The Hierocratic Institution of the High Priest in the Theocratic Reworking of the Pentateuch

In the latest texts of the Pentateuch, Moses’s position as the preeminent mediator of Divine Torah and Prophecy is illustrated in the Song at the Sea (Exod 15:1–18) and in the Song of Moses (Deut 32:1–43).32 Moses proclaims Yhwh’s kingship and uniqueness as God:

Exodus 15:11 “Who is like You, Yhwh, among the gods, who is like You, majestic in holi-ness, awesome in splendour, working wonders! … 17 You bring them [your people] and plant them in the mountain of your heritage, the place You made to dwell in, Yhwh! The sanctu-ary, o Lord, which your hands established. 18 Yhwh will reign as king for ever and ever!”

When this prophetic hymn was placed before the song of the prophetess Miriam, the shorter prophetic version remains only as a repetition of what Moses has already envisioned and pronounced. At the end of his life as presented in the Pentateuch, Moses announces in his prophetic hymn the eschatological legal pro-ceedings of Yhwh, the sole God, the creator, and the highest ruler over the world and over the nations, who proclaims himself as lord of the universe, ruling on life and death, Deuteronomy 32:39:

31 Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 430–50.

32 John W. Watts, Psalm and Story. Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative, JSOTS 139 (Sheffield: Shef-field Academic Press, 1992).

“See now, that I, I am He, and there is no god beside me, I deal death and give life, I have wounded and I will heal, and none can deliver from My hand!”33

When, in the latest phase of reworking, priestly scribes introduced a new priestly hierarchical order into the narrative of the Pentateuch in connection with the intro-duction of priestly torot, they also introduced a legend about Aaron as Moses’s successor in the task of Torah mediator. This meant his authority exceeded all other priestly, Levitical, prophetic, and scribal authority. The authorisation of Aaron superceded the authorisation of the prophets following Moses.

According to the Hexateuch Composition in Deuteronomy 18:15–22, prophetic authority was rooted in the legend about the covenant on Mount Horeb, which included the divine promise to raise a prophet like Moses for Israel and to put his words into the prophet’s mouth (Deut 18:18; Jer 1:9; cf. also Isa 6:6–9; Ezek 3:1–4).

When, according to the Pentateuchal reworking, the legend of the tent of meeting introduced a new perspective, it was believed that Moses’s word directly deliv-ered God’s revelation, so that the Torah of Moses surpassed the prophetic word (Deut 34:10–12). The word of Moses became itself divine. In the theocratic priestly reworking of the Pentateuch, the narrative of Moses’s call (Exod 3) therefore was supplemented in Exodus 4:10–17 with the assignment of Aaron the Levite, brother of Moses. Moses received the commandment from the beginning of his work,

“speak to him and put the words in his mouth” (ויפב םירבדה־תא תמשׂו וילא תרבדו, v. 15). God promised to be with the mouth of Moses as well as with the mouth of Aaron and instruct them both (v. 15). So when Aaron speaks to the people, he will be the mouth of Moses, and Moses will be for him a mediator in a divine position (םיהלאל ול היהת התאו הפל ךל היהי אוה, v. 16). Before God promised to send the prophets, Aaron already had been assigned to be the first and most high authority to proclaim God’s word through Moses. Thus, all torot of the Pentateuch, including the priestly torot on offerings and purity were also determined to supercede any further Torah proclaimed in the prophetic scrolls.

The priestly reworking of the Pentateuch effected scribal discourse between the prophetic and Pentateuchal scriptures. As an example, one may have a look at Jer  7:22–23, where it is denied that God commanded anything about burnt offerings or sacrifices on the way from Egypt to the promised land (cf. also Mic

33 Deuteronomy 32 is probably the latest text in Deuteronomy. The Song of Moses is a canonical and hermeneutical bridge between Torah, Prophets, Psalms, and Wisdom, announcing Yhwh’s judgment over the nations and Israel’s eschatological salvation. Cf. Otto, Deuteronomium 23,16–

34,12, 2130–203; for a close reading cf. Petra Schmidtkunz, Das Moselied des Deuteronomium.

Untersuchungen zu Text und Theologie von 32,1–43, FAT II/124 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020).

6:6–8; Amos 5:25). The admission of foreigners to the cult was heavily disputed (Isa 56:3–8; Deut 23:2–9; Exod 12:48–49) and served as a reason to reject a general admission of Levites for worship at the center of the sanctuary and to degrade their majority to clerus minor (Ezek 44:9–11).

In the expansions of the priestly legends in Numbers, foundational legends serve to subsequently endow the hierocratic position of the high priest. They confirm that Aaron and his descendants have the highest priestly authority among the descendants of Levi and among all other tribes and chieftains of Israel.

Numbers 16 reports about a rebellion of Korah the Levite, who claims the right of the priesthood to the assembly (‘edah) and is rejected immediately (Num 16:1a, 3–5, 8–11, 16, 19–24, 28–34).34 Thereby Aaron’s preeminent position in the ‘edah is confirmed. When the ‘edah rails against Moses and Aaron in an assembly (Num 17:6–7), only Aaron is able to expiate their wrongdoing on their behalf and calm the wrath of Yhwh by the incense ritual (Num 17:8–15).

Numbers 16:2–3 reports about a rebellion of 250 chieftains (םיאישׂנ) of the congregation (הדע), chosen by the assembly (דעומ יאירק), against Moses and Aaron. With reference to the account of the Sinai covenant in Exodus 19:6 (םתא שׁודק יוג … יל ויהת) and the program of the Holiness Code (Lev 19:2 תדע־לכ־לא רבד םכיהלא הוהי ינא שׁודק יכ ויהת םישׁדק םהלא תרמאו לארשׂי־ינב) the laity doubt the privileged position of Moses and Aaron over the qahal, the Assembly of the people (הוהי להק־לע ואשׂנתת עודמ, Num 16:3). In an ordeal, these laity try to offer incense, but – as in Leviticus 10:2 – “a fire went forth from Yhwh and consumed the 250 men” (Num 16:35). The legend proves that only Aaron and his descendants have the right to offer incense (Num 17:1–5). It is only he who is able to sanctify Israel before God by offering purifying incense. It is the Aaronide high priest alone who is allowed to come close to the adytum of the sanctuary every morning when he tends to the Menorah and offers incense (Exod 37:1–10).

The two legends are intertwined, and thus they make clear that Aaron is the head of the religious assembly (‘edah) as well as over the subordinate political assembley (qahal). So he also represents the highest political authority of all Israelites. When the chieftains of Israel representing the twelve tribes lay down their staffs and the document of covenantal law (תודעה, Num 17:19) before the ark

34 For literary-critical analysis, cf. Achenbach, Vollendung, 37–123; recent research tends to assume that the motif of Korah’s rebellion was intertwined with the narrative on a rebellion of 250 nesi’îm; cf. Christoph Berner, “Vom Aufstand Datans und Abirams zum Aufbegehren der 250 Männer. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Anfängen der literarischen Genese von Num 16–17,” BN 150 (2012): 9–33; Katharina Pyschny, Verhandelte Führung. Eine Analyse von Num 16–17 im Kontext der neueren Pentateuchforschung, HBS 88 (Freiburg – Basel – Wien: Herder, 2017).

as a symbol of their authority, Aaron’s staff brings forth sprouts and blossoms of Almonds (םידקשׁ, v. 18). From Jeremiah 1:11–12 the symbol of the blossoming almond branch is a traditional symbol for Yhwh watching his people (דקשׁ); it seems that the prophetic connotation and the political context have been trans-ferred to the Aaronide high priest in the legend of Numbers 17: He represents the highest authority in the assembly of Israel in religious and in political perspective;

he represents Yhwh’s watchfulness even over the prophetic tradition.

The Aaron legend of the older layers of the Priestly Code was worked out to confirm the high priest in his succession as the highest legal authority in the con-gregation of Israel (‘edah, הדע). The general assembly of the people (qahal, להק)35 was subordinate to the assembly of the people as a religious community (‘edah).36 Since there is no annointed king (חישׁמ), the high priest is the highest and only anointed authority in the society of the Second Temple.37 His vestments express a divine kingly authority. The high priest’s turban (Exod 28:40) is designated with a diadem of the sanctuary (שׁדקה רזנ; as a representation of Zion, cf. Isa 61:10); he and his sons should, according to the Pentateuch torah, be the only annointed authorities (Exod 28:41; 29:7–9; 30:31–33; Lev 9:8–12; Isa 61:1). The clothes for the priestly investiture resemble, on the other hand, a series of symbols that represent Israel before God (Exod 28:12, 29).38 He wears a breastplate as a symbol for the highest authority over ordeals and the law (טפשׁמה ןשׁח, Exod 28:30) together with the lots to explore and “obtain God’s decision on important questions on which

35 qahal: Deut 5:22; 9:10; 10:4; 18:16; 23:2–9; 31:30; Josh 8:35; 1 Kgs 8:14 as a general term for the assembly of Yhwh’s people; in Exod 12:6; Num 14:5 the term is subordinate to the term ‘edah (לארשׂי ינב תדע להק לכ ינפל); cf. also Lev 4:13, 21; 16:17, 33; 16:3, 33; 17:12; 19:20; 20:6.

36 ‘edah: Exod 12:3, 6, 19, 47; 16:1, 2, 9–10, 22; 17:1; 35:20; 34:31; 35:1, 4; 38:25; Lev 4:15; 8:3, 5; 10:6, 17; 16:5; 19:2; Num 1–10; 15; 16–17; 29; 20; 25–35; not in Deuteronomy.

37 Cf. also Isa 61:1–11. The text is a self-proclamation of a person who is “anointed by Yhwh” and bestowed with the “spirit of Lord Yhwh,” i.  e., charisma to perform his office and to prove his authority by proclaiming a derôr, i.  e., a release. The concept of this text is thus clearly connected with an early hierocratic program (cf. Henri Cazelles, “Royaume des prêtres et nation consacrée (Exode 19,6) in: “Humanisme et foi chrétienne”: Melanges scientifique de l’Institut Catholique Paris, ed. Charles Kannengiesser / Yves Marchasson, Paris: Beauchesne 1976, 541–545; Pierre Grélot, “Sur Isaie LXI: la première consecration d’un grande prêtre, (RB 97, Leuven 1990, 414–431;

R. Achenbach, “König, Priester und Prophet. Zur Transformation der Konzepte der Herrschafts-legi timation in Jesaja 61,” in: R. Achenbach – Martin Arneth – Eckart Otto, Tora in der He bräi-schen Bibel. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte und synchronen Logik diachroner Transformationen (BZAR 7 – Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2007, 196–244).

38 In Isa 61:10 the annointed thus appears “like a bridegroom adorned with a turban,” i.  e., a representative of the (divine) royal authority with respect to the congregation who is addressed as “priests of Yhwh” and “servants of our God” (v. 6), and – at the same time – “like a bride bedecked with her finery,” the annointed is a representative of Zion with respect to Yhwh.

human judgment was found inadequate, such as military actions, allocation of land, legal verdicts in the absence of evidence, and choice of leaders”39 They are called urîm and tummim (Exod 28:30; Lev 8:8), possibly representing a symbol for lights (םירוא > רוא) and for perfection and integrity (םימת > םת / םמת). They express the will of Yhwh as the creator of light (Gen 1:3–5, 18) and the origins of blessings (Num 6:23–27) and life (Ps 36:10), and as the God of complete revelation (םמת, Deut 31:24, 30), who has power to watch over integrity and righteousness (Gen 6:9: םימת קידצ שׁיא חנ) and to determine the end of life (Num 14:35; 17:28;

32:13). The application of the lots in preexilic contexts is mentioned in 1 Sam 14:41 (LXX*) and 2 Sam 28:6 in the context of divination during war. In the context of the late priestly reworking of Numbers they mark out a decisive function because it is Eleazar the high priest who seeks the decision of the urîm and tummim before Yhwh in situations of war and – more importantly – the division of the land, that is, the irrevocable inheritance of land for Israelite families. In remembrance of the postexilic history the administration of urîm and tumim was decisive for all Jewish rights of personal possession and heritage (cf. Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65). Accord-ing to Numbers 20:28–29, immediately after the death of Aaron, the vestments were handed over to his next eldest son Eleazar. In the priestly legend about a legal case that intends revising the laws of inheritance (Num 27:1–11), the place of negotiations of the highest court is before the sanctuary in its function as the Tent of Meeting. The court is the full assembly of the congregation – of the ‘edah (הדעה לכ) – all its representatives (םיאישׂנה ינפל), presided over by Moses and Eleazar the high priest. The divine decision is requested and proclaimed by Moses.

The subsequent part of the narrative reflects on Joshua’s succession again.40 The designation of Joshua is described in several steps. Yhwh commands Moses to single out Joshua as a person qualified with special charisma and an inspired man (וב חור, Num 27:18). In the ritual, he has to stand before Eleazar and the con-gregation, who have to witness the act (v. 19). Moses must lay his hands upon him (v. 23) and transfer a part of his authority to him (וילא ןדוהמ התתנו, v. 20a), so that the community will obey him. By this act he is filled with a “spirit of wisdom”

(המכח חור, Deut 34:9) and qualified as a political leader. But when he has to make

39 Jeffrey H. Tigay, “Exodus,” in The Jewish Study Bible, ed. Adele Berlin, Marc Zvi Brettler and Michael Fishbane (Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 102–202, here 172–73, with references to Num 27:21; 1 Sam 14:37–42; Ezra 2:63; Exod 22:8; Josh 7:14–18; Judg 1:1–2; 20:18;

1 Sam 10; 20–22; 2 Sam 2:1; 5:23–24.

40 There are four versions of a succession story for Joshua: in Josh 1:1–6* (dtr. reworking of a pre-dtr version); in Deut 31:7–8 (pre-dtr.) with a Fortschreibung of the Hexateuch redactor (Deut 31:9–13*);

a Fortschreibung of the Pentateuch redaction (Deut 31:14–15, 23); and a late priestly version by the ThR (Num 27:12–23; Deut 34:9).

decisions, he is obliged to request the divine decision first from Eleazar the priest via the “legal decision by urîm before Yhwh” (הוהי ינפל םירואה טפשׁמב ול לאשׁו, v. 21a). This will impact all his undertakings in times of peace and war (v. 21b), and this will concern especially the decisions about the allotment of land and inheritance in Israel (Num 34:16–17). The role to augur divine decisions and thus to assign ultimate authority in lawsuits and to answer questions of law and justice has not been transferred to Joshua, but to Eleazar – and thus to the high priest.

The institutional power is specifically represented by the legend of a porta-ble shrine, where cultic, ritual, and legal activities can be performed. Therefore, the theocratic reworking of the Pentateuch identified the Tent of Meeting (להא דעומ) with the desert shrine (ןכשׁמ).41 These editors also assumed that priests and Levites had transported the shrine through the desert during the forty years and had brought it into the promised land (Num 1–10*, 15–19*, 26–31, 33–35). The idea of already recognising the priestly institutions as a fundamental part of Israel’s constitution from the beginning led to the narrative not only of the wandering kabôd of Yhwh, but also of a wandering sanctuary.

In Chronicles, the identification of the divine dwelling (ןכשׁמ) with the Tent of Meeting (דעומ להא) is connected with the temple building in the rules of the temple offices in 1 Chronicles 6:16–17:

16 “These are the persons whom David put in charge of the service of song in the temple of Yhwh (הוהי תיב), after the ark came to rest (ןוראה חונממ),42 17 that they ministered with song before the tabernacle of the tent of meeting (דעומ להא ןכשׁמ) …”43

They believe that the final resting place of the ark before it was transferred to Jeru-salem was Gibeon (1 Chr 16:39; 21:29), because according to 1 Kings 3:4 Solomon had brought sacrifices there and Yhwh appeared to him (cf. also 1 Kgs 9:2). Chroni-cles does not mention the former sanctuary in Shiloh, which had become unclean because of the wicked priests (1 Sam 1:3, 9, 24; 2:14–4:12; 14:3; 1 Kgs 2:27). According to 2 Chronicles 1:3, 13, after Solomon became king, he visited the sanctuary of the

“Tent of Meeting, which Moses the servant of Yhwh had made in the wilderness”

there. Before Solomon had built the temple as a permanent house, Yhwh had been worshiped in several tent sanctuaries (1 Chr 17:5 ןכשׁממו להא־לא להאמ היהאו).

When the ark was transferred to Jerusalem, the mishkan remained in Gibeon, so

41 Cf. Reinhard Achenbach, “Mishkan – ’Arôn – ’Ohael Mo’ed. Concepts of Divine Presence in the Pentateuch,” ZAR 23 (2017): 151–61.

42 Cf. Num 10:33.

43 LXX confuses the functions once again, translating with ἐναντίον τῆς σκηνῆς οἴκου μαρτυρίου

“before the tent of the house of witness”.

that the obligatory offerings could be offered (1 Chr 16:37–40). The Levites contin-ued their service as guardians at the entrance of the tent, where the ark is placed (1 Chr 9:19–35), as they did before under the surveillance of Phineas ben Eleazar (1 Chr 9:20: ומע הוהי םינפל םהילע היה דיגנ רזעלא ןב סחניפו). Even descendants of Korah are found among them (v. 19), corresponding to the remark in Numbers 26:9 that “the sons of Korah did not die.” In order to harmonise 2 Sam 6:17–19 and the narrative of Numbers, the Chronicler assumes that David had prepared a sepa-rate tent for the ark (1 Chr 15:1), where burnt offerings and shelamîm were brought before God after the transfer had been completed (1 Chr 16:1–3//2 Sam 6:17–19).

Chronicles thus takes up the motifs of the theocratic reworking (ThR) in Numbers and tries to harmonise them with the dtr texts, that had already been reworked by ThR, rewriting and continuing Dtr in Fortschreibung from the perspective of ThR.

With respect to the orders of offices in the Second Temple during the late Persian period, the roles of the Levite take on renewed weight.44

In the ancient dtr report on the consecration of Solomon’s temple, the priests bore the ark from David’s tent into the building and deposited it beneath the throne of cherubim that served as symbol for divine presence (1 Kgs 8:3b, 6). Late priestly scribes inserted 1 Kings8:4,6 (הוהי תירב / םישׁדקה שׁדק) and vv. 10b–11 with respect to Exod 40:34–35, bringing in late elements from the late priestly narrative of the ThR.45 Since, according to Numbers 4:15, 19b, the Aaronide priests are responsible for organising the duties for each Levitical unit, priests and Levites are responsi-ble for the transport of the tabernacle (1 Kgs 8:4b). The priests take care that the other Levites do not touch the holy artifact, and they take care of the holy oil and the Menorah (Num 4:16), but the Levites have to bear the ark and the mishkan (Num 4:15b, 17–33). And since they had guarded the ark while the mishkan had remained in Gibeon, Chronicles assigns the responsibility for bearing it to them (2 Chr 4:4b). However, since the holy vessels are in the hands of the priests, it is the common responsibility of all “the levitical priests”, םיולה םינהכה, Zadokites and Levites (Ezek 44:15), to bring everything up into the temple building (2 Chr 4:4b, leaves out the waw, but is corrected again in several manuscripts).

44 Gary N. Knoppers, “Hierodules, Priests, or Janitors? The Levites in Chronicles and the His-tory of Isrealite Priesthood,” JBL 118 (1999), 49–72. For a closer discussion, cf. Jaeyoung Jeon,

“The Priestly Tent of Meeting in Chronicles: Pro-Priestly of Anti-Priestly?” JHS 18, Article #7 (DOI:10.5508/jhs.2018.v18.a7). Jeon assumes continuous conflicts between Zadokites and Lev-ites. Cf. Jaeyoung Jeon, “The Zadokite and Levite Scribal Conflicts and Hegemonic Struggles,” in Scripture as Social Discourse: Social-Scientific Perspectives on Early Jewish and Christian Writings, ed. Todd Klutz et al. (New York: T&T Clark, 2018), 97–110.

45 Achenbach, “Der Pentateuch,” 225–54. See also Albertz, Die kanonische Anpassung des Josua buches,” 199–216.

1 Kgs 8:3b–4, 6, 10b–1146 2 Chr 5:4b–5, 7, 13b, 14

When the temple was finished, the office of the Levites to transport the ark accord-ing to Numbers 4 ceases (1 Chr 23:16). Now the temple is the dwellaccord-ing of Yhwh (2 Chr 1:5), even when the Israelites turn their faces away from it (2 Chr 29:6).

Chronicles takes up issues from ThR in Numbers and thus documents further scribal reception and debate, as Hans-Peter Mathys has already shown.47 The position of the Levites is under on-going debate in Chronicles (cf. Num 18:3–4;

2 Chr 29:16, 34; 30:16; 35:11), and the Chronicler even added to the descriptions of Levitical tasks at Pesach (2 Chr 30:16; 35:11). Second Chronicles 30:2, 15 are the only other texts where the rules on a second Pesach (Numbers 9:10–13) are referred to in the Hebrew Bible. Levites not only receive the tithes (cf. Num 18:21–

24), but also guard and administer them (2 Chr 31:11–13).

In his work on Torah in Chronicles, Lars Maskow has described how this nar-rative was received and expounded in Chronicles.48 Here the Levitical genealogies, the sanctuary, the ark, the holy vessels, and the cultic calendar were transferred into the narratives received from the already reworked dtr tradition and described in further detail. The proto-Chronistic theocratic reworking of the Pentateuch led to the first extensive and complete work of “Rewritten Bible” in the book of Chron-icles.

46 1 Kgs 8:4 is missing in LXX. In v. 6 םישׁדקה שׁדק לא is missing in LXX. And instead of תירב ןורא הוהי in v.6, LXX only had ןוראה in its Vorlage, and instead of הוהי תיב just תיבה, v. 10b, 11b.

47 Mathys, “Numeri und Chronik,” n. 10, 20.

48 Maskow, Tora in der Chronik, 239–550; on “Kult-Personal”, 240–334, “Kult-Gegenstand”, 335–384; “Kult-Kalender”, 477–542.

In 2008 I published an article entitled “Numbers and Chronicles: Close Rel-atives”1, where I showed that the two books share much in common in their content, but often take quite different approaches. I briefly presented nine topics:

1. The relationship between priests and Levites; 2. Pesach; 3. The tithe; 4. Temple

1. The relationship between priests and Levites; 2. Pesach; 3. The tithe; 4. Temple