37 1.3.6 The Complexity of the Sinai Complex
1.3.11 The Hexateuch and Pentateuch Redactions
1.3.11.3 The Book of Numbers and the Completion of the Pentateuch
67
Bearbeitungen, ThB). First, the term Bearbeitung for Achenbach differs from redaction.
Especially in Numbers, Bearbeitungen tend to be post-redactional, alternatively, post-
final redaction Fortschreibungen that are not part of the redaction of the Enneateuch.
313Though certain distinctions between the three ThB layers will be noted, they do not turn
out to be critical for this study.
314The work of the theocratic revisers does contrast on one
front with HexRed, on another with PentRed. The recognition of these divergences
proves particularly helpful in Achenbach’s analyses in Numbers of priests and priestly
regulations.
68
and revision demonstrable in Numbers.
317There he finds evidence of multiple stages of development in Numbers that associate with post-dtr and post-P texts in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, leading up to the completion of the entire Pentateuch.
318The study of the book of Numbers in the context of the developing torah is of
particular importance for the current study.
319The fourth fascicle of the Pentateuch has an important bridge-function connecting the Tetrateuch to Deuteronomy, alternatively, the exodus-Sinai revelation and Deuteronomy;
320it also becomes the basis for the post- redactional Ausbau of the Pentateuch, since the literary history of the Pentateuch does not conclude with the Pentateuch redaction.
321PentRed should thus not be mistaken for a
“final redaction” (Endredaktion), with its problematic connotation of a quasi-canonizing of the text.
322The sources of these redactions exist only fragmentarily; this is especially true respecting HexRed.
323The provisional status of HexRed is therefore a factor to keep in mind as we discuss its sociological and ideological contours.
317 Excepting von Rad, the work of the scholars intersects in considerable ways, each lending specialized competencies in the direction of a new consensus regarding the developmental history of the first two divisions of the tripartite Tanakh, and in some instances, beyond.
318 The onset of interest in the latter stages of the formation of the Pentateuch has experienced invigoration through the study of Numbers, which has strategic importance for Pentateuchal research. This remains true in no small part because of the post-priestly texts it contains. Numbers comprises a late composition that coincides with the publication of a (proto-) Pentateuch; Römer’s remark is apt: “on ne peut proposer une théorie globale sur le Pentateuque sans être au clair sur la formation du livre des Nombres” (Römer,
“Périphérie,” 12).
319 See Addendix I.
320 Achenbach, “gescheiterten Landnahme,” 56.
321 PentRed had been literary-historically concluded before the pre-Chronistic composition of the Ezra memoir, “was aber keineswegs bedeutet, daß mit der Pentateuchredaktion die Literaturgeschichte des Pentateuch beendet war” (Otto, DPH, 262).
322 Ibid., 263, n. 86; cf. idem, “Holiness Code in Diachrony and Synchrony,” 137: “The redaction of the Pent was not a ‘final’ redaction at all, because on the level of the post-redactional Pentateuch a greater number of additions, especially to the book of Numbers but also to Genesis [cf. Gen 22], were brought in.”
Analyses of the so-called Endkomposition of the Pentateuch do however shift the focus to the delineation of post-dtr and post-P passages (Zenger, “Theorien,” 99), and that is a good thing. Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 10f. emphasizes the “unauflösbar” connection between the determination of the individual parts of the Endrekation with distinguishing between non-priestly texts and the original, literary form of the P layer, a central Tendenz “der neueren Pentateuchkritik.” Gertz defines Endredaktion by what is not: “Unter Endredaktion wird also weder die Verantwortung für einen textkritisch zu ermittelden ‘Endtext’ verstanden noch beinhaltet die Verwendung des Begriffs eine Vorentscheidung darüber, ob es sich um die Verbindung ursprünglich selbständiger Erzählungswerke handelt oder ob eine der beiden Größen als endredaktionelle Bearbeitungsschicht zu verstehen ist. In diesem Sinne ist die Endredaktion Gegenstand der vorliegenden Untersuchung zur Exoduserzählung in Ex 1–14(15)” (ibid., 10).
323 Cf Nihan, “Mort de Moïse,” 153.
69
1.3.11.4 Recognizing the Historical, Sociopolitical, and Ideological Horizon of HexRed In this section the value of Otto/Achenbach’s thesis of HexRed for the present study begins to come into view. The language and worldview of HexRed arguably convey the world of the fifth century BCE and probably associate with the work of Nehemiah in Jerusalem in the middle of that century.
324Although HexRed directs its message to the new generation after the end of the Babylonian exile,
325I believe the literary work of redaction probably did not begin until the middle of the fifth century. It shares with P an emphasis on the next and future generations rather than the current or past generation(s).
HexRed reflects the dual impact on Yehud communities of the political and religious situation induced by the domination of the Achaemenid empire on the one hand, the influence of the prophecy of restoration in the early postexilic period on the other; the perspective of language and worldview of HexRed situates between Second and Third Isaiah.
326The fundamental concern of HexRed consists in a widening of the historical- theological awareness of Israel, including an inclusive view of faithful Yahwists of non- or quasi-Israelite (cf. Caleb the Kenite
327) origin.
328324 Cf. Otto, “Synchronical,” 29; idem, “Holiness Code in Diachrony and Synchrony,” 136; Davies, “Place of Deuteronomy,” 152, who concedes the difficulty of distinguishing between “exilic” and “postexilic”
contexts. He nonetheless recognizes the time of Nehemiah as one of sociopolitical ferment. For example, the Nehemianic literature reflects a “strong antipathy between Jerusalem and Samaria” (ibid.). That HexRed supports rapprochement between Israelites and observant aliens, and includes Samaria in the divine gift of the land (Otto, “Holiness Code in Diachrony and Synchrony,” 136) is suggestive of the immensity of the sociopolitical moment that would lead to its enscripturalization. Current archaeological research, however, does not suggest Jerusalem as a site capable of massive literary output.
325 W. Schmidt’s characterization of P is relevant in this connection: “Just as the patriarchs only pass through the Promised Land and find their burial place in it, so the community in the wilderness is constantly in transit—a communio viatorum that hears the promise and heeds it…. Animated by God’s pledge but dissatisfied with the way in which he leads them, the community always has the goal before its eyes but never reaches it; it abides in the not-yet” (Introduction, 100). HexRed and P also share the conception of a prophetic remnant, e.g., Joshua and Caleb survive the wilderness experience because they alone discern the prophetic significance of their generation vis-à-vis the generation of the Canaanites. W.
Schmidt is helpful here as well. Similar to Noah, Joshua and Caleb “are a remnant that bear[s] witness to the extent of the guilt and the punishment (Num 14:26ff.) Where can we find corresponding echoes of the prophetic promise of salvation? Or is the wilderness at the same time the place of a new beginning after the judgment (Hos 2:14; cf. Jer 29:10) and Joshua, like Noah, ‘a holy seed’ (Isa 6:13)?” (ibid., 101).
326 The reader may recall K. Schmid placing the construction of P within the same era that witnessed the development of Isa 40ff.
327 We do not share J. Milgrom’s confidence in Y. Kaufmann’s view that Calebites were charter members of the pre-Mosaic Israelite confederacy (Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17—22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [New York: Doubleday, 2000,1704-05).
328 Vollendung, 630. Knohl (Sanctuary, 185) detects a similar high expectancy of obedience of all dwellers of the land of Israel held by the Holiness School (HS), though in the context of H and other pentateuchal passages penned by HS, purity laws loom larger: “The more severe enforcement of the demands for purification incumbent upon the Israelite community are linked to the threat of severe punishments of any
70 1.3.11.5 Relevance of HexRed for the PRR
It is within the historical and conceptual framework just outlined that I believe traditions of the PRR likely became part of the received tradition. There exists a link between direct revelation to Israel and the latter’s openness to the other, namely aliens (see
§1.3.11.8). This link becomes stronger in fourth-century traditions attributable to the School of HexRed.
329This does not mean such sentiments first appeared in Nehemiah’s time, since similar impulses could be found in village contexts in which religious and social exclusivism proved detrimental to the welfare of the community. Rather, the religiopolitical climate of the periods of HexRed and the later School of HexRed
facilitated the entrance of the notion of a more open heaven and openness to the other, so to speak, into more mainstream thought. With respect to HexRed in the fifth century, the era is one that precedes, both chronologically and conceptually, the lionizing of Moses as legist extraordinaire, an accomplishment attributable in large measure to PentRed during the latter part of the fifth century. The Nehemianic period apparently witnessed a new level of support for faithful non-Israelites.
330This in turn produced an environment
Israelite, citizen or stranger, who does not purify himself from his impurity and thus defiles the sanctuary of God ‘which is in their midst’ Lev 15:31; 17:16; Num 19:13, 20. Such threats are never found in PT [=
the Priestly Torah]. PT roughly equals Pg, dates to around Solomon’s time, which witnessed the writings J (ibid., 222), and precedes HS, which in the 8th century blends priestly and non-priestly (for Knohl, JE) language (ibid., 101, emphasis added); whereas for PT the Israelite camp (i.e., beyond the sanctuary itself) is devoid of holiness, HS believes “the holiness of God expands beyond the Sanctuary to encompass the settlements of the entire congregation of Israel, in whose midst God dwells” (ibid., 185). The emphasis on the purity of the camp in some respects comes to apply to the entire land of Israel (Num 35:34; Lev 18:24- 28; 20:22-24). “Thus, if the special character of the land serves as the ground for the demand to separate from impurity, this demand must be imposed on all who dwell in it, both citizen and stranger” (ibid., 186, emphasis added; cf. ibid., 190). In Third Isaiah (56:1-8) we see a further development in which not only the devout foreigner but indeed even eunuchs are included among the commonwealth of Israel. In this context the importance of strict Sabbath observance appears to supersede genealogical and physiological
considerations (vv. 4f).
329 See §§3.4.5; 6.4.13; 6.5.2.
330 Nehemiah did not share the vision of broad geographic boundaries of Israel of the Levites behind HexRed. Whereas the former viewed preexilic Israel as comprising Yehud, the latter included Samaria and the northern tribes. Josh 24 perpetuates the notion of Shechem as an ancient center of the cult to the extent of making it the very place of YHWH’s establishing his covenant with Israel (Otto, “Holiness Code in Diachrony and Synchrony,” 137); cf. Josh 24:1, 25, 32. Otto’s characterization of Nehemiah as a
“protagonist of a diaspora perspective” in contrast to Jerusalemite, “priestly scholars” responsible for HexRed seems overdrawn (cf. ibid.). Would Jerusalemite tradents working during the first half of the fifth century indeed promote such an inclusive and therefore potentially very problematic openness to the aliens (i.e., foreigners, the tribes in northern Israel) and alien territories, e.g., Samaria and, ostensibly, regions even farther north. We would agree with Otto that by the end of the fifth century pro-diaspora
contingencies associated with the mission of Ezra to Yehud likely gained the ascendancy in Jerusalem, and
71
conducive to including such traditions, plausibly associated with the PRR, into the framework of the Horeb/Sinai story; to a lesser extent, the same situation would obtain with respect to the Enneateuch as well.
331The problem of the fragmentary nature of the reconstructed HexRed is to some extent offset by the clarity of PentRed in particular, ThB to a lesser extent.
332By that we mean that the traditions attributable to HexRed beg for systematically accounting opposite PentRed, which lionizes Moses, and the theocratic Bearbeitungen affirm internal, proto- theocratic governance under which an external, disenfranchised laity
333is led by
marginalized Levites.
334A view not shared by Otto or Achenbach that I argue is that the Levites and their supporters among the priestly establishment present themselves as likely advocates of the views of the PRR during Nehemiah’s time, after which their plight fluctuates considerably.
335In general, ThB’s notion of theocracy contrasts sharply with HexRed’s notion of lay participation in the cult (so, Num 16–18) on the one hand, openness to alien integration on the other. Previous accountings for the sharp contrast between these portrayals have been less than satisfying. Other explanations for texts attributable to HexRed such as Num 16:2*, 12-15, 27b, 28-32a, 33aba in the at least triple-layered text of Num 16 have come up wanting.
336thereafter had significant say in the writing of Israelite history and religion, but we should not assume such a “take over [of] the continuation of the literary history of the Hexateuch” (ibid.) necessarily occurred in Jerusalem, or even at one time.
331 On HexRed’s influence on the Enneateuch, see especially Achenbach, “Der Pentateuch.”
332 See the Appendix.
333 See Jeremy M. Hutton, The Transjordanian Palimpsest: The Overwritten Texts of Personal Exile and Transformation in the Deuteronomistic History (vol. 396 of BZAW; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009), 175 and n.
68 (literature) regarding disenfranchised or peripheralized religious functionaries.
334 Achenbach, “Der Pentateuch,” 230f. ThB assumes the association of the mountain of God narrative with H and extends it further. It does not grow out of an expanding continuation of P or a “priestly pentateuchal layer” somehow separated from the Pentateuch, but rather as a continuation of priestly institutional conceptions within the framework of a portrayal integrated into the Pentateuch (ibid., 230: “Sie geschieht also nicht auf der Ebene einer ergänzenden Weiterführung einer vom Pentateuch separaten Priesterschrift, sondern als Weiterführung der priesterlichen institutionellen Konzeptionen im Rahmen einer in den Pentateuch integrierten Darstellung”). Moreover, “a realization of the genealogies and of the history of the priesthood are to be found first in Chronistic literature, and in the Fortschreibung of the Pentateuch subsequent to the integration of H. [Therefore] the necessity of a securing (Absicherung) of redactional decisions in the Pentateuch through the consideration of of the history of sacral institutions” can hardly be overstated (ibid., 230, n. 16).
335 I develop these views in Chapters Four and Five.
336 That Num 16 in the main consists of Pg superimposed with Ps is not implausible. The combined literary reconstruction and specific historical/ideological contexts accompanying Achenbach’s tripartite schema (cf.