The Language of the Body in the Priestly Source and the Question of Divine Corporeality

Research Article| July 01 2007 The Yahwist: The Earliest Editor in the Pentateuch Christoph Levin Christoph Levin Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Journal of Biblical Literature (2007) 126 (2): 209–230. https://doi.org/10.2307/27638432 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Christoph Levin; The Yahwist: The Earliest Editor in the Pentateuch. Journal of Biblical Literature 1 January 2007; 126 (2): 209–230. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/27638432 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectiveSBL PressJournal of Biblical Literature Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

This study argues that it is hard to read the Combat Myth in the creation, the flood, and the Re(e)d Sea stories in the Priestly source (especially, Gen 1:2; 8:1; Exo 14:21). Yahweh is never particularly a storm-god in the Priestly source. The waters are never demonized and are not even personified. The Priestly author does not draw an analogy between Yahweh and Marduk in Enuma Elish or Baal in the Baal Cycle who are both warrior-like deities. Many previous studies regarded the differences in the Priestly narrative from Mesopotamian and Canaanite myths, especially the ones in Enuma Elish and the Baal Cycle, as the former’s response to the latter. Yet there is no clear evidence that the allegedly reinterpreted or revised motif of the ancient Near Eastern literature is present in the Priestly source, nor that the Priestly source responds to the foreign religions, institutions, or literature even if the motif is really present. It is unfair to read an entire mythic episode or plot into the Priestly text because of any tenuous correspondence, as if the biblical author could not compose a narrative without making use of an existing mythical structure. Some old traditional motifs could be there and knowing them may help decode incomprehensible literary conventions that now escape us. But the mythological motifs, if any, were developed and transformed within the larger context of the Priestly style and plot. The Priestly story cannot be defined merely as a historicized myth. The Priestly historical narrative is a different genre, whose complexity and uniqueness deserve an independent analysis from the alleged mythical paradigm.

This study challenges the popular assumption that the prophetic understanding of the role of cult in the religion of Ancient Israel was essentially different from the Priestly source. First, it re­‑evaluates and outlines the role of certain basic cultic concepts (namely sacrifice, impurity and holiness) from the Priestly source, and then applies them to the text of Isa 1, especially to the so­‑called cult­‑critical v. 10–17. No serious discrepancy emerges; in fact, reading Isa 1 through the lenses of the Priestly source seems to be more intelligible. Therefore, to label this text as cult­‑critical is simply wrong. The currently in vogue dialectic negation approach to this and similar texts (emphasizing ethics over cult) is also misleading. Judging by Isa 1, the prophet understood cult essentially just like the priests. He was well aware of the grave danger when mixing it with impurity caused by sinful behaviour. His passionate cry for ethics and overall purity resulted from this concept of cult and from his desire to maintain the presence of the Holy One of Israel in her midst.

The Priestly Source makes no explicit reference to the demonic when describing pollution which supposedly sets it apart from non-biblical conceptualizations of impurity. Most scholars explain the Priestly disregard for demons by referring to the advance of monotheism and the subsequent eradication of supernatural forces other than God. Depending on whether monotheism is viewed as gradual process or as the foundation of Israelite religion, commentators either detect a weakened demonic quality in Priestly pollution or claim that the Priestly Source has always been of a non-demonic nature. However, in recent years the idea that monotheism pervades most books of the Hebrew Bible has been increasingly called into question. At the same time, the extensive publication of Assyro-Babylonian ritual texts allows for better understanding of Assyro-Babylonian conceptualizations of impurity. These developments necessitate the reevaluation of the current views on Priestly pollution by examining Assyro-Babylonian texts pertaining to impurity and the demonic. Special attention is given to context and dating of the cuneiform sources used to exemplify the non-demonic nature of Priestly impurity. This renewed comparison of Priestly and Assyro-Babylonian impurity highlights how the Priestly writer frames the concepts of pollution within the context of the sanctuary and its maintenance. The Assyro-Babylonian texts dealing with impurity and demons, by contrast, focus on the individual and his/her relationship to the personal god rather than temple maintenance. Likewise, cuneiform texts that deal with pollution and temple maintenance do not concern themselves with demonic affliction. Consequently, it can be argued that the non-demonic nature of impurity in the Priestly Source is the result of the Priestly focus on the sanctuary and does not give witness to an underlying theological ideal.

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)According to the scholarly consensus, the story of the spies in Num 13-14 is a composite text that contains Priestly and non-Priestly elements. Consideration of its Priestly component, especially the appearances of Joshua and Caleb there, not only sheds light on its compositional history but also has ramifications for our understanding of the character of PRecent decades have seen the renewal of a scholarly debate regarding the nature of the Priestly writings. Some scholars view them as a reworking of earlier, non-Priestly texts rather than an independent source. Others maintain that a continuous, originally independent source can be identified in the Priestly writings.1 Among those who argue for a continuous, independent source, some propose a more limited scope of the original P narrative than previously assumed, and several scholars suggest that P ends at some point in Exodus or Leviticus- rather than in Joshua, as was once thought.2 For the latter, the P-like sections in the remainder of the Pentateuch constitute very late redactional strata, not forming part of Pg, the core of the Priestly source.3 This debate raises questions regarding the nature of the Priestly parts in the story of the spies in Num 13-14 that render it a disputed matter.The main question at hand is whether these Priestly elements form an independent story. In the traditional scholarly treatment of Num 13-14, a distinction is made between at least two independent narrative threads, one of them Priestly.4 Another approach considers the Priestly (or P-like) material as supplementing the non-Priestly narrative.5I.The Character of the Composition of Numbers 13-14The significant contradictions that make it difficult to read Num 13-14 as a literary unity also help to differentiate between the materials of which the unit is constructed and to characterize its Priestly component. I briefly note four of these discrepancies. One relates to the starting point of the spies' journey: ... (the wilderness of Paran) according to Num 13:3 and 26, whereas ... (Kadesh) appears as well in verse 26.6 A second contradiction concerns the territory scouted: according to Num 13:2, 17a, this was ... (the land of Canaan). In contrast,the area to which Moses dispatches the spies in verse 17b is more restricted: the Negev and the hill country. In the actual tour of the spies as described in verse 21, we find the comprehensive borders of the entire land of Canaan, but the account in verses 22-24 mentions only the Negev, Hebron, and Wadi Eshcol, namely, just southern Canaan.7A third contradiction relates to the identity of the spy who was excluded from the penalty not to enter the land. According to Num 13:30, Caleb alone opposed the spies' report; consequently, Caleb alone was exempted from the fate of his generation and entered the land (14:24). But, according to 14:6-9, Joshua joined Caleb in opposing the people and in 14:30, 38 both were exempted from the harsh decree.8Whereas there is general scholarly agreement regarding the existence of the three contradictions mentioned above, the following one is disputed. This fourth contradiction relates to the spies' report on the agricultural quality of the land. Numbers 13:27 clearly states that their report included an evaluation of the land as flowing with milk and honey, whereas in verse 32 the land is described as ..., one that devours its inhabitants. The connotation of the phrase ... as the manifestation of ..., the discrediting report spread by the spies, is debated. Literally, it means that numerous human beings are dying there. Many scholars interpret this phrase as referring to the fertility of the land; others relate it to different features, the military aspect in particular.9 I point out that, syntactically, the expression ..., which describes the land, must refer to the quality of the land itself. Its interpretation as possessing a military element relates not to the land itself but to its inhabitants; this, therefore, cannot be the meaning of . …

PART ONE A REVISION OF WELLHAUSEN'S PROLEGOMENA 1. The Basic Prejudice of the Prolegomena 2. Wellhausen's Literary Criticism and Its Fallacy 3. Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source Against Their Ancient Near Eastern Background 4. Wellhausen in Light of his Contemporaries PART TWO THEOLOGICAL FEATURES IN THE PENTATEUCH 5. Theological Currents in Pentateuchal Literature 6. God the Creator in the Priestly Source and Deutero-Isaiah Appendix. Concerning the Sabbath and Circumcision in P Bibliography Indices

Ve-Eileh Divrei David: Essays in Semitics, Hebrew Bible and History of Biblical Scholarship, covers the career of S. David Sperling, a well-known and respected Biblical scholar.

The Story of Sacrifice: Ritual and Narrative in the Priestly Source by Liane M. Feldman

The common view in classical scholarship that the priestly story of the manna in Ex 16 has been moved from its original location in the priestly source has fallen out of favor in the last fifty years and was even explicitly rejected in an article by Ludwig Schmidt in this journal. This paper provides a new source division for Ex 16; lays out the evidence suggesting that the priestly story is indeed out of place; presents arguments for where it originally stood and why it has been moved; and offers reflections on how this analysis affects our view of the priestly materials and the compilation of the Pentateuch.

From Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in Composition of Book of Leviticus, by Christophe Nihan. Forschungen zum Alten Testament, Second Series, #25. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. 697 pp. $95.00. This remarkable study of composition of book of Leviticus represents new sensitivity to literary design in Central European biblical scholarship. Although Nihan's point of departure is defined by common assumptions of historical criticism with regard to extent of Priestly source (the corpus of ritual prescriptions in Exodus 25-Numbers 36 and its narrative congeners in Genesis- Exodus) and its exilic/post-exilic date, his attention to literary insights and anthropological perspectives leads to totally different view of this book. Nihan discusses literary function of Leviticus 1-16 within priestly narrative of Israel's origins, and describes chapters 17-26 (the Code, H) as product of intra-biblical exegesis, intended to react to and to complement both Priestly source (P) and Deuteronomic legislation. The narrative legislation of Numbers is largely viewed as an additional layer in priestly corpus, which is to establish regime of newly founded nation. In this vista Leviticus truly forms center of Pentateuch, as it completes revelation of Torah to Moses on Mount Sinai (Lev 26:46; 27:34). Like Milgrom, whose contributions to study of priestly compositions figure large in Nihan's work, Swiss scholar ascribes redactional framework of Leviticus to scribes treading in footsteps of H (the Holiness School, HS), to which he, however, attributes only few passages in which H phraseology is particularly frequent. In Nihan's view chapters 1-16 of Leviticus derive from source that was edited by HS. It was to close priestly narrative of Israel's origins, and opened with inauguration of sacrificai cult. This section comprises description of sacrifices (chapters 1-3) and inauguration of altar of Tabernacle (chapters 8-9, from same stock as Exod 25-29; 35-40). In significant departure from Wellhausen, who viewed these chapters as essentially nomistic, Nihan regards this section as an essential pat t of narrative. The sacrificial framework indicates, in his view, the partial [Nihan's italics] restoration, in Israel's cult, of original community between God and man at creation of world. The narrative thus presents complete reinterpretation of the Sinai tradition, suggesting that content of revelation made at Mt. Sinai was sacrificial cult itself, and that such revelation comprised nothing less than outcome of process of reconciliation between God and his creation that started after Flood (pp. 610-11). The tale of rejection of alien fire sacrificed by Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10) is regarded as an exegetical amplification by final redactor (the theocratic redactor of Numbers). The section of chapters 11-16 which deals with purity and purification of community forms compositional counterpart of chapters of inauguration of sacrificial framework. If latter centers on harmony created by sacrificial order, chapters on purity and purification show how to uphold this harmony in face of dangers threatening it. This section is closed by purification ritual of Yom haKippurim (Lev 16:1-28), which Nihan presents as largely closed composition and structural parallel to chapters 8-9. Nihan attaches particular weight to cloud formed by Aaron's incense at his entrance of adytum (Lev 16:12-13), in sense manifestation of divine cloud appearing above Holy of Holies (v. 2) and sign of replacement of prophetic mediation through Moses by priestly-sacrificial mediation. Hence purification ritual of Yom haKippurim doubles as cultic theophany, and as such forms culmination of a coherent development framing entire Sinai pericope in P (p. …

Twenty years ago I proposed that the numerous cases of the pronouns 'tm, hm, -km and -hm with feminine dual antecedents, as well as the use of masculine verbs with feminine dual subjects, are evidence of the vestigial use of dual pronouns and verbs in Biblical Hebrew. In addition, I argued that the large concentration of such forms in P can be used as evidence for the early date of the Priestly source. Joshua Blau responded with an article arguing that these examples are not evidence for the dual, but rather are part of the larger picture of the drift for the masculine to replace the feminine in Hebrew and in other Semitic languages. More recently, Joseph Blenkinsopp wrote an article challenging my use of these dual forms for dating the Priestly source. The present article responds to both Blau and Blenkinsopp, adding the evidence of computer-aided analysis of Biblical Hebrew and presenting afresh the position that P is indeed pre-exilic.

Both the role of the deity (El) Shadday in the religions of ancient Israel and the etymology of the name šadday remain poorly understood. In this article, I will propose a new etymology for the name šadday and then leverage this etymology into a better understanding of (El) Shadday’s character. I argue that šadday is a nomen agentis from the root sdy ‘to help’ and originated as an epithet of the deity El, which highlighted his benevolent qualities. A comparison of El in the Ugaritic epics and El Shadday in the Priestly Source (P) suggests that El Shadday was thought to help his worshippers by providing them with children. El Shadday thus represents one way in which the deity El survived in the religions of ancient Israel.

The Priestly Source in Scholarship

is based on the name of the desert in which Israel is sojourning. The section Exod 19-24 is the first part of the Sinai pericope. A widely held opinion, the so-called Documentary Hypothesis, claims that Exod 19-24 like large parts of the Pentateuch is a compilation of three formerly independent documents: the Yahwist (j), the Elohist (e), and the priestly source (p). In Exod 18-24 there is a plurality of divine-human relations. The chapter traces how the Mountain-of-God pericope developed into the Sinai periscope. The Deuteronomists incorporate the Exodus-Mountain-of-God narrative into the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH); the former Exodus-Mountain-of-God narrative becomes the initial part of the DtrH. The Moses-centered additions of the Torah composition revoke the priestly degradation of the people and once again introduce a new concept of communal-divine interrelation. Keywords: Deuteronomistic history; Exodus; mountain of God; Sinai; Sinai pericope; Torah composition

God's Creation: in the Priestly Source