![]()
Part I
![]()
Chapter 1
Reading Leviticus
Reading strategies for Leviticus have been, and continue to be, shaped by wider trends in Old Testament scholarship. An appreciation of the status quo is therefore prerequisite for understanding the rationale for, and direction of, this study. As will become apparent, the approach I adopt is situated at the intersection of several recent emphases within current research and draws upon each to investigate whether allusion to Gen 1–3 serves any rhetorical function within the received text of Leviticus.
Overcoming the Impasse in Pentateuch Interpretation
The Undoing of Consensus
Interpretation of the Pentateuch has never been monolithic. Through the centuries many distinct approaches to the corpus are observable, each inextricably connected to hermeneutical theories then in vogue. The history of Old Testament interpretation has been sufficiently charted elsewhere and does not directly concern me here. Of note, however, because of continuing influence, is the rise to dominance of historical-critical methodologies in the nineteenth century.
While not synonymous with historical-critical method, the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis arguably exemplifies its premier instantiation. Wellhausen’s driving question was historical: How did the text that we call the Pentateuch come about in the history of Israel? The nature of the inquiry is crucial to observe for, as Thomas Kuhn notes, the reigning paradigm in any system dictates not only which areas are considered worthy of exploration but also what questions may legitimately be asked. Thus, the consensus achieved by Wellhausen’s proposal served to foster an environment in which historical questions and methods predominated Old Testament scholarship. As a result, other aspects of the Pentateuchal texts received less attention. In this way, the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis arguably contributed to a myopia that has only recently begun to be redressed. The problem was not historical-critical method per se, but rather a tendency toward its singular application. Accordingly, Martin Kessler avers that the dominance of a single view must never be allowed to recur.
The overriding historical focus within the academy profoundly shaped the way the Pentateuch was perceived and approached. Preoccupation with compositional concerns led, in many cases, to an increasingly fragmentary estimation of the corpus. Leviticus, for example, has been separated into not only P and H, but also P1, P2, P3, Pre-H1, Pre-H2, H, and HR. Even single verses were understood to evidence multiple layers. Not surprisingly, Paul Volz and Wilhelm Rudolph declare that such practice could only be the invention of modern scholarship. For C. R. North, this state of affairs represented the reductio ad absurdum of analytical methodologies.
Such atomization left its mark. Alter refers to those who consider the Torah a “crazy-quilt of ancient traditions.” Likewise, Benedict Spinoza’s estimation that the text is narrated in a haphazard manner without respect for chronology is regularly echoed. Yet, at the same time, John Barton aptly surmises, “the Pentateuch does now exist and must presumably have been assembled by someone: it is not a natural phenomenon. And the person who assembled it . . . no doubt intended to produce a comprehensible work.”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, there have been dissenters to the consensus view, with notable scholars either resisting the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis or seeking to correct its perceived flaws. Examples include Umberto Cassuto, who explicitly tackled the issue in La questione della Genesi and in a series of lectures delivered in 1940, and Norman Whybray, who concluded that the Documentary Hypothesis rests on false assumptions and contains methodological errors of such magnitude that the theory is untenable.
The undoing of the consensus enjoyed by the Graf-Wellhausen theory, with implications for the historical-critical method it embodied, has posed something of a dilemma for Pentateuch scholarship. For while the reigning paradigm seems less assured than previously supposed, a clear alternative has not been forthcoming. Twenty-first-century Pentateuch scholarship therefore finds itself divided, perhaps even fractured. On the one hand, there are those like Cassuto and Whybray who suggest either a radical transformation of the documentary theory or else an outright rejection of it. In this respect, Ernest Nicholson observes that the hypothesis is in sharp decline, even a “state of advanced rigor mortis.” Yet, on the other hand, there have been calls to substantially revive the Graf-Wellhausen model, perhaps most vociferously by the so-called neo-documentarians. The result is a total lack of consensus, with various schools proposing competing approaches, a reality evidenced in Ska’s review of four Old Testament introductory texts. Ska tellingly muses, “Quatre introductions, quatre théories, quatre façons de lire le Pentateuque.”
New Directions in Pentateuch Research
During the last four decades, however, Pentateuch interpretation has been significantly impacted by a number of new (or renewed) emphases. By bringing new questions and areas of inquiry to the table, these emphases suggest ways to move beyond the current impasse. Detailed discussion of the origins, proponents, and range of intramural views for each approach is not possible here. Accordingly, I limit discussion to the salient features that most directly bear upon this study.
Prioritizing the Final-Form Text
One of the more striking shifts in recent Pentateuch research has been a call to read, even to prioritize, the extant text in its received form. As noted above, for almost two centuries scholarship focused on the parts rather than the whole. In the move away from a dominant focus on behind-the-text matters to a more holistic consideration of the Pentateuchal texts, several significant voices may be discerned.
Gerhard von Rad acknowledged both a complex history behind the Pentateuch (Hexateuch) and an overall purpose and plan. For him, these two realities were not mutually exclusive. Thus, von Rad advocated an approach that led back to the final, conclusive form of the text. Similarly, Brevard Childs, while not dismissing insights derived from historical-critical methodologies, concluded that such an endeavor was not by itself sufficient. In contrast to others (including von Rad), Childs did not regard the layers in a text as being as important as the final form. Rather, he located intentionality in the canonical shaping of the material. Therefore, because the text’s witness to God lies not in the process but in the extant text received by faith communities, the final form ought to be the primary basis for theological reflection.
This trend toward final-form appraisal of the Torah, evident in numerous recent studies, suggests that while the complex depth dimension of the Pentateuch remains a real factor, the Gestalt is nevertheless greater than the sum of its parts. The Pentateuch, it seems, has a shape and strategy that transcend its source material. Investigation of the purposes behind the corpus at this level—diametrically opposed as such an approach may be to Wellhausen’s view that the half is better than the whole
