Blue Cord

Steve Cook and John Hobbins both replied to my post on H in Genesis. I wanted to address their comments.

Steve is right, of course, in pointing out that Knohl does not completely reject the idea of H in Genesis. In addition to p.103, n.150, which Steve notes, Knohl also says on p.60 that parts of Genesis 17 may belong to HS. This is a far cry, however, from attributing large amounts of narrative to H as John and Jim Getz have done.

John asks how I explain Ezekiel when I date H to the post–exilic period. The answer is that I see a development of tradition from PT, through Ezekiel, to HS. Ezekiel is, in effect, writing Torah, especially in Ezekiel 40-48. But according to the authors of the Pentateuch, all Torah is given at Sinai. This leads to HS taking many of the ideas of Ezekiel and writing them into the Pentateuch. For one example of this, see my post on P in the book of Numbers.

John also criticizes van Seters for seeing J as entirely post–D, but I don’t think this is an entirely accurate reading of van Seters. J the author certainly worked post–D according to van Seters, but I am sure he doesn’t deny that J drew upon older traditions (and even if van Seters denies this, I don’t). Although I am not directly familiar with Blum’s work on the Jacob stories, I would have no problem seeing a pre–exilic version of this story. It probably had several versions, some that are oral and some that are written. This does not change the fact that J as an author is post–D.

Finally, John thanked me for keeping this topic going, but I wanted to thank those who have responded (and hopefully will continue to respond) to this thread. As you know, I am currently not working in academics, so my only colleagues are those in the biblioblogosphere. Thanks to all of you for providing the intellectual stimuli I need to challenge my thinking on this topic.

While I was continuing to work my way through From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch last night, something occurred to me.

As I pointed out in a previous post, Nihan argues that Pg ends somewhere in Leviticus (I haven’t gotten far enough in his book to know where he thinks it ends). Others argue that it ends with the instructions to build the tabernacle in Exodus 25-31 or the completion of the tabernacle in Exodus 40. All of these make sense from a narrative perspective.

But this raises a new question for my own research. I am currently working on a paper that deals with the relationship of PT, Ezekiel, and HS. I started this paper in the summer of 2006, but put it aside to work on some other projects. In short, the paper sees a PT layers in Numbers 16-18 that Ezekiel re-interprets in Ezekiel 44.  HS takes Ezekiel’s reading and edits Numbers 16-18 to bring it into line with Ezekiel.

The problem, obviously, is that if Pg ends in Exodus or Leviticus, it doesn’t continue into Numbers. The question then becomes, what was Ezekiel reading when he came across the story in Numbers 16-18? Was it a priestly document that was not a part of Pg? Given the similarity in vocabulary and terminology between Numbers 16-18 and Ezekiel 44, I find it hard to believe that it was not a written document. So what was it?

According to Awilum, who got it from the Agade listserv, Mary Douglas passed away yesterday.  Douglas was a social anthropologist who is best know to biblical scholars through her work Purity and Danger, where she argued that purity laws in the OT are best understand as maintaining boundaries.  She also wrote two others books of interest to OT scholars: Leviticus as Literature and In The Wilderness.

Douglas studied under E. Evan-Pritchard.  She taught at University College London and Northwestern University.  She was invested as a Dame of the Order of the British Empire a week before she died.

Having divided Numbers 1-10 into PT and HS according to content, I now want to go back and check my results with reference to language use. Knohl provides a list of vocabulary that is used by PT verses that used by HS.¹

Before doing that, I want to address Knohl’s idea that all of the material in Numbers dealing with the Levites belongs to an originally separate document that he calls “The Levite Treatise.” Knohl does not provide a strong argument that these were a separate document, but suggests it on the basis of the fact that they deal with the same subject matter. I see little evidence, however, for these chapters circulating independantly prior to being incorporated into Numbers. It would have been a rather odd document. It would be a strange mixture of law and narrative, with the narrative material coming mostly at the end. There are no passages that could have served as an introduction or conclusion. I think it is better to view these chapters as having been written at the time of their inclusion in Numbers.

Turning to the question of language, my assignment of passages agrees in large part with that of Knohl. We do disagree in several passage however.

First are those passages I assign to PT that Knohl views as HS:

• I see 9:15-23 as part of PT, due to its continuation of the chronology of PT. Knohl argues that it should be HS on the basis of the phrase mishkan le’ohel ha’edhuth, which does not occur in PT. This particular phrase is unique to this verse, however, so it does not constitute strong evidence for assigning the passage to HS. ‘ohel ha’edhuth occurs in Number 17:7 in a passage I would assign to PT, so I see no reason to change the assignment of 9:15-23.
• 10:11-12 is assigned by Knohl to HS. It contains the phrase mishkan ha’eduth, which occurs only in HS passages (Exod 38:21; Num 1:50, 53). Although four occurrances of the phrase is hardly conclusive, it does mean that this section should be reconsidered. Perhaps a study of the idea of setting out when the cloud lifts from over the tabernacle would be useful. If such passages are all HS, this would mean that 10:11-12 as well as 9:15-23 should be assigned to HS.

There are no passages that I see as HS that Knohl assigns to PT. We therefore move on to passages that were unclear.

• I marked 2:1-34 as unclear in the previous post. Knohl sees it as HS. The word degel (’standard, flag’) that is used repeatedly in this passage is almost universally recognized as being a loanword from Aramaic. It is used in two other passages in Numbers that are clearly HS (Num 1:52; 10:14, 18, 22, 25). This would imply a postexilic date for these passages, which points clearly to HS.
• 3:40-51 must be assigned to the HS layer. Knohl points out that God only speaks in the first person in HS after the revelation of the divine name in Exodus 6. The expression “I am the LORD” also echos the same expression found throughout Leviticus 17-26.
• Knohl views the repetitions of 7:1-89 as characteristic of HS. The fact that it breaks the narrative chronology of PT also leads him to assign this to HS. I also overlooked in my previous post the fact that the Levites are divided into subgroups, a definite sign of HS.

The linguistic data therefore confirms most of the assignments, although some needed to be rethought. Neither vocabulary nor content can be definitive on its own. Both must work in conjunction in the final analysis.

1. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence, 108-110. [back]

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.