The Torah as One, Three or Five Books: An Introduction to the Macro-Structural Problem of the Pentateuch1 Hendrik Koorevaar Professor of Old Testament Evangelische Theologische Faculteit in Leuven
[email protected] Reference: Hendrik Koorevaar, “The Torah as One, Three or Five Books: An Introduction to the Macro-Structural Problem of the Pentateuch.” Hiphil 3 [http://www.see-j.net/hiphil] (2006). Accessed DD.MM.YYYY.
1. Introduction: The Importance of the Subject The Torah (law) or Pentateuch (five fold division) extends from Gen. 1:1 to Deut. 34:12. This observation is part of the fundamental knowledge of the Old Testament. Even so, it presents a problem. As literature does the Torah consist of one work or as a block of five books? Can both be true or are they mutually exclusive? The origin of the problem is found in the Jewish tradition itself, which contains both pronouncements. Various scholars are either not aware of this problem or do not discuss it at all.2 The question becomes even more difficult because the observation is regularly made in Old Testament scholarship that the books Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers belong together. They are difficult, if not impossible, to separate as a literary unit. Are there therefore three books or is there only one book with only internal boundaries? The Torah would then consist of three books: Genesis, Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers (Central Panel)3 and Deuteronomy. This is true only if one accepts Deuteronomy as the boundary of the Torah. Some speak instead of a Tetrateuch (Genesis - Numbers), Hexateuch (Genesis - Joshua) or Henneateuch (Genesis - Kings). In recent scholarship the idea of the Henneateuch is becoming more and more influential. These views concerning the extent of the Torah are not congruent. Even in regard to this primary question regarding the extent of the corpus of literature scholarship has reached an impasse. The goal of this article is to present an overview of scholarly positions about the divisions within the Torah or Pentateuch and to evaluate them. Is the Torah, from a literary point of view, one book, three books or five books? Or is even the break after Deuteronomy so weak that the Torah in the traditional sense does not exist at all? The value of this investigation can be seen in the following areas: 1. Why is it that some see the Torah as one book and others see it as a block of books? The discussion concerning the literary difference between a block of books and a single book 1
This article is an expanded version of a lecture read September 5, 2001, during the Doctoral Colloquium at the Evangelical Theological Faculty in Leuven, Belgium. Translation: Tom Swanson (Eureka U.S.A.). 2 See, e.g., R. Dillard and T. Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament. Leicester: Apollos Inter-Varsity Press, 1995. 3 My choice of the term ‘Central Panel’ is based on the pronouncements of various Old Testament scholars concerning the structure of the Torah. Genesis is the introduction. Deuteronomy is the conclusion and in the middle is the large unit of Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers. This is comparable to a triptych in religious art in which the focus of attention is directed to the great middle panel.
Hendrik Koorevaar, “The Torah as One, Three or Five Books: An Introduction to the Macro-Structural Problem of the Pentateuch.” Hiphil 3 [http://www.see-j.net/hiphil]. Published August 28, 2006.
has, in my opinion, not been adequately investigated. This lack of clarity might be one of the causes of the polyphony in Pentateuch scholarship. If, for instance, Genesis is a separate book, then – as a first step – one must concentrate on the book of Genesis alone regarding questions of authorship, formation and (final) redaction. It is possible that the final redaction of Genesis took place together with one or more books of the Pentateuch. But one must prove the thesis and not presume it. 2. If the Torah appears to have a triptych form, then this will be a stimulus to acquire an overview of Exodus – Leviticus – Numbers together. It will be expected that new structural, theological insights come to light. This again can offer assistance in acquiring a clearer view of the function of the book of Deuteronomy. “The Macrostructural Problem of the Pentateuch” lies to a certain extent in the line of “The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch” (G. von Rad) and of “The Transmission Historical Problem of the Pentateuch” (R. Rendtorff).4 I consider the issue of the macrostructure as the basic literary problem in Pentateuch scholarship. 2. An Overview of Scholarship It is not a simple matter to collect and order the different publications regarding the unity and division of the Pentateuch. This is because no history of the scholarship exists, such as exists, for example, the authorship and dating of the Pentateuch. In that instance one can trace an historical line over a period of three centuries to see how scholars built upon earlier research, made a new contribution, opening new doors or closing others. This is lacking regarding the question of the unity and division of the Pentateuch. This does not mean that scholars do not reflect on this matter, but in general there is not an awareness that this is an important issue. Sometimes advocates of the idea that Exodus – Leviticus – Numbers form a unity, pay in general more attention to this question, but such is not always the case. In order to get an insight, not only all articles in the field, but also all OT introductions and commentaries, especially those on the three central books of the Pentateuch, have to be consulted. It appears that commentators on the book of Numbers are especially aware that it is not easy to deal with Numbers as a separate book. Of course I had to limit myself to the boundaries of an article. I have grouped the various viewpoints into five categories. It is always a risk to categorize many ideas into a reduced number of positions. Some scholars might be surprised to find themselves classified in a particular category. At times it was also difficult to discern someone’s point of view if only a few remarks were made. In such cases I faced the choice of not mentioning the scholar or to give him a place anyway. Sometimes I had to drop the work of a scholar because the different utterances did not allow a conclusion about his position.5 More often I accepted such a work and in this way have run the risk of over-interpreting 4
G. Von Rad Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 4. Verlag W. Kohlhammer. Stuttgart 1938. R. Rendtorff, The Problem of the Process of the Transmission of the Pentateuch. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 89. JSOT Press. Sheffield 1990. 5 For instance C. Westermann, Die Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments. Gab es ein deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk? Theologische Bücherei Altes Testament 87. Chr. Kaiser. Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Gütersloh 1994. On p. 38 he gives an overview of the total of Genesis to Kings, but divides it over two columns: history and laws. In the columns of the laws he has two blocks. One block contains Exodus 21-40, Leviticus, Numbers 110. The second block consists out of Deuteronomy 12-26 with Deuteronomy 1-11 and 25-30 (sic!). This, however, does not allow us to draw a conclusion about the position of Westermann. Did the insertion of the fist block into the history of Israel (Exodus to Kings) originally result into the formation of one book Exodus Leviticus - Numbers or not?
2/19
Hendrik Koorevaar, “The Torah as One, Three or Five Books: An Introduction to the Macro-Structural Problem of the Pentateuch.” Hiphil 3 [http://www.see-j.net/hiphil]. Published August 28, 2006.
someone’s position. At times I state this in a footnote. Furthermore, it would also be possible to develop more precise, moderate positions than the categories listed below. In that case the difference between positions would become so minimal that there would be little value in making a distinction. Such an overview would be more confusing than enlightening. In this chapter I present at the beginning of each paragraph a short description of the content of each category. Afterwards I let the scholars speak for themselves, without commentary on their positions. The commentary comes in the chapter that follows. A reader can in this way receive a direct impression through the different voices in this area. Furthermore, very few scholars give an overall presentation of their position, but instead present only a few ideas. In a summary of all the various arguments for a certain position a reader could receive the impression that a position is fully developed, but this is only seldom the case. 2.1. The Torah is one book and the fivefold division is a later intervention (overview) The fivefold division of the Torah is a later intervention. The division was admittedly made with an understanding of the subject, but that does not detract from the fact that it is secondary. The intention was to divide the large body into five handy sections, roughly of the same size. This position is articulated by Eißfeldt.6 The fivefold division is not at all decisive. A division by content would look entirely different, namely Gen. 1-11, Gen. 12-50, Ex. 1-18, Ex. 19:1-Num. 10:10, Num. 10:11-36:13 + Deut. 1-34. According to Noth7 the Pentateuch is only later divided into five books, in other words, into five separate scrolls. The separation between Genesis and Exodus is understandable. The first book is about individual people and the second about the collective, Israel. Beyond this there is also a long separation in time. The story of Exodus is abruptly interrupted. The directions from God to Moses in Exodus, however, are continued in Leviticus and end in the first part of Numbers. The division between Leviticus and Numbers is the result of an unfortunate, equitable fivefold division. Numbers is part of the great story of the Pentateuch and must be viewed from within this greater frame of reference. According to Dentan8 Numbers is not a book as such, but a more or less arbitrary division in the larger structure of the Pentateuch. A unity can only be artificially imposed upon the book. According to Goldberg9 the book of Numbers never was an independent work. Its existence as a book is the result of the division of the Pentateuch into five books. This took place for practical reasons: the handling of the Torah scrolls. According to Guthrie10, neither in its final form nor in any of the sources underlying it, is Numbers a separate unit. It is part of a larger unit, the division of which is largely arbitrary.
6
O. Eißfeldt, The Old Testament: an Introduction including the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and also the works of similar type from Qumran. The History of Formation of the Old Testament (New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, 1965) 135, 156-157. 7 M. Noth, Das zweite Buch Mose Exodus. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958) 1-2. M. Noth, Das vierte Buch Mose Numeri. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 7 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966) 5-6. 8 R. C. Dentan, “Numbers, Book of”. In Buttrick, G. A., The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible 3 (New York and Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962) 568. 9 A. M. Goldberg, Das Buch Numeri (Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1970) 11. Citation from D. T. Olson, The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch. Brown Judaic Studies 71 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1985) 52. 10 H. H. Guthrie, “The Book of Numbers.” In C. M. Laymon, The Interpreter’s One Volume Commentary on the Bible (New York and Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971) 85.
3/19
Hendrik Koorevaar, “The Torah as One, Three or Five Books: An Introduction to the Macro-Structural Problem of the Pentateuch.” Hiphil 3 [http://www.see-j.net/hiphil]. Published August 28, 2006.
According to Narkiss11 for non-liturgical reasons and for convenience of handling the law was transcribed to five separate rolls. Hence the name Pentateuch: the five-volumed (book). According to Porter12 Leviticus was not originally a separate and self-contained unit, but formed part of a continuous whole, comprising what is now the first five (or, more probably the first four) books of the Old Testament. According to Friedman13 the Pentateuch consists of six major parts. Genesis is divided into two sections, Gen. 1-11 and Gen. 12-50 (primeval history, patriarchs). The third section consists of Ex. 1:1-15:21 (liberation from Egypt), with Ex. 15:22-16:36 added as an interim. The fourth section consists of Ex. 17-40 and Leviticus together (the stay at Sinai / Horeb). Numbers and Deuteronomy are the fifth and sixth sections. With this division he admits that he does not see the five-fold division as original, although he does not specifically express this. According to Sailhamer14 the Pentateuch is one literary unit. Subsequent OT writers call the whole of the Pentateuch a “book” (2 Ch. 25:4, 35:12; Ezra 6:18; Neh. 13:1). The same occurs in the NT. Mark 12:26 calls the Pentateuch “the book of Moses”. Philo and Josephus speak of the five-fold division already in the first century before Christ and in the first century after Christ. The Talmud also later testifies to the same. In the Septuagint the five-fold division is also present. However, one should not draw the wrong conclusion that the five-fold division of the Law is as old as the Greek translation from the third century before Christ. The shape of the existing manuscripts reflects a much later period. The earliest references to the Greek Pentateuch clearly regard it as a single book. The five-fold division is old and reflects the practice to write larger works on several rolls. The five-fold division happens only at a later time. This division is clearly old, but not original. The original work was written as one book. Sailhamer then devotes a great deal of attention to the structure of the Pentateuch and offers various diagrams / schema’s. A few larger poetic units form the junctures of a macrostructure in the Pentateuch. Gen. 49, Num. 22-24 and Deut. 32-33 mark off the Pentateuch’s macrostructure as consisting in three parts. Each of these poetic sections exhibits some striking similarities: calling the listeners together, the announcement and ‘the end of days’. Therefore, Sailhamer says, the Pentateuch is composed of three units, but those three units are subdivisions of one literary work. He confirms this again in his theology.15 According to Scharbert16 the delimitation between the books Leviticus and Numbers is unclear. There had been a collection of traditions, beginning in Ex. 19:1 and continuing to Num. 10:10, that gave a report on the events and the giving of the law at Sinai. Even so, the delimitation is correct, because in Num. 1 the preparations begin for the departure of Israel from Sinai and the journey through the wilderness to the Promised Land. The delimitation between Numbers and Deuteronomy is also imprecise. Num. 26-36 contains the last instructions from Moses to his people while in the hills of Moab, shortly before his death. But this is also the role Deuteronomy fulfils. Furthermore, one is led to expect the death of Moses 11
B. Narkiss, “Bible.” In Encyclopaedia Judaica 4 (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1971) 820. J. R. Porter, Leviticus. The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976) 2. 13 R. E. Friedman, “Torah (Pentateuch)”. In D. N. Freedman, The Anchor Bible Dictionary 6 (New York: Doubleday, 1992) 605. 14 J. H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative. A Biblical Theological Commentary. Library of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992) 1-2, 35-37, 44, 46-50, 57-59. 15 J. H. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995) 241. 16 J. Scharbert, Numeri. Die neue Echter Bibel Altes Testament 27 (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1992) 5. There is not a clear pronouncement from Scharbert concerning the final form of the Pentateuch and how it functions. Because he is a proponent of the traditional division of sources of the Pentateuch, he fits best in this category. 12
4/19
Hendrik Koorevaar, “The Torah as One, Three or Five Books: An Introduction to the Macro-Structural Problem of the Pentateuch.” Hiphil 3 [http://www.see-j.net/hiphil]. Published August 28, 2006.
after Num. 36, but this isn’t handled until Deut. 32:48-52 and Deut. 34. This is because of the sources J and E (JE and P) used in Numbers, which are used only here, but are not found in Deuteronomy. According to Ashley17 Numbers is made up of three sections. Section 1 (1:1-10:10) regarding the stay at Sinai is linked by its content to Ex. 20-Lev. 27. In this way it is linked to the central books of the Pentateuch. Ashley is doubtful about Olson’s division into two parts (1:1-25:19 and 26:1-36:13) and his argument viewing Numbers as an independent book. According to Gerstenberger18, in light of current literary understanding Leviticus is not a ‘book’ at all, but is actually an artificial excision of a larger narrative and legal work. That work is also like a quilt, made up of very diverse pieces that are sewn together. It is best seen as a subdivision of Ex. 19-Num. 10. Why were the dividing lines not made after Ex. 35 and Num. 10? Setting off Leviticus as a ‘book’ appears to be arbitrary and does agree with the five-fold division of the writings of Moses (Torah, Pentateuch). The reading of the Scriptures in worship must have been the reason. The division must have occurred between the fifth and third century before Christ, because the division is known by both the Greek translation and the holy scriptures of the Samaritans (who separated themselves from Judaism). Leviticus is the smallest and the least appropriate excision out of the Pentateuch. 2.2. The five-fold division is drawn up within the framework of one book (overview) The Torah is one book in which the five units at the same time function as separate books, because they were designed in relationship to each other. According to Keil19 the three middle books contain the history of the establishment of the Old Testament kingdom of God. The first book provides the early history and the fifth the confirmation. The five-fold division is not the work of a later editor, but is based on the whole design of the Torah and is original. This also applies for the middle three books. Leviticus is marked off from the other books by its content, the introduction in 1:1 and by the closing formula in 27:24. Green20 shares Keil’s view concerning the unity and five-fold division of the Pentateuch. In his “Scheme of the Pentateuch” he nevertheless divides it into two sections: Gen. 1-Ex. 19 (History) and Ex. 20-Deut. 34 (Legislation). Edelkoort21 points out that there are passages in Numbers that are related to parts of Exodus and Leviticus. Furthermore there are passages in Numbers that one would sooner expect to find in Exodus or Numbers (6:22-27, 9:1-14, 19:1-22). Other parts are parallel with passages in Numbers and Leviticus (for example, 8:1-4, 5-26, 15:1-31, 18:1-32, 28:1-30:17) and don’t fit at all in Numbers, according to him. Edelkoort questions why these laws are included in Numbers and not in Exodus or Leviticus. He sees two possibilities. 1) These collections were already closed off, so that there was no more place for later laws. 2) The laws in Numbers belonged to collections other than the ones in Exodus and Leviticus. In Numbers a series of ritual instructions are found that came into existence alongside and independent of 17
T. R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 2-3. Ashley makes no clear pronouncement about the final form of the Pentateuch and its function. Because he is a proponent of a more conservative origination of the Pentateuch, he fits best in this category. 18 E. S. Gerstenberger, Das 3. Buch Mose Leviticus. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993) 2-5. 19 C. F. Keil, Genesis und Exodus. Biblischer Kommentar über das Alte Testament (Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1878) XV. 20 W. H. Green, The Unity of the Book of Genesis. Charles Scribner’s Sons. New York, London 1895 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979) 18, 29. 21 A. H. Edelkoort, Numeri. Tekst en Uitleg (Den Haag: Groningen, 1930) 13-15
5/19
Hendrik Koorevaar, “The Torah as One, Three or Five Books: An Introduction to the Macro-Structural Problem of the Pentateuch.” Hiphil 3 [http://www.see-j.net/hiphil]. Published August 28, 2006.
Exodus and Leviticus. Edelkoort chooses the second option. Numbers is not a simple continuation of Exodus and Leviticus, but contains independent material that runs largely parallel with those books. Edelkoort thus sees Numbers as an independent work. According to Budd22 there are indications that a book like Numbers is not simply an artificial creation. Numbers is designed as a unit, but then as a component in a series of books that stand in close connection to each other. The problem of the manageability of the material must have been present from the very beginning, when the final editor (P) had an overview of all the material. According to Olson Numbers is not a completely independent unit, but forms an integral part of the broader context of the five books Genesis through Deuteronomy.23 Even so, Numbers is its own literary division. Various scholars separate Num. 1:1-10:10 from the book and attach it to a subdivision that stretches from Ex. 19, through Leviticus and on to Num. 10:10. This is called the Sinai pericope. In this way Numbers becomes unimportant as a literary unit. The five-fold division is actually an old tradition. It was given its form by the final editor. This needs to be accepted as an important fact for the explanation of the book of Numbers. The division into five books has an important exegetical meaning and is not the result of an arbitrary division or the ease of use. The five-fold division does not belong to the original literary prehistory of the text, but it is probably the result of a later edition. Olson admits that the division between Leviticus and Numbers is the least clear among the books of the Pentateuch. Genesis and Deuteronomy give more evidence of being books with an independent integrity. Even so, there is still a clear division between Leviticus and Numbers. The conclusion of Leviticus, “these are the commandments that the LORD gave to Moses for the Israelites on Mount Sinai”, gives the theological context for the whole book. In contrast to that, the introduction to Numbers gives a completely different context, both geographical as well as theological. The action changes from Mount Sinai to the wilderness near Sinai. God no longer speaks from the top of the mountain, but in Numbers he speaks from the portable sanctuary. Sarna24 points to the initial waw in Ex. 1:1 which acts as a connective to Genesis. This suggests continuity with the preceding narrative. Notwithstanding these obvious connections with the preceding and following books, Exodus possesses an integrity of its own.25 It is marked off by a prologue and epilogue (1:1-7, 40:36-38). The former registers the migration of the Israelites to Egypt from Canaan, the latter records the journeys of the people on their way to Canaan from Egypt. The cultural anthropologist Mary Douglas has written both a book about Numbers and an article about Leviticus. According to her26 the narrative parts of Numbers have some 22
P. J. Budd, Numbers. Word Biblical Commentary 5 (Waco, Texads: Word Books Publisher, 1984) xix-xx. D. T. Olson, The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch. Brown Judaic Studies 71 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1985) 43-44, 48-49. He attempts to develop this idea in the following chapters: “External evidence for Numbers as a literary unit”, “Internal evidence for Numbers as a literary unit”, “The tradition responsible for editing the books”, “The significance of the division of the Pentateuch into five books”, “The census lists as the unifying framework of Numbers”. Olson admits that Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers are “closely related books”, but “the division of the books is not at all even, since Leviticus contains only two thirds of the verses in Exodus or Numbers. Thus, the five books of the Pentateuch were not the result of a purely mechanical and arbitrary division into equal segments for reasons of convenience.” 24 N. M. Sarna, Exodus. The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991) 3. 25 N. M. Sarna, “Exodus, Book of”. In D. N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1992) 690. 26 M. Douglas, In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 158 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 85-88. 23
6/19
Hendrik Koorevaar, “The Torah as One, Three or Five Books: An Introduction to the Macro-Structural Problem of the Pentateuch.” Hiphil 3 [http://www.see-j.net/hiphil]. Published August 28, 2006.
overall unity, in spite of the complaints by many modern commentators. They narrate God’s dealings with his people and clearly continue the preceding books. Numbers goes back to Exodus to fix the dates of its own tale. The story begins with the commission to count the men able to bear arms, but with a separate counting of the Levites. The story follows the people of Israel through the forty years in the wilderness until their arrival at the borders of the Promised Land, where they are counted again. In chapter 26 the story should stop, but ten more chapters follow. Chapter 27 is perhaps the real closing, after Joshua has been commissioned as successor to Moses, but this would be at the expense of chapter 31 where revenge is taken against the enemies of chapter 25. Must one then stop in chapter 33, which gives a summary of all that has gone before? Then what should be done with the remaining three chapters? Chapter 36 is about an inheritance and marriage; this would seem to point to a weak plot. Yet this is the resolution of the rights of the daughters of Zelophehad in relation to the division of the land (27:1-11). The book of Numbers is built on the interchange between narrative and commands. Those interruptions might serve a conscious rhetorical purpose. Douglas compares all of this with Num. 15:37-41 where the Israelites must include ‘a cord of blue’ in the tassels on the corners of their garments. Every part of the story is then bordered by a section of the law in which the people are reminded of their separation to God. Douglas also sees the book of Leviticus as having a ring structure with Lev. 19 as the first turn.27 In this way the book is a closed and self-functioning literary work. According to Zenger28 the Pentateuch is built in a chiastic structure around the book Leviticus. Genesis and Deuteronomy form the outer frame, Exodus and Numbers the inner frame. Numerous similar stories demonstrate the parallel structure. Sinai forms a sort of continental divide. Crying for bread and water before Sinai is ‘legitimate’, but after Sinai it is sin. In the centre is the constitution of Israel as a holy people, where the holy Jhwh wishes to be present and active. In the middle of Leviticus, that in itself is also concentrically structured, is the message from Jhwh as the God who desires to reconcile (Lev. 16-17). After this follows an outline of the structure of Leviticus. Rendtorff29 interacts with Mary Douglas, who sees Leviticus as a closed book. He points to the fact that Jewish exegesis since the earliest times has viewed Leviticus as a separate book. From this point of view, Leviticus is a separate book. In the documentary hypothesis mention is only made of P (Priestly code) with a number of subdivisions such as Pg, Ps or simply P1, P2, P3 and also H (Holiness laws, maybe also further subdivided). Why then are commentaries written on Leviticus and not on P or H? Or the other way around: why isn’t Leviticus taken as a book when these sources were joined together? Who is right? Is modern scholarship right in opposing the Biblical and rabbinical tradition? Or would it be better to speak of ‘original’ and ‘later’ or ‘secondary’? Viewed in this way, there is no such thing as a book of Leviticus. In its given form, Leviticus is dependent on what precedes and on what follows. It is an internal biblical question as to how Leviticus must be read. In the final form as Torah the books belong close together. Deuteronomy is a separate book. In Deut. 1:6-8 the reader must already know about the sojourn at Sinai (things found in Exodus), as well as the promise to the patriarchs found in Genesis. Genesis is also a separate book, 27
M. Douglas, “Poetic Structure in Leviticus.” In D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman and A. Hurvitz (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 239-256. 28 E. Zenger et al, Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Studienbücher Theologie 1,1 (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1995) 37. 29 R. Rendtorff, “Is It Possible to Read Leviticus as a Separate Book?” In J. F. A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 227 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 22-39.
7/19
Hendrik Koorevaar, “The Torah as One, Three or Five Books: An Introduction to the Macro-Structural Problem of the Pentateuch.” Hiphil 3 [http://www.see-j.net/hiphil]. Published August 28, 2006.
although the reader is aware from the closing in Gen. 50:24-25 (the end of Joseph) that the story must be continued. The ending of Exodus is incomplete. The building of God’s dwelling is finished, but worship is not yet begun. Leviticus has no foundation if Exodus does not come first. Is Lev. 1-7 an addition? Without it the rest of Leviticus is unintelligible. According to Rendtorff the text that begins in Lev. 1 is about worship in the temple in Jerusalem. These texts are the heart of the Pentateuch. This is why Leviticus is not simply a continuation of Exodus. What precedes in Ex. 25-30 and 35-40 is the preparation for the central religious and cultic texts that begin in Lev. 1. Lev. 1:1 also demonstrates this. God calls Moses as he had called him before in Ex. 24:16. Now in Lev. 1 the second half of this revelation begins. Therefore, a new book begins in the series of five books of the Torah. Numbers begins with a date. This is clearly a new beginning that has no relation to the previous book of Leviticus, but rather to the book of Exodus. This is clearly an argument for the end of the book of Leviticus. Rendtorff readily agrees with the proposal made by Mary Douglas to see Leviticus as a separate book, but not as separate from the whole of the Pentateuch. 2.3. The boundaries between Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers are weaker than between Genesis and Deuteronomy (overview) The books Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers belong together and are distinct as literature from the books Genesis and Deuteronomy. Even so, there is no objection to accepting the internal boundaries between Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers as actual boundaries, but these have a weaker character than the boundaries between Genesis / Exodus and between Numbers / Deuteronomy. The Torah is regularly viewed as a triptych with Genesis as the introduction, Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers as Central Panel and Deuteronomy as close. The Torah is one, three and five at the same time. In 1840 Berteau30 wrote a book with the title The seven groups of Mosaic laws in the three middle books of the Pentateuch. His research concentrated primarily on the laws in Ex. 19 to Num. 36. According to him the laws in Deuteronomy belong to “the second collection” that distinguishes itself in various ways from the first collection. According to Lange31 the three middle books of the Torah possess a uniform character and constitute in a limited sense the Torah of Israel. Lange does not draw any literary conclusions from this, but rather argues theologically. He poses questions about the relationship between the three, between the three and the whole Pentateuch, with Genesis, with Deuteronomy and finally even with the whole of Scripture, especially the NT. The title of the book by Hoedemaker32 is “The Mosaic origin of the laws in the books Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. Lectures on the modern Bible Criticism of the Old Testament”. Although his goal was to refute Pentateuchal criticism, the title testifies to the necessity of a collective view of the middle three books in order to more easily refute Pentateuchal criticism. According to Gray33 it is not possible to regard the book of Numbers as an independent unit. Num. 1:1-10:10 can be regarded as an appendix to the books Exodus and Leviticus. Numbers is rather artificially separated from the whole. Ex. 19:1-Num. 10:10 30
E. Bertheau, Die sieben Gruppen mosaischer Gesetze in den drei mittleren Büchern des Pentateuchs. Ein Beitrag zur Kritik des Pentateuchs (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1840) VIII. 31 J. P. Lange, Die Bücher Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri oder die drei mittleren Bücher des Pentateuch als die Thorah Israels im engeren Sinne (Bielefeld and Leipzig: Verlag von Velhagen und Klasing, 1874) I-X. 32 Ph. J. Hoedemaker, De mozaïsche oorsprong van de wetten in de boeken Exodus, Leviticus en Numeri. Lezingen over de moderne Schriftcritiek des Ouden Testaments (Leiden: D. A. Daamen, 1895). 33 G. B. Gray, Numbers. International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh and New York: T. & T. Clark, 1905) xxiii-xxv.
8/19
Hendrik Koorevaar, “The Torah as One, Three or Five Books: An Introduction to the Macro-Structural Problem of the Pentateuch.” Hiphil 3 [http://www.see-j.net/hiphil]. Published August 28, 2006.
belong to one subject (conception). Therefore, he divides the books Exodus - Leviticus Numbers into three parts: Ex. 1-18, Ex. 19:1-Num. 10:10 and Num. 10:11-36:13. In this way he departs from the traditional boundaries of the books. According to Schneider34 Exodus never was an independent work, but only a component of the Pentateuch. There is a clear distinction from Genesis, but not from Leviticus, because the Divine commissions to dedicate the priests in Ex. 29:1-37 and to anoint the sanctuary in Ex. 40:9-11 are finally carried out in Lev. 8. Segal35 names the books Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers “The Middle Books” of the Pentateuch. According to Maarsingh36 Leviticus strongly agrees with the last part of Exodus. Ex. 29 and Lev. 9 are almost identical. The difference is that in the first chapter the commandment is given and in the second it is carried out. Numbers also applies various laws (from Leviticus). According to Sturdy37 Numbers closely follows the preceding book of Leviticus, but does not lead to the following book Deuteronomy, which appears as an insertion in its present position. According to Kikiwada and Quinn38 Genesis and Deuteronomy serve as introduction and conclusion to the Pentateuch and Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers form the three part center. Blenkinsopp39 has a paragraph called “Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers”. He finds it understandable that the division into books occurs at Ex. 1:6 and not at the list of the family members in Gen. 46. Such markings are absent at the boundary between Exodus and Leviticus and between Leviticus and Numbers. The division of the central part of the Pentateuch into three books was not due to the logic of the narrative and also not for purely practical reasons related to the production of scrolls (it could have easily been produced in two scrolls). The division into three parts allowed the final editor to place Leviticus in the central position between Exodus and Numbers. The central section is in this way locked in between the first and fifth books, which are much more independent. Blenkinsopp presents the following division of the three middle books: (1) Israel in Egypt (Ex. 1:1-15:21); (2) Israel in the wilderness, including its progress through the Transjordan region (Ex. 15:22-18:27 + Num. 10:11-36:13); (3) Israel at Sinai (Ex. 19:1-Num. 10:10). According to Hartley40 the material in Leviticus is part of a larger block that goes from Ex. 25:1 to Num. 10:10. Even so, a heading and two summary comments (26:46, 27:34) set Leviticus apart as a separate book. History and law are woven together through all of Exodus – Numbers.
34
H. Schneider, Exodus. Echter Bibel (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1952) 5. M. H. Segal, The Pentateuch, Its Composition and Its authorship and Other Biblical Studies (Jerusalem: 1967) 36. 36 B. Maarsingh, Leviticus. De Prediking van het Oude Testament (Nijkerk: G. F. Callenbach, 1974) 10. 37 J. Sturdy, Numbers. The Cambridge Bible (Cambridge: English Bible, 1976) 2. 38 I. M. Kikiwada and A. Quinn, Before Abraham Was: A Provocative Challenge to the Documentary Hypothesis (Nashville: Abingdon, 1985) 119-125, in D. Garrett, Rethinking Genesis: The Sources and Authorship of the First Book of the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991) 122. 39 J. Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bibel (London: SCM Press, 1992) 134-138. It is not clear if Blenkinsopp should be included with this group or with the following group. Does the work of the “final editor” with the three part division of the central section belong to the form of closing text of the Pentateuch or is this a later form applied to an already existing text? 40 J. E. Hartley, Leviticus. Word Biblical Commentary 4 (Waco: Word Books Publisher, 1992) xxx-xxxi. 35
9/19
Hendrik Koorevaar, “The Torah as One, Three or Five Books: An Introduction to the Macro-Structural Problem of the Pentateuch.” Hiphil 3 [http://www.see-j.net/hiphil]. Published August 28, 2006.
According to Sprinkle41 the intertwining of narrative and regulations is not unique, but is common not only in Exodus, but also in Leviticus and Numbers. This pattern is not random, but appears to be a consistent stylistic characteristic for Exodus through Numbers. 2.4. Exodus – Leviticus – Numbers are conceived serially (overview) This is Auld’s position.42 Like Rendtorff, he interacts with Mary Douglas who sees Leviticus as a closed book. According to him Leviticus is not as independent as Genesis and Deuteronomy. Genesis is longest, but does not include the Moses story. Deuteronomy distinguishes itself in such a way that when one finds similar material elsewhere in the Bible, one says it is ‘Deuteronomistic’. Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers bear a closer resemblance and are dominated by Moses and Aaron. Auld then investigate the dividing lines between these three books. He wonders what sort of beginning “and He called” in Lev. 1:1 is for a book. The Divine subject for the verb appears only after the second verb in the verse. He explains it as follows. 1) The sentence recapitulates Ex. 24:16b, ‘and on the seventh day He called to Moses from within the cloud”. There the subject of “called” needs no specification, because Jhwh was already named earlier in the verse. 2) The sentence closely follows Ex. 40:34-35. This underscores the continuity of the divine address to Moses despite the removal of the divine glory from the top of Sinai to the tent of meeting. Leviticus is often read, not as something complete in itself, but as part of a larger sub-section of Exodus-Numbers. One common option is to bracket Leviticus 1 - Numbers 9/10, the continuing legislation at Sinai, though no longer from the top of the mountain – the ‘glory of God’ now resides in the portable shrine. It is often urged against this reading, that there is no formal ending or subscript at Num. 9.23 or 10.10. Another common option is to read Exodus 25 – Leviticus 26/27 as a meaningful unit. Leviticus 26.46 and 27.34 have both been identified as manifest subscripts – but of what? They are not subscripts to the so-called Holiness Code, also not to the whole book of Leviticus, but only of Lev. 25-26, or, better, a peroration that does not leave these two chapters isolated, but places them within a context that embraces key moments of Genesis and Exodus.43 In his conclusion Auld advances the idea that Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers were conceived serially and not together. Leviticus was added to Exodus and later Numbers was linked to both of them. A serial approach for the conception of these books helps us to explain their differences, including the many updates, and also their many similarities. He points out that Lev. 8 is later than Ex. 29, the four laws in Numbers are later than the two sets of five each in Leviticus, Lev. 4 is used in Num. 15 and Num. 28-29 is later than Lev. 23. Up to this time, I have not found this proposal made by Auld anywhere else. There is however some parallel with the formation model of the whole Pentateuch by C. Rogers,44 connected with Mosaic authorship. Moses wrote the books of Exodus (at least the larger part of it), Leviticus and Numbers after each other during the 40 years of journey from Egypt to the eastern border of Canaan. He situates, however, the formation of the three middle books of the Pentateuch together with Genesis and Deuteronomy in the same framework of 41
J. M. Sprinkle, The Book of the Covenant: A Literary Approach. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 174 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994) 18. The information from Sprinkle is too sparse to be able to place him with any confidence in any group. 42 G. Auld, “Leviticus at the Heart of the Pentateuch?” In J. F. A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 227 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 40-51 (+ Discussion, p. 52-64). 43 Earlier Auld makes a connection between Gen 26:5 and Ex 16:28 and 18:16, 20. He does this on the basis of the plural form, ‘laws’. 44 C. Rogers, Die Entstehung des Pentateuchs. Fundierte Theologische Abhandlungen 4 (Wuppertal: Verlag und Schriftenmission der Ev. Gesellschaft, 1986) 50-51.
10/19
Hendrik Koorevaar, “The Torah as One, Three or Five Books: An Introduction to the Macro-Structural Problem of the Pentateuch.” Hiphil 3 [http://www.see-j.net/hiphil]. Published August 28, 2006.
development, so that there is no real difference between the formation of the three central books and the first and fifth one. 2.5. Exodus – Leviticus – Numbers form one book (overview) The whole of Ex. 1:1 – Num. 36:13 was designed as one literary unit and it was not intended to be divided into three parts, not even as internal lines of division. The Torah is a triptych, with Genesis as introduction, Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers as central panel and Deuteronomy as conclusion. The Torah is a block that consists out of three different literary works. According to Holwerda45 the Pentateuch is actually not a five-part, but a three-part work. The first part is Genesis, which has a very different structure due to the ten ‘toledot’. The second part is Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers, which give the story of the exodus along with a closed cycle of laws. Then Deuteronomy as third part follows, giving an exhortation on the basis of the second part with an eye on the entry into the land. According to Vonk46 the Pentateuch consists of three parts: a) an introduction: Genesis, b) a main section: Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, and c) a conclusion: Deuteronomy. The main section is a collection in which there is no logical or chronological order that our modern times would demand of a book. Since the primary concern in the collection is completeness, subjects are handled more than once. This is why the annual feasts appear first in Ex. 23:14-19, then in 34:18, 22-26, again in Lev. 23 and once again in Num. 28, 29:18-31. This main section is the core of the Pentateuch. Deuteronomy was added as a concluding work. This in turn then required a prologue, which became the book of Genesis. Vonk is cautious in dating the process. The functioning of the Pentateuch with its three composite works doesn’t say anything about the origin and dating of the prototypes. Mosaic literary activity certainly took place. He might also have been involved in the editing process. There was certainly also later editorial activity. The final editing of the whole must have taken place well into the time of the kings. According to Cross47 the Priestly tradant took up a new framing device in ExodusLeviticus-Numbers (in comparison to Genesis). He apportioned his epic and Priestly tradition in blocks, according to the stations of Israel in the journey from Egypt to the Plains of Moab. According to Houtman48 the Pentateuch consists of three larger units, namely Genesis, Exodus through Numbers and Deuteronomy. Each unit has its own character. Exodus is distinguished from Genesis by its chronological divisions, its structure and its content. Genesis, by application of the ‘toledot’-formula, is a well structured and complete unit. Exodus through Numbers considers the experiences of Israel in Egypt, the exodus, the stay in the wilderness and the arrival on the borders of Canaan. Deuteronomy stands by itself, although with clear connections to the preceding books. Because the Deut. 31-34 conclusion reaches back to the subjects from the last chapters of Numbers, there is a meaningful integration of Deuteronomy into the Exodus through Numbers section. This does not mean 45
B. Holwerda, Bijzondere Canoniek. Oudtestamentische voordrachten II (Kampen: Copiëerinrichting v. d. Berg, 1972) 171-172. Holwerda must have given his lectures on the Pentateuch at the end of the 1940’s. He then died an early death. Later his lectures were published using the notes of his students as the basis. 46 C. Vonk, De Voorzeide Leer Ia. De Heilige Schrift. Inleiding, Genesis, Exodus (Barendrecht: Drukkerij “Barendrecht”, 1960) 50-55. 47 F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Massachussetts: Harvard University Press, 1973) 308. Citation from D. T. Olson, The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch. Brown Judaic Studies 71 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1985) 115. 48 C. Houtman, Inleiding in de Pentateuch (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1980) 244-254. C. Houtman, Der Pentateuch: Die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology 9 (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994) § 113-114, p. 423-432.
11/19
Hendrik Koorevaar, “The Torah as One, Three or Five Books: An Introduction to the Macro-Structural Problem of the Pentateuch.” Hiphil 3 [http://www.see-j.net/hiphil]. Published August 28, 2006.
that there is no cohesion between Genesis and Exodus through Numbers, but both of these do form more or less complete units with their own character. Genesis alone remains a torso, no matter how closed it is. The book begs for a follow-up about what happened to the promises that were given to the patriarchs. Although each section has its own character, each also only makes sense in connection with the other sections. Furthermore, the promises made to the patriarchs in Genesis assume a Hexateuch and not the Pentateuch. Houtman comes to the conclusion that Genesis through Kings comes from the same author(s). The division between the Pentateuch and Joshua through Kings is not original. In his later commentary on Exodus Houtman49 demonstrates what the relationship is between the end of Exodus and the beginning of Leviticus. According to Wenham50 the material in Numbers cannot be understood without the preceding material in Exodus and Leviticus. The three middle books of the Pentateuch are closely related, with Genesis as introduction and Deuteronomy as conclusion. On this basis Wenham presents a diagram over the whole of Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers. Egypt
Ex 1
Sinai
13
Kadesh
19 Leviticus Num 10 13
Plains of Moab
20
22
36
After the first section in Ex. 1-13, there are three cycles that can be identified from Exodus through Numbers, always returning to the same subjects and motifs at the same point in the cycle. This can not be accidental. This is confirmed by explicit allusions in the stories themselves (for example, Num. 28:6, 32:8ff.). There are parallels between the three journeys and between the three-fold giving of the law at Sinai, at Kadesh and on the plains of Moab. According to Childs51 the history at Sinai is linked to the three books Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. There is an explicit chronological sequence in which it is established when the people of Israel came to Sinai, how long they stayed and when they departed. Those events at Sinai were preceded and followed by the report of the journeys in which the people were led from Egypt to Sinai and from Sinai to the edge of the Promised Land. The inner coherence of the three books is obvious. The place of Genesis and Deuteronomy is more difficult to establish. Genesis is very different in style and content from the three middle books. Deuteronomy is very different than the preceding books, being stylistically a series of addresses from Moses to Israel. According to Milgrom52 in his commentary on Leviticus, the story of the building of the Sanctuary in Ex. 35-40 is continued in the report on its dedication (Lev. 8). Lev. 1-7 is an 49
C. Houtman, Exodus Deel III (Exodus 20-40). Commentaar op het Oude Testament (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1996) 581-586. 50 G. J. Wenham, Numbers: An Introduction and Commentary. The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 4 (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1981) 15-18. 51 B. S. Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (London: SCM Press, 1985) 130. It is not an easy task to assign a place to Childs. On the one hand we have the comments made above and on the other hand he respects the canonical form of the Law with its five books. 52 J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1991) 61.
12/19
Hendrik Koorevaar, “The Torah as One, Three or Five Books: An Introduction to the Macro-Structural Problem of the Pentateuch.” Hiphil 3 [http://www.see-j.net/hiphil]. Published August 28, 2006.
insertion, but not without meaning. The closing verses in Exodus (Ex. 40:36-38) about the Divine cloud that leads Israel on its journeys is clearly intrusive. This belongs in Numbers. The same information is repeated in Num. 9:15-23, but then in more detail. The Exodus passage is a proleptic summary of its Numbers counterpart and serves with it to bracket the intervening material, Lev. 1:1-Num. 9:14, which comprises all the laws revealed to Moses at Sinai. These laws occupy the centre of the Pentateuch. They must, therefore, be the foundation of Israel’s life. In his commentary on Numbers Milgrom53 points out the striking links between Numbers and Exodus (the wilderness stories and journeys are duplicated). He further shows the connections between Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua. His overarching framework is that of the Hexateuch. Within this he has a main section that consists of Genesis 12-50 + Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers + Joshua. He gives a schematic overview of this position and shows how the sub-sections function in relationship to each other. Gen. 1-11 and Deuteronomy do not fit into the scheme of the main section. The structure of the whole Hexateuch looks like a leaning, fallen pyramid. Whybray54 in his “Introduction to the Pentateuch” has but one chapter on Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers together. According to him there are no natural divisions between the three. The division of the Pentateuch into five books is indeed old, but not original. Those divisions were applied on the basis of a judgment about the content and out of practical necessity, because the amount of material that could be written on one scroll was limited. Of the five books only Genesis and Deuteronomy clearly have their own character. Merrill55 presents in his article “The Development of the Old Testament as an Historic Report” seven points. The title of the second point is: “Exodus - Numbers: the constitution of a nation”. From Moses’ perspective the first need was for an overview of the recent history of the nation, beginning with the sojourn in Egypt and the following departure. Then the attention could be given to those things that lay farther in the past (Genesis). Deuteronomy served both as a summary and a look into the future. Num. 33:1-4 is the introduction to the report of the journey that began in Exodus and ends on the plains of Moab (Num. 33:5-49). God had commissioned Moses to describe the journeys. He collected them in the present account (Ex. 12:37-Num. 33:49). Because the death of Aaron is mentioned (Num. 33:38), it is assumed that the written history was recorded near the end of the life of Moses. Within the Exod - Num corpus itself, the hinge of history resolves around the Sinai covenant (Ex. 19-24). All that leads up to it (Ex. 1-18) is preparatory to it and all that follows it (Ex. 25 – Num. 36) is in consequence of it. Rendtorff56 wants to make the present final form of the Pentateuch the foundation for a theological exposition. He treats the books Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers as a unit, but gives no reason for doing so.
53
J. Milgrom, Numbers. The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1990) xvixviii. Milgrom is difficult to place in one of the categories, because his large main section consists of Genesis 1250 and Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers. 54 R. N. Whybray, Introduction to the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 63. 55 E. H. Merrill, “Old Testament History: A theological Perspective.” In W. A. VanGemeren (ed.), New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis 1. Lexical Dictionary a–z 1–2458 (Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 1997) 75-77. 56 R. Rendtorff, Theologie des Alten Testaments: Ein kanonischer Entwurf. Band 1: Kanonische Grundlegung (Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999) 10, 31-67 (I.2 Die Bücher Exodus bis Numeri).
13/19
Hendrik Koorevaar, “The Torah as One, Three or Five Books: An Introduction to the Macro-Structural Problem of the Pentateuch.” Hiphil 3 [http://www.see-j.net/hiphil]. Published August 28, 2006.
3. Evaluation of scholarship In this section I want to evaluate the various positions that were mentioned in the previous chapter. A summary of the position comes first, at times followed by additional information about different accents within the position. After that commentary is given or critical questions are asked. At times arguments in favour of one position also occur in support of another position. These are only addressed one time and then referred to in subsequent commentary. It is impossible to respond to all comments made. Some relate to a scholar's very special ideas, which are worked out in an exegetical discussion. Such comments are interesting, but when they are not crucial for supporting or criticizing a position they are laid aside because of the reduced parameters of an article. 3.1. The Torah is one book and the fivefold division is a later intervention (evaluation) This conviction is found in two groups that think very differently on the questions of dating and authorship. The one group puts great emphasis on Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Since Moses wrote the Torah, it is one literary work. Does Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, however, really automatically lead to the conclusion that he wrote one single literary work? Why could Moses not have written three or five different works that form together the block called the Law? From a literary perspective, Genesis and Deuteronomy are very different from the three middle books of the Pentateuch. From this one observation no conclusions can be drawn as to whether the works were written in succession or at the same time. Genesis has with its ‘toledot’-formula a structure that the rest of the Pentateuch is missing. This points to an independent and closed literary work. Deuteronomy is also an independent literary work with its own development. Besides this, there is room for doubt about the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. The death of Moses in Deut. 34, it is true, is explained as a later addition. But if Deut. 34 actually functions as an integrated part of Deuteronomy, then this hypothesis of an addition becomes difficult to support.57 Beyond this there is discussion over the extent of the addition to the end of Deuteronomy in what is supposedly a Mosaic work. Is it after 34:4,58 33:29,59 32:43,60 31:23,61 or 30:20?62 The other group is proponents of the traditional documentary hypothesis of the Pentateuch. Because the final editor handled what was to become the whole Pentateuch (or Tetrateuch, or Hexateuch, or Henneateuch), it is one literary whole. If there are divisions, then one of two positions is possible. 1) They are later interventions that were not done by the original editor. 2) They are divisions made by the original editor, but they have at most a function related to internal development and do not give evidence of the existence of various books. The objections to this group are the same as to the first group. Genesis and 57
So, for example, C. J. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium deel III. De Prediking van het Oude Testament (Nijkerk: G. F. Callenbach, 1997) 9-10. 58 Baba Bathra I, vi; fol. 14b-15a. C. Rogers, Die Entstehung des Pentateuchs. Fundierte Theologische Abhandlungen 4. Freie Theologische Akademie (Wuppertal: Verlag und Schriftenmission der Evangelische Gesellschaft, 1986) 7-63, esp. 32. 59 G. L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1964) 244. 60 F. W. Schultz, Das Deuteronomium erklärt (Berlin: G. Schlawitz, 1859). See C. F. Keil, Leviticus, Numeri und Deuteronomium. Biblischer Kommentar über das Alte Testament (Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 18702) 554. 61 E. W. Hengstenberg, Die Authentie des Pentateuches. Zweiter Band (Berlin: Ludwig Oehmigke, 1839) 149178 (“Aussagen des Pent. über seinen Verfasser”). Keil, Leviticus, Numeri und Deuteronomium, 538-539, 553554. 62 W. Möller, Rückbeziehungen des 5. Buches Moses auf die vier ersten Bücher. Veröffentlichungen des Bibelbundes 11 (Lütjenburg: Selbstverlag des Bibelbundes, 1925) 92. P. C. Craigie, Deuteronomy. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976) 370.
14/19
Hendrik Koorevaar, “The Torah as One, Three or Five Books: An Introduction to the Macro-Structural Problem of the Pentateuch.” Hiphil 3 [http://www.see-j.net/hiphil]. Published August 28, 2006.
Deuteronomy are independent literary works that differ from each other and beyond that differ from the three middle books of the Pentateuch. Both groups resist the Jewish tradition that the fivefold division is original. The resistance is a logical consequence to the thesis of the literary unity of the Torah. The arguments against this will be handled in the following paragraphs. 3.2. The five-fold division is drawn up within the framework of one book (evaluation) The Pentateuch consists of five different books that were developed together within the framework of one book. According to Olson63 the fivefold division is built into the form of the final editor. An appeal is made at this point to very old Jewish traditions and the fivefold division of the Septuagint. There is resistance to the thesis that the fivefold division is a later intervention. It is not found to be convincing that mechanical reasons such as writing on scrolls should be the explanation for the existence of the fivefold division. The discussion revolves primarily around the internal division of Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers. The content of these three could just as easily have been divided into two scrolls. Beyond that, the three books are not of equal length. Leviticus contains only two thirds of the number of verses as Exodus and Numbers. This proves that there can be no discussion about a mechanical division based on equal length. Beyond this, some attempt to demonstrate that the books Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers are independent books with their own literary structure; arguments for independence apply not only to Genesis and Deuteronomy. That independence must not be seen as an absolute. They were developed together as a part of the Torah. The argument from the Jewish tradition is strong. Beginning in the first century BC the five-fold division is already attested. The argument from the Septuagint is less forceful. We don’t possess the Septuagint in the Jewish line of transmission, but in the form of Christian codices starting in the fourth century AD. One cannot extrapolate from the Christian Septuagint that the five-fold division was also included in the translation of the third century BC. This is possible, but one has no proof of that. If, as Olson64 supposes, the fivefold division is built into the final editing, then he confuses the present final canonical form with the final editing. It is precisely this final canonical form that is disputed. If a copyist felt that it was necessary (for example, for technical reasons) to divide the Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers unit into two or three sections, then he would also look to see where those divisions would best suit the content. For that reason one part might be longer than another. Otherwise his division could fall in the middle of a pericope if he was to count verses or even in the middle of a verse if he would count words. Perhaps Blenkinsopp65 is correct that another reason led to the threefold division of the unit Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers, namely, to give the content of Leviticus a central place in the central panel and in that way also in the Pentateuch. The present canonical final form does not need to be original. As far as the autonomy of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers is concerned, we must wait for the arguments against this presented in the following paragraphs. Concerning the closed structure of each of these three books, not everyone will be convinced of, for example, the ring structure in Leviticus presented by Mary Douglas. One could say the same for the structure of Numbers advanced by Olson. The census lists in Num. 1-4 and 26 form important theological data and it is acceptable that an important division is to be expected at Num. 26. But it is another question, if this data compels a division of Numbers into two main sections, or if Numbers can for that reason be defended satisfactorily as an independent book. 63
Olson, The Death, 33-37. Olson, The Death, 33-37. 65 Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch, 134-136. 64
15/19
Hendrik Koorevaar, “The Torah as One, Three or Five Books: An Introduction to the Macro-Structural Problem of the Pentateuch.” Hiphil 3 [http://www.see-j.net/hiphil]. Published August 28, 2006.
3.3. The boundaries between Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers are weaker than between Genesis and Deuteronomy (evaluation) It is admitted that Genesis and Deuteronomy are independent books, but that the boundaries between Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers, while present, are very weak. The subject that is begun in Exodus is continued in Leviticus and Numbers. The boundaries are actually internal. Various arguments are given for the links between the three middle books. Even so, one would not go so far as to say that the boundaries have no meaning as boundaries between books. The witness of the tradition concerning the five-fold division has decisive value as opposed to the literary and content based arguments. The value of those arguments will be evaluated in § 3.5, since the arguments are also presented there. The real difference between the positions in § 3.3 and § 3.5 is that the same literary and content based observations do not lead to the same conclusions. The first position is bound to the tradition of the five-fold division and in this way allows a tension or contradiction to arise between tradition and literary observation. The second position draws its conclusions from the literary observations, namely that Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers form one literary whole. In this way one is required to regard the tradition of the five-fold division as secondary. 3.4. Exodus – Leviticus – Numbers are conceived serially (evaluation) The books Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers did not originate together, but as a serial. Exodus was written first. This was later supplemented with Leviticus, the supplement consciously connected to the previous material in Exodus. Finally, this duality is supplemented with Numbers, again with a conscious connection to the previous material in Exodus - Leviticus. On the one hand this model explains the phenomenon of continuation and on the other hand explains the marked boundaries between the books. Up to this time, I have not found this proposal made by Auld in this form anywhere else. He declares that this idea (only) came to him during the preparation of his lecture to be given as an answer to the work of Mary Douglas. For this reason one cannot view it as a fully matured model. The serial model does have a great advantage in that it explains two things that up to now were seen as contradictions, or at least great tensions. Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers form a unit in regard to content, with the same literary style, and yet they are at the same time three distinct books. The old boundaries relating to the origins of the books are maintained. Even so, it appears to me that the final result in the serial model of development is only one book. It is concerned with old development boundaries and not the separate literary book boundaries. The weakness of the model lies especially with the phenomenon of prolepsis. In Ex. 16:35, for example, it states that the Israelites ate manna for forty years until they came to the border of Canaan. Does such a comment fit into a serial model? In Exodus itself there is no mention of a journey of forty years, since after the completion of the Divine sanctuary the journey could have lasted at most a few weeks or months. The forty years journey is the result of a totally unexpected event that isn’t mentioned until Num. 13-14. The examples that Auld gives for seriality are interesting, but the phenomenon of seriality has a very different character than the phenomenon of prolepsis. The examples for seriality are instructions and (logical) expectations or further (understandable) developments. Prolepsis does not fit in a serial model, but fits better in the model of an overall concept. 3.5. Exodus – Leviticus – Numbers form one book (evaluation) The three middle books of the Pentateuch together form one book. Exodus - Leviticus Numbers were originally conceived as one book. The division of this work into three is not original, but occurred at a later time. As far as the literary unity of the three books is 16/19
Hendrik Koorevaar, “The Torah as One, Three or Five Books: An Introduction to the Macro-Structural Problem of the Pentateuch.” Hiphil 3 [http://www.see-j.net/hiphil]. Published August 28, 2006.
concerned, this viewpoint is largely the same as the view in § 3.1 that the whole Pentateuch is but one literary work. See § 3.2 for an evaluation of the arguments concerning the originality of the five-fold division. In this case, the Torah consists of three works. The arguments go in various directions. 1.
2.
3.
4.
The books Genesis and Deuteronomy are independent books, each with its own structure and each self-contained. The three middle books have a very different literary functioning. Many scholars tend to think in this direction and this must be judged as correct. See further § 3.1. The events at Sinai (Ex. 19:1 - Num. 10:10) hold Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers together. The boundaries between Exodus / Leviticus and Leviticus / Numbers break this “Sinai pericope” up into pieces that do not function independently. This is a widely held viewpoint in OT scholarship and must be seen as correct. The boundary between Exodus and Leviticus especially encounters insurmountable problems. The directive from God in Ex. 25-31 to build him a house and to install the priesthood that would belong to it, is only half fulfilled at the end of Exodus through the building of the house. The priesthood is not dedicated until Lev. 8-10. The house of God without the priesthood is unthinkable. The boundary between Leviticus and Numbers appears to be stronger. The development of Exodus – Leviticus – Numbers as a whole. There are content related links between the journey from Egypt to Sinai and the journey from Sinai to the eastern boundary of Canaan. The similarities are striking. The first portion of the journey takes place in Exodus and the second portion of the journey takes place in Numbers. Often scholars have pointed out that this is a conscious structural relationship. We can also view this as being correct. It is to Wenham’s credit that he presented an overarching structure for all of Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers, by which various ties between Exodus and Numbers have already been acknowledged by others. The phenomenon of prolepsis. See Milgrom66 on Ex. 40:36-38. The comment there concerning the function of the cloud for the later journeys of Israel makes no sense at the end of Exodus if that book was conceived as an independent unit.
The arguments that are given for this position are correct and difficult if not impossible to refute. Yet, there are some weaknesses to point out. The weaknesses are not so much in the area of correctness, but are rather related to the depth and completeness of the arguments. No scholar gives a systematic overview of the arguments for the literary unity of Exodus Leviticus - Numbers and of the questions that relate to this. There is still much work to do. a)
It is necessary to devote more attention to the questions about the book boundaries. The boundaries between Genesis / Exodus and between Numbers / Deuteronomy are boundaries between books, but the boundaries between Exodus / Leviticus and Leviticus / Numbers are the internal boundaries of one book. b) Little attention has been given to the phenomenon that the Torah contains no overarching literary structure. Although it is correct that there is a complete story in the Pentateuch and there are many links in relationship to content, no encompassing, unifying literary structure can be demonstrated.
66
Milgrom, Leviticus, 61.
17/19
Hendrik Koorevaar, “The Torah as One, Three or Five Books: An Introduction to the Macro-Structural Problem of the Pentateuch.” Hiphil 3 [http://www.see-j.net/hiphil]. Published August 28, 2006.
c)
For this reason the question of the difference between a book and a block of books must be considered. Is the Torah a book or a block of books? The same question must be asked in regard to the Henneteuch (Genesis - Kings). d) Little attention has been given to literary, interactive links between Exodus - Leviticus Numbers. Now and then one might find a commentary or introduction with a remark about prolepsis or summarization, but one looks in vain for a systematic development of this question. Prolepsis and summary create unbreakable bonds between these ‘books’. The prolepsis in Ex. 16:35-36 has already been referred to in § 3.4. Saying that the Israelites ate manna for forty years in the wilderness does not fit in a book like Exodus if it is an independent book or written as the first part of a serial with Leviticus and Numbers. It does fit in the concept of an overall work in which Exodus and Numbers are included together. The summary or overview of the whole journey in Num. 33, beginning in Egypt and ending on the plains of Moab, refers not only to Numbers but also includes the information from Exodus (and Leviticus). If Numbers is an independent book, then this information does not really fit. e) Wenham uses the geographical phenomenon as the key for an overarching structure of Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers. One might have doubts whether the geographical element is actually decisive for the structure of the Central Panel. Are perhaps literary and theological elements more important in the structure? Wenham started from the idea of a geographical approach, without adequately defending the idea itself. The question of the literary structure of Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers as a whole remains a fascinating challenge.
4. Perspectives It was fascinating to discover that Rendtorff gave different answers to the question as to whether the Torah is a one, three or five part work. He actually said ‘yes’ three times. 1) The Torah is a literary unity; 2) The Pentateuch is five different books; 3) The Pentateuch consists of three books. The lack of clarity regarding “the Macrostructural Problem of the Pentateuch” became visible in one and the same person.67 Rendtorff has sympathy for all the positions. The question is actually if those three positions are compatible. Was he sufficiently aware of the problem? Future research of the Pentateuch has been given a serious challenge by viewing Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers as only one literary unit; the Pentateuch becomes not one, or five, but three books. The idea has already been around for a (very) long time and is accepted by scholars from different denominations and languages. Both scholars that work with a historical canonical approach and scholars working with a historical critical approach are found among its supporters.68 I have not (yet) been able to discover the origin of the idea. It appears that the thesis rather suddenly and independently come to the forefront, as if the material in the Pentateuch itself gave rise to the idea.69 Although the idea often receives support from various vantage points, mainstream Pentateuchal scholarship does not pay much 67
The expression “the Macrostructural Problem of the Pentateuch” is at the same time a word play with the title of the book The Problem of the Process of the Transmission of the Pentateuch (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990) by Rendtorff. 68 Their positions vary from a formation model with the help of Mosaic sources up to a model with the help of the documentary hypothesis of the Pentateuch. 69 This, of course, does not exclude the possibility that the idea can also be taken over from somebody else, as is the case with me. Even a school can come into existence round this idea. This we see with Holwerda and Vonk, members of the “Vrijgemaakt Gereformeerde Kerk” (Reformed Free Church) in the Netherlands.
18/19
Hendrik Koorevaar, “The Torah as One, Three or Five Books: An Introduction to the Macro-Structural Problem of the Pentateuch.” Hiphil 3 [http://www.see-j.net/hiphil]. Published August 28, 2006.
attention. Furthermore, the traditional five-part division of the Torah still has a powerful influence. For these reasons, the concept of a three-part division of the Torah has not found fertile soil. This introductory article may help to point to both the strengths and the weaknesses in the development of the idea up to the present time. The limited scope of this article would not allow examination of the details. This work will, of course, need to be done. Future investigation must deal with the following subjects: 1. The essential difference between a book, that was consciously designed as a closed literary unit, and a block consisting out of different closed books (Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Henneateuch, Deuteronomistic History). 2. An evaluation of the traditional boundaries within the Tora. 3. Interactive connections between Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers. 4. The literary structure of Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers as Central Penal. 5. The formation of the Pentateuch as Triptych. All of the evidence contained in these three books concerning dating and authorship will have to be considered again, but as a first step each book should be considered separately. Perhaps these books were put into their final forms at the same time, but perhaps not.
19/19