When I originally started my current research in source criticism, it was motivated by another field of study: the history of the priests in ancient Israel. I wanted to be able to date the relative layers of the Pentateuch so I could use their information on the priesthood in a chronological manner. But I became excited by the possibilities of research in source criticism, so I am enjoying it as much as the original project on the priesthood.

At this year’s SBL, Konrad Schmid gave a paper entitled “The History of Pentateuch Redaction and the Development of Sacerdotal Institutions.” His thesis was that we have to pay attention to the priesthood at the same time as we focus on the development of the Torah. Although he focused on the exilic and postexilic periods, I am currently considering the same issue for the preexilic period.

For example, when we divide the P material into P and H (as Knohl has done), it seems significant that P pays very little attention to the Levites. All of the Levitical passages are assigned to H. But does not this imply that P would have arisen in an era in which the Levites were not around or at least were not an issue? P focuses all of its energy on the descendants of Aaron with little recognition that there are non-Aaronid Levites.

A possible solution for this occurred to me while reading Menaham Haran’s Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel. He points out that the Levitical cities are divided between those that belong to Aaron and those that belong to the rest of the Levites. All of the cities of Aaron are located in Judah, while the Levites are found in Israel. This could indicate that there were no Levites in Judah during the divided monarch or at least very few. It would only have been with the fall of Samarian in 722 BCE that an influx would have begun, and this could never have been particularly large.

When the Deuteronomistic reforms were undertaken by Josiah, this would have caused a problem for P. Deuteronomy allows Levites to come to Jerusalem and partake in the sacrifice. P has no legislation to regulate this. This would have led to a rethinking of priestly classes during the exile. We see this in Ezekiel 44, where the Levites are accepted but demoted to temple servants. This would have then been codified into Torah by H, who has Levites running around all over the place.

The implications of this for the dating of P are clear. It would need to be written sometime before Josiah’s reforms and possibly before the similar reforms of Hezekiah. This suggests at the latest an early 7th century BCE date, with the 8th century BCE also being a strong possibility. This would mean that P could be the earliest source in the Pentateuch, not the latest as Wellhausen envisioned.

One other indication that P is situated within the Divided Monarchy is the way it deals with Zadok and Ahimelech. P places great emphasis on Eleazar’s line, through whom Zadok is descended. The story of Phinehas (Num 25:6-13) grants him the perpetual priesthood. Ithamat, Aaron’s other son, is given no genealogy anywhere in the OT. The only descendants of his we find are Eli’s line, although this is in 1 Chronicles 24 and it is not a complete genealogy. Solomon had banished Ahimelech to Anathoth, which means that Ithamar’s line was excluded from the priesthood from the time of Solomon on. This would explain why P has no interest in that line and focuses exclusively on Eleazar’s descendants through Zadok. In other words, not only were the Zadokites the main priestly line; they were the only priestly line (at least as far as P is concerned).

Permalink