Priestly Backbiting in the Tanakh

[austendw]

Not being a very deep fellow, my impression is that Milgrom assigned a first temple date to the Holiness code. Perhaps Knohl has "corrected" that.

He hasn't.

"It would seem, thus, that the religious, social, and political conditions under the reign of Ahaz and Hezekiah in Judea most closely correspond to the picture that emerges from the Holiness Code. It would seem that the change in Priestly circles that led to the rise of the HS [Holiness School] took place at this time. [...] Thus we may determine that the Holiness Code was composed sometime bwtween the years 743 and 701 B.C>E. The relationship of the Holiness Code to the reforms of Hezekiah would point to Jerusalem as the place of composition."(The Sanctuary of Silence, p209)

I believe that the events of the period of Ahaz and Hezekiah also provide us with the background for the heirarchical and fincional distinction between priests and Levites, which is an innovation of HS... In the second half of the eighth century B.C.E., the kingdom of Israel collapsed, and many refugees from the northern kingdom - including members of the tribe of Levi, who lived in Israel and served in part at cultic sites there - streamed into Jerusalem. We may surmise that the cult centralization reforms of the time of Hezekiah also encouraged the emigration of LEvite familied, fromerly serving in the templesod the towns of Judea, to Jerusalem. ... Naturally, this question... had social ramifications: Would the Jerusalem priests allow the Levite families of Judah and Israel to participate in the Temple cult, thus giving up their exclusive rights as priests of the king's Temple of Jerusalem?
HS sought to resolve this question by distinguishing between the Aaronide priests... who retained the exclusive privilege of serving in gthe inner areas of the Temple, and the other Levite families, who are assigned the guardianship of the sacred enclosure and other service tasks.

[...]

From other sources, we learn that the kings of Israel and Judah occasionally servied in the cult, especially at dedication ceremonies for altars and temples... It would seem that the story of the rebellion of the chieftains and the test of the fire pans was composed against the background of the tensions between the priesthood and the royalty, which resulted from the king's intervention in the cult.
It seems likely that the story of the Levites' revoilt, led by Korah, wich, as we noted, belongs to a later stage of HS's activity, also reflects the struggles of that period." (The Sanctuary of Silence, pp209-213)

However, elsewhere in the book, he points out that the later HS stratum of the Korah story (Levites challenging the Aaronides, as opposed to the earlier rebellion of the 250 leaders challenging Moses and Aaron), in which Levite duties are defined as service to the people (rather than just serving the priests, as in Numbers 18:2), is related to the "legal section of Ezekiel... the descriptions of the Passover rituals of Hezekiah and Josiah in Chronicles" and "accords with the prevalent custom of the late Second Temple period as attested by Josephus" (p83, inc note 66) so one wonders why, for this very reason, he wouldn't ascribe the later HS stratum to the post-exilic period.

While I'm not really convinced by Knohl's absolute dating, I do think that his textual analysis and identification of strata in this episode is both elegant and plausible.

[semiopen]

Thanks austendw... good thing I didn't bet.

At least this saves me the annoyance I would have experienced had i bought the book.

[austendw]

At least this saves me the annoyance I would have experienced had i bought the book.

Well, despite not agreeing with it all, I think it's a very interesting book, and I find that engaging with, even wrestling with arguments don't accept, perhaps stated in ways you haven't heard before, can help focus and augment ones own position. I'd still recommend the book.

[semiopen]

Sorry,

My comment was easy to misunderstand.

If Knohl is claiming that Hezekiah would pull a similar trick to Josiah, that seems forced. It's just with limited time to study these things it is more efficient to read a dissenting source first. I've got a problem with Hezekiah adding this story to Numbers, how would the displaced Levites even have read it, I mean would they walk over to the temple and say, "Hey, we hear you have a revised edition of Bamidbar, can we take a look?" At least Josiah had his book read.

Figuring that Knohl, with his greater knowledge would convince me, why put myself through the stress,

I think that the Holiness code is not a consensus view in any case. Certainly we know that the Torah wasn't in any kind of final form before the exile.

Innerbiblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44 and the History of Israel's Priesthood
Author: Stephen L. Cook
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 114, No. 2 (Summer, 1995), pp. 193-208

This article argues that Ezekiel 44 is a commentary on Korah.

From footnote 19 -

If the story of Korah's rebellion in P contains two strata, as M. Noth argued, they must have
been combined prior to Ezekiel 44. See Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions

I've even seen a recent opinion that one of the strands is by the elusive Elohist.

Also, Cook notes

only Levites shall perform the services of the Tent of Meeting; others would incur guilt. It is the law for all time throughout the ages. But they shall have no territorial share among the Israelites;
(Num 18:23 TNK)

Maybe JPS 1917 get the point across better

But the Levites alone shall do the service of the tent of meeting, and they shall bear their iniquity; it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations, and among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance. (Num 18:23 JPS)

יִשְׂ א֣וּ עֲוֹנָ֑ם - Bear their iniquity. This is a serious blow to the H code, forcing Milgrom to respond -

Milgrom understands Num 18:23 to mean "they [the Levites] would incur their [the
Israelites'] punishment

Cook goes on to suggest that the Levites (including the non Zadokite Aaronids) have serious obligations but no access to the holy of holies.

Maybe the original Korah is pre-exilic, it seems to be older than Ezekiel 44 in any case.

[austendw]

Maybe JPS 1917 get the point across better

But the Levites alone shall do the service of the tent of meeting, and they shall bear their iniquity; it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations, and among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance. (Num 18:23 JPS)

יִשְׂ א֣וּ עֲוֹנָ֑ם - Bear their iniquity.

So Cook is suggesting that this reference to bearing their inquity refers to Korah's rebellion? I find this difficult to accept because of numb 18:1

And the LORD said unto Aaron: 'Thou and thy sons and thy fathers' house with thee shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary; and thou and thy sons with thee shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood.

Whatever תִּשְׂאוּ אֶת-עֲו‍ֹן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ and תִּשְׂאוּ אֶת-עֲו‍ֹן כְּהֻנַּתְכֶם mean precisely, they surely can't refer to wrong-doing. So I'd be reluctant to think that עֲו‍ֹן refers to wrongdoing when mentioned in relation to the Levites in verse 23.

[semiopen]

So Cook is suggesting that this reference to bearing their inquity refers to Korah's rebellion? I find this difficult to accept because of numb 18:1

And the LORD said unto Aaron: 'Thou and thy sons and thy fathers' house with thee shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary; and thou and thy sons with thee shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood.

Whatever תִּשְׂאוּ אֶת-עֲו‍ֹן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ and תִּשְׂאוּ אֶת-עֲו‍ֹן כְּהֻנַּתְכֶם mean precisely, they surely can't refer to wrong-doing. So I'd be reluctant to think that עֲו‍ֹן refers to wrongdoing when mentioned in relation to the Levites in verse 23.

I'm afraid you're falling into traps that I didn't set

Dr Cook demonstrates that Ezekiel 44 is a commentary on Numbers 16-18, true or not. The connection of Num 18 with Num 16-17 is something I certainly didn't address in my post.

Dr. Cook mentions the opinion that Korah is made up of two strands. Probably the older one is the rebellion of the Reubenites (Dathan and Abiram). Possibly, this is from the Elohist that I mentioned above. Where the 250 lay leaders come from is anybody's guess.

The Parsha has issues of coherence, which makes the many different theological sermons amusing. Other than

Don't fuck with Moses

I'm at a loss.

Finally your analysis of 18:23 reminds of Margo's famous conversation with Lou in Fargo

[wiki]http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fargo_(film)[/wiki]

Lou: The last vehicle that the trooper cited was a tan Ciera at 2:18 AM. Under the plate number, he put DLR - I figure they stopped him or shot him before he could finish fillin' out the tag number... So I got the state lookin' for a Ciera with a tag startin' DLR. They don't got no match yet.
Marge: I'm not sure that I agree with you a hundred percent on your policework there, Lou.
Lou: Yah?
Marge: Yah. I think that vehicle there probably had dealer plates. DLR?
Lou: Oh... Geez.
Marge: Say Lou. Did ya hear the one about the guy who couldn't afford personalized plates, so he went and changed his name to J3L 2404?
Lou: Yah, that's a good one.

Rashi gives וְהֵ֖ם יִשְׂא֣וּ עֲוֹנָ֑ם And they shall bear their iniquity, if Israelites commit the sin of trespassing on the Tabernacle, the Levites will be held responsible, for they have been assigned to guard the sacred premises.

Ramban does not have a comment, showing that he agrees with Rashi. Personally, I think the Hebrew is clear.

We would have to ask Dr. Cook what he was thinking when he included Milgrom's odd interpretation, My guess is that it was a subtle academic jibe at Dr Milgrom for a hack job on the text.

It's quite possible that my comment of this passage being a "serious blow to the H code" can be challenged, but I don't think defending Milgrom's interpretation is the way to do it.

[austendw]

I'm afraid you're falling into traps that I didn't set

I'm afraid I'm falling into a bigger trap than that: I have no clear idea of what Dr Cook thinks, what Migrom thinks, how what Milgrom thinks differs from what Rashi thinks; and I have an even less clear idea of what you think. I'm not sure why the Fargo quote is apposite either, so overall I'm not doing so well. Perhaps it's the heat here in London.

I have now at least read Ezekiel 44, and see the explicit connection: in the context of this text, וְנָשְׂאוּ, עֲו‍ֹנָם very definitely does refer to wrong-doing. But apart from this, there are huge differences between Ezekial and Numbers. In Numbers, broadly, the role of the Levites is viewed as a favourable promotion from the ranks of ordinary Israelites, as the choice surrogates for the first-born. In Ezekiel the new Levitical role is a demotion of some of the Levites from the ranks of priesthood, with class A priesthood reserved for the Sons of Zadoq. So the same mid-placed role is viewed from entirely different perspectives by the two texts; one positive, one negative. And yet they intriguingly intersect at the single phrase: וְנָשְׂאוּ, עֲו‍ֹנָם.

By way of a non sequitur, I will add that the traditional Wellhausenesque Documentary analysis gives the Dathan & Abiram narrative to J, and the Korah narrative to P, viewed as a basic version augmented by later expansions. Knohl agrees that the Dathan & Abiram narrative is pre-priestly: these men challenge Moses, and their tents and belongings are swallowed by the earth. Knohl follows the traditional scheme, but with a different angle. Firstly, there is a Priestly "Holiness School" (HS) narrative which relates how 250 chiefs of the community (not including Korah) challenged Moses & Aarons' authority ("all the people are holy"), and for their rebellion they and their censers are burnt up in front of the Tent of Meeting. When this version was attached to the Dathan & Abiram narrative, the later HS editor added Korah and the Levite challenge to Aaronid priesthood. Korah is editorially associated with both 250 chieftains at the start of the chapter, but suffers the fate of Dathan & Abiram.

That's Knohl's analysis and, broadly speaking, I think it's a pretty good one.

[semiopen]

The trap I meant was the dubious Hebrew analysis of Milgrom, I've made worse mistakes, probably even today.

I don't disagree with your analysis, other than the issue about the dating (which we probably actually agree on).

I know Milgrom's work a little, and one of his habits is taking something that is sort of general knowledge and treating it as fact. For example, everyone knows that the Israelites really hated the Canaanites and wanted to distance themselves theologically from them. Milgrom runs with that and puts this into first temple times. He may be right (although I doubt it) but it's undocumented; and then he seems to pile these things together.

Number 26-11 is interesting -

The sons of Korah, however, did not die.

This appears to be a clarification to the incoherence of the "original" tale.

Maybe there were two or more Korahs. However, the Bible is pretty good at giving everybody unique names.

[austendw]

The major dispute, of course, seems to have between the Aaronid and Mushite (academic for Mosaic I guess) families.

Mushite was the priestly clan mentioned in Numbers 26:58. Crucially, in that verse, the list of Levitical clans are derived from persons known from other Levite genealogies (albeit with notable gaps). They are mostly from the second generation after Levi, except the Korahites, whose eponymous founder Korah is of the third generation. This suggests that this list is older than the genealogies that includes narrative characters - Aaron & Moses.

The absence of an Aaronid clan can be ascribed to the fact that the Aaronids actually derived from the Hebronites (hence Hebron is the chief city of the Aaronites) even though the later genealogies made hime (and Moses) the sons of Amram (who was not a clan eponym, any more than the narrative Korah's father).

Since we know that Moses was associated with a Levite-Priestly clan, which became associated with the cult site of Dan (Jonathan son of Gershom son of Moses [ie Mosheh, not Menasheh] in Judges 18:3) it is argued that this and the Mushite clan are one and the same. Moses - מֹשֶׁה (the narrative character who is the son of Amram), and Mushi - מוּשִׁי (the eponymous ancestor of the Mushites, מִשְׁפַּחַת הַמּוּשִׁי), are one and the same.

I think that this theory is pretty attractive.

[semiopen]

Last week, we read Eikev in the synagogue.

This includes

and what He did to Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab son of Reuben, when the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them, along with their households, their tents, and every living thing in their train, from amidst all Israel (Deu 11:6 TNK)

Moses is summarizing some of the amazing things that the Israelites saw in the wilderness.

Of course, the obvious question is where Korah went to. The traditional Jewish song and dance is that he didn't want to offend Korah's sons. It seems pretty clear that the guy who wrote 11:6 didn't know that Korah was part of the Dathan/Abiram tale.

This would suggest that the final version of the Numbers passage was written after this one. If we take the consensus dating of at least part of Deuteronomy to the reign of Josiah, this has to be an obvious problem with dating the final editing of Korah to the reign of Hezekiah.

Moreover, Deuteronomy 11:2-7 seems be to a later insertion.