University
of Nebraska Press
Shofar
- Books Received
Shofar
- Advertising &
Mailing List Info
Shofar
- Book Reviews |
From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus, by Christophe Nihan. Forschungen zum Alten Testament, Second Series, #25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. 697 pp. $95.00.
This remarkable study of the composition of the book of Leviticus represents a new sensitivity to literary design in Central European biblical scholarship. Although Nihan’s point of departure is defined by the common assumptions of historical criticism with regard to the extent of the “Priestly” source (the corpus of ritual prescriptions in Exodus 25–Numbers 36 and its narrative congeners in Genesis–Exodus) and its exilic/post-exilic date, his attention to literary insights and anthropological perspectives leads to a totally different view of this book.
Nihan discusses the literary function of Leviticus 1–16 within the priestly narrative of Israel’s origins, and describes chapters 17–26 (the “Holiness Code,” H) as the product of inner-biblical exegesis, intended to react to and to complement both the “Priestly” source (P) and the Deuteronomic legislation. The narrative legislation of Numbers is largely viewed as an additional layer in the priestly corpus, which is to establish the theocratic regime of the newly founded nation. In this vista Leviticus truly forms the center of the Pentateuch, as it completes the revelation of the Torah to Moses on Mount Sinai (Lev 26:46; 27:34). Like Milgrom, whose contributions to the study of the priestly compositions figure large in Nihan’s work, the Swiss scholar ascribes the redactional framework of Leviticus to the scribes treading in the footsteps of H (the Holiness School, HS), to which he, however, attributes only few passages in which H phraseology is particularly frequent.
In Nihan’s view chapters 1–16 of Leviticus derive from a Priestly source that was edited by HS. It was to close the priestly narrative of Israel’s origins, and opened with the inauguration of the sacrifical cult. This section comprises the description of the sacrifices (chapters 1–3) and the inauguration of the altar of the Tabernacle (chapters 8–9, from the same stock as Exod 25–29; 35–40). In a significant departure from Wellhausen, who viewed these chapters as essentially nomistic, Nihan regards this section as an essential part of the P narrative. The sacrificial framework indicates, in his view, “the partial [Nihan’s italics] restoration, in Israel’s cult, of the original community between God and man at the creation of the world.” The Priestly narrative thus presents a complete reinterpretation of “the Sinai tradition, suggesting that the content of the revelation made at Mt Sinai was the sacrificial cult itself, and that such revelation comprised nothing less than the outcome of a process of reconciliation between God and his creation that started after the Flood” (pp. 610–11). The tale of rejection of the “alien fire” sacrificed by Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10) is regarded as an exegetical amplification by the final redactor (the “theocratic” redactor of Numbers).
The section of chapters 11–16 which deals with purity and purification of the community forms the compositional counterpart of the chapters of the inauguration of the sacrificial framework. If the latter centers on the harmony created by the sacrificial order, the chapters on purity and purification show how to uphold this harmony in face of the dangers threatening it. This section is closed by the purification ritual of Yôm haKippurîm (Lev 16:1–28), which Nihan presents as a largely closed composition and a structural parallel to chapters 8–9. Nihan attaches particular weight to the cloud formed by Aaron’s incense at his entrance of the adytum (Lev 16:12–13), in a sense a manifestation of the divine cloud appearing above the Holy of Holies (v. 2) and the sign of the replacement of the prophetic mediation through Moses by the priestly-sacrificial mediation. Hence the purification ritual of Yôm haKippurîm doubles as a cultic theophany, and as such forms the culmination of “a coherent development framing the entire Sinai pericope in P” (p. 365). In view of this structure Nihan finds the high point and final accord of the priestly compostion in Leviticus 16. The entire Priestly composition is viewed as the Charter Myth for the nascent Temple community in Persian era Judea.
Nihan describes the “Holiness Code” (Lev 17–26) as a literary continuation of and exegetical response to the Priestly composition; an example for the effect of such “inner-biblical exegesis” is the view of the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrificial animal on the altar as the atonement for its killing (17:11), which implies the rejection of the Deuteronomic permission of slaughter outside of the sanctuary, but is also dependent on the Noahide covenant (Gen 9:4–5). Chapters 18–20 of Leviticus represent “a compendium of sorts” of “the requirements of a holy life” “as a first step to personal sanctification” (pp. 466–67), whereas chapters 21–22 serve to indicate the eminent position of priesthood and High Priest. In the section on the “sacred times” (Lev 23–25) the festival calender (ch. 23) is based on the systematic reception of all previous biblical calendars. The Jubilee law (ch. 25) reflects the conception of the land as inalienable property of the Deity, and abolishes the notion of slavery for the Israelites, who can only be temporarily dependent workers. The code is rounded off by a chapter of blessings and curses (Lev 26), which actually forms the conclusion for the entire revelation at Mt Sinai.
Thus H forms a complex and elaborate, but nevertheless homogeneous and coherent set of legislation, which represents the God of Israel as the “king over his land, and the Israelites . . . as a temple community whose role is to serve” him (p. 535). In this perspective, which is strikingly similar to Maimonides’ concluding vision of the Guide for the Perplexed, H is regarded as a representative of the Persian period, opting for a Torah-based observance, unlike the eschatological tendencies of the Ezekiel redaction.
The present reviewer applauds Nihan’s attempt to bridge over the great divide between redaction criticism and structural-poetic analysis of biblical texts, and the way he transforms redactional stratification into inner-biblical exegesis. His rich bibliography includes frequent references to Jewish and Israeli scholars side by side with the latest continental literature, such as, Menachem Haran, Avi Hurvitz, Israel Knohl, Baruch Levine, Baruch Schwartz, and Moshe Weinfeld (regrettably, Jacob Licht’s superb contributions to the Entziklopedia Mikrait have not been taken into account). Nevertheless some criticism is in its place. First, the attribution of H in its entirety to the Persian period is nowhere backed up by the consideration of its language. Hence the ostensible establishment of the socio-historical context actually is hardly more than a purely exegetical move hidden by a literary-historical façade. Second, the adoption of the model of inner-biblical interpretation is welcome, but this model represents exegesis. Thus, the perception of the connection between Ezekiel and H does not, in itself, indicate which text forms the base and which the interpretation. Nihan’s analysis of this matter differs considerably from Milgrom’s. The radical differences of opinion indicate that the use of the interpretational model for a construction of redaction history is very much in need of methodological reflection. After all, in this model interpretation is, rather than merely exegesis, the composition of a new text encompassing and superseding the base text. The creative aspects of this process are at cross purposes with the deterministic line of historical evolution. Accordingly, redaction history in this mood still has to free itself from its evolutionistic ancestors.
Nihan’s meticulous study is a significant step in this direction and forms an important contribution to the analysis and exegesis of Leviticus and the entire Pentateuch.
Frank H. Polak
Department of Hebrew Culture
Tel-Aviv University
|
