Nihan - From Priestly Torah To Pentateuch [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

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

25

Christophe Nihan

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

Mohr Siebeck

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

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-151123-3 ISBN 978-3-16-149257-0 ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2007 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission.This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

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

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

VIII

Preface

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

Geneva, May 2007 Christophe Nihan

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

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

X

Contents

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

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

Contents

XI

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

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

XII

Contents

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

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

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

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

b. BBB BBR BEATAJ BETL

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

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

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

DJD Dtr

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

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

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

FAT

Forschungen zum Alten Testament

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

XV

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

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

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

ICC Int ITC

International Critical Commentary Interpretation International Theological Commentary

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

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

XVI

Abbreviations and Signs

JSJSup JSOT JSOTSup JSPSup JSS JSS.S JTS

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

KAI

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

KAT KHAT KHC KTU

l. LAPO LD LXX LXX* LXX LXX

A B

m. M* masc. ms(s) MSL

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

MThSt MUSJ

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

NCBC NEB Ni. NICOT NRTh NS NSK.AT NTS

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

OBO ÖBS OLZ Or OS OTL OTS

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

MT

Abbreviations and Signs

XVII

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

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

Q QD QuSem

Qumran Quaestiones disputatae Quaderni di semitistica

RA RB RGG RHPR RHR RIDA RivBib RS RTL

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

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

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

t.

Tosefta

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

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

UCOP UF ÜSt

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

Vg. VT VTSup

Vulgate Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum

WBC WMANT WO

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

YOS

Yale Oriental Series

ZAR ZAW ZDMG ZNW ZThK

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

Introduction

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

2

Introduction

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

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

Leviticus and the Composition of the Pentateuch

3

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

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

4

Introduction

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

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

Leviticus and the Composition of the Pentateuch

5

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

22

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

6

Introduction

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

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

Leviticus and the Composition of the Pentateuch

7

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

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

8

Introduction

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

52

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

Leviticus and the Composition of the Pentateuch

9

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

60

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

10

Introduction

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

73

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

Leviticus and the Composition of the Pentateuch

11

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

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

12

Introduction

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

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

Leviticus and the Composition of the Pentateuch

13

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

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

14

Introduction

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

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

Leviticus and the Composition of the Pentateuch

15

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

16

Introduction

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

105

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

Leviticus and the Composition of the Pentateuch

17

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

18

Introduction

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

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

Leviticus and the Composition of the Pentateuch

19

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

Chapter One

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

1.1. The Current Discussion on P’s Ending

21

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

22

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

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

1.1. The Current Discussion on P’s Ending

23

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

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

24

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

1.1. The Current Discussion on P’s Ending

25

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

26

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

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

1.1. The Current Discussion on P’s Ending

27

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

Numbers 20:8aa1

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

Take (xq) your staff (h+m)

Exodus 17:6b

Numbers 20:8b

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

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

28

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

35

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

1.1. The Current Discussion on P’s Ending

29

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

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

30

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

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

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

31

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

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

32

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

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

33

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

34

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

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

35

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

36

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

Exodus 40:34

rhh-t) Nn(h skyw

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

ynys rh-l( hwhy-dwbk Nk#yw

Nk#mh-t) )lm hwhy dwbkw

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

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

37

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

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

38

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

87

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

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

39

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

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

40

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

106

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

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

41

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

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

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

42

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

114

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

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

43

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

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

44

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

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

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

45

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

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

46

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

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

47

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

143

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

48

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

149

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

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

49

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

154

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

50

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

161

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

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

51

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

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

52

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

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

53

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

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

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

54

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

Exodus 39–40 1:31a

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

d)m bw+ hnhw

39:43a

hk)lmh lk t) h#m )ryw

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

2:1

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

2:2a

hk)lmh t) h#m lkyw

40:33b

2:3aa

h#m Mt) Krbyw

39:43b

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

39:32a

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

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

55

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

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

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

56

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

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

57

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

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

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

58

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

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

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

59

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

204

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

60

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

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

61

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

62

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

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

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

63

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

64

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

Exodus 6:7

Exodus 29:45–46

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

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

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

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

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

65

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

237

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

66

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

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

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

67

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

68

Chapter One: Leviticus and P in Genesis–Exodus

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

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

Chapter Two

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

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

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

70

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

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

2.1. Introduction: Leviticus as a Separate “Book”

71

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

72

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

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

Numbers

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

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

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

2.1. Introduction: Leviticus as a Separate “Book”

73

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

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

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

74

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

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

Exodus 40:17

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

Leviticus

Numbers 1:1

Numbers 10:11

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

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

[1st month of the 2nd year]

Arrival at Sinai Erection of the sanctuary at MOUNT Sinai

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

Departure from Sinai

WILDERNESS

of Sinai

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

2.1. Introduction: Leviticus as a Separate “Book”

75

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

23

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

76

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

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

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

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

2.2. A Dialogue with Recent Approaches

77

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

78

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

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

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

2.2. A Dialogue with Recent Approaches

79

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

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

80

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

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

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

81

2.2. A Dialogue with Recent Approaches

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

8–10

11–15

Opfer

Priester

Alltag

16–17

18–20

21–22

23–26.27

VER-

Alltag

Priester

Opfer + Feste

SÖHNUNG

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

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

82

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

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

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

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

2.2. A Dialogue with Recent Approaches

83

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

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

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

84

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

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

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

2.2. A Dialogue with Recent Approaches

85

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

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

86

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

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

79

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

2.2. A Dialogue with Recent Approaches

87

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

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

88

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

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

2.2. A Dialogue with Recent Approaches

89

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

90

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

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

2.2. A Dialogue with Recent Approaches

91

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

92

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

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

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

Lev 9:24a

…xbzmh-l( lk)tw hwhy ynplm #) )ctw

Lev 10:2a

Mtw) lk)tw hwhy ynplm #) )ctw

Lev 10:3ab

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

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

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

2.2. A Dialogue with Recent Approaches

93

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

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

94

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

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

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

2.3. A Case for the Threefold Structure of Leviticus

95

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

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

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

96

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

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

2.3. A Case for the Threefold Structure of Leviticus

97

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

98

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

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

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

2.3. A Case for the Threefold Structure of Leviticus

99

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

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

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

100

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

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

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

101

2.3. A Case for the Threefold Structure of Leviticus

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

Leviticus 16:12–13

wttxm #y) … Nrh)-ynb wxqyw

… #)-ylxg htxmh-)lm xqlw

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

… hwhy ynpl #)h-l( tr+qh-t) Ntnw

hrz #) hwhy ynpl wbrqyw hwhy ynpl wtmyw …

twmy )lw

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

102

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

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

2.3. A Case for the Threefold Structure of Leviticus

103

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

104

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

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

Ex 40:34–35

Lev 9:23–24

Lev 16:2, 12–13

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moses allowed inside the tent, together with Aaron

Encounter GodAaron inside the inner-sanctum

Nk#m

Moses not allowed inside the dwelling

2.3. A Case for the Threefold Structure of Leviticus

105

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

106

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

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

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

2.3. A Case for the Threefold Structure of Leviticus

107

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

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

108

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

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

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

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

109

2.3. A Case for the Threefold Structure of Leviticus

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

Lev 11–16

Lev 17–26 (27)

Conclusion:

Lev 9–10 

Lev 16 

Lev 26 (+ 27)

Reference to the divine presence:

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

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

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

Narrative context:

Institution of the sacrificial cult

Maintenance and restoration of the sacrificial cult

Consecration of all Israel to Yahweh

Corresponding sign:

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

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

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

Inclusion with the previous pentateuchal narrative:

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

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

 Gen 5–6 (5:22,

MOTIF/ SECTIONS

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

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

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

110

Chapter Two: Structure and Theme of Leviticus

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

148

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

Chapter Three

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

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

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

112

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

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

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

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

113

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

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

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

114

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

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

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

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

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

115

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

116

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

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

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

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

117

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

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

118

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

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

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

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

119

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

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

120

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

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

43

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

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

121

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

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

122

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

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

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

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

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

123

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

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

124

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

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

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

125

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

126

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

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

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

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

127

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

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

Leviticus 8:10–11 10

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

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

and the basin and its base, to consecrate them.

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

128

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

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

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

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

129

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

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

130

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

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

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

131

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

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

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

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

132

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

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

133

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

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

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

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

109

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

134

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

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

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

135

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

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

136

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

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

117

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

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

137

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

138

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

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

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

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

139

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

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

140

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

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

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

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

141

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

142

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

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

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

143

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

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

144

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

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

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

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

145

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

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

146

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

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

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

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

147

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

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

148

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

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

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

3.1. The Composition of Leviticus 8–10

149

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

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

150

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

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

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

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

151

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

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

Leviticus 8:18–21 3

hl(h ly) t) brqyw18

hl(h #)r l( wdy Kmsw4

ly)h #)r-l( Mhydy-t) … wkmsyw

5

+x#yw19

hwhy ynpl wncrl wt) byrqy

hwhy ynpl rqbh Nb-t) +x#w

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

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

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

6

wyxtnl xtn ly)h-t)w20

#)rh-t) Myxtnh t) … wkr(w

8

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

Myc(h-l( rdph-t)w

rdph-t)w Myxtnh-t)w

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

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

hxbzmh lkh-t) Nhkh ry+qhw

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

hwhyl xwxyn-xyr h#) hl(

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

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

152

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

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

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

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

153

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

Exodus 29:2

rwnt hp)m hxnm Nbrq brqt ykw

Nm#b tlwlb tcm tlxw twcm Mxlw

Nm#b tlwlb tcm twlx tls

Nm#b Myx#m twcm yqyqrw

Nm#b Myx#m twcm yqyqrw

Mt) h#(t My+x tls

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

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

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

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

154

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

Leviticus 1:5–9 12

hl(h-t) +x#yw

hwhy ynpl rqbh Nb-t) +x#w5

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

Mdh-t) … wbyrqhw

bybs xbzmh-l( whqrzyw

… bybs xbzmh-l( Mdh-t) wqrzw

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

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

xbzmh-l( r+qyw

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

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

Mymb Cxry wy(rkw wbrqw9

hxbzmh hl(h-l( r+qyw

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

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

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

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

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

155

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

156

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

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

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

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

157

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

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

158

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

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

Leviticus 1–9

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

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

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

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

d(wm

Ex 35–40: Completion of the instructions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

159

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

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

160

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

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

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

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

161

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

162

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

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

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

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

163

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

164

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

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

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

165

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

166

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

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

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

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

167

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

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

168

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

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

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

169

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

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

170

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

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

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

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

171

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

172

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

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

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

173

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

174

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

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

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

175

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

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

176

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

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

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

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

177

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

178

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

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

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

179

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

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

180

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

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

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

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

181

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

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

182

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

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

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

183

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

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

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

184

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

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

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

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

185

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

335

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

186

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

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

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

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

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

187

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

188

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

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

Outer-sanctum (4:3–21)

Inner-sanctum (Lev 16)

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

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

– Unique sprinkling of blood eastward of the kapporet

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

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

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

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

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

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

189

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

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

190

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

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

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

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

191

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

192

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

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

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

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

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

193

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

194

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

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

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

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

195

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

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

196

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

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

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

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

197

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

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

198

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

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

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

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

199

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

200

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

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

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

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

201

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

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

202

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

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

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

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

203

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

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

204

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

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

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

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

205

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

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

206

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

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

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

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

207

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

417

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

208

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

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

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

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

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

209

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

210

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

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

436

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

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

211

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

212

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

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

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

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

213

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

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

214

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

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

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

215

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

453

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

216

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

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

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

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

217

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

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

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

218

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

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

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

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

219

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

220

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

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

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

221

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

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

222

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

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

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

223

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

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

224

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

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

501

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

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

225

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

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

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

226

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

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

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

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

227

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

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

228

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

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

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

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

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

229

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

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

230

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

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

3.4. The Composition of Lev 1–9* by P

231

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

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

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

232

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

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

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

3.4. The Composition of Lev 1–9* by P

233

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

234

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

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

3.4. The Composition of Lev 1–9* by P

235

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

236

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

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

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

3.5. Leviticus 5

237

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

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

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

238

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

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

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

3.5. Leviticus 5

239

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

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

240

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

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

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

3.5. Leviticus 5

241

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

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

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

242

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

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

3.5. Leviticus 5

243

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

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

244

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

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

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

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

3.5. Leviticus 5

245

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

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

246

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

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

624

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

3.5. Leviticus 5

247

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

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

248

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

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

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

3.5. Leviticus 5

249

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

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

250

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

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

647

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

3.5. Leviticus 5

251

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

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

252

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

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

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

3.5. Leviticus 5

253

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

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

254

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

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

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

3.5. Leviticus 5

255

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

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

256

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

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

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

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

257

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

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

258

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

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

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

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

259

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

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

260

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

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

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

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

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

261

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

262

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

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

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

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

263

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

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

264

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

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

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

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

265

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

266

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

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

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

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

267

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

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

268

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

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

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

Chapter Four

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

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

270

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

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

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

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

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

271

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

7

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

272

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

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

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

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

273

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

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

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

274

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

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

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

275

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

276

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

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

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

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

277

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

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

278

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

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

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

279

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

280

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

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

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

281

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

wdy gy#t-r#) t) at the beginning of 14:31 MT is generally considered as a dittography. However, and even though it appears to be omitted in the LXX and in Syr, this need not necessarily be the case; for the opposite view, see, e.g., PÉTER-CONTESSE, Lévitique 1–16, 218. 46 The reference to circumcision in 12:3 need not be taken as a mark of the work of P. As noted by ELLIGER, Leviticus, 157, if the phrase hlr( r#b is found only in Gen 17 (17:11, 14, 23, 24, 25), lwm Niphal is used there with the nota accusativi, contrary to Lev 12:3 MT (but see the SamP). Whether 12:4b belongs to the original to=ra= or is from the hand of the Priestly scribe responsible for the insertion of the collection of Lev 11–15 into Leviticus is difficult to decide. In v. 6, the requirement to offer a turtledove as a t)+x alongside the lamb as a hl( does not betray a later harmonization with other passages in P calling for the combined offering of hl( and t)+x (thus in particular S CHÖTZ , Sündopfer, 17–18; also KOCH , Priesterschrift, 79 n. 5). The use of the singular suffix in the phrase wbyrqhw in v. 7a proves nothing, since there are other cases in the priestly literature where