HISTORY OF RESEARCH: PART I
Exod 20:18-20: Elohim institutes Moses as mediator to assuage the people’s fear
1.2.1.5 Thomas B. Dozeman
15
that undergo shaping and editing by various redactors. Because a majority of scholars
continue to attribute late and often significant literary activity to priestly hands,
63it would
appear that J. Wellhausen’s innovative placement of the priestly source in fourth position
(so JEDP) continues to exert significant influence on contemporary Pentateuchal models,
which these days often expand into the Hexateuch, Enneateuch, even Dekateuch (Genesis
through Ezra-Nehemiah
64). Biblical research over the last three decades has witnessed a
steady increase in proposals characterizing early materials as either dtn or simply “pre-
priestly.”
16
Thus, along with Nicholson, Dozeman believes the PRR precedes Mosaic mediation, with the same sequence occurring in both Exodus and Deuteronomy.
66The private reception of revelation to Moses functions narrativally to set him apart.
67Of the three dtr redactions, Exod 19–24
68; 19:9a, 19; and 20:1-17, the latter contains “the completion of theophany as a private revelation to Moses in the form of the Book of the Covenant”
69rather than predictions of a public theophany to the people of Israel in the form of a Dec. Given the “plot structure” of the dtr redaction, the fear of the people constitutes the rationale for the private revelation to Moses.
70There is a development within the deuteronomistic redaction from a public revelation of the Decalogue to a private revelation of the Book of the Covenant, which Moses must now promulgate for God. The result of this development is that Moses acquired authority in the deuteronomistic redaction, which mirrors his role in Deuteronomy.
The progression from public to private revelation is repeated at Mt. Horeb:
The accounts of theophany at Mt. Horeb also progress from a public revelation of the Decalogue (Deut 4:11-13; 5:1-22
71) to the private revelation of additional
deuteronomic law to Moses (Deut 4:36-40;
725:28ff), because of the people’s fear of divine speech (Deut 5:23-28).
73In the late preexilic or exilic dtr redaction Moses functions not as mediator but rather
“idealized as a prophet or teacher, who simply brings the word of YHWH to the
people.”
74In contrast to Childs’s source-critical attribution of Moses’ mediatorial role to E (primarily as mediator of the covenant) and J (ongoing mediation, no recourse to a
66 Dozeman envisions the dtr redaction of Exod 19–24 occurring in three episodes: Moses receives the private revelation of dtn law, bridges the spatial chasm between heaven and earth, and conveys a divine message from heaven in a conspicuously anti-hierarchical manner. Moses plays a central role in the third episode, where he receives private revelation of dtr law (BC; ibid., 54). The notion of a dtr BC is disputed.
In his review of Dozeman’s monograph, Erhard Blum, “God on the Mountain: A Study of Redaction, Theology and Canon in Exodus 19–24 (Review),” Biblica 72 (1991): 264-68, 267, questions the attribution of the BC to dtr hands: “Läßt sich das Bundesbuch so einfach als ‘deuteronomisches’ Gesetz ausgeben, das erst mit der dtr Redaktion an den Gottesberg kam?”
67 Dozeman, God on the Mountain, 53; cf. in the foregoing Childs’s legitimation patterns of Mosaic offices.
68 See n 31 above.
69 Ibid., 54.
70 Ibid. “It was their fear of divine speech and choice of Moses at the close of the second episode that has propelled him into his special role in the third episode” (ibid.).
71 We assume Dozeman did not intend to include 5:4 in this accounting.
72 We interpret 4:36ff. as just the opposite, that is, as support for public revelation.
73 Ibid., 54-5.
74 Ibid., 56.
17
covenant), Dozeman ties Moses’ mediatorial role to priestly redactors whose insertion of Exod 19:20-25 countermands the dtr redactors’ support for the plenary reception of revelation.
75Summarizing, Dozeman brings new methods to bear in God on the Mountain,
reflecting the shift in Pentateuchal research toward displacing the concept of continuous Pentateuchal sources with a block or Fortschreibung
76model, which posits the ongoing development of independent blocks of tradition (so, e.g., Rendtorff
77).
78Dozeman also shares affinity with the work of F. M. Cross
79respecting the characterization of priestly literary activity as redactional rather than compositional.
In chapter six of his monograph, Dozeman employs a sociological approach to explain the “competing traditions” at play in the extant Sinai complex. The priestly redaction, for example (1) provides a narrative context for priestly legislation and (2) melds the dtn and priestly legislations into one torah. Effected through a series of compromise redactions
8075 Ibid., 103-06. See the treatment of Exod 19:20-25 below, in Excursus 2.
76 Walter Zimmerli was the first to coin this term.
77 Rolf Rendtorff, “Der ‘Jahwist’ als Theologe. Zum Dilemma der Pentateuchkritik,” SVT 28 (1975): 158- 66; idem, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993).
78 See the critique by R. J. Clifford, “God on the Mountain: A Study of Redaction, Theology and Canon in Exodus 19–24 (Review),” CBQ 53 (1991): 281-82, 282: “Against a substantial D redaction is the lack of characteristic deuteronomic and deuteronomistic vocabulary and syntax in Exodus 19-24.” The lack of clarity between dtn and dtr traditioning processes has been noted as problematic; cf. Blum, “Review.” In our view, the quest to distinguish between the two, especially when also speaking of post-dtr traditions, continues to be relevant.
79 Cf. Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1973), ch. 11, especially 293f.
80 Eckart Otto, “The Pre-exilic Deuteronomy as a Revision of the Covenant Code,” in Kontinuum und Proprium: Studien zur Sozial- und Rechtsgeschichte des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments (ed. E.
Otto; vol. 8 of OBO; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996), 112-22, 115, posits the relecture of legal texts already in the preexilic period when the revised text lay alongside the original: “If the laws of the Covenant Code were supplemented in Deuteronomy, this did not mean that the Covenant Code was no longer valid.
In fact, the Covenant Code became part of the Sinai pericope after its revision by Deuteronomy, and as such, a direct revelation, whereas Deuteronomy functioned merely as its repetition as witnessed by Moses in the plain of Moab. There are hints suggesting that revision of the Covenant Code did not invalidate the older law; instead there was a complementary relationship between the two sets of laws. Deut 19:2-13*
revised the laws of homicide in Exod 21:12-14” (emphasis added).
K. Schmid suggests that in Persian period Jerusalem compromise obtained between priestly and non- priestly tradents. The joining-together of Gen and Exod (ff) (sic, a quantitative siglum used by Schmid in this work) into a “salvation-disaster historical great historical work” (heils-unheilsgeschichtlichen Großgeschichtswerk) implied an evaluation of the following prophetic books; Genesis–2 Kgs moves relevantly toward the corpus propheticum. Thus behind the redactional working-together Gen and Exod (ff) stand a broad share of prophetic interests.
We should accordingly eschew the tendency to sharply separate prophetic and priestly circles, since these tradents, arguably few in number, probably worked in Jerusalem around the same time. As Israelite
“religious professionals” they would have certainly shared similar persectives. Indeed, “priesterlich-
18
occurring during the exilic and postexilic periods, it sought to unify the two competing traditions.
81Of particular importance to this study is Dozeman’s proposal that priestly constituencies opposed the notion of the plenary reception of revelation. Clerics rather than dtr tradents challenged the notion of the broad apprehension of disclosure by the people. Revelation should (only) be mediated through the appropriate cultic
representatives.
82Dozeman’s attribution of exclusivist views toward the PRR to priestly elites does not, however, rule out non-elite priests supporting the PRR.
83Indeed,
throughout the Second Temple period significant diversity obtained within the various priestly coteries. Change, rather than continuity, ruled the era.
84We will revisit this issue in Chapter Six.
theokratische oder prophetisch-eschatologische geprägte Schriftauslegung standen in nachexilischer Zeit einander literatursoziologisch wahrscheinlich näher, als man dies gemeinhin anzunehmen bereit ist, denn es handelt sich im einen wie im anderen Fall um eine professionelle Arbeit, die “Schriftlehrsamkeit”
voraussetzt und bei der in alttestamentlicher Zeit noch sehr raren Verbreitung der biblischen Bücher einigermaßsen plausibel nur in Jerusalem vorstellbar ist” (Konrad Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus:
Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments [vol. 81 of WMANT; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchenener Verlag, 1999], 277).
81 Dozeman, God on the Mountain, 178f. Dozeman’s sociological observations regarding competing groups appear not to have availed themselves of the seminal insights of Paul Hanson (Dawn of Apocalyptic) and essays in the volume edited by Douglas A. Knight, e.g., O. H. Steck’s essay “Theological Streams of Tradition,” in Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament (ed. of volume and trans. of Steck’s essay D.
Knight; JSOT Press/Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press Ltd., 1977/1990), 183-214; see especially 198- 212.
See also the recent remarks pertaining to literary negotiation among ancient Israelite writers by Thomas C. Römer , “Das Buch Numeri und das Ende des Yahwisten: Anfragen zur ‘Quellenscheidung’ im vierten Buch des Pentateuch,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (ed. J. Gertz, et al.; vol. 315 of BZAW; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 215-31. On p. 222 he states:
“Im Rahmen der Bemühungen um ein breit akzeptierbares Gründungsdokument des in der Perserzeit entstehenden Judentums kam es zu einem Kompromiss zwischen priesterlichen und deuteronomistisch- laizistischen Kreisen” (and see the literature in ibid., n. 37); see now Ehrenreich, who speaks of the Israelite writer’s “Wunsch nach Vereinigung, Synthese” (Wähle das Leben!, 18, n. 74, quoting Georg Fischer,
“Zur Lage der Pentateuchforschung,” ZAW 115 [2003]: 608-16, 614, n. 26).
82 Additional distinctions may obtain among strata of priestly personnel, e.g., some disclosure remained the private preserve of (the priestly) Moses and Aaron. The restrictions placed on priests in Exod 19:20-25 arouse curiosity, since v. 22 (consecrated priests may approach) conflicts with v. 24 (no priest may approach). Verse 24b, moreover, groups priest and laity (םעהט םינהכהו) in a manner suggesting a possible socio-political cooperative; cf. Lev 16:33; 1 Kgs 12:31, 33; 2 Kgs 17:32; 2 Chr 36:14. In Ezra we find for the most part a different order: people, followed by priests and then Levites (3:8, 12; 6:16; 7:7, 13, 16; 9:1;
(7:16 and 8:15 omit the Levites); cf. Neh 8:13; 10:28. It could be that Exod 19:20-25 reflects a separation between Aaronides and the lower rung of the priestly caste, i.e., Levites. Cf. also the contrast between Moses/Aaron and the Levites in Num 16.
83 Moreover, the assumption of a sharp divide between priestly and dtr circles has become an increasingly problematic notion.
84 Cf. in this connection Blenkinsopp offers a caveat against assuming long-running Weltanschauungen (Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66 [vol. 19B; New York: Doubleday, 2003], 66: “The frequent attempts that have been made (e.g., by Plöger, Hanson) to trace the development of apocalyptic and its sectarian matrix through Second Temple history—with Isa 24-27, 56-66; Zech 12-14; Ezek 38-39; and Joel as points
19
In a 2000 JBL article entitled “Masking Moses and Mosaic Authority in Torah,”
Dozeman continues to see a progression from public divine speech to the private revelation of law to Moses, though he no longer locates the development in the dtr redaction but rather in the “pre-Priestly history.” The PRR appears in Numbers as well:
Revelation of law in the pre-Priestly history follows a pattern, in which public divine speech to all Israel evolves into the private revelation of law to Moses. The pattern occurs twice during the revelation at the mountain of God in Exodus 19–34: first without cultic setting in Exodus 19–24, and a second time in the Tent of Meeting in Exodus 33–34. Numbers 11–12 continues the pattern of public and private revelation, as does the book of Deuteronomy. Repetition of this pattern provides an additional point of departure for interpreting the role of Exod 34:29-35
85within its literary context in the pre-Priestly history.
86In the pre-P account of theophany the Dec functions as public revelation to all-Israel. The frightened Israelites request Moses’ intercession, which initiates God’s private revelation of the BC to Moses (Exod 21–23) who then becomes the covenant mediator (Exod 24:3- 8).
87In “Masking Moses” Dozeman adds a new element to his interpretation, namely, that public revelation at the Tent of Meeting in Exod 33:1-11,
88mirrors the Dec: In both instances Israel overhears conversation between God and Moses (Exod 19:19; 20:18-20;
33:1-4).
89marking the trajectory—and the book of Daniel as the finishing post—seem to me to be misguided. Sects can form and apocalyptic world views can be generated at any time, given the right set of circumstances.
Here, as elsewhere, we have to acknowledge the poverty of our knowledge of the past.”
85 Note especially v. 32: “Afterward all the Israelites came near, and he gave them in commandment all that the Lord had spoken with him on Mount Sinai.”
86 Thomas B. Dozeman, “Masking Moses and Mosaic Authority in Torah,” JBL 119, no. 1 (2000): 21-45, 32 (emphasis added); cf. ibid., 36-7: “Numbers 11–12 repeats the pattern of public and private revelation in developing the character and authority of Moses…. Numbers 11 is about public, judicial authority, while Numbers 12 changes the focus to explore Moses’ role to receive private cultic revelation…. Public theophany at the Tent of Meeting is the central event in Numbers 11. It is directed to representatives of Israel and not Moses alone…. The unexpected inclusion of Eldad and Medad among those receiving Moses’ spirit (Numb 11:26-20) indicates the degree to which the events in Numbers 11 are meant to be public.” In contrast to the social authority of the elders in Num 11, Miriam’s leprosy in Num 12 displays the limits of cultic authority. “Thus Numbers 12 moves in the opposite direction of Numbers 11,
emphasizing the unique role of Moses as cultic mediator in the Tent of Meeting. He receives this revelation privately, not publicly” (ibid., 37).
87 Ibid., 33.
88 See especially vv. 4f: “When the people heard these harsh words, they mourned, and no one put on ornaments. 5 For the Lord had said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘You are a stiff-necked people; if for a single moment I should go up among you, I would consume you. So now take off your ornaments, and I will decide what to do to you.’”
89 Ibid., 34.