104 Excursus 1

Achenbach’s agreement with the respective studies of H. Cazelles and W. Caspari in which the notion of a general priesthood is rejected

⁴⁹²

leads to a conclusion that in my estimation does not fully come to grips with the rhetorical, metaphorical,

⁴⁹³

and sociopolitical impact of the passages in question.

⁴⁹⁴

The context of Exod 19:3b-8 concerns itself principally with the role of law in the life of the people of Israel. One wonders what ultimate goal would be in mind of those responsible for the terminology in vv. 5f. were it merely to reinforce the exclusive domain of professional priests.

⁴⁹⁵

Would this, for example, encourage the observance of the law by the populace, alternatively, the throng Moses helped lead out of Egyptian bondage?

The first person address in Isa 61:6, in which the related passage is found, stands out from the surrounding, third person passages (vv. 3f. and 7f.). The deity’s first person speech in v. 8 helps offset the otherwise abruptness of the second person address of v. 6.

If one then takes into account the first person human speech of vv. 1 and 10, the chapter leaves the impression of having been conceived and formulated as a conflation of various prophetic oracles (cf. e.g., 61:1 with 42:1)

⁴⁹⁶

and praises, all centered in the proclamation of future release and blessing. The similiarity between 61:7 and 40:2b (the former uses the term הֶנ ְּש ִמ twice in a play on word “double” (לֶפֶכ) in the latter) reveals the

multivocality and reception history interest in ch. 61. The Song of Thanksgiving

491 Cf. A. Bentzen’s designation “allegemeine Priestertum,” an expression he uses in the discussion of the lay uprising of Korah (Num 16; Aage Bentzen, “Priesterschaft und Laien in der jüdischen Geschichte des fünften Jahrhunderts,” AfO 6 [1930-1931]: 280-86, 281), to which he also links Exod 19:6 “(JE)” with the lay-induced reform in Isa 56: 1-8; 61:6; 66:21; see also Hagg 2:5’s allusion to Exod 19:5f. Bentzen notes the salient absence of the claims of the “general priesthood,” however, in the main sources of the history of the period (Malachi, Nehemiah’s memoirs, and the Ezra Geschichte). Otherwise stated, “die Laien haben die Reform der priesterlichen Gesetzesprogramme, vor allem der kanonischen, des Deuteronomiums und des noch im Werden befindlichen sogenannten ‘priesterlichen Geseztes,’ übernommen” (ibid., 282). Other major scholars affirming the notion of the priestly status of all-Israel include, e.g., Crüsemann, Torah, 358f.; Blum, Studien, 47; Markl, Dekalog, 69f.

492 Achenbach, “König, Priester und Prophet,” 209; see nn. 48f. for references.

493 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 223.

494 Regarding objections to the notion of a “general priesthood,” while it is admitted that it and likewise the concept of a “holy people/nation” inheres utopian aspects, the objections usually arise from a

precommitment to or preference for the more elite aspects of priestly vocation. These include conversance in the arcane details of sacral law; a ritual, P-infused notion of the necessary separation between priesthood and laity propagated throughout much of the Ancient Israel’s history; limiting the meaning of the term ןהכ solely to a priest; and limiting the people’s potential for prophetic and priestly competency, without which the office laws and H would hold limited importance for the communities envisioned in those codes.

495 So, Achenbach, “König, Priester und Prophet,” 209.

496 See Hanson, Dawn, 69f., who perceives in 62:10f. a reverential dependence on Second Isaiah.

105

concluding the chapter (vv. 10-11

⁴⁹⁷

) affirms the final form and prophetic worship tenor of ch. 61. Here, including vv. 6 and 9, the worship tends toward inclusivity rather than any clerical elitism. If v. 6 intimates an audience other than all-Israel, it may be advisable to take another look at Hanson’s conception of a levitical priest-prophets.

⁴⁹⁸

For one thing, such a theory of a propheto-priestly sodality residing in villages (Jerusalem

suburbs?) helps explain the curious economic provision clause of 61:5.

⁴⁹⁹

Contrastingly, the foreign care of flocks and lands of urban priestly elites who are already enjoy the benefits of such workers seems unlikely. The prophetic force of v. 5 shows itself in the promise to relieve the current laborers (Levites) of the tasks that would impinge on their religious vocation, namely, ministering as YHWH’s priests (cf. Neh 13:10).

Achenbach’s

⁵⁰⁰

reading of Isa 61:5 however projects an image of wealthy, elite priests who own “estates” (Länderei),

⁵⁰¹

even though Num 35:2-8, to which he points, identifies the field (שרגמ) owners as simply “Levites” without any further qualification.

⁵⁰²

The reason why the priestly addressees in Isa 61:6 would be other than Levite is not given.

⁵⁰³

During the Persian period, as Israel gradually surrendered its royal pretensions, its identity evolved increasingly into a constituency governed by religious and cultural institutions. The Holiness Code (much of which is attributable to the School of HexRed

⁵⁰⁴

) sets forth this view of a kingdom governed by Yahwistic priests.

⁵⁰⁵

Ska

497 Cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 222.

498 E.g., Dawn, 65-70, 95f.

499 “The needs of these prophet-priests would be supplied by foreigners,” Hanson, Dawn, 68.

500 “König, Priester und Prophet,” 209f.

501 Ibid., 211.

502 In the book of Numbers, instances of the term ןהכ appear overwhelmingly in association with Eleazar, Aaron, or the “high priest”; ch. 5, which mentions “the priest” many times, may hint at a lower priesthood, but the author leaves that likihood unspecified (cf. perhaps ch. 6 and 15:25, 28 as well, though here the nondescript ןהכ presides at the altar).

503 For his part, Stephen L. Cook, The Apocalyptic Literature (Nashville: Abingdon, 2003), 118, warns against incautiously assuming priestly factions for the speakers and addressees in Third Isaiah. He suggests instead that an “Isaiah school” levelled its criticism at its own, wider community. But assuming a school is to assume a discussion and debate in which, certainly in the case of Third Isaiah, priestly factions would be involved.

504 See §§6.4.13; 6.5.2.

505 “Il est donc un ‘royaume gouverné par des prêtres (de YHWH)’” (Ska, “Exode 19,3-6,” 300). It is worthwhile to consider here Isa 25:6 (which has the character of a coronation-meal) and its likely nexus with Isa 24:23, since the related motifs of Isa 24:21-23 and 25:6-8 are apparently linked with Exod 24:9-11;

in vv. 9-11 the “meal and gazing upon God are expressions of the kingly rule of God over Israel and of the unspoiled community of Israel with God” (ungetrübten Gemeinschaft Israels mit Gott; Oswald, Israel am

106

argues this to be the eventuality that would separate Israel from the other nations: “In other words, the postexilic community would receive from YHWH—and from him alone—an identity they could not receive from the Persian empire.”

⁵⁰⁶

This postexilic identity would be guaranteed by the ןהכ and variously personified in Israel’s sui generis institutions.

⁵⁰⁷

These institutions, whose beginnings date to the era of the “fondation d’Israël,” at the time of the exodus, allegedly originate in the will of God. Their naissance remains bundled up with the complex, larger-than-life figures of Moses and Aaron, who function as exemplars and paradigms of theocratic

⁵⁰⁸

and hierocratic leadership,

respectively. It would be later legislative texts, especially those in P

^s

and H,

⁵⁰⁹

so also the dtr/post-dtr Deut 18, that delineate the religious institutions of Israel and the functions of the priesthood, a priesthood perennially conflicted among its leadership strata.

⁵¹⁰

The potential for (missionary) universalism imbedded in the terms ודק יוג ש and תכלממ םינהכ remains relatively untapped.

⁵¹¹

Although Exod 19:5 seems to focus on Israel’s

Gottesberg, 60). The interconnections between the Isaiah and Exodus traditions become apparent as one sees the theocratic rule of God over Israel—promised in Exod 19:6—symbolically realized subsequent to the covenant conclusion of Exod 24:9-11 (ibid.).

506 “En d’autres termes, la communauté postexilique recevrait de YHWH, et de lui seul, un identité qu’il n’a pu recevoir de l’empire perse” (Ska, “Exode 19,3-6,” 300). The idea of a kingdom entrusted to priests is understandable in the context of strained relations between Israel and the “peoples” (םימע). Rather than reckoning with the matter of peoples outside the life and beyond the land of Israel, at issue here is the dilemma of who should occupy the land of Israel upon the return from exile: those that remained or those who returned? Postexilic prophecy is rife with this conflict, as evidenced in Ezra-Nehemiah. In significant respects it comes down to a question of power: “En fait, il s’agit de savoir qui détient le pouvoir: ceux qui revienent d’exil ou ceux qui sont restés au pays” (Ska, “Exode 19,3-6,” 301).

507 Ibid.

508 Near the time of Moses’ death, Deut 31 recounts his commissioning a successor (Joshua; v. 7f.) and securing the Torah tradition (v. 9). “Diese Exemplar wird den Repräsentanten Israels—Priestern und Ältesten—übergeben” (Schäfer-Lichtenberger, “Göttliche und menschliche Autorität,” 136f).

509 For the lateness of H in general, and P^s passages, cf. Nihan, “Mort de Moïse,” 156: H “is post-P and post-dtr, as are also some very late P passages, e.g., Exod 28:38; Lev 22:2,3; 27:14-19, 22, 26; Num 3:13;

8:17: 27:14; Dtn 15:19.”

510 Ska, “Exode 19,3-6,” 304.

511 Barbieri argues the term םינהכ תכלממrepresents a key theme within dtr theology of the exile. Parallels drawn between Exod 19:6a, and texts like Deut 4:6ff.; Num 8:19; and Isa 61:6 lead to regarding the collocation “as a full and mature expression of the theology of election universalistic in its appeal”

(“MAMLEKET KOHANIM,” 444-46); cf. ibid., 444-45: “La collocazione de mamleket kohanim nel contesto immediato di Es 18,5b-6a e in quello più ampio die 19,3b-8, sullo sfondo della teologia dtr dell’esilio, ci ha fatto intravedere la ricchezza e la profondità di questa definzione di Israele. Ci sembra del tutto fuori luogo restringere la portata dell’espressione all classe governante. Solo isolando mamleket kohanim dal contesto si può giungere ad una simile interpretazione.” But we resist the delimitation of the development of the term/concept to the period of the exile or to the “teologia dtr” circle.

Otto (“Deuteronomium 4,” 220 and n. 99) maintains PentRed emphasizes that Israel’s greatness is based on observance of the law rather than upon its size. By characterizing Israel as לודג יוגin Deut 4:6-8, this redactor links up with the promises in Gen 12:2; 46:3 and Exod 32:10 (the latter passage also

107

privileges alone,

⁵¹²

in combination with v. 6, we see not a tautology but rather a

progression of thought expressed through the literary device of synthetic parallelism.

⁵¹³

Exod 19:5b-6a A הלגס יל םתייהו 

“you will be my treasured possession”



B  םימעה־לכמ 

“from all the peoples”

 A’ ץראה־לכ יל־יכ 

“for the whole earth is mine”



B’ שודק יוגו םינהכ תכלממ  יל־ויהת םתאו 

“but you shall be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”



The diagram

⁵¹⁴

illustrates something of the scope and intent of YHWH’s dealings with Israel, which is simultaneously a יוג, a הכלממ, and humankind; B’, A’ do not simply parallel A, B, they expand them. Further, while B reflects the exclusive relationship between Israel and YHWH, emphasizing the separation of Israel from other peoples, A’

uses the same verbal construction deployed to describe YHWH’s possession of Israel (- היה יל) in order to extend the privilege of Israel to those same peoples. Viewing this brief yet conceptually layered text within the slightly larger section of vv. 3-6, a picture of election of Israel based on the universal sovereignty of YHWH (“the whole earth is mine”

⁵¹⁵

) emerges. The radical affirmation of the election of Israel in B’ highlights Israel’s function within that relationship. YHWH’s people acquire a universal function by virtue of the world belonging to YHWH. As a kingdom of priests sanctified and therefore qualified for the task by YHWH himself—to borrow a similar conception in H (22:32b-33)—Israel

attributable to PentRed). He also combines Deut 4 with the opening of the Sinai pericope in Exod 19:3b- 8,9, which is “programmatically formed by him”(“Der Pentateuchredaktor verknüpt damit Dtn 4 auch mit der von ihm gestalteten programmatischen Eröffnung der Sinaiperikope in Ex 19,3b-8.9”; ibid., n. 99). The theory that PentRed is responsible for Exod 19:5f. runs into difficulty once one accepts the thesis that the kingdom of priests includes the laity, a premise that in my understanding is at loggerheads with the primary thrust of PentRed; see n. 529 below.

512 Ska, “Exode 19,3-6,” 301.

513 “Non si tratta di tautologia, ma di progesso del pensierio, di parallelismo sintetico” (Barbieri,

“MAMLEKET KOHANIM,” 439); cf. Kraus, “heilige Volk,” 46.

514 Adapted from Barbieri, “MAMLEKET KOHANIM,” 438.

515 Beyerlin (Origins, 75) sees Exod 19:5b combining the ancient affirmations of YHWH’s kingship and lordship/ownership of the entire earth. Passages in Isaiah (6:3, 5) and the Psalter (24:1, 7-10 inter alia) manifest the combination and reflect a close relationship with the Israelite cult, in which the two concepts merged and were nourished. “This is another clear sign of the close relationship between this piece of Elohistic tradition and the Israelite cult and its forms of tradition. Exod.19:5bβ which attests Yahweh’s lordship over the world probably originated in connection with this cultic tradition. Moreover the cultic parallels just quoted all point to the sphere of the Temple at Jerusalem in the pre-exilic period” (ibid., 75-6).

108

performs an intermediary function between the earth’s proprietor and the earth itself. If one interprets םתאו (“but you”) in v. 6a as a reflection of the tension between the two modes of membership (“modi di appartenenza”), viz., inclusive and exclusive, תכלממ שודק יוגו םינהכ arguably documents a transformation of the exclusivity of הלגס  into an election paradigm that includes mediatory functions.

⁵¹⁶

Israel is to serve as a priestly nation (goy) among the nations (goyim).

⁵¹⁷

2.2.8 Israel as Mediator

The image of Israel entrusted with mediating YHWH’s revelation to the peoples recalls images of Mosaic mediation.

⁵¹⁸

To be emphasized here however is the sharp contrast between this image of a fully endowed Israel (Lev 20:8b) and that of a timid Israel recoiling from the encounter with the God in the Sinai theophany (Exod 20:18-21). A not insignificant tension in the Sinai pericope (and passages in Deuteronomy, see Chapter Three) traces to these competing paradigms of the benei yisrael.

⁵¹⁹

Parallels exist in Exod 19:5f. between the Levite-Israel relationship and Israel’s relationship to the peoples to be discussed later on in this study. A partial explanation for the radically affirming

description presents itself in the Levite’s projection of their own mission among the general populace in Israel. In their instructional capacity,

⁵²⁰

levitical teachers and preachers employ priestly language images in an inclusive manner (cf. Isa 61:6a), as a motivational device. There remains much to commend in Kraus’s attribution of the

516 Cf. Barbieri “MAMLEKET KOHANIM,” 439: “... ma mamleket koh^anîm w^egoy qādōš trasformano l’esclusività di s^egullâ in un’elezione (qādōš) con funzione mediatrice (koh^anîm).” Cf. H’s conception of a quasi-priestly community, adumbrated in §6.5.1

517 Cf. Ezek 36:23b: םהיניעל םכב ישדקהב הוהי ינדא םאנ הוהי ינא־יכ םיוגה ועדיו; In the context of Exod 19:5f.

Markl ( Dekolog, 70) envisions Israel receiving a new status comparable to a form of government (Staatsform). Its theocratic aspects are not those of priestly rule but rather of God’s kingdom. Such a kingdom is not defined by territory; it is personal, and defined by relationship and function. This

conception has everything to do with the role of the people and those that represent them, be they elders or levitical representatives.

518 Kraus (“heilige Volk,” 47) more generally compares sanctified Israel’s mediatory role to that of the priesthood: “Wie in Israel der Priester ‘Heilige für Jahwe’ war, so soll Israel unter den Völkern die priesterliche Existenzweise ‘Heilige für Jahwe’ repräsentieren.”

519 As one considers the question of authorship of such a positive picture of Israel as disseminators of this revelation, the levitical priests, who hold to a different picture of Israel than do their elite priestly counterparts, again come to mind.

520 See Chapter Five, e.g., §5.13.

109

shaping and annotation of the term qdš to the “dtn preacher,”

⁵²¹

and the recent thesis of Ulrich Berges posits prophetic, levitical temple singers as the authors of Second Isaiah and numerous Psalms (e.g., 96; 98).

⁵²²

Reviewing the analysis of םינהכ תכלממ inaugurated in §2.2.7, we recognize the helpfulness of Ska’s assessment that םינהכ תכלממ signifies a “kingdom entrusted to priests,”

⁵²³

a “kingdom directed by the priests,” a “priestly kingdom,”

⁵²⁴

yet a fully satisfying profile of the ןהכ continues to elude scholars. Recent study of Near Eastern sources indicates that ןהכ sometimes connotes prophetic activities.

⁵²⁵

Ska, who associates the theology presented in Exod 3b-6 with that of Third Isaiah, certain portions of

Zechariah, and elements within the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, affirms the position advocated here that “the terms apply to all-Israel, not merely to priests.”

⁵²⁶

In this connection Bentzen’s notion of a “general priesthood” remains appealing. Barbieri’s recognition of an election paradigm in which Israel inheres priestly mediatory functions among the nations does not need to convince in every respect, as the notion is not altogether new. It does however reinforce our emphasis on the cultic competency of the people of Israel as part of their equipping for their unique service in in the Hebrew Bible.

521 “Die erwählungs-theologische und bundes-theologisches Prägung und Kommentierung dieser

Bezeichnung aber wäre ein Werk der deuteronomischen Prediger gewesen” (“heilige Volk,” 44); von Rad, Holy War, 116f.; cf. the writer’s “Revisiting Levitical Authorship.”

522 Jesaja 40–48, 38f, 42; 358-61. Berges also notes thematic nexus between Third Isaiah and the Psalms, e.g., Ps 97:10-12 (cf. ibid., 359).

523 Cf. Lev 21:8a, which may be interpreted as H’s holy community entrusting/conferring sanctity to the priests (Klaus Grünwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26. Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie [vol. 271 of BZAW; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999], 239f.; idem, “Amt”; contra Otto Eckart Otto,

“Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26. Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie [Review],”

Biblica 82, no. 3 [2001]: 418-22, 421). See additional comments on Lev 21:8 in the discussion of Lev 17–

26 in Chapter Six.

524 Cf. Ska, “Exode 19,3-6,” 303-04 (secondary emphasis): “Il convient de comprendre l’expression תכלממ םינהכ mamleket kohanim dans le sens de ‘royaume confié aux prêtres,’ ‘royaume dirigé par des prêtres,’

‘royaume sacerdotal’”; cf. Steins, “Zur Interpretation von 19,6,” 27.

525 See especially the recent essay of Diana Edelman, “From Prophets to Prophetic Books,” in The Production of Prophecy: Constructing Prophecy and Prophets in Yehud (ed. D. Edelman and E. Ben Zvi;

London: Equinox, 2009), 29-54.

526 “L’oracle s’adresse à tout Israël ... et non aux seuls prêtres” (Ska, “Exode 19,3-6,” 304). For an inclusive, eighth-century BCE society that “includes all residents of the land who practice holiness and purity,” see Knohl, Sanctuary, 182, whose Holiness School reflects the eras of the Judean kings Ahaz and Hezekiah. Cf. also Isa 61:6.

110

That a passage such as Exod 19:3b-8

⁵²⁷

found placement en route (on the texual plane) to the presentation of the Dec in Exod 20:1-17 (and also the covenant ceremony in Exod 24) adds support for the tradition of the PRR for the way it endorses an exalted view of the Israelite people and their mission. Similar to the PRR, and in light of the authority conferred in the designation שודק יוגו םינהכ תכלממ, it doubtless generated mixed reviews, inspiring some,

⁵²⁸

inciting others.

⁵²⁹

2.2.9 The Gola’s Sociopolitical Perspective in Exod 19:3b-6

Exod 19:6 places in bold relief the privileges of Israel vis-à-vis the nations rather than professional priests vis-à-vis their constituents. The “new frontier” has its geographic and political dimensions,

⁵³⁰

but it grounds itself in the theological belief of a “‘society of the holy,’ of ‘holiness’ attributes that extend to all the people.”

⁵³¹

Ska believes these

527 Exod 19:3-8 have been described as an “anticipatory summary and interpretation of the Sinai pericope as a whole” (E. W. Nicholson, cited in Steins, “Zur Interpretation von 19,6,” 31, n. 55). Blum characterizes it as a “pärenetisch-programmatisch formulierter Text” (cited in ibid., n. 56). The text is programmatic but not early. According to the canonical arrangement of Exodus, vv. 19:7f. assume laws that have yet to be introduced, unless vv. 7f. betray previous or roughly concurrent events in which YHWH reveals

commandments to the people; cf. ibid., 31f.

528 Numbers 11:12 belongs to a late layer that assumes both dtr and Deutero-Isaianic thought and links up with the notion of the םינהכ תכלממof Exod 19:6 (Achenbach, Vollendung, 243; see also ibid., n. 167).

529 Exod 29:46 is unique within the Pentateuch: “And they shall know that I am the Lord their God, who brought them out of the land of Egypt that I might dwell among them…”; Num 16:3 (“They assembled against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, ‘… All the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them…”) may constitute the only passage to which it explicitly refers. Achenbach interprets Num 16:3 as a reaction to the views of PentRed formulated in Exod 19:6. In this case, the author of Num 16:3 defends against an interpretation of the theology of the temple and against what he perceives as a “falsche radikalisierende” interpretation of PentRed in Exod 19:6 (ibid., 57f.). We attibute the canonical text of Exod 19:5f. to the School of HexRed; see para. 2 in n. 511 above.

530 The people have developed a “culture of resistance” in order to stave off the threat of assimilation.

Instead of eschewing contact with foreigners, they seek coexistence based on a broadened view of the covenant anchored in the very foundational events of Israel’s history, namely, the exodus and the revelation of the law at the mountain of God (Ska, “Exode 19.3b-6”).

531 “… de l’ordre du ‘sacré’ et de la ‘sainteté,’ qualités étendues à tout le peuple” (ibid., 317); cf. Hanson, Dawn, 363. Hanson argues that priest-prophet Levites uphold what they believe to be the ancient notion of holiness for all—in contrast to the Zadokite notion of holiness as preserve of the few—i.e., the priestly elite. In hopes of righting the inequity, the disenfranchised (humble and lowly persons in the ancient context) promote a holiness not available to politically empowered leaders of “official religion” (ibid., Dawn, 215-18 , summarizing the socio-religious thesis of E. Troeltsch). Peter Ackroyd’s defaming criticism of Hanson’s 1975 monograph, including the support from the arguments in his erudite essay to which Ackroyd points (Peter R. Ackroyd, “Continuity and Discontinuity: Rehabilitation and

Authentication,” in Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament [ed. D. Knight; The Biblical Seminar;

Sheffield: JSOT Press/ Sheffield Academic Press Ltd., 1977/1990], 215-24) does not prove altogether worthwhile. Efforts toward plotting themes and naming priestly and priestly-prophetic factions in the Second Temple period continue to be beneficial.