Offprint:

The Pentateuch
International Perspectives
on Current Research

Edited by
Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid
and Baruch J. Schwartz

ARTIBUS

Mohr Siebeck 2011

 Table of Contents

Table of Contents . V

Abbreviations IX

Introduction Xl

Current Issues in Methodology

Baruch I Schwartz
Does Recent Scholarship’s Critique of the Documentary
Hypothesis Constitute Grounds for Its Rejection
7 3

Konrad Schmid
Has European Scholarship Abandoned the Documentary Hypothesis?
Some Reminders on Its History and Remarks on Its Current Status 17

Reinhard G. Kratz
The Pentateuch in Current Research: Consensus and Debate 31

David M Carr
Scribal Processes of CoordinationlHarmonization and the
Formation of the First Hexateuch(s) 63

Benjamin D. Sommer
Dating Pentateuchal Texts and the Perils of Pseudo-Historicism 85

Jean-Louis Ska
The Limits of Interpretation 109

Genesis

Thomas Kruger
Genesis 1:1—2:3 and the Development of the Pentateuch 125
chaela Bauks
xt- and Reception-Historical Reflections on Transmissional and
rmeneutical Techniques in Genesis 2—3 139

n Christian Gertz
urce Criticism in the Primeval History of Genesis:
1 Outdated Paradigm for the Study of the Pentateuch
7 169

naidHendel
the “J” Primeval Narrative an Independent Composition?
Critique of Crusemann’s “Die Eigenstandigkeit der Urgeschichte” 181

rah Shectman
ichel, Leah, and the Composition of Genesis 207

?ristoph Levin
ghteousness in the Joseph Story:
seph Resists Seduction (Genesis 39) 223

Exodus Deuteronomy

iner Albertz
eLate Exilic Book of Exodus (Exodus l_34*):
Contribution to the Pentateuchal Discussion 243

omas B. Dozeman
e Priestly Wilderness Itineraries and the
rnposition of the Pentateuch 257

hard Blum
e Decalogue and the Composition History of the Pentateuch 289

neon Chavel
Le Literary Development of Deuteronomy 12:

tween Religious Ideal and Social Reality 303

el S. Baden
Le Deuteronomic Evidence for the Documentary Theory 327
 P. H, andD

Saul M Olyan
An Eternal Covenant with Circumcision as Its Sign:
How Useful a Criterion for Dating and Source Analysis’? 347

Israel Knohi
Who Edited the Pentateuch’? 359

Jeffrey Stackert
Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction:
Leviticus 26 as a Test Case 369

Itamar Kislev
P, Source or Redaction: The Evidence of Numbers 25 387

Christophe Nihan
The Laws about Clean and Unclean Animals in Leviticus and
Deuteronomy and Their Place in the Formation of the Pentateuch 401

Pentateuch in the Hebrew Bible and Its History ofReception

Reinhard Achenbach
“A Prophet like Moses” (Deuteronomy 18:15) “No Prophet like Moses”
—

(Deuteronomy 34:10): Some Observations on the Relation between the

Pentateuch and the Latter Prophets 435

Graeme Auld
Reading Genesis after Samuel 459

Thomas Römer
Extra-Pentateuchal Biblical Evidence for the Existence of a Pentateuch?
The Case of the “Historical Summaries,” Especially in the Psalms 471

James W. Watts
Using Ezra’s Time as a Methodological Pivot for
Understanding the Rhetoric and Functions of the Pentateuch 489

Gary N. Knoppers
Parallel Torahs and Inner-Scriptural Interpretation:
The Jewish and Samaritan Pentateuchs in Historical Perspective 507
 Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal
Redaction: Leviticus 26 as a Test Case1
JEFFREY STACKERT

Many recent scholarly treatments of the Pentateuch have engaged the later
stages of these texts’ composition as well as their compilation into larger
combinations. Especially in European scholarship, some of which posits sig-
nificant post-priestly (i.e., “post-pentateuchal”) revisionary additions to the
Pentateuch and/or suggests that the Holiness (H) author(s) were responsible
for a(n initial) pentateuchal compilation, it is arguable whether a meaningful
differentiation can be drawn between so-called innerbiblical exegetical com-
position and redactional insertion/supplementation. Yet other scholars main-
tain that a clear distinction between these categories is fundamental to under-
standing the history of the pentateuchal texts, their composition, and the
relationships among them. In this paper, I will briefly compare these different
approaches and their conceptualizations of innerbiblical exegesis and penta-
teuchal redaction and then test them through an investigation of tyrb in Lev
26.

Contrasting Models of Redaction: Non-Documentarians

and Neo-Documentarians

Pentateuchal scholarship in the last three decades has been dominated by

voices critical of the Graf-Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis.2 Yet the last

1
The abbreviations employed in this essay are as follows: E: Elohistic source; P: more
traditionally referring to the entirety of the Priestly material in the Pentateuch, including H,
but here referring only to the non-H portions of the Priestly source; H: Holiness Legislation,
referring especially to Lev 17–27 but also to other priestly material outside of Lev; D: Deu-
teronomic source.
2
There remains a small number of scholars who actively work in a Graf-Wellhausenian
model (even if their specific conclusions understandably differ at times from Graf and Well-
hausen). Most prominent among them is Richard Elliott FRIEDMAN. See his Who Wrote the
Bible? (New York: Summit Books, 1987); IDEM, “Torah (Pentateuch),” ABD 5:605–22;
IDEM, The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses (New
370 Jeffrey Stackert

decade has also seen the emergence of a modified Documentary approach,

adherents to which join in the recent critique of Graf-Wellhausen and their
heirs, all the way down through Martin Noth, Frank Moore Cross, and Rich-
ard Elliott Friedman, even as they also reject the tradition-historical and re-
daction-critical models that have come to dominate pentateuchal studies. This
Neo-Documentarian approach, as it has recently been termed,3 can be traced
especially to the Hebrew-language publications of Menahem Haran as well as
to other Israeli scholarship, notably that of Baruch J. Schwartz.4 It is now giv-
en its fullest expression in the 2009 monograph of Joel S. Baden, J, E, and the
Redaction of the Pentateuch.5
Yet these two schools of thought – the Non-Documentarian and the Neo-
Documentarian – are actually not as steadfastly opposed as they may at times
appear. Indeed, there is significant agreement between the camps not only in
their rejection of key elements of Graf-Wellhausen but also on basic literary
issues such as the independence of the P document prior to its compilation
alongside other pentateuchal material and the phenomenon of innerbiblical
exegesis in at least some pentateuchal composition. There is also notable di-

York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003); IDEM, “Three Major Redactors of the Torah,” in Birkat
Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Pre-
sented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (ed. Chaim Cohen et
al.; 2 vols.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 31–44.
3
David P. Wright suggested this moniker to me at the annual meeting of the Society of
Biblical Literature in New Orleans (November 2009). It is, of course, an imperfect title, for
the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis has been termed the New Documentary Hypothesis. None-
theless, the term “Neo-Documentarian” serves a pragmatic purpose and, properly contextual-
ized, emphasizes both the continuity and the discontinuity of this approach vis-à-vis previous
scholarship on the Documentary Hypothesis.
4
See esp. vol. 2 of Menahem HARAN, The Biblical Collection: Its Consolidation to the
End of the Second Temple Times and Changes of Form to the End of the Middle Ages (3
vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996–2008) [Hebrew]; IDEM, “The B!rît ‘Covenant’: Its Nature
and Ceremonial Background,” in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of
Moshe Greenberg (ed. Mordechai Cogan et al.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 203–
19; Baruch J. SCHWARTZ, “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai,”
in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. Michael V. Fox et al.;
Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 103–34; IDEM, The Holiness Legislation: Studies in
the Priestly Code (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999) [Hebrew]; IDEM, “Israel’s Holiness: The Torah
Traditions,” in Purity and Holiness: The Heritage of Leviticus (ed. Marcel J. H. M. Poorthuis
and Joshua Schwartz; JCPS 2; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 47–59; IDEM, “Reexamining the Fate of
the ‘Canaanites’ in the Torah Traditions,” in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Vol-
ume (ed. Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurwitz, and Shalom M. Paul; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,
2004), 151–70; IDEM, “The Sabbath in the Torah Sources” (paper presented at the annual
meeting of the SBL, San Diego, Calif., November 19, 2007; online: http://www.biblicallaw.
net/2007/schwartz.pdf; accessed 30 June 2010), 1–14.
5
Joel S. BADEN, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (FAT 68; Tübingen: Mohr Sie-
beck, 2009).
 Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction 371

versity within each group. Some Neo-Documentarians, for example, admit of

no revision of non-Priestly pentateuchal material in H.6 Among Non-Docu-
mentarians, there remains a minority who do not accept the existence of an H
stratum in pentateuchal Priestly literature at all.7 Critical pentateuchal scholar-
ship that rejects Graf-Wellhausen thus can hardly be reduced to two compet-
ing perspectives.
Still, it must be acknowledged that there are real and far-reaching disagree-
ments that fundamentally shape the conclusions of the Non-Documentarians
and Neo-Documentarians and thereby give definition, even in the midst of
these two camps’ internal diversity, to the divide between them. For the sake
of clarity, I will characterize the debate as two-sided in order to bring the dif-
ferences between majority positions on each side into stronger relief. In line
with the larger focus of this paper, I will concentrate on one issue in the
scholarly disagreement over the Documentary Hypothesis: the nature of pen-
tateuchal redaction and its relation to the compositional technique termed “in-
nerbiblical exegesis.” By innerbiblical exegesis I mean interpretive revision,
reuse, expansion, or application of biblical source material in subsequent bib-
lical compositions.8 Viewed in this way, innerbiblical exegesis is explicitly
ideological in its goals: it advocates a message that, while drawn from an ex-
isting text, oftentimes stands not only in physical but also in principled relief
from its literary patrimony.
Virtually all Non-Documentarians (as well as some who subscribe to a ver-
sion of the Documentary Hypothesis) conceptualize the compilation of penta-
teuchal material as strongly motivated by theological aims. In accord with
these aims, redactors include new compositions alongside and in the midst of
the material compiled in order to reorient the ideologies of these sources, even
as the fundamental discrepancies between their textual precursors and their
own views are preserved in the new, augmented literary product. This model
identifies an overarching theological agenda and coherence for the final form
of the Torah, and though earlier, precompiled strata of the text can be appre-
ciated independently – in particular, the Priestly and Deuteronomic sources –
the key to unlocking the message of the later, compiled stages of the Torah is
the theologically motivated redactional material inserted at each successive
stage.
6
See, e.g., Baruch J. SCHWARTZ, “‘Profane’ Slaughter and the Integrity of the Priestly
Code,” HUCA 67 (1996): 15–42 (esp. 38–42).
7
See recently Erhard BLUM, “Issues and Problems in the Contemporary Debate Regard-
ing the Priestly Writings,” in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and
Future Directions (ed. Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden; ATANT 95; Zürich: Theologischer
Verlag, 2009), 31–44.
8
For a helpful discussion of innerbiblical exegesis, with further differentiation of catego-
ries, see Benjamin D. SOMMER, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Stan-
ford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 6–31.
372 Jeffrey Stackert

According to this approach, one important criterion for identifying redac-

tional material is the conflationary style of a text. That is, once larger blocks
of internally coherent material are identified, texts that exhibit characteristics
of more than one of these blocks and are not otherwise attributed to a source
(e.g., through clear content cues) can be assigned to a conflationary redactor.
Seemingly confirming this analysis is the theological profile that can be in-
ferred by then analyzing such newly identified “redactional” texts in concert
with texts attributed to a redactor on other grounds. The contours of a particu-
lar persona or school emerge, and a specific historical context is then sought
to reinforce and elucidate further its theological agenda. Pentateuchal redac-
tion according to this approach is thus strongly correlated with the composi-
tional technique of innerbiblical exegesis. To the extent that a redactor draws
from and revises the material that he compiles in order to augment it and give
shape to the whole, he is engaged in interpretive revision.
One of the hallmarks of Neo-Documentarian scholarship, by contrast, is its
fundamental conservatism with regard to pentateuchal redaction. Rather than
positing a series of redactors, this school claims that a single compiler is re-
sponsible for the combination of four Torah sources (J, E, D, P) and that this
compilation was accomplished in a single event.9 Guiding this process were
the metachronology formed on the basis of the narrative chronologies of the
individual sources combined, as well as a desire to maximally preserve those
sources.10 The compiler makes very few insertions and does so not to advo-
cate a particular theological agenda but solely to harmonize glaring contradic-
tions at the level of the narrative.11 The redactor thereby augments, albeit
minimally, the coherence achieved through chronological arrangement,
smoothing just the roughest edges of the content of his new compilation. In
this model, innerbiblical exegesis plays no role in the compilational work of
the singular pentateuchal redactor. Innerbiblical exegesis is reserved for the
compositional stage of the sources, which is necessarily prior to their compi-
lation. Such revisionary composition is most readily observable in the Deu-
teronomic source vis-à-vis E and, to a lesser extent, J. It is important to em-
phasize that, for strict Neo-Documentarians, the coherence created by the
compiler’s juxtaposition of texts and infrequent intervention in his final

9
See the detailed discussion in BADEN, J, E, and the Redaction, 255–86. For a summary
statement, see SCHWARTZ, “Sabbath,” 1.
10
See Baruch HALPERN, “What They Don’t Know Won’t Hurt Them: Genesis 6–9,” in
Fortunate the Eyes that See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his
Seventieth Birthday (ed. Astrid B. Beck et al.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995), 16–34
(here 33); BADEN, J, E, and the Redaction, 255–86.
11
Among the best evidence to substantiate this claim is the absence of reconciliation be-
tween contradictory laws in the Torah. See Jeffrey STACKERT, Rewriting the Torah: Literary
Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation (FAT 52; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2007), esp. 209–25.
 Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction 373

product is, when viewed from the perspective of these texts’ composition, a
false coherence. It cannot overcome the fundamental inconsistencies created
through compilation and indeed was never meant to.
Yet for all of these differences and their far-reaching consequences, Non-
Documentarian and Neo-Documentarian scholars can agree on a key principle
for distinguishing innerbiblical exegetical composition from redaction. In the
case of innerbiblical exegesis or, indeed, any instance of literary revision, it is
not necessary that source and revision be combined in a single document. It is
also possible that a revisionary text is meant to stand independent of its
source.12 By contrast, redaction presumes the supplementation of a preexist-
ing text and thus the latter’s endurance as part of the redactionally augmented
whole. To my mind, one of the clearest examples of nonsupplementary liter-
ary revision in the Hebrew Bible is the revision of Samuel and Kings in
Chronicles.13 Yet there are certainly also examples of literary revision that are
meant to accompany the sources they revise. The case that enjoys the greatest
consensus in the present discussion is H in its relation to P: H relies upon the
historical myth and cultic system of P and cannot be understood apart from

12
Pace Eckart OTTO (“Ersetzen oder Ergänzen von Gesetzen in der Rechtshermeneutik
des Pentateuch,” in Die Tora: Studien zum Pentateuch – Gesammelte Schriften [Aufsätze]
[BZAR 9; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009], 248–56), it should be noted that, from a dia-
chronic perspective, arguments concerning the final form of the text, i.e., its eventual, canoni-
cal shape, are insufficient to demonstrate a supplementary compositional intent. As formulat-
ed by Otto, such arguments anachronistically privilege the composite text and thereby de-
value its earlier parts. Yet the alternative to Otto’s view is not necessarily “to argue that the
compilation/redaction process was simplistic and unsophisticated,” as Bruce WELLS suggests
(“Review of Eckart Otto, Die Tora: Studien zum Pentateuch – Gesammelte Aufsätze,” JHebS
10 [2010]; online: http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/reviews/reviews_new/review452.htm; ac-
cessed 18 May 2010). This claim presumes a false dilemma. To be sure, the method of com-
pilation that I advocate is simpler than what Otto advances. Yet sophistication is a subjective
category, and simplicity is often characterized by elegance.
The major advantage to an argument for a “so-called” mechanical compilation is that it is
more defensible based on the literary (viz., the available) evidence: the preservation of multi-
ple, contradictory accounts demonstrates a conservative, anthological method, just as the
character of the literary compilation demonstrates the compiler’s concern for a chronological
arrangement and thus emplotment of the whole. Arguments that seek to identify a theological
message in (each successive) redaction/compilation must also admit to an anthological redac-
tional method, leaving their claims for theological coherence repeatedly undermined by the
juxtaposition of contradictory texts. In my view, insistence upon the theological coherence of
the compiled Torah oftentimes reflects unstated modern religious assumptions about the bib-
lical text that are, by their very nature, anachronistic and thus inappropriate for understanding
these texts’ compositional histories. For further discussion, see BADEN, J, E, and the Redac-
tion, 209–86.
13
Pace Marc Z. BRETTLER, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (London: Rout-
ledge, 1995), 22.
374 Jeffrey Stackert

it.14 Thus, in seeking to distinguish nonsupplementary innerbiblical exegetical

composition from redactional supplementation, the guiding question is, can
the revisionary composition coherently stand apart from the sources that it
exploits?

Testing the Approaches: tyrb in Leviticus 26

I turn now to Lev 26, an H text,15 which provides a fruitful test case for dif-
ferentiating between supplementary and nonsupplementary revision, in part
because of the strong scholarly consensus concerning the compositional char-
acter of H. For both Non-Documentarians and Neo-Documentarians, H is an
innerbiblical exegetical composition. It regularly exhibits extensive interac-
tion with P but also draws from both E and D.16 H is also viewed by most as a
supplementary text. The question regarding its supplementary character con-
cerns which preexisting material it is meant to augment. As noted above,
among Non-Documentarians, H is regularly identified as or closely associated

14
See, e.g., Jeffrey STACKERT, “The Holiness Legislation and Its Pentateuchal Sources:
Revision, Supplementation, and Replacement,” in Shectman and Baden, Strata of the Priestly
Writings, 187–204 (here 189); SCHWARTZ, “‘Profane’ Slaughter,” 15–16; Andreas RUWE,
Heiligkeitsgesetz und Priesterschrift: Literaturgeschichtliche und rechtssystematische Unter-
suchungen zu Leviticus 17,1–26,2 (FAT 26; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 90–120; Chris-
tophe NIHAN, “The Holiness Code between D and P: Some Comments on the Function and
Significance of Leviticus 17-26 in the Composition of the Pentateuch,” in Das Deuteronomi-
um zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (ed. Eckart Otto and
Reinhard Achenbach; FRLANT 206; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 81–122
(here 98–105); IDEM, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the
Book of Leviticus (FAT II/25; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 545–46.
15
Regarding the literary unity of Lev 26, though I do not endorse all of the specific argu-
ments in the various presentations, I do agree with the current trend that sees the chapter as
essentially unified. See, e.g., Marjo C. A. KORPEL, “The Epilogue to the Holiness Code,” in
Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose (ed. J. C. de Moor and W. G. E. Watson; AOAT 42;
Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon und Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993), 123–
50; Klaus GRÜNWALDT, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26: Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradi-
tion und Theologie (BZAW 271; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 97–104; Jan JOOSTEN, “Covenant
Theology in the Holiness Code,” ZAR 4 (1999): 145–64 (here 151 n 30); Christophe NIHAN,
“The Priestly Covenant, Its Reinterpretations, and the Composition of ‘P,’” in Shectman and
Baden, Strata of the Priestly Writings, 106–9.
16
See, e.g., Alfred CHOLEWI!SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium: Eine verglei-
chende Studie (AnBib 66; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1976), 145–319; Israel KNOHL, The Sanc-
tuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (trans. Jackie Feldman and
Peretz Rodman; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 201–3; NIHAN, Priestly Torah, 401–545;
Eckart OTTO, “Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26,” in Levitikus
als Buch (ed. Heinz-Josef Fabry and Hans-Winfried Jüngling; BBB 119; Berlin: Philo, 1999),
125–96; STACKERT, Rewriting the Torah, passim.
 Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction 375

with the redactor of the Pentateuch or, in some cases, the compiler of the non-
Priestly and Priestly material available at the time that H was composed.17 In
the Neo-Documentarian perspective, H is meant as a supplement to P alone,
resulting in a P+H combination.18
The focus of my examination of Lev 26 will be its use of the term tyrb (vv.
9, 15, 25, 42, 44, 45), for it is especially this topic that has spurred the claim
that Lev 26 presumes the inclusion of the non-Priestly pentateuchal material
in the composition of which it is a part. In 1973, Norbert Lohfink argued that
the tyrb in Lev 26 is a conflation of the Priestly promise to Abraham and the
non-Priestly Sinai/Horeb covenant,19 and this claim has been subsequently re-
newed and buttressed by several scholars,20 most recently in an insightful es-
say by Christophe Nihan.21 Recent proponents of this view emphasize that,
because P does not acknowledge any covenant between God and Israel at Si-
nai, the non-Priestly Sinai/Horeb narrative not only contributes to H’s concep-
tion of tyrb in Lev 26 but is a necessary component in the larger composition
of which Lev 26 is a part.

17
See, e.g., Eckart OTTO, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch: Studien zur
Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 259; IDEM, Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments
(Theologische Wissenschaft 3/2; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1994), 240–53; IDEM, “Das Hei-
ligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26 in der Pentateuchredaktion,” in Altes Testament, Forschung
und Wirkung: Festschrift für Henning Graf Reventlow (ed. Peter Mommer and Winfred
Thiel; Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 1994), 65–80; NIHAN, Priestly Torah, 548–49.
Among those endorsing a Documentary model, see KNOHL, Sanctuary of Silence, 200; Ja-
cob MILGROM, “‘HR’ in Leviticus and Elsewhere in the Torah,” in The Book of Leviticus:
Composition and Reception (ed. R. Rendtorff and R. Kugler; VTSup 93; Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 24–40.
18
See esp. STACKERT, “Holiness Legislation,” passim; SCHWARTZ, Holiness Legislation,
17–24; Joel S. BADEN, “Identifying the Original Stratum of P: Theoretical and Practical Con-
siderations,” in Shectman and Baden, Strata of the Priestly Writings, 13–29.
19
Norbert LOHFINK, “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. Geburtstag (ed. Hartmut Gese and Hans Peter Rüger; AOAT 18; Keve-
laer: Butzon and Bercker, 1973), 129–36.
20
CHOLEWI!SKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 126–27; Thomas RÖMER, Israels Väter: Untersu-
chungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition
(OBO 99; Freiberg, Switz.: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990),
549–50; OTTO, “Innerbiblische Exegese,” 178; IDEM, “Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26,”
67. For critiques of Lohfink, see Erhard BLUM, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch
(BZAW 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 325–29; Jan JOOSTEN, People and Land in the Holi-
ness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26
(VTSup 67; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 117–18; IDEM, “Covenant Theology,” 145–47.
21
NIHAN, “Priestly Covenant,” 541–43. In my view, Nihan’s discussion of tyrb in P is
particularly strong (ibid., 95–103). My disagreement with him is primarily in regard to Lev
26.
376 Jeffrey Stackert

Rather than simply critiquing the arguments of Lohfink and those who fol-
low him in his analysis – an approach that might easily lead to a stalemate – I
will attempt to read Lev 26 as part of a P+H compilation alone.22 If it may be
read convincingly in this way, we may at least conclude that the discussion of
tyrb in Lev 26 does not by itself support the claim that H is meant as part of a
compilation of Priestly and non-Priestly pentateuchal material. To be sure,
this test is hardly the final word on H and pentateuchal redaction; still, it can
serve to highlight potential weaknesses in an approach that equates H and the
pentateuchal redactor on the basis of innerbiblical exegetical composition. In
line with the foregoing discussion, we may leave aside the question of wheth-
er Lev 26 actually relies upon any non-Priestly source (e.g., Deut 28). It is
enough to say here that, though structurally similar to Deut 28, Lev 26 does
not evince the close language parallels with the Deuteronomic blessings and
curses that would by themselves recommend a conclusion of direct literary
dependence. Other proposed instances of dependence upon D in Lev 26 are
likewise inconclusive.23 Yet because Lev 26 is an inseparable part of a larger
corpus that does exhibit significant literary parallels with the non-Priestly To-
rah sources, it is likely that the Holiness author in this chapter simply was less
slavish in his literary reuse of the non-Priestly material at his disposal.
The question of whether the references to tyrb in Lev 26 require, as part of
the larger composition in which they are situated, a contractual agreement at
Sinai akin to the Horeb covenant in E and D really turns on the meanings of
the word tyrb, their referents, and the notions of conditionality attached to
this term. I will examine briefly these issues in the various usages of tyrb in P
and H and their application to Lev 26.

22
JOOSTEN has recently followed a similar approach (“Covenant Theology”). However,
he focuses especially upon the notion of covenant in the Holiness Code proper (Lev 17–26)
and does not in my view sufficiently consider these texts as part of the larger Priestly source.
He thus disregards, for example, texts such as Exod 6:4–5 when he claims, “Lev 17–25 – or
for that matter Lev 1–25, or even the priestly chapters in Exodus – simply do not contain a
mention of a berît between YHWH and Israel to which Lev 26 could point back” (152). He
also does not give adequate consideration to the varied use of tyrb across the pentateuchal
Priestly corpus, a shortfall that leads to the unnecessary importation of non-Priestly penta-
teuchal notions of tyrb that he seeks to avoid in his analysis. Yet his reading – that the cove-
nant in Lev 26 refers to the laws of Lev 17–25 – still has much to commend it and fits quite
well with my own view that H here expands upon P by adding new divine directives for Israel
in its relationship with God. Joosten’s insistence upon a contextual reading and his specific
analysis of tyrb in Lev 26 are also helpful, as are his critiques of Lohfink and Zimmerli. For
additional interaction with Joosten, see below.
23
See, e.g., NIHAN’s claim that Lev 26:9 depends upon the Deuteronomistic theology re-
flected in Deut 8:18 (“Priestly Covenant,” 105). See further OTTO, “Innerbiblische Exegese,”
176–82.
 Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction 377

tyrb: Meaning and Referents in P and H

P describes two twtyrb that are properly promises, which is to say, self-
imposed commitments.24 The first, which follows the flood, is a perpetual
promise (~lw[ tyrb) from the deity to all earthly beings (Gen 6:18; 9:9–17).
The second is likewise a perpetual promise from God (~lw[ tyrb), this time
directed toward Abraham and his descendents, pledging to be their deity and
to give them land and progeny (Gen 17:2, 4, 6, 7). It is regularly observed that
P’s legal corpus, in contrast to those of E and D, is not the substance of a cov-
enant.25 Rather, the laws of P and H are simply and straightforwardly rules for
ensuring the continued presence of the deity among the Israelite community.26
This connotation of tyrb as “promise,” however, does not extend to all
Priestly attestations of the term.27 Even in Gen 17, where God first makes his
promises to Abraham, tyrb does not carry a singular meaning. Verses 10 and
13, for example, identify the act of circumcision as a tyrb itself (and not

24
For discussion of tyrb as promise and obligation, see esp. Ernst KUTSCH, Verheissung
und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten Bund im Alten Testament (BZAW 131; Ber-
lin: de Gruyter, 1973) (see esp. the summary on 27); James BARR, “Some Semantic Notes on
the Covenant,” in Beiträge zur altttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zim-
merli zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. H. Donner, R. Hanhart, and R. Smend; Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 23–38; Walter GROSS, Zukunft für Israel: Alttestamentliche Bun-
deskonzepte und die aktuelle Debatte um den Neuen Bund (SBS 176; Stuttgart: Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 1998), 45–70; NIHAN, “Priestly Covenant,” 102. Notwithstanding the several
problematic features of his analysis, Kutsch’s insistence upon evaluating each attestation of
tyrb in light of its literary context is the key to understanding this difficult word (Verheissung
und Gesetz, 6).
Against Julius Wellhausen’s four-covenant theory for P (= Q), see already S. R. DRIVER,
An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (International Theological Library;
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891), 10 n. 2; H. HOLZINGER, Einleitung in den Hexa-
teuch (Freiburg: Mohr Siebeck, 1893), 365.
25
Pace Frank Moore CROSS, who claims that P assumes and endorses a covenant at Sinai
even though no P text describes it (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History
of the Religion of Israel [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973], 270 and esp.
318–20).
26
See the forceful statement of SCHWARTZ, “Priestly Account.” Though he initially dis-
misses the specific arguments of Schwartz, NIHAN later admits that P’s understanding of tyrb
is as promise (“even granting that the term tyrb in P now has a meaning closer to that of
‘promise,’ rather than ‘contractual relationship’”; “Priestly Covenant,” 97–98).
27
It is also important to note that both biblical and comparative material generally sup-
ports the multivalence of covenant terminology. See, e.g., Moshe WEINFELD, “tyrb,” TDOT
2:253–79. For the Mesopotamian material, see also Simo PARPOLA, who notes that Neo-
Assyrian treaties likewise show that the Akkadian adê carries a number of connotations, in-
cluding both promise and treaty (“Neo-Assyrian Treaties from the Royal Archives of Nine-
veh,” JCS 39 [1987]: 161–89 [here 180–83]). Viewed in this light, the Priestly usage of tyrb
is hardly unexpected and actually accords, as does D’s usage, with the broad construal of an-
cient Near Eastern notions of covenant.
378 Jeffrey Stackert

simply its sign, as in v. 11), suggesting a connotation of “requirement” or “ob-

ligation” for these exemplars. The Sabbath observance that is the substance of
the tyrb in Exod 31:16 (P28) similarly carries the meaning “requirement.” Ac-
cording to this verse, Israelite observance of Sabbath rest is a ~lw[ tyrb, this
time not a perpetual promise (which would make little sense) but a perpetual
obligation, a term equivalent to H’s conventional term, ~lw[ tqx (“perpetual
statute”). This meaning of “obligation” also fits well the context of Lev 2:
13,29 where the requirement is the immediately preceding statute that directs
the application of salt to offerings. The attestation of tyrb in Num 18:19 (H)
carries yet another connotation: in this verse, it parallels the term qx and bears
the sense of “allotment/sacrificial portion.” Leviticus 24:8–9 similarly equate
qx and tyrb and even clarify the relationship between requirement and allot-
ment in sacrificial contexts: what is required of the Israelites becomes the due
of the priests.
The instances of tyrb in Exod 31:16 and Lev 2:13 are especially important
for the present discussion because they cannot be associated in P with any sort
of contractual agreement struck between God and Israel. Nor can they be tied
directly to the tyrb with Abraham in Gen 17. Thus, whatever sense of tyrb as
contractual relationship is applied to the twtyrb in Exod 31 and Lev 2 derives
from an association between Sinai and covenant outside of pentateuchal
Priestly literature; it is nowhere explicit within these texts or elsewhere in P.
The example in Lev 2 is likewise important for comparison with non-Priestly
pentateuchal covenants, for none of the non-Priestly Torah sources requires
the salting of offerings. The non-P text thus does not stand as a transparent in-
spiration for the usage of tyrb in Lev 2.
In line with its attestation elsewhere in P and H, I would suggest that tyrb
carries multiple connotations in Lev 26. In vv. 9, 42, 44, and 45, the plain
sense of tyrb is “promise,” and its referent is the promise to the patriarchs and

28
In my view, Exod 31:12–17 can be divided between P and H as follows: P: vv. 12–
13a", 15 (minus Xdq !wtbX and perhaps twm), 16–17 (minus Xpn"yIw); H: vv. 13a#–14 and the
words Xdq !wtbX and perhaps twm in v. 15. Xpn"yIw in v. 17 is an addition of the pentateuchal
compiler drawn from Exod 23:12, and it is possible that v. 14b# (beginning with lk yk) is
also secondary (though this is not necessary). Exod 35:1–3 likewise attests a combination of
P and H: vv. 1–2 (minus Xdq ~hl hyhy and !wtbX) are P, and the rest is H. Separated in this
way, the P portion of this text is an integrated and continuous whole and is consistent with P
style elsewhere in the Torah. Potentially problematic for those who would assign this entire
unit to H are its seeming redundancies and internal inconsistencies. Moreover, without a P
portion in this unit, P introduces the notion of Sabbath in Gen 2:1–3 but never commands its
observance (SCHWARTZ, “Sabbath,” 13). For other diachronic analyses of this unit, see Saul
M. OLYAN, “Exodus 31:12–17: The Sabbath According to H, or the Sabbath According to P
and H?” JBL 124 (2005): 201–9, and the literature cited there.
29
So also Baruch A. LEVINE, Leviticus (Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary;
Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 13.
 Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction 379

their descendants first given in Gen 17. In the case of Lev 26:42, tyrb is even
more precisely defined as the land:
~hrba ytyrb ta @aw qxcy ytyrb ta @aw bwq[y ytyrb ta ytrkzw
`rkza #rahw rkza
I will remember my promise to Jacob, and also my promise to Isaac and also my
promise to Abraham I will remember – that is, I will remember the land.

After the intervening details of an imagined future time of exile, v. 45 builds

upon both v. 42 and the postpatriarchal Priestly myth by referencing the exo-
dus generation, viz., the imagined audience for Moses’ speech in H. Scholars
have long recognized that v. 45 refers to Exod 2:24 and 6:5 (cf. also Exod
29:45–46).30 God’s remembrance of the patriarchal promise on behalf of the
exodus generation (here, the ~ynXar) is a sort of precedent: just as God re-
called the promise to the patriarchs when their descendants were in Egypt, so
will he recall that promise at a time of their descendants’ future displacement
from the land. These three time periods (past, present, and future) – oriented
by the text’s imagined historical setting – underscore H’s view of the durative
quality of the divine promise. Nihan suggests that the combination here of the
patriarchal and exodus generations is a “synthesis between two competing
traditions of the covenant, that is, P’s ‘everlasting’ covenant with Abraham
and his offspring on the one hand, and the non-Priestly tradition of the Sinait-
ic covenant on the other hand.”31 Yet it is not clear that any non-Priestly tradi-
tion must be invoked in this case. One of the main points of contention is the
meaning of the clause tyrb r$rp in v. 44. To clarify this issue, it is necessary
to turn to the very similar ideas and language in vv. 15 and 25.
tyrb in Lev 26:15 and 25 connotes not the divine promise but the obliga-
tion imposed by the deity upon Israel. Verse 15 states,
ytwcm lk ta twX[ ytlbl ~kXpn l[gt yjpXm ta ~aw wsamt ytqxb ~aw
ytyrb ta ~krphl
But if you reject my statutes and spurn my judgments, not performing all of my com-
mandments, violating my requirement …

In this verse, “not performing all of my commandments” (lk ta twX[ ytlbl

ytwcm) stands in apposition to “violating my covenant” (ytyrb ta ~krphl),
thereby defining what the latter entails. This verse is arguably the most signif-
icant in Lev 26 for the claim that H combines non-Priestly and Priestly per-
spectives on tyrb, for it explicitly highlights the maintenance of all the divine
commands and contrasts their observance with violating (r$rp) YHWH’s
30
See esp. NIHAN, “Priestly Covenant,” 97, 111–12. Nihan defends well the assignment
of the key verses in Gen 17 as well as Exod 6:2–8; 29:45–46; and 40:34–35 to P rather than H
(97 n. 39).
31
NIHAN, “Priestly Covenant,” 112.
380 Jeffrey Stackert

tyrb. Yet as in the case of tyrb as promise, Gen 17 is a generative text for
tyrb as obligation, and like Lev 26:15 (and 44), Gen 17:14 uses the combina-
tion tyrb r$rp.32 Following the command that every Israelite male be circum-
cised, this verse characterizes failure to do so as a violation of God’s tyrb.
Though it is somewhat enigmatic, the sense of tyrb in Lev 26:25 is similar: if
the Israelites fail to keep the divine command, YHWH will respond with pun-
ishment.33 In my view, the referents for these instances of tyrb as obligation
in Lev 26 are like the tyrb in Gen 17:14: each simply refers to God’s com-
mandments.34
Both here and in reference to Lev 26:44, the lexical discussion must extend
beyond tyrb to the verb r$rp.35 Much like Num 15:31 uses the verb r$rp in
conjunction with hwcm to describe any intentional sin, Lev 26:15 describes Is-
rael’s persistent, intentional disobedience as a violation of its obligation to
God (tyrb).36 In neither Num 15:31 nor Lev 26:15 does the verb r$rp connote
a nullification of the verb’s object. The rule persists in the face of deviation
from it. Such is the case also in Lev 26:44: the divine promise would persist
even if God should violate it. Yet in line with the Priestly notion of a durative
promise, H presents the deity as rejecting this possibility. YHWH is Israel’s
god: he may punish them, but he will not cease from being their god.37 These
observations point to the importance of the notion of conditionality as it is
conceived in relation to the Priestly tyrb, the topic to which we now turn.

tyrb and Conditionality in P and H

Much debate concerning Priestly twtyrb and especially the influence of the
non-Priestly covenant upon Lev 26 has focused on the question of condition-
ality in relation to tyrb. In what has become a particularly influential essay,
Walter Zimmerli argues that the Priestly “covenant” with Abraham is a “cov-
enant of promise” (Verheissungsbund) without stipulations and thus a true
“covenant of grace” (Gnadenbund). He also claims that P intentionally omits
a Sinai covenant in order to contest the notion of conditionality that character-

32
On the source ascription of Gen 17:14 to P, see NIHAN, “Priestly Covenant,” 102 n. 54.
33
Pace Jacob MILGROM, Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (AB 3B; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 2311, and NIHAN, “Priestly Covenant,”
105 n. 62, I see no evidence to connect Lev 26:25 with Exod 24:8.
34
JOOSTEN argues that the statutes, judgments, and commandments here are the laws of
the Holiness Code (“Covenant Theology,” 152 n. 34).
35
For a survey of the range of meanings available for r$rp and the difficulty that attends
the clause tyrb r$rp, see L. RUPPERT, “rrp,” TDOT 12:114–21.
36
It is thus unnecessary to view the tyrb in Lev 26:15 or 25 as a “rhetorical reflex,” as
SCHWARTZ suggests (“Priestly Account,” 131; see critique by MILGROM, Leviticus 23–27,
2305).
37
NIHAN is thus right to emphasize that P presents its tyrb as a ~lw[ tyrb (“Priestly Cov-
enant,” 99–101). I would suggest that this view be extended to H as well.
 Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction 381

izes the relationship between God and Israel in the earlier compositions,
which, in Zimmerli’s estimation, include H (and thus Lev 26).38 Though most
scholars now reject an H antecedent to P, the view that P’s tyrb is both un-
conditional and a reaction to the non-Priestly sources remains prominent. The
claim closely follows, then, that Lev 26, which explicitly links land posses-
sion to the Israelites’ observance of YHWH’s statutes and commandments
(twqx and twcm, v. 3; cf. ~yjpXm, v. 15), draws from the non-Priestly, condi-
tional Sinai covenant and presumes that it is part of the literary work in which
this chapter is situated.
Several scholars have argued in rebuttal that the Priestly tyrb is indeed
conditional. For example, focusing especially upon God’s adjuration to Abra-
ham in Gen 17:1 and the ensuing command to circumcise (17:11–14), Israel
Knohl, Menahem Haran, Baruch Schwartz, Jacob Milgrom, and Jan Joosten
have each argued for a basic conditionality to P’s notion of tyrb.39
Yet what is not sufficiently examined in this debate is whether or how
conditionality is a relevant category for the conceptualization of tyrb in P and
H. In other words, what is meant by conditionality, and to what does it apply?
In my view, a distinction must be drawn between the conditionality of the re-
wards and punishments described in Lev 26 and that of the divine-Israelite re-
lationship itself. The rewards and punishments are conditioned upon Israelite
behavior and align with the usage of tyrb as obligation. The divine-Israelite
relationship, however, is unconditional and corresponds to the Priestly usage
of tyrb as promise. This distinction is key for comparing tyrb in Lev 26 with
other biblical uses of tyrb as well as nonbiblical ancient Near Eastern notions
of covenant.
In the covenants in E and D, as regularly in nonbiblical ancient Near East-
ern covenants, the formal relationship between covenant partners is inaugu-
rated through the establishment of a covenant agreement. Failure to adhere to
the stipulations of the covenant constitutes cause for the nullification of the
covenant, and such nullification both severs the relationship between the par-
ties and triggers the onset of attendant covenantal curses.40 According to this
model, a renewed relationship requires a new covenant (cf. Jer 31:31–34).

38
Walter ZIMMERLI, “Sinaibund und Abrahambund: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der
Priesterschrift,” TZ 16 (1960): 268–80. See also Moshe WEINFELD, “The Covenant of Grant
in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970): 184–203; IDEM, “tyrb,”
270. For critique of Weinfeld, see Gary N. KNOPPERS, “Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants
and the Davidic Covenant: A Parallel?” JAOS 116 (1996): 670–97.
39
KNOHL, Sanctuary of Silence, 141–45; HARAN, “Covenant,” 206–7; SCHWARTZ,
“Priestly Account,” 131; MILGROM, Leviticus 23–27, 2339–42; JOOSTEN, People and Land,
110–20 (esp. 110–12). Note, however, that these scholars disagree regarding the presumption
of a Sinai covenant in P/H.
40
For a succinct statement, see George E. MENDENHALL and Gary A. HERION, “Cove-
nant,” ABD 1:1179–1202 (esp. 1182).
382 Jeffrey Stackert

In pentateuchal Priestly perspective, by contrast, earthly beings from the

beginning live in a de facto and inescapable relationship with the deity, a rela-
tionship characterized by divine requirements of created beings. This basic
notion is consistent across pentateuchal Priestly literature. Indeed, even in the
face of its notion of epochal distinctions that carry with them significant shifts
in theology and religious practice,41 P reliably portrays the deity as insistent
upon obedience to his directives. When God gives these directives, they are
not incentivized by divine promises; nor are they necessarily tied to them.
God simply instructs or commands and assumes that his creations will heed
him. A paradigmatic example of this independence of instruction from prom-
ise comes at the very beginning of P’s narrative: in Gen 1:29–30, God desig-
nates plants as food for humans and animals and, as Gen 6:11–13 and 9:2–6
make clear, expects his created beings to refrain from any slaughter and meat
eating. No promise accompanies this directive. Similarly, after the flood,
though God makes a tyrb pledging never again to destroy the earth with a
flood, this promise is not predicated upon adherence to the immediately pre-
ceding rules regarding licit meat consumption (Gen 9:3–6). According to this
text, God will intervene against the perpetrator of homicide (v. 5), but no
amount of bloodshed will instigate another worldwide deluge.
Yet some divine commands in P – indeed, viewed from a certain perspec-
tive, the majority of them – do relate directly to the promise to Abraham and
his descendants. As argued already with regard to tyrb in Lev 26, however,
these commands are not stipulations of a bilateral agreement that, should Isra-
el fail to keep them, will be nullified. These additional obligations relate in-
stead to the intensified relationship that God initiates with Abraham and then
the Israelites. Such is the case with the circumcision command in Gen 17.42
For the recipients of this directive, failure to circumcise occasions divine pun-
ishment, just as any other instance of willful disobedience against God does in
P. The same standard applies to the commands given later in the wilderness:
the nature of God’s interaction with Israel requires observance of an idiosyn-
cratic set of requirements that supplement those given to non-Israelites, and
new directives accompany new developments in the divine-Israelite relation-
ship.43

41
See, e.g., BLUM, Studien, 293–301; NIHAN, Priestly Torah, 61–68.
42
Rather than being a stipulation of the divine promise, circumcision is a reminder to God
of his pledge. See HARAN, “Covenant,” 210. Haran argues that “covenantal” signs are part of
a preliterary pentateuchal world.
43
Pace JOOSTEN, who views the exodus as the inauguration of a new relationship with Is-
rael (“Covenant Theology,” 157). Joosten’s argument goes against P’s claim that the promise
to the patriarchs is remembered on behalf of the exodus generation (Exod 2:24; 6:5). In P, as
in H, there is no need for a “new relationship” but instead a remembrance of the promise. The
ensuing divine-Israelite relationship is thus not new but evolved. As for the commands re-
ferred to with the term tyrb, they are not the stipulations of an “agreement” between YHWH
 Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction 383

It thus also follows that the sanctions for failure to observe the divine di-
rectives also differ according to the nature of the relationship that obtains be-
tween God and those who would rebel against him. Those who see a non-
Priestly notion of tyrb in Lev 26 oftentimes contrast the communal responsi-
bility of Israel invoked there with the individualized responsibility in Gen 9
and especially Gen 17. In their view, such communal responsibility (and the
accompanying threat of exile) characterizes the non-Priestly covenant tradi-
tion and contrasts with P’s individually inflicted punishments (e.g., k!r"t).44
Yet it must be recalled that, within the narrative fiction of P, when God makes
his promise to Abraham and introduces the requirement that all his male off-
spring be circumcised, the normative divine-human relationship, with its ac-
companying religious practices, differs from the relationship in the narrative
moment of Lev 26, where divine abandonment and communal exile are imag-
ined. In Gen 17, God does not yet dwell in the midst of the Israelites, for there
is no Israelite sanctuary and no community in which it would reside and func-
tion. In such a context, the k!r"t penalty is appropriate, but divine abandon-
ment is not. Leviticus 26, by contrast, is a speech that Moses delivers to the
Israelites after the sanctuary cult is fully established. Moreover, the time of
exile that this chapter anticipates is part of this same era, viz., when fastidious
observance of the divine commands preserves the deity’s presence in Israel’s
midst. In this context, P and H both insist that the k!r"t penalty persists for
individuals who commit intentional sins.45 Yet these infractions now also en-
danger the entire community because they threaten to drive the deity from Is-
rael. Under the duress of extensive and persistent intentional sin, God will va-
cate his sanctuary, resulting in a loss of the tangible benefits that the divine
presence engenders. In view of the sanctuary-centeredness of this imagined
historical moment, H recharacterizes the obedience that God requires of Noah
and Abraham – defined with terminology such as walking with/before God
(~yhla ynpl/ta $lhth) and being blameless (~ymt)46 – as the achieved holi-

and Israel. They are simply the requirements that God has placed upon Israel, akin to the di-
rectives that God has given in P to all humanity. In H’s view, the commands for Israel com-
prise all of the laws in P and H.
44
GROSS, Zukunft für Israel, 60–61; NIHAN, “Priestly Covenant,” 102–3.
45
See Exod 12:15, 19; 31:14; Lev 7:20, 21, 25, 27; 17:4, 10, 14; 18:29; 19:8; 20:3, 5, 17,
18; 22:3, 24; 23:29; Num 9:13; 15:30, 31; 19:13, 20. On the k!r"t penalty, see, e.g., D. J.
WOLD, “The Meaning of the Biblical Penalty KARETH” (Ph.D. diss., University of Califor-
nia, Berkeley, 1978); IDEM, “The KARETH Penalty in P: Rationale and Cases,” SBL Seminar
Papers, 1979 (SBLSP 16; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1979), 1:1–45; Jacob MILGROM, Le-
viticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3; New York:
Doubleday, 1991), 457–60; SCHWARTZ, Holiness Legislation, 52–57.
46
See Gen 6:9; 17:1; cf. 5:22, 24. NIHAN claims a distinction between ta $lhth and
ynpl $lhth (“Priestly Covenant,” 99), but I see no appreciable difference.
384 Jeffrey Stackert

ness of the laity (Lev 19:2; 22:31–33), for holiness in H is directly related to
divine presence.47
It is also crucial to recognize that, within the imagined scenario in Lev 26,
divine abandonment is not an annulment of the relationship between God and
his people. H’s view here is in full accord with both other biblical as well as
nonbiblical ancient Near Eastern evidence of divine abandonment: the god’s
departure does not nullify the divine-human relationship. Rather, alongside
the despondent emotional response it often elicits, divine abandonment is
consistently portrayed as a temporary condition that necessitates a change in
human behavior or other characteristics to achieve reconciliation with the
god.48 In Lev 26 (esp. vv. 27–45), divine absence provides the necessary cir-
cumstance for punishment through military defeat and exile, even as the
promise to Abraham provides the basis for reconciliation and restoration. The
two notions of tyrb discussed above are thus fundamental to the message of
Lev 26: tyrb as divine requirement occasions punishment, while tyrb as di-
vine promise is the necessary condition for rapprochement. As hinted already,
this dual notion of tyrb clarifies well the differences between Lev 26 and
Deut 28. In the latter case, if Israel should violate the covenant (conceptual-
ized as a contractual relationship), the relationship is severed, and God will
enact a series of curses (which serve in the meantime to deter such violation).
Leviticus 26, by contrast, does not perceive violation of tyrb as the end of the
relationship between God and Israel or an event requiring the establishment of
a new tyrb. As Yehezkel Kaufmann observed so well, in Priestly perspective,
God’s promise to Israel is a “lzrb tyrb” – an iron-clad commitment: “It is not
for the sake of the nation but for the sake of God.”49 Disobedience is thus an
occasion for correction: the various punishments invoked are meant to induce
a renewed obedience among the Israelites, which in turn will rehabilitate the
divine-Israelite relationship.

47
Cf. JOOSTEN, “Covenant Theology,” 160–61.
48
See, e.g., Daniel I. BLOCK, “Divine Abandonment: Ezekiel’s Adaptation of an Ancient
Near Eastern Motif,” in Perspectives on Ezekiel: Theology and Anthropology (ed. Margaret
S. Odell and John T. Strong; SBLSymS 9; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2000), 15–42; John F.
KUTSKO, Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel
(Biblical and Judaic Studies 7; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000).
49
Yehezkel KAUFMANN, History of Israelite Religion: From Its Beginnings to the End of
the Second Temple (8 vols. in 4; Tel Aviv: Bialik Institute-Dvir, 1937–1956) [Hebrew],
3:558-59. Cf. IDEM, The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile
(trans. and abr. by Moshe Greenberg; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 441.
 Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction 385

Concluding Remarks

The foregoing discussion undermines the claim that Lev 26 can only be un-
derstood as part of a composition that includes the non-Priestly covenant be-
tween Israel and YHWH. The usages of tyrb in Lev 26 are entirely compre-
hensible as part of an isolated P+H composition: their meaning coincides
perfectly with the use of tyrb elsewhere in P and H and contrasts with the
sense of tyrb in the non-Priestly Torah sources. Leviticus 26 upholds the
basic Priestly claim that God’s promise to Israel is unconditional and indis-
soluble: its violation does not end the relationship between YHWH and Israel
or the promise first given in Gen 17. The relationship between God and Israel
does require Israelite obedience to the divine directives, but this is no differ-
ent than any divine-earthly relationship in P. It comes as no surprise, then,
that the blessings and punishments enumerated in Lev 26 are conditioned on
obedience or lack thereof. Leviticus 26 thus supports the view that H is meant
as a supplement to P alone and not to the non-Priestly Torah sources. To the
extent that H knows these non-Priestly sources, Lev 26 also serves as a strik-
ing example of the considerable license that a revising author may assert to
radically reorient and deviate from his literary forebears.
I will conclude with a few comments on the difficulties that attend the in-
terpretation of Lev 26 and especially its uses of tyrb and relationship to other
Torah compositions. First are the limits in scholarly understandings of the
term tyrb and its variant usage across the biblical corpus as well as within in-
dividual compositional strata and textual units. As argued here, the termino-
logical polyvalence of tyrb is especially acute in pentateuchal Priestly litera-
ture generally and Lev 26 specifically. A second difficulty is the strong struc-
tural similarity among the Torah sources regarding their basic views of
Israel’s history and religion. A litany of such resemblances could easily be re-
hearsed, but sufficient for the present discussion is the fact that each source
describes an encounter between God and Israel at a wilderness mountain (Si-
nai/Horeb), a special relationship between Israel and YHWH characterized by
laws, and one or more twtyrb given by God to Abraham and his descendents.
Because scholars must first approach a compiled Torah text, these similarities
tend to blur the important differences that give distinction to each individual
composition. A third difficulty is the tendency among scholars to engage too
quickly in comparative, conflationary, and harmonistic readings of complicat-
ed texts and/or specific issues within them, rather than attempting to read
them first within their own literary contexts and in light of their overt, internal
cross-references. In the case of Lev 26, this issue is especially urgent, for
many scholars take as a starting point the view that pentateuchal Priestly texts
rely upon and react to their non-Priestly counterparts. Yet as I have tried to
show here, even in compositions where such dependence can be established,
386 Jeffrey Stackert

each proposed instance of dependence still requires thorough argumentation,

for a text’s dependence upon a source for some material or ideas does not im-
ply its acceptance of or reaction to everything in that source. A final difficulty
relates to each of the preceding: P and H both rehearse divine directives in
close literary proximity to the term tyrb. Such adjacent usage has led to a
faulty association between command and tyrb in P and H.