The next question to be addressed is the basis upon which we differentiate between PT and HS. Both Knohl and Milgrom have discussions on this. They mostly do so on the basis of language. Each author uses term that the other doesn’t. In addition, HS tends to be less precise in his use of terminology than PT is.

For this current exercise, however, I want to focus on how each particular text deals with the Levites. In a paper I will be presenting at the New England regional SBL meeting next month, I argue that PT is preexilic while HS is postexilic, or more precisely, PT comes before Exekiel and HS comes after. Since Ezekiel seems to be the first to demote the Levites to second class priests, any text that is written before Ezekiel should see the Levites as equal to the Aaronides, while texts afterwards should view the Levites as second class priests. This is particularly true for the priestly layers in the Pentateuch, as their similarity to Ezekiel has frequently been noted.

For this post, therefore, I want to go through Numbers 1-10 and see which passages should be assigned to PT and HS based on their treatment of the Levites. Also, if a passage seems to presume another passage that has been assigned to HS, that passage will be assigned to HS as well. A few passages will be assigned based on other criteria.

Here is my breakdown:

  • 1:1-47 is probably PT. My reason for assigning it to PT is that is follows the chronology of earlier priestly chapters, and that chronology seems to belong to PT.
  • 1:48-54 clearly sees the Levites as having the responsibility of moving the tabernacle. This role equates to the custodial responsibilities over the temple they are given in the postexilic period. This passage is therefore assigned to HS. Noth viewed this passage as a supplement to P.
  • 2:1-34. This passage could go either way. It could easily be PT, since it would make sense to arrange the camp prior to setting out on the march. But the passage could be seen to draw on the material in Ezekiel 48, which would make this passage part of HS. A definite decision cannot be made at this time.
  • 3:1-13 is HS, due to the fact that the Levites are set up as servants of the Aaronides.
  • 3:14-39 is HS. It assigns custodial duties to the Levites, a characteristic of their existence in the postexilic period.
  • 3:40-51 is unclear. Its focus on the Levites might suggest HS, but it does not necessarily see them as second class priests.
  • 4:1-49 is HS, due to its treatment of the Levites.
  • Chapters 5-6 are problematic. They will not be discussed here. They may be later additions that postdate HS.
  • 7:1-89 is also problematic. Noth assigned it as a supplement to P. It could be part of PT, since it contains a chronological note that would fit with earlier notes. It could also be a much later insertion. No decision can be made at this time.
  • 8:5-26 views the Levites as the servants of Aaron and his sons, so this is clearly HS.
  • 9:1-14 could be HS or an even later addition. Noth viewed it as part of the supplements to P.
  • 9:15-23 seems to be continuing the PT narrative.
  • 10:1-10 is unclear.
  • 10:11-12 is PT, due to the chronological note.
  • 10:13-28 sees the Levites as custodians of the tabernacle and is therefore HS.

The next step in the research will be to use some of the language data isolated by Knohl and Milgrom to see if they match up with the divisions given above. That will be done in the next post in this series.

>>> Continue to the third post in this series.

Permalink