Review in: The Journal
of Religion
Gevonden op: http://www.academicroom.com/bookreview/numbers-1-20-new-translation-introduction-and-commentary
BARUCH A. LEVINE, Numbers 1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
(Anchor Bible 4), New York: Doubleday, 1993. 528 pp. $40.00 (cloth).
Leviticus (The JPS Torah Commentary), New York: Jewish
Publication Society, 1989. 282 pp.
(??? = hier is
iets mis in de conversie van html naar word)
The two books under review are the result of Baruch Levine's
lifelong interest in the priestly and cultic literature of the Hebrew Bible. In
North America Levine and Jacob Milgrom have emerged as the chief expositors of
this material. Because of the unique stature of these two scholars and the very
different approaches they have taken to the material, this review will outline
in some detail how the two thinkers diverge and how this is reflected in the
commentaries.
In light of the importance of these two scholars, it is only
fitting that in the last few years two of the most important commentary series
on the Bible have given equal time to both interpreters. Milgrom has published
a commentary on Numbers in the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) series and a
volume on Leviticus in the Anchor series. Both authors are Jewish and thus
represent-rather surprisingly-the first major Jewish commentaries on these
books in the English language in the twentieth century. Though it should be
said that the Jewish flavor of their work is most evident in the JPS series,
which is not addressed to an academic audience alone but to an educated Jewish
laity as well.
Yet even in the Anchor Bible commentaries, the Jewish
dimension of their work is evident in at least two regards: (1) the usage of
traditional Jewish interpretation in the exposition of the biblical text (using
both rabbinic and medieval sources) and (2) a reliance on the Massoretic text
as the base text for most of the exegetical work. But both scholars take a
rather different attitude as to how traditional Jewish sources are to be used.
Milgrom, who believes that a historical layering of the Priestly material is
too speculative and therefore prefers to read the text in its final canonical
form, is able to use traditional Jewish commentaries much more extensively and
substantively than Levine. This is because these traditional commentaries also
have a strong interest in the final form of the biblical text that is not entirely
out of keeping with Milgrom's own approach.
Levine, on the other hand, limits his usage of Jewish
materials to the elucidation of the finer points of vocabulary and grammatical
style. For some readers Levine's method will seem more "modern" in
the sense that it attempts to divide the text into different historical units
and assess the meaning of each unit in light of a hypothesized historical
setting, while for those whose interest lies in the final form of the text and
who desire a commentary that engages the full weight of Jewish tradition along
each step of the way, Milgrom's commentaries will be more appealing.
Perhaps the best manner to illustrate the difference between
the two approaches is to examine a specific example. For this purpose let us
look at the way each commentator has treated the difficult problem of how to
interpret the sin or "purification" offering that is described in
Leviticus 4. In this chapter we have two different types of ritual action. I n
the first section of the chapter are those laws which concern the high priest
and the community at large. In the situation that they become liable for this
offering, they are to bring a bull for the sacrifice, which is slaughtered, and
the blood is then put on the incense altar within the Tabernacle. None of the
meat of the bull is consumed; instead, it is disposed of outside the boundaries
of the camp (in Leviticus, it is presumed that the Israelites are in the
wilderness of Sinai and living in tents). The second section of this chapter treats
the case of the chieftain and the common Israelite, who bring goats (for the
chieftain a male, for the Israelite a female) and have them slaughtered beside the
altar of the burnt offering outside the Tabernacle. It is on this altar that
the blood rituals are performed, and the meat of these animals is not thrown
outside the camp but is eaten by the priests.
For Milgrom, the sacrificial process that is described in
this chapter cannot be understood without reference to the manner in which the
purification offering is treated in Leviticus 16, the day of atonement. On this
day the blood of the purification offering is taken and sprinkled on the mercy
seat at the very center of the Holy of Holies. Thus, we can see three different
levels of blood ritual across these two chapters (1) for the individual or
chieftain. the blood is laced on the altar of the burnt offering outside the
Tabernacle; (2) for the priest and congregation, the blood is placed on the
incense altar within the "holy" chamber of the Tabernacle; and
finally (3) on the day of atonement, the blood is placed on the mercy seat
itself. located within the Holy of Holies. From this seauence of events Milgrom
constructs a model of scaled atonement rites: the more serious the sin, the
closer the blood ritual is to the seat of God's presence. Sin, in Milgrom's
view, creates an impure material that invades the Shrine. Only the cleansing
activity of the blood ritual can remove this dangerous substance.
For Levine the picture is quite different. Rather than
attending to the scaled treatment of the blood rites, he chooses to highlight
the wider disparities that attend the treatment of the purification offering in
Leviticus 4. It is not only the case that the blood manipulation
varies but also the treatment of the sacrificial flesh
itself. In the case of the priest, the flesh cannot be eaten, whereas with a layperson
it is. From this variant treatment Levine argues that no single Israelite perspective
on the sin offering existed. Rather, what we have in Leviticus 4 is evidence of
very different historical origins for the material in question. The combination
of these two types of sacrifices is thus the result of a late redactional hand.
For Levine, the key to understanding this rite is not an artificial creation of
a typology of blood manipulation but rather the incommensurability of the very rites themselves. For Levine, the purification offering
of the high priest and congregation was a riddance rite. Thus, no part of the
sacrifice could be consumed; instead, the sacrifice, which itself absorbed the
impurities or sin of the offerer, had to be removed from the shrine and burned
outside the camp. The second type of sacrifice, that of the commoner or
chieftain, was not a riddance rite and hence could be consumed by the priests
as a form of emolument for their services.
In general, Levine is at his best when he can isolate
ancient Near Eastern parallels for particular sacrificial terms and rituals. He
is not as adept at locating and describing the larger structures or themes of
the books. He distrusts Milgrom's attempts to integrate the data into a single
picture or set of related but interlocking pictures. In part his distrust may
be well founded. but it will be the burden of the next generation of scholars to
sort out these issues and continue the discussion.
One noticeable flaw in the commentaries of Levine is the
very attenuated bibliography. He does not cite or engage the arguments of many
scholars who have written significant material on Leviticus and Numbers in the
past decade or so. Thus, for example, in his discussion of the census lists in
Numbers, one can find a reference to George Mendenhall's important article in
the bibliography, but in the text of the commentarv the contribution of
Mendenhall is ignored as is the extensive secondary literature which this
argument spawned. One is surprised to see that the work of Norman Gottwald,
Baruch Halpern, and others is passed over in silence. Also neglected is the
important discussion of the problem of Leviticus 4lNumbers 15 that can be found
in the work of Aryeh Toeg, Milgrom, and Michael Fishbane. David Wright's
important work on the disposal of impure substances and the interpretation of
the laying on of hands is also ignored. Hopefully Levine's next volume on
Numbers will address some of these areas; at least it should mention the work
of Israel Knohl on the dating of ???. For the reader interested in
philological matters, there will be much to find in Levine's work that is of
value. We can be grateful for this systematic exposition of his life's work on
the Israelite cult.
GARY A. ANDERSON,
University of Virginia.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten