Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (JSOT Supplement Series)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OFTHE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES 125 Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies JSOT Pres...

Author: Gary A. Anderson | Saul M. Olyan

291 downloads 2472 Views 10MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OFTHE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

125

Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies

JSOT Press Sheffield

This page intentionally left blank

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel

Edited by

Gary A. Anderson and

Saul M. Olyan

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 125

Copyright © 1991 Sheffield Academic Press Published by JSOT Press JSOT Press is an imprint of Sheffield Academic Press Ltd The University of Sheffield 343 Fulwood Road Sheffield S10 3BP England

Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press and Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Billing & Sons Ltd Worcester

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Priesthood and cult in ancient Israel.— (Journal for the study of the Old Testament. Supplement series. ISSN 0309-0787; 125) I. Anderson, Gary A. II. Olyan, Saul M. III. Series 933

ISBN 1-85075-322-9

CONTENTS Preface Abbreviations List of Contributors

7 10 13

GARY A. ANDERSON The Praise of God as a Cultic Event

15

BARUCHJ. SCHWARTZ The Prohibitions Concerning the 'Eating' of Blood in Leviticus 17

34

JAMES C. VANDERKAM Jewish High Priests of the Persian Period: Is the List Complete?

67

SUSAN ACKERMAN The Deception of Isaac, Jacob's Dream at Bethel, and Incubation on an Animal Skin

92

SAUL M. OLYAN The Oaths of Amos 8.14

121

DAVID P. WRIGHT The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity

150

JACOB MILGROM The Composition of Leviticus, Chapter 11

183

6

Contents

ISRAEL KNOHL The Sin Offering Law in the 'Holiness School' (Numbers 15.22-31)

192

Index of References Index of Authors

204 213

PREFACE The study of the cult and priesthood of ancient Israel is still very much in its infancy. This is surprising in light of how the field of biblical studies has grown over the last century and the myriads of publications it has spawned. It is even more startling that the origin of much of the theoretical foundation of recent biblical scholarship can be traced to works which had the concerns of cult and priesthood very much at center stage. The oft cited works of W. Robertson Smith and Julius Wellhausen come immediately to mind. W. Robertson Smith is often regarded as not only a leading figure in the origins of modern biblical scholarship but also as a pioneer in the field of the History of Religions. His work on the religion of ancient Israel not only attempted to interpret the nature of biblical sacrifice in light of its ancient Near Eastern background but also as a phenomenon of religious practice more generally. It is an odd fact that Robertson Smith continues to be read by scholars of religion but no longer by those who work in the field of biblical studies. In part this ignorance can be justified: Robertson Smith worked with paradigms that no longer hold, yet his intuition that students of Israelite religion should be attentive to the findings of those working on the study of religious phenomena more generally still seems sound. J. Wellhausen, on the other hand, was not as concerned with understanding religious practices more generally. Rather he was occupied with writing a detailed social and political history of ancient Israel's religious institutions. He is, of course, widely recognized and cited as the figure who brought together in a most coherent fashion the theory of the four-fold nature of Pentateuchal authorship. But it is not often recognized that his work attempted to do more than articulate the history of the four literary sources. Wellhausen was also interested in the development of the cult and its attendant religious institutions, in particular the sacrificial cult and the various priestly houses. Indeed, his theory of the development of the priestly houses shaped his reconstruction of early Israelite history. And his

8


reconstruction of the development of Israelite cultic life enabled him to sort out discrete literary strata in the Priestly source. It is a curious fact that succeeding generations of biblical scholars did not show the same interest that Robertson Smith and J. Wellhausen did in the issues of cult and priesthood. There are many reasons for this development. One would be the gradual specialization of the various disciplines. Though it was easy for Robertson Smith to work in Semitics and the History of Religions while they were both in their infancy, to do so in later generations would prove to be a very formidable task. The degree of training and amount of information produced by both fields were often more than any one scholar could master. Also, one should note the leading role that the discovery of Akkadian and Ugaritic materials had among those scholars who followed Robertson Smith and Wellhausen. Much of the most recent work in biblical religion and history has attempted to digest and assimilate the vast new textual sources that have appeared in recent decades. The type of inner biblical comparisons drawn by Wellhausen, and the attempts to find parallels in distant religious settings witnessed in Robertson Smith's work seem less than satisfactory when compared with the types of comparative study one can now pursue with the materials of the ancient Near East. Yet, in spite of this recent history, the present generation of scholarship is now witnessing a return to the study of cult and priesthood. This shift has been slow but nonetheless quite perceptible. The concerns are not exactly the same as those which motivated Robertson Smith and Wellhausen; indeed one could say that the concerns and even the methods of analysis of this most recent turn to cultic life are just beginning to evolve. As a result of this state of affairs, we have not attempted to assert strong editorial control on the contributors. Rather, we thought it wiser simply to ask a leading group of junior and senior scholars to present their latest work on topics of most interest to them. It is hoped that the reader will be able to glean from this diversity the rich variety of interpretive paradigms that are available in this field and may be motivated to contribute his or her own study in the future. At least two of the papers treat themes of cultic life from the perspective of the History of Religions. David Wright addresses the theme of purity in the priestly source and compares his findings with recent anthropological thought on the subject. Anderson examines the

Preface

9

theme of praise in the Bible and attempts to set recent work on its form critical genre in a comparative perspective. The essays of Milgrom, Schwartz, and Knohl all examine in detail texts within the P source. Milgrom attempts to outline the structure of Leviticus 11. Schwartz examines Leviticus 17 as an example of legal composition which employs a very definite literary artistry. Knohl examines the classic doublet of Leviticus 4/Num. 15.22-31. He discusses how these texts are to be understood in light of the development of the Priestly and Holiness codes. Ackerman and Olyan have contributed essays on the relationship of cultic motifs in Israelite narrative to extra-biblical sources. Olyan attempts to set the crux of Amos 8.14 against its northwest Semitic and Israelite pilgrimage background, whereas Ackerman points to themes of an incubation ritual underlying the narrative of Jacob's deception of Isaac. Finally, rounding off the volume we have a contribution on the history of the priesthood. In his essay on the priesthood in the Second Temple period, VanderKam takes up the provocative thesis of Cross that the practice of papponymy led to excision of several high priests in the lists of the high priests from that era. This book is the result of several years of discussion between Olyan and Anderson on a number of important problems in the study of the cult and priesthood. We were eager to bring into relief the exciting and critical work on cult and priesthood in ancient Israel being done by both Jews and Christians. We would like to thank the various contributors for their patience with the avoidable and unavoidable delays and their willingness to see the book through to its completion. We hope that the collection proves stimulating and exposes a wider audience to this long neglected area of research. Gary A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan

ABBREVIATIONS AB ABD AJSR AnBib ANET

AP

ASOR AT ATD BA BAGD BASOR BBB BDB BUS BHT Bib BibOr BKAT BWANT BZ BZAW CAT CBSC CTA EncJud EM Erlsr ETL ETS EvQ EvT ExpTim

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary Association of Jewish Studies Review Analecta biblica J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969). A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923). The American Schools of Oriental Research Altes Testament Das Alte Testament Deutsch Biblical Archaeologist W. Arndt and F. Gingrich, tr., A Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bonner biblische Beitrage F. Brown, S.R. Driver and C.A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia Beitrage zur historischen Theologie Biblica Biblica et orientalia Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift BeiheftezurZAW Commentaire de 1'Ancien Testament Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges A. Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cuneiformes alphabetiques (Paris: Geuthner, 1963) Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971) Ensiqlopedya Miqrait (Hebrew) Eretz Israel Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses Erfurter theologische Studien Evangelical Quarterly Evangelische Theologie Expository Times

Abbreviations1 GKC HAT HKAT HSM HTR HUCA ICC IDE IDBSup

IEJ Int JAOS JBL JEOL JHS JNES JSOT JTS KAI KAT KB

KHAT KUB LCL LeS NEB

NICOT NJPS

OBO QL OTL

RB RSV

SANT SBL SBLDS SBLMS SBLSP SJLA TDNT

W. Gesenius, E. Kautsch and A.E. Cowley, Hebrew Grammar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910). Handbuch zum Alien Testament Handkommentar zum Alien Testament Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual

International Critical Commentary G.A. Butlrick (ed.), Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962). K. Crim, (ed.), IDB, Supplementary Volume (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1976) Israel Exploration Journal Interpretation Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Jaarbericht. . . exorientelux Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal of Theological Studies H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaandische und aramdische Inschriften (Weisbaden: Oito Harrassowiiz, 1966-69) Kommentar zum A.T. L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testaments libros (Leiden: Brill, 1958) Kurzer Handkommentar zum A.T. Keilschriflurkunden aus Boghazkoi Loeb Classical Library Lesonenu New English Bible New International Commentary on the Old Testament The New Jewish Publication Society Translation of the Holy Scriptures Orbis biblicus et orientalis Old Latin Old Testament Library Revue biblique Revised Standard Version Studien zum Alien und Neuen Tesiament Society of Biblical Literature SBL Dissertation Series SBL Monograph Series SBL Seminar Papers Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 19641976-)

11

12 TDOT

THAT ThWAT

TS VD Vg VT VTSup WBC WC WMANT WUNT ZA ZAW

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel G. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974-) E. Jeeni and C. Westermann, eds., Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alien Testament (Munich, 1971-79) G. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, (eds.), Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alien Testament (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970-) Theological Studies Verbum domini Vulgate Vetus Testamentun Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Westminster Commentaries Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschriftfiir Assyriologie Zeitschriftfiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Gary A. Anderson University of Virginia, Charlottesville Baruch J. Schwartz The Hebrew University, Jerusalem James C. VanderKam University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame Susan Ackerman Dartmouth College, Hanover Saul M. Olyan Yale University, New Haven David P. Wright Brandeis University, Waltham Jacob Milgrom University of California, Berkeley Israel Knohl The Hebrew University, Jerusalem

This page intentionally left blank

THE PRAISE OF GOD AS A Cuunc EVENT Gary A. Anderson May my prayer be as incense before you, the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice (Ps. 141.2).

It is a truism in most handbooks about ritual and cultic life in the Bible to say that prayer and sacrifice are co-ordinated activities. This is most evident from the opening line of the first book of the Mishnah: From what time in the evening may the Shema be recited? From the time when the priests enter the temple to eat their offering until the end of the first segment of the evening (Ber. 1.1).

This text is often mentioned as an indicator of how prayer had replaced sacrifice in rabbinic piety, the motivations for such an act being understood to be rooted in a response to the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. Yet the equation of prayer with sacrifice, indeed the legal co-ordination of the two acts, is not original to this post-70 situation. Such an interpretive move had been made much earlier and with considerable depth in communities like the one evidenced at Qumran. Indeed, as the brief but tantalizing metaphor of Ps. 141.2 reminds us, the essential co-ordination of the two acts is already present in the era of the Bible. Scholars have been slow to appreciate these biblical roots for a variety of reasons, most of which cannot detain us here. But certainly one of the more important reasons for the failure to grasp the antiquity of this equation has been the failure to perceive how prayer in the Bible was not always a spontaneous and effervescent outpouring of one's feeling toward God but could be— and perhaps more often was—a carefully prescribed cultic act.

16

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel I

In the present essay I would like to look at one form of prayer, the prayer of praise, as an essential component of a cultic rubric. Perhaps the first to note the parallel of joyful prayer in the Psalms with the role of sacrifice in the Bible was P. Humbert.1 Humbert's study of these prayers was carried out in the context of a larger research agenda. He was attempting to clarify how the term for 'joy' in the Bible (simha) functioned in a cultic context. In this important study he noted the close association of joy and singing in the Psalms. Whereas Deuteronomy associated joy with sacrificial feasting, the Psalmist bestowed pride of place to the act of praising. The special role of praise in the Psalter is well reflected in the selection of verbs which parallel 'rejoice'. These include: rinnen, zamar, hoda, ra'am and hithallel, all verbs of vocal expression.2 This association is also clear in prose texts that often speak of 'joy' being heard. For example, when Solomon was anointed as king, Adonijah and his friends heard a loud uproar. When Adonijah inquired as to its cause, he was told that as Solomon marched to Jerusalem, there was such great rejoicing that the city was in an 1. P. Humbert, '"Laetari et exukare" dans le vocabulaire religieux de 1'ancien Testament', in Revue d'histoire et de philosophic religieuses 22 (1942), pp. 185214. Humbert writes (p. 198): 'La simha n'y designe done pas seulement 1'allegresse en general, mais, plus particulierement, les cris rituels et les acclamations consacres qui ponctuent une ceremonie de caract&re religieux'. This should be compared to the remark of E. Ruprecht ('Smh, sich freuen', in Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alien Testament [Miinchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1976], p. 830): 'Die elementarste AuBerung der Freude ist der Freudenschrei oder Jubelfur, der keine oder nur sehr kurze verbale Elemente enthalt wie etwa den Ausruf: "Es lebe der KOnig Salomo!" (1 Kgs 1.39). Deshalb kann Simhd meist Abstraktbegriff "Freuden" auch terminus technicus fiir das Freudengeschrei sein'. Ruprecht lists the following texts as implying joyous singing: Gen. 31.27; 1 Sam. 18.6; 2 Sam. 6.12; 1 Kgs 1.40; Isa. 9.2; 16.10; 22.13; 24.11; 55.12; Jer. 7.34 = 16.9 = 25.10 = 33.11; 48.33; Ps. 137.3; Ezra 3.12; 2 Chron. 20.27; 23.18. The list is certainly a minimal one. C. Westermann says essentially the same thing in his article on gtt in ThWAT, 1, pp. 417-18. More recently, see the study of H. Lenowitz, The Mock-Simhd of Psalm 137', in Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry (ed. E.R. Follis: JSOTSup, 40, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), pp. 149-59. 2. See Humbert, 'Laetari et exultare', p. 203, Ruprecht, lsmh sich freuen', p. 830.

ANDERSON The Praise of God as a Cultic Event

17

uproar (1 Kgs 1.45). In Neh. 12.43 it is stated that 'the rejoicing in Jerusalem could be heard from afar'. Other texts describe the particular ritual reflex of joy in terms of singing and dancing. Thus during the dedication of Jerusalem's walls under Nehemiah, it is said that the Levites were brought to Jerusalem 'to celebrate the dedication with thanksgiving and song' (12.27). Humbert's analysis of the role of joyful praise in the Psalter is noteworthy in many respects. He appreciated the concrete ritual sense implied therein. In these contexts joyful praise was 'more than a simple spontaneous feeling, it was to be sure a veritable ritual commanded by the circumstances. ..and imposed upon all with the force of a sacred act'.1 Unfortunately, Humbert's sensitivity to its cultic role ends with this observation. When he attempts to delve deeper into its ritual significance he becomes encumbered by his prejudicial view that non-Israelite joy had an orgiastic, Dionysian aspect which biblical writers could not accept. Thus, the joyful praise in the Psalms reflects an interior spiritualization of an earlier 'orgiastic, magical rite'.2 A better means of grasping the role of joyous praise in the Psalms can be obtained by taking into consideration recent studies on the role of praise in general. Whereas Humbert's primary concern was to contrast Canaanite and Isralite joy (Canaan's consisted of orgiastic, cultic shouts, while Israel's was reflective, pious praise), my concern will be to examine the variegated role of praise in the Psalms themselves. Praise, in the Psalms, is not the simple outpouring of good feelings to God. In certain contexts these acts of praise were conceived of as prescribed cultic acts.3 It is this commanded quality, or what Westermann calls its 'forensic aspect', that merits close attention.4 The undersanding of praise as an activity not simply an attitude is best appreciated when the cultic Sitz im Leben is understood. As Westermann and Kugel take great pains to show, at a very basic level praise and sacrifice are parallel activities.5 This would appear obvious 1. Humbert, 'Laetari et exultare', p. 198. 2. Humbert, 'Laetari et exultare', p. 204. 3. See M. Greenberg, 'On the Refinement of the Conception of Prayer in the Hebrew Scriptures', AJSR 1 (1976), p. 60. 4. C. Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981), p. 30. 5. J. Kugel, Topics in the History of the Spirituality of the Psalms', in A. Green

18


from the oft-cited Psalms which correlate in a direct fashion the relation of praise to sacrifice (Pss. 27.6; 54.6, 8; 141.2). Kugel writes: [I]t is striking that the Psalter often conjoins the motifs of praising God and sacrificing animals [Pss. 116.7; 54.8; and 141.1]. Such frequent juxtapositions may point to something basic about how the act of praise was apprehended. Apparently it was not the spontaneous overflowing of a grateful worshiper or the simple expression of religious awe; rather was praise sometimes presented as an offering in and of itself and, in this sense, parallel to cultic sacrifice. So it is that (especially post-exilic) biblical texts connect praise- and prayer-like acts with the general term for divine service; praise and sacrifice are both referred to as 'aboddh.1

As confirmation of Kugel's assessment, one may compare Ps. 107.432 which describes the acts of thanksgiving which are offered by four types of people, those who: (1) return from the desert; (2) come back from a journey at sea; (3) are released from prison; and (4) recover from illness. In cases 1, 2 and 4 the proper response is to give praise to God for his gracious act of deliverance. For the third example, the psalmist enjoins both praise and sacrifice (vv. 21-22), the two being understood as paired activities. The formulaic expression of all four exhortations to thanksgiving points to a certain interchangeability and flexibility in the demonstration of thanksgiving: sometimes sacrifice and praise were necessary, other times praise was sufficient. Psalm 66.13-17 is also a significant piece of corroborative evidence. In this text, the psalmist says he paid his vows with sacrifices (vv. 13-15), but while doing so he told all who were assembled what God had done for him. It is crucial to note that praise in these contexts derives its prestige from sacrifice. 2 Also significant is the fact that many Psalms of individual lament and thanksgiving acknowledge that the location of (ed.), Jewish Spirituality from the Bible through the Middle Ages (New York: Crossroad, 1986), pp. 125-27; C. Westermann, Praise and Lament, pp. 28-29. Also see K. Koch, 'Denn seine Giite wahret ewiglich', EvT 21 (1961), pp. 533-36. He sees the call to public thanksgiving (toda) as having its origin in the toddhsacrifice. He is followed by F. Criisemann in his classic study of the Thank-offering, Studien zur Formgeschichte von Hymnus und Danklied in Israel (WMANT, 32; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969). See especially pp. 44 n. 4 and 82 n. 1. 1. Kugel, 'Topics in the History of the Spirituality of the Psalms', pp. 122-23. 2. See esp. Ps. 141.2.


19

praise is none other than the cultic sanctuary itself.1 Most likely when the psalmist urges the assembly of the righteous to praise God with him, we should understand the context as the temple. The cultic role of praise was appreciated by Gunkel and Begrich, two very important modern interpreters of the Psalter. They observed that the thanksgiving Psalms showed a striking similarity to epigraphic monuments of praise found in or near temples throughout the ancient Near East.2 Their work has received dramatic confirmation in the last generation. In a ground breaking article, H.L. Ginsberg drew very close parallels between the Israelite praise of God and ancient Near Eastern votive or dedicatory inscriptions.3 What was effected in an epigraphic framework in the ancient Near East was done verbally in Israel. Ginsberg took his initial starting point from a line in the Bir-Hadad stele which read: 'This stele which Bir-Hadad set up.. .because he prayed to [his god] and he harkened to his voice'.4 What is curious about this inscription is that the word for prayer (ndr) usually designates a vowed offering. The meaning 'prayer' is clearly a secondary development. The same confusion is found in Ps. 61.6: 'For you, O LORD, have heard my prayers (nedarim), and have granted the wish of those that revere your name'. Ginsberg writes: The psychological explanation for the occasional failure of the Arameans and Hebrews and the regular failure of the Greeks to distinguish between vowing and praying is obvious: prayer in the strict sense of petition (as distinct from praise and thanksgiving) was regularly reinforced by vows, usually conditional vows; cf. Job 22.27. Gen. 28.20-22; Num. 21.13; Judg. 11.30-31; 1 Sam. 1.11 and apparently 1 Chron. 4.10 are well known examples from biblical narrative passages.5

In the Bir-Hadad inscriptions, the statue itself represents Bir-Hadad's grateful response to his god. Biblical Psalms are distinctive in that the response to answered prayer is most frequently praise;6 not simply 1. Ps. 9.2-3, cf. 12; 92.5 cf. 14; 107.21-22; 22.26. 2. H. Gunkel and J. Begrich, Einleitung in Psalmen (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 4th edn, 1985 [orig. pub. 1933]). 3. H.L. Ginsberg, 'Psalms and Inscriptions of Petition and Acknowledgement', in Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume (New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1945), pp. 159-71. 4. 'Psalms and Inscriptions', pp. 159-60. 5. 'Psalms and Inscriptions', p. 164, n. 14. 6. 'Psalms and Inscriptions', p. 169. Ginsberg states that the Psalms contain no

20


spontaneous praise but praise that was vowed. This praise was to be a public proclamation of YHWH's faithfulness. In particular, the public proclamation was directed to 'the meek', 'those that revere the Lord', 'his saints', and 'a great assembly'.1 Just as the statue was an impressive public documentation of a particular act of beneficence on the part of one's god, so was praise. Ginsberg also alluded to evidence within the Psalter itself which added support to his theory regarding the comparison of votive inscriptions to Psalms of thanksgiving. He noted that the superscription to Hezekiah's psalm of thanksgiving (Isa. 38.9) was entitled miktab 'a writing'. He also alluded to the study of Johann David Michaelis in the ninteenth century, who compared this usage of miktab with the obscure word miktam which is attested in the superscriptions to Psalms 16; 56-60.2 Many of the ancient versions confirm the thesis that miktam is to be understood as referring to an inscriptional acknowledgement.3 Ginsberg also observed that several Psalm titles include the expression 'do not destroy' (57.1; 58.1; 59.1; 75.1). This expression, which derives from an epigraphic setting,4 occurs frequently in apposition to miktdml Ginsberg's work, which had been largely unnoticed for some thirty years, has been substantiated in recent years by the work of Greenfield and Miller.5 The latter's work has been especially important because he demonstrates that recent epigraphic finds in Israel show undeniable psalmic 'forms, formulae, vocabulary, and content'.6 It is not enough simply to describe praise as having an important cultic character, akin in many respects to sacrifice itself. One also needs to be sensitive to the variant types of praise in the Bible. other vows 'besides the vow of publicity' but this is a bit of an overstatement. 1. 'Psalms and Inscriptions', p. 168. 2. 'Psalms and Inscriptions', p. 169. 3. So the LXX, Theodotion, Old Latin, Targum and Rabbinic literature. 4. See P. Miller, The Psalms and Inscriptions', in Congress Volume: Vienna, 1980, (ed. J.A. Emerton; VTSup, 32; Leiden: Brill, 1981), p. 313. He compares the psalmic expression with a curse found in the Kilamuwa inscription: 'whoever destroys (Sht this inscription may Baal Samad destroy (Sht) his head'. 5. See J. Greenfield, 'The Zakir Inscription as Danklied', in Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1969), pp. 174-91, and Miller 'Psalms and Inscriptions'. 6. Miller, 'Psalms and Inscriptions', p. 315.


21

Perhaps the most important study of the role of praise to date is that of C. Westermann. In his study, he distinguishes between two types of praise: declarative and descriptive.1 Declarative praise is praise directed toward what God has done. It is often retrospective in outlook; it catalogues the magnalia dei in historical and/or mythic terms. Its function is to describe who God was and (hopefully still) is.2 Descriptive praise, on the other hand, is interested in the here-andnow. That which God has done just now is what warrants the psalmist's personal attention. As an example of this distinction Westermann points to the types of praise found in Isa. 6.3 (the Sanctus) and Exodus 15 and Judges 5. The latter two are declarative, the former is descriptive.3 It is this type of praise that the mourner or penitent vows to God, but cannot, at present, offer. Descriptive praise is reserved for discrete occasions within a cultic sequence and is most often, if not always, reserved for public 1. C. Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms, pp. 15-35. 2. Declarative praise is not always positive. Though one can list the past benefits of faith, one cannot describe them to be true for the present moment. Indeed, this type of praise might be aptly called 'left-handed praise' in the sense that it often recalls God's great actions in the past so as to dramatize the fact of God's inertness in the present. Descriptive praise often functions as a verbal goad, designed to stir the deity to action. On this, see J. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), pp. 18-20). The recollection of past deeds 'challenges YHWH to act like the hero of old, to conform to his magisterial nature' (p. 19). 3. So also Gunkel and Begrich, Einleitung, p. 276. Westermann's categories have been called into question by Criisemann, Studien zur Formgeschichte, pp. 22562, esp. 226 n. 1. He prefers to postulate two original types of thanksgiving which he distinguishes by the forms of address. The address of God in the third person reflects a stage just prior to the thanksgiving ceremony, while the address in the second person reflects the praise made during the actual sacrifice. Such a distinction is flawed in three ways. First, we have no external evidence of such a two-fold thanksgiving sequence. Secondly, this hypothesis cannot explain the fact that a psalm which vows to praise God in the future (e.g. Ps. 22.23) can at the same time contain words of praise to the deity (Ps. 22.4-6) about his past activity. This particular temporal sequence does not stem from an actual thanksgiving ceremony. Such a ceremony still lies in the future. Thirdly, the hypothesis of Criisemann flattens out the tension inherent in descriptive praise. This declaration of past activity stands in stark contrast to the psalmist's present plight. His praise of God in the third person is not an act done shortly before the sacrificial offering of thanks, rather it is an attempt by the psalmist to 'jog' the memory of his God in regard to his past activity.

22


occasions. Indeed, the best way to characterize descriptive praise is to call it a joyous act:1 Oh magnify the LORD with me, let us rejoice in his name together (Ps. 34.3). May those who delight in my vindication shout and rejoice let them always say: the LORD is great, who desires the restoration of his servant (Ps. 35.27).2

The identification of cultic praise as a joyous act is not made lightly. There is a homologous relationship between the cultic role of this joyous praise and the cultic role of the seldmim offering in the lamentation sequence. When lamenters have received an assurance of divine assistance or have experienced divine deliverance they must offer either praise or a selamim sacrifice. Just as the sacrifice is identified as a means of demonstrating joy before the Lord (so Deut. 12.11-12 et passim), so also for praise. The description of joyful praise in the Psalter is much more than an outpouring of spontaneous feelings, indeed they play an important cultic role, not unlike the role of the seldmim. The close relationship between the experience of joy and the act of public praise was noted by Humbert.3 He observed that in many different psalmic genres the injunction to rejoice is best understood as a call to communal praise. Westermann went even further and stated that the phrase 'I will rejoice' (Ps. 31.7) can function as a formal vow of praise in the body of the Psalm.4 It is not surprising that in hymns5 and communal Psalms of lament6 the injunction to rejoice is addressed to the gathered assembly. But even in Psalms of individual lament and thanksgiving, the vow to give joyful praise is understood to presume a public audience.7 1. See the study of Humbert, 'Laetari et exultare'. Note that Pss. 9.2-3 and 71.22-23 cited above as well as every text cited in the previous note associate public praise with the experience of joy. 2. Other references to public proclamations after deliverance can be found in: Pss. 5.12; 9.2-3; 30.12-13; 32.11; 35.27; 40.17 (= 70.5); 64.11; 69.33; 92.2-5 et passim. 3. Humbert, 'Laetari et exultare', p. 203. 4. Westermann, Praise and Lament, p. 75, n. 27. 5. Pss. 33.21; 48.12; 96.11; 97.1, 8, 11; 100.2; 104.31; 149.2. 6. Pss. 106.5; 126.3; 137.3. 7. Out of 19 examples, 15 include explicit references to a public audience.


23

The vowed, public character of this experience of joy explains why the mourner or penitent cannot partake of it. Public praise, as a joyous act, is forbidden to penitents. It is something they can vow, but not at present experience. This abstention from joyful praise is best reflected in Psalm 137: By the waters of Babylon, there we sat and also wept, while remembering Zion. There beside the willows, we hung up our lyres. For there, they requested of us, our captors, the words of a song [dibre Sir], our tormentors, an expression of joy \simhd}: 'Sing for us, one of the songs of Zion!'

These well-known lines make clear not only the relation between songs and joy, but also the particular type of song that is implied by 'joy'. The captors do not desire any type of song (dibre sir), but a joyous song (simhd), a song that declares (siru 'sing for us') in the present tense the glory due Zion.1 As the other Psalms of lament already noted make clear, this type of joyous song could be vowed by the mourner, but could not be performed.2 The equation of praise and joyful song was not lost on the rabbinic imagination. In m. 'Arak. 2.4 there is a discussion of the role of music in the temple service. In b. 'Arak. (lla) this mishna serves as the point of origin for a baraita that seeks to define the halakhic role of this music. In this baraita, R. Meir claims that the omission of the song makes the sacrifice invalid while the Sages hold that it does not.

1. The parallelism of dibre sir and simha illustrates very well the seconding nature of biblical parallelism so well explicated by J. Kugel (The Idea of Biblical Poetry [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981], pp. 49-59). In this context, the b word in the sequence (Simhd ) defines precisely the nature of the a word (dibre Sir). It is worth noting that in Amos 8.10 Sir (song) is contrasted with qind (dirge). 2. This type of distinction is still operative in Christian liturgy. During Lent, the words of descriptive praise, that is the alleluias spoken during the consecration of the Eucharist, are dropped from the liturgy, though the words of declarative praise remain (e.g. the Sanctus). Upon the completion of this penitential cycle, they are not only re-introduced in the appropriate places but also encouraged elsewhere in the liturgy.

24


In the consequent discussion of this contradiction the question is raised, 'How do we know that the song is obligatory in the first place?' To which R. Mattenah says: [It is derived] from here: Because you did not serve the LORD your God with joy and gladness of heart [28.47]. Now what service ['abodd] is it that is done with joy and gladness of heart? It must be said a song [Sir] [Deut. 28.47]. What is meant here is not just any type of song, but a song of praise as is found in the Psalter.

Equally important is the mishna in Suk. 5.1: 'It was said: "whoever has not seen the joy of Bet $6'ebd [the water drawing ceremony] has never experienced joy'". The event in question is the rite of carrying water from the spot of its drawing (Siloam) to the Temple Mount. There was great singing, playing and praising as the water was carried to the temple.1 Finally we should mention a midrash on the psalm title 'a song of David when he fled from his son to Absalom' (Ps. 3.1). In b. Ber. 7b an insightful question is asked: 'why does it not read a dirge for David?' In other words, why would an event of such tragic proportions be the occasion for a song? R. Shimon b. Abishalom responded: It is similar to a man who had an outstanding bond due. Before he paid it he was sad, but after he paid it he rejoiced. So also for David. For the Holy One, blessed be he, had said to him: Tm about to bring a tragedy upon you from your house' [2 Sam. 12.11]. David grieved and said: 'Perhaps it is a servant or bastard who has no relation to me'. When he saw that it was Absalom he rejoiced. Because of this the Psalm [title] reads: 'a song. .. '

This midrash not only recognizes the inappropriateness of a song in a time of grief, it also associates, in the closest manner possible, the feeling of joy with its outward manifestation in a song of praise.

1. The mishna in question begins with a reference to the flute playing at this event. The Talmud understands this as inferring the greater importance of the flute-playing as opposed to vocal singing. Curiously, the Rabbis claim in general that singing was the essential feature of temple music and thus was considered as abodd.But at the festival of water-drawing, the act of vocal singing was not considered as abodd.


25

II

Having established the cultic role of praise in the Psalter it is time to consider what symbolic role this form of religious experience played in Israelite religion. In order to appreciate this I must reconsider the role of praise as a concrete expression of 'joy'. In Hebrew as well as in the other Semitic languages of the ancient Near East (Hebrew, Jewish Aramaic, Syriac and Akkadian) the term 'joy' is not so much a general term of emotional happiness, but rather a term which connotes particular pleasures associated with the observation of specific rituals.1 In particular, the pleasures that are most characteristic of the experience of joy are those which stand in typological contrast to those of mourning. Thus, just as mourning consists of fasting, rending the garments, putting dust on the head, sexual continence, and lamenting, so the experience of joy included eating and drinking, putting on festal attire, anointing oneself with oil and bathing, sexual union, and singing the praises of the Deity. It is not my point that all these concrete expressions are found each time the word joy occurs, on the contrary, many times only a few of these types of behavior are found. What is central here is the fact that joyous and grievous types of behavior stand in typological contrast. This is not a point of mere abstraction; one discovers upon a closer examination of the imagery of the Psalter, that the joyous expression that is exhorted in the Psalms concludes a sequence that begins with the speaker of the psalm in a state of lamentation. The moment of praise marks a boundary in this cultic sequence. To begin the active praise of God is to signal one's departure from the state of lamentation. As any reader of the Psalms knows, the state of the lamenter is very closely parallel to that of the mourner. They undergo the same sort of ritual actions—both tear their garments, lament, and fast. And both the lamenter and the mourner identify themselves with the dead. The identification of the lamenter with the dead has long been recognized 1. The use of joy in these various languages is developed in considerable detail in my book on the terms for joy in the Semitic languages: A Time to Dance, A Time to Mourn: The Expression of Joy and Grief in Israelite Religion (University Park, PA: Penn State Press, 1991). I would like to thank Penn State Press for allowing me to use portions of that book for the composition of this article.

26


by scholars. This identification is possible in Israelite religion because the abode of the dead, Sheol, is not simply for the physically dead. Sheol could also be a place one could experience through lamentation.1 In the psalms of lament, the psalmist's experience is often described as a descent into Sheol, and the act of deliverance as a raising up from Sheol: For great is your steadfast love toward me, you have delivered me from the very depths of Sheol (Ps. 86.13). You have shown me many grievous troubles, but you will bring me to life again. Even from the depths of the underworld, you shall bring me up again (Ps. 71.20). Be gracious to me, O LORD! —O how I suffer from those who hate me, you, who raise me up from the gates of death— so that I may recount all manner of praise toward you, while in the gates of the daughter of Zion, rejoicing in your deliverance! (Ps. 9.14-15).

Upon deliverance the psalmist often goes straight to the temple to

1. Another comparable ritual movement can be found in Lev. 13-14. This text describes the treatment of one who has a skin disease. This individual who resembles the mourner in every respect, is banished from the community and resides in the wilderness, the land of death (Lev. 13.45-46). This process makes him unclean and so he must be isolated from the camp where the rules of temple-purity are in place. Once the disease has run its course and he becomes well, he must undergo rites of purification. He shaves off all his hair, bathes, and then enters the camp (Lev. 14.8-9). The example of the leper is particularly instructive, for it shows that ritual isolation in the wilderness, the land of death, is accompanied by the ritual display of mourning. The leper is, in a way, dead. Thus Miriam is described as one who is like the dead when she contracts leprosy (Num. 12.12). In this instance death is a process or state, a process which can culminate in the complete termination of life, but does not have to. This understanding is nicely reflected in a Rabbinic midrash on King Uzziah's leprosy in 2 Chron. 26 which resulted in his expulsion from the temple. According to the schema of Leviticus, he would have to make his home in the wilderness, the place of death. Thus in Isa. 6.1, when the writer notes that Isaiah's vision occurred during the year King Uzziah died, this is understood as referring to the onset of his leprosy (so the Targum and Exod. R. 1.34)! In sum, the leper—and indeed as we will see in a moment the lamenter in general—could be characterized as like the dead, living a life which is cut off from the presence of God.


27

fulfill a vow of sacrifice or of praise. Joyous, public proclamation of deliverance is an integral part of the ritual process: I will give thanks to the LORD with my whole heart, I will tell of all your wonderful deeds. I will rejoice and exult in you I will sing praise to your name, O Most High (Ps. 9.2-3). I will also praise you with the harp. for your faithfulness, O my God; I will sing praises to you with the lyre, O Holy One of Israel. My lips will shout for joy, when I sing praise to thee, even my very soul, which you have ransomed (Ps. 71.22-23).

It is tempting to dismiss these descriptions of descent as poetic trope and nothing more. It is figurative language, language of inexpressible grief seeking written form. But, as Earth's study so eloquently reminds us, this temptation should be avoided.1 In the highly realized world of the cult, terms such as 'death' and 'life' assume specialized meanings. Death and Sheol are concepts that can be appropriated in cultic ritual. Indeed the descriptions of descent should be understood as structural inversions of another common symbolization of biblical myth: the temple as the entry point to heaven. In regard to the latter, scholars recognize that the earthly temple and its cultus provides a means of symbolic entry to the heavenly realm. Thus Clifford argues that the invitation to a cultic feast in Isaiah 55 is not simply an invitation to the temple in Zion, but an 'invitation to a feast where life, or proximity to the deity is proffered'.2 Life in this instance, as Clifford argues, is to be understood as the experience of the very presence of God amidst the sacrificial cultus. An even better example of this phenomena is the description of Isaiah's vision in 6.1-8. In this text the temple is described as a place 'where a mere mortal. ..can make contact with the realm of overpowering holiness, where he can

1. C. Earth, Die Errettung vom Tode in den indlviduellen Klage- und Dankliedern des Alien Testaments (Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag, 1947). 2. R. Clifford, 'Isaiah 55: Invitation to a Feast', in C. Meyers and M.P. O'Connor (eds.), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), p. 30.

28


hear the language of angels and respond to it'.1 Stepping into the throne room of God in Jerusalem is equated with an entrance to the supernal temple above. The distinctions between earthly and heavenly temples disappears in the cultic world. It is in contrast to the availability of the divine presence in the temple that we should understand the language of descent in the Psalter. The words of descent in these Psalms are not merely poetic filigree. These words are associated with ritual actions of self-inflicted dishevelment that were presumed to identify oneself with the realm of the dead. The ritual movement of the lamenter is perhaps nowhere better seen than in the action of David (2 Sam. 12.16-23).2 If our text preserved the lament David spoke, we would not be at all surprised if it contained references to entering the realm of Sheol. In summary, I can say that just as 'life' was experienced in the cult as being before the very presence of God in the (heavenly) temple, so 'death' was experienced in the cult as being cut off from that presence outside the temple. Both descent to Sheol and ascent to the temple had ritual accoutrements. 1. J. Levenson, Sinai andZion (San Fransisco: Harper & Row, 1987), p. 123. Also note his comment: 'What happened to Isaiah. .. [is that] the Temple mythos came alive. In Isaiah's ecstatic experience, he sees and hears a session of the divine council; moreover, he is enabled to take part in it by bearing its message simultaneously down from heaven and out of the Temple (which are, in fact, the same thing). The earthly Temple is thus the vehicle that conveys the prophet into the supernal Temple, the real Temple, the Temple of YHWH and his retinue, and not merely the artifacts that suggest them. This Temple is an institution common to the heavenly and the terrestrial realms; they share it. . .Thus, Isa. 6.1-8 shows that the Temple could serve as both the "meeting place of the gods". .. and the "meeting place of heaven and earth'" (p. 123). 2. Compare also Ps. 16.9: 'Therefore my heart rejoices, and my inner being exults, even my flesh abides secure. For You did not abandon me to Sheol, nor allow your devoted one to experience the Pit. Rather, you showed me the path of Life: sating me with joys in your presence, delicacies at your right hand forever'. The joys spoken of here (semahot) refer to concrete pleasures (so the plural form, an odd construction if the intention is purely emotional) that have become available to the psalmist once he has experienced deliverance and come before the Lord. One could compare this to Ps. 23 which describes deliverance as a full table, an overflowing cup and a head anointed with oil (v. 5). This contrasts with the psalmist's state before deliverance. At that point, without food, when wine, or oil were unavailable, the psalmist describes himself as in 'the valley of the darkness [of death]' (v. 4).


29

The psalms of lament are often allusive in regard to the ritual disfigurement they presuppose. It would certainly be an exaggeration to assume every psalm of lament was characterized by a form of ritual defilement. But this ritual process must have been much more widespread than is often acknowledged. Testimony to such a process stands out in bold relief in Psalm 30. The psalm begins with a testimony to the deliverance provided by God: 2 3 4 5 6

I shall extoll you O LORD for you drew me up, you did not allow my enemies to rejoice over me. LORD my God, I cried to you and you healed me. LORD, you raised me up from Sheol, restored my life from those who descend to the pit. Sing to LORD, O his servants, Offer praise at the recollection of his holiness. For his anger is only momentary, but for a lifetime is his favor. In the evening one lies down weeping, but in the morning there is joyous praise.

This act of praise recounts the deliverance as God's raising the lamenter from the world of the dead. Sickness took him down; God's healing power raised him up.1 After this summary of the final act of praise the psalmist recounts the situation leading up to his deliverance: 7 8

9

But then I said, during my prosperity, 'I will never be moved.' O LORD by your favor you made me stand, as though a mountain of strength. [But then] you hid your face and I was dismayed. To you LORD I am calling, to my Lord I make supplication.

1. Perhaps there is a parallel to Daniel's vision of deliverance. His deliverance took place at night in a dream in the temple. His was a rite of incubation. More than likely the psalmist was not spending the night in the temple—he describes his existence as in Sheol—but something did transpire within the evening which led to his redemption in the morning.

30

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel 10 11

'What gain is there should I descend silently1 to the pit? Can dust give you praise or declare your faithfulness?' Hear me LORD, grant me grace, LORD my helper!

Having made this plea to God, the psalmist then recounts his deliverance and returns to the theme with which the psalm began, the vow of praise. 12

13

You turned my mourning into dancing, you stripped off my sackcloth, you girded me with joy(ous attire) Thus, my heart shall sing your praise and not be silent, LORD, my God, forever I will praise you!

The experience of deliverance in this psalm is not characterized by a simple journey to the temple to praise God. The psalmist declares that his deliverance is observable in his own ritual movement. His state of mourning has been turned to dancing and his sackcloth has been replaced by joyous festive attire. The ritual movement from mourning to joy has mirrored a spatial movement from Sheol to temple, from the absence of God to the presence of God. Indeed, other laments in the Bible provide hints that the ritual comportment of the distressed individual was similar to that of the mourner.2 The invocation to joyful praise is extremely common in laments and must have served to give public witness to the divine act of deliverance which the lamenter experienced.3 These calls to praise, though having a certain aura of spontaneity, ought to be viewed somewhat differently. These hymns of declarative praise were carefully placed elements in a cultic sequence. They were the tokens of joy which marked the end of a lamentation sequence. The cultic role of these hymns of praise is analogous to the votive or dedicatory monuments which ancient Near Eastern kings were wont to place in their temples. These monuments testify to the thankfulness of the supplicant and serve to illustrate graphically the 1. On this translation see, N.J. Tomp, 'La louange realiste du Psaume 30(29)', ETL 62 (1986), p. 258. Also cf. N. Lohfink, 'Enthielten die im Alien Testament bezeugten Klageriten eine Phase des Schweigens?', VT 12 (1962), pp. 260-77, esp. 75-78, and E. Lipiriski, La liturgie penitentielle dans le Bible (Paris: Cerf, 1969), pp. 31-35. 2. See Pss. 69.11-12; 109.24; Isa. 58.3-5; 62.2-3. 3. So Pss. 5.12-13; 9.2-3; 32.11; 34.2-4; 35.27-28; 64.11; 109.28-30.


31

relation of the supplicant to his god. The same applies to the verbal 'monuments' of praise offered to the deity. As Kugel writes, praising one's god through public song or votive inscription is: a kind of prise deposition, a formal setting up of the worshiper as subject to God (one might almost say, in the royal sense, a subject of God, dependent, indebted), in every sense a devotee. . .In the concentrated eternity of the temple, the worshiper's best course is simply to be there, to be there in the same way that the deity is there (through representation) and so to enable oneself to stand perpetually before the deity, pressing one's message on the divine king just as a servant or courtier might. The point is a subtle one, but worth insisting on: the deity is not simply conceived to be collecting praises, nor, for that matter simply storing up oxidized calves and sheep in the supernal realm; but by acting the part of the domestic servant or humble courtier, the worshiper is, as it were, paying with himself, setting himself in a subservient relationship to the god'.1

Kugel's analysis can also shed light on the lamentation sequence. If one can say that the formal act of publicly offering praise is a kind of prise de position, a verbal demonstration of one's relationship and immediate proximity to one's god, then one would expect the reverse situation to hold true for the lamentation. Instead of demonstrating his proximity to the deity, the lamenter is declaring his present distance from the deity. Hence the oft-mentioned reproach, 'where is your god?' Indeed, just as mourning attire can restrict one's access to the royal court,2 so it also can for the divine court.3 This insight allows us to infer a new level of meaning in the psalmist's plaintive question: 'Can the dust give you praise or declare your faithfulness?' One level of meaning here is the obvious one: the physically dead cannot praise God. But one should also note that neither can the lamenter praise God in a declarative fashion.4 He is 1. Kugel, Topics in the History of the Spirituality of the Psalms', pp. 127, 12829. 2. See for example Est. 4.1-2 wherein Mordechai cannot enter the royal presence because of his state of mourning. 3. Thus priests, because they had to enter regularly before the presence of God were severely restricted as to whom they could mourn for. E. Feldman correlates the category of mourning with that of uncleanness in his book, Biblical and Post-Biblical Defilement and Mourning: Law as Theology (New York: Ktav, 1977). 4. One thinks of Isaiah's reaction after witnessing the angelic host singing the sanctus before the Lord (Isa. 6.4): 'Woe to me that I was silent! For a man of

32


like the dust. The psalmist, in his descent to Sheol, has found it impossible to utter any declarative praise. Indeed by vowing to provide this praise only upon deliverance, the psalmist shows us that such behavior is not consonant with his present ritual state. His musings about Sheol are not merely poetic, as Earth so eloquently argued. They impinge on and have practical consequences for his present state of existence.1 It certainly cannot be accidental that the one inscriptional example we possess of a lament was found in a cave (Khirbet el-Qoni).2 Because caves were used as burial chambers, they were also thought to be points of entry to the underworld. Perhaps it was for this reason that the lamenter's thoughts were inscribed on the walls of a cave. In any event, one cannot help being struck by the imagery of reversal: Laments could be scribbled on the walls of caves while songs of thanksgiving were inscribed on steles and placed in temples. Moreover, laments highlighted the themes of divine absence and descent, while songs of thanksgiving highlighted those of divine presence and ascent. In this study I have endeavoured to show the manner in which the praise of God has become a cultic act in ancient Israelite psalmody. Though previous generations of scholars have sensed that this was true, the precise boundaries of this fact have not been clear. The work of Ginsberg on the parallels between epigraphic monuments and the Psalms was particularly important as it demonstrated how praise was a public act that was often the fulfillment of a previous vow. The role of praise within the sequence of the vow points to the fact that praise can be regulated. At certain times it is withheld and at others prescribed. This regulation of the act of praising can be correlated with the imagery of ascent and descent in the Psalter. During the moment of unclean lips am I, and amid an unclean people I dwell'. We understand the verbal root of 'I was silent', nidmeti (as though from dmh) to be a bi-form of the root dmm. On this see O. Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983), p. 128. The common translation, 'I am undone' is sui generis for the verbal root dmh and not to be preferred. 1. The best article on the importance of these inscriptions for understanding the psalms of lament is that of Miller, 'Psalms and Inscriptions'. 2. On this inscription, see the important article of A. Lemaire, 'Prieres en temps de crise: les inscriptions de Khirbet Beit Lei', RB 83 (1976), pp. 558-68. Additional bibliography can be found on p. 558, n. 1 of Lemaire's article.


33

lamentation, when the psalmist can only vow to praise his God, praise is consciously withheld. This moment of conspicuous divine absence is often described as an encounter with death and thus the psalmist often describes it as a descent into the bowels of Sheol. Curiously, the only epigraphic evidence we possess of a lament is found in a burial chamber of a cave in the Judaean desert. Certainly this was not accidental as the desert, in Israelite religion, was conceived of as a mythic alloform of Sheol. Conversely, the mention of praise in the Psalms is always spoken of as taking place in the temple amid a gathered throng. Often, this act of praising occurs conjointly with the mention of sacrificial feasting. Because the locus of praise is within the temple precincts and concludes a lamentation sequence that began with a near brush with death, the psalmist can only conclude that this moment in time is a result of divine deliverance. The moment of praise is not just a return to contented existence but an act of being raised 'from the very depths of Sheol' (Ps. 86.13).

THE PROHIBITIONS CONCERNING THE 'EATING' OF BLOOD

IN LEVITICUS 17

Baruch J. Schwartz

Today it is generally acknowledged that the prose, poems, prophecies and prayers in the Bible require close reading as works of literary art. We have come to agree that the first and primary task of interpretation is that of elucidating how a psalm says what it says, how a narrative means what it means, how a prophecy expresses what it expresses. Scholars now concur that only after identifying the text's formal, structural and stylistic features and determining the expressive function of each, that is, only after apprehending the unique coherence of form and content peculiar to the specific text at hand, have we approached a true historical-philological understanding of the text's meaning and significance. This paper is an attempt1 to illustrate that the same is true of another genre of biblical literature, the so-called 'legal literature' of the Bible. There are three major reasons for believing that the 'laws' in the Bible are works of literary art.2 First, upon examination the 'laws' in the Torah exhibit numerous non-legal literary features: varied formulations, peculiar contexts, extraordinary word choice and 1. The attempt is part of an on-going study of the laws in Leviticus, begun in my doctoral dissertation, 'Selected Chapters of the Holiness Code—A Literary Study of Leviticus 17-19', (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1987) [Hebrew] (hereafter 'Chapters'). This paper is based primarily on pp. 25-33; 45-54; 204-12; 220-31. An abbreviated, oral version was delivered at the May 1988 meeting of the Columbia University Seminar on the Study of the Hebrew Bible. I gratefully acknowledge the generous support provided by the Lady Davis Fellowship Trust (1981-83 and 198788), the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture (1983-85 and 1987-88) and the Charlotte and Moritz Warburg Fellowship Trust (1984-86). 2. For full argumentation, see Schwartz, 'Chapters', pp. 1-24.

SCHWARTZ Prohibitions Concerning the 'Eating' of Blood

35

terminology with semantic power far exceeding the strict demand of legal precision, explanatory and motivational clauses of all types, repetitions and legally illogical omissions, exhortations and admonitions woven in the very fiber of the legal statement, and more. All these can either be explained out of existence (as they usually are by commentators, who see them as evidence of redactional stages, secondary interpolations and editorial laxity), or taken as purposeful, functional, literary elements, rhetorical devices employed with expressive design. The second option is preferable because (and this is the second reason) the 'laws' in the Torah form part of a story, according to which they were spoken in order to be proclaimed, they were to be proclaimed in order to convince, they were to convince in order to be observed, and they were to be observed in fulfillment of the Sinai covenant, which is itself not a historical-legal fact but a literary model for a theological tenet. The third reason is that the laws, as well as the story in which they are contained, were composed in order to be read publicly and understood, to have a lasting, pedagogical, persuasive influence on later generations of listeners. These are the main indications that the 'legal collections' are not, and never were, laws for law-books, lawyers, courts and judges, but rather artful literary representations of what the authors believed to have been the commanding voice of the divine lawgiver. As such, they, no less than biblical narrative, poetry and wisdom texts, invite, actually require, the application of the method of 'close reading'. Of course, the proof of a methodological suggestion is in its application. In the following example, the laws concerning the ingestion of blood in Leviticus 17, the discussion will be confined to the rhetorical and literary aspects of the passage: context, structure, formulation, syntax and terminology. In accord with the demands of the method of Total Interpretation', the object of inquiry will be not only the purposeful design which is manifest in these features but also how these features function as expressive elements. The many other interesting questions surrounding this chapter, such as the historically original reason, or reasons, for the prohibition of blood, the importance of blood in the ancient Near East, the actual dating of the passage, and questions of textual corruption and versional variants, will not be addressed directly.

36

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel I

We begin with the positioning of the blood prohibitions within the literary unit.1 In ch. 17 God orders Moses to transmit to Aaron and his sons, and to the entire Israelite community, five proclamations, containing five laws and constituting the five paragraphs of which the body of the 1. The commentaries on Leviticus to be cited below by the author's name are as follows: B. Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus (HKAT; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903); A. Bertholet, (KHAT; Tubingen: Mohr, 1901); A.T. Chapman and A.W. Streane (CBSC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914); A. Dillmann, Die Biicher Exodus und Leviticus (Leipzig: Victor Ryssel, 1897); K. Elliger (HAT; Tubingen: Mohr, 1966); C.D. Ginzburg, The Third Book of Moses, Called Leviticus, in Old Testament Commentary for English Readers (ed. CJ. Ellicott; London, 1884); D.Z. Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus (Berlin, 1906); M.M. Kalisch, Historical and Critical Commentary on the Old Testament, Leviticus (London: Longmans, I, 1867; II, 1872); M. Noth (ATD; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962); G. Wenham (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979); N.H. Wessely (Wiesel), Biur to Leviticus (1805 and frequently reprinted). Hebrew commentaries to the Pentateuch cited below are Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Nahmanides (all according to Miqra'ot Gedoldf), Bechor Shor (PeruS la-Hamissa HumSe Torah me'et R. Yosep Bekor Sor [repr. Jerusalem: Maker, 1978]), Hizkuni (Peruse ha-Torah leRabbenu Hizqlya b. R. Manoah [ed. H. Chavel, Jerusalem: Mossad Harev Kook, 1981]), don Isaac Abrabanel (Penis 'al ha-Torah [repr. Jerusalem: Bene Arbel, 1964]), S.D. Luzzatto (S.D. Luzzatto's Commentary to the Pentateuch [ed. P. Schlesinger; Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1965]), and A. Ehrlich (Mikra Ki-pheshuto, I [repr. New York: Ktav, 1969]). Monographs on the Holiness Code to be cited by author's name are: A. Cholewiriski, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium (AnBib, 66; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976); C. Feucht, Untersuchungen zum Heiligkeitsgesetz (Berlin: Evangelischer Verlagsanstalt, 1964); R. Kilian, Literarische und formgeschichtliche Untersuchungen des Heiligkeitsgesetz (BBB, 19; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1963); W. Kornfeld, Studien zum Heiligkeitsgesetz (Wien: Herder, 1952); H.G. Reventlow, Heiligkeitsgesetz, formgeschichtlich untersucht (Neukirchen Kreis Moers: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961). Studies of Lev. 17 and of the issues arising from it are: H.C. Brichto, 'On Slaughter and Sacrifice, Blood and Atonement', HUCA 47 (1976), pp. 19-37; N. Fuglister, 'Siihne durch Blut—Zur Bedeutung von Leviticus 17,11', in Studien zum Pentateuch—Walter Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. G. Braulik; Wien-Freiburg-Basel: Herder, 1977), pp. 163-64; B. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord (Leiden: Brill, 1974); J. Milgrom, 'A Prolegomenon to Leviticus 17.11', JBL 90 (1971), pp. 149-56; L. Sabourin, 'Nefesh, sang et expiation (Lv 17, 11.14)', Sciences ecclesiastiques 18 (1966), pp. 25-45. For additional studies, see below.


37

chapter is comprised.1 These are not 'apodictic' laws, nor are they even 'casuistic' laws in the conventional sense: they do not begin with 'D or DK. They are declarations; their purpose is to announce what will happen if certain offenses are committed or certain commands not complied with. These five paragraphs share a common formulational mold: they all consist essentially of one compound sentence, containing two clauses. In all five cases the first clause begins with the subject, that is, the person upon whom the law is binding, in casus pendens, followed by the relative "ittfK and a verb in the imperfect, in which the case is stated; the second, main clause begins with a verb in the converted perfect, the subject of which resumes the casus pendens, and pronounces the law itself.2 The explanatory or motivational sections, which appear in all but the second paragraph, follow. This pattern is found in all five paragraphs, even the greatly expanded first one (vv. 3-7). The first four all open with the formula ]cn] btn&r rrnn tf'K tf'K iB}«[DDina"nriBJ»n)mjn, followed by verb. Now the lengthy tf'K efat etc. does not convey any more legal information than a simple "ittfK G^R would have conveyed—we would still know that the Israelites are intended. 3 These words are rather an indication of the lawgiver's 1. In light of the syntactic analysis below, the opinion of some commentators (most recently Wenham, following Bertholet and Dillmann, as well as Reventlow, Heiligkeitsgesetz p. 36) that vv. 13-16 are one section, along with the view that vv. 10-14 comprise a single paragraph (e.g. Noth) or that vv. 8-12 constitute a unit (Brichto, 'On Slaughter and Sacrifice', p. 25) must be rejected. The close connection between the third and fourth paragraphs, notwithstanding, the chiastic pattern suggested by M. Paran (Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989], pp. 169-70) cannot be upheld. 2. For this use of the converted perfect, see GKC 112oo; on the syntax of the formulational mold, see GKC 140d and 143b, and lately, T. Muraoka, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985), pp. 93ff., esp. 98-99. 3. Even the form-critics do not go so far as to differentiate; see Kornfeld, Studien, p. 44; R. Sonsino, Motive Clauses in Hebrew Law (SBLDS, 45; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980), p. 14. On the BTR tO'K form, especially in H, see A. Jirku, Das weltliche Recht im Alien Testament (Giitersloh: Bertelsmann, 1927), pp. 60-63; Kornfeld, Studien, p. 45; Feucht, Untersuchungen, pp. 22-24, 97-99; Sonsino, Motive Clauses, passim. Only W. Zimmerli ('Die Eigenart der prophetischen Rede des Ezechiel', ZAW 66 [1954], pp. 12ff.) views the combination of 0'R tf'R with

38


desire to emphasize that his words are binding upon all and that they must be proclaimed to all. This aim is also reflected in the explicit reference to the 13 in four of the five paragraphs,1 as well as in the narrational v. 2, where the lawgiver has styled the divine speech to begin with the words 'Speak to Aaron and his sons and all the children of Israel'. This instruction is extremely infrequent in the Torah, and this is its first occurrence.2 The first three of these four paragraphs conclude with some form of the rro-threat.3 The fifth paragraph, on the other hand, since its intent is not to proclaim the inevitable result of some offense but rather to enact a method of extricating oneself from a situation in order to avoid otherwise inevitable results, does not conclude with the rrD-threat; it merely states that the individual who refuses to comply with the remedy it provides will remain in a state of p^Kfoj. 4 The smooth transition from the third paragraph to the fifth is achieved by the fourth: it contains the neJK.. .tf'Ktzfa* formula of the first three, but, though it mentions the mo-threat in its motivational section (v. 14bp), it does not actually threaten in its own main clause (v. 13b). It

the rrD-threat as an independent legal Gaming. 1. On the inclusion of the "U in all but the first paragraph, see Schwartz, 'Chapters', p. 205 n. 17. 2. The last point was noted only by Ginzburg. Wessely, Dillmann and Hoffmann, following Ibn Ezra and others, understand the inclusive v. 2 as pertaining to vv. 3-9 only. 3. This threat is the topic of many studies, most recently an unpublished dissertation by DJ. Wold (The Meaning of the Biblical Penalty KARETH [PhD diss.; Berkeley: University of California, 1978]; see also his 'The KARETH Penalty in P: Rationale and Cases', SBLSP I (1979), pp. 1-45). For the present context it is sufficient to say thet rro is a divinely-imposed penalty which may take many forms but always has the same result: extinction of the offender and his line; see my 'Chapters', pp. 27-29. 4. The expression (JJttfa, Ron) |W Hto3 cannot be treated here at length. In brief: the ]1J) is the sin itself; not, as often thought, guilt or punishment. 'Bearing' sin is what sinners do until they are somehow relieved of their burden; if they are relieved of it by God, it is then God who 'bears' the sin (thus, when God is its subject, \\y Kftu refers not to punishment but to forgiveness); if they are not, they suffer the consequences and eventually \ ^rish under its weight. ]V) ittu is not the same as rro, but, unremedied, may lead to it.


39

simply commands how to act, without stating the consequences of failing to do so.1 It should be clear from the above that the common formulation is not a frozen or inflexible 'Gattung'. These paragraphs display considerable variety even in their use of those elements which they all have in common, not to mention the elements that they do not share. The common form is nothing more than the syntactical base upon which the author has constructed five different—though similar— structures. And since this syntactical basis, this combination of linguistic elements, appears nowhere else in the Torah, and since its single components, namely, tf'R 2h*, "in ]D1 etc., and the mD-threat in its various forms, do appear elsewhere separately, this is certainly no stereotype, stock legal formulation. It is a device designed by the author of Leviticus 17 for his own unique use (and which was later appropriated by Ezekiel in ch. 14).2 Looking at the variable elements in this mold, we can immediately perceive a progression. In the first two paragraphs, ne)» is followed by two predicates: 'slaughters without having brought'; 'sacrifices but does not bring'.3 These two paragraphs speak of acts which are permissible in themselves—slaughtering and sacrificing—but which lead to rro when certain restrictions are not observed. The last two paragraphs too speak of permissible acts—in the fourth, "itfR is followed by one predicate, 'hunts', and the actual command, which comes immediately thereafter, is a positive one—'must pour it out and cover it', not a mD-threat at all. In the fifth as well: neJK is followed by a single predicate in the positive, 'eats', and the positive command follows: 'must launder his clothes and bathe'. Only the third paragraph, vv. 10-12, speaks of an act which is always and under all 1. Verses 13-14 have mistakenly been viewed as a 'prohibition' (of eating the blood of hunted animals—thus Zimmerli, 'Eigenart', p. 13) rather than as a positive command how to treat such blood. Reventlow, Heiligkeitsgesetz, p. 48, Kilian, Untersuchungen, pp. 9-11 and Cholewinski, Heiligkeitsgesetz, p. 17 all assert that the ma-threat was originally included in this paragraph, whereas Zimmerli ('Eigenart', p. 16) and Wold (Meaning, p. 6 n. 7) believe that the threat appears even in the paragraph's present form! 2. See Zimmerli, 'Eigenart'; Cholewiriski, Heiligkeitsgesetz, p. 23 and notes; M. Greenberg, Ezekiel, I (AB; Garden City, NY, Doubleday: 1983), p. 252. 3. For this distinction between "iK'Sn and 131*% see Mendelssohn's note in Wessely's Biur, cf. Elliger.

40


conditions prohibited; its predicate is unrestricted: 'whoever. ..eats any blood', and is followed immediately by the rro-threat. Turning to the next variable element, the formulations of the rrothreat which appear in the chapter, we can see the same progression. In the first two paragraphs, the threat is formulated in the passive— n~D3i—and the last two contain no mD-threat at all: the fourth paragraph only alludes to it, paraphrasing, citing, as part of its own motive-section, the threat uttered above (14bp), and the fifth only intimates that rro may ultimately result, but does not mention it by name. The third paragraph thus stands at the crossroads between the standard, impersonal mo -threat and little or no rro -threat, and it contains the active, emphatic and highly personalized rro-threat Tirm nay mpa nn« »rrom Din PR ntenn tisn »». This form, attested elsewhere in the Torah as well, stresses not the mere fact of n"O but the act of cutting-off performed by the divine extirpator; his personal involvement in the administration of the punishment, and it occurs here in the third paragraph only.1 Note that in this third paragraph the victim is not the Efat, as in the first two paragraphs, but the 2)3]. To appreciate the significance of this, we turn to the fifth and last paragraph (vv. 15-16). Here, the rro-threat is not even mentioned, since the intent of the paragraph is not to proclaim the result of some misdeed but to ordain a corrective to a given situation. This situation—the eating of carrion—arises in the wake of the previous two paragraphs which deal with the prohibition of ingesting blood. The fifth paragraph is an exception to this absolute prohibition, standing in contrast to what precedes it. It 1. Similar formulations appear only in Lev. 20.3, 5, 6; compare TTDRm in 23.30 and especially Ezek. 14.8 (vrrom. ..vrmntfm. ..'33 Timi) and 14.9 (vmatfm v^s 'T rm 'rvwi). For 'as 'nnn, see also Lev. 26.17, Ginzburg's commentary here, and W.H. Brownlee, 'Son of Man Set Your Face—Ezekiel the Refugee Prophet', HUCA 54 (1983), p. 87. The source-critics' realization that the active form of the rro-threat is peculiar to H, whereas the passive form is found in both P and H, does not add much to the discussion, and the numerous form-critical distinctions between the two which have been proposed (see Reventlow, Heiligkeitsgesetz, p. 46; Kilian, Untersuchungen, pp.7, 11-12; Zimmerli, 'Eigenart', pp. 15-16; Elliger, p. 228), along with the legal-historical distinctions which have been suggested (starting with Gunkel's commentary on Gen. 17.14 [HKAT; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922] and culminating in A. Phillips, Ancient Israel's Criminal Law [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970], pp. 30ff.) fail to convince.


41

opens with a contrastive waw, this is not a new law but a continuation, a subcategory of the two preceding paragraphs. Why cJsabsi instead of tf'Ktf'Ki, if the two are functionally equivalent? Indeed, so much is tfD] taken as a synonym of G^K in this paragraph1 that it is construed—except for its first predicate, bDKD— as being masculine (nfin... ODD* ... inoi... KDDI ... frm... inn 0:01 •oil) Rfcw .. .frrv ...!),while throughout the rest of the chapter, in eight more appearances, it is, as it should be, feminine. The new opening, however, is not an accidental substitution of an equivalent form.2 ^DKH "itdR tisa 'PDI is designed to resume the b:>»n n1? ODD tfsi *?D of the third parargraph's motivational sectional (v. 12ap), which is itself an echo of Din nn n^DKn tfaaa (v. lOba), and which is further echoed in the fourth section's paraphrase ibr>»n Kb iejn ^D Di (v. 14ap). This use of tfStt is further evidence of the interconnection of the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs. For though tfs] is the legal equivalent of tin*, it is particularly appropriate, and tends to appear, in laws pertaining to eating and drinking,3 since its primary meaning, as is well known, is 'throat, gullet', i.e. the seat of appetite.4 In this chapter tfs] is a Leitwort, appearing over and over again in one sense after another, and these appearances are confined to the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs, those having to do with the ingestion of blood; these make up a unit. It is hardly necessary to mention that the first two paragraphs of the chapter, dealing as they do with sacrificial animals and the place of their slaughter, are a unit as well. This is borne out by their similar style and vocabulary, a similarity which is not affected by the fact that the first is greatly expanded.5 What needs to be stressed is that the 1. Compare Lev. 7.20, 21, 25. 2. Indeed, it can hardly be seen as a formula at all, since outside of the verse in question the 0EU *7D formulation occurs only in v. 12 of this chapter and in its parallel (Lev. 7.27); elsewhere tfan bz. 3. See Exod. 12.4, 16; Lev. 7.26 and the expression tftu n-u; 'to fast', literally, 'to deprive the throat' (Lev. 16.29,31; 23.27,29; Num. 30.14; Isa. 58.3), the opposite of which is 0B3 iraton (Isa. 58.10-11; Ps. 107.9). 4. See C.A. Briggs, The Use of 033 in the Old Testament', JBL 16 (1897), pp. 25-27; BDB and KB, s.v. 0S3; Sabourin, 'Nefesh', pp. 34-35; J. Licht, 'BM', in EM, V, pp. 901-902 and references cited. 5. I deal with the first two paragraphs at length in 'Chapters', pp. 33-45.

42


third paragraph too fits in with the first two: not only formally—the tf'R #••» pattern; the fact that it serves as the climax of the mDthreats—but also thematically: for although it prohibits the ingestion of blood and not having anything to do with the sacrificial act, it explains its prohibition on the grounds of the sacrificial act. Blood is not to be eaten because 'I have assigned it to you upon the altar', etc. The third paragraph is at one and the same time the culmination of the first three and the introduction to the last three. It is a Janus-faced passage, looking forward and backward at once. It should be clear by now that these are not merely 'four similar laws and an appendix', as most commentators believe and indeed, as would appear at first glance. The four 'similar' laws come in a clear order: the first three are prohibitions and the fourth is a command. The first three threaten rro and the fourth does not. The n"O-threats also come in a clear order: the first two are restricted to certain circumstances, the third is absolute; the first two are passive and matter of fact, the third is active and emphatic. Much more than this, however, our perception of the differences between the fourth paragraph and the first three, and of the clear connections among the last three, enables us to see both the fourth and the fifth, and not the fifth alone, as 'appendices', or to be precise, as expansions upon, as subsections of, the third. The third paragraph threatens n~D upon whoever partakes of any blood, the fourth indicates how the offense, and its dire consequences, may be avoided in the case of hunted animals, and the fifth goes on to explain what is to be done in the event that carrion is eaten, in which case blood has unavoidably been consumed, in order to avoid the dire consequences which would otherwise be attendant upon the consumption of blood, i.e. in order to escape from a situation which could otherwise lead to rro. All the lines of the formal analysis lead to the following view of the balanced and designed structure of the chapter: the first three paragraphs contain three prohibitions, arranged in ascending order of severity. The last of these three, which is of course the most absolute and most severe, draws in its wake two positive commands which are its subsections and which expand upon and clarify it. These last two— or, to be precise, the last three, since they are a unit—are arranged in descending order of severity. The five paragraphs thus make up an inverted 'V, at the zenith of which stands the absolute prohibition of partaking of blood and its rationale. This section, vv. 10-12, is


43

therefore the axis upon which the chapter revolves. The merest glance at the content leads to the same conclusion: all five paragraphs deal with the legitimate and correct manner of disposing of the blood of those animals which may be eaten. The first two speak of sacrificeable animals—which, in the view of this chapter, must indeed be sacrificed—and the last two speak of animals which, though they may be eaten, may not be sacrificed. At the center, between the first two and the last two, stands the axiom upon which all four depend: that partaking of blood is prohibited. The first two lead to this axiom and provide its rationale; the last two derive from this axiom and implement it.1

II We may now proceed to the close reading of the text itself, beginning with the first of the three paragraphs, vv. 10-12. A. The emphatic n~D-threat is pronounced in v. 10 upon anyone m totow "«to—who eats any blood'. The text employs the verb ^D» and not nntf, even though blood is a liquid, not a solid, though in no other expression in biblical Hebrew does the verb "?DR occur with liquids. The actual act which is signified by such an unusual expression, here and everywhere else that the expression occurs,2 is of course an act of eating in which blood, a liquid, is also ingested, that is, eating of flesh with the blood still in it. This is clearly what is intended by Gen. 9.4: VwRn Kb IDT itfaan -itoa -|K.3 To be sure, drinking blood does appear in biblical Hebrew, both literally (as something that arrows4 or swords5 do, as well as the earth6 and wild 1. Others have seen the issue of the proper disposal of animal blood as a thematic link between the five paragraphs; see Kalisch, Leviticus; Sabourin, 'Nefesh', p. 27; Elliger (captioning the chapter 'Umgang mit Blut'); Milgrom, 'Prolegomenon', pp. 154-55 and Brichto, 'Slaughter', p. 25. 2. In this chapter: vv. 10 (2x), 12 (2x) and 14 (2x); elsewhere: Lev. 3.17; 7.26, 27; Deut. 12.16, 23, 24, 25; 15.23. Compare Din •» ^DK in Lev. 19.26; 1 Sam. 14.32-34; Ezek. 33.25 (also, if the text is emended, 18.6, 11, 15). See Milgrom, 'Prolegomenon', p. 152; anticipated by Chapman. 3. As apprehended by Luzzatto; contra Hoffmann. 4. Deut. 32.42. 5. Jer. 46.10.

44


animals) 1 and metaphorically (to mean killing)2—but here it is an eating of blood, not a drinking of it, a consumption of blood in the process of eating, that is intended. The possibility that one might drain off and drink up the blood is not contemplated.3 This prohibition of 'eating blood' occurs outside of this chapter in two other places in the Priestly code: Lev. 3.17 and 7.26-27. In all three passages the modifier "?D 'all, any' appears, and in our chapter it recurs in v. 14 (i^DKn K1? itoa •» DT, 'you shall not eat the blood of any flesh'). In all these cases the intent is inclusive: not just the blood of sacrificial animals, but any and all blood. If, as we have seen, vv. 10-12 comprise the overall prohibition, and the following two paragraphs are specific sub-cases, there would appear to be an illogical omission. The first paragraph speaks of all blood, the second speaks of the blood of hunted animals, and the third speaks of carrion. What is missing is a separate paragraph expressly prohibiting the blood of sacrificial animals! The place for such a paragraph would be after v. 12 and before v. 13. The general rule— all blood forbidden—would thus be followed by the specifics, the three classes of permitted animals: (1) sacrificial; (2) hunted; (3) carrion. This structure, however, is ruled out, because of the reason for the prohibition. Since the rationale behind the general rule, the reason that blood is prohibited, is none other than the use of sacrificial blood, this first case, the case of the blood of sacrificial animals, is combined with the general rule. In other words, since the rationale which immediately follows the general prohibition speaks 6. Isa. 34.7. 1. Num. 23.24; Ezek. 39.17-19. Drinking blood is also mentioned as something God does not do when he accepts sacrifices (Ps. 50.13; compare Isa. 1.11). 2. 2 Sam. 23.17 (= 1 Chron. 11.19); Isa. 49.26. 3. It may be, however, in 11.6-7 of the Aramaic text in Demotic script, where the parallelism n'kl b$r wnSmn/nnbyg dm wnrwh 'Let us eat meat and become fat; Let us cause blood to flow and drink to saturation' appears; see R.C. Steiner and C.F. Nims, 'You Can't Offer Your Sacrifice and Eat It Too: A Polemical Poem From the Aramaic Text in Demotic Script', JNES 43 (1984), pp. 95, 101-102. Steiner (in a private communication) now accepts the reading nSty instead of nnby'g in 1. 7, as proposed by Vleeming and Wesselius (BibOr, 39 [1982] p. 501; JEOL 28 [198384], pp. 124-25). I thank Dr Steiner for drawing my attention to this text, as well as to m. Par. 4.3: nmo nmtf1?! mfcna "ros1? run ^v none? The rabbinic tradition, to be sure, also includes the statement that blood is a substance which humans are naturally repulsed from drinking; see m. Mak. 3.15.


45

directly of the case of sacrificial animals, the listener would immediately think of this case when hearing v. 11, and an additional paragraph devoted to it would be superfluous. B. We now come to the rationale itself, the motivational section in vv. 11-12. In this section God speaks about the children of Israel, in the third person, to Moses, and there is good reason to believe that this entire section, like vv. 5-7 above and v. 14 below, is not included in what Moses is instructed to say to the Israelites but is rather intended for his ears alone.1 Be that as it may, we note the fact that this section begins with "O and continues with p bi),2 clearly indicating that the three verses are a unit: the '3 at the head of v. 11 means that this verse explains v. 10, and the p btf at the head of v. 12 means that v. 11 was said in order to explain whatever it was that 'I said to the Israelites'. And since 'what I said to the Israelites' is D"i ^DKn K^DDD BJS3 bD, essentially the same as v. 10, the flow is smooth and circular: law, 'D, rationale, p *?D, law. Motive clauses which begin with "O and are followed by p by and a repetition of the law itself occur in a few other places in the Torah,3 as yet no study of the motive clause has mentioned this.4 This is a concentric structure, in which the law is stated twice, both before and after the motive clause, which is thus placed in the center, and its purpose is to emphasize. It is not the law, however, which receives the emphasis (even though it is repeated), but the motive, which is surrounded on both sides by the law it explains. 'This is why I said to the Israelites: "No person among you shall eat blood"'— for this reason and no other. 'That is why the LORD your God 1. Noted first (but only with regard to vv. 5-7) by A. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebraischen Bibel, II (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1909), p. 60; see my 'Chapters', p. 25. 2. Etiologies featuring the p *?a + "O pattern are found, for instance, in Gen. 11.9; 16.14; 21.31 etc. See also Paran, Forms, p. 170 and n. 22. 3. In P only here and Num. 18.24; see also Exod. 20.11 (see A.H. McNeile [The Book of Exodus (Westminster Commentaries; London: Methuen, 3rd edn, 1908), pp. Ivii-lviii] as a deuteronomistic element further expanded by a priestly writer); Deut. 5.15; 15.11, 15; 19.6-7; 24.18,22. 4. Neither B. Gemser ('The Importance of the Motive Clause in Hebrew Law' [VTSup, 1; Leiden: Brill, 1953], pp. 50-66), nor H. Riicker (Die Begriindungen der Weisungen Jahwes im Pentateuch [ETS, 30; Leipzig: St Benno, 1973], nor Sonsino (Motive Clauses).

46


commanded you to observe the Sabbath day' (Deut. 5.15; cf. 15.15; 24.18, 22); "That is why I said of [the Levites]: "They shall receive no territorial share etc.'" (Num. 18.24)—for this reason, and no other. The rationale, not the law, is what is emphasized. In v. 12, then, following the words ^mfcp MS1? »mo» p ^tf, God quotes himself, citing what he said above.1 He does not, however, do so precisely: the self-quotation is phrased as a command rather than as a mo-threat. When we look at other passages, we see that the p *?l? section is sometimes a literal repetition,2 sometimes a summary.3 Here we have a compromise between the two: 033 *?D and DDim ian ijn echo the original command, but the double command *?DKn «*? Di "73K' K'p/tn is a parallelistic paraphrase. This is instructive as a form-critical phenomenon: it indicates that the author perceives the n~D-threat and the prohibitive command as substantially, legally, equivalent, and furthermore that the latter is the essence of the former. Note, by the way, that the word TPIDR, 'I said', actually means 'I told you to say'—since God hasn't spoken to Israel, he has only told Moses to do so. Of course, what enables the author to write 'I said' and mean 'I told you to say' is his assumption that words spoken by the prophet are as if spoken by God himself. C. The actual motive of the law is thus all contained in v. 11; what follows in v. 12 is the p btf section, the self-quotation repeating the law in v. 10. The motive itself is in three clauses: llaa llap lib

The first two, though they are connected by waw, appear to be entirely separate reasons; in fact most critics take them to be unrelated, and assign them to different periods and authors. Most think that the first is the earlier and the second the later, and a few believe that the reverse is true. Somewhat ironically, virtually all

1. Contra Hizkuni, and more recently Paran (Forms, p. 170), who see TTIDK as a reference to the blood prohibitions in Lev. 3 and 7, rather than to what was just said in v. 10. 2. Num. 18.23-24; see also Deut. 15.8, 11. 3. Deut. 5.15; 15.15; 24.18. Exod. 20.11 is in a class by itself.


47

agree that neither represents the 'true' reason for the prohibition of 'eating blood'I1 Nevertheless, the author of the chapter has indicated clearly that he sees them as a single entity, since, in addition to the waw he has made the pronominal suffix in the word vnru refer back to none other than the word Din in the first clause. Moreover, for the author even the third clause, though it is not joined by a waw, is connected to what precedes it by means of the word *D. This 'D does not indicate that the third clause provides the reason for the second; rather, it repeats the 'D of clause 1! Clause 3, it would appear, sums up clauses 1 and 2 in one clause. What appears true from the structure of the verse is confirmed beyond a doubt by the words: clause 1 says that the blood is the seat of the 2)33; clause 2 says that the blood is designated iSDb; clause 3 combines the two and says that the blood "\sy 2)333:

This third clause does more than merely summarize. It provides the logical connection between clause 1 and clause 2; it says that clause 2 is true because of clause 1. How does blood "ISDD? K)S33—'by means of life'; the beth is one of agency.2 Thus we have here not three separate motives, nor even two, but only one: "IDS' e)S3D Kin Din. This is the reason for the prohibition, 1. A summary of the views may be found in my 'Chapters', p. 221 n. 16. 2. Contra J. Milgrom ('im/ *?!> 1SD', Les 35 [1970], p. 160), it does not appear that there is any verbal idiom -3 ~iS3. Rather, -a follows the verb ~iSD only in adverbial prepositional phrases (of place: only Lev. 6.23; 16.17, 27; elsewhere always, as in our verse, beth instrumentii; Exod. 29.33; Num. 5.8; 35.33; 1 Sam. 3.14; Isa. 27.9; Prov. 16.6). Ehrlich (Randglossen, p. 60), emending totfB33,argued for the so-called beth essentiae: 'the blood as life'; he was followed by Sabourin ('Nefesh', p. 17) and Milgrom ('Prolegomenon', p. 149). This was correctly refuted by Levine (Presence, p. 67) and Brichto ('Slaughter', pp. 26-28). They, however, argue for bethpretii ('the blood in exchange for the life'); compare LXX ('anti'), on which see Fiiglister ('Suhne', p. 146 n. 13). This misinterpretation stems from the inappropriate analogy drawn from the preceding clause and from the phrase tfBiattfS] in Deut. 19.21, and is grammatically impossible since DT is the subject, and not the object, of 1BD\ The correct sense was apprehended by many commentators; see Ibn Ezra, Kalisch, Baentsch, Bertholet, Elliger and others.

48


and it is stated on the basis of the two facts stated prior to it and in preparation for it—that blood is 0DU and that blood is "ISDQ. This view of the third clause, as the synthesis of the first two, is what provides the solution to two syntactical problems in it: the placement of the prepositional phrase tfan before the predicate ~ISD', and the unnecessary and awkward repetition of the subject Din in the form of the pronoun ton. Placing 0333 before ")5D» is apparently in order to avoid the idiom tfaja "lED"", which has the same meaning as 033n *M nay, which appears in clause 1 and is not intended here. The 0333 of clause 3 means 'by means of the 033', and this is what is intended. The other problem, the superfluous Kin, is similar to a passage in Num. 35.33: pun n« eprr ton Din. Not the subject, but the predicate, in fact, the whole concept expressed in the clause, is what is stressed: blood indeed contaminates the land; blood indeed is "isna by means of 033.! Note that not only do both syntactical problems now disappear, it becomes apparent that both features have the same expressive function: they serve to emphasize the revolutionary idea expressed in the clause. D. The first two clauses, synthesized in clause 3, deserve now to be treated in their own right. Clause 1: ton Din "itonn 033. There is no dispute that 033 here means 'life, vitality, living force'; certainly not throat or gullet and not 'self'.2 What is useful to note is that 033 is used to mean 'life' particularly in cases when it is the loss of life, or the rescue of someone from loss of life, that is spoken of, especially when the word

1. All the examples in GKC 135c are cases in which the resumption is due to the distance separating the subject from the predicate, a condition which does not obtain here and in Num. 32.33. S. Kogut, 'mpnn ptzfta -urn 'iran', LeS 46 (1982), pp. 11-12, adduces Isa. 7.14; Num. 18.23 and other passages, and suggests that the clause containing the postpositioned pronoun is a transformation of Din 1ED' Kin, that is, that it emphasizes the subject ('the blood itself). The reason for this emphasis is not stated. 2. For the former, see above, p. 41 n. 4. OSJ was taken as 'self by Mendelssohn (see his translation in Wessely's Biur); Elliger, R. Rendtorff (Studien zur Geschichte des Opfers im Alien Testament [WMANT, 24; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967], pp. 231, 239) and, though writing after Levine, B. Lang, 'lED', ThWAT, 4, p. 305 and Fiiglister, 'Siihne', p. 145.


49

appears in connection with m, whereas in other contexts the word for life is rm.1 "ifen here means 'living things' in general, and m, which has no figurative meanings at all,2 of course means blood. All three nouns— KJS], "iton and D"i—possess the definite article, since they are generics, and the beth inD~n means 'in', literally, 'contained'.3 The statement 'The life-force of all living things is contained in the blood' is a graphic way of expressing the dependence of life upon blood. The point is not that blood is life, or that there is life-force, as a force distinct from the body itself, in blood per se. The point is simply that when blood is gone, there is no life. Depriving a creature of its blood ends its life.4 Since bleeding is the way in which slaughtered creatures, and murdered humans, were seen to die, this was the most logical way of saying what it was that made them die: the loss of blood. The statement is no innovation, no great discovery; it is certainly no abstract theological principle or statement of belief.5 The text is merely trying to make use of a well-known fact in order to ground its 1. See Sabourin, 'Nefesh'; B. Kedar-Kopstein, 'tan', TDOT 3, pp. 234-250; Wold, Meaning, p. 82 n. 59 (where the pertinent Sumerian and Babylonian material is adduced). 2. Of course, DT occasionally appears as a component of a metaphorical expression Otfma im, en bD«, DTjato, etc.). In all cases, however, except perhaps the poetic idiom D'aa D"i, the word DT itself retains its literal meaning. 3. Milgrom ('Prolegomenon', p. 149) sees here too the beth essentiae, in this case functioning as a copula: 'the life of flesh is the blood'; compare NEB. 4. See L. Morris, 'The Biblical Use of the Term "Blood"', JTS ns 3 (1952), pp. 218ff.; compare Fiiglister, 'Siihne', p. 149. 5. Though it has been taken as such by many commentators; see Nahmanides and Abrabanel who interpret, in accord with Deut. 12.23, that it is 'improper' to eat flesh with blood; compare Luzzatto, Kalisch (Leviticus, I, p. 125), and Hoffmann (Da Buck Leviticus, I, p. 123 adducing Ezek. 18.4), who argue that since life belongs to God, by eating it man would be depriving him, of what is his (followed by L. Sabourin and S. Lyonnet, Sin, Redemption and Sacrifice—A Biblical and Patristic Study [AnBib, 48; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970], p. 176; J. Milgrom, 'The Biblical Dietary Laws as an Ethical System', Int 17 [1963], pp. 288-89; Brichto, 'Slaughter', p. 22; Wold, 'Meaning', pp. 83-84; see also Ezek. 44.7, 15); compare Fiiglister ('Siihne', pp. 150ff.), who maintains that the idea that blood belongs to God's altar alone was advanced primarily as a means of preventing idolatrous practices such as blood-divination. Our verse could bear this interpretation ('I have assigned it to the altar', i.e. it is properly mine and not yours) were it not for the word DDb and the explanatory CDTUZJEfl bu "iSD1? which follows it.

50


explanation for the prohibition of eating blood. For that purpose, however, this clause in and of itself is insufficient; a further, equally well-known fact is required. This is clause 2. Clause 2: The expression mrnn bo m ]ra, 'to place1 blood on the altar', is common enough. Actually there is a group of expressions used to denote the placement of the blood on the altar: depending on what precisely is done with the blood, the verb may be fatf, pit, mn, or pif, but all of these are included in the general expression nnrnn1?!) on |n].2 Whenever these expressions are used they have, of course, a human subject—usually the priest,3 who places blood upon the altar of God. Only here is God the subject of such a phrase— God himself is the one who is ]m] the blood on the altar. This extraordinary fact is obliterated not only by those translators who violently re-arrange the text to say 'I have assigned it to you for making expiation upon the altar',4 as if it read rarnn *?s oyntfBJ *?a la:^ DD1? vnm, but also by translations which elsewhere render ]ro by 'to put' or 'to place' and here translate it with 'to assign'.5 It has even been contended that there are two identical but unrelated phrases, one for humans and one for God.6 Such a view, however, can only obscure the fact that a single Hebrew verb is used for both, specifically, a verb which literally means 'to give'. The blood is prohibited because God has 'given' it to humanity by 'placing' it, that is, ordering it to be placed, on his altar. Now it is true that when the text speaks of a human placing blood on an altar this describes a cultic act and when it speaks of God placing blood on an altar it is a statement of the importance of the role played by the blood—but all this is accomplished in Hebrew precisely by not coining two different phrases, by instead appropriating one cultic idiom for use in another cultic sense. The usage is admittedly metaphoric; the author certainly does not mean that God physically places the blood on the altar. Rather he portrays God as saying: 'When you place the blood on the altar, you 1. To place' is universally accepted here (see BDB, p. 680a), but see below. 2. An example is Lev. 16.18-19, where )rm is explained by nrm. 3. Exod. 29.12; Lev. 8.15; 9.9; 16.18; etc. 4. NEB; R. de Vaux, Les sacrifices de I'Ancien Testament (Cahiers de la revue biblique, 1; Paris: Gabalda, 1964), p. 84. 5. NJPS; Milgrom, 'Prolegomenon', p. 150. 6. Milgrom, 'Prolegomenon', p. 150 and n. 6.


51

do so at my command, because I have assigned it a role to play there'. But the way he says it is what is crucial. After all, the fact that blood is placed on the altar, that this is God's command, that its role is to be 13DD—all of this is well-known and almost trivial. The true raison d' etre of the clause can only be learned from how it says the wellknown things that it says. What our clause does, in its unique, metaphorically graphic way, is to take a set phrase, the 'placing' of the blood on the altar, and to reverse the conceptual direction of the action: 'It is not you who are placing the blood on the altar for me, for my benefit, but rather the opposite: it is I who have placed it there for you—for your benefit'. This reading is confirmed by the otherwise unnecessary *3Kl before the verb vnro. All agree that such a usage is emphatic, and many of the translations even render it so ('It is I who have')1 but almost never have commentators even suggested just what is being emphasized.2 The answer is that both 'JR1 and DD1? are stressed: / place it for you— not the opposite. The word DDb is then explained by DD'ncJa] "7U nsD1?: 'It is / who have provided you with the opportunity "to atone for your lives'". 'To atone for your lives' is of course only a provisional translation of DDTiete] â "ISD1?. We now turn to the precise meaning. The meaning of the verb "is? has been the subject of considerable debate for most of this century, and we are fortunate that most of the material has been summarized in a few recent treatments of the topic.3 1. Milgrom, 'Prolegomenon', p. 150. See also de Vaux, Sacrifices, p. 84 ('je vous 1'ai donne, moi'); Elliger ('Ich selbst'); and Brichto, 'Slaughter', p. 23 ('I for My part'). 2. Fiiglister ('Siihne', p. 148) suggests that the emphasis may be on the uniquely priestly notion that expiation is granted directly by God himself. 3. An exhaustive bibliography is impossible. For a review of nineteenth-century scholarship, see G.B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament (repr. New York: Ktav, 1971, [orig. pub. 1925]), pp. 68ff., to which Kalisch, Leviticus, I, pp. 476-77 may be added. Following Gray, some of the important studies in this century (in addition to the commentaries) are: C.H. Dodd, 'Hilaskomai, Its Cognates, Derivatives and Synonyms in the Septuagint', JTS 32 (1931), pp. 352-60; J. Herrmann, 'Hilaskomai', TDNT 3, pp. 301-17; A. Metzinger, 'Die Substitutionstheorie und das alttestamentliche Opfer mit besonderer Beriicksichtung von Lev. 17, 11', Bib 21 (1940), pp. 159-87, 247-72, 353-77; I.E. Steinmuller, 'Sacrificial Blood in the Bible', Bib 40 (1949), pp. 556-67; L. Morris, The Use of hilaskesthai etc. in Biblical Greek', ExpTim 62 (1950-51), pp. 227-33; idem, The

52


1 will only delineate, in very general terms, the important conclusions of this debate, insofar as they pertain to the passage under discussion. It is clear that there are passages in the Bible, both cultic and noncultic, both priestly and non-priestly, in which n§? is a denominative verb, derived from the noun "i|£>, 'ransom', 'payment', and means 'to serve as ransom for', 'to be a payment in place of'.1 It is equally clear that there are passages in the Bible in which 155 has the meaning 'to wipe away, to purge' (usually impurity, from the sancta) and by extension, 'to expiate' (i.e. eradicate), a sense which derives from the Akkadian kuppuru. Such passages divide into three groups: those in which the primary meaning 'wipe away' is the sole meaning intended;2 Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (London: Tyndale Press, 1955); E.Z. Melamed, 'topon maDn', Sinai 44 (1959), pp. 426-36; M.H. ben-Shammai and J. Licht, 'man' in EM, IV, pp. 233-36; de Vaux, 'Sacrifices'; Sabourin, 'Nefesh'; Sabourin and Lyonnet, Sin, pp. 122ff.; Rendtorff, Studien; B. Levine, 'D'TIB'3', Erlsr 9 (1969), pp. 88-95; idem, Prolegomena to Gray, Sacrifice, pp. vii-xxxvii; idem, Presence, pp. 55-77, 123-27; Milgrom, '~IBD'; idem, 'Prolegomenon'; idem, Studies in Levitical Terminology, I (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970); idem, 'Sin-offering or Purification-Offering?' VT 21 (1971), pp. 237-39; idem, 'Kipper', EncJud, X, pp. 1039-44; idem, 'Atonement in the OT, IDBSup, pp. 7882; idem, Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology (Leiden: Brill, 1983), pp. 96-103; F. Maass, 'kpr', THAT 1, pp. 842-47; Brichto, 'Slaughter'; P. Garnet, 'Atonement Constructions in the Old Testament and the Qumran Scrolls', EvQ 46 (1974), pp. 131-63; idem, Salvation and Atonement in the Qumran Scrolls (WUNT, 2.3; Tubingen: Mohr, 1977); N.H. Young, 'C.H. Dodd, "Hilaskesthai" and his Critics', EvQ 48 (1976), pp. 67-78; G. Gerleman, Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (Heidelberg: L. Schneider, 1980), pp. 11-23; Fiiglister, 'Siihne'; Lang, '"IB::'; B. Janowski, Suhne als Heilsgeschehen (WMANT, 55; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982); N. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature (JSOTSup, 56; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), pp. 87-109; D.P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity (SBLDS, 101; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), pp. 291-99. 1. Cultic: e.g. Exod. 30.12-16; Num. 8.19. Non-cultic: in my view, only 2 Sam. 21.3; Isa. 47.11, which Milgrom placed in this category ('Atonement', p. 80), does not seem to belong, nor do Gen. 32.20; Num. 25.13 and Jer. 18.23, placed in this rubric by Garnet ('Constructions', pp. 134f.). On Num. 35.31 see below p. 56 n 1. The recent attempt by A. Schenker ('koper et expiation', Bib 63 [1982], pp. 32-46) to explain ~is5 as 'appeasement-price', and hence to define "is?1? as 'to appease', is entirely unconvincing; see below. 2. In its primary, non-cultic sense, this use appears in Gen. 32.20 (ns nmK p nrnti. . .vja m«D«), which is unambiguously to be explained on the basis of Prov. 16.14: anger, often referred to as nnn or *]2*p, is likened to a foamy


53

those in which this meaning is still present but is used in a technical sense to denote the manner in which purification is achieved (by purging the impure object);1 and those in which the sense is metaphorical: 'to cleanse (of sin or impurity)' in general, or to perform any act in order to obtain or grant forgiveness or purification.2 It has also been convincingly established that this latter type of cultic "iSD, even in its metaphorical sense, does not include the notion of propitiation but only that of expiation.3 substance which appears on the face and which, in order to appease the offended party, needs to be wiped off, resulting in 'seeing the face'. This has been noted by Levine ('D'TiQ'D', p. 91; Presence, p. 69 n. 39), followed by M. Gruber ('The Many Faces of Hebrew D'3S KfoJ "Lift up the Face'", ZAW 95 (1983), p. 254 and n. 11). The misreadings of mSDR here, most frequently 'cover' (see below) and 'pay off (apparently the result of the fact that the nron mentioned in the verse is to be the means of appeasement), have been major pitfalls in the study of the non-cultic sense of "ISD. The most recent example is Schenker ('koper'), who, unaware of Levine's work, and apparently of the Akkadian derivation as well, and taking absolutely no account of the cultic use of the term, renders D'39195 with the meaningless 'appease the face', and proceeds to develop a general theory of expiation based on this. 1. Frequently; e.g. Exod. 30.10; Lev. 4 passim; 12-15 passim; 16.14-19. 2. All cases of the DttfK-sacrifice; perhaps also Lev. 14.20 and 1.4; Deut. 21.8 (since the spilling of the blood is said to be -ISDD, though it is not applied to any object). On Num. 35.31-33 see below p. 56 n. 1. Garnet ('Constructions') sees this usage as a late development, the result of Assyrian influence, and not originally part of the concept of cultic atonement. 3. This issue has occupied English and German scholarship for most of this century. The question stems not from the Hebrew text but from the LXX where ~SD is translated (ex)hilaskomai. Though it is unanimously recognized that outside of the LXX and NT, this verb indeed means 'propitiate', Dodd ('Hilaskomai') attempted to demonstrate that this meaning is not expressed in Hebrew IBD, and its association with the Greek verb originates in the LXX. Following the thorough investigation of Herrmann ('Hilaskomai'), Morris ('Hilaskesthai' and Apostolic Preaching) demurred, arguing that ~i§S>, 'ransom', in Hebrew is derived from the notion of propitiation, and further (Apostolic Preaching, pp. 126ff.) that the LXX would not have employed a verb meaning 'propitiate' if this were not in fact the meaning they attached to the Hebrew. Morris (Apostolic Preaching, pp. 153-54) re-interpreted a number of biblical passages in which ~IS3 is held to mean 'purge', insisting that the meaning 'propitiate' is primary. Among the methodological flaws in Morris's work is the fact that the existence of a biblical belief in a divine wrath which needs to be placated does not necessarily imply that this process is expressed by the verb "155 (see Young, 'Dodd', p. 70). Further, most of Morris's argument is based on his erronenous interpretation of ns msDR in Gen. 32.20 (see above, p. 52 n. 2). Garnet, in

54


Further, at present it seems most likely that the previously held view, that "IBS 'ransom', and "is? 'purge', are etymologically and/or semantically related with each other, is false—these are unrelated homographs. 1 Finally, it is now established conclusively that the commonly held view, that these terms are somehow connected with the Arabic kafaraand have the primary meaning 'to cover', is entirely erroneous.2 'Constructions', though his view of the semantic development is different from Morris's, persists in deriving the concept of 'ransom' from that of propitiation, and proceeds to explain virtually all the cultic occurrences of 19? as instances of placating divine wrath. Though Garnet's starting-point is the Hebrew Bible rather than the LXX, it is clear nevertheless that the entire issue would not have arisen were it not for the Greek tradition of translation. 1. The possibility of the double etymology was considered early on by Milgrom (Studies, I, pp. 29-31). Though some of his later discussions give the impression that he views all occurrences of the root TSD as derived from one etymon, the most recent treatment ('Atonement', p. 80) seems to revert to the view that "B3, 'ransom', is a separate root. Garnet ('Constructions' and Salvation and Atonement) also appears to prefer this option; at the other extreme is Janowski (Suhne), who derives even the cultic "19? from 19^, 'payment', and appears to disallow the meaning 'purge' in Biblical Hebrew. 2. The early attempts to assign the primary meaning 'to cover' to the root ~IED are surveyed by Gray (Sacrifice, p. 68ff.); see also Kalisch, Leviticus at Lev. 1.4 and S.R. Driver, Deuteronomy (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901), pp. 425-26; for later literature see Lang, hSD', pp. 304ff. The most comprehensive such attempt in this century was that of Melamed ('meat'). Still, and despite the tempting parallel between Jer. 18.23 Onnn b« •pa'po onRDm mil? â nssn •?*) and Neh. 3.37 (pinon "?R •pa'pn anKom anaâ osn "?«), it seems that Levine (Presence, pp. 55ff., 123ff.) has established conclusively that this etymology is unfounded. Even Milgrom, who originally entertained it only as a possibility ('Kipper', p. 1039) and limited it to one passage (Num. 17.11)—suggesting a semantic development from 'wipe' to 'rub onto' and thence, perhaps, to 'cover'—and only later ('Atonement', p. 80) added a few more passages, remains skeptical. Brichto too ('Slaughter', p. 35), though he disagrees with the etymology Levine suggests, concurs in his rejection of 'cover', as does Wenham (commentary to Leviticus, p. 59). The recent attempt by Z. Ben-Hayyim ('jiizfta rraiVuron ro-iun1? ]vv Tim', I.L. Seeligmann Volume, I [Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein, 1983], pp. 35-37, 39-40) to re-assert the 'cover' etymology, does not adduce any new evidence, and resorts to the age-old, erroneous idea that the 'forgiveness' resulting from ms3 is some transformation of 'covering'; so, apparently, does W. Kornfeld ('Blut in der Theologie des Alten Testament', in Materialy Kongresu Biblijne w Krakowie 1972 [ed. S. Grzybek and J. Chmiel; Krakow, 1974], pp. 13-29, referred to in Fuglister,


55

Since "iDD is used in cultic contexts in both senses, 'to ransom' and 'to purge away', it is imperative to determine which sense is being used in each separate passage. Though in most cases this is a straightforward determination on the basis of context, Lev 17.11 has always been problematic. What has misled scholars is that in all other passages dealing with the use of blood in sacrifices, the sense of "ISD is always the latter—'to purge', to expiate. The problem can now be solved, however, because it has now been universally recognized that whenever the verb 123 appears as part of the idiom tfsun *?u "ISD, as it does here, the meaning 'ransom' is intended: 'to act as ransom for your lives', as payment in place of your lives, which would otherwise be forfeit.1 This recognition enables us to appreciate what is unique about the verse. It is the only place in the Priestly code, or for that matter in the 'Siihne', pp. 143 n. 1 and 148 n. 19). 'Covering' of sin, in Neh. 3.37 and Ps. 32.1 and elsewhere, is simply another metaphor, one which is not expressed by the verb -159. 1. Besides our verse: Exod. 30.15, 16 and Num. 31.50 (though not Num. 15.28; see Levine, 'D''Ti3''D', p. 90 n. 16). This important realization of Levine's ('nniBD', pp. 90-91; Presence, pp. 67-68) may be accepted irrespective of how one views his theory of when and why such nai is required. Prior to Levine, nSD' in this verse was universally translated as 'expiate'. Milgrom ('Kipper', p. 1040) originally saw our verse as an exception to the general rule, but later reconsidered ('Prolegomenon', pp. 150-51 and n. 11) and finally recanted ('Atonement', p. 80). Not all scholars are aware of this important finding; Fiiglister ('Siihne', p. 145 and passim) persists in seeing both occurrences of 19? in our verse as 'secure atonement' which he understands as purging away of sin's deadly effect on the altar by re-invigorating it with life-force (thus the use of blood). Another recent suggestion is that of N. Zohar, 'Repentance and Purification: The Significance and Semantics of ntton in the Pentateuch', JBL 107 (1988), pp. 609-18. Dismissing the meaning 'ransom', 'substitution for life' without so much as a comment (p. 611), Zohar seems to take both occurrences of ~IBD in Lev. 17.11 to mean 'purge'. He then explains the process as one by which the 'sin-defilement' is transferred to the 'essence of animation' of the animal (its #03; i.e. its blood), which is then presented to God by being placed on his altar. Thus, in addition to ignoring the fixed idiom eJajn ^s 1S5 and with it the uniqueness of our verse within the priestly literature, Zohar advances a concept of the mSD-process as one of bringing impurity to the sanctuary rather than removing it from there, a concept which— especially in light of the fact that whenever ~iDD does mean 'purge', the sancta, and not the sinner, is its object—surely has no place even elsewhere in the priestly system.

56


Bible, in which sacrificial blood is said to be a ransom for human life. This is the only place in which the 19?-action attributed to blood has the sense of ransom rather than purification.1 The verse takes a word, or rather a cultic concept—that blood is "ISDQ—a concept which generally has one meaning, and gives it an entirely new one. This new meaning, 2 contained in the third clause's synthesis of the first two, is that blood, by virtue of the life of which it is the seat, has been assigned by God to the altar, i.e. commanded to be offered to God, in order to serve as ransom for human life.3 Consider the paradox in this: on the one hand, this is a clear expression of the idea of measure for measure embodied in the talionic demand, expressed by Priestly law in the phrase tfsunnntfa:)—'life for life' (Lev. 24.18). Man has somehow incurred a debt of his life, his #32, and this is what he gives—a BJS33. On the other hand it is a rejection, or at least an alleviation, of the very same talionic demand, since thetfD3that man offers here is not his own, nor even actually that of an animal, but merely a "IDS—a substitute, an 1. The passage closest to our own, both stylistically and conceptually, is the noncultic Num. 35.31-33, now recognized as also belonging to H. In vv. 31-32, lobpo Ti> 'PK oi^ngi inpn R1?!. . .ns~i tisfr nî inpn R1?!, the noun i^S is, of course, 'ransom', 'payment'. In v. 33, however, Din '3. ..pRn n« iS'jnn K1?! oatf ma DM 'D ra -jetf -itfR m1? ng?', »•? p-m1?! pan rm *prr Kin, the word -ig3': not only echoes the ~iSD of the preceding verses; it is also, and primarily, the antithesis of *prp. . . iS'Ttn, in which case it means 'purge, purify'. The play on words is that "igS 'ransom' cannot ~ig?n 'purify' the land of the blood of the innocent; only the blood of the homicide can accomplish this. 2. Though 'life' is associated with 'blood' outside of Israel as well, it seems that Israel was unique among the peoples of the ancient Near East in the specific meaning and sacrificial role it attached to blood. Thus, not only the unique association of ideas in our verse, but also, to some extent, its separate components are a radical departure from non-Israelite thought; see D.J. McCarthy, 'The Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice', JBL 88 (1969), pp. 166-76; idem 'Further Notes on the Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice', JBL 92 (1973), pp. 205-10; Kedar-Kopstein, 'Di'; Fuglister, 'Siihne', 149-50. 3. The imperfect ISD1 in lib should be taken as customary, habitual action (so most commentators), not as potential action ('may ransom'). The latter view is taken by Levine (Presence, pp. 67-68), a result of his theory that atonement depends on the capricious, unpredictable will of the deity. Milgrom seems to have considered this possibility ('Kipper', p. 1041; 'can expiate'), but later ('Sacrifices and Offerings, OT', IDBSup, p. 770) translated 'ransoms'.


57

exchange which God is willing to receive in place of the real thing.1 It is merely the symbolic representation of the life of an animal, a bit of its blood—an appropriate symbol, to be sure, since blood embodies life, but a symbol nonetheless.2 There is yet another paradox here: this is one of the cases in which the Torah has a hard and fast law which applies to humans and not to God.3 The law—and it seems to belong to the same literary stratum, 1. It should be noted that one of the reasons scholars have labored so arduously at proposing other interpretations of how blood serves wnBJsa by ~\Kh, and have often ignored the obvious derivation from ~v$s, has been their reluctance to admit that the idea of vicarious sacrifice, indeed, vicarious ^//"-sacrifice, might be at work here; the most recent example is Fuglister, 'Siihne', pp. 146-47. The mediaevals were not so troubled; see Rashi (ttfejn'w iBDm aJaan nun; similarly Ibn Ezra). Of the moderns, the only scholars to concede the point are Kalisch, Leviticus, I, p. 292; Metzinger, 'Substitutionstheorie', p. 255ff. (very hesitantly); Steinmiiller, 'Blood', p. 561; the last two stressing the idea of 'grace', thus refraining from imparting any inherent power to blood while at the same time avoiding the implication that God has any real desire for ~iSD; compare Garnet, 'Constructions', p. 139. Others see the atoning force of sacrificial blood in the very act of the killing it necessitates (Morris, 'Biblical Use', p. 221; against this notion see the apt comment by Fuglister, 'Siihne', p. 147: 'das Blut nicht Symbol des Todes, sondern des Lebens ist; Siihne geschieht nicht durch den Tod, sondern durch das Leben!'), in the transfer of suffering from the sacrificer to the animal (Ben-Shammai and Licht, 'mSD', p. 234), in the activation of some hidden divine force contained in blood (L. Dewar, 'The Biblical Use of the Term "Blood"', JTS ns 4 [1953], pp. 204-208; H. Ringgren, Sacrifice in the Bible [London: United Society for Christian Literature, 1962], pp. 36-37; Sabourin and Lyonnet, Sin, p. 176), in the physical communion with God (frequently since W.R. Smith, The Religion of the Semites [1894, repr. New York: Meridian Books, 1966], p. 336; see Sabourin and Lyonnet, Sin, p. 180), in the presentation to the deity of a substance believed to contain a vital force he requires (Levine, Presence, pp. 67-69), and in the return of the divine element to its source (see above, p. 49 n. 5). 2. The Rabbis too, though in a different context, were impressed by the divine willingness to accept less than a life in payment for a life; see Num. R. 12. 3: 'R. Judah b. Simon said in the name of R. Yohanan:. . .When He said to Moses "Let each one give to the LORD a payment for his life (itfsa ~iED)", (Exod. 30.12) Moses asked, "Who can possibly give a payment equal to his life?". .. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, "I require payment not according to My ability but according to theirs. This is what they shall give" [i.e. a half-shekel] (Exod. 30.13)'. 3. See M. Greenberg, 'Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law', in J. Goldin (ed.), The Jewish Expression (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1976), p. 24ff. For other examples see Num. 5.21-27 as against Lev. 20.10;

58


the Holiness section of the Priestly code—states that the human community is under no circumstances permitted to accept a "iaS in exchange for the life of someone convicted of a capital crime (Num. 35.31-34). Anyone convicted of such a crime must be put to death. God, however, is not governed by his own decree: he accepts 1E&, in the form of a symbolic representation, for human life. E. We come at last to the question of what it is that man has done to incur this guilt for which he should have had to forfeit his life and for which, by divine concession, he is able to pay a ransom and redeem life. How did it become necessary in the first place for man to need -195? Clearly I am not speaking here of any capital crime which is under human jurisdiction. The passage is non-specific; neither murder nor a sexual offense, nor any of the other capital crimes in Priestly literature,1 is mentioned, and indeed none is intended, since the idea that man can escape the capital punishment of the human court by offering a sacrifice is preposterous in the priestly system. Milgrom and Levine both postulate that every time a man makes a sacrifice he commits a capital crime, and must atone for it immediately by means of the blood. According to Milgrom the sin involved is that of slaughtering the animal itself, the very 'murder' spoken of in v. 4.2 The problem with this is that v. 4 proclaims killing an animal to be tantamount to murder only if it is done outside of the tabernacle; if performed inside the tabernacle it is a perfectly lawful act. According to Milgrom's reading, our verse would make it a capital offense in all cases, and one which requires "II&. According to Levine, the capital crime is the simple act of daring to approach the deity, whose wrath is known to be unstable.3 This too is problematic, Deut. 24.16 as against 5.9 and Deut. 21.15-17 as against the patriarchal narratives. 1. The others are desecrating the Sabbath (Exod. 31.14-15), offering one's offspring to Molekh (Lev. 20.2), cursing parents (Lev. 20.9), blaspheming (Lev. 24.16) and encroaching upon the sanctuary, which, according to P, is also punishable by human agency if nnv is taken as 'shall be put to death' in Num. 1.51; 3.10, 38; 18.7; see Milgrom, Studies, I, pp. 1-59. 2. Milgrom, 'Prolegomenon', p. 151 and elsewhere; followed by Brichto, 'Slaughter', pp. 27-28; A. Rofe, onai -iso1? man (Jerusalem: Akademon, 1977), pp. 19-20 and (implicitly) Wold, 'Rationale', pp. 9, 20-21. 3. Levine, 'D'TBo', p. 69 and Presence, pp. 70ff. Actually, this approach bears


59

its basic premise is foreign to the priestly view of sacrifice. Indeed the very notion that sacrifice can be intrinsically sinful, that one cannot sacrifice to God without becoming, at least momentarily, guilty of a capital crime, is entirely foreign to Priestly thought. A more likely suggestion is that this passage is a general comment on the precise dynamic of the ~iSD-action of blood in all sacrifices in which blood is said to be "iSDa.1 Not every sacrifice is "ISDD—in general, only the n»on, the DtfK and the n*7iu are—and not in every case of mDD is blood the agent. However, whenever it is, the chapter says, the action of the blood is a ransoming one, achieved by means of the life embodied in the blood. This certainly means that there is more than one priestly doctrine of atonement by blood. For as postulated elsewhere in P, the "iSD-action of the blood is one of purification, of decontaminating the sancta, not of ransoming life. Leviticus 17.11 diverges radically from this belief—perhaps a result of a real doctrinal dispute between the two priestly schools, P and H, or perhaps a result of the passage's rhetorical, literary function in its context; to explain the rationale for the prohibition of eating blood in a manner suited to the internal logic of the chapter. In any case, this verse advances a theory unattested elsewhere in P or anywhere else in the Torah: that 'atonement', i.e. msD, is not a matter of purifying the sancta from the contamination generated by sin or physical conditions, nor is it a matter of casting off sin and sending it away,2 but rather a matter of redeeming oneself from extreme culpability before God: redeeming one's life. What enables this passage to make this statement is the existence of an alternative meaning for the verb is? and the existence of the verbal expression tfgjn "71? "152. The passage is reflective and interpretive: it puts forth a new and unique theory of what sacrificial 'atonement' is and how it works, not a theory of why one needs it. It is a case of

a certain resemblance to Milgrom's view of 'encroachment', (above, note 68), but has not been advanced by Milgrom in this context—presumably because the worshiper's approach to the sphere of the sacred is entirely licit. 1. Hermann ('Hilaskomai', p. 310), followed by many commentators. Somewhat different is the view recently put forward by Zohar ('Repentance', pp. 61 Iff.), that the blood of the nRon alone is intended, since only this sacrifice is one of msD par excellence. 2. As is the iSD-action of the scapegoat (Lev. 16.8, 21-22).

60


inner-biblical exegesis, almost midrashic in nature.1 F. The passage in question thus deals with a topic treated elsewhere in the Priestly code and outside of it—the prohibition of eating blood— and explains it by means of concepts treated elsewhere in the Priestly code and outside of it—that blood is connected with life, that sacrificial blood is "ISDD, that there are things which are "?£ ISDD Kfcun. But the combination of these elements is entirely unprecedented and unparalleled. To read this passage as if it were a recapitulation of Priestly doctrine would obscure its meaning entirely: what this chapter says is entirely unique. Nowhere else do we find the meaning of 'ransom' for the "iDD-action associated with blood; nowhere else is the blood 'placed' on the altar by God; nowhere else is this the reason for the prohibition of blood. Elsewhere the reason blood is prohibited is its nature (since it is the seat of life, it is improper to ingest it), or its ownership—it belongs to God, like the fat of the animal. Here the reason is not the nature of blood but rather its role. Since you give it to me in place of your lives, God says, it may not be eaten. G. Now it is clear—and if it were not, the following verses make it so—that the only blood which is placed on the altar is that of sacrificial animals. Thus the only blood which serves as ransom for man's life is that of sacrificial animals.2 It might then stand to reason 1. The source-critical implication, that Lev. 17, and indeed all of the Holiness chapters of the Priestly code, represent a later stratum, reflecting and enlarging upon, and reacting to, the more ancient corpus of Priestly law, has recently been investigated by I. Knohl, 'nto'npn rVrooRni nnro rmra jn'narri mn^n nto'sn' (PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1988); compare G. Henton Davies, 'Leviticus', IDB, III, pp. 117ff., and Riicker, 'Die Begrundungen',/?a55/m. 2. Though this is agreed upon by all commentators, they differ as to whether our verse states that all sacrificial blood atones (Gray, 'Sacrifice', p. 76; Herrmann, 'Hilaskomai', pp. 307ff., Levine, Presence, pp. 72-74; Garnet, 'Constructions', p. 145) or only that of those sacrifices specifically designated as expiatory (Steinmuller, 'Blood', p. 561; de Vaux, 'Sacrifices', pp. 29 n. 3, 36; Rendtorff, Studien, p. 23 n. 1), or perhaps the revolutionary idea that the blood of the D'D^tDsacrifice expiates (Milgrom, 'Prolegomenon', p. 151). Fiiglister ('Siihne', p. 147) goes so far as to say that all blood atones, by which he means to include even that of the paschal offering and of circumcision! My view is closest to that of Sabourin and Lyonnet, Sin, pp. 175ff. There are certainly cultic acts which atone by some means other than sacrificial blood; see Gray, Sacrifice, pp. 75f. and especially Brichto,


61

that this is the only blood which the Israelites ought to be prohibited from eating. This, however, is not the case: as we saw above, and as emphasized in vv. 12 and 14 as well as in Lev. 3.17 and 7.26-27, all blood is forbidden. The argument of the chapter is thus as follows: since the blood of sacrifices is assigned to the altar as ransom for your lives, anyone who eats any blood wll incur n~O. This, by the way, is precisely how God quotes himself in v. 14: rro* V^DK ^D. But this 'logic' is entirely illogical: if sacrificial blood is assigned to the altar, then the blood of sacrificial animals ought to be forbidden, but not that of deer and gazelles! The most likely explanation is to view this chapter's innovative interpretation of the prohibition for eating blood as a sort of rabbinic gezera: all blood is prohibited in order that humans keep their distance from transgression—that is, if they were permitted to eat the blood of wild animals, they would soon eat that of sacrificial ones as well. Ill

The remainder of the chapter goes on to state what is to be done with every other sort of animal whose flesh may be eaten.1 The fourth paragraph (vv. 13-14) commands that the blood of those hunted animals which are permitted must be drained and covered.2 Commentators have long supposed that this is some ritual, that the earth here substitutes for an altar, and that covering the blood amounts to returning life to its source, or to God.3 We should 'Slaughter', p. 29 and n. 22. Compare the rabbinic dispute as to whether the layingon of hands atones (Lev. 1.4) or 'atonement is accomplished only by the blood' (b. Zeb. 6a). 1. ^DK11 "ittfK in v. 13 means 'which may be eaten', i.e. are permitted, and not 'edible' (contra Brichto, 'Slaughter', p. 24). 2. The result clause, which contains the commands, begins not with 13b(5 lain inom but with 13ba im PR "[SBJi; this is reflected not only in the Masoretic accents but also in LXX. See Elliger, who refers to GKC 143d, and compare Deut. 16.24 where it is clear that pouring out the blood is part of what is commanded. As for our verse, the suffixed accusative in inosi indicates that both pouring out and covering are commanded, and indeed taken as one act. 3. Some of the theories which have been propounded to explain the command to cover the blood of hunted animals are: to provide a visible sign that blood is prohibited (Bechor Shor), to prevent the false impression that an illicit 'fieldsacrifice' has been performed (Ibn Ezra) or that a human has been murdered

62


distinguish, however, between theories as to the 'original', historical reason for covering the blood and what this text clearly says. It says, in a long, emphatic, unambiguous, explanatory motivational section spoken by God himself and beginning with the word »D, that the reason for this command is that blood is the seat of life (v. 14aa), indeed, it is life (v. 14bcc); further, that 'I, God, have forbidden the Israelites to "eat" any blood, and that anyone who does so will incur n~O'. In other words, the one and only reason given in this text for the command to cover blood is that blood may not be eaten, and the reason for that is in v. 11. The command to cover blood has no separate, independent rationale of its own, because it is a subsection of the prohibition in v. 10. The only reason blood must be spilled out and covered up is in order that it not be eaten. This is not a ritual, but a practical method of complying with the basic command not to eat blood. Once blood is absorbed into the earth's dust, a process begun by draining it out upon the earth and completed by tossing or shoveling some more earth on top of it, it is no longer edible. This too is a sort of gezera—it is an instrumental command. If the hunter leaves the blood untouched, he, or a passer-by, might be temped to eat it and thereby incur rro; therefore, 'cover it', because 'whoever eats it will incur DID'. Before leaving the motivational section of the fourth paragraph (v. 14), we should examine its two-part parallel structure: 14a 14b

The first o indicates that both parts of v. 14a provide the rationale for the command in v. 13; the second 'D may be a repetition of the first (in which case the two parts of 14b merely repeat what is stated in 14a; this would be similar to the two occurrences of 'D in v. 11), or it may be that 14b is intended as the rationale for 14aa: 'I said to the

(Luzzatto), to return the life to its source through the dust of the earth from which humanity was created (Dillmann), to hide the blood which 'calls out from the earth' (Gen. 4.10) for vengeance (Kalisch; Milgrom, 'Prolegomenon', p. 152), to hide it from view so that men will not become insensitive to bloodshed (Ehrlich, Mikra Ki-pheshuto, p. 229). It is likely that commentators have been influenced by Ezek. 24.7-8, but the symbolism there is quite different.


63

Israelites: "The blood of all living things you may not eat, because...'". In either case, the connection between blood and life, which was the basis for the rationale in the previous paragraph, has become the rationale itself. In paragraph three the "iSD-action associated with blood is the reason it may not be 'eaten'; here, in the context of hunted animals, sacrificial blood is less pertinent. In contrast, the blood-life connection has actually been strengthened in this paragraph, so that in the final analysis the chapter contains all three possible expressions of the connection: in v. 12, life is in the blood; in 14a, blood is in the life;1 in 14b, blood is life.2 A final feature of this section is that only here does the expression "ifeD *3D, 'all living things', occur. Since it appears twice, both times in statements patently designed to echo v. 11 (trn D13 ntonn eJEH), the addition of bs would seem not to be gratuitous. Rather, the word is intended to be inclusive: not only the blood of domestic animals, but that of hunted animals as well, even though they are unsacrificeable, is inextricably connected with life. Form—the lengthy, repetitious, motivational section—and content—the rationale itself, which indicates the instrumental nature of the law in v. 13—lead to the same realization: the overall aim of the lawgiver is to ensure that the prohibition in v. 10 is heeded. He is far from a disinterested legislator; he employs every possible means, from persuasion to preventive enactments, to keep the Israelites from ingesting blood and incurring rro.

1. No satisfactory syntactical explanation has been offered for 14aa sin 10233 im iton ^D 2)33. If the text is not corrupt (perhaps a conflation of K'n im -iftn *7D tfsu and Kin iizJan im nton ^), the best solution is to view it as an anacoluthon: as for the life-force of all flesh, its (i.e. all flesh's) blood is in its lifeforce (i.e. 'connected to' its life; so Abrabanel, Mendelssohn, Hoffmann; alternatively, with NJPS 'its blood is its life'—beth essentiae). Others delete itfsn (Bertholet; Ehrlich, Mikra Ki-pheshuto, p. 229; BHS; Elliger; Brichto, 'Slaughter', P- 24). 2. The three distinct blood-life formulae are obscured by LXX, where they are all translated identically. For the distinction, see Nahmanides.

64

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel IV

Verses 15-16 do not prohibit the eating of carrion. As has been seen,1 this is one of the differences between the Priestly and non-priestly law codes: in P, only priests are forbidden to eat carrion (Lev. 22.8), while ordinary Israelites simply become defiled by doing so and are therefore required to cleanse themselves; the only sin involved would be that of failing to cleanse oneself, of remaining defiled. In E and D all Israel is a 'kingdom of priests' and a 'holy nation' (Exod. 19.6; Deut. 14.2, 21) and must thus actually abstain, as priests do, from carrion (Exod. 22.30; Deut. 14.21.). This law too is known elsewhere in P—Lev. 11.39-40 states it explicitly. Here, however, it is repeated, and again, in a form designed for this chapter, in a context foreign to Leviticus 11. The author of this chapter, by including the law here, indicates that eating carrion is not only a matter of becoming defiled from contact with, or consumption of, a dead—rather than a slaughtered—animal, a condition which, though not desirable, can easily be corrected by bathing one's body and laundering one's clothes.2 He indicates that in his view eating carrion is also—perhaps primarily—a violation of the prohibition of 'eating' blood, since if carrion is eaten, blood is unavoidably consumed. The legislator is powerless to outlaw it but is at least able to present it in a more negative light. This is done in four separate ways: by including the law in the context of the prohibition of eating blood; by employing the expression naicn nbm, employed elsewhere in P for prohibitions;3 by stating the consequences of failing to cleanse 1. M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), pp. 227-28 and n. 2; see now Wenham. P's legislation is at one and the same time more lenient than that of E and D, since it does not forbid carrion to the Israelite, and more stringent, since its provision applies to the ~ia (explicitly exempted in Deut. 14.21). 2. As distinct from our chapter, the mention of carrion in Lev. 11 is entirely a result of the chapter's concern with the defilement resulting from contact with a carcass; see vv. 8, 11, 24, 27 and 31ff.; the same concern is present in the law requiring an Dto'K-sacrifice of one who has neglected to cleanse himself after such contact (Lev. 5.2ff.). Defilement is also the primary concern of the prohibition of carrion to the priests (Lev. 22.8: ra nuno1? ^DK' R1?), which Ezekiel himself attests that he has observed (Ezek. 4.14). 3. Lev. 7.24; 22.8. Outside of P, too, the context is always negative, and often


65

away the defilement (stating consequences of failing to comply with a law is very rare, and usually reserved for capital offenses);1 and by stating that those consequences are potentially deadly—since 'bearing sin', if uncorrected, will certainly lead to rro.2 Here too, then, the lawgiver has not invented a new law, but given a new interpretation to an old one, just as he did in v. 11. In fact, the entire section is of practically no legislative import. Rather, it is designed to explore the meaning and some of the ramifications of the prohibition of eating blood.3 prohibitive; in addition to the Pentateuchal texts already mentioned see Jer. 16.18; Ezek. 44.31. 1. Schwartz, 'Chapters', pp. 30-31. 2. See above, p. 38 n. 4. 3. The present study had already gone to press when F.H. Gorman, Jr, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology (JSOTSup, 91; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990) appeared. Gorman's Excursus II ('The Role of Blood in the Kipper-Act: Blood as Symbol of Life and Death', pp. 181-89) is somewhat confused. He has not fully apprehended the difference between vv. 3-7 and 8-9, he has failed to notice that vv. 11 and 14 are not two distinct Priestly texts but one, and his assertion that the pouring out of animal blood is already prescribed by Gen. 9.4 is simply incorrect. He has rightly maintained that v. 11 pertains to all blood and not only to that of D'obttJ, and his description of the overall structure of vv. 10-12 corresponds in the main to that given above. His concluding remarks (p. 188) seem to indicate that he too has appreciated the structural and thematic centrality of w. 1012 in the chapter. But he has read into v. 11 much more than is there: nowhere does the text of the verse state that life is sacred, let alone imply that this is the reason that ingesting blood is prohibited! Thus his rendering, 'for it is the blood, with the life, that kippers', is questionable, and not only on the obvious grammatical grounds. Further, he has shifted the focus of vv. 15-16 exclusively to the issue of defilement, and has even gone so far as to say that the neglect of the 'blood ritual' is what makes carrion defile, thus confusing two separate issues. Like most scholars, he has interpreted the pouring out and covering of animal blood mandated by v. 13 as a sacred act, though he does seem to admit that the only thing that makes it so is the mere fact that it is commanded. Finally, Gorman reaches no clear conclusion as to the meaning of "iSD in the chapter, wavering between 'ransom' and 'the ritual elimination of sin' (expiation), and his statement that 'death is the prerequisite, but, at the same time, the necessary reason for the ritual manipulation of the blood' is incomprehensible. The suggestion that the ritual reason for the prohibition of blood is given by the Priestly writers in Lev. 17 (and not earlier) in order that it follow the divine instructions for the operation and structure of the cult is an interesting one, though it necessitates some problematic assumptions concerning the unity of the Priestly code, and in any case leaves unanswered the question of why this reason has

66


In lieu of summary, we may review what this sort of reading of a priestly law offers us. First, it yields textually grounded conclusions concerning the meanings of words, phrases and idioms, as well as concerning the substance of the laws and rituals themselves—what they actually command and why. Second, and this is the motivating force, it attempts to account for how things are said, not just in general, form-critical terms but in every specific textual detail. Third, we are provided with a better glimpse of just what the lawgivers, that is, the authors of the legal texts, were doing—it was far more than merely legislating. Finally, a by-product: we are able to gain here and there a new insight concerning the Priestly code, its composition, and the relationship of its layers to each other.

been omitted in Lev. 3 and 7. A fuller discussion of Gorman's study of P will have to be left for another occasion.

JEWISH HIGH PRIESTS OF THE PERSIAN PERIOD: is THE LIST COMPLETE?

James C. VanderKam

In recent years there has been a lively debate about the chronology of the Jewish high priests who served during the Persian period. Though the topic had often been broached in older studies, the contemporary debate has been stimulated by P.M. Cross Jr's provocative paper 'A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration', which was the presidential address that he delivered to the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in 1974.1 Cross argued that the biblical list of six men who are supposed to have ruled for the 200 years of Persian dominion is too short and that four names have dropped from the high priestly genealogy. The trigger for the omission was the widespread practice of papponymy: the repetition caused by naming grandsons after grandfathers led to two cases of haplography and thus the elimination of four names from the list. The present essay is intended as a re-examination of the high priestly chronology in light of Cross's hypothesis and the reactions that it has elicited. First, the evidence will be reviewed; second, theories—especially Cross's—about missing names will be sketched; third, reactions will be assessed; and fourth, a case will be made that the existing six-member list is complete. 1. The Evidence The book of Nehemiah is the only biblical source which provides a roster of the early postexilic high priests. Chapter 12, which is often considered to be a later addition to the core of the book,2 begins with 1. The essay was published in JBL 94 (1975), pp. 4-18 and in Int 29 (1975), pp.187-203. 2. For recent analyses, see H.G.M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC, 16;

68


a list of priests and Levites who accompanied Zerubbabel and Jeshua/Joshua when they came to Yehud from Babylon. Priests are enumerated in vv. lb-7 (concluding with the notice: 'These were the chiefs of the priests and their brethren in the days of Jeshua');1 Levites are named in vv. 8-9. With v. 10 begins what is in all likelihood a genealogy of the men who held the high priestly office from the time of the return to the author's day: 'And Jeshua was the father of Joiakim, Joiakim the father of Eliashib, Eliashib the father of2 Joiada, Joiada the father of Jonathan, and Jonathan the father of Jaddua' (12.10-11). This should be the genealogy of high priests because the office was hereditary, Jeshua/Joshua is named as the first member, and the third—Eliashib—is called the high priest in Neh. 3.1, 20-21. Moroever, Josephus refers to each of these men as high priest, with the exception of Jonathan: Joiakim (Ant. 11.5.1, 5 [121, 158]); his son Eliashib (11.5.5 [158]; 11.7.1 [297]); his son Joiada (11.7.1 [297]); his son Johanan (11.7.1 [297-301]); and his son Jaddua (11.7.2-8.7 [30247]). The only name that differs from Neh. 12.10-11 is Johanan for Nehemiah's Jonathan. Nehemiah 12.22, however, presents a second list of these names which is not outfitted in genealogical dress; it begins with Eliashib, reproduces the names that follow his in vv. 1011, but reads Johanan in place of Jonathan. That there was a high priest named Johanan at this time is confirmed by AP 30.18-31.17. In this missive (408-407 BCE) from the Jews of Yeb to the governor Bagohi, the writers mention that they had sent a letter some three years earlier (411-410) to the high priest Johanan (pnv) but had received no reply (11.409, 17-18).3 Such evidence makes it Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985), pp. 358-66; and J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988), pp. 333-41. 1. Scriptural citations are from the RSV. 2. The MT lacks the word T"7in at this point, though it is found in every other case in the list. The LXX also has no verb here. 3. See A.E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923; repr. Osnabruck: Otto Zeller, 1967), pp. 112, 120. Cf. p. 109 for the identification with Johanan in Neh. 12.22. The pertinent lines of the letter read thus in Cowley's rendering: 'Also before this, at the time when this evil [destruction of the temple at Elephantine] was done to us, we sent a letter to your lordship [Bagohi] and to Johanan the high priest and his colleagues the priests who are in Jerusalem, and to Ostanes the brother of ' Anani, and the nobles of the Jews. They have not sent any letter to us' (11.17.19).

VANDERKAM Jewish High Priests of the Persian Period

69

reasonable to regard the name |D3V of v. 11 as a scribal error for pnv—two names that could be difficult to distinguish in Hebrew script.1 Thus, the data of Nehemiah, Josephus, and AP 30-31 combine to place a man named Johanan in the high priestly list and to demonstrate that the following six men held office: Jeshua, Joiakim, Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua. It should be added that Nehemiah 12 does not clarify the dates between which any one of these men functioned as high priest. Nehemiah 3.1, 20-21 report that Eliashib was in office when Nehemiah arrived in 445, but, as will be demonstrated below, this is the latest firm chronological point for a high priest in the biblical text.

1. This suggestion has often been made. See, for example, C.C. Torrey, Ezra Studies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1910; repr. New York: Ktav, 1970), p. 321; W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia (HAT, 20; Tubingen: Mohr, 1949), p. 190; H.H. Rowley, 'Sanballat and the Samaritan Temple', in his Men of God: Studies in Old Testament History and Prophecy (London: Nelson, 1963), p. 248 n. 5. Williamson (Ezra, Nehemiah, p. 363; cf. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, p. 339) confuses matters by associating the 'Johanan son of Eliashib' mentioned in Neh. 12.23 with this problem. He writes: 'It seems most probable, therefore, that Jonathan was a nephew of Johanan and that he held office after him'. This Johanan and his father Eliashib are not, however, the same men as those listed in the roster of high priests; the statements about their differing family connections make this evident. The Eliashib and Johanan of Neh. 12.23 are probably the same people as those mentioned in Ezra 10.6; cf. Neh. 13.4-9. Rudolph (Esra und Nehemia, p. 190) has noted that the same interchange of the names Jonathan and Johanan occurs also in Neh. 12.35: where MT has |rav, LXX reads the same name but mss. BS + have 'Itoavdv. While scribal error is the preferable way for explaining the difference between the two lists, there is another possibility. The list in vv. 10-11 takes a genealogical form, while that in v. 22 gives names alone, without indication of relationships. It might have been the case that a man named Jonathan was the son of Joiada but that he, for some reason, was disqualified from the high priesthood (possibly he was the son of Joiada whom Nehemiah banished [13.28]). His place would have been taken by a brother (Johanan), after whose term of office the oldest surviving son of Jonathan (Jaddua) would have become high priest. Thus the genealogy in vv. 10-11 would be correct, while the list in v. 22 gives the names of those who actually held the office.

70

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel 2. Theories About Missing Names

According to the surviving evidence, then, Jeshua/Joshua and five of his descendants served as high priests in the postexilic age until an unspecified time. The beginning of the period is known approximately. Ezra 2.2, in its present context, implies that Joshua came from exile during the reign of Cyrus and after his proclamation (i.e., between 539/38 and 530, the year of Cyrus's death). He and others built the altar at that time (3.2) and soon thereafter laid the foundations of the second temple (3.7-13). Most of the biblical passages which mention Joshua, however, associate him with the second year of Darius (c. 520). This is the case for Ezra 4.24-5.2; Hag. 1.1, 12, 14-15; 2.1-4; Zech. 1.7; 3. Eliashib, the third high priest, was, as noted above, a contemporary of Nehemiah (that is, he was serving as high priest in 445 when the latter arrived in Jerusalem) and may still have been in office after 432, depending upon the meaning of Neh. 13.28. In that text Nehemiah reports: 'And one of the sons of Jehoiada [= Joiada], the son of Eliashib the high priest, was the son-in-law of Sanballat the Horonite; therefore I chased him from me'. The punctuation in the RSV presupposes that the title 'high priest' belongs to Eliashib, but the Hebrew text is ambiguous as to whether it refers to him or Jehoiada. Extra-biblical texts offer relatively fixed chronological points for two of the remaining high priests in the list. AP 30-31 place Johanan in office during the fourteenth year of Darius II, that is, about 410 (see 30.4-12). Josephus (Ant. 11.7.1 [297-301]) relates an episode involving this Johanan and places it during the reign of Artaxerxes, who must be the second of that name (404-358). Josephus also provides a historical context for Jaddua, the sixth and last high priest in the biblical list: he was a contemporary of Alexander the Great whom he received when the Macedonian king visited Jerusalem in 332. Antiquities of the Jews 11.8.7 (346-47) may imply that by the time of Alexander's untimely demise in 323, Jaddua was already dead. If one combines these chronological markers, the result is a span of approximately 200 years—from the reign of Cyrus (539/38-530) to that of Alexander (332-323)—in which just six men held the high priestly office. This would entail an average of 33s years or more per reign—a figure that is quite high but comfortably within the range of


71

the possible. But the data at hand do not permit one to assign roughly thirty-three years to each man. AP 30-31 provide documentary evidence that Johanan, the fifth high priest, was in office in 410. This date would produce no problem for the preceding period (five high priests in 120 years), but it implies that, if the list is complete, the tenures of the last two high priests extended some eighty years and perhaps a few more (410-330 and beyond, even if one makes the minimal assumption that Johanan began serving in 410). These numbers would be formidable enough, but, to add to the problem, some scholars have argued that Neh. 12.22 dates the beginning of Jaddua's high priesthood to the reign of Darius II (424/3-404). There one reads: 'As for the Levites, in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua, there were recorded the heads of fathers' houses; also the priests until1 the reign of Darius the Persian'. In the context of Nehemiah 12, the most likely identification of this monarch is Darius II, though commentators have defended each of the other two.2 Those who think that Darius the Persian is Darius II then move from this identification to associate the end of the list of high priests in the previous clause (Jaddua) with the reign of this king.3 If this inference should be correct, then Neh. 12.22 would locate the beginning of 1. The preposition is "?i> which does not, of course, mean 'until'. There have been many suggestions for emendation, some of which assume that the preposition is a remnant of a longer reading. Rudolph (Esra undNehemia, pp. 193-94) thought that one should augment it in accord with the phrase in v. 23, reading: ID D'D'n nm IBO ^s. Albright preferred ^JJn ('The Date and Personality of the Chronicler', JBL 40 [1921], p. 113); and he has been followed by J. Myers (Ezra, Nehemiah [AB, 14; Garden City: Doubleday, 1965], p. 195). The LXX has ev. 2. Defenders of Darius I (522^486) include Albright ('The Date and Personality of the Chronicler', p. 113) and Myers (Ezra, Nehemiah, pp. 198-99), but their view depends upon emending *7JJ to "7JJQ. Williamson (Ezra, Nehemiah, pp. 364-65) believes, with S. Mowinckel (Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehemia, I: Die nachchronische Redaktion des Buches. Die Listen [Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1964], p. 161), that the epithet 'the Persian' is used to distinguish this Darius from Darius the Mede in Daniel. Among the advocates of Darius II are M. Mor, 'The High Priests in Judah in the Persian Period', Bet Miqra 23 (1977), pp. 58-61 (Hebrew); and Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, pp. 193-94 (who emends the text); cf. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, p. 340. Torrey (Ezra Studies, pp. 249, 320), for one, thought he was Darius III (336-31). 3. So Mor, 'The High Priests', pp. 58-61. Cross (e.g. in 'A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration', p. 189) also accepts this inference.

72


Jaddua's tenure within the years 424/3-404; and, since his father Johanan was in office in 410 (AP 30-31), he would have commenced as high priest between 410 and 404. In other words, he would have been high priest for about seventy five years and possibly more. In light of such implausible figures, scholars have for a long time sought to remedy the situation by adding one or more names to the list in order to fill the long stretch of years which Nehemiah 12 combined with Josephus implies. As C.C. Torrey wrote in 1910: 'We can by no means be certain that his [Johanan's] term of office immediately preceded that of Jaddua. One or more other incumbents may have intervened between the two'.1 W.F. Albright also proposed that the list was short and suggested that a second Jaddua should be added. He wrote in support of his conjecture: 'There is no difficulty in assuming that the name was repeated, since this becomes the rule in the third century with the Oniads'.2 The time of Johanan and Jaddua is not the only span which has been perceived as too long; some have also sensed that the gap between Joshua (520 is the last known date of his service) and Eliashib (445 and beyond) is rather much for one high priest (Joiakim) to have filled.3 Cross has advanced beyond these less specific proposals to a detailed and broader thesis in which he posits exactly which names were omitted and why they are absent from the extant texts. He had adumbrated his position in earlier publications,4 but in his essay 'A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration' he elaborated it in full form. 5 According to him two pairs of names were omitted from 1. Torrey, Ezra Studies, pp. 320, 263-64. More recently, both Williamson (Ezra, Nehemiah, p. 363) and Blenkinsopp (Ezra-Nehemiah, p. 338) have suggested that the list is not complete. 2. Albright, The Date and Personality of the Chronicler', pp. 112 n. 18, 122. 3. E.g. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, p. 192, though he recognizes that an unusually long reign would have been possible. 4. See Cross, 'Papyri of the Fourth Century BC from Daliyeh', in D.N. Freedman and J.C. Greenfield (eds.), New Directions in Biblical Archaeology (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), pp. 60-63; and The Papyri and Their Historical Implications', in P.W. Lapp and N.L. Lapp (eds.), Discoveries in the Wddt Eddaliyeh (AASOR, 41; Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1974), pp. 20-22 (he adds another Johanan and Jaddua before the final two names of the list); and 'Aspects of Samaritan and Jewish History in Late Persian and Hellenistic Times', HTR 59 (1966), pp. 202-205. 5. Cross, 'Reconstruction', JBL 94 (1975); Cross, 'Reconstruction', Int 29


73

Nehemiah's list through two haplographies induced by papponymy—a practice that, as he shows, was common in the Persian and Hellenistic periods (p. 190). He repeats his earlier conclusion that haplography had occurred at the end of the high priestly list: the present sequence Johanan-Jaddua is the remnant of an original Johanan-JadduaJohanan-Jaddua series (pp. 188-89) which resulted when a copyist's eye jumped from the first to the second instance of Johanan. Josephus's stories about a Johanan who killed his brother Jeshua (Ant. 11.7.1 [297-301]) and a Jaddua who greeted Alexander the Great (11.7.2-8. 7 [302-47]) concern the last two men in the reconstructed list. That is, the Johanan of Josephus's account is not the Johanan who is mentioned in the Elephantine papyri. The Artaxerxes who is mentioned in the Johanan-Jeshua story is Artaxerxes III who reigned from 358-38, not Artaxerxes II (188-89). Addition of these two names greatly relieves the problem of the long reigns which one would otherwise have to assume for Johanan and Jaddua. Nevertheless, difficulties remain. Cross had calculated that without these two extra names, the current form of the high priestly list requires an average of 34.3 years per generation.1 Inserting their names into the roster yields generations averaging 27.5 years, 'still suspiciously high' (p. 193). He suspects that, as the average length of a generation between Jozadak (Joshua's father who, Cross suggests, was born c. 595) and Johanan (born c. 445) would still be approximately thirty years, 'at least one generation, two high priests' names, have dropped out of the list through a haplography owing to the repetition produced by papponymy' (p. 193). The problem centers about Eliashib. This third post-exilic high priest, who was born c. 545 according to Cross's figures, was still in office when Nehemiah arrived a century later. Moreover, he was spry enough at his advanced age to help construct the city wall (Neh. 3.1, 20). As it is unlikely he was capable of this at the age of 100, something must be amiss in the text. In order to solve this problem, Cross appeals to Ezra 10.6 and Neh. 12.23, both of which refer to a J(eh)ohanan who is identified as (1975). The page references given in the text are to Int 29. 1. He begins with the year 595, which would be a minimal birth date for Jozadak, Joshua's father (p. 193 n. 32), and continues to 320, by which time Jaddua was dead (Ant. 11.8,7 [347]).

74


the son of Eliashib. These same names figure in the list of high priests but as grandfather and grandson. The former text associates this J(eh)ohanan with Ezra. 'The key to the solution, however, is in the juxtaposition of the priests Yohanan son of 'ElyaMb and Yoyada' son of 'ElyaSlb. We must reckon with two high priests named 'ElyaSlb, and given papponymy, two priests named Yohanan. Thus we have the following sequence: (1) 'ElyaSlb I father of (2) Yohanan I contemporary of Ezra, followed by (3) 'ElyaSlb II contemporary of Nehemiah and grandfather of (4) Yohanan IF (pp. 193-94). When Cross's extra priests are added to all the names from the Bible and Josephus (with Jaddua's two successors), the result is a sequence of twelve high priests who average the proper twenty-five years per generation (p. 203; the dates in parentheses are proposed dates of birth; each member of the list is the son of the preceding member except ['Elyasrb I]): 1. 2. 3. [3. [4. 5. 6. 7. 8. [9. [10. 11. 12.

Yosadaq (before 587) Yesua' (570) Yoyaqlm (545), the brother of 'ElyaSTb I (545)] Yohanan I (520)] 'ElyasTb II (495) Yoyada' I (470) Yohanan II (445) = AP 30.18-31.17 Yaddua'II (420)1 Yohanan III (395)] Yaddua'III (370)] Oniasl(345) Sim'onl(320)

Cross's hypothesis of two haplographies in the post-exilic high priestly list has transparent advantages. First, it eliminates the need to posit several extraordinarily long reigns by high priests at two points in the genealogy. Second, it incorporates the otherwise puzzling father-son pair J(eh)ohanan and Eliashib into the high priestly roster without having to have recourse to the much canvassed question whether 'son' 1. Cross labels him Yaddua' II because Yaddua' is a caritative form of Yoyada' (hence no. 6 is Yoyada' I). See p. 189 n. 12, where he also provides the evidence which shows that Onias is a Greek spelling of Honay, which in turn is 'the caritative or diminutive form of Yohanan'. As a result, no. 11 is Onias I who would also be Yohanan IV.


75

in this case can mean 'grandson'.1 In Cross's view they are not the grandfather and grandson of the lists in Nehemiah 12 but are two different high priests who bear the same names as the ones given there. 3. Reactions to Theories of Missing Names Despite its attractiveness, Cross's theory has encountered significant opposition. Geo Widengren mounted a strong challenge to part of it in the course of treating the age-old problem of the historical order in which Ezra and Nehemiah appeared.2 Since he places Nehemiah before Ezra, he could not accept Cross's explanation of Ezra 10.6 which has often been regarded as one of the strongest arguments in favor of reversing the biblical order of Ezra-Nehemiah. Widengren's handling of the Ezra-Nehemiah problem is not relevant here, but he does point to some problematic aspects of Cross's arguments. His first criticism is that it is a weakness to have to resort, in one short list, to two cases of haplography, neither of which has any textual support. Second, the list, even as reconstructed by Cross, does not follow the principle of papponymy: 'Of a supposed list of 12 names (in reality 13 names!), 9 names would be illustrations of papponymy.. .the name of Eliashib disappears from the list with Eliashib II. After him the supposed papponymy has changed character in so far as we do not find a sequence Eliashib + Johanan but Joiada + Johanan' (p. 508). As Widengren notes, Cross identifies as instances of repetition names that are not actually identical; that is, he considers full theophoric names as equivalents of hypocoristic forms (Joiada/Jehoiada would thus be the same as Jaddua; Johanan/Jehohanan and Onias would be another example). Of the names that do in fact occur in the list, 'only Joiada, Johanan, Jaddua, and Onias show a tendency toward papponymy—that is, granted that we accept the hypocoristica as identical with the complete names' (p. 508). As a third objection, Widengren questions the claim that generations averaged approximately twenty-five years; in the dark days of the 1. See the survey in Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, pp. 151-54 (Williamson does not think that 'son' here means 'grandson'); and J.R. Porter, 'Son or Grandson (Ezra X.6)?', JTS 17 (1966), pp. 54-67. 2. G. Widengren, The Persian Period', in J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judaean History (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), pp. 506-509.

76


sixth century perhaps not all priests married and fathered sons by this age. Happily, even Widengren himself recognizes that this argument has little to commend it (pp. 508-509). Finally, he isolates a curious feature in Cross's list: he identifies his hypothetical Eliashib I as the brother, not the son, of his predecessor Joiakim whereas Neh. 12.10 makes him his son. 'If Joiakim was born about 535 BCE, Eliashib could have been born about 500 BCE or some years earlier. That would give him in 445 an age of fifty-five to sixty years. Such an age could not possibly have been an obstacle to his participation in the work on the walls' (p. 509). Widengren has exposed some important flaws in Cross's proposals as they relate to the period from the return to c. 410; his criticisms largely ignore the more problematic time span from c. 410-332 (and beyond) for which Cross can make a more convincing case that names are missing from the high priestly list. A critique that resembles Widengren's has been fashioned by M. Mor.1 With Widengren, Mor rejects Cross's first reconstructed pair (Eliashib I and Yohanan I), but unlike Widengren he also deals with the high priestly chronology of the period from 410-332 and accepts Cross's suggestion that two names must be added here. His is a more detailed study than that of Widengren and deserves careful scrutiny. As he attempts to deal with the high priests and their periods of service in the fifth and fourth centuries, Mor draws attention to Neh. 12.22: 'As for the Levites, in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua, there were recorded the heads of fathers' houses; also the priests until the reign of Darius the Persian'. He thinks that proper identification of this Darius holds the key to determining how far forward in history the high priestly list extended. AP 30 allows him to recognize in Darius the Persian Darius II, in whose fourteenth year (410) Johanan was high priest (47-58). This means that the high priestly lists in Neh. 12.10-11, 22 reach to the time of this king, that is, the end of the fifth century. As a result, Jaddua, the last high priest to be named in this chapter, began his term of office during Darius IFs reign—at some point between 410 and 404 (58). With this limit in mind, he considers the specifics of Cross's case. First, the additional pair of high priests whom Cross names Eliashib I 1. M. Mor, The High Priests in Judah in the Persian Period', Bet Miqra 23 (1977), pp. 57-67.


77

and Johanan I come from Ezra 10.6 (erroneously given as 6.6 in the article); Neh. 12.23 (the 'J[eh]ohanan son of Eliashib' passages). But Mor observes that these texts are problematic in themselves, with many scholars accepting the arrangement of Nehemiah 12 in which Johanan is the grandson, not the son of Eliashib. He also mentions the suggestion of J. Liver and H. Tadmor1 that the author of EzraNehemiah anachronistically gave to 'the chamber of Jehohanan the son of Eliashib' the name which it had in the time when he wrote (59). Mor repeats Widengren's objections that Cross has made his Eliashib I the brother, not the son, of Joiakim, (or at least assigns them to the same generation), and that the list of high priests does not in fact exhibit the principle of papponymy (Joiada's successor should have been named Eliashib, if the principle were operative [59-60]). A more telling criticism is actually an enlargement of Widengren's objection to the 25-year generation thesis. Mor notes that with Cross's proposed birth dates for the high priests, Jaddua would have been born in c. 420. However, if he began to serve as high priest between 410—when Johanan was still in office—and 404—the date of Darius IPs death—then he would have assumed the office at some time when he was between the ages of ten and fifteen years. This would be most unusual for a high priest (60). He makes the point that the generation principle is not particularly helpful in determining how many high priests there were from the return to Jaddua; rather, the salient issue is how long each man held the office (60). There are no data concerning this matter, but the fixed chronological points which are available in the sources can function as guidelines in reconstructing the list. These points are: Joshua returned in 538; Eliashib was high priest in 445 and he was still in office when Nehemiah left in 432 (see Neh. 13.4-5); when Nehemiah returned one year later (which he considers the meaning of 'after some time' in Neh. 13.6) Joiada was high priest (Neh. 13.28); Johanan served in 410; and Jaddua's term began between 410 and 404. He sees no need to add names to the list for the period between Joshua and Johanan and suggests for the priests named in Nehemiah 12 birth dates that differ somewhat from those proposed by Cross (using the 25-year generation principle, starting in effect with Joshua who would have been born in c. 570; Jaddua's 1. J. Liver, 'pnv', EM, III, pp. 590-91; H. Tadmor, 'rrjiburo', EM, IV,.p. 307 n. 2.

78


birthdate would have been c. 445). Thus, Joshua would have been about thirty-three years of age when he returned; Eliashib would have been about seventy-five when Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem and about eighty-eight when Nehemiah departed. Joiada would then have assumed the post at the relatively advanced age of sixty-four; by 410 his son was high priest. Since Johanan was born in approximately 470 (incorrectly printed as 410 on p. 62), he was about sixty years of age when he received the letter from Elephantine. Jaddua then began his term at about thirty-five years—a far more likely figure than Cross's proposed ten to fifteen years of age for him (60-62). Turning to the high priest Jaddua, Mor argues that Josephus's story about him and his brother Manasseh who married Nikaso, Sanballat's daughter, is not, as many claim, a reworked version of the incident in Neh. 13.28. The two are quite separate. But if Jaddua became high priest between 410 and 404 and was still in office in 332 when Alexander the Great visited Jerusalem, then he served an extraordinarily long term. Consequently, as papponymy was widespread at this time, it is very likely that two names have fallen from the list through haplography. The repeating names are Johanan-JadduaJohanan-Jaddua, with the last two being the ones about whom Josephus tells stories in Ant. 11.7.1-8.7 (297-347) (62-67). If the proposal of Cross, supported by Mor, that two names have been omitted toward the end of the high priestly list is correct, then a difficulty in one of Josephus's stories is solved. Josephus says that when Johanan killed his brother Jeshua, a man names Bagoses was an important official. He calls him the aipatriyo^ of the other Artaxerxes. No general of Artaxerxes II is known to have had this name, but Artaxerxes III (358-38) did have such a commander. Thus, if the story is placed in the time of the third Artaxerxes (whom Josephus fused with Artaxerxes II), the name of Bagoses is nicely explained. This, too, would entail, however, that the Johanan of Nehemiah 12 and AP 30 is not the Johanan of Josephus's account. Several of the objections raised by Widengren and Mor should be retained but in modified form. First, one ought not to insert a pair of names in the list for the fifth century. There is no hint of papponymy at this point in the roster (Jeshua, Joiakim, Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan); thus, the alleged trigger for haplography is absent. It is often claimed that a generation lasted twenty-five years in antiquity, but there is rarely much evidence adduced to support the assertion. Moreover, in


79

this case the point is irrelevant. The high priestly office was held for life, and the practice was that the incumbent was succeeded at death by his oldest surviving son—whatever his age might be at that juncture (provided, of course, that it was not too low).1 In other words, the hypothetical dates of birth for each high priest are not helpful in this discussion. According to the lists in Nehemiah 12, combined with the evidence from AP 30, five high priests served from the return to 410. Seven Persian monarchs ruled during the same time—a period that includes only the last years of Cyrus, the brief reign of Cambyses, and the exceedingly short reign of Xerxes II in 424. Despite the repetition of names in the royal line, there is no need to interpolate additional ones, just as there is not in the roster of high priests. Second, Widengren and Mor have pointed out that Cross makes his Eliashib I the brother, not the son, of Joiakim, while Neh. 12.10 presents them as father and son. They have not, however, seen what is entailed by this proposal. Cross himself appears to sense that adding two generations at this point would produce too many extra years. But if papponymy has caused the omission, then two names had to be dropped. So, he adds two names but only one generation and in this way arrives at a 25-year generation for each of the other high priests. Even Cross's numbers, then, make it unlikely that two names have fallen from the list of fifth-century high priests. Third, Cross finds support for his extra pair of high priests— Eliashib I and Johanan I—in Ezra 10.6 and Neh. 12.23 where two priests who are father and son have these names. These men—or at least J(eh)ohanan—were obviously important because a chamber in the temple is named after the son (cf. also 1 Esd. 9.1) and in Neh. 12.23 'the sons of Levi, heads of fathers' houses, were written in the Book of the Chronicles until the days of Johanan the son of Eliashib'. What is more significant than their importance, however, is the fact that neither is ever styled 'high priest'. This occasions no surprise in the Book of Ezra, as no one is there given the title ^•nn iron; it is, however, used in Nehemiah but not of these men. In 1. Josephus records a case in which a high priest named Simon, who ruled in the early Hellenistic period, died and left an infant son Onias. Rather than giving the office to the child, Simon's brother Eleazar served as high priest (Ant. 12.2.5 [4344]). Later, Eleazar was succeeded by his (?) uncle Manasseh before Onias became high priest (12.4.1 [157-58]).

80


addition, both Eliashib and J(eh)ohanan are common names for priests in the age of the restoration.1 Williamson, in commenting on Ezra 10.6, adduces Neh. 13.4 ('Now before this, Eliashib the priest, who was appointed over the chambers of the house of our God'), and writes: 'This definition seems intended to identify Eliashib, and may therefore be presumed to distinguish him from Eliashib the high priest. We would not expect the high priest to function as a caretaker. This Eliashib's association with a 'chamber' in the temple immediately links back to our verse, Ezra 10.6 (the same word, rotf1?, is used), and suggests that reference may be being made to this family, not the high priests'.2 If this father-son pair is not from the high priestly line (and nothing in any text suggests it was), then these passages offer no support for adding names to the high priestly list. The situation is more difficult for the period from 410-332 (and beyond), since there may indeed appear to be too much time for the one or two known high priests to have ministered. But a closer look at the evidence indicates that even for this span of time the situation is not so difficult as it is often represented. The crucial piece of evidence for those who find a major chronological problem here is Neh. 12.22 which has been quoted above. If this passage reported that Jaddua was already high priest during the reign of Darius II (thus no later than 404), then it is almost certain that at least one and perhaps more names have been lost in some way from the list. Nevertheless, it is difficult to see why scholars have derived information of this sort from Neh. 12.22. It does not date the end of the high priestly list to the time of Darius the Persian but only a list of priests. And the problem of what the preposition *?$ before the king's name means remains unsolved. All that Neh. 12.22 relates about the high priests from Eliashib to Jaddua is that during their times the heads of ancestral levitical houses were recorded; Darius the Persian is not brought into connection with the high priests who are named at the beginning of the verse. When Jaddua began his high priestly tenure is never indicated. 1. For the occurrences of Eliashib, see J.M. Ward, 'Eliashib', IDB, II, p. 87 (he lists five men who have the name in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah); and for Johanan, see B.T. Dahlberg, 'Johanan', IDB, II, pp. 929-30 (nine individuals are so named and all except one [in Jeremiah] appear in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah). Eight men are given the related form 'Jehohanan' and all figure in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah (Dahlberg, 'Jehohanan', IDB, II, pp. 810-11). 2. Williamson, E^ra, Nehemiah, pp. 153-54 (cf. p. 365).


81

The only information about the high priests Johanan and Jaddua— apart from their names—comes from extra-biblical sources, especially Josephus's Antiquities. Recently, two kinds of arguments have been fashioned to demonstrate that the existence of another high priest named Johanan is actually attested for the mid-fourth century. Williamson has argued that a careful reading of one of the extrabiblical sources—Josephus's story about Johanan and his brother Jeshua in Ant. 11.7.1 (297-301)—shows that its Johanan and the one in Nehemiah and AP 30 are not the same man and that therefore there was another Johanan who served as high priest in this period. Others have maintained that a small silver coin which dates from c. 350 bears his name. Williamson's case will be treated first, after which the argument from the coin will be examined. Perhaps the most significant contribution that Williamson1 makes is to identify a literary form in Josephus's historiography and to exploit it for elucidating the present passage. The form consists of a section which begins with an introduction by Josephus, at the close of which the result of the action which he is about to describe is specified; then comes a narrative which is a close paraphrase of a source and finally a conclusion. The transition between the introduction and narrative is marked by an expression in which a form of the word amoc is used (p. 50; examples of varied kinds are studied and listed on pp. 51-54). All of these elements are present in paragraphs 297-301. The evidence from the comparative material in Antiquities allows him to conclude that 'Josephus was drawing on an independent source for his narrative in Ant. xi. 298-301' (p. 55). There is no direct proof that the source is historically trustworthy, since apart from Josephus the incident is unattested; but indirect evidence suggests that it is: the names of characters are fitting; the priesthood is shown in an unfavorable light so that it is unlikely to have been invented; the result was sufficiently noteworthy to be committed to writing; and, as it deals with priests, it may have found a place in a temple or priestly chronicle (pp. 55-56). Williamson next marshals arguments against what he takes to be the common position, namely that the incident belongs in the time of Nehemiah's Johanan. The reference in AP 30.1 to B^gohi (an Aramaic form of Bagoses/Bagoas) would seem to clinch* the case for the 1. H.G.M. Williamson, 'The Historical Value of Josephus' Jewish Antiquities XI.297-301', JTS 28 (1977), pp. 49-67.

82


accepted dating because it makes him governor of Yehud in c. 408. Williamson sees the following difficulties with that position. First, though the source itself (in 298-301) does not specify which Artaxerxes was then king, Josephus refers to Bagoses as 6 aTparriyoi; tov aA,A,oi> dpTaêpôi). Since this identification comes from Josephus, the context shows that he is thinking of Artaxerxes II; he is called 'the other Artaxerxes' to distinguish him from Artaxerxes I who was mentioned in the historian's paraphrase of Esther in the preceding paragraphs. Thus it appears that Josephus did not distinguish Artaxerxes II and III (pp. 57-58). Second, Bagoses is given the title 6 aipaTTiyoQ by both Josephus and the source, whereas AP 30.1 calls him the governor of Yehud (-nrr nns). In the LXX, aTpaTT|y6ve0i)ov ir\ 'AcppoSvqi, 'they jointly sacrificed to Aphrodite a sheep covered with a sheepskin'. Robertson Smith, noting that covering a sheep with a sheepskin is like 'gilding gold' (Lectures, p. 474), emends eaice7caau.evov to eaKeTcaojievoi. Thus it is the worshipers who are covered with skins as they sacrifice a sheep (Lectures, p. 474). This emendation is accepted by Burkert, Homo Necans, p. 115. For alternative readings, note the references collected by N. Robertson, "The Ritual Background of the Dying God in Cyprus and Syro-Palestine', HTR 75 (1982), p. 329 n. 51.

96


Zeus Acraeus on Mount Pelion clad in the skins of freshly killed rams. In a second text, Porphyry, some half a millennium later, reports a similar custom: Pythagoras, when purified by the priests of Morgus on Crete, was required to lie beside a body of water with his head wrapped in the fleece of a black lamb. After these preliminary rites, Pythagoras descended to the tomb of Zeus clad in black wool (Vita Pythagorae 17). Both these Greek texts point to the ritual use of sheepskins in various cults of Zeus. Indeed, we know from other Greek sources of a special ritual fleece called the AIOQ Ko>8iov, 'the fleece of Zeus', which was the skin of a ram sacrificed to Zeus Meilichios or the related Zeus Ktesios.1 This Aiot; KwSiov played an important role in Greek cult, even in rituals not specifically associated with Zeus.2 For example, at the Skirophoria, a festival held in the twelfth month of the Attic year dedicated primarily to Demeter and Persephone, but also to Athena and Poseidon, a procession which included the priest of Poseidon and the priestess of Athena went forth from the Acropolis, through the city of Athens, and out of the city's gate, heading down the road to Eleusis as far as Skiron (a distance of some three miles). Those leading this procession away from Athens carried the Aioc; Kcp8iov3 Another use of the Aio5tov see W. Burkert, Greek Religion (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), pp. 65, 230, and Homo Necans, p. 235; A.B. Cook, Zeus. A Study in Ancient Religion, I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), pp. 422-28; S. Eitrem, Opferritus und Voropfer der Griechen und Romer (Kristiania: Jacob Dybwad, 1915), pp. 370-74; E. Gjerstad, 'Das attische Fest der Skira', Archivfiir Religionswissenschaft 27 (1929), pp. 203208; J. Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (London: Merlin, 1961), pp. 23-28; M. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion, I (Munchen: Beck, 3rd edn, 1967), pp. 110-13; H.W. Parke, Festivals of the Athenians (London: Thames & Hudson, 1977), pp. 95-96; J. Pley, De lanae in antiquorum ritibus usu (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, 11.2; Giessen: Topelmann, 1911), pp. 3-24.' 2. Jane Harrison's claim (Prolegomena, pp. 23-27) that the use of the Aioq KwSiov in cults other than those of Zeus negates the thesis that the Aioq Ko>8iov is associated with Zeus is rightfully rejected by most commentators. See especially Cook, Zeus, I, p. 423 n. 2. 3. On the Skirophoria, see A.C. Brumfield, The Attic Festivals of Demeter and their Relation to the Agricultural Year (New York: Arno, 1981), pp. 156-81; L. Deubner, Attische Feste (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1956),

ACKERMAN The Deception of Isaac

97

is noted by Eustathias, in his twelfth-century CE commentary on the Odyssey (ad Odysseam 22.481, pp. 1934-1935). There, Eustathias writes of: The fleece of an animal that has been sacrificed to Zeus Meilichios in purifications at the end of the month of Maimakterion. . .when the castings out of pollution at the triple ways took place.1

As at the Skirophoria, the skin was carried in a procession.2 Eustathias's comments suggest that the purpose of the Aioq KcpSiov was purificatory. Other ancient sources confirm this. Hesychius, s.v. Aiog Kcp8iov, writes of the fleece, 'those who were being purified stood on it with their left foot'.3 Similarly, the Suda, s.v. Aio^ KcpSiov, notes of the skins, 'others use them for purification by strewing them under the feet of those who are polluted'.4 A.B. Cook rightly compares to these data the Roman custom that a man who has unwillingly perpetrated a homicide must stand on a ram.5 Also from Rome come Ovid's descriptions of the rites practiced by members of the Luperci priesthood, who during the Lupercalia, 'purify the whole ground with strips of hide, which are their instruments of cleansing' (Fasti 2.31-32; see also 5.101-102; Plutarch, Romulus 21.5).6 During pp. 40-50; Gjerstad, 'Skira', pp. 189-240; Parke, Festivals, pp. 156-69; E. Simon, Festivals of Attica. An Archaeological Commentary (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983), pp. 22-24. 1. Kco5iov iepeioi) x-oGevToo Aii u.eiXixvcp ev Toiq KaGapuxnc; cpGwovioq Mcu|iaKi;rtpicovoq urjvoc; (he... KaGapuiov eKôâl eiq iaq Tpi65oi)q eytvovTo. The translation is that of Harrison, Prolegomena, p. 26. 2. On the Maimakterion, see Deubner, Attische Feste, pp. 157-58; Parke, Festivals, pp. 95-96; Simon, Festivals, p. 14. 3. oi) oi Ka0oup6|j.evoi earntceaav TO* dpunerccp no5i. The translation is that of Harrison, Prolegomena,p. 23. 4. aXXov tiveq npbc, Touq KaOapuxnx; {moaTopvuvieq av>ia TOI5iov during preliminary purification rites; worshipers of Asclepius can sleep on the skin of a sacrificed animal as they incubate in the god's temple in the hope of receiving a dream. The primary evidence for the use of animal skins in the cult of Asclepius is iconographic and has been collected by A. Petropoulou.5 Two fourth-century marble reliefs from the Asclepieum at Athens and a late fifth-century marble from the Asclepieum in Pireus show incubation scenes in which the KAivri, the couch on which the incubant sleeps, is covered with the skin of an animal. This is particularly clear on the only non-fragmentary exemplar of the three, the relief from 1. First published by von Rohden and Winnefeld, Antiken Terrakotten 4.1, pp. 7-8, 261, pi. 45; for subsequent photographs and discussion, see Cook, Zeus, I, p. 425, fig. 307. For other exemplars, see Lovatelli, 'Un vaso cinerario', pi. 1 (a second panel of the Augustan relief discussed above); also pis. 4-5, nos. 6-7. 2. For discussion see Richardson, Hymn to Demeter, pp. 211-13; also Burkert, Homo Necans, p. 268. 3. Burkert, Greek Religion, p. 268. 4. Burkert, Greek Religion, p. 268. 5. A. Petropoulou, Studies in Greek Cult and Sacrificial Literature (unpublished PhD diss.; University of Colorado, 1984), pp. 140-45, and 'Pausanias 1.34.5: Incubation on a Ram-Skin', in La Beotie antique (Lyon-Saint Etienne, 16-20 mai 1983; Colloques internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1985), pp. 169-75.

102


Pireus.1 In this relief the legs of an animal skin can be seen hanging off the couch at its two ends. The uneven edge of the skin also falls over the side of the icXwri and is, like the legs, quite evident on the relief. A woman sleeps on her left side atop the skin; that this is an incubation is made clear by the epiphany of Asclepius, accompanied by an attendant, probably his daughter Hygieia, on the far right side of the relief. The less fragmentary of the two reliefs from Athens shows a similar scene.2 An old man lies on his back on a K^WT). Petropoulou has convincingly demonstrated that on the KA,WT|, right below the incubant's shoulder, is a leg of an animal skin. She also plausibly suggests that the missing left section of the relief contained the epiphany of Asclepius.3 Even less is preserved of the final Asclepius relief.4 This fragmentary marble shows only the torso and head of a young man. He is shown in a half-sitting pose on a KÎVTI, his head and back supported by pillows. Other bedding on the K^WTJ includes a mattress covered by a sheet. Covering the sheet is an animal skin, of which one leg, or perhaps two, hang down over the K^{VT|. We can presume that the other legs of the skin were shown in the now lost

1. Frequently pictured and discussed; Petropoulou cites U. Hausmann, Kunst und Heiltum. Untersuchungen zu den griechischen Asklepiosreliefs (Potsdam: Eduard Stichnote, 1948), pp. 46-48, pi. 1 (with earlier bibliography on p. 166), and Griechische Weihreliefs (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1960), p. 59, fig. 28; E. Mitropoulou, Attic Votive Reliefs of the 6th and 5th Centuries BC (Athens: Pyli Editions, 1977), pp. 63-64 n. 126 (with some more recent bibliography). Petropoulou's own discussion is on p. 140 of Greek Cult, with a photograph on p. 141 (pi. 7); Petropolou, 'Pausanias 1.34.5', p. 173, with a photograph on p. 172 (pi. 2). See also C. Kerenyi, Asklepios. Archetypal Image of the Physician's Existence (Bollingen Series, 65.3; New York: Pantheon, 1959), pi. 18 (p. 35). 2. Published by J. Ziehen, 'Studien zu den Asklepios-reliefs',Athenische Mitteilungen 17 (1892), pp. 230-31, and fig. 1. For Petropoulou's discussion, see Greek Cult, pp. 140, 143, with a photograph p. 142 (pi. 8); Petropolou, 'Pausanias 1.34.5', pp. 173, with a photograph on p. 174 (pi. 3). 3. Petropoulou, Greek Cult, p. 143, and 'Pausanias 1.34.5', p. 173. 4. Published by Ziehen, 'Asklepios-reliefs', pp. 231-232, and fig. 2. For Petropoulou's discussion, see Greek Cult, pp. 143, 145, with a photograph on p. 144 (pi. 9), and 'Pausanias 1.34.5', pp. 173, 175, with a photograph on p. 174 (pi. 4).


103

portion of the relief and can also suggest that this lost portion contained the epiphany of the god. There is no written evidence contemporary with these three reliefs which describes the use of animal skins in incubation rituals in the cult of Asclepius. But although some seven hundred years later, the comments of the church historian Eusebius are not insignificant. Writing on Isa. 65.4 ('a people. ..who sit in tombs, and spend the night in secret places'), he remarks (In Isaiam Commentaria 28, 65, p. 657a):J Nothing of a sacrilegious nature did the people of Israel refrain from. . .sitting or dwelling in sepulchres and sleeping in the shrines of idols, where they were wont to lie on the outspread skins of sacrificial victims, for the purpose of learning the future through dreams. The heathens in their delusion celebrate this in the shrine of Asclepius up to the present day, and [in the shrines] of many others which are nothing but tombs of dead men.

Among these other shrines to which Eusebius alludes may be the dream oracle of Amphiaraos at Oropos. At Oropos, as at the cult sites of Asclepius, both iconographic and textual evidence point to the use of animal skins during incubation rites. A fragmentary fourth-century marble relief from the Oropon Amphiaraum shows an incubation scene in which the KÎVTI on which the incubant sleeps is covered with an animal skin.2 Pausanias confirms that incubants at Oropos slept on animal skins (1.34.5): 1. Nihilfuit sacrilegii quod Israel populus praetermitteret, non solum in hortis immolans, et super lateres thura succendens, sed sedens quoque vel habitans in sepulcris, et in delubris idolorum dormiens, ubi stratis pellibus hostiarwn incubare soliti erant, ut somniis futura cognoscerent. quod in fano Aesculapii usque hodie error celebrat ethnicorum multorumque aliorum, que non sunt aliud, nisi tumuli mortuorum. The translation is that of E.H. Clift in Asclepius. A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies (2 vols.; ed. E.J. and L. Edelstein; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1945), p. 143 (T. 294). 2. According to Petropoulou (Greek Cult, p. 154, n. 5; 'Pausanias 1.34.5', p. 170 n. 10), first published by Hausmann, Weihreliefs, p. 59, fig. 29. Petropoulou notes that a new fragment has been added by V.C. Petrakos, To Oropos kai to Hieron tou Amphiaraou (Athens: Vivliotheke tes en Athenais Archailogikes Hetaireias, 1968), p. 123 n. 21, and pi. 41 beta. Petropoulou's own discussion can be found in Greek Cult, pp. 138, 140, with a photograph on p. 139 (pi. 6), and 'Pausanias 1.34.5', pp. 170, 173, with a photograph on p. 171 (pi. 1).

104

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel One who has come to consult Amphiaraos is wont to purify himself. The mode of purification is to sacrifice to the god, and they sacrifice not only to him but also to all those whose names are on the altar. And when all these things have been first done, they sacrifice a ram and, spreading the skin under them, go to sleep and await enlightenment in a dream.1

There is yet more Greek evidence. It has been suggested that Homer's description of the Selloi at Dodona, 'who sleep on the ground with feet unwashed' (Iliad 16.233),2 reflects a ritual of incubation, and Eustathius in his commentary on the Iliad remarks that the incubating Selloi slept on animal skins (ad Iliadem 2.233). Modern scholars are divided in their opinions: E.R. Dodds, for example, seems to suspect that incubation was practiced at Dodona (although he does not comment on the skins);3 H.W. Parke demurs.4 A more probable Homeric allusion to incubation on animal skins is found in the Odyssey, books 19 and 20. In book 19 Odysseus, disguised as a beggar, is granted a late-night audience with his wife, Penelope. As their talk grows to a close, Penelope summons her maids to make a bed for the beggar, 'bedstead and coloured rugs and coverlets' (19.318).5 Odysseus objects, preferring instead to sleep on the floor (19.336-348). Book 20 describes the hero's bed (20.1-3):

1. KCU rcpcihov u.ev KaGripaoQcu vouaôuaw ocmq TJ^Qsv "Auxptapdcq) Xpriaou.evo Geqi 0t»eiv, 0x>o\>ai Se mi a\>i& iced Tcaow oaoiq eailv en! TW (3o)(j.w ia 6v6u.caa. rcpoe£etpyaau.evcov 8e TOUTCOV Kpiov GiSaavxeq KCU TO 5epjj.a i)7toaTpcoa(xu.evoi Ka9et>8ouaw dvajxevovteq 8r|X(flaiv 6ve{paTovd£eTO...Kau. (j.ev aSeyrytov (3oer|v OTOpeo', auiap vneGe Kcoea rcoM,' oicov, Touq Ipeveaicov 'Axouoi. The translation is that of Fitzgerald, The Odyssey, p. 375. 2. 8opatTcp uiXava Kpiov 01 |KxvTei>6u.evoi, eYKoiuxbu.evoi ev t(p SepuxxTi. The translation is that of H.L. Jones, The Geography of Strabo, III (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961), p. 131. 4. In denying that incubation took place among the Selloi at Dodona (see above),

106


himself, seeking an answer, duly slaughtered a hundred woolly sheep and lay couched on their hides and outspread fleeces'.1 A similar royal incubation is described in Ovid's Fasti (4.649-676). King Numa sacrifices two ewes, and 'the fleeces of both were spread on the hard ground'. Other acts were also required of Numa before his incubation. He was to be unshorn, and after his head was sprinkled with water, he was to wear a wreath of beech leaves. He was forbidden sexual intercourse, nor was he allowed to eat meat. His clothing for the evening was a rough garment, and he was to wear no rings upon his fingers. When all these conditions were fulfilled, he lay down on the fleeces to sleep. The incubation was a success: 'Faunus was come'; in the king's dream he saw the god set 'his hard hoof on the sheep's fleeces'.2 It may at first appear incongruous that Numa, who sacrifices two ewes prior to his incubation at the oracle of Faunus, was forbidden to eat meat before lying down to sleep. More typical of Greek and Roman sacrificial ritual is that the sacrificer shares in eating the meat obtained from the sacrificed animal. But Greek and Roman evidence makes clear that sacrifices made by worshipers prior to rituals of incubation must be ayeuatoi, 'untasted'. That is, the sacrificer does not eat of the sacrifice.3 Strabo describes the importance of fasting at H.W. Parke argues that classical evidence indicates that it was the inquirer, not a priest, who incubated (Oracles of Zeus, p. 10; Greek Oracles, p. 23). But the testimony of Virgil in this passage indicates, pace Parke, that incubation by priests and priestesses was a viable alternative to incubation by an inquirer; Pausanias (10.33.11), speaking of the oracle of Dionysos at Amphiacleia, and Strabo (Geography 14.1.11), speaking of the dream oracle of Pluto and Core at Nysaeans, also attest to priestly incubation. 1. et caesarum ovium sub nocte silenti pellibus incubuit stratis. .. multa modis simulacravidet. . .varias audit vocesfruiturque deorum conloquio. . .hie et turn paten ipse petens responsa Latinus centum lanigeras mactabat rite bidentis, atque harum effultus tergo stratisque iacebat velleribus. The translation is that of H.R. Fairclough, Virgil, II (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960), p. 9. 2. hie geminas rex Numa mactat oves. . .sternitur in duro vellus utrumque solo. . .Faunus adest, oviumquepremenspede vallera duro. The translation is that of Frazer, Ovid's Fasti, p. 237. 3. In general on the practice of fasting before an incubation, see L. Deubner, De incubatione (Capitula duo; Dissertatio inauguralis quam ad summos in philosophia honores ab amplissimo philosophorum Gissensium ordine; Giessen, 1899), pp. 14-


107

the dream oracle of healing dedicated to Pluto and Core at Nysaeans. There, the priests, 'bring the sick into the cave and leave them there. ..without food for many days' (Geography 14.1.44).l More noteworthy perhaps for this study is Flavius Philostratus's notice that fasting was required at the oracle of Amphiaraos: 'The priests take a man who wishes to consult him [the god], and they prevent his eating for one day and his drinking wine for three' (Life of Apollonius 2.37).2 Yet according to the testimony of Pausanias noted above (1.34.5), incubants at the Amphiaraum were required to sacrifice a ram before lying down to sleep on that animal's skin. Philostratus's testimony demonstrates that this sacrifice must have been untasted. It is the Greek and Roman ritual of untasted sacrifice followed by incubation wrapped in the skin of the sacrificed animal which is, I would suggest, significant for our understanding of Genesis 27. It seems to me hardly coincidental that the narrative which immediately follows the story of Jacob's use of skins worn in conjunction with untasted sacrifice in Genesis 27 is the story of Jacob's incubation dream at Bethel in Genesis 28.31 submit, therefore, that it is the ritual 17; Dodds, Greeks and the Irrational, p. 110; E.L. Ehrlich, Der Traum im Alien Testament (BZAW, 73; Berlin: Topelmann, 1953), p. 15 n. 1; Petropoulou, Greek Cult, p. 72 n. 99, and references there. On fasting at the oracle of Amphiaraos, see P.R. Arbesmann, Die Fasten bei den Griechen undRomern (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, 21.1; Giessen: Topelmann, 1929), pp. 101-102; on fasting at the oracle of Trophonius and on this oracle as a site of incubation, see Deubner, De incubatione, p. 17; M. Hamilton, Incubation, or the Cure of Disease in Pagan Temples and Christian Churches (St Andrews: W.C. Henderson & Son, 1906), p. 90. Also note Inscriptions Graecae, IV (ed. F. Hiller v. Gaertringen; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2nd edn, 1929), no. 97.2, and Pausanias, 2.11.7, both of which attest to holocaust offerings (which are by definition untasted sacrifices) at Asclepeia. But cf. Edelstein and Edelstein (eds.), Asclepius, II, p. 149 n. 15, who insist that abstinence from wine was not required before incubations of Asclepius. 1. ctyoDov 8e noXXaKiq eioi)av uivovtaq Ka9' f|aoxvav eicei, KctGdjcep ev <po)A.ew omcov xcoplq enl nXeiovq fiu.epa') by (fre)him; one would not swear by (be) Ashima or Asherah and say 'By the life of your god, O Dan' unless this god of Dan were Ashima or Asherah. For these reasons, the emendations 'a$ima' and 'aserd are unappealing. The oaths in Amos 8.14 are critical of pilgrimage, presumably without covenant behavior. In the introduction to a serious oath, one expects Yahweh in place of ' asmd: *hannisbd'im ba-Yhwh sdmerdn.. .Yahweh someron is a title now known from Kuntillet Ajrud.1 Is the use of 'asmd here a literary device meant to disturb the hearer/reader who expects the divine name or a familiar epithet in its place? No one swears by a transgression, and here the crux remains. Even if this is a dysphemism, it is anomalous and not easily understood. Elsewhere in Amos, these pilgrimages are equated with transgression (ps'\ because of a lack of covenant behavior. Yahweh's name, though suggested by the two oaths, is nowhere present in the passage, and this is probably the main point. Pilgrims may seek Yahweh from Dan to Beersheba but they will not find him.

1. In a number of blessings, Yahweh $dmeron occurs, as well as Yahweh hatteman. See further Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, pp. 25-28, 32-33.

THE SPECTRUM OF PRIESTLY IMPURITY* David P. Wright But the firm apprehension of conceptions is clearly useless unless we discriminate and distinguish them so that we can choose what we should choose and avoid the contrary, and this distinguishing is symbolized by the parted hoof. For the way of life is twofold, one branch leading to vice, the other to virtue and we must turn away from the one and never forsake the other. Therefore all creatures whose hooves are uniform or multiform are unclean, the one because they signify the idea that good and bad have one and the same nature,. . .the multiform because they set before our life many roads, which are rather no roads, to cheat us, for where there is a multitude to choose from it is not easy to find the best and most serviceable path, (Philo, Spec. Leg., 4.108-09).1 There was, certainly, in the minds of the prophets and Psalmists nothing to connect the character of sin with that of levitical impurity, except that the inward effect of the moral and religious contamination of the heart was illustrated by the outward defilement of the body, and the estrangement from God and His will by the physical separation from His Sanctuary, the terms defile, unclean, polluted, uncleanness and filth being applied figuratively to grave transgressions.2

Searching for a rationale of the priestly impurity laws in the Bible is a never-ending project because, as in any hermeneutical enterprise, new generations with new perceptions of the world (including theoretical perceptions) require new explanations and because there are so many * This paper was given its final form while on a Fulbright Scholar Award from the United States-Israel Educational Foundation in Jerusalem, 1989-90. I was helped in particular by comments and objections from J. Milgrom, I. Knohl, and D. Patrick, whom I thank. 1. F.H.Colson (trans.), Philo, VIII (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968). 2. A. Biichler, Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the First Century (New York: Ktav, 1967 [1928]), p. 237.

WRIGHT The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity

151

different ways to ask the question 'Why?'1 This paper continues the search for rationales behind these laws by sorting out and classifying the different kinds of impurity in the priestly legislation as it appears whole before us in the Pentateuch.2 It proposes and describes, in the first half, two main categories of impurities: tolerated and prohibited. The former are those usually called 'ritual' impurities and are the focus of the priestly (specifically P's) treatment of impurity. The latter are impurities arising from sinful situations.3 The paper argues 1. One can consider, for example, synchronic or diachronic issues; latent versus manifest meaning; and sociological, anthropological, political, psychological and theological approaches and models. In seeking an explanation for the impurity laws we should not be looking for the rationale, but the many rationales that exist complementarily. 2. When referring to this entire body of legislation I will use the full adjective 'priestly' (lower case). I will use the sigla P and H when referring to the specific 'Priestly' (upper case) and 'Holiness' subtraditions or sources in the larger priestly legislation. I agree with the recent work of I. Knohl ("HaShabat vehamo 'adot beToratKehuna uvekhuqe 'Askolat haQedusha', Shenaton 7-8 [1983-84], pp. 109-46; cf. his doctoral work, 'Tefisat ha'elohut vehapulkhan beTorat Kehuna uve'Askolat haQedusha [PhD diss.; Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1988]) and Jacob Milgrom (Leviticus, I [AB, 3; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, forthcoming]) that the H material is later than that of P (see the excurses, 'An Exception', below), that it is much broader than simply the so-called 'Holiness Code' in Lev. 17-26, and that it has its own concerns which are not always concordant with P. The spectrum of impurity drawn by this article is inherent in P (e.g., in Lev. 4-5; 11-16.28; Num. 19 [excluding Lev. 11.43-45; 12.8; 14.34-57; 15.31; 16.2bB; Num. 19.2a, 10b-13, 20-21a, all presumably, though not indisputably, H additions]). H's concerns about impurity go in slightly different directions than P's, but do not deny the analysis of impurity offered here; in fact, H makes aspects of this spectrum more explicit. Though, as Knohl in particular stresses, we must think of H as a tradition rather distinct from P, we cannot forget that H does ultimately base itself on P and assumes many of its concepts. This article explores some of the common denominators in P's and H's conceptions of impurity. 3. Some have called the first type 'ritual', 'cultic', or 'levitical' impurities and the second type 'moral' or 'religious' impurities (cf. Biichler, Studies, pp. 212-69), though some have shown hesitation, particularly in speaking of biblical law, in using the distinction of moral versus ritual since the Hebrew Bible does not clearly make this distinction (cf. B.S. Childs, The Book of Exodus [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974], pp. 396, 477; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus [Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967 {1951}], p. 238). These distinctions may still be helpful in sorting out and looking at evidence when used with caution (see the use of the terminology in fig. 1), but the problems must not be overlooked.

152


that the two types are systematically interconnected and illustrates this by formulating a spectrum of graded impurity, ranging from least to most severe. Realizing that the two kinds of impurity are parts of a whole system becomes important for understanding the individual function and character of the different types of impurities. The second half of the paper discusses how the two types relate to one another and shows, in particular, how the tolerated impurities may serve as a means of supporting the larger moral order of society. In regard to this last point, it should be kept in mind that a lack of evidence makes explanation difficult. I have therefore used anthropological and sociological models to 'see behind' the priestly evidence. We should observe, moreover, that the priestly system of impurity and its larger system (or systems) of religion are prescriptive rather than descriptive, which means there may be a certain amount of idealization in the laws. Furthermore, priestly legislation as it stands may not describe a system of religion that was actually practiced, in and of itself, in history. It is perhaps to be considered a 'potential' system much like that of Ezekiel 40-48. Tolerated Impurities This discussion about the spectrum of impurity in the priestly writings has been summarized graphically in fig. 1. Reference to this chart will aid in following this discussion and will display the graded affinity of the various sorts of impurity in the priestly legislation. All the impurities in the priestly writings can be sorted into two main classes: tolerated and prohibited. Of the two, tolerated impurities are treated in the most detail and mainly in Leviticus 11-16 and Numbers 19. It should be noted at the outset that a small number of impurities A careful examination of all impure situations in the priestly rules shows that even the 'moral' impurities are 'cultic' or 'ritual' in part. As we will see in this study, a sort of pollution still arises from these conditions, which requires sacrificial rectification. The term 'levitical' essentially means 'priestly' and hence confuses matters since 'moral' impurity is also a concern of priestly legislation. In other words, the priestly moral impurity can be called 'levitical'. As for the term 'religious', it implies that the so-called ritual impurities are not connected with religion, but are, perhaps, to be described as 'magic' or by some other polemically unuseful term (cf. S.D. Ricks, 'The Magician as Outsider: The Evidence of the Hebrew Bible', in P. Flesher [ed.], New Perspectives on Ancient Judaism, V [Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990] pp. 125-34).

tolerated*

prohibited

(no distinction between unintentional and intentional)

unintentional

intentional

no sacrifices

individual ad hoc sacrifice

individual, sometimes communal, ad hoc sacrifice

Day of Atonement sacrifices

pollution of person

pollution of sanctuary [outer altar] and person

pollution of sanctuary [outer altar or shrine]; 'ritual' personal pollution if deriving from tolerated impurity

pollution of sanctuary [adytum, shrine, outer altar], sometimes land; 'moral' pollution of persons'; 'ritual' personal pollution if from tolerated impurity

potential removal from life; restriction from sanctuary and sacred, and sometimes from habitation [if communicable to profane] if the sin derives from a tolerated purity

removal from life: karet or capital penalty; in some cases exile; restriction from sanctuary and sacred, and sometimes habitation if sin derives from a permitted impurity [until the penalty takes effect]

non communicable to profane; hence, restriction only from sanctuary and sacred

communicable to profane; hence, restriction from the sanctuary and other sacred matters and restriction from or within the [profane] habitation

*Exception: prohibitions regarding consuming some impure meats and touching the carcass of a camel, hyrax, rabbit, or pig are included in this category. Figure 1: The Spectrum of Impurities

154


considered in this class are not actually permitted: eating or touching some, but not all (see below), impure animal carcasses is prohibited. These prohibitions are included in the tolerated class because, except for their prohibited character, they are similar to the other, actually tolerated impurities, and with them stand in contrast to the class of prohibited impurity proper. A short excursus ('An Exception') following the discussion of tolerated and prohibited impurities in the first part of this paper will give detailed reasoning for their inclusion in this category. In view of this exception the denomination of this class as 'tolerated' must be understood in a qualified sense. Tolerated impurities may be sorted out into four classes:1 1.

Death related impurities: the human corpse (Lev. 10.4-5; 21.1-4, 10-12; 22.4-7; Num. 5.2-3; 6.6-12; 9.6-14; 19.1-22; 31.13-24) and animal carcasses (Lev. 5.2; 7.21; 11.1-47; 14.4; 17.15-16; 20.25-27; 22.8; 27.11, 27; Num. 18.15). 2. Sexual impurities: semen (Lev. 15.16-18), menstrual blood (Lev. 15.19-24; 18.19; 20.18), a lochial discharge after birth (Lev. 12.1-8), an abnormal genital discharge in a male (Lev. 15.2-15; 22.4-6; Num. 5.2-3), and an irregular blood flow in a female (Lev. 15.25-30). 3. Disease related impurities: not only the irregular genital flows just listed, but also sara'at, so-called 'leprosy',2 which appears in various forms or degrees: diagnosed or suspected sara'at, in persons (Lev. 13.1-14.32; 22.4; Num. 5.2-3) or in cloth or leather and houses (Lev. 13.47-59; 14.33-53). 4. Cultic impurities: hafta't sacrifice carcasses and blood (Lev. 4.1-5.13; 6.20-23; 10.16-20; 16.11-20, 27-28; etc.), the scapegoat (Lev. 16.8-10, 21-22, 26), the Red Cow, its ashes, and the water of purgation made from the ashes (Num. 19.7, 8, 10, 18, 21), and possibly the birds and blood used in purification of sara'at impurity (Lev. 14.2-7, 49-53). 1. For details about these impurities see my book, The Disposal of Impurity Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS, 101; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987); 'Clean/Unclean, OT and 'Holiness, OT in the forthcoming Anchor Bible Dictionary; and my articles in collaboration with R.N. Jones, 'Discharge' and 'Leprosy' also in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. 2. For a discussion of the history and identification of the disease, see Jones and Wright, 'Leprosy', ABD.


155

The impurities just enumerated are 'fathers of impurity' (to use the rabbinic term; m, Kel. 1.1-4; Toh. 1.5). That is, they can generate other impurity in persons and objects. Those suffering the foregoing diseases or sexual impurities become impure. Furthermore, the foregoing 'fathers' and most of those who suffer the sexual or disease related impurities can pollute other profane (i.e. common, ordinary, non-holy) objects and persons. This communicable impurity can go on in some cases for another—even two more1—generations. In addition to the fathers listed above, the following impurities are communicable: a corpse-contaminated person or object; a person suffering a menstrual, lochial, or abnormal sexual discharge; a person who has had intercourse with one of these sexually impure persons; an object on which any of these sexually impure people (including one who has had intercourse with the severely sexually impure) have sat or lain; a person or object suspected or diagnosed as having $ara'at; and a person in her/his seven day period of purification from $ara'at. Figured together, all these communicable impurities can produce quite a large number of impure conditions.2 Gradations of severity exist among the tolerated impurities.3 Two main subdivisions appear. The first is along the lines of the presence or lack of sacrificial requirements and corresponding loci of pollution. Three of the tolerated impurities—a lochial discharge, an abnormal sexual discharge, and diagnosed $ara'at in humans—are so potent that they, according to what we learn from a study of the system of hatta't sacrifices,4 not only bring defilement upon the person 1. For example, a person may become impure by touching a bed or chair upon which a man sat who had had intercourse with a menstruant. For the deduction of this chain, see my book, Disposal, pp. 189-92. 2. For detailed description and argumentation, see my book Disposal, pp. 179228. 3. One might make finer distinctions of gradations for these impurities based on the method of purification (types of ablutions and types of sacrifices brought), the length of impurity (e.g. one day, seven days, more than seven days), the manner a given impurity pollutes the profane (by direct contact or being in the same enclosure), and places to which communicable impurities are restricted. This detailed examination goes beyond the goals of this paper. 4. For a discussion of the logic and system of hatta't sacrifices as it applies to these cases and the other cases of the hatta't discussed below, including its use on the Day of Atonement, see J. Milgrom, Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology (SJLA, 36; Leiden: Brill, 1984), pp. 67-95. Works since have questioned this

156


suffering the impurity but also, indirectly and aerially from afar, upon the sanctuary, specifically upon the outer altar. While various ablutions remove the personal impurity, a hafta't sacrifice purifies the altar.1 This offering is brought as soon as the impure condition has been remedied or passed (hence the notation 'ad hoc' in fig. 1). The other tolerated impurities do not pollute the sanctuary and hence require no sacrifices. They simply require various ablutions to remove personal impurity. The other main subdivision of tolerated impurities is according to their ability to contaminate other profane persons and objects. This subdivision does not correspond to the foregoing subdivision based on sacrifice: fewer impurities require sacrifice than are communicable2 (however, those that require sacrifice are communicable). The communicability of impurity determines how these impurities are treated with respect to the Israelites' place of habitation, a profane area, that surrounds the sanctuary at its center. All impurity is restricted from what is sacred (the sanctuary and sacred materials that may be in the habitation, e.g. portions of lesser holy sacrifices taken understanding of the hatta't , e.g., A. Marx, 'Sacrifice pour les peches ou rite de passage? quelques reflexions sur la fonction du hatta't', RB 96 (1989), pp. 27-48; N. Zohar, 'Repentance and Purification: The Significance and Semantics of ht't in the Pentateuch', JBL 107 (1988), pp. 609-18; cf. also J. Gammie, Holiness in Israel (Overtures to Biblical Theology; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), pp. 3741. Marx's proposal is interesting and can produce valuable insights into understanding sacrifice but it, wrongly in my view, separates the different contexts of hatta't sacrifices too much from one another (especially the cases in Lev. 4 from those in ch. 16). For the kernel of a refutation of Zohar's proposal, see my 'The Gesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and Hittite Literature', JAOS 106 (1986), pp. 433-46. 1. Other, supplemental sacrifices are also brought in these three cases: a male lamb or a bird for an 'old in addition to the hatta't bird in the case of a lochial discharge (Lev. 12.6-8); a bird for an 'old in addition to the hatta't bird in the case of abnormal sexual discharges (15.14-15, 29-30); a male lamb or bird for an 'old , a male lamb for an 'd$am, and a cereal offering in addition to a female lamb or bird for a hatta't in the case of sara'at (14.10-20,21-32). The requirement of a hatta't is the focus of our attention since it is the main expiatory sacrifice. Ezekiel is more strict than priestly legislation in requiring a corpse-contaminated priest to bring a hatta't (44.27). 2. Offerings are never brought for communicably impure objects; and a corpsecontaminated person, a person suspected of sara 'at, and presumably a person who has had intercourse with the sexually impure persons—all communicably impure— do not offer sacrifices.


157

home by the offerers from the sanctuary), but only communicable impurity is restricted from the profane sphere in the habitation. Some laws require the exclusion of this impurity from the area of the habitation, while others seem to allow some communicable impurities to remain within the habitation though under restrictions. The rationale behind this seems to be that were communicable impurity given free rein in the habitation, which is generally pure, other impurities would be generated from the communicable impurity and would threaten the sacred, either the sanctuary or the sacred things that happened to be present in the habitation.1 With the survey of the range of tolerated impurities now complete, it seems odd that these conditions would be allowed. There is more than a slight sense of oxymoron present in the notion of 'permitted impurity'. Impurity is a negative quality, a threat to what is holy, and some of these conditions were surely considered quite abominable and feculent. How can they be licensed? That they are tolerated is not due to any positive character of the conditions themselves, but to necessity. Many of the impurities are inescapable conditions, because of nature or because of the context of Israelite and priestly religion. A law that prohibited menstruation, the contraction of disease—or death!— would make no sense. Moreover, priestly religion which commands being fruitful, multiplying, and filling the earth (e.g. Gen. 1.28) could not consistently prohibit seminal emissions and childbirth. The context of Israelite society and living, too, would require others to come into contact with these impurities to aid those who suffer defilement and to clean up foulness and put it in its proper place (cf. Lev. 10.1-7, esp. vv. 4-5). For these reasons these impurities cannot be prohibited. But this is not all. The priestly rules even go as far as to demand the generation of impurity in some cases—the cultic impurities described above—to eliminate other impurity. Thus, despite the negative character of these impurities, they must be allowed. What further provokes conviction that these impurities are generally allowed is that only a few conditions connected with tolerated impurities are prohibited. Priests and Nazirites are forbidden to become polluted by certain corpses (Lev. 21.2-4, 10-11; Num. 6.6-8; this is due to the holy character of these persons), and 1. See my book, Disposal,pp. 163-247 for the details of these issues.

158


Israelites are prohibited from touching carcasses of the camel, hyrax, hare, and pig and from eating the carcasses of impure animals (Lev. 11.8 and throughout that chapter).1 But observe that these are limited prohibitions: while a high priest and Nazirite are prohibited from any corpse contamination and the regular priests from most corpse contamination, the latter priests may become impure by corpses of their immediate family members. Israelites, too, may touch the carcasses of other animals that cause impurity by contact and eat the carcasses—called impure—of pure animals which have died of natural causes or have been killed by beasts of prey (a priest is prohibited from eating these particular carcasses; see Lev. 11.39-40 and passim; 17.15-16; 22.8; cf. Ezek. 44.31).2 Hence we see that priestly law does not hesitate to make prohibitions in some instances, but the prohibitions are limited. The other impure situations I have been discussing, by implication, are allowed. It should be said here that although these impurities are allowed, they are not necessarily encouraged. The tenor of priestly legislation indicates that these impurities are to be generated as infrequently as possible. Thus I use the term 'tolerated' rather than a more neutral term such as 'permitted'3 to indicate this reservation. Impurity receives its dynamic definition in relation to the sacred: impurity is a threat to the holy and contacts between these two spheres bring grave punishments and effects. The priestly writers would naturally frown on any unnecessary multiplication of impurity which might increase the chance of the meeting of these two spheres. But it must be recognized that this implied discouragement is not equivalent to a prohibition. Prohibited Impurity The other type of impurity (on the right side of the scale in fig. 1) is prohibited impurity. The priestly writings give it less attention and treat it in a less systematic fashion than tolerated purity, though 1. Another prohibition is not to have intercourse with a menstruant (15.24). Since karet 'cutting-off (see p. 161 n. 1) is the penalty for this, it is not included in the tolerated impurities (Lev. 18.19 and its context; 20.18). 2. Again, see below the excursus on the exception of the dietary laws among the tolerated impurities. 3. I used the term 'permitted' in my article Two Types of Impurity in the Priestly Writings of the Bible', Koroth 9 (special issue, 1988), pp. 180-93.


159

Leviticus 4 and 16 about the hatta't sacrifice do provide a large window through which important features of the system may be viewed. Prohibited impurity arises out of the mismanagement of tolerated impurities or out of other moral and religious offenses. The class can be divided into two subcategories depending on the presence or lack of intention involved in the illicit act or situation. The issues of sacrifice, personal and sanctuary pollution, and social restriction— issues we encountered in examining tolerated impurities—are also active in the cases of prohibited impurity. They will help us perceive the difference in strength between prohibited impurities and will reveal the essential connection of prohibited impurity to tolerated impurity. The following examination of the clearest examples of prohibitied impurity will show how these issues operate.1 Unintentional Prohibited Impurities (1) Those who become defiled by impure objects, impure animal carcasses, or by human impurities (apparently including a corpse), and realize their impurity only after the period for purification has passed, need to bring a hattat sacrifice (Lev. 5.2-3; cf. vv. 1-13; see p. 165 n. 2). The warnings in Num. 19.13, 20 not to put off purification from corpse contamination and the warning in Lev. 17.16 about 'bearing (the consequence of) one's transgression' if one does not purify from carrion contamination (v. 16; Lev. 11.39-40), indicate further that delay from purification is prohibited. The types of impurities explicit or implicit in Lev. 5.2-3 are tolerated impurities which normally do not demand sacrifice. Inadvertently delaying purification from these is forbidden and increases the severity of the impurity's effect: it now affects not only the person, but the sanctuary as well and sacrifice is needed. (2) A Nazirite is prohibited from becoming corpse-contaminated (Num. 6.6-7). Should this occur accidentally (bepeta' pit'om, v. 9; literally 'suddenly'), the person must bring a hattat, an 'old, and an 'asam (vv. 10-12).2 Rules 1. The laws of homicide speak of pollution (Num. 35.33-35), but I have left this out of consideration for reasons listed in my article Two Types', pp. 187-88. Milgrom distinguishes between homicide, a case to be adjudicated by courts, and purely religious or ethical commandments not subject to court judgment which are the subject of the inadvertent sin and hatta't pericope in Lev. 4 (Leviticus, I, on Lev. 4.2 the term 'commandments'). 2. On the reason for the Nazirite's 'aSam, see J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience

160


of bodily purification from corpse contamination in Numbers 19 presumably also apply.1 (3) General inadvertent sins pollute the sanctuary and require a hattat sacrifice (Lev. 4.1-5; Num. 15.22-29; see p. 155 n. 4). The pollution occurs at two loci: if the sinner is an individual or a community leader, the outer altar is polluted. If the sinner is the high priest or the congregation, the shrine (the room of the tent structure with the incense altar) is polluted. In these cases, offenders do not contract bodily impurity and hence no personal ablutions are necessary. To be included here is impurity arising from certain deliberate sins of which a person has repented. J. Milgrom has argued that repentance converts these particular intentional sins to the equivalent of inadvertent ones.2 In some of these cases, a hattat is required after repentance, in other cases, an 'dsam (Lev. 5.1, 5-13; Num. 5.6-8).3

(SJLA, 18; Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 66-70. The reason for the 'old sems to be that it complements the hatta't since both are birds. When a hatta't is reduced from a quadruped to a bird, two birds are required, one for a hatta't and one for an 'old (Lev. 5.7-10). 'Since the meat of the purification offering belongs to the officiating priest. .. there is very little that remains for God (i.e., the altar). Hence, a burnt offering is added so there is a respectable sacrifice on the altar' (Milgrom, Leviticus, I, on Lev. 5.7). 1. Priests and high priests when inadvertently polluted by corpses from wich they are restricted (Lev. 21.1-4, 10-11; cf. 10.1-7) may have been required to bring a hatta't sacrifice, but priestly regulation is silent on the matter. Recall that Ezekiel requires a corpse-contaminated priest to bring a hatta't (44.25-27). How the feature of intention figures here, however, is not clear. 2. Milgrom, Cult, pp. 108-21. 3. It is not clear if these passages in Leviticus and Numbers imply that repentance and sacrificial reparation is available for all intentional sins or just those listed. Milgrom has recently indicated to me that only those listed are involved: 'Num. 15.30-31 implies that there is no remedy for the perpetration of yadramd [deliberate, 'high handed' sin]. Lev. 5.20-26 (Num. 5.6-8) seems to be limited only to repented crimes against man. One would expect confession to be mandated for sins against God' if repentance were possible for such (letter to author, 1989). One can further note that stories such as those in Lev. 10.1-3; 24.10-23 and Num. 15.32-36 read as if repentance for deliberate affronts against God was not possible in the priestly conception. Cf. B. Levine's similar judgment in his Leviticus (The IPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia; Jewish Publication Society, 1989), pp. 3, 18, 26, 27, 203 n. 9.


161

Intentional Prohibited Impurities (1) While Lev. 5.2-3 prescribed rules for the inadvertent delay of purification, Num. 19 warns those who would willfully (as the context indicates) delay purifying from corpse pollution. Premeditated delay of purification pollutes the sanctuary and brings the penalty of karet 'cutting-off, i.e. early death of the wrong-doer or extinction of his progeny (vv. 13, 20).* Since corpse contamination does not normally pollute the sanctuary, one might think the sanctuary pollution here is on a par with the sanctuary pollution that is caused by inadvertently delayed non-sacrificial impurities according to the implications of Lev. 5.2-3—that is, that the outer altar of the sanctuary is what is polluted. But the rhetoric of Num. 19.13, 20 is much stronger than that in Lev. 5.2-3 and hints that a greater pollution occurs. As will become clear when I look at general intentional sins, it is the adytum (the most holy place) that is being polluted, and not just the outer altar.2 Since this is a purposed sin, a personal offering is not offered to rectify the sanctuary's impurity. The sanctuary impurity is remedied by the community's hatta't sacrifice in the Day of Atonement ceremony (cf. Leviticus 16). Since corpse contamination is a bodily impurity, any restrictions on contact with the sacred and profane would need to be observed—to the extent that society can impose them on a rebel. The same concerns about delaying purification are implicit in Lev. 17.15-16. These verses say that one is to purify after carrion contamination. If one does not—and the implication here is that these verses have to do with intentional delay of purification—the person 'bears (the consequence of) his

1. karet is the penalty imposed by deity for offenses against deity. D.J. Wold, 'The Meaning of the Biblical Penalty Kareth1 (Phd diss.; University of California, Berkeley, 1978); 'The Kareth Penalty in P: Rationale and Cases', Society of Biblical Literature 1979 Seminar Papers, I (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press), pp. 1-45. Other recent discussions with similar judgments include Baruch Schwartz, Shelosha peraqim miSefer haQedusha: mekhqar sifruti 'al Vayiqra' 17-19 (PhD diss.; Hebrew University, 1987), pp. 28-29 (with Engl. summary p. iv); Levine, Leviticus, pp. 241-42. Milgrom (Leviticus, I, on Lev. 7.20 and comment D to Lev. 7) adds that the karet penalty may also mean that the offender 'will be denied life in the hereafter'. 2. The outer altar presumably still suffers pollution following the dynamics of impurity indicated by Lev. 5.2-3.

162


transgression', apparently referring to the karet penalty.1 (2) Sacrifice to 'Molech'2 defiles the sanctuary (Lev. 20.2-5). The offender is to be stoned and God imposes the karet penalty, meaning his family suffers extinction.3 Rectification of the impurity on the sanctuary would again presumably be through the Day of Atonement sacrifices. No bodily pollution derives from the act of sacrifice itself, so restrictions for such would not apply. (There may be corpse pollution, but that is not due to the moral offensiveness of the affair). (3) Purposefully polluting sacred items, such as touching or eating sacrifices while impure, brings the penalty of karet (Lev. 7.19-21; 22.3-7; cf. Num. 18.11, 13; Lev. 12.4). Nothing is said about pollution of the sanctuary, though it would be implied by the rules concerning the Day of Atonement ritual (see below). (4) Sexual sins (Lev. 18.6-23; cf. 20.18) pollute the land and the persons involved. Offenders suffer exile from the land (18.25, 28) and karet (v. 29; 20.18). From the case of general sins, one can argue that the sanctuary is polluted too and would be purified by offerings on the Day of Atonement. The denomination of the people as impure in these verses is a moral reproach rather than a technical description of their ritual condition (hence the qualified use of 'moral' and 'ritual' in fig. 1); there is no thought that ablutions could rectify this impurity as in the case of tolerated impurities. The foregoing verses belong to H. P also uses 'impure' as a moral description of adultery in Num. 5.13, 14, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29. Here the punishment for a suspected adulteress is, apparently, a distended uterus making the woman incapable of having chldren, a punishment that echoes notions of barrenness which are involved in karet punishments (cf. Lev. 20.20, 21 ).4 As we see here, 1. See Baruch Schwartz's essay in this volume on the karet penalty in Lev. 17. 2. On 'Molech', see recently, S. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult ofYahweh in Israel (SBLMS, 34; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp. 11-13; Levine, Leviticus, pp. 258-60. 3. Milgrom (private communication). This turns out to be a punishment measurefor-measure: the offender put his child to death, so God will put all his posterity to death. For another way of looking at this dual penalty with the 'Molech' worshiper, see J. Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology, I (University of California Publications, Near Eastern Studies; Berkeley: University of Californa Press, 1970), p. 58. 4. Most recently, see J. Milgrom, Numbers (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), pp. 37-43, 302-04, 348-54, esp.


163

both P and H use 'impure' as a moral metaphor with reference to sexual sins, but H uses it for many sexual sins, not just adultery, and also uses it of necromancy in Lev. 19.31. This may indicate that H has enlarged on the metaphoric use of the terminology and that the school might have been willing to designate all breaches of morality as fame'. 1 Restrictions pertaining to bodily impurity arising from sexual relationships would need to be enforced in these cases. (5) A few of the above cases suggest that general willful sins are a source of pollution. This is brought out clearly by the prescriptions of the Day of Atonement ceremony. Blood from hafta't sacrifices is brought into the adytum. Leviticus 16.16 says that this purifies the room mittum'ot bene yisrd'el umippis"ehem 'from the impurities of the Israelites and their rebellious deeds'. This shows that the impurity generated by deliberate misdeeds has penetrated to the innermost part of the sanctuary. The penalty for willful offenders is karet (Num. 15.30-31). Regulations regarding bodily impurity in this case do not apply unless the sin has to do with bodily impurities. The general features of unintentional prohibitied impurities are, then, the pollution of the sanctuary (outer altar or shrine) and the consequent requirement of sacrifices (always a hatta't except in the case of some sins that have been repented of which require an 'asam). Since a sin has been committed, there is the potential for divine punishment (karet). But inadvertency—which implies a repentant spirit—defers such a penalty, and allows reparation. When inadvertent sins involve bodily pollution arising from tolerated impurities, corresponding purification and restriction requirements are to be followed. With intentional prohibitied impurities pollution increases and the evil-doer's life is forfeit. Not just the outer altar or the shrine is polluted, but the heart of the sanctuary as well, the most sacred room. Purification comes through the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement. The seriousness of the sin means that the person's very being, not just his or her body, is polluted, according to the metaphorization of H. The reprobate is liable to the divinely imposed penalty of karet and additionally in the case of Molech worship, capital punishment. Upon considering this serious category of impurity, the less serious elements 303 n. 64 and 349-50. 1. Milgrom (Leviticus, I, introduction) notes that H also uses thr in a sense of moral wholeness (Lev. 16.30) in distinction to P, which uses nslh.

164


of bodily pollution that might exist in some cases seem to fall by the way. But we can surmise that if such pollution exists, society would have an interest in controlling the polluted person's interactions. Conclusion At this point, the nature of the relationship of all the impurities, tolerated and prohibited, becomes clear. The connection between the two classes is not just through a metaphoric application of language originally used for tolerated impurities to prohibited impurities. The priestly writings connect the two not just terminologically but also phenomenologically: the two share loci of pollution (the sanctuary) and similar ways of removing that pollution (mainly hafta'tsacrifices). This main phenomenological association is complemented by parallels in rules of restriction and exclusion. But while these features couple the two main classes of impurity, they, with the issue of intention for prohibited impurity, also lead to establishing subdivisions of varying seriousness or intensity within each class. The result of these linkings and subdivisions is a scaled spectrum of impurity manifesting several degrees of pollution (cf. again, fig. 1). As regards sacrifices, I begin (on the left in fig. 1) with impurities that require no sacrifices, then move (to the right) to those that require individual sacrifices, then to those that require individual and in a few cases communal ad hoc sacrifices, then to those that require Day of Atonement sacrifices. This corresponds with a gradation in the locus of pollution: person, the outer altar and person, the outer altar (sometimes the shrine) and in some cases the person, and then the adytum (and sometimes the person). With these gradations is a gradation in the restriction or exclusion of the impurity: exclusion only from the sacred, then exclusion from the sacred and profane habitation, then penalties that permanently 'exclude' one from earthly society.1 Notably, the 1. One of the problems in understanding the gradations of restriction and exclusion is the lack of information about sacral and social access of sinners. Since sin in many cases does not involve bodily impurity, sinners might not necessarily be excluded from the sacred and society. But it seems illogical to think that, for example, an idolater would be granted access to the sanctuary while one simply defiled by touching a dead rat is not. Perhaps the 'moral' designation of a sinner as impure was the means of indicating that sinners were excluded. Perhaps for the priestly writers it went without saying that such serious sinners were excluded from the sacred. On moral qualifications for temple worship outside the priestly writings,


165

distinction between tolerated sacrificial impurities and prohibited unintentional impurities is very thin in certain respects. Simple inadvertent delay of impurity puts one over the line from tolerated to prohibited impurity, and both categories require sacrifices for purification of the sanctuary. Clearly, all the defilement-creating conditions in the priestly legislation are of the same conceptual family and system. An Exception As with almost any attempt to find order in seeming confusion, an exception—perhaps only apparent—to my classification exists (cf. also note 19): the prohibitions against eating and touching certain animals (cf. Lev. 11.4-8, 10-12, 13-20, 23, 41-45; 22.8).1 Though they are prohibited, I put these impurities on the side of the tolerated impurities for four reasons. First of all, except for being prohibited, they do not share the character of other prohibited impurities. Nowhere is it said in the many and sometimes detailed passages giving dietary and carcass rules that transgression of the restrictions pollutes the sanctuary and requires a hatta't sacrifice or brings the penalty of karet.2 Rather, the see Pss. 15; 24.3-6; cf. Jer. 7.8-11. Cf. Buchler, Studies, p. 235 and compare J. Milgrom, 'Sancta Contagion and Altar/City Asylum' (VTSup, 32; Leiden: Brill, 1981), pp. 278-310, esp. p. 301; cf. also J. Levenson, 'The Jerusalem Temple in Devotional and Visionary Experience', in Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible to the Middle Ages, I (World Spirituality: An Encyclopedic History of the Religious Quest, 13; ed. A. Green; New York: Crossroad, 1986), pp. 39-43, 54; Gammie, Holiness, pp. 50-51, 81, 132-33. 1. See above, the end of the section on tolerated impurities. 2. Levine, Leviticus, pp. 64, 65, recognizing that purification requirements or punishments are not explicitly mentioned for persons when they contact impure animals in various ways, except for the mention of laundering clothes in the case of intensive contact (i.e. carrying, and in one case eating; Lev. 11.24-28, 31, 39-40), says that a hatta't, following the law in Lev. 5.2, was to be brought for eating forbidden foods and contact with (apparently including touching and carrying as well as eating) the carcasses listed in Lev. 11.39-40. By this he implies that all cases of touching impure animals described in Lev. 11 require this. Though this suggestion solves an apparent difficulty in the lack of clear purification prescriptions in the chapter and though in many cases of contact there is a breach of prohibitions (I do not agree with Levine that there is a broad prohibition against touching all impure animals or that eating the animals in Lev. 11.39-40 is prohibited; see below in this

166


pollution effect and any accompanying consequences are, by all appearances, no greater than those found with tolerated, nonsacrificial impurities (Lev. 11.39-40; 17.15-16; cf. 11.24-38), the least severe of the impurities. Secondly, the fact of the matter is that not all animal carcass impurities are prohibited. Only eating animals that are characteristically or 'ontologically' impure and touching the four quadrupeds specifically mentioned in Lev. 11.4-8 are prohibited. Eating and touching pure animals dying of natural causes or killed by beasts of prey1 and touching other impure carcasses are acts never prohibited and hence presumably tolerated. Thus the animal impurities to a large excursus), it cannot be accepted. Lev. 5.2 (and v. 3), as we have seen earlier, only covers the case of impurity which was contracted with knowledge but was later forgotten (wene'lam) and was remembered after the period for purification had passed. This seems to be the most reasonable interpretation of vfne'lam. Moreover a concern about delaying purification from impurity from animal sources is not otherwise unknown in the general priestly literature (Lev. 17.16; cf. Num. 19.13, 20). Hence, the sacrificial requirement in Lev. 5.2 does not appear to apply to cases of animal meat contamination where people would perform ablutions within the proper time period, contra Levine's suggestion. Elsewhere I have argued that the animal impurities, when properly handled, require only simple ablutions of bathing and, in some cases, laundering (Disposal, pp. 185-86 nn. 38, 39; 200-206). As for a possible kdret penalty, priestly legislation prescribes such for other dietary transgressions such as eating blood or visceral fat (Lev. 7.24-27; 17.10, 14; cf. Gen. 9.4; Lev. 3.16-17) or eating the meat of a well-being offering on the third day (Lev. 19.7), but it does not appear for breach of the animal meat prohibitions. In dietary matters, kdret is for wrongs related to sacrifice. Since the rules surrounding impure animals are not concerned with sacrifice, the same penalty may not apply. Furthermore, the laws about impure animals seem to have a secondary and supporting significance in the legislation (see below). Lev. 20, for example, appears to distinguish between the serious breaches that would lead to being 'vomitted from the land' and other life forfeiting penalties on the one hand (vv. 1-24, 27), and the rules of dietary propriety on the other (vv. 25-26) for which no penalties are mentioned. Hence, I hesitate to subsume breach of the dietary laws under the general rule about kdret in Num. 15.30-31. 1. These prohibitions apply to lay persons. In contrast to the priestly writings, Exod. 22.30 prohibits lay people from eating animals killed by other animals(frefS) and Deut. 17.21 prohibits lay people from eating animals that die of themselves or are killed by other animals (this seems to be the scope of rfbeld there). The dead animals referred to in these passages are, implicitly, pure animals. Recall from the discussion of tolerated impurities above that the priestly law does have a prohibition against eating these carcasses in Lev. 22.8, but this only applies to priests.


167

extent fit under the tolerated category.1 Thirdly, the prohibitions of eating impure animals and touching the carcasses of the four quadrupeds of Lev. 11.4-8 appear to be special cases of the animal carcass laws. They mainly involve eating, a type of contact not considered (or possible) with other, non-animal, tolerated impurities.2 The reason for the prohibition of this form of pollution lies mainly, it seems, in the symbolic character of the diet, which seeks to reflect the holiness—i.e. the singularity and chosenness—of the people vis-a-vis other nations (an emphasis, though not an innovation, of the 'Holiness' writers in the priestly tradition: Lev. 11.44-45; 20.25-27; cf. 22.8; see below). While other impurities must be rectified for Israelites to make contact with what is holy, purity in those cases is not given a holiness rationale as in the case of dietary prohibitions.3 Thus the prohibitions of eating impure animals—and perhaps the prohibition against touching the four quadrupeds in Lev. 11.4-8 is a 'fence' of sorts (cf. Gen. 2.17; 3.3) to insure observance in marginal cases (i.e. cases with one but not both of the pureanimal criteria, cud chewing and cloven hooves)—are generated by concerns other than the immediate system of impurity reflected in the spectrum described in this paper. Finally, in refinement of the above point, the priestly dietary prohibitions appear to derive from pre-priestly prohibitions which were originally not part of a 'system' of impurity such as we find now in Leviticus 11 but existed independently with the purpose of reflecting the holiness of the people. This orientation of dietary rules is found in the early regulation Exod. 22.30, which, amid a variety of 1. I am assuming here that eating all characteristically impure animals brings impurity. In an incisive Hebrew University Bible Department lecture in 1990, J. Milgrom argued that the prohibited fish and fowl in Lev. 11.9-23 and the small land animals other than the eight in vv. 29-30 (cf. vv. 41-42) do not pollute by eating (nor by touching). If he is right, since there is no impurity involved, these cases would not constitute an exception to the spectrum. As this excursus implies, I believe that eating these animals do pollute by ingestion. Milgrom's moderation in this point was balanced by a judgment that the impurity-generating contacts in vv. 24-40 are prohibited. If this is the case, this would add other cases of prohibited impurities than those I admit in this excursus. 2. Lev. 14.47 mentions eating, but it is eating in a diseased house, not eating the impurity. 3. For an exception with priests in regard to corpses, see Lev. 21.1-4, 10-11.

168


laws, juxtaposes a call to holiness with a prohibition to avoid terepa (again, meat of a presumably clean animal killed by beasts). A law of a comparable nature is also found in Leviticus 11 when that chapter is critically analysed. This chapter appears to have three sections stemming from different periods and authors or editors, each successive block coming as a response to the previous block or blocks (I leave introductory and concluding formulae out of consideration here): (a) vv. 2b-23 (early P); (b) vv. 24-40 (later P); and (c) vv. 41-45 (H).1 The last two sections reflect the more familiar priestly concerns about pollution effect and purification, but the first, in contrast, is concerned with giving prohibitions mainly against eating certain animals.2 Having this particular focus the early P formulation in 11.2b-23 is more in line with Exod. 22.30. Similar concerns are found in Deut. 14.3-21, a passage which reflects early dietary law. It is an amalgamating passage, apparently dependent on a version of the rules of the early P block in Leviticvus 11 for its vv. 3-20 and on laws such as those in Exod. 22.30 and Exod. 23.19 (cf. Exod. 34.26) for its v. 21.3 Deuteronomy's law, similar to the 1. Here I go against the, perhaps better, judgment of J. Milgrom (Leviticus, I, on ch. 11), who separates the chapter into these basic units as well, but argues that vv. 41-42 belong to the first block, vv. 2b-23. He also sees vv. 39-40 as an addition see note 3 below. Verses 41-42 are not found nor summarized in the parallel in Deut. 14.3-21 which suggests to me that they were not part of Lev. 11.2b-23. That is to say, Lev. 11.2b-23 appears to be the only element of Lev. 11 known to the writer of Deut. 14.3-21 (see below in this excursus). Moreover, the certain H element in Lev. 11.43-45 is oddly limited to small land animals (one might have expected a more inclusive statement such as in 20.25-26). If it were compositionally connected with w. 41-42 it would make better sense; i.e. the H editor/author saw an omission of a prohibition about eating small land animals in vv. 2b-40 and added vv. 41-42, imitating the style in vv. 2b-23, and with it a rationale in vv. 43-45 that is limited to the type of animal in w. 41-42. 2. For a more detailed discussion of the evidence of this critical judgement, see my book, Disposal, pp. 200-206, and my article, 'Clean/Unclean'. It should be noted that in this first block, though vv. 4-8 speak of impurity and v. 8 gives a prohibition of touching, it is far from discussing impurity in the way that w. 24-40 do. 3. On the relation of Deut. 14.21 to Exod. 22.30, see Schwartz, Shelosha peraqim, pp. 53-54. This is a valuable compact discussion which bears on many of the issues presented here. My main disagreement would be that Lev. 11.11 (and other commands with the verb sqs in vv. 9-23, 41-45, and one could add, the command in these last verses not to become impure or pollute one's nepeS, which seems to refer to the 'throat' and hence refer to eating, not to other forms of contact;


169

early legislation upon which it is dependent, expresses a concern for prohibiting certain animals and the holiness that results through obedience rather than with effects of impurity (note Deut. 14.21; cf. v. 2).1 In sum, all these passages—Exod. 22.30; Lev. 11.2b-23; Deut. 14.3-14—indicate that at an early point in Israel's history, before priestly legislation was fully formulated, dietary rules existed rather independently of other purity customs and rules and had the goal of symbolizing the holiness of the people. The prohibitions were due to this special symbolic purpose of the laws. Such rules and prohibitions were taken up by the priestly legislators and eventually assimilated into their developing system of impurity. It is this assimilation of traditional dietary rules that has left us with an irregularity among the tolerated impurities. Description of the main categories of impurity as tolerated and prohibited is still useful despite the anomaly of the animal-carcass prohibitions. The character and historical development of these prohibitions suggest that they be considered, to put it graphically, as a vertical element protruding from an otherwise smooth and systematic horizontal continuum.

cf. Milgrom, Leviticus, I, on the verses for this point) does not indicate a prohibition of contact, only a prohibition of eating. Milgrom (Leviticus, I, comments A and B on ch. 11) argues that Deut. 14.321 depends on all of Lev. 11.1-47 but that has Deuteronomy omitted discussion of certain subjects because of its particular interests. He sees Deut. 14.21a about nebeld as deriving from Lev. 11.39-40, the latest addition to Lev. 11 in his view. Actually, Deut. 14.21a and Lev. 11.39-40 are quite dissimilar while Deut. 14.21a and Exod. 22.30 are similar in several points: a prohibition of eating, disposal of the carcass, and a holiness rationale. This indicates that D at this point is dependent on the Exodus law rather than that in Leviticus. D's use of nebeld can be seen as an interpretation of frepa in the Exodus passage. This is in line with D's tendency to interpret other legal materials from Exodus. Deut. 14.21b also shows other borrowing from laws in Exodus, as already indicated above. 1. Deut. 14.10,19 call unacceptable fish and fowl 'unclean' (tame; cf. the reverse tahor in vv. 11, 20) rather than 'abomination' (Seqes; and verb Siqqes 'hold in abomination') as does early P (cf. Lev. 11.10, 11, 12, 13, 20, 23, cf. 41, 42, 43). Deuteronomy apparently reserves the root Sqs for idols (7.26; 29.16; though it uses t'b/to'ebd for idols and impure animals: 7.26; 14.3). tame in Deut. 14 represents a blurring of distinction between tame' and Seqes in early P where the former term indicated pollutability by touch, and the latter pollutability by eating alone.

170

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel Implications and Observations

With the structure of the spectrum of impurity established, I now turn to examining its significance. This section will deal mainly with cultural and socio-anthropological, and sometimes psychological, observations and conjectures about the interrelationship of the parts of the spectrum. All these observations are more appositional and independent than logico-sequential in their relationship to one another. They nevertheless work together to demonstrate a unified point: that the whole purity system including tolerated impurities has a moral basis and rationale. The system supports and sustains the moral order of society. I turn first to Mary Douglas's syntagmatic structural analysis of (her own) middle-class English system of meals.1 In brief, by sorting out the food elements in all meals and then finding and correlating common elements in different types of meals she shows how the system of meals encodes or displays social concerns and meaning. Common elements appear in all meal situations; in meal situations of greater social import and intimacy (e.g., Sunday or Christmas dinners), however, the elements appear in greater concentration. Meals can thus be arranged on a scale from less to more important and complex. By the similarity in elements, 'the smallest, meanest meal metonymically figures the structure of the grandest, and each unity of the grand meal figures again the whole meal—or the meanest meal'.2 Thus, the meaning of a meal is found in a system of repeated analogies. Each meal carries something of the meaning of the other meals; each meal is a structured social event which structures others in its own image. The upper limit of its meaning is set by the range incorporated in the most important member of its series. . .There is no single point in the rank scale [of meals], high or low, which provides the basic meaning or real meaning. Each exemplar has the meaning of its structure realized in the example at other levels.3

If a Christmas meal is the 'upper limit' in meal situations, one can go beyond meal situations proper to include simple drinks as the lower 1. M. Douglas, 'Deciphering a Meal', in her collected essays Implicit Meanings (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975), pp. 249-75. 2. Douglas, Meanings, p. 257. 3. Douglas, Meanings, p. 260.


171

limit. The more complex the meal, the more intimate the participants. 'Drinks are for strangers, acquaintances, workmen and family. Meals are for family, close friends, honored guests'.1 Thus part of the encoded social meaning in meals has to do with signalling distance or intimacy between participants. Leaving aside a complex syntagmatic analysis such as Douglas experiments with in her paper,2 we can think intuitively about this approach, as she finally does, and use it for finding meaning in the spectrum of impurity. We have already seen how the different individual impure conditions are connected on a graded scale to the others by common elements. The structural approach Douglas employs would lead to the recognition that any individual impure condition has its meaning in connection with the other conditions and that any one condition implies the other conditions in the system. Following Douglas and other anthropologists in the assumption that such systems are not just practical affairs (e.g. just for getting nourishment from meals) but are symbolic of social concerns, we can begin to see some of the significance of the priestly writings' impurity system figured in the spectrum, particularly in terms of providing social governance.3 While all impurity is seen as dangerous to some degree, clearly those impurities at the prohibited end of the spectrum, particularly intentional prohibited impurities, are the most detrimental to society. They arise out of sinful conditions, many of which threaten the foundations of the group, often in a very direct, and hence nonsymbolic way: for example, children are killed in idolatrous sacrifice, and marriage and family patterns are upset by illicit sexual relations. On the other end of the spectrum are impurities that are much less dangerous and not prohibited. Their threat to and disturbance of the social order are minimal or negligible. In fact, as we have seen, the conditions that cause this impurity are often beneficial to society. Further, while I would not want to discount the reality and concreteness of these impurities for the ancient Israelites (or, more 1. Douglas, Meanings,p. 256. 2. Douglas, Meanings, pp. 251-53. 3. As will become clear in the following, the impurity system is a symbolic system. For the functions of symbols, including that of social control, cf. R. Firth, Symbols: Public and Private (Symbol, Myth and Ritual Series; Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1973), pp. 76-91 and more generally pp. 15-240.

172


specifically, the priestly legislators),1 they are of a more abstract and symbolic character than prohibited impurities. From the qualitative difference between the two impurities and in terms of the structural interrelationship suggested by Douglas's study, it may be averred that one of the functions of tolerated impurities is to help prevent the socially detrimental breach of rules that would cause prohibited impurity. In other words, experiencing the lesser impurities would signal the potential for prohibited impure conditions and thus steer one away from them. Looking at tolerated impurities this way modifies our perception of the spectrum somewhat vis-a-vis that implied for meals in Douglas's study. The impurity spectrum takes on the split appearance of an object and its mirrored twin. That is, unlike Douglas's smooth tacit spectrum consisting of several individual units (e.g., drinks versus everyday meals of varying complexity versus Sunday dinners versus holiday dinners, and finer distinctions in between), the spectrum of impurity has, despite the relationship of the smallest units which imply a more or less even continuum, a clear bipolarity between tolerated and prohibited impurities. The less severe class separates itself from the serious class and thus begins to reflect it. For example, the relatively minor pollution of the sanctuary by tolerated impurities, which requires sacrifice, mirrors the serious sanctuary pollution by the prohibited, especially the intentional, impurities that requires Day of Atonement sacrifices. The exclusion rules on the tolerated side, moreover, echo the severe life-threatening judgments on the prohibited side. This last interpretation may sound a bit artificial— even midrashic—but it is not necessarily so. Impurity, even the simplest, is antisocial. Severe tolerated impurities must be restricted, excluded, or eliminated from the Israelites' habitation. With them there is thus a degree of social distintegration. This small measure of disintegration reflects the gravely fragmenting character of sinful behavior and impurity, where the sin disturbs the social equilibrium and where the offender yields his or her right to community life. When tolerated impurity is understood as the symbolic counterpart of prohibited impurity, being in a state of tolerated impurity can be 1. While, as this paper argues, tolerated impurity is a reflection of the more serious, it is conceived of as a reality itself. On the concreteness of tolerated impurities, see my article Two Types', pp. 190-92.


173

understood as a form of ritualistic behavior. This ritual behavior, however, is somewhat different from other forms of ritual activity. Ritual is usually thought of as prescribed performances set for certain times or circumstances (though this is a narrow way of looking at or defining ritual). But becoming impure through tolerated impurities, while it is not forbidden, is not prescribed for any occasion, except for the corrective and auxiliary cultic impurities. It is true that after one becomes impure certain prescriptions are to be followed, but there is no prescribed primary occasion for acquiring impurity in the first place. The question then arises how tolerated impurity can be an effective symbol if there is no requirement to experience it. This problem becomes chimerical once it is recalled that the situations which generate these impurities are natural processes which no one can escape. To be human means one will have ample opportunity for these lesser impurities. One will encounter several opportunities for contamination every day and actual experiences of impurity will be numerous.1 There is no need, therefore, for prescribed impurity. Tolerated impurities reveal their ritual mien in other respects. Like many (but again, not all) ritual performances, they involve a process and, more particularly, one which first creates conflict or anxiety and then resolves it.2 That is, acquiring one of these impurities is not a punctual or static matter, but one involving a linear progression through time: first contracting impurity, then being impure for a period of time, then purifying. And this process is one of movement into a threatening and restricted state—a liminal state—with consequent movement therefrom.3 The serial character of tolerated 1. The ingestion of impure meats, an exceptional prohibited impurity, is not being considered just here. The rules about this do function, however, in a way similar to the rules concerning tolerated impurities. At every meal, the Israelite needs to consider matters of impurity, and this would recall, implicitly or explicitly, the other conditions of impurity. 2. Cf. W. Burkert, Greek Religion (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), pp. 54-55; V. Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (Symbol, Myth and Ritual Series; Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1969), p. 10 and passim. 3. The experience of impurity is a type of rite de passage with stages of separation, marginality (or liminality), and reintegration (or reaggregation). The process of impurity, like other rites de passage, is status determining. It differs from other transition rites (e.g. circumcision, marriage) in its frequency and repetitive (or redundant) character and its social trajectory. Some transition rites, despite the stages

174


impurity augments our understanding about how it relates symbolically to prohibited, particularly intentional prohibited, impurities. Upon contracting tolerated impurity, one becomes detached from society to some degree. One cannot participate in the cult at the sanctuary, and with impurities communicable to the profane one is restricted in or excluded from the Israelite habitation around the sanctuary. But with rectification of the tolerated impure condition and purification, one is reintegrated into society and has access again to both the habitation and sanctuary. With prohibited intentional impurities there are also restrictions and exclusion penalties. What is unique is that prescriptions concerning these latter impurities do not openly offer ways for the offender to be reintegrated into the community. While repentance is possible in some cases and would reduce the effect of one's sin to a prohibited unintentional impurity (see above), it is generally left out of the picture. The rules seem to leave one in perpetual liminality.1 Thus a contrast between the two types of impurities appears: social and religious re integration is possible with the lesser type, while such is considered unlikely—at least more difficult—with the serious type. In terms of the interrelationship of meaning on the spectrum, suffering a tolerated impurity with consequent purification and reintegration would contrastively imply the difficulty of reintegration with a prohibited intentional impurity. Put differently, the process of contraction and purification of tolerated impurities is mimetic: one is acting out the more detrimental side of human behavior. But the tolerated of separation and liminality, propel a person along, vertically, to a new status which is generally secure. Experiences of impurity and purification, in contrast, occur many times and, horizontally, remove one from a particular status and then restore that same status. See A. van Gennep, The Rites of Passage (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960 [1908]); Turner, Process, pp. 94-203; Douglas, Meanings, pp. 55-56; E. Leach, Culture and Communication: The Logic by which Symbols are Connected (Themes in the Social Sciences; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 77-79; R. Wuthnow, Meaning and Moral Order: Explorations in Cultural Analysis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), pp. 112-14. See Marx, 'Sacrifice pour les pe"ches', for an argument about the hatta't and 'old sacrifices as being part of rites de passage (see p. 149 n. 4, above). 1. This liminality has a psychological component, as Schwartz (Shelosha peraqim, pp. 17-19) has noted. Since death from the karet penalty would not necessarily occur immediately, the culprit as a believer in the system would live with the threat of an early death hanging over his head.


175

impurities, since one can recover from them, serve as an inoculation against the higher evils. The symbolic interplay between the two sorts of impurity and how the lesser type functions to control the latter can be further elucidated by Clifford Geertz's cultural-functional definition of religion. Since the impurity system is a part of the entire religious system, what Geertz says about religion can apply, in a large degree, to impurity. He defines a religion as a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.1

A religion produces intensive feelings, beliefs, and behaviors in people which, presumably, support the moral order. It does this, circularly, by creating a world-view (which includes the moral order) in which the desired feelings, beliefs, and behaviors make sense.2 The term 'religion' may be replaced in this definition with the 'priestly system of impurity' to discover how the latter may be defined functionally. This definition can be applied to the system of impurity in various ways. I restrict myself to the spectrum to examine for the moment how the system of tolerated impurities may establish powerful and enduring moods and motivations supportive of the moral order by generating a world-view in which those attitudes are sensible and plausible. In the discussion to this point, tolerated impurities have been looked at as passive reflections of prohibited impurities. Now they will be thought of as active generators of conceptions about prohibited impurities and the offenses that cause them. 1. C. Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973), p. 90 (his enumeration of the parts of the definition is omitted here). Religious ideas or a religious sytem are forms of knowledge, largely socially and culturally determined, which in turn largely determine further what is known and perceived (cf. generally and with proper caution the older but classic statement of K. Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia [expanded Engl. ed., San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1936]; L. Wirth's preface to the edition is helpful; more recently, cf. P. Berger and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality [London: Penguin Books, 1967]). 2. Religious world-views succeed to the extent that they can be perceived as objective realities and reduce or eliminate competing systems. Cf. P. Berger, The Heretical Imperative: Contemporary Possibilities of Religious Affirmation (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979), pp. 1-29.

176


The lesser system inculcates intense moods and motivations that uphold morality by various means. It creates for the society's members a ubiquitous and perpetual experience of purity and impurity. As noted above, one would encounter several opportunities for contamination every day and occasions of impurity would be numerous. As opposed to some other ritual situations which occur only once in a person's life or which occur at set times with periods of non-ritual activity in between, one would never be released from obligations in regard to purity. The forced constant attention to this pair of states and movements into and out of impurity could consequently lead to particular ways of understanding all phenomena, including acts, that would harm society and its morality. Members of society might tend to categorize actions by one of the two states. Even when the system has not specifically labeled the nature of an act, the structure of thought could lead to classification. The constancy of occasions for impurity and purification from it could develop, furthermore, a conception of cause and effect. This conception could lead to the conviction that punishments following violation of prohibitions are inevitable. The negative consequences of tolerated impurity could also lead to the development of a negative conception of prohibited impurity. The real social consequences of lesser impurities might develop an aversion toward prohibited impurities. This loathing of serious impurity could be further charged by the incorporation of impurities to which there is a predisposed or popular repugnance into the system of tolerated impurity. Though definite historical evidence is lacking, many of the impurities in priestly legislation are found elsewhere in the ancient Near East before the Israelite period, which suggests that the levitical legislators have systematized popular attitudes and customs,1 and the Bible itself contains hints that before the priestly writers formulated their system there existed popular horror toward some of the impurities.2 These 1. Cf. J. C. Moyer, 'The Concept of Ritual Impurity Among the Hittites', (PhD diss.; Brandeis University, 1969); O.R. Gurney, Some Aspects of Hittite Religion (Oxford: British Academy, 1977), pp. 25-63; my book, Disposal, passim; Milgrom, Leviticus, I, comment A on Lev. 12 and comment A on Lev. 15. 2. On scale-disease, cf. Num. 12.10-15; 2 Sam. 3.29; 2 Kgs 7.3-10; 15.5 = 2 Chron. 26.16-21; menstruation, cf. Isa. 30.22; Ezek. 7.19-20; 36.17; cf. Gen. 31.35; abnormal sexual discharges, cf. 2 Sam. 3.29. On pre-existing popular


111

traditional aversions toward tolerated impurities could produce abhorrence toward the prohibited impurities. A basis and power for the transference of negative feelings might also exist within the priestly system itself. Some scholars have argued, and this argument has found new supporters recently, that a basic rationale of tolerated impurities is a connection with death.1 In addition to death-associated impurities which would clearly fit this rationale, scale-disease seemed to have been considered related to death (cf. Num. 12.12) and the sexual impurities would be so connected because of the loss of blood and other life fluids. If the tolerated impurites were imbued with this basic conception, the fear and antipathy toward death might inform attitudes toward the prohibited impurities. In conclusion to these considerations based on Geertz's definition of religion, the tolerated impurities, as part of a spectrum with prohibited impurities, could have created an 'aura of factuality' around prohibited impurities by symbolically intimating or teaching that the serious impurities are to be loathed and that their consequences are certain. This in turn would have led to limiting breach of rules that caused these impurities and to the maintenance of morality. The moral order is also sustained by an individual's participation in ritual which creates a bond with society and expresses solidarity with the community.2 The opposite is true: a lack of full participation or aversions, see my 'Observations on the Ethical Foundations of the Biblical Dietary Laws: A Reponse to Jacob Milgrom', in E. Firmage, J. Welch and B. Weiss (eds.), Religion and Law: Biblical, Jewish, and Islamic Perspectives (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp. 193-98. 1. See mainly J. Milgrom, Leviticus, I, comment B on Lev. 11, comment B on Lev. 13, and comment G on Lev. 15; 'Ethics and Ritual: The Foundation of the Biblical Dietary Laws', in Firmage, et al. (eds.), Religion and Law, pp. 152-92; G. Wenham, 'Why Does Sexual Intercourse Defile? (Lev. 15.18)', ZAW 95 (1983), pp. 432-34. See also W. Kornfeld, 'Reine und unreine Tiere im Alten Testament', Kairos 1 (1965), pp. 134-47; W. Paschen, Rein und Unrein: Untersuchung zur biblischen Wortgeschichte (SANT, 24; Miinchen: Kosel, 1970), pp. 55-64; E. Feldman, Biblical and Post-Biblical Defilement and Mourning: Law as Theology (New York: Ktav and Yeshiva University, 1977), pp. 35-41. For a comparative perspective on this idea, cf. A. S. Meigs, 'A Papuan Perspective on Pollution', Man 13 (1978), pp. 304-38. 2. Cf. Wuthnow, Meaning, p. 123: Through ritual the actors' roles and obligations in each setting are dramatized to their confederates. This is why we feel

178


participation with lack of proper intent or cynicism weakens solidarity. These points would hold true with the priestly system of tolerated impurities. But before we can go too far, a question arises: just where in the situation of impurity does this bond-building participation lie? Contracting lesser impurity, if not prohibited, is still a negative occurrence; certain social penalties result. Would not these impurities therefore lead to a weakening of community strength? Perhaps, especially if one constantly and spitefully contracted impurity. But, as has been noted, impure conditions are so numerous and natural that such debility is taken for granted and made part of the system. The priestly legislation, moreover, never shows any concern about a person's intention in contracting impurity. What is important for priestly legislation and what communicates solidarity is observing restrictions while polluted and then finally purifying oneself. To violate restrictions during impurity or delay purification intentionally would mark one as a social rebel and traitor. Consideration of the spectrum of impurity can lend precision to the foregoing point in several respects. First, non-compliance with the rules of lesser impurities could suggest to the group that the individual is not willing to support it and that he might intentionally commit acts that cause prohibited impurity, which are directly detrimental to society. That is to say, the person would have broken through the fence controlling the more grievous acts and might now choose to commit them. Secondly, the system of impurity promotes the pollution of an intentional mishandler or delayer of impurity to the category of prohibited impurity. Thus, he is taxonomically (and not merely by the subjective estimation of the community) transposed, receiving a new classification that concretely defines his relation to society. Thirdly, the category of unintentional prohibited impurity gains significance as an intermediate category, specifically as regards inadvertently delaying purification. In the cases of people deliberately delaying purification or following through properly with purification, their relationship to society is clear. But when someone inadvertently compelled to participate in ritual. Voting constitutes an act of affirming our sense of duty and participation in civil society. Going to church bears witness to our faith. In ritual a bond is established between the person and the moral community on which he or she depends. It is in this sense that ritual reinforces the moral order'. Cf. p. 140. See also M. Douglas, Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology (New York: Pantheon, 2nd edn, 1982), pp. 38-42.


179

forgets to purify, their position is not clear. The prescriptions add clarification to this indeterminacy by putting them in an intermediate category with additional obligations but without the harshest penalties. Fulfillment of these obligations allows the person to be consequently reclassified as at one with the community. Another way the spectrum of impurity operates is hinted at through Robert Wuthnow's conclusion that the meaning of a ritual is influenced by external social or cultural concerns, and that as the external concerns vary in significance for the community, their ability to generate meaning in the ritual situation varies. Specifically, 'strains in the moral order contribute to the meaningfulness of those rituals and symbols that directly and vividly dramatize moral decay itself'.1 His main examples of this are the responses given to the nine-and-ahalf hour television series Holocaust, broadcast in 1978 in the United States, the viewing of which, because of the symbolic significance it had for viewers, is to be included under the category of ritual. The meaning that viewers saw in the series derived partly from the social and political strains they perceived at the time of viewing. They saw their own problems and their present government's and society's potential for evil symbolized in the historical events portrayed in the series. To put Wuthnow's observation in a diachronic perspective, one might say that, as decay or strains develop in the moral order external to a ritual experience that dramatizes moral decay or strain in some way, that ritual will grow in significance and come to reflect this decay and these strains. This can be applied to the spectrum. If we assume the priestly writings' rules to be operative as a system in a community, it may be that at times of relative social wholeness and cultural consistency the significance of the tolerated impurities as symbols of the prohibited impurities might be somewhat latent. But were there to be an increase of moral decay, including an increase of intentional breach of prohibitions, the lesser impurities would gain greater significance as reflections of the more serious state of communal affairs. As the society showed greater dysfunction and disintegration, the tolerated impurities could, by their added significance act, like a Chinese finger-puzzle, to hold the centrifugal forces in by more clearly figuring of the danger all impure situations and thus restricting prohibited behavior. In fact, we might go further and propose that 1. Wuthnow, Meaning, p. 131.

180


developing situations of tension may require a revision of ritual to symbolically reflect the moral strains so as to keep society in order.1 This can start us thinking about the social contexts for the formulation of the first P traditions, the updating of this core by later P tradents, and then the later editing and revision of the Holiness school.2 Conclusion I have explored how different types of pollutions, tolerated and prohibited, are conceptually connected and how they may or could have operated to accomplish the priestly religion's purposes of maintaining moral and social stability and order. That the two sorts of impurity are related to one another systematically and conceptually is certain. What this interrelationship means or how it functions is, on the other hand, more difficult to ascertain. Lack of evidence has forced conjecture via hints from some anthropological and sociological studies of ritual and religion. Whether the conjectures here based on these studies are completely tenable or not, it would seem that the mere systematic association of the different types of impurity at least indicates that the lesser impurities do not exist for themselves but are associated with the larger moral concerns of society that lie behind prohibited impurity. Hence, the priestly writings are not interested in tolerated impurities qua tolerated impurities. As they focus on these lesser impurities, this Pentateuchal tradition really has the larger moral issues and goals of religion as a major concern. Finally, as an aside, the conclusion that the laws of tolerated impurity function as stays to the moral order is reminiscent of interpretations of the impurity laws prevalent in Hellenistic Judaism. Philo and others argued that these laws, or aspects of them, symbolically taught 1. We should not assume that ritual, and in particular the purity laws, always lead (or led) to social integration and solidarity. They may lead to reformulation or regrouping through disintegration. The tolerated impurity rules might lead to dividing a community into two groups: adherents and non-adherents, orthodox and unorthodox, etc. By doing this it may lead to greater non-conformity on the part of the non-adherents and to the eventual division of the two into distinct groups. A revision of ritual, too, might encourage division in a community. Cultural and social mismatching may also render ritual ineffective and unperformable (cf. Geertz, Cultures, pp. 142-69). 2. Cf. Knohl, 'Tefisat 'elohuf, pp. 172-93; Milgrom, Leviticus, I, introduction.


181

proper behavior and upheld morality.1 The symbolic approach used in this paper is, to be sure, not the same as that which these early thinkers employed. They used a midrashic elemental and concrete symbolic approach, while this study used an anthropological systemic and functional symbolic approach. That is, they viewed concrete objective phenomena in conditions of purity or impurity (e.g. a cow's hoof) as directly reflecting and teaching moral concerns and lessons, while this study has looked at the whole sytem of tolerated impurities and how it structurally reflects prohibited impurity and, hence, sustains the moral order. But the way we have phrased some of the conclusions here has, admittedly, not been much different than what the ancients have said, especially in saying that tolerated impurities dramatize or imitate prohibited impurities. This does not validate the old exegetes' particular method of interpretation and particular interpretive statements, but it does indicate that some of the general conclusions and tendencies in their interpretations should not be dismissed as entirely out of line with what may be the actual significance and function of the purity rules.

1. See the citation from Philo at the beginning of the paper. Also the Letter of Aristeas, pp. 142-61.

THE COMPOSITION OF LEVITICUS, CHAPTER 11 Jacob Milgrom Leviticus 11 exhibits the following sequence of animal categories: quadrupeds (vv. 2-8), fish (vv. 9-12), birds (vv. 13-19), flying insects (vv. 20-23), quadrupeds (vv. 24-28), land swarmers (vv. 2938), quadrupeds (vv. 39-40), land swarmers (vv. 41-45), all animals (vv. 46-47). The offending category here is the quadrupeds. Had they been grouped together, then each category would have been a discrete unit: quadrupeds (vv. 2-8, 24-28, 39-40), fish (vv. 9-12), birds (vv. 13-19), flying insects (vv. 20-23), land swarmers (vv. 29-38, 41-45), all animals (vv. 46-47). However, there is logic to the MT if subject matter is taken into consideration: whereas vv. 2-23, 41-45 define or declare which animals are impure, vv. 29-40 ordain purification procedures in case of defilement. Thus, the ordering of ch. 11, taking into account both subject and content, actually looks like this: Impure Animals

Purification Procedures

quadrupeds (vv. 2-8) fish (vv. 9-12) birds (vv. 13-19) flying insects (vv. 20-23) forbidden quadrupeds (vv. 24-28) eight land swarmers (vv. 29-38) permitted quadrupeds (vv. 39-40) land swarmers (vv. 41-45)

Clearly, the repeated animal categories comprise a unified block (vv. 24-40) and are informed by a different subject matter— purification. Moreover, once they are excised from the chapter, an orderly sequence of animal categories is revealed: quadrupeds (vv. 28), fish (vv. 9-12), birds (vv. 13-19), flying insects (vv. 20-23), and

MILGROM The Composition of Leviticus 11

183

land swarmers (vv. 41-45). Thus, a traditionalist like Hoffmann1 is forced to admit that the passage on land swarmers (vv. 41-45) should logically belong after flying insects (vv. 20-23). The block on purification (vv. 24-40) also manifests inconcinnity, and Ramban2 cannot but question why its two sections on quadrupeds (vv. 24-28, 39-40) were not grouped together. Thus, a priori, the conclusion can be drawn, however tentatively, that the purification block (vv. 24-40) constitutes a later insertion into the chapter. Furthermore, since its two passages on quadrupeds are not contiguous, the second one (vv. 39-40) may itself be a later supplement to the block. One might be tempted to justify the order in the MT on the following grounds: just as birds (vv. 13-19) and flying insects (vv. 20-23) are grouped together because they are winged creatures, so are quadrupeds (vv. 24-28) and swarmers (vv. 29-38), because they are land animals. However, this reasoning only adds fuel to the insertion hypothesis. Precisely because the author of vv. 24-38 found this sequence in the existing text (vv. 13-23), he gave a similar form to his own material before he inserted it. Besides, this observation only underscores why vv. 39-40 must have been added subsequently to the purification block: they fit into no sequence, either in the block or in the rest of the chapter. Bible scholars have long been aware of the disorder present in Leviticus 11. Wellhausen3 deduces that vv. 24-40 were a later insert on the grounds that this block dealt with impure animals that were tame' and not seqes, the term used in the rest of the chapter. He was rebutted by Eerdmans,4 who pointed out that the four named quadrupeds (vv. 4-8), belonging to the main part of the chapter, are also called \arne'. However, it turns out that Wellhausen was correct even if he gave the wrong reason. The block, vv. 24-40, is an insert because it deals with a different topic, purification from defilement by

1. D.Z. Hoffmann, The Book of Leviticus, I (Hebr.; trans. Z. Har-Shefer and A. Liebermann [Das Buch Leviticus]; Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1953), pp. 224-25. 2. Moses ben Nachman (Ramban or Nachmanides), Commentary on the Torah, II (Hebr.; Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1960), pp. 59-60. 3. J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bucher des Alien Testaments (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963 [repr. 4th edn, 1899]), p. 148. 4. B.D. Eerdmans, Das Buch Leviticus (Giessen: Toppelmann, 1912), p. 60.

184


contact, and because it interrupts the sequence of prohibited animal foods (vv. 2-23, 41-42). The demonstration that vv. 24-40 are an insert must begin with a glance at the comparable inventory of forbidden animals in Deuteronomy 14. It suffices here solely to note that its sequence of animal categories is precisely the same: quadrupeds (vv. 4-8), fish (vv. 9-10), birds (vv. 11-18), flying insects (vv. 19-20), and carcasses of pure animals (v. 21). A word of explanation on the last two categories is needed. The flying insects, 'dp—in distinction to sippor, 'birds'—are neatly encapsulated into two verses: the first rules out impure kinds (v. 19; cf. Lev. 11.20, 23) and the second permits pure kinds (v. 20; cf. Lev. 11.21-22). The verse on carcasses (v. 21) begins with the proscription lo' to'kflu kol-nebeld, 'do not eat any carcass'. The wording is significant: 'any carcass' must include the carcasses of pure animals. It is thus a reference to Lev. 11.39-40 which, as will be demonstrated below, belongs to the last stages in the composition of Leviticus 11. D eliminated two subjects, defilement by contact and the purification process, and focused solely on the subject of diet. D also found it unnecessary to include the section on land swarmers. Otherwise, D has the entire inventory of Leviticus 11 and in the same order.1 Thus, since D probably had the final form of Leviticus 11 to draw from, it cannot serve as a means of penetrating into the earlier stages in the formation of Leviticus 11. Let us now concentrate on the intrusive block, vv. 24-40. As indicated above, it is composed of two units, vv. 24-38 and 39-40. The first, vv. 24-38, can be shown to be an insert for the following reasons: 1.

2.

In the passage on impure quadrupeds (vv. 24-28), behema is contrasted with fyayyd, 'wild quadrupeds', implying that behema can only mean 'domesticated quadrupeds'. However, this usage stands in opposition to its function in v. 2, where it embraces all quadrupeds, wild species as well (e.g. the rock badger, v. 5). Different terminology implies different sources. Verses 29-38 exhibit their intrusive character by limiting defilement to contact. The omission of defilement by eating,

1. Details in J. Milgrom, Leviticus, I (AB, 3a; New York: Doubleday, 1991), chapter 11, comment B.

MILGROM The Composition of Leviticus 11

3.

185

however, was no accident; it is discussed further on in vv. 41-42. Thus, the fact that the author of vv. 29-38 took into consideration a subsequent passage (vv. 41-42) can only mean that the latter stood before him and, hence, his own passage is a later insertion. The most decisive reason, already mentioned, is that the entire block on purification (vv. 24-40) sticks out like a sore thumb from the midst of organically related material, i.e. laws dealing solely with diet.

Thus, the conclusion is ineluctable that vv. 24-38 (and its supplement, vv. 39-40; see below) comprise a subsequent layer to the diet laws represented in vv. 1-23, 41-42, 46. To which source can they be ascribed? Their terminology and content leave no room for doubt. Their concern with contact impurity and its purification are of a piece with the theme and vocabulary of the subsequent chapters (12-15) especially chs. 12 and 15. However, chs. 11-15 comprise a block of material which was inserted between chs. 10-16. Hence, the conclusion suggests itself, however tentatively, that whoever composed chs. 12-15 linked them to 11.1-23, 41-42, 46, by inserting vv. 24-38, thereby presenting a fuller spectrum of communicable impurity not just by humans (chs. 12-15) but also by animals (ch. 11). Of course, the tableau of communicable impurity is incomplete. The list of purification procedures for impurity transmitted by animal carcasses should be supplemented by a similar tabulation for communicable impurity stemming from human corpses. However, chs. 12-15 deal solely with the impure fluxes and skin eruptions of live persons, not dead ones. The answer has already been suggested1 that the original severity of corpse contamination was subsequently attenuated as a result of a long battle with the pagan notion that contact with the dead meant exposure to malevolent, demonic forces. And for this reason a later version of corpse contamination, its potency reduced and adapted to settled life in Canaan, was incorporated into Scripture—not in the book of Leviticus but in the book of Numbers (ch. 19). The basis for regarding vv. 39-40 as an appendix to the purification block is the cumulative evidence that, originally, the carcass of a pure 1. Cf. J. Milgrom, 'The Paradox of the Red Cow (NumXIX)', VT 31 (1981), pp. 62-72.

186


animal did not carry impurity by contact: 1.

2.

3. 4.

5.

Lev. 5.2 deals with impurity arising from contact beniblat hayya fme'a'd r/niblatbehema teme'a'd tfniblat seres (ame' 'with the carcass of an impure wild quadruped or the carcass of an impure domesticated quadruped or the carcass of an impure swarming creature'. Thus, this verse implies, by omission, that the carcasses of pure wild quadrupeds (e.g. 17.13-14; Deut. 14.5), pure domesticated quadrupeds (e.g. Deut. 14.4) and pure swarming creatures (e.g. 11.2122) do not defile by touch. The same conclusion must be derived from Lev. 7.21, dealing with one who 'touches anything impure, be it any human impurity or an impure quadruped or an impure detestable creature'. Once again, pure quadrupeds are omitted from this list, the implication being that their carcasses do not defile by touch. If the suet from the carcass of a pure quadruped may be utilized in man's service (7.24), clearly it does not defile. The only creatures in ch. 11 whose carcasses expressly defile by touch are the impure quadrupeds (vv. 4-8, 24-28), the eight named reptiles (vv. 29-38), and the pure quadrupeds (vv. 39-40). But the first two categories are distinguishable by being called fame', whereas all others in the chapter are referred to as seqes, the latter term implying that only their ingestion is defiling but not their touch. However, the pericope on pure quadrupeds that defile by touch (vv. 39-40) does not contain the adjective tame' and, moreover, is out of place (belonging logically after v. 28 instead of interrupting the section on the seres, 29-38, 41-42). Impurity is contracted by a priest if he touches bekol-sere$ >a ser yi(ma'-lo, 'any swarming creature by which he is made impure' (22.5). Since there are swarming creatures whose touch does not defile (all but the eight reptiles, 11.29-30), it stands to reason that a similar distinction exists among the other animal species, i.e., that some of their carcasses do not defile by touch. Moreover, since the priest is only forbidden to eat of a carcass (22.8) it can be deduced that touching it is not forbidden. Otherwise, the prohibition would have been

MlLGROM The Composition of Leviticus 11

187

against touching, and eating would have been deduced a fortiori. As shown (above), the original kernel of this chapter dealt solely with an enumeration of the prohibited animals as food (quadrupeds, vv. 1-8; fish, vv. 9-12; birds, vv. 13-23, and reptiles, vv. 41-43) and the section on purification procedures imposed for handling the carcasses of impure quadrupeds and eight reptiles (vv. 24-38) was a later insertion. Thus, vv. 39-40, which prescribe purificatory remedies for such impurity, must reflect a subsequent development. In addition, this passage shares with the preceding verses on purification (vv. 24-38) their intrusive character within the homogeneous diet laws (vv. 2-23, 41-42). However, it clearly is an appendix to the purification block (vv. 24-38), since it logically belongs with the other quadrupeds (vv. 24-28). Its placement at the end, after the long section on land swarmers (vv. 29-38), betrays its supplemental nature. Also, another indication of its discreteness is that it alone prescribes purification for eating a carcass as well as handling it. It was clearly composed by a P tradent, since its vocabulary, tame', 'be defiled (by touch)', and >aser-hi' Idkem le'okld, 'that you may eat', corresponds with P usage (see below). It could not have been authored by H, which holds that a priest is only forbidden to eat of a pure animal carcass (22.8) but he is not forbidden to touch it. Otherwise, the prohibition enjoined upon the priest to refrain from touching the carcass of (any of the eight, 11.29-31) swarming things (22.5) would have also included the wording bekol-behemd >aser-hi' le'okld 'any edible quadruped' (as in 11.39). And if contact with a carcass is not forbidden to a priest, all the more so to a lay person. Hence, vv. 3940, which forbid the touching of a pure carcass, must be later than the two priestly strata, described above, as well as H. In addition to the intrusive purification block (vv. 24-40), this chapter contains an appendix (vv. 43-45) which also betrays signs of supplementation. Suspicion rests on the altered use of the verb siqqes; throughout the chapter it denotes 'abominate', but here it means 'defile'. 1 The verb timme' also exhibits a change in meaning; it continues to mean 'defile', but whereas in the rest of the chapter it connotes defilement by contact, here it is limited to defilement by 1. J. Milgrom, Leviticus, I, on 11.43a.

188


ingestion, 1 a characteristic of H (20.25bp). Furthermore, the expression siqqes 'et-hannepes, 'defile the throat', is not a P idiom but is attested in H (20.25). This dependency on H is strongly corroborated by the imperative to Israel to make itself holy (v. 44), which is the most distinctive characteristic of the Holiness source (and hence its name) but which stands in flat contradiction to the opposing doctrine of P, that holiness of persons is reserved exclusively for priests and Nazirites. Even the Levites, the life-long servants of the Tabernacle, are scrupulously denied by P the attribute of holiness.2 Finally, this passage's dependence on H is evidenced by the fact that the call to holiness serves as a specific rationale for the diet laws both here (v. 44ap) and in H (20.26a). The chapter's subscript (vv. 46-47) is composed of two parts. The first (v. 46) sums up the animal categories but says nothing of purification. It probably was the work of P, and serves as a balance to the introduction (vv. l-2a). The second subscript is probably the work of P2, who had to make sure that the resumptive subscript would also summarize the two polarities, edible/inedible, and the one he introduced, impure/pure, corresponding respectively to the laws of defilement by ingestion and contact. To be sure, it cannot be the work of H. It is punctilious in preserving the use of fame' for defilement by contact, in concert with the rest of P. Moreover, its use of the polaric term tahor for carcasses whose contact does not defile (see also vv. 32, 36, 37) clashes with its use in H, where it designates edible animals (20.25a). P, on the other hand, refers to the latter as 'animal(s) that may be eaten' (v. 39; cf. v 34). The implications of this analysis for the development of ch. 11 are as follows: first, P experiences inner growth; the dietary prohibitions (vv. 2-23, 41-42) are supplemented by a block dealing with purification procedures for handling carcasses of impure animals (vv. 24-38). That it is the work of a P tradent is assured by the continued use of tame' to designate defilement by contact in distinction from seqe$, the term reserved for defilement by ingestion. It can be shown that chs. 9-10 also exhibit P accretions.3 Thus, the possibility 1. Milgrom, Leviticus, I, on 11.43b. 2. Cf. J. Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970), p. 29 n. 103. 3. Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus, I, on 9.21 and 10.15.

MlLGROM The Composition of Leviticus 11

189

exists that Pj and P2 discerned there continue their course in this chapter as well. If this holds true, then P2 here, as in the prior chapters, is a redaction and not a source, i.e., the author of vv. 24-38 also inserted them. Theoretically, he might also have inserted the supplements, vv. 39-40, 43-45 and 47. However, the first of these passages (vv. 39-40) must be ruled out because of its position as an appendix, as indicated above. The second passage (vv. 43-45) is automatically eliminated by its content and vocabulary, which place it in the sphere of H. The third supplement (v. 47), however—clearly the work of the P school (see above)—remains a possibility. Since it neatly encapsulates the animals which defile either by contact or ingestion, the likelihood is that its author is indeed P2, the one who inserted vv. 24-28, thereby providing a fitting summary for the augmented chapter. By the process of elimination vv. 39-40 must, therefore, be attributed to a later interpolator. Indeed, since the doctrine expressed in vv. 39-40 is alien to Pp P2, and H, it follows that these verses comprise the last stage in the composition of Leviticus 11, a deduction which has significant implications for the redaction of the book of Leviticus.1 What of the remaining passage, vv. 43-45? Clearly, as the product of H, it is alien to the chapter. Moreover, it is found at the end of the chapter and is neither adumbrated in the resumptive subscripts (vv. 46-47) nor is it in harmony with them. As indicated above, the verbs siqqe§ and timmeclash with their usage in the rest of the chapter and, more significantly, they clash with the second subscript (v. 47) in the usage of tame'. The question must be asked: why did the H redactor find it necessary to supplement the dietary code? His leitmotif 'holiness' provides the answer. The Priestly school, as evidenced by this chapter, is concerned with Israel's ritual purity, but only in regard to the sanctuary and its sancta. For H, this is not enough. Israel has to strive for holiness, a higher rung on the ladder of virtue (cf. m. Sot. 9.15). Holiness implies moral as well as ritual perfection; it is imitatio dei (19.2). Thus, the conclusion is inescapable that the insertion of vv. 43-45 took place after the P material was in place. The implications are mind-boggling. Rather than assuming, with the scholarly consensus, that H is prior to and assimilated into P, Leviticus 11 indicates that the 1. Ibid., Introduction.

190


reverse may be true: H is the redactor of P, not just of earlier Pj, but also of subsequent P2. This conclusion will be supported by the cumulative evidence that H passages frequently occur outside its own block (chs. 17-26), where they appear, as here, as inserts that supplement and even interrupt the flow of the text (e.g. the Sabbath, Exod. 31.12-17; 35.1-3; the tassels, Num. 15.37-41; the laws concerning the ger, Exod. 12.47-49; Lev. 16.29-34; Num. 9.14; 15.13-16, 22-31; 19.10b; 35.15).1 The question, however, remains: Is H the last stratum of this chapter, or, perhaps, is P3 (vv. 39-40) still later? This question is not without significance. If the latter alternative proves correct, then H is not the final hand in this chapter and, presumably, in Leviticus; a P tradent subsequent to the H redaction then updated the material. Or if it turns out that P3 was already in place before H inserted his interpolation, then the possibility clearly exists that H is the redactor of all of P and, perhaps, of the entire Torah.2 These findings are summarized in the table which appears on the following page.

1. Cf. I. Knohl The Conception of God and Cult in the Priestly Torah and in the Holiness School' (Diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1988 [Hebrew]). 2. The investigation of this question is reserved for the Introduction to the Holiness Source, AB 3b.

The Composition of Leviticus 11 Verses

Stage I: Diet Rules (Pj)

l-2a

Introduction

2b-8

Forbidden quadrupeds

9-12

Fish

13-19

Birds

20-23

Flying insects

Stage II: Purification (P2)

24-28

Forbidden quadrupeds

29-38

Eight land swarmers

Stage III: H. Redaction

39-40 41-42

Permitted quadrupeds Land swarmers Call to holiness

43-45 46 47

Stage IV: Interpolation (P3)

Subscript Subscript

THE SIN OFFERING LAW IN THE 'HOLINESS SCHOOL' (NUMBERS 15.22-31) Israel Knohl

I The sin offering law in Num. 15.22-31 is one of the more difficult topics in biblical law. In his last article, A. Toeg proposed a comprehensive and original solution to the questions posed by this law.1 Toeg defines the underlying difficulties of this text as follows: The main exegetic problem of this text lies in its unique and unusual nature which is very apparent if we compare it with the corresponding section in Leviticus 4. . .Taking account of parallel laws in the Torah, there are three surprising issues here: A. The obligation to bring a bull for a burnt offering and a goat for a sin offering for a transgression by error of the congregation (v. 24), versus a bull for a sin offering in the analogous case in Lev. 4.14. B. The priority of the burnt offering to the sin offering for a transgression by error of the congregation (v. 24) is surprising in view of the fact that with all other sacrifices offered for a transgression or uncleanness, the burnt offering, if not completely excluded, is generally secondary to the sin offering in the order in which it is mentioned and sacrificed. C. The 'cutting off punishment for all willful sinners (v. 30-31) versus limiting this punishment to specific transgressions. . .which are mostly strict cultic prohibitions ('A Halachic Midrash', pp. 1-2). Toeg then reviews the various attempts in rabbinic literature and in rabbinic and Karaite exegesis to resolve the contradiction between Numbers 15 and its corresponding text in Leviticus 4, by presenting them as dealing with two different cases. Due to the difficulties arising from these interpretations, Toeg arrives at the following conclusion: There appears to be no escape from the conclusion of modern 1. A. Toeg, 'A Halachic Midrash in Numbers 15.22-31', Tarbiz 43 (1973-4), p. 1-20, and see review of previous research, pp. 4-7.

KNOHL The Sin Offering Law in the 'Holiness School'

193

commentators that Numbers 15 is dealing with a transgression by error of the congregation in general and with an individual error in general, as does Leviticus 4, in spite of slight differences in phrasing. Since these texts are dealing with identical cases, they therefore clearly contradict each other. The question is whether it is possible to find a relationship between them ('A Halachic Midrash', pp. 4-5). The generally accepted principle of modern exegesis that the more complex law is a later law is based on an unproven supposition. Moreover, the application of this principle here is a two-edged sword since each of the two passages is more complex than the other in terms of the differences between them. . .It is therefore clear that a simplistic application of the above principle does not help our understanding of the relationship between the two texts. On the other hand, there are two matters of special significance here. One is that in Numbers 15 the bull burnt offering precedes the goat sin offering, contrary to the usual order in similar cases. The second is, that since a goat is used as a sin offering for the nation in the Days of Consecreation (Lev. 9.3) and goats are used as sin offerings for the nation on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 17.5), then Lev. 4.14 is exceptional in requiring a bull sin offering for a transgression by error of the congregation ('A Halachic Midrash', p. 5).

Later on Toeg proves, based on a detailed literary analysis, that the author of the passage in Numbers 15 was familiar with the corresponding law in Leviticus 4 and wished to revise and rephrase it. Toeg defines this revision as 'A Halachic Midrash'. He is of the opinion that the author of the Numbers passage understood the language of Lev. 4.14, 'the congregation shall offer a bull of the herd as a sin offering' as a shortened formulation which can be cut and explained as follows: 'a bull of the herd'—for a burnt offering, and a goat—'as a sin offering'. Application of this Midrash, makes the text in Leviticus conform to the widespread custom of atoning for the nation with a goat sin offering, as in the Days of Consecration and Day of Atonement ceremonies. Thus the anomaly of the bull burnt offering appearing prior to the goat sin offering in v. 24 is understood, since this bull is none other than the transformation of the bull sin offering mentioned in Lev. 4.24. Toeg brings an example of this exegetic technique from an elaboration in the Samaritan version of Exod. 22.4 (this elaboration also appears in the Septuagint, and it is also partially documented in a section from cave 4 at Qumran).1 Another example is 1. See A. Toeg, 'Exodus 22.4: The Text and the Law in Light of the Ancient Sources', Tarbiz 39 (1970), pp. 229-30; Addenda to Tarbiz 39, pp. 223-31, 419.

194


the formula 'a word is missing and it should read thus' which is used in the Babylonian Talmud as a basis for exegetic interpolations which elaborate on the wording of the Mishnah.1 Toeg's original explanation has recently been adopted by M. Fishbane,2 but I believe that it requires further study. Let us examine it in light of the examples of the exegetic interpolation technique which Toeg presents. These examples present different ways of creating a literary association between the basic text and the exegetic elaboration. On the one hand, we have the case of Exod. 22.4 in which the elaboration is inserted into the original text, and on the other hand there are the examples from the Talmud in which the Mishnah version of the canon is preserved in its original, but with the exegetical note at the side 'a word is missing and it should read thus' suggesting an alternative, elaborated version. This subject matter appears to be similar to the examples from the Talmud, rather than to the text in Exodus, in that no elaboration is inserted in the Leviticus 4 version, but alongside the original version of the canon, which was preserved in its original form, Numbers 15 offers an alternative, elaborated version. But the similarity is not perfect, because the Babylonian sage refers directly to the Mishnah text and proclaims 'a word is missing and it should read thus', whereas the biblical author can only hint to the reader at his intention to correct and interpret the earlier version. Based on Toeg, we would therefore expect that the later author who formulated the law in Numbers 15 would have made every effort to preserve the affinity with and similarity to the textual framework of Leviticus 4, so that the reader can clearly understand that it is the author's intention to correct and interpret this difficult text. Thus, in order to make the bull sin offering (Lev. 4.14) compatible with the halachic norm of the Days of Consecration and the Day of Atonement rituals—the goat sin offering—it would have been sufficient to add few words to the written Leviticus text. Instead of 'the congregation shall offer a bull of the herd as a sin offering' it should read 'the congregation shall offer a bull of the herd as a burnt offering and a goat as a sin offering'. A small correction of this type would create the required 1. Toeg, 'A Halachic Midrash', pp. 8-9. 2. M. Fishbane, Biblical interpretation in Ancient Israel, (Oxford 1985), pp. 22324.


195

halachic compatibility while preserving a marked affinity with the original Leviticus 4 text. However, the textual reality is completely different. The language of the text in Numbers 15 deviates completely from the language in Leviticus 4. Instead of 'the congregation shall offer' in Leviticus 4, we find in Numbers 15 'the whole congregation shall present'. In addition, the words 'of pleasing odor to the Lord with its proper meal offering and libation', are completely unnecessary according to Toeg's explanation. These changes and additions blur the linguistic connection between the two texts and make it difficult to claim that this is exegetic interpolation. This is no exegetic insertion but rather a revised and renewed version with only a weak affinity to the original text!

Ill Since I have rejected the theory that the Numbers 15 text is an exegetic elaboration of the Leviticus 4 text which would resolve the difficulty of the bull burnt offering preceding the goat sin offering, I wish to propose an alternative explanation. In order to do so, I must first examine the various Priestly writings which deal with atonement of the congregation, and classify them according to their chronological order and literary characteristics. As mentioned previously, the text in Lev. 9.3 referring to the eighth Day of Consecration instructs: 'And speak to the Israelites, saying: Take a he-goat for a sin offering; a calf and a lamb, yearlings without blemish, for a burnt offering'. In the annual Day of Atonement ceremony it states, 'And from the Israelite community he shall take two he-goats for a sin offering and one ram for a burnt offering' (Lev. 16.5). Both texts have in common the combination of a goat for a sin offering and a bull for a burnt offering for the atonement of the people.1 In contrast, in the Lev. 4.14 text a transgression by error of the congregation is atoned for with a bull of the herd as a sin offering. There is a criterion which we can use to help us establish that this is a later text than the two previously mentioned texts. This criterion is the references to the incense altar.

1. For the basis of atoning with this type of burnt offering see Lev. 9.7 and 16.24.

196


Wellhausen, Kuenen and many other scholars1 have noted the unusual placement of the instruction for building the altar of gold in Exodus 30, which appears after the conclusion of all of the instructions for building the Tabernacle and its vessels. They concluded that this is a relatively later instruction and that the earlier stratum of the Priestly Torah (P) knows of only one altar, the altar of burnt offering. Indeed, an examination of the material confirms this theory. For example, the Day of Atonement passage in Leviticus 16 repeatedly uses the non-specific term 'the altar'—'he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord and purge it' (Lev. 16.18), 'when he has finished purging the Shrine, the Tent of Meeting, and the altar' (Lev. 16.20). The passages are clearly referring, both linguistically and contextually, to the altar of burnt offering, as Ibn Ezra argues in his commentary.2 It would seem that the author is completely unaware of the existence of another altar and therefore used the non-specific term 'the altar'.3 This distinction also applies to the text of the eighth Day of Consecration in Leviticus 9, where the non-specific phrase 'the altar' is also used, referring to the altar of burnt offering (Lev. 9.7-10, 17-18, 20, 24). In contrast, the sin offering text in Leviticus 4 is familiar with two altars and therefore carefully distinguishes between them: the priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of aromatic incense which is in the Tent of Meeting before the Lord, and all the rest of the bull's blood shall he pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting (Lev. 4.7).

And again in v. 18: 1. See the reference list cited by M. Haran, 'The Censer Incense and Tamid Incense', Tarbiz 26 (1957), p. 118 n. 5. 2. Which is contrary to Rabbinic interpretation which states: 'And he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord—this is the altar of gold' (m. Yarn. 5.5). 3. Verses 17 and 20 state that the Priest atones for the tent of meeting, but there is no explanation of how he conducts the atonement. In any event, it is incorrect to claim that the text is hinting at atonement for the incense altar as in Exod. 30.10. If this were so why wasn't this altar mentioned explicitly? Furthermore, the verse in Exod. 30.10 is a kind of supplement to the annual Day of Atonement ceremony described in Lev. 16. After the new instruction regarding building the altar of incense was given (Exod. 30.1-9), v. 10 was added to it in order to include the new altar with the atonement vessels 'once a year'. See A. Kuenen, The Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (trans. P.H. Wicksteed; London: Macmillan, 1886), p. 87 n. 23.


197

Some of the blood he shall put on the horns of the altar which is before the Lord, in the Tent of Meeting, and all the rest of the blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

Thus we see that the Days of Consecreation and Day of Atonement texts (Leviticus 9 and 16), where atonement is with a goat sin offering and a bull burnt offering, belong to an early stratum of the Priestly Torah, whereas Leviticus 4, where atonement for the congregation is with a bull for a sin offering, belongs to a later stratum. As previously mentioned, I have accepted Toeg's view that the Numbers 15 sin offering text is familiar with the corresponding text in Leviticus 4 and simply revises it. It follows that the text in Numbers 15 is the latest of all sources dealing with atonement of the nation. And it is indeed precisely this section which goes back and adopts the early custom of atonement of the congregation with a goat sin offering and a bull burnt offering, as in Leviticus 9 and 16, but it gives unusual priority to the burnt offering over the sin offering. I believe that the key to understanding this phenomenon lies in the realisation that in contrast to the sin offering laws in Leviticus 4, 9, 16 which originate in the Priestly Torah (P), the sin offering laws in Numbers 15 have their origin in the Holiness School (H).1 In attributing this text to the Holiness School, I am following Wellhausen and Kuenen2 who pointed out the remarkable affinity between Numbers 15 and the Holiness Code. From among the various proofs with which these scholars support their claims, I wish to note the similarity between the story of the man gathering sticks in Numbers 15 and the man who cursed in Leviticus 24, as well as the passage regarding rcrx which concludes Numbers 15 which is studded with terms characteristic of the Holiness School, e.g. 'to be holy to your God', 'I, the Lord your God'. The scholars point out the exhortatory tone of vv. 30-31 which is also reminiscent of the Holiness School style. The rro formulation appearing in this passage 1. For the school which is termed H, see the material in my dissertation, 'The Concept of God and Cult in the "Priestly Torah" and the "Holiness Schol'" (PhD Diss.; Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1988), pp. 89-90, 146-71. 2. See: J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuch und der historichen Biicher des Alien Testaments (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1889), p. 175; Kuenen, Origin and Composition, p. 96 n. 38.

198


also indicates that the passage has its origin in this school.1 Ill

Having classified the texts by chronological order and the various schools, I can now attempt an explanation of the subject matter in its entirety. It would seem that the changing of one sacrificial animal for another, in atoning for a transgression by error of the congregation, is indicative of the profound disagreement in the understanding of the essence of the atonement ritual and methods. In non-Priestly biblical sources, the foremost atonement and appeasement sacrifice is the burnt offering. Thus, for example, Samuel sacrifices a sucking lamb as a whole burnt offering before crying out to God during the fast at Mitzpah on the eve of the war with the Philistines (1 Sam. 7.9). We read of Job's custom, When a round of feast days was over, Job would send word to them to sanctify themselves, and, rising early in the morning, and he would make burnt offerings, one for each of them; for Job thought 'Perhaps my children have sinned, and blasphemed God in their thoughts'. This is what Job always used to do (Job 1.5).

The appeasement quality of the burnt offering lies in its being burnt completely, thus imparting a splendid aroma which has the power to appease and assuage the anger of the Lord as portrayed in the story of 1. There are two 'cutting off formulations here. The first, 'that person shall be cut off from among his people' is followed by, 'that person shall be cut off—he bears his guilt'. The second formulation is unique, but the first is similar to rro formulations with which we are familiar. Careful study reveals that this formulation departs from the style of the Priestly Torah and instead is similar to that of the 'Holiness School'. The Priestly Torah 'cutting off formulation is 'shall be cut off from his people' (Exod. 30.33, 38; Lev. 7.20-21), whereas here the text states, 'that person shall be cut off from among his people'. The use of the term 'from among' in 'cutting off expressions is very widespread in the Holiness School (see Lev. 17.4, 10; 18.29; 20.5, 18; cf. also 23.30). The usage 'from among' in 'cutting off formulations appears, in addition to the Holiness Code, only in the expression 'that person shall be cut off from among his kin' in Exod. 31.14. Scholars agree that the Sabbath laws of Exod. 31.12-17 originate in the Holiness School (see M. Haran, 'The Holiness Code', in EM, V, p. 1095). Thus, the usage of 'from among' in the 'cutting off formulation is unique to the Holiness School and its appearance in Num. 25 is proof of its originating in that school. For additional evidence of the origin of the sin offering law in the Holiness School see below, p. 201 n. 1.


199

the flood, 'Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and taking of every clean animal and of every bird, he offered burnt offerings on the altar' (Gen. 8.20). The image of God receiving pleasure from the sweet aroma and his anger subsiding as a result has a strong tinge of anthropomorphism. These sources, however, find nothing wrong with such images (see also 1 Sam. 26.19). The approach of the Priestly Torah is different. The Priestly Torah inherited the ancient ritual forms with their anthropomorphic images, but made a concerted effort to refine them. The aroma of the sacrifices is a common motif of this school, however it refrains from attributing the smelling action directly to God and phrases it indirectly, 'an offering by fire, of pleasing odour to the Lord'.1 Moreover, an examination of the usage of the expression 'pleasing odour to the Lord' in the Priestly Torah, is instructive. This expression is widely used in relation to burnt offerings and peace offerings, but is almost entirely lacking in the atonement sacrifice laws for the guilt offering and the sin offering.2 The same is true for the meal offering laws. The combination 'pleasing odour to the Lord' appears several times in the context of the meal offering sacrifice containing frankincense, however the Priestly Torah specifically instructs that no frankincense be put on the meal offering of the sinner and the adulteress, and the sacrifice is not described as 'a pleasing odour' (see Lev. 5.11-12; Num. 5.15, 26). The underlying reason for this seems to be the Priestly Torah's reservations regarding the clearly anthropomorphic and anthropopathic nature of the atonement procedure as described in non-Priestly sources. As a result, this school avoided the usage of 'a pleasing odour' precisely in the case of the Atonement sacrifices and the meal offerings of sinners, so as not to give the impression that forgiveness and atonement are achieved by placating God with pleasant aromas. For this same reason, the Priestly Torah changes the status of the burnt offering as the main Atonement sacrifice and replaces it with the sin offering, only a small part of which is burnt on the altar. The central feature of the act of atonement no longer revolves around burning meat for a pleasing odour to the Lord, but with various blood sprinkling ceremonies. The ritual of 1. See Knohl, 'God and Cult', pp. 121-22. 2. This expression is completely absent in the laws of the guilt offering and appears once in relation to the sin offering (Lev. 4.31).

200


purification by blood is clearly of an impersonal nature. Sprinkling the blood on the altar was not intended to appease God but to remove and cleanse the impurity which was created as a result of the act of sinning.1 This approach of the Priestly Torah is also portrayed in the various atonement customs. During its early stage, as in the description of the eighth Day of Consecration in Leviticus 8 and in the annual Day of Atonement ceremony in Leviticus 16, the burnt offering is still in evidence, but it no longer has central status and priority is given to the sin offering which appears first. In the detailed description of the sacrificing ceremonies, sprinkling of the blood is the main ritual.2 Rejection of the burnt offering culminates in Leviticus 4, which belongs to a later stratum of the Priestly Torah. Here the burnt offering has completely disappeared, and atonement is with a bull sin offering only.3 The rise of the Holiness School, which in my opinion is a later school than that of the Priestly Torah,4 constitutes a major turning point in Priestly thinking. The Priestly Torah wished to completely separate Priestly ritual and popular cultic practices with their anthropomorphic expressions.5 The Holiness School, on the other hand, accepts popular cultic tradition, attaches importance to it and strives to blend this tradition with Priestly ritual practices.6 This approach can be seen in the sin offering passage in Numbers 15, which was formulated in this school. The popular custom of atonement by means of the aroma of the burnt offering again achieves centrality. The burnt offering is mentioned first and with great elaboration, with the meal offering and libation added to it, 'the whole congregation shall present one bull of the herd as a burnt offering, of pleasing odour to the Lord, with its proper meal offering and libation' (Num. 15.24). The goat sin 1. See Knohl, 'God and Cult', pp. 123-24. 2. See Lev. 9.8-9 and 16.14-19. 3. A remnant of the ancient atonement custom was preserved in the burning of the fat of the sin offering upon the altar and referring to it as 'a pleasing odour to the Lord' (Lev. 4.31). 4. See Knohl, 'God and Cult', pp. 4, 89, 113. 5. Knohl, 'God and Cult', pp. 141-42; and I. Knohl, 'The Priestly Torah Versus the Holiness School: Sabbath and the Festivals', HUCA 58 (1987), pp. 102-103. 6. Knohl, 'God and Cult', pp. 38-39, 168-69.


201

offering, of Priestly origin, is mentioned afterwards, and only briefly. In v. 25 as well, the burnt offering precedes the sin offering: The priest shall make expiation for the whole Israelite congregation and they shall be forgiven; for it was an error, and for their error they have brought their offering, an offering by fire to the Lord, and their sin offering before the Lord.

The precise language describing and characterising the sacrifices is most instructive. The burnt offering is described as ntfR, i.e. a gift presented directly to God,1 whereas the text uses the impersonal, indirect formulation 'before the Lord' for the sin offering, which is common for the sacrifice laws in the Priestly Torah,2 from which the sin offering ritual derives. In this manner the Holiness School integrated both Priestly and popular cultic tradition into one fabric.3 1. Regarding the nttfK as a present, gift, see: I.C. Greenfield, 'Un rite religieux arameen et ses paralleles', RB 80 (1973), pp. 46-52. The text, 'they have brought their offering, an offering by fire to the Lord', strengthens my hypothesis regarding its origin in the Holiness School. As I have explained elsewhere, the Priestly Torah refrains from using such verbs as 'bring' Ran and 'give' ]ra with regard to the 'offering by fire', apparently in order to obscure the comparison of offering a sacrifice with giving a present to God (see Knohl, 'God and Cult', pp. 236-37, n. 32). In contrast, the Holiness School is not afraid of such comparisons, and we therefore find the following combinations in its laws: 'you shall not put. . .as offering by fire' Conn vh ntfRl) (Lev. 22.22), 'your gifts. . .that you give to the Lord' (Lev. 23.38). Against this background, we can understand the usage of 'they have brought. .. an offering by fire' in Num. 15. Since this text was formulated in the Holiness School, which does not adhere strictly to the precise phrasing and terminology of the Priestly Torah, it explains the absence of the expressions, 'and he realizes his guilt', 'and they realize their guilt', which are commonly used in the sin offering and guilt offering laws of the Priestly Torah (Lev. 4-5). 2. Regarding the usage of the expression 'before the Lord', to obscure the personal image of God in the Priestly Torah, see Knohl, 'God and Cult', p. 116 and n. 5. The combination 'before the Lord' appears below in relation to the sin offering of an individual as well (Num. 15.28). An individual cannot be commanded to bring both a burnt offering and a sin offering because of material loss. Therefore, the obligation to bring a goat for a sin offering is established here, as is the case in Lev. 4.28. 3. Rendtorff and Milgrom have noted the connection between the bull burnt offering in Num. 15.24 and the popular custom documented in non-Priestly sources (see: R. Rendtorf, Studien zum Geschichte des Opfers in Alien Israel [NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967], pp. 22-23, 82-83; J. Milgrom, 'The Two Pericopes on the Purification Offering', in The Word of The Lord Shall Go Forth—

202

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel IV

Now that I have explained the basis for the halachic difference between Leviticus 4 and Numbers 15 and the surprising priority of the burnt offering over the sin offering, I would like to discuss the other unusual phenomenon appearing here, i.e. the rro punishment for all willful sinners. In his discussion of this subject, Toeg writes: Leviticus 19 provides a possible ideological foundation for this extreme approach. In this chapter, the identical explanatory statement 'I the Lord/your God' is used repeatedly for laws regarding different subjects and with differing formulations. .. Only an approach of this kind, which views each and every law as an equal expression of God's will can bring about the realization that willful transgression of any law constitutes total rebellion against God. For if the only reason for the commandments is the expression of God's will, then there is no point in differentiating between severe and light commandments. The basic sin is thus the sin of 'hubris', insolence against heaven.1

Toeg's ideas fall into line with my conclusion that the material under discussion can be ascribed to the Holiness School, since Leviticus 19 is known to be a central chapter in the writings of this school. In my opinion, one theme connects the new halachic interpretations of this law, and this theme is also expressed in its style. Several scholars have already pointed out that in contrast to the completely impersonal wording of the laws in Leviticus 4, the mode of address in Numbers 15 is in the second person, both at the beginning of the section (vv. 22-23) and also at its conclusion, with the errant sinner (v. 29). This stylistic difference expresses the ideological difference. Leviticus 4 is written from the viewpoint of the Priestly Torah which endeavours to emphasise the impersonal dimension and rejects Essays in Honor of D.N. Freedman [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983], pp. 211-15). However I do not concur with the explanation which they offer, that the early version of the Num. 15 law contained instructions regarding the sacrificing of a bull burnt offering, and only at a later date was the goat sin offering added in order to make it correspond with the Priestly laws. The flowing and uniform style of the passage and the fine linguistic distinctions in the description of the different sacrifices are proof, in my opinion, that we are dealing with a single literary unit drawn from both popular cultic tradition and Priestly ritual tradition, which are harmoniously blended together. 1. See Toeg, 'A Halachic Midrash', p. 18.


203

personal and anthropomorphic expressions of the relationship between God and man. Therefore, sinning and atonement are not viewed as part of an interpersonal relationship, but rather, sin is a force which creates an impure state, which must be neutralised by cleansing ceremonies. The Holiness School, on the other hand, endeavours to emphasise the direct, personal connection between God and Israel (see the expressions which are commonly used by this school 'I the Lord/your God') and does not shun the use of expressions with an anthropomorphic tone.1 Based on this approach, the Holiness School formulated a new version of the sin offering law. It stressed the interpersonal and anthropomorphic aspect of the atonement ritual, whose essence, in its view, is bringing an ntfK, a gift, 'a pleasing odour to the Lord'. It similarly emphasized the personal aspect in the willful transgression. The main issue is not that willful transgression creates impurity, but rather that it indicates rebellion against a commanding God whose reason for giving the law is 'I, the Lord'. This view is expressed in the passage 'But the person, be he citizen or stranger, who acts defiantly reviles the Lord; that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has spurned the word of the Lord, and violated His commandment, that person shall be cut off—he bears his guilt' (Num. 15.30-31). The positive element in the personal relationship between the commanding God and the commanded Israelites is emphasized in the passage regarding niris which concludes the chapter. In this passage, which carries the clear imprint of the Holiness School we read, Thus you shall be reminded to observe all My commandments, and to be holy to your God. I the Lord am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I, the Lord your God (Num. 15.40-41).

1. Regarding anthropomorphic expressions of the Holiness School, see Knohl, 'God and Cult', pp. 148-49. The language 'and I will not savor your pleasing odours' (Lev. 26.31), is instructive because it offers the image of refraining from savouring the pleasing odour as an expression of God's anger.

INDEXES INDEX OF REFERENCES HEBREW SCRIPTURES Genesis 1.28 2.17 3.3 4.10 8.20 8.21 9.4 11.19 12.6 14.22 16.14 17.14 21.31 21.33 26.23-25 27 27.1-45 27.1 27.2 27.4 27.7 27.9 27.15 27.16 27.17 27.18 27.25 27.26-27 27.28-29 27.32 27.46-28.9 28

157 167 167 62 199 126 43, 65, 166 45 141 145 45 40 45 137 137 92-95, 107, 115, 119 107 92 92 92 92 94 120 94, 95, 108, 119 94 93 94, 95, 108 93 93 93 107 107, 119,

28.10-22 28.10 28.11 28.20-22 31.27 31.35 32.20 42.15 42.16 47.29 48 48.1 48.8 48.10 48.15-16 48.20 49.1 49.28-33

Exodus 6.20 12.4 12.16 15 19.6 20.11 22.2 22.4 22.30 23.19 29.12

139 107, 108, 115, 116, 119, 120 115 115, 116 19 16 176 52,53 127 127 93 92-94 92,93 93 93 93 93 93 92

129 41 41 21 64 45,46 167 193, 194 64, 166, 168, 169 168 50

29.33 30 30.1-9 30.10 30.12-16 30.12 30.13 30.15 30.16 30.33 30.38 31.12-17 31.14-15 32 31.14 34.26 35.13 Leviticus 1.2 1.4 3 3.16-17 3.17 4-5 4

4.1-5.13 4.1-5 4.2 4.7 4.14 4.18 4.24

47 196 196 53, 196 52 57 57 55 55 198 198 190, 198 58 140 198 168 190 94 53, 54, 61 46,66 166 43, 44, 61 151,201 9, 53, 156, 159, 192-97, 200, 202 154 160 159 196 192-95 196 193

Index of References 4.28 4.31 5.1-13 5.1 5.2ff. 5.2

5.2-3 5.3 5.5-13 5.7-10 5.7 5.20-26 5.11-12 5.24 6.20-23 6.23 7 7.19-20 7.20-21 7.20 7.21 7.24-27 7.24 7.25 7.26-27 7.26 7.27 8 8.15 9-10 9 9.3

9.7-10 9.8-9 9.7 9.9 9.17-18 9.20 9.21 9.24 10-16 10.1-7 10.1-3 10.4-5 10.4 10.15 10.16-20

201 199, 200 159 160 64 154, 165, 166, 186 159, 161 166 160 160 160 160 199 121 154 47 46,66 162 198 41 41, 154, 186 166 64, 186 41 44,61 41,43, 169 41,43 200 50 188 196, 197 193, 195 196 200 195 50 196 196 188 196 185 157, 160 160 154, 157 129 188 154

11-16 11-16.28 11-15 11

11.1-47 11.1-23 11.1-8 ll.l-2a 11.2-23 11.2-8 11.2 11.26-40 11.26-33 11.26-8 11.4-8 11.5 11.8 11.9-23 11.9-12

11.10 11.11 11.12 11.13-23 11.13-20 11.13-19 11.13 11.18 11.20-23 11.20 11.21-22 11.23 11.24-40 11.24-38 11.24-28

152 151 185 9, 64, 165, 168, 169, 177, 182-86, 188, 189, 191 154, 169 185 187 188, 191 182, 184, 187, 188 182 184 168 168, 169 191 165, 168, 183, 186 184 64, 168 167, 168 182, 187, 191 169 64, 168, 169 169 183, 187 165 182, 183, 191 169 158 182, 183, 191 169, 184 184, 186 165, 169, 184 167, 168, 182-85, 187 185, 187-89 165, 182-84, 186, 187, 191

205 11.24 11.27 11.28 11.29-40 11.29-38 11.29-31 11.29-30 11. 3 Iff. 11.31 11.32 11.34 11.36 11.37 11.39-40

11.39 11.41-45 11.41-43 11.41-42

11.14 11.42 11.43-45 11.43 11.43a 11.43b 11.44-45 11.44

11.44aa 11.46-47 11.46 11.47

12-15 12 12.1-8 12.4 12.6-8 12.8 13-14 13

64 64 186 182 182, 187, 191 187 167, 186 64 165 188 188 188 188 64, 158, 159, 165, 166, 168, 169, 182-87, 189-91 187, 188 165, 168, 182, 183 187 167, 168, 184-88, 191 169 169 151, 168, 187, 189 169 187 188 167 188 188 182, 188, 189 185, 188, 191 189, 191 53, 185 176, 185 154 162 156 151 26 177

206 13.1-14.32 13.45-46 13.47-59 14.2-7 14.3 14.8-9 14.10-20 14.14 14.20 14.21-32 14.33-53 14.34-57 14.47 14.49-53 15 15.2-15 15.14-15 15.16-18 15.19-24 15.24 15.25-30 15.29-30 15.31 16 16.2bp 16.5 16.8-10 16.8 16.11-20 16.14-19 16.16 16.17 16.18-19 16.18 16.20 16.21-22 16.24 16.26 16.27-28 16.27 16.29-34 16.29 16.20 16.31 17-26

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel 154 26 154 154 169 26 156 154 53 156 154 151 167 154 176, 177, 185 154 156 154 154 158 154 156 151 156, 159, 161, 196, 200 151 195 154 59 154 53,200 163 47, 196 50 50, 196 196 154 195 154 154 190 190 41 163 41 151, 190

17

17.2 17.3-9 17.3-7 17.4 17.5-7 17.5 17.8-12 17.8-9 17.10-12

17.10

17.10ba 17.11

17.1 lao

n.mp 17.11b 17.12 17.12ap 17.13-16 17.13-14 17.13 17.13b 17.13ba 17.13bp 17.14 17.14aa 17.14ap 17.14b 17.14ba 17.14bp 17.15-16

17.16 18.6-23 18.14 18.19 18.25

9, 35, 36, 39, 60, 65, 162 38 38 37,65 58, 198 45 193 37 65 39, 42-44, 65 43, 45, 46, 62, 63, 166, 198 41 45, 46, 55, 59, 62, 63, 65 46 46 46,56 41,43-46, 61,63 41 37 39,61, 186 44, 61, 62, 63,65 38 61 61 43, 45, 65, 166 62,63 41 62-63 62 38,40 40, 64, 65, 154, 158, 161, 166 159, 166 162 129 154, 158 162

18.28 18.29 19 19.2 19.7 19.26 19.31 20 20.1-24 20.2-5 20.2 20.3 20.6 20.9 20.10 20.18 20.20 20.21 20.25-27 20.25-26 20.25 20.25a 20.25bp 20.26a 20.27 21.1-4 21.2-4 21.10-12 21.10-11 22.3-7 22.4-7 22.4-6 22.4 22.5 22.8

22.22 23.37 23.29 23.20 23.28 24 24.10-33 24.16

162 162, 198 202 189 166 43 163 166 166 162 58 40 40 58 57 154, 158, 162, 198 129, 162 162 154, 167 166, 168 188 188 188 188 166 154, 160, 167 157 154 157, 160, 167 162 154 154 154 186, 187 64, 154, 158, 165-67, 186, 187 201 41 41 40, 198 201 197 160 58

207

Index of References 24.18 25.49 26.17 26.31 27.11 27.27

56 129 40 203 154 154

15.28 15.29 15.30-31

55, 201

160 190 203 54 162 162

151, 152, 160, 161,

2.14

125

3.10 3.38 5.2-3 5.6-8

58 58 154 160

15.32-36 15.37-41 15.40-41 17.11 18.11 18.13 18.15 18.23-24 18.23 18.24

5.8

47

19

5.13 5.14 5.15 5.19 5.20 5.21-27 5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29 6.6-12 6.6-8 6.6-7

162 162 199

Numbers

1.14 1.51

6.9 6.10-12 7.42 7.47 8.19 9.6-14 9.14 10.20 12.10-15 12.12

15 15.13-16 15.22-31 15.22-29 15.22-23 15.24

15.25

125 58

162 162 57 199 162

162 162 154 157 159 159 159 125 125 52 154 190

125 176 26, 177 192-95, 197, 200-202

190 9, 190, 192

160 202 192, 193, 200, 201

201

19.1-22 19.2a 19.7 19.8 19.10 19.105-13 19.10b 19.13

202 160, 163, 166, 192, 197, 203

154 46 48 45,46

185 154 151 154 154 154 151 190 159, 161,

Deuteronomy 5.9 5.15 6.13 10.20 12.11-12 12.16 12.23 12.24 12.25 14 14.2 14.3-21 14.3-20 14.3-14 14.4-8 14.4 14.5 14.9-10 14.10 14.11-18 14.11 14.19-20 14.19 14.20 14.21

166 19.18 19.20-21a

19.20 19.21 21.13 23.24 24.17 25 25.13 30.14 31.13-24 31.50 32.33 35.15 35.31-34 35.31-33 35.31-32 35.31 35.33-35 35.33

154 151 159, 161, 166 154 19 44 124 198 52 41 154 55 48 190

58 53,56

56 52 159 47, 48, 56

14.21a 14.21b 15.8 15.11 15.15 15.23 16.24 17.21 19.6-7 19.21 21.8 21.15-17 24.16 24.18 24.22 28.47 32.4 32.42 33.1

58 45,46 127 127 22 43 43,49

43 43 169, 184

64 168, 169

168 169 184 186 186 184 169 184 169 184 169, 184 169, 184 64, 168, 169, 184

169 169 46 45,46 45,46 43 61 166 45 47 53 58 58 45,46 45,46 24 145 43 92

208


Joshua

2.1 2.3

130 130

6.17 6.23 6.25 23.1

130 130 130 92

Judges 3.20

5.18 6.32

111 21 129 130

8.9

127

11.30-31 13.15 13.19 17-18 18.30 18.31 20.1 20.18 20.26

19 94

5

I Samuel 1.11 3.1-18 3.14 3.20 7.9 7.16 10.3 14.32-34 14.39 14.45 14.50 18.6 20.3 25.26 26.19 28.6 28.10 2 Samuel 3.10 3.29 6.12 8.3

94 139, 140 139 139 146

115 115 19

no 47 146 198 115 94 43 127 127 129 16 127, 145

127 199 113 149 146 176 16 130

8.12 12.11 12.15-23

12.16-23 12.16 12.17 12.20 12.21 14.11 15.21 17.11 19.41 21.3 23.9 23.17 23.24 24.2 24.15 1 Kings 1.39 1.40 1.45 3.4-15 3.15 5.5 12 12.28 17.19 19.3 19.8

130 24 113, 114,

116 28 114, 116 116 116 114 149 127 146 129

52 128 44 128 146 146

1.16

2.2 2.4 2.6 4.10 7.3-10 15.5 16.13 17.28 17.30 23 23.15-20

/ Chronicles 4.10 4.24 11.12 11.19 11.46

16 16 17 112 116 146 140 139 111 138 138

111 111 111 127 127 127 111 176 176 94 147 148 147 147

115

24.21 26.25 27.4

19 130 128 44 130 146 130 130 130 128

2 Chronicles 1.1-13

112

21.2 23.17

1.5 20.27 20.37 23.18

26

2 Kings

1.4 1.6

23.15

26.16-21 30.5

112 16 128

16 26 176 146

Ezra

2.2 2.14 3.2 3.7-13 3.12 4.24-5.2 8.14 8.16 10.6

70 85 70 70 16 70 85

130 69, 73, 75, 77, 79, 80,

10.18

82 130

Nehemiah 3.1-20

73

3.1 3.20-21 3.37 7.7 7.18 10.12

12

68,69 68,69 54,55 85 85 130 67, 69, 71,

Index of References

12.6-7 12.8-9 12.10-11 12.10 12.11 12.22

12.23 12,27 12.35 12.43 13.4-9 13.4-5 13.4 13.6 13.28

72, 75, 7779 68 68 68, 69, 76 68, 76, 78, 82 69,82 68, 69, 71, 76, 80, 82, 88 69, 73, 77, 79, 82, 83 17 69 17 69,82 77 80 77 69, 70, 77, 78,90

Esther

4.1-2

31

Job 1.5 11.10 22.27

198 130 19

Psalms

1 3.1 3.6 4.9 5.12-13 5.12 9.2-3

9.12 9. 14-15 15 16 16.9 17.5 22.4-6 22.23

123 24 115 115 30 22 19, 22, 27, 30 19 26 165 20 28 115 21 21

22.26 23 23.4 23.5 24.3-6 27.6 30 30.12-13 31.7 32.1 32.11 33.21 34.2-4 34.3 35.27-28 35.27 40.17 48.12 50.13 54.6 54.8 56-60 57.1 58.1 59.1 61.6 64.11 66.13-17 66.13-15 69.11-12 69.33 70.5 71.20 71.22-23 75.1 86.13 91.1 92.2-5 92.5 92.14 96.11 97.1 97.8 97.11 100.2 104.31 106.5 107.4-32

19 28 28 28 165 18 29 22 22 55 22,30 22 30 22 30 22 22 22 44 18 18 20 20 20 20 19 22,30 18 18 30 22 22 26 22,27 20 26,33 115 22 19 19 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 18

209 107.9 107.21-22 109.24 109.28-30 110.7 138.5 116.7 126.23 137 137.3 141.1 141.2 149.2

41 18,19 30 30 124 124 18 22 23 16,22 18 15, 18 22

Proverbs

3.30 16.14 16.6

130 52 47

Cant.

5.10

132

Isaiah 1.11-17 1.11 6.1-8 6.1 6.3 6.4 7.14 9.2 16.10 22.13 23.10 24.11 27.9 30.22 34.7 38.9 45.2 47.11 49.26 55 55.12 58.3-5 58.3 58.10-11 62.2-3

145 44 27,28 26 21 31 48 16 16 16 126 16 47 176 44 20 126 52 44 27 16 30 41 41 30


210 65.4

103, 115

Jeremiah 7.8-11 7.34 16.9 16.18 18.23 25.10 33.11 46.10 48.33

165 16 16 65 52,54 16 16 43 16

Ezekiel 4.14 7.19-20 8.14 14 14.8 14.9 18.4 18.6 18.11 18.15 24.7-8 33.25 36.17 39.17-19 40-48 44.7 44.15

44.25-27 44.27 44.31

160 156 65, 158

Daniel 12.7

145, 149

Hosea 4.15 9.4 10.13

127, 145 94 124

8.14 8.14b Nahum 2.1

127

Haggai 1.1 1.12 1.14-15 2.1-4

70 70 70 70

Zechariah 1.7 3 14.8

70 70 141

8.11 8.12 8.13 8.14

Joel 2.20

64 176 135 39 40 40 49 43 43 43 62 43 176 44 152 49 49

144 129 144 23, 147 122 141, 142, 146, 147 142, 146 141 122, 141, 142, 146 9, 121-28, 134-36, 138, 141-49 126 122, 146

6.4-7 6.10 6.12 8.10 8.11-14 8.11-12

Amos 1.1 1.2 2.6-8 3.9-10 4.1 4.4-5 4.5b 5.2 5.4-5 5.5 5.7 5.10-15 5.13 5.21-24

141

147 147 144 144 144 143-45 143 122 143 138 144 144 141 144, 145, 147

JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Apocrypha 1 Esdras 9.1

79

Ecclesiasticus 50.1 89 Pseudepigrapha Sibylline Oracles 9.2 130 10.2 130 19.4 130 42.3 130

New Testament Matthew 3.11-12 100 26.64 124 Luke 3.16-17

100

Acts 1.13 20.18

111 111

Hellenistic Jewish Writers Josephus Ant. 11.5.1 68 11.5.5 68 11.5.5 68 11.5.5 68 11.7.1-8.7 78 11.7.1 68, 70, 73, 81, 83, 85 11.7.1 68 11.7.1 85 11.7.2-8.7 68,73 11.8.2 90

Index of References 11.8.7 11.8.7 12.2.5 12.3.3 12.3.3 12.3.4 12.4.1 14.10.22 14.10.24 20.6.2

70 73 79 84 84 84 79 84 84 84

Kel. 1.1-4 Mak. 3.15

155

44

Par. 4.3

44

Sot. 9.15

189

Yom. 5.5

196

Suk. 5.1

24

To/i. 1.5

155

211 Midrashim Exod. R. 1.34

26

Num. R. 12.3

57

Christian Authors Augustine Sermons 216.10 98

War 6.5.3 Philo Spec. Leg. 4.108-109

84

150

Mishnah 'Arak.

2.4

23

Ber.

1.1

Babylonian Talmud 'Arak. lla 23

15 Ber. 7b

Eusebus Inlsaiam Commentari 28 65

103 103

Eustathius adlliadem 2.233

104

ad Odysseam 22.481 1934-35

97

24

CLASSICAL SOURCES

Aelianus Fragments 101

Appollodorus Library 2.5.12 98

Diodorus Siculus Library of History 4.14.3 98 4.25.1 98 16.1.8 82 16.47.3 86 16.47.4 86 16.49.3-6 86 16.50.7 86 86 17.5.5 17.5.6 86

Callimachus Epigrammate 55

117

Ravius Philostratus Life ofApollonius 2.37 107

Dicaearchus 2.262

95

Artemidorus Onirocritica 5.9

117

117

Herodotus 2.141 4.172

110 116

Homer Hymn to Demeter 192-201 101 Illiad 1.62-63 16.233

113 104

Odyssey 19.318 19.336-348 20.1-3

104 104 104

Joannes Lydus De mensibus 4.65 95


212 Libanius Argumentum 34.35-36

117

Declamationes 117 34 Epistulae 695.2 Lucian De dea Syria 55 Lycophron Alexandra 1050-51

Ovid Fasti 2.31-32 4.649-76 5.101-102

95

Pausanius 1.34.5 2.11.7 2.27.1 2.27.3 2.36.1 10.33.11

105

Plutarch Romulus 21.5

117

97 106 97-98

Theseus 30.5 33.1-2

98 98

Porphyry Vita Pythagorae 17 96

103, 107

107 117 117 117 106

Strabo Geography 6.3.9 8.5.15 14.1.11 14.1.44

105 117 106 107

Virgil Aeneid 7.81-106

105

110 110

193.9 196.12

127 127

112

KUB XII.69.2.4-5

109

Other Sources Hittite Legend 12-13 13 14-17 14

ofNaram-Sin 109 109 109 109

97-98

INSCRIPTIONS AND PAPYRI

Published Collections AP 11.17-18 68 11.17.19 68 11.409 68 69,72 30-31 30 78, 79, 81, 82,88 30.1

81, 82, 84, 85,87

30.4-12 30.18-31.17 30.18

70 68,74 82

14.1.35-37 14.1.35 14.3.154 -14.4.171 17.1.1 -17.2.42 17.1.5-6 17.1.6 17.1.15-16 17.2.24-42 17.2.24-28 32.1.25 32.1.34

110

KAI 26.3.19 181

CTA 14.1.26 -14.4.153

111 115 115 115 112 117 127 127

127 133-35

Khirbat el-Q6m (cave inscription) 32

INDEX OF AUTHORS Abrabanel, don I. 36, 49, 63 Ackerman, S. 9 Ackroyd, P. 122 Aharoni, Y. 136, 138, 147 Ahlstrom, G.W. 122, 128, 133, 134 Albright, W.F. 71, 72, 131 Alt, A. 141 Amsler, S. 123 Anderson, F. 122 Anderson, G.A. 8, 9, 25, 138 Anton, H. 99 Arbersmann, P.R. 107 Arend, W. 93 Avigad, N. 84 Baentsch, B. 36, 47 Barrag, D. 87, 88 Barstad, H.M. 123, 124, 135, 148 Barth, C. 27, 32 Bartina, S. 123 Bauernfeind, D. 84 Baumgartner, W. 41 Begrich, J. 19, 21 Ben-Hayyim, Z. 54 Benoit, P. 125 ben-Shammai, M.H. 52, 57 Berger, P. 175 Bertholet, A. 36, 37, 47, 63 Betlyon, J. 88 Beyerlin, W. 140 Biran, A. 139 Blenkinsopp, J. 68, 69, 71, 72 Boyd, B. 136 Bradford Welles, C. 86 Branden, A.van den 132 Brichto, H.C. 36, 37, 43, 47, 49, 51, 52, 54, 58, 61, 63

Briggs, C.A. 41 Bright, J. 139 Brown, F. 41, 50, 121 Brownlee, W.H. 40 Brumfield, A.C. 96 Buchler, A. 150, 151, 165 Burkett, W. 93, 95, 96, 98-101, 118, 120, 173 Caquot, A. 115 Carlson, A. 128 Cassuto, U. 151 Chapman, A.T. 36, 43 Childs, B.S. 151 Cholewinski, A. 36, 39 Clifford, R. 27 Clift, E.H. 103 Coates, G.W. 140 Colson, F.H. 150 Conti Rossini, C. 132 Conybeave, F.C. 107 Cook, A.B. 96-99, 101 Coote, R.B. 146, 147 Cowley, A.E. 68, 70, 71, 76, 79, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 127 Crenshaw, J.L. 145 Cross, P.M. 9, 67, 71-79, 83, 87-90, 119, 123, 125, 131, 137, 139, 140, 147, 148 Criisemann, F. 18, 21 Dahlberg, B.T. 80 Dahood, M. 123 Dewar, L. 57 Delekat, L. 133, 134 Deubner, L. 96-99, 106, 107 Dillmann, A. 36-38, 62

214


Dodd, C.H. 51, 53 Dodds, E.R. 104, 107 Donner, H. 127, 133 Douglas, M. 170-72, 174, 178 Driver, G.R. 133 Driver, S.R. 54 Dumermuth, F. 139 Edwards, M.W. 93 Eerdmans, B.D. 183 Ehrlich, A. 36, 45, 47, 62, 63 Ehrlich, E.L. 107, 109, 113, 114, 118 Eitrem, S. 96 Elliger, K. 36, 39, 40, 43, 47, 48, 51,61,63 Emerton, J.A. 134 Engnell, I. 128, 133 Erbse, H. 97 Evans, A. 98 Fairclough, H.R. 106 Farnell, L. 98-100 Feldman, E. 31, 177 Fenik, B. 93 Feucht, C. 36 Firth, R. 171 Fishbane, M. 194 Fitzgerald, R. 104, 105 Frankfort, H. 108 Frazer, J.G. 97, 98, 106 Freedman, D.N. 122 Fiiglister, N. 36, 47-49, 51, 52, 5457,60 Galling, K. 85 Gammie, J. 156, 165 Garnet, P. 52-54, 57, 60 Geertz, C. 175, 177, 180 Gelb, I.J. 130, 131 Gemser, B. 45 Gennep, A.van 174 Gerleman, G. 52 Ginsberg, H.L. 19, 20, 32 Ginzburg, C.D. 36, 38, 40 Gjerstad, E. 96, 97 Gnuse, R.K. 113, 118 Goetze, A. 109

Good, R.M. 129, 130 Gorman, F.H., Jr. 65, 66 Gray, G.B. 51, 54, 60, 61, 128 Greenberg, M. 17, 39, 57, 121, 127 Greenfield, I.C. 201 Greenfield, J. 20 Greenfield, J.C. 110, 116 GrCndahl, F. 129 Gruber, M. 53 Gunkel, H. 19, 21, 40, 94, 120, 137 Gurney, O.R. 176 Guterbock, H.G. 109 Halpern, B. 139 Hamilton, M. 107, 114, 117 Haran, M. 196, 198 Harding, G.L. 132 Harrison, J. 96, 97, 99, 100 Hatch, E. & A. Redpath 84, 124 Hausmann, U. 102, 103 Hendel, R.S. 92-94 Henton Davies, G. 60 Herdner, A. 110, 111, 115, 117, 127 Herrmann, J. 51, 53, 59, 60 Hermann, S. 139, 140 Hoffmann, D.Z. 36, 38, 43, 49, 63, 183

Horst, F. 127 Huffman, H. 130, 131 Humbert, P. 16, 17, 22 Ibn Ezra 36, 38, 47, 57, 62, 141, 196 Jacobsen, T. 108 Jacobsthal, P. 117 Jameson, M.H. 98 Janowski, B. 52, 54 Jirku, A. 37 Jones, H.L. 105, 107 Jones, R.N. 154 Jones, W.H.S. 104 Kaiser, O. 32 Kalisch, M.M. 36, 43, 47, 49, 51, 54, 57, 62 Kapelrud, A.S. 122, 145 Kedar-Kopstein, B. 44, 56 Kellermann, D. 121

Index of Authors Kere"nyi, C. 102 KenJnyi, K. 99 Kilian, R. 36, 39, 40 Kiuchi, N. 52 Knight, D.A. 137 Knohl, I. 9, 60, 151, 180, 190, 197, 199-201,203 Koch, K. 18 Koehler, L. 41 Kogut, S. 48 Komfield, W. 36, 37, 54, 177 Kuenen, A. 196, 197 Kugel, J. 17, 18, 23, 31 Kugel, J.L. 126 Lang, B. 48, 52, 54 Lattimore, R. 104 Lawton, R. 130 Leach, E. 174 Lemaire, A. 32 Lenowitz, H. 16 Levenson, J. 21, 28, 165 Levine, B. 36, 47, 48, 52, 53-58, 60, 160-62, 165, 166 Licht, J. 41 ,52, 57 Lindblom, J. 122 Lipinski, E. 30 Liver, J. 77 Lohfink, N. 30 Lovatelli, A.C. 98-101 Lubetski, M. 148 Luckmann, T. 175 Luzzatto, S.D. 36, 43, 49, 62 Lyonnet, S. 49, 52, 57, 60 Maag, V. 122, 148 Maass, F. 52 McAlpine, T.H. 113, 114, 118 McCarter, P.K. 125, 128 McCarthy, D.J. 56 McNeile, A.H. 45 MacRae, A.A. 135 Mannheim, K. 175 Marcus, R. 84 Marx, A. 156, 174 Mays, J.L. 141, 147 Meigs, A.S. 177 Melamed, E.Z. 52, 54

215

Mendelssohn 39, 48, 63 Meshorer, Y. 87 Metzinger, A. 51, 57 Michaelis, J.D. 20 Mildenberg, L. 87 Milgrom, J. 9, 36, 43, 47, 49-52, 5456, 58-60, 62, 151, 155, 159-63, 165, 167-69, 176, 177, 180, 184, 185, 187-89, 201 Milik, J.T. 124 Miller, P. 20, 32 Mitropoulou, E. 102 Mooney, G.W. 105 Mor, M. 71, 76-79 Moran, W. 133, 134 Morgenstern, J. 143 Morris, L. 49, 51, 53, 54, 57 Mowinckel, S. 71, 82, 115, 123 Moyer, J.C. 176 Miiller, C. 95 Muroaka, T. 37 Myers, J. 71 Mylonas, G.E. 99, 100 Nahmanides 36, 49, 63, 183 Neuberg, F. 122, 148 Nilsson, M. 96, 99 Nilsson, M.P. 100 Nims, C.F. 44 Noth, M. 36, 37, 128, 130, 131, 137,140 Obermann, J. 112 Olyan, S.M. 9, 121, 133, 138, 149, 162 Oppenheim, A.L. 108, 109, 112-14, 118,119 Osty, E. 148 Paran, M. 37, 45, 46 Parke, H.W. 96, 97, 104, 106 Paschen, W. 177 Pedersen, J. 128 Petrakus, V.C. 103 Petropoulou, A. 101-103, 107, 117, 118 Phillips, A. 40 Pley, J. 96

216


Pope, M. 127, 145 Porten, B. 85, 127, 148 Porter, J.R. 75 PreuB, H.D. 148 Pritchard, J.B. 110 Qimhi 141, 148

Rad, G. von 120 Rashi 36, 57, 141, 148 Redpath, H.A. 84, 124 Rendtorff, R. 48, 52, 60, 201 Resch, A. 118 Reventlow, H.G. 36, 37, 39, 40 Richardson, N.J. 100, 101 Ricks, S.D. 152 Ringgren, H. 57, 122, 132, 133, 148 Rizzo, G.E. 99 Robertson, N. 95 Rof

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (JSOT Supplement Series)

Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (JSOT Supplement Series)

No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel (JSOT Supplement Series)

Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition (JSOT Supplement Series)

Israel in Egypt: Reading Exodus 1-2 (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Royal God: Enthronement Festivals in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (JSOT Supplement Series)

Qohelet and His Contradictions (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Forging of Israel: Iron Technology, Symbolism, and Tradition in Ancient Society (JSOT Supplement)

Troubling Jeremiah (Jsot Supplement Series, Vol 260)

Time and Place in Deuteronomy (JSOT Supplement)

Property and Family in Biblical Law (JSOT Supplement Series)

Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition (JSOT Supplement Series)

Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Faces of David (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Chronicler's History (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Moses Tradition (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Vow and the 'Popular Religious Groups' of Ancient Israel: A Philological and Sociological Inquiry (JSOT Supplement Series)

Writing and Ancient Near East Society: Essays in Honor of Alan Millard (JSOT Supplement Series)

Topic, Focus and Foreground in Ancient Hebrew Narratives (JSOT Supplement Series)

Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry (JSOT Supplement Series)

King Saul in the Historiography of Judah (JSOT Supplement Series)

Biblical Form Criticism in Its Context (Jsot Supplement Series, 274)

Pivot Patterns in the Former Prophets (JSOT Supplement Series)

Culture, Entertainment, and the Bible (JSOT Supplement Series)

Zadok's Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel (Oxford Theological Monographs)

Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period (JSOT Supplement Series)

'Every City Shall Be Forsaken': Urbanism and Prophecy in Ancient Israel and the Near East (JSOT Supplement)

Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (JSOT Supplement Series)

Reading Hosea in Achaemenid Yehud (JSOT Supplement)

Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (JSOT Supplement Series)

Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (JSOT Supplement Series)

No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel (JSOT Supplement Series)

Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition (JSOT Supplement Series)

Israel in Egypt: Reading Exodus 1-2 (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Royal God: Enthronement Festivals in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (JSOT Supplement Series)

Qohelet and His Contradictions (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Forging of Israel: Iron Technology, Symbolism, and Tradition in Ancient Society (JSOT Supplement)

Troubling Jeremiah (Jsot Supplement Series, Vol 260)

Time and Place in Deuteronomy (JSOT Supplement)

Property and Family in Biblical Law (JSOT Supplement Series)

Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition (JSOT Supplement Series)

Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Faces of David (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Chronicler's History (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Moses Tradition (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Vow and the 'Popular Religious Groups' of Ancient Israel: A Philological and Sociological Inquiry (JSOT Supplement Series)

Writing and Ancient Near East Society: Essays in Honor of Alan Millard (JSOT Supplement Series)

Topic, Focus and Foreground in Ancient Hebrew Narratives (JSOT Supplement Series)

Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry (JSOT Supplement Series)

King Saul in the Historiography of Judah (JSOT Supplement Series)

Biblical Form Criticism in Its Context (Jsot Supplement Series, 274)

Pivot Patterns in the Former Prophets (JSOT Supplement Series)

Culture, Entertainment, and the Bible (JSOT Supplement Series)

Zadok's Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel (Oxford Theological Monographs)

Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period (JSOT Supplement Series)

'Every City Shall Be Forsaken': Urbanism and Prophecy in Ancient Israel and the Near East (JSOT Supplement)

Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (JSOT Supplement Series)

Reading Hosea in Achaemenid Yehud (JSOT Supplement)

Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel

Recommend Documents