Concluding Comments in Favor of HexRed

37 1.3.6 The Complexity of the Sinai Complex

1.3.11 The Hexateuch and Pentateuch Redactions

1.3.11.9 Concluding Comments in Favor of HexRed

It was conceded in the foregoing that a redaction with such an expansive scope and program resists unbedingt delineation, and the texts Achenbach assigns to HexRed (excepting those in Num 13f.) remain relatively fragmentary.

³⁵⁶

Still, we have

demonstrated that the general lines and themes of HexRed in the Hexateuchal models of Schmid, Knauf, Otto, and Achenbach pass the test of plausibility,

³⁵⁷

and, in our

judgment, offer a compelling explanation for the preservation of affirmative traditions

352 The back-reference to this motif appears in Deuteronomy only in secondary insertions, not belonging to the Grundbestand of dtr texts. This applies to the reference to Caleb in Deut 1:36, the back-reference to the disobedient of Israel in Tabera and Kiberot Ha-ta’awa in Deut 9:22, and also to Miriam’s leprosy in Deut 24:9 (Achenbach, “Numeri und Deuteronomium,” 126).

353 The traditions are probably ancient, and find their revival in Num 13f. and Josh 14:6-15 (Achenbach,

“gescheiterten Landnahme,” 64 and n. 39).

354 Additionally, Achenbach maintains that the location of Kadesh was inserted by a post-dtr author as a means of linking the Caleb tradition with the spy narrative (ibid., 63; cf. 77f., 88). Similar to the PRR, the Caleb tradition did not win the widest following. PentRed did not embrace him as a brother: “Hier wird noch einmal deutlich, wie sich der PentRed an der Person des Kaleb gestoßen haben muss”(ibid., 72). The Caleb tradition would become a subordinate theme/topic (Nebenthema; ibid., 73, n. 85). In PentRed, the prominence placed on the figure of Moses on the one hand, directing presence of YHWH in the clouds on the other, left little need for Caleb as a celebrated spiritual and spearheading leader of Israel.

355 Otto, DPH, 38, cited in Achenbach, “gescheiterten Landnahme,” 63-64.

356 Cf. Nihan, “Mort de Moïse, 153: “La distinction entre Hexateuque, Pentateuque et ‘révision théocratique’ apparaît fréquemment difficile à opérer sur le plan littéraire, notamment dans le cas de la rédaction de l’Hexateuque, pour laquelle Achenbach ne peut souvent reconstruire qu’un text très fragmentaire, même dans le passages où le présence de cette rédaction est évidente, comme en Num 13–

14.”

357 Schmid tells how von Rad’s Hexateuch model never really proved compatible with Noth’s notion of the DH, and that “einen selbständigen ‘Hexateuch’ Gen–Jos hat es [i.e., the Hexateuch model] nie gegeben, weder in ‘jahwistisicher’ oder ‘elohistischer,’ wahrscheinlich aber auch nicht—wie neuerdings wieder häufiger erwogen—in ‘priesterlicher’ Gestalt” (Erzväter, 280). Notwithstanding the unresolved problems attending the construction of a Hexateuch, a viable solution “nicht einfach zu verabschieden ist” but rather

“redaktionsgeschichtlich zu modifieren” (ibid.).

77

about non-Israelites that otherwise remain very much at odds with the dominant,

“official” perspective in the Pentateuch, and indeed in the Enneateuch as well. The hypothesis of HexRed offers an indepth and credible model that would account for a surprisingly positive view toward foreigners the treatment of which often oscillates between exclusion and annihilation, the latter according to the dictates of םרח.

³⁵⁸

But this is not all.

In view of the way in which PentRed contrasts so clearly with HexRed, it is not enough to merely assign HexRed’s traditions to the circle holding such views, for example the Levites or ץראה םע. The counter-traditions that lay side by side in the same texts, for example the pro- and con-PRR texts in Deut 5 verses four and five (see Chapter Three) should be taken into account, examining their immediate context as well as noting their significance for Israelite institutions and function within the developing, proto- canonical framework. HexRed texts in the Pentateuch and Hexateuch associate with the time of Nehemiah, have a positive view toward Levites, the leadership of Joshua, and the prophecy of restoration. PentRed associates with the mission of Ezra, lionizes priestly elites (Zadokite-Levites, Aaronide-Levites) at the expense of Levites, hyperfocuses on Jerusalem and the incomparability of Moses. ThB I-III and the School of HexRed account for later developments within the proto-theocratic community, for example, sharpening the demarcating lines between holy and profane, and high and lesser priests.

In the following chapters we will consider HexRed’s involvement in the perpetuation of the PRR. For us the matter remains bundled up in the fluctuating status of religious personnel and their respective relationships with the general populace.

358 Cf. Vollendung, 232: “Durch die Integration des Gedankens einer Zugehörigkeit nicht ursprünglich israelitischer Gläubiger zur Exodusgeneration ergibt sich für den Hexateuchredaktor demnach die Denkmöglichkeit einer Integration von Proselyten, eine Vorstellung, welche dem Dtn ursprünglich mehr als fern gelegen haben dürfte, und die wir auch in der Priesterschrift noch nicht antreffen.”

78

1.3.11.10 HexRed and the Levitizing (Levitisierung

³⁵⁹

) of the Priesthood

³⁶⁰

Identifying the precise referents for “Levites,” “levitical priests,” and “priests” in Deuteronomy remains a highly sought after desideratum in research. A simmering issue presents itself in Deuteronomy’s widespread bestowal of full priestly rights to “Levites.”

Such conferral contrasts with other canonized traditions that either seek to divest them of such status, especially as regards altar ministry, or ostensibly presuppose their secondary or non-priestly status.

³⁶¹

To the degree texts unfavorable to Levites share a common (priestly) worldview, Deuteronomy throws that stasis into disequilibrium. Hopes of accounting for the contrastive viewpoints together within the literature hang on analyses that include both the germane texts in Deuteronomy and in the rest of the Hebrew Bible, particularly in the book of Numbers.

³⁶²

359 See above, n. 5.

360 Respecting “Levitism” (Levitismus), Achenbach and Otto’s conceptions of HexRed and PentRed diverge at points. According to Otto, PentRed works over the dtr law corpus of Deuteronomy tracing back from Deut 31:9 (Achenbach however attributes 31:9-13 to HexRed, an attribution important for the present study) in terms of a consistent “Levitizing” via the motive of the םיולה םינהכ, to whom are entrusted the tora along with the task of sin removal. In this sense they are introduced by Pentred in Deut 17:9-11*, 18f; 21:5;

24:8f, especially in Deut 18:1,2,5 (DPH, 185f.). Otto agrees with Achenbach regarding certain aspects of HexRed’s “Levitizing,” e.g., regarding the emphasis on their responsibility for the ark: Hexred “ist an den יול ינב םינהכmit Blick auf das Josuabuch (vgl. Josh 3,3 u.ö) als Träger der Lade interessiert und verankert sie in Dtn 10,8f. im Deuteronomium” (ibid., 186, n. 144). In general, and as has already been stated, the primary weakness in Otto and Achenbach’s theses about the Levites is in some ways the flip side of the strengths of those theses, namely their clarity. And yet, in pursuing the path of the Levitizing of the priesthood caution needs to be taken not to assume too direct a correspondence between the literary construction of “Levites” and non-elite religious personnel.

361 Notable exceptions meet the reader in Isa 66:21 and Jer 33:18, 21f (promise of Davidides reigning in association with levitical priests (םיולה םינהכ) who minister (תרש) to YHWH. The similarity with the viewpoint of Chr regarding David and the Levites is unmistakable. In conjunction with his Levitismus theory Achenbach attributes these passages, along with Ezek 44:6-14; Mal 2:4-7, to the “latest phase of the Bearbeitungsgeschichte of the prophetic books” (Vollendung, 164, n. 61).

362 See especially the seminal attempts to come to grips with the often fragmentary data by Ulrich Dahmen, Leviten und Priester im Deuteronomium. Literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien (vol. 110;

Bodenheim: Philo Verlagsgesellschaft, 1996); Reinhard Achenbach, “Levitische Priester und Leviten im Deuterononium. Überlegungen zur sog. ‘Levitisierung’ des Priestertums,” ZA[B]R 5 (1999): 285-309;

Eckart Otto, “Die post-deuteronomistische Levitisierung des Deuteronomiums: Zu einem Buch von Ulrich Dahmen,” ZAR 5 (1999): 277-84, 277-79. In this piece Otto takes Dahmen’s R^p (priestlyredactor) model to task for being “too simple,” e.g., regarding Deut 34:8, which in the framework of Deuteronomy overlaps both post-dtr HexRed and Pentred. “Schließlich zeigt sich mit Blick auf Dtn 34:8, daß das Modell R^p zu einfach ist, sich vielmehr im Deuteronomiumsrahmen nachdtr Hexateuch- und Pentateuchredactionen überlagern. In dieses komplexere Bild sind die Belege Dtn 10,6f, 8f; 27:14 einzuzeichnen. Für die

Interpretation der auf den ersten Blick polemisch aufeinander bezogenen Aaroniden- und Levitenbelege in Num 18,20; Dtn 10,6f und Dtn 10,8f; 27,11-13 ist zu klären, da sie im Horizont des Pentateuch nichts also sich ausschließend verstanden werden wollen, welcher Beleg als hermeneutischer Schlüssel für die anderen fungiert und zwischen welchen kontroversen Positionen durch die Einfugungen ein Ausglich geschaffen wird” (ibid., 280). It is not the accuracy of every verse and partial verse attribution that determines the

79

According to the Pentateuchal narrative, the torah owes its preservation and

propagation through the work of the Levites, who trace their lineage to Moses. A prudent first step in plotting the literary-historical development of “Levitism” would be to

recognize that P’s account of the origins narrative of the beginning of the tabernacle and the origin of the sacrificial cult (as set forth, e.g., in Exod 24–31; 40; Lev 8f) does not include the installation of the Levites.

³⁶³

Otto and Achenbach maintain that the principle of the levitization (Levitisierung) of the priesthood in Deuteronomy owes to HexRed.

³⁶⁴

A key passage in HexRed, Deut 31:9 also recounts the elders’ intermediary role in this torah tradition: “Then Moses wrote down this law, and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel.”

³⁶⁵

Remarkably, Levitical origin is claimed for both Moses (Exod 2:1) and Aaron (4:14).

³⁶⁶

effectiveness of a literary-historical, redactional model, but rather its potential for explaining otherwise disparate and confusing traditions. That the model would also contribute toward an improved

understanding of the theological underpinnings of the canonical material benefits scholarship and increases interest in critical biblical study in general.

363 Achenbach, “Der Pentateuch,” 229, n. 13.

364 Cf. Achenbach, “Levitische Priester,” passim. Blum, “Pentateuch—Hexateuch—Enneateuch,” 84, n. 56, restricts the concept of the “levitical priests” to the book of Deuteronomy: “…, weshalb von

Sprauchgebrauch und Konzept der levitischen Priester im Pentateuch außerhalb des Deuteronomiums keine Spur zu finden ist.” The context of this statement is Blum’s criticism of Otto’s Zadokite authorship thesis for PentRed in Deuteronomy, namely that such authorship would somehow be “hiding behind the Levites”

(“… dessen zadokidische Identität sich hinter der Rede von den ‘levitischer Priestern’ verberge” (ibid.). We however agree with Otto’s theory in general, though we see the Levites (HexRed) responsible for some passages in Deuteronomy that he attributes to PentRed. And we also affirm the possibility of one group

“hiding behind” another, e.g., the levitical authors (School of HexRed) of much of the supposed

“Aaronide” Holiness Code; see §§6.4.4-5.

365 Achenbach, Vollendung, 631; cf. Georg P. Braulik, Deuteronomium II (16,18–34,12) (vol. 28;

Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1992), 233f. Otto (DPH, 181) however attributes this passage to PentRed.

Achenbach, while attributing other passages emphasizing the leadership role of the elders in the narrative to PentRed (e.g., Exod 3:16, 18 [but he attributes Exod 3:16, 18 to HexRed in Vollendung, 254; Hans-

Christoph Schmitt, “Die ‘Ältesten’ in der Exodusüberlieferung und im Aramäischen Briefbericht von Esr 4,8-6,15,” in Berürhungspunkte. Studien zur Religions- und Sozialgeschichte des Alten Israel und Seiner Umwelt. Festschrift für Rainer Albertz {ed. I. Kottsieper, et al.; vol. 350 of AOAT; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2008}, 57-72, 59f. attributes Exod 3:16-22 to an Endredaktionalschicht; cf. Gertz, Tradition, 295, 297, 299, who attributes the Kernbestand of 3:16f. to a preexilic layer]; 12:21; 17:5; 18:12; Lev 9:1), perceives PentRed’s general aversion to non-theocratic leadership (as demonstrated, e.g., in PentRed’s addition of the 250 man narrative in Num 16*, the series of rebellions against Moses and Aaron in Num 14:5, 16:3, 20:2 [ibid, 50, 55]). Achenbach is probably correct to attribute Exod 18:13-27 to HexRed (“gescheiterten Landnahme,” 104, n. 229; idem., Vollendung, 50; contra Otto, DPH, 131f.). HexRed also portrays Moses appearing before Pharaoh with the “elders of Israel” (Exod 3:16ff; cf. perhaps 4:29). Further, Moses lines up with the elders in the tribunal of Num 16:25 (Achenbach, Vollendung, 54). H.-C. Schmitt (“Ältesten,”

60) affirms, against Gertz (Tradition und Redaktion, 309, n. 350; cf. 334), that the mention of the elders need not be early or incompatible with the mention of Aaron. “Wie die endredaktionelle Schicht in 4,27-31 zeigt, gehören die Ältesten jedoch in die gleiche Schicht wie Aaron. Aaron übermittelt hier die Botschaft und die Zeichen, die ursprünglich dem Mose aufgetragen waren, and die Ältesten. Der Befund, dass ursprünglich sowohl in Ex 4,1ff als auch in Ex 3,16-17 Mose direct zu den Ältesten gesandt wird, deutet

80

The motif of the ark may function as the connecting link (Bindeglied) between P and DtrL. The ark’s manufacture, mentioned outside of P’s domain only in Exod 25:10-22 (especially v. 21

³⁶⁷

) and Deut 10:2b, 3a, 5a; Num 10:33, 35f., provides the thematic connection. The ark motif also appears to connect with the stipulation of a levitical priesthood, which, in addition to its genealogical nexus with Moses, orients itself in Mosaic law. Accordingly, to the Levites falls the responsibility of caring for both ark and law (Deut 10:8f; 27:9f; 31:9; Josh 8:33). Excepting the post-dtr Deut 17:18, however, we lack evidence of the Levites’ involvement with the ark or the law in D.

In sum, then, the levitization of the ancient Israelite priesthood traces neither to the P- tradition nor to the preexilic D tradition, but first appears in a layer that postdates both P and D.

³⁶⁸

The layer constitutes the work of HexRed,

³⁶⁹

which essentially “changes the traditional view of the history or priestly institutions in Israel.”

³⁷⁰

For the present study, this means the Levite’s rise to official priestly status becomes a postexilic phenomenon (see Chapters Four and Five).

1.3.11.10.1 The Insertion of the Holiness Code and the Levitizing of the Priesthood The combination of P and DtrL appears not to assume the correlation of P

^g

and H because the latter does not display acceptance of the notion of the levitical origin of the

nicht darauf hin, das hier noch eine aaronfreie Ältestenschicht vorliegt, vielmehr gehen Ex 4,1ff und Ex 3,16-17 davon aus, dass Mose seinen Auftrag an die Ältesten durch Aaron vollziehen lassen wird”

(Schmitt, “Ältesten,” 60-1). After 4:31, and until 12:21, the elders of Israel play no more role (Achenbach, Vollendung, 50). See also below, n. 684.

366 Cf. Erich Zenger, Das Buch Exodus (vol. 7 of AT; Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1987), 59-61; 78-81;

Eckart Otto, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im Buch Exodus,” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation (ed. M. Vervenne; vol. 126 of BETL; Leuven: Leuven University, 1996), 61-111, 101f.

367 “You shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark; and in the ark you shall put the covenant that I shall give you” (25:21).

368 Achenbach “Story,” 147, n. 40. In the Golah pentateuchal redactors reworked the concept of the priesthood in the Pentateuch (cf. Ezek 44:6-19), which theocratic tradents would later continue to revise (so Ezek 44:20-31), including some revisions in H (Lev 19:22; 21:1-4, 13f; 22:8) and elsewhere (Lev 10:9f;

Num 15:20; 18:14, 20; ibid.).

369 Ibid., 147f.; cf. ibid: “There is no hint of a special levitical status in the P-Story from

Genesis to Leviticus! There is not even a special position of the Levites considered in the main body of the Holiness-Code.”

370 Ibid., 148. As mentioned already, HexRed develops genealogical support for the Levites by, e.g., connecting them to Moses (Exod 2:1). That HexRed joined the Tetrateuch, Deuteronomy, and Joshua in the middle of the fifth century is suggestive of the Levitical priesthood coming of age, pour ainsi dire, around the time of Nehemiah. Later, more exclusively-minded Pentateuch redactor(s) and Bearbeitungen would have much to say about these matters, as we will see.

81

priesthood. But the rhetorically infused H probably does accept the levitizing of the priesthood. It intentionally underplays it as a part of the greater goal of promoting a community of quasi-priests that acquiesce to but nonetheless supervise aspects of

Aaronide services (see Chapter Six).

³⁷¹

Another reason for the “Levite lacuna” may have to do with the Zadokite-Levite Pentateuch redaction’s involvement in introducing H to the Pentateuch. The pro-Levite contingency behind H apparently agreed not to

foreground Levites. A similar phenomenon may be in evidence in the Psalter, which, aside from the superscriptions which point to Levites hardly mentions priests.

The reshuffling of priestly identities and roles H is also evident in its giving Aaronides preeminence while not even mentioning the Zadokite-Levites of the Gola,

³⁷²

whose views are clearly recognizable in H texts because of their affinities with Zadokite-Levite texts in Ezekiel.

³⁷³

Achenbach believes these views found inclusion in the Pentateuch through the redactional efforts of PentRed.

³⁷⁴

371 Admittedly, H lacks detailed regulation of levitical functions and tasks. This remains true with regard to the cultus and within in the sphere of the pursuance of justice (Rechtsfindung), which includes legal instruction in the cities of refuge (Achenbach, “Der Pentateuch,” 226f.).

372 “Dabei nimmt es immer wieder Traditionen aus der zadoqischen Priesterschaft der Gola auf und nutzt diese, um die Priesterschrift vor dem Horizont des Deuteronomiums zu radikalisieren” (ibid., 229).

Recently Otto appears to be moving toward the notion of Aaronide authorship of H. Assuming the

Aaronides broke away from the Zadokites in the postexilic period, he argues the narrative of the Pentateuch posits the existence of an unbroken continuity from Aaron to Phineas (Num 5:10-12), the putative ancestor of the Zadokites (1 Sam 14:3; 2 Sam 8:17; 1 Chr 5:33 [6:7]; 6:37-38 [52-53]; 18:16). Regarding H, Otto contends the pentateuchal authors responsible for its inclusion viewed the commandments of both Leviticus and H as “orally transmitted by the Aaronide priests in an unbroken succession since Aaron at Mt Sinai”

(“Holiness Code,” 148). At the end of the 5^th or early 4^th century Aaronides were “disguised Zadokites.” In this way Lev 17–26 differed from Moses’ proclamation of the Sinai Torah of CC, Dec, and their

interpretation (Exod 34:10-26) in Deuteronomy (cf. Deut 1:5). “Deuteronomy and the material of the Holiness Code had a literarily different pre-history before they became part of the Pentateuch” (ibid., 149- 50).

373 Achenbach, “Heiligkeitsgesetz,” 146-7: “Dabei zeigt sich, dass die Texte außerhalb der auf

Weiterführungen der Priesterschrift, des Deuteronomiums und des Dekaloges beruhrenden Materialien häufig unter dem traditionsgeschichtlichen Einfluss der zadokidischen Priesterkreise aus dem Umfeld des Ezechielbuches, besonders Ez 44f., stehen, dessen Ansichten sie allerdings nicht bruchlos übernehmen, sondern dem Kontext anpassen.” It could be that the sons of Aaron in H were a circle inspired by the Zadokite-Levites.

374 It seems to us more likely that this would occur through the efforts of a priestly community or school (Nihan, Priestly Torah, 616, contra Otto), not a sequestered society of elites but rather a mixed priestly and lay sodality. Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition (Nashville: Simon and Schuster, 1983), defines sodality as: (1) fellowship; (2) an association or brotherhood; (3) in the Roman Catholic Church, a lay association formed to carry on devotional or charitable activity.” Each definition conveys a valid aspect of the meaning intended here. The third definition accommodates our conception of lay involvement, which H makes clear, but also middle-tier priests, which H (excepting the secondary 25:32-34) does not acknowledge, in this special society. The sodality associated with H ostensibly

82

1.3.11.10.2 The Later, Post-HexRed Delevitizing of the Priesthood by Theocratic Revisers (Bearbeiteren)

During the late phase of pentateuchal revision in the fourth-century BCE by theocratic Bearbeiterungen, the notion of the levitical priesthood moves to the background: neither P nor PentRed had utilized it, and, as just noted, as part of their compromise with the elite Zadolite-Levites of the Golah, the Levites behind H could not openly participate in the levitizing of the priesthood.

³⁷⁵

The theocratic revisions led to the building up of Num 16–18 into the Korah legend, in which levitical participation in the sacrificial cult would come to be roundly rejected.

³⁷⁶

Attentiveness to the Tetrateuch-wide literary horizon indicates the authors of the Korah legend may have had in view the situation in Lev 9*. Achenbach reads this chapter as discouraging lay particpation in the cult apart from Aaronides.

³⁷⁷

This may be true on one plane, but note vv. 6aβ-b and 23β: “This is the thing that the Lord commanded you to do, so that the glory of the Lord may appear to you.... and the glory of the Lord appeared to all the people” ( םעה־לכ־ לא הוהי־דובכ אריו ). These passages document affirmation of “all- Israel’s” reception of the revealed דובק.

³⁷⁸

In contrast to the main thrust of the Korah

characterized themselves as Aaronide or Aaronide-Levite to distinguish themselves from the more Deuteronomistic Zadokite-Levites.

The so-called “Passover papyrus” of Elephantine, Egypt plausibly reflects concepts of a school or

“holiness sodality” active in the latter decades of the fifth century. Nihan relates that during this time those attempting “to unify the ritual and cultic practice of the Judean ethos” likely had few supporters among Yehud’s imperial administration (Priestly Torah, 617). Regarding the latest additions to Leviticus, chs. 10;

27, Nihan attributes these to the same school of theocratic revisers responsible for post-redactional portions of Numbers. In this respect Nihan follows Achenbach (ibid.).

375 Achenbach, “Levitische Priester,” 286.

376 “Der Pentateuch,” 230 and n. 14. See Appendix I for the development of Num 16–18 and Achenbach, Vollendung, 37-172.

377 Ibid., 42.

378 We may describe the people’s reaction to the theophany in v. 24 as appropriate prostration before a deity that instantaneously consumes a large animal sacrifice in one’s presence. Through the event the people are honored by the presence of the דובק and that their sacrifices would be consumed in this way, which assures the efficacy of the sacrifice. Thus their posturing includes a solemn expression of thanksgiving (cf. Gen 24:26, 48; Exod 4:31; 12:27; Judg 13:20; 1 Kgs 18:37; 1 Chr 29:20; Neh 8:6; 1 Macc 4:55; cf. Rev 7:11;

11:16). They are not cringing out of dread. They neither beg for release or protective buffer. Similar to the deliverance from Egypt, this is their religious nadir.

It is significant that the following three verses (10:1-3) reprimand priestly presumption in a not dissimilar context. Following directly after the people’s pinnacle experience in 9:24, 10:1-3 prepare the reader/audience for later texts in Leviticus (chs. 21f.) in which the people evaluate Aaronides who would serve them as priests. See §§ 6.4-6.10.