Pentateuchal and Ancient Near Eastern Ritual

This essay will discuss recent developments in the comparative study of biblical ritual, focusing specifically on the Priestly source of the Pentateuch. It will introduce some basic problems with the definition of “ritual” and address the relationship between text and practice; provide an overview of theoretical developments in the study of ritual; focus on the identification and significant of extrabiblical parallels for dating and interpretation; and examine the contribution of these materials for understanding the textualization of priestly ritual.

The Formation of Genesis 1-11

There is general agreement that study of the formation of the Pentateuch is currently in disarray. This book turns to the Genesis Primeval History, Genesis 1–11, to offer models for the formation of Pentateuchal texts that might have traction within this fractious context. Building on two centuries of historical study of Genesis 1–11, this book provides new support for the older theory that the bulk of Genesis 1–11 was created out of a combination of two originally separate source strata: a Priestly source and an earlier non-Priestly source that was used to supplement the Priestly framework. Though this overall approach contradicts some recent attempts to replace such source models with theories of post-Priestly scribal expansion, the author of this volume does find evidence of multiple layers of scribal revision in the non-P and P sources: from the expansion of an early independent non-Priestly primeval history with a flood narrative and related materials through to a limited set of identifiable layers of Priestly material that culminate in the P-like redaction of the whole. Finally, the book synthesizes prior scholarship to show how both the P and non-Priestly strata of Genesis also emerged out of a complex interaction by Judean scribes with nonbiblical literary traditions, particularly with Mesopotamian textual traditions about primeval origins.

The Book of the Toledot (Descendants) of Adam (Genesis 5; 11:10–26 and Related Texts)

This chapter moves through multiple phases in tracing the formation of Genesis 5 and 11:10–26. Because the textual history of these chapters is particularly unclear, the chapter starts by treating this issue. It argues that key indicators in Gen 11:10–26 suggest that the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch represent later scribal revisions that solve problems implicit in an early chronology found in the Masoretic text for Gen 11:10–26 by lengthening the lives of most postflood primeval patriarchs. In turn, it appears that the scribes who produced the Septuagint and Masoretic text of Genesis 5 used a similar strategy of lengthening the lives of primeval patriarchs in order to solve problems implicit in an early chronology found in the Samaritan Pentateuch text for Genesis 5. These scribes appear to have been dealing with problems that emerged when an earlier, pre-Priestly “scroll of the toledot (=descendants) of Adam” (Gen 5:1a), with its chronology of long-lived primeval patriarchs, was appropriated by the author of the Priestly source as the initial basis for the primeval history section of that source. This Toledot scroll, in turn, likely took its basic genealogical information from non-P materials about Adam and Eve’s descendants (now found in Genesis 4) as well as Noah’s offspring (Gen 9:18–27 and parts of Genesis 10). Yet it rearranged those materials into a form that was partially modeled on late versions of the Sumerian King List tradition, even as the nonroyal focus of the non-P materials was preserved.

The Priestly Primeval History and Conflation of P and Non-P

This chapter surveys three main levels of Priestly or P-like composition in Genesis 1–11. It starts by reviewing the scope and possible date of the Toledot scroll discussed in chapter 4. The Priestly source built around this Toledot book source, preceding it with the Genesis 1 story of God’s creation of the cosmos and expanding it with a full flood narrative (rather than the likely brief mention of the flood in the Toledot book) and overview of post-flood peoples (Genesis 10*). The source then continued with new Priestly Abraham materials (e.g., Genesis 17) and multiple new Toledot of Abraham’s descendants leading up to Israel, which were then followed by a Priestly story of Moses, the Exodus, and the eventual construction of a wilderness Tabernacle in which God could dwell. At a later stage, the P and non-P materials were combined, using P as the basic superstructure for the primeval history and adding, at select points, elements that betray a particular affinity for Priestly concepts and/or ideology. In this sense, the conflation of P and non-P can be seen as a continuation of the Priestly composition process, creating a new, conflated narrative embracing non-P materials within a P framework.

Precursors to the Flood Narrative (Gen 6:5–9:17)

Contrary to some recent proposals that the (incomplete) non-P flood narrative was a scribal extension of the Priestly flood story, this chapter begins by assembling the multiple strong arguments that the non-P flood narrative, though incompletely preserved, originated as part of a separate, pre-Priestly literary source. Both the flood narrative in this pre-Priestly source and its originally separate Priestly counterpart appear to have been modeled on earlier Mesopotamian traditions about the flood and rescue of a flood hero (especially as seen in the Atrahasis epic and tablet 11 of the Gilgamesh epic), even as the P flood narrative also seems to have been influenced in some respects by its pre-Priestly flood counterpart. The present complex form of Genesis 6:5–9:17 in turn is the product of the conflation of the P flood narrative with most parts of the non-P flood narrative, with both elements expanded at points with post-P conflational additions that coordinated them. At the other end of the formation process, this chapter builds a case that the non-P flood narrative was not an original part of the non-P primeval history. Rather, it appears to have been crafted as a literary extension of that history, contrasting with and yet connecting with that history in multiple respects.

The Flood as Sabbatical Rest: A Comparison of Genesis 6–9 and Leviticus 25

Jacob Milgrom once juxtaposed the flood (Gen 6–9) and Babylonian exile (Lev 26), with the Sabbatical Year as its crux. This article expounds upon the parallels between the Flood Narrative (Gen 6–9) and the law concerning the Sabbatical Year (Lev 25:1–7). The directionality of composition between the Priestly source (P) and Holiness Code (H) is examined, as well as the appropriation of alternate source material to bolster the theological propositions of P and H. The confluence of ideas between Gen 6–9 and Lev 25:1–7 (and 26:34–35, 43) include, among other secondary matters: the phenomenon of a yearlong land-fallowing, non-occupancy (or sabbatical rest), divinely granted superabundant bumper-crop which lasts for a year (or two), and concern for the faunae and their peaceful coexistence with humankind on the land where tranquillity is realised by all three entities.

Keeping the paschal lamb: Exodus 12.6 and the question of sacrifice in the Passover-of-Egypt

The paschal prescription in Exodus 12.3-6—attributed to the Priestly Source—that requires the Israelites to keep an animal four days prior to slaughtering it is an enigmatic episode unparalleled in other biblical accounts of Passover. Modern discussions often disregard the prescription as a faux rite created through textual harmonization of apparently disparate dating traditions for Passover. This discussion demonstrates that compositional approaches to explaining the rite are unsatisfactory and attempts rather to approach the rite phenomenologically—even if the phenomenon only existed in the imagination of the Priestly writer. With a nuanced understanding of the language used to describe the rite and the correspondence of the Passover-of-Egypt with the Priestly system of Tabernacle sacrifice, the study shows that the four-day detainment of the animal is an intentionally crafted device used to approximate in a pre-Tabernacle environment the mediation between sacred and profane that would later be guarded by priests.

The World of P

The Priestly source (P) is a common designation in scholarship for significant parts of the Pentateuch, which are assumed to have been written in priestly circles. While the social circles and theological background of P are more agreed upon, its dating is hotly debated, and various textual, intertextual, linguistic and historical evidence were employed in an attempt to date its composition. The present paper aims to examine the material world that is assumed by a number of Priestly texts, and the landscape in which the writings are embedded, in order to shed new light on their dating. The paper concludes that much of the priestly writings (inclusive of some of the texts commonly attributed to the Holiness school) are quite intelligible on the background the late Iron Age, mainly the 8th-7th centuries BCE.

The Helpful God: A Reevaluation of the Etymology and Character of (ˀēl) šadday

Both the role of the deity (El) Shadday in the religions of ancient Israel and the etymology of the name šadday remain poorly understood. In this article, I will propose a new etymology for the name šadday and then leverage this etymology into a better understanding of (El) Shadday’s character. I argue that šadday is a nomen agentis from the root sdy ‘to help’ and originated as an epithet of the deity El, which highlighted his benevolent qualities. A comparison of El in the Ugaritic epics and El Shadday in the Priestly Source (P) suggests that El Shadday was thought to help his worshippers by providing them with children. El Shadday thus represents one way in which the deity El survived in the religions of ancient Israel.

The Ideal Body in the Hebrew Bible Compared to That in Transpersonal Psychology

Despite the Hebrew Bible’s canonicity does not present a single picture of the ideal body, ranging from texts from the Priestly Source, the Song of Songs and the way the body of God has been portrayed. Its response to and interaction with pluralistic post-modern searching for the ideal, such as in trans-, super- and posthumanism, are therefore a complex struggle which transpersonal psychology can clarify, even if it cannot resolve it.