Sinaiperikope, sondern die unmittelbare, sich selbst einbringende, heiligende und sühnende Gottesnähe und damit die Gemeinschaft YHWHs mit dem von ihm befreiten Volk Israel. Die Konzentration auf Kult und Priestertum findet in der Sinaiperikope erst in der Nacharbeit zur Priestergrundschrift statt.218

This conclusion corresponds with the earlier views of Elliger and von Rad, who noted that, despite the massive amount of “priestly” material within Exodus–Leviticus, the interests of the Priestly Grundschrift are not very “priestly,” with the cult and Aaronic priesthood placed in the background.219 As was noted in the analysis of Exod 1–16 above, the figure of Aaron is marginal and subordinated to Moses in that section of the Priestly narrative as 215

Especially Hurowitz and Cross have argued that the material in Exod 25–29* originated as sources from temple archives; see Hurowitz, “Priestly Account,” 24–29 and idem., I Have Built, 250–59 on ancient Near Eastern temple building descriptions, as well as Cross, “The Priestly Tabernacle in the Light of Recent Research,” in Temples and High Places in Biblical Times (ed. Avraham Biran; Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, 1981), 169 and Cross Canaanite Myth, 321. With varying differences in detail, von Rad, Priesterschrift, 179–84; Koch, Priesterschrift, 96–98; Knohl, Sanctuary, 63–64; Utzschneider, Heiligtum, 236–58; idem., “Tabernacle,” 298–99; and Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 13, have argued for the different conceptions in Exod 25–29* as evidence of the integration of written traditions. 216 Weimar, Studien, 271. According to Koch, Priesterschrift, 98–99, the original wording of these ritual Vorlagen can no longer be recovered because the Priestly narrative has edited and extended them in its presentation of the Priestly tabernacle. 217 Exod 27:20–21 describes the eternal lamp which is to be lit in the tent of meeting, aligns closely with Lev 24:1–4, and is assigned to a later stage of Holiness School activity; see Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 171–72; Knohl, Sanctuary, 47–48; and Milgrom, Leviticus 17– 22, 1338. Likewise, the materials in Exod 35–40 that reflect the all-Israelite contributions to the tabernacle can be understood broadly from the perspective of the Holiness Code’s emphasis on all Israelites being invested in the tabernacle and attributed to a later stage of activity in the Holiness School; see Knohl, Sanctuary, 66–67. 218 Frevel, Mit Blick, 148. 219 Elliger, “Sinn,” 139–42; von Rad, Priesterschrift, 187–88.

166

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

well. As noted by Ziemer, a PG in the Sinai pericope that is limited in its parameters to narrative material can no longer usefully be called “priestly”; nor do the central “priestly” texts of PG in the patriarchal narratives such as Gen 17 develop a particularly priestly theology.220 The concerns of the Priestly narrative from Gen 1:1–2:4a, through the texts in Exod 1–16 and the Sinai pericope in 24:15b–18a; 25:1–2a, 8; 29:43–46; 31:12–17; 35:1–3; 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33–35 relate to the concepts of creation, Sabbath, and covenant, and culminate with the indwelling of YHWH in the tabernacle among the Israelites. II. The Relationship of the Priestly Tabernacle Account to the non-Priestly Exod 32–34 The Priestly material in the Sinai tabernacle account has proven to consist of Exod 24:15b–18a; 25:1–2a, 8; 29:43–46; 31:12–17; 35:1–3; 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33–35. The relationship of this Priestly narrative material to the Vorlagen it utilizes and the non-Priestly material in Exod 32–34 it structures can be summarized as follows:221 Exod 24:15b–18a integrates the presence of God from the pre-Priestly mountain of God as the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬into the Priestly mount Sinai and the establishment of the tabernacle. Exod 25:1–2, 8 introduce the command to Moses to build a ‫ מקדשׁ‬for YHWH to dwell (‫)שׁכן‬ among the Israel and with 29:43–46, these verses bracket various pre-Priestly Vorlagen with ‫משׁכן‬, ‫תבנית‬, and ‫ אהל מועד‬traditions for the tabernacle, as well as the Mosaic “ark-dwelling” conception of Exod 25:22, and the consecration rituals for Aaron and the priesthood in Exod 28–29. Exod 29:43–46 integrates the pre-Priestly ‫ יעד‬and ‫ שׁכן‬tabernacle traditions and Priestly inauguration traditions from Exod 25:9–29:42 into the Priestly conception of ‫קדשׁ‬/‫ מקדשׁ‬holiness. It also connects the tabernacle and indwelling of YHWH as the goal of the exodus to the covenant blessings in Gen 17 and Exod 6:2–8 as the fulfillment of YHWH becoming the God of Israel through his indwelling among the Israelites, and culminates the recognition statements of Exod 6:7 and 16:12. Exod 30:1–31:11 are later supplements describing the golden incense altar and the participation of Bezalel and Oholiab in the building 220

Ziemer, Abram–Abraham, 282–83. The pre-Priestly Vorlagen here involve traditions pertaining to the tabernacle and cult that are earlier than the Priestly base narrative of Exod 24:15b–18a; 25:1–2a, 8; 29:43–46; 31:12–17; 35:1–3; 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33–35 and which have been incorporated into this composition. The post-Priestly supplements in Exod 30:1–31:11 and 35–40 were added to the tabernacle account after its structuring by the Priestly base narrative of Exod 24:15b–18a; 25:1–2a, 8; 29:43–46; 31:12–17; 35:1–3; 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33–35. The nonPriestly material of Exod 32–34 constitutes what in traditional scholarship is called J or E material and forms the continuation of the non-Priestly narratives from Exod 1–24. 221

The Function of the Priestly Base Layer in the Tabernacle Narrative

167

process, which are concepts from the later development of Exod 35–40 that have been inserted into the instruction section of Exod 25–31. Exod 31:12–17 builds on the developing revelation of the Sabbath to Israel from Gen 1:1– 2:4a; Exod 16; 20:8–11, as it forms the Sabbath into a sign (‫ )אות‬of Israel’s sanctification and relationship with God for the Sinai covenant, in the sequence of the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants and their respective signs of the rainbow and circumcision in Gen 9 and 17. Exod 31:12–17 is linked with Exod 35:1–3, which begins the execution report for the building of the tabernacle, to bracket the non-Priestly golden calf and covenant renewal narratives of Exod 32–34 with the concept of the Sabbath. These Sabbath brackets juxtapose the Priestly tabernacle account with the non-Priestly narratives of Exod 32–34 and invite a comparison of several themes shared between these texts, most notably the presence of YHWH, the meaning and viability of the covenant, and the status of Aaron and the priesthood. The brackets of 31:12– 17 and 35:1–3 also form Exod 25–40 into a chiastic structure around Exod 32–34, with the command for building the tabernacle in Exod 25–31 interrupted by the golden calf narrative, before the execution report for building the tabernacle in 35–40. The original culmination of the execution report is in Exod 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33–35, where the completion of the tabernacle is formed in analogy to the completion of creation in Gen 1:31–2:3, and the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬indwells the sanctuary, fulfilling the theme developing from Exod 24:15b–18a and 29:45–46. Later post-Priestly supplements were then added in Exod 35–40. The relationship between the Priestly tabernacle narratives (Exod 25–31, 35–40) and the non-Priestly narrative of the golden calf and covenant renewal (Exod 32–34) that they surround has been a debated question. Exod 32–34 consists of a turning away from God (32:1–29), the intercession by Moses and God’s forgiveness (32:30–34:9), and covenant renewal (34:10–34:35), all of which constitutes a negative counterpart and negation to the preceding salvation history and covenant of Exod 1–24.222 The Priestly and non-Priestly sections are united by several common themes, as listed here:223

222 Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 282. So also according to Jan Christian Gertz, “Beobachtungen zu Komposition und Redaktion in Exodus 32–34,” in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Exod 32–34 und Dtn 9–10 (ed. Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum; VWGTh 18; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001), 89, the golden calf of Exod 32 is a counteraction of the worship in Exod 24. Both events share the themes of building an altar, offering ‫עלות‬, the events taking place in the morning, and ‫ תחת ההר‬as the location. Taggar-Cohen, “Violence,” 108–109 has studied the relationship between the events of Exod 24 and 32 from the perspective of Hittite ritual parallels. She concludes that the activities of Aaron in establishing the golden calf in Exod 32 can be understood as a continuation of the rituals of Exod 24 as paralleled in Hittite rituals, with Aaron

168

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

First, the main theme of both the Priestly and non-Priestly accounts regards the presence of God.224 According to the Priestly account, YHWH (‫)כבוד יהוה‬225 dwells among the Israelites (‫ שׁכן‬25:8; 29:45–46; 40:33–35). ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– introducing the idol, the festival procession, and entertaining the deity with eating and dancing as a continuation of the covenant rituals of Exod 24. 223 Blum, Studien, 334 notes the competing juxtaposition of the Priestly material in Exod 25–31 and 35–40 in relation to Exod 19–24; 32–34 in the matters of the priesthood and the presence of God. Otto, “Die Nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im Buch Exodus,” 91 argues for a post-Priestly origin of Exod 32–34 and contends that Exod 32:1– 6 is formed as a negative antitype to the establishment of the sanctuary, that the tent of meeting in Exod 33:7–11 corrects the Priestly theology of YHWH dwelling among the Israelites by placing the tent outside the camp, and that Moses’ encounter with YHWH as mediator of revelation is intended as a counterpart to the mediating role of the Aaronic priesthood. According to Utzschneider, Heiligtum, 253, Exod 28:1–41; 29:42–46 respond to the questioning of the role of the Aaronides that is raised in 32–34. According to Kearney, “Creation,” 383–85, the Priestly account accepts critique of Aaron in 32–34 and portrays the restoration and establishment of the cult for Aaron’s sons anyway. The new cult, however, is instituted with Moses’ presence, supervision, and blessing (39:42–43), and ch. 40 attributes the whole construction work to Moses. P also counterbalances the tent of meeting in Exod 33:7–11 with its own conception, restoring it as the place of God’s presence. Thus, for Kearney, P encompasses Exod 32–34, suggesting that P is a supplement responding to JE in Exod 32–34. According to Gertz, “Beobachtungen,” 91, 95 the Priestly and non-Priestly accounts of the tabernacle and golden calf narratives were composed independently of one another, though they treat many of the same themes. They were combined only later by the addition of the motif of the tablets in Exod 31:18; 34:29; 32:15ff.. See also Erik Aurelius, Der Fürbitter Israels: Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament (CB 27; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1988), 58, for the view that the tablet motif in these texts combined the Priestly and non-Priestly accounts. 224 According to Propp, Exodus 19–40, 619, Exod 25–40 is focused on the mode of YHWH’s presence among the Israelites. The tabernacle, ark, tablets, messenger, covenant, golden calf, face of YHWH, and Moses and the priesthood all relate to this topic. So also Gertz, “Beobachtungen,” 88 argues that the main concern of the golden calf narrative is about the presence of God, which is the main theme of the entire Sinai pericope. The section can be understood as a synthesis of various theologies of presence; see Martin R. Hauge, The Descent from the Mountain: Narrative Patterns in Exodus 19–40 (JSOTSup 323; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 164–74 and Friedhelm Hartenstein, “‘Das Angesicht Gottes’ in Exodus 32–34,” in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Exod 3–-34 und Dtn 9–10 (ed. Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum; VWGTh 18; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001), 157–83 on the presence of God as the uniting theme in Exod 32–34. Aurelius, Fürbitter, 109 sees the theme of the presence of God focused on the question, “how can a holy God abide with a sinful people?” According to Aurelius, the theme of presence is therefore more focused on the character of God in response to human sinfulness. The character of God as revealed in Exod 34:6–7 shows God to be gracious, as God allows for the continuation of his presence among Israel despite their sin (117, 125). 225 The ‫ כבוד‬and the ‫ מלאך‬are contrasted as representing the presence of YHWH in the Priestly and non-Priestly accounts; see Hauge, Descent, 90–91.

The Function of the Priestly Base Layer in the Tabernacle Narrative

169

The Priestly account brings with it the terminology of ‫משׁכן‬, ‫מקדשׁ‬, and ‫אהל‬ ‫( מועד‬Exod 25:8; 29:43–46) as terms for the tabernacle that houses the presence of God, and the theme culminates in the glory (‫ )כבוד‬of YHWH filling the tabernacle, as well as a cloud (‫ )ענן‬covering the tabernacle (‫ משׁכן‬40:33– 35).226 In contrast to this, in Exod 32–34 the people of Israel request gods to go before them (32:1 ‫)ילכו לפנינו‬, whereas YHWH will not go in the midst (‫ )בקרב‬of Israel lest he consume them (33:3–6). Exod 32–34 also describes the presence of YHWH as his “face” (‫ )פנים‬which will go with Israel (33:14).227 Also a messenger of YHWH (‫ )מלאך‬is introduced as representing the presence of God going with Israel (32:34; 33:2).228 The location of the presence is described as a tent of meeting (‫ )אהל מועד‬which is outside the camp (33:7–11); a pillar of cloud descends to the opening of the tent to indicate the presence of God (33:9–10 ‫)עמוד הענן‬. Second, the sections contrast the concept of the knowledge of God and Israel’s distinctiveness as the people who know God.229 According to the climactic statement of the Priestly account in Exod 29:46, Israel “will know [‫ ]וידעו‬that I am YHWH their God, who brought them out of the land of Egypt to dwell among them.” Additionally, the Sabbath is a sign between Israel and YHWH for Israel to know that YHWH sanctifies them (Exod 31:13 ‫)לדעת כי אני יהוה מקדשׁכם‬. In the non-Priestly account, the motif of knowledge of YHWH is likewise significant, as seen from Moses’ intercessory plea, “If I have found favor in your sight, please make known to me your ways [‫ ]הודעני נא את־דרכך‬that I may know you [‫ ]ואדעך‬in order to find favor in your sight.230 Consider too that this nation is your people” (33:13). The successful measure by which Moses and Israel will know that they have found favor in YHWH’s sight is the presence of God dwelling among Israel, which sets Israel apart from other nations, as expressed in Moses’ continuing plea, “How shall it be known [‫ ]במה ִיוָּדַ ע‬that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people? Is it not in your going with us, so that we are distinct, I and your people, from every other people?” (33:16). 226

The presence of the ‫ כבוד‬in the tabernacle makes Sinai mobile and enables the Israelites to continue their journey to the promised land, which is the central concern raised in Exod 33:3–6; see Moberly, At the Mountain of God, 109–10. 227 On the ‫ פנים‬of God as “presence,” see Hartenstein, “‘Das Angesicht,’” 157–83; Propp, Exodus 19–40, 604; and Moberly, At the Mountain of God, 74. 228 As noted by Propp, Exodus 19–40, 598, YHWH sending a messenger demotes Israel to the status of other nations. Therefore Moses responds that only YHWH’s presence will set Israel apart from the other nations. 229 According to Aurelius, Fürbitter, 115–117, the knowledge and character of God is the main theme of Exod 32–34, especially in light of the key texts of 33:12–17 and 34:6–7 that describe God’s character. 230 ‫ דרך‬indicates here the “ways” or character of God; see Moberly, At the Mountain of God, 73.

170

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

Third, the sections likewise debate the significance of the exodus for Israel, and who is the agent responsible for the exodus. 231 The culmination of the Priestly covenant statements with “They will know that I am the Lord their God, who brought them out [‫ ]יצא‬of the land of Egypt that I might dwell among them. I am the Lord their God” in Exod 29:46 is contrasted in Exod 32–34 with a debate over who has brought Israel out of Egypt. According to the people of Israel, who are losing faith in their leadership, and YHWH, who is losing patience with a rebellious Israel, Moses is the man who brought Israel up from Egypt (32:1, 7, 8; 33:1 with the verb ‫)עלה‬. According to Aaron, the “gods” represented by the golden calf have brought Israel up (‫)עלה‬ from Egypt (Exod 32:4). Moses however insists that YHWH has brought Israel out of Egypt (32:11 ‫)יצא‬. Fourth, there are contrasts with cultic objects, times, and personnel between the sections. The Priestly account brackets Exod 32–34 with the Priestly concept of the Sabbath in Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3, whereas the nonPriestly material likewise introduces its own cultic times in describing instructions for the agrarian festival calendar in 34:18–25: ‫( חג המצות‬Exod 34:18), on which Israel is to work for six days, but on the seventh day they are to rest (‫)תשׁבת‬. Also the ‫חג האסיף‬, ‫חג שׁבעת‬, and ‫חג הפסח‬, are described in the cultic calendar of Exod 34 (34:21, 25). In the Priestly materials, the cultic objects of ‫( ארון העדת‬Exod 25:16, 21–22),232 ‫( כפרת‬Exod 25:17–22),233 the tent, and the altar, are described as legitimate cultic items (Exod 25–40). In Exod 32–34, cultic objects are the ‫( לחות העדת‬Exod 31:18; 32:15–19; 34:28–29) or alternatively the ‫אבנים‬/‫( לחות האבן‬Exod 24:12; 31:18; 34:1; 34:4), the golden calf ‫ עגל מסכה‬and molten images ‫ מסכה‬to which the people contribute building materials (Exod 32:4, 8; 34:17), and the tent of meeting outside the camp (33:7–11).234 In the Priestly account, Aaron and his sons are 231

As noted by James W. Watts, “Aaron and the Golden Calf in the Rhetoric of the Pentateuch,” JBL 130 (2011): 424, the question of who brought Israel out of Egypt is significant in Exod 32–34, as it is referenced nine times. The motif reflects Israel’s waning faith and memory in what YHWH has done for Israel in bringing them out of Egypt; see Propp, Exodus 19–40, 548. 232 The ark and cherubim are considered legitimate cultic items in the Priestly account, in contrast to the golden calf of Exod 32; see Houtman, Exodus III, 385. 233 Notably the ‫ כפרת‬as an item related to forgiveness or cleansing is not referenced in the context of covenant renewal in Exod 19–40. On the ‫ כפרת‬as a place of atonement, see Houtman, Exodus III, 382. 234 There is a debate over the function of the tent of meeting and its opening in the Priestly and non-Priestly accounts, namely, whether it is a place for sacrifices or prophetic word revelation; see Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 294. According to 25:22, YHWH speaks to Moses from the tent, whereas in 33:11 YHWH speaks to Moses “face to face”; see Hauge, Descent, 160–63. There is no scholarly agreement as to whether the tent in Exod 33:7–11 reflects a pre-Priestly tradition, as argued by Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple

The Function of the Priestly Base Layer in the Tabernacle Narrative

171

consecrated for the priesthood as a constitutive element of YHWH’s care for Israel (‫ מלא יד‬Exod 28:41; 29:9, 29, 33, 35),235 and instructions are given for making the altar (‫מזבח‬, 27:1–7), and consecrating the altar (29:12–16). In Exod 32–34, Aaron leads an illegitimate cult with idols and sacrifices and calls for a celebration of a festival (Exod 32:4–5 ‫עגל מסכה‬, ‫עלת‬, ‫שׁלמים‬, ‫חג‬, ‫)מזבח‬. Subsequently, the Levites are promoted as a consequence of Aaron’s idolatry to respond to the sin and failure (‫ מלא יד‬Exod 32:26–29).236 There is also a contrast in the obedience of the characters in cultic matters: in the Priestly account, Moses and the people do everything according to the commands of YHWH, whereas in the non-Priestly account, Moses usurps divine initiative and authority, and Aaron and the people act by their own initiative.237 Finally, the Priestly and non-Priestly accounts are contrasted in their understanding of the covenant. Exod 29:45–46 presents the significance of the tabernacle as YHWH dwelling among the Israelites as the culmination of the covenant promises of Gen 17:7–8; Exod 6:2–8 in Exod 29:45–46. The Sabbath as the sign and the ‫ ברית עולם‬surrounding the golden calf episode and covenant renewal of Exod 32–34 is made into the sign of the Sinai covenant, aligned with the signs of the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants in the Priestly narrative (Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3). The presence of God as relating to the validity of the covenant is also crucial in Exod 32–34: Moses appeals to YHWH to remember the oath to the patriarchs and maintain his promises to Israel (Exod 32:13; 33:1). In Exod 34, YHWH makes a covenant with Israel (34:10 ‫ )אני כֹרֵ ת ברית‬to do wondrous deeds to save Israel (‫)אעשׂה נפלאת‬.238 In the ensuing covenant renewal stipulations, Israel is not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land (34:12, 15). Moses writes the words of the ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Service in Ancient Israel (2nd ed.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 260–71; Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 230; Michael Konkel, Sünde und Vergebung: Eine Rekonstruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte der hinteren Sinaiperikope (Exodus 32–34) vor dem Hintergrund aktueller Pentateuchmodelle (FAT 58; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 301; Schmitt, Zelt, 225–27, or is one of the latest texts in the Pentateuch; so e.g. Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 15. 235 On ‫ מלא יד‬as a technical term for inauguration into priestly service, see Propp, Exodus 19–40, 452. 236 As noted by Blum, Studien, 56, the setting apart of the Levites as a special priesthood marks the end of the vocation of priesthood for all Israel established in the nonPriestly account in Exod 19:6 and realized in 24:3–8. 237 On the motif of obedience, see Hauge, Descent, 64, 75. 238 Crüsemann, Torah, 53. The unusual ‫ כרת ברית‬without mention of a covenant partner in 34:10 has to be understood with reference to 34:27, which brackets the laws of the Privilegrecht of vv. 11–26 with the concluding covenant reference “by these words I make a covenant with you and with Israel,” indicating that Moses and Israel are the covenant partners; see Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 366.

172

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

covenant on the tablets of stone, including the obligations Israel is to observe (34:27 ‫)על־פי הדברים האלה כרתי אתך ברית ואת־ישׂראל‬.239 Finally, the words of the covenant are called the ten words (34:28 ‫ויכתב על־הלחת את דברי הברית‬ ‫)עשׂרת הדברים‬. How then should these connections be interpreted? Traditionally most scholars presumed that Exod 32–34 constitutes the pre-Priestly continuation of Exod 19–24, either as part of the J or E source, Deuteronomistic texts, or independent traditions.240 Several scholars still consider the majority of Exod 32–34 to be pre-Priestly.241 There is also an increasing tendency to view sec-

239

This includes the obligations of the Privilegrecht of Exod 34:11–26. See the extensive history of an earlier phase of research by Zenger, Die Sinaitheophanie: Untersuchungen zum jahwistischen und elohistischen Geschichtswerk (FZB 3; Würzburg: Echter, 1971), 207–31, including Wellhausen, Kraetschmar, Baentsch, Smend, Gressmann, Eissfeldt, Rudolph, Beer and Galling, Simpson, Hölscher, Noth, Beyerlin, Seebass, Newman, and Mowinckel. A survey of more recent studies can be found in Konrad Schmid, “Israel am Sinai: Etappen der Forschungsgeschichte zu Exod 32– 34 in seinen Kontexten,” in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Exod 32–34 und Dtn 9–10 (ed. Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum; VWGTh 18; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001), 9–40. As noted by Schmid, “Israel am Sinai,” 15, though Exod 32–34 were universally considered pre-Priestly, the source assignment of virtually every verse in this section is contested between J, E, and a JE redactor that combined them. Schmid concludes: “Der gegebene Überblick zeigt zumindest dies, dass eine Beschreibung von Minimalkonsensen als Zusammenfassung ausscheiden muss – die unterschiedlichen Zugangsweisen der Forschung sind zu divergent, als dass sich aus ihnen ein handhabbarer größter gemeinsamer Nenner extrahieren ließe” (33). Herbert C. Brichto, “The Worship of the Golden Calf: A Literary Analysis of a Fable of Idolatry,” HUCA 54 (1983): 4 is in the minority in seeing Exod 32–34 in its entirety as from a single narrator, taking the discrepancies which usually give rise to diachronic analysis to constitute deliberate literary artistry. 241 Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 10–16 (with some later additions from a late Deuteronomistic redaction in 32:13; 33:1b, 6*, 7–11; 34:33–34, a Mal’ak redaction in 32:34aβ; 33:2; 34:11–27, and a Hexateuchal redaction in 33:18–23); Blum, Studien, 333– 34; Zenger, “Die vorpriesterschriftlichen Pentateuchtexte,” in Einleitung in das Alte Testament (ed. Erich Zenger et al; 8th ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008): 176–78; and Van Seters, Life of Moses, 245–60. According to Konkel, Sünde, 248–49; idem., “Exodus 32–34 and the Quest for an Enneateuch,” in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings (ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas Römer, and Konrad Schmid; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2011), 178–80, there are three compositional layers: a pre-Deuteronomic golden calf narrative comprising most of Exod 32*, a second pre-Deuteronomic stage of composition that added 33:12–17 and Exod 34:1–27*, and finally a Deuteronomistic stage that is post-Priestly, including 24:12; 31:18; 32:4–5, 7–16, 19; 33:1–6; 34:8–11, 28–35*. Jacques Vermeylen, “L’affaire du veau d’or (Exod 32–34). Une clé pour la ‘question deutéronomiste’?” ZAW 97 (1985): 21–23 sees four stages of Deuteronomistic redaction in the pre-Priestly Sinai pericope. Crüsemann, 240

The Function of the Priestly Base Layer in the Tabernacle Narrative

173

tions of Exod 32–34 as post-Priestly.242 A detailed examination of the relationship of the Priestly and non-Priestly texts of Exod 32–34 is beyond the scope of this current study and is tied to questions of Pentateuchal criticism that far exceed the boundaries of Exod 32–34.243 For the purposes of this thesis, it suffices to say that the sequence of theophany and covenant (Exod 19–24*), covenant breaking with violation of the image prohibition (Exod 32*), and covenant renewal (Exod 33–34*) can be considered pre-Priestly.244 As noted by Crüsemann, “Do not the instructions to Moses in Exod 25–31 to build a shrine presume that their carrying out in Exod 35ff. is separated from them by the remarkable events in 32–34? We cannot really imagine a text in which instructions and their fulfillment simply follow each other without some kind of break.”245 This assessment is supported by parallels with ancient Near Eastern temple building accounts, in which instructions for temple building are interrupted by unfortunate events, after which the building is completed.246 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Torah, 48–54 sees much of Exod 32–34 as being pre-Priestly but also considers portions of it as post-Priestly. 242 For an overview of scholars who understand portions of Exod 32–34 as postPriestly, see Konkel, Sünde, 21–30, 248–79. So for example Otto, “Die Nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im Buch Exodus,” 91–99 argues that Exod 32–34 is a post-Priestly combination of Priestly and Deuteronomistic language that corrects the Priestly tabernacle account. 243 See Schmid, “Israel am Sinai,” 9–11, 33–35 on the complexity of this question and how many “Schwerpunkte” of Pentateuchal research are concentrated in Exod 32–34. 244 Zenger, “Die vorpriesterschriftlichen Pentateuchtexte,” 178; Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 10–15 (assigned to Albertz’s KEX narrative, redacted by REX before the Priestly redaction; Albertz however considers Exod 34:11–27 as deriving from a later “Mal’ak-Redaktion”). Cf. Zenger, Die Sinaitheophanie, 230, on the pre-Priestly assignment of 34:28, and also Crüsemann, Torah, 52–53, who argues that the story of sin and forgiveness in Exod 32–34 are pre-Deuteronomistic. According to Blum, Studien, 47, 72, the pre-Priestly KD account of Exod 19–34 is a conceptually coherent composition despite its complexity and use of older traditions. Blum suggests that the connection between Exod 19–24 and 32–34 is seen from the contrast of Exod 32 with Exod 19–24, wherein Exod 32 represents an “ideological negation of all previous experiences” at the mountain in Exod 19–24, and from Exod 34, which summarizes several key motifs from Exod 19–24, 32–33 (Studien, 54, 65–66, 88–89). According to Propp, Exodus 19–40, 553, Exod 32:6 parodies the covenant ratification of Exod 24:5, and together form a pre-Priestly covenant complex. Also, on the integral pre-Priestly continuation of Exod 19–24 in 32–34 see Hauge, Descent, 66–70 and Childs, Exodus, 604. 245 Crüsemann, Torah, 48; so also Utzschneider, Heiligtum, 82–86. 246 E.g., the Samsuiluna B inscription discussed by Hurowitz, I Have Built, 63–65, where building instructions are disrupted by a rebellion, followed the completion of the building.

174

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

What then is the significance of the covenant and its relation to the laws of Exod 34:11–26 in the non-Priestly Exod 32–34? According to Lothar Perlitt, the structure of Exod 32 and 34 envisions the consequences of Israel’s idolatry, and Exod 34:28 indicates the possibility of forgiveness and renewal based on observance of the ‫ דברי הברית‬on the tablets.247 The covenant pertains to Israel maintaining its special status among the nations. Correct worship of YHWH with monolatry, festivals, and sacrifices is of central importance for the possibility of renewal of the covenant in the non-Priestly material in Exod 34.248 The cultic instructions in Exod 34:11–26 show that Exod 32–34 as a whole are concerned with correct worship; in contrast, the adjoining Priestly texts in Exod 25–31 and 35–40 interpret this theme of cult 247 Lothar Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT 36; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 211. Despite its use of earlier traditions, the pattern of sin and forgiveness in Exod 32 and 34 should be considered an indissoluble narrative unity; see Crüsemann, Torah, 50; Childs, Exodus, 560; and Propp, Exodus 19–40, 152 on RJE forming this unity. As argued by Crüsemann, Torah, 52, the theme of the tablets is significant for the unity of Exod 32–34: “The narrative unity of 32–34 requires disclosure of the contents of the tablets as well as the renewal of the destroyed tablets, and there are no literary-critical reasons that could justify the dissolution of this clear structure.” The tablets at 32:19 and 34:1–10 symbolize the breaking and renewal of the covenant; see Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 264 and Childs, Exodus, 608–11. 248 Hans-Christoph Schmitt, “Das sogenannte jahwistische Privilegrecht in Exod 34:10– 28 als Komposition der spätdeuteronomistischen Endredaktion des Pentateuch,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngeren Diskussion (ed. Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte; BZAW 315; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 171. Schmitt however sees the laws of Exod 34:11–26 as a composition of the final redaction of the Pentateuch. According to Blum, Studien, 68–70, the laws of 34:11–26 are a compilation of all the instructions Israel has received up to this point, including Exod 13; 20–23; and also related to Exod 24, as a later addition to Exod 24:3–8. Arguing for Exod 34:11–26 as an older lawcode in part or in whole are, classically, Wellhausen, Composition, 81–85 and, more recently Jörn Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes Ex 34,10– 26: Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken in vordeuteronomischer Zeit (FRLANT 114; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 210 and Crüsemann, Torah, 116–22. Halbe, Privilegrecht, 223, 314–15, argues for multiple stages of development for the laws, with the earliest from the pre-Deuteronomistic Jahwistic law collection. A basic text in vv. 10aβb–11a, 11b, 12–15a, 18–26* has been supplemented by stages of editing in v. 19bα, 25bβ, followed by interpretations added in vv. 15b–16, 24a, an addition of v. 17, and a final “Wallfahrtsschicht” redactional layer in vv. 18aα, 18aβ, 22–24b, 26a. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, “Das Privilegrecht Exod 34:11–26 in der Diskussion,” in Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament – Gestalt und Wirkung. Festschrift für Horst Seebass zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Stefan Beyerle, Günter Mayer, and Hans Strauß; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999), 44–54 concludes that the Privilegrecht has a pre-exilic Grundtext in 34:12, 14, 15abβ, 16, 18*–23, 24b–26* that is earlier than the festival laws of the Book of the Covenant in Exod 23. This Grundtext was supplemented by a Deuteronomistic redaction in vv. 11, 13, 15bα, 17, 24a, 25*.

The Function of the Priestly Base Layer in the Tabernacle Narrative

175

and worship from the perspective of Priestly theology.249 As Crüsemann argues: “Forgiveness expresses itself in the renewal of the tablets on which the cult desired by God was proclaimed, giving Israel a possible future with this God. The cult-commandments give the stipulations for the possible presence of God in Israel.”250 The Privilegrecht of Exod 34:11–26 is surrounded by texts that describe the renewal of the covenant in Exod 34:10, 27–28, and evinces the concern for how cultic regulations are integrated with the covenant in the covenant renewal.251 The absence of a covenant ceremony in Exod 34 indicates that this is not a covenant establishment ritual as in Exod 24 but a renewal of the covenant of Exod 24.252 In this regard, Exod 34:11–26 is characterized as a summary of the Decalogue and Book of the Covenant which were integrated with the covenant ceremony in Exod 24 and focus on specific cultic issues tailored to the context of Israel’s cultic sin in Exod 32.253 The laws of Exod 34:11–26 as embedded in the narrative context of Israel’s rebellion and restoration express the understanding of law that constitute the entire Torah: “Das ‘Gesetz’ ist Israel gegeben – als Hilfe, um im Gottesbund, d.h. vor JHWH, leben zu können, trotz und mit aller menschlichen Schwäche.”254 The laws of the Privilegrecht are understood as the “Marken-Zeichen” establishing the identity of the people of YHWH, who are

249 So Crüsemann, Torah, 48, “The cultic instructions in Exod 34:11ff. show that, as a whole, chapters 32–34 are concerned with correct worship, and the adjoining priestly texts could connect positively or negatively. It is nevertheless doubtful whether we should interpret the priestly conception, in which all the emphasis is laid upon the establishment of true worship, as an extrapolation and interpretation of a legal document which preceded it. It is more likely that in Exod 32–34 the redactor had an older, preexilic tradition in which there was already a concern for the matter of the correct YHWH cult. The priestly document had to set everything in the presence of the holy God.” As noted by Hauge, Descent, 56 n. 70, priestly interests are integral to Exod 19–40 as a whole, both in texts considered P and non-P, and the priestly portions in Exod 19–24, 32–34 should not be considered superficial priestly redactions. 250 Crüsemann, Torah, 53. According to Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 373 the relationship between Exod 24:8 and 34:27 shows that Exod 34 is not the establishment of a covenant that replaces the one in Exod 24 but a “Bundestext” that reacts to the sin of Exod 32 and lays the fundations for how Israel can remain in the covenant with YHWH and how YHWH can realize his promise to dwell among the Israelites. 251 Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 365. Moberly, At the Mountain of God, 95 considers these laws the covenant stipulations, as does Halbe, Privilegrecht, 255. 252 Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 365. 253 As noted by Aurelius, Fürbitter, 120, the cultic laws are thus an appropriate response to mediate Israel’s cultic sin. See also Moberly, At the Mountain of God, 96; and Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 365, on the cultic themes of the Privilegrecht laws. 254 Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 365.

176

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

thus enabled to live in the presence of YHWH.255 They can thus be understood to stand in contrast to the function of the Sabbath as the identity marker of Israel in Exod 31:12–17. In summary, Exod 32–34 presents a paradigmatic narrative of idolatry leading to covenant failure and subsequent covenant renewal based on the laws of Exod 34:11–26 that is contrasted in its main themes with the Priestly account that brackets it in Exod 25–31, 35–40.

E. The Priestly Tabernacle account as Part of the H Composition Can the Priestly tabernacle narrative delineated in Exod 19:1, 2aβ; 20:8–11; 24:15b–18a; 25:1–2a, 8; 29:43–46; 31:12–17; 35:1–3; 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33– 35 be understood as part of an H composition? It has frequently been noted that Exod 31:12–17 and 35:1–3 structure the tabernacle account of Exod 25– 31, 35–40 into a chiasm around the non-Priestly account of Exod 32–34.256 According to Ruwe, the key to understanding this structure of Exod 25–40, with the Sabbath surrounding Exod 32–34, is the programmatic parenesis of the Holiness Code as stated in Lev 19:30; 26:2: ‫את־ שׁבתתי תשׁמרו ומקדשׁי‬ ‫תיראו אני יהוה‬.257 Both the tabernacle as the place of YHWH’s indwelling among the Israelites as sacred space (29:43–46), and the Sabbath as sacred time (31:13) advance Israel’s holiness as two sides of the same reality defining sacred time and sacred space.258 The same significance is noted by Israel Knohl: Exod 31:12–17 and 35:1–3 bring the Sabbath and tabernacle into close connection to emphasize the qualitative similarity between the Sabbath and the temple and to exhort reverence for both by strengthening the bond between the people and the temple.259 Additionally, as argued by Otto and Blum, the programmatic statement on the function of the tabernacle as housing the presence of YHWH among Israel in Exod 29:43–46 is the foundation

255

Hossfeld, “Das Privilegrecht,” 54. Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 376 further describes the Privilegrecht as “identitätsbildende Abgrenzung.” 256 Helmut Utzschneider, “Tabernacle,” in The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Craig A. Evans, and Joel N. Lohr; VTSup 164; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 291. Cf. also Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 568 and Benno Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus, Interpreted by Benno Jacob (trans. Walter Jacob; Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1992), 996 on Exod 25–31/32–34/35–40 as an intentionally connected trilogy. 257 Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 121–27. 258 Childs, Exodus, 541 and Propp, Exodus 19–40, 692. 259 Knohl, Sanctuary, 195–96.

The Priestly Tabernacle Account as the H Composition

177

for the parenesis to holiness in the Holiness Code.260 As developed by Ruwe, the laws of the Holiness Code are structured around the themes of sanctuary (Lev 17:1–22:33) and Sabbath (23:1–25:55), with the key parenetic statements in Lev 26:2 inculcating obedience to the Sabbath commands and reverence of the sanctuary. The same concerns for observance of the Sabbath and reverence of the sanctuary are developed in all of the texts that I have argued belong to the Priestly narrative of Exod 25–40: Exod 24:15b–18a; 25:1–2a, 8; 29:43–46; 31:12–17; 35:1–3; 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33–35. If Gen 1:1–2:4a is a composition of the Holiness School with its concern to establish the foundations for observance of the festivals and the Sabbath as holy, it follows that the links back to Gen 1:1–2:4a between creation, tabernacle, and Sabbath seen in the Priestly tabernacle account in Exod 24:15b–18a; 25:1–2a, 8; 31:12–17; 35:1–3; 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33–35 likewise are from the Holiness School. The Holiness School thus designed the tabernacle pericope, integrating older Priestly traditions (Exod 25–29*), as the culmination of creation with the establishment of sacred space (‫ מקדשׁ‬Exod 25:8) and sacred time (‫ שׁבת‬Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3) as the prerequisites for YHWH to dwell among the Israelites, using the terminology of the central parenesis in the Holiness Code (Lev 19:30; 26:2, ‫)את־ שׁבתתי תשׁמרו ומקדשׁי תיראו אני יהוה‬. The Priestly covenant concepts developed in Exod 29:45–46; 31:12–17 continue the line of covenant texts developing from Gen 9, 17 and Exod 6:2– 8 by establishing the presence of YHWH among the Israelites as the culmination of YHWH being God for Israel and establishing the Sabbath as the sign of the Sinai covenant relationship between Israel and YHWH. The Holiness Code’s conception of covenant brackets the golden calf and covenant renewal account of Exod 32–34, which presents covenant renewal based on the laws of the Privilegrecht (Exod 34:11–26) that establish Israel’s identity and presents its own interpretation of the conceptions of the presence of God and the possibility of covenant continuation. The combination of the non-Priestly and Priestly accounts produces new meanings and implications, with a thematic coherence and theological richness that transcends the original components.261 So, according to Timmer, the Sabbath rest and sanctification frames Israel’s sin of the golden calf as a sign that reminds God and Israel of their eternal relationship, and especially as a sign of the quality of holiness that is a prerequisite for YHWH to dwell

260

Eckart Otto, “Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26,” in Levitikus als Buch (ed. H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling, BBB 119; Berlin: Philo, 1999), 175 and Blum, Studien, 299, 318. 261 Propp, Exodus 19–40, 370–71. In this regard, Propp is incorrect to say that the Priestly account intends to supplant or replace the non-Priestly Exod 32–34.

178

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

among the Israelites (Exod 31:13; 29:45).262 In both Exod 32–34 and the surrounding Priestly texts, the presence of God is something dangerous that may consume a sinful Israel and thus requires special measures of Israel to maintain holiness. The structure of Exod 25–40, with construction commands (Exod 25–31) and execution report (Exod 35–40) and the Sabbath texts bracketing Exod 32–34, expresses a pattern of creation, fall, and restoration that highlights the tension between God’s presence and the sinfulness of humanity.263 This structure forms Exod 32–34 into a negative response to the instructions in 25–31, and Exod 35–40 into a positive response.264 It also creates a sense of irony: While Moses is on the mountain receiving the instructions for legitimate worship and the ordination of Aaron, Aaron is helping the impatient Israelites fabricate a cult to secure God’s presence in their midst, not knowing he is destined for the priesthood.265 The structure provided by the Holiness Code accepts the critique of the Aaronic priesthood from Exod 32–34 and allows the Aaronides to continue administering the liturgy of the cult,266 but it emphasizes reverence of the sanctuary and observance of the Sabbath as the means for Israel’s continuing relationship with YHWH as special concerns of the Holiness Code that go beyond the covenant renewal of Exod 32–34, which was already concerned with the question of how Israel could continue in a covenant relationship with YHWH.267 The Priestly account surrounding Exod 32–34 takes up this theme and offers its own answers to the question of how the covenant relationship will continue. The example of Exod 32–34 bracketed by Exod 25–31 and 35–40 presents a model of covenant renewal that coincides with the ideology of covenant in Lev 26.268 The same theology and motifs of idolatry, Sabbath, and sanctuary from

262

Timmer, Creation, 102. Kearney, “Creation,” 383; and Timmer, Creation, 32–39, 141. Cf. Blum, Studien, 333, who speaks of a sequence of “Bund – Abfall – Wiederherstellung.” According to Propp, Exodus 19–40, 693, the implications of the significance of the Priestly tabernacle extend back to the pessimistic view of humanity seen in the J primeval history, according to which humans cannot be like God or approach God. The Sabbath and tabernacle enable the holiness of Israel and secure the presence of God, thus resolving the problem of the distance between humans and God that develops in the primeval history. 264 Hauge, Descent, 63 and Childs, Exodus, 542–53. 265 Propp, Exodus 19–40, 153, 566. 266 Kearney, “Creation,” 383. The role of Aaron in Exod 32–34 is more nuanced than has usually been considered. As noted by Watts, “Aaron,” 429, Exod 32:1–6 places responsibility more on the people than on Aaron. The account was not too damaging for the reputation of the Aaronides. 267 Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 10–11. 268 As noted by Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 13, the covenant ideology of Lev 26 corresponds with the theology of covenant renewal from Exod 34. 263

179

The Priestly Tabernacle Account as the H Composition

Exod 25–40 are seen in Lev 26:1–2, which connects the concepts of idolatry, Sabbath, and reverence of the sanctuary to the national fate of Israel: 269 ‫לא־תעשׂו לכם אלילם ופסל ומצבה לא־תקימו לכם‬ ‫ואבן משׂכית לא תתנו בארצכם להשׁתחות עליה כי אני יהוה אלהיכם‬ ‫את־שׁבבתי תשׁמרו ומקדשׁי תיראו אני יהוה אלהיכם‬

Lev 26:1 Lev 26:2

Lev 26:1–2 is also a summary statement that encompasses in shorthand all of the Holiness Code legislation.270 In the words of Jacob Milgrom, the text “forms a transitional unit that functions as both summary and prolepsis: a capsule containing the essence of God’s commandments, which are determinative for the survival or destruction of Israel’s national existence, the subject of the following verses, 26:3–46.”271 Lev 26:1–2 thus combines idolatry, Sabbath, and reverence of the sanctuary – the main themes of the H composition which structure Exod 25–31 and 35–40 and bracket Exod 32–34 – to set the background for the covenant of Lev 26. Further, Lev 26:34-45 links back to the Sabbath as the sign of the Sinai covenant in Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3 and its relationship to the covenant breaking in Exod 32–34.272 As noted by Hans-Ulrich Steymans, according to Lev 26:34, Israel has violated the Sabbath, which is the sign of the covenant at Sinai.273 This forms an analogy to the covenant with Abraham in Gen 17: the covenant is eternal, but failure to observe the sign of the covenant results in the party violating the covenant being removed from the community (‫פרר‬ Gen 17:14) and from the covenant blessings. Though Israel has broken the covenant (‫ פרר‬Lev 26:15), YHWH will not break his side of the promise ( ‫לא‬ ‫ פרר‬Lev 26:44).274 Lev 26:39–45 presents the exile as the result of Israel’s breaking of the Sinai covenant, but the only offense specifically mentioned is failure to observe the Sabbath (26:34, 43):

269

Thomas Hieke, Levitikus 17–27 (HThKAT 6.2; Freiburg: Herder, 2015), 1060–62; Michael Hildebrand, Structure and Theology in the Holiness Code (Bibal Dissertation Series 10; North Richland Hills, TX: Bibal, 2004), 296–97; and Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27 (AB 3B; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 2277–79. 270 Hieke, Levitikus 17–27, 1062; Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 98–100. 271 Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2277. 272 On the connection between Exod 31:12–17 and Lev 26, see Achenbach, “Das Heiligkeitsgesetz und die sakralen Ordnungen,” 159–60; Gross, “‘Rezeption,’” 51–55. 273 Hans-Ulrich Steymans, “Verheissung und Drohung: Lev 26,” in Levitikus als Buch (ed. H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling; BBB 119; Bodenheim: Philo, 1999), 299. 274 Thomas Hieke, “The Covenant in Leviticus 26: A Concept of Admonition and Redemption,” in Covenant in the Persian Period (ed. Richard J. Bautch and Gary N. Knoppers; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 78.

180

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40 ‫והנשׁארים בכם ימקו בעונם בארצת איביכם ואף בעונת אבתם אתם ימקו‬

26:39

‫והתודו את־עונם ואת־עון אבתם במעלם אשׁר מעלו־בי‬ ‫ואף אשׁר־הלכו עמי בקרי‬ ‫אף־אני אלך עמם בקרי והבאתי אתם בארץ איביהם‬ ‫או־אז יכנע לבבם הערל ואז ירצו את־עונם‬ ‫וזכרתי את־בריתי יעקוב ואף את־בריתי יצחק ואף את־בריתי אברהם אזכר‬ ‫והארץ אזכר‬ ‫והארץ תעזב מהם ותרץ את־שׁבתתיה בהשׁמה מהם‬ ‫והם ירצו את־עונם יען וביען במשׁפטי מאסו ואת־חקתי געלה נפשׁם‬ ‫ואף־גם־זאת בהיותם בארץ איביהם לא־מאסתים‬ ‫ולא־געלתים לכלתם להפר בריתי אתם כי אני יהוה אלהיהם‬ ‫וזכרתי להם ברית ראשׁנים אשׁר הוצאתי־אתם מארץ מצרים‬ ‫לעיני הגוים להית להם לאלהים אני יהוה‬

26:40 26:41 26:42 26:43 26:44 26:45

As with the golden calf episode of Exod 32–34, the covenant on God’s part is indissoluble, and observance of the Sabbath is the key to the continuity of the covenant on Israel’s part, as expressed by the bracketing of Exod 32–34 with Exod 31:12–17 and 35:1–3.275 The observance of the Sabbath in Lev 26 becomes the symbol of Israel’s total negation of idolatry and is the expression of their absolute loyalty to YHWH.276 All of the texts assigned to the Priestly base layer in Exod 25–40 (Exod 24:15b–18a; 25:1–2a, 8; 29:43–46; 31:12– 17; 35:1–3; 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33–35) can thus be seen as working together to form a paradigmatic narrative structured by the Holiness School around the golden calf and covenant renewal narrative of Exod 32–34. This narrative teaches Israel the significance of revering the sanctuary and observing the Sabbath as the antithesis of idolatry (Lev 26:1–2), and shows how these concepts relate to the fate of the covenant from the perspective of the Holiness Code in Lev 26.

F. The H Composition in Lev 1–16 Assigning the sequence of Exod 24:15b–18a; 40:33–35 to the H composition raises the question of how or whether the H composition continues into the book of Leviticus, where the appearance of the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬in Lev 9:23–24 continues the motif from Exod 24:15b–18a; 40:33–35. The instructions for the consecration of Aaron and sons to priestly service in Exod 28–29 differ from the execution report of these instructions in Lev 8–9, which has led 275

Timmer, Creation, 11; Knohl, Sanctuary, 16. Gnana Robinson, The Origin and Development of the Old Testament Sabbath: A Comprehensive Exegetical Approach (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1988), 265. 276

The H Composition in Lev 1–16

181

scholars such as Frevel to remove all of Lev 8–9 from the Priestly narrative,277 and Otto, Pola, and many others to end their PG narrative in Exod 29:45–46 or 40:35.278 But these differences can be explained as the accumulation of later supplements to a core of instructions and execution in Exod 28–29 and Lev 8–9 that originally corresponded to one another as argued by Christophe Nihan;279 this material has then been structured as an eight-day Priestly inauguration ritual.280 Nevertheless, there is evidence of tension within Lev 9, and the connection of Lev 9:23–24 to the main themes of the preceding Priestly narratives is tenuous: The blessing offered by Aaron and his completion of offerings including the ‫ עלה‬and ‫( חלבים‬Lev 9:19–22) is doubled with the blessing offered by Moses and Aaron and the appearance of the glory of YHWH to all the people followed by fire from the Lord consuming the ‫ עלה‬and the ‫ חלבים‬on the altar (9:23–24).281 Especially the fire coming from YHWH described in 9:24 is in tension with the notion of the fire already burning throughout the offerings of vv. 8–21.282 Several scholars have taken this tension as a starting point for dividing the chapter into a narrative layer and a ritual tradition, whether they see the ritual tradition as earlier and integrated into the narrative layer, or whether they understand the ritual tradition to have been added to the narrative context of the Sinai account, with the narrative emphasizing the appearance of the ‫כבוד‬ ‫ יהוה‬to Israel (Lev 9:4, 6) culminating in Lev 9:23–24 as the high point of the sacrificial system and priesthood.283 Janowski removes the blessing by Moses and Aaron as well as the fire going out from YHWH in v. 24a as secondary, and takes the blessing of Aaron in 9:22, 23b, 24b as the conclusion of PG.284 Von Rad parses the chapter into P A (vv. 3, 4a, 5–6, 15–22, 23b, 24bα) and PB (vv. 1, 2, 4b, 7, 8–14, 23a, 24abβ), likewise making a distinction between the 277

Frevel, Mit Blick, 165–80. Otto, “Forschungen,” 26–27, 34–36 and Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 309, 325. Also the presence of ritual materials in Lev 8–9 has contributed to its removal from PG because PG is understood to be uninterested in ritual matters. 279 Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 52, 146. 280 As noted by Frevel, Mit Blick, 157, 173–76, the eight-day ritual connects not to the creation week and the dating scheme of Exod 24:15b–18a; 40:17, 33–35 but rather is related to the temporal frame of other eight-day purification rituals seen in Lev 12:3; 14:10, 23; 15:14, 29. 281 Martin Noth, Leviticus (trans. J.E. Anderson; OTL; London: SCM Press, 1965), 77; Westermann, “Herrlichkeit,” 237. 282 Struppe, Die Herrlichkeit, 91; Karl Elliger, Leviticus (HAT 4; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966), 122-23; Wagner, Herrlichkeit, 101; and von Rad, Priesterschrift, 83. 283 Cf. the discussion in Koch, Priesterschrift, 70–71. Thus according to Wagner, Herrlichkeit, 102, Lev 9:4b–6 is linked to vv. 23–24 as an announcement and event that bracket the ritual instructions in vv. 9–22. 284 Janowski, Sühne, 315–16. 278

182

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

two blessings.285 Elliger assigns Lev 9:3–5, 7a, 8a, 15*, 16–19, 20*, 22, 23b, 24b to his Pg1 and 9:1–2, 6, 7b, 8b, 9–15a, 23a to a later Pg2, assigning the blessing by Moses and Aaron in v. 23 to a secondary layer in relation to the main Priestly narrative (Pg1).286 Lohfink sees the Priestly narrative in 9:1*, 2– 3, 4b–7, 8*, 12a, 15a, 21b–24,287 and Koch argues for Lev 9:1, 6–7*, 22–24 as the original narrative;288 Lohfink and Koch thus maintain both blessings as part of the original Priestly narrative. Weimar argues for Lev 9:1a, 2–3*, 4b, 5b, 7*, 8*, 12a, 15a, 21b, 23, 24b and thus the blessing by Moses and Aaron as the original PG sequence,289 as does Ursula Struppe, who keeps Lev 9:3– 7aα, 8a, 12a(?), 15 (?), 23–24 as part of the Priestly narrative.290 As argued by Struppe, there are many links between Exod 24:15b–18a; 40:34–35; and Lev 9:23–24, with connecting words ‫( בוא אל אהל מועד‬Exod 40:35; Lev 9:23), ‫ראה‬, ‫אשׁ‬, ‫אכל‬, and ‫( כבוד יהוה‬Exod 24:17; Lev 9:24) that support keeping these texts in a common sequence and layer.291 Also Nihan notes that 40:34 is a redactional link between the motif of Moses not being able to enter the tent and the successful entrance of Moses and Aaron in Lev 9:23, which connects the end of Lev 9 to the Priestly narrative in Exod 40:34.292 Rather than assigning the intervening ritual instructions in Lev 1–9, and the inauguration rituals in Lev 9:8–21 to later supplements, which has been popular since Julius Wellhausen,293 it can be argued that this redactional link in Lev 9:23–24 integrates the intervening diverse cultic material between Lev 1:1–9:22 in the same way that the narrative high point of the tabernacle account in Exod 29:43–46 integrates surrounding cultic traditions from Exod 25:9–29:42.294 The climactic interpretive statements in Exod 29:45–46 and Lev 9:23–24 are interested primarily in expressing the impact of the presence 285

von Rad, Priesterschrift, 82. Elliger, Leviticus, 121. 287 Lohfink, “Priestly Narrative,” 145 n. 29. 288 Koch, Priesterschrift, 70–71. 289 Weimar, Studien, 309 n. 134. For Weimar, the central concern of the section is not the establishment of the cult but the appearance of the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬as a manifestation of the presence of God. 290 Struppe, Die Herrlichkeit, 90–93. Struppe assigns vv. 8–21 to a later redaction because the fire of the burnt offering in vv. 14, 17, 20 contradicts the fire of v. 24a. Therefore the original account contained only an ‫ עלה‬by the people. 291 Struppe, Die Herrlichkeit, 100–2. 292 Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 52–53. 293 Wellhausen, Composition, 142–44. 294 As Klaus Koch, Priesterschrift, 44–45 has noted insightfully, there is a structural parallel between Exod 25–40, where the narratives of Exod 24:15b–18a and 40:34 bracket the instructions (Exod 25–29) and execution (Exod 35–40) of the tabernacle, and Lev 1–9, where the narrative notices of Lev 1:1 and 9:23–24 bracket the ritual instructions of Lev 1– 7 and the inauguration of the sacrificial cult in Lev 8–9. 286

The H Composition in Lev 1–16

183

of God in the tabernacle (Exod 25–40) and the sacrificial cult (Lev 1–9) on the people of Israel and not in priestly issues. The mention of Moses and Aaron jointly blessing the people, as well as the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬appearing to all Israel in Lev 9:4b, 6, 23–24, places the emphasis on Moses attaining authority alongside Aaron in mediating the blessing to the people,295 as well as on all Israel as recipient of the blessings of the priestly service. Though Lev 9:23– 24 lacks the key terms ‫שׁכן‬, ‫קדשׁ‬, and the recognition motif with ‫ ידע‬seen in the other central tabernacle text in Exod 29:43–46 and the other central terms that develop the theology of the Priestly narrative,296 Lev 9:23–24 can be seen to function fittingly as a part of the tabernacle account which connects the priestly and cultic inauguration ritual to the broader narrative context at Sinai. The indwelling of YHWH among the Israelites and the emphasis on the blessing for all Israel coming from the sacrificial cult and priesthood, as well as the positive counterpart to the murmuring of Israel in Exod 16 that the rejoicing of Israel before the Lord expresses in Lev 9:24, function to conclude the indwelling motif from Exod 25:8; 29:45–46 and the recognition motif from Exod 16.297 As Ruwe has noted, these emphases can be understood in light of the concerns of the Holiness Code, as the theme of H is “explizit verwoben” in Lev 9:22ff.298 The influence of H on Lev 9 is also supported by the argument of Weimar that Lev 9 is composed as a “bewusßte Antithese” to the Priestly account of Exod 16,299 which was identified earlier as a significant part of the H composition. Lev 9:23–24 emphasizes the benefit of the priestly cult for all Israel with ‫ כל־העם‬in 9:24 which, according to Ruwe, functions as part of a “narrative verwurzelung des Heiligkeitsgesetz” that emphasizes the implications of the presence of God for the holiness of all Israel and at the same time integrates the priestly sacrifice and consecration traditions from Lev 1–9 and points forward to the Holiness Code in Lev 17–26.300 The continuation of the 295

As noted by Frevel, Mit Blick, 171, the entrance of Moses into the tent along with Aaron is unprecedented in the Priestly literature; cf. Görg, Zelt, 64. The mention of ‫יהוה‬ and the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬appearing to all Israel in vv. 4b, 6 are loosely fitted to the ritual context and can be seen along with vv. 23–24 as links that attach the ritual to the narrative context of Sinai. 296 The absence of terminological links to key Priestly texts has contributed to disconnecting Lev 9 from the Priestly tabernacle narratives by Frevel, Mit Blick, 165 and many others who end PG in Exodus for this reason. 297 Zenger, “Das priester(schrift)liche Werk (P),” 164 and Weimar, Studien, 307–12. 298 Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 45. Ruwe also includes Lev 10 as part of what he calls the “narrative rooting” of the Holiness Code. Lev 10, however, is a post-Lev 17–26 chapter, as argued below. 299 Weimar, Studien, 309. 300 Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 45.

184

Chapter 5: The Holiness Composition in Exod 16–40

motif of the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬from Exod 24:15b–18a and 40:33–35 into Lev 9:23–24 can thus fittingly be considered part of the H composition, whose primary concern is not the priesthood or sacrificial rituals but the holiness of all Israel.301 Following Lev 1:1–9:24*, the remainder of the book of Leviticus consists of what Nihan calls a “priestly manual” on clean vs. unclean animals in Lev 11* and a manual on bodily impurities in Lev 12–15, as well as the Day of Atonement rite in Lev 16. 302 The H composition integrated these traditions into the narrative context with parenetic comments in Lev 11:43–45,303 which emphasizes the importance of dietary purity for all Israel; Lev 14:34ff., which anticipates a case of ‫ נגע צרעת‬in a house once Israel enters the land of Canaan; Lev 15:31 as an H-style parenesis that exhorts all Israel to maintain purity in cases of bodily discharges; and Lev 16:29–34a to align the Day of Atonement ritual with the H festival calendar.304 This H material suggests that the H composition integrated the priestly manuals of Lev 1–9 and 11– 15(16) before continuing into the Holiness Code in Lev 17–26,305 with the strands of what is traditionally assigned to PG in Lev 9* integrating the ritual instructions of Lev 1–9* and emphasizing the authority of Moses and the blessing of the priestly service for all Israel. Finally, Lev 10 was added to the book to connect it with priestly materials in Numbers. Lev 10 is part of a “Theokratische Bearbeitung” that is post-Lev 17–26, and linked to Num 16– 17 and, as post-H material, assigns the authority to teach and interpret Mosaic Torah to the Aaronic priesthood in Lev 10:8–11.306 301 As noted by Struppe, Die Herrlichkeit, 59, 100–102, the appearance to all Israel emphasized in Exod 24:15b–18a; 29:43–46, which were earlier identified as H texts, is carried into Lev 9:23–24. The appearance of the ‫ כבוד‬in Exod 29:43 functions to sanctify the cultic objects of Exod 28–29, and the ‫ כבוד‬in Lev 9:23–24 confirms the propriety of the cult of Lev 1–9 operated by Aaron, and thus the motif of the ‫ כבוד‬functions to integrate the Priestly cultic traditions into the H composition. 302 Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 611–13. Lev 16, however, may be a later addition because, in its narrative context, it depends on the death of Nadab and Abihu (16:1–2), which is introduced in the post-H chapter of Lev 10. 303 Naphtali S. Meshel, "P1, P2, P3, and H: Purity, Prohibition, and the Puzzling History of Leviticus 11," HUCA 81 (2010): 14–15, argues for multiple stages of priestly and Holiness material within Lev 11, with priestly additions post-dating the H-material of 11:43–45. 304 For the assignment to H and discussion of these linking texts, see Knohl, Sanctuary, 27–29, 69, 95 n. 119 and Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 683–88, 866–68, 945–47. 305 So Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 63 suggests that Lev 1–7 and 11–15 were “independent and discrete scrolls” that were arranged by H redactional material into their present shape in Leviticus. 306 Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 587–89 and Reinhard Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (BZAR 3; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2003), 93–97.

Chapter 6

Conclusion This study has investigated the Priestly texts in Exodus in three steps. First, I have argued against objections to the coherence of the Priestly narrative (P G) with the Holiness Code and shown that they are consistent in their theology, views of the promised land, covenants, profane slaughter, and Passover. There are no inconsistencies between the Priestly narrative and the Holiness Code laws or narrative framework of Lev 17–26 that necessitate assigning them to different, incommensurate strata. Having established that Gen 1:1– 2:4a is best understood as a Holiness Preamble intended to establish the foundations for observance of the Holiness Code Sabbath and festivals, I have argued that, in addition to language, theology, and themes, the Priestly narratives in Exodus can be shown to serve the purpose of establishing foundations for observing the Holiness Code. I have delineated the extent of the original Priestly narrative in Exodus, largely following standard views in determining that 1:7, 13–14; 2:23aβ–25; 6:2–7:7*; 12:1–14, 28, 40–41; 14* in the account of the exodus from Egypt and Exod 16:1–3, 6–7, 9–27, 30, 35a; 19:1, 2aβ; 20:8–11; 24:15b–18a; 25:1–2a, 8; 29:43–46; 31:12–17; 35:1– 3; 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33–35 in the wilderness and tabernacle accounts belong to the original Priestly narrative. I have departed from usual assessments by making a case for including all of Exod 12:1–14, the Sabbath sections of Exod 16:16–27, 30, 35a, as well as the Sabbath texts of 31:12–17; 35:1–3 as part of this narrative. The analysis of texts such as Exod 12:12–13, which conflates the pre-Priestly ritual instructions from Exod 12:21–23, 27 with the narrative of the killing of the firstborn from Exod 12:29–30, and 24:15b–18a, which builds on the pre-Priestly revelation at the mountain of God, strongly supports the view that this Priestly narrative was intended from the beginning as a supplement to the non-Priestly texts in Exodus. Having delineated the extent of the original P narrative, I argued that it is best understood as an H composition. As a supplement to the earlier traditions, the H composition has produced a remarkably coherent narrative for the book of Exodus that results in what Georg Fischer has called “eine, einheitliche Erzählung.”1 Following

1 Georg Fischer, “Exodus 1–15: Eine Erzählung,” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction-Reception-Interpretation (ed. Marc Vervenne; BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven

186

Chapter 6: Conclusion

the foundational understanding of Gen 1:1–2:4a as a Holiness Preamble, this analysis has confirmed that the material which is identified as the original Priestly narrative in Exodus, traditionally known as PG, is linked backward to the Holiness Preamble in Gen 1:1–2:4a and forward to the Holiness Code in Lev 17–26 in its language, themes, and particularly its function. This H composition in Exodus was added to a pre-Priestly Exodus account that encompassed material in Exodus 1–34. I understand the meaning of this non-Priestly Exodus narrative in line with Wolfgang Oswald and Rainer Albertz. For Oswald, this is an “Exodus-Mountain of God Narrative (EG– Erzählung),” which has been extended by a Deuteronomistic redaction,2 and for Albertz, it is an “Exoduskomposition” (KEX), extended by an REX redaction.3 According to Oswald, the “EG-Erzählung” is “die Grundlegung der Rechtsordnung als solcher, d.h. der Verfassung Israels” which combines narrative (Exod 1–19) and law (Exod 20–24) as the basis for the constitution of Israel.4 According to Oswald, this pre-Priestly “EG-Erzählung” was supplemented by the Deuteronomistic History, which especially contributed covenant theology to Exod 19 and 24, and the golden calf and covenant renewal narratives in Exod 32–34.5 According to Albertz, the non-Priestly narrative is a “Gründungsgeschichte” of the people of Israel that establishes their constitution and relationship with God based on the covenant and laws at Sinai (Exod 20–24). The narrative begins in Exod 1:9–12 with the oppression of Israel in Egypt, recounts the origins of Moses, the revelation of YHWH, and the call of Moses in Exod 2–4*, the initial conflict with Pharaoh in Exod 5, a plague cycle in Exod 7–12, the destruction of Egypt in Exod 13– 14, and wilderness narratives in 15–17 before the arrival at the mountain of ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– University Press, 1996), 149–50, 176–77; and Georg Fischer and Dominik Markl, Das Buch Exodus (NSKAT 2; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009), 20 2 Wolfgang Oswald, “Die Exodus-Gottesberg-Erzählung als Gründungsurkunde der judäischen Bürgergemeinde,” in Law and Narrative in the Bible and in the Neighboring Ancient Cultures (ed. Klaus-Peter Adam, Friedrich Avemarie, and Nili Wazana; FAT 2/54; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 35–49. Oswald includes material in Exodus 1–24 in this designation. 3 Rainer Albertz, Exodus 1–18 (ZB AT 2.1; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2012), 19– 21; idem., Exodus 19–40 (ZB AT 2.2; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2015), 10–12. According to Albertz, KEX is a pre-Priestly narrative that has integrated various older traditions, and it has the covenant establishment (Exod 19–24), breaking of the covenant (Exod 32), and covenant renewal (Exod 33–34) as its basic features. 4 Oswald, “Die Exodus-Gottesberg-Erzählung,” 48; see also Wolfgang Oswald and Helmut Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15 (IECOT; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2014), 45 for the extent of the “EG-Erzählung” in Exodus 1–18. According to Oswald and Utzschneider, the EG-Erzählung, which encompasses Exod 3–4*, 18–24*, builds on an “Older Exodus Narrative” encompassing Exod 1–2*, 4–5*, 7–11*, 12*, 13–14* that describes Israel’s liberation from Egypt. 5 Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 47.

Chapter 6: Conclusion

187

God in Exod 19–24.6 The highpoint of the narrative is in Exod 32–34, where the presence of God among Israel is threatened by the “Sündenfallgeschichte” of the golden calf; thanks to the intercession of Moses, the narrative ends with hope that YHWH’s relationship with Israel can continue despite Israel’s breaking of the law.7 This pre-Priestly narrative became the basis with which later supplements such as the H composition “auseinandersetzen mussten”8 when they were added to it. The H composition was added to the non-Priestly account to extend the non-Priestly covenant and laws of Exod 20–24 and covenant renewal in Exod 32–34 in order to develop a foundational narrative for the laws of the Holiness Code as a narrative from Gen 1 to Lev 26 that is the theological frame for revelation of the Holiness legislation.9 The H narratives are composed “Zur Erläuterung des Entstehens jenes gesetzlichen Zustandes,” as Theodor Nöldeke had argued was the case for his Grundschrift.10 The laws that the H composition (traditional Priestly narrative) is concerned with establishing are not “priestly,” as seen from this analysis of Exodus Priestly texts. The priestly concerns of the priesthood, rituals, and tabernacle were shown to be from traditions integrated into the H composition in Exod 25–29; Lev 1–9. The H composition exodus account in Exod 1:7, 13– 14; 2:23aβ–25; 6:2–7:7*; 14* is structured by the language and theology of the H text of Gen 1:1–2:4a and presents the salvation of the Israelites as connected to creation and covenant theology, as an event that establishes the identity of Israel as the people of YHWH and who thus have a responsibility of obedience to the covenant. The covenant promises of Exod 6:2–8 point forward to Lev 26 as the ultimate conclusion of the Sinai pericope. Following Erhard Blum, I understand Exod 6:2–8 and Lev 26:9–13 as a “kompositorische Klammer in dem Komplex ‘Exodus und Sinai’” that functions as an announcement and retrospect. 11 David M. Carr states regarding the function of the P narrative, P builds a bridge between these two layers of time [primeval and present time] by using the themes of eternity and memory. God “establishes” “eternal” covenants with Noah and Abraham, and then “remembers” them at crucial junctures. On the other side, Israel is 6

Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 21. Ibid., 20; idem., Exodus 19–40, 11. 8 Albertz, Exodus 19–40, 10. 9 Cf. Eckart Otto, “Forschungen zur Priesterschrift,” TRu 62 (1997): 40, who has a similar understanding of his PG as a “Geschichtskonzeption, die von der Schöpfung bis zur Sinaioffenbarung fuhrt und theologischer Rahmen ist für die Gesetzoffenbarung von Speisegeboten (Gen 9*), Beschneidung (Gen 17*), Passa (Ex 12*) sowie Heiligtum, Altar und Priesterschaft (Ex 25–29*).” 10 Theodor Nöldeke, Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments (Kiel: Schwers, 1869), 108. 11 Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 328. 7

188

Chapter 6: Conclusion

“reminded” of its paradigmatic history (as conceived by P) by elements such as circumcision (an “eternal covenant”) and Passover (“an eternal decree”)…. The world has certain created and covenantal structures. God has always remembered. Now Israel, standing at the brink of possible return to the land and reestablishment of its cult, must remember as well.12

As I have argued here, Lev 26 is the text that “builds a bridge” between the primeval and present time, drawing out the implications of the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants and addressing Israel with a call to remember and repent (Lev 26:40–45). So, according to James W. Watts, Lev 26 is the climactic exhortation expressing the rhetorical intentions of the entire Priestly Torah.13 The blessings of the earlier promises from creation and the history of Israel in Gen 9:1–17; 17:1–27; and Exod 6:2–8 as linked in Lev 26 are now attainable for those who observe the Torah. Thus Lev 26 is an essential part of the covenant concept developing from Gen 1:1–2:4a; 9; 17; Exod 6:2–8; 29:45–46; 31:12–17.14 The H composition in Exodus supplements the earlier “Exoduskomposition/EG-Erzählung” in Exod 1–34 that already had a combination of narrative and law as “die Grundlegung der Rechtsordnung als solcher, d.h. der Verfassung Israels,”15 with its own composition combining narrative and law. Adding the H composition narratives to Exod 1–34 structured the pre-Priestly narrative according to the interests of the H legislation and continued the process begun in Gen 1:1–2:4a as the Holiness Preamble, of grounding the H legislation and covenant in creation and the narrative history of Israel. The Exodus H composition connects the Exodus narratives to the Book of Leviticus and Holiness Code of Lev 17–26, thus supplementing the laws and covenant of Exod 20–24 with its own legislation that is rooted in creation and epitomized in holiness and the Sabbath as foundational for the covenant concept developed from Gen 1:1–2:4a; 9; 17; Exod 6:2–8; 29:45–46; 31:12–17 and culminating in Lev 26. Thus the H composition forms Gen 1–Lev 26 into a foundational narrative for the Holiness Code as the constitution of Israel. The Holiness Code is permeated by parenesis referring back to the identity of YHWH and relationship established with Israel in Exod 6:2–8 as rationales for obedience. The specific linguistic ties of the H composition narrative in 12

David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 140. 13 James W. Watts, Reading Law: The Rhetorical Shaping of the Pentateuch (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 58–60. 14 Blum, Studien, 325–28; Andreas Ruwe, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz’ und ‘Priesterschrift’ (FAT 26; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 31. Cf. Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 13 according to whom not until Lev 26 is “eine gewisse erzählerische Abrundung der Geschehensfolge erreicht,” as Lev 26 is the culmination of a “theologische Argumentationslinie, die nicht nur das Buch Exodus, sondern auch das Buch Genesis einbezieht.” 15 Oswald, “Die Exodus-Gottesberg-Erzählung,” 48.

Chapter 6: Conclusion

189

Exod 1:13–14; 6:6; 12:1–14 to the Holiness Code show these texts to be foundational for the laws of slavery and redemption in Lev 25 and the Passover and other festivals in Lev 23. The H composition Manna-Sabbath narrative in Exod 16 serves as a didactic narrative that reveals the Sabbath to the people of Israel and illustrates the theological principles of the economic and agricultural Sabbath laws of Lev 25, inculcating trust in YHWH’s provision for the Sabbath. The tabernacle account in Exod 25–40 is likewise connected to the Holiness Preamble of Gen 1:1–2:4a in its combination of Sabbath and holiness as the culmination of creation (Exod 24:15b–18a; 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33–35). The presence of YHWH dwelling among the Israelites (Exod 29:45– 46) provides the impetus for the call to holiness that is central to the ethics of the Holiness Code. The juxtaposition of sanctuary and Sabbath (Exod 25:8; 31:12–17; 35:1–3) illustrates the central concerns of the Holiness Code for revering the sanctuary and observing the Sabbath (Lev 19:30; 26:2). This structure forms a paradigmatic narrative that illustrates the covenant theology of the Holiness Code (Lev 26) and frames the non-Priestly golden calf and covenant renewal account in Exod 32–34 with that theology. Thus the H composition texts in Exod 1:7, 13–14; 2:23aβ–25; 6:2–7:7*; 12:1–14, 28, 40–41; 14*; 16:1–3, 6–7, 9–27, 30, 35a; 19:1, 2aβ; 20:8–11; 24:15b–18a; 25:1–2a, 8; 29:43–46; 31:12–17; 35:1–3; 39:32, 43; 40:17, 33– 35 are seen in their language, theology, and function to reflect the concerns of the Holiness Code. The interests of the priesthood and cultic ritual are peripheral, as they are found only in the traditional material that the H narrative integrates in Exod 25–Lev 16. Every portion of what is identified as the PG narrative in the book of Exodus can be read insightfully as connected to the laws and parenesis of Lev 17–26. Hence it is better to identify what Blum calls the “P-Komposition” as an H composition. The theological and conceptual perspective seen in the texts that give Lev 17–26 its particular character as the Holiness Code is also seen in the texts of the Priestly narratives in Gen 1–Lev 26, and what has been considered the PG narrative through Gen–Exod is aligned with the interests of Lev 17–26 rather than with the interests of the cult and priesthood. Viewing the PG narrative as an H composition rather than a P composition is thus useful given that it enables us to understand every section of the PG narrative in Exodus in light of the proclamation and call to holiness addressed to all Israel in the Holiness Code. For this reason, it is justified to consider the Priestly narratives in Gen 1–Lev 26 an H composition that is focused on the themes of creation, covenant, Sabbath, and ethics, leaving the traditional notion of a PG narrative obsolete.

Bibliography Achenbach, Reinhard. “Das Heiligkeitsgesetz und die sakralen Ordnungen des Numeribuches im Horizont der Pentateuchredaktion.” Pages 145–176 in Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense LV-The Books of Leviticus and Numbers. Edited by Thomas Römer. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 215. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. –. Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002. Albertz, Rainer. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. 2 Volumes. Translated by John Bowden. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. –. Exodus 1–18. Zürcher Bibel. Altes Testament 2.1. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2012. –. Exodus 19–40. Zürcher Bibel. Altes Testament 2.2. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2015. –. “Die Sabbatgebote des Dekalogs und ihre Bedeutung für die Komposition des Pentateuch.” Pages 151–165 in Wege der Freiheit: Zur Entstehung und Theologie des Exodusbuchs; Die Beiträge eines Symposions zum 70. Geburtstag von Rainer Albertz. Edited by Reinhard Achenbach, Ruth Ebach, and Jakob Wöhrle. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 104. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2014. –. “Wilderness Material in Exodus (Exodus 15–18).” Pages 151–168 in The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Craig A. Evans, and Joel N. Lohr. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 164. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Albertz, Rainer, and Rüdiger Schmitt. Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Alt, Albrecht. Die Ursprünge des israelitischen Rechts. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1934. –. “The Origins of Israelite Law.” Pages 79–132 in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion. Translated by R.A. Wilson. Oxford: Blackwell, 1966. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph. 4th edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1990. Amit, Yairah. “‫הבריאה ולוח הקדושׁה‬.” Pages 13*–29* in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg. Edited by Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey Tigay. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Arnold, Bill T. Genesis. New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. –. “Genesis 1 as Holiness Preamble.” Pages 332–44 in Let Us Go Up to Zion: Essays in Honour of H. G. M. Williamson on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Iain Provan and Mark J. Boda. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012. –. “The Holiness Redaction of the Flood Narrative (Genesis 6:9–9:29).” Pages 13–41 in Windows to the Ancient World of the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of Samuel Green-

192

Bibliography

gus Edited by Bill T. Arnold, Nancy Erickson, and John Walton. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014. Aurelius, Erik. Der Fürbitter Israels: Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament. Coniectanea Biblica 27. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1988. Baden, Joel S. The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012. –. J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 68. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. –. “The Original Place of the Priestly Manna Story in Exodus 16.” Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 122 (2010): 491–504. Baentsch, Bruno. Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Lev. XVII–XXVI: Eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung. Erfurt: Güther, 1893. –. Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903. Bakon, Shimon. “Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 25.2 (1997): 79–85. Bauks, Michaela. “Die Begriffe ‫ מורשׁה‬und ‫ אחזה‬in PG : Überlegungen zur Landkonzeption in der Priestergrundschrift.” Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 116 (2004): 171–188. Baumgart, Norbert C. “Überkommene Traditionen neu aufgearbeitet und angeeignet: Lev 26:3–45. Das Heiligkeitsgesetz in Exil und Diaspora.” Biblische Zeitschrift 43 (1999): 1– 25. Beer, Georg, and Kurt Galling. Exodus. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 3. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1939. Berner, Christoph. Die Exoduserzählung: Das literarische Werden einer Ursprungslegende Israels. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 73. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. –. “Der literarische Charakter der Priesterschrift in der Exoduserzählung (Exod 1–14).” Pages 94-133 in Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte. Edited by Friedhelm Hartenstein and Konrad Schmid. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 40. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 2015. Bertholet, Alfred. Leviticus Erklärt. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament III. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1901. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1992. –. “The Structure of P.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38 (1976): 275–292. Blum, Erhard. Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 57. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984. –. “Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus: Ein Gespräch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen.” Pages 119–156 in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngeren Diskussion. Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. –. “The Decalogue and the Composition History of the Pentateuch.” Pages 289–301 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. –. “Issues and Problems in the Contemporary Debate Regarding the Priestly Writings.” Pages 31–44 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future

Bibliography

193

Directions. Edited by Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009. –. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 189. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990. Brett, Mark. “The Priestly Dissemination of Abraham.” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 3 (2014): 87–107. Brichto, Herbert Chanan. “The Worship of the Golden Calf: A Literary Analysis of a Fable of Idolatry.” Hebrew Union College Annual 54 (1983): 1–44. Brown, William P. The Ethos of the Cosmos: The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Carmichael, Calum. Illuminating Leviticus: A Study of its Laws and Institutions in Light of Biblical Narratives. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006. Carr, David. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. –. “Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34:11–26 and Its Parallels.” Pages 107-140 in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Exod 32–34 und Dtn 9–10. Edited by Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 18. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001. –. Reading the Fractures of Genesis. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. –. “What is Required to Identify Pre-Priestly Narrative Connections between Genesis and Exodus?” Pages 159–180 in A Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid. SBL Symposium Series 34. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Chavel, Simeon. Oracular Law and Priestly Historiography in the Torah. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II/71. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Childs, Brevard. The Book of Exodus. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1974. Cholewinski, Alfred. Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium. Analecta Biblica 66. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976. Cook, John A. Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb: The Expression of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Biblical Hebrew. Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 7. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Cooper, Alan, and Bernard Goldstein. “The Development of the Priestly Calendars (I): The Daily Sacrifice and the Sabbath.” Hebrew Union College Annual 74 (2003): 1–20. Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. –. “The Priestly Tabernacle in the Light of Recent Research.” Pages 169–180 in Temples and High Places in Biblical Times. Edited by Avraham Biran. Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, 1981. Crüsemann, Frank. “Der Exodus als Heiligung: zur rechstgeschichtlichen Bedeutung des Heiligkeitsgesetzes.” Pages 117–129 in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Erhard Blum, Christian Macholz, and Ekkehard Stegemann. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. –. The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law. Translated by Allan W. Mahnke. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. Dahm, Ulrike. Opferkult und Priestertum in Alt-Israel. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 327. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003.

194

Bibliography

Diesel, Anja. “Ich bin Jahwe”: Der Aufstieg der Ich-bin-Jahwe-Aussage zum Schlüsselwort des alttestamentlichen Monotheismus. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 110. Neukirchener-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2006. Dillmann, August, and Victor Ryssel. Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus. 3rd edition. Kurzgefasstes Exegetische Handbuch. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1897. Dohmen, Christoph. Exodus 1–18. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 2015. –. Exodus 19–40. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 2004. –. “Der Sinaibund als Neuer Bund nach Exod 19–34.” Pages 51–83 in Der Neue Bund im Alten: Zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente. Edited by Erich Zenger. Quastiones Disputatae 146. Freiburg: Herder, 1993. Dozeman, Thomas B. Exodus. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. –. “The Commission of Moses and the Book of Genesis.” Pages 107–130 in A Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid. SBL Symposium Series 34. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Dozeman, Thomas B., and Konrad Schmid, editors. A Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. SBL Symposium Series 34. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Durham, John. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary 3. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987. Eerdmans, Bernardus. Alttestamentliche Studien IV: Das Buch Leviticus. Gießen: Töpelmann, 1912. Elliger, Karl. “Heiligkeitsgesetz.” Pages 175–176 in Volume 3 of Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Edited by Kurt Galling. 7 volumes. 3rd Edition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957–65. –. Leviticus. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 4. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1966. –. “Sinn und Ursprung der priesterlichen Geschichtserzählung.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 49 (1952): 121–143. Elliott-Binns, Leonard E. “Some Problems of the Holiness Code.” Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 67 (1955): 26–40. Ellman, Barat. Memory and Covenant: The Role of Israel’s and God’s Memory in Sustaining the Deuteronomic and Priestly Covenants. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013. Erisman, Angela R. “Literary Theory and Composition History of the Torah: The Sea Crossing (Exod 14:1–31) as a Test Case.” Pages 53–76 in Approaches to Literary Readings of Ancient Jewish Writings. Edited by Klaas Smelik and Karolien Vermeulen. Leiden: Brill, 2014. –. “Mythologizing Exile: Life, Law, and Justice after the Flood.” Pages 95–110 in Windows to the Ancient World of the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of Samuel Greengus. Edited by Bill T. Arnold, Nancy Erickson, and John Walton. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014. Ewald, Heinrich. Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Volume 1. 3rd edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1864. –. The History of Israel. Translated by R. Martineau. 2nd edition. London: Longmans, Green, & co., 1869. Feucht, Christian. Untersuchungen zum Heiligkeitsgesetz. Theologische Arbeiten 20. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1964.

Bibliography

195

Firmage, Edwin. “Genesis 1 and the Priestly Agenda.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 82 (1999): 97–114. Fischer, Georg. “A Need for Hope? A Comparison between the Dynamics in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28–30*.” Pages 369–388 in Current Issues in Priestly and Related Literature: The Legacy of Jacob Milgrom and Beyond. Edited by Roy E. Gane and Ada Taggar-Cohen. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015. –. “Exodus 1–15: Eine Erzählung.” Pages 149–178 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction-Reception-Interpretation. Edited by Marc Vervenne. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. Fischer, Georg, and Dominik Markl. Exodus. Neue Stuttgarter Kommentare zum Alten Testament 2. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009. Fox, Michael V. “The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in Light of the Priestly 'ôt Etiologies.” Revue Biblique 81 (1974): 557–596. Fretheim, Terence E. Exodus. Interpretation Bible Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991. –. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005. Frevel, Christian. Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern: Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift. Herders Biblische Studien 23. Freiburg: Herder, 2000. Fritz, Volkmar. Tempel und Zelt: Studien zum Tempelbau in Israel und zu dem Zeltheiligtum der Priesterschrift. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 47. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977. Gaines, Jason M. The Poetic Priestly Source. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015. George, Mark. Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space. SBL Ancient Israelite Literature 2. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2009. Gerstenberger, Erhard. Leviticus: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Gertz, Jan Christian. “Beobachtungen zu Komposition und Redaktion in Exodus 32–34.” Pages 88–105 in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Exod 32–34 und Dtn 9–10. Edited by Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 18. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001. –. “The Partial Compositions.” Pages 293–382 in T & T Clark Handbook of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Literature, Religion and History of the Old Testament. Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Angelika Berjelung, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte. London: Continuum, 2012. –. Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch. Forschungen zur Religion und Literature des Alten und Neuen Testaments 186. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. –. “The Transition between the Books of Genesis and Exodus.” Pages 73–88 in A Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid. SBL Symposium Series 34. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Gesenius, Wilhelm. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by Emil Kautsch. Translated by Arthur Ernest Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910. Gesundheit, Simon. Three Times a Year: Studies on Festival Legislation in the Pentateuch. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 82. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Gilders, William. “Sacrifice before Sinai and the Priestly Narratives.” Pages 57–72 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions. Edited by

196

Bibliography

Sarah Schectman and Joel S. Baden. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009. Görg, Manfred. Das Zelt der Begegnung: Untersuchung zur Gestalt der sakralen Zelttraditionen Altisraels. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 27. Bonn: Hanstein, 1967. Greifenhagen, Franz. Egypt on the Pentateuch’s Ideological Map: Constructing Biblical Israel’s Identity. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 361. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Graf, Karl Heinrich. Die geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments: Zwei historischkritische Untersuchungen. Leipzig: T.O. Weigel, 1866. Greenberg, Moshe. Understanding Exodus: A Holistic Commentary on Exodus 1–11. 2nd edition. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2013. Gross, Walter. “’Rezeption’ in Exod 31:12–17 und Lev 26:39–45: Sprachliche Form und theologisch-konzeptionelle Leistung.” Pages 45–64 in Rezeption und Auslegung im Alten Testament und seinem Umfeld: Ein Symposium aus Anlass des 60. Geburtstags von Odil Hannes Steck. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz and Thomas Krüger. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 153. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Grund, Alexandra. Die Entstehung des Sabbats: Seine Bedeutung für Israels Zeitkonzept und Erinnerungskultur. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 75. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Grünwaldt, Klaus. Exil und Identität: Beschneidung, Passa und Sabbat in der Priesterschrift. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 85. Frankfurt: Hain, 1992. –. Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26: Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 271. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. Guillaume, Philippe. Land and Calendar: The Priestly Document from Genesis 1 to Joshua 18. Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament 391. London: T & T Clark, 2009. Halbe, Jörn. Das Privilegrecht Jahwes Ex 34,10–26: Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken in vordeuteronomischer Zeit. Forschungen zur Religion und Literature des Alten und Neuen Testaments 114. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Haran, Menahem. Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. 2nd Edition. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985. Hartenstein, Friedhelm. “Das ‘Angesicht Gottes’ in Exodus 32–34.” Pages 157–183 in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Exod 32-34 und Dtn 9-10. Edited by Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 18. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001. Hartenstein, Friedhelm, and Konrad Schmid, editors. Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 40. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 2015. Hartley, John. Leviticus. Word Biblical Commentary 4. Dallas: Word Books, 1992. Hauge, Martin Ravndal. The Descent from the Mountain: Narrative Patterns in Exodus 1940. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 323. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Hepner, Gershom. Legal Friction: Law, Narrative, and Identity Politics in Biblical Israel. New York: Peter Lang, 2010. Hieke, Thomas. Levitikus 17–27. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 2015.

Bibliography

197

–. “The Covenant in Leviticus 26: A Concept of Admonition and Redemption.” Pages 75–89 in Covenant in the Persian Period. Edited by Richard J. Bautch and Gary N. Knoppers. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Hildebrand, Michael. Structure and Theology in the Holiness Code. Bibal Dissertation Series 10. North Richland Hills, TX: Bibal, 2004. Hoffmann, David. Das Buch Leviticus. 2 Volumes. Berlin: M. Poppelauer, 1906. Holzinger, Heinrich. Einleitung in die Hexateuch. Freiburg: J.C.B. Mohr, 1893. –. Exodus. Kurzer Hand-commentar zum Alten Testament 2. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1900. Horst, Louis. Leviticus XVII-XXVI und Hezekiel: eine Beitrag zur Pentateuchkritik. Colmar: Barth, 1881. Hossfeld, Franz-Lothar. Der Dekalog: Seine späten Fassungen, die originale Komposition und seine Vorstufen. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 45. Fribourg & Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. –. “Das Privilegrecht Exod 34:11–26 in der Diskussion.” Pages 39–59 in Recht und Ethos im Altem Testament – Gestalt und Wirkung. Festschrift für Horst Seebass zum 65. Geburtstag Edited by Stefan Beyerle, Günter Mayer, and Hans Strauß. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999. Hundley, Michael B. Keeping Heaven on Earth: Safeguarding the Divine Presence in the Priestly Tabernacle. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II/50. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. –. “Sacred Spaces, Objects, Offerings, and People in the Priestly Texts: A Reappraisal.” Journal of Biblical Literature 132.4 (2013): 749–67. Hurowitz, Victor A. “The Priestly Account of the Tabernacle.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 105.1 (1985): 21–30. –. I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements 115. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Jacob, Benno. The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus. Translated by Walter Jacob. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1992. Janowski, Bernd. Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Traditions- und religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur priesterlichen Sühnetheologie. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 55. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983. –. “Tempel und Schöpfung: Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen Heiligtumskonzeption.” Pages 214–246 in Gottes Gegenwart in Israel: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993. –. “Was sich Wiederholt: zu einem vernachlässigten Aspekt des alttestamentlichen Zeitverständnisses.” Pages 315–335 in “Ich werde meinen Bund mit euch niemals brechen!” (Ri 2,1): Festschrift für Walter Gross zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Erasmus Gass and Hermann-Josef Stipp. Herder Biblische Studien 62. Freiburg: Herder, 2011. Jenni, Ernst. Die theologische Begründung des Sabbatgebotes. Zollikon-Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1956. Jenson, Philip P. Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World. Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament 106. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992. Jeon, Jaeyoung. The Call of Moses and the Exodus Story. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II/60. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Joosten, Jan. “Covenant Theology in the Holiness Code.” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 4 (1998): 145–164.

198

Bibliography

–. People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 67. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Kaufman, Stephen. “The Temple Scroll and Higher Criticism.” Hebrew Union College Annual 53 (1983): 29–43. Kearney, Peter. “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Exod 25–40.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 89 (1977): 375–87. Kilchör, Benjamin. Mosetora und Jahwetora: Das Verhältnis von Deuteronomium 12–26 zu Exodus, Levitikus und Numeri. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 21. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2015. –. “Passah und Mazzot – Ein Überblick über die Forschung seit dem 19. Jahrhundert.” Biblica 94 (2013): 340–67. Kilian, Rudolf. Literarkritische und Formgeschichtliche Untersuchung des Heiligkeitsgesetz. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 19. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1963. King, Thomas. The Realignment of the Priestly Literature: The Priestly Narrative in Genesis and its Relation to Priestly Legislation and the Holiness School. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009. Klein, Gottlieb. “Die Totaphot nach Bibel und Tradition.” Jahrbuch für Protestantische Theologie VII (1881): 666–89. Klostermann, August. “Ezechiel und das Heiligkeitsgesetz.” Zeitschrift für die gesammte lutherische Theologie und Kirche 38 (1877): 401–445. –. “Ezechiel und das Heiligkeitsgesetz.” Pages 368–418 in Der Pentateuch: Beiträge zu seinem Verständnis und seiner Entstehungsgeschichte. Leipzig: Böhne, 1893. Knauf, Ernst Axel. “Der Exodus zwischen Mythos und Geschichte: Zur priesterschriftlichen Rezeption der Schilfmeer-Geschichte in Exod 14.” Pages 73–84 in Schriftauslegung in der Schrift: Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Reinhard Kratz, Thomas Krüger, and Konrad Schmid. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 300. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Knobel, August. Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus. 2nd edition. Updated by A. Dillmann. Kurzer Exegetische Handbuch zum Alten Testaments 12. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1880. Knohl, Israel. The Sanctuary of Silence. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995. –. “Who Edited the Pentateuch?” Pages 359–67 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by T. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. Schwartz. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Koch, Klaus. Die Priesterschrift von Exod. 25 bis Lev 16. Eine überlieferungsgeschichtliche und literarkritische Untersuchung. Forschungen zur Religion und Literature des Alten und Neuen Testaments 71. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959. Köckert, Matthias. Leben im Gottes Gegenwart: Studien zum Verständnis des Gesetzes im Alten Testament. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 43. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Kohata, Fujiko. Jahwist und Priesterschrift in Exodus 3–14. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 166. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986. Konkel, Michael. “Exodus 32–34 and the Quest for an Enneateuch.” Pages 169–84 in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas Römer, and Konrad Schmid. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2011. –. Sünde und Vergebung: Eine Rekonstruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte der hinteren Sinaiperikope (Exodus 32–34) vor dem Hintergrund aktueller Pentateuchmodelle. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 58. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

Bibliography

199

Kornfeld, Walter. Studien zum Heiligkeitsgesetz. Vienna: Herder, 1952. Korpel, Marjo. “The Epilogue to the Holiness Code.” Pages 123–50 in Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose. Edited by J.C.de Moor and W.G.E. Watson. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 42. Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon and Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993. Kratz, Reinhard G. The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Krüger, Thomas. “Genesis 1:1–2:3 and the Development of the Pentateuch.” Pages 125–38 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Kuenen, Abraham. Historisch-Kritisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de Boeken des Ouden Verbonds. 3 Volumes. Leiden: Engels, 1861–65. –. An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch. 3 Volumes. Translated by P. Wicksteed. London: MacMillan, 1886. Küchler, Siegfried. Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Lev 17–26: Eine literarkritische Untersuchung. Königsberg: Kümmel, 1929. Laaf, Peter. Die Pascha-Feier Israels. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 36. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1970. Leonhard, Clemens. “Die Erzählung Exod 12 als Festlegende für das Pesachfest am Jerusalemer Tempel.” Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie 18 (2003): 233–260. Levenson, Jon D. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. Levin, Christoph. Der Jahwist. Forschungen zur Religion und Literature des Alten und Neuen Testaments 157. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Loewenstamm, Samuel. The Evolution of the Exodus Tradition. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992. Lohfink, Norbert. “Die Abänderung der Theologie des priesterlichen Geschichtswerks im Segen des Heiligkeitsgesetzes: Zu Lev 26,9, 11–13.” Pages 129–136 in Wort und Geschichte: Festschrift für Karl Elliger zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by H. Gese and H. Rüger. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 18. Kevelaer: Butzon & Berker, 1973. –. “The Priestly Narrative and History.” Pages 136–172 in Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994. Löhr, Max. Untersuchungen zum Hexateuchproblem I: Der Priesterkodex in der Genesis. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische Wissenschaft 38. Gießen: Töpelmann, 1924. Lust, Johan. “Exodus 6:2–8 and Ezekiel.” Pages 209–224 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation. Edited by Mark Vervenne. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. Macholz, Christian. Israel und das Land. Habilitationsschrift. Heidelberg, 1969. Marcos, Natalio Fernández. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible. Translated by Wilfred Watson. Leiden: Brill, 2000. McEvenue, Sean. The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer. Analecta Biblica 50. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1971. Meshel, Naphtali S. “P1, P2, P3, and H: Purity, Prohibition, and the Puzzling History of Leviticus 11.” Hebrew Union College Annual 81 (2010): 1–15. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus. 3 Volumes. New York: Doubleday, 1998-2001.

200

Bibliography

–. “HR in Leviticus and Elsewhere in the Torah.” Pages 24–40 in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 93. Edited by Rolf Rendtorff and Robert Kugler. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Moberly, Walter. At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 22. Sheffield: University of Sheffield Press, 1983. Müller, Reinhard. “The Sanctifying Divine Voice: Observations on the 'anî-Yhwh-formula in the Holiness Code.” Pages 76–81 in Text, Time, and Temple: Literary, Historical, and Ritual Studies in Leviticus. Edited by Francis Landy, Leigh M. Trevaskis, and Bryan Bibb. Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2015. Müllner, Ilse. “Celebration and Narration: Metaleptic Features in Exod 12:1–13:16.” Pages 25-38 in Narratology, Hermeneutics, and Midrash: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Narratives from the Late Antiquity through to Modern Times. Edited by Constanza Cordoni and Gerhard Langer. Vienna: Vienna University Press, 2014. Negretti, Nicola. Il Settimo Giorno: Indagine critico-teologica delle tradizione presacerdotali e sacerdotali circa il sabato biblico. Analecta Biblica 55. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1973. Nihan, Christophe. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. –. “Heiligkeitsgesetz und Pentateuch: Traditions- und kompositionsgeschichtliche Aspekte von Levitikus 26.” Pages 186–218 in Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte. Edited by Friedhelm Hartenstein and Konrad Schmid. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 40. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 2015. –. “The Priestly Covenant, Its Reinterpretations, and the Composition of ‘P.’” Pages 87– 128 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions. Edited by Sarah Schectman and Joel S. Baden. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009. –. “Das Sabbatgesetz Exodus 31:12–17, die Priesterschrift und das Heiligkeitsgesetz: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit neueren Interpretationen.” Pages 131–146 in Wege der Freiheit: Zur Entstehung und Theologie des Exodusbuchs; Die Beiträge eines Symposions zum 70. Geburtstag von Rainer Albertz. Edited by Reinhard Achenbach, Ruth Ebach, and Jakob Wöhrle. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 104. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2014. Nöldeke, Theodor. Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments. Kiel: Schwers, 1869. Noth, Martin. Das Buch Josua. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1938. –. The Deuteronomistic History. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 15. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. –. Exodus. Translated by John S. Bowden. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962. –. Leviticus. Translated by J.E. Anderson. Old Testament Library. London: SCM Press, 1965. –. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Translated by Bernard Anderson. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1972. –. Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948. –. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. 2nd edition. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer: 1957. Olyan, Saul. “Exodus 31:12–17: The Sabbath According to H, or the Sabbath According to P and H?” Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005): 201–209.

Bibliography

201

–. Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of the Cult. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. Oswald, Wolfgang. “Die Exodus-Gottesberg-Erzählung als Gründungsurkunde der judäischen Bürgergemeinde.” Pages 35–51 in Law and Narrative in the Bible and in the Neighboring Ancient Cultures. Edited by Klaus-Peter Adam, Friedrich Avemarie, and Nili Wazana. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II/54. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Oswald, Wolfgang, and Helmut Utzschneider. Exodus 1–15. International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2014. Otto, Eckart. “Forschungen zur Priesterschrift.” Theologische Rundschau 62 (1997): 1–50. –. “The Holiness Code in Diachrony and Synchrony in the Legal Hermeneutics of the Pentateuch.” Pages 135–156 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions. Edited by Sarah Schectman and Joel S. Baden. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009. –. “Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17-26.” Pages 125–196 in Levitikus als Buch. Edited by H-J. Fabry and H-W. Jüngling. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 119. Berlin: Philo, 1999. –. “Nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im Buch Exodus.” Pages 61–111 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation. Edited by Mark Vervenne. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. –. “‫ פסח‬pāsaḥ.” Pages 659–683 in volume 6 of Theologische Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. 6 Volumes. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970. –. Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments. Theologische Wissenschaft 3/2. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1994. Owczarek, Susanne. Die Vorstellung vom Wohnen Gottes inmitten seines Volkes in der Priesterschrift. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1998. Perlitt, Lothar. Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 36. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969. –. “Priesterschrift im Deuteronomium?” Zeitschrift für Alttestamenliche Wissenschaft 100.3 (1988): 65–88. Pola, Thomas. Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift: Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von PG . Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 70. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995. Popper, Julius. Der biblische Bericht über die Stiftshütte. Leipzig: Heinrich Hunger, 1862. Propp, William. Exodus. 2 Volumes. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1999–2006. de Pury, Albert. “Pg as the Absolute Beginning.” Pages 99–128 in Les Dernières Rédactions du Pentateuque, de L'Hexateuque, et de L'Ennéateuque. Edited by Thomas Römer and Konrad Schmid. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 203. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2007. Rabast, Karlheinz. Das apodiktische Recht im Deuteronomium und im Heiligkeitsgesetz. Berlin: Heimatdienstverlag, 1949. von Rad, Gerhard. Deuteronomium-Studien. Forschungen zur Religion und Literature des Alten und Neuen Testaments 58. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1947. –. Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch literarisch und theologisch gewertet. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1934. –. Studies in Deuteronomy. Studies in Biblical Theology 9. Translated by D.M.G. Stalker. London: SCM Press, 1953.

202

Bibliography

Reindl, Joseph. “Der Finger Gottes und die Macht der Götter: Ein Problem des ägyptischen Diasporajudentums und sein literarischer Niederschlag.” Pages 49–60 in Dienst der Vermittlung: Festchrift zum 25-jährigen Bestehen des Priesterseminars Erfurt. Edited by Wilhelm Ernst, Konrad Feiereis, and Fritz Hoffmann. Erfurter theologische Studien 37. Leipzig: St. Benno, 1977. Rendtorff, Rolff. “Is it possible to read Leviticus as a separate book?” Pages 22–32 in Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas. Edited by John Sawyer. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 227. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. –. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. –. The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch. Translated by John Scullion. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 89. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. Reventlow, Henning G. Das Heiligkeitsgesetz: formgeschichtlich untersucht. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 6. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961. Robinson, Gnana. The Origin and Development of the Old Testament Sabbath: A Comprehensive Exegetical Approach. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1988. Römer, Thomas. “The Exodus Narrative According to the Priestly Document.” Pages 157– 174 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions. Edited by Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009. –. Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 98. Freiburg: Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. –. “Von Moses Berufung zur Spaltung des Meers: Überlegungen zur priesterschriftlichen Version der Exoduserzählung.” Pages 134–160 in Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte. Edited by Friedhelm Hartenstein and Konrad Schmid. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 40. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 2015. –. “Zwischen Urkunden, Fragmenten und Ergänzungen: Zum Stand der Pentateuchforschung.” Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 125 (2013): 2–24. Rose, Martin. Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den Berührungspunkten beider Literaturwerke. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 67. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1981. Ruprecht, Eberhard. “Stellung und Bedeutung der Erzählung vom Mannawunder (Exod 16) im Aufbau der Priesterschrift.” Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 86 (1974): 269–307. Ruwe, Andreas. ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz’ und ‘Priesterschrift’. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 26. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Schäfer, Peter. “Tempel und Schöpfung: Zur Interpretation einiger Heiligtumstraditionen in der rabbinischen Literatur.” Kairos 16 (1974): 122–133. Schart, Aaron. Mose und Israel im Konflikt: Eine Redaktionsgeschichtliche studie zu den Wüstenerzählungen. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 98. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1990. Schüle, Andreas. “The ‘Eternal Covenant.’ in the Priestly Pentateuch and the Major Prophets.” Pages 41–58 in Covenant in the Persian Period. Edited by Richard J. Bautch and Gary N. Knoppers. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Schmid, Konrad. Genesis and the Moses Story. Siphrut 3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010.

Bibliography

203

–. “Israel am Sinai: Etappen der Forschungsgeschichte zu Exod 32-34 in seinen Kontexten.” Pages 9–30 in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Exod 32–34 und Dtn 9– 10. Edited by Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 18. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001. –. “The So-Called Yahwist and the Literary Gap Between Genesis and Exodus.” Pages 29– 50 in A Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid. SBL Symposium Series 34. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. –. “Der Sinai und die Priesterschrift.” Pages 114–127 in“Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (Gen 18:19): Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur Religionssoziologie. Edited by Reinhard Achenbach and Martin Arneth. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 13. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2010. Schmidt, Ludwig. “Die Priesterschrift in Exodus 16.” Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 119 (2007): 483–498. –. Studien zur Priesterschrift. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 214. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993. Schmidt, Werner. Exodus. Biblische Kommentar Altes Testament 2. 3 Volumes. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977–1988. –. Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift: Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte von Genesis 1:1–2:4a und 2:4b–3:24. 2nd edition. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 17. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967. Schmitt, Hans-Christoph. “Das sogenannte jahwistische Privilegrecht in Exod 34:10–28 als Komposition der spätdeuteronomistischen Endredaktion des Pentateuch.” Pages 157–171 in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngeren Diskussion. Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Schmitt, Rainer. Exodus und Passa: Ihr Zusammenhang im Alten Testament. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. –. Zelt und Lade als Thema alttestamentlicher Wissenschaft. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1972. Schnutenhaus, Frank. “Das Kommen und Erscheinen Gottes im Alten Testament.” Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 36 (1964): 1–22. Schreiner, J. “Exodus 12:21–23 und das israelitische Pascha.” Pages 69–90 in Studien zum Pentateuch: Festschrift für W. Kornfeld. Edited by Georg Braulik. Vienna: Herder, 1977. Schwartz, Baruch J. “Introduction: The Strata of the Priestly Writings and the Revised Relative Dating of P and H.” Pages 1–12 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions. Edited by Sarah Schectman and Joel S. Baden. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009. –. Leviticus. Pages 203–280 in The Jewish Study Bible. Edited by Adele Berlin and Mark Brettler. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. –. “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai.” Pages 103–134 in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran. Edited by Michael V. Fox, Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Michael L. Klein, Baruch J. Schwartz, and Nili Shupak. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Seebaß, Horst. “Josua.” Biblische Notizen 28 (1985): 56–61.

204

Bibliography

Ska, Jean-Louis. Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. –. La Passage de la Mer. Ètude de la construction, du style et de la symbolique d'Exod 14:1–31. Analecta Biblica 109. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986. –. “Les plaies d’Egypte dans le récit sacerdotal (PG).” Biblica 60 (1979): 23–35. –. “Quelques remarques sur PG et la dernière rédaction du Pentateuque.” Pages 95–125 in Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible à la lumière des recherches récentes. Edited by Albert de Pury. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1989. Smith, Mark S. “The Literary Arrangement of the Priestly Redaction of Exodus: A Preliminary Investigation.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 58 (1996): 25–50. –. The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010. Stackert, Jeffrey. “Compositional Strata in the Priestly Sabbath: Exodus 31:12–17 and 35:1–3.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 11 (2011): 2–21. –. “Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction: Leviticus 26 as a Test Case.” Pages 369–381 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. –. “How the Priestly Sabbaths Work: Innovation in Pentateuchal Priestly Ritual.” Pages 79– 111 in Ritual Innovation in the Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism. Edited by Nathan MacDonald. Beihefte zum Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 468. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. –. “The Holiness Legislation and its Pentateuchal Sources: Revision, Supplement, and Replacement.” Pages 187–204 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions. Edited by Sarah Schectman and Joel S. Baden. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009. –. Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Steck, Odil Hannes. Der Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift: Studien zur literarkritischen und überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Problematik von Genesis 1:1–2:4a. 2nd edition. Forschungen zur Religion und Literature des Alten und Neuen Testaments 186. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Steins, Georg. “Sie sollen mir ein Heiligtum machen: Zur Struktur und Entstehung von Exod 24:12–31:18.” Pages 145–167 in Vom Sinai zum Horeb: Stationen alttestamentlicher Glaubensgeschichte. Edited by F.-L. Hossfeld. Würzburg: Echter, 1989. Steymans, Hans-Ulrich. “Verheissung und Drohung: Lev 26.” Pages 263–307 in Levitikus als Buch. Edited by H-J. Fabry and H-W. Jüngling. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 119. Berlin: Philo, 1999. Struppe, Ursula. Die Herrlichkeit Jahwes in der Priesterschrift: Eine semantische Studie zu kebôd YHWH. Österreichische biblische Studien. Klosterneuburg: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. Sun, Henry T. “An Investigation into the Compositional Integrity of the So-Called Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–27).” Ph.D Dissertation. Claremont Graduate University, 1990. Taggar-Cohen, Ada. “Violence at the Birth of Religion in Exod 19–40.” Journal of the Interdisciplinary Study of Monotheistic Religions 1 (2005): 101–116. Thiel, Winfried. “Erwägungen zum alter des Heiligkeitsgesetz.” Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 81 (1969): 40–73.

Bibliography

205

Timmer, Daniel C. Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath: The Sabbath Frame of Exodus 31:12–17; 35:1–3 in Exegetical and Theological Perspective. Forschungen zur Religion und Literature des Alten und Neuen Testaments 227. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Tucker, Paavo N. “The Priestly Grundschrift: Source or Redaction? The Case of Exodus 12:12–13.” Zeitschrift für Altestamentliche Wissenschaft 129.2 (2017): 205–219. Utzschneider, Helmut. Das Heiligtum und das Gesetz: Studien zur Bedeutung der sinaitischen Heiligtumstexte (Exod 25–40; Lev 8–9). Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 77. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. –. “Tabernacle.” Pages 267–304 in The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Craig A. Evans, and Joel N. Lohr. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 164. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Van den Eynde, Sabine. “Keeping God’s Sabbath ‫ אות‬and ‫( ברית‬Exod 31:12–17).” Pages 501–514 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction – Reception – Interpretation. Edited by Marc Vervenne. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. Van Seters, John. The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Vermeylen, Jacques. “L’affaire du veau d’or (Exod 32–34). Une clé pour la ‘question deutéronomiste’?” Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 97 (1985): 1–23. Vervenne, Marc. “The ‘P’ Tradition in the Pentateuch: Document and/or Redaction?: The ‘Sea Narrative’ (Ex 13,17–14,31) as a Test Case.” Pages 67–90 in Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at the XIIIth IOSOT Congress, Leuven 1989. Edited by Christian Brekelmans and Johan Lust. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. Volz, Paul. “P ist kein Erzähler.” Pages 135–142 in Der Elohist als Erzähler, ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? Edited by Paul Volz and Wilhelm Rudolph. Beihefte zum Zeitschrift für Alttestamentlich Wissenschaft 63. Gießen: Töpelmann, 1933. Wagenaar, Jan. “Passover and the First Day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread in the Priestly Festival Calendar.” Vetus Testamentum 64.2 (2004): 250–268. Wagner, Thomas. Gottes Herrlichkeit: Bedeutung und Verwendung des Begriffs kābôd im Alten Testament. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 151. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Wagner, Volker. “Zur Existenz des sogennanten ‘Heiligkeitsgesetzes.’” Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 86 (1974): 307–316. Warner, Meg. And I Will Remember my Covenant with Abraham: The Holiness School in Genesis. Th.D. Diss.; Melbourne College of Divinity, 2011. Warning, Wilfried. Literary Artistry in Leviticus. Biblical Interpretation Series 35. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Watts, James. “Aaron and the Golden Calf in the Rhetoric of the Pentateuch.” Journal of Biblical Literature 130 (2011): 417–430. –. Reading Law: The Rhetorical Shaping of the Pentateuch. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Weimar, Peter. “Exod 12:1–14 und die priesterschriftliche Geschichtsdarstellung.” Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 107 (1995): 196–214. –. “Zum Problem der Entstehungsgeschichte von Ex 12:1–14.” Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 107 (1995): 1–17. –. Studien zur Priesterschrift. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 56. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Weinfeld, Moshe. “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord – The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1–2:3.” Pages 501–512 in Mélanges bibliques et orien-

206

Bibliography

taux en l'honneur de M. Henri Cazelles. Edited by André Caquot and Mathias Delcor. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 212. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. Wellhausen, Julius. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. 4th edition. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963. –. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. 2nd edition. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1883. Wenham, Gordon. The Book of Leviticus. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Westermann, Claus. “Die Herrlichkeit Gottes in der Priesterschrift.” Pages 227–249 in Word-Gebot-Glaube: Festschrift für W. Eichrodt zum 80. Geburtstag. Edited by Hans Joachim Stoebe. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 59. Zürich: Zwingli: 1970. de Wette, W.M.L. Kritik der Israelitschen Geschichte Erster Teil: Kritik der Mosaischen Geschichte. Halle: Schimmelpfennig, 1807. Weyde, Karl William. The Appointed Festivals of YHWH: The Festival Calendar in Leviticus 23 and the sukkot Festival in Other Biblical Texts. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II/ 4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Wöhrle, Jakob. “Frieden durch Trennung: Die priesterliche Darstellung des Exodus und die persische Reichsideologie.” Pages 87–107 in Wege der Freiheit: Zur Entstehung und Theologie des Exodusbuchs; Die Beiträge eines Symposions zum 70. Geburtstag von Rainer Albertz. Edited by Reinhard Achenbach, Ruth Ebach, and Jakob Wöhrle. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 104. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2014. –. Fremdlinge im eigenen Land: Zur Entstehung und Intention der priesterlichen Passagen der Vätergeschichte. Forschungen zur Religion und Literature des Alten und Neuen Testaments 246. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. –. “The Integrative Function of the Law of Circumcision.” Pages 71–87 in The Foreigner and the Law: Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. Edited by R. Achenbach, R. Albertz, and J. Wöhrle. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011. Wright, David P. “Law and Creation in the Priestly-Holiness Writings of the Pentateuch.” Pages 71–101 in Laws of Heaven – Laws of Nature: Legal Interpretations of Cosmic Phenomena in the Ancient World. Edited by Konrad Schmid and Christoph Uehlinger. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 153. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. Wurster, Paul. “Zur Charakteristik und Geschichte des Priesterkodex und Heiligkeitsgesetzes.” Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 4 (1884): 112–133. Zahn, Molly M. “Reexamining Empirical Models: The Case of Exodus 13.” Pages 36–55 in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. Edited by Eckart Otto and Reinhard Achenbach. Forschungen zur Religion und Literature des Alten und Neuen Testaments 206. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Zenger, Erich. “Das priester(schrift)liche Werk (P).” Pages 156–175 in Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Edited by E. Zenger et al. 8th edition. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008. –. Die Sinaitheophanie: Untersuchungen zum jahwistischen und elohistischen Geschichtswerk. Forschungen Zur Bibel 3. Würzburg: Echter, 1971. –. “Die vorpriesterschriftlichen Pentateuchtexte.” Pages 176–187 in Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Edited by E. Zenger et al. 8th edition. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008. Ziemer, Benjamin. Abram-Abraham: Kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Gen 14, 15 und 17. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 35. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005.

Bibliography

207

–. “Schöpfung, Heiligtum und Sabbat in der priesterlichen Bundeskonzeption.” Pages 39– 58 in Ex Oriente Lux: Studien zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Festschrift für Rüdiger Lux zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Angelika Berjelung and Raik Heckl. ABG 39. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012. Zimmerli, Walther. “Sinaibund und Abrahambund: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Priesterschrift.” Pages 205–216 in Gottes Offenbarung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament. München: Kaiser Verlag, 1963.

Index of References Old Testament Genesis 1

1–3 1:1–2:4

1:5 1:6 1:14 1:22 1:26 1:26–28 1:26–30 1:28 1:29–30 1:31–2:3 2:1 2:1–3 2:1–4 2:2 2:2–3 2:3 5 5:22–24 6–9 6:9 7:11

11, 13, 16–17, 25– 26, 29, 32–35, 64, 66, 109, 113, 157, 187, 189 10 3, 5–6, 9–11, 18, 24, 26–32, 35–37, 40–42, 44, 50–52, 63–65, 69, 74, 78, 109–110, 115–16, 120, 124, 127–8, 130, 134, 141–44, 146, 156, 166–67, 171, 185–89 150 109 39, 115 70 73 6, 37, 40, 113 43 7, 15, 48, 52, 70 61, 120 143–44, 167 15 12, 37–38, 43 39, 115, 125, 147 120 14, 24, 36–38, 54– 55, 141, 157–58 36, 150, 159 7 58 3, 5, 48, 58, 63, 109 58 109

8:13 8:17 9

9:1 9:1–17

9:3–6 9:4 9:4–6 9:5–6 9:6 9:7 9:9–10 9:11 9:11–16 9:12 9:12–15 9:12–17 9:15–16 9:16 9:16–17 9:34 10 12–50 15 17

98, 144 70 3, 6–7, 9, 26, 31, 42, 49, 51, 55, 57, 59–61, 64, 72, 88, 149, 151, 153, 155, 156–59, 167, 177, 187, 188 48, 52, 70 13, 40–41, 50–53, 55–59, 63, 74, 156, 188 60 12 7, 10, 49, 51 61 52, 61 15, 70 48 57 88, 90, 107 51, 88, 155 88 49, 148 51, 57, 72 49, 88 49, 150 61 7 7 55 3, 6–14, 26, 41–43, 48–49, 51, 53, 55, 57–59, 63–64, 74, 88, 113, 134, 141– 42, 149, 151–53, 155–59, 162, 166–

210

17:1 17:1–2 17:1–14 17:1–27 17:2 17:6 17:7 17:7–8 17:8 17:9–10 17:9–13 17:9–14

17:10 17:10–14 17:11 17:11–12 17:13 17:14 17:19 17:20 17:21 17:23–27 18:10–14 18:17–19 22:15–18 26:3–5 28 28:1–4 28:1–9 28:3 28:4 35 35:9–12 35:11 35:11–15 35:22–26 36:8–14 36:43 46 46:8–27 47:27

Index of References 67, 177, 179, 187– 88 24, 58 17 148 40, 41, 50–53, 55– 57, 63, 156, 188 71–72 15, 49, 52, 71–72 49, 51, 151 17, 24, 41, 46, 49, 52, 141, 162, 171 17, 24, 41, 45, 49, 74 33 49, 88 33, 41–42, 51, 59– 60, 69, 88, 90, 107, 146 41, 152 152 51, 151–52 41 41, 49, 51, 151–52 22, 24, 41, 49, 53, 152, 179 49, 57 49, 52 49 41 55 42 42 42 6, 74 42 7 72 45 6, 26, 74 42, 49 52, 70, 72 7 70 24 24 74 70 70, 72

48:2–4 48:4 Exodus 1–2 1–7 1–14

1–15 1–16 1–18 1–19 1–24 1–34 1:1–5 1:1–7 1:7

1:9 1:9–12 1:11 1:13–14

1:14 1:20 2–4 2–5 2:23 2:23–25

2:24 2:24–25 3–4 3–5 3:1–6:1 3:2 4–5 4:21 5 5:2 6 6–7

42 45, 72

69, 73, 186 100 6, 31, 65, 66, 68, 108, 110, 112, 115, 116 67 159, 165–66 186 186 43, 166–67, 186 186–88 67–70 24, 70, 110 6–7, 26, 31, 40, 49–50, 52, 57, 67, 69–73, 109–110, 112–13, 115, 185, 187, 189 70 186 71 7, 24, 31, 67, 71– 73, 110, 115–16, 185, 187, 189 71 70 186 7 46 7, 24, 40, 49–50, 67, 69, 71–74, 89, 91, 109–111, 113, 185, 187, 189 50–51, 57, 72, 156 31, 80, 107 110, 111, 186 111 73 83 186 110 186 111 59, 72, 142, 162 111

Index of References 6:1 6:2 6:2–5 6:2–8

6:2–7:7 6:2–7:13 6:3–5 6:4 6:4–8 6:5 6:6 6:6–7 6:6–8 6:7 6:7–8 6:8 6:9–12 6:12 6:13–30 6:28–30 7–11 7–12 7–14 7:1–2 7:1–6 7:1–7 7:2 7:3 7:4 7:4–5 7:4–7 7:5 7:8–13 7:8–11:10 7:17 7:19–20 7:21–22

73 63, 73 73 2, 5, 7–9, 15, 17, 23–24, 26, 29–32, 40, 42, 46–47, 49– 50, 52–53, 55, 57– 59, 63–65, 73–75, 77, 109–116, 120, 123, 134, 141, 155– 56, 159, 166, 171, 177, 187–88 77, 80, 89, 91, 110, 116, 185, 187, 189 67 17 45, 51, 74, 113 46 46, 50–51, 57, 72, 120, 156 89, 107, 189 141, 162 12, 33–34, 55, 59– 60, 73, 119 9, 45, 47, 108, 113, 120, 123, 166 45 16–17, 45 75 75 6, 68, 75 24, 110 186 186 7 77 24, 110 75–77 16 76–77 89, 107 76 77 76, 108, 113, 141 76 68 24, 77, 110 24, 67, 76, 110 24, 67, 76, 110

7:27 8:1–3 8:12–14 8:12–15 8:18 8:22 9:8–12 9:35 10:1–2 10:2 10:20–23 10:27 11:1–8 11:4–8 11:9–10 12

12–13 12:1 12:1–2 12:1–8 12:1–10 12:1–11 12:1–13 12:1–14

12:1–17 12:1–20 12:1–23 12:1–28 12:2

12:3 12:3–11 12:4 12:4–6 12:5

211 85 24, 67, 76, 110 24, 110 67, 76 24, 110 77 67, 76 110 77, 110 24, 110 110 110 80 77, 80, 83–84, 106 24, 67, 110 7, 11–12, 14, 31, 62, 69, 77–78, 100– 1, 106, 110, 115, 146, 186–87 68, 77–78, 91, 101, 106 79, 96, 106 97 101 80, 93 80–83, 87, 91–93, 98 78, 80, 83–85, 89– 90, 95, 101 7, 62, 68, 77–84, 87–88, 90–92, 94– 95, 97–101, 103, 105–7, 116, 120, 185, 189 104 24, 62, 67, 78, 99, 101, 110 78 78 79, 94–96, 98, 100–1, 103, 116, 119 79, 81, 92–93, 95– 97, 99 79, 93 79, 94, 96, 120 79, 94–95, 99 79, 94

212 12:6

12:6–8 12:7 12:8 12:9 12:9–11 12:10 12:11 12:11–13 12:11–14 12:12 12:12–13 12:12–14 12:13 12:14 12:14–17 12:14–20 12:15 12:15–17 12:15–20 12:16 12:17 12:18 12:18–20 12:21 12:21–22 12:21–23

12:21–24 12:21–27

12:22 12:23 12:23–24 12:23–27 12:24 12:24–25 12:24–27

Index of References 79, 81, 89, 92–93, 95, 97, 100, 105, 120 79, 93, 99 79, 81, 92–94 79, 82, 94, 99 79, 82, 94, 99 79, 94–95 79, 94, 120 79, 87, 93–94, 100 79, 84–85 79–80, 82, 84–85, 88, 91 12, 76, 86, 88, 102, 107, 120 79–80, 82, 84–87, 91–94, 147, 185 72, 77, 80, 86, 91, 95, 103, 107 79, 85, 88–89 79, 88–91, 95, 97, 102–3 89 22, 104 105 7, 89–90, 104–5, 107, 116 68, 78, 89, 100–1, 104 105 105 105 8, 78, 104–5, 107 83, 96 92–93 80–81, 83–84, 87, 90–92, 95, 97, 101, 185 92–93 78–83, 85–87, 91– 94, 97–98, 101–3, 107 83, 85 82–83, 85–87, 91 84 80, 84 90–91, 95 90 80–81, 90, 92, 102

12:25–27 12:27 12:28

12:29 12:29–30 12:29–33 12:29–39 12:34 12:38 12:39 12:40–41 12:40–51 12:41 12:42 12:43 12:43–49 12:43–51 12:49 12:50 12:51 13 13–14 13:1–2 13:1–16 13:2 13:3 13:3–6 13:3–9 13:3–10 13:3–16 13:4 13:5–9 13:6–7 13:7 13:8–10 13:9 13:10 13:11–16 13:16 13:18 13:20 13:21–22

91 80, 84–85, 87, 90– 93, 185 67, 78, 80, 90, 94, 99, 101, 106, 185, 189 86, 101 91, 94, 185 77, 79–80, 82, 84, 86–87, 91–93, 101 80, 86, 101, 106–7 101–2 8, 106–7 80, 101–2 101, 103, 185, 189 78 97, 106 106 106 8, 22, 68, 106–7, 110, 116 67, 78, 106 24, 110 106 106 101, 107, 116, 174 186 103 102–5, 107 103 91, 102–4 102 103 99, 105 91, 101–3 103 102 104 105 102 102 104 102–3 102 107 107 107

Index of References 14

14–15 14:1 14:1–4 14:2 14:3 14:4

14:6 14:7 14:8 14:9 14:10 14:13 14:15 14:15–18 14:16 14:17 14:18

14:19 14:20 14:21 14:22 14:23 14:24 14:26 14:26–27 14:27 14:28 14:28–29 14:29 15 15–17 15–18 15:22–26 15:22–18:27 15:25–26 15:26 16

16–18

8, 31, 67, 107, 109–110, 116, 144, 185, 189 118 107–8 24, 107, 110 107–8 107–8 8, 76–77, 107–9, 113, 120, 122–23, 135–37 107 107 107–8 107–8 107–8 115 107–8 24, 107–8, 110 107–9 107–8, 120, 122, 135, 137 8, 76–77, 107–9, 120, 122–23, 135, 137 107 107, 123 107–9 107–9 107–9 107, 123 107 107–8 107, 109 107 107–8 107–9 118 186 119 118 128 118 24 8–9, 11–14, 31, 38, 109, 119–20, 122– 23, 125–29, 138, 147, 167, 183 118

16–40 16:1 16:1–3 16:1–15 16:2 16:3 16:4–5 16:4–34 16:6 16:6–7 16:7 16:9–11 16:9–27 16:10 16:11 16:12 16:14–15 16:15 16:16 16:16–21 16:16–27 16:16–30 16:19 16:22 16:22–25 16:22–30 16:23 16:23–27 16:25 16:25–26 16:26 16:28–29 16:30 16:31–32 16:34 16:35 18–24 19 19–24

19–40 19:1

213 6, 65–66, 118 121 120–21, 185, 189 119, 121, 124 121 121 121 24 119, 126–27 120–21, 123, 185, 189 122, 135, 137 121 120–21, 185, 189 122, 123, 135, 137 127 9, 120, 123, 126, 166 123 119–20 120 123 120, 185 147 120 124 37 24 36–37, 120, 125– 27, 147, 154 120, 124 127 125–26 120 121 120–21, 124–25, 185, 189 121 119 120–21, 185, 189 186 128, 137, 186 128, 135–37, 152– 53, 168, 172–73, 175 8, 118, 128, 130, 170 131–32, 159, 176, 185, 189

214 19:1–2 19:2 19:2–8 19:3–8 19:6 19:10–11 19:13–17 19:16 19:16–19 19:18–19 20 20–23 20–24 20:1–17 20:1–23 20:8–10 20:8–11

20:9 20:9–10 20:11 20:24–23:33 21:1–23:33 21:2–11 21:12 21:12–14 23:10–11 23:12 23:15 24

24–40 24:1–8 24:3–8 24:5 24:7–8 24:8 24:12 24:12–18 24:15 24:15–18

Index of References 128, 131, 133–34 137, 159, 176, 185, 189 137 135, 137 171 137 137 137 137 137 129 136, 174 43, 128, 186–88 137 135 130 8–9, 24, 36–38, 54–55, 116, 120, 124–26, 128–30, 134, 147, 159, 167, 176, 185, 189 120 120 24, 130, 151 135 21 22 22 22 22 54–55, 129, 151 39 15, 128, 135–36, 138, 167–68, 174– 75, 186 134–35 135–37 136, 171, 174 173 136 175 135, 137–38, 170, 172 137 132, 137 8–9, 38, 64, 120, 122, 125–26, 128, 130–35, 137–39,

24:16 24:16–18 24:17 24:18 25–27 25–29

25–31

25–40

25:1 25:1–2

25:1–9 25:1–40 25:2–7 25:8

25:8–9 25:9 25:9–40 25:9–29:42 25:10–14 25:10–31 25:10–27:19 25:16 25:16–18 25:17–22 25:21 25:21–22

144–45, 152, 159– 61, 176–77, 180– 82, 184–85, 189 131, 133, 162 136 135, 182 137 160, 163–64 6, 12–13, 64, 131– 34, 143, 146, 160, 162–67, 177, 182, 184, 187 9, 132–34, 137, 142, 163, 167, 173– 74, 176, 178–79 4, 31, 33, 125, 130, 132–34, 136, 139– 40, 155, 159–60, 165, 167–68, 170, 176–80, 182–83, 189 131–32 8, 16, 131–32, 134, 139, 145–46, 159– 60, 166, 176–77, 180, 185, 189 24, 133 131 139 8–9, 26, 113, 131– 32, 134, 138–42, 146, 159–61, 164, 166–67, 169, 176– 77, 180, 183, 185, 189 131–32, 161 131–32, 161 139 8, 161, 166, 182 132 132 133 132, 150, 170 132 170 132 132, 138–40, 160, 170

Index of References 25:22 25:23–26 25:28 25:30 25:37 25:40 26 26–28 26:1 26:1–6 26:1–19 26:1–30 26:1–37 26:1–27:8 26:1–27:19 26:6 26:7 26:7–11 26:7–14 26:7–15 26:8 26:9 26:9–11 26:11 26:14 26:15 26:15–17 26:15–30 26:16 26:18 26:18–29 26:20 26:22 26:23 26:25 26:29 26:29–37 26:30 26:31 26:33 26:35 26:36 26:37 27 27–29 27:1 27:1–7 27:1–8

8, 63, 132, 140, 160, 162–63, 170 132 132 132 132 132, 161 164 164 131 161 131 161 121 131–32 131 131 131–32 132, 164 161 132 131 162 132 131 132 131 132 161 131 131 132 131 131 131 132 131 132 131, 161, 164 132 132 132 132 132 164 164 132 171 132

27:1–19 27:1–21 27:1–29:42 27:2 27:4 27:5 27:6 27:8 27:9 27:19 27:20–21 27:21 28 28–29 28:1 28:1–41 28:1–29:35 28:1–29:37 28:1–29:46 28:2 28:3 28:6–8 28:15 28:22–28 28:31–34 28:39 28:41 29 29:1–37 29:1–42 29:1–46 29:5–7 29:9 29:12–16 29:29 29:33 29:35 29:38–46 29:42 29:42–44 29:42–46

29:43 29:43–44 29:43–46

215 131 131 164 132 132 132 132 161 132 163 133, 163–65 24 163–65 8, 163–64, 166, 180–81, 184 162 131, 164, 168 132 133 131 132 162 132 132 132 132 132 162, 164, 171 163 132 164 131 132 171 171 132, 171 171 132, 171 12, 24, 64, 133 24, 160, 163–64 164 32, 40, 50, 132, 138, 140–41, 146, 163, 168 131, 160, 162–64 36, 131–32, 162–64 2, 5, 7–9, 18, 23, 29–30, 50–51, 57, 65, 75, 125–26,

216

29:44 29:44–46 29:45 29:45–46

29:46 30 30–31 30:1 30:1–10 30:1–38 30:1–31:11 30:6 30:16–21 30:36 31 31:1–11 31:1–17 31:12 31:12–14 31:12–17

31:13

31:13–17

Index of References 132–35, 137–40, 142, 145–46, 155, 159–64, 166, 169, 176–77, 180, 182– 85 131, 164–65 132 26, 113, 131–32, 178 2, 7, 9, 15, 17, 24, 26, 32, 50–53, 57, 63, 74, 114, 131, 135, 137, 139–42, 156, 161, 163, 167– 68, 171, 181–82, 188–89 126, 143, 169–70 143, 160 6, 30, 139, 143, 160 160 163 133 9, 145–46, 159, 165–66 160 132 160 143, 152–53, 156– 58 133 24 146–47 12, 26, 147–48, 157 7–9, 22–24, 29–30, 32, 38–39, 42, 50– 51, 54–57, 65, 125– 26, 134, 145–47, 151–57, 159, 166– 67, 169–71, 176– 77, 179–80, 185, 188–89 12, 50–51, 56, 126, 146–51, 153, 159, 176, 178 15, 36–40, 51–53, 57, 125, 127, 134, 150

31:14 31:14–15 31:15 31:16 31:17 31:18 31:18–34:35 32 32–33 32–34

32:1 32:1–6 32:1–29 32:4 32:4–5 32:6 32:7 32:7–16 32:8 32:11 32:13 32:15 32:15–19 32:19 32:20–24 32:26–29 32:30–34:9 32:34 33–34 33:1 33:1–6 33:2 33:3–6 33:6 33:7–11 33:11 33:12–17 33:13 33:14 33:16 34 34:1 34:1–5

50, 146–50, 152 56, 146, 148 146–50, 153–54 51, 56, 146–52 50, 146–50, 152 131–32, 135, 138, 168, 170, 172 137 136, 167, 170, 172– 75, 186–87 135, 173 9, 31, 128, 130, 134, 137–38, 142, 152–53, 159, 166– 80, 186, 189 169–70 168, 178 167 170 171–72 173 170 172 170 170 171–72 168 170 172, 174 154 171 167 169, 172 136, 173, 186 170–72 172 169, 172 169 172 168–70, 172 170 169, 172 169 169 169 170–71, 173–75, 178 170 135

Index of References 34:1–10 34:1–27 34:4 34:6–7 34:6–26 34:8–11 34:10 34:10–34:35 34:11 34:11–26 34:11–27 34:12 34:12–15 34:13 34:14 34:15 34:15–16 34:16 34:17 34:18 34:18–25 34:18–26 34:19 34:21 34:22–24 34:23 34:24 34:24–26 34:25 34:26 34:27 34:27–28 34:28 34:28–29 34:28–35 34:29 34:29–32 34:29–35 34:33–34 35 35–40

35:1 35:1–3

174 172 170 168–69 135, 137 172 135, 171, 174–75 167 174–75 171–72, 174–77 172–73 171, 174 174 174 174 171, 174 174 174 170, 174 170, 174 170 174 174 170 174 174 174 174 170, 174 174 171–72, 175 135, 137, 175 135, 172–74 170 172 131, 138 131, 138 132 172 139, 158, 173 6, 9, 12, 30, 130, 132–34, 142–43, 145, 160, 164–67, 174, 176, 178–79 131 8–9, 11, 22, 24, 32, 37, 54, 125–27, 131–32, 134, 145– 46, 153–55, 159,

35:1–19 35:2 35:2–3 35:3 35:4 35:4–10 35:5 35:5–10 35:10 35:20–22 35:20–27 35:20–29 35:22–23 35:25 35:29 35:29–31 35:32 35:33 36:2 36:2–3 36:2–7 36:8 36:8–13 37:1–24 38:1–7 38:9–22 38:24–31 39–40 39:1–32 39:32

39:32–33 39:42–43 39:43

40 40:1 40:1–15 40:1–16 40:2 40:9

217 166–67, 170–71, 176–77, 179–80, 185, 189 24 36, 150, 153–54 125, 154 158 131 132 131 131 131 131 131 132 16 16 131 131 131 131 132 131 131–32 131 16 131 131 131 131 132, 144 131 8–9, 15, 131–32, 134, 142–45, 159, 166–67, 176–77, 180, 185, 189 131 131, 143 8, 131–32, 134, 142–45, 159, 166– 67, 176–77, 180, 185, 189 2, 18, 114, 144, 168 131 132 132 131 131

218 40:16 40:16–17 40:17

Index of References

40:35 40:35–36

143 132 8–9, 16, 98, 131– 34, 138–39, 142– 45, 159, 161, 166– 67, 176–77, 181, 185, 189 131 131 131 131–32, 143–45 8–9, 131, 133–34, 142–45, 159, 161, 166–69, 176–77, 180–81, 184–85, 189 16, 131–32, 138– 39, 143–45, 162, 182 125, 131, 135, 137, 143, 145, 162, 182 181–82 64

Leviticus 1–7 1–8 1–9 1–16 1:1 1:1–9:22 1:1–9:24 1:1–26:2 3:17 7:22–27 7:28–36 8–9 9 9–10 9:1 9:1–2 9:2 9:2–3 9:3 9:3–5 9:3–7 9:4 9:4–6 9:4–7

25, 182, 184 12 182–84, 187 4, 6, 11, 22 182 182 184 18 22 22 22 2, 164, 180–82 13, 18, 181–83 12 181–82 182 181 182 181 182 182 181–83 181 182

40:17–25 40:28 40:29 40:33 40:33–35

40:34

40:34–35

9:5 9:5–6 9:6 9:6–7 9:7 9:8 9:8–14 9:8–21 9:9–15 9:9–22 9:12 9:14 9:15 9:15–22 9:16–19 9:17 9:19–22 9:20 9:21 9:21–24 9:22 9:22–24 9:23 9:23–24 9:24 10 10:8–11 11 11–15 11–22 11–26 11–27 11:41–47 11:43–45 11:44–45 12–15 12:3 14:10 14:23 14:34 15:14 15:29 15:31 16 16:1–2 16:1–28 16:29–34 16:31

182 181 181–83 182 181–82 182 181 181–82 182 181 182 182 182 181 182 182 181 182 182 182 181–83 182 181–82 171, 180–84 181–83 13, 183–84 184 61, 184 12, 184 25 25 11, 18 12 12, 22, 184 40 184 181 96, 181 181 184 96, 181 96, 181 184 2, 12–13, 16–18, 26, 31, 68, 181, 184 184 126 22, 126, 184 126

Index of References 17 17–20 17–22 17–25 17–26

17:1–4 17:1–22:33 17:1–26:2 17:3–4 17:4–5 17:4–6 17:5 17:15–16 18 18–20 18–23 18–26 18–27 18:1–5 18:2–5 18:24–30 19 19:1–4 19:2 19:2–3 19:3 19:30 19:36 19:37 20 20:7 20:22–27 20:24 21–22 21:1–15 21:16–24 22:1–16 22:26–30 22:9 22:17–22 22:25 22:31–33

13, 19–21, 25, 28, 60–61, 65 65 27 40, 42, 65 1–6, 8–9, 12–13, 15, 18–36, 38–39, 42, 44, 47, 50, 54– 66, 69, 110, 112, 114, 127, 183–86, 189 114 40, 177 27 60 61 61 62 62 19–20 19, 28 20 11, 12, 18 19 3, 12, 21, 31 11, 112 3, 12, 21, 31 20 3, 21, 31 40 38–39 40 9, 40, 150, 176–77, 189 112 12 20 3, 21, 31 3, 12, 21, 31, 114 45–47 19, 65 20 20 20 20 3, 21, 31 20 20 3, 12, 21, 31

22:33 22:43 23

23–25 23:1–4 23:1–8 23:1–25:55 23:2 23:2–3 23:3 23:4 23:4–5 23:5 23:5–8 23:6 23:6–8 23:7–8 23:10–14 23:23–38 23:26–32 23:32 23:37 23:42–43 23:44 24 24:1–4 24:1–9 24:1–14 24:10–22 24:10–23 24:23 25

25–26 25:1–7 25:1–20 25:1–55 25:2 25:4 25:9–12 25:18 25:18–22 25:20–22

219 112 112 5, 11, 16, 20–21, 27, 39, 62, 65, 91, 97, 100–1, 116, 128, 189 8, 19, 25, 27, 40, 65 39 19 40, 177 39 23 40, 126, 148, 150 39, 62 62 7, 62, 78, 100, 105, 107, 116 62, 104, 115 105 8, 104–5, 107, 116 105 99 19 100 127 39 23 39 20 165 20 19 20 43, 106 19 7, 16, 21, 27, 46– 47, 97, 101, 115– 16, 126–27, 189 20, 46 127 127 22 127 127 127 3, 21, 31 12 38

220 25:23 25:23–24 25:25–26 25:30 25:33 25:38 25:42 25:43 25:46 25:48 25:53 25:54 25:55 26

26:1 26:1–2 26:1–39 26:2 26:3 26:3–6 26:3–13 26:3–39 26:3–45 26:3–46 26:9 26:9–12 26:9–13 26:11 26:11–12 26:11–13 26:12 26:12–13 26:13 26:14–15 26:14–39 26:15 26:16–33 26:33–35 26:34

Index of References 116 44–46 115 115 115 3, 21, 31, 45, 112 3, 21, 31 7, 71, 115 7, 71, 115 115 7, 115 71, 115 3, 21, 31, 46–47, 112 5, 11, 15, 19–20, 25–26, 29, 32–35, 41–42, 48, 52–54, 56–57, 64–66, 112– 14, 155, 157, 178– 80, 187–89 3, 21, 31, 56, 179 23, 112, 114, 179– 80 54 9, 40, 55, 150, 176–77, 179, 189 52 62 53, 114 54 12, 15, 19 179 15, 47, 57, 113–14 113–14 6–7, 25–26, 40, 46, 48, 52, 56, 187 114 52 15 25, 47, 52, 58–59, 113 47, 58 58, 112–14 52 33 52–54, 179 52 23 54, 179

26:34–35 26:34–45 26:39 26:39–45 26:40 26:40–41 26:40–45 26:41 26:42 26:42–45

26:46 27

55–56 51, 179 180 179–80 180 56–57 7, 54, 72, 114, 188 180 46, 57, 113, 180 25–26, 46, 53–54, 113 54–56, 179–80 52–54, 179–80 112 8, 57, 112–13, 115, 180 8, 54, 114, 137 30

Numbers 3:12–13 9 9:1–14 9:2 10:8–10 10:10 10:11–12 11:4 13–14 15:13 15:30 15:32–36 15:38–41 16–17 18:30–32 20:1 20:1–13 20:22 20:22–29 27 27:1–11 27:12–14 28–29 28:2 29:39 32:22 32:29 35:9–34

12, 103 39 43 97 12 39 17 106 17 39 150 43, 119 12 184 22 17 17 17 17 17 43 17 39 39 39 16 16 22

26:43 26:44 26:44–45 26:45

221

Index of References Deuteronomy 1:3 5 5:6–21 5:12 5:12–15 5:14 5:15 6:8 11:18 12 12:1–26:19 14:22–29 15:1–18 15:19 15:19–23 15 16 16:1–8 19:1–13 32:48–52 34 34:1 34:7 34:7–9 34:8 34:9

16 129 129 150 54–56, 129 129 150 103 103 21, 60 21 22 22 103 103 21 21, 107 103 22 16 2, 11, 15–16 14–16 16 14–16 16 16–17

Joshua 18:1 18:3 18:4 18:6 18:8 18:9 18:10 19:51 20:1–9 21:43–45

16 16 16 16 16 16 16 15–16 22 16

2 Samuel 7:1 7:6

158 58

Isaiah 56:2 56:4 56:6

150 150 150

Ezekiel 20 20:5 20:12 45:21

151 72 150–51 8, 105–7

Nehemiah 13:17

150

Author Index Achenbach, R. 21, 124, 126–27, 148–51, 179, 184 Albertz, R. 26, 33, 52, 58–60, 70, 79–80, 84, 92, 97–98, 101–3, 106–7, 113, 118–24, 128–30, 133, 135–38, 142– 43, 148, 151–54, 165, 170–74, 178, 186–88 Alt, A. 19 Amit, Y. 3, 27–28 Arnold, B.T. 3, 27–28, 37, 39–42, 51, 61, 88 Aurelius, E. 168–69, 175 Baden, J.S. 16, 119, 122, 128 Baentsch, B. 18–19, 60–61, 65, 80, 172 Bakon, S. 150 Bauks, M. 45 Baumgart, N.C. 56 Beer, G. 70, 90, 157, 172 Berner, C. 33, 67–68, 70–73, 76–77, 80, 82–84, 86, 89–91, 95, 101–2, 104–8 Bertholet, A. 19, 39–40, 60, 62, 65 Blenkinsopp, J. 15 Blum, E. 1, 3–5, 17, 24–35, 41–42, 44, 47–48, 50, 52, 54, 57–58, 60–63, 65, 70, 72, 76–77, 92, 94, 99, 104, 113– 14, 121–22, 124, 130, 133, 141, 143, 157–59, 162–63, 168, 171–74, 176– 78, 187–89 Brett, M. 41–42 Brichto, H.C. 172 Brown, W.P. 36, 157 Carmichael, C. 29 Carr, D. 16, 24, 34, 41, 55, 58, 82, 91– 92, 111, 152, 187–88 Chavel, S. 43 Childs, B. 78, 89, 106–8, 130, 133, 151, 155, 173–74, 176, 178

Cholewinski, A. 5, 21, 33–34, 44–47, 59–60, 62 Cook, J.A. 96–97 Cooper, A. 3, 27–28, 126 Cross, F.M. 15, 33, 48, 50, 52, 56, 156– 57, 164–65 Crüsemann, F. 26–27, 29, 32, 34–35, 39, 41, 47–48, 50, 52, 57, 61, 94–95, 99, 112, 116, 121–22, 171–75 Dahm, U. 83, 92–93, 95–96, 98 Diesel, A.A. 73–74, 89, 111–12 Dillmann, A. 61–62, 70–71, 86, 89, 93, 97, 151, 157 Dohmen, C. 72, 74, 77, 89, 93, 99, 103, 111, 118, 121, 123, 129, 133, 136–38, 151–53, 163, 167, 171, 175–76 Dozeman, T.B. 60, 67, 71–73, 78, 98–99, 102, 104, 106–9, 111, 115, 124–26, 128, 130, 137–38, 144, 147, 151 Durham, J. 89 Eerdmans, B. 1, 19, 24 Elliger, K. 1, 14, 15, 20–21, 23, 62, 88, 90, 123, 131–32, 143, 145, 159, 163, 165, 181–82 Elliott-Binns, L.E. 20 Ellman, B. 124 Erisman, A.R. 3, 31, 41, 55, 59, 61, 108– 9 Ewald, H. 10, 18 Feucht, C. 20, 62, 100 Firmage, E. 3, 27–28, 40, 61, 110 Fischer, G. 54, 67, 75, 106, 108–9, 116, 185–86 Fox, M.V. 42, 51, 88, 135, 148–49 Fretheim, T.E. 44, 109, 115

224

Author Index

Frevel, C. 2, 15–16, 29, 131–32, 139, 141–45, 159, 163–65, 181, 183 Fritz, V. 121, 132

Jenson, P. 28 Jeon, J. 68, 81–82, 92, 108, 111 Joosten, J. 47–48, 54, 57

Gaines, J.M. 16–17, 73 Galling, K. 70, 90, 157, 172 George, M. 160 Gerstenberger, E. 28 Gertz, J.C. 33, 67–68, 70, 73, 76, 79, 83– 85, 89, 91, 92, 97, 102, 104, 106–7, 111, 167–68, 174 Gesenius, W. 83 Gesundheit, S. 80, 82–91, 96–97, 101–3 Gilders, W. 87 Goldstein, B. 3, 27–28, 126 Görg, M. 140, 161, 163, 183 Greifenhagen, F. 110 Graf, K.H. 11–13 Greenberg, M. 71–72, 115 Gross, W. 46, 50, 54, 145, 148–53, 155, 179 Grund, A. 36, 108, 119–20, 123, 129–30, 148, 151, 155 Grünwaldt, K. 2, 21–22, 33, 37–41, 46– 47, 53, 55, 59, 62, 65, 76–77, 90–91, 94–95, 104, 112, 116, 127, 139, 148– 51, 154 Guillaume, P. 16, 27–28, 78, 97, 101

Kaufman, S. 31 Kearney, P. 163, 168, 178 Kilchör, B. 78, 80–82, 100, 102, 129 Kilian, R. 20, 52, 62, 100 King, T. 24, 29, 32, 63, 110, 148 Klein, G. 93 Klostermann, A. 1, 12, 18, 23, 29, 32, 116 Knauf, E.A. 109 Knobel, A. 157 Knohl, I. 1–4, 22–24, 29–33, 36, 40, 41, 44, 47, 52, 62–65, 74–75, 77–78, 104, 106, 110, 126, 130, 133, 140, 148, 155, 163, 165, 176, 180, 184 Koch, K. 132–33, 140, 158, 163, 165, 181–82 Köckert, M. 17, 45, 17, 19, 85, 88–90, 95, 100, 121, 145, 147, 151, 154 Kohata, F. 68, 77, 79, 93, 108 Konkel, M. 171–73 Kornfeld, W. 20 Korpel, M. 54 Kratz, R.G. 18 Krüger, T. 36 Kuenen, A. 1, 3, 11–13, 18–19, 23, 29, 32, 62, 67, 145 Küchler, S. 19, 24

Halbe, J. 174–75 Haran, M. 99, 170 Hartenstein, F. 168–69 Hartley, J. 28, 39 Hauge, M.R. 168, 170–71, 173, 175, 178 Hepner, G. 29 Hieke, T. 53–54, 57, 179 Hildebrand, M. 179 Hoffmann, D. 1, 19, 24, 62–63, 100, 139 Holzinger, H. 13, 18, 67, 86, 90, 95, 100 Horst, L. 16, 19 Hossfeld, F.-L. 129, 174, 176 Hundley, M.B. 57, 140 Hurowitz, V.A. 142, 144, 158, 160, 165, 173 Jacob, B. 67, 70–71, 74, 86, 97–99, 176 Janowksi, B. 17, 38, 45, 99, 131–33, 138–40, 142–45, 159, 161, 163, 181 Jenni, E. 146, 148, 153, 158

Laaf, P. 79–80, 85, 89 Leonhard, C. 78, 99 Levenson, J.D. 154 Levin, C. 70, 106 Loewenstamm, S. 86, 88 Lohfink, N. 15, 41, 48, 50, 52–54, 77, 131, 143, 145, 155, 159, 163–64, 182 Löhr, M. 14 Lust, J. 55, 59 Macholz, C. 16 Marcos, N.F. 130 Markl, D. 67, 75, 106, 108–9, 116, 186 McEvenue, S. 41–42, 55 Meshel, N.S. 184 Milgrom, J. 1–3, 5, 22–24, 27, 29–32, 34, 36–37, 39–40, 42, 44, 47–48, 52–

Author Index 54, 57, 62–65, 114, 116, 126, 128, 130, 141, 148, 165, 179, 184 Moberly, W. 163, 169, 175 Müller, R. 74 Müllner, I. 99, 103 Negretti, N. 149–50 Nihan, C. 2–3, 17, 21–24, 30, 41, 45, 49, 54–56, 58, 60–61, 64, 104–6, 114, 130–33, 135, 138–39, 143–45, 147– 48, 150, 152–55, 159–60, 163–64, 176, 181–82, 184 Nöldeke, T. 1, 4, 11–13, 18, 30, 36, 42– 43, 51, 65, 67, 78, 157, 187 Noth, M. 14–15, 90, 96, 106, 131, 142– 43, 145, 147, 159, 172, 181 Olyan, S. 41, 147–48 Oswald, W. 43, 60, 70, 72, 75, 78, 80, 82–84, 87, 92, 97, 99–104, 106–7, 111, 136, 186, 188 Otto, E. 2–3, 5, 18, 21, 31, 33–34, 36, 40, 44–47, 50, 55–56, 59–60, 62, 73, 75– 76, 79–80, 85, 96, 100, 105, 116, 119, 131, 133, 135, 139–40, 143, 145, 161, 163–64, 168, 173, 176–77, 181, 187 Owczarek, S. 132, 139, 143, 148 Perlitt, L. 16–17, 174 Pola, T. 16, 18, 36, 98, 119, 131–33, 139–40, 143–45, 159–61, 163, 171, 181 Popper, J. 160 de Pury, A. 18, 33, 41 Rabast, K. 19 von Rad, G. 14, 19, 72, 79, 133, 140, 146–47, 161, 165, 181–82 Reindl, J. 76–77 Rendtorff, R. 26, 33, 113 Reventlow, H.G. 20 Robinson, G. 56, 180 Römer, T. 17–18, 33, 45–46, 59, 68, 72– 75, 108–9 Rose, M. 121 Ruprecht, E. 119–22 Ruwe, A. 1, 3, 27–30, 34–36, 39–40, 44– 45, 52, 56, 60–61, 63, 65, 141, 155, 158–59, 176–77, 179, 183, 188

225

Schart, A. 120–21, 123 Schäfer, P. 143 Schüle, A. 152, 156–57 Schmid, K. 41–42, 72–74, 111, 133, 135, 137, 141–42, 161, 172–73 Schmidt, L. 16, 119, 121, 124 Schmidt, W. 38, 70–72, 76, 116, 158 Schmitt, H.-C. 174 Schmitt, R. 80, 89–90, 133, 140, 171 Schnutenhaus, F. 137 Schreiner, J. 80 Schwartz, B.J. 22, 135, 155 Seebaß, H. 16, 172 Ska, J.-L. 5, 10, 16–17, 44–47, 59–60, 62, 76–77, 109, 111, 115, 122–23 Smith, M.S. 36, 39, 78, 158 Stackert, J. 22, 24, 37–38, 48, 54, 128, 145–48, 152 Steck, O.H. 37–38, 50, 157–59 Steins, G. 131–32, 164 Steymans, H.-U. 53–54, 56–58, 179 Struppe, U. 135, 137, 164, 181–82, 184 Sun, H.T. 28 Taggar-Cohen, A. 136, 167 Thiel, W. 20, 33 Timmer, D.C. 39, 51, 125, 148–52, 154– 55, 158, 177–78, 180 Tucker, P.N. 82 Utzschneider, H. 33, 60, 70, 72, 75, 78, 80, 82–84, 87, 92, 97, 99–104, 106–7, 111, 132, 136, 139–40, 157, 160, 163–65, 168, 173, 176, 186 Van den Eynde, S. 148, 151–53 Van Seters, J. 78, 136, 172 Vermeylen, J. 172 Vervenne, M. 108 Volz, P. 14 Wagenaar, J. 100 Wagner, T. 122, 137, 163, 181 Wagner, V. 24–26 Warner, M. 33, 42 Warning, W. 28 Watts, J. 29, 58, 170, 178, 188 Weimar, P. 16, 30, 34, 38, 41, 60, 70–71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 85, 90, 95–97, 119,

226 126, 131–33, 138, 141–45, 159, 161, 163–65, 182–83 Weinfeld, M. 37, 138, 144, 154, 158 Wellhausen, J. 1–4, 10–14, 18–19, 42– 44, 51, 59, 67, 140, 145, 160, 172, 174, 182 Wenham, G. 28 Westermann, C. 135, 181 de Wette, W.M.L. 10 Weyde, K.W. 89, 100

Author Index Wöhrle, J. 33, 41, 45, 70, 141, 143 Wright, D. P. 39, 99, 101, 111, 122 Wurster, P. 13, 60–61 Zahn, M.M. 102 Zenger, E. 2, 5, 17, 44–45, 47, 138, 172– 73, 183 Ziemer, B. 42, 48–51, 55, 57, 59, 136, 152, 157, 166 Zimmerli, W. 48, 50, 155

Subject Index Aaronic, Aaronides 6, 8–9, 14, 18, 68, 75–77, 96–97, 106, 121, 163, 165–68, 170–71 Abraham 5, 7, 9, 11–13, 15, 17, 30, 43, 46, 48–53, 57–58, 71, 74, 89, 146, 151–53, 156–57, 167, 171, 179, 187– 88 Altar 9, 132, 143, 160, 163–64, 166–67, 170–71, 181, 187 Anachronism 119, 122, 124 Anthropomorphism 38, 63–64 Anti-creational 71, 73 Antitype 168 Appointed times 39 Apodictic 20 Ark of the Covenant 8, 132, 138–39, 160, 163, 166, 168, 170 Atrahasis epic 158 Authority 74–75, 83, 106, 111–12, 171, 184 Authorization 75–76 Baal epic 154, 158 Base layer 32, 68–69, 78, 89, 96, 100, 101, 110, 134, 180 Battle 17, 108 Bezalel 9, 143, 145, 160, 166 Blessing 2, 6–8, 15, 37–38, 40–41, 48– 53, 56–59, 70–71, 73, 109, 112–14, 118, 156, 166, 168, 179, 181–84, 188 Blood 10, 49, 51, 61, 76, 86–88, 90–92, 107, 156 Book of the Covenant 2, 23, 128, 135– 36, 174–75 Burnt offering (olah) 182 Calendar 7–8, 16, 20, 39, 62, 78, 91, 95– 97, 100–101, 107, 128, 170, 184 Camp 19, 114, 128, 168–70

Canaan 15–16, 30, 44–45, 49, 74, 111– 12, 184 Centralization 21, 60 Ceremony 128, 135–37, 153, 175 Chiasm 148, 150, 176 Chronology 61, 138, 144 Circumcision 9–11, 13–15, 49, 51, 53, 56, 87–88, 146, 151–53, 156, 167 Clean and unclean 11, 184 Co-existence 61 Coffin texts of Atum 158 Combat 144 Commission 75, 139 Conflation 82, 87, 91 Consecration of firstborn 101–4 of priests 164–65, 180, 183 Conquest 14, 114 Constitution 10, 186, 188 Cosmic 8, 43, 109 Covenant 2–10, 13, 15, 20, 25, 30–32, 38, 42–43, 46–60, 63–65, 72–74, 87– 89, 107, 109–111, 113, 118, 125, 128, 130, 134–38, 142, 145–46, 148–49, 151–53, 155–59, 162, 166–68, 170– 80, 185–89 Covenant Code 21 Creation 3–11, 15, 17–18, 25, 27, 31–32, 36–41, 48–49, 51–52, 54–59, 61–62, 64–65, 70–71, 73–74, 109–10, 112– 16, 120, 123–24, 129–30, 134, 138, 143–46, 155–59, 167, 177, 178, 181, 187–89 Criterion 2, 5, 12, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 30, 33–35, 41, 44, 55, 56, 60, 64, 69, 72, 79, 82, 86, 91, 95, 97, 146, 148 Cult, cultic 2, 4, 6, 11, 14–18, 20, 22–23, 25, 30–32, 34, 40, 43–44, 58, 61, 64– 65, 68, 77–78, 97, 99, 115, 130, 159,

228

Subject Index

165–66, 168, 170–71, 174–75, 178, 182–84, 188–89 Curse 15, 53, 59, 114, 118 Day of Atonement 17, 100, 126, 184 Death 14–15, 49, 56, 184 De-mythologization 88 Decalogue 112, 120, 124, 128–30, 135– 37, 175 Destroyer 85 Deuteronomic 21, 33, 59, 62, 79 Deuteronomistic 5, 8, 14, 16, 33–34, 55, 59–60, 68, 78, 80, 83, 92, 101, 104, 107, 120–21, 136, 172–74, 186 Deuteronomy 2, 11, 13–14, 16, 19, 20– 23, 33–34, 44, 54, 59–60, 81 Disobedience 46, 52, 53, 105, 114, 153 Distinctive 28, 30, 51, 109, 140, 169 Documentary Hypothesis 68, 128–29, 135, 155 Egypt 7–9, 32, 46–47, 49–51, 62, 65, 70– 74, 76–79, 85–87, 89–91, 99, 101, 106–9, 111–15, 118, 121–23, 128–29, 144, 156, 158, 169–70, 185–86 Elders 83, 136 Elohist, elohistic (E) 10–11, 128, 157 El Shaddai 49–50, 71, 156 Encounter 119, 140, 163, 168 Enuma elish 37, 144, 158 Epic 10, 154, 158 Erra epic 158 Etiology 163 Exhortation 3, 11–12, 15, 32, 58, 65, 113 Exile 14, 23, 46, 51, 53, 156, 179 Exodus Formula 2 Ezekiel 11–13, 19, 44, 55, 105 Face of God 168 Festival 5–8, 11, 20–21, 36, 39, 42, 62– 63, 65, 78, 80, 82, 90–92, 95, 99–100, 104–7, 115–16, 128, 168, 170–71, 174, 177, 184–85, 189 Fire 154, 158, 181–82 Firstborn 76–77, 79, 83, 85–87, 91–92, 101–4, 107, 185 Firstfruits 99, 103 Flood 5–6, 10, 13, 48, 51, 55–56, 61, 70, 88, 98, 109, 144, 156–57

Foreigner 8, 106 Forgiveness 167, 170, 173–75 Form criticism 19–20 Framework of H 3, 21, 31, 55–56, 114, 185 Fulfillment 8, 16–17, 70–72, 76, 111–12, 114, 123, 141, 160, 166, 173 Genealogy 7, 70, 75 Golden calf 9, 130, 134, 142, 153–55, 159, 167–68, 170–72, 177, 180, 186– 87, 189 Hardened heart 76 Harshness (parek) 7, 71, 115 Heavenly tabernacle 133, 161 Humanity 6–7, 25, 37–38, 40–41, 43, 48–49, 51, 57–59, 61–63, 72, 156, 168, 178 Image of God 6, 40 Imitation of God 6, 38–40, 51, 116 Inauguration 7, 125, 171, 181–83 Incense 9, 143, 160, 166 Inclusio 18, 163 Inner-biblical exegesis 21–22 Intercession 167, 187 Isaac 46, 49–50, 156 Ishmael 49, 156 Itinerary 107, 128 Jacob 7, 46, 49–50, 70 Jehovist (JE) 11, 157 Jerusalem 21 Jubilee year 127 Judgment 74, 76–77, 89, 107 Kavod 109, 123, 135, 169, 181 Kinsman 115 Labor 71, 75 Land Ownership 15–16, 44–45, 115–16 Inheritance 142 Loss of 52, 57 Lawcode 19, 22–23, 174 Levites 171 Lehrerzählung 124, 127 Liberation 7, 9, 32, 72, 186

Subject Index

Magicians 76–77 Manna 120–21, 123–24, 189 Marah 118 Marduk 144, 158 Mediation 135 Memory 58, 124, 170, 187 Memphite Theology 158 Messenger 168–69 Metalepsis 99 Midrash 83 Mixed multitude 8, 106–7 Moab 21 Molten image 170 Monolatry 174 Mountain 8, 135–38, 144, 166, 173, 178, 185–86 Nadab and Abihu 184 Name of God 7, 17, 32, 63, 73 New years day 98, 100, 144 Noah 7, 9, 13, 15, 46, 53, 58, 98, 146, 151, 167, 171, 187–88 Non-Priestly 4, 6–7, 9, 15–16, 23, 25, 30–31, 33, 43, 54–55, 59–60, 66, 68, 70–71, 73, 77, 81–84, 85–87, 91–93, 99, 101, 108, 110–11, 116, 123, 128– 29, 134–38, 152–55, 159, 166–71, 173–77, 185–87 Oholiab 9, 143, 145, 160, 166 Oral tradition 133 Ordinance 12, 36, 38, 43, 88 Paradigmatic 58, 116, 153, 176, 180, 188–89 Parenesis 4, 7, 19–21, 31, 38, 42, 50, 54, 69, 92, 94, 105, 107, 111, 117, 176– 77, 184, 188–89 Passover 7–8, 11, 14, 31, 39, 58, 62, 72, 76–92, 94–101, 103–7, 116, 120, 146, 185, 188 Patriarchs 2, 7, 9, 15, 17, 42, 45–46, 53, 55, 57–59, 71–75, 98, 107, 109, 113, 129, 166, 171 Pharaoh 71, 75–77, 108–9, 111, 116, 144, 186 P-Komposition 4, 25, 30–31, 189 Plague 7, 68, 75–77, 107, 186

229

Post-Priestly 9, 16, 20–23, 70, 80, 82–85, 102, 111, 131, 135, 157, 165–68, 172–73 Postexilic 22 Preamble 5–6, 27, 35, 41–42, 65, 185– 86, 188–89 Presence of God 2, 4, 7, 9, 17–18, 25, 32, 40–41, 50, 57, 114, 122, 136–38, 140–41, 166–69, 171, 175, 177–78, 182–83, 187 Priestly manual 184 Primeval history 7, 58, 71, 74, 178, 188 Privilegrecht 171–72, 174–77 Prophet, prophetic 21, 31, 55, 59, 76, 109, 132–33, 160–61, 170 Protection 87 Purity 11, 184 Rationale 40, 42, 46–47, 111, 129–30, 151, 188 Redactor 14, 19–20, 22, 42, 67, 70–71, 82, 138, 157, 163, 172, 175 Redeemer 111, 115 Remembering 7, 31, 46, 50, 57, 72, 88, 109, 111, 114 Repentance 51, 56–57, 114 Responsibility 42, 57, 110, 112, 115, 124, 178, 187 Rest 36–38, 51, 120, 127, 134, 146, 149, 154–55, 158–59, 170, 177 Restoration 7, 17, 27, 40–41, 51, 57–58, 61, 112, 114, 124, 134, 141, 144, 154–56, 158–59, 168, 170, 175, 177– 78 Rhetoric 29, 47, 58, 74, 112, 148, 188 Ritual 8, 11, 17, 31, 34, 36, 39, 44, 60, 62, 64, 68, 78–84, 86–87, 91–100, 106–7, 116, 130, 132–33, 165–68, 175, 181–85, 187, 189 Sabbath 4–6, 8–11, 13–16, 23, 27, 31– 32, 36–40, 42, 50–51, 54–56, 65, 114–15, 119–30, 134, 138, 145–59, 166–67, 169–70, 176–80, 185, 188– 89 Sacrifice 11, 25, 39, 81–82, 87, 100, 170–71, 174, 183 Salvation 7–8, 50, 72, 74, 109–13, 115– 16, 118, 122, 128, 167, 187

230

Subject Index

Sanctuary (miqdash) 4, 6, 8–9, 11, 15, 27, 31–32, 38, 40–41, 61–62, 114, 119, 122, 128, 132–33, 139–41, 144, 154, 158, 160–63, 167–68, 177–80, 189 Sea of Reeds 107 Self-revelation formula 74, 142 Septuagint 130 Sign Circumcision 9–11, 13–15, 49, 51, 53, 56, 87–88, 146, 151–53, 167 Rainbow 7, 9, 15, 48, 51, 87–88, 151, 156 Slave/servant 7, 22, 46–47, 50, 71–74, 114–16, 129, 189 Slaughter 60–62, 82, 87, 97, 99–100, 185 Song of the Sea 115, 118 Speech-command formula 90 Tabernacle 2, 4, 6, 8–9, 12, 18, 60, 68, 87, 98–99, 114, 122, 125–28, 130–34, 136–46, 153–55, 158–69, 171, 173, 177–78, 182–83, 185, 187, 189 Tablet 135–37 Tabnit 161

Talion 61 Temple 14, 17, 19, 82, 87, 99, 141, 144, 146, 154–55, 158–59, 165, 173, 176 Tent of Meeting 61, 132–33, 139–40, 160, 163–65, 168–70 Theocracy 10 Theophany 17, 121–22, 137, 173 Tiamat 144 Unleavened Bread 8, 39, 89–91, 99, 101– 7, 116 Vengeance 10 Violence 7, 51, 61 Vorlage 8, 33, 77, 79–81, 92–93, 121, 132–33, 142, 163, 165–66 Wilderness 8, 13, 31, 38, 65, 108, 114, 118–19, 121–24, 127–28, 135, 138, 185–86 Wonder 76–77 Worship 99, 167, 174–75, 178 Yahwist, yahwistic (J) 84, 174