“I Will Walk Among You”: The Rhetorical Function of Allusion to Genesis 1–3 in the Book of Leviticus 9781646020560

Citation preview

“I Will Walk among You”

Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements Editor

Richard S. Hess, Denver Seminary Associate Editor

Craig L. Blomberg, Denver Seminary Advisory Board Elmer A. Martens Leslie C. Allen Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary Fuller Theological Seminary Bruce K. Waltke Donald A. Carson Knox Theological Seminary Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Donald A. Hagner Fuller Theological Seminary

“I Will Walk Among You” The Rhetorical Function of Allusion to Genesis 1–3 in the Book of Leviticus

G. Geoffrey Harper

Eisenbrauns   |  University Park, Pennsylvania

Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data Names: Harper, G. Geoffrey, author. Title: “I will walk among you” : the rhetorical function of allusion to Genesis 1–3 in the book of Leviticus / G. Geoffrey Harper. Other titles: Bulletin for biblical research supplements. Description: University Park, Pennsylvania : Eisenbrauns, [2018] | Series: Bulletin for Biblical research supplement | Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “A methodologically constrained examination of the lexical, syntactical, and conceptual correspondence between the opening chapters of Genesis and Leviticus 11, 16, and 26. Explores the potential rhetorical function of allusion for the texts’ original audience”—Provided by publisher. Identifiers: lccn 2018043579 | isbn 9781575069739 (cloth : alk. paper) Subjects: lcsh: Bible. Leviticus—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Bible. Leviticus— Relation to Genesis. | Allusions in the Bible. Classification: lcc bs1255.52 .h367 2018 | ddc 222​/​.13066—dc23 lc record available at https://​lccn​.loc​.gov​/2018043579 Copyright © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA 16802–1003 Eisenbrauns is an imprint of The Pennsylvania State University Press. The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member of the Association of University Presses. It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid-​free paper. Publications on uncoated stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Material, ansi z39.48–1992.

‫‪For Laura‬‬ ‫חֹוחים ּכֵ ן ַר ְעי ִָתי ּבֵ ין הַ ּבָ נֹות‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ְּכׁשֹוׁשַ ּנָה ּבֵ ין הַ‬

‫‪Song 2:2‬‬

Contents

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Part I Chapter 1. Reading Leviticus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Chapter 2. Intertextuality, Allusion, and Rhetorical Function . . . . . . . . . 34 Chapter 3. The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Part II Introduction to Part II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Chapter 4. Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Chapter 5. Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Chapter 6. Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 Appendix: Frequency of Genesis 1–3 Lexemes in Leviticus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 Scripture Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

vii

Foreword

Seasoned observers are well acquainted with the bewildering diversity of approaches that come under the broad umbrella of Pentateuchal studies. With the collapse of the hegemony of the Documentary Hypothesis pioneered by Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen, Pentateuchal scholarship finds itself in a quagmire with conflicting methods and theories vying with each other for recognition and acceptance. While the Documentary Hypothesis’s reconstruction of the process by which the books of Genesis–Deuteronomy were composed no longer commands widespread support, its influence persists, fostering the presumption that the Pentateuch is best approached by methods that assume a priori its fragmentary nature. A central corollary of the Documentary Hypothesis and comparable approaches is that texts are dislocated from their present literary context and placed in new contexts that may alter significantly how scholars interpret what is said. For too long the interpretation of Pentateuchal texts has been unduly influenced by alternative literary and historical contexts, often reconstructed on highly speculative grounds. Yet, regardless of how it came into being, the Pentateuch presents itself as a continuous story, with its five books linked together in diverse ways. This creates the possibility that on an uninterrupted reading each new passage theoretically presupposes and builds upon all that has preceded it. Viewed in this light, every unit in the Pentateuch is placed within a distinctive literary context, and that context, like all contexts, has a controlling influence over how the text should be interpreted. In the light of this observation, I wish to commend this innovative analysis of how selected passages within the book of Leviticus allude back to the opening chapters of Genesis. Geoffrey Harper breaks new ground, underscoring the importance of reading Leviticus within its present literary context as the third book of the Pentateuch. Building on a solid methodological foundation, Harper offers a well-​reasoned case for taking seriously the idea that the book of Leviticus ought to be interpreted in the light of the agenda-​setting discourse of Genesis 1–3. While Harper readily recognizes that there is more work to be done, this insightful exploration of literary allusions contributes much to our understanding of Leviticus and provides new and challenging evidence about how the Pentateuch was composed. T. Desmond Alexander Director of Postgraduate Studies Union Theological College, Belfast ix

Acknowledgments

With the completion of this book I am reminded that a complex web of people and events lies behind this moment. In the first instance, I am profoundly grateful to Andrew Sloane at Morling College. I have benefited much from his sharp mind and scholarly expertise. Throughout my work on this project Andrew displayed a continual willingness to challenge weak argumentation, on the one hand, while offering apt words of encouragement, on the other, in both cases with a pastoral sensitivity that knew which was needed in a given moment. I am also indebted to Anthony R. Petterson, who has been a wonderful mentor and friend for many years, stretching back to when he came as associate pastor to Grosvenor Road Baptist Church in Dublin. When Anthony first suggested that Australia might be a good option for further theological study, I don’t think either of us suspected it would end up looking like this. I also want to thank T. Desmond Alexander (Union Theological College), L. Michael Morales (Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary), and Leigh M. Trevaskis (Trinity College Queensland) for their apt, suggestive comments on an earlier version of this work and their encouragement to move toward publication. I am also grateful to Richard S. Hess, the editor of the series, for accepting my manuscript and for exercising his eagle eye to highlight a number of errors, and to the editorial team at The Pennsylvania State University Press who have been a delight to work with throughout this project. Over the years I have benefited much from interaction with colleagues, friends, and students who took a genuine interest in my research. Particular thanks in this regard are due to Michael R. Stead, Janson C. Condren, James W. Watts, Kit Barker, and Josh Reeve. It would be remiss not to mention the debt I owe to my parents. I am continually grateful for their provision of a home environment in which spiritual matters were made important. The effect of that, in God’s providence, has produced fruit in many lives, my own included. Lastly, and most importantly, thanks are due to my wife, Laura, and to the two wonderful children with whom we share our lives, Samuel and Abigail. This project could not have happened without their continual support. They have borne the cost graciously—the many times when Dad “still” needed to work, and when another Leviticus monograph appeared on the kitchen table or beside our bed. It is to Laura, in humble gratitude, that I dedicate this work, with all my love. Soli Deo gloria. xi

Abbreviations

[ ] // AB ABD AbOTC ABRL AD ad loc. Akk. AnBib ANE ANET AOAT AOTC ASTI ATANT ATSDS AUSS b. BBB BBR BBRSup BC BDB BEATAJ BETL BI Bib BibSem BIS BJS BKAT BLS BN BR

Indicates EV verse number where different from MT parallel to Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Abingdon Old Testament Commentary Anchor Bible Reference Library Anno Domini ad locum Akkadian Analecta Biblica Ancient Near East(ern) Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. 3rd ed., with supplement. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Alter Orient und Altes Testament Apollos Old Testament Commentary Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Adventist Theological Society Dissertation Series Andrews University Seminary Studies Babylonian Talmud Bonner biblische Beiträge Bulletin for Biblical Research Bulletin for Biblical Research, Supplements Before Christ The Brown-​Driver-​Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2008. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentum Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblical Interpretation Biblica The Biblical Seminar Biblical Interpretation Series Brown Judaic Studies Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament Bible and Literature Series Biblische Notizen Biblical Research xiii

xiv BST BTCB BTS BWANT BZ BZAW CAT CBET CBQ CBR CC ch​.​/chs. CI ConcC const. COS COuT CsBC CTJ CurBS DOTPr DRCS DtrH ECC EQ ErIsr esp. ETL EV(V) FARMS FAT FRLANT GBS GKK HALOT HAT HBAI HBM HCOT HK HTKAT HTR ICC infin.

Abbreviations The Bible Speaks Today Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible Biblical Tools and Studies Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Currents in Biblical Research Continental Commentaries chapter/chapters Critical Inquiry Concordia Commentary construct The Context of Scripture. Edited by W. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002. Commentaar op het Oude Testament Cornerstone Biblical Commentary Calvin Theological Journal Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets. Edited by M. J. Boda and J. G. McConville. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2012. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series Deuteronomistic History Eerdmans Critical Commentary Evangelical Quarterly Eretz-​Israel especially Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses English version(s) Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Guides to Biblical Scholarship Grundlagen der Kommunikation und Kognition The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. L. Koehler, J. J. Stamm, B. Hartmann, M. E. J. Richardson, and W. Baumgartner. 3rd ed. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Handbuch zum Alten Testament Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel Hebrew Bible Monographs Historical Commentary on the Old Testament Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Theological Review International Critical Commentary infinitive

Abbreviations Int IRT ITC IVP JBL JESOT JETS JR JSHJ JSOT JSOTSup JTISup JTS KHAT LD LHBOTS LP LXX m. masc. MLN MS/MSS MSJ MT n. NAC NCB NCBC n.d. NIBC NICOT NIDOTTE NIVAC NLH n.p. NSBT orig. OTL OtSt PMLA Proof RB SBL SBLAIL SBLDS SBLRBS

Interpretation Issues in Religion and Theology International Theological Commentary Inter-​Varsity Press Journal of Biblical Literature Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Religion Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal for Theological Interpretation Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Lectio Divina Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies La Pensée The Septuagint Mishnah masculine Modern Language Notes manuscript/manuscripts The Master’s Seminary Journal Masoretic Text note New American Commentary New Century Bible The New Cambridge Bible Commentary no date New International Biblical Commentary New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1997. New International Version Application Commentary New Literary History no page(s) New Studies in Biblical Theology original Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studiën Proceedings of the Modern Language Association Prooftexts Revue Biblique Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Israel and Its Literature Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study

xv

xvi SBLSymS SBLWAW SBTS SciAdv SEÅ SHBC SLTHS SR SSLC ST StBibLit STDJ STR SWBA t. TA ThSt ThT TOTC TPC TynBul UBL UF UNP v​.​/vv. Vg. VT VTSup WBC WCS WMANT WUNT y. ZAW ZGTK

Abbreviations Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World Sources for Biblical and Theological Study Science Advances Svensk exegetisk årsbok Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures Sewanee Review Springer Series in Language and Communication Studia Theologica Studies in Biblical Literature Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Southeastern Theological Review Social World of Biblical Antiquity Tosefta Theologische Arbeiten Theologische Studien Theologisch Tijdschrift Tyndale Old Testament Commentary The Preacher’s Commentary Tyndale Bulletin Ugaritisch-​biblische Literatur Ugarit-​Forschungen Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Edited by Simon B. Parker. SBLWAW 9. Atlanta: SBL, 1997. verse/verses Vulgate Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Welwyn Commentary Series Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Jerusalem Talmud Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für die Gesamte lutherische Theologie und Kirche

Introduction

For many readers of Leviticus, the primary challenge felt is aesthetic rather than theological. As the narratives of Genesis and Exodus give way to regulations and instructions, adjectives such as “prosaic,”1 “stiff,”2 or even “deadening”3 begin to appear in descriptions of style and content. Such negative sentiment draws ready support from the law-​grace dichotomy of Lutheran, dispensational, and popular systematics as well as from (mis)understandings of Pauline theology; it is made concrete by the Leviticus-​shaped void in the average pulpit and devotional aid. As Gordon Wenham notes, while Leviticus is one of the first books that Jewish children study, it is often the last part of the Bible that Christians read.4 Yet, growing appreciation of the literary artistry and rhetorical crafting of biblical law suggests that Leviticus may hold hidden treasures. Indeed, as the title of this volume indicates, my aim is to demonstrate that the book of Leviticus makes use of allusion to the opening chapters of Genesis for rhetorical purposes. The idea that connections to Gen 1 and to Gen 2–3 might be present in Leviticus is not novel; rather, it is prompted by observations made in the secondary literature.5 Some of the links proposed are general in nature. For example, Terence Fretheim argues that verbal and thematic parallels between Leviticus and Gen 1 indicate that the law is a God-​given means for creation to be made whole again.6 Other suggestions are more specific. Richard Friedman observes that the sequence of terms used for “person/man” in Leviticus (‫[ אדם‬1:2], ‫[ נפׁש‬2:1], ‫[ איׁש‬7:8]) is the same as the order found in Gen 1–2 (1:26; 2:7, 23). He concludes, “This makes a link between the books of the Torah.”7 Robert Alter claims that the reference to 1.  Hermann Gunkel, Genesis, trans. Mark E. Biddle (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1997), lxxx. 2.  Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994 [orig. 1885]), 6. 3.  Roland Boer, “Banality and Sacrifice,” in Strange Fire: Reading the Bible after the Holocaust, ed. Tod Linafelt (New York: New York University Press, 2000), 156. 4.  Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1979), vii. 5.  For convenience, I use “Gen 1” to refer to Gen 1:1–2:3 and “Gen 2–3” to refer to Gen 2:4–3:24 throughout. 6.  Terence E. Fretheim, The Pentateuch (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 126. 7.  Richard E. Friedman, Commentary on the Torah: With a New English Translation (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), 317. For related discussion of Lev 1:2, see Leigh M. Trevaskis, Holiness, Ethics, and Ritual in Leviticus, HBM 29 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2011), 197–201.

1

2

Introduction

creatures moving on their belly in Lev 11:42 is “another allusion to the Creation story, or rather, to the end of that story in the Garden of Eden.”8 Nobuyoshi Kiuchi goes further still. Noting multiple lexical and conceptual parallels between Gen 3 and Lev 11–15, he states, “These literary and ideological links to Gen. 3 show that Leviticus forms a sequel to Gen. 3.”9 Also making a connection to Gen 1–3, Leigh Trevaskis posits that the menorah lamp in Lev 24 represents the lights of Gen 1:14–16.10 Along similar lines, Christophe Nihan argues that the terminology of Lev 26:12 is reminiscent of the preflood world portrayed in Gen 1–5, implying that the ultimate blessing depicted in Lev 26 is a restoration in Israel of the divine-​ human relationship that existed before the deluge.11 While each of these proposed allusions is by itself interesting, taken together, evidence of multiple parallels to Gen 1 and to Gen 2–3 is suggestive of a wider literary strategy employed to connect Leviticus with the creation narratives. Yet, to my knowledge, no study has attempted to look systematically at the issue in order either to verify or to dismiss what are often intuitive comments made in passing. This invites a methodologically constrained investigation of potential allusion to Gen 1–3 in Leviticus. Such an investigation, however, faces two immediate obstacles. The first is highlighted by Walter Brueggemann when he asserts that Gen 2–3 “is an exceedingly marginal text. No clear subsequent reference to it is made in the Old Testament.”12 Similarly, Ziony Zevit argues that the Garden story was not particularly important, which explains why so few allusions are made to it.13 The same lack of reference is surmised by Jean-​Louis Ska: There are very few explicit allusions to the account of Genesis 2–3 in the rest of the Old Testament. One must wait for the later books—the Apocrypha and Deuterocanonicals—of Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon—in order to find clear references to the account of the fall. . . . The text is known only in the Hellenistic period.14

8.  Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary (New York: Norton, 2004), 588. 9.  Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, Leviticus, AOTC 3 (Nottingham: Apollos, 2007), 39. 10.  Leigh M. Trevaskis, “The Purpose of Leviticus 24 within Its Literary Context,” VT 59 (2009): 295–312. 11.  Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus, FAT 2/25 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 106. 12.  Walter Brueggemann, Genesis, Int (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 41. 13.  Ziony Zevit, What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), 264. 14.  Jean-​Louis Ska, “Genesis 2–3: Some Fundamental Questions,” in Beyond Eden: The Biblical Story of Paradise (Genesis 2–3) and Its Reception History, ed. Konrad Schmid and Christoph Riedweg, FAT 2/34 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 19–20.

Introduction

3

However, Ska acknowledges parallels to Gen 2–3 in Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Joel.15 Much therefore hangs on the dates ascribed to these biblical texts. For Ska, all the passages that allude to Gen 2–3 are understood as postexilic, thus supporting a late dating of Gen 2–3. Yet, accurate dating of Old Testament texts is far from assured; certainly not all scholars would assent to a postexilic provenance for the books listed above,16 or indeed for Gen 2–3.17 Perhaps more telling, however, is the language used by Ska. He argues that there are few explicit allusions or clear references made to Gen 2–3. The same demand for unambiguous connection is also voiced by others.18 But the possibility remains that implicit reference may be present. Allusion, by definition, is subtle; it may be missed by readers. That other Old Testament texts do not quote or explicitly reference Gen 2–3 does not by itself rule out the possibility that they may allude to this passage in much more covert ways. The absence of reference to Gen 2–3 may not be as clear-​cut as presented. Indeed, on the contrary, there are several factors that suggest the plausibility of (albeit subtle) connections existing between Leviticus and both Gen 1 and Gen 2–3. First, there are observations like those listed above that posit parallels between various Levitical pericopes and the creation narratives at both lexical and conceptual levels. Second, with Gen 1 and Lev 1–16 being assigned to the same source (P), connections between these parts of the Pentateuch are regularly noted,19 even if the reasons for the linkages are not as frequently explored. Third, many have noted that Gen 1–3 (or Gen 1–11 more broadly) is closely connected to what follows and, indeed, in its canonical placement, forms an introduction to the rest of the Old Testament. In this vein, Andreas Schüle regards Gen 1–11 as a prologue to the Hebrew Bible that displays distinct canonical awareness.20 15.  Ibid., 17–19. In addition, see the parallels discussed in Terje Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature, CBET 25 (Leuven: Peeters, 2000). 16.  Compare the various dates discussed in Tremper Longman III and Raymond B. Dillard, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006); William S. Lasor, David A. Hubbard, and Frederic W. Bush, Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996); Richard S. Hess, The Old Testament: A Historical, Theological, and Critical Introduction (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2016). 17.  See, for instance, Walter Bührer, “The Relative Dating of the Eden Narrative Gen 2–3,” VT 65 (2015): 365–76; Walter Gisin, “Adam, Eva und die Jakobsfamilie in Hosea 6,7–11a,” in Das heilige Herz der Tora: Festschrift für Hendrik Koorevaar zu seinem 65 Geburtstag, ed. Julius Steinberg and Siegbert Riecker, ThSt (Aachen: Shaker Verlag, 2011), 41–60. 18.  For example, Richard Neville, “On Exaggerating Creation’s Role in Biblical Law and Ethics,” TynBul 66 (2015): 1–17. 19.  E.g., Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3 (New York: The Anchor Bible, 1991), 656, 658, 689. 20.  Andreas Schüle, Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel: Der literar- und theologiegeschichtliche Diskurs der Urgeschichte (Genesis 1–11), ATANT 86 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2006).

4

Introduction

Seth Postell argues similarly.21 For Richard Briggs, Gen 1–11 sets up a dialogue with the rest of the Pentateuch, highlighting and preempting themes that become important later.22 Likewise, Michael Morales argues that a major Pentateuchal function of Gen 1–3 is to prefigure Israel’s tabernacle cult.23 Taken together, these factors suggest that links between the creation narratives and the book of Leviticus may well be present. Determining the plausibility and nature of any such connections will be the focus of this study. Yet, the possibility of connections between Leviticus and Gen 1–3 also invites exploration of purpose, for allusion, by definition, is a deliberately employed literary device. Why might the redactor(s) of the Pentateuch have connected Leviticus and the opening chapters of Genesis? What function does such linkage perform? What is the rhetorical force of this kind of intertextuality? For interpreters of the Pentateuch, these questions require an answer. A second obstacle relates to determining the relative dates of the texts in question.24 Is it better to speak of allusion to Gen 1–3 in Leviticus, or of allusion to Leviticus in Gen 1–3? The difficulty posed by questions of this sort has led some to retreat to a purely synchronic approach when it comes to investigating intertextual connections between Old Testament texts.25 However, the examination of allusion I attempt here cannot simply eschew diachronic concerns even if the data do not allow for certainty, for allusion presumes deliberate linkage for rhetorical aims. Thus, while any conclusion necessarily remains tentative, it nevertheless needs to be articulated. In what way, then, is direction of dependence between Leviticus and Gen 1–3 best understood? Jeffery Leonard outlines six criteria for determining direction of dependence that may serve as a starting point for discussion: (1) Does one text claim to draw upon another? (2) Are there elements in the texts that help to fix their dates? (3) Is one text capable of producing the other? (4) Does one text assume the other? (5) Does one text show a general pattern of dependence on other texts? 21.  Seth D. Postell, Adam as Israel: Genesis 1–3 as the Introduction to the Torah and Tanakh (Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2011). 22.  Richard S. Briggs, “The Book of Genesis,” in A Theological Introduction to the Pentateuch: Interpreting the Torah as Christian Scripture, ed. Richard S. Briggs and Joel N. Lohr (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2012), 35–36. 23.  L. Michael Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-​Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus, BTS 15 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012). See also L. Michael Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord? A Biblical Theology of the Book of Leviticus, NSBT 37 (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2015). 24.  The issues here are notoriously complex and, as a result, are debated. A comprehensive treatment is beyond what I can accomplish within the limitations of this study. 25.  E.g., Risto Nurmela, “The Growth of the Book of Isaiah Illustrated by Allusions in Zechariah,” in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner-​Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14, ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd, LHBOTS 370 (London: Sheffield Academic, 2003), 247.

Introduction

5

Finally: (6) Are there suggestions that one text has used the other in an exegetically significant way?26 Criteria 4 and 6 are inextricably bound up with the focus of this study, and I cannot simply assume the consequent in that respect. Furthermore, in relation to the texts in question, Leonard’s first and second criteria prove inconclusive. Neither Leviticus nor Gen 1–3 contain citation formulae or make any explicit reference to utilizing source material. Moreover, the difficulty of fixing absolute dates is amply demonstrated by the plethora of options advanced in the secondary literature—variously locating provenance anywhere from the premonarchical period through to the late Persian era. Leonard’s third criterion is complicated by the fact that Gen 1 and Leviticus are frequently understood as stemming from the same author(s)/redactor(s) or school. The matter thus turns on determining the relationship between priestly (Gen 1 and Leviticus) and nonpriestly (Gen 2–3) texts. Once again, various possibilities are advocated in the literature with little evident consensus.27 The fifth criterion, however, is potentially more fruitful. Several lines of recent research suggest that H may have played a major editing role in the formation of the Pentateuch. Jacob Milgrom, for instance, proposes that HR—for him, a redactor working in the exilic period—was the editor of Exodus–Numbers.28 Moreover, he contends that the same editor was responsible for attaching Gen 1:1–2:4a to J’s creation account in Gen 2–3.29 Along similar lines, Bill Arnold argues that a Holiness school was responsible both for Lev 17–27 and for its combination with preexisting J (or JE) and P material. Arnold concludes that the Holiness redactor added Gen 1:1–2:3 and the tôlědôt structuring clauses to Genesis as a way of introducing and tying together Yahwistic traditions with the more recent priestly materials to produce a unified whole.30 The final edition of Genesis (and Leviticus) is thus understood to be a preexilic product of the Holiness school.31 These com-

26.  Jeffery M. Leonard, “Identifying Inner-​Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case,” JBL 127 (2008): 258–62. 27.  For up-​to-​date discussion, with bibliographies, see Bührer, “Relative Dating”; Schüle, Der Prolog; Jan Christian Gertz, “The Formation of the Primeval History,” in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, ed. Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and David L. Petersen (Atlanta: SBL, 2012), 107–35; Catherine L. McDowell, The Image of God in the Garden of Eden: The Creation of Humankind in Genesis 2:5–3:24 in Light of the mīs pî pīt pî and wpt-​r Rituals of Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt, SLTHS 15 (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2015). 28.  Jacob Milgrom, “The Case for the Pre-​Exilic and Exilic Provenance of the Books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers,” in Reading the Law: Studies in Honour of Gordon J. Wenham, ed. J. G. McCon­ ville and Karl Möller, LHBOTS 461 (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 56. 29. Ibid. 30.  Bill T. Arnold, Genesis, NCBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 17. 31.  Ibid., 18.

6

Introduction

positional models, as well as others,32 suggest that it is preferable to understand Leviticus (in its full form) as being the alluding text vis-​à-​vis Gen 1–3. That potential is strengthened by Nihan’s recent work on the redaction of the Torah. Nihan concludes, like Milgrom and Arnold, that H (Lev 17–26) evinces consistent reliance upon the priestly material in Gen 1–Lev 16 and is therefore best understood as a post-​P composition.33 Moreover, he argues that H was composed to complete and bring together other Pentateuchal material, including D, in a systematic manner and with a harmonistic agenda.34 Hence, according to Nihan, there is good evidence that H demonstrates a pattern of dependence on other Pentateuchal texts. Therefore, if H is, in fact, responsible for compiling or editing the Pentateuch, and if parallels between Leviticus and Gen 1–3 can be verified, then H either appropriated intertextual connections already present in the source material or else added them. Either way, the intentionality behind demonstrated allusion is best located with the final editor.35 On balance, therefore, and although certainty is elusive, I will proceed on the understanding that Leviticus alludes to Gen 1 and Gen 2–3, not vice versa.36 One of the potential results of this study will be to demonstrate a positive result in relation to Leonard’s fourth and sixth criteria. In that regard, my goal is to demonstrate that the author(s)/editor(s) of Leviticus not only assumed audience familiarity with the creation narratives but, in fact, utilized allusion to these texts in exegetically significant ways. In light of the above, I can now clarify the particular question I will pursue. Does the book of Leviticus, within the final-​form narrative of the Pentateuch, allude to Gen 1–3, and, if it does so, what rhetorical purposes are thereby furthered by such intertextual linkage? To address this question, the chapters that follow take the following shape. Part  1, consisting of three chapters, tackles introductory and methodological issues. Chapter 1 surveys the state of contemporary Old Testament scholarship in order to inform the reading strategy adopted in this study. Following this, 32.  See, for instance, Israel Knohl, “Who Edited the Pentateuch?” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz, FAT 78 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 359–67; Megan Warner, “The Holiness School in Genesis?,” in Current Issues in Priestly and Related Literature: The Legacy of Jacob Milgrom and Beyond, ed. Roy Gane and Ada Taggar-​Cohen, SBLRBS 82 (Atlanta: SBL, 2015), 155–74; Eric W. Bolger, “The Compositional Role of the Eden Narrative in the Pentateuch” (PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1993); Benjamin Ziemer, “Die aktuelle Diskussion zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch und die empirische Evidenz nach Qumran,” ZAW 125 (2013): 383–99. 33. Nihan, Priestly Torah, 546. 34.  Ibid., 547–49. 35.  Such intentionality is displayed not only by intertextual connection, but also by the material included (and omitted) as well as its arrangement. 36.  Of course, intertextual connection opens a two-​way street, with interpretative implications and possibilities in both directions.

Introduction

7

chapter 2 explicitly addresses questions of intertextual method. This is important in order to establish a process for demonstrating the plausibility of connections between Leviticus and Gen 1–3. Due care is essential for building a convincing platform from which to discuss questions of purpose. Then, to further prepare for discussion of the role performed by allusion, chapter 3 examines the rhetorical function of the book of Leviticus as a whole. This too is a necessary prerequisite for constraining the exegetical analysis undertaken in part 2. Like part 1, part 2 consists of three chapters. Here my main purpose is to apply the methodology established in part 1 to three Leviticus pericopes. Accordingly, chapters 4–6 examine the presence and role of allusion to Gen 1–3 in Lev 11, 16, and 26 respectively (for the rationale behind this choice of pericopes, consult the introduction to part 2). Each of the three chapters outlines and evaluates connections between the Levitical passage in question and Gen 1 and Gen 2–3 before discussing the function that such linkage performs. Finally, a concluding chapter summarizes the data derived from my investigation and, on that basis, offers some general conclusions as well as suggesting avenues for further research. In short, I argue that a methodologically constrained investigation of allusion is not only fruitful exegetically, but reveals a pattern of intertextual connections between Leviticus and Gen 1–3. The discovery of this strategy in turn illuminates the literary artistry and rhetorical power of Leviticus and has implications for understanding the Pentateuch’s formation. Moreover, my investigation is suggestive regarding why implicit, rather than explicit, connections are utilized to link Leviticus to Gen 1–3.

Chapter 1

Reading Leviticus

Reading strategies for Leviticus have been, and continue to be, shaped by wider trends in Old Testament scholarship. An appreciation of the status quo is therefore prerequisite for understanding the rationale for, and direction of, this study. As will become apparent, the approach I adopt is situated at the intersection of several recent emphases within current research and draws upon each to investigate whether allusion to Gen 1–3 serves any rhetorical function within the received text of Leviticus.

Overcoming the Impasse in Pentateuch Interpretation The Undoing of Consensus Interpretation of the Pentateuch has never been monolithic. Through the centuries many distinct approaches to the corpus are observable, each inextricably connected to hermeneutical theories then in vogue. The history of Old Testament interpretation has been sufficiently charted elsewhere and does not directly concern me here.1 Of note, however, because of continuing influence, is the rise to dominance of historical-​critical methodologies in the nineteenth century.2 While not synonymous with historical-​critical method, the Graf-​Wellhausen hypothesis arguably exemplifies its premier instantiation. Wellhausen’s driving question was historical: How did the text that we call the Pentateuch come about in the history of Israel? The nature of the inquiry is crucial to observe for, 1.  For detailed discussion, see Magne Sæbø, ed., Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996–2013). 2.  On the development of biblical criticism, consult Eva Osswald, Das Bild des Mose in der kritischen alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft seit Julius Wellhausen, TA 18 (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962); Hans-​Joachim Kraus, Geschichte der historisch-​kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart, 2nd ed. (Neukirchen-​V luyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969); R. J. Thompson, Moses and the Law in a Century of Criticism since Graf, VTSup 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1970); John Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany (London: SPCK, 1984); Ernest W. Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998). For specific treatments of some of the key figures, see Mark S. Gignilliat, A Brief History of Old Testament Criticism: From Benedict Spinoza to Brevard Childs (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2012).

11

12

Chapter 1

as Thomas Kuhn notes, the reigning paradigm in any system dictates not only which areas are considered worthy of exploration but also what questions may legitimately be asked.3 Thus, the consensus achieved by Wellhausen’s proposal served to foster an environment in which historical questions and methods predominated Old Testament scholarship.4 As a result, other aspects of the Pentateuchal texts received less attention.5 In this way, the Graf-​Wellhausen hypothesis arguably contributed to a myopia that has only recently begun to be redressed. The problem was not historical-​critical method per se, but rather a tendency toward its singular application. Accordingly, Martin Kessler avers that the dominance of a single view must never be allowed to recur.6 The overriding historical focus within the academy profoundly shaped the way the Pentateuch was perceived and approached. Preoccupation with compositional concerns led, in many cases, to an increasingly fragmentary estimation of the corpus.7 Leviticus, for example, has been separated into not only P and H, but also P1, P2, P3, Pre-​H1, Pre-​H2, H, and HR .8 Even single verses were understood to evidence multiple layers.9 Not surprisingly, Paul Volz and Wilhelm Rudolph 3.  Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012), 37. 4.  Cf. Ernest W. Nicholson, Interpreting the Old Testament: A Century of the Oriel Professorship (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), 16: “It was . . . historical thinking that provided the basis of biblical hermeneutics in the nineteenth century.” See, similarly, W. M. L. de Wette, Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Halle: Schimmelpfennig, 1806–7), 2:5: “Die allgemeinen Gesetzte der Hermeneutik sind auch die der historischen Interpretation.” 5.  For instance, Richard S. Hess, Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2007), 43–45, charts the sundering of dogmatic theology from the historical study of Israelite religion. The recent upsurge in “theological interpretation” of the Old Testament attempts to address this lacuna. For an introduction to the discussion, consult A. K. M. Adam et al., Reading Scripture with the Church: Toward a Hermeneutic for Theological Interpretation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2006); D. Christopher Spinks, The Bible and the Crisis of Meaning: Debates on the Theological Interpretation of Scripture (London: T&T Clark, 2007); Craig G. Bartholomew and David J. H. Beldman, eds., Hearing the Old Testament: Listening for God’s Address (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012). 6.  Martin Kessler, “A Methodological Setting for Rhetorical Criticism,” in Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature, ed. David J. A. Clines, David M. Gunn, and Alan J. Hauser, JSOTSup 19 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982), 14. 7.  This reality is discernible even in translations of the biblical text. For example, the NRSV’s rendering of Num 22:22—“God’s anger was kindled”—omits the connective ‫ו‬, thus making v. 22 the beginning of a new pericope, seemingly in line with the consensus that vv. 22–35 comprise an originally independent unit poorly integrated into the final text, a point noted by R. W. L. Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 140 n. 27. 8.  So Jacob Milgrom, “The Composition of Leviticus, Chapter 11,” in  Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel, ed. Gary A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan, JSOTSup 125 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), 182–91; Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3A (New York: The Anchor Bible, 2000), 1345–47. Cf. Bruno Baentsch, Exodus–Leviticus–Numeri, HK (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903), who uses seven P sigla for Leviticus. 9.  For examples of this sort of source-​critical analysis, see Martin Noth, Exodus: A Commentary, OTL (London: SCM, 1966), 80; and Georg Fohrer, Überlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus: Eine Analyse von Ex 1–15, BZAW 91 (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964), 124–25.

Reading Leviticus

13

declare that such practice could only be the invention of modern scholarship.10 For C. R. North, this state of affairs represented the reductio ad absurdum of analytical methodologies.11 Such atomization left its mark. Alter refers to those who consider the Torah a “crazy-​quilt of ancient traditions.”12 Likewise, Benedict Spinoza’s estimation that the text is narrated in a haphazard manner without respect for chronology is regularly echoed.13 Yet, at the same time, John Barton aptly surmises, “the Pentateuch does now exist and must presumably have been assembled by someone: it is not a natural phenomenon. And the person who assembled it . . . no doubt intended to produce a comprehensible work.”14 Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, there have been dissenters to the consensus view, with notable scholars either resisting the Graf-​Wellhausen hypothesis or seeking to correct its perceived flaws. Examples include Umberto Cassuto, who explicitly tackled the issue in La questione della Genesi15 and in a series of lectures delivered in 1940,16 and Norman Whybray, who concluded that the Documentary Hypothesis rests on false assumptions and contains methodological errors of such magnitude that the theory is untenable.17 10.  Paul Volz and Wilhelm Rudolph, Der Elohist als Erzähler: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? BZAW 63 (Giessen: A. Töpelmann, 1933), 14. 11.  C. R. North, “Pentateuchal Criticism,” in The Old Testament and Modern Study: A Generation of Discovery and Research; Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study, ed. H. H. Rowley (London: Oxford University Press, 1951), 56. 12.  Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, rev. ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2011 [orig. 1981]), 165. For an example of this view, see the comments made by Alexander Rofé, Introduction to the Composition of the Pentateuch, BibSem 58 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 28–30. 13.  Benedict de Spinoza, Theological-​Political Treatise, ed. Jonathan Israel; trans. Michael Silverthorne and Jonathan Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007 [orig. 1670]), 132 (§9.5). Somewhat ironically, there are those who argue strongly that inconsistency within sources be excused in order to read them as coherent wholes, yet who do not apply the same reasoning at the level of the Pentateuch. For example, see the argument presented by Richard E. Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003), 2–5. 14.  John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 43 (emphasis his). 15.  Umberto Cassuto, La questione della Genesi (Florence: Le Monier, 1934). 16.  These lectures were later published as Umberto Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch: Eight Lectures, trans. Israel Abrahams ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961). 17.  R. Norman Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study, JSOTSup 53 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 129. It is perhaps worth noting that Cassuto and Whybray represent differing outlooks: one wrote as a conservative Jew, the other as a critically trained Protestant Christian. Both, moreover, came to different conclusions regarding date and authorship. Other significant publications preceding The Making of the Pentateuch, which also sought to overhaul or dispense with the Documentary Hypothesis, include John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975); Hans H. Schmid, Der sogennante Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976); and Rolf Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch, BZAW 147 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977). For a useful summary of the main issues, see Hess, Israelite Religions, 46–59.

14

Chapter 1

The undoing of the consensus enjoyed by the Graf-​Wellhausen theory, with implications for the historical-​critical method it embodied, has posed something of a dilemma for Pentateuch scholarship. For while the reigning paradigm seems less assured than previously supposed, a clear alternative has not been forthcoming. Twenty-​first-​century Pentateuch scholarship therefore finds itself divided, perhaps even fractured.18 On the one hand, there are those like Cassuto and Whybray who suggest either a radical transformation of the documentary theory or else an outright rejection of it. In this respect, Ernest Nicholson observes that the hypothesis is in sharp decline, even a “state of advanced rigor mortis.”19 Yet, on the other hand, there have been calls to substantially revive the Graf-​Wellhausen model,20 perhaps most vociferously by the so-​called neo-​documentarians.21 The result is a total lack of consensus, with various schools proposing competing approaches,22 a reality evidenced in Ska’s review of four Old Testament introductory texts.23 Ska tellingly muses, “Quatre introductions, quatre théories, quatre façons de lire le Pentateuque.”24 18.  A recent (2014) conference held at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem—The Pentateuch within Biblical Literature: Formation and Interaction—was convened to specifically address the problems stemming from alternative methodologies. The at-​times heated discussion is perhaps indicative of the current impasse. 19. Nicholson, Pentateuch, 96. A notable proponent in this regard is the so-​called Heidelberg school—that is, Rolf Rendtorff and his students. 20.  Richard E. Friedman, “Some Recent Non-​Arguments Concerning the Documentary Hypothesis,” in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, ed. Michael V. Fox et al. (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 87, even denies there is a problem: “Periodically we hear that the hypothesis is in question, but this is not really true.” 21.  E.g., Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012); Axel Graupner, Der Elohist: Gegenwart und Wirksamkeit des transzendenten Gottes in der Geschichte, WMANT 97 (Neukirchen-​V luyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002); Baruch J. Schwartz, “Does Recent Scholarship’s Critique of the Documentary Hypothesis Constitute Grounds for Its Rejection?,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz, FAT 78 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 3–16. See also Kåre Berge, Die Zeit des Jahwisten, BZAW 186 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990). The term “neo-​documentarian” is attributed by Stackert to personal conversations had at the Annual Meeting of the SBL in November 2009; see Jeffrey Stackert, “Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction: Leviticus 26 as a Test Case,” in Dozeman, Schmid, and Schwartz, Pentateuch, 370 n. 3. 22.  Konrad Schmid, “Has European Scholarship Abandoned the Documentary Hypothesis? Some Reminders on Its History and Remarks on Its Current Status,” in Dozeman, Schmid, and Schwartz, Pentateuch, 17–30, highlights well the complexity of the current situation, although his purview remains somewhat limited (he doesn’t, for example, integrate any British or Irish scholarship). 23.  The texts in question are R. Norman Whybray, Introduction to the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995); Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1992); Erich Zenger, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1995); Antony F. Campbell and Mark A. O’Brien, Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). 24.  Jean-​Louis Ska, “Le Pentateuque: État de la recherche à partir de quelques récentes ‘Introductions’,” Bib 77 (1996): 248.

Reading Leviticus

15

New Directions in Pentateuch Research During the last four decades, however, Pentateuch interpretation has been significantly impacted by a number of new (or renewed) emphases. By bringing new questions and areas of inquiry to the table, these emphases suggest ways to move beyond the current impasse. Detailed discussion of the origins, proponents, and range of intramural views for each approach is not possible here. Accordingly, I limit discussion to the salient features that most directly bear upon this study. Prioritizing the Final-​Form Text One of the more striking shifts in recent Pentateuch research has been a call to read, even to prioritize, the extant text in its received form. As noted above, for almost two centuries scholarship focused on the parts rather than the whole. In the move away from a dominant focus on behind-​the-​text matters to a more holistic consideration of the Pentateuchal texts, several significant voices may be discerned. Gerhard von Rad acknowledged both a complex history behind the Pentateuch (Hexateuch) and an overall purpose and plan.25 For him, these two realities were not mutually exclusive. Thus, von Rad advocated an approach that led back to the final, conclusive form of the text.26 Similarly, Brevard Childs, while not dismissing insights derived from historical-​critical methodologies, concluded that such an endeavor was not by itself sufficient. In contrast to others (including von Rad), Childs did not regard the layers in a text as being as important as the final form. Rather, he located intentionality in the canonical shaping of the material.27 Therefore, because the text’s witness to God lies not in the process but in the extant text received by faith communities, the final form ought to be the primary basis for theological reflection.28 This trend toward final-​form appraisal of the Torah, evident in numerous recent studies,29 suggests that while the complex depth dimension of the Pentateuch remains a real factor, the Gestalt is nevertheless greater than the sum of its parts. 25.  See Gerhard von Rad, “The Form-​Critical Problem of the Hexateuch,” in From Genesis to Chronicles: Explorations in Old Testament Theology, ed. K. C. Hanson (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 1–58. 26.  Ibid., 2. 27.  Brevard S. Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 11. 28. Cf. Gignilliat, History, 162. This, of course, raises questions about what constitutes the final form of the text, or even whether the idea of an original autograph is an anachronistic imposition upon a more complex and fluid process of text formation. The issues are complex and remain beyond the scope of what I can cover here. 29.  See esp. David J. A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch, 2nd ed., JSOTSup 10 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 13. Clines originally stated this point in the 1978 edition of his monograph. Although he has since altered direction—in particular, toward deconstructive readings of biblical texts—I include him here because in many ways Theme of the Pentateuch signaled a shift in emphasis and became the point of departure for the work of others.

16

Chapter 1

The Pentateuch, it seems, has a shape and strategy that transcend its source material.30 Investigation of the purposes behind the corpus at this level—diametrically opposed as such an approach may be to Wellhausen’s view that the half is better than the whole31—warrants serious attention. Reading the Pentateuch as Narrative Closely related to a more holistic conception of the Pentateuch has been a move to view the corpus as an integrated story—that is, as a composite work that nevertheless evidences a macrolevel narrative arc that moves from a point (or points) of tension toward a degree of resolution.32 For instance, James Sanders argues that the Pentateuch is essentially a story, not simply a collection of laws.33 In this way, even the Torah’s non-​narrative material is recognized as being set within a broader narrative context. The novelty of such an outlook in modern scholarship is elucidated by Hans Frei, who charts the loss of narrative awareness that became endemic to historical-​critical methodologies.34 The resulting interpretative strategy is illustrated by several recent studies, including those by Thomas Mann, John Sailhamer, David Clines, and Arie Leder.35 What becomes clear from these studies is that reading the Pentateuch as narrative has significant hermeneutical implications. First, if the Gestalt is indeed richer than the Pentateuch’s component parts and therefore constitutes the proper locus of exegetical and theological potential, as per Childs, then division of the text into sources becomes a somewhat superfluous pursuit. In fact, such an endeavor has the potential to distract from the theological message and persuasive intent of the whole. This remains true at the level of both book and corpus. Thus, while Leviticus forms a distinct rhetorical unit, and can be legitimately approached as such (see my discussion in chapter 3), the book is also part of a Genesis–Deuteronomy complex that displays a degree of interconnectedness construed along narrative lines. 30.  John H. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995), 209. 31.  Ensconced in his (presumably favorable) quotation from Hesiod: Πλέον ἥμισυ παντός (Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 169). 32.  This remains so regardless of whether a line is drawn around the corpus as Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch. In each case an underlying narrative plotline is still envisioned, albeit with differing end points. 33.  James A. Sanders, Torah and Canon, 2nd ed. (Eugene, Ore.: Cascade Books, 2005), 2. See, similarly, Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 31. 34.  Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-​Century Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974). 35.  Thomas W. Mann, The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988); John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-​Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1992); Clines, Theme; Arie C. Leder, Waiting for the Land: The Story Line of the Pentateuch (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2010).

Reading Leviticus

17

Second, if the Pentateuch forms a coherent (albeit composite) whole then it should be read as such, even if it contains what appear to be from our perspective inconsistencies, repetitions, gaps, and the like. In fact, if “story” is the best label for the Torah, then unity and coherence should be expected and looked for rather than an assumption of incoherence made on a priori grounds. Such expectations are validated by studies that identify evidence of themes, plot, tension, and resolution operating at a macrolevel across the corpus.36 Third, narrative implies purpose. Stories are composed for a reason. What, then, is the reason for the Pentateuch? While scholars have recently begun to tackle this question more seriously—notably with respect to how the Torah may have originated as an officially sanctioned Persian text37—this fundamental datum often does not receive commensurate consideration. I will discuss the matter at greater length in chapter 3. Fourth, and of critical importance to this study, if the Pentateuch is a story then narrative sequence becomes a vital hermeneutical consideration.38 Sequential reading is necessary for any narrative to derive the maximum benefit from the internal development of plot and character and for understanding the intrinsic logic of the whole. Furthermore, there is frequently an assumed knowledge of all that precedes. Thus, in every story, earlier events have a bearing on what occurs later, opening the possibility for tension and resolution, patterns, typological connections, allusions, and so forth.39 Of course, such interaction works both ways. For serial readers of Torah—a practice commanded, for example, in Deut 31:10– 11—later events also inform those that occur narratively earlier.40 Little wonder then that attention paid to sequence (both backward and forward) has proven fruitful for interpretation of the Pentateuch.41 36.  E.g., Leder, Waiting; Todd Patterson, “The Righteousness and Survival of the Seed: The Role of Plot in the Exegesis and Theology of Genesis” (PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2012); Clines, Theme; Sailhamer, Pentateuch. 37.  For further discussion, consult James W. Watts, ed., Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch, SBLSymS 17 (Atlanta: SBL, 2001). 38.  The point is also made by James W. Watts, Reading Law: The Rhetorical Shaping of the Pentateuch, BibSem 59 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 11; Sailhamer, Introduction, 238. Terence E. Fretheim, “The Reclamation of Creation: Redemption and Law in Exodus,” Int 45 (1991): 354, notes that recent scholarship has seldom heeded the importance of canonical ordering for interpretation. 39.  This does not mean, of course, that such connections are necessarily explicit. 40.  Elsewhere, I develop the implications of this by utilizing Leviticus to open a window into the meaning and function of Gen 1–3 vis-​à-​vis gender. See G. Geoffrey Harper, “First Things First: Reading Genesis 1–3 in Its Pentateuchal Context,” in The Gender Conversation: Evangelical Perspectives on Gender, Scripture, and the Christian Life, ed. Edwina Murphy and David I. Starling (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock/Morling Press, 2016), 45–55. 41.  E.g., Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1988), 372–79; Timothy J. Stone, “Joseph in the Likeness of Adam: Narrative Echoes of the Fall,” in Genesis and Christian Theology, ed. Nathan MacDonald, Mark W. Elliott, and Grant Macaskill (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012), 62–73; Ellen J. van Wolde, “Texts in Dialogue with Texts: Intertextuality in

18

Chapter 1

Given all of this, failure to read the Pentateuch in line with its own narrative presentation runs the risk of misconstruing the text or of educing only a thin understanding of the whole. Rather, the shaping of the Torah into an overarching narrative signals to readers how it ought to be read as well as indicating how it is intended to function.42 Reading the Pentateuch as story therefore places hermeneutical and ethical constraints upon interpreters.43 Appreciation of Literary Artistry The publishing of Clines’s The Theme of the Pentateuch in 1978 marked something of a watershed. Clines’s literary approach in many ways preempted a spate of studies that sought to elucidate the artistry of the Hebrew Scriptures through application of insights generated from modern literary theory. Perhaps the most influential of these studies were Alter’s The Art of Biblical Narrative and Meir Sternberg’s The Poetics of Biblical Narrative.44 In many ways volumes such as these began to fill the void that had been noted a decade earlier by Frei, and signaled a marked increase in deliberate attention paid to Hebrew stylistics. One of the direct results of this focus was a challenge to negative estimations of Hebrew literature. In contrast, more and more studies began to acknowledge that the Old Testament texts are, in fact, “polished works of art.”45 Growing appreciation of literary artistry therefore began to challenge the fragmentary conception of the Pentateuch common to genetic approaches. In this respect, Alter, for example, noted the lacuna within biblical criticism: “It is a little astonishing that at this late date literary analysis of the Bible of the sort I have tried to illustrate here in this preliminary fashion is only in its infancy.”46 While Sternberg was more

the Ruth and Tamar Narratives,” BI 5 (1997): 1–28; Richard E. Friedman, “Solomon and the Great Histories,” in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, ed. Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew, SBLSymS 18 (Atlanta: SBL, 2003), esp. 176–79; Joaquim Azevedo, “At the Door of Paradise: A Contextual Interpretation of Gen. 4:7,” BN 100 (1999): 45–59; G. Geoffrey Harper, “Time for a New Diet? Allusions to Genesis 1–3 as Rhetorical Device in Leviticus 11,” STR 4 (2013): 179–95. 42.  Cf. Dale Patrick and Allen Scult, Rhetoric and Biblical Interpretation, JSOTSup 82 (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990), 15. 43.  In acknowledging this, my approach rejects a hermeneutic of suspicion. For further comment on the ethics of reading, see Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1998), 182–87. See also the helpful comments made by Jerome T. Walsh, Old Testament Narrative: A Guide to Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 121–26. 44. Alter, Biblical Narrative; Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987 [orig. 1985]). Tremper Longman III, “Literary Approaches to Old Testament Study,” in The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches, ed. David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1999), 97, regards Alter’s work as a “watershed” moment for Old Testament scholarship. 45. Barton, Reading, 52. 46. Alter, Biblical Narrative, 13.

Reading Leviticus

19

explicitly disparaging in his assessment,47 he also acknowledged that genetic and historical approaches can aid literary ones and hence contribute to the overall understanding of a given text.48 Thus, the correct response to the dominance of historical-​critical inquiry is not replacement, but rather diversification. Multiple approaches, simultaneously employed, are required in order to generate a suitably “thick” interpretation of biblical texts.49 Literary analysis of the sort advocated above has significant hermeneutical implications for approaching the Pentateuch. First, literary critics often find a coherent text where others found only disarray. Alter poses the resulting question: “What, then, are we to do with our literary notions of intricate design in reading these texts that the experts have invited us to view, at least in the more extreme instances, as a crazy-​quilt of ancient traditions?” His answer invites a fresh reading. “The biblical text may not be the whole cloth imagined by premodern Judeo-​Christian tradition, but the confused textual patchwork that scholarship has often found to displace such earlier views may in many instances prove upon further scrutiny to be purposeful pattern.”50 Second, for literary analysis the received text constitutes the locus of study. Thus, in many cases the assumed division of pericopes based on source- and form-​ critical categories is called into question. Instead, “the text as it is” forms the starting point for interpretation.51 Third, appreciation of the literary mastery of the Hebrew Bible is occasioning something of a sea change with respect to the work of redactors. Hermann Gunkel had suggested that the Pentateuch’s compilers are better regarded as “collectors” rather than “authors.” This was a logical conclusion of his cumulative model of Pentateuch formation, for how could disparate traditions (oral and written), gathered over time, be the product of one mind? Hence, for Gunkel, redactors were servants of their material, not masters.52 That conclusion has been strongly challenged. Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig, for example, state that “R,” the normal siglum for redactor, would better be rendered as “Rabbenu”—namely, “our master”—because of his shaping influence on the text.53 Thus Jeffrey Tigay 47.  See, e.g., Sternberg, Poetics, 13. 48.  Ibid., 16–22. 49.  For delineation of the difference between “thick” and “thin” readings, see Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scripture, and Hermeneutics (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2002), 179. 50. Alter, Biblical Narrative, 165–66. 51.  Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, BLS 9 (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983), 111. For a worked illustration of this (using Gen 37:18–30), see 114–21. 52. Gunkel, Genesis, lxiii. See also Hugo Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit: Ein Kommentar zu den Mose-​Sagen, FRLANT 1/18 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913), 372, who describes JE as “Sammler” (collectors). 53.  Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig, Die Schrift und ihre Verdeutschung (Berlin: Schocken, 1936), 47.

20

Chapter 1

summarizes current thinking when he states, “Scholars are ‘remaking’ the tradition and finding in the Torah a kind of literary integrity that transcends the signs of multiple authorship that abound in it.”54 Literary-​critical developments therefore suggest an approach to the Pentateuch that begins with the final-​form text and assumes a degree of coherence unless otherwise indicated. The implications for reading Leviticus are clear. The working assumption ought to be that the text has either been authored or redacted as a coherent and artistic whole and therefore must be approached and read as such to appreciate its true literary beauty and to hear its theological message. Intertextuality Increased focus on final-​form readings has also resulted in a growing awareness of the role that intertextuality plays in the biblical canon. This approach to the biblical texts is not novel, even though the label may be.55 Setting one text against another for interpretative benefit is an ancient practice. Midrash, a core feature of rabbinic exegesis,56 is a case in point—paradigmatic connections between texts are drawn in order to read them against one another.57 By juxtaposing two or more disparate passages, the rabbinic sages could make a point or establish a proposition not explicitly contained within any one of them.58 The shift of focus in Old Testament studies from final-​form appraisal to behind-​ the-​text exploration effectively sidelined this kind of intertextual approach. Yet contemporary appropriation of intertextual method is not simply a call to return to precritical readings of the text, even if that were possible. The now-​recognized complexity behind the Pentateuch’s composition, combined with the intertextual theory that has emerged as its own discipline since the 1960s, makes intertextual approaches anything but simple. 54.  Jeffrey H. Tigay, “The Documentary Hypothesis, Empirical Models, and Holistic Interpretation,” in Modernity and Interpretations of Ancient Texts: The Collapse and Remaking of Traditions, ed. Jun Ikeda (Kizugawa-​city: International Institute of Advanced Studies, 2012), 133. See also Gordon J. Wenham, “Hearing the Pentateuch,” in Hearing the Old Testament: Listening for God’s Address, ed. Craig G. Bartholomew and David J. H. Beldman (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012), 231–35. 55.  The practice can be traced back as far as Plato; the coining of the term is credited to Julia Kristeva. See, e.g., her collection of essays in Σημειωτικὴ: Recherches pour une sémanalyse (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1969), esp. 113–42. 56.  So Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999), 18. Tradition ascribes Midrash’s seven middoth to Hillel. See Aboth de R. Nathan 37 and t. Sanh. 7:11. 57.  Jacob Neusner, Judaism and the Interpretation of Scripture: Introduction to the Rabbinic Midrash (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004), 2–7. 58.  Ibid., 15. Although it is debated, some see evidence of the same practice within the New Testament, especially in relation to the letters of Paul. See, e.g., Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 14: “Rabbinic midrash and the letters of Paul are natural analogues because both are paradigmatic instances of intertextual discourse.”

Reading Leviticus

21

Difficulties aside, openness toward possible inner-​Pentateuchal connections and a willingness to explore them has proven to have potential for generating new insight.59 Nevertheless, to be credible, intertextual approaches must employ proper methodological constraint, a notable lacuna in earlier appropriations. For this reason, I will return to explore the issues at some length in chapter 2. Rediscovering Rhetoric Like intertextuality, rhetorical analysis, even the rhetorical analysis of the Bible, is an ancient practice.60 Nevertheless, its absence in recent biblical studies is widely noted.61 Wilhelm Wuellner lays the blame for the eclipse of rhetoric squarely at the door of historical criticism and describes the impact of its rediscovery, at least within New Testament studies, as a “near volcanic eruption . . . at the center of biblical interpretation in the last quarter of the twentieth century.”62 This “volcanic eruption” has important ramifications for interpreting the Pentateuch. First, rhetorical analysis, like the approaches discussed above, is fundamentally concerned with the text as we have it.63 Thus, second, rhetorical readings are in accord with Whybray’s recommendation that interpreters examine not only how the Pentateuch was constructed, but also why it was.64 Hence, third, consideration of rhetoric and questions of purpose raise the thorny issue of authorial intention. As Sternberg elucidates, every act of communication presupposes a speaker who is trying to produce a certain effect on his or her addressee(s). Analysis of the resultant discourse, therefore, supplies clues to the speaker’s intention.65

59.  For one example, see John Makujina, “Literary Solutions to Legal Problems: The Contribution of Exodus 2.13–14 to Exodus 21.22–23,” JSOT 37 (2012): 151–65. 60.  Aristotle’s work on rhetoric remains the classic treatment. Augustine (De doctrina christiana 4.34–44) provides an early example of rhetorical analysis of Scripture. Perhaps the earliest Jewish appropriation of rhetorical theory is that of Rabbi Judah ben Jehiel Messer Leon. Consult the facsimile of his 1475 work, including a lengthy introduction, in Judah Messer Leon, Nofet Zufim, on Hebrew Rhetoric ( Jerusalem: Jewish National and University Library Press & Magnes, 1981). 61.  See, e.g., Wilhelm H. Wuellner, “Where Is Rhetorical Criticism Taking Us?,” CBQ 49 (1987): 449; Kessler, “Methodological Setting,” 3; Peter M. Phillips, “Rhetoric,” in Words and the Word: Explorations in Biblical Interpretation and Literary Theory, ed. David G. Firth and Jamie A. Grant (Nottingham: Apollos, 2008), 226. 62.  Wilhelm H. Wuellner, “Biblical Exegesis in the Light of History and Historicity or Rhetoric and the Nature of the Rhetoric of Religion,” in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, JSNTSup 90 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 493. Patrick and Scult (Rhetoric, 11) trace the recent upsurge in interest to Muilenberg’s 1968 address made to the Society for Biblical Literature—subsequently published as James Muilenburg, “Form Criticism and Beyond,” JBL 88 (1969): 1–18. 63.  See, for example, Patrick and Scult, Rhetoric, 17. 64. Whybray, Making, 15. 65. Sternberg, Poetics, 9.

22

Chapter 1

This means rhetorical analysis, as an exploration of the art of persuasion,66 has in view a particular set of concerns and poses a new set of questions for Pentateuch scholarship. Moreover, addressing these questions requires a multidimensional approach—a synergy between literary analysis and historical criticism—because determination of persuasive intent must also elucidate who is writing to whom. Conclusion Pentateuch interpretation in recent decades has experienced considerable turmoil, and indeed continues to do so. New (or renewed) approaches and methods have been employed and, at least in some respects, are being utilized to great effect. While nothing like the consensus enjoyed by the Graf-​Wellhausen hypothesis has been realized, the cumulative result has been a greater understanding and appreciation of the complex reality that is the Pentateuch. In fact, the complexity of the Torah demands a multifaceted hermeneutic, one that incorporates insights generated from multiple disciplines in order to allow thicker readings of the whole to emerge. This realization means that the cutting edge of scholarship is both varied in the approaches used and eclectic in that multiple approaches are used concurrently.67

New Avenues for Approaching Leviticus Interpretation of Leviticus over the last two centuries reflects the wider shifts in Pentateuch scholarship charted above. The late nineteenth and early to mid-​ twentieth centuries evidence an overriding concern with behind-​the-​text matters. Such endeavor is by no means passé; questions regarding composition and redaction continue to elicit significant attention, addressing Leviticus both in whole68 and in part.69 66. Cf. Aristotle, Rhetoric I.2.27–28. 67.  Longman, “Literary Approaches,” 111. For a veritable smorgasbord of possible interpretative approaches, consult Joel M. LeMon and Kent H. Richards, eds., Method Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David L. Petersen, SBLRBS 56 (Atlanta: SBL, 2009). 68.  E.g., Nihan, Priestly Torah. See also Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995); David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 102–49. The continuing dominance of historical investigation is made clear in a recent essay by Kratz: “The Pentateuch in Current Research: Consensus and Debate,” in Dozeman, Schmid, and Schwartz, Pentateuch, 31–61. Although tasked with presenting a survey of current Pentateuch scholarship, Kratz addresses only compositional matters. Contrast the similar essay by Wenham, “Pondering the Pentateuch: The Search for a New Paradigm,” in Baker and Arnold, Face of Old Testament Studies, 116–44, which is sensitive to a broader range of concerns. 69.  E.g., Milgrom, “Composition”; Klaus Grünwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26: Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie, BZAW 271 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999).

Reading Leviticus

23

Yet, as for the Pentateuch more broadly, a major consequence of diachronic investigation was an increasingly fragmentary conception of Leviticus. Following August Klostermann’s identification of his so-​called Heiligkeitsgesetz in Lev 18–26,70 it became axiomatic to approach chapters 1–16 (P) and chapters 17–26 (H) separately.71 This high-​level division of the book invited further segmentation. Karl Elliger, for instance, identified more than ten layers behind Lev 13–14.72 In a similar manner, Alfred Cholewiński posits five distinct collections of laws within chapters 17–26.73 However, in the face of so many unknowns, James Watts questions the point of the entire reconstructive endeavor, at least at a microlevel: Uncertainties should caution interpreters that finer distinctions between layers of redaction within these texts will inherently suffer from lower plausibility. More than that, such finer distinctions really have no purpose, since attempts to reconstruct Israel’s religious history on their basis have even less plausibility. . . . The question of purpose therefore haunts most detailed reconstructions of Leviticus’ history of composition.74

Recent decades instead demonstrate a growing openness to applying the interpretative developments surveyed above to Leviticus. The history of recent commentary on the book has been sufficiently charted elsewhere;75 I will not repeat 70.  August Klostermann, “Beiträge zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Pentateuchs,” ZGTK 38 (1877), 401–45. Graf had earlier proposed a similar division (Lev 1–16, 18–26) based on comparison to Ezekiel in Die geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments: Zwei historisch-​kritische Untersuchungen (Leipzig: Weigel, 1866), 75–83. 71.  The legacy of this is seen in studies that focus exclusively on either the P or the H portions of Leviticus—e.g., Henning G. Reventlow, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz formgeschichtlich untersucht, WMANT 6 (Neukirchen-​V luyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961); Jan Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26, VTSup 67 (Leiden: Brill, 1996); James W. Watts, Ritual and Rhetoric in Leviticus: From Sacrifice to Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). Other studies compare and contrast the two sections of Leviticus. In this vein, see Knohl, Sanctuary; Trevaskis, Holiness. 72.  Karl Elliger, Leviticus, HK 4 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966), 159–63. 73.  Alfred Cholewiński, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium: Eine vergleichende Studie, AnBib 66 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1976), 11–141. See similarly, Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 224. Cf. Bruno Baentsch, Das Heiligkeits-​Gesetz Lev XVII–XXVI: Eine historisch-​kritische Untersuchung (Erfurt: Güther, 1893). 74.  James W. Watts, Leviticus 1–10, HCOT; Leuven: Peeters, 2013), 47. 75.  For discussion, see Hans-​Winfried Jüngling, “Das Buch Levitikus in der Forschung seit Karl Elligers Kommentar aus dem Jahre 1966,” in Levitikus als Buch, ed. Heinz-​Josef Fabry and Hans-​ Winfried Jüngling, BBB 119 (Berlin: Philo, 1999), 1–45; Nihan, Priestly Torah, 1–19; Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 39–86; Kratz, “Pentateuch”; Didier Luciani, “Chronique léviticienne (2004–2010),” ETL 86 (2010): 393–439. Cf. Jiří Moskala, The Laws of Clean and Unclean Animals in Leviticus 11: Their Nature, Theology, and Rationale; An Intertextual Study, ATSDS (Berrien Springs: Adventist Theological Society, 2000), 15–111; William Yarchin, “The History of the Exposition of Leviticus,” in  John E. Hartley, Leviticus, WBC 4 (Dallas: Word Books, 1992), xliii–lvi.

24

Chapter 1

it here. Rather, I will explore how the above approaches have been applied to the text of Leviticus—even while noting need for further development. First, there has been a greater focus on the received text of Leviticus. This can be seen partly in the proliferation of studies that undertake a systematic reading of the priestly texts to elucidate the inner logic of the corpus.76 Although not necessarily regarding the book of Leviticus as an entity in its own right, these studies nevertheless find a degree of coherence across the priestly texts along a number of theological, literary, and conceptual lines.77 While compositional matters are not ignored, they remain of secondary concern. Watts summarizes much current thinking when he concludes that the lack of consensus regarding P’s compositional history demonstrates that the required data are not available. Consequently, he suggests that P is best interpreted as a unified composition.78 A similar trend is observable in recent commentary. In this regard, Rolf Rendtorff sets the aim explicitly: “Das Verständnis des biblischen Textes in seiner jetzigen Gestalt die vorrangige Aufgabe der Exegesen ist.”79 Rendtorff ’s recommendation has been heeded in numerous works that explicitly seek to move beyond discussion of sources and prehistory to consider the literary shaping, theological purview, or rhetorical force of the final-​form text.80 Likewise, the received text is 76.  For instance, Sean McEvenue, The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971); Walter Brueggemann, “The Kerygma of the Priestly Writers,” ZAW 84 (1972): 397–414; David P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature, SBLDS 101 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987); Frank H. Gorman, Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time, and Status in the Priestly Theology, JSOTSup 91 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990); Philip P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World, JSOTSup 106 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992); William K. Gilders, Blood Ritual in the Hebrew Bible: Meaning and Power (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004); Roy E. Gane, Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005); Alfred Marx, Les systèmes sacrificiels de l’Ancien Testament: Formes et fonctions du culte sacrificial à Yhwh, VTSup 105 (Leiden: Brill, 2005); Michael B. Hundley, Keeping Heaven on Earth: Safeguarding the Divine Presence in the Priestly Tabernacle, FAT 2/50 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). 77.  There is an inherent tension in the methodology of some of these approaches. For instance, Wright (Disposal) argues for a “synchronic“ approach to P that ignores the source’s acknowledged heterogeneity (4). Yet, on the other hand, he proceeds to excise the priestly material from its Pentateuchal setting, appealing to source-​critical consensus of heterogeneity within the corpus. Putative heterogeneity is thus both appealed to and ignored. Moreover, Wright is not averse to invoking interpolation to solve textual difficulties (e.g., 18), despite his avowal to read synchronically. 78. Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 42. Cf. Jeremy Schipper and Jeffrey Stackert, “Blemishes, Camouflage, and Sanctuary Service: The Priestly Deity and His Attendants,” HBAI 2 (2013): 460: “Priestly thought is . . . thickly conceived and internally cohesive—even across compositional strata.” 79.  Rolf Rendtorff, Leviticus 1,1–10,20, BKAT 3.1 (Neukirchen-​V luyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004), 4. 80.  See Wenham, Leviticus; Roland K. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC (Leicester: IVP, 1980); Frank H. Gorman, Leviticus: Divine Presence and Community, ITC (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997); Samuel E. Balentine, Leviticus, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox, 2002); Kiuchi, Leviticus; Timothy M. Willis, Leviticus, AbOTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 2009); Watts, Leviticus 1–10. See also Volker Wagner, “Zur Existenz des sogenannten ‘Heiligkeitsgesetzes’,” ZAW 86 (1974): 307–16.

Reading Leviticus

25

the basis for structural analysis in a number of recent articles and monographs.81 One result of this analysis is that even the almost universally accepted division of the book at chapter 16 has been questioned, with German scholars in particular commonly grouping chapters 16 and 17 together.82 Nevertheless, despite this shift in emphasis, Kiuchi could still lament in his 2007 commentary that “very few scholarly attempts to understand the book as a whole have been made.”83 This is partly due to P-​focused examinations addressing Exod 25–Num 10 en bloc.84 Thus while P may be conceived of as a unified composition, it does not necessarily follow that the book of Leviticus is similarly viewed. The material in Lev 1–27 is often simply subsumed within the priestly corpus rather than being approached as a text in its own right.85 Hence, while there is an observable move toward final-​form readings, treatment of Leviticus qua book remains underaddressed. Second, wider attempts to read the Pentateuch as story have also impacted interpretation of Leviticus. However, these appraisals do not always integrate Leviticus well. The obvious point of difficulty concerns the book’s distinct lack of narrative. Only chapters 8–10 and 24:10–23 display any significant clustering of wayyiqtol verb forms. Moreover, even supporters of the Grundschrifthypothese are not unanimous regarding the extent of Pg in Leviticus. Elliger, for instance, concludes that “only a small part” of chapters 8–10 ought to be considered original to the priestly Grundschrift;86 Thomas Pola denies that Leviticus attests any Pg texts at all.87 81.  See, for instance, William H. Shea, “Literary Form and Theological Function in Leviticus,” in The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, ed. F. Holbrook, DRCS 3 (Washington D.C.: Biblical Research Institute, 1986), 131–68; Christopher R. Smith, “The Literary Structure of Leviticus,” JSOT 70 (1996): 17–32; Didier Luciani, Sainteté et pardon, vol. 1, Structure littéraire du Lévitique, BETL 185A (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005). I will explore the issues here more fully in chapter 3. 82.  So, Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Leviticus, trans. Douglas W. Stott, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 19; Erich Zenger, ed., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 7th ed. (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008), 65; Thomas Hieke, Levitikus 1–15, HTKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2014), 61. 83. Kiuchi, Leviticus, 18. 84.  E.g., Jay Sklar, Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement: The Priestly Conceptions, HBM 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005). 85.  Ruwe suggests that “its relation to the ‘Priestly Code’ is the central, literary historical problem of Leviticus”; Ruwe, “The Structure of the Book of Leviticus in the Narrative Outline of the Priestly Sinai Story (Exod 19:1–Num 10:10),” in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception, ed. Rolf Rendtorff, Robert A. Kugler, and Sarah Smith Bartel, VTSup 93 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 55. Form-​critical examinations of Israel’s legal texts also tend to ignore the literary context of the book in which the legislation has been placed; e.g., Dale Patrick, Old Testament Law (London: SCM, 1986). Calvin’s “Harmony of the Laws” falls prey to the same criticism. See John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, Volumes First and Second, trans. Charles William Bingham (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1979). 86. Elliger, Leviticus, 10 (“nur ein kleines Stück”). All translations of biblical and nonbiblical texts are my own, unless otherwise stated. 87.  Thomas Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift: Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von Pg, WMANT 70 (Neukirchen-​V luyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995), 351–54. Pola

26

Chapter 1

Nonetheless, Andreas Ruwe draws attention to the hermeneutical importance of narrative for approaching Leviticus. Listing various prose sections (8:1–10:20; 21:24; 23:44; 24:10–23), summary statements (7:37–38; 26:46; 27:34), and the thirty-​seven divine speech formulae, Ruwe concludes, “It cannot be denied that Leviticus is a narrative text.”88 Hence, while Leviticus does not unfold a story per se, narrative categories still operate. For Ruwe, the combination of features noted above serves to set a narrative context for the book. The Levitical legislation is thereby tied to a particular setting—the people’s encampment “at Mount Sinai” (26:46; 27:34) during the first month of the second year. Importantly, Ruwe argues that the legislative material cannot be separated from the narrative frame of the surrounding story. This is because the direct divine speech that conveys the legislation forms a “constitutive element of narration.”89 So while, according to Ruwe, the narrative is a fiction, it nonetheless indicates that the legal material must be approached via the narrative world of the text.90 Within this world, the immanent presence of YHWH constitutes the uniting factor: chapters 1–8 prepare for the coming of the divine ‫ ;כבוד‬chapters 9–26 describe its arrival and prescribe measures to ensure beneficial results.91 However, while suggesting an integrated reading of Leviticus, Ruwe holds that 24:10–23 and 27:1–34 can be set aside, as these sections are later supplements.92 His analysis, therefore, does not reckon with the received text of Leviticus. Nihan goes further than Ruwe by attempting to account for the entire book. He divides Leviticus into three sections (1–10; 11–16; 17–26[27]) and argues for a clear narrative progression throughout that centers on the gradual initiation of Israel into the divine presence.93 For Nihan, this theme of initiation is suggestive regarding the placement of Leviticus within the wider progression of the Pentateuch. He opines that Lev 1–16 was originally written as the conclusion to the priestly account of Israel’s origins, which climaxes with the reinstatement of the order that existed before the flood.94 The function of Leviticus within the Pentateuch’s story line is explored more fully by Watts. In his analysis of the overarching rhetorical strategy behind the redaction of the corpus, Watts identifies three major blocks of material: Gen 1– Exod 18, Exod 19–Num 36, and Deut 1–34, which he labels respectively as “stories,” is followed by Reinhard G. Kratz, The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament, trans. John Bowden (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 113–14. 88.  Ruwe, “Structure,” 57. 89. Ibid. 90.  Ibid., 57–58. See also n10. 91.  Ibid., 78. 92.  Ibid., 69. 93. Nihan, Priestly Torah, 19. 94.  Ibid., 609, 613–14.

Reading Leviticus

27

“list,” and “divine sanctions.”95 The Pentateuch thus falls in line with similar ANE patterns of textual persuasion in which stories introduce lists that conclude with divine sanctions.96 The function of lists (including Leviticus) is to specify the ideal; the justification for the legislation is found in the preceding stories. Therefore, the laws provide solutions to problems exposed in the narratives, which in turn highlight that laws are necessary.97 Not surprisingly, therefore, Watts posits that patterns of allusions to earlier narratives can be found in the Pentateuch’s central books. In particular, he draws attention to parallels between the creation story of Gen 1 and the tabernacle construction recorded in Exod 25–40.98 The hermeneutical implications are important to note: narrative sequence is an essential factor for reading Leviticus. In fact, based on the above it could be argued that connections to earlier narratives, perhaps especially to Gen 1–3, ought to be expected and even looked for when reading Leviticus. Indeed, several scholars have pursued precisely this line of investigation to address interpretative cruxes in Leviticus.99 Third, although the bulk of research into literary artistry continues to concentrate on narrative and poetic texts, there is a growing appreciation for the literary artistry of the Hebrew Bible’s legal material. Consequently, while formerly denigrated, the communis opinio regarding the priestly writings, including Leviticus, is changing. Studies that explore the relationship between biblical law and narrative have drawn attention to the fact that the same literary and rhetorical devices are operative in each.100 This realization has significant implications for how legislative material ought to be approached and understood, for utilization of literary devices is indicative of persuasive purposes that transcend mere assertion of legal requirement. 95. Watts, Reading, 57. 96.  Ibid., 52. 97.  Ibid., 58–59. 98.  Ibid., 58. Watts is not alone in making this connection. For an introduction to the discussion, consult the twenty-​four seminal essays collected in L. Michael Morales, ed., Cult and Cosmos: Tilting toward a Temple-​Centered Theology, BTS 18 (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), as well as the literature cited therein. Richard Davidson, “Earth’s First Sanctuary: Genesis 1–3 and Parallel Creation Accounts,” AUSS 53 (2015): 65–89, has recently attempted a comprehensive catalogue of suggested parallels between creation and cult. 99.  See, e.g., Trevaskis, “Purpose”; Moskala, Laws; Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, “A Paradox of the Skin Disease,” ZAW 113 (2001): 505–14. 100.  E.g., Assnat Bartor, Reading Law as Narrative: A Study in the Casuistic Laws of the Pentateuch, SBLAIL 5 (Atlanta: SBL, 2010). Calum Carmichael, in particular, has explored the connections between Leviticus and various narrative texts. See Carmichael, Illuminating Leviticus: A Study of Its Laws and Institutions in the Light of Biblical Narratives (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006); Carmichael, Law, Legend, and Incest in the Bible: Leviticus 18–20 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997).

28

Chapter 1

Baruch Schwartz highlights well this shift in thinking. He notes: The “laws” in the Torah exhibit numerous non-​legal literary features: varied formulations, peculiar contexts, extraordinary word choice and 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.101

The purpose of these devices, Schwartz suggests, becomes clear when the laws are read as part of the Torah’s wider story in which the legal material is designed to convince hearers of their need to obey. The laws, then, like the narrative they are embedded in, were composed to have a lasting, pedagogical, persuasive influence on readers.102 Israel’s lawgivers were doing far more than merely legislating.103 Thus, the Pentateuch’s legal texts, like other biblical genres, invite, and actually require, a method of close reading.104 A study by Wilfried Warning illustrates this kind of thoughtful engagement with literary artistry in Leviticus.105 The presence of multiple literary devices, functioning at both micro- and macrolevels within the book, indicates for Warning the “poetic skilfulness” of the whole, a whole he considers a “complex artistic composition.”106 However, Warning stops short of discussing what the theological meaning of the literary form he finds might be, assigning it instead as a topic for future study.107 Nevertheless, appreciation of artistic design must inform any approach to Leviticus. Such appreciation is not simply an end in itself. If the book of Leviticus is a carefully constructed whole and not simply the result of a somewhat haphazard process (contra Gerstenberger108), then attention paid to artistic form offers the prospect of opening a window onto the theological force and persuasive intent 101.  Baruch J. Schwartz, “The Prohibitions Concerning the ‘Eating’ of Blood in Leviticus 17,” in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel, ed. Gary A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan, JSOTSup 125 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), 34–35. 102.  Ibid., 35. 103.  Ibid., 66. 104.  Ibid., 35. 105.  See also the much shorter, but still valuable, treatment by David Damrosch, “Leviticus,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode (London: Fontana, 1997 [orig. 1987]), 66–77. 106.  Wilfried Warning, Literary Artistry in Leviticus, BIS 35 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 167, 177. 107.  Ibid., 7. 108. Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 2.

Reading Leviticus

29

of the canonical text. Moreover, consideration of literary artistry has potential to deepen understanding of the affective dimension of biblical legislation. Fourth, there has been renewed appreciation for the role intertextuality plays in Leviticus. In marked contrast to scholarship during the last 150 years, earlier commentators had few qualms about reading Levitical passages in connection with other Pentateuchal texts. For example, similarity in vocabulary and syntax between Lev 11:42 (‫ )כל הולך על־גחון‬and Gen 3:14 (‫ )על־גחנך תלך‬drew comment.109 Abraham ibn Ezra noted the connection.110 Matthew Henry stated that the Levitical law was written to preserve the enmity between serpent and humanity announced in Gen 3.111 Carl Keil similarly labeled the eight creatures in Lev 11:29–30 “snake-​like lizards” and suggested that they are emphasized because “they called to mind the old serpent.”112 More recent commentators have not been as willing to expand on the parallel. While Milgrom, for instance, notes definite overlap regarding creation theology, word use, and ideology between Lev 11 and Gen 1,113 the parallel syntactical construction noted above is mentioned only as a cross-​reference.114 Others do not comment on the similarity at all.115 Yet if the intuition of older commentators was correct, and allusion can be demonstrated, then not pursuing textual parallels raises the possibility of interpretative loss. However, absence of comment is not universal. Alter, commenting on Lev 11:42, draws attention to the shared syntax: “This phrase, of course, is another allusion to the Creation story, or rather, to the end of that story in the Garden of Eden.”116 While this is suggestive, Alter unfortunately does not define what he means by “allusion.” Neither does he comment further about the intentionality implied, the rhetorical and theological purposes such an allusion might have, or the compositional questions it raises.117 Others, while similarly drawing attention to the 109.  For more detailed discussion, see chapter 4 below. 110.  Abraham ibn Ezra, The Commentary of Abraham ibn Ezra on the Pentateuch, vol. 3, Leviticus, trans. Jay F. Shachter (Hoboken: KTAV, 1986), 52. 111.  Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell, n.d. [orig. 1708–10]), 1:487–88. 112.  Carl F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, trans. James Martin (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1968 [orig. 1866–91]), 2:372. 113. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 689, 656, 658. 114. “belly. gāḥôn (Gen 3:14)” (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 683). 115.  E.g. (ad loc.), Wenham, Leviticus; Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus, NAC 3A (Nashville: B&H, 2000); Gorman, Leviticus; George A. F. Knight, Leviticus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981); Balentine, Leviticus; John W. Kleinig, Leviticus, ConcC (St. Louis: Concordia, 2003); Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989). 116. Alter, Five Books, 588. 117.  Similar examples could be multiplied. Friedman (Commentary, 317) observes that the sequence of terms for “person” in Gen 1–3 is the same as the order of their use in Leviticus. He concludes, “This makes a link between the books of the Torah,” but does not develop the point further.

30

Chapter 1

connection, do not employ any explicit methodology by which to verify the parallel.118 This lack of methodological constraint leaves their conclusions open to the charge of subjectivity. The textual connection posited by Alter, Kiuchi, and Moskala (and by ibn Ezra, Henry, and Keil before them) is suggestive regarding the hermeneutical importance of intertextuality for reading Leviticus. Indeed, Joseph Blenkinsopp holds that the events of Sinai are explicable only in light of what happened in the primeval period before Israel came into existence.119 However, defined method would strengthen the case that proposed links exist and would thus provide a more assured platform from which to explore the purposes behind allusion.120 Establishing a solid underpinning for assessing potential intertextuality in Leviticus is therefore invited. Fifth, as discussed above, the rhetoric of biblical texts has received renewed attention recently. Nonetheless, detailed rhetorical studies of Old Testament books qua books are relatively uncommon,121 and even those studies that focus on the rhetoric of smaller sections devote little or no attention to legal and ritual texts. Indeed, Watts charts the the rarity of such an approach—from the Tannaitic rabbis through to contemporary commentary.122 In response, Watts has devoted multiple articles and monographs to exploring the rhetoric of legal texts, including Leviticus. He concludes that Israelite law is “persuasive speech.”123 The strategy he develops for hearing the persuasive speech of Leviticus reaches its most mature expression in a 2013 commentary on Lev 1–10.124 A foundational tenet for Watts is that Leviticus was primarily written to be heard, not read, meaning the book was shaped to persuade auditors. His basic interpretative question is, therefore, “Who is trying to persuade whom of what?”125 Appreciating the persuasive intent behind Leviticus means the text ought to be Rofé, likewise, noting a reference to J (Gen 3:17) in P (Gen 5:29), reasons, “This connection has important critical implications,” none of which, however, he spells out (Introduction, 37–38). 118. Kiuchi, Leviticus, 204–7; Moskala, Laws, 231–32. 119.  Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Structure of P,” CBQ 38 (1976): 279. 120. Trevaskis, Holiness, develops and utilizes an alternative method that employs cognitive linguistic analysis. 121.  Examples include Rodney K. Duke, The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler: A Rhetorical Analysis, JSOTSup 88 (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990); Phyllis Trible, Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah, GBS (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994); Robert H. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, VTSup 63 (Leiden: Brill, 1996); Yairah Amit, The Book of Judges: The Art of Editing, trans. Jonathan Chipman, BIS 38 (Leiden: Brill, 1999); Thomas Renz, The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel (Boston: Brill, 2002); Joel Barker, From the Depths of Despair to the Promises of Presence: A Rhetorical Reading of the Book of Joel, SLTHS 11 (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2014). 122. Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 89. 123. Watts, Reading, 32. Cf. Jean-​Louis Ska, The Exegesis of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and Basic Questions, FAT 66 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 217: “The force of the law in Israel tries to convince rather than to constraint [sic].” 124.  For discussion of his hermeneutic, see Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 89–133. 125.  Ibid., 122.

Reading Leviticus

31

read with different sensitivities. Consequently, Watts charts some wide-​reaching implications for interpretation, traversing matters from translation of ritual terms to discerning the structure of the book.126 While not without difficulties,127 Watts’s contribution to understanding the rhetorical force of Leviticus has been considerable. Unsurprisingly, his insights have been appropriated by numerous studies.128 Nevertheless, the bulk of Watts’s rhetorical work remains focused on Lev 1–16.129 Furthermore, Watts’s discussion of Leviticus in Reading Law attends primarily to the role of the book within the Pentateuchal corpus rather than to Lev 1–27 as a rhetorical unit per se. Consequently, the rhetorical function of the book of Leviticus qua book remains underdiscussed.130 To my knowledge, no detailed analyses of the book as a whole have been completed.131 So while rhetoric in Leviticus has been the subject of increased interest in recent decades, an understanding of the purpose(s) for which the whole has been authored or redacted is still lacking. That said, Watts notes the potential that such an approach holds: Modern scholarship’s focus on compositional history has over-​emphasized literary, especially thematic, issues at the expense of attention to the social function of the text in its various historical contexts. Rhetorical analysis can help to rectify that imbalance by calling attention to indications of the Pentateuch’s persuasive shaping and to the appropriation of its rhetoric by various groups in different times and places.132

The Purpose and Aim of This Study The five areas charted above—canonical form, narrative setting, literary artistry, intertextuality, and rhetoric—have significantly impacted the study of Leviticus 126.  See Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 4–8, 15–20. 127.  See my review of his commentary in Them 39 (2014): 531–32. 128.  E.g., Hundley, Heaven, 5; Nihan, Priestly Torah, 16–17; see also n112; Bryan C. Babcock, Sacred Ritual: A Study of the West Semitic Ritual Calendars in Leviticus 23 and the Akkadian Text Emar 446, BBRSup 9 (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 94–95. 129.  See, similarly, Mark Leuchter, “The Politics of Ritual Rhetoric: A Proposed Sociopolitical Context for the Redaction of Leviticus 1–16,” VT 60 (2010): 345–65; Wesley J. Bergen, Reading Ritual: Leviticus in Postmodern Culture, JSOTSup 417 (London: T&T Clark, 2005). 130.  Watts’s forthcoming commentary on Lev 11–27 will doubtless serve to address this lack of comment. 131.  The rhetorical function of Leviticus is the focus of a PhD dissertation currently being undertaken by Katy Smith (Bristol). Morales (Who Shall Ascend) addresses the lacuna at a semi-popular level. 132.  James W. Watts, “Ritual Rhetoric in the Pentateuch: The Case of Leviticus 1–16,” in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. Thomas Römer, BETL 215 (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 318.

32

Chapter 1

in recent decades. Each approach has demonstrated potential to offer new insights into the meaning and purpose of this ancient text as well as countering observed lacunae in prior interpretative method. In fact, ignoring any one of these facets runs the risk of interpretative loss for the reader. It is not surprising, therefore, that appeals have been made to replace the dominance of a single method with a diversity of approaches.133 Indeed, as noted earlier, Kessler opines that an overriding focus on one method must not be allowed to recur.134 Warning states the positive corollary, that applying a spectrum of approaches may be the most fruitful way to discern the theological message of any given text.135 In light of this, my aim in this study is to utilize insights derived from recent scholarship by employing a combination of methods to elucidate a particular aspect of Leviticus. My approach is primarily synchronic and focuses on the book of Leviticus within its wider Pentateuchal setting. Accordingly, I do not deal with diachronic and compositional questions in any systematic fashion, reserving comment on such matters for points where they explicitly intersect with my wider thesis. Consideration of Leviticus in its Pentateuchal context necessarily involves applying insights garnered from reading the Torah as story. In particular, I focus attention on the role of allusion to prior elements within that overarching narrative. The possibility of such allusion being present is hinted at by the studies noted above that posit connections between Leviticus and Gen 1–3. The question remains open, however, concerning whether posited intertextual connections are valid. If, however, such connections are genuinely present in the received form of Leviticus then further questions are raised regarding the purpose that such linkage might fulfill. Allowing Halberstam’s premise—that legal texts have an affective dimension136—what effect might allusion to Gen 1–3 have upon readers and auditors of Leviticus? Moreover, how might the use of allusion serve the persuasive aims of the entire composition? Addressing these issues in turn requires an answer to Watts’s question: Who is trying to persuade whom? Thus, my investigation must in the end involve a merger of literary-​critical insights with historical-​critical data. In short, the question I want to address is twofold. Does the book of Leviticus, within the final-​form narrative of the Pentateuch, allude to Gen 1–3; and if it does, then what rhetorical purposes are thereby enabled by such intertextual linkage? 133.  Cf. Wenham, “Pondering,” 144. 134.  Kessler, “Methodological Setting,” 14. 135. Warning, Artistry, 168. Similarly, Bryan D. Bibb, “Introduction: Leviticus in Text and Tradition,” in Text, Time, and Temple: Literary, Historical, and Ritual Studies in Leviticus, ed. Francis Landy, Leigh M. Trevaskis, and Bryan D. Bibb, HBM 64 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2015), 2, recognizes the “creative cross-​pollination” that is made possible by the application of multiple methods in relation to Leviticus in particular. 136.  See Chaya Halberstam, “The Art of Biblical Law,” Proof 27 (2007): 345–64.

Reading Leviticus

33

To answer these related queries necessitates a combination of approaches. Moreover, it  also requires addressing two important methodological issues. First, it becomes essential to establish criteria by which potential allusion can be assessed. Failure to do so would invalidate the second, exegetical, part of this study or at best relegate it to the realm of the merely hypothetical. But, second, it is also necessary to elucidate the rhetorical function of the book of Leviticus. Only by so doing does it become possible to corroborate the function of found allusions by demonstrating a correlation with the persuasive aims of the whole. Accordingly, chapter 2 will tackle the first of these concerns—namely, establishing a proper method for intertextual investigation. Chapter 3 focuses on the second—determining the rhetorical function of Leviticus, including its likely historical setting. These chapters thus pave the way for part 2 of this study (chapters 4–6), which examines three representative Leviticus texts in detail to ascertain whether allusion to Gen 1–3 performs any rhetorical function in the book of Leviticus.

Chapter 2

Intertextuality, Allusion, and Rhetorical Function

In response to the issues raised in chapter 1, this chapter will establish the necessary methodological underpinnings for the investigation to follow in chapters 3–6. The need for careful articulation of procedure is mandated both by the noted lack of explicit methodological constraint in some intertextual studies and the evident complexity of the field that will become apparent below. Accordingly, I first summarize the appropriation of intertextual method in Old Testament studies to clarify the issues at stake before outlining my own understanding of intertextuality and the approach I adopt in this study.

Intertextuality in Old Testament Studies Appropriation of Intertextuality Intertextuality has become “trendy” in the decades following its emergence as a distinct field of study in the 1960s.1 Appropriation of the method in Old Testament scholarship has been widely noted and surveyed.2 Early intertextual studies tended to focus attention on the Latter Prophets. The existence of authoritative Scriptures by the time these books were composed increased the likelihood that earlier texts might serve as intertexts.3 An increasing number of monographs, articles, and

1.  I borrow the expression from Ellen J. van Wolde, “Trendy Intertextuality?,” in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel, ed. Sipke Draisma (Kampen: Kok, 1989), 43. 2.  See, for instance, Konrad Schmid, “Innerbiblische Schriftauslegung: Aspekte der Forschungsgeschichte,” in Schriftauslegung in der Schrift: Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck zu seinem 65 Geburtstag, ed. Reinhard G. Kratz, Thomas Krüger, and Konrad Schmid, BZAW 300 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 1–22; Patricia Tull, “Intertextuality and the Hebrew Scriptures,” CurBS 8 (2000): 73–79; Geoffrey D. Miller, “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research,” CBR 9 (2011): 283–309. 3.  Risto Nurmela, The Mouth of the Lord Has Spoken: Inner-​Biblical Allusions in Second and Third Isaiah (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2006), vii.

34

Intertextuality, Allusion, and Rhetorical Function

35

dissertations have since been devoted to exploring intertextuality in the Former Prophets,4 the Writings,5 and the Torah,6 a trend that shows no sign of abating. Regardless of the merits of individual studies, appropriation of intertextual method has significantly impacted Old Testament scholarship. Examination of the dialogical relationship between texts has produced new exegetical data, which has in turn suggested new angles on notable cruxes.7 Intertextuality has thus solidified recent interpretative trends (such as final-​form readings) as well as serving to open new and fruitful directions for research. Problems Arising from Application of Intertextuality However, application of intertextual methodology to the Old Testament has not been altogether positive or straightforward. Three problems are particularly evident. Perhaps the most pressing problem facing any intertextual study is the notable lack of consensus regarding the concept itself as well as its associated terminology. Indeed, Donald Polaski notes how intertextuality has generated a bewildering variety of definitions and uses.8 Accordingly, Gregory Machacek concludes, “discussion of the phenomenon is beset by limiting assumptions, conceptual murkiness and terminological imprecision.”9 The murkiness is readily apparent. Yohan Pyeon identifies several different types of intertextuality.10 Michael Stead outlines three distinct and competing methodological approaches within Old Testament studies alone.11 Compounding this conceptual and methodological variety is the noted diversity of terminology.12 Even a brief perusal of the lit4.  For instance, Larry L. Lyke, King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa: The Resonance of Tradition in Parabolic Narrative, JSOTSup 255 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997). 5.  E.g., Beth LaNeel Tanner, The Book of Psalms through the Lens of Intertextuality (New York: Lang, 2001); Katharine J. Dell and Will Kynes, eds., Reading Job Intertextually, LHBOTS 574 (New York: Bloomsbury, 2013). 6.  E.g., G.  Savran, “Beastly Speech: Intertextuality, Balaam’s Ass and the Garden of Eden,” in The Pentateuch, ed. John W. Rogerson (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 296–318. 7.  See, e.g., Kiuchi, “Paradox.” 8.  Donald C. Polaski, “Reflections on a Mosaic Covenant: The Eternal Covenant (Isaiah 24:5) and Intertextuality,” JSOT 77 (1998): 58. 9.  Gregory Machacek, “Allusion,” PMLA 122 (2007): 522. 10.  Yohan Pyeon, You Have Not Spoken What Is Right about Me: Intertextuality and the Book of Job, StBibLit 45 (New York: Lang, 2003), 51. 11.  Michael R. Stead, The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8, LHBOTS 506 (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 16–17. 12.  For discussion, with bibliography, see Richard L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets, JSOTSup 180 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 216–21; Stead, Zechariah 1–8, 20–22.

36

Chapter 2

erature reveals a disorienting array of synonymously used terms. Connections between texts are variously labeled as “deuterographs,”13 “dialogical connection,”14 “intertextual interaction,”15 “verbal parallels,”16 “literary affinities,”17 “Entsprechung,”18 “Stichwortverbindungen,”19 and so on. Furthermore, a host of more specific descriptors, such as “echo,” “allusion,” “quotation,” “imitation,” “trace,” and “correspondence,” are often used interchangeably20 or are used to refer to different phenomena by different scholars.21 Thus an essential step for outlining a methodological procedure must involve clarification of both the concept of intertextuality and its terms of use. A second problem arises in relation to what Samuel Sandmel terms “parallelomania.” Sandmel defines parallelomania as an “extravagance among scholars which first overdoes the supposed similarity in passages and then proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying literary connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction.”22 Sandmel’s critique aims to restrain scholarly exaggeration of parallels—namely, the penchant to “find” intertextual connections and allusions where, in fact, none exist. His recommendation is that biblical scholars should recognize parallelomania for the “disease” that it is.23 Although Sandmel’s concern was voiced in the context of comparative studies, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and rabbinic literature, it nevertheless sounds a cautionary note for this study as well. Establishing a theoretically sound methodology to determine the veracity of intertextual connections is an essential prerequisite. Third, there is an evident proclivity to build conclusions on genuine, yet in the end insignificant, connections. The problem is exemplified in Moskala’s intertextual 13.  Robert B. Girdlestone, Deuterographs: Duplicate Passages in the Old Testament: Their Bearing on the Text and Compilation of the Hebrew Scriptures (Oxford: Clarendon, 1894). 14. Pyeon, You Have Not Spoken, 66. 15.  Antti Laato, History and Ideology in the Old Testament Prophetic Literature: A Semiotic Approach to the Reconstruction of the Proclamation of the Historical Prophets (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1996), 347. 16. Schultz, Search, 217. 17.  Sid Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence, Transactions 47 (Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1976), 17. 18.  Reinhard Fey, Amos und Jesaja: Abhängigkeit und Eigenständigkeit des Jesaja (Neukirchen-​ Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1963), 82–89. 19.  Helmut Utzschneider, Künder oder Schreiber? Eine These zum Problem der “Schriftprophetie” auf Grund von Maleachi 1:6–2:9, BEATAJ 19 (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1989). 20.  For example, “dependence,” “quotation,” “recasting,” “echoes,” and “influence” are used in a seemingly synonymous way by Otto Kaiser to describe connections between Deutero- and Trito-​ Isaiah. See Otto Kaiser, Introduction to the Old Testament: A Presentation of Its Results and Problems, trans. John Sturdy, rev. ed. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975), 270. 21.  Compare the differing use of terms in Hays, Echoes; Risto Nurmela, Prophets in Dialogue: Inner-​Biblical Allusions in Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14 (Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press, 1996); Schultz, Search; Stead, Zechariah 1–8. 22.  Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962): 1. 23.  Ibid., 13.

Intertextuality, Allusion, and Rhetorical Function

37

examination of Lev 11. As part of his study, Moskala performs a detailed lexical comparison of the Leviticus pericope and the text of Gen 1–3.24 Then, having established genuine overlap in vocabulary, he proceeds to discuss exegetical and theological significance. However, and crucially, Moskala does not consider the commonality of lexemes throughout the remainder of the Old Testament. Thus, for instance, he asserts that the use of ‫ כל‬thirty-​six times25 in Lev 11 “points back to creation where the word ‫ ּכֹל‬is used twenty-​nine times.”26 Yet, in so doing, Moskala fails to address the ubiquitous use of ‫ כל‬throughout the Hebrew canon,27 leaving open the possibility that Lev 11 likewise “points” to a host of Old Testament texts. What becomes apparent is that lexical overlap alone is insufficient to demonstrate significance in relation to a given connection. Once again, the necessity of sound methodology becomes clear. The Need for Defined Methodology To investigate whether intertextual connections exist between Leviticus and Gen 1–3 and to determine their rhetorical force requires prior demonstration of two things. First, it is necessary to establish the presence of genuine parallels. Second, it is vital to determine that such connections are deliberately employed rather than simply being coincidental or merely instances of common expression.28 Only when these two criteria are met does it become possible to discuss the rhetorical function that intertextual linkage might perform. The need for a clearly articulated and theoretically sound methodology is amply illustrated by the factors noted above.29 The following two sections of this chapter therefore clarify the approach I take in this study. The first task is conceptual and definitional. To establish a firm basis 24. Moskala, Laws, 199–233. 25.  ‫ כ ל‬actually appears forty times in Lev 11. This fortyfold (i.e., 4x10) use of ‫ כל‬is perhaps inten d ed to symbolically indicate that the entire animal world has been duly considered. See Ethelbert W. Bullinger, Number in Scripture: Its Supernatural Design and Spiritual Significance (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregal, 1967), 123, 243. 26. Moskala, Laws, 202. 27.  ‫ כל‬appears over 5,400 times in the Old Testament. 28.  Thus, intertextual connections may be intentional in two senses: first, they may be made deliberately rather than being accidental; second, they can have an intentional purpose beyond mere ornamental flourish. 29.  A similar aim to establish a methodologically sound connection between Leviticus and Gen 1–11 is evident in a monograph by Trevaskis. Trevaskis employs cognitive linguistic analysis to ascertain the likelihood of verbal connections to Genesis being understood by readers or hearers of Leviticus. His stated aim is to provide a “relatively objective” method for doing so (Holiness, 230). While this type of analysis is outside the scope of the current study, the shared goals and, at times, commensurate conclusions suggest that our respective methods might be fruitfully used in conjunction by future studies.

38

Chapter 2

for the investigation to follow I discuss the phenomenon of intertextuality. The aim here is to spell out my understanding of intertextuality qua concept as well as to define the terminology I utilize. The second task is procedural. In relation to this, Paul Noble poses the crucial question: “By what criteria . . . can intertextual resemblances be identified as genuine, intentional allusions of one text to another?”30 In response, I outline the methodological framework I will use to determine (1) the genuineness of intertextual connections between Leviticus and Gen 1–3, (2) the deliberateness of parallels, and (3) the rhetorical function performed by these connections in the book of Leviticus.

The Conceptual Task: Mapping the Field and Defining Terms The Development, Meaning, and Application of Intertextuality Although discussion of intertextuality can be traced back as far as Plato, it is its more recent expression that is of primary interest here.31 The term “intertextuality” (intertextualité) is credited to the French semiotic theorist Julia Kristeva.32 Her work, which built upon and adapted Bahktinian dialogism, continues to exercise a major influence on the development of the field. Kristeva (re)defined texts as follows: We define the text as a translinguistic apparatus that redistributes the order of language. . . . The text is thus a productivity. . . . It is a permutation of texts, an inter-​ textuality, which is to say, in the space of a text several utterances, taken from other texts, intersect and neutralize each other.33

In other words, texts are formed from a mosaic of quotations, implying that any given text is merely the transformation of another.34 Thus understood, all texts are regarded as cases of déjà lu.35 Central to intertextual theory, therefore, is the 30.  Paul R. Noble, “Esau, Tamar, and Joseph: Criteria for Identifying Inner-​Biblical Allusions,” VT 52 (2002): 220 (emphasis mine). 31.  For a history of development, see J. Clayton and E. Rothstein, “Figures in the Corpus: Theories of Influence and Intertextuality,” in Influence and Intertextuality in Literary History, ed. J. Clayton and E. Rothstein (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991), 17–29; Michael J. Worton and Judith Still, “Introduction,” in Intertextuality: Theories and Practices, ed. Michael J. Worton and Judith Still (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990), 1–44. 32.  See her collection of essays in Kristeva, Σημειωτικὴ, esp. 113–42. 33.  Julia Kristeva, Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, ed. Leon S. Roudiez and trans. Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine, and Leon S. Roudiez (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), 36. 34.  Julia Kristeva, “Word, Dialogue, and Novel,” in Kristeva, Desire in Language, 66. 35.  Jonathan Culler, The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction (London: Routledge, 2001 [orig. 1981]), 113 (citing Roland Barthes).

Intertextuality, Allusion, and Rhetorical Function

39

tenet that texts do not exist as hermetic or self-​sufficient wholes; or, to quote Peter Miscall’s evocative summary, “No text is an island.”36 Intertextuality in this sense, therefore, is an umbrella term that encompasses all possible relations between all possible texts. This definition becomes broader still—and more unwieldy—when fused with Jacques Derrida’s concept of “le texte général” in which reality itself is viewed as text. For Derrida, le texte général n’a pas de marges, au  sens fixé de ce mot; il  traverse de façon infrastructurelle tout ce que la métaphysique appelle la “réalité” (historique, économique, politique, sexuelle, etc., au sens fixé de ces mots) en tant qu’elle est constituée de rapports de forces différentielles et conflictuelles, de traces, donc, sans aucun centre de présence ou de maîtrise.37

The implications of this reasoning are highlighted by Kristeva: “Tout texte est d’emblée sous la juridiction des autres discours qui lui imposent un univers.”38 Roland Barthes, similarly, concludes that texts are formed by the redistribution of past citations whose origin can scarcely ever be located. The intertext, therefore, is a general field of anonymous formulae that imposes its presence without quotation marks.39 So understood, intertextuality describes the play within an infinite linguistic universe, a universe that offers no possibility of delimitation.40 As a result, author, determinative message, and even text disappear; only the reader is left to impose either limit or meaning.41 According to this definition, therefore, intertextuality is not so much a methodology as it is a theoretical construct.42 However, the impossibility of delimitation in intertextual theory undermines the potential for application. Jonathan Culler is correct: “It is difficult to make that universe as such the object of attention.”43 Thus pragmatically, even Kristeva 36.  Peter D. Miscall, “Isaiah: New Heavens, New Earth, New Book,” in Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible, ed. Danna Nolan Fewell (Louisville: Westminster, 1992), 45. 37.  Lucette Finas, “Entretien de Lucette Finas avec Jacques Derrida: ‘Avoir L’oreille de la Philosophie’,” in Écarts: Quatre essais à propos de Jacques Derrida, ed. Jean Ristat (Paris: Fayard, 1973), 310. 38.  Julia Kristeva, La révolution du langage poétique: L’avant-​garde à la fin du XIXe siècle; Lautréamont et Mallarmé (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1974), 339. 39.  Roland Barthes, “Theory of the Text,” in Untying the Text: A Post-​Structuralist Reader, ed. Robert J. C. Young (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981), 39. 40.  Timothy K. Beal, “Ideology and Intertextuality: Surplus of Meaning and Controlling the Means of Production,” in Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible, ed. Danna Nolan Fewell (Louisville: Westminster, 1992), 27–28. 41.  Wolde, “Texts,” 3; Richard L. Schultz, “Intertextuality, Canon, and ‘Undecidability’: Understanding Isaiah’s ‘New Heavens and New Earth’ (Isaiah 65:17–25),” BBR 20 (2010): 24. 42.  Polaski, “Reflections,” 58. 43.  Jonathan Culler, “Presupposition and Intertextuality,” MLN 91 (1976): 1384.

40

Chapter 2

is forced to limit the infinite possibilities.44 Furthermore, limitless scope opens the door to limitless subjectivism. Without constraint, the choice of interpretant becomes merely arbitrary.45 Hence, Gérard Genette objects that “this attitude would invest the hermeneutic activity of one reader . . . with an authority and a significance that I cannot sanction.”46 The implications are clear. Intertextuality can function as an analytical instrument only if it can somehow be defined more narrowly.47 The key question therefore concerns how an interpreter may limit the seemingly infinite intertextual possibilities. Toward that end, Timothy Beal introduces a crucial distinction between theories of intertextuality and the practice of intertextual reading. Intertextual reading, he suggests, “must find its place somewhere between the closed structure of a single text . . . and the uncontainably surplussive fabric of language.”48 His proposed strategy is to harness the reader’s ideology as a means of containment and as a guide for delegitimizing other readings. However, ideology-​based limitation continues to remain open to the charge of subjectivity. For example, Beal opts for a feminist reading of Judges based solely on personal preference, reasoning that he would rather poke holes in the male-​identified critical consensus than dismantle a feminist reading of the text.49 Similarly, he is suspicious of attempts to anchor interpretation in any historical event that may (or may not) stand behind the text.50 An interpreter with alternative starting presuppositions and ideological commitments would doubtless limit the text differently. It is therefore worth asking whether Beal’s recourse to the reader’s ideology is the only way to delimit intertextual possibilities. The idea that texts contribute something to the act of interpretation is suggested in the work of Hans-​Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur. While neither agrees with determinate meaning, both nevertheless suggest that in the fusion of horizons between text and reader the text brings something to the table. For Gadamer, reading is not so much creation ex nihilo but is rather an act of co-​ creation.51 The hermeneutical task therefore involves a conscious consideration 44.  See, for example, Kristeva, Révolution, 343. Culler (“Intertextuality,” 1385–86) charts how Harold Bloom does the same. 45.  David C. Hoy, “Must We Say What We Mean? The Grammatological Critique of Hermeneutics,” in Hermeneutics and Modern Philosophy, ed. Brice R. Wachterhauser (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986), 409. 46.  Gérard Genette, Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree, trans. Channa Newman and Claude Doubinsky (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), 9. 47.  So also Ellen J. van Wolde, Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of Genesis 1–11, BIS 6 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 164. 48.  Beal, “Ideology,” 28. 49.  Ibid., 34. 50.  Ibid., 35. 51. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning? 107. Cf. Anthony C. Thiselton, The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description with Special Reference to Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer, and Wittgenstein (Exeter: Paternoster, 1980), 314–19.

Intertextuality, Allusion, and Rhetorical Function

41

of the tension created when text and present meet.52 Likewise, Ricoeur intimates that readers do not have a carte blanche vis-​à-​vis interpretation: Perhaps we should say that a text is a finite space of interpretations: there is not just one interpretation, but, on the other hand, there is not an infinite number of them. A text is a space of variations that has its own constraints; and in order to choose a different interpretation, we must always have better reasons.53

Do the inherent constraints that Ricoeur talks about extend to the delimitation of intertextual options? French literary critic Michael Riffaterre argues that they do. He posits that texts guide their readers toward making particular intertextual linkages: Intertextual connection takes place when the reader’s attention is triggered by . . . clues . . . , by intratextual anomalies—obscure wordings, phrasings that the context alone will not suffice to explain—in short ungrammaticalities within the ideolectic norm . . . which are traces left by the absent intertext, signs of an incompleteness to be completed elsewhere. These, in turn, are enough to set in train an intertextual reading, even if the intertext is not yet known.54

Thus, for Riffaterre, objective features within texts can act to constrain intertextual possibilities. The importance of this observation becomes clear when compared with a recent article by Russell Meek. Meek objects to the use of the term “intertextual(ity)” to describe anything other than a synchronic, reader-​oriented approach—a definition in line with Kristeva’s original understanding of the term.55 He concludes that an inherent presupposition for intertextuality is that connection of texts is the sole prerogative of readers.56 However, if texts can trigger a reader’s attention (as per Riffaterre57), and thereby instigate a search for intertexts (whether consciously or unconsciously), then a purely reader-​oriented approach will not sufficiently address the complex phenomenon that intertextuality presents.58 52.  Hans-​Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York: Crossroad, 1975), 273. 53.  Paul Ricoeur, A Ricoeur Reader: Reflection and Imagination, ed. M. J. Valdés (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991), 496. 54.  Michael Riffaterre, “Syllepsis,” CI 6 (1980): 627. Cf. Michael Riffaterre, Semiotics of Poetry (London: Methuen, 1980), 164–65. 55.  Russell  L. Meek, “Intertextuality, Inner-​Biblical Exegesis, and Inner-​Biblical Allusion: The Ethics of a Methodology,” Bib 95 (2014): 282–84. 56.  Ibid., 284. 57.  Riffaterre even suggests the possibility of what he terms “obligatory intertextuality.” See M. Riffaterre, “La trace de l’intertexte,” La Pensée 215 (1980): 9. 58.  For this reason, Meek’s rigid distinction between intertextuality, on the one hand, and inner-​ biblical exegesis and inner-​biblical allusion, on the other, may be too neat. See also Karl W. Weyde,

42

Chapter 2

In suggesting that texts guide readers, Riffaterre goes further than Gadamer and Ricoeur to conclude that if all the constants of a particular text are borne in mind, then it is possible to arrive at “the proper interpretation.”59 As these constants become apparent to the reader only through continued exposure to the text, Riffaterre defines the act of reading as deciphering the text,60 or “the dialectic exchange between a coded message and its decoder.”61 In this way, texts are understood as being able to restrict the freedom of readers. By so doing, the limitless options are constrained. Riffaterre is not alone. Ellen van Wolde avers that indexical signs can be imposed upon readers.62 Likewise, Genette suggests that in identifying potential intertexts, some are more “visibly, massively, and explicitly so than others.”63 Comments such as these indicate the possibility of intertextual reading amid the surplussive fabric of language described by intertextual theory. Connections between texts need not be solely and arbitrarily generated in the minds of readers; markers within a text can also guide readers toward certain intertexts.64 Accordingly, not all intertextual readings are equally valid; indeed, some may not be valid at all.65 However, if a text can both hint at and constrain intertextual possibilities, do readers then become irrelevant? Not at all. Gadamer’s warning about collapsing the two horizons must be heeded.66 Wolde elucidates the necessary synergy. “The interaction between [the text’s] directing and [the reader’s] selection results in an interaction or a nodal point of meaning to which both have contributed.” This “directed collaboration,” as she calls it, enables one to choose between various possibilities.67 Consequently, the linguistic competence of the reader becomes a critical factor. Again, Wolde is helpful. She rightly notes that readers who do not know any other texts cannot identify intertextual relationships.68 A key factor to establish, therefore, is which works make up the customary knowledge of the ideal reader.69 “Inner-​Biblical Interpretation: Methodological Reflections on the Relationship between Texts in the Hebrew Bible,” SEÅ 70 (2005): 287–300, who similarly argues that the three categories cannot be sharply divided. 59.  Michael Riffaterre, “Interpretation and Undecidability,” NLH 12 (1981): 227 (emphasis his). 60.  Riffaterre, “Syllepsis,” 625. 61.  Riffaterre, “Interpretation,” 228. 62.  Wolde, “Texts,” 8. 63. Genette, Palimpsests, 9. 64.  Wolde, “Texts,” 8. 65. Cf. Trible, Rhetorical Criticism, 231. 66. Gadamer, Truth, 273. 67. Wolde, Words, 175. 68.  Ibid., 167. For discussion regarding the literary and/or aural competence required by an audience to comprehend intertextual relationships, see Cynthia Edenburg, “Intertextuality, Literary Competence, and the Question of Readership: Some Preliminary Observations,” JSOT 35 (2010): 131–48. 69.  Clayton and Rothstein, “Figures,” 26.

Intertextuality, Allusion, and Rhetorical Function

43

In relation to ancient Israelites the matter is complicated by the opacity surrounding the relative dating of Old Testament canonical writings; customary knowledge must, by necessity, depend on availability. The issue becomes more complex still when a history of oral tradition and Redaktionsgeschichte are added to the equation. In the face of such uncertainty Risto Nurmela concedes defeat and concludes that establishing direction of dependence—and by implication, customary knowledge—is simply not feasible.70 However, as discussed in chapter 1, historical-​critical matters cannot simpy be ignored in this study, given its particular aims. Accordingly, I argued that there are sufficient reasons, albeit tentative, to proceed on the basis that those responsible for the final text of Leviticus had knowledge of Gen 1 and Gen 2–3. In these ways, then, the theoretically infinite universe of intertexts may be limited in practice by both text and reader. However, discussing the delimiting features of texts that both constrain readers and point them toward specific intertexts raises the issue of authorial intention. In fact, the widespread use of language that is unable to avoid the idea of intention is itself suggestive. For even as attempts are made to dismiss the idea of authorial agency, the concept is continually smuggled back in through the use of personification to describe what texts are doing— saying, suggesting, explaining, guiding, constraining, and so on. Yet, as Nicholas Wolterstorff correctly notes, such actions may be properly ascribed only to persons and not to things.71 Persons say, suggest, explain, guide, constrain; texts do not. So what, then, is the relationship between the delimiting features of a text and authorial intention? The concept of authorial intent is debated in current literary theory. Recent trends have shifted the locus of meaning away from author to either text or reader. This so-​called death of the author holds particular appeal for proponents of intertextuality who have generally strived to avoid the notion of authorial intention.72 David Hoy posits a reason for the appeal. He suggests that dismissing the notion of authorial intent prevented possible confusion with traditional influence studies, a connection that intertextual critics were desperate to avoid.73 Yet at this very point a degree of tension becomes apparent among intertextual theorists. Susan Friedman notices that while the French school readily abandons all notions of 70. Nurmela, Mouth, viii. Cf. Lyle M. Eslinger, “Inner-​Biblical Exegesis and Inner-​Biblical Allusion: The Question of Category,” VT 42 (1992): 52–56. Sommer, however, states that “the proper response to such difficulties is not a flight to the synchronic (which at times masks an abdication of critical rigor), but a careful construction of an argument” (Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998], 10). 71.  Nicholas Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim That God Speaks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 177. 72.  The historico-​social developments leading to the “death of the author” have been charted, for instance, by Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning? 43–90. 73.  Hoy, “Must We Say?,” 408.

44

Chapter 2

intention, the American school has not been as willing to ditch the concept of agency.74 She notes further that this is an American redefinition of French intertextuality rather than a naïve understanding of it. However, this intramural debate prompts the question, Is it possible to hold both intertextuality and authorial intention together (even if such a union runs contrary to Kristeva’s original understanding)? Or, more pointedly, can intertextual connection be a deliberate tool employed by an agent (author)? The work of Kevin Vanhoozer suggests a way forward. Utilizing speech act theory to provide the necessary conceptual framework and terminology, Vanhoozer asks why there is something rather than nothing in texts. He responds, “Because someone has said something about something to someone.”75 Consequently, Vanhoozer defines a text as “a communicative act of a communicative agent fixed by writing.”76 Such acts, unlike a writer’s consciousness and thought processes, are publicly accessible and are fixed in history. Thus, communicative acts, fixed in writing, provide access to what an author was attempting to do, making it possible to talk about the authorial intent embodied in a text while at the same time avoiding Wimstatt and Beardsley’s intentional fallacy.77 Regarding the viability of this approach, John Searle makes an important observation. He notes that it is of vital importance to distinguish questions of ontology from questions of epistemology. In other words, uncertainty regarding what an author’s intention was is not the same as saying there is none, only that we do not perceive it. Hence, Searle continues, “The standard mistake is to suppose that a lack of evidence, that is, our ignorance, shows indeterminacy or undecidability in principle.”78 For my purposes here, therefore, I understand authorial intent not as an attempt to get into the author’s mind, but rather as a description of what the author actually did by way of saying.79 A crucial consequence of Vanhoozer’s concept of text as communicative act is that one cannot separate the intention of the text from the intention of the author. Nor does it seem that the text’s guiding of a reader can be separated from the author’s guiding of a reader. Again, in Wolterstorff ’s terms, texts don’t have intentions; authors have intentions. Therefore, interpretation of texts as acts of communication must incorporate all three entities—author, text, and reader—in a 74.  Susan S. Friedman, “Weavings: Intertextuality and the (Re)Birth of the Author,” in Influence and Intertextuality in Literary History, ed. J. Clayton and E. Rothstein (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991), 155–60. 75. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning? 218. 76.  Ibid., 225 (italics removed). 77.  See W. K. Wimstatt and Monroe C. Beardsley, “The Intentional Fallacy,” SR 54 (1946): 468–88. 78.  John R. Searle, “Literary Theory and Its Discontents,” NLH 25 (1994): 648. 79.  Likewise, Wolterstorff argues that interpretation must concern what an author actually said, not merely what he or she may have intended to say (Discourse, 199).

Intertextuality, Allusion, and Rhetorical Function

45

distinctio sed non separatio relationship. An author’s illocution, expressed by means of a text’s locutions, is aimed at bringing about a perlocutionary effect in the reader.80 The point of application to the current discussion is highlighted by the following questions: To what part of the communicative act does intertextuality relate? Is intertextuality a matter of locution, illocution, or perlocution? Does it relate to author, text, or reader? I suggest that a false trichotomy is evident in these questions. Intertextuality can (but need not necessarily) exist as a phenomenon that spans all three categories. While intertextual connections may simply be an unintended perlocution in the mind of an imaginative (or widely read) reader—completely divorced from textual or authorial intent—this is not always the case. As Riffaterre demonstrates, intertexts may also be signaled by the locutions of the text itself; in this way texts can guide their readers toward making certain connections. Yet Vanhoozer also opens the possibility of intertextuality existing at an illocutionary level—that is, intertextual linkage may be one of the actions an author is performing with his or her communicative act fixed in writing. Hence, there is a category within the matrix of possible intertextualities for the phenomenon to be regarded as an intentional act whereby an author attempts to provoke a connection in the mind of the reader to a particular, known intertext by means of incorporating certain locutions in his or her writing.81 Therefore, the conceptual understanding assumed by this study is as follows. Intertextual theory concerns all possible connections between all possible texts. However, in practice, intertextual reading may be variously limited by author, text, or reader or a combination thereof. Moreover, in at least some cases, intertextual connection can be a deliberate authorial act employed with a particular illocutionary force. Definition of Terms As noted above, the field of intertextual study is obfuscated by terminological inconsistency that makes comparison between practitioners difficult. Therefore, before detailing how I propose to demonstrate the genuineness, deliberateness, 80.  In Vanhoozer’s terms (Is There a Meaning? 218), “meaning is a three-​dimensional communicative action, with form and matter (propositional content), energy and trajectory (illocutionary force), and teleology or final purpose (perlocutionary effect).” 81.  This conclusion draws support from Stead: “Intertextuality can validly encompass a hermeneutical approach that views author, text and reader as important to the interpretive process, and in which both diachronic concerns and synchronic concerns are important in coming to the meaning of the text” (Michael R. Stead, “Intertextuality and Innerbiblical Interpretation,” in DOTPr, ed. M. J. Boda and J. G. McConville [Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2012], 358).

46

Chapter 2

and rhetorical function of intertextual connections between Leviticus and Gen 1–3, it is necessary to define the terms I will utilize in the remainder of this study. Intertextuality First, in  light of the above discussion and following Ziva Ben-​Porat, I  use “intertextual(ity)” in a broad sense to refer to the “concept which covers all the phenomena derived from the relation between a given text . . . and a preceding or/ and contemporaneous corpus of texts.”82 Thus understood, intertextuality may refer to both diachronic and synchronic aspects of textual interrelation.83 Particular instances of intertextuality that perform certain functions may be further quantified and labeled—for example, allusion, pastiche, plagiarism, parody, and so on—depending upon usage in a given illocution.84 Allusion Particularly important for the current study is a precise definition of allusion. Following Earl Miner, I understand allusion as the “deliberate incorporation of identifiable elements from other sources, preceding or contemporaneous, textual or extratextual.”85 Several aspects of Miner’s definition require elaboration. First, allusion is, by definition, deliberate. Thus, the device goes further than my broad definition of intertextuality by implying the intentional act of a literary agent. Second, allusion works based on connection to identifiable elements from another source. Hence, to be effective, allusion requires that readers are familiar with the original borrowed form.86 As Machacek notes, however, a general awareness of the text is not sufficient. It must also be a valued text—namely, one that encourages both 82.  Ziva Ben-​Porat, “Forms of Intertextuality and the Reading of Poetry: Uri Zvi Greenberg’s Bashaʻar,” Proof 10 (1990): 258. 83.  A case could be made for employing the term “intratextuality” or “innertextuality” to describe the intertextual phenomena that exist within a corpus like the Pentateuch. Some, like Tracy J. McKenzie, Idolatry in the Pentateuch: An Innertextual Strategy (Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2010), and Sailhamer (Introduction, 209–12), do exactly this. However, “intratextuality” and “innertextuality” are disputed terms within the field; “intertextuality,” on the other hand, while polyvalent, is nevertheless a more recognized term. Furthermore, to use the term “intratextuality” assumes the consequent with regard to the Pentateuch’s textual and theological coherence. While one outcome of this investigation may be a validation of the use of “intratextuality” for inner-​Pentateuchal connections, in light of the above considerations I use the term “intertextuality” throughout. 84.  For a similar conclusion, see James D. Nogalski, “Intertextuality and the Twelve,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts, ed. James W. Watts and Paul R. House, LHBOTS 235 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 103. 85.  Earl Miner, “Allusion,” in The New Princeton Handbook of Poetic Terms, ed. T. V. F. Brogan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 13. Cf. Machacek, “Allusion,” 525: allusion is “a textual snippet reminiscent of a phrase in an earlier author’s writing but smoothly incorporated into the new context of the imitating author’s work.” 86.  Miner, “Allusion,” 14.

Intertextuality, Allusion, and Rhetorical Function

47

attention to detail and the remembering of detail.87 Third, while being identifiable, incorporation of elements from alluded-​to sources is nevertheless smoothly done.88 Thus, one test for allusion is that some readers may fail to observe the phenomenon’s presence.89 Allusion is implicit rather than explicit. Fourth, allusion may extend beyond simple textual linkages. Miner clarifies: “Although poetic allusion is necessarily manifested in words, what it draws on in another work need not be verbal. The words of the alluding passage may establish a conceptual rather than a verbal connection with the passage or work alluded to.”90 The above definition of allusion becomes important for elucidating the particular ways that Leviticus alludes to Gen 1–3. As Stead helpfully clarifies, there are different intertextualities and different intertextual methodologies; thus, one must choose a method germane to the text being studied.91 Miner’s above definition highlights well the allusive features displayed by Leviticus. Parallels with Genesis are always implicit; no citation formulae are used (contrast Dan 9:2, Zech 1:4, etc.). Connections made are also to a known text, narratively prior within the overarching story line of the Pentateuch’s final form. Moreover, allusions are made to a valued text, one that would invite the sustained interaction required of readers to make the necessary links. In addition, while Leviticus evidences lexical and syntactical connections with the creation narratives it also employs conceptual parallels (see my discussion in chapters 4–6). Hence, broader themes, motifs, and typological patterning need to be considered. However, at this point a significant challenge to my proposed understanding of allusion vis-​à-​vis intertextuality becomes evident. The problem is signaled by van Wolde when she bemoans scholars who simply make intertextuality “a modern literary theoretical coat of veneer over the old comparative approach.”92 Likewise Culler, in trying to defend a Kristevian understanding of intertextuality, warns against falling back into the traditional source studies that intertextual theory was designed to transcend.93 Even Kristeva herself labeled the confusion between allusion and intertextuality a banal misappropriation of her term94—a somewhat ironic conclusion considering the negation of authorial intent so fundamental to her work. Nevertheless, Machacek observes that in normal parlance “intertextuality” has become a catchall term used to refer to various types of textual interrelation. 87.  Machacek, “Allusion,” 526. 88.  Miner, “Allusion,” 14. Cf. Machacek, “Allusion,” 525. 89.  Miner, “Allusion,” 14. 90. Ibid. 91. Stead, Zechariah 1–8, 27. Cf. Polaski, “Reflections,” 58. 92.  Van Wolde, “Trendy,” 43. See, similarly, Meek, “Intertextuality,” 280–91. 93. Culler, Pursuit, 109. 94. Kristeva, Révolution, 60.

48

Chapter 2

Accordingly, he concludes that the original definition of the term cannot be sustained.95 In fact, Kristeva, cognizant of the shift, coined a new term, “transposition,” to refer to what she had originally intended.96 So, can allusion appropriately be understood as an instance of intertextuality? Again, Machacek is helpful. He argues that connecting the concepts has value. First, while allusion may simply denote “a brief, local phenomenon,” the term “intertextuality” may better describe texts that are saturated with allusions to another literary tradition,97 a reality I seek to demonstrate in relation to Leviticus vis-​à-​vis Gen 1–3. Second, allusion may imply that the original text is the superior one while the alluding text is merely derivative or unoriginal. “Intertextuality,” however, suggests a relationship between equals and thus may better preserve the creative genius of the alluding author.98 For these reasons I will continue to use the term “intertextuality” as a broad descriptor and to use “allusion” to denote a particular instance of intertextuality.99

The Procedural Task: Determining a Modus Operandi Having established a conceptual basis for intertextuality in general, as well as for one specific expression of the phenomenon—namely, allusion—I now turn to the procedural matters that will inform my intertextual reading of Leviticus. Three questions become paramount: (1) How can the genuineness of potential allusions be demonstrated so as to avoid Sandmel’s charge of parallelomania? (2) Once established, how can connections be demonstrated as being deliberate on the part of a literary agent and not merely coincidental? (3) How can one determine the rhetorical function of genuine, deliberately employed allusions? I address each question in turn. Determining the Genuineness of Allusion Several methodologies have been suggested for demonstrating the genuineness of intertextual connections. In Echoes of Scripture, Richard Hays proposes seven criteria for assessing potential connections.100 Hays’s criteria, while at times being 95.  Machacek, “Allusion,” 524 (italics removed). See, similarly, Edenburg, who describes intertextuality as a “grab bag” term (“Intertextuality,” 137). 96. Kristeva, Révolution, 60 (italics removed). 97.  Machacek, “Allusion,” 524. 98.  Ibid., 524–25. 99.  The task, then, in Machacek’s words is to “distinguish phraseological adaptations [i.e., allusions] of a single identifiable precursor from the more diffuse intertextuality” (“Allusion,” 523). 100.  These are (1) availability of the alluded-​to text; (2) volume of explicit repetition of words or phrases; (3) recurrence of allusions to the same passage; (4) thematic coherence; (5) historical plausibility

Intertextuality, Allusion, and Rhetorical Function

49

further nuanced, have nevertheless been widely accepted.101 Gregory Beale has also developed a methodology for determining the probability of connections between texts.102 His criteria, while evidencing the seemingly ubiquitous necessity for devising novel terminology, approximately correspond with those of Hays. However, the focus for both Beale and Hays is New Testament use of the Old Testament. Yet, while substantial overlap exists, Old Testament use of the Old Testament raises unique problems. For instance, while it can be assumed that New Testament readers were aware of Old Testament texts, the literary knowledge of Old Testament readers is much more difficult to ascertain. Thus, several specifically Old Testament–focused methodologies become important. The classic exploration remains Michael Fishbane’s Biblical Interpretation, a significant catalyst for the recent upsurge of interest in the topic and the departure point for studies that have followed in its wake.103 Fishbane suggests a process of “inner-​biblical exegesis” under which older authoritative material is understood to have been updated, revised, or expanded. Yet, while undoubtedly seminal, Biblical Interpretation also has its limitations. James Kugel argues that Fishbane’s categories—scribal, legal, aggadic, mantological—are derived more from rabbinic discussions than the biblical material.104 Moreover, Kugel questions whether “inner-​ biblical exegesis” is a sufficient explanation to account for all the ways in which authors connect texts.105 In the years since Fishbane’s magnum opus, other scholars, building upon and developing Fishbane’s work, have forwarded alternate criteria.106 Once again, significant overlap, albeit with alternative terminology, is evident in the different approaches. Jeffrey Leonard’s Criteria Perhaps one of the clearest sets of criteria to emerge is that proposed by Jeffrey Leonard. Using connections between Ps 78 and Exodus–Numbers as a basis, of the author making the connection and the reader getting it; (6) history of interpretation; and (7) satisfaction with regard to increased illumination of the text (Echoes, 29–32). 101.  For a survey of appropriation, see David A. Shaw, “Converted Imaginations? The Reception of Richard Hays’s Intertextual Method,” CBR 11 (2013): 234–45. 102.  See especially Gregory K. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2012). 103.  Tull (“Intertextuality,” 75) refers to Fishbane’s volume as “the most monumental single work on intertextual relationships within the Hebrew Scriptures.” 104.  James L. Kugel, “The Bible’s Earliest Interpreters,” Proof 7 (1987): 275–76. 105.  Ibid., 280. Cf. David L. Petersen, “Zechariah 9–14: Methodological Reflections,” in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner-​Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14, ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd, LHBOTS 370 (London: Sheffield Academic, 2003), 218: “Not all instances in which one text alludes to another involves [sic] an exegetical impulse.” 106.  E.g., Nurmela, Prophets, 23–37; Sommer, Prophet, 6–31; Schultz, Search, 222–39; Stead, Zechariah 1–8, 16–39.

50

Chapter 2

Leonard distills the various intertextual relationships observed into a comprehensive and widely applicable methodology.107 He proposes eight diagnostic criteria. 1. Shared language is the single most important factor for establishing a textual connection.108 Leonard maintains that this is the primary indicator upon which other criteria are based. He therefore argues that to depart from a lexical foundation introduces an unavoidable element of subjectivity, which, in the end, undermines the strength of connections posited. Nurmela concurs, suggesting that finding lexical parallels remains the most objective criterion for determining the presence of an intertext.109 Accordingly, investigation of potential allusion to Gen 1–3 in Leviticus must begin with a comparison of vocabulary even if it eventually includes more than just lexical parallels. That said, Stead adds an important caveat. He argues that because of the transformative actions of the alluding author, specific verbal parallels may not be present in every case.110 Use of synonyms, therefore, does not by itself rule out the possibility of allusion. 2. Shared language is more important than non-​shared language.111 Leonard states, “That a text contains additional language that is idiosyncratic or not shared in no way undermines the possibility of a connection.”112 Rather, such idiosyncratic language may simply be the result of literary creativity or an indication that an author has assimilated an allusion to his or her own style and vocabulary. Indeed, as Machacek notes, inclusion of a phrase from an earlier or contemporaneous author’s writing is usually smoothly incorporated into the new context of the imitating author’s work.113 3. Shared language that is distinctive or rare suggests a stronger connection than does language that is widely used.114 While paralleled use of common words does not negate the possibility of allusion—in fact, I will argue below that clusters of common words are one potential marker of intentional connection—it does make it more difficult to prove that a genuine connection exists. Shared use of rare words or uncommon forms, however, indicates a more probable connection. 4. Shared phrases suggest a stronger connection than shared words alone.115 While shared lexemes may suggest an allusion to another text, the presence of shared phrases significantly increases the likelihood of a connection. 107.  Leonard’s methodology has been employed by other scholars, e.g., Stead, DOTPr, 362; Postell, Adam, 67–69. I have also used his criteria elsewhere. See, for instance, G. Geoffrey Harper, “The Theological and Exegetical Significance of Leviticus as Intertext in Daniel 9,” JESOT 4 (2015): 39–61. 108.  Leonard, “Allusions,” 246. 109.  Nurmela, “Growth,” 246. So also Miller, “Intertextuality,” 303–4; Fishbane, Interpretation, 285. 110. Stead, Zechariah 1–8, 30. 111.  Leonard, “Allusions,” 249. 112.  Ibid. (emphasis his). 113.  Machacek, “Allusion,” 525. 114.  Leonard, “Allusions,” 251. 115.  Ibid., 252.

Intertextuality, Allusion, and Rhetorical Function

51

5. An accumulation of shared language indicates a more likely connection than does a single shared term or phrase.116 Identical to Hays’s category of “volume,”117 this criterion holds that multiple points of contact between two texts constitute stronger evidence of a genuine connection than do single occurrences of terms or phrases.118 Benjamin Sommer agrees, stating, “If I find one or two cases in which an allusion occurs in a section regarded by others as a hodgepodge of fragments, one might view my findings as coincidental. . . . But if I find scores of such borrowings, and if they display consistent patterns in their reuse of older material, then the notion that all these cases result from happenstance becomes untenable.”119 Consequently, Leonard asserts that strong evidence for allusion to a particular intertext can bolster the likelihood of other related, but less certain, connections.120 6. Shared language used in similar contexts suggests a stronger connection than does shared language alone.121 Here Leonard maintains that the genuineness of an allusion is made even more sure when shared words and phrases are supported by overlap at a conceptual level. Schultz suggests a reason for such conceptual paralleling: “A quotation is not intended to be self-​contained or self-​explanatory; rather a knowledge of the quoted context also is assumed by the . . . author. . . . If a quotation’s source is not recognized, there is an unfortunate semantic loss.”122 Thus conceptual similarity not only draws attention to connections made but also strengthens the rhetorical force of allusion by bringing to bear the wider situation, a matter I will expand on later. 7. Shared language need not be accompanied by mutual ideology to establish a connection.123 Alluding authors need not duplicate the ideological concerns of source texts and may in fact reuse prior material for their own agenda. Thus, that later writers advance differing ideologies than those of an alluded-​to text has no bearing on the validity of a prospective connection.124 8. Shared language need not be accompanied by shared form to validate a connection.125 Rather, changed Sitze im Leben may constitute a catalyst for adaptation. Hence the genuineness or otherwise of potential allusion does not turn on the preservation of form. In fact, Leonard notes that commonality of form may 116.  Ibid., 253. 117. Hays, Echoes, 30. 118.  See, similarly, Gregory K. Beale, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1984), 307; van Wolde, “Texts,” 8. 119. Sommer, Prophet, 5. 120.  Leonard, “Allusions,” 253. 121.  Ibid., 255. 122. Schultz, Search, 224–25. 123.  Leonard, “Allusions,” 255. 124.  Ibid., 256. 125. Ibid.

52

Chapter 2

actually point away from allusion being present by raising the possibility that textual similarities are the result of parallel rather than dependent development.126 Schultz and Fishbane agree, arguing somewhat counterintuitively that reinterpretation presents stronger evidence of dependence than does verbatim repetition.127 Intertextuality and Probability As is evident from the preceding criteria, evaluation of potential allusion presents a spectrum of likelihood, moving from unlikely to extremely probable. Beale is therefore correct: “All such proposed connections have degrees of possibility and probability.”128 However, as Hays rightly recognizes, the more criteria that fall into place, the more confident an interpreter can be that an intertextual connection is present in a given text.129 Thus the cumulative effect of multiple criteria becomes persuasive.130 In the discussion that follows, I will not work systematically through these criteria. Rather they will form a conceptual matrix against which the likelihood of possible allusions can be evaluated. Determining the Deliberateness of Allusion Leonard’s criteria help to shape an approach for determining the genuineness of intertextual connections and hence indicate the likelihood that one text is acting as intertext to another. However, while allusion implies intended connection on the part of an author, can such intention be demonstrated, or must it simply be assumed, as it were, ex hypothesi? In other words, are there testable criteria by which is it possible to determine the deliberateness of an intertextual connection against the possibility of an unintended link? This is an important question, because if a connection between texts is genuine, yet unintended, then it does not count as allusion, and one cannot discuss its rhetorical function. While other approaches may feasibly sidestep this issue, and analyze intertextuality solely as perlocution— namely, a synchronic, reader-​of-​the-​text phenomenon—demonstration of intent is an essential foundation for discussing the rhetorical function of allusion that this study is attempting. Therefore, methodological guidelines are required to assess whether allusions found to Gen 1–3 in Leviticus are intentional rather than merely coincidental. To that end, the following four criteria serve as indicators. 126. Ibid. 127. Schultz, Search, 219–21; Fishbane, Interpretation, 285. 128.  Gregory K. Beale, We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2008), 24. 129. Hays, Echoes, 32. 130. Beale, Worship, 25; Benjamin D. Sommer, “Exegesis, Allusion, and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger,” VT 46 (1996): 485.

Intertextuality, Allusion, and Rhetorical Function

53

The Quantity and Specificity of Allusions to the Same Text The first indicator concerns the quantity and specificity of connections to a given text. A Gestalt may be derived from the interfusion of three factors proposed by Michael Lyons to determine purposeful use of shared locutions. 1. The frequency and distribution of locutions.131 This criterion quantitatively assesses the lexical and, by extension, syntactical parallels between two texts. The key question is, Do shared locutions occur in significantly higher proportions in the source and target texts than elsewhere?132 If they do, then even the presence of multiple common words, whose combination is rare, suggests dependence and raises the likelihood of deliberate connection.133 2. An awareness of the context from which locutions are taken.134 When lexical units in the quoting text are found in close but syntactically unconnected proximity to each other in the quoted text, this suggests deliberate textual connection rather than simply being the result of common expression.135 In other words, an author may signal allusion to a particular intertext by incorporating multiple connections (at lexical and/or conceptual levels). Bonnie Kittel suggests that the reason for this is that “allusion is used to recall a specific passage to the reader/listener’s mind.”136 Thus, allusion works by being noticed and related to its source; not being recognized leads to the semantic loss that Schultz identifies.137 Evidence of repeated connection to the same (con)text therefore becomes important. Uncovering such a signaling strategy again suggests that connections are intentional and not merely coincidental. This factor also helps decide whether noted similarity is indeed allusion—that is, a deliberate textual strategy—or whether it merely reflects a shared social setting and ideology, or is simply the result of lexical and conceptual constraints. Multiple connections to syntactically unconnected parts of the same intertext move the probable explanation away from shared context and toward intentional literary device. This is an important consideration, for arguably shared priestly conception could otherwise explain parallels between Leviticus and Gen 1, for example. 3. The availability of options.138 Similar to the above point, paralleled vocabulary may by itself simply indicate syntactic or lexical constraints. However, as Lyons 131.  Michael A. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code, LHBOTS 507 (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 68. 132. Ibid. 133.  Ibid., 69. 134. Ibid. 135.  Ibid., 70–71. 136.  Bonnie P. Kittel, The Hymns of Qumran: Translation and Commentary, SBLDS 50 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981), 50 (emphasis hers). 137. Schultz, Search, 224–25. 138. Lyons, Law, 72.

54

Chapter 2

notes, “if a locution shared by two texts could have been selected from a number of semantically equivalent locutions, it is more likely to be the result of a purposeful and conscious choice.”139 Part of my analysis of Leviticus pericopes in chapters 4–6, therefore, will be to consider whether synonyms were available for shared language. If this can be shown to be the case, then the likelihood of an intentional connection is correspondingly increased. Considering the above criteria, deliberate intertextual connection between Leviticus and Gen 1 and Gen 2–3 can be understood as probable if the texts display (1) shared lexical clusters that do not appear in other texts, (2) multiple points of connection, and (3) parallels for which semantic equivalents were available. The Similarity of Narrative Settings A second indicator of deliberate allusion concerns the correspondence between the structural frameworks of the texts in question. Noble clarifies the issue at stake: The basic methodological flaw [of intertextual studies] . . . is that the standards for identifying resemblances have been set far too low. . . . The indiscriminate collecting of (often quite imprecise) resemblances between two stories does not permit one to infer that one text is intentionally alluding to the other.140

However, if lexical and syntactical parallels are not by themselves sufficient, how can deliberate linkage be demonstrated? Noble suggests that incorporating Alter’s concept of type-​scene provides a surer test.141 Alter defines type-​scenes as “an accepted common framework of narrative situation that the writer could then modify for the fictional purposes at hand.”142 The key factor for utilizing Alter’s framework, then, is to establish whether identified parallels between pericopes connect to such a “common framework of narrative situation.” Parallels that relate to central rather than peripheral themes have a higher likelihood of being deliberate. Nevertheless, there is also a need to heed Leonard’s qualification: “Biblical tradents had to maneuver between the competing interests of evoking other texts, on the one hand, and maintaining the integrity of the original tradition, on the other.”143 Thus correspondence need not necessarily extend to every feature of the text. That said, Noble adds a vital methodological element for assessing intent. He concludes: Aiming to discover a pattern of interconnected resemblances, rather than a mere catalogue of unrelated correspondences, provides a way of assessing which are the relevant 139. Ibid. 140.  Noble, “Criteria,” 227–28. 141.  Ibid., 232. 142. Alter, Biblical Narrative, 76. 143.  Leonard, “Allusions,” 249 n. 45.

Intertextuality, Allusion, and Rhetorical Function

55

similarities and divergencies. . . . [If] such a pattern can be found . . . [there] is strong reason for believing that the resemblances are intentional.144

In light of Noble’s observations, I will need to establish whether any similarities exist between the creation narratives and pericopes in Leviticus at the level of structural framework. If this kind of correspondence can be demonstrated, then the result will be further evidence of deliberate allusion. At the same time, however, I am aware that this use of type-​scene analysis goes beyond what Alter intended—he, after all, identifies type-​scenes as a literary convention inherent to narrative texts. Yet, as I discussed in chapter 1, there has been a growing recognition that literary devices evident in biblical storytelling also appear in legal material. The stylistic lines between narrative and legal discourse (or poetry for that matter) are not as firm as they were once drawn. It is with this in mind that I adopt Alter’s category. Even if the use of type-​scene terminology is deemed inappropriate, determining the presence (or otherwise) of structural patterning remains an important criterion for assessing the deliberateness of parallels. The Recontextualization of Prior Material A third indicator of deliberate allusion is the reworking of material for a new context. Perhaps somewhat counterintuitively, recontextualization better indicates dependence, and hence intentionality, than does verbatim quotation. Peter Ackroyd makes the point: Quotation may indeed only be claimed with certainty where re-​interpretation is evident. Such re-​interpretation indicates dependence upon an earlier form of the same material, and its re-​handling with a distinctively new point in mind.145

Fishbane agrees. He states, The identification of aggadic exegesis where external objective criteria are lacking is proportionally increased to the extent that multiple and sustained linkages between two texts can be recognized, and where the second text . . . uses a segment of the first . . . in a lexically reorganized and topically rethematized way.146

Thus, a crucial step in determining the deliberateness of allusion involves the demonstration of how Leviticus has reworked material shared with Gen 1–3 to suit its 144.  Noble, “Criteria,” 245–46 (emphasis mine). So, likewise, Meek, “Intertextuality,” 289–90. 145.  Peter R. Ackroyd, “The Vitality of the Word of God in the Old Testament: A Contribution to the Study of the Transmission of Old Testament Material,” ASTI 1 (1962): 9. 146. Fishbane, Interpretation, 285. See also Leonard, “Allusions,” 256; Lyons, Law, 72–75.

56

Chapter 2

own agenda. If this can, in fact, be shown, then this constitutes further evidence of intentional allusion. The Synergy of Allusion with Other Rhetorical and Artistic Features A fourth criterion for assessing the likelihood of intention concerns the interrelation of allusion with the other literary features of a text. As discussed in chapter 1, recent work on Hebrew stylistics has demonstrated that literary and artistic features in the biblical texts are not arbitrary but rather function as means to an end—namely, persuasion. That is, artistic and rhetorical features are intentionally deployed for specific purposes.147 Therefore, regarding the deliberateness of allusion, if it can be demonstrated that rhetorical or artistic features interact with, incorporate, or even depend upon verified allusions, then the probability of intended intertextual connection is increased. In sum, the four criteria identified here—the quantity and specificity of allusions to the same text, similarity of “narrative” setting, recontextualization of prior material, and the synergy of allusion with other rhetorical and artistic devices— together serve as a means of testing the likelihood that allusion is deliberate. As with determining the genuineness of allusion, these criteria also operate on a spectrum of probability. Thus, again, the more criteria that fall into place, the more confident the interpreter can be that an allusion is intentionally employed. The cumulative weight of multiple lines of evidence once again becomes persuasive. Determining the Rhetorical Function of Allusion The possibility of genuine, deliberate allusion to Gen 1–3 in Leviticus raises a further set of questions. Why might the legislator have alluded to the primordial narratives? How does this strategy serve his purpose and message? What rhetorical ends are achieved by using allusion? These are important concerns. While not perceiving intended allusion results in semantic loss for readers, the mere perception of parallels occasions the same result. Jonathan Gibson elucidates further: “But it is also true that if the allusion/quotation is recognised but not explored with respect to the argument and theological message of the book in which it is found, then there is a significant interpretative loss.”148 Likewise, Schultz comments, “Too often, interpreters are content merely to cite parallel verses parenthetically, as if there were no need to comment on them further. Yet if quotation truly is present, its evaluation may be crucial to understanding the text which contains it.”149 147.  See, similarly, Trible, Rhetorical Criticism, 228. 148.  Jonathan Gibson, “Covenant Continuity and Fidelity: A Study of Inner-​Biblical Allusion and Exegesis in Malachi” (PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 2014), 57. 149. Schultz, Search, 230–31.

Intertextuality, Allusion, and Rhetorical Function

57

My move toward discussion of rhetorical function, therefore, is an attempt to guard against the danger of underinterpreting Leviticus with respect to allusions made to Gen 1–3.150 However, to address questions of function, two more basic matters require elucidation. The first is definitional: what exactly does the term “rhetoric(al)” mean? The second relates to the broader purposes of the author(s)/redactor(s) responsible for Leviticus and the rhetorical function of the book as a whole. Addressing these underlying issues is prerequisite for exploring the specific rhetorical contribution of allusion to Gen 1–3. Thus, in what follows I first define the meaning of rhetoric assumed in this study before outlining the steps necessary for elucidating the function of Leviticus as a rhetorical unit. Based on this I then outline how I plan to assess the specific function of allusion. A Definition of Rhetoric The term “rhetoric” first appears in Plato’s dialogue Gorgias.151 Its classic definition, following Aristotle, is “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.”152 In other words, rhetoric is the art of persuasive communication. Such persuasive communication may be achieved through oral speech and written texts, but also via nonverbal means such as art, architecture, and ritual. Kennedy clarifies the role of rhetoric: All communication involves rhetoric. A speaker or writer has some kind of purpose, and rhetoric includes the ways of accomplishing, or attempting to accomplish, that purpose within a given culture. . . . Purposes cover a spectrum from converting hearers to a view opposed to that previously held, to implanting a conviction or belief not otherwise entertained, to teaching or exposition, to entertainment and demonstration of the cleverness of the speaker. Persuasion can be accomplished by direct means, such as force, threats, or bribes, or it can be done symbolically by the use of signs, of which the most important are spoken and written words or gestures.153

Kennedy’s description invites the use of speech act categories: speakers or writers use words to perform acts of “converting,” “implanting,” and so on. Rhetorical analysis, therefore, assesses how locutions have been chosen and construed so as to generate a desired illocutionary force within a particular historical setting. In other words, exploring the rhetorical function of a text attempts to determine who is persuading whom about what, and with what (illocutionary) force. Thus, 150.  Cf. Gibson, “Covenant Continuity,” 58. 151.  Noted by George A. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times, 2nd ed. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 1. 152. Aristotle, Rhetoric I.2.27–28. 153. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 1–2.

58

Chapter 2

in relation to Leviticus, author, text, and reader are all indispensable facets of the communicative act represented by the book. The connections between these three dimensions of communication are elucidated by Rodney Duke: Some exigency arises which motivates the rhetor to speak. The rhetor within that situation begins the rhetorical process with a message to communicate and with a perceived audience to receive the communication. He or she must than arrive at a strategy of communication, which hopefully will motivate that audience to receive and act on the message. . . . Involved in this strategy are the decisions one makes about the types of arguments, modes of persuasiveness, kinds of material, arrangement of material and choice of words.154

My specific aim with regard to rhetorical analysis, therefore, is to explore how deliberate allusion to Gen 1–3 functions within Leviticus as part of a strategy of communication aimed at motivating its readers to receive and act upon its message. To do so, however, it is first necessary to establish the overall argument of the book. The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus Although more scholars are beginning to consider how legal texts function as persuasive speech, to date, studies have considered the rhetorical force of only smaller sections of Leviticus.155 Thus, while the dearth of rhetorical examination of Leviticus is being rectified in relation to its constituent parts, the larger question remains underaddressed—namely, what is the rhetorical function of the book of Leviticus? Determining the answer to that question will be the focus of chapter 3. What I want to do here is establish the parameters for that analysis. In order to ascertain the rhetorical function of Leviticus in its canonical form I adopt the procedure outlined by Wenham in Story as Torah. His proposed methodology for rhetorical-​critical analysis involves the interfusion of three distinct areas of inquiry. 1. The literary-​critical question: How do the literary features of the text contribute to discerning its message?156 The focus here is investigating the compositional and literary techniques of the biblical writers—repetition, inclusio, metaphor, paronomasia, and so on—to discern the message of the text. The reason for doing this is explicated by Patrick and Scult when they note that authors must shape their material somehow; hence, the form of the discourse indicates how it is to be received.157 154. Duke, Persuasive Appeal, 34. 155.  For example, the textual units treated in Watts, Ritual and Rhetoric, focus only on Lev 1–16. 156.  Gordon J. Wenham, Story as Torah: Reading the Old Testament Ethically (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2000), 17–18. 157.  Patrick and Scult, Rhetoric, 13.

Intertextuality, Allusion, and Rhetorical Function

59

An immediate problem that faces any attempt to establish the message of Leviticus is discerning the relationship between P (Lev 1–16) and H (Lev 17–26). How are these major sections within the whole related? What light do they shed on one another? How does the combination of P and H better serve the communicative act represented by the received form of the text? To answer these questions and to elucidate the message of the whole I will perform a literary-​critical examination of Leviticus’s structural and stylistic features. However, consideration of literary style is not coterminous with rhetoric. Rather, artistic embellishment serves a higher-​level communicative purpose.158 As Benjamin Fiore puts it, rhetorical criticism considers a literary work chiefly as a means to an end and therefore examines how artistic devices are marshaled to produce an effect on the audience.159 Hence, investigation of Leviticus’s rhetorical function must consider more than just stylistics. 2. The historical-​critical question: When was the text written and to whom?160 Rhetoric is not synonymous with communication generally; rather, it is context-​ based.161 It is the attempt by someone to persuade someone else about something. This is also the case with the biblical texts. As Patrick and Scult rightly state, canonical texts were responses to rhetorical exigencies that needed correcting through discourse.162 Hence a vital consideration for determining the rhetorical function of Leviticus is identifying to whom the text is addressed along with their attendant circumstances. Not attempting to identify this audience can foster a tendency for method to become merely self-​involved and abstract.163 Consequently, historical-​critical insights prove invaluable for interpretation. However, historical matters in relation to the Torah are complex. The dating of putative sources enjoys little, if any, consensus.164 The same is true for dating the Pentateuch as a whole. Nevertheless, to proceed it is necessary to establish as well as possible a provenance for Leviticus, and derivatively, for the text’s implied audience. Therefore, to counteract the current lack of consensus, I will isolate the main historical-​critical reconstructions that have been forwarded. This will enable me to consider the possible rhetorical function of Leviticus within each of these scenarios. In turn, this may also allow for assessment of proposed dates through evaluating the suitability of the book’s message for the circumstances implied. 158.  Ibid., 18. 159.  Benjamin Fiore, “NT Rhetoric and Rhetorical Criticism,” in ABD, 5:716. 160. Wenham, Story, 18. 161.  Phillips, “Rhetoric,” 238. 162.  Patrick and Scult, Rhetoric, 54. 163.  Ibid., 14. 164.  Hence, although Leviticus may have a complex compositional history, this study does not focus on this in any detailed way. Rather, I base my investigation on the Masoretic text (with appropriate text-​critical analysis) rather than on hypothetical reconstructions, since this is the form of the text actually available. Accordingly, my aim is to clarify the persuasive nature of the canonical whole.

60

Chapter 2

3. The rhetorical-​critical question: What is the argument of the whole? The goal of rhetorical criticism is to discern the argument that a writer is developing in a text. It achieves this aim by combining the insights generated by literary criticism and historical criticism to form a synthesis: Rhetorical criticism . . . uses the insights of literary criticism to shed light, not simply on the writer’s literary genius and artistic skills, but on the argument that a writer is developing in a work. What kind of work are we dealing with? How does one section of the work lead logically into the next? How does each part contribute to the argument of the whole work? These are the primary questions asked by the rhetorical critic. But they lead into a second set of questions. . . . Who are the implied readers? For what audience is the book intended? What was their point of view? What were their attitudes and assumptions? How does the book address the audience’s concerns? When is it likely to have been written, i.e. when is the implied readership likely to have existed? Rhetorical criticism attempts to integrate these two types of question, the message of the book on the one hand and the intended readership on the other.165

Therefore, based on the results of literary- and historical-​critical investigation of Leviticus, I will forward suggestions for the argument that the book is making. Because of the nature of the current study, where consideration of Leviticus’s rhetorical function is but one part of a larger project, my conclusions will necessarily be preliminary and suggestive rather than definitive and comprehensive. Nevertheless, they will suffice to facilitate discussion of the role of allusion within the communicative whole. Determining the Contribution of Allusion to the Overall Argument My goal, having demonstrated genuine and deliberate allusion to Gen 1–3 in Leviticus, is to determine the rhetorical function of that allusion. Thus, having utilized historical, literary, and rhetorical-​critical tools to suggest the purpose(s) for Leviticus, I will discuss the specific role played by allusion in connection to the book’s broader aim(s). I adopt speech act theory to provide the necessary conceptual framework and terminology (see chapter 3). Regarding procedure, a final step in my exegesis of Levitical texts will be to propose illocutions for any allusions demonstrated. These illocutions will then be correlated with the primary illocution(s) of the book in order to assess how allusion to Gen 1–3 functions rhetorically to further the overall argument being constructed.

165. Wenham, Story, 18.

Intertextuality, Allusion, and Rhetorical Function

61

Conclusion The purpose of this chapter was to construct a methodological framework for the investigation that follows. Consequently, my procedure in part 2 will be to pose the following questions to each of the three Levitical pericopes investigated: 1. What lexical and syntactical parallels exist between the Leviticus pericope and both Gen 1 and Gen 2–3? Are these parallels significant or do they merely represent common expression? 2. Are there any conceptual parallels in play? 3. Is there an observable convergence of lexical, syntactical, and conceptual factors? 4. What is the likelihood that noted parallels are intentionally employed? 5. In relation to the rhetorical function of identified parallels, what illocutions does allusion to Gen 1–3 perform in the Levitical text? 6. Do pericope-​level illocutions performed by allusion correlate with the aims of the book of Leviticus, and, if they do, what contribution do they make to the argument of the whole?

Chapter 3

The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context

This chapter will establish a broad picture of the rhetorical aims of Leviticus. While current consensus regards Leviticus as an amalgam of two or more compositions, derived from two or more authors or schools, I do not think satisfactory interpretation requires being able to comprehensively chart the development of the text. What matters more for uncovering the persuasive intent of the received text is being able to tease out the intrinsic logic of the book while at the same time remaining sensitive to its rhetorical conventions and possible contexts of address. It is not inconceivable that many compositional and historical matters may remain opaque even while the force of the message of Leviticus can be adequately understood.1 Therefore, for my purposes here, I concentrate on the structure, message, and rhetoric of Leviticus in its canonical form. Consideration of the rhetorical function of the book of Leviticus is vital for two reasons. First, grasping the overall purpose and raison d’être of any piece of literature is an essential prerequisite for reading its constituent parts. Failure to interpret the parts in light of the whole and vice versa can result in a distorted appraisal of both. Second, in order to assess the rhetorical function of allusions to Gen 1–3, an awareness of the persuasive aims of the entire text is also necessary. Without this foundation, the potential for subjectivity is increased. Hence, when I come to discuss the persuasive intent of allusions in chapters 4–6, I will need to demonstrate how such persuasion is commensurate with the agenda of the entire book. However, discerning the rhetorical aims of Leviticus is made more complex by the fact that the book does not exist as an independent entity. Rather, it comes to us as an integrated part of a wider corpus, namely, the Pentateuch.2 This creates 1.  In this paragraph I borrow Moberly’s phraseology and approach to 2 Corinthians; see Moberly, Prophecy, 180. 2.  The point is valid even if considering a Tetrateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch. On the relative merits of each delineation, see Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Thomas Römer, eds., Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings, SBLAIL 8 (Atlanta: SBL, 2011). A “Triateuch” is also advocated by Félix García López, “La place du Lévitique et des Nombres dans la formation du Pentateuque,” in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. Thomas Römer, BETL 215 (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 75–78.

62

The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context

63

an immediate difficulty for discussing the rhetoric of inner-​Pentateuchal allusion; if allusion—by definition, a deliberately employed device—is present, then who is responsible for such textual linkage and the persuasive function it makes possible? Is it the author(s) of the book or the editor(s) of the collection? On the one hand, this question is exceptionally difficult if not impossible to answer, for the only text of Leviticus we have access to is the one mediated by the Pentateuch’s final editor(s). We do not possess earlier redactions of Leviticus against which we can compare and contrast the canonical version.3 However, on the other hand, the question is made almost redundant. If allusion to Gen 1–3 is in fact a feature of the received text of Leviticus, then the Pentateuch’s editor(s) either retained what was already inherent in the sources and hence appropriated it, or else created it.4 Either way it remains possible to talk about the rhetorical function of allusion to Gen 1–3 in Leviticus. Therefore, in recognition of the inherent tension just discussed, I proceed by approaching Leviticus as an interdependent work. That is, I argue that the book is both an identifiable unit and one that has been integrated within a wider literary context. To do so, I first provide definitions for the terminology employed as well as explain how developments in speech act theory are important for what I am arguing here. Then, I apply the methodology outlined in chapter 2 for discerning the rhetorical function of Leviticus as a literary whole—that is, consideration of its parameters, structure, artistry, message, and exigency. This allows for an understanding of the rhetorical purpose of Leviticus qua book. Finally, I investigate the effect that being included in a wider corpus has on the book’s rhetoric. Consideration of these two horizons enables an understanding of the rhetorical function of Leviticus in its Pentateuchal context and thus provides a necessary foundation for discussing one of its rhetorical devices in detail—namely, allusion to Gen 1–3.

Speech Act Terminology Speech act theory is a subdiscipline of the philosophy of language. The field is inseparable from the name John Austin, whose central thesis states that “to say 3.  Because of the more stable nature of the textual tradition, a comparison of MT with LXX and other versions produces less insight into textual divergence than it does elsewhere. Also, the seventeen Qumran texts of Leviticus are too fragmentary for comprehensive comparison—only four contain more than 1 percent of the book (Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 10). A list of the Qumran fragments can be found in Kristin de Troyer, “When Did the Pentateuch Come into Existence? An Uncomfortable Perspective,” in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal, 20–23 Juli 2006, ed. Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus, WUNT 219 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 274–75. 4.  Changing the received text is not necessarily required. Genesis 1–3, for example, may simply have been composed to preempt Leviticus and make allusions possible for sequential readers of the corpus.

64

Chapter 3

something is to do something.”5 Utterances therefore, says Austin, are “performative,” and can do more than merely assert.6 Other actions may also be performed by way of speaking—for example, asking a question, pronouncing a verdict, giving a warning, and so on. In fact, the same spoken or written words, under different circumstances, may perform entirely different actions. Hence, Austin proposed the categories of locution, illocution, and perlocution to tease out and clarify the anatomy of speech acts, arguing that in each act of speaking there is the locutionary act . . . which has a meaning; the illocutionary act which has a certain force in saying something; the perlocutionary act which is the achieving of certain effects by saying something.7

Austin’s pioneering work has since been critiqued and developed by others,8 and has been variously applied to the field of biblical studies.9 The concepts and terminology developed by speech act theorists are particularly suitable for the present project as they facilitate a degree of precision in discussions of rhetoric. In speech act terms, the aim of rhetorical analysis is to discern how particular locutions have been employed with a given illocutionary force so as to achieve desired perlocutionary effects. Speech act theory also clarifies several important issues. First, in relation to the fixed locutions of Leviticus, it becomes evident that a number of illocutions may be performed simultaneously. Thus, the rhetorical force of a given pericope, or indeed of the book as a whole, may be multivalent. Among the various illocutions being enacted some may be primary with others functioning in an attendant or supporting role. Accordingly, Leviticus may be doing more than one thing; its rhetoric may be complex. For example, even as the text makes declarations about sacrificial procedures or holy days it may well be performing other concurrent actions. The use of speech act terminology facilitates the exploration and categorization of these possibilities.

5. J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, ed. J. O. Urmson and Marina Sbisà, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975), 12 (emphasis his). 6.  Ibid., 6. 7.  Ibid., 121 (emphasis his). 8.  Perhaps the most notable developer of Austin’s ideas is John Searle. See, e.g., John R. Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969). For further discussion, see the essays in Armin Burkhardt, ed., Speech Acts, Meaning, and Intentions: Critical Approaches to the Philosophy of John R. Searle, GKK (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990). 9.  E.g., Donald D. Evans, The Logic of Self-​Involvement: A Philosophical Study of Everyday Language with Special Reference to the Christian Use of Language about God as Creator (New York: Herder & Herder, 1969); Richard S. Briggs, Words in Action: Speech Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation: Toward a Hermeneutic of Self-​Involvement (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001).

The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context

65

Second, it is also apparent that illocutions exist at different levels in a text. A taxonomy recently proposed by Kit Barker charts the ways in which illocutions may be present at subsentential, sentential, supersentential, generic, or whole-​text levels.10 Importantly, Barker demonstrates that illocutions present at higher levels have a supervening effect upon those operating at lower levels.11 This supervening effect is of particular importance for Leviticus studies, which in the last two hundred years have tended to approach the P and H sections of the book separately. Yet bringing together even disparate material may introduce new illocutions that now have a bearing on the force of the whole, as is evident in Barker’s work on the Psalter. Such supervening illocutions may align with or negate illocutions that existed in prior layers. Thus, attention to a text’s final form becomes essential for understanding its rhetorical force. Third, the locutions of a text may result in multiple perlocutions. These can include intended as well as unintended outcomes. This reality serves as a caution when attempting to isolate the rhetorical situation being addressed.12 For example, while Watts argues that Leviticus functioned to bolster the power of the Aaronide dynasty in postexilic Yehud,13 the question remains open concerning whether such an appropriation was in line with the illocutionary force of the text. It is equally possible that a communicative “misfire” occurred. That Leviticus was used by a particular group for ideological ends does not by necessity mean that the text was written for that purpose or even during that period.

The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus Leviticus as a Rhetorical Unit The primary step for rhetorical analysis is determining the parameters of the rhetorical unit.14 As Erhard Blum correctly notes, “Um einen Text verstehen zu 10.  Kit Barker, Imprecation as Divine Discourse: Speech Act Theory, Dual Authorship, and Theological Interpretation, JTISup 16 (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2016), 82–88, 100. 11.  Ibid., 91–99. Barker employs the term “whole-​text illocution” to nuance Vanhoozer’s idea of “generic illocution,” rightly noting that texts may be composed of several genres. He argues that the category of “whole-​text illocution” provides greater clarity because “generic illocutions occur at a variety of literary levels and not exclusively at the whole-​text level” (88). 12.  A comparable caution is urged by Benjamin D. Sommer, “Dating Pentateuchal Texts and the Perils of Pseudo-​Historicism,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz, FAT 78 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 85–108. 13. Watts, Ritual and Rhetoric, 142–72; Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 91–132. 14.  So also Muilenburg, “Form Criticism,” 8–9; Duke, Persuasive Appeal, 35–36; Renz, Rhetorical Function, 1–26.

66

Chapter 3

können, sollte man wissen, wo/wie er anfängt und wo/wie er aufhört.”15 A fundamental question for this study, therefore, is whether it is accurate to speak of “Leviticus” as an entity in its own right. Does this nomenclature merely reflect a late, arbitrary division, or does it have exegetical significance? The answer is not straightforward. While traditionally the material known as “Leviticus” was regarded as constituting one of the books of Moses, modern scholarship has sought to draw the boundaries differently. Source-​critical scholars working in the late nineteenth century identified a block of material extending from Exod 25:1 to Num 10:10. This so-​called Priesterkodex is united by its preoccupation with “priestly” matters as well as its shared setting: Israel’s sojourn at Sinai.16 George Gray states the implications explicitly: “Clearly, then, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers might have been much more suitably, though very unequally, divided as follows: (1) Ex. 1–18 . . . (2) Ex. 19– Nu. 1010 . . . (3) Nu. 1011–3613.”17 Accordingly, many commentators suggest that the material in Num 1–10 is better included with discussion of Leviticus.18 The traditional divisions between the books of Exodus–Numbers are therefore understood as purely pragmatic, driven by the need to fit the material onto manageable scrolls.19 Unsurprisingly, doubts regarding a fivefold division of Torah abound. Whybray is representative: Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers belong together: there are no natural divisions between them. The division of the Pentateuch into five books, though ancient, is not original. It is probably due partly to a somewhat rough assessment of their contents and partly to practical considerations which limited the quantity of material that could conveniently be included on a single scroll. Of the five books, only Genesis and Deuteronomy have clearly distinct characters of their own.20

15.  Erhard Blum, “Pentateuch—Hexateuch—Enneateuch? Oder: Woran erkennt man ein literarisches Werk in der hebräischen Bibel?,” in Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéteuque, ed. Thomas Römer and Konrad Schmid, BETL 203 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 67. 16.  Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, trans. Peter R. Ackroyd (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965), 157. Rooker suggests that the section from Exod 20 to Num 10 is united by a focus on “Law” (Leviticus, 41). 17.  George B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986 [orig. 1903]), xxiv. Gary Demarest, Leviticus, TPC 3 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990), 29, even goes as far as to list Exod 25–40 as the “Introduction” to Leviticus. 18.  E.g., Baentsch, Exodus–Leviticus–Numeri, iii–iv; Gray, Numbers, xxiii–xxiv; James L. Mays, Leviticus, Numbers (London: SCM, 1963), 11; Martin Noth, Numbers: A Commentary, OTL (London: SCM, 1968), 5. 19.  So Eissfeldt, Introduction, 135; Mays, Leviticus, 7; Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 6. Watts notes that it only became technologically possible to write the entire Torah on one scroll in late antiquity (Leviticus 1–10, 22). 20. Whybray, Introduction, 63.

The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context

67

By all accounts, then, “Leviticus” is merely an arbitrary division and thus has little value for rhetorical analysis.21 However, while this conclusion helpfully emphasizes the connectivity of Leviticus to its surrounding context, it also propagates a false either-​or dichotomy. Instead, careful consideration of external and internal evidence warrants reading Leviticus as an interdependent work—that is, as a distinct unit within a wider whole. First, several external data indicate that a division into five books is an early feature of the Pentateuch.22 Rabbinic tradition is unanimous in its ascription of five works to Moses. The phrase “the five books of the Torah” (‫)חמשת ספרי תורה‬ appears frequently (e.g., y. Meg. 1:5; y. Soṭ 5:6). Similarly, the Babylonian Talmud refers to the “five fifths of the Torah” (‫)חמשה חומשי תורה‬.23 According to y. Meg. 1:9, five of these ‫ חומשין‬may be sewn together to form a Torah.24 The vacant space of four lines that had to be left between each ‫ חומש‬in such a collection (y. Meg. 1:9) further supports their understood independent status. This rabbinic understanding reflects earlier tradition. Josephus notes that “five [canonical books] belong to Moses.”25 Similarly, 2 Esdras 14:45 lists twenty-​four books, necessitating a multiple-​book Torah.26 It is also likely that the five “books” of the Psalter and the five discourses in Matthew’s Gospel intentionally allude to a fivefold division of the Law.27 Further data are garnered from paratextual features that suggest defined limits to the material.28 The Talmud distinguishes “the torah of the priests” (‫דתורת‬ ‫)כהנים‬, that is, Leviticus, from “the fifth of the musterings” (‫)דחומש הפקודים‬, that is, Numbers (b. Yoma 70b). Leviticus is similarly identified (‫ )תורת כהנים‬in the Tosefta (t. Ned. 35b). The same delineation is attested in the pre-​Christian Greek 21.  So J. R. Porter, Leviticus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 2; Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 2–4. 22.  I am indebted to Dennis T. Olson, The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch, BJS 71 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985), 43–53, for many of the insights here. 23.  b. Ḥag. 14a; b. Sanh. 44a. The text cited is from Isidore Epstein, ed., Hebrew-​English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud (London: Soncino, 1960–90), ad loc. The same phrase also appears in y. Sanh. 10:1. 24. Leiman, Canonization, 57. 25. Josephus, Ag. Ap. I.8.38–39, with text cited from William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, new updated ed. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1987), 776. 26. Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 44. 27.  Wi lhelm Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Tra ditionsliteratur (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1899, 1905), 1:64, notes that the five divisions of the Psalter are also referred to as ‫חומׁשים‬. 28.  Paratext includes book order and titles. While conceptually differentiated from the text, and often overlooked or underappreciated by exegetes, paratext nevertheless reflects ancient tradition and influences readings of the text. See Greg R. Goswell, “The Paratext of Deuteronomy,” in Interpreting Deuteronomy: Issues and Approaches, ed. David G. Firth and Philip S. Johnston (Nottingham: Apollos, 2012), 209.

68

Chapter 3

tradition.29 Philo, for instance, identifies five books of Moses (Aet. 19) including Λευιτικὸν or Λευιτικὴ Βίβλος as a distinct entity (Plant. 26). While these titles may not be original they nevertheless preserve the early reception history of the text. The Qumran material, although fragmentary, supports the same dividing points. 11Qpaleo-​Leva ends after Lev 27, and 4QLevc possibly begins with Lev 1:1.30 Also of note is the En-​Gedi scroll, which displays a blank column before the text commences with Lev 1:1.31 The MS tradition is also telling. Among Hebrew MSS, all attest a fivefold separation of the Pentateuch.32 Of particular consequence because of its antiquity is the Samaritan Pentateuch. While this text-​type most likely split from the Palestinian tradition in the second,33 or first34 century BC, Anderson argues that by this stage “a common Palestinian textual tradition of the Pentateuch had been current in both Jerusalem and Samaria for a considerable time.”35 The Greek textual tradition displays similar unanimity. For instance, Codex Alexandrinus not only inserts a clear line and title between the books of the Pentateuch but leaves an entire blank page between Deuteronomy and Joshua.36 Eissfeldt suggests that this traditional division predates the LXX translation of the third century BC.37 Furthermore, Sid Leiman observes that the canonical order is the same in all Masoretic MSS, Greek Bibles, and patristic lists with only four exceptions.38 That three of these exceptions reverse the order of Leviticus and Numbers,39 perhaps to better preserve narrative continuity, indicates that the material was viewed as 29.  Henry B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989 [orig. 1914]), 215. 30. Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 22. Also important are texts of individual Pentateuch books and their respective antiquity. For examples, see Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J.  C.  Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 1:240–61. 31.  See William B. Seales et al., “From Damage to Discovery via Virtual Unwrapping: Reading the Scroll from En-​Gedi,” SciAdv, 2016, 1–9, doi: 10​.1126​/sciadv​.1601247. 32.  Christian D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-​Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897), 1. 33.  So Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Old Testament Text,” in The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, From the Beginnings to Jerome, ed. Peter R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 195; Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (London: SPCK, 1985), 16. 34.  So Ellis R. Brotzman, Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1994), 69; Ralph W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint after Qumran (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 18. 35.  G. W. Anderson, “Canonical and Non-​Canonical,” in Ackroyd and Evans, Cambridge History of the Bible, 1:124. 36.  Noted by Olson, Death, 45. 37. Eissfeldt, Introduction, 156. See also Anderson, “Canonical,” 124; Klein, Textual Criticism, 2. 38. Leiman, Canonization, 165, n. 264. 39.  These are the lists by Melito of Sardis (ca. AD 170), Leontius of Byzantium (ca. AD 590), and the Mommsen Catalogue (ca. AD 359). See Swete, Introduction, 203–7; Leiman, Canonization, 165 n. 264.

The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context

69

consisting of blocks coterminous with the canonical books. The relatively fixed order of the Pentateuch marks a contrast with the divergent textual data found in relation to the Prophets and Writings,40 again suggesting a stable and long-​ accepted tradition behind the Pentateuch’s division and ordering.41 Taken together, therefore, external factors support reading Leviticus as an identifiable unit. However, does this external evidence correlate with internal features? While there are elements that strongly connect Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers and suggest mutual dependence,42 the boundaries between the units are nevertheless clearly delineated. Exodus climaxes with the building of the tabernacle and the indwelling of the divine ‫( כבו ד‬Exod 40:34–35). This immanent presence of YHWH among his people provides a fitting resolution to the Deus absconditus of the book’s opening chapters43 and completes a narrative arc that extends back to Gen 1.44 Other framing devices also unite Exodus as a whole: YHWH “filling” (‫ )מלא‬the tabernacle (40:34–35) forms an inclusio with the sons of Israel “filling” (‫ )מלא‬the land of Egypt (1:7); likewise, there is a movement from building “store cities” (‫ )מסכנות‬for Pharaoh (1:11) to building a “tabernacle” (‫ )מׁשכן‬for YHWH (39:32), a connection strengthened by the paranomasia between miskan and miškan.45 Following Exodus, Leviticus opens with a “complex introduction” (1:1–2).46 This introd uction marks a major transition in the Pentateuch’s story line; as Thomas Hieke puts it, “Lev 1,1 ist ein betonter Neuanfang.”47 The shift becomes clear in the opening verse of Leviticus when YHWH speaks from the tabernacle 40.  See, e.g., Swete, Introduction, 200–214. 41.  Textual stability is further demonstrated by comparing the divergent ordering of the five Megilloth in the nine MSS examined by Ginsburg (Introduction, 3–10). Also, the almost unanimous manuscript testimony regarding the division of the Pentateuch into open and closed sections adds still further corroboration for a settled text. 42.  E.g., the similarity of subject and setting in Exod 25–Num 10; the establishment of the tabernacle in Exod 25–40, which requires sacrifices (Lev 1–7) and priests (Lev 8–10) for proper functioning; and the consecration of the priests in Lev 8–9, which narratively follows from Exod 29:1–37. Cf. Levine, Leviticus, 48. 43. Morales, Tabernacle, 274. See also Thomas B. Dozeman, Commentary on Exodus, ECC (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 44. 44.  For parallels between Exod 25–40 and Gen 1, see Peter J. Kearney, “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Ex 25–40,” ZAW 89 (1977): 375–87; Terence E. Fretheim, Exodus, Int (Louisville: John Knox, 1991), 268–72; Morales, Tabernacle, 245–77; Mark S. Smith, The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), 75–76. These connections suggest, minimally, that there is a link between creation and tabernacle; maximally, that they are analogous. The tabernacle, it seems, is a microcosm of creation. Thus, the end of Exodus, and particularly ch. 40, resolves, at least initially, the narrative tension stemming from the loss of access to YHWH’s life-​giving presence in Gen 3. 45.  Arie C. Leder, “Reading Exodus to Learn and Learning to Read Exodus,” CTJ 34 (1999): 20–21. 46.  John E. Hartley, Leviticus, WBC 4 (Dallas: Word Books, 1992), xxx. Cf. Zenger (Einleitung, 65), who identifies an explicit “Buchanfang” and “Buchschluss” in Leviticus. 47. Hieke, Levitikus 1–15, 51.

70

Chapter 3

(‫ )מא הל מוע ד‬rather than from the mountain (‫ )מן־ההר‬as in Exod 19:3 and passim. Considering this divine immanence, Leviticus focuses on addressing how an excluded humanity (‫ )אדם‬can once again enter before the divine presence (1:2) and inaugurates the cultic procedures required by the new context. In the same way, a division between Leviticus and Numbers is signaled by several factors. Most notably, Leviticus attests summary statements in 26:46 and 27:34. This double conclusion, coupled with the introduction noted above, demarcates Leviticus as a self-​contained unit.48 Furthermore, the phrase common to both summaries—“on Mount Sinai” (‫—)בהר סיני‬forms a contrast to the narrative setting of Numbers—“in the wilderness of Sinai” (‫ ;במדבר סיני‬Num 1:1, 19; 3:14; 9:1)—a phrase that last appears in Exod 19:1–2. Thus, Olson rightly notes a significant shift in geographical and theological setting between Leviticus and Numbers.49 The opening of Numbers is also important. That the book begins with a date formula (1:1), which connects it to the similar formulae in Exodus, leads Rendtorff to conclude that this is a clear indication of an ending to Leviticus.50 Furthermore, in a subtle, yet theologically significant way, the narrative has advanced from Leviticus. Whereas YHWH had formerly spoken to Moses “from the tent of meeting” (‫מאהל מועד‬, Lev 1:1), in Num 1:1 God speaks to him “in the tent of meeting” (‫)באהל מועד‬. Hence, the exclusion of humanity emphasized by Exod 40:34–35 has been resolved in Numbers, albeit provisionally, by the intervening material of Leviticus. Therefore, in light of the external and internal evidence charted above, it is appropriate to consider Leviticus as a unit, and consequently, to speak of its rhetorical function. As Graeme Auld states, “Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers were conceived serially and not together. . . . Leviticus . . . is . . . complete in itself.”51 Moreover, it  would seem that the dividing points between the Pentateuch’s books are not arbitrary, contra Whybray. In fact, editorial purpose is indicated by Menahem Haran’s observation that the Torah did not require five scrolls to accommodate its material.52 Rather, the fivefold division is intentional and has 48.  So Hartley, Leviticus, xxx; Rolf Rendtorff, “Leviticus 16 als Mitte der Tora,” BI 11 (2003): 252–53; Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:264. Accordingly, García López concludes, “Avec le Lévitique, le Triateuque arrive à sa conclusion. Dans cette perspective, le livre des Nombres représente une entité à part et distincte” (“La place,” 78). 49. Olson, Death, 48–49. 50.  Rolf Rendtorff, “Is It Possible to Read Leviticus as a Separate Book?,” in Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas, ed. John F. A. Sawyer, JSOTSup 227 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 27. 51.  Graeme Auld, “Leviticus at the Heart of the Pentateuch?,” in Sawyer, Reading Leviticus, 49. Cf., similarly, Bryan D. Bibb, Ritual Words and Narrative Worlds in the Book of Leviticus, LHBOTS 480 (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 18–33. 52.  Menahem Haran, “Book-​Size and the Thematic Cycles in the Pentateuch,” in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65 Geburtstag, ed. Erhard

The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context

71

the added effect of placing Leviticus at the structural center of the Pentateuch.53 Leviticus, therefore, bears the hallmarks of intentional redactional shaping that has inextricably connected this unit to a wider context. Thus, for interpretation, both dimensions must be considered. Goswell puts it well: “Neither the individuality of the[se] books nor their inter-​relationship is to be ignored or compromised in a reading of the Pentateuch.”54 For these reasons, Leviticus is best approached as an interdependent unit, and accordingly it is best to speak of the rhetorical function of Leviticus in its Pentateuchal context. The Structure of Leviticus I have argued that the book of Leviticus may justifiably be understood as a distinct unit, albeit one that is closely integrated with a wider literary context. Discerning the book’s structural features is the next necessary step toward elucidating its rhetorical function, for form and purpose are inseparably intertwined. As Milgrom succinctly states, “Structure is theology.”55 In relation to Leviticus, then, what micro- and macrostructural features are present in the text? How do the book’s various sections fit together? Is an overall logic discernible? Unfortunately, answers to these questions are obscured by an entrenched bifurcation of the book coupled with a lack of consensus regarding structure. Christopher Smith highlights the potential blind spot facing Leviticus scholarship: “To the extent that the shadow of source-​criticism still lies over literary-​critical inquiry, it makes the latter’s paths harder to trace.”56 Accordingly, there have been calls to move past source-​critical divisions in order to open new opportunities for structural investigation. The need for clarification is evident. A high-​level division of the book (chs. 1–16, 17–26[27]) is the only structural feature that approaches consensus in current scholarship. At the next level down any semblance of consensus disappears entirely. Scholars variously subdivide Leviticus into three,57 four,58 five,59 six,60 Blum, Christian Macholz, and Ekkehard W. Stegemann (Neukirchen-​V luyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), 172–76. 53.  See Rendtorff, “Separate Book,” 26; Zenger, Einleitung, 62, 68–69. 54.  Goswell, “Paratext,” 212. 55. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1322. 56.  Smith, “Structure,” 22. 57.  E.g., Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Schocken Bible 1 (Dallas: Schocken Books, 1995), 502. 58.  E.g., Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics, CC (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), v–ix. 59.  E.g., Lloyd R. Bailey, Leviticus–Numbers, SHBC 3 (Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), vii. 60.  E.g., René Péter-​Contesse, Lévitique 1–16, CAT 3a (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1993), 20–21.

72

Chapter 3

seven,61 eight,62 nine,63 ten,64 eleven,65 twelve,66 or fourteen67 sections. Others, using the divine speeches as structural markers, propose twenty-​three68 or even thirty-​five69 distinct blocks. Some commentators even offer two contrasting outlines without explanation or reconciliation.70 Thus Childs’s comment that “there is wide agreement regarding the structure of the book of Leviticus” is rendered tenuous by the sheer variety of outlines proposed.71 John Walton is surely closer to the mark when he reasons that there is a high degree of confusion regarding the book’s structure.72 It is perhaps easy to sympathize with Gerstenberger’s disavowal of organizational strategy: “Leviticus is . . . sewn together like a patchwork quilt from many different, individual pieces.”73 In light of this variety, any proposal concerning structure that I make here must remain tentative and provisional rather than conclusive. Andrew Shead’s comment, voiced in connection to Jeremiah, is applicable. It is worth quoting in full. The first criterion for thinking about structure is caution. It is important to remember that few biblical texts have been written so tightly that one and only one structure can be meaningfully assigned them. The narrative of Jeremiah does not slot neatly into a single structural scheme at every small point, and some statements about its structure will feel more tentative than others. It is also evident that the book has a history of growth and development, from which older structural schemes remain, sometimes incorporated into the structural framework of the final product and sometimes superseded by it. In the end, the purpose of structural analysis is to throw light on the shape and purpose of the narrative, and the most convincing arguments will be cumulative ones, in which diverse features of the text are seen to point in the same direction.74

61.  E.g., Roy E. Gane, Leviticus, Numbers, NIVAC (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004), 35. 62.  E.g., Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 19. 63.  E.g., Luciani, Structure littéraire, 288–334. 64.  E.g., Levine, Leviticus, passim. 65.  E.g., David Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus I–II (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1905–6), 1:11–13. 66.  E.g., Oswald T. Allis, “Leviticus,” in New Bible Commentary, ed. D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer (Leicester: IVP, 1970), 142–43. 67.  So John H. Walton, “Equilibrium and the Sacred Compass: The Structure of Leviticus,” BBR 11 (2001): 304. 68.  So Ephraim Radner, Leviticus, BTCB (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos, 2008), 7, 33. 69.  So Robert I. Vasholz, Leviticus (Fearn: Mentor, 2007), 5–6, 13. 70.  See, for instance, Willis, Leviticus, who suggests a division into both ten (xix) and seven (1, 74, 150) sections. 71.  Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (London: SCM, 1979), 182. 72.  Walton, “Equilibrium,” 293. 73. Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 2. 74.  Andrew G. Shead, A Mouth Full of Fire: The Word of God in the Words of Jeremiah, NSBT 29 (Nottingham: Apollos, 2012), 66–67.

The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context

73

Regarding the shape and purpose of Leviticus, there are several factors that help clarify the situation and suggest a way forward. First, there are subunits within Leviticus that are recognized by most scholars. Chapters 1–7 are generally acknowledged as a discrete unit. Eighty-​four percent of outlines in fifty-​seven commentaries surveyed include this block of material.75 These chapters are tied together by a focus on sacrificial procedures and are concluded by a formal summary statement (7:37–38). Also generally taken together are chapters 8–10. The correlating factor here is genre; these chapters are narrative and stand out in context because of the higher frequency of wayyiqtol forms. Of consulted commentaries 82.5 percent take chapters 8–10 as a unit. The chapters immediately following (11–15) share a concern with matters of cleanness and uncleanness. The ‫ טמא‬and ‫ טהר‬roots appear in higher frequency here than anywhere else in the book, and, indeed, the Old Testament.76 This section also attests a conclusion (15:32–33). While some separate chapter 11,77 and others include chapter 16 with 11–15 (14/57 [24.5 percent]),78 52.6 percent of surveyed commentaries isolate chapters 11–15 as a discrete unit. With chapter 16 the situation becomes less clear. As mentioned, some include it with chapters 11–15. Others argue that chapter 16 should be taken with chapter 17.79 Nevertheless, the majority treat the chapter as a stand-​alone unit (35/57 [61 percent]).80 Determining the structure of chapters 17–26(27) is more complex, and much less consensus is discernible. Since Klostermann, these chapters have generally been conceived of as a unit, even though Klostermann originally included only chapters 18–26.81 However, Rendtorff has exposed the tenuous nature of Klostermann’s original identification,82 and scholars have increasingly questioned the boundaries and even existence of the Holiness Code.83 Yet, while many divide chapters 17–27 into smaller sections, to date, little consensus regarding the division 75.  Of those that don’t include this block, four divide the text based on divine speeches or chapters, three group chs. 1–10 together, and two separate chs. 1–7 into 1:1–6:7 and 6:8–7:38. 76.  In the Old Testament 132/250 occurrences (53 percent) of ‫ טמא‬are found in Leviticus, 96 of them in chs. 11–15; 45/98 (46 percent) and 21/96 (22 percent) occurrences of ‫ טהר‬and ‫ טהור‬respectively appear in Leviticus (39 and 12 times each in chs. 11–15). 77.  E.g., Hoffmann, Leviticus, 1:11–13. 78.  E.g., William H. Bellinger, Jr., Leviticus and Numbers, NIBC 3 (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2001), 4. 79.  So Zenger, Einleitung, 65; Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 19. 80.  In two commentaries, it was unclear how chs. 11–16 were divided, if at all. 81.  See Klostermann, “Beiträge,” 406–10. 82.  Rendtorff, “Separate Book,” 28. Rendtorff concludes: “Here a theory had been transmitted whose basis was rather weak.” 83.  For a survey, see Hartley, Leviticus, 251–60. Hartley concludes, “The work of contemporary scholars has, therefore, cast great doubts on the existence of ‘a Holiness Code’ as an independent, self-​contained document. . . . There is no unity among [chs. 17–26]. . . . Therefore, it can be concluded that in whatever way this collection of speeches came together, they were assembled for their present position in Leviticus” (259).

74

Chapter 3

of material is discernible, as a survey of Leviticus commentaries published in the last decade reveals. Out of a dozen commentaries published, three treat chapters 17–27 as a block;84 three split the material into divine speeches;85 and another three group the material into 17–22 and 23–26, with chapter 27 being understood either as a further section or as appended to chapter 26.86 The remaining commentaries divide 17–27 as follows: 17–22, 23–25, 26, 27;87 17, 18–20, 21–24, 25–27;88 and 16–17, 18–20, 21–22, 23–26(27).89 In sum, while some of the subunits in Leviticus engender less support than others there are nevertheless blocks of material within the overall structure of the book, particularly in chapters 1–16, that are widely accepted. Second, there has been a reassessment of the importance of narrative for interpreting Leviticus. In chapter 1, I discussed the increasing awareness that the Pentateuch’s wider story line is a crucial factor for the interpretation of its constituent books. Yet also vital is the use of narrative within Leviticus. Ruwe makes the point clearly: The twenty seven chapters of Leviticus form a narrative context. It is true that the narrative level of the text in Leviticus stays in the background compared to the level of direct speech, and is limited to Lev 8:1–10:20; 21:24; 23:44; 24:10–23, the summaries in Lev 7:37–38; 26:46 and 27:34 and to the thirty seven so-​called divine speech formulae. However, it cannot be denied that Leviticus is a narrative text. . . . It follows from the thoroughly narrative character of Leviticus that the interpretation of these texts has to start consistently from those factors that structure the “narrated world” of this text.90

However, this narrative dimension of Leviticus is usually ignored, dismissed, or simply goes unacknowledged in discussion of structure. Auld, for instance, insists that the only narrative in the book is found in Leviticus 8–10,91 ignoring thereby the pericope in 24:10–23. Noth goes further by explicitly stating that 24:10–23 is unimportant for the book’s structure.92 Even Ruwe, having argued for 84.  Richard N. Boyce, Leviticus and Numbers (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), v–vi; David W. Baker, “Leviticus,” in Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, ed. Philip W. Comfort, CsBC 2 (Carol Stream: Tyndale, 2008), 12–13; Philip H. Eveson, The Beauty of Holiness: Leviticus Simply Explained, WCS (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2007), passim. 85.  Kenneth A. Mathews, Leviticus: Holy God, Holy People (Wheaton: Crossway, 2009), passim; Vasholz, Leviticus, 6; Radner, Leviticus, 33. 86. Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 19–20; Willis, Leviticus, 150; Kiuchi, Leviticus, 22–23. 87.  Alfred Marx, Lévitique 17–27, CAT 3b (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2011), 18–22. 88.  Jay Sklar, Leviticus, TOTC 3 (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2013), 81–84. 89. Hieke, Levitikus 1–15, 57–64. 90.  Ruwe, “Structure,” 57 (emphasis mine). 91.  Auld, “Leviticus,” 41. 92.  Martin Noth, Leviticus: A Commentary, trans. J. E. Anderson; rev. ed., OTL (London: SCM, 1977), 10.

The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context

75

the importance of narrative in Leviticus, says, “24:10–23 and 27:1–34 can be set aside as these sections are presumably later supplements.”93 However, if 24:10–23 is in fact a major insertion into a preexisting corpus then it becomes even more incumbent for the exegete to account for its addition. One cannot simply ignore the pericope as Ruwe and Noth do.94 Interesting in this regard, then, is the case recently made that chapters 8–10 and 24:10–23 are key structural features in the final-​form text of Leviticus. In particular, the presence of these two narrative sections creates a generic movement from law to story and back again throughout the book. Based on this observation, Mary Douglas concludes, “Leviticus . . . is interrupted twice by narratives. . . . The explanation here proposed is that the structure of law and narrative cuts the book to the shape of the controlling paradigm.”95 While Douglas’s model is open to criticism (see below), her observation concerning the law-​narrative shifts in Leviticus is well made. Generic variation may be another indicator of structure within the final-​form text. Third, some recent studies have demonstrated the importance of concentric structures within Leviticus. At the microlevel, Warning identifies a plethora of chiastic structures that exist at lower levels in the text, some of which range across several chapters.96 At a higher level, concentric patterning of larger units has been widely recognized. For example, the sacrificial instructions in chapters 1 and 3 are similar in both form and content while those of chapter 2 distinctly differ;97 chapters 12–15 form an aba pattern with issues related to ‫ צרעת‬bracketed by regulations pertaining to genital uncleanness; chapters 17–22 (abcba) and 23–25 (aba) display similar design.98 Unsurprisingly, several recent proposals have suggested a concentric arrangement to Leviticus as a whole. William Shea proposes a seven-​part palistrophic arrangement for the book.99 His scheme, however, does not integrate well the short narrative in 24:10–23 or chapters 26–27, which are simply classified as standing outside the book’s chiastic structure.100 Douglas has taken internal correspondences further by proposing an elaborate ring structure for Leviticus akin to similar constructions found in Greek literature. 93.  Ruwe, “Structure,” 69. 94.  For attempts to address the “problem” of 24:10–23, see Trevaskis, “Purpose”; Didier Luciani, “Une autre intention pour Lv 24: Réponse à Leigh M. Trevaskis,” VT 60 (2010): 591–600. 95.  Mary Douglas, Leviticus as Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 195–96. For a diagrammatic outline, see 222–23. 96. Warning, Artistry, 82–101, 136–42. 97. Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 17–19. 98. Marx, Lévitique 17–27, 19–20. 99.  Shea, “Literary Form,” 139–49. See, likewise, Erich Zenger and Christian Frevel, “Die Bücher Levitikus und Numeri als Teile der Pentateuchkomposition,” in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. Thomas Römer, BETL 215 (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 40–45. 100.  Shea, “Literary Form,” 148.

76

Chapter 3

Her scheme views chapter 19 as a central turning point framed by chapters 18 and 20, which share a similar focus on sexual ethics.101 As mentioned above, she also takes stock of the narrative passages. Nevertheless, as Watts rightly notes, her analysis fails by “ignoring structural features that other interpreters regularly highlight while emphasizing elements of marginal significance.”102 Thus Alter concludes that Douglas’s analysis is “more the product of interpretative ingenuity than of persuasive reading.”103 The palistrophe suggested by Smith takes seriously the alternation of genre. His sevenfold scheme understands chapter 16 to be narrative, thereby giving Leviticus a structure of law, narrative, law, narrative, law, narrative, law, with the Day of Atonement forming the centerpiece.104 However, Stephen Sherwood rightly challenges Smith’s understanding of chapter 16. He highlights the lack of wayyiqtol verb forms in the pericope and concludes that Smith’s attempt to read Lev 16 as a narrative is unconvincing.105 Nonetheless, Smith helpfully elucidates connections that exist between chapter 16 and the narratives of 8–10 and 24:10–23. He notes how 16:1 explicitly alludes to the death of Nadab and Abihu, and that 16:29 links forward to the story of the Israelite-​Egyptian blasphemer with its syntactical juxtaposition of ‫ גר‬and ‫( אזרח‬cf. 24:16, 22).106 John Ferch, in a recent article, adapts and builds upon Smith’s analysis.107 Warning also understands chapter 16 to be the central pivot of Leviticus, arguing that the pericope represents the central instance of thirty-​seven narrative speech formulae spread throughout the book.108 Thus Warning concludes that Yom Kippur “is both the structural and theological centre of Leviticus.”109 Didier Luciani, contra Warning, finds only thirty-​six speech formulae.110 Nevertheless, he proposes a nine-​part palistrophe for Leviticus that also centers on chapter 16.111 However, Luciani’s proposal falls prey to the same criticism as Douglas’s scheme. For instance, he separates chapter 12 from 13–15, connecting it instead to chapter 11

101.  Mary Douglas, “Poetic Structure in Leviticus,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. David P. Wright, David N. Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 251. 102. Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 49. 103. Alter, Five Books, 541. 104.  Smith, “Structure,” 22. 105.  Stephen  K. Sherwood, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, Berit Olam (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002), 8–9; citation, 19. 106.  Smith, “Structure,” 23–24. 107.  John G. Ferch, “The Story of Torah: The Role of Narrative in Leviticus’s Legal Discourse,” JESOT 2 (2013): 41–60. 108. Warning, Artistry, 39. 109.  Ibid., 178. 110. Luciani, Structure littéraire, 12–13. 111.  Ibid., 288–334.

The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context

77

despite the obvious aba pattern in chapters 12–15, as noted above.112 Thus Luciani’s overall proposal remains unpersuasive. While each of these recent proposals faces difficulties, some important commonalities are nonetheless evident. Concentric patterns seem to be an important structuring device in Leviticus, at both micro- and macrolevels. Also apparent is the structural importance of chapter 16. While more debatable, the use of narrative to section the text remains a distinct possibility. Fourth, Watts has recently explored the structure of Leviticus from a rhetorical perspective. Here he builds on a key insight from his earlier work—namely, that Leviticus was primarily written not to be read, but to be heard.113 Thus Watts asks what structural features would be evident to hearers of Leviticus. Consequently, he criticizes many structural proposals for their reliance on textual details and intricate patterns to which auditors would remain oblivious: “Listening audiences might well notice and appreciate the impact of a chiastic structure between words and phrases on the small scale of one or several sentences. They could not, however, be expected to recognize large-​scale structures just by hearing the chapters read.”114 Instead, Watts examines Leviticus to see which passages might impact those listening to a public reading. Intriguingly, he suggests that for a listening audience the aba patterns present in the text function to emphasize the unit that follows rather than the section in the middle.115 In other words, the evident similarities between the two “a” pericopes serve to increase dissonance with the central “b” section, thereby emphasizing the second “a” section. Watts suggests that in this way particular emphasis falls on chapters 1, 4–5, 8–10, 16, 21–22, and 26.116 Understanding the text this way indicates which sections of the book its writers wanted to emphasize to their (listening) audience. Thus, Watts concludes: “The book’s structure should . . . be analyzed in terms of its rhetorical effects—both on casual listeners and readers as well as on those who memorize every word.”117 In light of the four points discussed above it is evident that some structural features in Leviticus are widely accepted—especially in the first half of the book— while others continue to be debated, particularly in chapters 17–27. As also noted, different proposals sometimes overlap, again especially in the second half of the book. While overlapping patterns need not be mutually exclusive, the result with respect to Leviticus is that determining structure is not straightforward. 112.  Ibid., 306. 113.  E.g., James W. Watts, “Public Readings and Pentateuchal Law,” VT 45 (1995): 540–57. 114. Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 15. 115.  Ibid., 17. 116.  Ibid., 19–20. Following Watts’s logic the shift of genre (narrative to law) from ch. 10 ought to also highlight the dietary regulations in ch. 11, which also immediately precedes the aba pattern of chs. 12–15. 117.  Ibid., 19.

78

Chapter 3

Nevertheless, I propose the following outline, which seeks to incorporate the insights discussed above.118 It is worth stating again that my division of the text is suggestive, rather than definitive. This remains one possible way to arrange the material in Leviticus: A Instructions for Entering the Tabernacle as Sacred Space (1–7) B Narrative about Profanation of Sacred Space (8–10) C Separating Clean & Unclean (11–15) D The Day of Atonement (16) C′ Separating Holy & Profane (17:1–24:9) B′ Narrative about Profanation of Sacred Name (24:10–23) A′ Instructions for Entering the Land as Sacred Space (25–27) My outline synthesizes a number of aforementioned points. Blocks of material recognized by the majority of commentators are maintained—chapters 1–7, 8–10, and 11–15. Also, chapter 16 is held to be the central pericope, again in line with other proposals. Indeed, the chapter seems strategically placed to function as a climax to chapters 1–15 while also anticipating themes in chapters 17–27 (see, further, below). In addition, I have taken seriously the movement from narrative to law and vice versa. Admittedly, this does not result in a neatly balanced outline: there is substantial disparity between the size of B and B′, for example. However, structural proposals such as Luciani’s, which attempt to divide the text in a manner that retains greater symmetry, in the end tend to fragment blocks of material that seem to belong together. For this reason, I have prioritized the shift of genre as a more obvious structural device. The units that form chapters 17–27 are more difficult to discern; conclusions are correspondingly more tentative. The block of material in 18:1–24:9 is the only part of the book that utilizes the contrast between ‫ קדׁש‬and ‫חלל‬.119 This unit thus finds its analogue in the contrast of ‫ טמא‬and ‫ טהר‬present in chapters 11–15. Furthermore, I have grouped chapters 25–27 together based on the relatively higher use of ‫ארץ‬ found here.120 That said, these final chapters of the book can be, and indeed have been, divided differently. One weakness of my scheme is that it doesn’t sufficiently highlight the summarizing nature of chapter 26 with its rhetorical emphasis on making a decision (see, further, chapter 6 below). Chapter 27 is often viewed as an appendix and for that reason is frequently not included in structural analysis.

118.  My outline adapts the analyses of both Smith (“Structure,” 17–32) and Ferch (“Story,” 56–57). 119.  ‫ חלל‬is attested only in chs. 18–22. 120.  Forty-​six out of a total of 82 uses of ‫ ארץ‬occur in chs. 25–27. Chs. 25 and 26 attest the highest concentrations of the noun in Leviticus.

The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context

79

However, my approach has tried to account for the arrangement of the canonical text, and for that reason I include chapter 27 with chapters 25–26.121 In sum, the book of Leviticus does not slot neatly into one single structural scheme at every point. Consequently, some statements about the ordering of the final-​form text are more tentative than others, especially considering that some lower-​level structural schemes may have been incorporated while others are superseded. In the end, the most convincing argument is a cumulative one in which diverse features of the text are seen to point in the same direction. Yet, while the structure of Leviticus may be complex—and my outline necessarily provisional—it is also revealing. I will explore the implications more fully in the next section. Overall, it is apparent that whatever status blocks of material may have had in earlier versions or sources, the final edition of the text has incorporated them all within an overarching scheme. Luciani’s conclusion is apt: “Tel qu’il se présente dans sa forme finale et aussi étrange ou ennuyeux qu’il puisse paraître, le Lévitique est, sans conteste, un livre structuré.122 Yet, as he notes elsewhere, “les écrivains bibliques ne cultivent jamais l’esthétique pour elle-​même.”123 Thus if Milgrom is correct, and “structure is theology,”124 the form of Leviticus should elucidate the book’s theological and rhetorical message. Hence, it is to consideration of that message that I now turn. The Message of Leviticus The raison d’être for Leviticus within the Pentateuch’s overarching narrative is suggested by its immediate context: the filling of the tabernacle with YHWH’s glory. The importance of this narrative moment is signaled by the verbatim repetition of the phrase ‫ וכבוד יהוה מלא את־המׁשכן‬in Exod 40:34–35. As discussed above, the immanent presence of YHWH completes a narrative arc that stretches back to Gen 1. That Leviticus is intended to be read in light of this context is signaled not only by its Pentateuchal placement, but also by the use of a wayyiqtol form (‫ )ויקרא‬to commence the text, indicating a consecutive relationship to Exodus within a continuing narrative. Thus, for sequential readers of the Pentateuch, a new narrative tension is raised, a tension heightened by the allusions to creation in the second half of Exodus: How can humanity, excluded from the presence of YHWH since the Garden of Eden, reenter his presence? Moreover, even if cohabitation is 121.  See, similarly, Raymond R. Hausoul, “Leviticus 25–27 in de metafysische grootheid Exodus–Leviticus–Numeri,” in Das heilige Herz der Tora: Festschrift für Hendrik Koorevaar zu seinem 65 Geburtstag, ed. Julius Steinberg and Siegbert Riecker, ThSt (Aachen: Shaker Verlag, 2011), 121–33. 122. Luciani, Structure littéraire, 335. Similarly, Elliger (Leviticus, 7) reasons, “Das Buch Leviticus ist sehr übersichtlich gegliedert.” 123.  Luciani, “Une autre intention,” 600. 124. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1322.

80

Chapter 3

made possible, how can it be maintained? What measures can prevent repetition of the primeval banishment? The message of Leviticus addresses these questions.125 The book’s concentration on matters pertaining to entering and remaining in the presence of YHWH is suggested by words and phrases that appear in higher frequency here than anywhere else. The phrase ‫ לפני יהוה‬occurs with more regularity in Leviticus than elsewhere.126 So too do references to the ‫אהל מועד‬,127 or more particularly to the ‫פתח אהל מ ועד‬.128 YHWH’s abode at the center of the camp governs reality for Israel. The people now live “before YHWH.” The implications of living “before YHWH” are hinted at by the particular concentration of the ‫טמא‬, ‫טהר‬, and ‫ קדׁש‬roots, used throughout to dictate who and what may approach, or must be excluded from approaching, the divine presence.129 The verb ‫ כפר‬also finds its predominant use in Leviticus.130 While the exact meaning of ‫ כפר‬is debated,131 its function is clear: ‫ כפר‬makes possible a change of status from unclean to clean (e.g., 14:53), or from (un)clean to holy (e.g., 8:14–15; 16:16). ‫ כפר‬thus designates the process by which people and objects are made fit to be in proximity to the divine presence. The act of ‫ כפר‬is carried out by ‫הכהנים‬, an office that Leviticus is singularly concerned with—a fact attested not only by word frequency,132 but by extended focus on the priesthood’s inauguration (chs. 8–9), qualifications (21:1–22:16), duties (1:5, 7–8, et passim), and rights (2:3 et passim). The sacrificial means by which the priests are to make ‫ כפר‬are also a central concern of the book, with the various technical terms for votive offerings being concentrated in Leviticus.133 While the technical language of Leviticus continues to be the subject of debate,134 a picture nevertheless emerges from its clustered usage. The book’s focus 125.  The point is noted elsewhere—e.g., Nihan, Priestly Torah, 90–91 (et passim). Thus Trevaskis’s subsequent contention (Holiness, 199) that “the significance this symbolic context has for the opening chapter of Leviticus has not yet been explored” requires qualification. 126.  Fifty-​nine times out of a total of 224 uses in the Old Testament (26 percent). 127.  Thirty-​seven times out of a total of 108 uses (34 percent). 128.  Twenty out of 41 uses in the Old Testament appear in Leviticus (49 percent). 129.  Respectively, 132/250 (53 percent), 45/98 (46 percent), and 123/682 (18 percent) of Old Testament occurrences. 130.  Forty-​nine of a total of 102 uses (48 percent). Within Leviticus the ‫ כפר‬root occurs most frequently in chs. 1–16 (45/49 occurrences), with 16 appearances clustered in ch. 16. 131.  For discussion, see Sklar, Sin. 132.  Twenty-​five percent or 196/773 attestations of the noun ‫ כהן‬are in Leviticus. 133.  The relative frequencies are as follows: ‫( עלה‬63/306, 21 percent); ‫( חטאת‬82/298, 28 percent); ‫( ׁשלמים‬30/87, 34 percent); ‫( אׁשם‬27/40, 68 percent); ‫( קרבן‬40/82, 49 percent). The one exception is the ‫( מנחה‬36/211, 17 percent in Leviticus), which is more often referred to in Numbers (62 times, or 29 percent of total use). For discussion regarding how best to render the various terms in English, see Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 4–8; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, ad loc. 134.  See, for instance, Avi Hurvitz, “Once Again: The Linguistic Profile of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch and Its Historical Age: A Response to J. Blenkinsopp,” ZAW 112 (2000): 180–91.

The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context

81

on sacrifice and priesthood, on avoidance of and cleansing from cultic and moral impurity, is driven by the fact that Israel in a very concrete way now lives out its existence ‫לפני יהוה‬. This focus is further emphasized by the book’s structure. While the outline I propose above remains tentative, it is nevertheless suggestive. The importance of the Day of Atonement is indicated by multiple structural features: 16:2–34 is the central divine speech; the pericope is rhetorically highlighted by its placement immediately following the aba pattern of chapters 12–15; the chapter may form the center of a palistrophe. Accordingly, chapter 16 is recognized as a stand-​alone pericope by a majority of commentators (see above), and seems to sit at the structural center of the book,135 pace Douglas.136 This premise regarding centrality is supported by connections between chapter 16 and the chapters that come both before and after it. The Day of Atonement presupposes sacrificial procedures (chs. 1–7) and the role of the priests (chs. 8–9). The ceremony itself is integrated into Israel’s festal calendar in 23:26–32. Chapter 16 also has, as Smith notes, overt connections to 10:1–20 and 24:10–23, linking the pericope to the book’s two narratives and the infractions they recount.137 In fact, the overt function of the ritual prescribed in chapter 16 is to deal with such infractions—both the “uncleannesses” (‫ )טמאת‬of the people and “their defiant acts” (‫ )פׁשעיהם‬are atoned for (16:16). This function is highlighted by the arrangement of the book, which places discussion of cultic cleanness (chs. 11–15) and moral holiness (17:1–24:9) on either side of the Day of Atonement.138 Chapter 16 thus becomes the means of dealing with residual cultic and moral defilement—of people, tabernacle, and sancta—not explicitly dealt with by the provisions outlined in chapters 1–7.139 The necessity of dealing with cultic and moral defilement is made explicit by the two narrative accounts. Chapter 10, placed immediately before the cultic regulations of chapters 11–15, concerns a cultic transgression. While the precise nature of the offense is debated,140 holy space was violated; Nadab and Abihu’s act was committed “before YHWH” (‫ ;לפני יהוה‬10:1). The narrative of 24:10–23, on the 135.  Leder even posits a chiastic structure for the Pentateuch with Leviticus 16 at the center (Waiting, 34). 136.  Douglas, “Poetic Structure,” 253. 137.  Smith, “Structure,” 23–24. 138.  This observation is, of course, generalized rather than comprehensive. For instance, the presence of 11:43–45 suggests a moral dimension to the legislation contained in the pericope. Similarly, cultic concerns are also evident within the so-​called holiness code (e.g., ch. 23). 139.  Cf. Mark J. Boda, A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament, SLTHS 1 (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 67–69. See also my discussion in chapter 5. 140.  Rabbinic tradition attests twelve different interpretations (Nihan, Priestly Torah, 580). For discussion, see Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function, JSOTSup 56 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 68–85; Hartley, Leviticus, 132–33.

82

Chapter 3

other hand, placed after discussion of moral holiness in 17:1–24:9, concerns a moral transgression. Again, the precise nature of the offense is left (intentionally?) unclear.141 The result in both narratives, however, is identical and unambiguous. Nadab and Abihu die before the Lord (‫ ;וימתו לפני יהוה‬10:2); similarly, in 24:16 the blasphemer must be put to death (‫)יומת‬.142 The narratives thus portray the consequences, and hence the seriousness, of transgression. Therefore, they also serve to justify the book’s extended discussion of ritual and moral categories. What may at first seem like pedantic detail is in fact essential. If a holy God dwells with humans, and if they are to live in that presence, then detailed instruction becomes necessary. In this way, Leviticus makes it clear that the immanent and glorious presence of YHWH is an ambiguous reality. It brings potential for life or death, for blessing or curse (cf. 26:1–46). The common denominator is the holiness of God. The variable factor is the stance of the worshipper. This is made particularly clear by the narrative of chapters 8–10. The obedience portrayed in 8:1–36—indicated by the sevenfold repetition of “which YHWH had commanded” (‫—)]כ[אׁשר צוה יהוה‬results in fire coming from the presence of YHWH (‫ )ותצא אׁש מלפני יהוה‬to “devour” (‫ )ותאכ ל‬the sacrifices and so validate the inauguration of the sacrificial system and priesthood (9:24). The response in 9:24 is shouts of joy (‫)וירנו‬. The contrast with Nadab and Abihu’s disobedience in 10:1–2 is indicated by the negation of the refrain from chapter 8—“which [YHWH] had not commanded” (‫אׁשר לא‬ ‫—)צוה‬an act that results in fire coming from the presence of YHWH (‫ותצא אׁש‬ ‫ )מלפני יהוה‬to “devour” (‫ )ותאכל‬the sons of Aaron. The response this time is silence (10:3) and mourning (10:6). Thus, Leviticus proclaims not only the inviolable holiness of YHWH but also the resulting necessity to be holy as YHWH is holy (‫והייתם קדׁשים כי קדוׁש אני‬, 11:44; cf. 11:45; 19:2; 20:26). In this way, Leviticus indicates that imitatio Dei is the only means for ongoing life, ‫לפני יהוה‬.143 This same concern is evident in the book’s prescriptions for those who cross cultic or moral boundaries. Penalties demand degrees of separation from the divine presence. Uncleanness effects a bar on attending the tabernacle and hence acts as a prohibition against approaching God. At the lowest level, minor infractions result in short-​term separation. An unclean status often lasts only “until the evening” (‫)עד־הערב‬. At other times, the duration is for a longer, but still definite, 141.  Hartley (Leviticus, 408–9) surveys the options. 142.  Interestingly, the death penalty is here enforced by human rather than divine agency, in contrast to ch. 10. Perhaps this implies the formation of a morally responsive community that is beginning to function in a YHWH-​like manner (cf. 11:44–45). 143.  As noted, Israel is to be(come) holy as YHWH is holy. The nation is also to reflect the divine nature in other ways: it must enjoy (Sabbath) rest (23:3); treatment of the “stranger” (‫ )גר‬must reflect YHWH’s treatment of the Israelites as “strangers” in Egypt (19:34); treatment of slaves (‫ )עבדים‬is to follow a similar pattern (25:46, 55); the people are to take the same stance toward wickedness as YHWH does (20:2–3).

The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context

83

period (e.g., 12:2). More serious uncleanness, like that of ‫צרעת‬-infected persons and houses, results in banishment from the camp (13:45–46; 14:44–45). Yet such banish ment has the potential to be reversed (14:1–20).144 Major infractions, however, attract the ‫ כרת‬penalty, which equates to exile or death.145 At the highest level, Leviticus prescribes long-​term, even permanent, separation: corporate banishment from the land (26:33) and capital punishment (e.g., 20:1). With all these measures, the more serious the uncleanness, the further the offender must be removed from YHWH’s presence. As YHWH is understood to be the source of life, the other end of the spectrum, represented by the most serious measures, is death. Nevertheless, the message of Leviticus remains one of grace. This is strongly hinted at by another of the book’s structural markers—the divine speech formulae. The effect of these narrative introductions is to cast each pericope as direct divine discourse. In contrast, human characters are almost entirely silent. Aaron speaks only in 10:19. Even Moses’s words are confined to chapters 8–10. Accordingly, Sherwood calculates that 85 percent of the text consists of YHWH’s speech.146 This is an important observation for the book’s theological message. Leviticus is not a record of, nor prescription for, humanity reaching out to touch the divine. Rather, the force of the text lies in the opposite direction. The divine speeches indicate that it is God who reaches out to an excluded humanity; they show that God desires to dwell among his people and so prescribes means to make that end possible. Thus, the significance of chapter 16 once again comes to the fore. For here, albeit limited in time (only once annually), provision is made for a man, representing the community,147 to once again stand in the immediate presence of the divine. Although Leviticus seems woven together from many strands and blocks of material, cohesion is also apparent. The various elements are perhaps best related to one another by the concept of sacred space.148 At the end of Exodus, YHWH takes up a dwelling place on earth. Thus, the tabernacle becomes sacred space just as creation had once functioned.149 The necessary exclusion from sacred space for 144.  The reversal of separation is made clear in 14:11 where the one being cleansed is presented

‫יהוה‬ ‫לפני‬.

145. Cf. Sklar, Sin, 15–20. 146. Sherwood, Leviticus, 28. Sherwood ascribes a further 13 percent of verses in Leviticus to the narrator. 147.  The representative role of the high priest is clearly indicated by the inscribed stones worn on his vestments and by the breastplate attached to his ephod (Exod 28:9–12, 15–21, 29–30; cf. Lev 8:6–9). It is also signaled by the same offering needing to be made for his sin as for the sin of the community (Lev 4:3, 13–14). 148.  For elaboration on the concept of sacred space, consult Gorman, Ideology; Walton, “Equilibrium,” 293–304; Morales, Tabernacle; Hundley, Heaven. 149.  See Fretheim, Exodus, 268–72; Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 78–99.

84

Chapter 3

an unholy people (cf. Exod 40:35) becomes the subject that Leviticus addresses. It prescribes the means (sacrifice) and mediators (priests) required to effect ‫כפר‬. It outlines the cultic and moral parameters that demarcate sacred space, parameters that must be fastidiously observed to avoid being either consumed or banished. Then, at its central point, Leviticus makes it possible for one representative human, on one day of the year, to truly stand ‫לפני יהוה‬. The message of Leviticus, therefore, concerns how to enter and remain in the presence of YHWH.150 This focus is further evidenced by the advancement of the narrative in Numbers. In Lev 1:1 YHWH speaks to Moses from the tent of meeting; in Num 1:1 YHWH speaks to Moses in the tent of meeting. The subtle shift of preposition belies the importance of the theological move. It is not without reason that Leviticus and its message sit at the structural and theological center of the Pentateuch. Primary and Attendant Illocutions in Leviticus To this point I have posed some tentative conclusions regarding the structure and message of Leviticus. Having done so, I am now able to assess what the text of Leviticus as a rhetorical unit is doing. In relation to this question the concepts and terminology of speech act theory again prove helpful. Detailing a comprehensive taxonomy of illocutions is beyond what I can accomplish here. Such taxonomies have been attempted elsewhere.151 Nevertheless, some itemization of speech acts will facilitate clarity in the discussion that follows. Austin originally suggested five classes of utterance grouped according to illocutionary force: verdictives, exercitives, commissives, behabitives, and expositives.152 These categories have since been both challenged and refined. Searle’s fivefold taxonomy has perhaps proven to be the most influential revision of Austin’s work. His nomenclature distinguishes between assertives, directives, commissives, expressives, and declaratives.153 Nevertheless, for the purposes of this study, categorization at this level remains too broad to provide the precision of language needed to describe the range of actions that Leviticus as a book is doing. Austin’s exercitives, for example, include many lower-​level illocutions such as ordering, urging, warning, advising, and so on. Of interest, therefore, are studies that attempt a more specific identification of illocutionary verbs. Daniel Vanderveken, using Searle’s categories, lists seventy assertives, thirty-​two commissives, fifty-​six directives, eighty-​five declaratives, and 150.  So also Gane, Leviticus, 30–32. 151.  See especially John R. Searle, Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 1–29; William P. Alston, Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000), 81–143. 152. Austin, How to Do Things, 151–64. 153. Searle, Expression, 12–17.

The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context

85

twenty-​eight expressives.154 Ballmer and Brennenstuhl have compiled an even more exhaustive lexicon of speech act verbs.155 However, while a description of illocutionary acts at this level is much more conducive for my purposes, it is not feasible to list all the possibilities. Nevertheless, the following may serve as a provisional taxonomy (albeit a limited one) of illocutions that will inform the terminology I will utilize throughout this study. Illocutionary acts performed by Leviticus in whole, or in part, include assertives (to declare, impose, remind, equip, describe), commissives (to promise), and directives (to demand, call, invite, warn, permit, prohibit). The rest of this section will map how these illocutions function at the level of the book. Then, in the chapters that follow, I will fill out with greater specificity the particular illocutions performed by allusion to Gen 1–3 at pericope level. For instance, while Leviticus may act to warn against rebellion generally, allusion in a given pericope may function to warn against a particular kind of rebellion. Keeping both levels in view will enable me to test pericope-​level illocutions by determining whether they are commensurate with those working at the level of Leviticus as a whole. Based on the above discussion of structure and message, several book-​level illocutions become evident. Without doubt, Leviticus makes declarations regarding ritual and ethical matters, thereby prohibiting readers from certain courses of action while also permitting or even commanding others. Yet limiting the purpose of Leviticus (in whole or in part) to being an instruction manual, as is sometimes the case,156 misses attendant illocutions that the text is also performing. For the book has a persuasive thrust and intent that subverts any attempt to consign it to the status of a manual or mere legal compendium. Instead, Leviticus imposes its legislation upon readers, demanding that its regulations be observed. This persuasive imposition is given rhetorical power by delivering instructions through the medium of divine discourse, thus investing them with supreme authority. But as Leviticus makes declarations about ritual matters and demands compliance it also declares the parameters of sacred space. Again, the voice of YHWH within the text performs a crucial rhetorical role as YHWH establishes the cultic and moral boundaries that dictate who and what may draw near to him. By doing so, Leviticus also makes a declaration about the character of YHWH—he is a holy God who cannot be approached lightly or carelessly. However, declaration is not the final function of the text but is, in fact, the means to further illocutions. By declaring the nature and parameters of sacred 154.  Daniel Vanderveken, Meaning and Speech Acts, vol. 1, Principles of Language Use (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 166–219. 155.  Thomas T. Ballmer and Waltraud Brennenstuhl, Speech Act Classfication: A Study in the Lexical Analysis of English Speech Activity Verbs, SSLC 8 (Berlin: Springer, 1981). 156.  E.g., Bellinger, Leviticus, 17.

86

Chapter 3

space Leviticus also invites readers to live in the presence of YHWH. Furthermore, to make such cohabitation possible, ritual, cultic, and ethical instructions are given to equip individuals and the community en masse to live in the divine presence. But declarations made regarding YHWH’s character and the boundaries of sacred space also function to warn. Leviticus warns readers regarding their propensity to transgress sacred space and of the consequences of doing so. The detailed prescriptions of cultic and moral rightness, the degrees of banishment outlined, and the narrative accounts of violation leading to death all serve to drive the warning home. Life and death hang in the balance. Accordingly, Leviticus calls its readers to experience life by obeying its demands and thereby remain in the divine presence and to avoid the separation that inevitably leads to death. Uniquely, Leviticus does this by calling readers to become holy, just as YHWH is holy. With these illocutionary acts Leviticus is intended to bring about the transformation of individuals and community in conformity with the likeness of YHWH. Even more profoundly, Leviticus aims to inaugurate cosmic transformation through restoration of divine-​human relations and the reordering of time and space.157 To that end Leviticus authoritatively describes a cosmic order and demands a pattern of life that either conforms or is commensurate with it. In this way, the text both witnesses to the brokenness of creation and hints at, perhaps even promises, ultimate restoration. The illocutions noted above are supported and enhanced by several rhetorical and linguistic features. Considering some of these will provide a necessary foundation for my discussion of rhetorical setting in the next section. The first feature concerns the narration time of Leviticus. Sherwood draws attention to this aspect of the text: When a writer tells the story of an event, there is a ratio between the actual time length of the event itself (the time it took to happen, called narrative time) and the time it takes to tell it (called narration time). This ratio can vary depending on the effect the writer wants to create. In the case of Leviticus, since most of the book consists of speech, the ratio of narration time to narrated time is about even. . . . The effect that this creates is that the reader seems to witness the event as it happens, as if in real time. Specifically, the reader is listening in as the Lord tells Moses (or Aaron) what to say to the people and the priests.158

Thus, the narration time of Leviticus has the rhetorical effect of drawing listeners in. It is as if they are present as YHWH speaks; he addresses them. This device allows the text to transcend spatial and temporal boundaries by making any 157. Cf. Gorman, Ideology, 39–45. 158. Sherwood, Leviticus, 11.

The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context

87

reader(s) or hearer(s) the audience of its discourse, thereby keeping current the need to heed its message. This continual relevancy is emphasized further by the contrast between the Levitical legislation and the legislation of Exodus and Numbers that immediately brackets it. Erich Zenger, citing Blum, makes the point clearly: “Anders als das Buch Lev, das die bleibendgültige Haus- und Lebensordnung des heiligen Gottes für sein heiliges Volk Israel entwirft, bieten Ex 25–40 und Num 1–10 ‘situationsbezogene Instruktionen, die auf . . . gerichtet sind.’ ”159 In distinction, then, to the “situation-​specific” (“situationsbezogene”) instructions for building the tabernacle (Exod 25–40) and organizing the people (Num 1–10), both envisioned as “one-​off events” (“einmalige Realisierung”), the Levitical material is presented as being “permanently valid” (“bleibendgültige”). Leviticus demands continual application. A third feature of Leviticus’s rhetoric is its conditionality. The fundamental point of tension that underlies Leviticus is the immanent presence of YHWH and the potential for life or death that presence holds. Yet Leviticus does not fully resolve the tension. Sherwood concludes: The people now know what to do, but will they do it? This . . . tension is reinforced by the command-​fulfilment pattern in the narration but is itself left unresolved, thus providing a rhetorical challenge to the reader to complete the pattern by fulfilling the prescriptions of the law.160

This rhetorical challenge is heightened further by the verbal forms used in Leviticus. Perhaps contrary to expectation, Leviticus has an unusually low percentage of imperative forms. Sawyer notes that most Old Testament books have three to four times as many imperatives per ten thousand words; he concludes, “The lack of direct commands addressed to the listener or reader is very remarkable indeed.”161 But Leviticus also has significantly fewer qatal and wayyiqtol forms than almost any other book and, conversely, almost three times as many weqatal forms.162 This grammatical oddity has a potentially significant rhetorical effect, as the use of weqatal forms makes possible either a volitional or consequential sense to the divine discourse. For example, is ‫ ואהבת לרעך כמוך‬. . . ‫( לא־תקם‬19:18) best understood as “You shall not take vengeance . . . and you shall love your neighbor as yourself ” (volitional) or “You shall not take vengeance . . . so you will love 159. Zenger, Einleitung, 69 (italics removed). The embedded citation is from Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 301. 160. Sherwood, Leviticus, 13. 161.  John F. A. Sawyer, “The Language of Leviticus,” in Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas, ed. John F. A. Sawyer, JSOTSup 227 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 16. 162.  Ibid., 16–17.

88

Chapter 3

your neighbor as yourself ” (consequential)? The book’s locutions may function as commands to be obeyed or as declarations of what might be dependent upon obedience. The unusual concentration of weqatal forms thus serves the wider rhetorical challenge to readers of Leviticus to heed its address and fulfill its prescriptions. The Rhetorical Contexts and Functions of Leviticus The book of Leviticus as a unit communicates a message that is reinforced and supported by the structure of the final-​form text. Accordingly, I suggested multiple illocutions that the text performs. Leviticus, it would seem, is persuasive literature—for readers and hearers alike. A question remains, however. To whom was this message written to persuade? Who were the intended addressees of Leviticus? This is a vital question; Watts elucidates the importance of asking it: To explain the unique form and contents of a particular text . . . one must try to reconstruct what rhetorical relationship its authors intended for it. One needs to determine who they were, whom they were trying to persuade, and of what, so as to figure out why they shaped the text in this way. . . . Because the text’s rhetoric functions only in the context of a relationship between speaker/author and listener/ reader, estimating their identities is essential and basic work in order to read any text as a communication between people, that is, as persuasive rhetoric.163

Although this is a foundational query for understanding Leviticus, the issue has remained underaddressed.164 Various reasons seem to have contributed to the neglect. First, is the academy’s concentration on discerning textual strata in Leviticus and postulating the author(s)/editor(s)/school(s) responsible for them and their subsequent redaction. As a result, the rhetorical purposes encapsulated in the book of Leviticus have frequently dropped out of view. Second, and somewhat ironically, the rise of literary-​critical analysis has also contributed to the neglect. In reacting against a purely historical approach to biblical texts, literary-​critical methodology has tended to divorce literary considerations from historical ones. Thus, while the literary artistry of Leviticus has enjoyed greater elucidation, the “who” and the “to whom” elements of the question posed above have become sidelined.165 A third factor is the degree of historical uncertainty regarding provenance. Currently there is little or no consensus for any Old Testament book concerning who 163. Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 88. 164.  So ibid., 89. Watts suggests that Gerstenberger’s 1996 commentary was the first to emphasize P’s persuasive rhetoric (ibid., 69). The lacuna is also pointed out by Schwartz, “Prohibitions,” 34–35. 165.  For example, Warning (Artistry, 23) attributes the artistry of Leviticus to an “author” but does not seek to identify who this person is or for whom they were writing.

The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context

89

its original author(s) and audience(s) were. The resulting temptation to ignore historical considerations is understandable. Yet difficult as it may be, the questions of “who” and “to whom” are too important to ignore. Therefore, although it may not be possible to do much more than estimate the identities of author and addressee, Watts is correct that this nevertheless remains basic to reading Leviticus as an act of communication between people.166 In light of this requirement and in recognition of its attendant difficulties I suggest the following way forward. Rather than tie my examination to one theoretical provenance I will instead outline the four historical contexts most often connected with the formation of Leviticus. In this way, I can discuss specific rhetorical intentions for the book in relation to particular settings. Then, in later chapters, I will be able to suggest how the use of allusion to Gen 1–3 may have contributed to these intentions. This approach has certain advantages. First, it allows for discussion of Leviticus’s message and rhetoric (its literary dimension) within a particular context (its historical dimension). Hence, I can discuss the intentional use of allusion by an author for specific purposes. But, second, my approach also avoids being tied to a reconstruction that may well change based on future discoveries.167 The four rhetorical contexts most often canvassed, with representative advocates, are detailed below. Before I outline those contexts, however, a caveat is necessary. In a recent essay Sommer makes some astute observations that have a direct bearing on what I am doing here. The aim of Sommer’s essay is to critique a widespread trend he notices among scholars—namely, emphasizing certain readings of texts in order to corroborate presuppositions regarding dating. Against what he labels “pseudo-​ historicism” Sommer demonstrates that it is entirely possible for an author to have come up with ideas that became relevant only at a later date.168 Thus he argues that while there is doubtless a connection between ideas and dates it is very difficult to determine what exactly that relationship is. For instance, is an author describing a current reality or longing for it in its absence?169 Moreover, pseudohistoricism invariably downplays the potential genius of authors—an eighth-​century person may well think a sixth-​century thought. Indeed, this kind of ahead-​of-​its-​time thinking is the hallmark of great literature.170 Sommer concludes, “Literature that endures for millennia does so precisely because it transcends its setting.”171 Accordingly, Sommer suggests that interpreters may need to be content not to 166. Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 88. 167.  The “virtual unwrapping” of the En-​Gedi scroll in 2016 is a case in point. For details, see Seales et al., “From Damage.” 168.  Sommer, “Dating,” 85–86. 169.  Ibid., 103. 170.  Ibid., 104. 171.  Ibid., 106.

90

Chapter 3

date texts with accuracy. That is, it may be more honest to use the term “preexilic” rather than “seventh-​century,” for example.172 Thus in what follows, I define broad eras rather than specific date ranges. Moreover, Sommer’s critique adds support to my approach of examining multiple proposed provenances rather than assuming one based on prior presuppositions. Leviticus as a Postexilic Text Connecting the formation of Leviticus with the postexilic period has been the mainstay of critical opinion since Wellhausen’s Prolegomena. According to Wellhausen, the legal material in Leviticus represents a late and ossified stage in the development of Israel’s religion. A fundamental tenet for his thesis is that the Prophets do not refer to the Law. Thus, canonical order, with Law placed before Prophets, does not fit the actual chronology of textual origins.173 Maximally, therefore, the narrative world of Leviticus is pseudepigraphic; minimally, it is pure fiction.174 Wellhausen’s views have since been supported, modified, and rejected. Nevertheless, among many “documentarians” and “nondocumentarians” alike, the book of Leviticus is still assigned a postexilic date.175 The Persian period posed many complex problems for Israel.176 Returned exiles were politically insignificant. Yehud was merely a small province in the Beyond the River satrapy. Although possessing a Persian-​appointed governor, the “nation” had neither king nor army. On the economic front, the people were dependent on the goodwill of the empire (e.g., Ezra 4:6–23; Neh 1–2), and Yehud seems to have been less prosperous than other regions.177 Socially, there was tension between different groups, perhaps most notably between returnees and those who had remained in the land (e.g., Neh 5:5). The religious picture is also complex. Although the temple was reconstructed ca. 515 BC (under the auspices of Darius), the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬had not manifested itself as before (cf. Exod 40:34–35; Lev 9:23–24; 1 Kgs 8:10–11), leading to disappointment (Hag 2:3). Moreover, while the people enjoyed a measure of religious autonomy, the postexilic prophets regularly lambasted both people (e.g., Hag 1:4–11; 2:13–14; Zech 5:5–6; Mal 3:8–9) and priests (e.g., Mal 1:6–8; 2:1– 2) for lack of religious zeal and corresponding cultic and moral holiness. Postexilic Yehud, it seems, was beset by both external and internal threats. 172. Ibid. 173. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 3–10, 411–25. Wellhausen states in relation to the priestly source: “It tries hard to imitate the costume of the mosaic period, and, with whatever success, to disguise its own” (9). 174.  Whybray states: “The whole presentation of Moses in the Pentateuch in its present form may be described as the religious fiction of a later time” (Making, 240). 175.  E.g., Nihan, Priestly Torah, 390–94. Cf. Pola, Priesterschrift, 31–40. 176.  See, further, Anthony R. Petterson, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, AOTC 25 (Nottingham: Apollos, 2015), 22–26; Brad E. Kelle, “Israelite History,” DOTPr 414–17. 177.  Kelle, “Israelite History,” 416–17.

The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context

91

What purpose, therefore, might Leviticus have fulfilled in this era? In a period marked by the problems outlined above, Leviticus would have functioned to reinforce and defend Israelite distinctives as well as making them authoritative. The text’s focus on the Sabbath, food laws, and marriage regulations, coupled with its insistence on correct religious observance, would serve to make Israel—in Yehud or in dispersion178—distinct, and hence separate, a purpose suggested by the text itself (20:26). The book’s implied setting in remote history179 would strengthen continuity with Israel’s preexilic past, and, engaged by its rhetoric, readers would encounter YHWH’s voice commanding similar obedience in the present. More than most, Watts has explored the rhetorical function of Leviticus in this setting. He argues that in the context of a post-​Davidic power vacuum the book is primarily designed to bolster the power and position of the Aaronide dynasty.180 Key indicators for Watts include the book’s overt focus on priestly concerns, its extended narration of the inauguration of Aaron and his sons, the repeated detailing of priestly rights and privileges, the priestly “monopoly” over the effecting of ‫כפר‬, and the limited mention of “Levites” (only in 25:32–34).181 In this context, then, Leviticus becomes a quasi-​political manifesto.182 However, not all the features of Leviticus easily fit this scenario. Restrictions regarding intermarriage are enjoined only for the high priest (21:14) and not for the priests or people generally, even though sexual matters are treated at length (chs. 12, 15, 18, 20–21). This stands in marked contrast to the strong condemnation of intermarriage in Ezra–Nehemiah (e.g., Neh 13:23–28). Also at variance is the antipriestly sentiment commonly expressed among the postexilic prophets (e.g., Hag 2:10–14; Mal 1:6–2:9).183 Indeed, Lena-​Sofia Tiemeyer concludes that “a position critical of the priesthood is a characteristic shared by all postexilic prophecy.”184 If Leviticus is, as argued by Watts, designed to privilege the position of the priests, then the book is at odds with the postexilic prophets.

178.  Gerstenberger argues that Leviticus was written by and for the Jewish diaspora (Leviticus, 10–14). 179.  Notably, this was a time when Israel also had no king. 180.  The idea that the high priest is a replacement for the king is criticized by Joosten (People, 88). Joosten notes that the importance of the high priest is in relation to holiness, not power. 181. Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 91–132. 182.  This view of the book aligns with recent attempts to view the Pentateuch as an imperially authorized document that functioned as a constitutional text for the Persian province of Yehud. For an introduction to the discussion, see the essays in Watts, Persia. 183.  See, further, Julia M. O’Brien, Priest and Levite in Malachi, SBLDS 121 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990); Mark J. Boda, “Perspectives on Priests in Haggai–Malachi,” in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday, ed. J. Penner, K. M. Penner, and C. Wassen, STDJ 98 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 13–33. 184.  Lena-​Sofia Tiemeyer, Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage: Post-​Exilic Prophetic Critique of the Priesthood, FAT 2/19 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 1 (emphasis hers).

92

Chapter 3

There are other problems too. The repeated mention of the “tent of meeting” (‫ )אהל מועד‬or “tabernacle” (‫ )מׁשכן‬throughout Leviticus has to be understood symbolically if a postexilic provenance is assumed.185 Accordingly, Watts takes these entities as ciphers for the Second Temple.186 However, Sommer points out that the rhetoric of P continually emphasizes a locus of divine presence that is portable.187 This is problematic if the referent is meant to be a centralized temple cult. Indeed, Sommer comments, “the tabernacle cannot be regarded solely as a token for the temple.”188 Certain linguistic features are also difficult to reconcile with a postexilic origin. Many of the cultic terms found in Leviticus are different from those used in postexilic times.189 Other terminology finds closer parallels in second-​millennium Mesopotamian law.190 Furthermore, the orthography of Leviticus represents Classical, rather than Late Biblical Hebrew, and thus better fits the preexilic period.191 Leviticus as an Exilic Text Other scholars date the formation of Leviticus to the exile.192 Hence the book, like the Deuteronomistic History, was written in and for a context of national defeat.193 The profound theological and sociological crisis precipitated by the fall of Jerusalem, as well as the historical and archaeological debates surrounding the 185.  Suzanne Boorer, The Vision of the Priestly Narrative: Its Genre and Hermeneutics of Time, SBLAIL 27 (Atlanta: SBL, 2016), 326, while assuming an exilic/postexilic provenance, nevertheless argues that the instructions in Exod 25–40 were to be enacted concretely. 186.  “Though the ritual regulations refer literarily to the Tabernacle described in Exodus, they functionally refer to the Jewish and Samaritan temples of the last half-​millennium B.C.E.” (Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 105). Watts also has to take a similar approach to other Pentateuchal referents— e.g., Phineas’s and Moses’s marriages (119–22). 187.  Benjamin D. Sommer, “Conflicting Constructions of Divine Presence in the Priestly Tabernacle,” BI 9 (2001): 53. 188. Ibid. 189.  On this point, the work of Avi Hurvitz is especially helpful. See, e.g., “Usage of ‫ ׁשׁש‬and ‫בוץ‬ in the Bible and Its Implication for the Date of P,” HTR 60 (1967): 117–21; Hurvitz, “Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code: A Linguistic Study in Technical Idioms and Terminology,” RB 81 (1974): 24–56; Hurvitz, “Again,” 180–91. 190. Wenham, Leviticus, 12. William Schniedewind also draws attention to the lack of Persian loanwords in the Pentateuch as well as the presence of hapax legomena that are explainable only by comparison with Ugaritic texts that date to ca. 1200 BC. See William Schniedewind, “Linguistic Dating, Writing Systems, and the Pentateuchal Sources” (paper presented at The Pentateuch within Biblical Literature: Formation and Interaction, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, May 26, 2014). 191.  Hurvitz, “Again,” 190. It should be acknowledged that not all agree on a neat distinction between “Classical” and “Late” Biblical Hebrew. See, e.g., Rezetko and Young, Linguistics. 192.  E.g., P.  J.  Budd, Leviticus, NCB (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996), 9; Alter, Five Books, 540. See also Campbell and O’Brien, Sources, 21; Hartley, Leviticus, xlii–xliii; Brueggemann, “Kerygma,” 410; Carr, Formation, 292–303. 193.  Once again, this does not rule out per se the use of preexisting source material.

The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context

93

deportation of its populace, has been charted extensively elsewhere.194 Against such a backdrop, what functions might Leviticus have performed? Again, multiple features of the text come to the fore. The book’s preoccupation with sacred space and with the inviolable holiness of Israel’s God is especially pertinent. In light of this, the nation’s repeated violation of sacred boundaries, both cultic and moral, rightly and expectedly resulted in banishment from YHWH’s presence.195 Thus Leviticus moves into the arena of constituting a defense of divine justice—a chief concern of other exilic writings (e.g., Kings, Ezekiel).196 Leviticus explains why the people are in Babylon and upholds the justice of God’s actions against them. Yet the text’s function as an invitation also comes into play. Readers hear YHWH speak, instructing and equipping people with respect to reentering sacred space through the means appointed: confession for wrongdoing (26:40–41), sacrifice and atonement, cultic and moral transformation. The features noted earlier that convey the immediacy and timelessness of the divine commands indicate that YHWH’s purposes for his people have not come to an end. In fact, the setting of the book in the wilderness testifies that God’s purposes can be achieved outside the land, apart from temple and Davidic king. In this way, the language of entering and possessing the land—problematic for a postexilic context—functions as a promise of divine intention for an exiled people. Although many of the book’s illocutions can be seen to perform rhetorical functions in the exilic period, other aspects of the book are not so amenable to such a setting. I have already mentioned the lexical and linguistic elements that suggest a preexilic date for the material. Furthermore, the contention of Jan Wagenaar and others that Lev 23 demonstrates dependence on the Babylonian akītu festival and therefore supports a Babylonian provenance has been challenged.197 Bryan Babcock, for instance, demonstrates substantial parallels with a second-​millennium Akkadian text, Emar 446, and concludes on this basis that Lev 23 reflects an early West Semitic ritual calendar tradition.198 Added to these problems facing an exilic provenance is the way that Leviticus is utilized by the exilic prophets, most notably by Ezekiel. I will expand on this point in the next section. 194.  See Lester L. Grabbe, ed., Leading Captivity Captive: “The Exile” as History and Ideology, JSOTSup 278 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998); Brad E. Kelle, Frank Ritchel Ames, and Jacob L. Wright, eds., Interpreting Exile: Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts, SBLAIL 10 (Atlanta: SBL, 2011); Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003), 65–79. 195.  Ezekiel picks up on and exploits these aspects of Leviticus, especially in chs. 8–11. 196.  Ernest Nicholson, Deuteronomy and the Judaean Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 137–77, applies this understanding to DtrH as a whole. 197.  See Jan Wagenaar, “The Priestly Festival Calendar and the Babylonian New Years Festivals: Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Year,” in The Old Testament in Its World, ed. Robert P. Gordon and Johannes C. de Moor, OtSt 52 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 218–52. 198. Babcock, Sacred Ritual.

94

Chapter 3

Leviticus as a Monarchical Text A third position argues that Leviticus is, substantially at least, a product of the preexilic monarchy. Several prominent Jewish scholars, including Yehezkel Kaufmann, Moshe Weinfeld, Avi Hurvitz, and E. A. Speiser, have championed this view. They have been followed by others.199 Milgrom formulates the position clearly: “The Priestly texts are preexilic. . . . H and, all the more so, P were composed by the priests of Israel, in the land of Israel, during the days of the First Temple.”200 Likewise, “the entire book of Leviticus is pre-​exilic.”201 This movement away from the standard critical view of an exilic or postexilic provenance is motivated by several factors. First, the date of P has been reconsidered.202 Whereas in Wellhausen’s scheme P postdates Deuteronomy, some recent scholars have challenged this, arguing instead that Deuteronomy alludes to, quotes, or redacts P material and therefore must postdate it.203 Second, intertextual connections between Ezekiel and Leviticus have also been reassessed. While links have long been recognized,204 recent studies suggest that Ezekiel draws on Leviticus rather than vice versa, contra Wellhausen.205 For example, detailed investigation of ninety-​seven terms and expressions that Leviticus shares with Ezekiel leads Risa Levitt Kohn to conclude, “Ezekiel knows P, quotes P, but also modifies it at will, adding and deleting material as suits his personal agenda and the current circumstances of his audience.”206 Moreover, Kohn also argues that Ezekiel knew both P and H: “If we can indeed subdivide P into two entities, Ezekiel utilizes both without particular differentiation.”207 If Kohn is right, then Leviticus in a substantially full edition existed preexile and was sufficiently well known and respected for Ezekiel to allude to, and even parody, its contents.208 199.  E.g., Wenham, Leviticus, 11–13; Joosten, People, 88–90; Friedman, Sources Revealed, 21–24. 200. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 12–13. 201.  Milgrom, “Provenance,” 48. 202.  See, for instance, Gordon J. Wenham, “The Priority of P,” VT 49 (1999): 240–58; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 3–13. 203.  E.g., Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile, trans. Moshe Greenberg (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1961), 175–200; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 180–81; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 8–10. 204.  See, for example, Klostermann, “Beiträge,” passim. 205.  Wellhausen had argued: “Ezekiel, Law of Holiness, Priestly Code, must . . . be taken as historical steps” (Prolegomena, 379). 206.  Risa Levitt Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile, and the Torah, JSOTSup 358 (London: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 84–85. 207.  Ibid., 85. 208.  Although Nihan (Priestly Torah, 543–45) continues to argue that Leviticus is dependent on Ezekiel and Jeremiah, he does not engage with recent studies that explicitly construe dependence the other way around. His interaction with Milgrom in this regard, for example, is simply summed up by a footnoted remark—“contra Milgrom”—stated without discussion (544 n. 583). Thus, his overall thesis remains somewhat incomplete.

The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context

95

If a preexilic milieu is granted for the book’s rhetorical context, then what functions might it have performed? Interesting against this background are the divine speeches. In notable contrast to prevailing ANE norms, cultic requirements in Leviticus are dictated by YHWH and not by the king.209 Thus YHWH is portrayed as ruler of his people above and beyond any earthly representative. In this way, Leviticus (subversively?) limits the power and authority of Israel’s monarchs, relativizing their power and influence. Hence, Leviticus potentially functioned to counter the generally pagan intentions of the nation’s royal figures with their often-​ explicit support of foreign gods and violation of the temple precincts (e.g., 1 Kgs 16:29–34). The book’s overt concern for priestly rights and provisions also fits a scenario of widespread apostasy and apathy vis-​à-​vis YHWH worship. The welfare of cult officials functioned as a spiritual barometer in Israel.210 If the people worshipped rightly then the priests would be amply supplied (cf. Deut 12:17–19).211 The forcefulness of the demands for compliance made by Leviticus makes good sense against a backdrop of widespread neglect. If this is the context addressed, then the text’s function as warning becomes prominent. Instruction regarding sacred space, the stated prerequisites for living before the divine presence, the demands for obedience and degrees of ever-​ increasing banishment together forewarn of greater disaster to come, a warning made explicit in 26:14–39 with its threat of national extinction. Thus, Leviticus sits comfortably among preexilic prophetic predictions of doom that also functioned as implicit calls to repentance. In this way, the rhetorical ability of Leviticus to draw listeners in and place them in the position of decision would have constituted a powerful tool for reform. Leviticus as a Premonarchical Text A fourth setting is derived from the book itself. The audience within the narrative world of Leviticus is second-​generation Israel, encamped at Sinai, following deliverance from Egypt. Not surprisingly, early tradition almost unanimously regarded Leviticus as written by Moses for this audience, or at least substantially written by him and completed soon thereafter (e.g., Luke 24:44; Josephus, Ant. 4.8.4; y. Soṭ 5:6; b. B. Bat. 14b). Leviticus was thus understood as a mid-​second-​millennium text. That conclusion has, however, almost with the same degree of certainty, been rejected. Nevertheless, although increasingly a minority voice amid nineteenth-​ century scholarship, commentaries by Keil and Delitzsch, Bonar, Meyrick, and Kellogg explicitly argued for Mosaic authorship—either in toto, or in part, with 209.  For ANE text examples, see Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 145–47. 210.  J. Gary Millar, Now Choose Life: Theology and Ethics in Deuteronomy, NSBT 6 (Leicester: Apollos, 1998), 128. 211.  Christopher J. H. Wright, Deuteronomy, NIBC 4 (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996), 215.

96

Chapter 3

allowance made for later editing.212 The position continues to find supporters among conservative Christian213 and Jewish214 scholars. Thus understood, the addressees of the text are coterminous with, or near contemporaries of, its implied audience. The rhetorical setting, therefore, is a liminal one, as the fledgling Israelite nation begins to establish itself following Egyptian servitude. Many of the text’s illocutions are applicable to this setting. A focus on the inauguration of cult proceedings was necessary to constitute Israel as a nation. At Sinai, the people en masse were invited to dwell safely with YHWH and to realize the blessing of living in the divine presence, a blessing painted in Edenic terms (26:4–12).215 Yet the text’s demand for meticulous obedience and its consequential function as warning were also necessary in light of the people’s recent (Exod 32:1–35), and ongoing (Lev 17:7), apostasy. Against this trend, Leviticus persuasively presents a different agenda and model for worship. Deborah Rooke also argues that Leviticus engages in racial rhetoric, particularly with respect to Egypt. Egypt is associated with immorality (18:3), and is explicitly the place YHWH has taken his people out of (19:36; 22:32–33; 25:38, 42, 55; 26:13, 45).216 Rooke further suggests that the narrative of 24:10–23 employs a “feminizing presentation of the blasphemer and his sin” in order to “forbid to the Israelites on pain of death any behaviour with Egyptian associations.”217 Thus Leviticus, more broadly, may have functioned as a polemic against Egyptian religious and moral values, insisting instead on new practices consistent with YHWH’s holiness. Yet reading Leviticus against this setting also presents difficulties. Somewhat problematic for a Mosaic provenance are instructions that presuppose life in the land rather than life in the wilderness (e.g., 14:33–53; 25:29–31; 26:1), although the “problem” is sometimes overplayed.218 More of an issue are the historical and archaeological factors (or lack thereof) that have led many to question the nature, 212.  Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 1:17–28; Andrew A. Bonar, A Commentary on Leviticus (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1966 [orig. 1846]), 9 and passim; F. Meyrick, Leviticus (London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1882), vii–viii; Samuel H. Kellogg, The Book of Leviticus, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1978 [orig. 1899]), 5–18. 213.  E.g., W.  H.  Gispen, Het Boek Leviticus, COuT (Kampen: Kok, 1950); R.  Laird Harris, “Leviticus,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: With the New International Version of the Holy Bible, ed. F. E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1990), 2:509; Rooker, Leviticus, 39; Allen P. Ross, Holiness to the Lord: A Guide to the Exposition of the Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2002), 41; Kiuchi, Leviticus, 18. 214.  E.g., Hoffmann, Leviticus, 1:13–17; M. H. Segal, The Pentateuch: Its Composition and Its Authorship and Other Biblical Studies ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967), 24–27. 215.  For further discussion, see chapter 6. 216.  Deborah W. Rooke, “The Blasphemer (Leviticus 24): Gender, Identity, and Boundary Construction,” in Text, Time, and Temple: Literary, Historical, and Ritual Studies in Leviticus, ed. Francis Landy, Leigh M. Trevaskis, and Bryan D. Bibb, HBM 64 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2015), 167. 217.  Ibid., 168. 218.  The book’s explicit aim within the broader Pentateuchal narrative, to prepare Israel for life in Canaan, dispels many of the issues.

The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context

97

timing, or even existence of the exodus.219 This complex debate lies beyond what I can address here.220 It is worth noting, however, that interpretation plays just as much a part in archaeology as it does in biblical studies. Tentative hypothesis rather than dogmatic insistence would seem to be the more honest option. A significant literary issue also arises regarding the role of the narrator in Leviticus. Although much of the book (approximately 85 percent221) consists of direct divine discourse, these speeches are each introduced by a formulaic phrase: ‫וידבר‬ ‫( יהוה אל־מׁשה לאמר‬and variations).222 These introductions betray the influence of the text’s narrator. Moreover, the narrator’s “voice” is heard not only here, but also by way of the material included as well as its arrangement.223 Thus, “it is the narrator’s point of view that determines the permanent canonical meaning of the text.”224 So while the narrator takes readers back to Sinai, and invites them to hear the voice of YHWH, that does not entail that he is writing for Israel at Sinai.225 Although the narrator could theoretically be Joshua, the question of identity remains open and needs to be assessed on other grounds. Conclusion Leviticus is a complex and carefully crafted piece of literature. In exploring the structure and message of the final-​form book, the persuasive intent behind the composition is clear. Who is attempting to persuade whom, however, is less apparent. For each of the four main rhetorical contexts surveyed, various illocutions come to the fore. Yet, no one situation is without problem. Leviticus, it seems, “fits” several different historical scenarios. Hence, Watts is entirely right to point out the inherent difficulties that surround any attempt to tie down the exigency that produced Leviticus.226 Perhaps what this investigation displays is the danger of making (possible) rhetorical function the basis for provenance. The locutions and illocutions of the biblical texts are amenable to a variegated reception history of appropriation and misappropriation. 219.  For a “minimalist” appraisal of the biblical texts, see Robert B. Coote and Keith W. Whitelam, The Emergence of Early Israel in Historical Perspective, SWBA 5 (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1987); Keith W. Whitelam, The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History (London: Routledge, 1996). For rejoinder, consult Kitchen, Reliability, 241–312. 220.  For discussion, see Daniel I. Block, ed., Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? (Nashville: B&H, 2008). 221. Cf. Sherwood, Leviticus, 28. 222.  For a list, see Warning, Artistry, 40–41. 223.  Cf. Daniel I. Block, “Recovering the Voice of Moses: The Genesis of Deuteronomy,” JETS 44 (2001): 392. 224. Ibid. 225.  Cf. James Robson, “The Literary Composition of Deuteronomy,” in Interpreting Deuteronomy: Issues and Approaches, ed. David G. Firth and Philip Johnston (Nottingham: Apollos, 2012), 23. 226. Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 88.

98

Chapter 3

Nevertheless, while the above analysis reveals divergent potentials for the text, commonalities are also evident. Each historical reconstruction views Israel as being in either a real or a metaphorical wilderness. The nation is either outside the land (exilic and [potentially] premonarchical settings), or is in the land but facing political, social, and theological upheaval (monarchical and postexilic settings). To people in such liminal settings, Leviticus instructs regarding the character of God, the parameters of sacred space, and the correct ordering of the cult. Depending on context, such instruction could function as political manifesto (postexilic), a defense of divine justice (exilic), prophetic decree (monarchical), or polemic (premonarchical). The resulting potential for blessing or cursing, for life in the divine presence or banishment from it, thus hangs over each setting and is made contingent upon obedience to the demands of God as mediated by the text. Thus in each rhetorical context Leviticus comes as both invitation and warning and thereby functions as a tool for reform.227 These common functions of the book elucidate its broad purposes, which in turn creates a starting point for assessing the rhetorical function of allusion. Thus, allusion to Gen 1–3 can be discussed generally in relation to the strategy behind Leviticus, as well as more specifically in relation to the four outlined contexts with their respective nuances.

Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context The Pentateuch’s Supervening Illocutions At the start of this chapter I suggested that discerning the rhetorical aims of Leviticus is made difficult because of the book’s incorporation within a wider literary construct. Hence, I argued that Leviticus is best viewed as an interdependent unit. Consequently, both literary dimensions must be borne in mind for interpretation: its integrity as a book, and its Pentateuchal connections. The question I need to tackle here, therefore, is the degree to which inclusion within the Pentateuch impacts the rhetorical function of the book. In other words, in what ways do illocutions operating at the level of Pentateuch supervene upon Leviticus? Moreover, are such illocutions commensurate or antithetical to the illocutions I noted at the level of the book? Since the late 1970s a number of studies have sought to elucidate the purpose and intent behind the Pentateuch in toto. I will survey several of these as a means of synthesizing what the corpus as a whole is attempting to do. Having done so, 227.  The motivation for promoting reform may be seen as genuine (premonarchical, monar­ chical, and exilic periods) or as disingenuous (i.e., as a self-​serving political tool in the postexilic period).

The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context

99

I can then assess the supervening effect of this wider context on Leviticus as a rhetorical unit. In The Making of the Pentateuch Whybray argues that the corpus should be approached as a unitary work: “There appears to be no reason why (allowing for the possibility of a few additions) the first edition of the Pentateuch as a comprehensive work should not also have been the final edition, a work composed by a single historian.”228 Hence he concludes, albeit tentatively, that the Pentateuch in its received form cannot have come into being without the direction of a “controlling genius.”229 Thus Whybray sought to highlight the connectedness of the whole while not glossing over internal difficulties and tensions. However, although his proposal invites discussion of why such a “controlling genius” might have constructed the Pentateuch, Whybray does not elaborate on matters of purpose other than to suggest the aim of writing an account of Israel’s origins, perhaps to supplement the Deuteronomistic History.230 Others, however, go further, positing that the presentation of history (however defined) is only part of the Pentateuch’s purpose. In this vein Ska suggests that the Torah is a postexilic work that “contains ancient material meant to establish a connection with the past and new material that responds to current questions.”231 Hence, Ska understands the Torah’s primary function as being not merely a record of history, nor even a vehicle for legislation per se, but rather a means of addressing the social crisis precipitated by the exile: The primary purpose of the Pentateuch, for whoever reads it as a whole, is not to regulate life within a province of the Persian Empire but to define the conditions of membership in a specific community called “Israel.” There are two primary conditions: blood ties and a “social contract.” The blood ties are established by genealogies and, thus, by the book of Genesis. . . . The “social contract” is the Covenant, with all the rights and duties, both religious and civil, that it entails.232

The corpus as a whole is thus meant to safeguard the cultural and religious identity of its postexilic audience. Mann sees a sharper edge to the Pentateuch’s purpose. He states, “The Torah does not simply recount ancient history; it opens up a path for each new generation. . . . It performs a critical function within the ongoing life of the people. It provides the criterion by which their present is informed and judged in terms 228. Whybray, Making, 232–33 (emphasis his). 229.  Ibid., 235. 230.  Ibid., 242. 231.  Jean-​Louis Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch, trans. Pascale Dominique (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 187. 232.  Ibid., 225–26.

100

Chapter 3

of their past, and the way their future is determined by that critical evaluation.”233 Importantly, this critical evaluation is not limited to a single audience. Rather, the inconclusiveness of the Pentateuch made it immediately applicable to those who had experienced the exile, and subsequently to those who lived outside the land or even those who had returned to the land. . . . Moreover, all future generations who also stand “beyond the Jordan” can identify with the Torah. Because of the way the story of the Pentateuch ends (or does not end), the story is about them, not just about ancient Israel.234

In this way, the Pentateuch becomes a “prophetic document” that concludes with an implicit charge and question: “Will Israel be the new community God has created, or not?”235 In a similar vein, Clines discerns an overarching theme across the Pentateuch— namely, the partial fulfillment, and hence partial nonfulfillment, of the patriarchal promises.236 Regarding the function of the whole in an assumed exilic setting, Clines approvingly cites von Rad: the Pentateuch “erases seven centuries of disobedience and thoughtless ingratitude, places Israel once more in the desert before God, and lets Israel hear again the gracious election to be the people of the Lord’s possession.”237 Accordingly, the Torah is understood to have functioned as an interpretation of the exiles’ history, a call to obedience, and a means of generating hope.238 Again, this function is not limited to the text’s original recipients but is seen to be directed to later readers through the synergy of story and promise.239 Thus, “through the reader’s patient engagement with the text, and openness to being seized, challenged, or threatened,” the Pentateuch becomes a “source of life.”240 The persuasive challenge delivered by the final-​form Pentateuch is elucidated by Watts. Watts notes the similarity between the ordering of the Torah and the ordering of other ANE texts designed to convince readers.241 In particular, he notes the presence of a story-​list-​sanction pattern across the Pentateuch as a whole. This pattern, he argues, is not arbitrary, but has the distinct goal of unifying the Pentateuch for an overriding purpose: persuasion.242 The Pentateuch’s stories 233. Mann, Torah, 157–58 (emphasis his). 234.  Ibid., 158 (emphasis his). 235.  Ibid., 157, 161 (emphasis his). 236. Clines, Theme, 30–31. 237.  Ibid., 104. The citation is from Gerhard von  Rad, “Ancient Word and Living Word: The Preaching of Deuteronomy and Our Preaching,” Int 15 (1961): 8. 238. Clines, Theme, 107. 239.  Ibid., 108–26. 240.  Ibid., 126. 241. Watts, Reading, 40–49. 242.  Ibid., 60.

The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context

101

(Genesis–Exod 19) set the context and requirement for the legislation that follows. The lists (Exod 20–Numbers) describe Israel—people and cult—as they ought to be.243 Divine sanctions delivered through Deuteronomy’s hortatory recapitulation of prior history and legislation bring readers to the place of decision.244 Thus the aim of the corpus’s rhetoric is “to persuade hearers and readers to observe the law by describing its extraordinary origins in a story stretching back to creation, by specifying the ideal divine-​human relationship that it makes possible, and by promising great blessings and threatening worse curses contingent on the audience’s response.”245 The role of Leviticus, then, is to portray the ideal divine-​human relationship as a prelude to Deuteronomy’s exhortation to hear and obey. Similarly, Fretheim notes the Pentateuch’s intent to transform readers. For Fretheim, the implied audience are exiles in Babylon. Yet he reasons that lack of specificity leaves room for other readers to also hear themselves addressed.246 In order to determine the force of the address, Fretheim suggests looking at the beginning and end of the corpus. Thus, like Watts, he observes how Deuteronomy functions to move readers to respond to all that proceeds, noting in addition the way that Lev 26 prepares for this strategy.247 The presentation of future possibilities—blessing or cursing—functions to create an appeal. “The ending [of Deuteronomy] is rhetorically designed for a community that is in a situation comparable to the original community on the eve of entry into the land of promise. As such, Deuteronomy’s ending is not rhetorically crafted to bring the story to a close; there is a decided open-​endedness to the future.”248 Fretheim then notes that beginning and end come together to frame the Pentateuch as people on the verge of inheriting the Promised Land are paralleled with Adam and Eve: “This doubling constitutes an intensification of these themes for the implied audience. The situation of the first human beings standing before God on the morning of creation corresponds to that of the newly redeemed people of God.”249 In this way, connection with the primordial stories is utilized for rhetorical ends. Fretheim develops the point further: The strategic placement of certain claims regarding God and the divine-​human relationship has been designed to shape one’s reading of the entire Pentateuch. It is now more evident that the Pentateuch as a whole is fashioned to shape the faith and life of its readers. . . . The most basic effect desired for readers is not that they become 243.  Ibid., 53. 244.  Ibid., 58. 245.  Ibid., 59–60. 246. Fretheim, Pentateuch, 40. 247.  Ibid., 53. It is important to note that Lev 26 does more than simply prepare readers for Deuteronomy; the pericope performs its own illocutions also. For discussion, see chapter 6. 248. Fretheim, Pentateuch, 56. 249. Ibid.

102

Chapter 3 better theologians or better informed about their history and traditions. The end desired is more deeply religious, namely, that the relationship with God become what God intended in the creation.250

Postell pushes the transforming aims of the Pentateuch beyond the immediate, suggesting an eschatological orientation to the Torah and Tanak. Like Fretheim, Postell views the beginning and end of the Pentateuch as important indicators: Genesis 1–3 intentionally foreshadows Israel’s failure to keep the Sinai Covenant as well as their exile from the Promised Land in order to point the reader to a future work of God in the ‘last days.’ . . . In the conclusion to the Pentateuch, Moses presents Israel’s future apostasy and exile as a certainty. . . . This inclusio of pessimism at both ends of the Pentateuch with respect to human abilities to “do this and live,” . . . forthrightly admits that Israel did not (and will not) keep it [the Sinai Covenant], and therefore prepares the reader to wait expectantly in exile for a new work of God in the last days (just as Jacob and Moses did).251

Thus understood, the rhetorical goal of the Pentateuch is to anticipate and create expectation for what God will do in the (distant) future. For Postell, the intentionality behind the text is explicitly theological: “The final-​form Pentateuch serves as an apologetic for a new and necessary covenant in light of the experiences of the past.”252 In light of these representative studies, what can be discerned about the rhetorical aims embodied in the received text of the Pentateuch? As with Leviticus, the picture is complex. The Pentateuch seems to perform several functions concurrently. Hence, once again, application of speech act terminology is useful for teasing out the nuances. Several illocutions become evident. First, the Pentateuch informs. It presents an account of past people and events. Regardless of what readers believe about the veracity of the portrayal, it is presented as reality. Indeed, the claim to rootedness in real world events forms an integral part of the text’s rhetoric.253 The information imparted is also theological. The central role of YHWH within the story progressively reveals his character, a character that becomes foundational in shaping the cultic and moral parameters embodied in the legislative texts. Yet the Torah does more than merely assert information. In revealing the character of God and detailing his interaction with people in the past the text invites 250.  Ibid., 62. 251. Postell, Adam, 3–4. 252.  Ibid., 167. 253.  See Sternberg, Poetics, 25–31; Patrick and Scult, Rhetoric, 45–56.

The Rhetorical Function of Leviticus in Its Pentateuchal Context

103

readers to hear a divine verdict pronounced upon their lives.254 The Pentateuch’s combination of story, list, and sanction generates considerable rhetorical force by highlighting divine standards and ideals while exposing human flaws. Thus, the Pentateuch also appeals for conformity. It warns against the dangers of apostasy and instead invites readers to submit to its agenda. Most pointedly it does this though the rhetoric of Deuteronomy, which brings readers to the place of decision and holds out the potential for blessing or cursing, for life or for death. In this way the corpus as a whole assumes, as Sternberg suggests all Scripture does, that its audience is “offside.”255 Therefore, the Torah aims to shape a community, perhaps even to call into being such a community where none exists. At its heart, the Pentateuch aims to transform reality at a microcosmic level by both describing creation ideals and demanding conformity to them. Thus, the Torah is not just a history of Israel or an extended aetiology; rather, it becomes a means for addressing a distorted divine-​human relationship and for restoring creation’s purpose. Finally, with its forward-​looking momentum the Pentateuch also promises that such a transformation will in fact occur, based on the inviolable character of YHWH. Leviticus in Context From the above sketch of the Pentateuch’s aims it becomes evident that the rhetorical strategy that governs the corpus in its entirety is commensurate with the illocutions that I identified for Leviticus. Thus, the persuasive aims of the part support, and in turn are supported by, the aims of the whole. It would seem, therefore, that the collection’s editors have either shaped Leviticus for their purposes or have appropriated rhetorical functions already extant in their source material. Either way, the synergy created in the final-​form Torah generates considerable rhetorical force. While both book and corpus seek to assert, inform, and instruct, they are also doing much more. The amalgam of genres and styles is shaped and structured to achieve a multiplicity of interlocking aims. Illocutions at both literary levels— book and corpus—are aimed at shaping recipients. Various literary features allow the text’s applicability to transcend space and time. Each generation is brought to stand, as it were, on the edge of the Promised Land. Each encounters the locutions of the text against the backdrop of prior history. Each hears the potential for life or death contingent upon response. Unsurprisingly, therefore, a suitable “fit” has been postulated for numerous historical contexts. For all potential readers these texts perform similar actions. They judge, impose, demand, warn, appeal, 254.  A complex speech act of judgment is thus enacted via several supporting illocutions: indictment, judicial decision, warning, vindication, condemnation, etc. 255. Sternberg, Poetics, 444.

104

Chapter 3

invite, call, equip, and promise. Together, these illocutions combine to perform an attendant role in supporting and enabling a primary illocution: transformation of the cosmos into sacred space and Israel into a holy people in order to restore divine-​human coexistence. The purpose of Leviticus in its Pentateuchal context, therefore, is to facilitate the inauguration of paradise regained.

Conclusion This chapter considered the rhetorical function of Leviticus as an interdependent unit within the Pentateuch as a necessary preliminary to discussing one of the book’s rhetorical features—namely, allusion to Gen 1–3. I suggested that Leviticus performs several simultaneous speech acts that have demonstrable applicability to numerous contexts. In fact, the book seems purposely designed to transcend the limits of time and space. Moreover, illocutions occurring at the level of the book are commensurate with those occurring at the level of the corpus. The Pentateuch’s supervening illocutions therefore support and validate the aims of Leviticus. This discussion forms a vital foundation for the chapters that follow. Elucidating the purpose of the whole facilitates a constrained analysis of the parts. The danger of unrestrained subjective speculation is thereby reduced, for I will need to demonstrate how identified allusion serves the rhetorical purpose of the book. Furthermore, gaining a sense of what the book of Leviticus is doing allows for greater precision. The text’s illocutions indicate a number of distinct options that will be useful for defining the specific rhetorical function of allusion. For instance, does intertextual linkage to the creation narratives serve to inform or to warn? Does it pronounce a verdict upon readers somehow? Thus, helpful parameters for determining rhetorical function have been set. Lastly, at several points it has become apparent that creational themes are central to the rhetoric of the Torah. More particularly, it seems that both Leviticus and the Pentateuch seek to transform reality in line with creation ideals. Thus, allusion made by Leviticus to Gen 1–3, far from being surprising, might rather be expected. It is to discussion of such linkage that I now turn.

Introduction to Part II

Part 2 of this study examines three Levitical texts utilizing the methodology I proposed in chapter 2 and in relation to the broader rhetorical purposes of the book of Leviticus outlined in chapter 3. My investigation has a threefold purpose: (1) to ascertain if lexical, syntactical, and conceptual connections to Gen 1 and to Gen 2–3 are, in fact, present in Leviticus; (2) to determine the likelihood that found connections are deliberate rather than merely circumstantial; and (3) to explore the rhetorical function of demonstrated allusions, considering the aims of Leviticus as a whole. The following chapters will examine in turn Lev 11, 16, and 26. The choice of these pericopes is not arbitrary. Three interwoven factors contributed to my decision to focus attention here. First, as outlined in chapter 2, my initial point of inquiry is an examination of lexical and syntactical parallels. Thus, the most important contributing factor influencing choice of pericopes concerns volume of shared lexemes: which Leviticus chapters display the most prominent lexical overlap with Gen 1–3? To that end I compiled a list of lexemes that appear in Gen 1:1–2:3 and Gen 2:4–3:24 and then determined the number of occurrences of these in each of the twenty-​seven chapters of Leviticus (for tabulated results, see the appendix). In relation to chapters that evidence the highest total instances of Gen 1–3 lexemes, the top eight are as follows (the number of total hits, minus occurrences of the conjunction ‫ ו‬and the definite article ‫ה‬,1 are in parentheses):

1. Lev 13:1–59 (518) 2. Lev 25:1–55 (508) 3. Lev 14:1–57 (480) 4. Lev 11:1–47 (454) 5. Lev 23:1–44 (452) 6. Lev 26:1–46 (411) 7. Lev 16:1–34 (379) 8. Lev 8:1–36 (362)

1.  When the count includes occurrences of the conjunction ‫ ו‬and definite article ‫ה‬, Lev 11 comes fourth (659), Lev 26 seventh (575), and Lev 16 eighth (573).

107

108

Introduction to Part II

However, simply counting the total number of instances of Gen 1–3 lexemes gives biased preference to the longer pericopes in Leviticus. Hence, it is not surprising that Lev 13 and 14 appear at the top end of the list while Lev 12 (only eight verses) comes last (105 hits). Accordingly, it proves necessary to also determine which Leviticus sections attest the greatest diversity of Gen 1–3 lexemes. Again, the top eight chapters are listed below (the number in parentheses indicates the number of unique Gen 1–3 lexemes present):

1. Lev 26 (77) 2. Lev 25 (70) 3. Lev 16 (69) 4. Lev 14 (64) 5. Lev 19 (63) 6. Lev 11 (60) 7. Lev 22 (59) 8. Lev 23 (58)

Consideration of both lists indicates the six Leviticus chapters that display the greatest lexical semblance to Gen 1–3 and, hence, represent the most germane starting points for an investigation of potential allusion—chapters 11, 14, 16, 23, 25, and 26. The chapters selected for investigation are taken from this list.2 Second, not only do Lev 11, 16, and 26 display relatively higher lexical overlap than other parts of Leviticus, but these chapters also sit at rhetorically emphasized parts of the book. As discussed in chapter 3, James Watts argues for an outline of Leviticus that takes seriously its impact upon hearers of the text. Thus, in contradistinction to suggested structures for the book based on textual detail too precise to be appreciated by auditors, he posits a structural analysis based on aurally geared rhetorical devices.3 On that basis, Watts suggests that Lev 16 and 26 receive increased emphasis.4 However, application of Watts’s criteria suggests that Lev 11 is likewise rhetorically highlighted, most particularly by the notable shift of genre from narrative (chs. 8–10) to legal prescription as well as by the novel addition of Aaron to the divine speech marker that begins the chapter (11:1). Thus, an intersection of factors—lexical data and rhetorical highlighting—indicate the suitability of looking at Lev 11, 16, and 26 in particular. Third, for each of the three passages chosen, scholars have also posited connections to Gen 1 or to Gen 2–3, or indeed to both.5 While prior claims of allusion are 2.  My aim here is to provide a rationale for narrowing down chapters, not to statistically prove which chapters in Leviticus allude to Gen 1–3 most frequently. 3. Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 17–18. 4.  Ibid., 19–20. 5.  For further detail, see the “Orientation” sections in chapters 4–6.

Introduction to Part II

109

not essential to the application of my methodology, they do provide warrant for further research. Moreover, my purpose in what follows is not only to elucidate heretofore unseen connections, it is also to subject previously proposed parallels to methodological scrutiny. For these reasons, therefore, I will investigate potential allusion to Gen 1–3 in Lev 11, 16, and 26. The three following chapters have the same basic structure. First, I provide an orientation to the section of Leviticus under examination. This is not intended to be an exhaustive treatment of all the issues raised by the biblical text or indeed by the secondary literature; rather, my aim is to present a synopsis of current scholarship in order to establish a broad context within which to situate my more specific discussion of allusion. Following this, second, I outline the lexical and syntactical parallels that exist between the respective texts. These parallels are then filtered in line with my proposed methodology to focus attention on those with the highest likelihood of being significant.6 For this discussion, and in line with the usual division of the creation narratives, I treat connections to Gen 1 and to Gen 2–3 separately. Third, having established points of lexical and syntactical overlap I consider whether any conceptual similarities are present. Fourth, I assess the deliberateness of observed parallels by utilizing the four indicators proposed in chapter 2. Finally, having presented an argument for the presence of deliberate parallels between Leviticus and Gen 1–3, I explore the rhetorical function that such allusion performs. My procedure here involves isolating pericope-​level illocutions performed by allusion before ascertaining whether there is a correlation between these illocutions and those enacted by the book as a whole. This in turn facilitates discussion of the potential rhetorical function of allusion in each of the four historical settings identified in chapter 3. Before I begin, however, several interrelated caveats are necessary. It is important to note that intertextuality works in the realm of possibility and probability rather than assured certainty. That said, some connections between texts are more demonstrable and, hence, are more certain. For this reason, I start each investigation by looking at lexical and syntactical parallels—which by nature are more objectively identifiable—before considering conceptual links, which are less objective and more suggestive. A desire to avoid any trace of subjectivity has led some scholars to downplay conceptual parallels in favor of hard data alone.7 However, one wonders how much this move is a vestige of an outmoded positivist epistemology. Instead, more recent trends have seriously questioned the possibility of so-​called objective knowledge and have thus opened the door to data that were heretofore considered inadmissible based on their “subjective” nature.8 In the 6.  For my criteria, see chapter 2. 7.  Cf. Nurmela, “Growth,” 246–47. 8.  Within Old Testament studies, Trible, for example, argues that both objective and subjective avenues must be pursued by interpreters (Rhetorical Criticism, 231).

110

Introduction to Part II

end, a judgment call remains unavoidable, yet it need not be made in the absence of evidence; lexical and syntactical parallels provide a basis upon which to postulate concerning shared concepts. Thus, conceptual connections remain important and may serve to reinforce links already deduced through lexical and syntactical overlap.9 Furthermore, while shared locutions function to create a link between one text and another, conceptual parallels may reveal the purpose for which connections were made. Each type of data should be allowed to carry the weight it can bear. Lexical data may be more demonstrable and hence more persuasive than conceptual data, but the combination of both allows a richer intertextual picture to emerge. Yet even with demonstrable lexical and syntactical parallels not all proposed connections are equally convincing. Neither do all have the same significance, nor do they necessarily perform the same function. Thus, in what follows, I order parallels according to their persuasive strength, beginning with those that are most probable. Yet even tenuous connections derive increased plausibility if they are found in proximity to more certain parallels. Moreover, less assured connections still add to the overall volume of intertextual reference in an alluding text and therefore continue to form an important part of this investigation. In fact, such links may play an essential, albeit attendant, function. As noted in chapter 2, a key feature of allusion is noticeability; allusion that is missed has failed, and its rhetorical force is lost to the reader. Thus, some shared lexemes may be employed simply to draw further attention to a connection between texts without the parallel being otherwise significant. As will become evident in what follows, parallels between Leviticus and Gen 1–3 have already been noted and discussed by scholars. These observations serve to support my overall thesis as well as giving warrant to the approach undertaken. However, my research also seeks to advance the field in two specific ways. First, by applying an explicit methodology I will be able to assess the veracity of posited connections and determine if previously suggested intertextual links bear the weight of scrutiny. Second, by limiting discussion to representative texts I can take a more systematic look at the phenomenon of allusion. If both aims prove fruitful then the contentions of this study receive added confirmation.

9.  Blenkinsopp uses the same approach to assess parallels between creation and tabernacle— i.e., linguistic similarity that provides reason to look for “thematic associations,” which can in turn support the original intuition of seeing order in the work (“Structure,” 281).

Chapter 4

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 11

Orientation to Leviticus 11 Leviticus 11 outlines the dietary regulations that form one of the most enduring features of Judaism. On the one hand, the legislation is straightforward: these are the animals that may be eaten or touched; these are the ones that may not. Yet, on the other hand, Lev 11 continues to generate an ever-​increasing body of literature, for the chapter raises questions that have thus far eluded satisfactory resolution.1 Leviticus 11 has also been made a test case for reconstructing the compositional history of the book. Milgrom, for instance, noting a distinct shift in subject matter in Lev 11, states: Whereas vv. 2–23, 41–45 define or declare which animals are impure, vv. 29–40 ordain purification procedures in case of defilement. . . . 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. 2–8), fish (vv. 9–12), birds (vv. 13–19), flying insects (vv. 20–23), and land swarmers (vv. 41–45).2

In short, the material in vv. 24–40 “sticks out like a sore thumb.”3 Furthermore, vv. 24–40 also display internal inconcinnity—vv. 39–40 are deemed “out of place,” being understood as an “appendix” added to vv. 24–38.4 With regard to the unit comprising vv. 43–45, Milgrom surmises: “Clearly, as the product of H, it is alien

1.  Perhaps the most prominent debate concerns rationale—why are some animals permissible but not others? The compounding issue is, of course, the silence of the text. Leviticus 11 does not give a reason for why certain animals are declared (un)clean. For a survey and critique of proposals, see Jiří Moskala, “Categorization and Evaluation of Different Kinds of Interpretation of the Laws of Clean and Unclean Animals in Leviticus 11,” BR 46 (2001): 5–41. I have suggested elsewhere (“Time,” 180) that one of the weaknesses inherent to most rationales is an appeal to extra-textual factors. Thus, it is possible that the discussion of inner-Pentateuch allusion I am attempting here may provide new data for the rationale debate. 2.  Milgrom, “Composition,” 182–83. See also Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 691–98. 3.  Milgrom, “Composition,” 185. 4.  Ibid., 186–87.

111

112

Chapter 4

to the chapter.”5 The emerging compositional picture of chapter 11—with resultant ramifications for the wider book—is a complex four-​phased process: P1 (vv. 1–23, 41–42, 46), P2 (vv. 24–38, 47), H (vv. 43–45), and P3 (vv. 39–40).6 Milgrom’s stratification of Lev 11 is by no means sui generis but rather echoes the consensus of earlier scholarship. Already, Wellhausen identified vv. 24–40 as an interpolation (“ein Einsatz”),7 a conclusion frequently attested elsewhere.8 Similarly, the ascription of vv. 43–45 to H has long enjoyed wide support.9 Against this backdrop, the uniqueness of Milgrom’s model was his positioning of P before H,10 and indeed before D.11 Therefore, while acknowledging variance in chronological sequencing, Wright’s summation regarding Lev 11 nevertheless represents a broad consensus: “A close reading of this chapter makes one realize that the text is not a unity.”12 However, Milgrom’s thesis is open to qualification at several junctures.13 A first point relates to methodology. Milgrom states: “That the author of vv 29–38 took into consideration a subsequent passage (vv 41–42) can only mean that . . . his own passage is a later insertion.”14 Yet this is simply to assume the consequent he is trying to prove. Awareness of a subsequent passage could mean simply that the same author is responsible for both. Second, while purification procedures are certainly mentioned in vv. 24–40, they do not seem to be the primary focus of this block.15 5.  Ibid., 189. Wright regards all of vv. 41–45 as a later (H) addition (Disposal, 201). 6.  Milgrom, “Composition,” 191. For Milgrom, H also may be further subdivided (Leviticus 17–22, 1319–1443). Those adopting Milgrom’s reconstruction include Naphtali S. Meshel, “Food for Thought: Systems of Categorization in Leviticus 11,” HTR 101 (2008): 203–29; and Lance Hawley, “The Agenda of Priestly Taxonomy: The Conceptualization of ‫ טָ מֵ א‬and ‫ ׁשֶ קֶ ץ‬in Leviticus 11,” CBQ 77 (2015): 232–34. 7.  Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments, 3rd ed. (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1899), 148. 8.  E.g., Elliger, Leviticus, 145: “Die zweite Hälfe des Kapitels, 11 24ff. [sic], trägt anderen Charakter.” Gerstenberger posits a complex history of accretion and addition behind vv. 24–40 (Leviticus, 131–32). 9.  Koch, for example, asserts, “Der schluß von V.44 ist literarisch später. V.44f zeigt die Sprache des Heiligkeitsgesetz,” in Die Priesterschrift von Exodus 25 bis Leviticus 16: Eine überlieferungsgeschichtliche und literarkritische Untersuchung, FRLANT 71 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959), 79. 10.  See Milgrom, “Composition,” 189–90. 11.  The relationship between Lev 11 and Deut 14 is strongly contested, and the direction of dependence has been construed both ways. Recent scholarship has tended to argue for a more complex relationship. Nihan, for instance, suggests that both texts are dependent on a common source, with Deut 14 being closer to the original (Priestly Torah, 284–94). Walter J. Houston, Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law, JSOTSup 140 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 63–65, however, while also arguing for mutual dependence on a common source, holds that Lev 11 preserves a form that is closer to the original. At this point, certainty remains elusive. 12. Wright, Disposal, 201. 13.  Criticism of a composite-​text model is also found in literary-​critical analyses of Lev 11. See, e.g., Gary A. Rendsburg, “The Inclusio in Leviticus XI,” VT 43 (1993): 418–21; Warning, Artistry, 49–56. 14. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 693. 15.  Active procedures for purification (washing of items) appear only in vv. 25, 28, 32(?), 40 (x2). The temporal phrase ‫“( עד־הערב‬until evening”) occurs nine times (vv. 24–25, 27–28, 31–32, 39, 40

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 11

113

In fact, as Wright notes, Lev 11 contains purification procedures for prohibited eating only in v. 40.16 Moreover, active purification of persons is not mentioned at all. The emphasis, rather, lies on the defiling nature of death (i.e., animal carcasses) and “land swarmers.”17 A more substantive point concerns Milgrom’s statement that removing vv. 24–40 from chapter 11 would reveal an orderly sequence of animals (quadrupeds, fish, birds, flying insects, and land swarmers). The appropriateness of this sequence is not as clear as Milgrom suggests. The crucial category is the ‫—ׁשרץ‬the “swarmers” that inhabit each sphere. Aquatic and aerial “swarmers” are integrated as subcategories within their respective spheres—the water “swarmers” in v. 10 (as a subset of vv. 9–12) and the flying “swarmers” in vv. 20–23 (as a subset of vv. 13–23). Accordingly, one would expect treatment of “land swarmers” to appear within, or immediately following, vv. 2b–8. Their appearance in vv. 41–45 is thus odd even if vv. 24–40 were removed. This observation is important for it seems the author/ redactor of Lev 11 wanted to conclude with a focus on “land swarmers.” Such is the case if the received text is taken at face value. It is also the case if v. 41 originally followed v. 23 at a prior stage of composition. The emphasis is even more striking if vv. 24–40 are, in fact, an interpolation, for the block was added between v. 23 and v. 41, thus ensuring the “land swarmers” remained the final topic discussed. The “land swarmers” receive further emphasis in vv. 29–38 through framing; this unit is bracketed by sections that deal with uncleanness stemming from the carcasses of unclean (vv. 24–28) and clean (vv. 39–40) quadrupeds in an aba arrangement. This framing of the ground ‫ ׁשרץ‬is even more striking if Milgrom is correct to state that vv. 39–40 (in his view, a later appendix to vv. 24–38) belong logically after v. 28.18 In fact, the current placement of vv. 39–40 separates two sections that deal with “land swarmers” (vv. 29–38, 41–45). It would make more sense if discussion of quadrupedal carcasses (vv. 24–28 + 39–40) had been kept separate from material concerned with “land swarmers” (vv. 29–38 + 41–45), yet that is not how the text has been fashioned. An intentional highlighting of vv. 29–38 seems to be the reason.19 [x2]). While “until evening” could be understood as a passive purification procedure it could also simply signal the minor nature of the impurity contracted. 16. Wright, Disposal, 204. 17.  The emphasis on uncleanness and death is signaled by the clustering of terms in this section of the chapter: 25/34 uses of the ‫ טמא‬root; 11/13 uses of ‫ ;נבלה‬3/3 uses of ‫מות‬. The language of avoidance is conveyed by a clustering of verbs describing the touching (‫נגע‬, 6/7) or carrying (‫נׂשא‬, 3/3) of carcasses. It is important to note that the uncleanness is postmortem in nature—i.e., animals permissible to touch while alive convey uncleanness when dead. Wenham suggests that death makes unclean because it nullifies God’s creative purposes (Leviticus, 176–77). 18.  Milgrom, “Composition,” 186. 19.  The placement of vv. 39–40 here also creates a wider literary pattern: “swarmers” (vv. 20–23), carcasses (vv. 24–28), “swarmers” (vv. 29–30), carcasses (vv. 31–40), “swarmers” (vv. 41–45); observed by Sherwood (Leviticus, 64).

114

Chapter 4

These observations raise questions about purpose. Assuming Lev 11 is not simply the result of pure happenstance or incompetent redaction, the pericope has presumably been arranged to further particular aims.20 The key question, then, becomes, What aims? What rhetorical purposes are responsible for the extant text of Lev 11? The question becomes even more important if, as consensus seems to imply, the received text of Lev 11 is composite. Nonetheless, questions of this nature, important as they are, do not receive commensurate attention. In Milgrom’s essay, for example, discussion of the purpose behind the final-​form text is left all but unaddressed.21 Yet, in light of the above, an appraisal of Lev 11 in its final form is certainly admissible, if not demanded. While there is a chance that the chapter represents nothing more than a loosely formed miscellany, the possibility of intentional arrangement requires that this hypothesis be explored. This does not constitute a denial of complex prehistory. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that rhetorical and theological questions must not be muted by compositional concerns. If a convincing rationale for the arrangement of chapter 11 can be established, that will in turn justify the initial assumption of compositional strategy. I will return to this point below. Regarding how Lev 11 is situated in relation to the rest of the book, several literary factors are important to note. First, chapter 11 is marked by a significant genre change as the narrative recounting the inauguration of the cult (chapters 8–10) gives way to ritual legislation. This shift in genre places Lev 11 at a rhetorically highlighted position within the broader composition. Second, Lev 11 forms the frontispiece of a major block of material that runs from 11:1 to 15:33. The legislation detailed in these chapters is united by a common focus on ritual purity; the ‫ טמא‬root appears here with more frequency than anywhere else in the Old Testament.22 As such, Lev 11–15 addresses potential interruptions to the communion with YHWH made possible in chapters 1–10.23 Thus, third, Lev 11 constitutes the preliminary exposition of what is entailed by the divine mandate given in 10:10 instructing the priests “to separate between the holy and the common and between the unclean and the clean” (‫להבדיל בין הקדׁש ובין החל ובין הטמא ובין‬ ‫—)הטהור‬a mandate explicitly recalled by chapter 11’s concluding purpose statement: “This is the torah . . . to separate between the unclean and the clean” (‫זאת‬ ‫ להבדיל בין הטמא ובין הטהר‬. . . ‫תורת‬, 11:46–47). 20.  The point is missed by Noth when he suggests the chapter is merely an “unsystematic juxtaposition” and a “loose collection of important information” (Leviticus, 92). 21.  The only reason Milgrom proffers is that vv. 24–38 were added in order to tie the legislation of ch. 11 to that of chs. 12–15 (“Composition,” 185). While possible, more can also be said. I will return to the point below. 22.  Thirty-​eight percent (96/250) of occurrences of ‫ טמא‬are found in Lev 11–15. 23. A. Noordtzij, Leviticus, trans. Raymond Togtman (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1982 [orig. 1940]), 116.

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 11

115

The prominence of chapter 11 within the structure of Leviticus serves an important rhetorical-​theological purpose. Leviticus 1–7 details sacrificial procedures. Chapters 8–10 narrate the founding of the priesthood. The possibility thus arises of understanding Leviticus as being only a “priestly book”—that is, to view the text as relevant only for Israel’s priests.24 However, chapter 11’s legislation makes it clear that matters addressed by Leviticus are not restricted to cultic officials.25 Rather, issues of ritual purity are to be the concern of all the people. The point is reinforced by the unusually high number of second-​person plural verb forms found throughout the chapter.26 The demands of living with a holy God extend into the minutiae of the daily, private lives of the entire populace. The nation as a whole was in a very real sense to be a “kingdom of priests” (‫ממלכת כהנים‬, Exod 19:6). Regarding structure, Lev 11 has been variously divided.27 Part of this variance stems from compositional assumptions made. As noted above, vv. 24–40 are frequently understood to comprise a separate section commensurate with their designation as interpolation. In the outline that follows I have attempted to account for the contours of the text in its received form rather than being constrained by proposed redactional layers. I have also given more detail to the breakdown of chapter 11 than I do for chapters 16 and 26, as this will become an important consideration later. I. II.

Introduction (vv. 1–2a) Categorization of animals (vv. 2b–23) A. Land creatures (vv. 2b–8) B. Aquatic creatures (vv. 9–12) Aquatic swarmers (v. 10) C. Aerial creatures (vv. 13–23) Aerial swarmers (vv. 20–23) III. Defilement potential of dead animals and land swarmers (vv. 24–40) A. Uncleanness caused by carcasses of forbidden animals (vv. 24–28) B. Uncleanness caused by land swarmers (vv. 29–38) C. Uncleanness caused by carcasses of permitted animals (vv. 39–40) IV. Defilement by land swarmers and the holiness of YHWH (vv. 41–45) V. Conclusion (vv. 46–47)

Leviticus 11 commences with the book’s typical narrative introduction for div ine discourse: ‫ לאמר‬. . .  ‫וידבר יהוה אל־מׁשה‬. Ap pearing for the first time, 24.  As does Knight (Leviticus, 64), for example. 25.  Perhaps this is the reason that the legislation is, as Péter-​Contesse surmises, “facile à realiser et à comprendre” (Lévitique 1–16, 181). 26.  Noted by Sherwood, Leviticus, 63. 27.  Scholars suggest dividing the chapter into three (e.g., Kellogg, Leviticus, 278), four (e.g., Elliger, Leviticus, 142), five (e.g., Kleinig, Leviticus, 249), six (e.g., Wenham, Leviticus, 165), seven (e.g., Noth, Leviticus, 93–96), or even nine (e.g., Budd, Leviticus, 160–61) sections.

116

Chapter 4

however, is the addition of “and to Aaron” (‫ואל־אהרן‬, v. 1; see also 13:1; 14:33; 15:1). The inclusion of Aaron as corecipient of divine instruction is appropriate following his installment as high priest in chapters 8–9 (cf. 10:8). Also in view is Aaron’s commission to separate between the clean and unclean (10:10b), a concern that unites the material in chapters 11–15. The first major section of chapter 11 (vv. 2b–23) delineates which animals are (im)permissible to eat. Subsections within this block are easily discerned, dealing in turn with animals that live on the land (‫ אׁשר על־הארץ‬. . . ‫מכל‬, vv. 2b–8), those t hat inhabit water ( ‫מכל אׁשר במים‬, vv. 9–12), and creatures that fly (‫ מן־העוף‬. . . ‫אלה‬, vv. 13–23). Two of these subdivisions contain a further subset— the “swarmers” (‫ )ׁשרץ‬that inhabit the given sphere: water “swarmers” (11:10) and aerial “swarmers” (11:20–23).28 The terrestrial “swarmers” are treated separately in vv. 29–38 and 41–44 and not, as might be expected, immediately following v. 8. There is a shift of interest in the second major section of the chapter (vv. 24–40). The discussion no longer focuses on which animals may or may not be eaten;29 rather, the chief concern is uncleanness. A clustering of key words signals the interest. As noted, the ‫ טמא‬root appears more times in Lev 11 (x34) than in any other Old Testament text; twenty-​five of those occurrences are in vv. 24–40. A similar concentration of terms is found in relation to the twofold source of uncleanness under consideration: death30 and “land swarmers.”31 Moreover, rather than addressing purification procedures per se—although this is a feature (e.g., v. 25 etc.)—the primary concern here is the defiling potential of both death and “land swarmers.” In fact, as noted above, the subsection dealing with “land swarmers” (vv. 29–38) is highlighted at the center of an aba pattern, being bracketed by units dealing with uncleanness stemming from the dead carcasses of unclean (vv. 24–28) and clean (vv. 39–40) animals respectively. Verses 41–45 comprise a new section.32 Wright argues that this unit functions as a commentary on the rest of the chapter, indicating its role as a climax to the pericope.33 Here, the focus returns to “every swarming creature which swarms upon the earth” (‫הרמׂש על־הארץ‬/‫כל־הׁשרץ הׁשרץ‬, vv. 41a, 42aγ, 44b; cf. v. 43a). The fourfold mention of these swarming creatures occasions six negative commands—“Do not eat” (‫ אכל‬+ ‫לא‬, vv. 41bβ, 42bα), “Do not make yourselves detestable” (‫ ׁשקץ‬+ ‫אל‬, 28.  Many of these units and subunits are framed by repeated words and phrases. For examples, see Kleinig, Leviticus, 250. 29.  Only three of the chapter’s seventeen uses of ‫ אכל‬are found here (vv. 34 [x2], 40). 30.  Eleven of ch. 11’s thirteen uses of ‫ נבלה‬occur in vv. 24–40 as well as its three uses of ‫מות‬. Leviticus 11 thus attests a higher frequency of ‫ נבלה‬than any other passage in the Old Testament. 31.  Ten of the chapter’s fifteen instances of ‫ ׁשרץ‬appear in this section. This is the highest concentration of the root in the Old Testament. 32.  A ninefold repetition of the phrase ‫ עד־הערב‬in vv. 24–40 ties the section together; its absence in vv. 41–45 marks these verses out as distinct (Willis, Leviticus, 108). 33. Wright, Disposal, 201. See also Kleinig, Leviticus, 256.

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 11

117

v. 43a), “Do not defile yourselves” (‫ טמא‬+ ‫לא‬, vv. 43bα–β, 44b)—and three positive commands—“Consecrate yourselves” (‫קדׁש‬, v. 44aβ) and “Be holy” (‫ קדוׁש‬+ ‫היה‬, vv. 44aγ, 45b). Verses 46–47, structured as a chiasm,34 constitute a postscript that sums up the legislation and its purpose—“This is the torah [concerning] . . . to separate between the unclean and the clean” (‫ להבדיל בין הטמא ובין הטהר‬. . . ‫)זאת תורת‬. Leviticus 11 also has a number of notable features. One that has a direct bearing on the current investigation is the literary artistry of the chapter. Various devices are suggested in the literature. Chiastic arrangements are proposed for vv. 24–28,35 41–42,36 43–44(45),37 and 46–47,38 for example. Additionally, Warning identifies several lexemes that he suggests form chiastic structures across the pericope as a whole.39 Framing devices are also commonly observed in Lev 11. Kleinig notes that many of the chapter’s units and subunits are framed by repeated words and phrases. For example, the prohibited quadrupeds are bounded by the phrase “you shall not eat” (‫לא תאכלו‬, vv. 4a, 8aα).40 The pericope is also framed by inclusio. The unique use in 11:45aα of ‫( עלה‬hiphil participle) with YHWH as subject (describing the “bringing up” of people from Egypt) forms an inclusio with the same form of the verb used to describe the “bringing up” of cud (11:3aα et passim).41 Furthermore, chapter 11 also displays resumptive patterning. The theme of touching quadrupedal carcasses in v. 8, for instance, is proleptic of the extended discussion in vv. 24–28.42 Repetition of words and phrases is also used as a stylistic device to underscore urgency in relation to obedience.43 Douglas is right, therefore, to speak of the “consummate elegance” of Leviticus’s rhetorical style.44 In light of the careful literar y arrangement and artistry evident in Lev 11 it is appropriate to look for emphases generated by the chapter’s structure and form. I will examine the implications of this below. Regarding potential allusion, numerous studies suggest links between Lev 11 and Gen 1–3. In terms of frequency, most parallels are advanced in connection with Gen 1. Milgrom exemplifies a general consensus when he notes definite overlap regarding creation theology, word use, and ideology.45 He concludes, “Lev 11 is 34. Hartley, Leviticus, 155. 35. Kleinig, Leviticus, 250. 36. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 683. 37.  Ibid.; Sklar, Leviticus, 171. 38. Hartley, Leviticus, 155. 39. Warning, Artistry, 50–56. 40.  For more examples, see Kleinig, Leviticus, 250. 41.  Rendsburg, “Inclusio,” 418–19. 42. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 653. 43. Hartley, Leviticus, 157; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 656. 44.  Mary Douglas, Jacob’s Tears: The Priestly Work of Reconciliation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 160. 45. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 689, 656, 658.

118

Chapter 4

rooted in Gen 1.”46 Milgrom’s summation is echoed by others.47 Connections to Gen 2–3, while made less often, are also noted.48 Taken together, this is suggestive regarding the possibility of intertextual connection being utilized for rhetorical aims. Therefore, I proceed to determine whether allusion to Gen 1–3 is, in fact, present in Lev 11 before exploring the function such linkage might perform.

Lexical and Syntactical Parallels Leviticus 11 shares thirty-​nine lexemes with Gen 1 and forty-​seven with Gen 2–3.49 Although many of these parallels simply represent common vocabulary, some are potentially significant due to their rarity, clustered use, or syntactical formulation. I will examine parallels to Gen 1 and to Gen 2–3 in turn, limiting discussion to parallels that are both shared and distinctive, as lexical similarity alone is insufficient to demonstrate significance. Genesis 1 1. ‫( בדל‬hiphil infin. const.) + ‫“—בין‬to separate” + “between” (Gen 1:14, 18; Lev 11:47). ‫( בדל‬hiphil) occurs twenty-​one times in the Pentateuch and a further eleven times throughout the remainder of the Old Testament. However, the hiphil infin. const., used in conjunction with the preposition ‫בין‬, occurs only five times. In Gen 1, a fivefold use of ‫( בדל‬hiphil) emphasizes the importance of separation as a divine act of creation.50 The infin. const. with ‫ בין‬appears twice as “luminaries” (‫ )מארת‬are appointed “to separate” (‫“ )להבדיל‬between the day and the night” (‫בין היום ובין הלילה‬, 1:14) and “between the light and the darkness” (‫בין‬ ‫האור ובין החׁשך‬, 1:18). In Lev 10:10, ‫( בדל‬hiphil infin. const.) + ‫ בין‬is used to demarcate one of the priesthood’s central functions.51 Aaron and his descendants are commanded “to separate between the holy and the common and between the unclean and 46.  Ibid., 47. 47.  E.g., Mary Douglas, “The Forbidden Animals in Leviticus,” JSOT 59 (1993): 3–23; Hawley, “Agenda,” 245–47; Nihan, Priestly Torah, 293; Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 132. 48.  E.g., Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:372; Bonar, Leviticus, 232–33; Hartley, Leviticus, 164; Bolger, “Compositional Role,” 209–10; Moskala, Laws, 228–33; Alter, Five, 588; Kiuchi, Leviticus, 201–9; Eveson, Beauty, 153, 156. 49.  See the appendix for a full listing. 50.  Accordingly, Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, WBC 1 (Waco, Tex.: Thomas Nelson, 1987), 18, writes: “Separation is one of the central ideas in this chapter.” 51.  The importance of this pericope is underlined by the fact that this is the only time that YHWH addresses Aaron directly on his own (10:8).

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 11

119

the clean” (‫)להבדיל בין הקדׁש ובין החל ובין הטמא ובין הטהור‬. Thus, “to separate between” constitutes a core cultic activity. The next occurrence of the syntactical pairing occurs in Lev 11:47, which functions as the concluding summary of that chapter’s legislation. The purpose given for “this law” (‫זאת תורה‬, 11:46) is to enable priests and people “to separate between the unclean and the clean, and between the animal that may be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten” (‫להבדיל בין הטמא ובין הטהר ובין החיה הנאכלת ובין‬ ‫)החיה אׁשר לא תאכל‬. The verbatim repetition of Lev 10:10b in the purpose statement of Lev 11:47a creates a link between these two pericopes and implies that the legislation of Lev 11 (and of chapters 11–15 more broadly) is an outworking of the command given in Lev 10. The final use of the construction is found in Ezek 42:20, where the function assigned to the boundary wall in Ezekiel’s temple vision is “to separate between the holy and the common” (‫)להבדיל בין הקדׁש לחל‬. Within the Old Testament, then, ‫( בדל‬hiphil infin. const.) + ‫ בין‬is used only in creation (Gen 1) and cultic contexts. This parallel suggests a connection between God’s creative acts of separation and Israel’s cultic acts of separation. I will explore the implications of this below. 2. ‫ ימים‬+ ‫“—ב‬seas” + “in” (Gen 1:22; Lev 11:9–10). This combination of preposition and plural noun occurs only three times in the Pentateuch—once in Gen 1 and twice in Lev 11.52 In Gen 1:21 God creates a diverse range of aquatic creatures; then, in v. 22, he commands them to be fruitful, to multiply, and to fill the waters “in the seas” (‫)בימים‬. In Lev 11, v. 9 provides the criterion for assessing aquatic creatures: anything “in the seas” (‫ )בימים‬that has fins and scales may be consumed. Verse 10 states the contrary: anything “in the seas” (‫ )בימים‬that does not have fins and scales is to be regarded as detestable. The rare syntactical construction connects Lev 11 to Gen 1. 3. ‫“—רמׂש‬to creep” (Gen 1:21, 26, 28, 30; Lev 11:44, 46). The verb ‫ רמׂש‬appears fourteen times in the Pentateuch,53 usually as a qal participle.54 In each case the verb describes the movement of creatures. Genesis attests ten occurrences—four in the creation account of Gen 1 (vv. 21, 26, 28, 30) and a further six in the flood narrative (Gen 7:8, 14, 21; 8:17, 19; 9:26). In Leviticus, ‫ רמׂש‬appears twice in chapter 11 (vv. 44, 46), and once in chapter 20 (v. 25). The final Pentateuchal use is found in Deut 4:18 in relation to the prohibition of idolatrous images. In twelve of these instances ‫ רמׂש‬is used to describe animals either “moving upon the earth” (‫ )ר[ו]מ ׂש[ת] על־הארץ‬or “upon the ground” (‫על־[ה]אדמה‬/‫)ב‬. Only on two 52.  It is attested twice outside the Torah (Ps 135:6; Ezek 32:2). 53.  The verb is used outside the Pentateuch only in Ps 69:35 [34]; 104:20; Ezek 38:20. 54.  The two exceptions are Gen 9:2 and Lev 20:25.

120

Chapter 4

occasions is ‫ רמׂש‬used to describe the movement of aquatic creatures—Gen 1:21 and Lev 11:46.55 The link between these verses is made still more explicit by the shared phrase ‫כל(־)נפׁש החיה הרמׂשת‬, which occurs only in these two instances. 4. ‫“—ׁש רץ‬to creep, move, swarm” (Gen 1:20 [x2], 21; Lev 11:10, 20, 21, 23, 29 [x2], 31, 41 [x2], 42 [x2], 43 [x2], 44, 46). As a descriptor of animal movement or taxonomical class the ‫ ׁשרץ‬root occurs twenty-​five times in the Pentateuch, with two further attestations in the remainder of the Old Testament (Ps 105:30; Ezek 47:9).56 In Gen 1:20, ‫ ׁשרץ‬appears twice in the day-​five fiat, which commands the waters to “swarm” with “swarms” of living creatures. Verse 21 follows by detailing the creation of animals with “which the waters swarm” (‫)אׁשר ׁשרצו המים‬. ‫ ׁשרץ‬also appears three times in the flood narrative. Genesis 7:21 records the death of “all the swarmers that swarm upon the earth” (‫)כל־הׁשרץ הׁשרץ על־הארץ‬. Then, in 8:17, God directs Noah to release the creatures from the Ark so that they might “swarm” upon the land. In Lev 11, ‫ ׁשרץ‬occurs fifteen times. Throughout the chapter the root is used, as in Genesis, to describe either the locomotion (x5) or class (x10) of animals. Three more occurrences of ‫ ׁשרץ‬are found in passages that parallel Lev 11 in prohibiting the touching or eating of unclean swarming creatures (Lev 5:2; 22:5; Deut 14:19). The final Pentateuchal use of ‫ ׁשרץ‬describes the plague that made the Nile “swarm” with frogs (Exod 7:28[8:3]; cf. Ps 105:30). This shared use of an uncommon term creates a parallel between Lev 11 and Gen 1. Moreover, the probability of a connection is increased by a shared syntactical combination. Nominal and verbal forms of ‫ ׁשרץ‬are used in conjunction in only three Old Testament passages: Gen 1 (v. 20), Gen 7 (v. 21), and Lev 11 (vv. 29, 41, 42, 43). 5. ‫ ׁשרץ‬+ ‫“—רמׂש‬to creep, move, swarm” + “to creep” (Gen 1:21; Lev 11:44, 46). The use of the ‫ ׁשרץ‬root in conjunction with the verb ‫ רמׂש‬occurs only five times in the Old Testament—once in the creation account (Gen 1:21), twice in the flood narrative (Gen 7:21; 8:17), and twice in Lev 11 (vv. 44, 46). 6. ‫ מקוה‬+ ‫“—מים‬accumulation of water,57 reservoir” + “water” (Gen 1:10; Lev 11:36). The noun ‫ מקוה‬is rare, appearing only nine times in the Old Testament. Moreover, ‫ מקוה‬in a construct chain with ‫ מים‬occurs on only three occasions. In Gen 1:10, ‫ מקוה המים‬refers to the gathered waters that God names “seas.” In Exod 7:19 the syntactical combination is used when God turns to blood “all their [i.e., the Egyptians’] pools of water” (‫)כל־מקוה מימיהם‬. In Lev 11:36, ‫מקוה־‬ ‫ מים‬appears in apposition to ‫ בור‬and thus seems to further define the “pit” as being one containing water, that is, a well, cistern, or ritual washing site. Interestingly, 55.  Cf. also Ps 69:35 [34]. 56.  The root is used in connection with people only twice (Gen 9:7; Exod 1:7). 57.  Bryan E. Beyer, “‫ ִמ ְקוֶה‬,” NIDOTTE 2:1087.

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 11

121

the Mishnah (m. Miqw. 5:4) suggests that the sea can serve as a ritual ‫ מקוה‬based on the link to Gen 1:10. 7. ‫“—על־הארץ‬upon the earth” (Gen 1:11, 15, 17, 20, 26, 28, 30; Lev 11:2, 21, 29, 41–42, 44, 46). The phrase ‫ על־הארץ‬is attested fifty-​one times in the Pentateuch. Thirty-​five of these uses are clustered in Gen 1–2 (1:11, 15, 17, 20, 26, 28, 30; 2:5), the flood narrative (Gen 6:12, 17; 7:4, 6, 10, 12, 14, 17–19, 21 [x2], 24; 8:1, 17 [x2], 19; 9:14, 16–17), and Lev 11 (vv. 2, 21, 29, 41–42, 44, 46).58 Further connecting Lev 11 with Gen 1 is the use of ‫ על־הארץ‬in syntactical connection with the nominal and verbal forms of ‫רמׂש‬. The resulting phrase, ‫כל־הרמׂש‬ ‫הרמׂש על־הארץ‬, appears only three times in the Old Testament (Gen 1:26; 7:14; 8:17). This construction is closely paralleled by Lev 11:44bβ (‫כל־הׁשרץ הרמׂש על־‬ ‫)הארץ‬, which substitutes the noun ‫ ׁשֶ ֶרץ‬for ‫ ֶרמֶ ׂש‬, probably to facilitate a play on words with the adjective ‫ ׁשקץ‬used throughout the chapter.59 8. ‫“—נפׁש (ה)חיה‬living creature” (Gen 1:20–21, 24, 30; Lev 11:10, 46). The use of ‫ נפׁש‬with ‫ חי‬to mean “living creature(s)” is uncommon, appearing only twelve times in the Pentateuch and once outside (Ezek 47:9).60 Within the Pentateuch the phrase is utilized in only three contexts: the creation narratives (Gen 1:20–21, 24, 30; 2:7, 19), the flood account (Gen 9:10, 12, 15–16), and Lev 11 (vv. 10, 46). 9. ‫ אכלה‬+ ‫“—ל‬food” + “for” (Gen 1:29–30; Lev 11:39). The noun ‫אכלה‬, always appearing with the preposition ‫ל‬, occurs only seven times in the Pentateuch.61 In each case ‫ אכלה‬denotes a source of food that YHWH has made available. In Gen 1, God gives seed-​bearing plants and fruit trees to humans (v. 29), and green plants to the animals (v. 30), “for food” (‫)לאכלה‬. In the flood narrative, YHWH commands the taking of provisions into the Ark and then declares to Noah, ‫“( והיה לך ולהם לאכלה‬It will be food for you and for them,” 6:21). Following the deluge, YHWH gives humanity “every creeping thing . . . for food” (‫ לאכלה‬. . . ‫כל־רמׂש‬, 9:3a). The next occurrence of ‫ אכלה‬is in Exod 16:15, where Moses answers questions about manna by declaring, ‫הוא הלחם אׁשר נתן יהוה לכם‬ ‫“( לאכלה‬It is the bread that YHWH has given to you for food”). In Lev 11:39a, reference is made to “the animals that may be yours for food” (‫הבהמה אׁשר־היא לכם‬ ‫—)לאכלה‬namely, in context, the creatures that have been divinely sanctioned as appropriate to eat. The final Pentateuchal use of ‫ אכלה‬comes in Lev 25:6, which states, ‫“( והיתה ׁשבת הארץ לכם לאכלה לך‬The Sabbath of the land will be yours for food”). Again, this provision of “food” is also divinely appointed (cf. 25:20–21). Thus, paralleled syntax (‫אכלה‬ + ‫)ל‬, used in a contextually similar manner (divine grant), forms a link between Lev 11 and Gen 1. 58.  Genesis 1 and Lev 11 both display a sevenfold use of the phrase. 59.  Also noted by Kiuchi, Leviticus, 201. 60.  With the addition of ‫ כל‬in a construct chain the phrase appears only seven times (Gen 1:21; 9:10, 12, 15–16; Lev 11:10, 46). 61.  The noun is attested eleven times in the remainder of the Old Testament; ten times in Ezekiel.

122

Chapter 4

10. ‫“—מין‬kind, type” (Gen 1:11, 12 [x2], 21 [x2], 24 [x2], 25 [x3]; Lev 11:14–16, 19, 22 [x4], 29). The noun ‫מין‬, always occurring with the inseparable preposition ‫ל‬, appears thirty times in the Pentateuch and once outside (Ezek 47:10). Although not rare, ‫ מין‬is used in only three Pentateuchal contexts: creation (Gen 1:11, 12 [x2], 21 [x2], 24 [x2], 25 [x3]), flood (Gen 6:20 [x3]; 7:14 [x4]), and dietary law regulations (Lev 11:14–16, 19, 22 [x4], 29; Deut 14:13–15, 18). The use of ‫ מין‬connects these passages, inviting further reflection. 11. ‫“—עוף‬flying creature” (Gen 1:20–22, 26, 28, 30; Lev 11:13, 20–21, 23, 46). The nominal form of ‫ עוף‬appears thirty-​five times in the Pentateuch.62 Once more, a noticeable clustering of usage is evident with a total of thirty attestations (86 percent) located in Gen 1–2 (1:20–22, 26, 28, 30; 2:19–20), the flood narrative (Gen 6:7, 20; 7:3, 8, 14, 21, 23; 8:17, 19–20; 9:2, 10), and in Lev 11 (vv. 13, 20–21, 23, 46) and parallels (Lev 20:25 [x2]; Deut 14:19–20). The remaining Pentateuchal uses reference “birds” eating flesh (Gen 40:17, 19; Deut 28:26), the offering of avian sacrifice (Lev 1:14), and blood prohibitions (Lev 7:26; 17:13). 12. ‫(“—חיה‬wild) animal” (Gen 1:24–25, 28, 30; Lev 11:2, 27, 47 [x2]). The nominal form of ‫ חיה‬appears thirty-​two times in the Pentateuch. Two-​thirds of occurrences are clustered in Gen 1–3 (1:24–25, 28, 30; 2:19–20; 3:1, 14), the flood narrative (Gen 7:14, 21; 8:1, 17, 19; 9:2, 5, 10 [x2]), and Lev 11 (vv. 2, 27, 47 [x2]).63 The remaining Pentateuchal occurrences are spread throughout (Gen 37:33; Exod 23:11, 29; Lev 5:2; 17:13; 25:7; 26:6, 22; Num 35:3; Deut 7:22). 13. ‫ זרע‬+ ‫“—זרע‬to sow” + “seed” (Gen 1:11–12, 29; Lev 11:37). The syntactical combination of the verbal and nominal forms of ‫ זרע‬is uncommon, appearing only nine times in the Pentateuch (Gen 1:11–12, 29; 47:23; Lev 11:37; 26:16; Num 5:28; Deut 11:10; 22:9).64 Although a syntactical parallel is thus formed between Lev 11 and Gen 1 it is difficult to posit any further significance to the link. 14. ‫“—קדׁש‬to be holy” (Gen 2:3; Lev 11:44). Moskala suggests a connection between Gen 2:3 and Lev 11 based on a shared use of ‫קדׁש‬: It is very important to stress the link between the first account of creation (Gen 1:1–2:4a) and Lev 11 through the root ‫קדׁש‬, because the actual forms of this root “to be holy” occur at the climax of these two chapters (Gen 2:3; Lev 11:44–45).65

Certainly, both texts attest forms of ‫קדׁש‬. Genesis 2:3a recounts how God blessed the seventh day “and made it holy” (‫ויקדׁש אתו‬, piel wayyiqtol). In Lev 11:44aβ, 62.  The noun is used thirty-​six times in the remainder of the Old Testament. Within the Pentateuch the verbal form appears only in Gen 1:20 and Deut 4:17. 63. Interestingly, ‫ חיה‬appears four times in both Gen 1 and Lev 11. 64.  The combination is attested outside the Pentateuch five times (Eccl 11:6; Isa 30:23; 55:10; Jer 31:27; 35:7). 65. Moskala, Laws, 360.

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 11

123

YHWH commands the Israelites to “sanctify yourselves” (‫התקדׁשתם‬, hithpael weqatal). In addition, the adjective ‫ קדוׁש‬appears four times in vv. 44–45. However, it is difficult to establish an unquestionable link between the two texts based upon this single lexeme; verbal use of the ‫ קדׁש‬root appears seventy-​five times in the Pentateuch. Moreover, the forms used in Gen 2:3aβ and Lev 11:44aβ are different (piel wayyiqtol and hithpael weqatal respectively). The positioning of ‫ קדׁש‬at the climax of each passage may increase the probability of a definite connection, but overall, Moskala’s suggestion remains tentative at best. Genesis 2–3 Several noted parallels between Lev 11 and Gen 1 also link Lev 11 to Gen 2–3. As these have been discussed more fully above, I will simply list them here. In this category are ‫“—על־הארץ‬upon the earth” (Gen 2:5; Lev 11:2, 21, 29, 41–42, 44, 46); ‫—נפׁש (ה)חיה‬ “living creature” (Gen 2:7, 19; Lev 11:10, 46); ‫“—עוף‬flying creature” (Gen 2:19–20; Lev 11:13, 20–21, 23, 46); and ‫(“—חיה‬wild) animal” (Gen 2:19–20; 3:1, 14; Lev 11:2, 27, 47 [x2]). In addition, Lev 11 also displays a number of distinct parallels with Gen 2–3. 1. ‫ גחון‬+ ‫ על‬+ ‫“—הלך‬belly” + “upon” + “to walk, move” (Gen 3:14; Lev 11:42). The syntactical arrangement of ‫ גחון‬+ ‫ על‬used in conjunction with ‫ הלך‬occurs only twice in the Old Testament—Gen 3:14 and Lev 11:42. In both cases the reference is to movement “upon the belly.” In Gen 3:14, YHWH God judges and curses the serpent, and declares in v. 14bα, ‫“( על־גחנך תלך‬On your belly you will move”). The occurrence of the syntactical combination in Lev 11:42aα comes at the climax of the chapter.66 Here, the divine command is a prohibition against eating ‫כל הולך‬ ‫“( על־גחון‬anything which moves upon its belly”). This unique syntactical arrangement links these verses to one another. I will return to consider the ramifications of the connection below. 2. ‫ אכל‬+ ‫“—נגע‬to eat” + “to touch” (Gen 3:3; Lev 11:8). Both ‫ אכל‬and ‫ נגע‬are frequently attested verbs, occurring approximately 815 times and 150 times respectively throughout the Old Testament. Their use in conjunction, however, is much less common, appearing only twelve times in total (Gen 3:3; 32:33; Lev 6:11; 7:19, 21; 11:8; 22:4, 6; Deut 14:8; Judg 6:21; 1 Kgs 19:5, 7). Moreover, conjoined use of second-person forms of these verbs appears only thrice (in each case the form is second masc. plural qal yiqtol). In Gen 3:3aβ–γ, the woman (‫ )האׁשה‬declares what God had commanded regarding the fruit of the forbidden tree: “You will not eat from it and you will not touch it” (‫)לא תאכלו ממנו ולא תגעו בו‬.67 The other two occurrences of the 66.  See “Orientation to Leviticus 11.” 67.  Determining the veracity of the woman’s account of God’s command is not essential for my purposes here. What I am interested in is the potential intertextual connection with Lev 11 conveyed by the syntactical overlap.

124

Chapter 4

syntactical arrangement are found in connection with dietary commands. In Lev 11:8, which functions as a summary statement for the legislation regarding clean and unclean quadrupeds (11:3–7), YHWH commands regarding the animals that are unclean: ‫“( מבׂשרם לא תאכלו ובנבלהם לא תגעו‬From their flesh you will not eat and their carcasses you will not touch”). Deuteronomy 14, a parallel text to Lev 11, attests the phrase found in Lev 11:8a verbatim: ‫מבׂשרם לא תאכלו ובנבלהם‬ ‫לא תגעו‬. Further correspondence between Gen 3:3aβ–γ and Lev 11:8a//Deut 14b supports seeing a parallel here. In each case the syntax is identical: ‫ אכל‬negated by ‫ לא‬used in conjunction with the preposition ‫מן‬, followed by ‫ נגע‬negated by ‫לא‬ used in conjunction with the preposition ‫ב‬. 3. ‫ מן‬+ ‫ כל‬+ ‫“—בהמה‬from” + “all” + “beast” (Gen 3:14; Lev 11:2). The combination of ‫מן‬, ‫כל‬, and ‫ בהמה‬in the construct chain ‫ מכל־הבהמה‬occurs only five times in the Old Testament: once in Gen 3 (v. 14), twice in the flood narrative (Gen 7:2; 8:20), and once each in Lev 11:2 and Num 31:30. Although further significance is not immediately apparent, the shared syntactical combination adds to the overall volume of connections between Lev 11 and Gen 1–3. In that sense, the combination is a good example of how parallels can be used to provide repeated aural clues as a way of building expectation of further allusion. From an author’s point of view, volume of linkages is also another way of ensuring allusion is noticed by readers and hearers of the text. 4. ‫ מכל‬+ (‫ אכל‬+ ‫“—)לא‬of all” + “to not eat” (Gen 2:16–17; Lev 11:2, 8). Trevaskis proposes a connection between Lev 11 and Gen 2 based upon this shared combination. He writes: Within the narrative of the Pentateuch, Leviticus 11 records the third time in which God’s assignment “of all” (‫ )מכל‬a particular food source to humans is accompanied by a prohibited food source (‫לא תאכל‬, Gen. 2.16–17; 9.3–4; cf. Lev. 11.4 [sic 11:2], 8).68

W hile intriguing, the connection is not as explicit as Trevaskis claims. First, while the combination of ‫ מן‬+ ‫ כל‬is attested in Gen 2:16 (‫ )מכל עץ־הגן‬and in Lev 11:2 (‫)מכל־הבהמה‬, it is not present in Gen 9:3–4. There the particle ‫ כל‬is used without ‫כל־רמׂש( מן‬, 9:3a). Second, the negated form of ‫ אכל‬listed by Trevaskis (‫ )לא תאכל‬is present only in Gen 2:17. Genesis 9:4 and Lev 11:8 instead have the second-​person masculine plural form (‫)לא תאכלו‬. Thus, the lexical and syntactical correspondence between the three passages is not exact. Moreover, this combination of terms is not uncommon. ‫ כל‬used in conjunction with ‫ אכל‬negated by ‫לא‬ appears frequently (e.g., Gen 3:17; Exod 12:20; Lev 17:12; Judg 13:14, etc.). This is even more the case if the search parameters are extended beyond a single verse. For these reasons, the probability of a genuine connection based on the word 68. Trevaskis, Holiness, 97.

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 11

125

cluster posited by Trevaskis is possible, but certainly not incontrovertible. That said, the conceptual parallel he hints at may well be significant. Hence, I will return to discuss it later. Evaluation Considering the lexical and syntactical parallels between Lev 11 and Gen 1–3 charted above, how probable is genuine intertextual connection? While some of the links discussed remain open to debate, many are much more certain. The respective texts undoubtedly display shared language, but, more importantly, they also evidence language that is distinct or that involves rare lexemes (e.g., ‫רמׂש‬, ‫ׁשרץ‬, ‫מקוה‬, and ‫)מין‬. In addition, several rare syntactical constructions are present (e.g.,  ‫ ׁשרץ‬used with ‫רמׂש‬, ‫ אכל‬used with ‫[ נגע‬in second-​person forms], and the combinations ‫ מקוה‬+ ‫ מים‬and ‫ אכלה‬+ ‫)ל‬, as are constructions found only in these chapters (‫כל[־]נפׁש החיה הרמׂשת‬, ‫ גחון‬+ ‫ על‬+ ‫הלך‬, and ‫ ימים‬+ ‫)ב‬. Moreover, clusters of more common words are evident (e.g., ‫ מן‬+ ‫ כל‬+ ‫)בהמה‬. In a similar vein, several terms and phrases are seen to display an uneven distribution across the Pentateuch—that is, their use is attested particularly in creation, flood, and dietary regulation contexts (e.g., ‫עוף‬, ‫על־הארץ‬, and ‫)נפׁש [ה]חיה‬.69 Taken together, this accumulation of shared language across multiple points of contact fulfills the criteria I proposed in chapter 2 for discerning the genuineness of intertextual linkage. Accordingly, bona fide connections to Gen 1 and Gen 2–3 in Lev 11 seem highly probable. However, is this conclusion supported by any conceptual parallels?

Conceptual Parallels Genesis 1 1. Spatial conception and taxonomy. In Gen 1 three spheres of existence are formed. Each is progressively separated from the others by divine fiat. On day two, the waters are separated by the introduction of an “expanse” (‫רקיע‬, 1:6–7), later named “sky” (‫ׁשמים‬, 1:8). On day three the waters under the sky are gathered to one place to allow “dry ground” (‫יבׁשה‬, 1:9) to appear. This dry ground is named “land” ( ‫ארץ‬, 1:10). On days four to six these three spheres—‫ׁשמים‬, ‫מים‬, and ‫—ארץ‬are populated with their respective avian, aquatic, and terrestrial denizens as well as the “swarming creatures” (‫רמׂש‬/‫ )ׁשרץ‬found in each (1:20–21, 24–26).

69.  The significant lexical and syntactical overlap apparent between the dietary law texts and the flood narrative is beyond the scope of my discussion here.

126

Chapter 4

Leviticus 11 shares this same spatial conception. The chapter is divided along the same lines as Gen 1, sequentially focusing on “the beasts that are upon the land” (‫הבהמה אׁשר על־הארץ‬, 11:2b–8), “all that are in the waters” (‫כל אׁשר במים‬, 11:9–12), and “the flying creatures” (‫העוף‬, 11:13–23) that inhabit the sky. The reversal of order between Gen 1 (sky, water, land) and Lev 11 (land, water, sky) is significant, as reversal of this kind is a frequently noted marker of allusion.70 Thus, reversal of this kind heightens the probability for a textual connection over and above mere commonality of expression. The taxonomy in Lev 11 is also similar to Gen 1. All creatures are subdivided into terrestrial (11:2b–8, 26–43), aquatic (11:9–12), or aerial (11:13–23) categories. The inclusion of aquatic creatures—inaccessible to the majority of Israelites71—is suggestive of a deliberate attempt to mirror all the categories of Gen 1.72 Moreover, the categories attest further subdivision in relation to the “swarming creatures” (‫)ׁשרץ‬ found in each sphere: “water swarmers” (‫ׁשרץ המים‬, 11:10), “flying swarmers” (‫ׁשרץ‬ ‫העוף‬, 11:20), and “swarmers that swarm upon the ground” (‫ׁשרץ הׁשרץ על־הארץ‬, 11:29). Thus Lev 11 defines the same four classes of animal (land, water, flying, and swarming) that Gen 1 does, pace Douglas’s threefold or Michael Carroll’s fivefold division.73 That a fourfold taxonomy is intended is confirmed by the structure of chapter 11, which groups all its named examples in multiples of four: four prohibited quadrupeds (11:4–7), twenty prohibited birds (11:13–19), four acceptable insects (11:22), and eight detestable “land swarmers” (11:29–30).74 The noun ‫חיה‬ (“living creature”) also appears four times (vv. 2, 27, 47 [x2]).75 2. Human-​animal relations. Genesis 1 describes the formation of animals and humans before outlining the divinely established relationship between them. Although water, aerial, and terrestrial creatures were fashioned prior to people, God nevertheless declares that they are all to be ruled by humanity: “Let them [i.e., humans] rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep 70.  This technique of inversion in an alluding text is often referred to as “Seidel’s law” following his elucidation of the phenomenon. See, further, Moshe Seidel, “Parallels between Isaiah and Psalms” [Hebrew], Sinai 38 (1955): 149–72, 229–40, 272–80, 335–55. 71.  Milgrom notes that rabbinic tradition held that species of fish are not listed in Lev 11 because Adam did not name them (Leviticus 1–16, 659). He continues to discuss the “piscatorial dearth in the immediate vicinity of ancient Israel” (661). 72. Willis, Leviticus, 109. See also Péter-​Contesse, Lévitique 1–16, 175. 73.  Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concept of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge, 2002 [orig. 1966]), 69–70; Michael P. Carroll, “One More Time: Leviticus Revisited,” in Anthropological Approaches to the Old Testament, ed. Bernhard Lang, IRT 8 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 118. 74. Hartley, Leviticus, 153. 75.  The use of four as a structural device is probably intended to convey the universality of the chapter’s regulations—i.e., that all creatures have been assessed and classified (cf. the four points of the compass, the four corners of the earth, or the four rivers of Gen 2).

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 11

127

upon the earth” (1:26). Yet within the unfolding narrative this idyllic picture is quickly fractured. As is commonly observed, Gen 3 portrays the reversal of this divine ordering.76 Contrary to the authority structure established in Gen 1, an animal (the serpent) induces humans to act against God’s command (3:1–6; cf. Gen 2:16–17). The aftermath is perpetual “enmity” (‫ )איבה‬instigated between serpent and humans (3:15). This degradation of human-​animal relations is compounded in the postdiluvian world. Following the flood, the imperatives of Gen 1:28—to be fruitful, to multiply, and to fill the earth—are reiterated to Noah and his progeny (Gen 9:1, 7). Yet the command to “rule” (‫ )רדה‬over the creatures of the world (Gen 1:26, 28) is not repeated. Instead, Noah is told that “the fear and dread of you” (‫)מוראכם וחתכם‬ will fall upon all animals. Moreover, YHWH reveals that the creatures of the world have not only been given into Noah’s hands (‫בידכם נתנו‬, 9:2bγ), but will henceforth constitute a divinely validated source of food for humanity (‫כל־רמׂש אׁשר‬ ‫הוא־חי לכם יהוה לאכלה‬, 9:3a).77 This backdrop is essential for interpretation of Lev 11. In fact, Nihan argues that the profundity of Israel’s dietary legislation emerges only when set against Gen 1–11.78 Read within this broader context, Nihan suggests that Lev 11 counters the dietary permissions given in Gen 9 in order to restore, at least partially, the harmonious relationship between humanity and animals portrayed in Gen 1.79 The restriction of diet to “clean” animals only, mitigates for Israel the allowance made for humanity to eat “any creeping thing that lives” (‫כל־רמׂש אׁשר הוא־חי‬, Gen 9:3a). In this way, Lev 11 is commensurate with the wider aims of the priestly writings— namely, movement toward the restoration of creation order.80 Accordingly, Nihan concludes in relation to diet, “Israel . . . is called to be a microcosm of the original order devised by God.”81 However, the restoration of original order is not complete, for Lev 11 still allows for the consumption of meat in contradistinction to the implied vegetarian diet of the antediluvians. Perhaps the reason for this is the need for ongoing sacrifice, necessitating, on the one hand, the killing of animals, but also enabling, on the 76.  E.g., John Calvin, Genesis: Two Volumes in One, trans. John King (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1979), 167. 77.  Whether the eating of meat is initiated before or after the flood remains debated. Wenham, following Gispen, suggests that Gen 9:3 may be ratifying the practice rather than inaugurating it (Genesis 1–15, 34). Either way, God is portrayed as being sovereign over the allocation of this type of food also. 78. Nihan, Priestly Torah, 336. 79.  Ibid., 338. 80.  The same picture of restoration also forms an important dimension of eschatological hope. Thus Isaiah, for example, imagines the ending of animal-​animal animosity as well as a return to human-​animal amity (Isa 11:6–9; 65:25). 81. Nihan, Priestly Torah, 339 (italics removed). See also my discussion in chapter 6.

128

Chapter 4

other, opportunity to eat fellowship meals in God’s presence, having secured ‫כפר‬. Thus, while representing a move toward the creation ideal, Lev 11 remains realistic in its assessment of the needs of estranged people. Partial restoration notwithstanding, parallels between Lev 11 and Gen 1 create an intertextual connection that elucidates the deeper theological and cosmological implications pertaining to the dietary regulations as well as to the tabernacle cult more broadly. As Willis contends, “Perhaps Lev 11 is drawing on Gen 1–2 to suggest an explication of humanity’s governance of creation through dietary practices.”82 3. Separation as ordering. I noted earlier that ‫( בדל‬hiphil) is an important term in the Gen 1 portrayal of creation.83 Five times God acts to “separate” (‫ בדל‬hiphil). On day one, God separates light from darkness (1:4); on day two, water is separated from water by inserting a ‫( רקיע‬1:6–7); on day four, luminaries are appointed to separate between day and night (1:14) and between light and dark (1:18). Moreover, the concept of separation is present even when the explicit vocabulary is not. Hence, God gathers the waters below the ‫ רקיע‬to one place to allow dry ground to appear (1:9); each plant (1:11–12) and animal (1:21, 24–25) is formed “according to its kind” (‫)למינו‬, marking a distinction between types; the seventh day alone is made holy and is uniquely set apart (2:3). God’s creative endeavor is thus presented as an ordering of the world through successive acts of separation. Within the Pentateuch, “separation” (‫ בדל‬hiphil) is also an important cultic term.84 Appropriate “separation” is to be made in relation to space (Exod 26:33; cf. Ezek 42:20), impurity (Lev 20:25), and people groups (Lev 20:24, 26; Num 8:14; 16:9; Deut 10:8). In fact, making correct divisions is viewed as being integral to the function of the priests who are commissioned “to separate between the holy and the common and between the unclean and the clean” (Lev 10:10). Thus, in Lev 11–15, the priests, and by extension the people as a whole, are to order their world through acts of separation. The conceptual parallel between God’s ordering of the cosmos and Israel’s (re)ordering of its environs is strengthened by the rare syntactical formulation involving ‫ בדל‬that links Gen 1 to Lev 10:10 and 11:47 (see above). A correlation, or even analogy, between creation and cult is implied. 4. Imitatio Dei and the image of God. The rationale undergirding the Levitical food laws is, as I charted earlier, disputed, and as a result no consensus has been reached. Regardless, the final-​form text does contain a purpose statement. Although commonly viewed, and sometimes dismissed, as an interpolation by H, vv. 43–45 have nevertheless been incorporated into the text; their function, therefore, cannot simply be ignored by responsible exegetes. At a minimum, these 82. Willis, Leviticus, 114. 83.  See also Paul Beauchamp, Création et séparation: Étude exégétique du chapitre premier de la Genèse, LD 201 (Paris: Cerf, 2005 [orig. 1969]). 84.  In the body of priestly literature, ‫( בדל‬hiphil) is used only in connection with creation (Gen 1:4, 6, 7, 14, 18) or cult (Exod 26:33; Lev 1:17; 5:8; 10:10; 11:47; 20:24–26; Num 8:14; 16:9).

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 11

129

verses bequeath a religious-​theological force to the canonical text. YHWH states, “I am YHWH your God” ( ‫אני יהוה אלהיכם‬, v. 44aα);85 moreover, “I am YHWH who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God” (‫אני יהוה המעלה אתכם‬ ‫מארץ מצרים להית לכם לאלהים‬, v. 45a). As Israel’s God, YHWH invites conformity to his character: “Be holy because I am holy” (‫הייתם קדׁשים כי קדוׁש אני‬, vv. 44aγ, 45b). The connection between this twice-​repeated command and the preceding legislation is made explicit in v. 44b: ‫לא תטמאו את־נפׁשתיכם בכל־הׁשרץ הרמׂש על־‬ ‫“( הארץ‬Do not defile your lives86 by any swarmer that creeps upon the ground”). Laws regarding the separation of clean and unclean animals thereby receive their significance as a means of imitatio Dei. Regarding this, Balentine makes a connection to the Gen 1 concept of humanity made in the image of God: Israel must strive for holiness, because its primary commission, rooted in God’s expectation for all humanity, is to live “in his image” (Gen. 1:27). In explicating God’s “image,” Genesis 1, the Priestly version of the creation story, places considerable emphasis on God’s careful ordering of everything in the world “according to its/ their kind.” . . . Leviticus 11 . . . specifies that the dietary laws are similarly defined by the concern to categorize clean and unclean animals “according to its/their kind.” . . . From a Priestly perspective, distinguishing between clean and unclean animals is an act of faith that mirrors God’s work in establishing and sustaining the “very good” design of creation.87

Israel’s call to become YHWH-​like in Lev 11, when read in its wider Pentateuchal context, is therefore a call to revive humanity’s original function as God’s image; to act as YHWH himself acts—in context, to establish and sustain patterns of creation through acts of separation and so form in Israel a microcosm of the ordered world that was. As Bernard Och comments, “The creatio originalis is an exclusively Divine activity governed by God’s will alone. The creatio continua is a joint enterprise between God and humanity.”88 The presence of lexical and syntactical parallels between Lev 11 and Gen 1 (esp. ‫[ בדל‬hiphil], ‫מין‬, etc.) are suggestive regarding the conceptual connection.89 Philological markers function to highlight the conceptual parallel for readers.

85.  For Milgrom, this phrase is a telltale sign of H’s hand (“Provenance,” 50). 86.  Even if ‫ נפׁש‬here is better translated as “throat” (so, e.g., Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1284), “your throats” would function as a synecdoche, and thus the overall force remains the same. 87. Balentine, Leviticus, 94. 88.  Bernard Och, “Creation and Redemption: Towards a Theology of Creation,” Judaism 44 (1995): 230. 89.  In a recent article Hawley reaches the same conclusion (“Agenda,” 247).

130

Chapter 4

5. Unclean “until evening.” The phrase ‫“( עד־הערב‬until evening”) appears nine times in Lev 11 to denote the point at which uncleanness ends when contracted from contact with, or consumption of, animal carcasses (vv. 24–25, 27–28, 31–32, 39, 40 [x2]). Kiuchi asserts that “until evening” is probably related to God’s creation in Gen 1.90 However, Kiuchi does not elaborate the point. Certainly, Gen 1 attests a sixfold repetition of the phrase ‫“( ויהי־ערב ויהי־בקר יום‬and there was evening and there was morning, day x). However, the only lexical parallel with Lev 11 is the noun ‫ערב‬, a word that appears over 180 times in the Old Testament. Nevertheless, Kiuchi attempts elsewhere to explicitly connect the time periods in Lev 11–15, including “until evening,” to the creation account. He states: When considered together with the other references to Gen. 3 found in Leviticus, these time specifications clearly refer to God’s creation of heaven and earth in Gen. 1. Therefore it can be inferred that purification and consecration are the Lord’s re-​creative work of leading people from uncleanness to cleanness, and from cleanness to holiness. The key to partaking in God’s work seems to be the realization of one’s own uncleanness (self-​hiding), and not involving oneself in any of God’s new creative work, except for awaiting the specified period.91

A connection to Gen 1 via the concept of time is thus understood by Kiuchi to set the Levitical purity legislation in a re-​creation framework. However, the parallel does not seem as certain as Kiuchi claims. While YHWH is understood to be “Lord of time” throughout Leviticus in a manner akin to Gen 1—in both texts he alone appoints days and seasons (e.g., Gen 1:14–18; Lev 23)—an explicit connection seems to be merely possible, rather than certain as per Kiuchi. Furthermore, Kiuchi’s last point concerning noninvolvement in “God’s new creative work” is mistaken. As discussed above, Israel is, on the contrary, invited to actively involve itself in God’s re-​creative work of ordering the cosmos. Moreover, even in relation to purification more narrowly, the people are frequently to do more than simply “await” specified periods (e.g., offering sacrifice, ritual washing, etc.). Therefore, while suggestive, it seems best to regard Kiuchi’s proposal as tentative. 6. Animals first, then humans. Several scholars suggest that the literary sequence of topics in Lev 11–15 reflects the order of Gen 1 (or of Gen 1–3 more broadly). Sailhamer, echoing Rashi,92 suggests that the placement of Lev 11 before Lev 12 mirrors the order of the creation account, which focuses on animals before humans. Accordingly, he concludes, “The author is clearly intent on our seeing 90. Kiuchi, Leviticus, 198. 91.  Ibid., 44. 92.  ‫תורת‬ ‫אחר‬ ‫נתפרׁשה‬ ‫תורתו‬ ‫כך‬ ‫בראׁשית‬ ‫במעׂשה‬ ‫ועוף‬ ‫חיה‬ ‫ב המה‬ ‫כל‬ ‫א חר‬ ‫אדם‬ ‫ׁשל‬ ‫ׁשיצירתו‬ ‫כ ׁשם‬ ‫ועוף‬ ‫ חיה‬ ‫—בהמה‬Rashi, The Torah with Rashi’s Commentary: Translated, Annotated, and Elucidated by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Zvi Herczeg, Sapirstein ed. (Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 1999), 3:136.

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 11

131

a similar pattern in God’s overall purpose and work.”93 Sailhamer’s observation regarding the paralleled sequence of subject matter in both texts is incontrovertible. Far less certain, however, is the weight he attaches to it. In a series comprising two elements (i.e., animals and humans), the probability of animals preceding humans in any given instance is 50 percent, hardly sufficient to claim clear authorial intent. A longer series of discrete components would need to align in order to make such a claim more certain. Of interest, then, are proposals for textual arrangement that incorporate more elements. Postell notes the connection between Lev 11:42 and Gen 3:14 in relation to creatures that move upon the belly.94 He also observes that Lev 12 deals with postpartum uncleanness, sharing as it does so vocabulary with Gen 3:16 (‫ ילד‬+ ‫;אׁשה‬ cf. Lev 12:2), and that Lev 13 relates to a man (‫ )אדם‬and his skin—a subject, he suggests, that is reminiscent of the immediate effects of the curse on “Adam’s skin.” Postell concludes: “The resemblance of the structure of the purity laws (serpent crawling on belly + a woman in child birth + a man and his skin) to the poetic structure of the curse in Gen 3 is likely not fortuitous.”95 While intriguing, Postell’s summation faces difficulties. He does not incorporate Lev 14–15 within his scheme or attempt to link these chapters to Gen 3. Moreover, it is far from clear what he means by the immediate effect of the curse on Adam’s skin. The only mention of “skin” in Gen 1–3 occurs in relation to the “tunics of skin” (‫ )כתנות עור‬that YHWH fashions for the human pair (3:21). Postell’s suggestion could perhaps be bolstered by merging his insights with the abba structure apparent in Lev 12–15 in which chapter 14 is related to chapter 13 (regarding ‫ )צרעת‬and chapter 15 to chapter 12 (regarding matters related to procreation). Thus chapters 11–15 could be argued as having a structural layout that has been influenced by Gen 3:14–19 even while other considerations are also apparent. Like Postell, Kiu chi cl aims, “The cleanness/uncleanness rules are best explained by assuming Gen. 3 as their immediate background.”96 More explicitly he states, “The location of ch. 13 after chs. 11 and 12 is in keeping with the order of the divine verdict given after the fall in Gen. 3:14–19: first to the serpent, then the woman and then the man.”97 Unlike Postell, however, Kiuchi also attempts to integrate chapters 14 and 15. Chapters 13–14, addressing the tendency to try to hide ‫צרעת‬, are seen as being connected to the way the first man and woman hid themselves in the Garden.98 Chapter 15 with its focus on genital discharges is connected to the primordial pair’s donning of loincloths to hide their private parts. 93. Sailhamer, Pentateuch, 335. 94. Postell, Adam, 109 n. 131. 95. Ibid. 96. Kiuchi, Leviticus, 29. 97.  Ibid., 225. 98.  Ibid., 275. See, further, Kiuchi, “Paradox.”

132

Chapter 4

While avoiding some of the problems facing Postell, Kiuchi’s scheme nevertheless seems forced and is dependent on his wider thesis that the ‫ חטא‬root fundamentally means “to hide oneself,”99 a conclusion that has failed to win consensus.100 In sum, the above proposals regarding order, while suggestive, remain only possible at best. They may, however, contribute to the overall volume of connectivity between Lev 11 and Gen 1–3, and thereby draw increased plausibility from the proximity of more demonstrable parallels.101 Genesis 2–3 1. Eating as motif. Eating is a noted leitmotif in both Lev 11 and Gen 2–3. The ‫אכל‬ root occurs four times in Gen 2 and seventeen times each in Gen 3 and Lev 11.102 Moreover, within Gen 2–3 ‫ אכל‬plays a conspicuous narrative role. In chapter 2 the root relays positive (v. 16) and negative (v. 17) commands to the man regarding the eating of fruit from the trees in the Garden. In Gen 3, the whole narrative is structured around the theme of eating. Divine commands regarding food (cf. 2:16–17), especially eating from the forbidden tree, form the basis of discussion in 3:1–5. In the recounting of the fateful act itself, ‫( ויאכל‬3:6bβ) occurs at the midpoint of Gen 2–3’s central section.103 The ironic reversals that ensue (3:12–13) address the ingestion of food: the serpent will henceforth eat dust (3:14); the man will till a cursed earth, only eating its produce with pain and toil (3:17–19). Likewise, in Lev 11 the chief concern of the text turns on matters related to eating—in particular, the careful and comprehensive identification of which animals may and may not be consumed, with positive and negative commands issued accordingly. Within the broad conceptual parallel formed by this shared leitmotif, the lexical and syntactical overlap noted earlier serves to highlight some more specific connections. The first relates to the divinely given commands regarding eating. In both Gen 2 and Lev 11 God issues a positive command in relation to a food source. The man is instructed in Gen 2:16b, ‫“( מכל עץ־הגן אכל תאכל‬From all the trees of the garden you may/must surely eat”). In Lev 11:2b, YHWH declares, ‫זאת החיה אׁשר‬ ‫“( תאכלו מכל־הבהמה אׁשר על־הארץ‬These are the living creatures that you may eat from all the beasts that are upon the land”). As noted earlier, Trevaskis posits a link between these verses based on lexical and syntactical similarity. While the lexical 99.  See esp. Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, A Study of Hata’ and Hatta’t in Leviticus 4–5, FAT 2/2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). 100.  For an explicit critique, consult Leigh M. Trevaskis, “On a Recent ‘Existential’ Translation of hātā’,” VT 59 (2009): 313–19. 101.  Trevaskis regards structural parallels as sufficient to identify “some deliberate allusions” to Gen 1–3 in Lev 11–15 (Holiness, 97). 102.  Only Exod 12, Lev 7, and Deut 12 attest more occurrences of the root. 103. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 75.

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 11

133

and syntactical parallels are not as exact as Trevaskis claims, conceptual overlap is nevertheless apparent. YHWH (God) is the subject of diet-​based commands in both texts; each prescribes eating “from all” (‫ מן‬+ ‫ )כל‬of a food source; the form of the verb is identical, albeit necessarily adjusted for context (second-​person pl​./sg. qal yiqtol from ‫)אכל‬. Importantly, in both instances the invitation/command to eat “from all” of a food source is immediately constrained by exception(s).104 Genesis 2:17a signals a proviso to the universality of v. 16’s command with the disjunctively placed ‫“( ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע‬But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil . . .”), a tree the man is told he must not eat from (‫ לא‬+ ‫)אכל‬. Likewise, Lev 11 lists exceptions that may not be eaten (‫ לא‬+ ‫אכל‬, vv. 4, 8, 11, 13, 41–42, 47) immediately following the permission granted in vv. 2–3 (cf. vv. 9, 21–22, 47).105 A second connection is established by using ‫ אכל‬with ‫נגע‬. As discussed above, the rare combination of second-​person verb forms establishes a link between Lev 11 and Gen 3. In wording similar to the woman’s assertion that God had indeed said, “You will not eat from it and you will not touch it” (‫לא תאכלו ממנו ולא תגעו‬ ‫בו‬, Gen 3:3aβ–γ), YHWH commands in Lev 11:8a, “From their flesh you will not eat and their carcasses you will not touch” (‫)מבׂשרם לא תאכלו ובנבלהם לא תגעו‬. These lexical and syntactical connections further focus the wider motif. Both Gen 2 and Lev 11 present YHWH (God) as the authority concerning all things edible. He issues commands regarding what may and may not be consumed. Obedience, therefore, in both instances finds concrete application in relation to food. Eating would test both Adam’s and Israel’s adherence to divine instruction. Also developing the conceptual connection between Lev 11 and Gen 2–3 are the implications that stem from disobedient eating of prohibited items. For Adam the forewarned consequence was death (Gen 2:17b), a penalty that resulted in expulsion from the Garden (3:23–24). In a realm removed from the life-​g iving presence of YHWH physical demise was inevitable (3:19; cf. 5:5).106 The penalty in Lev 11 is conceptually similar. Animals forbidden for consumption are declared to be “unclean . . . for you” (‫ לכם‬. . . ]‫טמא[ה][ים‬, vv. 4–8, 26–28, 31, 35, 38). Touching the carcasses of these disallowed creatures—by extension, including the touching required to ingest them—rendered one “unclean until evening” (‫עד־הערב‬, 11:24 et passim). Becoming unclean, however, made one inadmissible to the tabernacle (cf. Lev 15:31). In other words, unclean Israelites found themselves effectively 104.  Cf. Robert H. O’Connell, “‫אכל‬,” NIDOTTE 1:395. 105.  The same pattern of positive command followed by immediate exception is also evident in the conclusion to the flood narrative. Following disembarkment, Noah and his progeny are given permission to eat “any moving thing that lives” (‫הוא־חי‬ ‫אׁשר‬ ‫כל־רמׂש‬, 9:3a), but they must not eat (‫ לא‬+ ‫ )אכל‬any blood (9:4). 106.  Regarding whether the threat of death correlates with Adam and Eve’s banishment, see R. W. L. Moberly, “Did the Serpent Get It Right?,” JTS 39 (1988): 1–27. See also Thomas Barrosse, “Death and Sin in Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” CBQ 15 (1953): 438–59, whose concept of “total death” helpfully holds together the physico-​spiritual nuances.

134

Chapter 4

banished from YHWH’s sanctuary presence. The penalty for eating proscribed food thus functionally separated Israelites from YHWH in a manner analogous to Adam and Eve’s banishment as consequence for a similar infraction.107 Thus, in relation to the motif of eating, several overlapping lexical, syntactical, and conceptual connections serve to form a type scene–like connection between Lev 11 and Gen 2–3.108 First, the wider context is (re)creation.109 Second, YHWH invites the eating of food “from all” of a given source (trees of the Garden; living creatures). Yet, third, YHWH also immediately forbids certain exceptions (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; unclean animals). Fourth, due warning is given regarding the consequences of disobedience (death; an unclean status). These implications, fifth, involve separation from YHWH (banishment from the Garden; banishment from the tabernacle). Sixth, in each case, exclusion from the divine presence occurs by means of animal involvement (the serpent, an archetypal unclean animal; forbidden animals, especially “land swarmers”). These correspondences serve to create a parallel between Israel and Adam. Israel stands, as it were, in Adam’s shoes, hearing similarly expressed dietary commands and facing the same requirement of obedience in relation to prohibited food choices. This in turn presents Israel with an opportunity to avoid repeating the primordial banishment.110 By adhering to YHWH’s word Israel has the potential to circumvent banishment and experience ongoing life, ‫לפני יהוה‬. Evaluation Lexical and syntactical parallels between Leviticus 11 and Gen 1–3 indicate a high likelihood of genuine connection. The conceptual parallels charted here further increase that probability. Shared concepts are integral to both contexts. Leviticus 11 utilizes the same spatial and taxonomical categories as Gen 1; it also gives cultic expression to acts of separation that Genesis uses to describe God’s creative endeavor. Moreover, the link between imitatio Dei and the image of God as well as the restoration of human-​animal relations sets the legislation of Lev 11 within a re-​creative context. The implications of this are spelled out via a shared motif of eating forbidden food that connects Israel’s story to Adam’s, a connection perhaps further indicated by the (possible) structuring of Lev 11–15 on Gen 3:14–19. In these ways, conceptual parallels between Lev 11 and Gen 1–3 are both signaled by lexical and syntactical similarities and in turn add further weight to the connection. In light of this mutually reinforcing dynamic, a genuine link between 107.  For further discussion, see Harper, “Time,” 191–93. See also Trevaskis, Holiness, 99–101. 108.  See my qualifications in chapter 2 regarding the use of Alter’s type-​scene concept in this manner. 109.  On this, see “Primary and Attendant Illocutions in Leviticus” in chapter 3. 110.  A similar point is made by Trevaskis, Holiness, 106.

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 11

135

these texts is highly probable. The question remains open, however, concerning the deliberateness of the parallels outlined.

Assessing the Deliberateness of Parallels The previous two sections suggest a connection between Lev 11 and Gen 1–3. However, demonstration of intertextual parallels does not by itself permit discussion of allusion. The latter requires establishing whether links between texts are deliberate, for only if parallels are intentional does it become possible to label them “allusion” and thereafter to discuss rhetorical function. Here, therefore, I subject connections outlined above to the four methodological steps proposed in chapter 2 for determining the probability of deliberate usage. The Quantity and Specificity of Parallels to the Same Text The first criterion for determining the deliberateness of intertextual linkage is based on the quantity and specificity of connections to the same text. The probability that one text intentionally parallels another is increased dependent upon whether the respective texts share (1) lexical clusters that do not appear in other texts, (2) multiple points of connection, and (3) parallels for which semantic equivalents were available. The lexical and syntactical parallels outlined above present crucial evidence. As seen, Lev 11 shares a number of rare and uncommon lexemes with the Genesis pericopes, including ‫רמׂש‬, ‫ץׁשר‬, ‫מקוה‬, and ‫מין‬. In addition, rare syntactical combinations are also evident: ‫( בדל‬hiphil infin. const.) + ‫ ;בין‬nominal and verbal forms of ‫ ׁשרץ‬and of ‫ זרע‬used in conjunction; ‫ ׁשרץ‬used with ‫אכל ;רמׂש‬ used with ‫( נגע‬in second-​person forms); the combinations ‫ מקוה‬+ ‫מים‬, ‫ ל‬+ ‫אכלה‬, ‫ מן‬+ ‫ כל‬+ ‫ ;בהמה‬and the phrases ‫ על־הארץ‬and ‫נפׁש (ה)חיה‬. More importantly, Lev 11 attests syntactical combinations that are found only here and in Gen 1–3. The use of ‫ רמׂש‬in relation to aquatic creatures is unique to Lev 11 and Gen 1, as is the shared phrase ‫כל(־)נפׁש החיה הרמׂשת‬. Also unique are the combinations ‫ גחון‬+ ‫ על‬+ ‫הלך‬ and ‫ ימים‬+ ‫ב‬. Thus, Lev 11 and Gen 1–3 share not only rare words and phrases, but also formulations and contextual usages that do not appear anywhere else. Moreover, the range of shared terminology (unique and otherwise) creates multiple points of connection to the same text(s). Leviticus 11 is, as it were, saturated with terminology found in, and sometimes only in, both Gen 1 and Gen 2–3. Nevertheless, a c ruci al question remains concerning whether synonyms were available. If not, then parallels may simply be coincidental owing to lexical limitation. Thus, adding to the probability of deliberate linkage is the availability of semantic alternatives. These include, for instance, ‫( מאכל‬or perhaps ‫)מכלת‬

136

Chapter 4

(“food”) for ‫אכלה‬, ‫“( זן‬kind”) for ‫מין‬, ‫“( ברכה‬pond”) or ‫“( מיכל‬reservoir”) for ‫מקוה‬, the more common ‫“( בטן‬belly”) or ‫“( כרׂש‬belly of an animal”111) for ‫גחון‬, or the use of ‫“( הלך‬to move”) instead of ‫ ׁשרץ‬or ‫רמׂש‬. Therefore, in light of available synonyms, some of which are more commonly attested, the deliberate repetition of words and phrases is made more likely. In sum, Lev 11 repeatedly and particularly parallels the language of Gen 1 and Gen 2–3. This lexical and syntactical connection to the same texts serves to draw attention to the link, thereby lessening the chance of “semantic loss” for the reader,112 and in doing so, implies intention. The Similarity of Narrative Settings As noted in chapter 2, lexical and syntactical parallels are insufficient by themselves to demonstrate intentional connecting of texts. A pattern of interconnected similarities is necessary to indicate more than a mere catalogue of unrelated parallels. If such a pattern can be established, then the likelihood of deliberate connection is correspondingly increased. Important, therefore, is the similarity evident between Gen 2–3 and Lev 11 in relation to the shared leitmotif of eating. The six elements that I outline above are common to both pericopes. The wider context in each instance is (re)creation, an essential aspect of which entails proper separation (cf. Gen 1; Lev 10:10). In this inaugural milieu, a source of food is divinely provided and then subsequently curtailed, presenting the respective recipients with a test of obedience. Due warning is also given, which makes clear that failure will result in separation from the divine presence. This correspondence establishes a parallel between Adam in the Garden and Israel at Sinai. Thus, while differences remain—for example, Genesis’s descriptive account of an individual versus Leviticus’s corporate prescription— the two texts bear a striking resemblance to each other in their underlying logic. Both display a common framework of elements that invites comparison. Drawing a parallel between Adam and Israel is further enhanced by the use of shared terminology. As noted above, Lev 11 contains a wealth of Gen 1 language and concepts. These parallels bequeath creation resonances to Lev 11—in particular, Israel’s appointed task to imitate YHWH by correctly ordering and dividing the created world. Furthermore, rare syntactical constructions relating to Adam’s invitation “to eat” (second-​person qal yiqtol from ‫“ )אכל‬from all” (‫ מן‬+ ‫ )כל‬of a food source with subsequent restrictions (‫ לא‬+ ‫)אכל‬, as well as Eve’s declaration that she should not eat or touch what God had prohibited (‫ אכל‬+ ‫)נגע‬, are all reflected in the wording of the Levitical law. Thus, specific lexical, syntactical, and 111.  Cleon L. Rogers, “‫ּכָ ֵרׂש‬,” NIDOTTE 2:728. 112.  See Schultz, Search, 225.

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 11

137

conceptual parallels are related to the wider narrative of Gen 2–3, a finding that suggests intentional connection. The Recontextualization of Prior Material A third criterion for testing whether intertextual parallels are intentionally deployed is determining whether prior material has been recontextualized. Albeit counterintuitive, the reworking of a text for a new situation is a better indicator of dependence than verbatim quotation (see chapter 2). Lyons notes that such “creative interaction” can take numerous forms: “An author can interpret an earlier text, use it as a basis for an argument, disagree with it, or reuse its words to create a new argument.”113 Important, therefore, are several ways in which Lev 11 has refashioned material that appears in Gen 1–3. First, Lev 11 uses the description of YHWH’s actions at creation to prescribe Israel’s actions in the present. Just as YHWH established order through separation (‫ בדל‬hiphil) on a cosmic scale, so Israel’s priests (Lev 10:10), and people generally (Lev 11:47; cf. 11:2), are to establish order through separation (‫ בדל‬hiphil) on a microcosmic scale. Part of that ordering activity is the proper categorizing of creatures “according to their kind” (‫ ל‬+ ‫)מין‬. Therefore, just as God populated the three spheres of sky, water, and land with their respective avian, aquatic, terrestrial, and “swarming” denizens (Gen 1:20–21, 24–26), so Israel is to think in similar terms and categorize accordingly. In this way, Israel is instructed to act as YHWH himself acted, to actively engage in imitatio Dei in relation to the ordering of the world (cf. Lev 11:44–45). Second, multiple elements of the Garden of Eden story are reworked in a legislative setting. The primordial grant of food (Gen 1:29; 2:16) with subsequent limitation (Gen 2:17) is echoed in Lev 11 using the same language. This time, however, the recipient of the divine allocation of food is not Adam, but Israel en masse (Lev 11:2). So also, it is now Israel that receives limitations on what may be eaten (Lev 11:4 et passim). Moreover, as noted earlier, the wider contours of the Gen 2–3 narrative vis-​à-​vis the motif of eating are represented in Lev 11. Along similar lines, there is also recontextualization of Eve’s “touching.” In Gen 3, a prohibition against touching is the woman’s innovation. In Lev 11:8, which like Gen 3:3 employs the rare pairing of ‫ אכל‬and ‫נגע‬, touching is disallowed by YHWH’s command. Thus, the verbal allusion is present, but it is doing different work. Third, the making of allusion often involves reworking the original syntax; that is, the actual forms used are contextually and grammatically determined by the alluding text. This is exactly what is found in Lev 11; for example, with regard to the unique syntactical cluster of ‫ גחון‬+ ‫ על‬+ ‫הלך‬. The direct address of the serpent 113. Lyons, Law, 73.

138

Chapter 4

in Gen 3:14 is reflected in the second-​person forms of both verb and pronominal suffix (‫)על־גחנך תלך‬. Leviticus 11:42, in contrast, reworks the same verb, preposition, and noun combination in order to delineate a category of creature (‫כל הולך‬ ‫)על־גחון‬, one that by virtue of the rare combination recalls the Edenic serpent’s cursed mode of locomotion. This shared syntactical combination may serve to connect the commands in Lev 11 with the primordial infidelity and its catastrophic consequences. If it does, then Lev 11:42 reworks the language of Gen 3:14 for its own theological purposes. These examples of recontextualization demonstrate that parallels between Lev 11 and Gen 1–3 are not merely examples of copying (in either direction). Rather, shared words, concepts, and grammatical forms have been reworked for a new context. Most fundamentally, elements appearing in Genesis’s narrative description are, in Lev 11, utilized for cultic prescription. Such transformation strongly suggests deliberate linkage between Lev 11 and the pericopes of Gen 1–3. Synergy with Other Rhetorical Features A fourth criterion for determining whether intertextual connections are deliberate is the synergy of these connections with other rhetorical features in the alluding text. Rhetorical devices are employed to persuade readers; thus, they open a window into the intended function of the text as an act of communication. Therefore, if rhetorical features in Lev 11 are seen to interact with, utilize, or even depend upon intertextual connections to Gen 1–3, then deliberate linkage of these texts for persuasive purposes is made more probable. One device that proves important for my purposes here is what Yairah Amit terms “rhetorical progression.” Rhetorical progression is defined as a rhetorical technique, or contrivance, that organizes the data for the author in a multi-​phased, hierarchical structure, wherein the elements are arranged in an ascending or descending order: from the general to the particular, or vice versa; from minor to major, or the reverse; from the expected to the unexpected; the impersonal to the personal, and so on. Often the final step in the progression is the climactic one, while each of the preceding steps plays its part in expanding or narrowing the sequence, and thereby shedding more light on the subject.114

Accordingly, Amit concludes that even when the sequence of a given text seems arbitrary it is likely that it has an underlying organizing principle.115 Hence, “its discovery, like that of other artistic devices, heightens the awareness of the texts’ 114.  Yairah Amit, “Progression as a Rhetorical Device in Biblical Literature,” JSOT 28 (2003): 9. 115. Ibid.

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 11

139

crafting and styling . . . finding it enhances and enriches the reading.”116 Rhetorical progression is indicative of intent. Leviticus 11 evidences such progression.117 First, the chapter’s structural arrangement places stress on the “land swarmers” (see above, “Orientation to Leviticus 11”). As noted, Lev 11 divides all living creatures into terrestrial, aquatic, and aerial varieties as well as the “swarmers” (‫ )ׁשרץ‬that occupy each sphere. However, “land swarmers” appear out of sequence. Rather than being listed as a subset of the main class, as is the case for aquatic and aerial “swarmers” (cf. vv. 10, 20–23), “land swarmers” are listed separately (vv. 29–38, 41–45). Importantly, these creatures are the final category to be discussed (contrary to the expected order of the text) and therefore represent, as per Amit, the climactic animal type. Furthermore, these “land swarmers” receive the lengthiest discussion, they alone have the potential to make objects and food unclean (vv. 32–38),118 and, uniquely, they are contrasted with the imperative to be holy like YHWH (v. 44). Second, there is a progression throughout chapter 11 with respect to increasing uncleanness. Use of ‫“( טמא‬unclean”) in 11:4–8 for quadrupeds is replaced by the stronger ‫“( ׁשקץ‬detestable”)119 in relation to prohibited fish and birds (vv. 10–23).120 Of note is that both terms are used in connection with “land swarmers.” In vv. 29–30, eight examples of creatures “among the swarmers that swarm upon the ground” (‫ )בׁשרץ הׁשרץ על־הארץ‬are declared “unclean” (‫ )טמא‬for the Israelites (v. 29; cf. v. 31). Verse 41 then states in near-​verbatim terms that “all the swarmers that swarm upon the ground are detestable” (‫כל־הׁשרץ הׁשרץ על־הארץ‬ ‫)ׁשקץ‬. Baruch Levine rightly deduces the emphasis when he concludes that these creatures convey impurity of greater consequence than other land, water, or aerial creatures.121 The defiling potential of “land swarmers” receives further emphasis in vv. 31–38. While touching the carcasses of clean and unclean animals makes a person unclean (vv. 24–28, 39–40), carcasses of “land swarmers” defile not only people (v. 31), but also objects and food (vv. 32–38). Even part of their carcass (‫ )מנבלהם‬is enough to impute uncleanness (v. 35). Finally, these creatures alone have the ability to make 116.  Ibid., 28. 117.  I am indebted to Trevaskis (Holiness, 81–87) for drawing my attention to this feature of Lev 11. 118.  The exception is clothes that are made unclean because of contact with carcasses (11:25, 28). 119.  For understanding ‫ ׁשקץ‬as a more intense category, contra Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 684), see Michael A. Grisanti, “‫ׁשקץ‬,” NIDOTTE 4:243–44; Hartley, Leviticus, 158; Bellinger, Leviticus, 74; Kiuchi, Leviticus, 196. 120.  The parallel passage in Deut 14 uses ‫ טמא‬for all the animal types listed. The change from ‫ טמא‬to ‫ ׁשקץ‬in Lev 11 is thus further emphasized. At minimum, therefore, it is worth considering the possible rhetorical effect of the shift. 121. Levine, Leviticus, 69. Milgrom surmises that these creatures are the most repulsive (Leviticus 1–16, 685).

140

Chapter 4

people detestable.122 Not without reason, then, the Israelites are presented with the admonition of v. 43: “Do not make your lives detestable with any swarmer that swarms and do not defile yourselves with them.” Thus, as noted above and pace Milgrom, 123 11:24–40 seems less concerned with out-​of-​place purification procedures and more with emphasizing the significant defiling potential of both death and the “land swarmers.”124 Significantly, rhetorical progression in connection with “land swarmers” and increasing uncleanness merges in the climactic section of the text (vv. 41–45) where the “land swarmers”—the only animals mentioned125—are used to contrast YHWH’s holiness. The point is heightened through the repetition of terms: “all” (‫כל‬, x6) the “swarmers” (‫ׁשרץ‬, x7) that swarm “upon the earth” (‫על־הארץ‬, x3) are “detestable” ( ‫ׁשקץ‬, x2), have the potential “to defile” (‫טמא‬, x3) and make people “detestable” (‫ׁשקץ‬, x1) and therefore must be forsaken in order to become “holy” (‫קד[ו]ׁש‬, x5) like YHWH. In this way, the supremely defiling “land swarmers” are presented as the very epitome of anti-​YHWH existence (cf. v. 44). Crucially, this rhetorical progression in Lev 11 climaxes at the very point where shared syntax implies a connection between the “land swarmers” and the serpent of Gen 3:14 ( ‫ גחון‬+ ‫ על‬+ ‫הלך‬, 11:42).126 The link, in context, could perhaps be intended to portray the opposing voices (YHWH or serpent) that Israel must decide between. Alternately, it could also bring to mind the (cursed) antithesis to becoming like YHWH. Either way, the interweaving of intertextual linkage with rhetorical device implies the connection is deliberate.127 Evaluation Leviticus 11 displays numerous lexical, syntactical, and conceptual parallels with Gen 1–3. Nevertheless, in order to term connections “allusion” and move to discuss rhetorical function, it is necessary to establish whether or not parallels are deliberate. In subjecting connections to the criteria outlined in chapter 2 for assessing intention, positive results were achieved in each instance. First, Lev 11 shares rare 122. Trevaskis, Holiness, 103. The same potential is intrinsic to the judgments enacted by YHWH against Egypt. For discussion, see Boorer, Vision, 257–62. 123. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 691–92. 124.  See “Orientation to Leviticus 11.” 125.  Leviticus 11:42 delineates three types of “land swarmers.” See Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 683. 126.  Kiuchi opines that the unexpected nonmention of “serpent” among the listed examples in vv. 29–30 serves to further heighten the connection to Gen 3 through conspicuous omission (Study, 105). 127.  André Wénin, “Le serpent de NB 21,4–9 et de GN 3,1: Intertextualité et élaboration du sens,” in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. Thomas Römer, BETL 215 (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), proposes a similar connection to the Genesis account for rhetorical effect in Num 21. He suggests, “La logique des Israélites est exactement la même que celle du serpent de l’Éden” (552).

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 11

141

lexemes and syntactical constructions with Gen 1–3, including some that are found only in these two contexts. Moreover, multiple instances of shared terminology were seen to increase the overall connectivity between the texts. Second, similarities between Lev 11 and Gen 2–3 became apparent in relation to a shared leitmotif of eating. This common framework of elements indicates that intertextual connections are not merely a catalogue of disparate parallels. Third, several examples of recontextualization were noted. Such reworking of material is a strong indicator of intended textual linkage. Fourth, connections to Gen 3 in particular were determined to be interwoven with the climax of a rhetorical progression in Lev 11. This synergy between intertextual link and rhetorical device presents further indication that a connection to Genesis is deliberate. The combined weight of the above factors makes it highly probable that Lev 11 intentionally alludes to both Gen 1 and to Gen 2–3. The rhetorical force that such allusion contributes to the pericope will be the focus of the remainder of this chapter.

The Rhetorical Function of Allusion in Leviticus 11 The above analysis is suggestive regarding the use of allusion in Lev 11. Accordingly, and following the methodology outlined in chapter 3, I proceed to identify illocutions performed by allusion to Gen 1–3 in Lev 11. Proposed illocutions are then tested by seeing if they are commensurate with illocutions performed by the book as a whole. Having clarified the force of allusion in Lev 11, I then explore how reference to Gen 1–3 may have functioned rhetorically in each of the four representative contexts surveyed in chapter 3. Illocutions Performed by Allusion to Genesis 1–3 Intertextual connection to Gen 1–3 enables a number of illocutions in Lev 11. Multiple parallels to the opening chapter of Genesis serve to remind readers of the nature of the original creation. Allusion to the spatial categories and animal taxonomy of Gen 1 brings to mind the scope and diversity of the created world as well as its orderliness. In the same vein, readers are also reminded of the human-​ animal harmony that once existed. Lexical parallels to Gen 1 and to Gen 2 further remind readers of YHWH’s generous provision of food and his subsequent command concerning a sole exception. In doing so, allusion declares that YHWH is a God of order who fashioned a world in which everything has its proper place. It also declares that YHWH abundantly provides for his creatures and that YHWH is the Sovereign Lord who decides what may and may not be eaten. However, alluding to the Garden story also functions to remind readers of Adam and Eve’s transgression in relation to eating prohibited food. This is particularly

142

Chapter 4

enabled through the use of rare language in connection to eating and touching.128 The use of allusion to connect the “land swarmers” of Lev 11 with the serpent of Gen 3 also reminds Pentateuch readers of the disastrous cursed consequences that stem from ignoring YHWH’s commands. Together these reminders of the primordial infidelity and punishment act to warn against similar disobedience in relation to culinary matters. In fact, the piling up of multiple lexical, syntactical, and conceptual connections allows allusion in Lev 11 to portray Israel as an Adam figure—to make the primeval account of humanity’s exile from the Garden a conceptual parallel for understanding the nation’s story. Thus, the people are portrayed as facing the same scenario that Adam and Eve faced: divine provision of abundant food, albeit with accompanying restriction, with the penalty for infraction involving banishment from YHWH’s presence. Such portrayal is in accord with the likely intentions of the author of Gen 2–3. If, as Wenham argues, this pericope is both protohistorical and paradigmatic,129 then deliberate allusion appropriates the Garden narrative in line with its paradigmatic function. Yet allusion to Gen 1–3 also invites a different response from Israel. The priests in particular, but also the nation as a whole, are invited to join in the divine task of correctly ordering the world through careful separation of animals. In this way, allusion to divine activity at the formation of the world functions to call Israel to imitate their God, to act as he does. Perhaps also at work here is allusion to primordial conditions serving to promise (albeit conditioned upon obedience) the restoration within Israel of the orderliness of creation and of humanity in the image of God. Thereby enabled is a declaration that God’s original purposes for the world and for humanity still stand. In light of that declaration, Lev 11 invites its readers and hearers to be agents of restoration, to begin to reenact on a microcosmic scale a renewed creation. Correlation with the Illocutions of the Book Within the wider story line of the Pentateuch, the book of Leviticus is positioned as a response to the narrative tension raised at the conclusion of Exodus. In other words, now that the people in a very real sense find themselves living ‫לפני יהוה‬, Leviticus addresses how an excluded humanity (cf. Gen 3:24; Exod 40:35) may approach and dwell in proximity to the ‫כבוד יהוה‬. Accordingly, the book outlines the precautions, even transformation, that is required. As Douglas notes, while the gods of the nations might live on remote mountain tops, the immediacy and accessibility of 128.  Thus, Leviticus alludes to the whole Garden story—i.e., not just to Adam, but to Eve too: she is the one who speaks about eating and touching. 129.  See Gordon J. Wenham, “Genesis 1–11 as Protohistory,” in Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters, ed. Charles Halton (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2015), 73–97.

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 11

143

YHWH requires scrupulous care.130 Regarding that purpose, Leviticus as a rhetorical unit performs a number of general illocutions. As listed in chapter 3 (“Primary and Attendant Illocutions in Leviticus”), these include declaring, imposing, reminding, equipping, describing, promising, demanding, calling, inviting, warning, permitting, and prohibiting. The identification of these generalized speech acts provides a means of testing the pericope-​level illocutions suggested above by determining if they are commensurate with those functioning at the level of the book. As can be readily observed, illocutions performed by allusion in Lev 11 serve the wider rhetorical aims of the book. Leviticus makes declarations regarding the character of YHWH. Allusion to Gen 1–3 in Lev 11 adds nuance to that declaration. YHWH is declared to be the Creator who established an ordered cosmos in the beginning. As part of his creative prowess YHWH is also one who provides; in particular, one who furnishes his creatures with abundant food. Yet YHWH is also declared to be sovereign; it is he who decrees which foods are permissible and which are not. Moreover, through allusion to the cursed serpent of Gen 3 YHWH is declared to be judge, holding his creatures responsible for their actions. By declaring these aspects of YHWH’s character, allusion in Lev 11 furthers the book’s function as warning. The general admonition in Leviticus against violation of cultic and moral boundaries finds a specific example in the warning leveled against consumption of forbidden food. Transgression is shown to be an affront to YHWH’s sovereignty by its ignoring of his prerogative to define acceptable food sources. Furthermore, the specific focus on food indicates that the warning extended by Leviticus applies not only to cultic life but to noncultic, private life also (or perhaps transmutes all of life to a cultic status). Specific parallels to the primordial account add considerable force to the warning by bringing to mind the archetypal story of food-​law violation. However, acts of warning contribute to an invitation for cohabitation extended by the book. By heeding Lev 11’s cautions, Israel will avoid uncleanness stemming from wrongful eating and touching and consequently may dwell with YHWH, even being able to approach and access his tabernacled presence. Moreover, the general call extended by Leviticus for Israel to be engaged in imitatio Dei finds a concrete example in chapter 11’s allusion-​enabled illocutions. Israel is to separate and order the world in a manner akin to the divine activity in the beginning—here in relation to correctly categorizing animals. In this way, allusion to Gen 1 furthers the book’s aim to impose its regulations upon readers, for allusion invests seemingly trivial dietary commands with great significance. Food choice becomes a mimetic act.131 Yet, inviting Israel to act like God in relation to separation further 130. Douglas, Tears, 168. 131.  This reality makes sense of Lev 11:44–45 and its seemingly jarring disconnect from the preceding material.

144

Chapter 4

clarifies the promissory function of Leviticus. Through the imposing of order on the animal kingdom, Israel will emulate one of humanity’s primordial tasks (cf. Gen 2:19–20). Thus the implicit promise made by Leviticus for God’s eventual restoration of creation will not only begin in Israel but will come to pass through the nation’s active participation. The Rhetorical Function of Allusion The above illocutions illustrate the persuasive force derived from allusion to Gen 1–3. Nevertheless, the question remains concerning the recipients of persuasion, Who is trying to persuade whom with these illocutions enabled by allusion? Therefore, to discuss the rhetorical function of allusion requires making historical-​ critical decisions regarding the author(s) and audience of the text. However, as I highlighted in chapter 3, these vital identifications continue to be hotly contested. Nevertheless, illocutions may be profitably discussed in relation to the four main contexts that are associated with the provenance of Leviticus. The advantage of this approach is twofold. First, I can discuss the function of allusion in relation to a specific historical context and thus be more specific. Second, my analysis avoids being dependent on a particular reconstruction that may change as further data come to light. I will examine each scenario in turn. Postexilic Function In this period, the laws of kashrut marked one of the key distinctions between Israel and the nations (cf. 1 Macc 1:62–63; 2 Macc 6:18). Leviticus 11, as the most extensive treatment of the topic in the Old Testament, was therefore of primary import. Use of allusion to Gen 1–3, and the illocutions thereby enabled, would have served to increase the significance of the whole dietary system. By recalling the spatial categories and taxonomy of Gen 1, Lev 11 connects its regulations to the very order established in creation. Moreover, the correct differentiation and separation of living creatures in Lev 11 is made a parallel act to God’s creative activity of separation. In this way, allusion to Genesis invests the dietary laws with vastly increased importance. Thus, the food laws, with their implied separating function vis-​à-​vis “the nations” (cf. Lev 20:25–26),132 may not simply be dismissed as a matter of indifference; rather, dietary restrictions carry immense theological significance. Lending further support to this aim is the use of allusion in Lev 11 to warn against disobedience. Here, parallels to Adam and Eve paint a concrete picture of the consequences of ignoring commands regarding food that come from YHWH himself (cf. 11:1–2a). Such strong warning would serve to counter potential neglect. Parallels to the primeval story would also serve the imposition 132.  Levine sees this function as being the primary purpose of the legislation (Leviticus, 244).

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 11

145

of these regulations upon people as well as motivating obedience by acting as a foil—that is, a negative picture used to provoke a positive response. In light of the nation’s recent experience of exile, parallels drawn to the banishment from Eden would be especially poignant. The reminder of the original creation and the implicit promise of YHWH’s intent to bring about restoration would also have served to generate hope in a context of disillusionment. In a situation marked by the continued absence of seemingly guaranteed institutions—the Davidic monarchy in particular—the temptation may have arisen to doubt YHWH’s commitment to his promises. Yet the invitation extended to Israel via allusion in Lev 11, to share in the divine work of ordering creation, would demonstrate that YHWH’s purposes for Israel and the world had not been replaced or superseded. Rather, his commitment is seen to be undiluted, thereby requiring faithful trust even in the absence of evidence. Exilic Function Against this backdrop, allusion to Genesis in Lev 11 performs a number of significant functions. Of particular importance is the deliberate paralleling of Israel with Adam and Eve. The primordial story of divine dietary command, subsequently abrogated with accompanying punishment, would give Israel a conceptual basis to understand its own story.133 Banishment of the original humans for disobeying YHWH’s command in relation to food was a just penalty, one duly forewarned. Likewise, Israel’s banishment from Canaan was also just; the nation too had been repeatedly forewarned. Yet persistent disobedience to YHWH’s commands—perhaps even explicitly in relation to unclean animals (cf. Ezek 8:9–10)—required commensurate punishment. Furthermore, allusion to Genesis would also function as an ongoing warning to exiles in dispersion. The categorization of animals and resulting dietary commands outlined in Lev 11 are repeatedly tied to the very order of creation. Thus, in the absence of temple and cult officials these laws remain binding—even in Babylon. Such warning would also function to prevent assimilation (cf. Dan 1) and so preserve cultural identity.134 However, allusion to Gen 1–3 would also have a more positive function in an exilic setting. The reminder of creation and accompanying declaration regarding YHWH as the God who brings order convey two things. First, YHWH, as Creator, 133.  Similarly, Bonar suggests that the purpose of Lev 11 is to point Israel to Adam’s “fall” (Leviticus, 210). 134.  For this reason Nihan posits that the criteria of Lev 11 originated in exile (Priestly Torah, 334–35). Nihan’s suggestion, however, is not persuasive. Dietary laws must have already been authoritative before the exile to have had any bearing on a people dispersed across the empire. Furthermore, Ezekiel claims that from his youth he had never eaten defiled food (Ezek 4:14), a claim that stretches back into his life before deportation. That said, it may well be that the dietary laws took on greater significance in the context of exile.

146

Chapter 4

is not restricted to Canaan but is sovereignly present even in Babylon. Second, as a God able to establish order, YHWH can overcome even the “chaos” of exile.135 Similarly, the reminder of YHWH’s provision of food (for Adam and for Israel) declares that his stance toward his people is not uncaring but is in fact benevolent. Yet imposed restrictions (for Adam and for Israel) also remind readers of the potential of provoking YHWH’s righteous judgment. Nonetheless, allusion functions to invite a better response—to share in the divine task of correctly ordering the world. While perhaps an implicit call to repentance, this invitation is also a call for active participation in the overthrow of chaos through microcosmic reordering and, as such, hints at a better world to come. Monarchical Function Links established between the dietary regulations of Lev 11 and Gen 1 serve the aim of prophetic warning by rooting the legislation in creation patterns. Thus Israel’s cultic requirements are linked to the order of the world, implicitly implying their universal applicability across time and space. Submission to Lev 11’s demands, therefore, is given added incentive in a wider arena of alternative claims.136 The reminder of YHWH’s abundant provision of food conveyed via allusion to Gen 1 and to Gen 2 would also act as a polemic against a demonstrated tendency to seek such blessing elsewhere—from Baal, for example, as in the days of Ahab (1 Kgs 16:29–33). Instead, allusion portrays YHWH as the generous (and sole) provider of food for his people. However, parallels established between Israel and Adam also warn of the consequences of disobedience. Adam and Eve’s banishment from Eden would act as an ominous (albeit veiled) threat of Israel’s potential fate.137 Yet, while parallels exist, the potential fates are also dissimilar. While the original human couple faced permanent removal from YHWH’s presence, the penalty for violation in Lev 11 consisted of temporary exclusion from tabernacle/temple—people became unclean only “until evening.” Thus, the pedagogical function of the legislation becomes clear. Israel must learn obedience and would be given the opportunity to do so three times a day as people sat down to eat,138 or indeed every time they encountered an animal carcass. While the need for such instruction acts as a rebuke of the 135.  For exile as “chaos,” see Michael Fishbane, “The Sacred Center: The Symbolic Structure of the Bible,” in Texts and Responses: Studies Presented to Nahum N. Glatzer on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday by His Students, ed. Michael Fishbane and P. R. Flohr (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 22. 136.  For discussion of dietary laws and the sacrificial use of animals across the Levant, see Houston, Purity, 124–80. 137.  Hence, Trevaskis suggests that the dietary laws were intended to dissuade Israel from experiencing exile (Holiness, 106). 138.  Derek Tidball, The Message of Leviticus: Free to Be Holy, BST (Leicester: IVP, 2005), 141, notes: “A God whose presence was felt in the kitchen was not a God you could marginalize.”

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 11

147

nation’s tendency to dismiss YHWH’s demands, perhaps also hinted at is God’s desire to avoid repetition of the past—to secure permanent cohabitation in contradistinction to Adam and Eve’s fate, or at least as much cohabitation as is possible in a post-​Eden world. Toward this end, the legislation of Lev 11 invites participation in the divine ordering of creation. Thus the general demand for imitatio Dei (“Be holy as I am holy,” vv. 44–45) is given concrete expression. Premonarchical Function Allusions to the order of creation established by YHWH would resonate with the nation’s recent experience, which involved, among other things, a display of YHWH’s power over creation as nature was utilized to wield judgment upon Egypt (Exod 7:14–11:10). Parallels to creation order and especially the invitation to participate in establishing that order within Israel would also serve to set the nation’s redemption within a wider creational framework.139 More was at stake in freeing Israel then mere liberation from slavery; YHWH was inaugurating a new creation and had redeemed Israel to be agents of that re-​creation. The correct separation of animals, therefore, not only furthers that restoration but gives concrete illustration of what it means for Israel to be a priestly nation (Exod 19:5–6). That this was a task to be undertaken by every person at every meal would also develop a sense of corporate solidarity—an essential requirement for a fledgling nation.140 Yet the call for imitatio Dei also sounds a warning. The nation’s recent experience had demonstrated YHWH’s opposition to anticreational agendas—in particular, Pharaoh’s plan to curtail the multiplication and fruitfulness of Israel (Exod 1; cf. Gen 1:28; 17:2). YHWH is continuing his original creational purposes; all who seek to subvert those plans face destruction. Thus, the extension of reordering into the realm of private culinary habits indicates the care that must be exercised. Allegiance to YHWH must be all-​encompassing. Warning is also conveyed though allusion to Adam and Eve’s pursuit of forbidden food. Alluding to their story reveals that even something as seemingly trivial as eating may occasion major consequences. Also, food laws in Lev 11 define boundary conditions similar to those established in the Garden. Together such warnings would take on an added edge in the context of continual grumbling over food—especially hankering after Egyptian delicacies following the exodus (Num 11:4–6). Moreover, allusion to YHWH’s ability and willingness to provide generously for his creatures would serve to rebuke the people for their repeated lack of faith in this regard.

139.  For an attempt to redress the common presentation of creation as a subset of redemption, see Och, “Creation”; Fretheim, “Reclamation.” For a recent rejoinder, see Neville, “On Exaggerating.” 140. Hartley, Leviticus, 163.

148

Chapter 4

Conclusion In this chapter I set out to explore whether allusion to Gen 1–3 is present in Lev 11 and, if demonstrated, to discuss its rhetorical function. The use of the methodological steps outlined in chapter 2 suggests a high probability that bona fide intertextual connections are, in fact, present and that they are deliberately employed. Hence, having suggested illocutions made possible by allusion, I discussed their potential function in each of the four historical contexts normally canvassed for the book’s provenance. The investigation of allusion and rhetoric carried out above is revealing with regard to the nature of Leviticus. The book’s style, so frequently denigrated, instead reveals hidden depth and sophistication. Leviticus 11 is doing much more than simply making assertions about which animals are suitable for the table. Rather, the text is written to captivate and to persuade; it does so through the use of literary artistry, including rich allusion to the opening chapters of Genesis. Leviticus 11, therefore, perhaps indicative of the book as a whole, is a consummate work of art.

Chapter 5

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 16

Orientation to Leviticus 16 The Day of Atonement in Lev 16 constitutes the centerpiece of the book’s literary structure and the climax of Israel’s sacrificial system. For over two millennia this rite has remained central to Jewish faith.1 Nevertheless, the ritual continues to remain somewhat of an enigma. On the one hand, the importance of the pericope is signified by the number of uniquely occurring ritual elements, and, based on its central position in Leviticus, Rendtorff concludes: “So kann man Leviticus 16 geradezu als ‘Mitte der Tora’ bezeichnen.”2 Yet, on the other hand, many scholars note that the rite prescribed in Lev 16 does not feature elsewhere in the Old Testament outside Leviticus.3 While this is not entirely the case,4 the relative paucity of references is nevertheless noticeable. Until the late nineteenth century Lev 16 was read as a unified composition. Studies by Henricus Oort (1876) and Immanuel Benzinger (1889), however, challenged the status quo by suggesting evidence of widespread interpolation. Benzinger concluded that only vv. 1–4, 6, 12–13, and 34b were original,5 in contrast to Oort, who had previously argued that vv. 1–4, 11b–14, 16, 18a, 19, 23, 24a, 25a, and 29a were original.6 This trend continued through the twentieth century as various studies attempted to isolate the original text of Lev 16 from its secondary accretions.7 Yet 1.  There are three principal names given to the rite: (1) the MT refers to it as ‫הכיפורים‬ ‫( ;יום‬2) the LXX calls it (ἡ) ἡμέρα (τοῦ) ἐξιλασμοῦ; (3) in Modern Hebrew it is termed ‫כיפור‬ ‫יום‬. A fourth name appearing in the piyyutim is ‫סליחה‬ ‫יום‬. Throughout, I use the names synonymously. 2.  Rendtorff, “Leviticus 16,” 258. 3.  For instance, Péter-​Contesse, Lévitique 1–16, 246. The prescriptions in Num 29:7–11, while explicitly referring to the tenth day of the seventh month, do not mention the name of the day or make reference to a “scapegoat.” Against a noted tendency to argue from this silence and postulate a late (usually postexilic) origin for the Day of Atonement, Dillmann cautions, “Die Nichterwähnung [of the Day of Atonement] im übrigen AT. beweist nichts, sonst müsste man annehmen, die Feier sei erst im 1. christlichen Jahrhundert enstanden, denn erst aus diesem hat man ausdrückliche Bezeugungen derselben” (Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus, 2nd ed., KHAT [Leipzig: Hirzel, 1880], 525). 4.  See my discussion in Harper, “Theological and Exegetical Significance,” 53–55. The Day of Atonement ceremony may also lie behind Zech 5:5–11 (a point suggested to me in personal correspondence with Anthony R. Petterson). 5.  Immanuel Benzinger, “Das Gesetz über den grossen Versöhnungstag Lev. XVI: Eine pentateuchkritische Studie,” ZAW 9 (1889): 77–78. 6.  Henricus Oort, “De groote Verzoendag,” ThT 10 (1876): 142–65. 7.  E.g., Elliger, Leviticus, 202–10.

149

150

Chapter 5

the only consensus to emerge was that Lev 16 is composite. Koch’s summary exemplifies the resulting sentiment: “Das Ritual von Kap. 16 aus verschiedenen Riten zusammengewachsen ist.”8 However, for many, a verdict of “composite” necessarily bequeathed a degree of haphazardness to the final-​form pericope. Gerstenberger, for instance, writes: “Presumably, the various customs involved in celebrating a day of penance . . . coalesced over the course of longer periods of time and were fixed in written form in a more or less fortuitous selection and order.9 Similarly, Noth asserts: “It is evident at first glance that the chapter is in its present form the result of a fairly long previous history that has left its traces in a strange lack of continuity and unity about the whole.”10 Thus Noth speaks of elements being in “quite the wrong place,” revealing in turn, arrangement “by mistake.”11 Interpretation of Lev 16 became more complex still in the wake of comparative studies that posited parallels between its prescriptions and various ANE rituals and ceremonies.12 Because of this complexity, coupled with a complete lack of consensus regarding the genesis and development of chapter 16, many scholars simply conclude that its prehistory is impossible to recover.13 However, against this sustained attempt to reconstruct the compositional history of Lev 16 Péter-​ Contesse asks a pertinent question: Cela est littérairement vraisemblable, mais est-​ce suffisant pour privilégier dans l’interpretation un hypothétique état antérieur du texte et ne pas render compte du texte canonique?14

Important, therefore, are more recent studies that argue that Lev 16 displays significant coherence in its received form. Milgrom, for example, concludes that vv. 2–28 had an independent existence before they were linked to the “appendix” of vv. 29–3415 and to the narrative introduction of v. 1, which in his scheme functions as an editorial link between chapter 10 and chapter 16.16 Thus Milgrom cut 8. Koch, Die Priesterschrift, 95. See, similarly, Kjell Aartun, “Studien zum Gesetz über den grossen Versöhnungstag Lv 16 mit Varianten: Ein ritualgeschichtlicher Beitrag,” ST 34 (1980): 103. 9. Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 213. 10. Noth, Leviticus, 117. 11.  Ibid., 121. 12.  E.g., Hans M. Krümmel, “Ersatzkönig und Sündenbock,” ZAW 80 (1968): 289–318; Oswald Loretz, Leberschau, Sündenbock, Asasel in Ugarit und Israel, UBL 3 (Altenberge: CIS-​Verlag, 1985); Hayim Tawil, “ʿAzazel the Prince of the Steepe [sic]: A Comparative Study,” ZAW 92 (1980): 43–59; Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, “Der biblische Azazel und AIT *126,” UF 25 (1994): 99–117. 13.  So Noth, Leviticus, 117–19; Péter-​Contesse, Lévitique 1–16, 245–46. 14.  Péter-​Contesse, Lévitique 1–16, 247. 15. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1012. For Milgrom, the secondary nature of vv. 29–34a is evidenced both by their lexical divergence from vv. 2–28 and their perceived attempt to correct aspects of the latter (1064–65). 16. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1061.

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 16

151

across the tendency displayed by earlier scholarship to fragment vv. 2–28 into multiple layers.17 His conclusions are echoed by others, including Theodor Seidl, who regards vv. 3–28 as a mostly uniform text (“ein meist einheitlicher Text”) to which vv. 29–34 have been appended.18 However, these proposals still leave a major question unaddressed, a question that becomes all the more pertinent if vv. 29–34 were added (presumably intentionally) to vv. 2–28—namely, what is the purpose of the combined text of Lev 16 within the book? Synchronic approaches to Lev 16 are also evident. Gane argues that the chapter should be considered a unity. A key reason for Gane is that if Lev 16 is a composite text, composed from independent traditions, then the various rites it outlines cannot have been intended to function together as a cohesive system.19 Yet this is precisely what we find—Lev 16 presents the Day of Atonement ritual as a complete system that is functionally integrated within the larger structure of the Israelite cult.20 Similarly, Warning takes issue with a composite approach, suggesting that this might prevent the search for literary patterns, which may, in turn, indicate cohesiveness.21 Instead, he proceeds to offer evidence for literary unity by exploring several microstructural features that span the entire pericope.22 Still others, including Angel Rodriguez, John Currid, and Michael Morales, have developed chiastic structures for Lev 16 as a whole.23 Gorman’s conclusion, then, is not without basis: While it is important to recognize the complexity of the chapter’s growth, it is also important to examine the current dynamics of the text as a self-​contained unit of meaning. The current shape of Leviticus 16 represents an important level of development in any proper understanding of the history of Israelite traditions.24

17.  Elliger, for example, divides vv. 2–28 into three layers: his “Grundschicht,” “erste Bearbeitung,” and “Schlußredaktion” (Leviticus, 200–201). 18.  Theodor Seidl, “Levitikus 16—‘Schlußstein’ des priesterlichen Systems der Sündenvergebung,” in Levitikus als Buch, ed. Heinz-​Josef Fabry and Hans-​Winfried Jüngling, BBB 119 (Berlin: Philo, 1999), 245–46. 19. Gane, Cult, 32. 20.  Ibid., 36. 21. Warning, Artistry, 87. 22.  Ibid., 86–88, 124–26, 152–54. He concludes: “This impressive structure, which seemingly testifies to the literary integrity of the extant text, challenges the hypothesis of different provenience” (126). 23.  Angel Manuel Rodriguez, “Leviticus 16: Its Literary Structure,” AUSS 34 (1996): 283; John D. Currid, Leviticus (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2004), 213; Morales, Tabernacle, 266. 24. Gorman, Ideology, 66–67. For a comparable conclusion, see Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 143. Kiuchi suggests that “it is equally important to inquire into the meaning of the ritual in its present context, viz. what the supposed editor intended by incorporating this ritual into the present context” (144–45).

152

Chapter 5

In the end, my examination does not depend on being fully able to resolve the complex compositional issues raised by Lev 16. However, approaching the chapter in its canonical form is both warranted and in line with many recent studies. In relation to the broader book, chapter 16 represents the theological and structural heart. In chapter 3 I suggested that Leviticus in its final form is chiastically arranged with the Day of Atonement pericope forming the center. The centrality of Leviticus 16 is evidenced by its connectedness to other major sections of the book. The pericope also displays links to, and in fact depends upon, other parts of the Old Testament.25 Hermeneutically, this is important. While Noth is correct to state that Lev 16 must be interpreted “from within”26—that is, as a unit in its own right—the chapter has been placed in a wider context, which now also has a bearing upon interpretation. Thus, some of the connections between Lev 16 and the rest of Leviticus are worth repeating here. Verse 1 explicitly links chapter 16 with the death of Nadab and Abihu narrated in 10:1–2 and, by doing so, creates a frame around chapters 11–15.27 Ritual instruction regarding the Day of Atonement is therefore given a specific narrative setting. The death of Aaron’s sons presented a significant problem for the cult newly founded in chapters 8–9. The brothers’ act seems to have been defiant—it is explicitly referred to as something “that he [YHWH] had not commanded” (‫אׁשר לא צוה‬, 10:1). Accordingly, they were dealt swift justice (10:2).28 However, the immediate death of Nadab and Abihu removed any possibility for repentance or atonement. A double dilemma therefore ensued: how could the sanctuary be cleansed from the major pollution stemming from both defiant, unrepentant sin and corpse contamination (cf. Num 19)? Leviticus 16, in its canonical setting, is presented as the solution. The narrative frame thus provides the exigency for the ritual legislation. The prescriptions in vv. 29–34a that call for an annual reenactment not only integrate the ceremony within Israel’s festal calendar (cf. 23:26–32), but also may be seen as the codification of an originally extemporaneous event.29 25.  For further discussion, see Baentsch, Exodus–Leviticus–Numeri, 379–80; Gane, Cult, 29–31. 26. Noth, Leviticus, 118. 27.  The LXX makes the connection more explicit by adding the phrase πῦρ ἀλλότριον to 16:1. Leviticus 16:22 is also connected to 10:17 through the shared concept of ‫עון‬ ‫( נׂשא‬Warning, Artistry, 155–56). 28.  As Sommer (“Conflicting Constructions,” 61) puts it, “In this fire the fascinans that attracts humans is brutally tempered with mysterium and tremendum.” 29.  If I am correct, then this may counter claims of an intransigent tension between the ritual proper and the so-​called appendix. Nihan, for instance, finds significant tension between seemingly unregulated access in v. 2, the strict regulation of vv. 29–34a, and the fulfillment notice of v. 34b, which in context must have occurred in the first month rather than the seventh month prescribed by v. 29. This perceived difficulty is evidence for him of the secondary nature of vv. 29–34a (Priestly Torah, 346–47). However, an alternative reading is possible. The warning of v. 2 makes sense against the narrative connection to the death of Nadab and Abihu (16:1) and need not signify an original

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 16

153

The ritual proper in vv. 3–28 depends on, and indeed assumes knowledge of, the regulations of chapters 1–7 and the inaugurated cult and priesthood (chs. 8–9). In fact, many procedural details missing from chapter 16 can be supplied from the book’s opening section.30 The overt function ascribed to the day is to atone for the “uncleannesses” (‫)טמאת‬, “sins” (‫)חטאת‬, and “defiant acts” (‫ )פׁשעים‬of the people en masse (16:16) as well as to remedy the effect of these upon the sanctuary. 31 The chapter thus evidences careful placement between blocks of material that itemize ritual (chs. 11–15) and moral (chs. 17–24) violations. In this way the Day of Atonement becomes the means of dealing with the residual pollution of people, tabernacle, and sancta arising from both ritual and moral faults that are not explicitly covered by the provisions outlined in chapters 1–7.32 Moreover, the restored relationship with God made possible in Lev 16 becomes, in turn, the necessary basis for the reordered horizontal relationships outlined in the chapters that follow. The result of observing Yom Kippur is stated in 16:30—“You will be cleansed from all your sins before YHWH” (‫)מכל חטאתיכם לפני יהוה תטהרו‬.33 The ritual thereby obviated the danger posed by the uncleanness of the people, a danger explicated in the conclusion to Lev 11–15: “So they will not die because of their uncleanness by defiling my sanctuary, which is in their midst” (‫ולא ימתו בטמאתם‬ ‫בטמאם את־מׁשכני אׁשר בתוכם‬, 15:31). Hence, the Day of Atonement functioned to guarantee the successful, ongoing cohabitation of YHWH with his people, and became a means of avoiding the fate of Nadab and Abihu at a corporate level. The formal structure of Lev 16, as with many of its other features, remains disputed. Little consensus is evident, with scholars variously dividing the pericope

indeterminacy. The first cleansing of the sanctuary and people (who were endangered by virtue of their connection with the act of defiance of Aaron’s house) accordingly took place in the first month (16:34b). Henceforth, the ritual was reenacted once a year in the seventh month (16:29–34a). 30.  Further (necessary) details supplied in the Mishnah—e.g., how the lots for the two goats work and the necessity of stirring the blood to prevent coagulation (m. Yoma 4:1, 3)—again demonstrate that Leviticus is not simply an instruction manual for Israel’s priests. 31.  Although Kiuchi understands the rite in Lev 16 differently—namely, as a means of dealing with the guilt the high priest substitutionally bears on Israel’s behalf—his argument remains unpersuasive. Kiuchi argues that the “scapegoat” in v. 10 makes atonement for Aaron, not the people (Purification Offering, 150–51). Yet, atonement for Aaron and his house is consistently connected to the bull he provides and sacrifices (vv. 3, 6, 11, 17); the goats, however, are provided by the people (v. 5) and are consistently connected to their atonement (vv. 10, 15–16, 19). Moreover, it seems better to understand Aaron’s confession in v. 21 as representative rather than substitutionary, contra Kiuchi (152). This better fits the sense of ‫ בני  יׂשראל‬as used throughout Lev 16 to denote the people of Israel in distinction to Aaron and his house (e.g., vv. 11, 15–16). 32. Cf. Boda, Severe Mercy, 67–69. 33.  The importance of this verse is signaled by it being placed at the center of a chiasm in 16:29–31. See Gane, Cult, 310–11.

154

Chapter 5

into two,34 three,35 four,36 five,37 six,38 seven,39 eight,40 or even nine41 constituent parts. In light of this diversity, the proposal I make here is best treated as provisional. Nevertheless, a broad outline of the chapter may be represented thus: I. II. III. IV. V.

Introduction (vv. 1–2aα) The ceremony in nuce (vv. 2aβ–10) Aspects of the ceremony elaborated (vv. 11–28) Prescriptions for perpetual observance (vv. 29–34a) Conclusion (v. 34b)

Lev iticus 16 does not commence with the introductory formula that typifies the book’s other pericopes (i.e., ‫)וידבר יהוה אל־מׁשה [ואל־אהרן] לאמר‬. Rather, v. 1 is, according to Rendtorff, “very unusual”42 in its narrative recall of the Nadab and Abihu incident.43 The second introduction of divine speech that follows (v. 2aα) is also unusual on account of its use of ‫)ויאמר יהוה אל־מׁשה( אמר‬ rather than the expected ‫דבר‬.44 Whether 16:1–2aα introduces one divine speech, or two, is debated.45 Either way, vv. 2aβ–10 constitute YHWH’s address to Aaron via Moses. Aaron is instructed not to enter the adytum46 “at any time” (‫בכל־עת‬, v. 2aγ) “so that he will not die” (‫ולא ימות‬, v. 2bβ), presumably in a manner akin to his sons (16:1; cf. 10:2). Instead, a correct procedure for entering and surviving YHWH’s presence is outlined, involving a complex of ritual washings, dressings, and use of animals.47 Verses 11–28 continue the mediated address to Aaron, revisiting and expanding upon key points of the central ritual—namely, his own 34.  Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:395. 35. Porter, Leviticus, 124; Hartley, Leviticus, 224–25. 36. Elliger, Leviticus, 201–2; Kleinig, Leviticus, 336–37; Sklar, Leviticus, 207. 37. Wenham, Leviticus, 228; Budd, Leviticus, 223; Balentine, Leviticus, 126. 38. Levine, Leviticus, 99–110; Rooker, Leviticus, 211; Kiuchi, Leviticus, 292. 39. Péter–Contesse, Lévitique 1–16, 245–65. 40. Hieke, Levitikus 1–15, 61. 41. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1059–61. 42.  Rendtorff, “Leviticus 16,” 255. 43.  This connection leads Smith (wrongly in my estimation) to classify chapter 16 in its entirety as “narrative” (“Structure,” 22). 44.  Elliger posits that the use of ‫ ויאמר‬in v. 2, rather than the more usual ‫ לאמר‬found throughout Leviticus, is driven by the historical reference in v. 1 (Leviticus, 202–3). 45.  Compare Warning, Artistry, 39; and Luciani, Structure littéraire, 12–13. 46.  The term used here (‫ )הקדׁש‬normally refers to the holy place rather than the most holy place (e.g., Lev 4:6; 5:16). That the latter is intended is made clear by the phrase that stands in apposition to ‫—ה ק דׁש‬namely, ‫על־הארן‬ ‫אׁשר‬ ‫הכפרת‬ ‫אל־פני‬ ‫לפרכת‬ ‫מבית‬. Thus, by adytum, I refer to the inner sanctum. 47.  Although the complexity of Lev 16 was the impetus for many attempts to isolate the chapter’s (presumed) separate rituals, comparative studies have demonstrated that similar ANE ceremonies were even more complex. Thus, complexity in and of itself does not demand a composite rite.

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 16

155

‫( חטאת‬vv. 11–14), the ‫ חטאת‬for the people (vv. 15–19), and the part played by the “living goat” (vv. 20–22). Verses 23–28 provide further instruction for what was to follow the main procedure. The so-​called appendix of vv. 29–34a is marked by a notable change of addressee. No longer is Aaron the recipient; rather, the discourse is delivered in the second person plural.48 Thus, the people, including “foreigners” (‫הגר‬, v. 29), are instructed regarding their obligations (rest and self-​ denial49) as well as their mandate to observe the ritual in the seventh month of the year as a “lasting statute” (16:29, 31, 34). Verse 34b concludes the pericope by recording the inaugural fulfillment of the rite (‫ )ויעׂש כאׁשר צוה יהוה את־מׁשה‬and closes the narrative frame opened by 16:1–2aα. Leviticus 16 has many notable features. One that will become important later relates to the high frequency of unique elements within the chapter. The double (and oddly worded) introduction of 16:1–2aα acts as a literary marker to draw attention to chapter 16, all the more so if the text is aurally geared—hearing ‫אמר‬ rather than the expected ‫ דבר‬would be arresting. Moreover, a number of unique ritual elements are found only here, including (1) the singular occasion on which the adytum is entered; (2) the only time blood is brought therein; (3) the ritual use of the ‫( ;כפרת‬4) the sending away of a goat into the wilderness; (5) the laying on of two hands in a ritual context (16:21);50 (6) the clothing worn by Aaron in contrast to his normally lavish attire (cf. Exod 28); (7) the prescription of both prerequisite and postrequisite washing (16:4, 24); (8) fasting prescribed by law;51 and (9) a day of affliction in marked contrast to Israel’s more joyful calendar events.52 The unique nature of chapter 16 is further indicated by its distinctive use of words and phrases as well as a number of hapax legomena.53 Examples include (1) ‫ הקדׁש‬to refer to the inner sanctum; (2) the phrase ‫( מקדׁש הקדׁש‬v. 33a) to refer to the same location;54 (3) the description of “incense” as ‫;דקה‬55 (4) the plural form ‫( טמאת‬16:16 [x2], 19);56 (5) the fourfold use of ‫( עזאזל‬16:8, 10 [x2], 26); and (6) the appearance of the

48.  Seeing a rhetorical purpose in this switch of addressee is better than Gerstenberger’s avowal of forgetfulness on the part of the tradents (Leviticus, 224). The shift is another reminder that Leviticus was not merely an instruction manual but was in fact publicly read—a point well made by Watts (Reading, 15–31). 49.  M. Yoma 8:1 understands self-​denial to include a ban on eating, drinking, bathing, putting on oil, putting on sandals, or having sexual relations (in 8:4–5, children, pregnant women, and the infirm are exempted from the fast). 50.  The emphasis is made explicit by the addition of ‫ׁשתי‬. 51.  Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:405, who assume “you will afflict yourselves” (‫את־‬ ‫עניתם‬ ‫נפׁשתיכם‬, 16:31) includes abstinence from food. 52. Jenson, Holiness, 209. 53.  For further discussion of syntactical oddities in Lev 16, see Aartun, “Studien,” 78–80; Hartley, Leviticus, 225–26. 54. Noth, Leviticus, 126. 55. Gorman, Ideology, 70. 56.  This form appears outside of Lev 16 only in Ezek 36:25, 29.

156

Chapter 5

hapax ‫( גזרה‬16:22). Together these unique aspects of Lev 16 function rhetorically to mark out the singular importance of the portrayed ritual. In relation to a possible intertextual relationship between Lev 16 and Gen 1–3, most commentators do not identify any explicit links. Nonetheless, there are exceptions.57 Moreover, a number of recent articles and monographs have suggested strong thematic connections between the Day of Atonement ritual and the creation narratives.58 These suggestions, coupled with the importance of this pericope within the book as a whole, warrant an examination of potential intertextuality.

Lexical and Syntactical Parallels Leviticus 16 shares forty-​one lexemes with Gen 1 and fifty-​seven with Gen 2–3.59 While many of these lexical parallels simply represent common vocabulary, others are more significant. As in chapter 4, parallels to Gen 1 and to Gen 2–3 are discussed in turn. Genesis 1 1. ‫עׂשה‬, ‫מלאכה‬, and ‫“—ׁשביעי‬to do,” “work,” and “seventh” (Gen 2:2, 3; Lev 16:29). The combination of these terms occurs only in the Pentateuch; it appears there sixteen times (Gen 2:2, 3; Exod 12:16; 20:10; 31:15; 35:2; Lev 13:51; 16:29; 23:3, 8; Num 28:25; 29:1, 7, 12; Deut 5:14; 16:8). However, the word cluster is found in close proximity to the ‫ ׁשבת‬root only nine times (Gen 2:2, 3; Exod 12:15–16; 20:10; 31:15; 35:2; Lev 16:29–31;60 23:3; Deut 5:14). Genesis 2:2–3 twice describes the “seventh” (‫ )ׁשביעי‬day as the day on which YHWH “ceased” (‫ )ׁשבת‬from all the “work” (‫ )מלאכה‬that he had “done” (‫)עׂשה‬. This divine cessation from labor forms the conclusion to the creation account in Gen 1:1–2:3 and becomes paradigmatic for subsequent legislation. A further five clusters allude (explicitly in Exod 20:10–11; 31:15–17) to Gen 2:2–3 in their prescription of a seventh-​day Sabbath rest from work (Exod 20:10; 31:15; 35:2; Lev 23:3; Deut 5:14). Israel’s working week is thereby correlated with the divine pattern established in creation. The remaining two syntactical clusters are found in connection to calendar events. First, Exod 12:15–16 requires the “removal” (‫ׁשבת‬, hiphil) of all leaven and 57.  For instance, Bonar, Leviticus, 306, 309; Kiuchi, Leviticus, 298–99; Sklar, Leviticus, 208; Kleinig, Leviticus, 346. 58.  For these, see below. 59.  See the appendix for a full listing. 60.  Leviticus 16:29–31 is connected by a “carefully constructed chiasm” (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1057), justifying a verdict of close proximity between the word cluster (v. 29) and the ‫ ׁשבת‬root (v. 31).

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 16

157

the absence of work for the first and seventh days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Second, in Lev 16:29–31, regulations are outlined for the ongoing observance of the Day of Atonement. On this day, the tenth day of the “seventh” month, the Israelites were “to do”61 no “work” (v. 29) for the day was to be a ‫ׁשבת ׁשבתון‬ (v. 31)—“a Sabbath of complete rest”62—that is, a specially marked Sabbath day.63 The appearance of ‫ ׁשבת‬in Lev 16:31 is emphasized by virtue of it being the first time the root appears in the book.64 This rare combination of words serves to create a link between Lev 16:29–31 and Gen 2:2–3. 2. ‫ מים‬+ ‫“—מקום‬water” + “place” (Gen 1:9; Lev 16:24). The combination of these two nouns appears only four times in the Pentateuch (Gen 1:9; Lev 16:24; Num 19:9; 20:5).65 In Gen 1:9, at God’s behest, “the waters” (‫ )המים‬are gathered to “one place” (‫)מקום אחד‬. In Lev 16:24 the high priest is instructed to bathe his flesh “in water” (‫ )במים‬in a “holy place” (‫)במקום קדוׁש‬. Although this word combination is rare, the parallel between Gen 1 and Lev 16 seems coincidental. However, in light of the potential conceptual parallel of passing through the waters in order to approach YHWH shared by Gen 1 and Lev 16 (see below), this rare word-​combination may increase in significance. Genesis 2–3 1. ‫ לבׁש‬+ ‫“—כתנת‬to clothe [in/with] a tunic” (Gen 3:21; Lev 16:4). The noun ‫כתנת‬ is uncommon, appearing only twenty-​eight times in the Old Testament. While ‫כתנת‬, meaning “tunic,”66 “shirt-​like tunic,”67 or “garment, coat, robe,”68 can be used in a general sense (e.g., Gen 37:3), it often specifically denotes priestly clothing (e.g., Exod 29:5; Ezra 2:69).69 The combination of ‫ כתנת‬with the verb ‫ לבׁש‬occurs only seven times in the Pentateuch (Gen 3:21; Exod 29:5, 8; 40:14; Lev 8:7, 13; 16:4) and thrice more in the remainder of the Old Testament (2 Sam 13:18; Song 5:3; Isa 22:21). Genesis 3:21 recounts the clothing of Adam and his wife in “tunics of skin” (‫ )כתנות עור‬by YHWH God. The remaining Pentateuch occurrences of the word pair are used explicitly to denote dressing in priestly garb. Exodus 29:5 and 29:8 61.  Notably, the verb ‫ עׂשה‬appears seven times in Lev 16 (observed by Warning, Artistry, 88 n. 60). 62. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1057 (italics removed). 63. See HALOT 4:1412; Hendrik L. Bosman, “Sabbath,” NIDOTTE 4:1157. 64.  It is also the first time ‫ ׁשבתון‬appears. The ‫ ׁשבת‬root occurs a further thirty-​one times in Leviticus; ‫ ׁשבתון‬is attested eight times in total. 65.  It is attested seven more times in the Old Testament ( Josh 4:18; 9:27; 2 Sam 5:20; 1 Kgs 13:8, 16, 22; 1 Chr 14:11). 66.  BDB 509. 67.  HALOT 2:505. 68.  Robert L. Alden, “‫ּכֻ ֹּתנֶת‬,” NIDOTTE 2:742. 69.  It has this sense in 50 percent of its uses (Alden, “‫ּכֻ ֹּתנֶת‬,” 743).

158

Chapter 5

record respectively the clothing of Aaron and his sons in their vestments, as does Exod 40:14 on the first day the tabernacle was erected (cf. Exod 40:1). Leviticus 8:7 and 8:13 also refer to clothing priests with ‫ כתנת‬in connection with the inauguration of the tabernacle cult. Finally, in Lev 16:4, Aaron is to dress (‫ )לבׁש‬in a “linen tunic” (‫ )כתנת ־בד‬in preparation for the Day of Atonement. To be clothed with tunics (‫ לבׁש‬+ ‫ )כתנת‬in the Pentateuch, therefore, is primarily a priestly prerogative. Outside of the Pentateuch the word pair has a more general meaning. It describes Tamar’s clothing as that typically worn by virgin daughters of the king (2 Sam 13:18), the robe the Shulammite had removed (Song 5:3), and the special garments that would signal Eliakim’s induction into office (Isa 22:21). 2. ‫( ׁשלח‬piel)—“to send away, expel” (Gen 3:23; Lev 16:10, 21, 22, 26). The verb ‫( ׁשלח‬piel) is used 106 times in the Pentateuch. However, in a more limited number of cases it is used to describe the “sending away” of an (unfit) object from the locus of the divine presence. On four occasions, the removed object is a person or persons. In Gen 3:23, ‫ׁשלח‬ (piel) is used to describe the expulsion of the man70 from the Garden on account of his transgression (‫)ויׁשלחהו יהוה אלהים מגן־עדן‬, and hence constitutes removal from the presence of God (cf. Gen 3:8). Numbers 5:1–4 relays a divine command to “send away from the camp” (‫ )ויׁשלחו מן־המחנה‬any “male or female” (‫מזכר‬ ‫ )עד־נקבה‬who had severe uncleanness.71 The explicit reason given is that because YHWH was now dwelling in the midst of the people (‫)אׁשר אני ׁשכן בתוכם‬, “they must not defile their camp” (‫)ולא יטמאו את־מחניהם‬. Then, in two Leviticus passages, the sending away of unfit persons is applied to Canaanite people groups. YHWH declares that these are the nations “which I am expelling before you” (‫אׁשר־אני מׁשלח מפניכם‬, 18:24; 20:23). Again, the reason given is that these nations have defiled themselves by their practices (‫בכל־אלה נטמאו הגוים‬, 18:24) and have thus become detestable to YHWH (‫ואקץ בם‬, 20:23) whose presence is about to enter Canaan (26:12). On two further occasions, the object removed (‫[ ׁשלח‬piel]) from the locus of divine presence is an animal. In Lev 14, the purification rite for ‫–צרעת‬infected persons or buildings climaxes with the priest “sending away” a second, living bird over the fields (‫וׁשלח את־הצפר החיה על־פני הׂשדה‬, 14:7; cf. 14:53). Although the exact meaning of the ritual is debated,72 many see here a means of disposal—that is, a method of expelling uncleanness from the camp (cf. 13:46). Accordingly, Wright concludes that the procedure accomplishes “the dispatch of the evil away from the community and sanctuary.”73 70.  The pronominal suffix is third person masc. sg. In context, the woman is also removed. 71.  On the distinction between “major” and “minor” uncleanness, see esp. Wright, Disposal, 163–228. 72.  For discussion with bibliography, see Wright, Disposal, 75–86; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 830–40. 73. Wright, Disposal, 86.

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 16

159

A similar rite is found in Lev 16. Here, one of two male goats selected for the ‫( חטאת‬16:5) is “sent away” (‫[ ׁשלח‬piel]) into the wilderness as part of the ceremony (16:10, 21, 22, 26). As with Lev 14, the exact meaning of the goat ritual is debated. Again, most view the goat as being a means of impurity removal.74 Indeed, this function is explicitly stated in 16:22, “The goat will bear upon itself all their iniquities to a ‘cut-off ’ land and he [a man appointed for the task] will send the goat away into the wilderness” (‫ונׂשא הׂשעיר עליו את־כל־עונתם אל־ארץ גזרה וׁשלח את־‬ ‫)הׂשעיר במדבר‬. This “sending away” of impurity addresses the concern raised in 15:31—namely, the need for the Israelites to separate themselves from all sources of uncleanness so as not to die for defiling YHWH’s dwelling place, which was in their midst. The similar use of ‫( ׁשלח‬piel) in Gen 3:23 and Lev 16 to signify banishment from the place where YHWH dwells suggests a possible conceptual parallel between the expulsion of Adam and the sending away of the goat. I will explore this potential below. 3. ‫“—קדם‬east” (Gen 3:24; Lev 16:14). The noun ‫ קדם‬occurs twenty-​nine times in the Pentateuch. Kiuchi proposes a connection between the use of the term in Lev 16:14 and Gen 3:24. At the end of the Garden story the man is driven out from YHWH’s presence, and guardian cherubim are stationed “at the east of the Garden of Eden” (‫מקדם לגן־עדן‬, Gen 3:24) to prevent his return. In Lev 16:14, at the heart of the ritual, blood is brought into the adytum and is sprinkled “on the east side of the kappōret” (‫)על־פני הכפרת קדמה‬.75 In relation to these two instances of ‫קדם‬, Kiuchi states: The specification “on the east side” (v. 14) may help Aaron to do his job in darkness. However, this would appear somewhat superfluous, since the location was well known to Aaron. As for the designation in 1:16, it may suggest that the purification of the propitiatory cover is likened to the entrance of the Garden of Eden, which is likewise protected by cherubim. . . . This also points to the significant spiritual truth that the quality of life in the sanctuary, or even of the Holy Place, is likened to the quality of life outside the Garden of Eden.76

Although a connection based on a single shared lexeme is tenuous, Kiuchi’s point regarding the seemingly superfluous nature of the directional instruction 74.  E.g., Wright, Disposal, 49; Gane, Leviticus, 271. 75.  Instruction for making the ‫ כפרת‬is given in Exod 25:17–22. Translation of the term is disputed with Milgrom even suggesting that ‫ כפרת‬is “untranslatable, so far” (Leviticus 1–16, 1014). Nevertheless, and regardless of the origin of the term or its best rendering in English, the ‫ כפרת‬is explicitly the place where YHWH’s presence will be manifest and thus where he will meet his people (Exod 25:22; Lev 16:2). It is therefore the theological significance of ‫ כפרת‬that is primary. 76. Kiuchi, Leviticus, 298–99.

160

Chapter 5

is suggestive.77 Moreover, Kiuchi’s proposal derives some support from the fact that the curtain that separated off the inner chamber was embroidered with figures of cherubim (Exod 26:31). Normally, this cherubim-​emblazoned curtain barred further progress (e.g., Lev 4:17). However, the high priest’s path on the Day of Atonement brought him from the east, past the cherubim, and into the divine presence manifested over the kappōret. Nevertheless, by itself, Kiuchi’s proposed allusion based on ‫ קדם‬is tentative at best. 4. ‫( נוח‬hiphil)—“to set, place, give rest” (Gen 2:15; Lev 16:23). The verb ‫ נוח‬in the hiphil occurs twenty-​five times in the Pentateuch. Sailhamer argues that the use of ‫( נוח‬hiphil) in Gen 2:15 is unusual in that the author employs a term that is “elsewhere reserved for two special uses.”78 The uses he suggests are (1) God’s giving of rest to his people in the land, and (2) the dedication of something before the presence of YHWH (citing Lev 16:23 as an example). Accordingly, Sailhamer concludes: Both senses of the term appear to lie behind the author’s use of the word in verse 15. Man was “put” into the garden where he could “rest” and be “safe”; and man was “put” into the garden “in God’s presence” where he could have fellowship with God (3:8).79

In this way, Sailhamer posits a connection between Gen 2:15 and Lev 16:23. However, Sailhamer’s case is overstated. While ‫( נוח‬hiphil) can have the “special uses” he suggests (as, for example, in Exod 16:33–34 and Deut 3:20), it does not always have this force. For instance, in Gen 39:16, ‫( נוח‬hiphil) is used to describe Potiphar’s wife “placing” Joseph’s garment beside her; in Lev 24:12 the verb is used to describe a person being “put” in custody (‫)ויניחהו במׁשמר‬. Thus while a parallel meaning of ‫( נוח‬hiphil) in Gen 2:15 and Lev 16:23 is possible, it is far from guaranteed. 5. ‫ אחד‬+ ‫“—עולם‬one” + “forever, lasting” (Gen 3:22; Lev 16:34). The concurrence of these two words is attested only four times in the Old Testament (Gen 3:22; Lev 16:34; Num 15:15; 2 Chr 5:13). In Gen 3, God states that the man has become “like one of us” (‫ )כאחד ממנו‬and so must not be allowed to live “forever” (‫)לעלם‬. Leviticus 16:34 declares that making atonement for Israel’s sins “once a year” (‫ )אחד בׁשנה‬is a “lasting statute” (‫)חקת עולם‬. While a rare combination, in this instance the parallel between Gen 3 and Lev 16 seems not to have any further significance. 77.  In contrast, Loewenstamm posits that the high priest had to circle around the Ark in order to be able to sprinkle the blood in an eastwardly direction (noted by Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1032). 78.  John H. Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah Books, 1996), 75. 79. Ibid.

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 16

161

Evaluation Although not as numerous as the lexical and syntactical connections evident in Lev 11 (or indeed Lev 2680), parallels between Lev 16 and Gen 1 and 2–3 are nonetheless present. While one or two seem coincidental, the remainder are more probable. In fact, several criteria for assessing the genuineness of intertextual connection are met. Parallels include infrequently used words as well as rare clusters of more common words (‫עׂשה‬, ‫מלאכה‬, and ‫ ׁשביעי‬used with ‫ מים ;ׁשבת‬+ ‫;מקום‬ ‫ לבׁש‬+ ‫ ;כתנת‬and ‫ אחד‬+ ‫)עולם‬. Additionally, similar contextual use is apparent (‫[ ׁשלח‬piel]). Nevertheless, the overall volume of connections is not high. Nor are any beyond dispute. Therefore, on the basis of lexical and syntactical connections alone it is possible, but not certain, that Lev 16 alludes to Gen 1–3. It remains to establish whether conceptual parallels add any further support to seeing a connection between these texts.

Conceptual Parallels Genesis 1 1. The number seven as a patterning device. The use of the number seven as a structural device in Gen 1 is widely recognized. The pericope as a whole is overtly shaped around a seven-​day scheme. That framework is in turn emphasized by other features. Genesis 1:1 contains seven words made up of twenty-​eight letters;81 1:2 has fourteen words. The seventh-​day paragraph (2:1–3) is made up of thirty-​five words.82 Additionally, several key words and phrases also appear in multiples of seven: ‫ אלהים‬appears thirty-​five times, ‫ ארץ‬twenty-​one times, and ‫ יום‬fourteen times. The phrases “and it was so” and “God saw that it was good” each occur seven times.83 Kenneth Mathews draws out the theological implications of this patterning: God and the world are orderly and predictable, not capricious.84 In Lev 16, the number seven also plays a significant role in the arrangement of the chapter. Milgrom draws attention to the importance of seven in the blood applications that lie at the heart of the ritual: “The total number of manipulations adds up to forty-​nine, or seven times seven. Seven, the number that stands for completion and perfection, is multiplied by itself.”85 80.  See chapter 6. 81. Bullinger, Number, 168. 82. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 6. 83. Ibid. 84.  Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, NAC 1A (Nashville: B&H, 1996), 121. 85. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1039. Similarly, Bullinger suggests that the ritual contained seven separate sprinklings (Number, 171).

162

Chapter 5

The use of the number seven observed by Milgrom is further emphasized by the sevenfold appearance of key words throughout the pericope. The word ‫הקדׁש‬, here meaning “adytum” or “most holy place” rather than “holy place,” occurs seven times. So too do the nouns ‫בגד‬86 ​ and ‫כפרת‬. The word ‫חטאת‬, meaning either “sin” or “sin offering,” and ‫“( ׂשעיר‬goat”)87 are both used fourteen times. Thus, core elements of the Day of Atonement ritual—the most holy place and the kappōret, the clothing donned to enter sacred space, sin and the offering for sin, the goats sacrificed and sent away, as well as the ritual’s blood manipulations—are all highlighted by being mentioned in multiples of seven. The septenary system employed by Gen 1 thus finds a parallel in Lev 16. This is suggestive regarding possible conceptual connections between creation and cult, a point I develop below. 2. Creation and re-​creation. Nihan observes that on both literary and thematic grounds Lev 1–16 cannot be dissociated from the preceding material in Exod 25–40,88 material that, as I discussed in chapter 3, displays many lexical and conceptual connections to the Gen 1 account.89 Within Nihan’s compositional model, Lev 1–16 functions as “the grand climax” to the priestly writings in their charting of the “gradual redefinition in Israel of a cosmic order more in conformity with the original order.”90 In this light, prescriptions for sacrifice in chapters 1–7 and the inauguration of cult and priesthood in chapters 8–9 allow for “the partial restoration, in Israel’s cult, of the original community between God and man at the creation of the world.”91 Moreover, Nihan argues that these early chapters of Leviticus also facilitate the restoration in Israel of human-​animal relations that are closer to the creation ideal.92 The material in Lev 11–15 is seen to fulfill a similar function within the wider narrative movement: The control demanded in these chapters over all forms of major biological intrusions into the social sphere similarly appears as partaking of a general process of re-​creation in Israel. Like unclean animals, bodily impurities are represented as deviations from a creational norm defined by the creator God himself, to which Israel must seek to conform in order to fulfill the task for which it was chosen.93

For Nihan, Lev 16 climaxes this trajectory and thereby functions as a ritual act of re-​creation: 86.  Noted by Warning, Artistry, 87. 87.  Ibid., 153. 88. Nihan, Priestly Torah, 608–9. 89.  See also Harper, “First Things.” 90. Nihan, Priestly Torah, 609. 91.  Ibid., 610 (emphasis his). 92.  Ibid., 611. 93.  Ibid., 613.

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 16

163

The entire ceremony of ch. 16 . . . corresponds to the re-​establishment of cosmic order and may therefore be regarded as a ritual re-​enactment of God’s primeval victory over chaos at the creation of the world. This ritual process of re-​creation makes possible God’s permanent presence in Israel, which is made concrete by his revelation to Aaron in the cloud inside the inner-​sanctum (Lev 16:2, 13). . . . The gradual restitution of the divine presence in Israel’s sanctuary is thus structured on the model of an ancient Near Eastern ritual of temple entrance, which finds its climax in the great ceremony of Lev 16.94

Nihan’s thesis accords with other scholars who see Israel’s sanctuary and cult as the means for establishing order in line with creation patterns.95 Likewise, Gorman classifies the ritual of Lev 16 as a “rite of restoration” that restores “the very good order of creation.”96 He concludes: “On this day, the divinely created order is ‘newly created’ in the context of ritual enactment.”97 Nevertheless, an important qualifier must be made, for the reordering evident in the Israelite cult is fundamentally different from other ANE rites of restoration.98 In the Old Testament the connection between myth and ritual is broken. Thus, in contrast to the akītu festival, for instance, the cult in Israel is not a world-​ constituting event. Rather, the reordering of time and space operates at a microcosmic level, not a macrocosmic one. The force of cultic reenactment of primordial events is accordingly different. Instead of ritually refashioning the entire cosmos,99 realignment with creation patterns in Israel’s cult functions as reminder of the original state as well as being the inauguration of a renewed world. Accordingly, there is partial participation in a process of re-​creation. Thus, while the ritual of Lev 16 facilitates for the first time since Gen 3 the regular,100 ongoing entry of a human being into holy time (Sabbath) and holy space (adytum) and thereby realizes aspects of creation, it is limited in both scope and duration. However, it is 94.  Ibid., 613–14 (italics removed). 95.  See, e.g., Bellinger, Leviticus, 103; Balentine, Leviticus, 130; Fretheim, Exodus, 12–14; Daniel I. Block, “Eden: A Temple? A Reassessment of the Biblical Evidence,” in From Creation to New Creation: Biblical Theology and Exegesis, ed. D. M. Gurtner and B. L. Gladd (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2013), 21–27. 96. Gorman, Leviticus, 94. 97. Gorman, Ideology, 102. 98.  For further discussion, consult Andrew Sloane, “Wolterstorff, Exegetical Theorising, and Interpersonal Relationships in Genesis 1–3” (ThD diss., Australian College of Theology, 1994). 99.  The retreat of Nabonidus from Babylon and his worship of the moon god meant no New Year festival, a neglect that was understood to imperil political order and the very coherence of the world. The ritual was thus viewed as being world forming (noted in personal correspondence with Andrew Sloane). Regarding the importance of repeating primordial acts in the ancient world, see Fishbane, “Sacred Center,” 8. 100. The regular entry to the divine presence mandated in Lev 16 is in contrast to the unique, and therefore unrepeatable, divine-​human audiences granted elsewhere in the Pentateuch (e.g., Exod 24:9–11; 34:5–6).

164

Chapter 5

possible that Leviticus also envisions the expansion of these categories. In Lev 23–27, Sabbath becomes a means of structuring not only weeks but also months and years. Hence, Willis is right to describe these chapters as outlining Sabbath observance on multiple levels.101 Furthermore, Lev 26 depicts YHWH walking among the people in the land, hinting at the expansion of sacred space (26:12; see my discussion in chapter 6). In a very real sense, therefore, the ritual prescribed in Lev 16 signals, and partially enacts, the restoration of a broken world in and through Israel’s cult. 3. Passing through the waters to approach YHWH. Aaron’s ceremonial washings constitute one of the many unique aspects of Lev 16 (see above, “Orientation to Leviticus 16”). While ritual washing by itself is unremarkable (cf. Lev 1:9; 6:20[27]; 11:25; 13:6; 15:7, etc.), on the Day of Atonement the high priest was to wash both before and after performing the essential rites (16:4, 24). While prerequisite washing is easily understood in terms of preparatory cleansing, postrequisite washing— which is legislated only here—is more difficult. Several interpretations have been proffered.102 However, and irrespective of the view taken, within the literary form of the received text Aaron’s double washing functions to frame the central elements of the ritual in 16:5–22—namely, manipulation of the ‫ חטאת‬blood and the sending away of the second goat. Aaron’s dual ablutions may therefore designate spatial and temporal threshold points with respect to the framed rites. Gorman elucidates: “The bathings serve to mark the beginning and ending of a marginal status of the high priest within the ritual. . . . [A] major element of the marginal situation consists of Aaron’s passage into the most holy place.”103 With this reading, Aaron’s out-​of-​the-​ordinary washings (and related dressings) seem to be particularly associated with his unique-​to-​this-​day entry into the adytum and hence into YHWH’s presence. Viewing ceremonial washings as entry and exit procedures derives conceptual support from the ancient world. As is widely recognized, temples in the ANE were understood as representations of the cosmic mountain.104 More specifically, John Lundquist observes that in Mesopotamia the holy of holies was understood to represent the cosmic abode of the deity. In fact, he concludes, “we can establish for Mesopotamia the equation Primordial mound = cosmic mountain = holy of 101. Willis, Leviticus, xxiii. 102.  There are three main views: (1) the washing is understood to remove impurity contracted from the preceding rites (Wenham, Leviticus, 235; see also Kiuchi, Leviticus, 305); (2) postrequisite washing is to “remove the superholiness that he contracted by entering the adytum” (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1048; likewise, Hartley, Leviticus, 242); and (3) Aaron’s washing functions as a “rite of transition between different parts of the rite” (Wright, Disposal, 218 n. 100). 103. Gorman, Ideology, 90–92 (italics removed). 104.  The literature here is substantial. For a helpful induction, see Andrzej Wierciński, “Pyramids and Ziggurats as the Architectonic Representations of the Archetype of the Cosmic Mountain,” Katunob 10 (1977): 71–87.

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 16

165

holies.”105 Mohiy el-​Din Ibrahim argues similarly in relation to Egyptian temples.106 Regarding the Old Testament, scholars have noted parallels with Mt. Sinai in the portrayals of Israel’s tabernacle107 and temple.108 Indeed, within the narrative of the Pentateuch, the tabernacle is portrayed as a portable Sinai.109 In relation to this typological connection between tabernacle/temple and cosmic mountain, Morales identifies a common procedure of approach in which access to sacred space involves crossing a water boundary.110 He distills the resulting pattern:111 passing through waters → to the mountain → for worship

Morales argues that this motif plays a foundational ideological and structural function in the biblical portrayals of creation, flood, and exodus.112 For example, in relation to the exodus, Israel passes through the sea (Exod 14) to arrive at the mountain of Sinai (Exod 19) in order to worship (Exod 24).113 So, similarly, at creation: “Gen 1–3 sets forth God as water–controller, and the waters surrounding his mount as the (subjugated) primeval waters of chaos . . . [with] Adam dwelling upon the summit of the mount of Yhwh, enjoying life in the divine Presence.”114 Although Eden is not explicitly described as the mountain of YHWH in Genesis, Ezek 28:14 seems to presuppose such an understanding. Moreover, the idea of Eden being a raised locale is implied in Gen 2:10, where a river flows “from Eden” (‫ )מעדן‬before splitting into four rivers that water the earth. Simple hydrology indicates that Eden must be higher.115 Morales’s application of his cosmic mountain 105.  John M. Lundquist, “The Common Temple Ideology of the Ancient Near East,” in The Temple in Antiquity: Ancient Records and Modern Perspectives, ed. Truman G. Madsen (Provo: Brigham Young University, 1984), 63. 106.  Mohiy el-​Din Ibrahim, “The God of the Great Temple of Edfu,” in Glimpses of Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honour of H. W. Fairman, ed. John Ruffle, G. A. Gaballa, and Kenneth A. Kitchen (Warminster: Aris & Philips, 1979), 170. 107.  E.g., Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, trans. Israel Abrahams ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1987), 484; Richard J. Clifford, “The Temple and the Holy Mountain,” in Madsen, Temple in Antiquity, 112–14. 108.  E.g., William F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006 [orig. 1942]), 142–55. 109.  So Moshe Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple, and the Enthronement of the Lord: The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1–2:3,” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de H. Cazelles, ed. A. Caquot and M. Delcor, AOAT 212 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1981), 505. 110.  See also P. Kyle McCarter, “The River Ordeal in Israelite Literature,” HTR 66 (1973): 403–12. 111. Morales, Tabernacle, 50. 112.  Ibid., 51–243. 113.  Ibid., 257. 114.  Ibid., 118. 115.  See, further, Donald W. Parry, “The Garden of Eden: Prototype Sanctuary,” in Temples of the Ancient World: Ritual and Symbolism, ed. Donald W. Parry (Provo, Utah: Deseret Books and FARMS, 1994), 113–37.

166

Chapter 5

pattern to the Eden narrative is thus not without warrant. This cosmic mountain motif adds to the creation and exodus accounts an overtone of gate liturgy with its primary underlying question: Who shall ascend the mount of YHWH?116 In a sequential reading of the Pentateuch, therefore, the creation, flood, and exodus accounts prefigure the tabernacle cult and create a vital context against which to understand the full weight of the adytum entry on Yom Kippur. As Aaron “passed through the waters” of ceremonial washing on the Day of Atonement he was to portray in the drama of liturgy the role of Moses in relation to the cosmic mountain (and thus of Adam to Eden’s mount)—that is, via entering the tabernacle holy of holies, the high priest as mediator represents the one “able to ascend” the summit of the cosmic mountain.117

With these kinds of connections, it is not surprising that many have suggested further parallels between Adam and Aaron. I will examine these proposals below. Important to note here is that the typological pattern identified by Morales can elucidate Aaron’s postrequisite washing: as the high priest ritually “descends” from the adytum he must pass back through the waters in order to rejoin the mundane sphere of normal existence. Providing further support to this conceptual parallel are the clothes Aaron was to dress in when entering his marginal state. The prescribed garments were not his normal attire (cf. Exod 28). Rather, Aaron was to dress in “linen clothes” (‫בגדי‬ ‫הבד‬, 16:23); more specifically, in linen “tunic” (‫)כתנת‬, “undergarment” (‫)מכנסים‬, “sash” (‫)אבנט‬, and “turban” (‫( )מצנפת‬16:4). The wearing of such unusually plain clothing is often understood to signify association with the people,118 humility,119 or repentance.120 However, other nuances are also possible. Keil,121 followed by others,122 notes that linen clothing in the Old Testament is often associated with angelic beings and the divine court (e.g., Ezek 9:2–3, 11; Dan 5:5; 7:6–7; cf. Rev 15:6). Thus, Aaron’s unique clothing may signify, in a manner similar to his ceremonial passing through the waters, his “ascent” into the “other 116. Morales, Tabernacle, 258. 117.  Ibid., 261. 118. Kellogg, Leviticus, 262. Similarly, Gorman suggests that linen clothes functioned to “make him ‘common’ ” (Ideology, 91). 119.  Péter-​Contesse, Lévitique 1–16, 252; Levine, Leviticus, 101. 120.  George Bush, Notes, Critical and Practical on the Book of Leviticus: Designed as a General Help to Biblical Reading and Instruction (Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1981 [orig. 1852]), 145; Bellinger, Leviticus, 99. 121.  Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:397. 122.  E.g., Meyrick, Leviticus, 237–38; Wenham, Leviticus, 230; Balentine, Leviticus, 127; Kleinig, Leviticus, 339.

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 16

167

world”123 of the most holy place.124 Support for such a reading is found in 1QSb 4:25, which describes the high priest as the “angel” of the inner shrine in heaven (‫)מלאך פנים במעון קודׁש‬.125 Alternatively, within the context of the Pentateuch, another reading is possible. There is, as noted above, a rare syntactical parallel that connects Aaron’s donning of his tunic (‫ לבׁש‬+ ‫כתנת‬, Lev 16:4) with the clothing of Adam and Eve by YHWH God in the postlapsarian Garden (‫ לבׁש‬+ ‫כתנת‬, Gen 3:21). While nakedness may have been the original ideal (cf. Gen 2:25), approach to God after Gen 3:6 must be a clothed approach (cf. Exod 28:42–43). The parallel between Lev 16:4 and Gen 3:21 may suggest that on the Day of Atonement, clothed in a tunic as Adam was when he was removed from the Garden, Aaron approached God representing an excluded humanity.126 If this is correct, then Leviticus does not imagine a world in which a divine-​human sundering never happened—it is not idealistic in that sense. Rather, Leviticus speaks to the reality of a broken world, one estranged from its Maker, even as it envisions a better future. The inauguration of microcosmic transformation in Israel’s cult is therefore both an affirmation and a vindication of God’s creation order. YHWH’s original purposes for humanity and the world stand. Israel’s task to reestablish order thus parallels the task assigned to Adam to expand (Garden) order to a wider world.127 4. Sabbath and presence. The concept of Sabbath creates an immediate connection to the seventh day of creation, a connection that is at times made explicit (e.g., Exod 20:8–11).128 Accordingly, by observing Sabbath Israel was able to experience an aspect of the primordial world; in Mircea Eliade’s words, “The experience of sacred time will make it possible for religious man periodically to experience the cosmos as if it were in principio, that is, at the mythical moment of Creation.”129 123. Wenham, Leviticus, 230. 124.  This may also account for why Aaron must undress and leave his linen garments inside the tabernacle (Lev 16:23) following the adytum part of the ritual but before the end of the entire ceremony. 125.  Noted by Weinfeld, “Sabbath,” 506–7. 126.  It must be conceded that the parallel is not exact in every detail. While both Adam and Aaron are “clothed” in “tunics,” the materials are different in each case: “skin” (‫ )עור‬and “linen” (‫ )בד‬respectively (although the translation “tunics for their skin” has also been suggested—Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 84). The difference may accord with wider restoration motifs: garments made from skin necessarily involve animal death; linen tunics do not. Alternatively, direction of movement may be highlighted. Adam’s (skin) tunic was suited for his exit out of the Garden; Aaron’s linen garment was appropriate clothing for entering sacred space. Regardless, lack of exact correspondence need not rule out the possibility of genuine allusion (see point 1 under “Jeffrey Leonard’s Criteria” in chapter 2 in this book). 127.  For the idea of expanding the Garden of Eden, see Gregory K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, NSBT 17 (Leicester: Apollos, 2004), 81–87. 128.  See also chapter 6, “Conceptual Parallels.” 129.  Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion, trans. Willard R. Trask (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1987 [orig. 1957]), 65.

168

Chapter 5

The cult, therefore, functions as a gateway to life as it was meant to be.130 Morales writes accordingly: “What the tabernacle is to space, the Sabbath is to time, re-creating the original ‘seventh day’ and thus defining the nature of worship as a re-​entry into the divinely-​indwelled cosmos before the cataclysmic rupture.”131 These interrelated themes of “Sabbath” and “presence” are also evident in Lev 16. As noted above, ‫ ׁשבת‬in Lev 16:31 occurs in connection with a word cluster that links 16:29–31 to Gen 2:1–3. The use of ‫ ׁשבת‬here in chapter 16 is also the first time the root appears in Leviticus, generating further emphasis. Notably, this first occurrence of ‫ ׁשבת‬intersects with a theme of increasing access to the divine presence discernible throughout the book.132 The expulsion of everyone when the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬filled the tabernacle (Exod 40:34–35) is progressively reversed through Leviticus. During the inauguration of the cult Moses and Aaron entered the tent (9:23). Then, in contrast to this unique event, Lev 16 makes regular access to the divine presence possible, a provision that was to be observed in perpetuity (cf. 16:29, 34). Thus, the Sabbath rest enjoined on the Day of Atonement evokes the seventh-​day rest of creation’s climax at the very same time that the high priest enters the divinely indwelled adytum. In this way Lev 16 ritually recapitulates the time and space of the original creation and, in so doing, brings aspects of that primordial past into the present.133 Genesis 2–3 1. Banishment as motif. Eric Gilchrest has recently drawn attention to banishment as an unexplored, yet vital, motif in Lev 16. His argument runs as follows: According to the logic of Leviticus, holy and unholy are mutually exclusive categories and, therefore, cannot coexist. A problem, therefore, is created when the Israelites become unholy through sin and impurity and attempt to live with a holy God in their midst via the tabernacle. The two cannot continue to live together in this way. One or the other must go. Though sin and impurity should result in Israel’s separation from YHWH, in an act of mercy YHWH allows a “scapegoat” to be the separated one and wander in the desert (both symbolically and literally) in place of the Israelites themselves, thus solving the problem posed by an unholy people dwelling with a holy God. In this way the “scapegoat” becomes the substitute for 130.  Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1985), 133. 131. Morales, Tabernacle, 115. 132.  For a summary, see Nihan, Priestly Torah, 608–18. The wider progression in Exodus and Leviticus is outlined by Willis, Leviticus, 89–90. 133.  Leviticus 26 develops and expands this idea. See chapter 6.

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 16

169

the Israelites and bears the consequences that should have rightly fallen upon them, i.e. banishment.134

Gilchrest’s thesis helpfully elucidates several aspects of the text. First, he rightly points out that the second goat is not a sacrifice because it does not die;135 indeed, three times it is described as “living” (‫( )חי‬16:10, 20, 21). Thus, the goat that is “expelled” (16:10, 20 [‫ ׁשלח‬piel]) manifestly remains “alive.”136 Second, Gilchrest argues—agai n rig htly in my estimation—that while the concepts of transfer and disposal are undoubtedly present in the “scapegoat” ritual,137 more is also conveyed. In particular, and contra Wright,138 substitution is also in view: “The goat . . . suffers an evil meant for the Israelites.”139 Crucially, Gilchrest notes that substitution relates to not only the bearing of iniquity but also to the bearing of sin’s consequences,140 a point I will return to shortly. Third, and in light of the above observations, the particular consequence borne by the second ‫ חטאת‬goat in Lev 16 is (living) banishment rather than (expected) death.141 This banishment, says Gilchrest, has an ontological rationale: “God is unable to coexist with that which is unholy. Strict boundaries separating the holy from the unholy cannot be breached, and one means of maintaining those boundaries is banishment.”142 That banishment constitutes a means of separating unholy from holy is readily observable in the Pentateuch. It is especially evident in relation to the concept of ‫כרת‬, which is used frequently to convey punishment.143 One may be “cut off ” from one’s people (e.g., Exod 30:33; Lev 17:4), from the nation (e.g., Num 19:13), or from the presence of YHWH (e.g., Lev 22:3).144 While ‫ כרת‬sometimes occasions immediate death (e.g., Num 15:30–35), it can also denote ostracism.145 134.  Eric Gilchrest, “For the Wages of Sin Is . . . Banishment: An Unexplored Substitutionary Motif in Leviticus 16 and the Ritual of the Scapegoat,” EQ 85 (2013): 37. 135.  Ibid., 38. Here Gilchrest provides a helpful critique of those who presume the goat is sent off to die, for nowhere is the death of the goat mentioned or even assumed. 136.  In later rabbinic practice the goat was killed by being pushed off a precipice or down a steep mountainside (m. Yoma 6:6). 137. Cf. Wright, Disposal, 15–74. 138.  Ibid., 73. 139.  Gilchrest, “Banishment,” 41. 140.  Ibid., 41–42. 141.  Ibid., 44 n. 30. 142.  Ibid., 45. Gilchrest’s statement here needs modifying, for the boundaries between holy and unholy can, in fact, be breached, although not with impunity. Such a breach lies at the heart of the Nadab and Abihu incident (10:1–2) and forms the basis for the reminder-​based warning of 16:1–2, a warning that creates the exigency for the ritual outlined in Lev 16. 143.  Ibid., 47–48. The four most common punishments for sin are (1) death, (2) ‫כרת‬, (3) “bearing one’s sin,” and (4) “suffering guilt’s consequences.” See Sklar, Sin, 13–43. 144.  For a list of qualifiers that follow ‫כרת‬, see Sklar, Sin, 15 n. 14. 145. Boda, Severe Mercy, 56–57. Sklar clarifies further that ‫ כרת‬leads to one of three outcomes: death (immediate or postponed), childlessness, or banishment (Sin, 15–17).

170

Chapter 5

Yet, as Sklar notes, the ‫ כרת‬penalty is still synonymous with death even if this is not immediately realized,146 as banishment from YHWH’s presence, away from the source of life, is effectively a living death (cf. Lev 13:45–46).147 It is such banishment that Gilchrest argues the “scapegoat” bears as Israel’s substitute. Although not picked up by Gilchrest, Lev 16:22 supports viewing the “scapegoat” through the lens of substitutionary banishment, for the goat is sent alive ‫אל־ארץ גזרה‬. The meaning of the hapax ‫ גזרה‬is debated, but the phrase is usually translated as “cut-​off land” or similar. 148 Thus the goat bears the consequence that Israel should have borne—namely, being “cut off ” and banished to a “cut-​off land.” Gilchrest explores this penal banishment motif across the Pentateuch. Important for my purposes, however, is the parallel that he draws between Lev 16 and the expulsion of Adam and Eve. Gilchrest observes that here also punishment is (living) banishment rather than (expected) death.149 This parallel draws support from the shared use of ‫( ׁשלח‬piel) that I identified above. As noted, the contextual use of the verb form is similar—namely, the “sending away” of an unfit object from the locus of the divine presence, such as Adam and Eve from the Garden (Gen 3:23) and the “scapegoat” from the tabernacle (Lev 16:21). Moreover, the destination is similar. Removal from YHWH’s presence is also removal to a wilderness region. Adam is expelled to a land that had been cursed and that would bear thorns and thistles for him (Gen 3:17–18). The goat is sent to the “wilderness” (‫מדבר‬, 16:10), to a “cut-​off land” (‫ארץ גזרה‬, 16:22). Thus, Alter concludes that the ritual of Lev 16 depends upon a polarity between YHWH/the pale of human civilization and Azazel/the remote wilderness, the realm of disorder and raw formlessness. . . . It is as though the goat piled with impurities were being sent back to the primordial realm of “welter and waste” before the delineated world came into being.150

The plausibility of cultic rituals functioning to recall, or even reenact, primal events is supported by ANE parallels. Stephen Ricks examines a number of Near Eastern rites—especially the akītu festival in Babylon—and concludes that many ceremonies display “ritual repetition of the past,” particularly of the mythological 146. Sklar, Sin, 16. 147.  In the wilderness period this would have entailed separation from the manna-​fed community, thus increasing risk of death; similarly, within the land, banishment would mean exclusion from agricultural produce and its means of production. 148.  E.g., Gane, Leviticus, 274; Meyrick, Leviticus, 242; Wenham, Leviticus, 233; Hieke, Levitikus 1–15, 32. 149.  Gilchrest, “Banishment,” 48. Of course, movement away from God’s presence eventually leads to the experience of death in all its multifaceted forms. 150. Alter, Five, 612–13n on v. 10. Similarly, Gorman (Ideology, 99) suggests that the second goat is dispatched to the land of ‫ובהו‬ ‫( תהו‬cf. Gen 1:2).

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 16

171

past.151 Ricks suggests a purpose for reenactment: “By becoming a participant in the victory of the forces of order in the creation through reciting or reenacting the creation, the individual or community also becomes a participant in the fruits of that victory.”152 Terje Stordalen argues that something similar may be happening in the biblical texts. However, as argued earlier, the force of cultic reenactment in the Old Testament is different from that of the wider ANE. Israel’s cult instigates a new creation, but at a microcosmic level; it is inaugural rather than extensive, in contrast to the world constitution imagined by the akītu ritual, for example. It is in this more limited sense that Lev 16 can be understood as a cultic enactment of primordial events. The same qualifier applies to Stordalen’s conclusion that “for someone accustomed to encountering ‫ יהוה אלהים‬guarded by ‫ כרבים‬in liturgical life, the Eden story invites a view of the cult as acting out primeval events.”153 If the conceptual parallel holds, and the “scapegoat” of Lev 16 is in some way acting out the banishment of Gen 3, then our understanding of the Day of Atonement may be enhanced. One of the key issues raised by chapter 16 concerns the relationship between the two goats. How can both be described as a singular ‫חטאת‬ in 16:5? Moreover, if sins are atoned for with the blood of the first goat, then why are they also transferred to the head of the second?154 The suggestion is made that only the goat chosen for YHWH was really a ‫חטאת‬.155 The second goat, then, acts merely as a means of impurity disposal.156 Others argue that the “scapegoat” functioned as a mnemonic device,157 or as a visual aid to convey the significance of the high priest’s hidden actions within the tabernacle (cf. Lev 16:17).158 None of these solutions is without problem, however.159 151.  Stephen D. Ricks, “Liturgy and Cosmogony: The Ritual Use of Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East,” in Parry, Temples of the Ancient World, 122. 152.  Ibid., 123. 153. Stordalen, Echoes, 466 (emphasis mine). The same conclusion is reached by Nihan (Priestly Torah, 234). 154.  Mary Douglas, “The Go-​Away Goat,” in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception, ed. Rolf Rendtorff, Robert A. Kugler, and Sarah Smith Bartel, VTSup 93 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 129. 155.  E.g., Noth, Leviticus, 118–19. 156.  Gane (Leviticus, 271) refers to this goat as a ritual “garbage truck.” 157.  So Joel N. Lohr, “The Book of Leviticus,” in A Theological Introduction to the Pentateuch: Interpreting the Torah as Christian Scripture, ed. Richard S. Briggs and Joel N. Lohr (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2012), 105. 158.  E.g., Bonar, Leviticus, 311: “Aaron is now to shew atonement in another form.” Likewise, Levine suggests, “such rites were retained for their dramatic effect” (Leviticus, 253). 159.  First, the normal ‫ ח טאת‬already had prescribed means of disposal—viz. either burning outside the camp or consumption by the priests—depending on the status of the offerer (6:22–23 [29–30]; cf. 4:3–31). Why then the different procedure in Lev 16? Why was the burning of the first goat outside the camp (v. 27) not sufficient? Second, if the “scapegoat” is understood as a visual aid, then why are similar aids not provided for other priestly acts that remain hidden (e.g., the sprinkling of blood on the curtain in Lev 4:5–6)?

172

Chapter 5

Yet, granting a conceptual connection to Gen 3, another option becomes possible. In this respect, Sklar makes a crucial observation: granting forgiveness does not necessarily obviate the consequences of sin. For instance, Joseph’s brothers plead for forgiveness but still offer themselves as slaves (Gen 50:17–18); in Num 14:11–25, following Moses’s intercession, YHWH declares, “I have forgiven” (‫סלחתי‬, v. 20), but also declares the death of that generation in the wilderness (vv. 21–23).160 Nevertheless, in each case the full force of deserved punishment is mitigated to a degree. On Yom Kippur, the blood of the first goat, offered as a ‫חטאת‬, atones for the tabernacle and sancta that have been defiled by the nation (vv. 16, 20). Yet securing atonement does not necessarily remove the consequences of the people’s wrongdoing. In Lev 16 this includes “defiant acts” (‫פׁשעים‬, 16:16, 21;161 in the context of v. 1, Nadab and Abihu’s transgression is also in view), less serious “sins” (‫חטאת‬, 16:21), as well as ritual “uncleanness” (‫טמאה‬, 16:16). Moreover, unknown sins and impurities, which are, by definition, noncognizant, could not have been either confessed or remedied by the normal means.162 In fact, the danger posed by unrealized defilement is the probable reason behind the exclusion of everyone, barring the high priest, during the ritual (16:17).163 As a result of their multifaceted sinfulness and impurity the people could still face being “cut off,” being “expelled” like Adam was, even following atonement and forgiveness.164 Such banishment would certainly qualify as mitigated punishment in view of the more immediate (and severe) fate enacted upon Nadab and Abihu. However, Lev 16 makes provision for a goat, bearing the sin of the people (Lev 16:10) and acting as their substitute, to be expelled to a “cut-​off land” in their stead. Thus understood, the “scapegoat” plays an essential and complementary function within the wider ritual. Together, the two goats secure atonement for sin and removal of sin’s consequences, allowing the people to remain in the presence of YHWH unlike their primordial ancestor. The ritual thus derives increased meaning from an Edenic connection by echoing, yet contrasting, the archetypal story of sin and punitive banishment. 2. Aaron as Adam. The annual entrance of the high priest into the most holy place on the Day of Atonement has rightly been described as his “most critical 160. Sklar, Sin, 84–85, 92. 161.  For understanding ‫ פׁשעים‬as flagrant acts of rebellion, see Gorman, Ideology, 82; Sklar, Leviticus, 211. 162.  In light of the immediately prior discussion of impurity (Lev 11–15) it is apparent that unwitting impurity will inevitably arise (Wenham, Leviticus, 227–28)—a reality that constitutes a severe threat to the people (15:31). 163.  In later rabbinic tradition further precautions were prescribed. Seven days before the ceremony the high priest was set aside (m. Yoma 1:1). Then, on the preceding night, he was to fast and remain awake (m. Yoma 1:4, 7), presumably to prevent impurity arising from either unclean food or nocturnal emissions. 164.  It is worth noting that the concept of forgiveness is implied in Lev 16 rather than explicitly stated; ‫ סלח‬does not appear in the pericope (compare Lev 4:20, 26, etc.).

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 16

173

role,”165 for by means of the adytum ritual, sanctuary and sancta were purged, and atonement was secured for the nation (cf. 16:20, 30). Regarding this entry behind the curtain—the central rite of the day—a number of scholars have suggested conceptual connections between Aaron and Adam. Morales writes concerning the high priest in Lev 16: “This annual ritual of penetrating into the divine Presence may be considered the archetypal priestly act, whereupon Adam-​like he fulfils the cosmogonic pattern”166—that is, Aaron ascends the typological cosmic mountain. Thus, while YHWH’s indwelling of the tabernacle (Exod 40:34–35) parallels the divine rest of Gen 2:1–3 and reverses the problem of divine absence, the inauguration of the priesthood (Lev 8–9) addresses the need for a new humanity.167 Climactically, on the Day of Atonement, the high priest reestablished divine-​human proximity as Aaron approached YHWH’s presence via divinely sanctioned sacrifices.168 In this way, events beginning at Sinai inaugurate humanity’s reentry into a lost presence.169 Morales concludes: As the peaks of Sinai and the Ararat mount had echoed Eden in their respective narratives, so the holy of holies corresponds to Eden and the blessing of the divine Presence, and the high priest portrays Adam (/Noah/Moses). Thus the narrative arc from Gen 1–3 to Exod 40 may be traced as the expulsion from the divine Presence to the gained re-​entry into the divine Presence via the tabernacle cultus, from the profound descent of Adam to the dramatic “ascent” of the high priest into the holy of holies, particularly on the Day of Atonement.170

Leviticus 16, therefore, in its canonical setting, marks the climax of a key narrative movement within the Pentateuch—namely, the loss and subsequent regaining of the divine presence and accompanying blessedness. Donald Parry makes the connection explicit: Once a year on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, Adam’s eastward expulsion from the Garden is reversed when the high priest travels west past the consuming fire of the sacrifice and the purifying water of the laver, through the veil woven with images of cherubim. Thus he returns to the original point of creation, where he 165.  Richard D. Nelson, Raising Up a Faithful Priest: Community and Priesthood in Biblical Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 13. 166. Morales, Tabernacle, 263. 167.  Ibid., 273–74. In a similar vein, Alex Cheung posits that representing a renewed people and creation was the primary function of Israel’s priesthood; see Cheung, “The Priest as the Redeemed Man: A Biblical-​Theological Study of the Priesthood,” JETS 29 (1986): 266–67. While Cheung perhaps overstates the case, the role of the priests as signifiers of a renewed creation is well made. 168. Morales, Tabernacle, 273. 169.  Ibid., 276. See also Bonar, Leviticus, 306. 170. Morales, Tabernacle, 276–77.

174

Chapter 5 pours out the atoning blood of the sacrifice, re-​establishing the covenant relationship with God.171

Crispin Fletcher-​Louis reaches a similar conclusion. He states, “Within the cultic worldview . . . the God-​intended humanity of Genesis 1 is recapitulated, and sacramentally reconstituted, in Israel’s priesthood, in the temple-​as-​microcosm.”172 Furthermore, connections between Aaron and Adam lead Fletcher-​Louis to conclude that the Adamic identity of Aaron is essential to priestly theology.173 Aaron, therefore, is understood as “the new Adam, wearing the garments that Adam lost on leaving Eden, doing what Adam failed to do in the temple-​as-​restored-​Eden.”174 Here, however, Fletcher-​Louis overstates the case, basing his argument on a misreading of the text. While there is a syntactical connection that links Aaron and Adam vis-​à-​vis the wearing of ‫( כתנת‬see “Lexical and Syntactical Parallels” above), these are the garments that Adam is clothed with on his way out of the Garden, contra Fletcher-​Louis. The force of the parallel lies in a different direction. Aaron does not simply take up where Adam left off, as Fletcher-​Louis would have it; rather, as I argued above, Aaron is dressed as the excluded Adam was and thus “ascends” toward the adytum representing sinful humanity’s return to its Creator and the inauguration of its renewal. In this way, both Adam and Aaron are representative figures. Adam embodies a humanity separated from God; Aaron, on the other hand, embodies a humanity being remade and thus permitted to once more approach the divine presence. In this way, it becomes apparent that the ritual of Lev 16 is again being connected to primordial events.175 Through this connection, the ceremony derives increased significance. Aaron, representing the people of Israel, and even excluded humanity more generally, stands Adam-​like before YHWH, simultaneously reversing the primordial expulsion while making atonement to prevent the same fate being levied upon Israel en masse. Evaluation Lexical and syntactical parallels between Lev 16 and Gen 1–3 are suggestive, but not conclusive. Nevertheless, genuine intertextual connection is made more 171.  Parry, “Garden,” 135. 172.  Crispin H. T. Fletcher-​Louis, “Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 2,” JSHJ 5 (2007): 76. 173.  Crispin H. T. Fletcher-​Louis, “Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 1,” JSHJ 4 (2006): 159 n. 8. 174.  Ibid., 159. 175. Cf. Stordalen, Echoes, 466. Similarly, Nihan states: “The institution of the sacrificial cult in Lev 1–9 re-​enacts, in Israel’s mythical sanctuary, the initial harmony between God and men that was devised in the creation of the world, thus completing the narrative opened in Gen 1” (Priestly Torah, 234).

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 16

175

probable by the conceptual connections just examined. Several conceptual links to Gen 1 and Gen 2–3 seem to be integral to the ritual of Lev 16, which appears, at least in part, to reenact aspects of primeval events. In particular, it is apparent that the primeval world and especially Adam’s enjoyment of, and subsequent banishment from, the divine presence form an important conceptual background to Lev 16. Links to Gen 1–3 thus serve to further explain the significance of the Day of Atonement within the wider tabernacle cult. Moreover, Yom Kippur is portrayed as enabling, albeit partially, a return to Edenic conditions, as the high priest stands Adam-​like in YHWH’s presence. The ritual’s importance is thus heightened by its resolution of the dilemma posed by the banishment of Gen 3 against which the priesthood in general, and the high priest in particular, represent the beginnings of a new humanity. These conceptual connections, supported by the lexical and syntactical parallels noted earlier, indicate that a genuine intertextual connection between Gen 1–3 and Lev 16 is probable. Determining whether these connections are deliberate, however, is the concern of the next section.

Assessing the Deliberateness of Parallels The Quantity and Specificity of Parallels to the Same Text The lexical and syntactical parallels outlined above include relatively rare word clusters and syntactical combinations: the clustering of ‫עׂשה‬, ‫מלאכה‬, and ‫ׁשביעי‬ with the ‫ ׁשבת‬root; the use of ‫ לבׁש‬with ‫( כתנת‬itself an uncommon noun); and the concurrence of ‫ מים‬and ‫מקום‬. Also important is ‫( ׁשלח‬piel), and possibly ‫נוח‬ (hiphil), used in contextually analogous manners. Moreover, for many of these terms semantic equivalents are available; for example, ‫( בגד‬II) for ‫כתנת‬,176 or the more common ‫ נתן‬for ‫נוח‬. However, as n ot ed before, the quantity of significant lexical and syntactical connections to Gen 1–3 in Lev 16 is not high. Nevertheless, those that are present connect to two aspects of Lev 16 in particular. First, the word cluster of ‫עׂשה‬, ‫מלא כ ה‬, ‫ׁשב יעי‬, and ‫ ׁשבת‬serves to explicitly link the Sabbath rest enjoined during Yom Kippur to the seventh day of creation. Second, all of the remaining parallels relate to ritual elements that are unique to the Day of Atonement. The unusual preparation of the high priest is touched on—his dressing in linen tunic (‫ לבׁש‬+ ‫( )כתנת‬16:4), his “placing” (‫ )נוח‬of these clothes within the sanctuary (16:23), and his postrequisite washing in “water” in a holy “place” (‫ מים‬+ ‫( )מקום‬16:24). Also, the blood of the ‫ חטאת‬goat and bull is sprinkled to the “east” (‫ )קדם‬of the kappōret 176.  Robert L. Alden, “‫ּבֶ גֶד‬,” NIDOTTE 1:595–97, notes that ‫( בגד‬II) is generally used to denote distinctive clothing, a use amenable to the context of Lev 16:4.

176

Chapter 5

(16:14; cf. 16:15). Furthermore, the unique ‫ חטאת‬goat that is “sent away” into the wilderness is the sole object of ‫( ׁשלח‬piel) (16:10, 21, 22, 26). Thus, while not numerous, intertextual connections to Gen 1 and Gen 2–3 are found in relation to key features of Lev 16, a reality that allows, and perhaps even suggests, intentionality. The Similarity of Narrative Settings Lexical and syntactical parallels to Gen 1–3 in Lev 16 are not randomly distributed, suggesting more than a mere collection of unrelated similarities. Parallels relate to either Sabbath rest or central (and unique) features of the ritual. Furthermore, lexical and syntactical links find mutual support in the conceptual parallels present. Together, connections serve to link Lev 16 with key points of the Gen 1–3 narratives—namely, completed creation, Adam in YHWH’s presence, and his subsequent banishment from the Garden of Eden. Completed creation is recalled in the prescriptions given for Sabbath and total cessation from work, legislation that utilizes language shared by Lev 16 and Gen 2:1–3.177 The divine rest on the seventh day forms the climactic episode of Gen 1:1–2:3. This is even more so the case if, as many have argued, God’s “resting” is to be understood against the backdrop of ANE temple inauguration rites, where on the seventh day of the ceremony the deity took up residence in the newly constructed shrine.178 Either way, the concept of Sabbath evokes creation in its “very good” (‫ )טוב מאד‬and completed state (Gen 1:31). A parallel with the seventh day of creation is further supported in Lev 16 by the extensive use of sevenfold patterning throughout, connecting the Leviticus pericope not only to Gen 1:1–2:3 in general but to Gen 2:1–3 in particular.179 The primordial world is also recalled through parallels established between Aaron and Adam. In the Garden, Adam enjoyed access to the divine presence. Yet intriguingly, the text does not imply continual contact. Rather, Gen 3:8 denotes YHWH’s regular appearance in the Garden and thus implies that there were times when he was not present (as in the temptation and eating scenes, for instance). Following his act of transgression, Adam was “sent away” eastward from the Garden and from the presence of YHWH, with cherubim stationed to prevent any return (Gen 3:23–24). 177.  Only the Sabbath and Day of Atonement required absolute cessation of work (Balentine, Leviticus, 134). 178.  For a seven-​day construction period in relation to Baal’s temple, see UNP, 133–34. For further discussion, consult Jon D. Levenson, “The Temple and the World,” JR 64 (1984): 287–88; John H. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2001), 147–52. 179.  Cf. Michael Fishbane, Biblical Text and Texture: A Literary Reading of Selected Texts (Oxford: Oneworld, 1998), 11: “This seventh paragraph of seven paragraphs, telling of the seventh day of the seven days of creation, is styled as a liturgical celebration of divine rest and completed creation.”

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 16

177

On the Day of Atonement Aaron ritually reversed Adam’s banished trajectory. His approach toward the divine presence in the inner sanctum was from the east.180 Moreover, on this day, and on this day only, Aaron was to dress himself in a linen tunic (‫ לבׁש‬+ ‫כתנת‬, 16:4), meaning that as he approached YHWH he was clothed similarly to Adam in the Garden (‫ לבׁש‬+ ‫כתנת‬, Gen 3:21). Thus, Aaron’s “ascent”—through the waters (cf. 16:4)—into the holy of holies represented the return of an excluded humanity, a return that necessitated going past the cherubim embroidered on the curtain separating off the adytum (cf. Exod 26:31–33) in order to sprinkle atoning blood on the east side of the kappōret.181 Additionally, Aaron’s access to the divine presence was, as for Adam, not available “at any time” (‫בכל־‬ ‫עת‬, 16:2)—it was permitted once annually (16:34).182 Parallels between Lev 16 and Gen 1–3 also suggest a correlation between the “scapegoat” rite and the primeval banishment. Both Adam and the “scapegoat” were “sent away” (‫[ ׁשלח‬piel]) from the locus of divine presence; additionally, both were “sent away” to a wilderness area. Furthermore, the reason for banishment in both cases is the same. Adam’s transgression led to being cut off from YHWH’s presence. So, similarly, the “scapegoat,” through the laying on of hands (Lev 16:21), was made to carry Israel’s sins away to a “cut-​off ” land (16:22), substitutionally bearing the penalty that Israel, like Adam, should have borne. The “scapegoat,” in an analogous manner to Adam, endured a (living) banishment rather than (expected) death. In these ways, the ritual of the Day of Atonement makes use of evocative symbolism made possible by means of intertextual connections to key points in the narratives of Gen 1–3. Evident is a confluence of sacred time and sacred space that serves to recall the original creation. Moreover, enacted in the proceedings was a restoration of the divine-​human relationship, as a new humanity—Israel, via the representative figure of Aaron—reversed the direction of the primeval banishment and entered YHWH’s presence. Thus, in the final-​form Pentateuch, Lev 16 functions as a (partial) resolution to the narrative tension raised by Gen 3 by restoring in Israel aspects of a lost world. All of this together suggests deliberate connection for rhetorical aims. The Recontextualization of Prior Material A third indicator of deliberate allusion is the reworking of material for a new context. From the above discussion, it is evident that several central motifs in Gen 1–3 are 180.  See Exod 36:31–38; 38:13–14; cf. m. Yoma 1:3. 181. The kappōret also contained images of cherubim (Exod 25:17–20). 182.  It should be noted that the reason for limited contact is different in each case. In Gen 2–3 it is Adam who is continually present in the “sanctuary”; God is the one who appears regularly (daily?). In Lev 11, however, the divine presence is continually present; it is the high priest who enters regularly (annually).

178

Chapter 5

paralleled in the Leviticus text. Yet these elements are not simply copied or repeated. Rather, they have been transformed for a new context. Most fundamentally, elements from a narrative description have been reformulated into a ritual prescription. Hence the ritual of Lev 16, at least in part, seeks to provoke memory of primal events, perhaps even to reenact them, for its own theological ends. For example, parallels to Adam’s banishment in relation to the “sending away” of the “scapegoat” serve to highlight the substitutionary function of the latter as well as underlining the importance of the Day of Atonement as a rite of reversal and restoration. Theologically, this signals a new point in salvation history by revealing God’s desire to avoid repetition of Adam-​like expulsion. The goat’s banishment in Israel’s stead allows the people to remain in YHWH’s presence and thus furthers the agenda of Leviticus to inaugurate a new creation (see my discussion in chapter 3). Also falling within the category of reformulation are the vestments worn by the high priest on the Day of Atonement. While being clothed with a tunic (‫ לבׁש‬+ ‫ )כתנת‬forms a lexical parallel with Gen 3, the materials used in Gen 3:21 and Lev 16:4 are not identical. From these examples, it is apparent that material shared with Gen 1–3 has been reworked “in a lexically reorganized and topically rethematized way.”183 I will discuss the point of such recontextualization below, but deliberate linkage seems probable. Synergy with Other Rhetorical Features At the start of this chapter I listed some uniquely occurring elements found in Lev 16. I suggested that, rhetorically, these peculiar elements serve to reinforce the singular importance of the Day of Atonement, not only within Leviticus but within Israel’s cult more broadly. The Yom Kippur ritual is thereby indicated to be like no other. Interestingly, a number of these unique elements are connected to the lexical and conceptual parallels to Gen 1–3 outlined throughout this chapter. As these parallels have already been discussed I will simply summarize them here. Fundamental to the Day of Atonement i s entry to the adytum, a location emphasized by the unusual phrases used to refer to it (‫ הקדׁש‬and ‫)מקדׁש הקדׁש‬. The solemnity of entering YHWH’s presence is marked by Aaron’s unique washing and dressing, which share parallels to the concept of passing through the water to approach YHWH as well as to the clothing worn by Adam in the Garden.184 Thus in the context of total Sabbath rest (16:29–31), the focus on sacred time and space facilitates a ritual recapitulation, albeit partial, of primordial conditions. In turn, this signals the restoration through Israel’s tabernacle cult of the divine-​human relationship fractured in Gen 3. 183. Fishbane, Interpretation, 285. 184.  Clothing is further highlighted in Lev 16 by the sevenfold use of ‫ בגד‬and the chiastic arrangement of those seven instances (Warning, Artistry, 87–88).

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 16

179

Lending further support to the role of the Day of Atonement as a “rite of restoration”185 is the sending away of the “scapegoat” to the wilderness. This feature, unique to Yom Kippur, shares both lexical and conceptual parallels with Adam’s banishment from the Garden to the (implied) wilderness outside. The substitutionary nature of this goat within the ritual functions to allow Israel to remain in proximity to YHWH and thus avoid the expulsion levied upon Adam. The self-​denial enjoined upon the people (16:29) may also indicate a reversal of Adam’s hubris. In these ways, rhetorical emphasis on the importance of Yom Kippur through the use of unique ritual elements receives increased force from intertextual connections to Gen 1–3, which function to portray the Day of Atonement as a (partial) return to the Edenic ideal. Allusion to Gen 1–3 thus imparts increased force to the chapter’s legislation. Another rhetorical feature of Lev 16 that facilitates this same goal is the use of seven as a structuring device. This device, while imparting an aesthetic quality to the text, also serves a theological agenda. As discussed earlier, words connected to the core of Lev 16’s unique ritual are highlighted by being used seven times (or in multiples thereof). Thus, again, the superlative importance of the Day of Atonement is signaled. Moreover, this heptadic patterning also furthers the connection between Lev 16 and Gen 2:1–3. The ultimate day of creation finds a parallel in Israel’s ultimate cultic moment. The restoration of cultic order in Lev 16 is thus connected to the ordered world of creation. In the story line of the Pentateuch, therefore, Lev 16 functions as an inaugural resolution to the loss of creation’s “very good” state (Gen 1:31).186 Once again, intertextual linkage and rhetorical feature are seen to be mutually supporting. Evaluation The results of the above discussion are suggestive. First, several word clusters and other shared terms connect Lev 16 with Gen 1–3. While the overall number of these is not high, connections are particularly focused; they especially serve to highlight the link between prescribed Sabbath rest and the seventh day of creation, as well as to draw attention to unique aspects of chapter 16’s ritual. Second, parallels connect Lev 16 to key points of the Gen 1–3 narratives. Together these serve to portray Aaron as an Adam-​like figure who ritually reverses the primeval banishment, thereby restoring aspects of creation—in particular, the proximity with God once enjoyed by primal humanity. Third, and relatedly, elements of Gen 185. Gorman, Leviticus, 94. 186.  That Lev 16 is meant to be read in line with the Pentateuch’s wider narrative is indicated by the explicit connection made between the chapter’s ritual legislation and the recalled events of Lev 10:1–2. Leviticus 16 is thus set firmly within Leviticus’s (and hence the Pentateuch’s) narrative framework.

180

Chapter 5

1–3 have not simply been reproduced in Lev 16; rather, they have been reshaped for a new context and seem utilized to further theological aims. Fourth, the concern of the legislator to portray the Day of Atonement as a uniquely important event is enhanced by parallels to Gen 1–3. With these connections, the rite takes on a cosmic dimension as it becomes the means of inaugurating the restoration of creation order in and through Israel’s cult. The amalgamation of these criteria makes it highly probable that Lev 16 intentionally alludes to both Gen 1 and Gen 2–3. The rhetorical function of such allusion is what I consider next.

The Rhetorical Function of Allusion in Leviticus 16 The remainder of this chapter explores how identified allusions to Gen 1–3 function rhetorically in Lev 16. To do so, I identify specific illocutions performed by allusion in Lev 16, examine whether these pericope-​level illocutions correlate with book-​level illocutions, and outline potential functions for the rhetorical contexts outlined in chapter 3. Illocutions Performed by Allusion to Genesis 1–3 Intertextual connection to Gen 1–3 enables a number of illocutions in Lev 16. Allusion to the seventh-​day completeness of creation in the prescriptions for Sabbath observance reminds readers of the original world. Moreover, Lev 16 also reminds readers of the access to the divine presence once enjoyed by humanity. This reminder of primal conditions sharpens the force of further acts of remembrance. Allusion to Adam’s expulsion from the Garden reminds readers of the primordial banishment and the resulting status of humanity in relation to God’s presence. Thereby enabled is a declaration regarding the human proclivity to end up in literal and metaphorical wildernesses, excluded from YHWH’s life-​giving presence. However, through allusion, Lev 16 also portrays Yom Kippur as a means of reversing primeval events. As ritual theorists correctly note, the import of a given ritual is not indicated by the sum of its physical processes. Rather, ritual assumes a higher level of meaning that transcends the physical cause and effect of its actions and words.187 Allusion to Gen 1–3 adds to this higher level of meaning by portraying the Day of Atonement, in its Pentateuchal context, as the means of partially reversing the banishment of humanity from the divine presence as well as reestablishing (micro)cosmic order through the recapitulation of sacred time. In this way 187.  See the very helpful discussion in Gane, Cult, 3–24.

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 16

181

allusion explains the significance of the ritual: Adam’s paradigmatic expulsion is overcome by allowing an (albeit brief) reentry into the sacred time and space of creation’s beginning. Thus Lev 16 declares that YHWH is not only able to reverse the loss occasioned in Gen 3, but that he is willing to do so, for the legislation here, as throughout Leviticus, originates as divine discourse (cf. 16:1–2aα). The illocutions noted above further serve to entice readers by exciting their imaginations. Allusion to Gen 1–3 declares that the Day of Atonement is unlike any other ritual. It alone has the potential to restore and secure the divine-​human relationship by providing the atonement and substitutionary bearing of expulsion necessary to allow Israel to live ‫לפני יהוה‬, in contrast to Adam’s banishment. Thus, allusion also declares God’s grace and his willingness to forgive wayward humanity. It furthermore declares YHWH’s commitment to his people and therefore perhaps even promises their continued life as his people, or at least the possibility of such. Yet Adam-​like entry by Aaron into the presence of YHWH also functions to convict the nation of sin, for that access is severely limited. Only one representative person could enter the adytum, and then only once a year. Thus, Israel is reproached for its inherent unsuitability to exist in the divine presence. By means of such conviction, allusion also calls Israel to adopt the very humility and repentant attitude that Yom Kippur requires. Moreover, allusion to Adam’s banishment also warns the nation that living in close proximity to YHWH is potentially hazardous. There is an ontological difference between holy and unholy; what is unholy must (and will) be removed.188 This was Adam’s fate, it is the fate that the “scapegoat” bears in Israel’s stead, and, as Lev 26 will make explicit, it may be Israel’s fate contingent upon its degree of conformity to divine instruction. The delivery of such a warning thus functions to demand that the people be holy even as YHWH himself is holy (cf. 11:44–45, etc.). Correlation with the Illocutions of the Book Once again, the commensurate nature of pericope-​level illocutions with those operating at the level of the book is clear. First, Leviticus as a book makes a declaration regarding the nature and parameters of sacred space. The use of allusion in Lev 16 serves this wider aim by recalling the “very good” state of the primordial world and its subsequent loss with Adam’s banishment. Readers are thus reminded that the consequence of violating cultic and moral boundaries is expulsion from the locus of divine presence. Second, this in turn serves the declaration made by 188.  Cf. Keil (Commentary, 4:404), who notes that the “scapegoat” presented “proof to the congregation . . . that those who were laden with sin could not remain in the kingdom of God, but would be banished to the abode of evil spirits, unless they were redeemed therefrom.”

182

Chapter 5

Leviticus concerning the character of YHWH. Because he is a holy God, who must separate himself from what is unholy, transgression of sacred space inevitably results in banishment (or worse; cf. 10:1–2). Furthermore, the portrayal of the divinely ordained ritual as a reversal of the primordial expulsion declares that YHWH is both willing and able to overturn the effects of Gen 3. Third, the aim of Leviticus to warn is commensurate with pericope-​level illocutions identified in Lev 16. The reminder of Adam’s expulsion warns that cohabitation with YHWH holds ambiguous potential. Moreover, the reversal of the primordial expulsion enacted by the Day of Atonement is heavily restricted. The implicit conviction of sin warns the people of their inherent unsuitability to enter sacred space. Israel, like all of humanity since the Garden, finds itself excluded from YHWH’s presence and must not simply presume right of access (cf. Lev 10:1–2). Nevertheless, and fourth, Leviticus aims to equip the community to live with YHWH. The ritual of Lev 16 furthers this goal by outlining a means of reversing the exclusion of humanity and of inaugurating regular entry into the divine presence. Fifth, Leviticus also seeks to impose its regulations on readers and demand compliance. These higher-​level functions are served by illocutions in Lev 16. The use of allusion to explain the significance of the Day of Atonement entices readers by portraying a potential return to creation time and space, thus acting to stir imagination and stimulate obedience. The Rhetorical Function of Allusion The illocutions identified above generate insight into the persuasive force of allusion. To ground this discussion, I proceed as in chapter 4 by discussing illocutions made possible by allusion in relation to the four historical contexts most frequently canvassed for the book’s provenance. Postexilic Function In this setting, allusion to Gen 1–3 has potential to defend and enforce Israelite distinctives against a backdrop of foreign rule. The reminder of primordial events in Lev 16 coheres with attempts made elsewhere in the postexilic literature to connect Second Temple institutions and personnel with Israel’s past.189 Moreover, the explicit connection between the Day of Atonement’s prescribed Sabbath rest and the seventh day of Gen 2:1–3 makes a key Jewish distinctive a creation “norm” and thus implies universal (temporal and spatial) applicability.

189.  Regarding this strategy in Chronicles, see Duke, Persuasive Appeal.

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 16

183

Connections between creation and cult also suggest the permanent validity of Israel’s cultic structures and functionaries.190 In a postexilic context of theological disputation and social division,191 establishing a creation-​cult nexus could add substantial weight to claims for primacy. Furthermore, the significance imputed to the ritual of Lev 16 by virtue of allusion to Gen 1–3 would have undergirded the importance of both Aaronide high priest and temple in particular. Only an anointed high priest from Aaron’s house (16:32) could function as a “new Adam” and enter the temple’s adytum to secure ‫ כפר‬for the nation en bloc and so restore the YHWH-​Israel relationship. The necessity and importance of the Aaronide order is hence duly established, representing a crucial outcome within the power vacuum left in the wake of the exile. Perhaps also implicit here is a theological rationale to support Jerusalem’s supremacy over and above Samaritan or diaspora claims. Furthermore, the primacy of Israel’s cult suggested by its correlation with patterns woven into the very fabric of created order would also have sounded a powerful note against syncretic tendencies. Only obedience to the ritual legislation stemming from YHWH himself (16:1–2aα, etc.) could bring about, in Yehud, the emergence of a new humanity who might enjoy an Edenic relationship with their God (cf. Zech 3). Exilic Function Leviticus 16, with its focus on sacred space and time, evokes YHWH’s presence in the original creation. The meticulous preparations demanded of both people and priesthood to allow reentry to that presence, now manifest within the inner sanctum, reinforce awareness of YHWH’s inviolable holiness. In this light, the nation’s banishment from the land and from YHWH is not only explained; it is cast into sharp relief, especially considering the role of Lev 16 to invite the very opposite. Israel’s exile is not due to YHWH’s coldness or caprice. Rather, like the “scapegoat” (or Adam for that matter), the people have been expelled from the locus of divine presence into the wilderness as bearers of their own sin. Thus, ironically, the people have become the very means of disposal, which ought to have borne iniquity and consequence in their stead. Perhaps also conveyed here is a rebuke of cultic neglect in general and of nonobservance of the Day of Atonement in particular. Certainly, this would fit with the paucity of references to the observance of this ritual in Israel’s history.192 190.  See also Brueggemann, “Kerygma,” 398. 191.  The divided nature of postexilic Yehud has been charted elsewhere. For discussion, see Tiemeyer, Rites, esp. 5–15. See also, O’Brien, Priest; Mark Leuchter, “Inter-​Levitical Polemics in the Late 6th Century BCE: The Evidence from Nehemiah 9,” Bib 95 (2014): 269–79. 192.  That is, of course, assuming the textual presentation of the ritual in Lev 16 is not a de novo product of the exile but rather utilizes preexisting traditions and/or texts.

184

Chapter 5

Yet Lev 16 also declares that YHWH’s creational purposes concerning divine-​ human relations remain intact, even after the “death” of exile. Toward that end, this text invites Israel to participate in acts of re-​creation. Recipients hear YHWH speak, instructing and equipping them regarding the reentry of sacred time (Sabbath rest) and space (the most holy place), and so reestablishing creation order on a microcosmic scale. Rhetorical features of Leviticus that convey the immediacy and timelessness of divine commands (see chapter 3) indicate that YHWH’s intentions persist. Thus, even as allusion to Gen 1–3 in Lev 16 helps to explain the exile, it also serves to suggest the potential end of that banishment. Certainly, this is portrayed in the person of the high priest who approaches YHWH from the east, thereby reversing the direction of both Adam’s and Israel’s banishment. Perhaps also important here is the “very unusual”193 introduction to the chapter with its recollection of the Nadab and Abihu incident. This connection testifies that the exigency that gave rise to the Day of Atonement was deliberate, high-​handed sin, and yet the ritual was sufficient to secure cleansing from all sins (16:30) as well as resultant consequences. Thus, in marked contrast to Adam’s punishment, the nation’s high-​handed rebellion against YHWH, which had occasioned its exile, could be dealt with.194 This portrayal of reversed fate would have brought comfort to a sundered people; projection of future hope for Israel would also have served to stymie assimilation. Monarchical Function Against this backdrop the central role of the “scapegoat” in Lev 16, paralleling Adam’s banishment from the divine presence, presents a needed reminder of the consequences that result from undealt-​with sin and uncleanness. Although the “scapegoat” has the potential to be Israel’s substitute, it also constitutes a foreboding warning of the fate that will befall the nation if, like Adam, it ignores YHWH’s command and neglects ritual observance. Along similar lines, the limited access to the divine presence allowed in Lev 16 acts as a reminder of the otherwise excluded status of humanity, including Israel, encouraging thereby an appropriate stance of humility and repentance. Additionally, the portrayal of Aaron as an Adam figure underlines his uniqueness. The necessary exclusion of all others from the tabernacle as ‫ כפר‬was enacted would clarify the essential role of the high priest for Israel’s longevity in the land. This in turn would limit the power and authority of Israel’s monarchs—so often the patrons of foreign gods—by relativizing their power and influence. 193.  Rendtorff, “Leviticus 16,” 255. 194.  Significant in relation to this is the portrayal of restoration from exile in Dan 9 in terms of a superlative Day of Atonement. See Harper, “Theological and Exegetical Significance,” 53–55.

Allusions to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 16

185

Premonarchical Function In line with this setting, allusion in Lev 16 furthers a broader purpose evident in Exodus and Leviticus to connect the tabernacle cult with creation and, by extension, with the Creator. Lexical and conceptual parallels to Gen 1–3 throughout this section of the Pentateuch portray Israel’s cult as recapitulating aspects of the original creation. Thus, against Egyptian claims to the contrary,195 the rhetoric of allusion suggests that the Sinai cult constitutes the true mode of worship. Prescriptions given in Lev 16 are thus not only those that truly align with created order, but are in fact the very means of restoring that order in the world. Allusion in Lev 16 thus further supports polemical purposes. In addition to engendering a negative disposition toward alternate forms of spirituality, allusion in Lev 16 also prompts a positive conception of the Israelite cult. The cultic rituals to be enacted by Israel are not merely of local import. Rather, the significance of these ritual actions stems from their ability to not only address the needs of a broken world but also to inaugurate its restoration and thereby advance the salvation-​historical narrative. In this regard, allusion in Lev 16 suggests a ritual reversal of the primordial banishment of Gen 3. Israel is (vicariously) invited to enter sacred time and space, to dwell with YHWH as the forerunner of a restored humanity and so become the priestly people of God (cf. Exod 19:5–6). Moreover, the Day of Atonement provides the measures needed to secure permanent cohabitation—a necessary provision considering the people’s propensity for apostasy (Exod 32:1–35; Lev 17:7)—by outlining means to deal with both sin and its consequences. In contrast to Adam’s permanent banishment, Israel is presented with a way to avoid the same fate; such provision in turn declares YHWH’s commitment to his newly formed people. In these ways, allusion to Gen 1–3 underscores the desirability of obedience in relation to the ritual program instigated at Sinai.

Conclusion The aim of this chapter was to investigate potential allusion to Gen 1 and Gen 2–3 in Lev 16 and to discuss its rhetorical function. Lexical and syntactical connections, while not numerous, were seen to be supported by conceptual parallels. Moreover, these connections seem deliberately utilized. On this basis, I discussed illocutions made possible by allusion and assessed their function against four potential provenances for the book. 195.  For discussion, see Johnny V. Miller and John M. Soden, In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in Its Original Context (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregal, 2012), 77–112.

186

Chapter 5

One of the interesting things to emerge from this investigation is the potential reenactment of primordial events in Israel’s cult. Such recapitulation provides a means of adding layers of meaning to ritual. It also increases the significance of cultic acts, as they are seen to inaugurate restoration of the original state of the cosmos and, more particularly, to reestablish a lost relationship between Creator and humanity. Israel’s cult is therefore portrayed as the means for a partial and provisional regaining of (in Milton’s words) paradise lost. For these reasons, allusion to Gen 1–3 is seen to perform a crucial function in the text of Lev 16.

Chapter 6

Allusion to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 26

Orientation to Leviticus 26 Leviticus 26 is unique within the book. The material is neither legal nor ritualistic in nature.1 In fact, both placement and tone bequeath to the pericope the feel of a concluding exhortation. Not without reason, then, John Hartley refers to Lev 26 as being “sermonic” in its presentation.2 During the twentieth century, critical scholarship focused on identifying redactional layers in Lev 26 and, as a result, posited an early formulaic tradition to which prose sections had subsequently been added. Elliger, for example, postulated an underlying metrical Vorlage as well as secondary, nonmetrical layers (his Ph1 and Ph2).3 Accordingly, Elliger reasoned that the text of Lev 26 “ist sicher literarisch nicht einheitlich. Wieder ist ein Teil der Sätze metrisch geformt, ein anderer nicht.”4 More recently, however, the viability of a prose-​poetry distinction acting as a source- and form-​critical criterion has been strongly contested.5 Consequently, in current scholarship Lev 26 is generally understood and approached as a coherent literary composition,6 albeit one that evidences minor interpolations.7 Accordingly, Hans Steymans concludes, “So fehlt es nicht an Stimmen, die für die Einheitlichkeit von Lev 26,3–45 plädieren.”8 My approach, based as it is on the received text, follows this trend in scholarship. Within Leviticus, chapter 26 shares strong literary and thematic connections with chapter 25. Milgrom suggests five reasons for linking these pericopes: (1) chapter 26 lacks the introductory ‫ וידבר יהוה אל־מׁשה‬found in previous 1. Rooker, Leviticus, 313. 2. Hartley, Leviticus, 462. 3. Elliger, Leviticus, 360–62. See also Reventlow, Heiligkeitgesetz, 146–48; Cholewiński, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 119–30. 4. Elliger, Leviticus, 367. 5.  See, e.g., Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 41–42; Nihan, Priestly Torah, 111–24. 6.  So already Noth, Leviticus, 198. See, similarly, Hartley, Leviticus, 462; Warning, Artistry, 100–101; Stackert, “Distinguishing,” 374 n. 15. 7.  See, for instance, Henry T. C. Sun, “An Investigation into the Compositional Integrity of the So-​Called Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–26)” (PhD diss., Claremont, 1990), 551–59. Levine, following Ginsberg, continues to argue for two more major “postcatastrophic” additions—namely, 26:39–40b, 44–45 and 26:33b–37a, 40b–43 (Leviticus, 275–76). 8.  Hans U. Steymans, “Verheißung und Drohung: Lev 26,” in Levitikus als Buch, ed. Heinz-​Josef Fabry and Hans-​Winfried Jüngling, BBB 119 (Berlin: Philo, 1999), 273.

187

188

Chapter 6

sections; (2) the phrase ‫( בהר סיני‬25:1; 26:46) forms an inclusio around the entire section; (3) deliverance from Egypt is a constant refrain (25:38, 42, 55; 26:13, 45); (4) both chapters (uniquely in Leviticus) refer to a sabbatical year (25:1–7; 26:34– 35, 43a); and (5) both chapters have a common theme—namely, that violation of YHWH’s commands, especially with regard to the Sabbath, leads to exile.9 In addition to Milgrom’s observations there is an evident focus on the Decalogue that bridges the two chapters. The opening verses of chapter 26 are widely recognized as presenting a précis of Decalogue stipulations, even if the number of commands represented remains disputed:10 Do not make for yourselves idols, and an image or a stump do not raise up for yourselves, and do not set up a figured stone in your land to bow down to it, because I am YHWH your God. My Sabbaths you must observe and my sanctuary you must fear; I am YHWH. (Lev 26:1–2)

Furthermore, Nihan observes that reference made to the exodus at the end of chapter 25 (v. 55), followed by the Decalogue-​inspired imperatives of Lev 26:1–2, is reminiscent of the sequence present in both Exod 20:2 and Deut 5:6.11 In terms of function, Lev 26, since Klostermann, has been understood as the conclusion to the Heiligkeitsgesetz (Lev 18–26).12 However, the canonical placement of the chapter also allows it to serve as the conclusion (or the first half of a two-​part conclusion with ch. 27) to Leviticus as a whole. That this is, in fact, intended can be seen in the wording of 26:46. Reference to the “statutes” (‫)חקים‬, “judgments” (‫)מׁשפטים‬, and “laws” (‫ )תורת‬given by YHWH pushes beyond the confines of the legislation contained in chapters 25–26.13 In Leviticus, ‫ מׁשפט‬occurs most frequently in chapters 18–26 (18:4, 5, 26; 19:15, 35, 37; 20:22; 24:22; 25:18; 26:15, 43).14 In contrast, however, the noun ‫ חקים‬never appears in this form or with this meaning elsewhere in chapters 17–26; instead, the feminine form (‫ )חקה‬is used (e.g., 17:7; 18:3, 4, 5, etc.).15 The noun ‫ חקים‬does, however, appear in 10:1116 as well 9.  Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3B (New York: The Anchor Bible, 2001), 2274. 10.  Leviticus 26:1–2 is held to encapsulate two (Balentine, Leviticus, 197), three (Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2277), or four (Mays, Leviticus, 69) Decalogue commands. 11. Nihan, Priestly Torah, 537. 12.  Klostermann, “Beiträge,” 416. 13.  Marx notes further the role that 26:1–2 plays in achieving the same result by functioning as a “sommaire des fondamentaux de l’alliance,” thereby shifting the focus beyond the legislation of ch. 25 alone (Lévitique 17–27, 195). 14.  The noun appears only twice in chs. 1–16 (5:10; 9:16)—both times in the singular. 15. Nihan, Priestly Torah, 552. The use of ‫ חק‬in 24:9 has the sense of “portion” rather than “statute.” 16.  The singular is also attested in Lev 1–16 with the meaning of “statute.” Every occurrence forms part of the phrase ‫( חק־עולם‬6:11 [18], 15 [22]; 7:34; 10:15).

Allusion to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 26

189

as frequently in Deuteronomy (e.g., Deut 4:1, 5, 6, 8, 14, etc.). Likewise, the noun ‫ תורה‬is not found elsewhere in Lev 17–26, but occurs regularly in chapters 1–16 (6:2 [9], 7 [14], 18 [25], etc.). Thus Lev 26:46 has been worded so as to encapsulate not only chapters 25–26, or even chapters 17–26, but Leviticus as a whole.17 Nihan even suggests that Lev 26 is designed to be the conclusion to the revelation imparted at Sinai en masse.18 Zenger argues similarly in relation to Lev 26:3–13: “Hier laufen die wichtigsten Texte und Linien der Urgeschichte, der Erzelternerzählungen, der Exodus- und der Sinaitheologie zusammen.”19 Thus, Lev 26 in its canonical position has in view all the legislation that precedes—at minimum, the whole of Leviticus, and potentially the entire Sinai revelation.20 The chapter’s presentation of prospective blessing or curse therefore functions as a concluding exhortation. With its first-​person discourse, the pericope works as divine sanctions in a manner akin to the function performed by Deuteronomy within the Pentateuch.21 Legislation and narrative have been delivered; now comes a final (divine) call for obedience. Leviticus 26 thus performs a rhetorically significant function in the wider book. The structure of the chapter may be outlined as follows: I. II. III. IV. V.

Précis of the Decalogue (vv. 1–2) Promised rewards for obedience (vv. 3–13) Threatened punishments for disobedience (vv. 14–39) The possibility of restoration (vv. 40–45) Postscript (v. 46)

Verses 1–2 contain five commands; three are stated negatively (26:1), and two posi tively (26:2). The twofold repetition of “I am YHWH” (‫)אני יהוה‬ gives th e essential rationale for the legislation. In the next section, v. 3 functions as a protasis that outlines the basic conditions that underlie the promises that follow. If Israel walks in, keeps, and does YHWH’s statutes and commands (‫ תׁשמרו ועׂשיתם‬. . .  ‫)אם־בחקת י תלכו‬, then he will bring about manifold blessing. Verses 14–39, however, portray the opposite. Instead of charting potential blessings, this section threatens the punishments that will ensue if Israel will not listen to and do all these commands (‫ואם־לא תׁשמעו לי ולא תעׂשו את כל־המצות‬ ‫)האלה‬. The warning panel is structured around five conditional clauses, each of which begins with ‫( ואם‬26:14, 18, 21, 23, 27). The apodosis in each case details with 17.  So also Balentine, Leviticus, 197; Kiuchi, Leviticus, 474; Hartley, Leviticus, 471. 18. Nihan, Priestly Torah, 551. 19.  Erich Zenger, “Das Buch Levitikus als Teiltext der Tora/des Pentateuch: Eine synchrone Lektüre mit kanonischer Perspektive,” in Fabry and Jüngling, Levitikus als Buch, 75. 20.  See Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 21. Cf. the reference to “all these/my commands” (26:14, 15). 21. Cf. Watts, Reading, 55–60. See my discussion in chapter 3.

190

Chapter 6

increasingly severity the chastisement that YHWH will enact. The fourth section of the chapter (vv. 40–45) presents the possibility of restoration, which may follow confession (‫ ידה‬hiphil).22 If such confession is made then YHWH declares he will remember his covenant with the Patriarchs (26:42) and will not forsake the people utterly (26:44). A twofold repetition of ‫ אני יהוה‬again gives the underlying rationale as well as forming an inclusio with vv. 1–2.23 Finally, v. 46 functions as a postscript for the chapter and, as argued above, for the entirety of Lev 1–26. Leviticus 26 also has several notable features that are pertinent to the investigation that follows. First, the chapter’s pattern of blessing and cursing is similarly attested in other covenantal and legal texts. Within the Pentateuch, Deut 28 likewise outlines both positive (28:1–14) and negative (28:15–68) outcomes that will result from obedience and disobedience respectively.24 Similarity in content and structure is also displayed in a number of ANE texts.25 The Code of Hammurabi, for instance, concludes with sixteen lines of blessings and 280 lines of curses,26 which include a threatened “scattering of the people” (na-ás-​pu-úḥ ni-šî-šu) akin to Lev 26:33’s threatened scattering (‫ )זרה‬of Israel.27 Likewise, the Aramaic Sefire treaty employs the typological number seven in its description of beasts preying on people, scarcity of food, pestilence, and devastation of the land.28 The parallels between Leviticus and these biblical and extrabiblical texts, including a pronounced emphasis on curse, are readily evident.29 There is an undoubted generic similarity. Yet Lev 26 is also different in significant ways. Normally, it is a royal suzerain who declares what the gods (third person) will do if the terms of the covenant are violated.30 However, in Lev 26, YHWH is the suzerain who declares in the first person what he himself will do.31 This first-​person discourse serves to underline 22.  The picture of restoration here does not include any explicit mention of a return to the land. It is perhaps implied with the recalling of the exodus from Egypt (v. 45). 23.  Gane notes that ‫יהוה‬ ‫ אני‬in 26:45 is the forty-​ninth use of the phrase in Leviticus. He also notes a number of other features in the book that exhibit a similar 7x7 patterning (Leviticus, 455). 24.  The chronological and literary relationship between the pericopes is complex and, hence, is debated. Milgrom, for example, views Lev 26 as the earlier text (Leviticus 23–27, 2347–48), whereas Nihan (Priestly Torah, 539) argues that Lev 26 is subsequent and was written to parallel Deut 28. 25.  See F. Charles Fensham, “Malediction and Benediction in Ancient Near Eastern Vassal-​ Treaties and the Old Testament,” ZAW 74 (1962): 1–9. 26.  ANET 178–80. 27.  Noted by Levine, Leviticus, 278. 28. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 125–26. 29.  See also the Lipit-​Ishtar law code (ANET 161). The Vassal-​Treaties of Esarhaddon (ANET 538– 41) list curses, but no blessings (a point made to me by Richard S. Hess in personal correspondence). 30.  For example, Treaty between Mursilis and Duppi-​Tessub of Amurru begins, “These are the words of . . . the great king, the king of the Hatti land,” and ends—following a long list of named deities— with the invocation “Should Duppi-​Tessub not honor these words of the treaty and the oath, may these gods of the oath destroy Duppi-​Tessub” (ANET 203–5). 31.  Note the preponderance of first-​person verbs throughout the chapter with YHWH as subject. Of course, this is the only way the rhetoric can work with a divine suzerain in a monotheistic conceptual universe.

Allusion to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 26

191

the deeply personal relationship that exists between YHWH and his people. Thus, while not allusion per se, the intimate framing of the legislation shows that the text lives in the same theological world as Gen 2–3. Also distinctive in Lev 26 is the absence of explicit blessing and cursing terminology found in analogous texts—Deut 2832 and the Code of Hammurabi, for example.33 Furthermore, Deut 28 offers no prospect of restoration whereas, as noted above, Lev 26 does (although see Deut 30). These divergences indicate that while Lev 26 is similar to Deut 28 (and other ANE texts) it is not the same. Its rhetorical aims, therefore, may well lie in a different direction. A second notable feature in Lev 26 is the stark reversal of fortune imagined. Made abundantly clear is that obedience brings life, and disobedience death. The mutual exclusivity of the two outcomes is achieved by the negation, often verbatim, of blessings from vv. 3–12 in the threatened curses of vv. 14–39.34 Fundamental to both realities is the presence of YHWH. Dependent upon the stance of the people, YHWH, in the first person, promises that he will be present either to enable abundant life or to severely curtail life by sending calamity. In this way, the rhetoric of Leviticus finds parallels in other Old Testament texts that utilize a contrast between God’s ability to create and uncreate (e.g., Gen 1 vis-​à-​vis Gen 6–7), a point I return to below. In relation to connections between Lev 26 and Gen 1–3, there is warrant to explore the possibility of allusion being present. While many commentators make no connections, others propose links to both Gen 135 and to Gen 2–3,36 especially in relation to Lev 26:4–12. Nevertheless, while suggestive, none, to my knowledge, have discussed the spectrum of connections listed below or the role that such intertextuality performs in the final-​form text of Leviticus.

Lexical and Syntactical Parallels Leviticus 26 shares thirty-​seven lexemes with Gen 1 and sixty-​seven with Gen 2–3.37 While many lexical parallels simply represent common words, a number are

32.  Blessing (‫ )ברך‬is mentioned eight times in Deut 28: 28:3 (x2), 4, 5, 6 (x2), 8, 12. The language of cursing also appears eight times: ‫ קללה‬in 28:15, 45; ‫ ארר‬in 28:16 (x2), 17, 18, 19 (x2). None of these terms are attested in Lev 26. 33. See ANET 178–79. 34.  For a detailed list of reversals, see Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2305–26. 35.  E.g., Elliger, Leviticus, 366; Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 405, 409; Gorman, Leviticus, 143; Alter, Five Books, 601; Nihan, Priestly Torah, 538. 36.  E.g., Noordtzij, Leviticus, 265; Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 407; Rooker, Leviticus, 314; Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2301; Kleinig, Leviticus, 574; Eveson, Beauty, 380; Damrosch, “Leviticus,” 75. 37.  See the appendix for a full listing.

192

Chapter 6

potentially significant because of their rarity or their clustered use. As in previous chapters, I examine parallels to Gen 1 and to Gen 2–3 in turn. Genesis 1 1. ‫ פרה‬and ‫“—רבה‬to be fruitful” and “to be numerous” (Gen 1:22, 28; Lev 26:9). The syntactical combination of these terms as a set phrase is uncommon in the Old Testament. It appears only fifteen times (Gen 1:22, 28; 8:17; 9:1, 7; 17:20; 28:3; 35:11; 47:27; 48:4; Exod 1:7; Lev 26:9; Jer 3:16; 23:3; Ezek 36:11). Genesis 1 is programmatic. The imperative forms used (‫פרו ורבו‬, “be fruitful and multiply”) make concrete the pronouncement of divine blessing upon both creatures (1:22) and humans (1:28). Throughout the remainder of Genesis the word pair functions to chart the outworking of this creation blessing and mandate. In Gen 8–9, use of the phrase ‫ פרו ורבו‬indicates that divine intent remains unchanged in the postdiluvian world, for both creatures (8:17) and humanity (9:1, 7). Promise of fruitfulness and multiplication later becomes a central tenet of the patriarchal covenants, with the syntactical pairing of ‫ פרה‬and ‫ רבה‬explicitly appearing in connection with Ishmael (17:20) and Jacob (28:3; 35:11; 48:4).38 Genesis concludes with a fulfillment notice, indicating that in Egypt, Israel “became exceedingly fruitful and numerous” (‫ויפרו וירבו מאד‬, 47:27), a point reiterated at the start of Exodus (Exod 1:7). The phrase next appears in Lev 26:9 where it is used to make concrete the potential blessing that awaits Israel in Canaan. Divine instrumentality is indicated by the first-​person hiphil forms used with YHWH as subject (‫והפריתי אתכם והרביתי‬ ‫)אתכם‬. Like the other potential blessings outlined in 26:4–12, fruitfulness and numerical increase are made contingent on the obedience of the people (cf. 26:3). Remaining uses of the phrase ( Jer 3:16; 23:3; Ezek 36:11) occur in contexts where a postexilic return to the land is envisioned. Return from exile—with accompanying blessings cast in creation language—is thus imagined as re-​creation. Moreover, if these prophetic texts are dated after Lev 26 then they depict an undoing of the covenant curses found therein regarding destruction of progeny (e.g., 26:22, 29!). 2. ‫פרי‬, ‫עץ‬, and ‫“—ארץ‬fruit,” “tree,” and “land”—used in connection with ‫נתן‬ (“to give”) (Gen 1:29; Lev 26:4, 20). While each of these nouns appears frequently throughout the Old Testament, their combination is much rarer. The concurrence of “fruit” (‫ )פרי‬borne on “trees” (‫ )עץ‬in connection with the “land” (‫ )ארץ‬occurs only eight times in the Pentateuch (Gen 1:11, 12, 29; Exod 10:15; Lev 19:23; 26:4, 20; 27:30),39 and once outside (Ezek 34:27). The use of these nouns in connection 38.  Numerical increase is also integral to the promises made to Abraham (e.g., Gen 12:2; 15:5; 17:6) and Isaac (Gen 26:3–4), albeit lacking the word pair. 39.  While Num 13:20 also attests the three nouns, “fruit” is used in connection with the ground (‫הארץ‬ ‫)פרי‬, not trees.

Allusion to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 26

193

with the verb ‫נתן‬, however, narrows the list to four instances (Gen 1:29, Lev 26:4, 20; Ezek 34:27). Again, the programmatic example occurs in Gen 1. There God commands the “land” (‫ )ארץ‬to produce “trees” (‫ )עץ‬that will bear “fruit” (‫)פרי‬, a command fulfilled in the following verse (1:12). In 1:29, God then gives (‫ )נתן‬all the plants of the “earth” (‫)ארץ‬, including “trees” (‫ )עץ‬with their “fruit” (‫)פרי‬, to the human pair as their food. At the next appearance of the cluster, in Lev 26:4, YHWH declares that in response to Israel’s obedience he will send rain at the appropriate time. As a result, the land will give of its produce and the trees will give of their fruit (‫ונתנה‬ ‫)הארץ יבולה ועץ הׂשדה יתן פריו‬. Thus, the people will have abundant food (26:5). However, disobedience will occasion the exact reverse: “Your land will not give its increase and the trees of the land will not give their fruit” (‫ולא תתן ארצכם את־‬ ‫יבולה ועץ הארץ לא יתן פריו‬, 26:20). Consequently, although the people may eat they will not be satisfied (26:26).40 Ezekiel 34:27 mirrors the wording (albeit in different order) of Lev 26:441 and is probably dependent on that text.42 The Ezekiel text depicts the restoration that will follow return from exile. 3. ‫“—רדה‬to rule” (Gen 1:26, 28; Lev 26:17). The verb ‫ רדה‬is rare, occurring in the Pentateuch only seven times (Gen 1:26, 28; Lev 25:43, 46, 53; 26:17; Num 24:19). In Gen 1 the verb is used twice to indicate a central aspect of humanity’s purpose and commission. In 1:26 the Creator declares, ‫נעׂשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו‬ ‫“( וירדו‬Let us create humanity in our image, according to our likeness, and let them rule”). Divine intention for humanity to rule (‫ )רדה‬becomes reality in 1:28: ‫רדו‬ ‫ בדגת הים ובעוף הׁשמים ובכל־חיה הרמׂשת על־הארץ‬ (“Rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every animal that moves upon the earth”). In Lev 25 the verb ‫ רדה‬occurs three times. The immediate context concerns debt slavery and the treatment of Israelites who are forced by circumstances to avail themselves of the option (25:39). As a result of Israel’s emancipation from Egypt (25:42), however, YHWH declares that the people are his slaves (‫)כי־עבדי הם‬. As a consequence, they must not be ruled harshly (‫)לא־תרדה בו בפרך‬, whether by a fellow Israelite (25:42, 46)43 or by a “foreigner or sojourner” (‫ותוׁשב‬ ‫( )גר‬25:53; cf. 25:47). 40.  Deuteronomy 28 uses the same device, but with different terms. There the operative phrase is “fruit of your ground” (‫)פרי אדמתך‬. Like Lev 26, the device is used to signal both blessing stemming from obedience (28:4) and the retraction of blessing following disobedience (28:11, 18, 33, 42, 51). 41.  Ezekiel 34:27 uses the phrase found in Lev 26:4 (‫)עץ הׂשדה‬. Leviticus 26:20 has ‫הארץ‬ ‫עץ‬ instead. 42.  Here I follow the logic of Kohn’s wider argument (New Heart) even though she does not pick up on this particular connection. 43.  Cf. Ezek 34:4, which utilizes this legislation to indict “the shepherds of Israel.”

194

Chapter 6

In Lev 26:17, ‫ רדה‬is used to depict one of the threatened results of covenant breaking (cf. 26:14–15). Israel is warned that instead of experiencing victory over enemies (cf. 26:7–8), “those who hate you will rule over you” (‫)ורדו בכם ׂשנאיכם‬. The nation’s subjection to foreign foes who will treat them poorly (26:16–17) reverses the ideal of 25:53 and portrays a return to pre-​exodus conditions. This anti-​creation movement is reinforced via the connection to ‫ רדה‬in Gen 1:28, a link strengthened by the shared form (‫)ורדו‬, which apart from these two instances appears in only one other passage.44 Instead of ruling as per the creation blessing, Israel will instead be ruled. The final Pentateuchal use of the verb occurs in Num 24:19. There, ‫ רדה‬is used in relation to a future ruler who will come from Jacob. Genesis 2–3 1. ‫( הלך‬hithpael)—“to walk about” (Gen 3:8; Lev 26:12). While the verb ‫ הלך‬is used over 1,500 times in the Old Testament, the use of hithpael with God as subject is rare, appearing only three times in the Pentateuch (Gen 3:8; Lev 26:12; Deut 23:15 [14]),45 and a further four times in the rest of the Old Testament (2 Sam 7:6–7 [x2]; 1 Chr 17:6; Job 22:14). In Gen 3:8, ‫( הלך‬hithpael) is used to describe YHWH God “walking about” in the Garden (‫)יהוה אלהים מתהלך בגן‬. Within the narrative, the disobedience of the human couple in relation to the divine command of 2:16–17 means the context is one of impending judgment. Accordingly, hearing the sound of YHWH’s approach induces Adam and Eve to hide among the trees (3:8). In contrast, YHWH’s promise in Lev 26:12 to “walk about” in the midst of the people (‫ )והתהלכתי בתוככם‬comes as the conclusion and climax of the blessings listed in vv. 4–12.46 Yet that blessing is contingent on the stance of the people (cf. 26:3: ‫)אם־בחקתי תלכו‬. This divine intent to “walk about” in Israel also marks the climax of a theme of increasing intimacy between YHWH and his people evident throughout Leviticus, as noted above.47 As Milgrom surmises, “The clear implication is that . . . YHWH is not confined to a sanctuary but is present everywhere in the land.”48 In other words, 26:12 presents a picture of YHWH and the

44.  Isaiah 14:2. The Isaiah verse portrays Israel’s restoration as a time when the nation will rule over those who once oppressed her. 45.  ‫( הלך‬hithpael) is also used to describe the faithful who “walked” with YHWH—for example, Enoch (Gen 5:22), Abraham (Gen 17:1; 24:40), and Isaac (Gen 48:15). 46.  ‫ הלך‬also frames the blessing panel (26:3, 12). The tenfold use of ‫ הלך‬in Lev 26 functions as a primary means of construing the YHWH-​Israel relationship. 47.  See also Nihan, Priestly Torah, 608–18. 48. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2301. So also, Rooker, Leviticus, 315.

Allusion to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 26

195

people of Israel cohabiting the same space and seems to envision a permanent (albeit contingent) state of affairs. ‫( הלך‬hithpael) also occurs in Job 22:14, which describes YHWH as the one who walks on the vault of heaven (‫)וחוג ׁשמים יתהלך‬.49 The remaining examples of ‫הלך‬ (hithpael) with YHWH as subject are used to describe YHWH’s presence in the camp (Deut 23:14) or, more specifically, in the tent (‫ )אהל‬or tabernacle (‫)מׁשכן‬ (2 Sam 7:6–7 // 1 Chr 17:6). The use of ‫( הלך‬hithpael) in connection with both Garden and tent/tabernacle raises the possibility of an analogous relationship between these locations. Perhaps the tent/tabernacle was understood as reinstituting Edenic conditions, or, vice versa, Eden was perceived in temple-​like terms.50 2. ‫—חית הׂשדה‬literally, “animal of the field,” that is, “wild animal” (Gen 2:19, 20; 3:1, 14; Lev 26:22). The construct phrase ‫ חית הׂשדה‬is rare in the Pentateuch, appearing only eight times (Gen 2:19, 20; 3:1, 14; Exod 23:11, 29; Lev 26:22; Deut 7:22).51 In Gen 2, the wild animals are brought to the man to name (2:19, 20), thereby enacting humanity’s rule over other creatures (cf. Gen 1:28). But in Gen 3:1, the serpent, one of the wild animals (‫ )חית הׂשדה‬made by God, becomes instrumental in humanity’s rebellion. The serpent is therefore cursed above the other wild animals (‫ מכל חית הׂשדה‬. . . ‫ ;)ארור אתה‬the result is mutual sundering and perpetual enmity between the serpent and humanity (3:15). The threat posed by wild animals is reflected in Exod 23:29 and Deut 7:22, where beasts menace the inhabitants of the land.52 Such a threat is explicitly in view in Lev 26:22, where wild animals (‫ )חית הׂשדה‬become one of the means by which YHWH will punish rebellious Israel. The animals sent by YHWH will decimate the populace, reversing the promise of fruitfulness and multiplication (26:9). Also reversed thereby is the blessing of having “evil/harmful animals” (‫)חית רעה‬ removed from the land (26:6). Peaceful life in Canaan will potentially be undone through the agency of ‫חית הׂשדה‬. 3. ‫ אכל‬+ ‫“—לחם‬to eat bread” (Gen 3:19; Lev 26:5, 26). The eating of bread (‫ אכל‬with ‫ )לחם‬appears approximately 135 times in the Old Testament. However, bread eating as the referent of a divine pronouncement rather than as a narrative description occurs much less frequently. In the Pentateuch, such decrees most 49.  The syntax of Job 22:14 differentiates it from the other six instances, where, in each case, ‫הלך‬ is followed by the preposition ‫ב‬. 50.  The argument has been formulated both ways in the secondary literature. For sequential readers of the Pentateuch the motif of temple as Eden revisited would seem to be the stronger one. However, intertextuality works in both directions. Thus, for re-​readers of the corpus Eden would also take on temple-​like qualities. For my purposes, I do not need to decide on the issue. What matters is that connections between Garden and temple exist, a fact amply demonstrated by both sides of the debate. 51.  It occurs a further twenty-​one times outside the Pentateuch. 52.  Exodus 23:11 prescribes letting fields go fallow every seventh year, not only so the poor will be provided for, but also that the wild animals (‫ )חית הׂשדה‬may have food.

196

Chapter 6

often appear in connection with instructions regarding sacrificial procedure or priestly dues (Exod 29:32, 34; Lev 8:31; 21:22; 22:7, 11, 13; 23:14; Num 15:19). In three instances, however, a divine pronouncement concerning the eating of “bread” is stated more generally. In Gen 3:17–18, the man (‫ )אדם‬is told that the ground is cursed because of him and will, as a result, produce thorns and thistles. Consequently, YHWH declares that only “by the sweat of your face will you eat bread” (‫בזעת אפיך תאכל לחם‬, 3:19). Henceforth, eating bread would be accomplished only through difficulty; the threat of scarcity would plague humanity in perpetuity. Leviticus 26:5 mitigates that threat. YHWH declares that in Canaan—if the people keep his commands (26:3)—they will eat bread to satisfaction (‫ואכלתם‬ ‫)לחמכם לׂשבע‬. Obedience will occasion abundant “bread.” However, disobedience will reverse that promise and reinstigate scarcity. If Israel will not heed his word then YHWH promises to blight the land (26:19) and break the supply of bread (‫בׁשברי לכם מטה־לחם‬, 26:26).53 Only through struggle (cf. 26:20) will people eat, but even then they will still not be sated. In fact, one oven will suffice for ten women; the bread produced will be rationed (26:26). Thus, prior satisfaction (‫ׂשבע‬, 26:5) will give way to lack of satisfaction (‫לא תׂשבעו‬, 26:26). Punishment for rebellion will lead to restriction and scarcity in relation to the eating of bread. 4. ‫“—עלה‬leaf ” (Gen 3:7; Lev 26:36). The noun ‫ עלה‬is uncommon, and occurs only three times in the Pentateuch (Gen 3:7; 8:11; Lev 26:36).54 In Gen 3, Adam and Eve cover their nakedness with leaves before hiding from YHWH God (3:7–8). A leaf in the beak of a dove signals to Noah that the flood has subsided (Gen 8:11). The final Pentateuchal occurrence of ‫ עלה‬is found in Lev 26:36, where the sound of a driven leaf will cause people to flee as if running from the sword. Although ‫ עלה‬is rare in the Torah and appears in both Gen 3 and Lev 26, its significance does not seem high. Being distinctive, however, use of the noun may perhaps serve a wider attempt to connect the two texts and is included here for that reason.55 5. ‫ צוה‬and ‫“—מצוה‬to command” and “command” (Gen 2:16; Lev 26:3). Both the verb ‫ צוה‬and derived noun ‫ מצוה‬occur frequently within the Pentateuch, especially in Deuteronomy. Nevertheless, Stordalen suggests that there is a possible intertextual connection between the use of the noun in Lev 26:3 and the verb in Gen 2:16. He notes that in both cases keeping YHWH’s instructions is the condition for experiencing blessing, particularly blessing related to agriculture.56 Yet, while the connection is valid, both the lexical terms and the related concept (that obeying YHWH’s command leads to blessing) appear too frequently to ascribe 53.  Gerstenberger identifies here an echo of Gen 3:17–19 (Leviticus, 407, 416). 54.  It appears a further fifteen times in the remainder of the Old Testament. 55.  The use of ‫ יׁשן‬may fulfil a similar function (Gen 2:21; Lev 26:10 [x3]). Its only other Pentateuch occurrences are in Gen 41:5; Lev 13:11; 25:22 (x2); Deut 4:25. 56. Stordalen, Echoes, 447.

Allusion to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 26

197

significance to this particular linkage. That said, alongside other more demonstrable connections, the link between Lev 26:3 and Gen 2:16 adds to the overall volume of intertextual references and thus may provide evidence of a wider strategy. 6. ‫“—חרב‬sword” (Gen 3:24; Lev 26:6, 7, 8, 25, 33, 36, 37). The noun ‫ חרב‬occurs frequently (approx. 413 times) in the Old Testament. It is used once in Gen 2–3. Following the expulsion of Adam and Eve, a “flaming sword” (‫)להט החרב‬ is appointed to guard (‫)ׁשמר‬57 access to the Garden and to the tree of life therein. The sword thus becomes the instrument that blocks potential return to the Garden. ‫ הרב‬appears seven times in Leviticus, all in chapter 26. Here, “sword” is used as a synecdoche for destruction. Its absence, therefore, marks the potential blessedness of life in Canaan: ‫“( וחרב לא־תעבר בארצכם‬The sword will not pass through your land”). On the contrary, it is Israel’s enemies who will fall “to the sword” (‫לחרב‬, 26:7–8). However, once again, disloyalty will occasion a reversal. YHWH declares: “I will bring against you a sword that avenges. . . . I will unsheathe the sword after you” (26:25, 33). This time it will be Israel who flees and falls as though running from the sword (26:36, 37). Regarding the use of ‫ חרב‬in Lev 26, William Barrick draws attention to the unusual syntax of v. 33, where the noun is used in conjunction with ‫ אחר‬and ‫ריק‬ (elsewhere only in Ezek 5:2, 22; 12:14). He suggests that Lev 26:33 portrays the scattering of the people among the nations with a sword placed behind them in order to prevent any return to the land,58 an image he says is reminiscent of Adam and Eve’s banishment in Gen 3.59 If Barrick is correct, then the use of ‫ חרב‬in Gen 3:24 and Lev 26:33 is used in contextually similar ways. However, in the absence of other syntactical connections or a clustering of shared terms it is unwise to place as much weight on the parallel as Barrick does. A connection between Lev 26 and Gen 3 based on a contextually similar use of ‫ חרב‬would seem to be only tentative at best. Evaluation A number of lexical and syntactical points of contact between Lev 26 and Gen 1–3 are evident. In relation to these parallels, however, how probable is genuine intertextual linkage? While some connections lie toward the tenuous end of the spectrum (e.g., ‫ צוה‬+ ‫)חרב ;מצות‬, others are much more certain indicators. Importantly, noted parallels fulfill a number of the necessary criteria for discerning a bona fide intertextual linkage: shared language is present, including rare words and forms (‫[ הלך ;רדה‬hithpael]; and the noun ‫ ;)עלה‬moreover, rare and uncommon 57.  There is an ironic reversal here. The man was originally appointed “to guard” (‫ )לׁשמר‬the Garden (2:15); now cherubim are appointed “to guard” (‫ )לׁשמר‬the Garden from him (3:24). 58.  See, similarly, Noordtzij, Leviticus, 269. 59.  William D. Barrick, “The Eschatological Significance of Leviticus 26,” MSJ 16 (2005): 99.

198

Chapter 6

phrases and word clusters are evident (‫ פרה‬+ ‫פרי ;רבה‬, ‫עץ‬, and ‫ארץ‬, used with ‫ ;חית הׂשדה ;נתן‬and ‫ אכל‬+ ‫)לחם‬. There is also an accumulation of shared language, including terms that are used in contextually similar ways. Finally, shared language has been modified to fit a new context.60 Based on lexical and syntactical connections, therefore, a genuine linkage between Lev 26 and Gen 1–3 is probable. However, do parallels exist at a conceptual level?

Conceptual Parallels Genesis 1 1. Eating and food. Several interconnected themes related to the eating of food are shared by Lev 26 and Gen 1. First, a central tenet in both pericopes is that God is the source of abundant food. This idea is fundamental to Gen 1. In 1:12 the land produces “vegetation” (‫)דׁשא‬, including “seed-​bearing plants” (‫ )עׂשב מזריע זרע‬and “trees that bear fruit” (‫)עץ עׂשה פרי‬. This bringing forth (‫ יצא‬hiphil) of plant life comes in direct response to the divine fiat of 1:11. Thus God is portrayed as the ultimate source of the earth’s vegetation. In 1:29, God then gives (‫ )נתן‬the seed-​bearing plants and fruits to humans, declaring, ‫“( לכם יהיה לאכלה‬It will be food for you”). In similar fashion, the animals too receive an allotment from God in 1:30: “every green plant” (‫ )כל־ירק עׂשב‬was to be theirs for sustenance. The theme of God’s provision of food continues in Gen 2–3. In the Garden ‫ יהוה אלהים‬caused trees to grow (‫ צמח‬hiphil), trees that were “good for food” (‫טוב למאכל‬, 2:9). Moreover, the fruit of all these trees is given to the man to eat ( ‫)מכל עץ־הגן אכל תאכל‬, barring one exception (2:16–17). Within the narrative this abundant supply sets the backdrop for 3:1–6, where the discourse continues around the theme of eating:61 the serpent subtly questions God’s provision of food (3:1); one of the reasons Eve eats from the forbidden tree is that its fruit was “good for food” (‫ למאכל‬. . . ‫טוב‬, 3:6). ‫ אכל‬continues as leitmotif in both the interrogation (3:11–13)62 and punishment scenes: the serpent will eat dust (3:14); the man will eat bread only through painful toil (3:19). Disobedience with respect to eating results in the ironic withdrawal of food supply. Throughout Gen 1 (and Gen 2–3) God is portrayed as the source of food, a resource he can either give abundantly or withdraw completely. Many scholars 60.  To give one example, the masc. plural qal imperatives of Gen 1:28 (‫ורבו‬ ‫ )פרו‬are cast as first person hiphil weqatals (‫ והפריתי‬. . . ‫ )והרביתי‬to fit the context of divine discourse in Lev 26:9. 61. The ‫ אכל‬root is used seven times in 3:1–6. 62. The ‫ אכל‬root appears another four times here.

Allusion to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 26

199

have drawn attention to this aspect of the text because of its incongruity with other ANE creation texts.63 In the ancient world, humanity’s purpose was frequently understood in terms of doing work for the gods. For example, the Akkadian epic Atrahasis states: Create a human being that he bear the yoke, Let him bear the yoke, the task of Enlil, Let man assume the drudgery of god. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mami made ready to speak, And said to the great gods: . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  I have done away with your heavy forced labor, I have imposed your drudgery on man.64

More specifically, humans via sacrifice were to provide the gods with food. This role is dramatically highlighted in Gilgamesh where, following the flood and Utnapishtim’s offering of a sacrifice, the gods descended like flies to satisfy their hunger occasioned by the destruction of humanity and resulting deficit of food offerings.65 The subversive nature of the Gen 1 portrayal in its ancient context is captured by Brueggemann: Amidst the polemics of the sixth century, this poem . . . presents an inverted picture of God, not as the one who reigns by fiat and remoteness, but as the one who governs by gracious self-​giving. It also presents an inverted view of humanness. This man and woman are not the chattel and servants of God, but the agents of God to whom much is given and from whom much is expected.66

The blessing of divine abundance in relation to food and the punitive withdrawal of the same in Gen 1–3 is a motif utilized elsewhere. Eating to satiety denotes blessing and restoration (2 Chr 31:10; Joel 2:26; cf. Prov 13:25); punishment for sin, however, leads to eating without satisfaction (Hos 4:10; Mic 6:14).67 The same concept is also central to Lev 26. In the blessings section (26:4–12), food and eating are dominant themes.68 YHWH’s promise to send rain in its season 63.  E.g., Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 33; Walton, Genesis, 136. 64.  COS 1.130:196–97, 235–36, 240–41. 65.  COS 1.132. 66. Brueggemann, Genesis, 33. 67.  Notably in Deuteronomy, eating to satiety (‫ אכל‬+ ‫ )ׂשבע‬is often presented as the state preceding apostasy (e.g., Deut 6:11–12; 8:10–14; 11:15–16; 31:20). 68. The ‫ אכל‬root appears seven times in Lev 26 (vv. 5, 10, 16, 26, 29 [x2], 38).

200

Chapter 6

will lead to bountiful crops and fruit (26:4). Produce will be so plentiful that one period of harvesting will continue into the next without the normal breaks between crop types (26:5a; cf. Deut 11:14).69 As a result, the people will eat bread to satisfaction (‫ואכלתם לחמכם לׂשבע‬, 26:5b). Moreover, Israel’s enemies will be defeated (26:7–8), and so, in contrast to much of the nation’s history, Israel’s produce will remain its own (compare Judg 6:3–6, 11). Even the increased population promised in 26:9 will not exhaust the supply of food; in fact, the people will have so much left over they will need to clear it out to make room for the new harvest (26:10).70 The underlying reason suggested for this superabundant food supply—as well as for the other blessings—is the presence of YHWH in the land (26:12). However, rejection of YHWH’s decrees and the violation of his covenant (26:14–15) will subvert the blessing and reduce Israel to scarcity (26:16b, 20, 26, 29). Thus, the blessing of abundant food is inextricably connected to maintaining a positive relationship with YHWH. As in Gen 1–3, YHWH may instigate either abundance or punitive scarcity in relation to food. Second, as noted in the discussion of lexical parallels above, the eating of fruit from trees is important in both Gen 1 and Lev 26. In Gen 1:29, the diet YHWH allots to humans is derived from two sources: every seed-​bearing plant that is upon the surface of the whole earth (‫)כל־עׂשב זרע זרע אׁשר על־פני כל־הארץ‬, and every seed-​bearing fruit tree (‫)כל־העץ אׁשר־בו פרי־עץ זרע זרע‬.71 Leviticus 26:4 is similar in its twofold description. Israel will be blessed as the earth gives its produce (NIV “crops”) (‫ )ונתנה הארץ יבולה‬and as the trees of the field give their fruit (‫עץ‬ ‫)הׂשדה יתן פריו‬. The parallel between Lev 26 and Gen 1 in relation to eating fruit from trees is highlighted when a comparison is made with Deut 28. There also, food forms a central component of projected blessing. Yet among all the terms employed to describe this bountiful state, fruit from trees is not mentioned.72 That both Gen 173 and Lev 26 convey the concept of abundant food supply by utilizing the language of fruitful trees is suggestive of a conceptual connection.74 Third, the similarity between Gen 1 and Lev 26 in distinction to Deuteronomy points to another conceptual parallel. As discussed earlier, Gen 1 portrays 69.  For details on the ideal periods for rain as well as the crops harvested in different seasons, see Noordtzij, Leviticus, 264. 70.  The potential drain on resources implied by an increased population (v. 9) probably explains the position of v. 10 and its resumption of the topic of abundant food (cf. 26:4–5). 71.  The animals are allotted a different food from that of the humans—namely, ‫עׂשב‬ ‫( כל־ירק‬Gen 1:30). A similar distinction is made in A Hymn to Amon Re: “He who made the herbage (for) the cattle / And the fruit tree for mankind” (ANET 366). 72.  The noun ‫ עץ‬is used thrice in Deut 28 (vv. 36, 42, 64), and ‫ פרי‬occurs thirteen times (vv. 4 [x3], 11 [x3], 18 [x2], 33, 42, 51 [x2], 53), but they are never used in conjunction. 73.  Needless to say, the eating of fruit from trees also plays a vital role in Gen 2–3. 74.  Also suggestive is that Leviticus can use other ways of conveying the same reality. Leviticus 25:19, for example, speaks of eating fruit given by the earth (‫ואכלתם‬ ‫פריה‬ ‫הארץ‬ ‫)ונתנה‬.

Allusion to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 26

201

a vegetarian diet for both humans and animals.75 Likewise, in Lev 26, there is no mention of livestock or the eating of meat among the listed blessings despite the fact that the book as a whole has no problem with eating meat and, in fact, legislates regarding it (6:19 [6:26]; 7:6, 15, etc.). Its nonmention here, therefore, is intriguing. The absence is again made more noticeable when compared to Deut 28. There, “livestock” (‫)בהמה‬, “cattle” (‫)אלף‬, and the “offspring of your flock” (‫ )עׁשתרות צאנך‬are mentioned, and the eating of plants and animals is at least implied (e.g., 28:4, 11). Accordingly, Alfred Marx suggests that the language of Lev 26 is intentionally worded so as to evoke Gen 1: Connaissant l’attrait des Israélites pour les riches festins de viande . . . le silence de P n’en est que plus surprenant et paraît difficilement fortuit. De fait, l’accent . . . ne peut manquer d’évoquer cet autre passage sacerdotal, en Gn 1,29.76

Marx concludes, “Par cette discrete allusion, P renvoie à l’utopie de la paix originelle où humains et animaux vivaient en parfait harmonie.”77 If Marx is correct, then Lev 26 seems to be worded in such a way as to allude to the conditions that existed at creation.78 Perhaps also in view is the restoration of human-​animal relationships fractured in the pre- (Gen 3:15) and postdiluvian (Gen 9:2–3) worlds, a restoration that forms part of the eschatological hope of the Prophets (e.g., Isa 11:6–9; 65:25; Hos 2:20 [18]). These three conceptual parallels—divine provision and withdrawal of food, bounty portrayed through the image of fruitful trees, and a vegetarian diet—serve to connect Lev 26 to Gen 1. 2. The Sabbath. In Gen 1:1–2:3 the seven-​day schema climaxes with God resting (‫)ׁשבת‬. As Fishbane notes, the structure of the text places particular emphasis on this point: “This seventh paragraph of seven paragraphs, telling of the seventh day of the seven days of creation, is styled as a liturgical celebration of divine rest and completed creation.”79 Many scholars have highlighted parallels between Gen 1 and ANE temple inauguration rites, which typically lasted for a period of seven days and climaxed with the particular deity coming to “rest”—that is, reside— in its new residence.80 Against this background it seems that the author of Gen 1 has employed a similar conceptual frame to suggest that the cosmos itself is 75.  Other ANE texts also portray an originally vegetarian diet. For examples, see Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion, CC (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 163–64. 76. Marx, Lévitique 17–27, 199. 77.  Ibid., 200. 78.  Cf. Bonar, who sees Lev 26:6 as being “the great proof of the land returning to something of an Eden-​State, where man had full dominion over the beasts of the field” (Leviticus, 475). 79. Fishbane, Text, 11. 80.  On the seven-​day construction of Baal’s temple, see UNP 133–34. See also Levenson, “Temple,” 287–88; Walton, Genesis, 147–52.

202

Chapter 6

temple-​like—namely, the place where God comes to reside (cf. Ps 78:69). If this connection holds true, then the role of humanity is invested with priestly overtones.81 Regardless, as the humans in Gen 1 lived, worked, and served in God’s “sanctuary” they enjoyed the benefits of his presence and provision (cf. Gen 1:29). The concept of Sabbath rest also constitutes a major theme in Lev 25–26. While the ‫ ׁשבת‬root appears thirty-​two times in Leviticus, half of those occurrences are found in these two chapters. The theme is reinforced in chapter 25 through the use of the number seven: ‫ ׁשבת‬occurs seven times in the pericope;82 the Sabbath is the seventh day (cf. 23:3); the land must have a Sabbath rest every seven years (25:1–7); seven times seven years inaugurates a year of Jubilee (25:8–12). In chapter 26, Sabbath observance is fundamental and forms part of the précis of the Decalogue presented in the opening verses. In v. 2, Sabbath keeping is enjoined—notably in conjunction with YHWH’s “sanctuary” (‫—)את־ׁשבתתי תׁשמרו ומקדׁשי תיראו‬as a central prerequisite for securing the promises that follow. Later in the chapter, the use of the ‫ ׁשבת‬root six times in 26:34–35 comes at the climax of the threat section and emphasizes the rest the land will enjoy when its populace is exiled. This focus on Sabbath in Lev 25–26 shares immediate overlap with the creation account in Gen 1. The validity of this premise is demonstrated by the explicit connection made in Exod 20:8–11, which equates the rest Israel may enjoy with the rest that climaxes creation: “The seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work. . . . For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day” (20:10– 11 ESV).83 The concept of Sabbath, therefore, is both shaped by, and evokes, creation themes. Gorman has expanded on this connection between creation ordinance and liturgical calendar. He notes, “The pattern of order established in creation is given a means of realization in the liturgical order. . . . By observing the liturgical order, Israel participates in the sustaining and maintaining of the divinely constructed order of creation.”84 This task of “sustaining and maintaining” the divine order implies that Israel was to become a participant with God in the actualization of creation ideals.85 Sailhamer draws out the implications in connection to the Sabbath year: “The Sabbath year was to be a replication of God’s provisions for humankind 81.  On the basis of the language used, Wenham states, “Perhaps Adam should be described as an archetypal Levite” (“Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,” in “I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11, ed. Richard S. Hess and David T. Tsumura, SBTS 4 [Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994], 401). 82.  Lev 25:2 (x2), 4 (x2), 6, 8 (x2). 83.  On the lexical similarities and dissimilarities between Gen 2:1–3 and Exod 20:8–11, see C. John Collins, Genesis 1–4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2006), 89–90. 84. Gorman, Ideology, 219–20. 85.  Ibid., 231.

Allusion to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 26

203

in the Garden of Eden. . . . Here, as on many occasions, the writer has envisioned Israel’s possession of the ‘good land’ promised to them as a return to the Garden of Eden.”86 If Sailhamer is right, then the command in Lev 26:2 to “keep my Sabbaths” functions as an invitation to bring about and enjoy a “return to the Garden”—a conclusion that receives support from the following verses, which outline, in terms borrowed from Gen 1–3, the blessings made possible by keeping Sabbath (being fruitful and numerous, eating fruit from trees, having YHWH walking about in their midst, etc.). The Sabbath rest commanded is therefore paralleled with YHWH’s rest in creation; Israel is invited to share in its blessings. Yet, as with many features of 26:4–12, potential rest is negated in the curse section of the chapter. There the sixfold use of ‫ ׁשבת‬in vv. 34–35 ironically describes the Sabbath rest the land will enjoy following the deportation of the populace. That the people are presented as the very reason why rest cannot be enjoyed—by the land or indeed by themselves—serves to highlight a need for radical transformation. Perhaps also paralleled here is Adam’s banishment from the Garden, which presumably also enjoyed its rest following expulsion of the defiling element—that is, its human occupants. 3. Desolation of the land as “uncreation.” Barrick proposes an allusion to Gen 1 in the fifth and climactic threat of Lev 26 (vv. 27–35), which depicts the devastation of the land, the destruction of its cities, and the deportation of its populace. Barrick suggests—although without supporting argument—that “desolation” (‫)ׁשממה‬87 in Lev 26:33b may allude to the empty and formless state of Gen 1:2.88 In other words, divine judgment is understood as an act of uncreation. Does the proposed connection stand up to scrutiny, however? The respective clauses are as follows: ‫( והארץ היתה תהו ובהו‬Gen 1:2aα) and ‫( והיתה ארצכם ׁשממה‬Lev 26:33bα). For Barrick’s allusion to work there needs to be some justification for reading ‫ ׁשממה‬as analogous to ‫תהו ובהו‬. Some support for the possibility can be found in the oracle of Jer 4:23–28, which utilizes the phrase ‫תהו‬ ‫ ובהו‬to describe the land following YHWH’s punishment (4:23), thereby making an explicit connection to Gen 1:2.89 The clustering of other parallels to Gen 1 in the same Jeremiah pericope leads John Thompson to conclude that the oracle portrays a reversal of creation.90 Judgment is thus presented as a return to pre-​creation chaos. Notably, what is meant by ‫ תהו ובהו‬in Jer 4:23 is explicated along lines akin to the 86. Sailhamer, Pentateuch, 361. 87. The ‫ ׁשמם‬root is used six times in these verses (26:31, 32 [x2], 33, 34, 35). Its only other appearances in Leviticus are in 26:22, 43. 88.  Barrick, “Eschatological Significance,” 100. Knight makes the same connection (Leviticus, 163). 89.  Tremper Longman III, Jeremiah, Lamentations, NIBC 14 (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2008), 51. 90.  John A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, NICOT (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1980), 230.

204

Chapter 6

language of Lev 26:33. The land will become a “desolation” (‫ׁשממה‬, Jer 4:27), its cities will be destroyed ( Jer 4:26), and its people removed (‫אין האדם‬, Jer 4:25). The Jeremiah passage thus lends some credence to Barrick’s thesis that Lev 26 alludes to the formlessness of Gen 1:2, as it envisions Israel’s judgment as a return to a pre-​ creation state, albeit without corroborating lexical support. Barrick also notes that imagining a return to an “uncreated” state often preempts a focus on re-​creation.91 This too fits contextually in Lev 26, which from v. 40 onward begins to look toward future restoration. Thus, while overlap between Lev 26 and Gen 1 in relation to uncreation is by no means certain, it is nevertheless possible at a conceptual level. 4. Personification of land as narrative character. In Gen 1 the pattern of divine fiat followed by fulfillment formula is broken by 1:12 (cf. 1:24). Werner Schmidt notes the discontinuity: “Gottes Wort . . . gibt jetzt die Schöpfermacht ab, d.h. das Wort wird zur Anordnung an das zuvor Geschaffene, selbst das weitere Neue entstehen zu lassen.”92 The land (‫ )ארץ‬thus becomes an active subject in the unfolding drama rather than being merely a passive object; it brings forth (‫ יצא‬hiphil) plants and animals in seeming obedience to the divine decree. Characterization and personification of the land also feature in Leviticus. In 18:25 YHWH declares that because the land has become unclean as a result of the ‫ גוים‬who lived there, he will “visit its [in context, the land’s] iniquity upon it” (‫)ואפקד עונה עליה‬. Moreover, the land will vomit out its inhabitants (‫ותקא‬ ‫ ;הארץ את־יׁשביה‬see also 18:28; 20:22) to make way for Israel. Milgrom calls this personification of ‫“ ארץ‬H’s metaphysical hypostasization of the land.”93 Notably, the same hypostasization occurs in Lev 26. When its people are removed and are scattered among the nations, the land will “rest” (‫ׁשבת‬, 26:34, 35) and will “enjoy” (‫ )רצה‬its Sabbaths (26:34 [x2], 43). Personification of the land possibly hints at a conceptual parallel between Gen 1 and Lev 26. Genesis 2–3 1. Command, judgment, and expulsion as a type-​scene. In a recent essay Cynthia Edenburg explores similarities in the Eden and Cain narratives in Gen 2–4. Building on the work of others,94 she notes that the author or redactor of the two stories 91.  Barrick, “Eschatological Significance,” 100. Cf. Milgrom, who draws a parallel between Israel in Lev 26 and Noah: “In either case, flood or exile, the result is the same: the restoration of the status quo. Noah’s earth is returned to the days of creation so that the human race may be constituted afresh, and Israel’s earth is returned to its pristine status so that it may be repopulated by a repentant Israel” (Leviticus 23–27, 2336). 92.  Werner H. Schmidt, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift: Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte von Genesis 1,1–2,4a und 2,4b–3,24, WMANT 17 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967), 106. 93. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1577. See also Joosten, People, 152–53. 94.  Most notably, Alan J. Hauser, “Linguistic and Thematic Links between Genesis 4:1–16 and Genesis 2–3,” JETS 23 (1980): 297–305; Frank Crüsemann, “Die Eigenständigkeit der Urgeschichte:

Allusion to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 26

205

has imparted to them the same structure and has used similar language in both. Edenburg outlines the paralleled narrative progression as follows: The conflict in both stories derives from a divine command or warning (Gen 2:17, cf. 3:1–5; 4:6–7) which is abrogated (3:6–7; 4:8); God in response initiates a judicial confrontation and interrogation (3:9–13; 4:9–10), but the guilty parties initially deny guilt (3:12, 13b; 4:9); God pronounces judgment (3:14–19; 4:10–12), and punishes both the man and Cain by cursing the ground (3:17–19; 4:11–12) so that the land will not yield produce (3:18; 4:12); however, despite the punishment, God demonstrates concern and care for the transgressors (3:21; 4:13–15); both stories conclude with expulsion (3:23, 24; 4:16), following which, the characters dwell east of Eden (3:24; 4:16).95

Edenburg concludes that the ten noted similarities between the two stories extend beyond “vague thematic echoes found elsewhere,” suggesting deliberate patterning.96 The common purpose of both narratives is to illustrate the consequences that ought to be expected from archetypal offenses; in particular, violation of YHWH’s commands.97 The major point stressed is elucidated in the conclusion of each pericope: “Exile and alienation from YHWH is the inevitable consequence of violating YHWH’s commandments.”98 In terms of the role played by these narratives within the Primeval History, Edenburg suggests that “the intimate relationship between YHWH and the man, woman, and Cain imply that they are conceived as prototypes for the relationship between YHWH and Israel, as Israelite Urmenschen.”99 Of particular importance, therefore, especially in a milieu of other parallels with Gen 2–3, is that a similar structural pattern is evident in Lev 26.100 In fact, each of Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion um den Jahwisten,” in Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift für Hans Walter Wolff zum 70 Geburtstag, ed. Joachim Jeremias and L. Perlitt (Neukirchen-​V luyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 15; Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 285–86; John Van Seters, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 139–40. 95.  Cynthia Edenburg, “From Eden to Babylon: Reading Genesis 2–4 as a Paradigmatic Narrative,” in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings, ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Thomas Römer, SBLAIL 8 (Atlanta: SBL, 2011), 157. 96. Ibid. 97.  Ibid., 161–62. Edenburg finds no evidence of violation of divine command in the Cain narrative. Instead she views the problem as “breaching the norms necessary for maintaining society” (161). However, Cain does seem to be issued with a command, or at least with an invitation. In context, YHWH’s words in 4:7 (‫תמׁשל־בו‬ ‫ )ואתה‬could function as an imperative. It is failure to heed this command/invitation that leads to Abel’s murder and Cain’s banishment. 98.  Edenburg, “Eden,” 162. 99.  Ibid. (emphasis hers). 100.  Edenburg herself notes lexical parallels between Gen 2–4 and Lev 26 (“Eden,” 163 n. 30.), but does not develop the connection at length.

206

Chapter 6

the ten type-​scene elements elucidated by Edenburg can be found in the Leviticus text: (1) Lev 26:1–2 functions as a précis of the Decalogue and hence represents all of the divine commands that Israel is commanded to observe and do (‫ואת־מצותי‬ ‫תׁשמרו ועׂשיתם אתם‬, 26:3; cf. v. 46); (2) the imagined abrogation of YHWH’s commands (‫)לבלתי עׂשות את־כל־מצותי‬, and of the covenant they represent, marks a fundamental shift in the text and signals the move from blessing to cursing (26:14– 15); (3) judicial confrontation is implied by the genre of the text (divine sanction) and by the punishments YHWH will inflict upon a disobedient Israel in order to make the nation listen (26:18, 21); (4) denial of guilt is conveyed by the nation’s repeated refusal to amend behavior, thus necessitating further punishment, and is perhaps explicitly in view when YHWH declares his intention to break Israel’s “proud strength” (‫גאון עזכם‬, 26:19; cf. the later turning point involving admission of guilt in 26:40–41);101 (5) pronouncements of judgment punctuate (26:14–15, 18, 21, 23, 27), and in fact structure, the cursing section; (6) with increasing severity, punishments are inflicted upon Israel (26:16–39), including a “curse” on the ground that will become like bronze (26:19); (7) as a result, the land will not yield its produce (26:20); (8) yet, in spite of all this, YHWH will continue to extend care toward Israel—he declares that he will not abhor his people and so destroy them completely; nor will he break the covenant he made with them and their ancestors (‫לא־געלתים לכלתם להפר בריתי אתם‬, 26:44; cf. v. 45); (9) nevertheless, the nation will be expelled from the land and dispersed among the nations (26:33, 43–44a); (10) historically, the populace was banished to the east, to Assyria and Babylon. As can be seen, there is a remarkable similarity of structural framework. Many of the minor differences can be accounted for by the variation in genre—for example, abrogation of divine command(s) is portrayed as potential reality in Leviticus rather than narrated event as in Gen 2–4. Overall, however, the type-​scene identified by Edenburg in the narratives of Gen 2–4 finds an analagous parallel in Lev 26. Edenburg herself hints at a connection between these texts based on shared phrases and motifs. Although it is tangential to her main point, she states, “One could argue with justification that Gen 2–4 deliberately evokes Lev 26. Otherwise, the reverse is more than likely; namely that the author of Lev 26 echoed motifs and expressions in Gen 2–4.”102 Whichever way the direction of dependence might be construed, conceptual overlap between Lev 26 and Gen 2–3 is apparent.103 2. The Garden of Eden and Canaan as sanctuaries. The use of cultic terminology in the portrayal of the Garden of Eden has been widely noted and serves to depict the locale as sacred space (cf. Ezek 28:11–19). The book of Jubilees (8:19) made 101.  HALOT 2:805. 102.  Edenburg, “Eden,” 164. 103.  Cf. Hendrik J. Koorevaar, “The Exile and Return Model: A Proposal for the Original Macrostructure of the Hebrew Canon,” JETS 57 (2014): 510: “Adam and his exile function paradigmatically for Israel and its possible exile.”

Allusion to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 26

207

the association explicitly: “Eden was the holy of holies and the dwelling of the LORD.”104 Recent discussion in relation to parallels between the Garden of Eden and the tabernacle/temple is extensive;105 some examples will illustrate the sort of connections that have been made.106 YHWH’s presence in the Garden (Gen 3:8) and in Israel’s cult center(s) (Deut 23:15; 2 Sam 7:6–7) is similarly, and uniquely, described using ‫( הלך‬hithpael) with YHWH as subject. Thus, the tabernacle is, at least partially, seen as a return to Edenic conditions; perhaps Eden also takes on a temple-​like dimension.107 In Gen 2:15 Adam is tasked to guard (‫ )ׁשמר‬and to serve (‫)עבד‬. These verbs are used in combination elsewhere in the Pentateuch only in connection with cultic personnel (Num 3:7, 8; 8:26; 18:7).108 Adam’s appointed role, therefore, for readers of the Pentateuch takes on priestly connotations.109 In Exod 25, the Tree of Life appears to be the model for the lampstand that was to stand immediately outside the holy of holies,110 which in turn was fashioned to look like a tree (Exod 25:31–36), having six branches (‫ )ׁשׁשת הקנים‬and cups “shaped like almond blossoms” (‫)מׁשקדים‬.111 Other arboreal imagery, reminiscent of the Garden of Eden, was emblazoned on Israel’s sanctuaries (e.g., 1 Kgs 6:18, 29; 7:15–22). Moreover, the stationing of ‫כרבים‬ (Akk. kuribu) as sentries (Gen 3:24) suggests that the Garden was understood as a sanctuary, for in the ancient world ‫ כרבים‬were the guardians of holy places.112 Indeed, images of these creatures were later utilized in both tabernacle (Exod 26:31) and temple (1 Kgs 6:29).113 The concept of the garden as sacred space is further supported by ANE parallels. Temple complexes in the ancient world often contained gardens to symbolize the 104.  Text from James  H. Charlesworth,  ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (New York: Doubleday, 1983–85), 2:73. 105.  E.g., Wenham, “Sanctuary”; Morales, Tabernacle; Beale, Temple, 66–80. See also the collection of seminal essays in Morales, Cult. 106.  See also my discussion in Harper, “First Things.” 107.  Wenham, “Sanctuary,” 400–403. 108.  Deuteronomy 13:5 is the sole exception. There an injunction to keep (‫ )ׁשמר‬YHWH’s commands and to serve (‫ )עבד‬him is imparted to the whole nation. The context—maintaining fidelity to YHWH—is still cultic. 109.  So Walton, Genesis, 173; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 67. See also Manfred Hutter, “Adam als Gärtner und König (Gen 2:8, 15),” BZ 30 (1986): 258–62, who explores the royal connotations implied by working in a garden. 110.  As argued by Beale, Temple, 71; Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, NAC 2 (Nashville: B&H, 2006), 577. Stuart suggests that the incorporation of features from different trees in the lampstand was a way of representing the idea of a Tree of Life (577 n. 352). 111.  HALOT 2:652. 112. Morales, Tabernacle, 88. 113.  Cf. Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-​Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School, corr. ed. (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 259: “The image of the cherubim succeeded in becoming the center of the sacral-​cultic symbolism of the First Temple in Jerusalem.”

208

Chapter 6

fertility imparted by the resident deity,114 thereby creating a strong conceptual link between sanctuaries and gardens.115 Indeed, in Mesopotamia priests were often called “gardeners.”116 The four rivers in Gen 2:10–14 strengthen the connection. Together, the rivers probably represent an instance of “cosmic geography”117—that is, geographical description that is both real and cosmological in force.118 Hence, the fluvial reference generates mythological associations, in particular, an echoing of the cosmic spring that gushed forth to water and enliven the earth (cf. Ezek 47), a site often connected with the cosmic mountain and the abode of the gods.119 Together, parallels with ANE concepts and Old Testament cultic terminology suggest a strong association between garden and sanctuary.120 It is a connection that works both ways. The tabernacle and temple are fashioned in such a way as to evoke the Garden of Eden; the Garden of Eden in turn is envisioned as prototypical temple.121 Accordingly, Fishbane concludes that the Garden forms the basis of an inner-​biblical linkage that allows both retrojective and projective typologies to occur.122 There are also indications that Canaan was viewed in cultic terms as a “sanctuary” of sorts—that is, as the locus of divine presence. Christopher Wright notes a general reticence throughout the Old Testament to refer to Canaan as ‫ארץ יׂשראל‬. He suggests this is due to the land being primarily understood as YHWH’s land.123 Certainly the idea is made explicit in Lev 25:23 where YHWH uniquely states: ‫“( כי־לי הארץ‬for the land is mine”). Also intriguing with regard to understanding Canaan as sanctuary is Exod 15:17: ‫תבאמו ותטעמו בהר נחלתך מכון לׁשבתך פעלת‬ ‫יהוה מקדׁש אדני כוננו ידיך‬. The destination to which YHWH is bringing his people is described as the mountain of YHWH’s inheritance (‫)בהר נחלתך‬, the site of his dwelling (‫)מכון לׁשבתך‬, and the “sanctuary” (‫ )מקדׁש‬he has established. Whether

114.  I. Cornelius, “‫ּגַן‬,” NIDOTTE 1:876. 115.  On the wider symbolism of gardens in ANE and Hebrew literature, see Stordalen, Echoes, 81–183. 116.  Lundquist, “Temple Ideology,” 69. 117. Walton, Genesis, 168–69. 118.  Regarding the possible physical referents of the Gen 2 rivers, see Zevit, What Really Happened, 96–113. 119.  See Morales, Tabernacle, 20–25; Fishbane, Text, 17. 120.  Lawrence E. Stager, “Jerusalem and the Garden of Eden,” ErIsr 26 (1999): 188–89, proposes an analogy between the Garden of Eden and the “Garden of God in Jerusalem.” 121.  So Beale (Temple, 66): “The Garden of Eden was the first archetypal temple in which the first man worshipped God.” Wolfgang Richter, “Urgeschichte und Hoftheologie,” BZ 10 (1966): 96–105, argues that the influence is primarily in this direction, with aspects of the Solomonic temple shaping the portrayal of the Garden. 122. Fishbane, Interpretation, 369. 123.  Christopher J. H. Wright, “‫אֶ ֶרץ‬,” NIDOTTE 1:522.

Allusion to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 26

209

“mountain” is a reference to Mt. Zion,124 or to the cosmic mountain,125 the cultic resonances are evident. Elsewhere in Exodus, the place YHWH is said to be bringing (‫ בוא‬hiphil) his people to is explicitly designated the “land” (‫ארץ‬, 6:8)—that is, “the land of the Canaanites” (‫ארץ הכנעני‬, 13:5). Thus, Wright seems correct to state that Exod 15:17 is a reference to the land as a whole,126 implying that Canaan was conceived in terms of sacred space,127 even as YHWH’s “sanctuary” (‫)מקדׁש‬.128 Leviticus 26:12 supports this conclusion. As I noted above, the rare use of ‫הלך‬ (hithpael) with YHWH as subject connects Lev 26:12 with Gen 3:8, Deut 23:15, and 2 Sam 7:6–7. Each of these passages uses ‫( הלך‬hithpael) to refer to YHWH’s presence in either the tabernacle or garden-​temple. Thus, the use of ‫ הלך‬in Lev 26:12 with reference to the land implies that Canaan was also envisioned as a sanctuary of sorts.129 While Beale understands only a narrow reference to the tabernacle here,130 the scope of 26:12 is much broader. Its address, delivered in the second person plural, is to the nation as a whole: ‫והתהלכתי בתוככם והייתי לכם‬ ‫לאלהים ואתם תהיו־לי לעם‬. Thus, YHWH’s “walking about” seems to refer to his unrestricted movement among the people. Little wonder, then, that many see here an imagined return to the Edenic ideal.131 Other links to Gen 1–3 identified above—eating fruit from trees, abundant food, absence of “evil/harmful beasts,” fruitful multiplication, and so forth—all add further weight to the conception of Canaan as sanctuary, even as a Garden of Eden–like sanctuary, a connection also made in the Prophets (e.g., Isa 51:3).132 3. Eating and food. I have already considered the role of Gen 2–3 in connection with this motif as part of the discussion of Gen 1 above.

124.  So Stuart, Exodus, 361; John I. Durham, Exodus, WBC 3 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987), 209. 125. Cf. Morales, Tabernacle, 46. 126. Wright, NIDOTTE 1:522. 127.  So Fishbane, “Sacred Center,” 19, who identifies Canaan as a “hieros topos” on a par with Sinai. 128.  So also Sailhamer, Genesis, 72; Joosten, People, 176–80. The same connection is made elsewhere in the Old Testament. For parallels between Canaan and Eden in 2 Kgs 25:27–30, see Koorevaar, “Exile,” 507. 129.  Eliade argues that settlement in a territory is an act of consecration in which place is understood to be “the replica of the paradigmatic universe created and inhabited by the gods” (Sacred, 299). 130. Beale, Temple, 66. 131.  Rashi states in connection to 26:12, ‫עדן‬ ‫בגן‬ ‫עמכם‬ ‫“( אטיל‬I will stroll with you in the Garden of Eden”), thus seeing an intended connection with the primeval account (Commentary, 3:352). See also Wenham, Leviticus, 329–30; Sklar, Leviticus, 316; Nihan, Priestly Torah, 538–39. 132.  Perhaps also linking the texts is a parallel between the ‫( עץ הגן‬Gen 3:1, 2, 8) and the ‫עץ הארץ‬ in Lev 26:20, creating a correlation between ‫ הגן‬and ‫הארץ‬.

210

Chapter 6

4. Reversal as rhetorical device. In Gen 2–3 and Lev 26 descriptions of blessing are ironically reversed to describe the curse that follows violation of the divine decree.133 Some examples will suffice to make the point. In Gen 3:1 the serpent is described as “crafty—more than all the wild animals” (‫ ;)ערום מכל חית הׂשדה‬in 3:14, the serpent becomes “cursed—more than all the wild animals” (‫ חית הׂשדה‬. . . ‫)ארור אתה מכל‬.134 In 3:16 YHWH declares that he will “multiply” (‫ )רבה‬the woman’s pain in childbirth in contrast to the former command to be fruitful and to “multiply” (‫רבה‬, 1:28). In 2:6, the man is formed from the “dust” (‫ )עפר‬and given life. YHWH then appoints him to “guard” (‫ )ׁשמר‬the Garden (2:15). Following his transgression, however, a flaming sword is appointed to “guard” (‫ )ׁשמר‬the Tree of Life from the man (3:24), meaning, as a result, that he will die and return to the “dust” (‫עפר‬, 3:19). Leviticus 26 displays the same pattern of reversal that turns the language of blessing into a description of curse. Again, some representative examples will illustrate. The promise in 26:4 that the ground will yield its produce and the trees their fruit is reversed almost verbatim by 26:20. Likewise, the removal of “evil beasts” from the land (26:6) will be reversed when YHWH sends “wild animals” among the people to punish them (26:22). The increase in population envisaged by 26:9 is countered by the people being told that their population will be decimated (26:22) and that they will even eat the flesh of their sons and daughters (26:29). In 26:7, YHWH promises the people, “You will pursue (‫ )רדף‬your enemies (‫)איביכם‬,” who will “fall” (‫ )נפל‬by the “sword” (‫)חרב‬. But in 26:36, Israel is told that in the land of their enemies (‫ )איביהם‬they will be “pursued” (‫ )רדף‬by the sound of a leaf and will “fall” (‫ )נפל‬as if fleeing from the “sword” (‫)חרב‬. The use of ironic reversal in both Lev 26 and Gen 2–3 points to stylistic similarity. 5. YHWH as provider of rain. Eric Bolger suggests a connection between Gen 2:5–6 and Lev 26:4 based on the motif of rain: Israel is pictured in the Pentateuch . . . as receiving God’s provision of water. . . . The Eden narrative . . . provides a paradigm, primarily through narrative world level parallels, of present and future abundance. Israel enjoys an Edenic provision of water, and will enjoy the same in the future if obedient.135

The divine promise to give “your rains in their seasons” (‫ )גׁשמיכם בעתם‬in Lev 26:4 is thus understood to echo the picture of Eden as a place of abundant water.136 Nevertheless, while a conceptual connection is possible, it is not supported by 133.  The device is probably influenced by the concept of lex talionis. 134.  The connection is further enhanced by the wordplay between ‫ ערום‬and ‫ארור‬. 135.  Bolger, “Compositional Role,” 276. 136.  Ibid., 275.

Allusion to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 26

211

any lexical or syntactical parallels. Genesis 2:5–6 uses two water-​related verbs— ‫“( מטר‬to rain”) and ‫“( ׁשקה‬to water”)—and one noun—‫“( אד‬mist”). Leviticus 26:4, however, uses the noun ‫“( גׁשם‬rain”). Moreover, the point in Gen 2 is that it has not rained. Hence, while there remains a possible conceptual overlap (divine provision of rain/moisture), a direct link between Lev 26 and Gen 2 on this point cannot be established with any certainty. Evaluation In addition to the verbal and syntactical features that connect Lev 26 to Gen 1 and Gen 2–3, several conceptual parallels are also evident. Three related parallels— divine provision of food, bounty portrayed through the image of fruitful trees, and a vegetarian diet—serve to connect Lev 26 to Gen 1. Furthermore, the focus on Sabbath rest in Lev 26 has immediate affinity with the seventh day of creation (Gen 2:1–3). Personification of the land also connects these texts. Moreover, the Garden of Eden as sanctuary finds a conceptual parallel in Canaan being described as the locus of divine presence. In these ways, Lev 26 recalls creation in its “very good” state. However, other conceptual parallels recall the loss of that “very good” world. A ten-​point type-​scene identified in Gen 2–3 (and Gen 4) charts the movement from divine command through its abrogation to judgment and banishment. The same structural framework is present in Lev 26, hinting that a parallel is being drawn between Adam and Israel. Also, like the narrative of Gen 2–3, Lev 26 turns on the (ironic) reversal of fortune occasioned by disobedience. As part of that reversal, Lev 26 potentially alludes to the formlessness of Gen 1:2 and threatens the same fate for Israel. Many of these conceptual parallels are suggested by shared language that thus acts as a “trigger” to highlight wider intertextual patterning. In this way, conceptual connections are made possible, or are supported by, lexical and syntactical similarities. Hence, there is a notable convergence of parallels operating at lexical, syntactical, and conceptual levels. All of this together indicates that a genuine intertextual connection between Lev 26 and Gen 1–3 is highly probable. The question remains open, however, concerning whether these connections have been intentionally employed for rhetorical purposes.

Assessing the Deliberateness of Parallels The Quantity and Specificity of Parallels to the Same Text The lexical and syntactical overlap surveyed above provides key data for this criterion. Rare lexemes include the verb ‫ רדה‬and noun ‫עלה‬, as well as the use of ‫הלך‬

212

Chapter 6

(hithpael) with YHWH as subject. Added to this is the (possible) contextually similar use of the more common noun ‫חרב‬. Several syntactical constructions and word clusters also serve to connect the texts: the combination of ‫ פרה‬and ‫ ;רבה‬the use of ‫פרי‬, ‫עץ‬, and ‫ ארץ‬with the verb ‫ ;נתן‬the use of ‫ אכל‬with ‫ לחם‬in the context of divine pronouncement; and the phrase ‫חית הׂשדה‬. Thus evident are multiple points of connection that involve rare terms and word combinations. Moreover, semantic equivalents are available: for example, the much more common ‫ מלך‬for ‫ רדה‬in 26:17, or ‫ אכלה‬for ‫ לחם‬in 26:5.137 Furthermore, the use of the phrase ‫ חית הׂשדה‬in Lev 26:22 is unusual. Elsewhere, the priestly texts prefer ‫( חית הארץ‬e.g., Gen 1:25; 9:2, 10), whereas ‫ חית הׂשדה‬appears only in texts ascribed to JE (Gen 2:19, 20; 3:1, 14; Exod 23:11, 29).138 The highly irregular use of the phrase in Lev 26, therefore, further supports the possibility of a deliberate allusion to Gen 2–3. Of real interest is the overlapping nature of parallels between the texts—that is, multiple connections made in Lev 26 to particular parts of the Genesis narratives. First, there is a grouping of parallels to Gen 1:26–29. Here, original humanity is given the task of ruling (‫ )רדה‬and is commanded to be fruitful and to multiply (‫ פרה‬+ ‫)רבה‬. Moreover, God gives (‫ )נתן‬to the primordial humans the fruit of the earth’s trees as their food. There is further correlation between these verses and some of the conceptual connections that I noted: in particular, the focus on God as the provider of sustenance, the ideal of a vegetarian diet, and the link between abundant fruitfulness and ANE understanding of temples. A second cluster of references is found in relation to Gen 3:7–24. In the aftermath of transgression, the primal humans hide using leaves (‫“—)עלה‬the leaves that brought grief into the world” (Gen. Rab. 19:6). YHWH’s presence walking about (‫ הלך‬hithpael) in the Garden leads to the serpent being cursed above all wild animals (‫)חית הׂשדה‬, pronounced travail regarding the eating of bread (‫ אכל‬+ ‫)לחם‬, and banishment sealed by a flaming sword (‫)חרב‬. At a conceptual level, also pervading this section is the reversal of prior blessing. In this way, lexical, syntactical, and conceptual parallels to Gen 1–3 in Lev 26 repeatedly draw attention to two themes in particular: the bounty and abundance made possible by YHWH in the beginning and the subsequent loss of that provision—themes that, as noted above, are also central to the Leviticus pericope. Multiple connections to the same pericopes not only suggest deliberate textual connection,139 but also align with Kittel’s observation that “allusion is used to recall

137. The ‫ מלך‬root is frequently used in the priestly texts; ‫ אכלה‬is used elsewhere in Leviticus (25:6). 138.  It also appears once in D (Deut 7:22). 139. Cf. Lyons, Law, 70–71.

Allusion to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 26

213

a specific passage to . . . mind.”140 The presence of allusion to particular parts of Gen 1–3 invites discussion of why such recall has been made. The Similarity of Narrative Settings Important for this criterion is the similarity between the structural arrangement of Gen 2–3, Gen 4, and Lev 26 that I discussed under “Conceptual Parallels.” There I noted that the ten elements identified by Edenburg in the shared type-​scene of the Garden and Cain narratives all appear in Lev 26. Thus, while differences exist in the details, the core structure with all, or certainly most, of its main contours, is the same in both Gen 2–3 and Lev 26.141 This in turn means that parallels relate to central, rather than peripheral, themes, thereby increasing the likelihood of deliberate imitation. In light of this, it seems appropriate to conclude with Noble that “[if] such a pattern can be found . . . [there] is strong reason for believing that the resemblances are intentional.”142 The Recontextualization of Prior Material A third indicator of deliberate allusion is the reworking of material for a new context. From the above discussion, it is evident that there are multiple, sustained linkages between Lev 26 and Gen 1–3. However, does Lev 26 evidence any reorganization of shared material? If it does, then additional support for intentional allusion can be garnered. Crucial in this regard are those who note that Lev 26 reuses elements from elsewhere in the Pentateuch. More important again are suggestions that these elements have been reinterpreted for their new context. So, for example, Norbert Lohfink argues that the linking of ‫ ברית‬with the Sinai revelation in Lev 26 constitutes a revision of P from a Deuteronomistic perspective.143 Cholewiński, following Lohfink, suggests not only that there is evidence of familiarity with P terminology (“die Bekanntschaft mit der P-​Terminologie”) but that there is an editorial intention to correct the priestly narrative (“die Absicht, die priesterliche Grundschrift zu korrigieren”).144 Eckart Otto points to the wording of Lev 26:46 as clear evidence of how the chapter attempts to connect priestly and Deuteronomic 140. Kittel, Hymns, 50 (emphasis hers). 141.  The possible function of the Garden narrative as a précis of Israel’s history is developed at length by Postell, Adam. 142.  Noble, “Criteria,” 246. 143.  Norbert Lohfink, “Die Abänderung der Theologie des priesterlichen Geschichtswerks im Segen des Heiligkeitsgesetzes: Zu Lev. 26,9.11–13,” in Wort und Geschichte: Festschrift für Karl Elliger zum 70 Geburstag, ed. Hartmut Gese and Hans Peter Rüger, AOAT 18 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Velag, 1973), 135. 144. Cholewiński, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 123.

214

Chapter 6

motifs.145 Likewise, Nihan argues that Lev 26, like chapters 17–26 en bloc, reinterprets prior material in order to overcome difficulties raised by the merging of priestly and nonpriestly sources in the final-​form Pentateuch.146 While each of these proposals rests on differing assumptions regarding compositional history, the general tenor of Lev 26 as a reinterpreting text is evident. In light of this observed tendency, does Lev 26 use terms and concepts shared with Gen 1–3 “in a lexically reorganized and topically rethematized way”?147 I think it does. Drawing together observations made throughout this chapter, recontextualization of material is evident and serves two interrelated purposes. First, Canaan is conceived as being a new Eden. Like the primordial Garden, the Promised Land will be a place of abundant fruit; there Israel will multiply and become numerous; wild beasts will be banished and the “paix originelle”148 between humans and animals will be restored; above all, YHWH will walk about amid his people as he once walked about in Eden. Second, Israel is viewed as Adam redivivus. The nation’s possible fate is shaped in such a way as to evoke Adam’s story. Like Adam, Israel is the recipient of divine commands. Obedience will lead to all the (Edenic) blessings outlined in 26:4–12.149 Disobedience, however, will occasion increasing punishment until, like Adam, Israel will be expelled from the place where YHWH walks. This recontextualized use in Lev 26 of material that parallels Gen 1–3 strongly suggests intentional linkage for rhetorical aims within the final-​form Pentateuch. Synergy with Other Rhetorical Features One of the dominant features of Lev 26 is its division into two panels that juxtapose the sublimity of promised reward (26:3–13) and horrific threat (26:14–39). However, discernible within each panel is an escalation of possible outcomes. This is obvious with the threatened punishments, as many have observed.150 The fivefold structure of this section is indicated by the repetition of ‫( ואם‬26:14, 18, 21, 23, 27). Yet Levine notes the changes that accompany each instance. In particular, he highlights 145.  Eckart Otto, “Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26,” in Fabry and Jüngling, Levitikus als Buch, 179. 146. Nihan, Priestly Torah, esp. 545–59. 147. Fishbane, Interpretation, 285. 148. Marx, Lévitique 17–27, 200. 149.  Carol Kaminski has explored the realization of the primeval blessings through Israel. See Carol M. Kaminski, From Noah to Israel: Realization of the Primaeval Blessing after the Flood, JSOTSup 413 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), esp. 111–38. She concludes, “God’s intention for his creation, which is largely unrealized in the primaeval history, is being taken up by Israel” (145). However, Kaminski’s study only focuses on three commands, all located in Gen 1:28: to be fruitful, to multiply, and to fill. Thus, the Gen 1–3 connections highlighted in this study not only serve to justify Kaminski’s main thesis but also develop it further. 150.  E.g., Hartley, Leviticus, 458; Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 420; Sherwood, Leviticus, 85.

Allusion to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 26

215

how subsequent protases expand on prior wording through the addition of new elements.151 This feature functions to create a sense of increasing intransigence on Israel’s part that correlates with the increasing severity of the punishments inflicted. The climactic nature of the fifth threat is marked by the unique-​to-​Leviticus use of ‫ חמה‬in the protasis152 and the greater length of this subsection.153 Similar escalation has been noted with respect to the promised blessings outlined in 26:4–12.154 Thus the lists in both of the chapter’s main sections evidence what Amit terms “rhetorical progression.” Amit posits that the final step in such a sequence is the climactic one, with preceding steps acting to shed further light on the subject.155 Intriguing for my purposes is the point of climax identified by scholars in each sequence. For the promised blessings it is YHWH’s walking about in the midst of his people (26:12)156—wording that explicitly parallels Gen 3:8. This connection leads many to suggest that the purpose of v. 12 is to imagine a return to the divine-​ human relationship as it was in the antediluvian, even Edenic, world.157 Certainly, the elements preceding this verse support such a reading: rain at the proper time (26:4), trees giving their fruit (26:4), eating to satiety (26:5), absence of beasts and sword (26:6), becoming fruitful and numerous (26:9). As Milgrom comments, “God’s blessings can bring a return to paradisiacal conditions.”158 In contrast, the threats (26:14–39) depict the unraveling of these lofty promises. The key motif of this section is reversal. If 26:4–12 portrays a restoration of creation ideals, then 26:14–39 presents an anti-​creation downward spiral: sickness and enemies will bring ruin (26:16–17), the rain will not fall (26:19), the ground will be “cursed” (26:19), trees will not give their fruit (26:20), wild animals will decimate the populace (26:22), and bread will become scarce (26:26). The final threat comes in 26:27–39.159 Children will be eaten (26:29; cf. Deut 28:53–57; Lam 151.  “Israel’s failure to obey results in sevenfold punishment (v. 18); Israel’s coldness to God, in addition to its failure to obey, results in sevenfold punishment (v. 21); Israel’s failure to be chastised, in addition to Israel’s coldness to God, results in God’s coldness toward Israel and sevenfold punishment (vv. 23–24); Israel’s failure to obey, in addition to Israel’s coldness to God, results in God’s coldness and sevenfold punishment (vv. 27–28)” (Levine, Leviticus, 276). 152. Alter, Five Books, 664. 153. Marx, Lévitique 17–27, 204. 154.  E.g., Marx, Lévitique 17–27, 197–98; Hartley, Leviticus, 457. 155.  Amit, “Progression,” 9. 156.  So Bonar, Leviticus, 477; Hartley, Leviticus, 457; Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2299; Balentine, Leviticus, 199; Tidball, Leviticus, 307; Eveson, Beauty, 380; Sklar, Leviticus, 313. 157.  E.g., Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2302; Blum, Studien, 326. 158. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2302. For Och, the fruitfulness of Canaan reverses the curse that followed Adam’s disobedience (“Creation,” 241). Elsewhere, I have explored the implications of this intertextual connection for contemporary discussions of social justice. See G. Geoffrey Harper, “ ‘I Will Walk in Your Midst’: The Implications of Leviticus 26:3–13 for Social Wellbeing,” in Justice, Mercy, and Wellbeing: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Peter G. Bolt and James R. Harrison (Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, forthcoming). 159.  For textual features that mark out this section as a climax, see Marx, Lévitique 17–27, 204.

216

Chapter 6

2:20; Josephus, War, 6.3.4)—reversing fruitfulness and plenty;160 the land will be laid waste (26:32)—reversing its fertility and peace; finally, the people will be exiled from Canaan (26:33)—reversing the purpose of the exodus (cf. 26:13). The banishment of exile, in a manner akin to Adam’s expulsion in Gen 3:24, comes as the finale and climax.161 As can be seen, the climactic point to the rhetorical progression in both panels depends on, or is at least enriched by, intertextual connections to Gen 1–3. The high point of the promises depicts a recapitulation of Edenic conditions; the nadir of the threats is banishment from the land and hence from the Edenic-​like blessings of living in YHWH’s presence. The importance of intertextual connection to Gen 1 and to Gen 2–3 for the rhetoric of Lev 26 again suggests that allusion is deliberately employed. Evaluation Evidence of genuine intertextual connection does not by itself indicate intentionality. However, when noted parallels were subjected to the criteria I established for determining the deliberateness of allusion, positive results were achieved in each case. First, a quantity of specific parallels connects Lev 26 to Gen 1–3. Moreover, these links draw particular attention to Gen 1:26–29 and Gen 3:7–24. Second, similarity of structural framework became evident when I found that the major elements of the type-​scene identified by Edenburg in Gen 2–3 are also present in Lev 26. Both passages are structured around an analogous movement from divine command through disobedience to curse and banishment. Third, lexical, syntactical, and conceptual parallels to Gen 1–3 have been recontextualized in Lev 26 in order to visualize Canaan as a new Eden and to construe Israel as a new Adam. Fourth, the rhetorical progressions evident in 26:4–12 and 26:14–33 climax on notes that derive at least some of their force from intertextual links to Genesis: respectively, YHWH walking about among his people as per the original creation and banishment from a land that is portrayed as a new Eden. The amalgamation of these criteria makes it highly probable that Lev 26 intentionally alludes to both Gen 1 and to Gen 2–3. The question remains, however, regarding the rhetorical function such allusion performs.

160.  Cf. the similar anti-​creation theme in Exod 1 where Pharaoh seeks to destroy Israel’s children. 161.  Thus Marx (Lévitique 17–27, 208) terms exile the “châtiment suprême.” See, similarly, Mays, Leviticus, 69; Budd, Leviticus, 372; Gorman, Leviticus, 146; Rooker, Leviticus, 319; Kleinig, Leviticus, 574.

Allusion to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 26

217

The Rhetorical Function of Allusion in Leviticus 26 Illocutions Performed by Allusion to Genesis 1–3 A number of illocutions are made possible in Lev 26 through the use of allusion to Gen 1–3. First, allusions to the creation narratives remind readers of primordial events. This reminder may be an appeal to historical and cultural memory, a literary reminder of prior events in the Pentateuch’s narrative, or indeed of both. Either way, by means of the multiple connections employed, recipients of Lev 26 are reminded of the paradisiacal conditions of the original creation and of its subsequent loss as a result of transgressing the divine word. This reminder facilitates a declaration regarding the character of YHWH. Allusion to Gen 1, particularly to the bounty and abundance of creation, declares to readers that YHWH alone is the source of life, blessing, and fecundity and that he is both able and willing to bestow such benefits upon his creatures. Thus, allusion declares YHWH’s fundamental goodness. Yet, on the other hand, allusions to Gen 3 declare that YHWH also has the ability to reverse blessing, hence portraying a God of justice who does not leave the guilty unpunished (cf. Exod 34:7). Transgression is thus declared to lead inexorably to punishment and the cancellation of blessing. In this way, allusion to Gen 1–3 also functions to warn readers of the consequences of rebellion. By exploiting lexical and conceptual parallels to describe Israel as a new Adam and Canaan as a new Eden, Lev 26 portrays Israel’s (potential) future as a recapitulation of banishment from the primordial Garden. This portrayal of the inevitable outcome of abhorring YHWH’s commands—namely, punishment climaxing in expulsion—thereby functions to dissuade Israel from following a similar path. Connection to a concrete illustration of rebellion (i.e., Adam’s) thus adds persuasive force to Lev 26’s attempt to impose its legislation upon readers (as well as that which it incorporates; cf. the discussion of vv. 1–2, 46 above). Yet allusion also contributes to the chapter’s positive appeal. Parallels to Gen 1–3 serve to give what are very earthy benefits (plentiful food, a safe place to live, many children) mythological overtones (i.e., a return to primeval creation). Thus enabled is a divine promise of Edenic blessing contingent upon obedience. Hence, connections to Genesis enable Lev 26 to better invite, even entice, readers and hearers to enjoy the divine fecundity on offer by remaining faithful to YHWH’s commands. In these ways allusion plays a key role in the text’s function as a concluding exhortation that seeks to demand compliance. Correlation with the Illocutions of the Book Once more, a correlation between levels of illocution is transparent. The use of allusion to remind readers of the blessedness of creation underscores the desirability

218

Chapter 6

of living in YHWH’s presence and thus serves Leviticus’s function as an invitation. Such a reminder also demonstrates that the promises made in 26:4–12 are not hollow. The God who created a “very good” world in the beginning can re-​create it; YHWH can restore what was lost and, indeed, is already doing so. Thus, the concern of Leviticus to demand obedience to its legislation finds added rhetorical support. If Israel will only follow YHWH’s decrees and obey his commands (26:3) then Canaan will become like the Garden of God. Yet reminding readers of Gen 2–3 also draws attention to the exemplar par excellence of the consequences of violating sacred space—the banishment of Adam and Eve from the primordial garden sanctuary. Intertextual connection thus brings to bear another narrative context to reinforce a central point of the instruction delivered by Leviticus: transgression of sacred space leads to separation and death (cf. 10:1–2; 13:45–46; 15:31). Hence, the act of reminding also aligns with the book’s wider attempt to warn readers of the danger of profaning sacred space. In these ways, illocutions enabled by allusion in Lev 26 support the book’s declaration concerning the character of YHWH. YHWH can construct an orderly and blessed world; moreover, he desires to bestow this primordial state of blessedness on his creatures once again and indeed promises to do so. Yet such bestowal is not unconditionally guaranteed. As a holy God who must judge and punish wickedness, blessing will be imparted only to the obedient. Nevertheless, a divine invitation is extended. By revealing the necessity of faithful obedience, pericope-​ level illocutions also further the aim of Leviticus to equip hearers to live ‫לפני יהוה‬. The Rhetorical Function of Allusion To assess rhetorical function, I proceed in like manner to my treatment of Lev 11 and 16—that is, I discuss identified illocutions in relation to the four historical scenarios most frequently advocated for the book’s provenance. Postexilic Function In this context, allusion to Gen 1–3 may have served the wider aims of the book in several ways. A connection to primordial events in Lev 26 is consistent with a more general postexilic concern to establish links with Israel’s preexilic past.162 The purpose for this is both socio-​political—to generate support for postexilic institutions and offices—and theological—to convey that YHWH’s purposes for his people remain unbroken. Moreover, the summary exhortation performed by Lev 26 derives increased power through allusion to Gen 1–3. By utilizing allusion, chapter 26 furthers the book’s efforts to cast its legislation as being in line with

162. Cf. Duke, Persuasive Appeal.

Allusion to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 26

219

creation ideals and even as being the means of restoring them.163 In this way, allusion may have served to bolster the importance and prestige of cult officials by envisioning their role as supervisors and guardians of a new world order.164 Furthermore, use of allusion construes Canaan as a new Eden; it is the place where YHWH walks. Thus, the importance of the land, and by implication Jerusalem and the temple within, is made manifest. Perhaps being countermanded with these connections is glib acceptance of Persian boundary markers—Leviticus projects an ideal above and beyond the confines of “Yehud.” In addition, the theological overtones invested in Canaan through allusion to Eden may have served to establish the primacy of Palestine over diaspora claims. Again, this is consistent with the rhetorical goal of other postexilic works, such as the Psalms of Ascent.165 Exilic Function The use of allusion to provoke remembrance of prior events aligns with a broader strategy within the Pentateuch.166 Yet historic recollection is not an end in itself. Rather, as Mann rightly notes, recollection of past events provides a criterion by which present circumstances may be judged.167 Thus allusion functions to support the aim of the text to critically evaluate readers. Acknowledging rightful judgment upon Adam for his rebellion becomes a means to understand and agree with YHWH’s rightful action against Judah.168 Parallels drawn between Adam and Israel explain the exile. Fitting with this agenda are the intertextual connections that portray both Eden and Canaan as sacred space—even as sanctuaries. In light of this, the nation’s repeated violation of sacred boundaries, both cultic and moral, has rightly and expectedly resulted in banishment from the presence of YHWH and from the land that belongs to him (cf. 25:23). However, addressed to an audience situated outside the land, the promises made in 26:4–12 are important in relation to Leviticus’s function as an invitation. YHWH’s (conditional) promises, delivered in first-​person discourse, invite hearers to return to a new “Eden.” If the people will obey, then YHWH will not abhor them (26:3, 11b). In fact, he will reverse the effects of the exile: the people will become fruitful and numerous, the land will become lush and fecund, enemies and wild animals will be banished. Thus even amid the “uncreation” of exile, hope 163. Cf. Gorman, Ideology, 222; Nihan, Priestly Torah, 610–14; Radner, Leviticus, 268–69. 164.  For Leviticus as supporting text for the status of the (Aaronide) priesthood, see Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 91–132. 165.  See, further, Loren D. Crow, The Songs of Ascents (Psalms 120–134): Their Place in Israelite History and Religion (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). 166.  See chapter 3. 167. Mann, Torah, 157–58. 168.  On this score, the rhetoric of Leviticus would align with that of Ezekiel. See Renz, Rhetorical Function.

220

Chapter 6

of a new beginning is held out (cf. 26:40–45). Unlike Adam, the nation is invited to return to “Eden.”169 Monarchical Function A purpose of prophetic warning is well served by allusion in Lev 26, especially in its mirroring of type-​scene elements present in Gen 2–3. The story of Adam—his reception of the divine command and subsequent disobedience, punishment, and banishment—provides a conceptual backdrop for discussing Israel’s assured fate if the nation likewise spurns YHWH’s instruction. Furthermore, the equation of Canaan with Eden would serve to highlight the divorce between potential and reality. Nonrealization of the promised blessing outlined by Lev 26, and indeed experience of the reverse (e.g., 2 Kgs 17:24, 26; cf. Lev 26:6, 22, 32), would emphasize to Israel the need for reform and add urgency to the warning being voiced. Connections to Gen 1, with the resulting reminder that YHWH is the source of fertility and prosperity, would furthermore function as a polemic against the worship of Baal and other fertility gods and consequently deliver an indictment against the Israelite monarchs who acted as their patrons (e.g., 1 Kgs 11:4–8; 16:31–33). Allusion in this respect is given an added polemical edge by being cast as first-​person divine discourse. YHWH declares, “I will send rain . . . I will make you fruitful . . . I will multiply you” (26:4, 9; emphasis mine). Thus YHWH, not the king or any foreign god, is portrayed as the guarantor of blessing and prosperity. Moreover, YHWH’s declaration of intent to reinstitute primordial blessing functions as an invitation to Israel to enjoy a better reality. The rhetoric of allusion is clear: fidelity to YHWH will secure Eden-​like blessing. Premonarchical Function Against a background of recent (Exod 32:1–35) and ongoing (Lev 17:7) apostasy, allusion functions to portray the Promised Land as an Eden-​like sanctuary—the place where a holy God will once again walk about among his people as the climactic element in a consortium of blessings. However, as the land operates as YHWH’s sanctuary (cf. 25:23), his rules concerning sacred space come into play and must override all previous religious and moral norms. Thus, the inherent danger posed by cohabitation with the divine presence, already realized at the inauguration of the cult (cf. 9:23; 10:1–2), would drive home the need for radical transformation of the people along cultic and moral lines. Parallels with Adam demonstrate that the nub of the issue is obedience to every word that comes from the mouth of YHWH. God’s instruction is not onerous or arbitrary; rather it is the means to life (cf. Lev 18:5) because it is the means for entering and remaining in sacred space. Fastidious observance therefore lies at the heart of successful coexistence. 169. Cf. Fishbane, Interpretation, 370.

Allusion to Genesis 1–3 in Leviticus 26

221

Allusions to Genesis thus contribute another layer to the raison d’être for the detailed legislation in Leviticus as well as providing further motivation to heed the book’s prescriptions, especially with respect to the invitation to enjoy blessing.

Conclusion The goal for this chapter was to evaluate potential allusion to Gen 1 and Gen 2–3 in Lev 26. On assessment, there is sufficient evidence to conclude with a high degree of certainty that genuine intertextual connections exist and, moreover, that these connections are deliberate. Based on this, I explored the rhetorical function that such allusion might perform with respect to four historical contexts. The intertextuality present in Lev 26 is suggestive regarding why allusion is employed as a rhetorical device, rather than explicit citation. Allusion has an ability to engage the imagination in a way that quotation does not. As Gorman notes regarding Lev 26, “The blessings and curses are presented as images to be seen as much as heard.”170 Tacit evocation of the first humans—their blissful condition and subsequent banishment because of disobedience—adds poignancy and emotional force to the chapter’s appeal for covenant fidelity. As Fishbane reasons, “These typological alignments have deep exegetical dimensions . . . and thereby project the powerful associations of the past into future images of longing and hope.”171 Thus allusion to Gen 1–3 serves to reinforce the affective dimension of the Levitical legislation. In this way allusion also increases enjoyment of the text. As perceptive readers become aware of intertextual connections, Lev 26 becomes literarily more artful. Yet artistry is more than just mere adornment. Aesthetic appeal feeds into the rhetorical force of the whole and becomes another means for the text to achieve the ends for which it was written.

170. Gorman, Leviticus, 142 (emphasis his). 171. Fishbane, Interpretation, 371.

Summary and Conclusions

My aim in this study was to establish whether the book of Leviticus alludes to Gen 1–3 and to determine the likely rhetorical function that any demonstrated allusion might perform. Accordingly, part 1 focused on issues of approach and method, positioning this study in relation to contemporary trends in Leviticus scholarship and formulating the necessary methodological framework for the analysis to follow. In part 2, I applied the approach developed in part 1 by investigating the presence and role of allusion to Gen 1–3 in selected Leviticus texts—namely, chapters 11, 16, and 26. Here I want to draw together and summarize the data generated by this study in order to formulate some general conclusions and to suggest avenues for further research. Chapter 1 surveyed the fragmentation evident within current Pentateuch scholarship following the demise of the Graf-​Wellhausen hypothesis. No single approach has emerged to dominate the guild in the same way; rather, a plethora of new and renewed interpretative approaches to the Pentateuch have come to the fore over the last forty years. Charting five of these in particular—final-​form exegesis, reading Torah as narrative, appreciation of literary artistry, intertextuality, and rhetorical analysis—I concluded that each of these avenues has proven potential to generate insight into the meaning and function of the Pentateuchal texts. Indeed, comprehensive interpretation of a complex entity like the Pentateuch can benefit from the utilization of multiple methods. Therefore, and in light of the approaches surveyed, I formulated my central question as follows: Does the book of Leviticus, within the final-​form narrative of the Pentateuch, allude to Gen 1–3, and if it does so, what rhetorical purposes are thereby enabled by such intertextual linkage? This research question immediately raised several important methodological issues. Two I deemed primary. First, are there criteria by which potential allusion can be assessed to demonstrate that it is genuinely and intentionally present in a given text? Second, what is the rhetorical function of the book of Leviticus? Detailed examination of the issues raised by these queries was necessary to provide the sound methodological underpinnings required for the exegetical analysis attempted in part 2. Accordingly, chapter 2 investigated the first of these concerns—criteria for demonstrating bona fide parallels between texts. While appropriation of intertextuality has proven fruitful for Old Testament research, utilization has also

222

Summary and Conclusions

223

generated methodological problems—Sandmel’s “parallelomania,” for example.1 Moreover, the complexity of the field and the divergent use of terminology further complicate matters. As a result, it was necessary to discuss intertextuality at some length. Conceptually, intertextuality is best understood as an umbrella term that encompasses all possible relations between all possible texts. This broad definition, however, makes intertextual practice either impossible or merely arbitrary. Thus, I argued for a method of intertextual reading that is sensitive to delimiting factors conveyed by author, text, and reader. This was seen to provide one way of limiting the infinite linguistic universe posed by the concept of intertextuality. More particularly, I suggested that there is a category of intertextual connection that constitutes a deliberate authorial act employed with a certain illocutionary force for perlocutionary ends. In light of this discussion I outlined an approach for an intertextual reading of Leviticus. First, I defined the key terms to be used in this study—namely, intertextuality and allusion. Second, regarding modus operandi, I discussed possible criteria for assessing the genuineness of intertextual connections. Building upon Leonard’s scheme, eight diagnostic criteria were advanced to determine the likelihood that one text genuinely acts as intertext to another. Establishing genuineness alone, however, was seen to be insufficient for my purposes. Also required was a procedure for assessing the deliberateness of connections, for only if connections are both genuine and deliberate can their rhetorical function be discussed. Thus, third, I proposed four criteria for determining the probability that identified allusions are intentionally employed: (1) the quantity and specificity of parallels to the same text(s); (2) the similarity of narrative settings; (3) the recontextualization of prior material; and (4) the synergy of allusion with other literary and rhetorical devices. Fourth, I argued that the mere demonstration of genuine, deliberate allusion is also by itself insufficient. Rather, if allusion is indeed present then the interpreter is bound to also investigate its rhetorical and theological function with respect to the message of the book in which it is found. To that end, I defined my understanding of rhetoric and charted a method for establishing the rhetorical purposes of Leviticus as a book. Chapter 3 put this method to use by investigating the rhetorical function of Leviticus. First, I presented internal and external reasons for viewing Leviticus as a rhetorical unit in contrast to approaches that simply treat the text as part of the wider priestly writings. Following this, I discussed the structure of Leviticus qua book. Regardless of compositional history, the final-​form text of Lev 1–27 was seen to evidence careful arrangement. Furthermore, it became clear that the arrangement of the book in turn drives its theological message. Adopting speech 1.  Sandmel, “Parallelomania.”

224

Summary and Conclusions

act categories to tease out that message, I concluded that Leviticus performs several simultaneous speech acts commensurate with its canonical placement. These include acts of declaring, imposing, reminding, permitting, prohibiting, equipping, promising, demanding, calling, inviting, and warning. Moreover, illocutions occurring at the level of the book were seen to be commensurate with those occurring at the level of the corpus. Thus, the Pentateuch’s supervening illocutions were seen to support and validate the aims of Leviticus. Nevertheless, determining the rhetorical function of Leviticus also requires interpreters to establish who is attempting to persuade whom with this text. In relation to Leviticus (as for the Pentateuch more broadly), however, this necessary step faces severe difficulties occasioned by the paucity of conclusive data. Recognizing this difficulty, yet also acknowledging the importance of determining author and addressee, I proposed reading illocutions performed by allusion against the four provenances most commonly canvassed for Leviticus. This had a twofold benefit. It not only allowed for discussion of function within a given historical context, but also did not require binding my analysis to one reconstruction. Utilizing this approach, I argued that Leviticus may have functioned as a political manifesto in postexilic Yehud, as a defense of divine justice during the exile, as a prophetic decree in the monarchical era, or as a polemic in the premonarchical period following emancipation from Egypt. For each context, certain features of the text came to the fore. Leviticus, it seems, has demonstrable applicability for numerous situations and, in fact, seems purposely designed to transcend the limits of time and space. The discussion in chapter 3 formed a vital preliminary for discussing the function performed by one rhetorical device—namely, allusion to Gen 1–3. Allusion to Gen 1–3 could now be discussed generally in relation to the strategy behind Leviticus, as well as more specifically in relation to the four outlined contexts with their respective nuances. Additionally, an awareness of the rhetorical function of Leviticus as an interdependent unit within the Pentateuchal corpus also set a baseline against which the proposed function of pericope-​level allusion could be tested, thereby constraining subjectivity. In the introduction to part 2, I explained the rationale behind the selection of Leviticus chapters. Five pericopes were amenable based on word frequency and distribution. From these I selected three: chapters 11, 16, and 26. In addition to lexical overlap these pericopes were chosen because they also sit at rhetorically significant parts of the book, and, for each, connections to Gen 1–3 have been suggested in the secondary literature. Chapter 4 explored potential allusion to Gen 1–3 in Lev 11. These pericopes undoubtedly evidence shared language: thirty-​nine lexemes from Gen 1 and forty-​ seven from Gen 2–3 are attested in Lev 11. More importantly, however, parallels include distinct language and rare lexemes. In addition, a number of syntactical

Summary and Conclusions

225

constructions are found only in these chapters. Moreover, rare clusters of common words are evident. Also observed is an uneven distribution of lexemes across the Pentateuch—that is, attestation particularly in connection with creation, flood, and dietary regulations. Thus, a number of the criteria established in chapter 2 were fulfilled, strongly suggesting genuine links between Lev 11 and both Gen 1 and Gen 2–3. The veracity of a genuine connection was further strengthened by a number of conceptual parallels. Leviticus 11 utilizes the same spatial and taxonomical categories as Gen 1; it also links cultic acts of separation with God’s creative acts of separation. Moreover, the link between imitatio Dei and the image of God as well as the restoration of human-​animal relations sets the legislation of Lev 11 within a re-​creative context. The implications of this are spelled out through a shared motif of eating forbidden food that correlates Israel’s story with Adam’s, a connection perhaps also indicated by the (possible) structuring of Lev 11–15 on Gen 3:14–19. These conceptual parallels are signaled by lexical and syntactical similarities and in turn further support verbal connections. This mutually reinforcing dynamic suggests that a genuine connection between these texts is highly probable. When the four criteria I proposed for assessing the deliberateness of connections were applied, positive results were realized. Leviticus 11 shares rare lexemes and syntactical constructions with Gen 1–3, including some that are found only in these two contexts. Moreover, multiple instances of shared terminology were seen to increase the overall connectivity between the texts. Second, structural similarities became apparent in relation to eating, a noted leitmotif in both Lev 11 and Gen 2–3. This correspondence indicated that intertextual connections are not merely a catalogue of disparate parallels. Third, several examples of recontextualization were noted. Such reworking of material is a strong indicator of intended textual linkage. Fourth, a connection to Gen 3 is interwoven with another literary device—namely, a rhetorical progression evident throughout Lev 11. This synergy between intertextual link and rhetorical device presented a further indication that a connection to Genesis is deliberate. In light of the high probability of intentional connection to Gen 1 and to Gen 2–3, I assessed the rhetorical function that such allusion might perform in Lev 11. To that end I explored a number of illocutions that are made possible by allusion. These in turn were then applied to each of the four historical contexts outlined in chapter 3, allowing for discussion of the particular function of allusion to Gen 1–3 vis-​à-​vis each scenario. Leviticus 16 was the concern of chapter 5. Once again, lexical overlap with Gen 1–3 was apparent: Lev 16 shares forty-​one lexemes with Gen 1 and fifty-​seven with Gen 2–3. On further examination, however, significant lexical and syntactical connections are not as common as with Lev 11. Nonetheless, examples are present. Indeed, a number of criteria for assessing the genuineness of intertextual

226

Summary and Conclusions

connection were met. Parallels include infrequently used words as well as rare clusters of more common words. Additionally, similar contextual use became apparent. Nevertheless, the overall volume of connections is not high. Furthermore, while suggestive, none are beyond dispute. Therefore, based on lexical and syntactical connections alone I could only conclude that it is possible, but not certain, that Lev 16 alludes to Gen 1–3. However, a genuine intertextual connection was made more probable by the presence of conceptual connections. In fact, the ritual of Lev 16 appears, at least in part, to reenact aspects of primeval events. In particular, the original state of creation, and Adam’s enjoyment of and subsequent banishment from the divine presence, form an important conceptual background to the chapter. Links to Gen 1–3 thus serve to further explain the significance of the Day of Atonement within the wider tabernacle cult. Yom Kippur is portrayed as enabling, albeit partially, a return to Edenic conditions. The high priest enters sacred time and sacred space to stand Adam-​like in the presence of YHWH. The importance of the day is therefore heightened by its (partial) resolution of the dilemma created by the banishment of Gen 3 against which the priesthood in general, and the high priest in particular, represent the formation of a new humanity that will once again live in proximity to the divine. In these ways, conceptual parallels strengthen the overall probability that Lev 16 alludes both to Gen 1 and to Gen 2–3. Regarding the deliberateness of connections, I noted several features. First, word clusters and other shared terms link Lev 16 to Gen 1–3. While the total number is not high, connections are particularly focused—they highlight the link between prescribed Sabbath rest and the seventh day of creation, as well as drawing attention to unique aspects of the ritual in chapter 16. Second, conceptual parallels link Lev 16 to key points of the Gen 1–3 narrative. Connections portray Aaron as an Adam-​like figure who ritually reverses the primeval banishment, thereby restoring lost aspects of the original creation—in particular the proximity with God once enjoyed by primal humanity. Third, elements of Gen 1–3 are not simply reproduced in Lev 16; rather, they are refashioned for a new context and are utilized to further theological aims. Fourth, the legislator’s concern to portray the Day of Atonement as a uniquely important event is enhanced by parallels to Gen 1–3. With these connections the rite as a whole takes on a cosmic dimension, as it becomes the means of inaugurating the restoration of creation order through Israel’s cult. Based on this, I proposed illocutions that are performed by allusion in Lev 16. The possible function of these illocutions was then worked out in relation to the four periods suggested for the provenance of the book. Finally, in chapter 6, I explored allusions to Genesis in Lev 26. This pericope shares thirty-​seven lexemes with Gen 1 and sixty-​seven with Gen 2–3. While some of the parallels discussed lie toward the tenuous end of the spectrum, others are much more certain indicators of a genuine connection. Importantly, the necessary

Summary and Conclusions

227

criteria for discerning a bona fide intertextual linkage were met. Shared language is present, including rare words and forms; moreover, shared phrases and word clusters are also evident. In addition, there is in Lev 26 an accumulation of language that parallels both Gen 1 and Gen 2–3, including terms that are used in contextually similar ways. Finally, shared language has been modified to fit a new context. Based on lexical and syntactical connections, therefore, I deemed a genuine linkage between Lev 26 and Gen 1–3 probable. In addition to lexical and syntactical features that suggest a connection between Lev 26 and Gen 1–3, conceptual parallels were also apparent. As observed in the analysis of Lev 11 and 16, many conceptual parallels are suggested by shared lexemes and syntactical structures. Verbal connections thus act as a “trigger” to highlight wider intertextual patterning. Three related conceptual parallels—divine provision of food, bounty portrayed through the image of fruitful trees, and a vegetarian diet—serve to connect Lev 26 to Gen 1. Furthermore, the focus in Lev 26 on Sabbath rest has immediate affinity with the seventh day of creation (Gen 2:1–3). Personification of the land further connects these texts. Moreover, the Garden of Eden as sanctuary finds a conceptual parallel in Canaan being described as the locus of divine presence. In these ways, Lev 26 recalls creation in its “very good” state. However, other conceptual parallels recall the loss of that “very good” world. A ten-​point type-​scene in Gen 2–3 charts the movement from divine command through its abrogation to judgment and banishment. Importantly, the same elements are present in Lev 26, suggesting thematic parallels between Adam and Israel. Also, as with Gen 2–3, Lev 26 turns on the reversal of fortune occasioned by disobedience. As part of this reversal motif, Lev 26 potentially alludes to the formlessness of Gen 1:2 and threatens the same fate for Israel. With connections made possible, or at least being supported by, verbal similarities, there is a notable convergence of parallels operating at lexical, syntactical, and conceptual levels. This indicates that a genuine intertextual connection between Lev 26 and Gen 1–3 is highly probable. Based on a number of factors, the links between Lev 26 and Gen 1–3 were also deemed to be deliberate. First, a quantity of specific lexical and syntactical similarities connects Lev 26 to Gen 1–3. Moreover, convergence of parallels draws particular attention to Gen 1:26–29 and 3:7–24. Second, a pattern of correspondences became evident when all the elements of the type-​scene identified by Edenburg in Gen 2–3 were also found to be present in Lev 26. Third, lexical, syntactical, and conceptual parallels to Gen 1–3 have been recontextualized in Lev 26 in order to visualize Canaan as a new Eden and to construe Israel as a new Adam. Fourth, the rhetorical progressions evident in 26:4–12 and in 26:14–33 climax on notes that derive at least some of their force from intertextual links to Genesis—namely, YHWH walking about among his people as per the original creation and banishment from a land portrayed as a new Eden. The combination of these criteria

228

Summary and Conclusions

makes it highly probable that Lev 26 intentionally alludes to both Gen 1 and to Gen 2–3. Therefore, I made suggestions about the illocutions that linkage to Gen 1–3 performs. These illocutionary acts were then applied to postexilic, exilic, monarchical, and premonarchical contexts in order to investigate the potential function that allusion to Gen 1 and Gen 2–3 may have served in each. My investigation of the presence and function of allusion to Gen 1–3 in selected chapters of Leviticus invites some more general conclusions. First, in chapter 2 I noted some of the problems that face the appropriation of intertextuality for the study of the Old Testament. Consequently, I argued that sound methodology is required, not only to avoid potential pitfalls, but also to construct a solid basis for discussion of theological message or rhetorical function. If connections between texts remain solely (and arbitrarily) the prerogative of readers, or if parallels are merely circumstantial, then it is not possible to discuss the function of allusion. Therefore, a major aim of this study was to develop an explicit methodology and apply it systematically to representative Leviticus pericopes. The process has proven fruitful. Methodological precision has not only facilitated the assessment of connections between Leviticus and Gen 1–3 proposed in the secondary literature, but has also allowed me to build a reasoned case for the genuine presence of parallels that have been deliberately employed for rhetorical ends. Allusion to Gen 1–3 in Leviticus bears the weight of scrutiny and therefore constitutes a factor that must be considered by interpreters of the book. Second, as discussed in the introduction to part 2, when it comes to intertextuality not all connections are equally assured. There is a spectrum of possibility that individual parallels need to be fitted into. Certainly, that has proven to be the case in this study. However, while some of the connections I propose between Leviticus and Gen 1–3 remain more tenuous than others, reasons for doubting a specific instance of allusion do not amount to reasons for doubting all instances. Accordingly, questions raised with respect to a given parallel do not diminish the veracity of other parallels, as each point may rest on an entirely different conceptual basis. Rather, individual cases of potential allusion need to be assessed on their own merits. The cumulative force of positive claims demonstrates that the basic premise is sound even if a given allusion remains unconvincing. Additionally, the presence of allusion in each of the representative chapters of Leviticus I investigate is suggestive of a wider strategy to utilize intertextual connection for rhetorical aims. The uncovering of such a strategy reinforces particular instances of allusion and increases the probability that such linkage is indeed intended. As Sommer opines, If I find one or two cases in which an allusion occurs in a section regarded by others as a hodgepodge of fragments, one might view my findings as coincidental. . . . But if I find scores of such borrowings, and if they display consistent patterns in their

Summary and Conclusions

229

reuse of older material, then the notion that all these cases result from happenstance becomes untenable.2

Moreover, the allusions discussed in this study are mutually reinforcing. For example, the banishment motif investigated in relation to Lev 16 finds support in the conceptualization of Canaan as a new Eden in Lev 26. Similarly, the paralleling of Adam with Israel in Lev 26 is mutually reinforced by the use of allusion in Lev 11 to portray Israel as facing the same diet-​based test of obedience that Adam faced in the Garden of Eden. Thus, the interplay between lexical, syntactical, and conceptual parallels observed at the pericope level is supported by a wider strategy evident across the book. Allusion is meant to be noticed; indeed, it must be to be effective. Therefore, repeated connections to the same set of texts (i.e., Gen 1 and Gen 2–3), across multiple pericopes (i.e., Lev 11, 16, and 26), lessen the chance of allusion being missed. This interplay also has wider ramifications. Discussion of the rhetorical function of allusion at the chapter level invited comparison between pericope-​level illocutions and illocutions working at the level of the book. Yet, in chapter 3, Leviticus-​level illocutions were also assessed against illocutions operating at the level of the Pentateuch as a whole. The evident correlation between illocutions working at all three levels (pericope, book, and corpus) has hermeneutical implications. The Pentateuch can, and arguably ought to be, read as a coherent and interconnected whole. Moreover, narrative sequence is important, irrespective of the putative chronology of component parts. This not a denial of complex prehistory; rather, it is an acknowledgment of exceptional redaction/authoring. If, as seems to be the case, the Pentateuch is greater than the sum of its parts, then failure to explore and appreciate its inner connectivity must result in interpretative loss. My investigation of inner-​Pentateuchal allusion thus also indirectly challenges the model of Pentateuch formation proposed by Schwartz and his students. Schwartz argues that the Pentateuch consists of four separate sources that were combined by a single redactor. According to Schwartz, these sources were preserved rather than being altered. Moreover, he contends that the sources were written in isolation and therefore do not interact with one another.3 However, my investigation of intertextuality presents counterevidence. It seems P (Lev 11 and 16) and H (Lev 26) allude to both Gen 1 (P) and Gen 2–3 ( J). This suggests either that allusion was present in the sources, and hence they were not produced 2. Sommer, Prophet, 5. 3.  Consult Baruch J. Schwartz, “What Really Happened at Mount Sinai? Four Biblical Answers to One Question,” BR 13 (1997): 20–30, 46; Schwartz, “Scholarship’s Critique.” Regarding the development of Schwartz’s thesis among his students, see, for example, Joel S. Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, FAT 68 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009).

230

Summary and Conclusions

in isolation, or that allusive elements were added by the redactor(s), therefore challenging the premise that the sources remain unchanged. The presence of inner-​Pentateuchal allusion thus provides new data that must be incorporated in compositional reconstructions. Third, the use of allusion for rhetorical purposes is revealing with respect to the style and artistry of the book of Leviticus. Although Leviticus is frequently regarded as “prosaic,”4 “stiff,”5 or even “deadening,”6 my investigation reveals, on  the contrary, a  degree of literary artfulness and sophistication in this oft-​ disparaged book. This correlates with other recent studies of literary artistry in Israel’s legal texts.7 Yet, at the same time, artistry in Leviticus is not necessarily explicit; it is frequently conveyed through subtlety and nuance. The artfulness of the text is therefore easily overlooked. Yet, to miss intended connections to Gen 1–3 leads necessarily to impoverished readings of the pericopes investigated. For the literary artistry observed therein is not merely an end in itself—it is no mere ornamental flourish. Rather, allusion is employed for distinct rhetorical and theological purposes. Artistic devices are utilized to further the persuasive intent that lies behind the book as a whole. Thus, even as Leviticus makes assertions about clean and unclean animals, as it prescribes procedures for Yom Kippur, and as it lists potential blessings and curses, it is doing much more. The allusions to Gen 1–3 that I have argued are present in these pericopes aim to arrest attention, to captivate, and to provoke readers to action. Leviticus is a work of consummate literary artistry, written to persuade. Fourth, and relatedly, examination of intertextuality in this study is suggestive regarding the reason why allusion, rather than explicit citation, is employed as a rhetorical device. Allusion has the ability to excite and to engage the imagination in a way that quotation does not. Accordingly, lexical, syntactical, and conceptual parallels made between Leviticus and Gen 1–3 present readers with a series of images, each of which conveys a certain emotive force. A cluster of repeated images brings to mind the original goodness of creation—its order, beauty, and, in particular, the divine-​human communion that formed the basis of that good state. However, multiple allusions also draw attention to the fracturing and loss of that world. The archetypal narrative of disobedience and banishment is hinted at time and again. Yet, positive parallels are also drawn—between Adam and Israel and between Eden and Canaan. The tabernacle cult is portrayed as being the means through which re-​creation may be inaugurated. Indeed, some of its rituals may even be acting out a reversal of primordial events. All of this together suggests 4. Gunkel, Genesis, lxxx. 5. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 6. 6.  Boer, “Banality,” 156. 7.  E.g., Warning, Artistry.

Summary and Conclusions

231

that the implied addressee of the text is portrayed as standing at a crossroads. One path leads toward the restoration of what was lost—paradise regained as it were (partially at least). The other leads to a recapitulation of Adam’s story and the suffering of similar removal from the divine presence. Allusion facilitates both an invitation to experience life and a warning to avoid death. This tacit evocation of humanity in the beginning—initial blessing and subsequent banishment from YHWH’s presence—adds poignancy and emotional force to the persuasive appeal made by Leviticus as a whole. Fishbane is correct: typological alignments can indeed project associations of the past onto future potentials.8 In this way, allusion to Gen 1–3 serves to reinforce the affective dimension of the Levitical legislation. This is no mere compendium of legal and ritual requirements; Leviticus instead aims at the heart of its readers and engages in a concerted effort to persuade them toward loyalty. Some of that suasive potential is realized through the enjoyment that allusion brings. As perceptive readers and re-readers of the text become aware of intertextual connections, Leviticus becomes literarily more artful. That aesthetic appeal in turn feeds into the rhetorical force of the text and becomes another means of the book achieving the ends for which it was written. Fifth, examination of the rhetorical function of allusion carried out here is revealing with respect to the dating of texts. The complexity of the historical-​ critical issues related to the provenance of Leviticus meant I had to consider four possible options. Considering a spread of possibilities allowed me to discuss the function of allusion against particular settings and was important for that reason. However, the evident applicability of Leviticus to each of the scenarios is telling. While particular elements of the text come to the fore in different settings, the ability of Leviticus to speak into each is apparent. Thus, the danger of basing provenance upon rhetorical function is exposed, for one could feasibly make a case for any one of the dates considered (postexilic, exilic, monarchy, premonarchy) based on function alone. This study therefore adds weight to cautions voiced by Sommer regarding the conflation of rhetorical function with provenance.9 This study also suggests several avenues for further research. I mention five. First, the presence of deliberately employed allusion to Gen 1–3 in Lev 11, 16, and 26 raises the possibility that the same strategy may also be at work in other parts of the book (or, indeed, in the Pentateuch more broadly). In the introduction to part 2, I identified three other pericopes that evidence comparable lexical overlap with Gen 1 and Gen 2–3: chapters 14, 23, and 25. Other chapters in Leviticus also attract comment in the secondary literature vis-​à-​vis allusion—for instance, 8. Fishbane, Interpretation, 371. 9.  See my discussion in chapter 3, “The Rhetorical Contexts and Functions of Leviticus.” Cf. Sommer, “Dating”; Sommer, “Conflicting Constructions,” 57.

232

Summary and Conclusions

chapters 13, 15, and 24.10 Application of the methodological approach utilized here may thus prove fruitful with respect to other portions of Leviticus. Second, as noted at several junctures, there is also substantial lexical overlap with the flood narrative in Gen 6–9, most particularly with respect to Lev 11. While beyond the scope of this study, these parallels require further investigation to determine their significance. To what degree is allusion to Gen 1–3 in Leviticus refracted through the use of similar terminology in Gen 6–9? Does this contribute to, or change, the force of that allusion and its rhetorical function in Leviticus? Why might the redactors of the Pentateuch have connected these three episodes? Addressing questions such as these would further advance our understanding of the role of intertextuality within the final-​form Pentateuch. Third, as noted above, inner-​Pentateuchal allusion is suggestive regarding discussion of compositional history. Thus, while I do not explicitly address the topic in my investigation, the presence of allusion to Gen 1 and to Gen 2–3 in Leviticus nevertheless offers new data and raises new questions regarding the composition of the Pentateuch. Incorporation of this data may lead to a more nuanced conception of the origins of the Pentateuch and is therefore worth exploring from that point of view. Fourth, Edenburg has proposed categories to assess whether intertextual connections are geared more toward readers or hearers of a given text.11 The application of her methodology to the findings of this study would be of interest. In particular, it would allow for an assessment of Watts’s contention that Leviticus was primarily shaped to persuade auditors. For if allusions are too subtle for an aural audience to grasp then it is more likely that the book was written to be read, not heard. Furthermore, if the text is in fact written to be read, Edenburg contends that it cannot have been designed for enculturation. Such a conclusion regarding Leviticus would challenge suggestions that the book was primarily conceived as a means of bolstering the Aaronide position in the Persian era. More work is required to assess the issues here. Fifth, it would be interesting to combine my approach in this study with the cognitive linguistic method utilized by Trevaskis.12 Trevaskis arrives at a similar conclusion regarding the hermeneutical importance of connection to Genesis for reading Leviticus, albeit from a different angle. Exploration of the relationship between cognitive linguistics, intertextuality, and speech act theory may thus yield fruitful results in future studies. Certainly, the results of Trevaskis’s thesis corroborate my conclusions here. In concert, the combination of methods may serve to add mutual support to our respective findings. 10.  See, respectively, Trevaskis, Holiness, 108–71; Kiuchi, “Paradox”; and Trevaskis, “Purpose.” 11.  Edenburg, “Intertextuality.” 12.  See Trevaskis, Holiness.

Summary and Conclusions

233

The goal of this investigation was to examine the possibility that the book of Leviticus alludes to Gen 1–3 and to explore the potential function that such connection performs. To that end, I argued that the weight of evidence indicates that such allusion is indeed present—at lexical, syntactical, and conceptual levels. Moreover, allusion to Gen 1–3 reflects rhetorical purposes that are commensurate with those of Leviticus qua book and the Pentateuch as a whole, and assists in the achievement of those ends both cognitively and affectively. The results are intriguing and open new windows into the careful crafting of not only Leviticus but the Pentateuch more broadly. This ought to elicit greater appreciation for the genius of those who authored and redacted this literary masterpiece. More than that, though, this study ought also to increase awe for the God who inspired and superintended the writing and preserving of the Scriptures.

Appendix

Frequency of Genesis 1–3 Lexemes in Leviticus

The following table is based on word lists derived from BibleWorksTM 9. The frequency of attestations for the Gen 1–3 lexemes listed in the left-​hand column is recorded for each pericope division (listed across the top of the table).

235

236

7 6 1

14

2 4

8

3 11

1

1 4

5

Leviticus 12

1

Leviticus 11

1

Leviticus 10

8 16

2

9

2

1

1 12

5

Leviticus 13

7

4

1

4

1

1

Leviticus 15 Leviticus 14

7

19

2

2

Leviticus 17

10

2

Leviticus 7

2

1

Leviticus 8

2

3

Leviticus 9

19

Leviticus 16

1

1 9 6

1

8 10

3 1

2 6

3

1

Leviticus 18

1

Leviticus 19

1

Leviticus 20

9

Leviticus 21

1

Leviticus 23 Leviticus 22

1

2

3

Leviticus 24

4

1 1

1 1

Leviticus 25

1

Leviticus 26

2

Leviticus 27

7

2

Appendix

5

Leviticus 5

8

3

Leviticus 6

1

Leviticus 4 Leviticus 3

2

17 4 ‫אכל‬

1 ‫אֹות‬

2 2 ‫אֹור‬

‫ִאיׁש‬

2 ‫אור‬

1

3 2 ‫אֶ חָ ד‬

‫אַ יִ ן‬

5 1 ‫א ֲָדמָ ה‬

1

2 16 ‫אָ ָדם‬

Lemma

Genesis 1:1–2:3

‫אֵ יבָ ה‬

1 ‫אֵ ד‬

Genesis 2:4–25

1

3

1 ‫אֶ בֶ ן‬

Genesis 3

1

8 1 ‫אָ ב‬

Leviticus 1

‫אֵ י‬

1

Leviticus 2

237 14 14

6

1

13

7

4 8

17 20 15 12

11

7 7

9

4

1 10

3 20

6

6

2

2

4

1

3

1

21

1

2

7

2

8

3

7

8

5

21 10 15 16

2 4 2

11 26

1 1

4 ‫אֲׁשֶ ר‬

‫ארר‬

12

1 ‫אַ ּׁשּור‬

6

6

2

6 6 3 13 4 ‫ִאּׁשָ ה‬

2

0 8 ‫אֶ ֶרץ‬

‫אָ נ ִֹכי‬

21

1 ‫אַ ְרּבַ ע‬

2 1 ‫אַ ף‬

1

3 16 ‫אמר‬

11

1 1

2

1 13 35 ‫אֵ ם‬

Lemma

‫ֱֹלהים‬ ִ ‫א‬

Genesis 2:4–25

‫אֵ ּלֶ ה‬

2

Genesis 3

1

9

Leviticus 1

11

7

Leviticus 2

1

4

Leviticus 3

Genesis 1:1–2:3

3

1

20 23

9 3 5 5 3 2 6 3 2 2 6 4 4

1

Leviticus 4

2

16

Leviticus 5

1

7

Leviticus 6

2

9

Leviticus 7

5

4

Leviticus 8

4

Leviticus 9

2

1 2 5

2

4

9 16

Leviticus 10

1

6 1 ‫אֶ ל‬

17

1 2 ‫אָ ְכלָ ה‬

Leviticus 12

3 9

1

7 2 5 2 2 10

5

Leviticus 13

1

Leviticus 14

3

2 5

1 4 1

9 23

Leviticus 15

1

Leviticus 16

2

Leviticus 17

Leviticus 11

3

8 15 10

Leviticus 18

1

Leviticus 19

5

9 12

Leviticus 20

4 12

Leviticus 21

2

Leviticus 22

1

5 12 12

Leviticus 23

1

14

Leviticus 24

3

Leviticus 25

1

Leviticus 26

8 12

2

Leviticus 27

4

4

Frequency of Genesis 1–3 Lexemes in Leviticus

238

9 9 11 9 10

1

4 4 1 ‫ּבֵ ן‬

2 1 1 ‫ִּב ְל ִּתי‬

6 7 4 2 1 7 12

1

4

3

4

1

5

2 2

5

1 1

11 15

3

4

3

8

2

8

7

2

3 1

3

1

2

2 10 3 12

6 1

3

2

1 ‫בנה‬

‫ּבַ יִ ן‬

9

1

3 ‫ְּבהֵ מָ ה‬

‫בוׁש‬

1

2

1

1

4

7

1

1 1

‫בוא‬

1 15 25 24 27

2

1

2

3 3 1 5 1 2 1 2 4

1

6 2

1

4

14 22 24 31 4

2

5

8 1 1 2 4

14 28 40 12 40 49 16

31 57 14

14

‫ּבֹהּו‬

Lemma

Genesis 1:1–2:3

‫ְּבדֹלַ ח‬

Genesis 2:4–25

5

Genesis 3

‫בדל‬

Leviticus 1

6

Leviticus 2

4

Leviticus 3

9

Leviticus 4

27

Leviticus 5

4

Leviticus 6

‫אַ ּתָ ה‬

Leviticus 7

7 28 41 20

Leviticus 8

8 24

Leviticus 9

28 12

Leviticus 10

‫אֵ ת‬

Leviticus 11

13 37 90 34 23 41

Leviticus 12

1

Leviticus 13

2

Leviticus 14

1

Leviticus 15

‫ּבַ ד‬

Leviticus 16

13

Leviticus 17

4 92 40 39 29

Leviticus 18

11

Leviticus 19

11

Leviticus 20

‫ְּב‬

Leviticus 21

14 22

Leviticus 22

11

Leviticus 23

18 25 50

Leviticus 24

8

Leviticus 25

71 12 52

Leviticus 26

37

Leviticus 27

18

Appendix

239

2

1

Leviticus 21

1

1 1

Leviticus 22

1

Leviticus 23

3

Leviticus 24

1

Leviticus 25

1

1

Leviticus 26

2

2

Leviticus 27

1

Frequency of Genesis 1–3 Lexemes in Leviticus

5

Leviticus 18

7

6

1

Leviticus 17

1

Leviticus 15

17

Leviticus 14

1

Leviticus 13

2

Leviticus 12 Leviticus 11

1

Leviticus 16

1

1 1

Leviticus 19

1

Leviticus 20

8 2

4

Leviticus 6

1

Leviticus 8 Leviticus 7

1 3

2

Leviticus 9

2

Leviticus 10

Leviticus 3

1

1

Leviticus 4

2

Leviticus 5

2 1 ‫ְּדמּות‬

‫ָּדעַ ת‬

2 ‫דבק‬

‫גרׁש‬

‫ּגַן‬

‫ּגַם‬

‫ּגִ יחֹון‬

‫ָּדגָה‬

8

1 1

1

5

2

1 3

3 ‫ברך‬

‫ּגָדֹול‬

6 ‫ברא‬

‫ּבָ ׂשָ ר‬

6

Lemma

Genesis 1:1–2:3

‫ּבֹקֶ ר‬

Genesis 2:4–25

4

1

Genesis 3

‫ּגָחֹון‬

Leviticus 1

3

Leviticus 2

240

1

1

2

1

10

19 5 22 9

2

7 2

1

1

1

6 6 7

2

1

1

4 11

1 ‫הֵ ן‬

20 8 1 ‫הֵ ם‬

2

3

1

8

1

1

1

1

6 2

9

5

3 16

3 2 1 5 2 2 10 1

2

3 1 20 4

6 1

4

8

1

7 4 5

1

1

4

3

4

3

2 3

1

1 ‫הפך‬

2 ‫ִהּנֵה‬

2 ‫ֶּדׁשֶ א‬

‫ה‬ ֲ

1

Lemma

Genesis 1:1–2:3

‫דׁשא‬

Genesis 2:4–25

‫הלך‬

1 ‫ֶּד ֶרְך‬

1

1

Genesis 3

‫ַּד ְר ַּדר‬

Leviticus 1

2

Leviticus 2

4

Leviticus 3

6

Leviticus 4

27

Leviticus 5

‫היה‬

Leviticus 6

3

Leviticus 7

4

Leviticus 8

2

Leviticus 9

2

Leviticus 10

2

1

Leviticus 11

1

Leviticus 12

‫ִהיא‬

Leviticus 13

4

Leviticus 14

ַ‫ה‬

Leviticus 15

86 55 47 54 23 52 95 38 47 89 98 74 30 112

8 205 227 73

Leviticus 16

22

Leviticus 17

13

91 35

Leviticus 18

1

Leviticus 19

3

Leviticus 20

3

Leviticus 21

8

Leviticus 22

2

Leviticus 23

2

Leviticus 24

2

Leviticus 25

3

Leviticus 26

5

1

Leviticus 27

‫הּוא‬

21 30 41 15 24 79 33 68 32 54

Appendix

241

3 1 5

2

4 4

3 1

1 2

1

1

1

3

3

1

4

8

3

2

1 5 12

4

1

3

2

2

2

1 6

1

1 2 ‫חַ י‬

‫חֲוִ ילָ ה‬

‫חַ ּוָה‬

‫ִח ֶּדקֶ ל‬

4

1

1

1 ‫ֲגֹורה‬ ָ ‫ח‬

1

2

2

‫חבא‬

‫הֵ רֹון‬

Lemma

Genesis 1:1–2:3

‫ז ֶַרע‬

Genesis 2:4–25

1

Genesis 3

1

Leviticus 1

4

Leviticus 2

‫זרע‬

Leviticus 3

1

Leviticus 4

‫זֵעָ ה‬

Leviticus 5

2

Leviticus 6

1

Leviticus 7

2

Leviticus 8

2

Leviticus 9

1

Leviticus 10

‫זָכָ ר‬

Leviticus 11

1

Leviticus 12

2

Leviticus 13

‫זָהָ ב‬

Leviticus 14

2

Leviticus 15

4

Leviticus 16

ְ‫ו‬

Leviticus 17

108 54 65 39 30 34 79 68 35 58 124 82 59 93

21 143 163 87 103 36

Leviticus 18

1

Leviticus 19

1

Leviticus 20

6

Leviticus 21

1

Leviticus 22

2

Leviticus 23

4

Leviticus 24

4

Leviticus 25

2

Leviticus 26

3

Leviticus 27

‫זֶה‬

31 56 64 33 62 54 34 105 132 70

Frequency of Genesis 1–3 Lexemes in Leviticus

242

1

7 22

Leviticus 20 Leviticus 19

1 1 5

11 10

3

11

1 1

2 1

1 2 2 2 6 7 1 1 ‫ילד‬

4

14 ‫יהוה‬

2 ‫יַּבָ ׁשָ ה‬

4

4 ‫ידע‬

1 1 2 ‫טֶ ֶרם‬

7 ‫טֹוב‬

‫יָד‬

1 4

‫חֶ ֶרב‬

‫יׁשי‬ ִ ‫ח ֲִמ‬

‫חֹׁשֶ ְך‬

3

1

1 1 ‫חמד‬

Lemma

1

2 2

Genesis 1:1–2:3

‫חַ ּיָה‬

Genesis 2:4–25

4

Leviticus 1 Genesis 3

9

Leviticus 2

2

Leviticus 3

‫יֹום‬

Leviticus 4

3

3 5

2

Leviticus 5

1

Leviticus 6

9

Leviticus 7

1

1

Leviticus 8

17 12 10

7

Leviticus 9

17 16

2

Leviticus 10

-

1

11 15

4

3

Leviticus 12 Leviticus 11

2

Leviticus 13

‫יָם‬

Leviticus 14

3

1

9

Leviticus 15

11

1

Leviticus 16

9 16 10 10

4

4 12

1

Leviticus 17

9

Leviticus 18

3

5

Leviticus 21

4

8

2

Leviticus 22

2

6 1

1

1

Leviticus 23

21 36 12

7

Leviticus 24

4 32

6

1 2

7

2

1

Leviticus 25

1

Leviticus 26

5

5

Leviticus 27

18

Appendix

243 2 2

4 10 4

1

2

4 19 13 4 1

6 5 8 3 6

1

‫ּכֵ ן‬

‫ּכָ נָף‬

1

1 2

1

8 7 22 12 13 1

1 1

8 7 1

7 16 7 17 12 ‫ּכֹל‬

1 1

13 3 7

1 ‫ּכֹוכָ ב‬

‫ּכּוׁש‬

1 ‫כבׁש‬

1

2 1 ‫ְּכ‬

‫יׁשן‬

‫י ֶֶרק‬

1

1

1 ‫ירא‬

2

3 ‫יצר‬

1

Genesis 1:1–2:3

‫יצא‬

Genesis 2:4–25 Lemma

2

Leviticus 1

‫ִּכי‬

1

Leviticus 2

7

3

Leviticus 3

Genesis 3

‫כלה‬

1 9 1

2

6

Leviticus 5 Leviticus 4

3

8 2

1

2

Leviticus 7 Leviticus 6

2

5

2

3

Leviticus 8

2

Leviticus 9

1

Leviticus 10

5

Leviticus 11

4 40

6 12

Leviticus 12

3

4 2 7 1 15

2 1 2

Leviticus 13

3

3

4

1

Leviticus 14

2

Leviticus 15

3

Leviticus 16

2

Leviticus 17

8

5 4 13 8 5

1 3

Leviticus 18

18

2 2 18

4 7

3

6

1

1

1 3 9

4

Leviticus 19

1

Leviticus 20

2

Leviticus 21

7 12

Leviticus 22

1

Leviticus 23

3

Leviticus 24

1

Leviticus 25

2

Leviticus 26

1

Leviticus 27

4

Frequency of Genesis 1–3 Lexemes in Leviticus

244 14

4

19

1 6

1

13

2

2

2

5

5

6

4

2

1

1

3

1

5

5

4

4

1

1

2

1

1

25 13 5 24 23 8 30 42 4 3

1

1

2 2

2

5

4 1

3

1 10

1

3 1

8 3

4 2

3 1 1 ‫מָ ה‬

‫מֹועֵ ד‬

1

1 5 ‫מָ אֹור‬

1 1

‫מַ אֲכָ ל‬

4 4 ‫ְמאֹד‬

‫ל ֹא‬

4

39 ‫ְל‬

Lemma

Genesis 1:1–2:3

‫לקח‬

1 ‫ּתנֶת‬ ֹ ֻ‫ּכ‬

Genesis 2:4–25

‫לַ יְ לָ ה‬

1

Genesis 3

‫ְּכרּוב‬

Leviticus 1

1

Leviticus 2

‫לֶ חֶ ם‬

Leviticus 3

1

Leviticus 4

4

Leviticus 5

5

Leviticus 6

14 16 29 37

Leviticus 7

21 22 15

14 48

Leviticus 8

‫לַ הַ ט‬

2

Leviticus 9

2

Leviticus 10

3

1

Leviticus 11

1

Leviticus 12

21 22 23 45

11

Leviticus 13

‫לבׁש‬

Leviticus 14

3

14 42

Leviticus 15

14

Leviticus 16

3

1

Leviticus 17

14

Leviticus 18

7

Leviticus 19

14 44 20

18 25

Leviticus 20

2

Leviticus 21

7

Leviticus 22

9

Leviticus 23

4

Leviticus 24

1

Leviticus 25

1

Leviticus 26

5

Leviticus 27

5

21 24 38 63 24 72 38 34

Appendix

245

13

1

1

13 8 6

Leviticus 5 Leviticus 4

1 10

1 1 3

1 2 5 ‫מׁשל‬

1

1

1

1 ‫מַ ְראֶ ה‬

2 ‫מֶ ְמׁשָ לָ ה‬

1

3 ‫ְמלָ אכָ ה‬

‫מָ קֹום‬

2 ‫מלא‬

1

10 ‫ִמין‬

‫ִמ ְקוֶה‬

11 ‫מַ יִ ם‬

‫ִמי‬

1

1 ‫מטר‬

Genesis 1:1–2:3

‫מצא‬

2

21 12

3

Genesis 2:4–25

1

Genesis 3

‫מות‬

Leviticus 1

5 16

2

Leviticus 2

Lemma

3

13

Leviticus 3

4

Leviticus 6

2

1

Leviticus 7

6

19 25 1 9 11

1

5 25 22 10 25

2

1

2

Leviticus 9 Leviticus 8

1 1

4

10

1

9

Leviticus 12

8 23

2

Leviticus 13

Leviticus 10

1

9

1

2

Leviticus 14

Leviticus 11

1

1 7 15

3 1

Leviticus 15

4

Leviticus 17 Leviticus 16

18 12

Leviticus 18

‫ִמן‬

Leviticus 19

1

Leviticus 20

1

Leviticus 21

1 20

Leviticus 22

1

Leviticus 23

8 16

11

Leviticus 24

6

Leviticus 25

1

1

Leviticus 26

2

2

Leviticus 27

6 24 10 20

Frequency of Genesis 1–3 Lexemes in Leviticus

246

4 1 3 1 3 3

1 1

2 ‫נְ ׁשָ מָ ה‬

‫נׁשא‬

‫נֶפֶ ׁש‬

‫נָחָ ׁש‬

‫נתן‬

· 1 ‫נפל‬

2

1 ‫נפח‬

4

1 ‫נטע‬

5 1 ‫נוח‬

‫נָהָ ר‬

‫נגע‬

‫ֶנגֶד‬

‫נגד‬

Lemma

Genesis 1:1–2:3

‫נְ קֵ בָ ה‬

1

Genesis 2:4–25

4

1 2

1

Leviticus 1

1

·

Leviticus 2

2

1

Leviticus 3

5

·

2

Leviticus 4

1

· 6 2

1 2

3

1

Leviticus 6

3

1

2 2

Leviticus 7

8

Leviticus 8

7

·

Leviticus 9

·

1

Leviticus 10

Genesis 3

1

· ·

Leviticus 11

5

5

7

Leviticus 12

2

1

Leviticus 13

Leviticus 5

8

·

1

·

Leviticus 15

1

10

Leviticus 16

·

1

2

Leviticus 17

2

9

Leviticus 18

3

1

Leviticus 19

4

1

2

Leviticus 20

7

3

Leviticus 21

Leviticus 14

2

2

Leviticus 22

2

3

4

Leviticus 23

2

5

Leviticus 24

4

1

4

Leviticus 25

6

·

Leviticus 26

14

3

Leviticus 27

5

4

1

Appendix

247

5

Frequency of Genesis 1–3 Lexemes in Leviticus

2 1

1

3

3

Leviticus 23

4

4

Leviticus 24

2

3

8 1

1

3

Leviticus 25

1

Leviticus 26

1

1

Leviticus 27

1

Leviticus 22

Leviticus 19

1

2

Leviticus 20

2

2

Leviticus 21

1

1 4

1

Leviticus 10

2

2

Leviticus 11

1

10

Leviticus 12

5

1

Leviticus 13

46

9

1

2

Leviticus 15 Leviticus 14

1

1 15

Leviticus 16

1

1

Leviticus 17

3

1

1

Leviticus 18

1

1 1

Leviticus 5

1

Leviticus 4

1

1

Leviticus 6

1

Leviticus 7

2

1

Leviticus 8

2

1

1

Leviticus 9

Leviticus 3

3 ‫עֵ ירֹם‬

2 ‫עֵ זֶר‬

3 1 ‫עזב‬

1 ‫עֹור‬

6 ‫עֹוף‬

‫עֹולָ ם‬

1

2

1

2 ‫עֵ ֶדן‬

‫עַ ד‬

‫עבר‬

‫עֲבּור‬

Lemma

Genesis 1:1–2:3

‫עוף‬

1 ‫סגר‬

3

2

Genesis 2:4–25

‫סבב‬

Genesis 3

2

1

Leviticus 1

‫עַ יִ ן‬

1

Leviticus 2

248

1 2

2 1 ‫ִעּמָ ד‬

1

7

5

2

4

1

1

18 1 ‫ִעם‬

3 10

1

Leviticus 21

1

1

Leviticus 22

‫עָ לֶ ה‬

Leviticus 23

5

Leviticus 24

4

Leviticus 25

4

Leviticus 26

3

Leviticus 27

7

Appendix

1

1

1

1 1 15

6

3

9

4

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

2 5 19 24 1 37

10

1

7

1

1 1 1

1 ‫עָ רּום‬

‫עָ רֹום‬

‫עֶ ֶרב‬

‫עָ קֵ ב‬

‫עֶ צֶ ם‬

6

2

1

2 ‫ִעּצָ בֹון‬

1

1 ‫עֶ צֶ ב‬

4 ‫עַ ל‬

Genesis 1:1–2:3 Lemma

Genesis 2:4–25

12

Genesis 3

4

Leviticus 1

11

Leviticus 2

5

Leviticus 3

4

Leviticus 4

‫עֵ ץ‬

Leviticus 5

3

Leviticus 6

1

Leviticus 7

‫עָ פָ ר‬

Leviticus 8

1

Leviticus 9

1

Leviticus 10

1

Leviticus 11

‫עלה‬

Leviticus 12

3

Leviticus 13

19

Leviticus 14

8

Leviticus 15

9

Leviticus 16

13 12 34

Leviticus 17

31 20

Leviticus 18

1 16 10 24

Leviticus 19

6

Leviticus 20

249

2 4 ‫ְּפ ִרי‬

1 1

1

1 2

Leviticus 22

‫פרה‬

2

4

3

1

Leviticus 23

1

13

Leviticus 24

4

3

Leviticus 25

1

3

Leviticus 26

7

5

Leviticus 27

1

2

Frequency of Genesis 1–3 Lexemes in Leviticus

4

1 1 4 1 4 11 3 1 1 ‫צוה‬

‫צָ בָ א‬

1

1 ‫ְּפ ָרת‬

‫פרד‬

2

3 1

2 ‫פקח‬

‫ּפַ עַ ם‬

‫ּפָ נֶה‬

‫ּפֶ ן‬

4

1

1

2 1

1 ‫ִּפיׁשֹון‬

2 10 ‫עׂשה‬

‫עַ ּתָ ה‬

1

Genesis 1:1–2:3

4

5

Genesis 2:4–25

‫עֵ ׂשֶ ב‬

1

Leviticus 1

1

3

Leviticus 2

Lemma

1

3

Leviticus 3

2

Leviticus 4

5

7

11

Leviticus 5

5 12

5

Leviticus 6

1

2

Leviticus 7

3

2

Leviticus 8

1

5

Leviticus 9

4

5

Leviticus 10

1

1

Leviticus 11

8

1

Leviticus 12

Genesis 3

4

1

Leviticus 13

2

3

1

Leviticus 14

1

2

Leviticus 15

11

2

Leviticus 16

11

7

Leviticus 17

3

Leviticus 18

5

1 10

Leviticus 19

3

4

Leviticus 20

6

5

Leviticus 21

250

8

Appendix

1

Leviticus 27

1

1

Leviticus 26

1

Leviticus 25

2

Leviticus 21

2

4

Leviticus 22

3

6

Leviticus 23

1

4

Leviticus 24

1

Leviticus 20 Leviticus 19 Leviticus 18

2

1

1

Leviticus 16

1

Leviticus 17

Leviticus 13

3 7

1

1

Leviticus 14

32

8

Leviticus 15

5

6

Leviticus 9 Leviticus 8

1

1

Leviticus 10

4

2

1

Leviticus 11

1

1

Leviticus 12

6

Leviticus 5

2

1

Leviticus 6

1

2

Leviticus 7

3

Leviticus 4

1

Leviticus 3

‫אׁשית‬ ִ ‫ֵר‬

‫ר ֹאׁש‬

1

1 1

8 ‫ראה‬

4 1 1

5 ‫קרא‬

2 4 1

1 ‫קֹוץ‬

‫קָ טֹן‬

3 ‫קֹול‬

1

1 ‫ִק ְדמָ ה‬

‫קוה‬

1 ‫קֶ ֶדם‬

‫צֶ לֶ ם‬

Lemma

3

Genesis 2:4–25

1

1

2 ‫צמח‬

Genesis 3

‫קדׁש‬

1 1 2 ‫צֵ לָ ע‬

Leviticus 1

Genesis 1:1–2:3

1

Leviticus 2

251

5

1

3

5

1

1 3

1

Leviticus 25

1

Leviticus 27 Leviticus 26

2 12

Frequency of Genesis 1–3 Lexemes in Leviticus

Leviticus 23

8

1

1

Leviticus 24

Leviticus 22 1

1

Leviticus 21 1

2

Leviticus 20 Leviticus 19

1

Leviticus 18 1

Leviticus 17 Leviticus 16

6

Leviticus 14

2

2

Leviticus 15

Leviticus 13

1

1

Leviticus 11

2

Leviticus 12

1

Leviticus 10

4

Leviticus 9 Leviticus 8

1

Leviticus 7 1

Leviticus 6 Leviticus 5 Leviticus 4

1

Leviticus 3 Leviticus 2

1

1 ‫ׂשים‬

1

3 ‫יח‬ ַ ‫ִׂש‬

3 ‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ְׁש ִב‬

‫ׂשכל‬

3 ‫ֶרמֶ ׂש‬

4

4 ‫רמׂש‬

9

1 ‫רחף‬

‫יע‬ ַ ‫ָר ִק‬

1 ‫רּוח‬ ַ

‫ׂשָ ֶדה‬

2

2 ‫רדה‬

2

1 ‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ְר ִב‬

‫ַרע‬

3

Lemma

‫רבה‬

Genesis 2:4–25 Genesis 1:1–2:3

1 1

Genesis 3

2

Leviticus 1

252

37

2 1

4

1

4

2

2

4

3

1

4

Leviticus 18

1

1

2 1

2

Leviticus 20

2

1

1

Leviticus 21

2

1

Leviticus 22

Leviticus 19

4

2

1

1 1 11

7

1

Leviticus 23

2

Leviticus 24

10

Leviticus 25

9

Leviticus 27 Leviticus 26

11

Appendix

1

1

2

‫ׁשית‬

‫ׁשכן‬

‫ׁשלח‬

1

4

2 ‫ׁשוף‬

1

1 2 ‫ׁשוב‬

Leviticus 16

1

Leviticus 17

1

1

Leviticus 14

2

2

Leviticus 15

1

Leviticus 13 Leviticus 12

1

Leviticus 11 1

Leviticus 10

2

Leviticus 8

1

1

Leviticus 9

Leviticus 7

Leviticus 5

1

1

Leviticus 6

Leviticus 4 1

Leviticus 2

1

Leviticus 3

1

1

3 4

1 ‫ׁשמר‬

‫ׁשמע‬

‫ׁשָ מַ יִ ם‬

‫ׁשָ נָה‬

1 4 ‫ׁשָ ם‬

11

1 5 ‫ׁשֵ ם‬

‫יׁשי‬ ִ ‫ְׁש ִל‬

‫ׁשֹהַ ם‬

‫ׁשבת‬

Lemma

Genesis 1:1–2:3

2

Genesis 2:4–25

1

1

Genesis 3

1

Leviticus 1

253 1

Frequency of Genesis 1–3 Lexemes in Leviticus

3

Leviticus 27 1

1

Leviticus 26

Leviticus 22

4 1

1

Leviticus 23

1

6

Leviticus 24

1

3

Leviticus 25

Leviticus 20

1

4

Leviticus 21

1

Leviticus 19 4

Leviticus 18

1 1 2

1

5

10 1

1

1

‫ׁשֶ ֶרץ‬

‫ִׁש ִּׁשי‬

‫אוָה‬ ֲ ַ‫ּת‬

2

5

Leviticus 11

2

Leviticus 12

‫ׁשרץ‬

2

Leviticus 13

6

Leviticus 14

5

Leviticus 15

1

4

Leviticus 16

2

5

Leviticus 17

Leviticus 10 3 1

Leviticus 8

1

Leviticus 9

1

Leviticus 7

1

4 1

Leviticus 5

1

Leviticus 6

3

Leviticus 4 Leviticus 3 Leviticus 2

1 ‫ּתַ ּנִ ין‬

1 2 ‫ּתַ חַ ת‬

1 ‫ּתָ וְֶך‬

‫ּתֹולֵ דֹות‬

1 ‫ְּתהֹום‬

1

2 1 1 ‫ּתֹהּו‬

‫ְּתאֵ נָה‬

1 ‫ְׁשנַיִ ם‬

2

1

1

‫ׁשקה‬

1

Genesis 1:1–2:3 Lemma

Genesis 2:4–25

‫ׁשֵ נִ י‬

Genesis 3

1

1

Leviticus 1

254

Appendix Leviticus 27 Leviticus 26 Leviticus 25 Leviticus 24 Leviticus 23 Leviticus 22 Leviticus 21 Leviticus 20 Leviticus 19 Leviticus 18 Leviticus 17 Leviticus 16 Leviticus 15 Leviticus 14 Leviticus 13 Leviticus 12 Leviticus 11 Leviticus 10 Leviticus 9 Leviticus 8 Leviticus 7 Leviticus 6 Leviticus 5 Leviticus 4 Leviticus 3 Leviticus 2 1 1

Genesis 3

1

Leviticus 1

Genesis 2:4–25

‫ְּתׁשּוקָ ה‬

‫ּתַ ְר ֵּדמָ ה‬

‫תפר‬

Lemma

Genesis 1:1–2:3

Bibliography

Aartun, K. “Studien zum Gesetz über den grossen Versöhnungstag Lv 16 mit Varianten: Ein ritualgeschichtlicher Beitrag.” ST 34 (1980): 73–109. Abraham ibn Ezra. The Commentary of Abraham ibn Ezra on the Pentateuch. Vol. 3, Leviticus. Translated by J. F. Shachter. Hoboken, N.J.: KTAV, 1986. Ackroyd, P. R. “The Vitality of the Word of God in the Old Testament: A Contribution to the Study of the Transmission of Old Testament Material.” ASTI 1 (1962): 7–23. Adam, A. K. M., S. E. Fowl, K. J. Vanhoozer, and F. Watson. Reading Scripture with the Church: Toward a Hermeneutic for Theological Interpretation. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2006. Albright, W. F. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006 [orig. 1942]. Alden, R. L. “‫ּבֶ גֶד‬.” Pages 595–97 in vol. 1 of NIDOTTE, edited by W. A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1997. ———. “‫ּכֻ ֹּתנֶת‬.” Pages 742–43 in vol. 2 of NIDOTTE, edited by W. A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1997. Allis, O. T. “Leviticus.” Pages 140–67 in New Bible Commentary, edited by D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer. 3rd rev. ed. Leicester: IVP, 1970. Alston, W. P. Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000. Alter, R. The Art of Biblical Narrative. Rev. ed. New York: Basic Books, 2011 [orig. 1981]. ———. The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary. New York: Norton, 2004. Amit, Y. The Book of Judges: The Art of Editing. Translated by J. Chipman. BI 38. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ———. “Progression as a Rhetorical Device in Biblical Literature.” JSOT 28 (2003): 3–32. Anderson, G. W. “Canonical and Non-​Canonical.” Pages 113–59 in The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, From the Beginnings to Jerome, edited by P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Arnold, B. T. Genesis. NCBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Auld, G. “Leviticus at the Heart of the Pentateuch?” Pages 40–51 in Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas, edited by J. F. A. Sawyer. JSOTSup 227. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words. Edited by J. O. Urmson and M. Sbisà. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975. Azevedo, J. “At the Door of Paradise: A Contextual Interpretation of Gen. 4:7.” BN 100 (1999): 45–59. Babcock, B. C. Sacred Ritual: A Study of the West Semitic Ritual Calendars in Leviticus 23 and the Akkadian Text Emar 446. BBRSup 9. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2014.

255

256

Bibliography

Bacher, W. Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur. 2 vols. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1899, 1905. Baden, J. S. The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. ABRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012. ———. J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch. FAT 68. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Baentsch, B. Das Heiligkeits-​Gesetz Lev XVII–XXVI: Eine historisch-​kritische Untersuchung. Erfurt: Güther, 1893. ———. Exodus–Leviticus–Numeri. HAT. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903. Bailey, L. R. Leviticus–Numbers. SHBC 3. Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2005. Baker, D. W. “Leviticus.” Pages 1–214 in Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, edited by P. W. Comfort. CsBC 2. Carol Stream: Tyndale, 2008. Balentine, S. E. Leviticus. Int. Louisville: John Knox, 2002. Ballmer, T. T., and W. Brennenstuhl. Speech Act Classfication: A Study in the Lexical Analysis of English Speech Activity Verbs. SSLC 8. Berlin: Springer, 1981. Barker, J. From the Depths of Despair to the Promises of Presence: A Rhetorical Reading of the Book of Joel. SLTHS 11. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2014. Barker, K. Imprecation as Divine Discourse: Speech Act Theory, Dual Authorship, and Theological Interpretation. JTISup 16. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2016. Barrick, W. D. “The Eschatological Significance of Leviticus 26.” MSJ 16 (2005): 95–126. Barrosse, T. “Death and Sin in Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.” CBQ 15 (1953): 438–59. Barthes, R. “Theory of the Text.” Pages 31–47 in Untying the Text: A Post-​Structuralist Reader, edited by R. J. C. Young. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981. Bartholomew, C. G., and D. J. H. Beldman, eds. Hearing the Old Testament: Listening for God’s Address. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012. Barton, J. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984. Bartor, A. Reading Law as Narrative: A Study in the Casuistic Laws of the Pentateuch. SBLAIL 5. Atlanta: SBL, 2010. Beal, T. K. “Ideology and Intertextuality: Surplus of Meaning and Controlling the Means of Production.” Pages 27–39 in Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible, edited by D. N. Fewell. Louisville: Westminster, 1992. Beale, G. K. Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2012. ———. The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. NSBT 17. Leicester: Apollos, 2004. ———. The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1984. ———. We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2008. Beauchamp, P. Création et séparation: Étude exégétique du chapitre premier de la Genèse. LD 201. Paris: Cerf, 2005 [orig. 1969]. Beckwith, R. T. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism. London: SPCK, 1985. Bellinger, W. H., Jr. Leviticus and Numbers. NIBC 3. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2001. Ben-​Porat, Z. “Forms of Intertextuality and the Reading of Poetry: Uri Zvi Greenberg’s Bashaʻar.” Proof 10 (1990): 257–81.

Bibliography

257

Benzinger, I. “Das Gesetz über den grossen Versöhnungstag Lev. XVI: Eine pentateuchkritische Studie.” ZAW 9 (1889): 65–89. Berge, K. Die Zeit des Jahwisten. BZAW 186. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990. Bergen, W. J. Reading Ritual: Leviticus in Postmodern Culture. JSOTSup 417. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Berlin, A. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. BLS 9. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983. Beyer, B. E. “‫ ִמ ְקוֶה‬.” Page 1087 in vol. 2 of NIDOTTE, edited by W. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1997. Bibb, B. D. “Introduction: Leviticus in Text and Tradition.” Pages 1–15 in Text, Time, and Temple: Literary, Historical, and Ritual Studies in Leviticus, edited by F. Landy, L. M. Trevaskis, and B. D. Bibb. HBM 64. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2015. ———. Ritual Words and Narrative Worlds in the Book of Leviticus. LHBOTS 480. New York: T&T Clark, 2009. Blenkinsopp, J. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ———. “The Structure of P.” CBQ 38 (1976): 275–92. Block, D. I. “Eden: A Temple? A Reassessment of the Biblical Evidence.” Pages 3–29 in From Creation to New Creation: Biblical Theology and Exegesis, edited by D. M. Gurtner and B. L. Gladd. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2013. ———, ed. Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? Nashville: B&H, 2008. ———. “Recovering the Voice of Moses: The Genesis of Deuteronomy.” JETS 44 (2001): 385–408. Blum, E. “Pentateuch—Hexateuch—Enneateuch? Oder: Woran erkennt man ein literarisches Werk in der hebräischen Bibel?” Pages 67–97 in Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéteuque, edited by T. Römer and K. Schmid. BETL 203. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. ———. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. BZAW 189. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990. Boda, M. J. “Perspectives on Priests in Haggai–Malachi.” Pages 13–33 in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday, edited by J. Penner, K. M. Penner, and C. Wassen. STDJ 98. Leiden: Brill, 2011. ———. A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament. SLTHS 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Boer, R. “Banality and Sacrifice.” Pages 146–60 in Strange Fire: Reading the Bible after the Holocaust, edited by T. Linafelt. New York: New York University Press, 2000. Bolger, E. W. “The Compositional Role of the Eden Narrative in the Pentateuch.” PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1993. Bonar, A. A. A Commentary on Leviticus. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1966 [orig. 1846]. Boorer, S. The Vision of the Priestly Narrative: Its Genre and Hermeneutics of Time. SBLAIL 27. Atlanta: SBL, 2016. Bosman, H. L. “Sabbath.” Pages 1157–62 in vol. 4 of NIDOTTE, edited by W. A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1997. Boyce, R. N. Leviticus and Numbers. WBC. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008. Briggs, R. S. “The Book of Genesis.” Pages 19–50 in A Theological Introduction to the Pentateuch: Interpreting the Torah as Christian Scripture, edited by R. S. Briggs and J. N. Lohr. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2012.

258

Bibliography

———. Words in Action: Speech Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation; Toward a Hermeneutic of Self-​Involvement. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001. Brotzman, E. R. Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1994. Brueggemann, W. Genesis. Int. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982. ———. “The Kerygma of the Priestly Writers.” ZAW 84 (1972): 397–414. Buber, M., and F. Rosenzweig. Die Schrift und ihre Verdeutschung. Berlin: Schocken, 1936. Budd, P. J. Leviticus. NCB. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996. Bührer, W. “The Relative Dating of the Eden Narrative Gen 2–3.” VT 65 (2015): 365–76. Bullinger, E. W. Number in Scripture: Its Supernatural Design and Spiritual Significance. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregal, 1967. Burkhardt, A., ed. Speech Acts, Meaning, and Intentions: Critical Approaches to the Philosophy of John R. Searle. GKK. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990. Bush, G. Notes, Critical and Practical on the Book of Leviticus: Designed as a General Help to Biblical Reading and Instruction. Limited Classical Reprint Library. Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1981 [orig. 1852]. Calvin, J. Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony: Volumes First and Second. Translated by C. W. Bingham. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1979. ———. Genesis: Two Volumes in One. Translated by J. King. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1979. Campbell, A. F., and M. A. O’Brien. Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Carmichael, C. Illuminating Leviticus: A Study of Its Laws and Institutions in the Light of Biblical Narratives. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006. ———. Law, Legend, and Incest in the Bible: Leviticus 18–20. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997. Carr, D. M. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Carroll, M. P. “One More Time: Leviticus Revisited.” Pages 117–26 in Anthropological Approaches to the Old Testament, edited by B. Lang. IRT 8. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Translated by I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1987 [orig. 1951]. ———. The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch: Eight Lectures. Translated by I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961. ———. La questione della Genesi. Florence: Le Monier, 1934. Charlesworth, J. H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983–85. Cheung, A. T. M. “The Priest as the Redeemed Man: A Biblical-​Theological Study of the Priesthood.” JETS 29 (1986): 265–75. Childs, B. S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. London: SCM, 1979. ———. Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Cholewiński, A. Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium: Eine vergleichende Studie. AnBib 66. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1976. Clayton, J., and E. Rothstein. “Figures in the Corpus: Theories of Influence and Intertextuality.” Pages 3–36 in Influence and Intertextuality in Literary History, edited by J. Clayton and E. Rothstein. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991.

Bibliography

259

Clifford, R. J. “The Temple and the Holy Mountain.” Pages 107–24 in The Temple in Antiquity: Ancient Records and Modern Perspectives, edited by T. G. Madsen. Provo: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1984. Clines, D. J. A. The Theme of the Pentateuch. 2nd ed. JSOTSup 10. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. Collins, C. J. Genesis 1–4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary. Phillipsburg: P&R, 2006. Coote, R. B., and K. W. Whitelam. The Emergence of Early Israel in Historical Perspective. SWBA 5. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1987. Cornelius, I. “‫ּגַן‬.” Pages 875–78 in vol. 1 of NIDOTTE, edited by W. A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1997. Crow, L. D. The Songs of Ascents (Psalms 120–134): Their Place in Israelite History and Religion. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Crüsemann, F. “Die Eigenständigkeit der Urgeschichte: Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion um den Jahwisten.” Pages 11–30 in Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift für Hans Walter Wolff zum 70 Geburtstag, edited by J. Jeremias and L. Perlitt. Neukirchen-​V luyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. Culler, J. “Presupposition and Intertextuality.” MLN 91 (1976): 1380–96. ———. The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction. London: Routledge, 2001 [orig. 1981]. Currid, J. D. Leviticus. Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2004. Damrosch, D. “Leviticus.” Pages 66–77 in The Literary Guide to the Bible, edited by R. Alter and F. Kermode. London: Fontana, 1997 [orig. 1987]. Davidson, R. “Earth’s First Sanctuary: Genesis 1–3 and Parallel Creation Accounts.” AUSS 53 (2015): 65–89. Dell, K. J., and W. Kynes, eds. Reading Job Intertextually. LHBOTS 574. New York: Bloomsbury, 2013. Demarest, G. W. Leviticus. TPC 3. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990. de Troyer, K. “When Did the Pentateuch Come into Existence? An Uncomfortable Perspective.” Pages 269–86 in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal, 20–23 Juli 2006, edited by M. Karrer and W. Kraus. WUNT 219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. de Wette, W. M. L. Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 2 vols. Halle: Schimmelpfennig, 1806–7. Dietrich, M., and O. Loretz. “Der biblische Azazel und AIT *126.” UF 25 (1994): 99–117. Dillmann, A. Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus. 2nd ed. KHAT. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1880. Douglas, M. “The Forbidden Animals in Leviticus.” JSOT 59 (1993): 3–23. ———. “The Go-​Away Goat.” Pages 121–41 in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception, edited by R. Rendtorff, R. A. Kugler, and S. S. Bartel. VTSup 93. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ———. Jacob’s Tears: The Priestly Work of Reconciliation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. ———. Leviticus as Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. ———. “Poetic Structure in Leviticus.” Pages 239–56 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, edited by D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995. ———. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concept of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge, 2002 [orig. 1966].

260

Bibliography

Dozeman, T. B. Commentary on Exodus. ECC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009. Dozeman, T. B., K. Schmid, and T. Römer, eds. Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings. SBLAIL 8. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. Duke, R. K. The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler: A Rhetorical Analysis. JSOTSup 88. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990. Durham, J. I. Exodus. WBC 3. Waco: Word Books, 1987. Edenburg, C. “From Eden to Babylon: Reading Genesis 2–4 as a Paradigmatic Narrative.” Pages 155–67 in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings, edited by T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and T. Römer. SBLAIL 8. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. ———. “Intertextuality, Literary Competence, and the Question of Readership: Some Preliminary Observations.” JSOT 35 (2010): 131–48. Eissfeldt, O. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Translated by P. R. Ackroyd. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965. Eliade, M. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Translated by W. R. Trask. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1987 [orig. 1957]. Elliger, K. Leviticus. HAT 4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966. Epstein, I., ed. Hebrew-​English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud. 30 vols. London: Soncino, 1960–90. Eslinger, L. M. “Inner-​Biblical Exegesis and Inner-​Biblical Allusion: The Question of Category.” VT 42 (1992): 47–58. Evans, D. D. The Logic of Self-​Involvement: A Philosophical Study of Everyday Language with Special Reference to the Christian Use of Language about God as Creator. The Library of Philosophy and Theology. New York: Herder & Herder, 1969. Eveson, P. H. The Beauty of Holiness: Leviticus Simply Explained. WCS. Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2007. Fensham, F. C. “Malediction and Benediction in Ancient Near Eastern Vassal-​Treaties and the Old Testament.” ZAW 74 (1962): 1–9. Ferch, J. G. “The Story of Torah: The Role of Narrative in Leviticus’s Legal Discourse.” JESOT 2 (2013): 41–60. Fey, R. Amos und Jesaja: Abhängigkeit und Eigenständigkeit des Jesaja. Neukirchen-​V luyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1963. Finas, L. “Entretien de Lucette Finas avec Jacques Derrida: ‘Avoir L’oreille de la Philosophie.’ ” Pages 303–16 in Écarts: Quatre essais à propos de Jacques Derrida, edited by J. Ristat. Paris: Fayard, 1973. Fiore, B. “NT Rhetoric and Rhetorical Criticism.” Pages 715–54 in vol. 5 of ABD, edited by D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Fishbane, M. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1988. ———. Biblical Text and Texture: A Literary Reading of Selected Texts. Oxford: Oneworld, 1998. ———. “The Sacred Center: The Symbolic Structure of the Bible.” Pages 6–27 in Texts and Responses: Studies Presented to Nahum N. Glatzer on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday by His Students, edited by M. Fishbane and P. R. Flohr. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Fletcher-​Louis, C. H. T. “Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 1.” JSHJ 4 (2006): 155–75. ———. “Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 2.” JSHJ 5 (2007): 57–79. Fohrer, G. Überlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus: Eine Analyse von Ex 1–15. BZAW 91. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964.

Bibliography

261

Fox, E. The Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. The Schocken Bible 1. Dallas: Schocken Books, 1995. Frei, H. W. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-​Century Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. Fretheim, T. E. Exodus. Int. Louisville: John Knox, 1991. ———. The Pentateuch. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996. ———. “The Reclamation of Creation: Redemption and Law in Exodus.” Int 45 (1991): 354–65. Friedman, R. E. The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003. ———. Commentary on the Torah: With a New English Translation. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001. ———. “Solomon and the Great Histories.” Pages 171–80 in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, edited by A. G. Vaughn and A. E. Killebrew. SBLSymS 18. Atlanta: SBL, 2003. ———. “Some Recent Non-​Arguments Concerning the Documentary Hypothesis.” Pages 87–101 in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, edited by M. V. Fox, V. A. Hurowitz, A. Hurvitz, M. L. Klein, B. J. Schwartz, and N. Shupak. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Friedman, S. S. “Weavings: Intertextuality and the (Re)Birth of the Author.” Pages 146–80 in Influence and Intertextuality in Literary History, edited by J. Clayton and E. Rothstein. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991. Gadamer, H.-G. Truth and Method. New York: Crossroad, 1975. Gane, R. E. Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005. ———. Leviticus, Numbers. NIVAC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004. García López, F. “La place du Lévitique et des Nombres dans la formation du Pentateuque.” Pages 75–98 in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, edited by T. Römer. BETL 215. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. García Martínez, F., and E. J. C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Genette, G. Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree. Translated by C. Newman and C. Doubinsky. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997. Gerstenberger, E. S. Leviticus. Translated by D. W. Stott. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Gertz, J. C. “The Formation of the Primeval History.” Pages 107–35 in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, edited by C. A. Evans, J. N. Lohr, and D. L. Petersen. Atlanta: SBL, 2012. Gibson, J. “Covenant Continuity and Fidelity: A Study of Inner-​Biblical Allusion and Exegesis in Malachi.” PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 2014. Gignilliat, M. S. A Brief History of Old Testament Criticism: From Benedict Spinoza to Brevard Childs. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2012. Gilchrest, E. “For the Wages of Sin Is . . . Banishment: An Unexplored Substitutionary Motif in Leviticus 16 and the Ritual of the Scapegoat.” EQ 85 (2013): 36–51. Gilders, W. K. Blood Ritual in the Hebrew Bible: Meaning and Power. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004. Ginsburg, C. D. Introduction to the Massoretico-​Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible. London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897.

262

Bibliography

Girdlestone, R. B. Deuterographs: Duplicate Passages in the Old Testament; Their Bearing on the Text and Compilation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Oxford: Clarendon, 1894. Gisin, W. “Adam, Eva und die Jakobsfamilie in Hosea 6,7–11a.” Pages 41–60 in Das heilige Herz der Tora: Festschrift für Hendrik Koorevaar zu seinem 65 Geburtstag, edited by J. Steinberg and S. Riecker. ThSt. Aachen: Shaker Verlag, 2011. Gispen, W. H. Het Boek Leviticus. COuT. Kampen: Kok, 1950. Gorman, F. H. Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time, and Status in the Priestly Theology. JSOTSup 91. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. ———. Leviticus: Divine Presence and Community. ITC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997. Goswell, G. R. “The Paratext of Deuteronomy.” Pages 209–28 in Interpreting Deuteronomy: Issues and Approaches, edited by D. G. Firth and P. S. Johnston. Nottingham: Apollos, 2012. Grabbe, L. L., ed. Leading Captivity Captive: “The Exile” as History and Ideology. JSOTSup 278. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Graf, K. H. Die geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments: Zwei historisch-​kritische Untersuchungen. Leipzig: Weigel, 1866. Graupner, A. Der Elohist: Gegenwart und Wirksamkeit des transzendenten Gottes in der Geschichte. WMANT 97. Neukirchen-​V luyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002. Gray, G. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986 [orig. 1903]. Gressmann, H. Mose und seine Zeit: Ein Kommentar zu den Mose-​Sagen. FRLANT 1/18. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913. Grisanti, M. A. “‫ׁשקץ‬.” Pages 243–46 in vol. 4 of NIDOTTE, edited by W. A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1997. Grünwaldt, K. Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26: Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie. BZAW 271. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. Gunkel, H. Genesis. Translated by M. E. Biddle. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1997. Halberstam, C. “The Art of Biblical Law.” Proof 27 (2007): 345–64. Hallo, W. W., and K. L. Younger, eds. The Context of Scripture: Canonical Compositions, Monumental Inscriptions, and Archival Documents from the Biblical World. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002. Haran, M. “Book-​Size and the Thematic Cycles in the Pentateuch.” Pages 165–76 in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65 Geburtstag, edited by E. Blum, C. Macholz, and E. W. Stegemann. Neukirchen-​V luyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. ———. Temples and Temple-​Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. Corr. ed. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1985. Harper, G. G. “First Things First: Reading Genesis 1–3 in Its Pentateuchal Context.” Pages 45–55 in The Gender Conversation: Evangelical Perspectives on Gender, Scripture, and the Christian Life, edited by E. Murphy and D. I. Starling. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock/Morling Press, 2016. ———. “ ‘I Will Walk in Your Midst’: The Implications of Leviticus 26:3–13 for Social Wellbeing.” In Justice, Mercy, and Wellbeing: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, edited by P. G. Bolt and J. R. Harrison. Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, forthcoming. ———. “The Theological and Exegetical Significance of Leviticus as Intertext in Daniel 9.” JESOT 4 (2015): 39–61.

Bibliography

263

———. “Time for a New Diet? Allusions to Genesis 1–3 as Rhetorical Device in Leviticus 11.” STR 4 (2013): 179–95. Harris, R. L. “Leviticus.” Pages 499–654 in vol. 2 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: With the New International Version of the Holy Bible, edited by F. E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1990. Harrison, R. K. Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary. TOTC. Leicester: IVP, 1980. Hartley, J. E. Leviticus. WBC 4. Dallas: Word Books, 1992. Hauser, A. J. “Linguistic and Thematic Links between Genesis 4:1–16 and Genesis 2–3.” JETS 23 (1980): 297–305. Hausoul, R. R. “Leviticus 25–27 in de metafysische grootheid Exodus–Leviticus– Numeri.” Pages 121–33 in Das heilige Herz der Tora: Festschrift für Hendrik Koorevaar zu seinem 65 Geburtstag, edited by J. Steinberg and S. Riecker. ThSt. Aachen: Shaker Verlag, 2011. Hawley, L. “The Agenda of Priestly Taxonomy: The Conceptualization of ‫ טָ מֵ א‬and ‫ׁשֶ קֶ ץ‬ in Leviticus 11.” CBQ 77 (2015): 231–49. Hays, R. B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993. Henry, M. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell, n.d. [orig. 1708–10]. Hess, R. S. Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2007. ———. The Old Testament: A Historical, Theological, and Critical Introduction. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2016. Hieke, T. Levitikus 1–15. HTKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2014. Hoffmann, D. Das Buch Leviticus I–II. Berlin: Poppelauer, 1905–6. Houston, W. J. Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law. JSOTSup 140. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Hoy, D. C. “Must We Say What We Mean? The Grammatological Critique of Hermeneutics.” Pages 397–415 in Hermeneutics and Modern Philosophy, edited by B. R. Wachterhauser. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986. Hundley, M. B. Keeping Heaven on Earth: Safeguarding the Divine Presence in the Priestly Tabernacle. FAT 2/50. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Hurvitz, A. “Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code: A Linguistic Study in Technical Idioms and Terminology.” RB 81 (1974): 24–56. ———. “Once Again: The Linguistic Profile of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch and Its Historical Age: A Response to J. Blenkinsopp.” ZAW 112 (2000): 180–91. ———. “Usage of ‫ ׁשׁש‬and ‫ בוץ‬in the Bible and Its Implication for the Date of P.” HTR 60 (1967): 117–21. Hutter, M. “Adam als Gärtner und König (Gen 2:8, 15).” BZ 30 (1986): 258–62. Ibrahim, M. e.-D. “The God of the Great Temple of Edfu.” Pages 170–73 in Glimpses of Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honour of H. W. Fairman, edited by J. Ruffle, G. A. Gaballa, and K. A. Kitchen. Warminster: Aris & Philips, 1979. Jenson, P. P. Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World. JSOTSup 106. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Joosten, J. People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26. VTSup 67. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Jüngling, H.-W. “Das Buch Levitikus in der Forschung seit Karl Elligers Kommentar aus dem Jahre 1966.” Pages 1–45 in Levitikus als Buch, edited by H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling. BBB 119. Berlin: Philo, 1999.

264

Bibliography

Kaiser, O. Introduction to the Old Testament: A Presentation of Its Results and Problems. Translated by J. Sturdy. Rev. ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975. Kaminski, C. M. From Noah to Israel: Realization of the Primaeval Blessing after the Flood. JSOTSup 413. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Kaufmann, Y. The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile. Translated by M. Greenberg. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1961. Kearney, P. J. “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Ex 25–40.” ZAW 89 (1977): 375–87. Keil, C. F., and F. Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes. Translated by J. Martin. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1968 [orig. 1866–91]. Kelle, B. E. “Israelite History.” Pages 397–422 in DOTPr, edited by M. J. Boda and J. G. McConville. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2012. Kelle, B. E., F. R. Ames, and J. L. Wright, eds. Interpreting Exile: Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts. SBLAIL 10. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. Kellogg, S. H. The Book of Leviticus. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1978 [orig. 1899]. Kennedy, G. A. Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times. 2nd ed. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999. Kessler, M. “A Methodological Setting for Rhetorical Criticism.” Pages 1–19 in Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature, edited by D. J. A. Clines, D. M. Gunn, and A. J. Hauser. JSOTSup 19. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982. Kitchen, K. A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003. Kittel, B. P. The Hymns of Qumran: Translation and Commentary. SBLDS 50. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981. Kiuchi, N. Leviticus. AOTC 3. Nottingham: Apollos, 2007. ———. “A Paradox of the Skin Disease.” ZAW 113 (2001): 505–14. ———. The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function. JSOTSup 56. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. ———. A Study of Hata’ and Hatta’t in Leviticus 4–5. FAT 2/2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Klein, R. W. Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint after Qumran. GBS. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. Kleinig, J. W. Leviticus. ConcC. Saint Louis: Concordia, 2003. Klostermann, A. “Beiträge zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Pentateuchs.” ZGTK 38 (1877): 401–45. Knight, G. A. F. Leviticus. Daily Study Bible. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981. Knohl, I. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. ———. “Who Edited the Pentateuch?” Pages 359–67 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, edited by T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz. FAT 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Koch, K. Die Priesterschrift von Exodus 25 bis Leviticus 16: Eine überlieferungsgeschichtliche und literarkritische Untersuchung. FRLANT 71. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959. Kohn, R. L. A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile, and the Torah. JSOTSup 358. London: Sheffield Academic, 2002.

Bibliography

265

Koorevaar, H. J. “The Exile and Return Model: A Proposal for the Original Macrostructure of the Hebrew Canon.” JETS 57 (2014): 501–12. Kratz, R. G. The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament. Translated by J. Bowden. London: T&T Clark, 2005. ———. “The Pentateuch in Current Research: Consensus and Debate.” Pages 31–61 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, edited by T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz. FAT 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Kraus, H.-J. Geschichte der historisch-​kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart. 2nd ed. Neukirchen-​V luyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969. Kristeva, J. La révolution du langage poétique: L’avant-​garde à la fin du XIXe siècle; Lautréamont et Mallarmé. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1974. ———. “Word, Dialogue, and Novel.” Pages 64–91 in Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, edited by L. S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980. ———. Σημειωτικὴ: Recherches pour une sémanalyse. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1969. Krümmel, H. M. “Ersatzkönig und Sündenbock.” ZAW 80 (1968): 289–318. Kugel, J. L. “The Bible’s Earliest Interpreters.” Proof 7 (1987): 269–83. Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012. Laato, A. History and Ideology in the Old Testament Prophetic Literature: A Semiotic Approach to the Reconstruction of the Proclamation of the Historical Prophets. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1996. Lasor, W. S., D. A. Hubbard, and F. W. Bush. Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996. Leder, A. C. “Reading Exodus to Learn and Learning to Read Exodus.” CTJ 34 (1999): 11–35. ———. Waiting for the Land: The Story Line of the Pentateuch. Phillipsburg: P&R, 2010. Leiman, S. Z. The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence. Transactions 47. Hamden: Archon Books, 1976. LeMon, J. M., and K. H. Richards, eds. Method Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David L. Petersen. SBLRBS 56. Atlanta: SBL, 2009. Leon, J. M. Nofet Zufim, on Hebrew Rhetoric. Jerusalem: Jewish National and University Library Press & Magnes, 1981. Leonard, J. M. “Identifying Inner-​Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case.” JBL 127 (2008): 241–65. Leuchter, M. “Inter-​Levitical Polemics in the Late 6th Century BCE: The Evidence from Nehemiah 9.” Bib 95 (2014): 269–79. ———. “The Politics of Ritual Rhetoric: A Proposed Sociopolitical Context for the Redaction of Leviticus 1–16.” VT 60 (2010): 345–65. Levenson, J. D. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence. Mythos: The Princeton/Bollingen Series in World Mythology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. ———. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1985. ———. “The Temple and the World.” JR 64 (1984): 275–98. Levine, B. A. Leviticus: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989.

266

Bibliography

Lohfink, N. “Die Abänderung der Theologie des priesterlichen Geschichtswerks im Segen des Heiligkeitsgesetzes: Zu Lev. 26,9.11–13.” Pages 129–36 in Wort und Geschichte: Festschrift für Karl Elliger zum 70 Geburstag, edited by H. Gese and H. P. Rüger. AOAT 18. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Velag, 1973. Lohr, J. N. “The Book of Leviticus.” Pages 83–111 in A Theological Introduction to the Pentateuch: Interpreting the Torah as Christian Scripture, edited by R. S. Briggs and J. N. Lohr. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2012. Longenecker, R. N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999. Longman, T., III. Jeremiah, Lamentations. NIBC 14. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2008. ———. “Literary Approaches to Old Testament Study.” Pages 97–115 in The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches, edited by D. W. Baker and B. T. Arnold. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1999. Longman, T., III, and R. B. Dillard. An Introduction to the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2006. Loretz, O. Leberschau, Sündenbock, Asasel in Ugarit und Israel. UBL 3. Altenberge: CIS-​ Verlag, 1985. Luciani, D. “Une autre intention pour Lv 24: Réponse à Leigh M. Trevaskis.” VT 60 (2010): 591–600. ———. “Chronique léviticienne (2004–2010).” ETL 86 (2010): 393–439. ———. Sainteté et pardon. Vol. 1, Structure littéraire du Lévitique. BETL 185A. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005. Lundquist, J. M. “The Common Temple Ideology of the Ancient Near East.” Pages 53–76 in The Temple in Antiquity: Ancient Records and Modern Perspectives, edited by T. G. Madsen. Provo: Brigham Young University, 1984. Lyke, L. L. King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa: The Resonance of Tradition in Parabolic Narrative. JSOTSup 255. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. Lyons, M. A. From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code. LHBOTS 507. New York: T&T Clark, 2009. Machacek, G. “Allusion.” PMLA 122 (2007): 522–36. Makujina, J. “Literary Solutions to Legal Problems: The Contribution of Exodus 2.13–14 to Exodus 21.22–23.” JSOT 37 (2012): 151–65. Mann, T. W. The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch. Atlanta: John Knox, 1988. Marx, A. Lévitique 17–27. CAT 3b. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2011. ———. Les systèmes sacrificiels de l’Ancien Testament: Formes et fonctions du culte sacrificial à Yhwh. VTSup 105. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Mathews, K. A. Genesis 1–11:26. NAC 1A. Nashville: B&H, 1996. ———. Leviticus: Holy God, Holy People. Preaching the Word. Wheaton: Crossway, 2009. Mays, J. L. Leviticus, Numbers. Layman’s Bible Commentaries. London: SCM, 1963. McCarter, P. K. “The River Ordeal in Israelite Literature.” HTR 66 (1973): 403–12. McDowell, C. L. The Image of God in the Garden of Eden: The Creation of Humankind in Genesis 2:5–3:24 in Light of the mīs pî pīt pî and wpt-​r Rituals of Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. SLTHS 15. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2015. McEvenue, S. The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer. AnBib. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971. McKenzie, T. J. Idolatry in the Pentateuch: An Innertextual Strategy. Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2010.

Bibliography

267

Meek, R. L. “Intertextuality, Inner-​Biblical Exegesis, and Inner-​Biblical Allusion: The Ethics of a Methodology.” Bib 95 (2014): 280–91. Meshel, N. S. “Food for Thought: Systems of Categorization in Leviticus 11.” HTR 101 (2008): 203–29. Meyrick, F. Leviticus. The Pulpit Commentary. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, 1882. Milgrom, J. “The Case for the Pre-​Exilic and Exilic Provenance of the Books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers.” Pages 48–56 in Reading the Law: Studies in Honour of Gordon J. Wenham, edited by J. G. McConville and K. Möller. LHBOTS 461. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. ———. “The Composition of Leviticus, Chapter 11.” Pages 182–91 in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel, edited by G. A. Anderson and S. M. Olyan. JSOTSup 125. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991. ———. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3. New York: The Anchor Bible, 1991. ———. Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3A. New York: The Anchor Bible, 2000. ———. Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3B. New York: The Anchor Bible, 2001. ———. Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Millar, J. G. Now Choose Life: Theology and Ethics in Deuteronomy. NSBT 6. Leicester: Apollos, 1998. Miller, G. D. “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research.” CBR 9 (2011): 283–309. Miller, J. V., and J. M. Soden. In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in Its Original Context. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregal, 2012. Miner, E. “Allusion.” Pages 13–15 in The New Princeton Handbook of Poetic Terms, edited by T. V. F. Brogan. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Miscall, P. D. “Isaiah: New Heavens, New Earth, New Book.” Pages 41–56 in Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible, edited by D. N. Fewell. Louisville: Westminster, 1992. Moberly, R. W. L. “Did the Serpent Get It Right?” JTS 39 (1988): 1–27. ———. Prophecy and Discernment. Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Morales, L. M., ed. Cult and Cosmos: Tilting toward a Temple-​Centered Theology. BTS 18. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. ———. The Tabernacle Pre-​Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus. BTS 15. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. ———. Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord? A Biblical Theology of the Book of Leviticus. NSBT 37. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2015. Moskala, J. “Categorization and Evaluation of Different Kinds of Interpretation of the Laws of Clean and Unclean Animals in Leviticus 11.” BR 46 (2001): 5–41. ———. The Laws of Clean and Unclean Animals in Leviticus 11: Their Nature, Theology, and Rationale; An Intertextual Study. ATSDS. Berrien Springs: Adventist Theological Society, 2000. Muilenburg, J. “Form Criticism and Beyond.” JBL 88 (1969): 1–18. Nelson, R. D. Raising Up a Faithful Priest: Community and Priesthood in Biblical Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Neusner, J. Judaism and the Interpretation of Scripture: Introduction to the Rabbinic Midrash. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004.

268

Bibliography

Neville, R. “On Exaggerating Creation’s Role in Biblical Law and Ethics.” TynBul 66 (2015): 1–17. Nicholson, E. W. Deuteronomy and the Judaean Diaspora. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. ———. Interpreting the Old Testament: A Century of the Oriel Professorship. Oxford: Clarendon, 1981. ———. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Nihan, C. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus. FAT 2/25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Noble, P. R. “Esau, Tamar, and Joseph: Criteria for Identifying Inner-​Biblical Allusions.” VT 52 (2002): 219–52. Nogalski, J. D. “Intertextuality and the Twelve.” Pages 102–24 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts, edited by J. W. Watts and P. R. House. LHBOTS 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Noordtzij, A. Leviticus. Translated by R. Togtman. Bible Student’s Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1982 [orig. 1940]. North, C. R. “Pentateuchal Criticism.” Pages 48–83 in The Old Testament and Modern Study: A Generation of Discovery and Research; Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study, edited by H. H. Rowley. London: Oxford University Press, 1951. Noth, M. Exodus: A Commentary. OTL. London: SCM, 1966. ———. Leviticus: A Commentary. Translated by J. E. Anderson. Rev. ed. OTL. London: SCM, 1977. ———. Numbers: A Commentary. OTL. London: SCM, 1968. Nurmela, R. “The Growth of the Book of Isaiah Illustrated by Allusions in Zechariah.” Pages 245–59 in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner-​Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14, edited by M. J. Boda and M. H. Floyd. LHBOTS 370. London: Sheffield Academic, 2003. ———. The Mouth of the Lord Has Spoken: Inner-​Biblical Allusions in Second and Third Isaiah. Studies in Judaism. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2006. ———. Prophets in Dialogue: Inner-​Biblical Allusions in Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press, 1996. O’Brien, J. M. Priest and Levite in Malachi. SBLDS 121. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Och, B. “Creation and Redemption: Towards a Theology of Creation.” Judaism 44 (1995): 226–43. O’Connell, R. H. The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges. VTSup 63. Leiden: Brill, 1996. ———. “‫אכל‬.” Pages 393–97 in vol. 1 of NIDOTTE, edited by W. A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1997. Olson, D. T. The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch. BJS 71. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985. Oort, H. “De groote Verzoendag.” ThT 10 (1876): 142–65. Osswald, E. Das Bild des Mose in der kritischen alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft seit Julius Wellhausen. TA 18. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962. Otto, E. “Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26.” Pages 125–96 in Levitikus als Buch, edited by H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling. BBB 119. Berlin: Philo, 1999. Parry, D. W. “The Garden of Eden: Prototype Sanctuary.” Pages 126–51 in Temples of the Ancient World: Ritual and Symbolism, edited by D. W. Parry. Provo, Utah: Deseret Books and FARMS, 1994.

Bibliography

269

Patrick, D. Old Testament Law. London: SCM, 1986. Patrick, D., and A. Scult. Rhetoric and Biblical Interpretation. JSOTSup 82. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990. Patterson, T. “The Righteousness and Survival of the Seed: The Role of Plot in the Exegesis and Theology of Genesis.” PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2012. Péter–Contesse, R. Lévitique 1–16. CAT 3a. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1993. Petersen, D. L. “Zechariah 9–14: Methodological Reflections.” Pages 210–24 in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner-​Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14, edited by M. J. Boda and M. H. Floyd. LHBOTS 370. London: Sheffield Academic, 2003. Petterson, A. R. Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. AOTC 25. Nottingham: Apollos, 2015. Phillips, P. M. “Rhetoric.” Pages 226–65 in Words and the Word: Explorations in Biblical Interpretation and Literary Theory, edited by D. G. Firth and J. A. Grant. Nottingham: Apollos, 2008. Pola, T. Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift: Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von Pg. WMANT 70. Neukirchen-​V luyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995. Polaski, D. C. “Reflections on a Mosaic Covenant: The Eternal Covenant (Isaiah 24:5) and Intertextuality.” JSOT 77 (1998): 55–73. Porter, J. R. Leviticus. Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Postell, S. D. Adam as Israel: Genesis 1–3 as the Introduction to the Torah and Tanakh. Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2011. Pritchard, J. B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts: Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Pyeon, Y. You Have Not Spoken What Is Right about Me: Intertextuality and the Book of Job. StBibLit 45. New York: Lang, 2003. Radner, E. Leviticus. BTCB. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos, 2008. Rashi. The Torah with Rashi’s Commentary: Translated, Annotated, and Elucidated by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Zvi Herczeg. The Sapirstein ed. 5 vols. The Artscroll Series. Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 1999. Rendsburg, G. A. “The Inclusio in Leviticus XI.” VT 43 (1993): 418–21. Rendtorff, R. Das überlieferungsgeschichteliche Problem des Pentateuch. BZAW 147. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977. ———. “Is It Possible to Read Leviticus as a Separate Book?” Pages 22–35 in Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas, edited by J. F. A. Sawyer. JSOTSup 227. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. ———. Leviticus 1,1–10,20. BKAT 3.1. Neukirchen-​V luyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004. ———. “Leviticus 16 als Mitte der Tora.” BI 11 (2003): 252–58. Renz, T. The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel. Boston: Brill, 2002. Reventlow, H. G. Das Heiligkeitsgesetz formgeschichtlich untersucht. WMANT 6. Neukirchen-​V luyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961. Richter, W. “Urgeschichte und Hoftheologie.” BZ 10 (1966): 96–105. Ricks, S. D. “Liturgy and Cosmogony: The Ritual Use of Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East.” Pages 118–25 in Temples of the Ancient World: Ritual and Symbolism, edited by D. W. Parry. Provo, Utah: Deseret Books and FARMS, 1994. Ricoeur, P. A Ricoeur Reader: Reflection and Imagination, edited by M. J. Valdés. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991. Riffaterre, M. “Interpretation and Undecidability.” NLH 12 (1981): 227–42. ———. Semiotics of Poetry. London: Methuen, 1980.

270

Bibliography

———. “Syllepsis.” CI 6 (1980): 625–38. ———. “La trace de l’intertexte.” LP 215 (1980): 4–18. Robson, J. “The Literary Composition of Deuteronomy.” Pages 19–59 in Interpreting Deuteronomy: Issues and Approaches, edited by D. G. Firth and P. Johnston. Nottingham: Apollos, 2012. Rodriguez, A. M. “Leviticus 16: Its Literary Structure.” AUSS 34 (1996): 269–86. Rofé, A. Introduction to the Composition of the Pentateuch. BibSem 58. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Rogers, C. L. ”‫ּכָ ֵרׂש‬.” Pages 728–29 in vol. 2 of NIDOTTE, edited by W. A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1997. Rogerson, J. Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany. London: SPCK, 1984. Rooke, D. W. “The Blasphemer (Leviticus 24): Gender, Identity, and Boundary Construction.” Pages 153–69 in Text, Time, and Temple: Literary, Historical, and Ritual Studies in Leviticus, edited by F. Landy, L. M. Trevaskis, and B. D. Bibb. HBM 64. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2015. Rooker, M. F. Leviticus. NAC 3A. Nashville: B&H, 2000. Ross, A. P. Holiness to the Lord: A Guide to the Exposition of the Book of Leviticus. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2002. Ruwe, A. “The Structure of the Book of Leviticus in the Narrative Outline of the Priestly Sinai Story (Exod 19:1–Num 10:10).” Pages 55–78 in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception, edited by R. Rendtorff, R. A. Kugler, and S. S. Bartel. VTSup 93. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Sæbø, M., ed. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2013. Sailhamer, J. H. Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account. Sisters: Multnomah Books, 1996. ———. Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan 1995. ———. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-​Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1992. Sanders, J. A. Torah and Canon. 2nd ed. Eugene, Ore.: Cascade Books, 2005. Sandmel, S. “Parallelomania.” JBL 81 (1962): 1–13. Savran, G. “Beastly Speech: Intertextuality, Balaam’s Ass, and the Garden of Eden.” Pages 296–318 in The Pentateuch, edited by J. W. Rogerson. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Sawyer, J. F. A. “The Language of Leviticus.” Pages 15–20 in Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas, edited by J. F. A. Sawyer. JSOTSup 227. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Schipper, J., and J. Stackert. “Blemishes, Camouflage, and Sanctuary Service: The Priestly Deity and His Attendants.” HBAI 2 (2013): 458–78. Schmid, H. H. Der sogennante Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976. Schmid, K. “Has European Scholarship Abandoned the Documentary Hypothesis? Some Reminders on Its History and Remarks on Its Current Status.” Pages 17–30 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, edited by T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz. FAT 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.

Bibliography

271

———. “Innerbiblische Schriftauslegung: Aspekte der Forschungsgeschichte.” Pages 1–22 in Schriftauslegung in der Schrift: Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck zu seinem 65 Geburtstag, edited by R. G. Kratz, T. Krüger, and K. Schmid. BZAW 300. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Schmidt, W. H. Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift: Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte von Genesis 1,1–2,4a und 2,4b–3,24. WMANT 17. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967. Schniedewind, W. “Linguistic Dating, Writing Systems, and the Pentateuchal Sources.” Paper presented at The Pentateuch within Biblical Literature: Formation and Interaction, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, May 26, 2014. Schüle, A. Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel: Der literar- und theologiegeschichtliche Diskurs der Urgeschichte (Genesis 1–11). ATANT 86. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2006. Schultz, R. L. “Intertextuality, Canon, and ‘Undecidability’: Understanding Isaiah’s ‘New Heavens and New Earth’ (Isaiah 65:17–25).” BBR 20 (2010): 19–38. ———. The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets. JSOTSup 180. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Schwartz, B. J. “Does Recent Scholarship’s Critique of the Documentary Hypothesis Constitute Grounds for Its Rejection?” Pages 3–16 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, edited by T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz. FAT 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. ———. “The Prohibitions Concerning the ‘Eating’ of Blood in Leviticus 17.” Pages 34–66 in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel, edited by G. A. Anderson and S. M. Olyan. JSOTSup 125. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991. ———. “What Really Happened at Mount Sinai? Four Biblical Answers to One Question.” BR 13 (1997): 20–30, 46. Seales, William B., Clifford S. Parker, Michael S. Segal, Emmanuel Tov, Pnina Shor, and Yosef Porath. “From Damage to Discovery via Virtual Unwrapping: Reading the Scroll from En-​Gedi.” SciAdv (2016): 1–9. doi: 10​.1126​/sciadv​.1601247. Searle, J. R. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. ———. “Literary Theory and Its Discontents.” NLH 25 (1994): 637–67. ———. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Segal, M. H. The Pentateuch: Its Composition and Its Authorship and Other Biblical Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967. Seidel, M. “Parallels between Isaiah and Psalms” [Hebrew]. Sinai 38 (1955): 149–72, 229–40, 272–80, 335–55. Seidl, T. “Levitikus 16—‘Schlußstein’ des priesterlichen Systems der Sündenvergebung.” Pages 219–48 in Levitikus als Buch, edited by H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling. BBB 119. Berlin: Philo, 1999. Shaw, D. A. “Converted Imaginations? The Reception of Richard Hays’s Intertextual Method.” CurBS 11 (2013): 234–45. Shea, W. H. “Literary Form and Theological Function in Leviticus.” Pages 131–68 in The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, edited by F. Holbrook. DRCS 3. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Institute, 1986. Shead, A. G. A Mouth Full of Fire: The Word of God in the Words of Jeremiah. NSBT 29. Nottingham: Apollos, 2012.

272

Bibliography

Sherwood, S. K. Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002. Ska, J.-L. The Exegesis of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and Basic Questions. FAT 66. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. ———. “Genesis 2–3: Some Fundamental Questions.” Pages 1–27 in Beyond Eden: The Biblical Story of Paradise (Genesis 2–3) and Its Reception History, edited by K. Schmid and C. Riedweg. FAT 2/34. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. ———. Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch. Translated by P. Dominique. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006. ———. “Le Pentateuque: État de la recherche à partir de quelques récentes ‘Introductions.’ ” Bib 77 (1996): 245–65. Sklar, J. Leviticus. TOTC 3. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2013. ———. Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement: The Priestly Conceptions. HBM 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005. Sloane, A. “Wolterstorff, Exegetical Theorising, and Interpersonal Relationships in Genesis 1–3.” ThD diss., Australian College of Theology, 1994. Smith, C. R. “The Literary Structure of Leviticus.” JSOT 70 (1996): 17–32. Smith, M. S. The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010. Sommer, B. D. “Conflicting Constructions of Divine Presence in the Priestly Tabernacle.” BI 9 (2001): 41–63. ———. “Dating Pentateuchal Texts and the Perils of Pseudo-​Historicism.” Pages 85–108 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, edited by T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz. FAT 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. ———. “Exegesis, Allusion, and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger.” VT 46 (1996): 479–89. ———. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998. Spinks, D. C. The Bible and the Crisis of Meaning: Debates on the Theological Interpretation of Scripture. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Spinoza, B. d. Theological-​Political Treatise. Edited by J. Israel. Translated by M. Silverthorne and J. Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007 [orig. 1670]. Stackert, J. “Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction: Leviticus 26 as a Test Case.” Pages 369–86 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, edited by T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz. FAT 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Stager, L. E. “Jerusalem and the Garden of Eden.” ErIsr 26 (1999): 183–94. Stead, M. R. “Intertextuality and Innerbiblical Interpretation.” Pages 355–64 in DOTPr, edited by M. J. Boda and J. G. McConville. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2012. ———. The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8. LHBOTS 506. New York: T&T Clark, 2009. Sternberg, M. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987 [orig. 1985]. Steymans, H. U. “Verheißung und Drohung: Lev 26.” Pages 263–307 in Levitikus als Buch, edited by H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling. BBB 119. Berlin: Philo, 1999. Stone, T. J. “Joseph in the Likeness of Adam: Narrative Echoes of the Fall.” Pages 62–73 in Genesis and Christian Theology, edited by N. MacDonald, M. W. Elliott, and G. Macaskill. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012. Stordalen, T. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature. CBET 25. Leuven: Peeters, 2000.

Bibliography

273

Stuart, D. K. Exodus. NAC 2. Nashville: B&H, 2006. Sun, H. T. C. “An Investigation into the Compositional Integrity of the So-​Called Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–26).” PhD diss., Claremont, 1990. Swete, H. B. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989 [orig. 1914]. Talmon, S. “The Old Testament Text.” Pages 159–99 in The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, From the Beginnings to Jerome, edited by P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Tanner, B. L. The Book of Psalms through the Lens of Intertextuality. New York: Lang, 2001. Tawil, H. “ʿAzazel the Prince of the Steepe [sic]: A Comparative Study.” ZAW 92 (1980): 43–59. Thiselton, A. C. The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description with Special Reference to Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer, and Wittgenstein. Exeter: Paternoster, 1980. Thompson, J. A. The Book of Jeremiah. NICOT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1980. Thompson, R. J. Moses and the Law in a Century of Criticism since Graf. VTSup 19. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Tidball, D. The Message of Leviticus: Free to Be Holy. BST. Leicester: IVP, 2005. Tiemeyer, L.-S. Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage: Post-​Exilic Prophetic Critique of the Priesthood. FAT 2/19. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Tigay, J. H. “The Documentary Hypothesis, Empirical Models, and Holistic Interpretation.” Pages 116–43 in Modernity and Interpretations of Ancient Texts: The Collapse and Remaking of Traditions, edited by J. Ikeda. Kizugawa-​City: International Institute of Advanced Studies, 2012. Trevaskis, L. M. Holiness, Ethics, and Ritual in Leviticus. HBM 29. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2011. ———. “On a Recent ‘Existential’ Translation of hātā’.” VT 59 (2009): 313–19. ———. “The Purpose of Leviticus 24 within Its Literary Context.” VT 59 (2009): 295–312. Trible, P. Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah. GBS. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Tull, P. “Intertextuality and the Hebrew Scriptures.” CurBS 8 (2000): 59–90. Utzschneider, H. Künder oder Schreiber? Eine These zum Problem der “Schriftprophetie” auf Grund von Maleachi 1:6–2:9. BEATAJ 19. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1989. Vanderveken, D. Meaning and Speech Acts. Vol. 1, Principles of Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Vanhoozer, K. J. First Theology: God, Scripture, and Hermeneutics. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2002. ———. Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1998. Van Seters, J. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975. ———. Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis. Louisville: Westminster John Knox 1992. Vasholz, R. I. Leviticus. A Mentor Commentary. Fearn: Mentor, 2007. Volz, P., and W. Rudolph. Der Elohist als Erzähler: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? BZAW 63. Giessen: A. Töpelmann, 1933. von Rad, G. “Ancient Word and Living Word: The Preaching of Deuteronomy and Our Preaching.” Int 15 (1961): 3–13.

274

Bibliography

———. “The Form-​Critical Problem of the Hexateuch.” Pages 1–58 in From Genesis to Chronicles: Explorations in Old Testament Theology, edited by K. C. Hanson. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Wagenaar, J. “The Priestly Festival Calendar and the Babylonian New Years Festivals: Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Year.” Pages 218–52 in The Old Testament in Its World, edited by R. P. Gordon and J. C. de Moor. OtSt 52. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Wagner, N. E. “A Response to Professor Rolf Rendtorff.” JSOT 3 (1977): 20–27. Wagner, V. “Zur Existenz des sogenannten ‘Heiligkeitsgesetzes.’ ” ZAW 86 (1974): 307–16. Walsh, J. T. Old Testament Narrative: A Guide to Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009. Walton, J. H. “Equilibrium and the Sacred Compass: The Structure of Leviticus.” BBR 11 (2001): 293–304. ———. Genesis. NIVAC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2001. Warner, M. “The Holiness School in Genesis?” Pages 155–74 in Current Issues in Priestly and Related Literature: The Legacy of Jacob Milgrom and Beyond, edited by R. E. Gane and A. Taggar-​Cohen. SBLRBS 82. Atlanta: SBL, 2015. Warning, W. Literary Artistry in Leviticus. BIS 35. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Watts, J. W. Leviticus 1–10. HCOT. Leuven: Peeters, 2013. ———, ed. Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch. SBLSymS 17. Atlanta: SBL, 2001. ———. “Public Readings and Pentateuchal Law.” VT 45 (1995): 540–57. ———. Reading Law: The Rhetorical Shaping of the Pentateuch. BibSem 59. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. ———. Ritual and Rhetoric in Leviticus: From Sacrifice to Scripture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. ———. “Ritual Rhetoric in the Pentateuch: The Case of Leviticus 1–16.” Pages 305–18 in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, edited by T. Römer. BETL 215. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. Weinfeld, M. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992. ———. “Sabbath, Temple, and the Enthronement of the Lord: The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1–2:3.” Pages 501–12 in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de H. Cazelles, edited by A. Caquot and M. Delcor. AOAT 212. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1981. Wellhausen, J. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. 3rd ed. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1899. ———. Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994 [orig. 1885]. Wenham, G. J. The Book of Leviticus. NICOT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1979. ———. “Genesis 1–11 as Protohistory.” Pages 73–97 in Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters, edited by C. Halton. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2015. ———. Genesis 1–15. WBC 1. Waco: Thomas Nelson, 1987. ———. “Hearing the Pentateuch.” Pages 231–53 in Hearing the Old Testament: Listening for God’s Address, edited by C. G. Bartholomew and D. J. H. Beldman. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012.

Bibliography

275

———. “Pondering the Pentateuch: The Search for a New Paradigm.” Pages 116–44 in The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches, edited by D. W. Baker and B. T. Arnold. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1999. ———. “The Priority of P.” VT 49 (1999): 240–58. ———. “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story.” Pages 399–404 in “I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11, edited by R. S. Hess and D. T. Tsumura. SBTS 4. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994. ———. Story as Torah: Reading the Old Testament Ethically. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2000. Wénin, A. “Le serpent de NB 21,4–9 et de GN 3,1: Intertextualité et élaboration du sens.” Pages 545–54 in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, edited by T. Römer. BETL 215. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. Westermann, C. Genesis 1–11: A Commentary. Translated by J. J. Scullion. CC. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984. Weyde, K. W. “Inner-​Biblical Interpretation: Methodological Reflections on the Relationship between Texts in the Hebrew Bible.” SEÅ 70 (2005): 287–300. Whiston, W. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. New updated ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1987. Whitelam, K. W. The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History. London: Routledge, 1996. Whybray, R. N. Introduction to the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995. ———. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. JSOTSup 53. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Wierciński, A. “Pyramids and Ziggurats as the Architectonic Representations of the Archetype of the Cosmic Mountain.” Katunob 10 (1977): 71–87. Willis, T. M. Leviticus. AbOTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 2009. Wimstatt, W. K., and M. C. Beardsley. “The Intentional Fallacy.” SR 54 (1946): 468–88. Wolde, E. J. v. “Texts in Dialogue with Texts: Intertextuality in the Ruth and Tamar Narratives.” BI 5 (1997): 1–28. ———. “Trendy Intertextuality?” Pages 43–49 in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel, edited by S. Draisma. Kampen: Kok, 1989. ———. Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of Genesis 1–11. BIS 6. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Wolterstorff, N. Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim That God Speaks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Worton, M. J., and J. Still. “Introduction.” Pages 1–44 in Intertextuality: Theories and Practices, edited by M. J. Worton and J. Still. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990. Wright, C. J. H. Deuteronomy. NIBC 4. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996. ———. “‫אֶ ֶרץ‬.” Pages 518–24 in vol. 1 of NIDOTTE, edited by W. A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1997. Wright, D. P. The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature. SBLDS 101. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Wuellner, W. H. “Biblical Exegesis in the Light of History and Historicity or Rhetoric and the Nature of the Rhetoric of Religion.” Pages 492–513 in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, edited by S. E. Porter and T. H. Olbricht. JSOTSup 90. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993.

276

Bibliography

———. “Where Is Rhetorical Criticism Taking Us?” CBQ 49 (1987): 448–63. Yarchin, W. “The History of the Exposition of Leviticus.” Pages xliii–lvi in J. Hartley, Leviticus. WBC 4. Dallas: Word Books, 1992. Zenger, E. “Das Buch Levitikus als Teiltext der Tora/des Pentateuch: Eine synchrone Lektüre mit kanonischer Perspektive.” Pages 47–83 in Levitikus als Buch, edited by H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling. BBB 119. Berlin: Philo, 1999. ———, ed. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 7th ed. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008. Zenger, E., and C. Frevel. “Die Bücher Levitikus und Numeri als Teile der Pentateuchkomposition.” Pages 35–74 in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, edited by T. Römer. BETL 215. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. Zevit, Z. What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden? New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. Ziemer, B. “Die aktuelle Diskussion zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch und die empirische Evidenz nach Qumran.” ZAW 125 (2013): 383–99.

Author Index

Beldman, D. J. H., 12 Bellinger, W. H., Jr., 73, 85, 139, 163, 166 Ben-Porat, Z., 46 Benzinger, I., 149 Berge, K., 14 Bergen, W. J., 31 Berlin, A., 13, 14, 19 Beyer, B. E., 120 Bibb, B. D., 32, 70, 96 Blenkinsopp, J., 14, 16, 23, 30, 67, 110 Block, D. I., 97, 163 Bloom, H., 40 Blum, E., 65, 66, 87, 215 Boda, M. J., 81, 91, 153, 169 Boer, R., 1, 230 Bolger, E. W., 6, 118, 210 Bonar, A. A., 95, 96, 118, 145, 156, 171, 173, 201, 215 Boorer, S., 92, 140 Bosman, H. L., 157 Boyce, R. N., 74 Brennenstuhl, W., 85 Briggs, R. S., 4, 64 Brotzman, E. R., 68 Brueggemann, W., 2, 24, 92, 183, 199 Buber, M., 19 Budd, P. J., 92, 115, 154, 215 Bührer, W., 3, 5 Bullinger, E. W., 37, 161 Burkhardt, A., 64 Bush, G., 3, 166

Aartun, K., 150, 155 Ackroyd, P. R., 55, 68 Adam, A. K. M., 12 Albright, W. F., 165 Alden, R. L., 157, 175 Allis, O. T., 72 Alston, W. P., 84 Alter, R., 1, 2, 13, 18, 19, 29, 30, 54, 55, 76, 92, 118, 134, 170, 191, 215 Ames, F. R., 93 Amit, Y., 30, 138, 139, 215 Anderson, G. W., 68, 74 Aristotle, 57 Arnold, B. T., 5, 6, 18, 22 Auld, G., 70, 74 Austin, J. L., 63, 64, 84 Azevedo, J., 18 Babcock, B. C., 31, 93 Bacher, W., 67 Baden, J. S., 14, 229 Baentsch, B., 12, 23, 66, 152 Bailey, L. R., 71 Baker, D. W., 3, 18, 22, 74, 96 Balentine, S. E., 24, 29, 129, 154, 163, 166, 176, 188, 189, 215 Ballmer, T. T., 85 Barker, J., 30 Barker, K., 65 Barrick, W. D., 197, 203, 204 Barrosse, T., 133 Barthes, R., 39 Bartholomew, C. G., 12 Barton, J., 13, 18 Bartor, A., 27 Beal, T. K., 39, 40 Beale, G. K., 49, 51, 52, 167, 207, 208, 209 Beardsley, M. C., 44 Beauchamp, P., 128 Beckwith, R. T., 68

Calvin, J., 25, 127 Campbell, A. F., 14, 92 Carmichael, C., 27 Carr, D. M., 22, 92 Carroll, M. P., 126 Cassuto, U., 13, 14, 165 Charlesworth, J. H., 207 Cheung, A. T. M., 173

277

278

Author Index

Childs, B. S., 15, 16, 72 Cholewiński, A., 23, 187, 213 Clayton, J., 38, 42 Clifford, R. J., 165 Clines, D. J. A., 15, 16, 17, 18, 100 Collins, C. J., 202 Coote, R. B., 97 Cornelius, I., 207 Crow, L. D., 219 Crüsemann, F., 204 Culler, J., 38, 39, 40, 47 Currid, J. D., 151 Damrosch, D., 28, 191 Davidson, R., 27 Delitzsch, F., 29, 70, 95, 96, 118, 154, 155, 166 Demarest, G. W., 66 Derrida, J., 39 Dietrich, M., 150 Dillard, R. B., 3 Dillmann, A., 149 Douglas, M., 75, 76, 81, 87, 117, 118, 126, 171 Dozeman, T. B., 62, 69 Duke, R. K., 30, 58, 65, 182, 218 Durham, J. I., 208 Edenburg, C., 42, 48, 204, 205, 206, 212, 216, 227, 232 Eissfeldt, O., 66, 68 Eliade, M., 167, 209 Elliger, K., 23, 25, 79, 112, 115, 149, 151, 154, 187, 191 Epstein, I., 67 Eslinger, L. M., 43 Evans, D. D., 64, 68 Eveson, P. H., 74, 118, 191, 215 Fensham, F. C., 190 Ferch, J. G., 76, 78 Fey, R., 36 Finas, L., 39 Fiore, B., 59 Fishbane, M., 17, 49, 50, 52, 55, 145, 163, 176, 178, 201, 208, 209, 214, 219, 221, 231 Fletcher-Louis, C. H. T., 174 Fohrer, G., 12 Fox, E., 71

Frei, H. W., 16, 18 Fretheim, T. E., 1, 17, 69, 83, 101, 102, 147, 163 Frevel, C., 75 Friedman, R. E., 1, 13, 14, 18, 29, 94 Friedman, S. S., 43, 44 Gadamer, H.-G., 40, 41, 42 Gane, R. E., 24, 72, 84, 151, 152, 153, 159, 170, 171, 180, 190 García López, F., 62, 70 García Martínez, F., 68 Genette, G., 40, 42 Gerstenberger, E. S., 25, 28, 66, 67, 72, 73, 88, 91, 112, 118, 150, 155, 191, 196, 214 Gertz, J. C., 5 Gibson, J., 56, 57 Gignilliat, M. S., 11, 15 Gilchrest, E., 168, 169, 170 Gilders, W. K., 24 Ginsburg, C. D., 68, 69 Girdlestone, R. B., 36 Gisin, W., 3 Gispen, W. H., 96, 127 Gorman, F. H., 24, 29, 83, 86, 151, 155, 163, 164, 166, 170, 172, 179, 191, 202, 215, 218, 221 Goswell, G. R., 67, 71 Grabbe, L. L., 93 Graf, K. H., 23, 222 Graupner, A., 14 Gray, G. B., 66 Gressmann, H., 19 Grisanti, M. A., 139 Gunkel, H., 1, 19, 230 Halberstam, C., 32 Haran, M., 70, 207 Harper, G. G., 17, 18, 50, 134, 149, 162, 184, 207, 215 Harris, R. L., 96 Harrison, R. K., 24 Hartley, J. E., 23, 69, 70, 73, 81, 82, 92, 117, 118, 126, 139, 147, 154, 155, 164, 187, 189, 214, 215 Hauser, A. J., 204 Hausoul, R. R., 79 Hawley, L., 112, 118, 129

Author Index Hays, R. B., 20, 36, 48, 49, 51, 52 Henry, M., 29, 30 Hess, R. S., 3, 12, 13, 190 Hieke, T., 25, 69, 74, 154, 170 Hoffmann, D., 72, 73, 96 Houston, W. J., 112, 146 Hoy, D. C., 40, 43 Hubbard, D. A., 3 Hundley, M. B., 24, 31, 83 Hurvitz, A., 80, 92, 94 Hutter, M., 207 Ibn Ezra, A., 29, 30, 90, 91, 157 Jenson, P. P., 24, 155 Joosten, J., 23, 91, 94, 204, 209 Josephus, 67, 95, 215 Jüngling, H.-W., 23 Kaiser, O., 36 Kaminski, C. M., 214 Kaufmann, Y., 94 Kearney, P. J., 69 Keil, C. F., 29, 30, 70, 95, 96, 118, 154, 155, 166, 181 Kelle, B. E., 90, 93 Kellogg, S. H., 95, 96, 115, 166 Kennedy, G. A., 57 Kessler, M., 12, 21, 32 Kitchen, K. A., 93, 97, 165 Kittel, B. P., 53, 212 Kiuchi, N., 2, 24, 25, 27, 30, 35, 74, 81, 96, 118, 121, 130, 131, 132, 139, 140, 151, 153, 154, 156, 159, 160, 164, 189, 232 Kleinig, J. W., 29, 115, 116, 117, 154, 156, 166, 191, 215 Klein, R. W., 68 Klostermann, A., 23, 73, 94, 188 Knight, G. A. F., 29, 115, 203 Knohl, I., 6, 22, 23 Koch, K., 112, 150 Kohn, R. L., 94, 193 Koorevaar, H. J., 79, 206, 209 Kratz, R. G., 22, 23, 26 Kraus, H.-J., 11 Kristeva, J., 20, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 47, 48 Krümmel, H. M., 150

279

Kugel, J. L., 49 Kuhn, T. S., 12 Laato, A., 36 Lasor, W. S., 3 Leder, A. C., 16, 17, 69, 81 Leiman, S. Z., 36, 67, 68 Leonard, J. M., 4, 5, 6, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 167, 223 Leon, J. M., 21 Leuchter, M., 31, 183 Levenson, J. D., 83, 168, 176, 201 Levine, B. A., 29, 69, 72, 139, 144, 154, 166, 171, 187, 190, 214 Lohfink, N., 213 Lohr, J. N., 171 Longenecker, R. N., 20 Longman, T., III, 3, 18, 22, 203 Loretz, O., 150 Luciani, D., 23, 25, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 154 Lundquist, J. M., 164, 165, 208 Lyke, L. L., 35 Lyons, M. A., 53, 55, 137, 212 Machacek, G., 35, 46, 47, 48, 50 Makujina, J., 21 Mann, T. W., 16, 99, 100, 219 Marx, A., 24, 74, 75, 188, 201, 214, 215 Mathews, K. A., 74, 161 Mays, J. L., 66, 188, 215 McCarter, P. K., 165 McDowell, C. L., 5 McEvenue, S., 24 McKenzie, T. J., 46 Meek, R. L., 41, 47, 55 Meshel, N. S., 112 Meyrick, F., 95, 96, 166, 170 Milgrom, J., 3, 5, 6, 12, 22, 29, 71, 79, 80, 94, 111, 112, 113, 114, 117, 118, 126, 129, 139, 140, 150, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 187, 188, 190, 191, 194, 204, 215 Millar, J. G., 95 Miller, G. D., 34, 50 Miller, J. V., 185 Miner, E., 46, 47 Miscall, P. D., 39 Moberly, R. W. L., 12, 62, 133

280

Author Index

Morales, L. M., 4, 27, 31, 69, 83, 151, 165, 166, 168, 173, 207, 208 Moskala, J., 23, 27, 30, 36, 37, 111, 118, 122, 123 Muilenburg, J., 21, 65 Nelson, R. D., 173 Neusner, J., 20 Neville, R., 3 Nicholson, E. W., 11, 12, 14, 93 Nihan, C., 2, 6, 22, 23, 26, 31, 80, 81, 90, 94, 112, 118, 127, 145, 152, 162, 163, 168, 171, 174, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 194, 209, 213, 218 Noble, P. R., 38, 54, 55, 213 Nogalski, J. D., 46 Noordtzij, A., 114, 191, 197, 200 North, C. R., 13 Noth, M., 12, 66, 74, 75, 114, 115, 150, 152, 155, 171, 187 Nurmela, R., 4, 34, 36, 43, 49, 50, 109 O’Brien, J. M., 91, 92, 183 O’Brien, M. A., 14 Och, B., 129, 147, 215 O’Connell, R. H., 30, 133 Olson, D. T., 67, 68, 70 Oort, H., 149 Osswald, E., 11 Otto, E., 213 Parry, D. W., 165, 171, 173, 174 Patrick, D., 18, 21, 25, 58, 59, 102 Patterson, T., 17 Péter-Contesse, R., 71, 115, 126, 149, 150, 154, 166 Petersen, D. L., 49 Petterson, A. R., 90 Phillips, P. M., 21, 59 Plato, 38, 57 Pola, T., 25, 90 Polaski, D. C., 35, 39, 47 Porter, J. R., 67, 154 Postell, S. D., 4, 50, 102, 131, 132, 213 Pyeon, Y., 35, 36 Rad, G. von, 15, 100 Radner, E., 72, 74, 218 Rashi., 130, 209

Rendsburg, G. A., 112, 117 Rendtorff, R., 13, 14, 24, 70, 71, 73, 149, 154, 184 Renz, T., 30, 65, 219 Reventlow, H. G., 23, 187 Richter, W., 208 Ricks, S. D., 170, 171 Ricoeur, P., 40, 41, 42 Riffaterre, M., 41, 42, 45 Robson, J., 97 Rodriguez, A. M., 151 Rofé, A., 13 Rogers, C. L., 136 Rogerson, J., 11 Römer, T., 62 Rooke, D. W., 96 Rooker, M. F., 29, 66, 96, 154, 187, 191, 194, 215 Rosenzweig, F., 19 Ross, A. P., 96 Rothstein, E., 38, 42 Rudolph, W., 12, 13 Ruwe, A., 25, 26, 74, 75 Sæbø, M., 11 Sailhamer, J. H., 16, 17, 46, 130, 131, 160, 202, 203, 209 Sanders, J. A., 16 Sandmel, S., 36, 48, 223 Savran, G., 35 Sawyer, J. F. A., 70, 87 Schipper, J., 24 Schmid, H. H., 13 Schmid, K., 14, 34, 62 Schmidt, W. H., 204 Schniedewind, W., 92 Schüle, A., 3, 5 Schultz, R. L., 35, 36, 39, 49, 51, 52, 53, 56, 136 Schwartz, B. J., 14, 28, 88, 229 Scult, A., 18, 21, 58, 59, 102 Seales, W. B., 68, 89 Searle, J. R., 44, 64, 84 Segal, M. H., 96 Seidel, M., 126 Seidl, T., 151 Shaw, D. A., 49 Shea, W. H., 25, 75 Shead, A. G., 72

Author Index Sherwood, S. K., 76, 83, 86, 87, 97, 113, 115, 214 Ska, J.-L., 2, 3, 14, 30, 99 Sklar, J., 25, 74, 80, 83, 117, 154, 156, 169, 170, 172, 209, 215 Sloane, A., 163 Smith, C. R., 25, 71, 76, 78, 81, 154 Smith, K., 31 Smith, M. S., 69 Soden, J. M., 185 Sommer, B. D, 43, 49, 51, 52, 65, 89, 90, 92, 152, 228, 229, 231 Speiser, E. A., 94 Spinks, D. C., 12 Spinoza, B. de, 13 Stackert, J., 14, 24 Stager, L. E., 208 Stead, M. R., 35, 36, 45, 47, 49, 50 Sternberg, M., 18, 19, 21, 102, 103 Steymans, H. U., 187 Still, J., 38, 151 Stone, T. J., 17 Stordalen, T., 3, 171, 174, 196, 208 Stuart, D. K., 207, 208 Sun, H. T. C., 187 Swete, H. B., 68, 69 Talmon, S., 68 Tanner, B. L., 35 Tawil, H., 150 Thiselton, A. C., 40 Thompson, J. A., 203 Thompson, R. J., 11 Tidball, D., 146, 215 Tiemeyer, L.-S., 91, 183 Tigay, J. H., 19, 20 Tigchelaar, E. J. C., 68 Trevaskis, L. M., 1, 2, 23, 27, 30, 32, 37, 75, 80, 96, 124, 125, 132, 133, 134, 139, 140, 146, 232 Trible, P., 30, 42, 56 Troyer, K. de, 63 Tull, P., 34, 49 Utzschneider, H., 36

281

Vanderveken, D., 84, 85 Vanhoozer, K. J., 18, 19, 40, 43, 44, 45, 65 Van Seters, J., 13, 205 Vasholz, R. I., 72, 74 Volz, P., 12, 13 Wagenaar, J., 93 Wagner, V., 24 Walsh, J. T., 18 Walton, J. H., 72, 83, 176, 199, 201, 207, 208 Warner, M., 6 Warning, W., 28, 32, 75, 76, 88, 97, 112, 117, 147, 151, 152, 154, 157, 162, 178, 187, 230 Watts, J. W., 17, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 58, 63, 65, 66, 68, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 88, 89, 91, 92, 95, 97, 100, 101, 108, 155, 187, 189, 218, 232 Weinfeld, M., 94, 165, 167, 190 Wellhausen, J., 1, 11, 12, 16, 90, 94, 112, 222, 230 Wenham, G. J., 1, 20, 22, 24, 29, 32, 58, 59, 60, 92, 94, 113, 115, 118, 127, 132, 142, 154, 161, 164, 166, 167, 170, 172, 199, 202, 207, 209 Westermann, C., 201, 205 Wette, W. M. L. de, 12 Weyde, K. W., 41 Whiston, W., 67 Whitelam, K. W., 97 Whybray, R. N., 13, 14, 21, 66, 70, 90, 99 Wierciński, A., 164 Willis, T. M., 24, 72, 74, 116, 126, 128, 164, 168 Wimstatt, W. K., 44 Wolde, E. J. van, 17, 34, 39, 40, 42, 47, 51 Wolterstorff, N., 43, 44, 163 Worton, M. J., 38 Wright, C. J. H., 95, 208, 209 Wright, D. P., 24, 112, 113, 116, 158, 159, 164, 169 Wright, J. L., 93 Wuellner, W. H., 21 Yarchin, W., 23 Zenger, E., 14, 25, 69, 71, 73, 75, 87, 189 Zevit, Z., 2, 208 Ziemer, B., 6

Scripture Index

Genesis 1  1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 26, 27, 29, 43, 53, 54, 61, 69, 79, 107, 108, 109, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 134, 135, 136, 141, 143, 144, 146, 156, 157, 161, 162, 174, 175, 176, 180, 185, 191, 192, 193, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 209, 211, 216, 217, 220, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 231, 232 1:1 161 1:1–2:3  1, 5, 107, 156, 176, 201, 236–254 1:1–2:4  5, 122 1–2  1, 121, 122, 128 1:2  161, 203, 204, 211, 227 1–3  2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 17, 27, 29, 32, 33, 37, 38, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 85, 89, 98, 102, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 117, 118, 122, 124, 125, 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 149, 156, 161, 165, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 191, 197, 198, 199, 200, 203, 209, 211, 212, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218, 221, 222, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 230, 231, 232, 233, 235

Genesis (cont’d) 1:4 128 1–5 2 1:6 128 1:6–7  125, 128 1:7 128 1:8 125 1:9  125, 128, 157 1:10  120, 121, 125 1–11  3, 4, 37, 127 1:11  121, 122, 192, 198 1:11–12  122, 128 1:12  122, 192, 193, 198, 204 1:14  118, 128 1:14–16 2 1:14–18 130 1:15 121 1:17 121 1:18  118, 128 1:20  120, 121, 122 1:20–21  121, 125, 137 1:20–22 122 1:21  119, 120, 121, 122, 128 1:21–26 137 1:22  119, 192 1:24  121, 122, 204 1:24–25  122, 128 1:24–26 125 1:25  122, 212 1:26  1, 119, 121, 122, 127, 193 1:26–29  212, 216, 227 1:27 129 1:28  119, 121, 122, 127, 147, 192, 193, 194, 195, 198, 210, 214 1:29  121, 122, 137, 192, 193, 198, 200, 202 1:29–30 121

283

Genesis (cont’d) 1:30  119, 121, 122, 198, 200 1:31  176, 179 2  124, 126, 132, 133, 141, 146, 195, 208, 210 2:1–3  161, 168, 173, 176, 179, 182, 202, 211, 227 2:2 156 2:2–3  156, 157 2–3  1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 43, 54, 61, 107, 108, 109, 118, 123, 125, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 141, 142, 156, 157, 168, 175, 176, 177, 180, 185, 191, 192, 194, 197, 198, 200, 204, 205, 206, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 216, 217, 219, 220, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 231, 232 2:3  122, 123, 128, 156 2–4  204, 205, 206 2:4–3:24  1, 107 2:4–25 236 2:5  121, 123 2:5–6 210 2:6 210 2:7  1, 121, 123 2:9 198 2:10 165 2:10–14 208 2:15  160, 197, 207, 210 2:16  124, 132, 137, 196, 197 2:16–17  124, 127, 132, 194, 198 2:17  124, 132, 133, 137, 205 2:19  121, 123, 195, 212

284 Genesis (cont’d) 2:19–20  122, 123, 143 2:20 195 2:21 196 2:25 167 3  2, 29, 69, 127, 130, 131, 132, 133, 137, 140, 141, 142, 143, 160, 163, 171, 172, 175, 177, 178, 181, 182, 185, 196, 197, 217, 225, 226, 236–254 3:1  29, 122, 123, 195, 198, 209, 212 3:1–5  132, 205 3:1–6  127, 198 3:2 209 3:3  123, 133, 137 3:6  132, 167, 198 3:6–7 205 3:7 196 3:7–8 196 3:7–24  212, 216, 227 3:8  158, 160, 176, 194, 207, 209, 215 3:9–13 205 3:11–13 198 3:12 205 3:12–13 132 3:13 205 3:14  29, 122, 123, 124, 131, 132, 138, 140, 195, 198, 209 3:14–19  131, 134, 205, 225 3:15  127, 195, 201 3:16  131, 210 3:17  30, 124 3:17–18  170, 196 3:17–19  132, 196, 205 3:18 205 3:19  133, 195, 196, 198, 210 3:21  131, 157, 167, 177, 178, 205 3:22 160 3:23  158, 159, 170, 205 3:23–24  133, 176 3:24  159, 197, 205, 207, 210, 215 4  211, 212

Scripture Index Genesis (cont’d) 4:6–7 205 4:7 205 4:8 205 4:9 205 4:9–10 205 4:10–12 205 4:11–12 205 4:12 205 4:13–15 205 4:16 205 5:5 133 5:22 194 5:29 30 6–7 191 6:7 122 6–9 232 6:12 121 6:17 121 6:20 122 6:21 121 7:2 124 7:3 122 7:4 121 7:8  119, 122 7:10 121 7:12 121 7:14  119, 121, 122 7:17–19 121 7:21  119, 120, 121, 122 7:23 122 7:24 121 8:1  121, 122 8–9 192 8:11 196 8:17  119, 120, 121, 122, 192 8:19  119, 121, 122 8:19–20 122 8:20 124 9 127 9:1  127, 192 9:2  119, 122, 127, 212 9:2–3 201 9:3  121, 124, 127, 133 9:3–4 124 9:4  124, 133 9:5 122

Genesis (cont’d) 9:7  120, 192 9:10  121, 122 9:12 121 9:14 121 9:15–16 121 9:16–17 121 9:26 119 10:1–2 218 11:2 126 11:9–12 126 11:13–23 126 12:2 192 13–14 131 13:45–46 218 15 131 15:5 192 15:31 218 17:1 194 17:2 147 17:6 192 17:20 192 24:40 194 26:3 194 26:3–4 192 26:12 194 28:3 192 32:33 123 35:11 192 37:3 157 37:18–30 19 37:33 122 39:16 160 40:17 122 41:5 196 47:23 122 47:27 192 48:1 194 48:4 192 50:17–18 172 Exodus 1  147, 215 1:7  69, 120, 192 1:11 69 1–18 66 6:8 209 7:14–11:10 146

Scripture Index Exodus (cont’d) 7:19 120 7:28 120 8–11 93 10:15 192 12 132 12:15–16 156 12:16 156 12:20 124 13:5 209 14 165 15:17  208, 209 16:15 121 16:33–34 160 18 26 19  26, 66, 101, 165 19:1–2 70 19:3 70 19:5–6  147, 185 19:6 115 20  66, 101 20:2 188 20:8–11  167, 202 20:10 156 20:10–11  156, 202 23:11  122, 195, 212 23:29  122, 195 24 165 24:9–11 163 25 207 25:1 66 25:17–20 177 25:17–22 159 25:22 159 25:31–36 207 25–40  27, 66, 69, 87, 92, 162 26:31  160, 207 26:31–33 177 26:33 128 28  155, 166 28:9–12 83 28:15–21 83 28:29–30 83 28:42–43 167 29:1–37 69 29:5 157 29:8 157

Exodus (cont’d) 29:32 196 29:34 196 30:33 169 31:15 156 31:15–17 156 32:1–35  96, 185, 220 34:5 163 34:7 217 35:2 156 36:31–38 177 38:13–14 177 39:32 69 40 173 40:1 158 40:14  157, 158 40:34–35  69, 70, 79, 90, 168, 173 40:35 84 Leviticus 1 236–254 1:1  68, 69, 70, 84 1:1–2 69 1:1–6:7 73 1:2  1, 70 1:5 80 1–7  69, 73, 78, 81, 115, 153, 162 1:7–8 80 1–9 174 1:9 164 1–10  26, 30, 68, 73, 74, 76, 80, 88, 89, 95, 114 1:14 122 1–15 78 1–16  3, 23, 26, 31, 58, 59, 71, 94, 154, 162, 188 1:16 159 1:17 128 1–26 190 1–27  25, 31, 223 2 236–254 2:1 1 2:3 80 3 236–254 3:3 124 4 236–254

285 Leviticus (cont’d) 4:3 83 4:3–31 171 4:5–6 171 4:6 154 4:13–14 83 4:17 160 4:20 172 4:26 172 5 236–254 5:2  120, 122 5:8 128 5:10 188 5:16 154 6 236–254 6:2 189 6:7 189 6:8–7:38 73 6:11  123, 188 6:15 188 6:18 189 6:19 201 6:20 164 6:22–23 171 6:26 201 7  132, 236–254 7:6 201 7:8 1 7:15 201 7:19 123 7:21 123 7:26 122 7:34 188 7:37–38  26, 73, 74 8 236–254 8:1–10:20  26, 74 8:1–36  82, 107 8:6–9 83 8:7  157, 158 8–9  69, 80, 81, 116, 152, 153, 162, 173 8–10  25, 69, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 83, 114 8:13  157, 158 8:14–15 80 8:31 196 9 236–254 9:16 188

286 Leviticus (cont’d) 9:23  168, 220 9:23–24 90 9:24 82 10  119, 150, 236–254 10:1  81, 152 10:1–2  82, 152, 169, 179, 182, 220 10:1–20 81 10:2  82, 154 10:3 82 10:6 82 10:8  116, 118 10:10  114, 116, 118, 119, 128, 136, 137 10:11 188 10:15 188 10:17 152 10:19 83 11  7, 29, 37, 73, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 161, 177, 218, 222, 224, 225, 227, 229, 231, 232, 236–254 11:1  108, 114, 116 11:1–2  115, 144 11:1–23 112 11:1–47 107 11:2  121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 132, 137 11:2–3 133 11:2–8  111, 113, 115, 116, 126 11:2–23  111, 115, 116 11:3 117 11:3–7 124 11:4  117, 133, 137 11:4–7 126 11:4–8  133, 139 11:4–45 128 11:8  116, 117, 123, 124, 133, 137

Scripture Index Leviticus (cont’d) 11:9  119, 133 11:9–10 119 11:9–12  111, 113, 115, 116, 126 11:10  113, 115, 116, 120, 121, 123, 126, 139 11:10–23 139 11:11 133 11:13  122, 123, 133 11:13–19  111, 126 11:13–23  113, 115, 116, 126 11:14–16 122 11–15  2, 73, 78, 81, 114, 116, 128, 130, 132, 134, 152, 153, 162, 172, 225 11–16 26 11:19 122 11:20  120, 126 11:20–21  122, 123 11:20–23  111, 113, 115, 116, 139 11:21  120, 121, 123 11:21–22 133 11:22  122, 126 11:23  113, 120, 122, 123 11:24 133 11:24–25  112, 130 11:24–28  113, 115, 116, 117, 139 11:24–38  111, 112, 113, 114 11:24–40  111, 112, 113, 115, 116, 140 11:25  112, 116, 139, 164 11:26–28 133 11–27 31 11:27  122, 123, 126 11:27–28  112, 130 11:28  112, 113, 139 11:29  120, 121, 122, 123, 126, 139 11:29–30  29, 113, 126, 139, 140 11:29–38  112, 113, 115, 116, 139 11:29–40 111 11:31  120, 133, 139 11:31–32  112, 130

Leviticus (cont’d) 11:31–38 139 11:31–40 113 11:32 112 11:32–38 139 11:34 116 11:35  133, 139 11:36 120 11:37 122 11:38 133 11:39  112, 121, 130 11:39–40  111, 112, 113, 115, 116, 139 11:40  112, 113, 116, 130 11:41  113, 116, 120, 139 11:41–42  112, 121, 123, 133 11:41–44  116, 117 11:41–45  111, 112, 113, 115, 116, 139, 140 11:42  2, 29, 116, 120, 123, 131, 138, 140 11:43  116, 117, 120, 140 11:43–44 117 11:43–45  81, 111, 112 11:44  82, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 129, 139, 140 11:44–45  82, 122, 123, 137, 143, 146, 181 11:45  82, 117, 129 11:46  112, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123 11:46–47  114, 115, 117 11:47  112, 118, 119, 122, 123, 126, 128, 133, 137 12  76, 91, 108, 130, 131, 236–254 12:2  83, 131 12–15  75, 77, 131 13  108, 131, 232, 236–254 13:1 116 13:1–59 107 13:6 164 13:11 196 13–14 23 13–15 76 13:45–46  83, 170

Scripture Index Leviticus (cont’d) 13:46 158 13:51 156 14  108, 158, 159, 231, 236–254 14:1–20 83 14:1–57 107 14:7 158 14:11 83 14–15 131 14:33 116 14:33–53 96 14:44–45 83 14:53  80, 158 15  91, 232, 236–254 15:1 116 15:7 164 15:31  133, 153, 159, 172 15:32–33 73 15:33 114 16  6, 7, 76, 77, 78, 81, 107, 108, 109, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 222, 225, 226, 227, 229, 231, 236–254 16:1  76, 150, 152, 154, 172 16:1–2  154, 155, 169, 181, 183 16:1–4 149 16:1–34 107 16;2, 154 16:2  152, 154, 159, 163, 177 16:2–8 151 16:2–10 154 16:2–28  150, 151 16:2–34 81 16:3 153 16:3–28  151, 153 16:4  155, 157, 158, 164, 166, 167, 175, 177, 178 16:5  153, 159, 171 16:5–22 164

Leviticus (cont’d) 16:6  149, 153 16:8 155 16:10  153, 155, 158, 159, 169, 170, 172, 176 16:11 153 16:11–14  149, 155 16:11–28 154 16:12–13 149 16:13 163 16:14  159, 176 16:15 176 16:15–16 153 16:15–19 155 16:16  80, 81, 149, 153, 155, 172 16–17 74 16:17  153, 171, 172 16:18 149 16:19  149, 153, 155 16:20  169, 172, 173 16:20–22 155 16:21  155, 158, 159, 169, 170, 172, 176 16:22  152, 156, 158, 159, 170, 176, 177 16:23  149, 160, 166, 167, 175 16:23–28 155 16:24  149, 155, 157, 164, 175 16:25 149 16:26  155, 158, 159, 176 16:27 171 16:29  76, 149, 152, 155, 156, 157, 168, 179 16:29–31  153, 156, 157, 168, 178 16:29–34  150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155 16:30  153, 173, 184 16:31  155, 156, 157, 168 16:32 183 16:33 155 16:34  149, 152, 153, 154, 155, 160, 168, 177 17  73, 74, 236–254 17:1–24:9  78, 81, 82

287 Leviticus (cont’d) 17:4 169 17:7  96, 185, 188, 220 17:12 124 17:13 122 17–22  74, 75 17–24 153 17–26  6, 26, 59, 71, 73, 189, 213 17–27  5, 73, 74, 78 18  76, 91, 236–254 18:1–24:9 78 18:3  96, 188 18:4 188 18:5  188, 189, 220 18:6 189 18:8 189 18:14 189 18–20 74 18–22 78 18:24 158 18:25 204 18–26  23, 73, 188 18:26 188 18:28 204 19  76, 108, 236–254 19:2 82 19:15 188 19:18 87 19:23 192 19:34 82 19:35 188 19:36 96 19:37 188 20  76, 236–254 20:1 83 20:2–3 82 20–21 91 20:22  188, 204 20:23 158 20:24 128 20:24–26 128 20:25  119, 122, 128 20:25–26 144 20:26  82, 91, 128 21 236–254 21:1–22:16 80 21:14 91

288 Leviticus (cont’d) 21–22 74 21:22 196 21–24 74 21:24  26, 74 22  108, 236–254 22:3 169 22:4 123 22:5 120 22:6 123 22:7 196 22:11 196 22:13 196 22:32–33 96 23  93, 108, 130, 231, 236–254 23:1–44 107 23:3  82, 156, 202 23:8 156 23:14 196 23–25  74, 75 23–26 74 23:26–32  81, 152 23–27  164, 188, 190, 191, 215 23:44  26, 74 24  2, 232, 236–254 24:9 188 24:10–23  25, 26, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 96 24:12 160 24:16  76, 82 24:22  76, 188 25  78, 108, 193, 231, 236–254 25:1 188 25:1–7  188, 202 25:1–55 107 25:2 202 25:4 202 25:6  121, 202, 212 25:7 122 25:8 202 25:8–12 202 25:18 188 25:19 200 25:20–21 121 25:22 196

Scripture Index Leviticus (cont’d) 25:23  208, 219, 220 25–26  79, 189, 202 25–27  74, 78 25:29–31 96 25:32–34 91 25:38  96, 188 25:39 193 25:42  96, 188, 193 25:43 193 25:46  82, 193 25:47 193 25:53  193, 194 25:55  82, 96, 188 26  2, 7, 74, 78, 101, 107, 108, 109, 161, 164, 168, 181, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 226, 227, 228, 229, 231, 236–254 26:1  96, 189 26:1–2  188, 189, 206, 217 26:1–46  82, 107 26:2  189, 203 26:3  189, 192, 194, 196, 197, 206, 217, 219 26:3–12 191 26:3–13  189, 214 26:4  192, 193, 200, 210, 215, 220 26:4–5 200 26:4–12  96, 191, 192, 194, 199, 203, 214, 215, 216, 217, 219, 227 26:5  193, 195, 196, 199, 200, 212, 215 26:6  122, 195, 197, 201, 210, 215, 220 26:7  197, 210 26:7–8  194, 197, 200 26:8 197 26:9  192, 195, 198, 200, 210, 215, 220 26:10  196, 199, 200

Leviticus (cont’d) 26:12  2, 158, 164, 194, 200, 209, 215 26:13  96, 188, 215 26:14  189, 214 26:14–15  194, 200, 206 26:14–33  216, 227 26:14–39  95, 189, 191, 214, 215 26:15  188, 189 26:16  122, 199, 200 26:16–17  194, 215 26:16–39 206 26:17  193, 194, 212 26:18  189, 206, 214 26:19  196, 206, 215 26:20  192, 193, 196, 200, 206, 209, 210, 215 26:21  189, 206, 214 26:22  122, 192, 195, 203, 210, 212, 215, 220 26:23  189, 206, 214 26:23–24 214 26:25 197 26:26  193, 196, 199, 200, 215 26–27 75 26:27  189, 206, 214 26:27–28 214 26:27–35 203 26:27–39 215 26:29  192, 199, 200, 210, 215 26:31 203 26:32  203, 215, 220 26:33  83, 190, 197, 203, 204, 206, 215 26:33–37 187 26:34  203, 204 26:34–35  188, 202, 203 26:35  203, 204 26:36  196, 197, 210 26:37 197 26:38 199 26:39–40 187 26:40 204 26:40–41  93, 206 26:40–43 187

289

Scripture Index Leviticus (cont’d) 26:40–45  189, 219 26:42 190 26:43  188, 203, 204 26:43–44 206 26:44  190, 206 26:44–45 187 26:45  96, 188, 190, 206 26:46  26, 70, 74, 188, 189, 206, 213, 217 27  68, 74, 78, 79, 236–254 27:1–34  26, 75 27:30 192 27:34  26, 70, 74 Numbers 1:1  70, 84 1–10  66, 87 3:7 207 3:14 70 5:1–4 158 5:28 122 8:14 128 8:26 207 9:1 70 10  25, 66, 69 10:10 66 10–36 66 11:4–6 147 13:20 192 14:11–25 172 14:20 172 14:21–23 172 15:15 160 15:19 196 15:30–35 169 16:9 128 18:7 207 19 152 19:9 157 19:13 169 20:5 157 21 140 22:22 12 22:22–35 12 24:19  193, 194 28:25 156

Numbers (cont’d) 29:1 156 29:7 156 29:7–11 149 29:12 156 31:30 124 35:3 122 36 26 Deuteronomy 1–34 26 3:20 160 4:1 189 4:17 122 4:18 119 4:25 196 5:6 188 5:14 156 6:11–12 199 7:22  122, 195, 212 8:10–14 199 10:8 128 11:10 122 11:14 200 11:15–16 199 12 132 12:17–19 95 13:5 207 14  112, 124, 139 14:8 123 14:13–15 122 14:18 122 14:19 120 14:19–20 122 16:8 156 22:9 122 23:14 195 23:15  194, 207, 209 28  190, 191, 193, 200, 201 28:1–14 190 28:3 191 28:4  191, 193, 200, 201 28:5 191 28:6 191 28:8 191 28:11  193, 200, 201 28:12 191 28:15 191

Deuteronomy (cont’d) 28:15–68 190 28:16 191 28:17 191 28:18  191, 193, 200 28:19 191 28:26 122 28:33  193, 200 28:36 200 28:42  193, 200 28:45 191 28:51  193, 200 28:53 200 28:53–57 215 28:64 200 30 191 31:10–11 17 31:20 199 Joshua 4:18 157 9:27 157 Judges 6:3–6 200 6:11 200 6:21 123 13:14 124 2 Samuel 5:20 157 7:6–7  194, 195, 207, 209 13:18  157, 158 1 Kings 6:18 207 6:29 207 7:15–22 207 8:10–11 90 11:4–8 220 13:8 157 13:16 157 13:22 157 16:29–33 146 16:29–34 95 16:31–33 220 19:5 123 19:7 123

290

Scripture Index

2 Kings 17:24 220 17:26 220 25:27–30 209

Isaiah (cont’d) 51:3 209 55:10 122 65:25  127, 201

1 Chronicles 14:11 157 17:6  194, 195

Jeremiah 3:16 192 4:23 203 4:23–28 203 4:25 204 4:26 204 4:27 204 23:3 192 31:27 122 35:7 122

2 Chronicles 5:13 160 31:10 199 Ezra 2:69 157 4:6–23 90 Nehemiah 1–2 90 5:5 90 13:23–28 91 Job 22:14  194, 195 Psalms 69:35  119, 120 78 49 78:69 202 104:20 119 105:30 120 120–134 219 135:6 119 Proverbs 13:25 199 Ecclesiastes 11:6 122 Song of Songs 5:3  157, 158 Isaiah 11:6–9  127, 201 14:2 194 22:21  157, 158 30:23 122

Lamentations 2:20 215 Ezekiel 4:14 145 5:2 197 5:22 197 8:9–10 145 9:2–3 166 9:11 166 12:14 197 28:11–19 206 28:14 165 32:2 119 34:4 193 34:27  192, 193 36:11 192 36:25 155 36:29 155 38:20 119 42:20  119, 128 47 208 47:9  120, 121 47:10 122 Daniel 1 145 5:5 166 7:6–7 166 9 184 9:2 47

Hosea 2:20 201 4:10 199 Joel 2:26 199 Micah 6:14 199 Haggai 1:4–11 90 2:3 90 2:10–14 91 2:13–14 90 Zechariah 1:4 47 3 183 5:5–6 90 5:5–11 149 Malachi 1:6–2:9 91 1:6–8 90 2:1–2 90 3:8–9 90 Luke 24:44 95 Revelation 15:6 166 Jubilees 8:19 206 2 Esdras 14:45 67 1 Maccabees 1:62–63 144 2 Maccabees 6:18 144

Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements

1. Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible, by Gerald A. Klingbeil 2. War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-​First Century, edited by Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens 3. Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, edited by Richard S. Hess, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Paul J. Ray Jr. 4. Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry, by Knut Martin Heim 5. Divine Sabbath Work, by Michael H. Burer 6. The Iron Age I Structure on Mt. Ebal: Excavation and Interpretation, by Ralph K. Hawkins 7. Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1–11: Reading Genesis 4:17–22 in Its Near Eastern Context, by Daniel DeWitt Lowery 8. Melchizedek’s Alternative Priestly Order: A Compositional Analysis of Genesis 14:18–20 and Its Echoes throughout the Tanak, by Joshua G. Mathews 9. Sacred Ritual: A Study of the West Semitic Ritual Calendars in Leviticus 23 and the Akkadian Text Emar 446, by Bryan C. Babcock 10. Wrestling with the Violence of God: Soundings in the Old Testament, edited by M. Daniel Carroll R. and J. Blair Wilgus 11. Wealth in Ancient Ephesus and the First Letter to Timothy: Fresh Insights from Ephesiaca by Xenophon of Ephesus, by Gary G. Hoag 12. Paul and His Mortality: Imitating Christ in the Face of Death, by R. Gregory Jenks 13. “Did I Not Bring Israel Out of Egypt?” Biblical, Archaeological, and Egyptological Perspectives on the Exodus Narratives, edited by James K. Hoffmeier, Alan R. Millard, and Gary A. Rendsburg 14. Honor, Shame, and Guilt: Social Scientific Approaches to the Book of Ezekiel, by Daniel Y. Wu 15. Hostility in the House of God: An Investigation of the Opponents in 1 and 2 Timothy, by Dillon T. Thornton 16. Hope for a Tender Sprig: Jehoiachin in Biblical Theology, by Matthew H. Patton 17. Making Sense of the Divine Name in Exodus: From Etymology to Literary Onomastics, by Austin Surls 18. Trees and Kings: A Comparative Analysis of Tree Imagery in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition and the Ancient Near East, by William R. Osborne 19. Bearing Yhwh’s Name at Sinai: A Reexamination of the Name Command of the Decalogue, by Carmen Joy Imes 20. Poor and Rich in James: A Relevance Theory Approach to James’s Use of the Old Testament, by Nelson R. Morales 21. “I Will Walk Among You”: The Rhetorical Function of Allusion to Genesis 1–3 in the Book of Leviticus, by G. Geoffrey Harper