SOURCE: "The Pentateuch as Torah: The Way as Part of the Goal" in The "Torah": Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law, translated by Allan W. Mahnke, Fortress Press, 1996, pp. 329-67.

[In the following essay, Crusemann explores the social and political context in which the Pentateuch was produced in an effort to understand the development of the Judeo-Christian Torah. According to him, the Pentateuch unifies the strictures of a monotheistic religion with regulations of justice set against the background of Persian law.]

There came a voice of revelation saying,
"These and those are words of the living
   God."
Babylonian Talmud, Erubin 13b¹

The Pentateuch as a Product of the Persian Period

Literary Presuppositions and Conceptual Self-Designation

The historical juxtaposition of the legal corpora in the Pentateuch are parts of one law of Moses. Codes criticizing previous laws, which they sought to replace, were combined with those laws into a single entity. The sequence of laws became a cooperation, and contradiction became cooperation. The path to the goal became part of the goal, in fact it basically became the goal, for little that was substantially new was added.

Frequently, portrayals of Israelite legal history ignore this, culminating with strata the authors believed to be latest.² It was, however, only by means of this step that Torah was developed, which then became the basis of the entirety of later Jewish legal history. It is only when we understand this process that we appreciate the text, which is the only starting point for a reconstruction of the history that precedes it.

Nevertheless, the process by which the Pentateuch as a whole was developed was apparently subordinate to other laws, which were in effect when the earlier legal texts came into existence. They all adopted and expanded the contents and important decisions of their predecessors, incorporating and editing more or less clearly identifiable documents. As in other legal corpora, however, the conception is, by and large, consistent, and its solution lay within the historical challenge presented. For the moment, however, repetitions and contradictions of the most egregious kind remain unresolved. That sort of thing seems almost a compositional principle of the Pentateuch.

In what follows we will investigate the historical circumstances, theological conception and legal meaning of this process and its consequences. As an introduction, here are the most important literary presuppositions on which this examination is based:

It is critical that we distinguish the overall form of the Pentateuch and its final redaction(s) from the priestly writings, which would contradict theories suggesting that we regard the development of the main priestly document (followed by a few less significant redactions) as the critical formative step for canonical Torah.³ The following reasons are especially important:

s—However we want to deal with the literary structure and scope of priestly writings (or of a priestly document), they do not include Deuteronomy. Why this great corpus was included, and in some way integrated into the priestly writings, is beyond the purview of this discussion. The juxtaposition of the two legal corpora, most significant in scope and influence, makes up the actual inner tension and thus also something of the "essence" of the Pentateuch. Its shape developed as they were brought together.

—On the other hand, the Pentateuch presumes that the books of Moses were separate from the Book of Joshua and the books associated with Joshua: Judges, Samuel and Kings. Some "finger prints," however, lead from the Pentateuch at least to Josh 24, which suggests earlier correlations.⁴ Furthermore, we probably cannot deny the presence of part of the priestly texts or priestly redaction in Joshua.⁵ It is, however, only the separation of the Book of Joshua that makes the Pentateuch an independent authority, the book of Torah.⁶

What is certainly true for Deuteronomy is also probably true for the Book of the Covenant and the Decalogue. For our purposes we need not deal with whether the priestly stratum incorporated and reshaped earlier narrative texts, and which these were. It is extremely unlikely that it presumed a comprehensive Sinai pericope including a theophany and the concluding of a covenant.⁷ Because of the priestly conception Sinai became the central place of the proclamation of God's will. The markedly deuteronomistic construction of the Sinai pericope in Ex 19-24 incorporated the pre-priestly legal corpora. As a whole, however, it represented a post-priestly textual area that approximates or is part of the final redaction.

Thus the final form of the Pentateuch deals especially with a new way of combining older materials. Apart from the narratives, new legal materials amplifying the already extant corpora are only found in the Book of Numbers. Surprisingly, there were additional laws having a post-priestly character, which were given on the way through the desert. The innovations in content resemble what the previously described new codification had intended, but on another level.⁸ We will not reconstruct the literary growth either here or for the non-priestly Sinai pericope, the problems are well-known. It is clear, however, that we must reckon on a longer coexistence of priestly and deuteronomistic strata (or their corresponding groups).

Let us begin with the question of the designation and therefore the self-understanding of this creation.⁹ Thus far I have used the term "Torah" to describe the overall structure. To what degree is this justified? The question gets us directly into the old debate, whether the Pentateuch, as a whole, is narrative or law. There are great differences of opinion on this question, especially between Christianity and Judaism.¹⁰ There are about equal amounts of both, weighed quantitatively,¹¹ and since neither term was used at that time, perhaps such an alternative is already misleading for our effort to comprehend how the Pentateuch understands itself. Tora means something different than history or law. Did, however, "the" or "a" concept of Torah, already present from the start, become the name of the whole once it had come into existence? For this there are more aspects to note.

As nearly as I can tell, there is only clear evidence for the use of the term Torah to describe the Pentateuch as a whole, including narrative portions, from the second century BCE. Thus, in Job 30:12 the narrative of Gen 34 is regarded as part of the "law." The law is introduced as the first part of the canon in the prolog to Jesus Sirach. For the period before this, including the late strata of the Old Testament itself, including the evidence in the books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah,¹² 0. Eissfeldt's statement applies: "We cannot tell for sure whether this comprehensive use of this term already appears in the Old Testament, since the places under consideration can all be understood in such a way as to include only the legal parts (Ezr 10:3; 2 Chr 30:16; Neh 8:3; 2 Kg 14:6)."¹³ The same is true of related expressions, such as "Book of Moses."

Against the background of earlier interpretations and especially the use as a technical term for priestly instruction, tora as we know became the most important concept for Deuteronomy and the will of God formulated in it (Deut 4:8, 44, etc.)."¹⁴ Of course, in many places this "book of Torah" contained references to history (especially the exodus) which appear in the context of the founding of many laws. Torah is later the most important concept for the law of Ezra, where we are unable to tell what shape it had."¹⁵ Were we to ask whether the word tōrā might also designate narrative complexes, two texts might bear on the question, both originating in deuteronomic/deuteronomistic theology.

One text is Ps 78. In verse I the poet, employing wisdom language, describes what is to follow as "my Torah". … This includes, from verse 12, a generous historical narrative. Israel's history is an important part of wisdom instruction. Interestingly, the same thing is true of YHWH's Torah, mentioned in verses 5 and 10. "Witness and instruction" …, which God instituted in Israel (verse 5), are supposed to be handed down from fathers to sons (verses 5f.) with the intent that they would put their trust (késel) in God. Thus, the remembrance of historical acts … and keeping the commandments … are parallel (verse 7). In verse 10, the combination "covenant" … and "tōrā" parallels verse 11 "deeds and marvels." If the narrative beginning in verse 12 (in which, as in nearly all historical summaries, the giving of the law is omitted) is understood as a concretization and demonstration of what was said in verses 5 and 10, the proclaiming of Torah will include history. Thus narrative and Torah should not be separated.¹⁶

Obviously, tōrā became a designation for history in Deut 1:5, "Beyond the Jordan in the land of Moab, Moses undertook to expound this law as follows." By means of the last word …, the speech starting at verse 6 is designated as the beginning of Torah. Therefore, the first three chapters of Deuteronomy, a historical review, are clearly a part of Torah itself. This applies to the present text, independent of how we might explain its current state, or whether or not we regard it as a late emendation,¹⁷ as most do, and independent of the meaning of the verb (b'r).¹⁸

From the evidence, we cannot tell for sure whether the word tora was the chief concept of the Pentateuch from the beginning, or whether the designation of the earlier Deuteronomy, the deuteronomistic, was expanded to the narrative portions, and only later became the name for the whole thing. The word tōrā clearly can designate the narrative portions and, what is even more important, there is no other term for the self-understanding of this gigantic work.¹⁹ In summary, the evidence suggests that the redaction and canonization of the Pentateuch may have taken place without a name and a label for the whole concept, but it is improbable.

The Temporal and Historical Framework

When did the Pentateuch as we have it come into being? Of course, we must presume long literary processes. Such procedures have already been accepted regarding the growth within the priestly texts, and they are also probable for the juxtaposition of priestly and deuteronomistic strata.²⁰ We are talking about the time when the great legal texts (Book of the Covenant, Deuteronomy, and the priestly writings) were brought together in a single document. Furthermore, this is the time at which the literary productive work on the Pentateuch came to an end. On the basis of the sources the two questions are inseparable.

The Pentateuch must have come into existence between the exile and the beginning of the hellenistic period—in other words, during the Persian period. This terminus post quem can be determined with certainty. In general scholars agree that such a work could not have existed during the exilic period. There are clear historical references, especially in the execration chapters of Deuteronomy and the priestly Holiness Code.²¹ It is unanimously agreed that the deuteronomistic history was developed at that time, in which Deuteronomy formed a literary unity with Joshua through 2 Kings.²² Even the priestly writings in their present form originated in the postexilic period.²³

The end of productive literary work is much harder to fix and it is highly disputed. We can no longer refer to the separation from the Samaritans (who regarded only the Pentateuch as canonical scripture), which for a long time was regarded as important.²⁴ Of course, there was the building of the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim at the beginning of the hellenistic period,²⁵ but that still did not mean a definitive separation from Judaism.

The separation occurred at the time of the destruction of the temple by John Hyrcanus 129-128 BCE.²⁶ In spite of the long, common textual history and other arguments,²⁷ the question remains, whether it is likely, in view of the cultic schism that came about because of the construction of their own temple, that a canonical book would be adopted, which was developed after the split. It would be easier to imagine additional common textual history and other forms of mutual influence than the later adoption of a document originating after the separation.²⁸

Other aspects, however, are more important. Today it is assumed that the Greek translation of the Pentateuch was made in the middle of the third century BCE.²⁹ Thus, in any case, it agrees with Pseudo-Aristeas. Such a translation, however, presupposes the conclusion and canonic validity.³⁰ This is supported by the fact that there is no evidence of hellenism or the disputes that came about with it in the Pentateuch.³¹ All of this suggests that it is quite likely the Pentateuch was completed at the beginning of the hellenistic period, that is, the last third of the fourth century. It may have been the wide-ranging changes in the geopolitical situation, with its unforeseen consequences for Judea and Judaism as a whole that—at latest—brought the redactional work to an end.

The Law of Ezra and the Authorization of the Kingdom

Rabbinical tradition regarded Ezra as a second Moses,³² and since the beginnings of historical-critical research with Spinoza,³³ the relation of Pentateuch and the law of Ezra has been a key question for the development of Torah. We will now try to work out, in spite of gross unclarities, what can be regarded as reliable material about the historical Ezra.

For a long time scholars have been deeply divided over everything about Ezra.³⁴ Beginning with his dates, there is practically nothing over which there is consensus. The only available reference speaks of the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes (Ezr 7:7f.), nevertheless, this is neither clear nor uncontroverted.³⁵ If we associate this reference with Artaxerxes II, we arrive at the year 458, and if the third king of this name is intended, 398 BCE is the date. The important connection to the person and work of Nehemiah (who came to Jerusalem in 445 BCE) iS questionable.³⁶ It is especially doubtful whether Ezr 7-10 or Neh 8-10 represent reliable sources. Furthermore, since it has been demonstrated that the order of the present form of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah is by no means secondary or accidental, but in every respect they have been consciously shaped, especially theologically,³⁷ the theory of a pre-chronistic³⁸ Ezra source is even less likely.³⁹

As with Meyer and Schaeder, we are still concerned with evaluating the Aramaic letter of Artaxerxes in Ezr 7:11-26.⁴⁰ According to the letter Ezra was assigned by the king to go with a group of exiles to Jerusalem, and there "to make inquiries about Judah and Jerusalem according to the law of your God, which is in your hand" (verse 14). In addition to being given a significant contribution from the court and the diaspora to the temple, they are granted the right to demand support from the state tax system in the trans-Euphrates satrapy (verses 21ff.); temple employees are declared free of taxes (verse 24). The important statements (in addition to verse 14) are in verses 25 f.:

Ezr 7:2S "And you, Ezra, according to the God-given wisdom you possess, appoint magistrates and judges who may judge all the people in the province Beyond the River who know the laws of your God; and you shall teach those who do not know them. 26 All who will not obey the law of your God and of the king, let judgment be strictly executed on them, whether for death or for banishment or for imprisonment.⁴¹

Is there a genuine Persian decree which underlies the entire Ezra story,⁴² or is this decree an invention of the chronicler?⁴³ There really is not much unity in the text⁴⁴ and it is clearly written from a Jewish perspective.⁴⁵ The subordination of the entire satrapy of Trans-Euphrates⁴⁶ to the law of Israel is neither historically probable nor does the narrative, as it follows the decree, rely on its existence. The theory that Ezra or the Jewish people themselves wrote the document, having it approved at a later time,⁴⁷ is hardly tenable. All in all, arguments against genuineness seem to prevail today, but certainty is hard to achieve.

Of course, there are important references suggesting the text presumes historical reality and it aspires to the origin of that reality. That said, even critics who would regard the letter as a product of judaistic invention, the work, e.g. of someone like the chronicler, must simultaneously acknowledge that it asserts a kernel of historical reality.⁴⁸ Thus, on the one hand, Kaiser says, "We must acknowledge that we have an edifying story in the Book of Ezra,"⁴⁹ regarding which, "We are better off avoiding a historical evaluation of this text."⁵⁰ On the other hand, the same author says: "We might now regard the historical value of the Ezra narrative as more or less believable, and as a result, regard Ezra to be the man who brought the Pentateuch from Babylon to Jerusalem … but we must assume that the Pentateuch, at latest at the turn of the Sth/4th centuries, was essentially complete, and in the course of the next century achieved its unequalled place of honor. This is the only way the origin of the Ezra narrative is comprehensible."⁵¹ Even an unhistorical aetiology can describe what is real!

Gunneweg is of a similar opinion in his commentary of the Book of Ezra. After thorough testing of the arguments, he too comes to the opinion that Ezr 7:12-26 does not represent an original document of the Persian government, but rather "a Jewish text and a component of the chronicler's narrative." Nevertheless, according to Gunneweg, we should not doubt the core of the material is historical. "Historically—that is, in the sense of the harsh reality—… the legal position of the postexilic Jewish community was centered in Judah and Jerusalem but also outside the narrower homeland. It was characteristic that the Persians recognized traditional law, but they also declared it to be legally binding.¹⁵²

The conception of the decree of Artaxerxes, which at first seems purely theological, "proves to be an aetiology of the autonomous Jewish community around the temple and synagogue based in law and synagogal jurisdiction.⁵³ Thus, it can also be said: "If the chronicler associates Persian recognition of Torah with the person of Ezra, it may indeed be that Ezra was involved in this area."⁵⁴

While skeptical about the Artaxerxes decree, we must accept the important statement in Ezr 7:25, which equates the laws of God and of the Persian king as both legally applicable and juridically binding. There was a policy of the Persian empire, known today from a whole series of examples, which sanctioned local law through the empire, recognizing it as binding.⁵⁵ The best known example of these is the collecting and codifying of Egyptian law which remained in effect under Darius I.⁵⁶ Another important example is what is fixed in the trilingual stele from the Letoön at Xanthos, bearing resolutions of the congregation of Xanthos affecting the cult of Carian gods.⁵⁷ After studying the relevant texts, P. Frei categorized "the process of recognition of local norms by authorities of the empire "as state authorization."⁵⁸

The same thing is also largely true for Israel: Israelite law, thus the traditional law of the God of Israel, simultaneously became the law of the Persian empire for Jews: according to Ezr 7:25, for all who live in the satrapy of Syria.⁵⁹ This situation, wherein the Persian government recognized the existing written law, is presumed to have been the case on the basis of what we know about the features of Persian policy, according to all of the Old Testament sources and especially according to the further history of the hellenistic period.⁶⁰ The Ezra story with the edict of Artaxerxes at its center is the aetiology of this policy. Historical particulars are not especially enlightening but it is historically probable that this event was connected with a person named Ezra.

The main question remains: how did a law, coming into force in this way, relate to the Pentateuch? Scholars have investigated every conceivable possibility to identify the law of Ezra. It may, e.g. have been the Pentateuch, the priestly writings, the Holiness Code or even Deuteronomy.⁶¹ Convincing support for a particular answer is, however, hard to find.

It is, of course, expressly said that this is a new law, but in principle the inhabitants already knew the contents (Ezr 7:25). The nature of empire authorization makes this seem plausible. Furthermore, the chroniclers were probably already thinking of the Pentateuch,⁶² but were writing at a much later time. If we cannot identify the law of Ezra according to the evidence we have, we ought not to speculate.

Is there a correlation of the law of Ezra with the Pentateuch? This is especially disputed by Rendtorff.⁶³ He refers to fundamental differences between the law in Ezr 7, designated with a Persian loan word (dāt), and what is called tōrā in Neh 8, saying that these must be kept separate. In Ezr 7 we are concerned with a law that "has a purely legal meaning."⁶⁴ On the other hand, Neh 8 describes Ezra's activity entirely as reading Torah in worship.⁶⁵ He was "the first of whom it could be said that he studied and taught tora."⁶⁶

Both activities were brought together in later redactional processes, especially in Ezr 7:6. Rendtorff is surely correct to note that Ezr 7:12ff. and Neh 8 present different perspectives, different languages, and probably also different literary documents, which were brought together at a later time. Nevertheless, even for Rendtorff they are bracketed together in the picture presented for example in Ezr 7:6, if I understand correctly.⁶⁷

Still, the exposition of the word dāt is not entirely convincing.⁶⁸ To be sure, dāt is probably really "not a specific designation for Jewish religion or Jewish 'law'."⁶⁹ We would not argue, however, that it becomes a designation even for those in important places. If we read in Esth 3:8 regarding Israel, "their laws … are different from those of every other people, and they do not keep the king's laws …," d t hem can only refer to the law of Israel, in other words tora, which raises questions about the meaning of the law of God and the law of the king in Ezr 7. In Dan 6:6 the "law of God" … can only refer to Torah. What Aramaic word would be a better equivalent to tōrā than dāt? The only other candidate might be dīn.⁷⁰ In later legal language d t as well as d n is used in aramaic phrases like "the law of Moses and Israel" in marriage contracts.⁷¹ Thus, there is nothing to dispute the idea that dāt in Ezr 7:12ff. can also refer to Torah.

Analogous situations of authorization by the Persian empire are not limited to legal procedures in the narrow sense. Clearly, at least cultic (thus religious) questions are a part of this. No matter what we want to call the law of Ezra, since it deals with older, already traditional Israelite law (this is one of the few points over which there is no controversy), it could not have involved legal matters only. Already in the Book of the Covenant alongside legal requirements in the strictest sense there are cultic, religious, theological and ethical demands together with their justification. This is true for later Israelite law books up through the Pentateuch. To posit a legal document, similar to ancient Near Eastern law books, underlying the law of Ezra would contradict the entire history of Israelite law. It is in the decree of Artaxerxes of Ezra 7, in the midst of dealing with the Jerusalem temple and cult, that we find a subject dealing with the contents of dāt.

Thus it follows that we are unable to conclude even the shape of the law of Ezra, the date of Ezra's investiture or his activity from the sources. How ever this law might have looked, how much it was like the finished Pentateuch; it was out of this law that what we know as the Pentateuch developed somewhere near the end of the Persian period. This and already its preforms, as the law of the God of Israel, were simultaneously established as law by the Persian king. "What was in legal substance … the law of God, was in legal form the law of the state."⁷²

In my opinion, we can come to irrefutable conclusions regarding our understanding of Torah without giving fundamentally unsupportable answers to the many controverted questions about Ezra and his law. From this understanding we can draw conclusions for the following interpretation of the Pentateuch as a whole.

The Pentateuch in the Social-Political Field: Supporting Groups and Tendencies

In what follows we will attempt to grasp the social context in which the Pentateuch achieved its final form. Indeed, on the basis of our limited knowledge of the historical context, it is a question of dealing with the elementary observations and reflections made about the social-political role and function of the Pentateuch during the Persian period, which ought to supplement what has been said about Moses and his significance.⁷³ Methodologically, we will connect the final form of the Pentateuch with the most important, clearly discernible political and social powers. Unlike the issue of historical sequence, we have a clearly reliable source: the memoir of Nehemiah. In Neh 1:1-7:5aba, 12^*, 13^* (over which scholars are almost entirely in agreement), we have an authentic report of Nehemiah.⁷⁴ Certainly, the text reproduces only a brief glimpse from the end of the second third of the fifth century, and this from a subjective point of view.⁷⁵ Nevertheless, we can see the basic historical pattern, it had not altered dramatically before the change to hellenism.

Those in Debt and the Priests: The Social Coalition

According to Nehemiah's memoir and other contemporary sources, e.g. the Book of Malachi, there were two observable, fundamental conflicts within the population of the small province of Judah, which was a subunit of the Trans-Euphrates satrapy.⁷⁶ The one was the common, ancient antagonism, already so important during the preexilic period) between the indebted small farmers and their richer creditors. In Neh 5 the opposition came to a head, because of the compulsory construction of the wall.⁷⁷ Nehemiah was able to enact an initially "one-off remission of debts. It is clear that special circumstances like the political necessity to complete the work on the wall, the pressure of the population and their strike, as well as his influence as the Persian governor … permitted him to prompt the aristocrats to take such a step.

On the other hand, there were the very different interests of the laity, especially the less consequential, agricultural population, and the cult personnel consisting of priests and Levites in the Jerusalem temple. Their material support, which relied especially upon the offering of the tithe, was always in danger (Neh 3:10ff.; Mal 3:8). This was also true for permanent support for the entire temple cult. The lack of wood for the permanent sacrificial fire (Lev 6:12) indicates the obvious difficulties (Neh 10:35; 13:31). The extremely poor province with its enormous economic problems stood at the limits of survival.

In view of these two basic conflicts, the Pentateuch and its laws have a very clear purpose. There were the large number of priestly laws imposing the regular tithe on priests and laity (Num 18), which also obligate the offering of firstfruits (firstborn, etc.) for all Israelites. On the other hand there were the social laws in the Book of the Covenant and Deuteronomy, such as the prohibition against charging interest (Ex 22:24; Deut 23:20; cf Lev 25:36ff.); regular remission of debts (Deut 15:l ff.); manumission of slaves (Ex 21:2ff.; Deut 15:12ff.); slave asylum (Deut 23:16f.); and general protection for the weak in society. It was especially the connection of older, preexilic laws with the priestly, which enabled a clear connection to the social nexus in the province of Judah during the Persian period. It was not just the priestly laws that dominated during this period, as was presumed to be the case for a long time after Wellhausen. The significance of the coexistence of differing traditions is recognizable right here.

One document clearly underscores this trend: the agreement in Neh 10 to observe a series of actually important laws from Torah. According to the covenant, the people entered a written obligation agreeing to observe the following ten requirements:

1. No mixed marriages (v. 31);
2. Sabbath (v. 32a);
3. The offering of a third of a shekel, as a yearly temple tax for the bread of the Presence, as well as for regular public sacrifice, including sin offering… for the people (vv. 33-34);
4. The regular contribution of wood for the temple (v. 35);
5. Firstfruits (v. 36);
6. Firstborn (v. 37);
7. A regular contribution of dough, fruit, wine and oil (v. 38a);
8. Tithe (vv. 38b-40);
9. Regular care for the temple (v. 40b).

This is the earliest extant document of a detailed explication of Torah. There is much to suggest that it originates from a time when the text of the Pentateuch was not yet in its final canonic form. Thus, the requirement of a regular temple tax in the form of a third of a shekel is only attested here. On the other hand, in Ex 30:1 ff.; 38:25f. reference is made to a half shekel tax, and the later Jewish temple tax supports it on this mention of an, initially "one-off', levy.⁷⁸ General considerations argue that the higher offering represents the later version.⁷⁹ Scholars are divided whether Neh 10 is a pre-Chronicler document, of about the time of Nehemiah⁸⁰ or not.⁸¹ Since the text has clear connections to the problems of the Nehemiah memoir, especially Neh 13, but other themes also appear,⁸² it is frequently regarded as a later document.⁵³ Reference to a remission of debt in the seventh year (10:32b) is only connected to Neh 5, but rather than being unique, this is to be a regular payment. The solemn form of the written personal obligation, which parallels the "we" style of the text, is especially noteworthy (10:1, 13).⁸⁴ This is noteworthy because it is not just the authority of God but also that of the Persian king behind the law. Does this, as Gunneweg suggests,⁸⁵ reflect the transition to the hellenistic period? Still, all questions of dating can and should remain open.

Quite apart from how old we regard this text as being, it is the oldest outside the Pentateuch to identify divine law as a combination of all the great law texts. The incorporation of important priestly texts such as the law of the tithe in Num 18 and the priestly conception of offering (sin offering) is incontrovertible. The obligation to guarantee remission of debts in the seventh year, as we find it in Neh 10:32b, clearly contradicts the ideas of Lev 25 and adopts Deut 15:1 ff. The renunciation of profit from harvest, also occurring in that year, is not found in Deut 15, coming, as shown by the term "renounce, hand over" …, not from Lev 25:1-7, but from Ex 23:11, the Book of the Covenant. In the Ezra-Nehemiah period, the much disputed question of mixed marriage, which verse 30 places at the head of the provisions, is an activation, necessitated by the exile, of Ex 34:16, Deut 7:3;⁸⁶ and in this radicality it has no basis in the priestly texts.⁸⁷ The Book of the Covenant, Deuteronomy and the priestly law, all three great law codes form the basis of Neh 10; the legal aspect of the entire Pentateuch is fully present.

At the same time, Neh 10 is powerful evidence for the beginning of the interpretation of law. Clines's demonstration of this is impressive.⁸⁸ The way in which biblical texts are taken up and used parallels the basic principles of later rabbinic interpretation. Thus, in part, the actual legal norm is replaced by the procedure of its practice, e.g. when the demand for a permanent sacrificial fire (Lev 6:5) is made possible by the obligation to supply wood, which is regulated in detail. Or, when the tithe offering (Neh 13:1Off., Mal 3:8), which is frequently not observed, is secured by the process in which those who are profiting (the Levites) receive the tithe under the supervision of a priest (verses 38bf.). This is what the Mishnah tractate Abot calls a "fence around Torah" (Abot 1.1),⁸⁹ and is connected with the men of the great assembly (thus the time after Ezra).

Neh 10 attests what is also apparent in other places: with the development of the Pentateuch there came a need for its interpretation. Which laws should apply and how the different formulations fit together, all of this requires continuing interpretation in and through practice. The fact that the Pentateuch contains differing corpora that have not been adjusted makes interpretation more than usually necessary.

The gathering of laws from completely different levels of social concern and the way they have been arranged, already by Nehemiah himself, especially in Neh 10, permits us to come to solid conclusions regarding the authorities behind the development, at least in its use in the province of Judah. Combining the interests of the free farmers with those of the cult personnel is very important.⁹⁰ The great emphasis upon the subject of debt in all comparable ancient societies gives the enforcement of Deut 15:1ff. a weight, which generally balances the scales from the perspective of the participants for the many cultic offerings.⁹¹ This "coalition" is clearly distinguished from other contemporary social groups in Judea, e.g. the aristocratic-wisdom and eschatological-prophetic groups. Socially as well as literally, they clearly stand alongside Torah.⁹² Simultaneously, it is precisely these two great theological groups or schools that stand out from among the material interests investigated here, which with a variety of other reasons underlie the overall composition of the Pentateuch.⁹³ On a new level, the new arrangement of (deuteronomic) social law and (priestly) cultic law in the Pentateuch doubled the basic principle of Torah, which was established in the Book of the Covenant, and which, if in a different way, shaped all of the pre-canonic legal corpora.

Judea and the Diaspora: The Unity of the Nation

Israel's existence was scattered since, at the very latest, the beginning of the Babylonian exile. Even the postexilic reestablishment of the temple cult and the development of a separate province of Judea did not lead to a self-contained association of settlements.⁹⁴ A basic document of Judaism, recognized as the law of the Persian empire, would also be required to secure the relationship of Judah with the rest of the diaspora. The Pentateuch succeeded as being canonically valid only because it fulfilled this function. Its basic structure responds to this assignment precisely. By adopting and developing the relevant foundational material secured by the priestly writings,⁹⁵ especially in the stories of the patriarchs, they sketched a picture of life with the God of Israel. This was immediately relevant and applicable for the diaspora. We must, of course, make a distinction between the eastern and the Egyptian diaspora.

Historically, the influence of the eastern diaspora⁹⁶ during the Persian period was tremendous. It is, in fact, difficult to overstate its importance. The figures who gave decisive stimulus to the reshaping came from here. At first it was Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel and then Ezra and Nehemiah. They came directly from the king and their actions were obviously very closely coordinated with the king's intentions. We may surmise that the law of Ezra, or the Pentateuch, was shaped and edited there. Nevertheless, lacking the necessary sources, we must allow this question to remain completely unresolved. In any case, before Ezra's mission, his law, as it is emphasized in Ezr 7:25, was well-known to those for whom it mattered: those for whom the law gained new significance because of his mission.

Business documents give us rather a good picture⁹⁷ of day-to-day life in the eastern diaspora, but we know next to nothing about their religious life.⁹⁸

We should not, however, conceive of this life in analogy to later diaspora Judaism, e.g. of the Roman period. None of the elements is here yet, because they only begin to develop at this time. This applies above all to the synagogue,⁹⁹ which we may not yet presume to exist. It was probably pharisaism, with its new interpretation of Torah independent of the cult site, that penetrated the everyday life of the laity with its Torah commandments. Apart from basic priestly regulations for any diaspora¹⁰⁰—circumcision, passover, sabbath, endogamy as well as the prohibition against blood—there is no evidence of a religious life.

The stories of the patriarchs do offer us an extremely graphic portrayal of life in the interaction between the eastern diaspora and Judea. This is also true for the final form of Genesis, quite independent of questions regarding the age of relevant passages or the literary-redactional processes. The patriarchs had their homeland in Babylon proper. Abraham left Ur-Kasdim (Gen 11:28, 31) and went by stages to Palestine. There are repeated references to connections to his place of origin, especially through marriages.¹⁰¹

It was from that homeland, according to Gen 24, that Isaac received a wife, and it was there that Jacob fled from Esau, gaining his wives and wealth from Laban. Quite in contrast to Egypt, there were no conflicts with rulers. If there were problems, they were with relatives, as e.g. between Jacob and Laban. To be sure, Abraham was supposed to leave Mesopotamia and go to the Promised Land in order to be blessed there (Gen 12:1-3), and this probably also applied to all of his descendants. Other relatives, however, remained behind and established the foundations for the wealth of the nation.

If the center of the empire was in the east, during the Persian period Egypt was a country that was frequently shaken by insurrection (especially 486-484, 460-454, 405 BCE) since the conquest of Cambyses (525 BCE), until it finally became independent again (401 BCE). Finally, it was conquered again in 342 BCE.¹⁰² This history must have played a significant role for Egypt's neighbor, the province of Judah,¹⁰³ but it also must have affected the fate of the Jewish diaspora in Egypt. Unfortunately, we know little about it.¹⁰⁴ Actually, we only have the documents about the Jewish military colony in Elephantine to shed light on the events here.¹⁰⁵ There are some things, such as the fact that apparently there were gods (including Anat) venerated alongside the God of Israel in the temple there, that correspond to the historically uncertain reports of the beginning (especially Jer 44) of the diaspora there.

The portrait that the Pentateuch paints of Egypt and its relationships with Israel is marked by deep ambivalence. On one hand it is a country where a person can especially find escape from hunger. This was already true of Abraham (Gen 12:16ff.), and it is illustrated by the events around Joseph and his brothers. There is an abrupt change from one pharaoh to the next (Ex 1:8), and the picture is affected by the exodus tradition. When dealing with the eastern powers, who were more important and more powerful at the time of the final redaction, there is no parallel to the idea that all the powers of God must be mobilized to defeat Egypt's pharaoh and his forces (Ex 5-14). If prophetic language and concepts played a part in this in addition to ancient tradition, it is important that Egypt, which is here attacked and from whom Israel escapes, was a dangerous and aggressive power for the Persian king.¹⁰⁶

Persian Rule: The Difference it made for Prophecy

As the texts tell us, both Ezra and Nehemiah came with a direct, personal assignment from the Persian king. The relative autonomy of the province of Judah, which was completed during the time of their activity,¹⁰⁷ was part of Persian policy. Shortly after the Megabyzus insurrection,¹⁰⁸ the period of activity of Nehemiah and Ezra,¹⁰⁹ is closely connected with the great Persian interest in the pacification of this region of the empire. The tolerance that was guaranteed ended where Persian interests were affected—that is, in what concerned the support of authority and payment of the required taxes."⁰ For that reason we may assume that there was nothing in the legal documents recognized by the empire's authorization that could contradict these interests.

Already in the Aramaic chronicle of the Book of Ezra there was warning about the revival of old Israelite and especially Jerusalem traditions of independence (Ezr 4:12f.; 15:19f.). Danger threatened Nehemiah's work, when he was libeled about wanting to set up an independent monarchy (Neh 6:6, cf already 2:19). Interestingly, prophets also played a role in this. They are alleged to have been bought by Nehemiah in order to proclaim him king (6:7). Thus, we are probably to understand Nehemiah's difficulties with the prophetess Noadiah and other prophets as being behind this (6:14).

The correlation of monarchy and prophecy suggests messianic proclamation. The prophecy of this period known to us is generally dominated by eschatological and early apocalyptic ideas. The end of all foreign domination is a continuing theme in all of this. Beginning with what Haggai has to say about Zerubbabel, it is clear that we are also dealing concretely with freedom from Persian domination. It was no more than of secondary importance for the Persians whether the report concerned an annihilating judgement (e.g. Isa 63:3ff.; Joel 3-4), or a peaceful pilgrimage by the people to Zion to bring their wealth there (Isa 60) or instruction to be received (Isa 2:2ff./Mi 4:lff.).

Against such a background, we can hardly over-estimate the importance of the description of Moses at the end of the Pentateuch (Deut 34). Contrary to deuteronomic prophetic law with its promise of a constant flow of prophets like Moses (Deut 18:15ff.), Moses is here elevated above all other prophets, which is critical for an understanding of the whole work. "Never since has there arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face. He was unequaled for all the signs and wonders …" (Deut 34:1 0f.). Moses and his Torah supersede all other prophecy in a fundamental way.¹¹¹

If we choose to reject the Pentateuch on this basis and are aware of the great role of eschatology and early apocalytic at this time, the enormous work must be regarded as extremely unprophetic and unescha-tological, even anti-eschatological. This characterization in no way implies that it did not adopt prophetic traditions and continue the functions. This is not only clear for the early traditions, but also for many narrative contexts and formulations."²

In any case, the question is still whether this origin gives the text something like prophetic features,"³ or whether—more likely—the opposite is the case."⁴ If prophetic characteristics are adopted in the plague narratives when pharaoh was hardened, it does not tell us whether and how such things worked prophetically at the time of the final redaction."' In any case, it never achieved the critical power of contemporary prophecy. This was significantly affected by eschatological-pre-apocalyptic expectation, according to which Israel's domination by foreign powers was to be brought to an end. We cannot, however, find such expectation anywhere in the Pentateuch. To be sure, we find great promises made repeatedly to the patriarchs, but they are restricted to a limited area. Alongside these there are a very few places in which very broad exegesis might produce an eschatological sense. In some of these, like the protoevangelium (Gen 3:15) or the Shiloh statement of Gen 49:1 0f., such an interpretation contradicts the clear sense of the text.

There are probably only two places in all the many chapters that speak of a divinely instituted, world-wide shift in power, the fourth song of Balaam and the conclusion of the song of Moses. Both passages are rather unclear and their exegesis is controverted. We cannot tell about whom is Num 24:24 speaking, or who is meant by the ships from Kittim."⁶ It might be a cryptic reference to Alexander the Great and the end of the Persian empire. In Deut 32:43 there are significant textual differences between LXX and MT, so that it is nearly impossible to determine the original text with certainty."⁷ Apart from these two marginal places, there is nothing that might be interpreted as endangering the power of Persia.

The Neighboring Provinces: The Open Promise

Nehemiah, and perhaps also Ezra,"' functioned as governors … of the province of Judah, which was a separate part of the satrapy and independent of Samaria."⁹ Judah¹²⁰ is a small area; there is only a distance (north-south) of about 50 km between Beth-Zur and Bethel. We can tell quite clearly from Nehemiah that at all costs the neighboring regions wanted to prevent the construct of the wall (Neh 2:19f.; 3:3 3 ff. among others), which the Aramaic chronicle had already recognized (Ezr 4:8ff.). The disagreements went as far as verging on military conflicts (Neh 4:1ff., especially verse 10).

We only need to look at a map of the province of Judah, together with the neighboring regions of Samaria, Ashdod, Idumea, Moab and Ammon,¹²¹ comparing them with the places and areas promised to the patriarchs in order to discover an essential message of the Pentateuch at the time in which it received its final form. It was first called the Promised Land in Gen 12, in conjunction with the journey of Abraham. He came first to Shechem, where he received the promise, "To your offspring I will give this land," and built an altar there (Gen 12:6f.). Then he camped between Bethel and Ai where he built an altar, and finally he went into the Negev (verses 8f.). From here the story continues through all the many promise texts up to the climax in Deut 34. Before Moses' death, God showed the whole land to him from Mount Nebo, and there is a precise description: "the whole land: Gilead as far as Dan, all of Naphtali, the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, all of the land of Judah as far as the Western Sea, the Negev and the plain—that is, the valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees—as far as Zoar" (34:1-3). All of it "is the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, saying, 'I will give it to your descendants"' (verse 4).

Moses was not permitted to enter the land, and the Jews of the Persian period possessed only a small fraction of it. From the long list of places in Deut 34, this is Judah, but not to the sea, and the district of Jericho. Everything else that has been promised and sworn lies in hostile neighboring provinces. The important places of the promises and patriarchal traditions, like Beersheba, Hebron, Mamre, Shechem, Mahanaim and others lie outside. Bethel and Ai were disputed border localities.¹²² This means that only a portion of the promises have been fulfilled, and they would have to wait for the rest. So, as the conflicts between the provinces of the region under Persian rule were apparently possible, it was also possible in this way to sustain a claim to the great districts of the neighboring provinces as having been promised by their God.

They must, however, remain promises. The same thing was not true for the conquest of the land through Joshua's military campaigns and the consequent division among the tribes of Israel. Torah ends in Deut 34 with the death of Moses and the renewal of the promise. Scholars have found or theorized literary threads in many places connecting the Pentateuch with the Book of Joshua or even beyond. There is even the theory of an original Hexateuch, there are theories of connections between Deuteronomy and the deuteronomic history, and other ideas abound.

The much discussed question, why the Pentateuch, as an independent authority, was separated from all of the other documents with which it (or parts of it) might correlate, belongs among the literary problems that cannot be resolved by literary-historical methods alone. The key to the understanding lies in the validity of the Pentateuch as Israel's Torah, the legitimation experienced as the law of the Persian empire. There is no way that a report of the conquest of the most powerful of the neighboring provinces by force and their apportionment to Israel could find a place among legal documents valid in this way. That only applies to the traditions of the Books of Samuel, which aim toward an independent nation-state. It was only in another time, and then with a little less pomp, that this early document could, together with the later prophets, become part of the canon.¹²³

Composition Components and their Theology

A Persian Legal Principle as Background

The following attempt to examine the inner theological sense of the Pentateuch composition must be limited to a very few, exceptionally remarkable and important characteristics. It is not just its size and complexity that make the study of its historical sense so difficult in every case. Some of its structural characteristics do not permit us to anticipate a clear result, rather they cause it to appear incomplete. This includes the juxtaposition of narrative and law,¹²⁴ but also probably the peculiarity of combining together several, different, older, contradictory laws. In legal-historical terms this is quite remarkable. It probably also made a significant contribution to the potency of Torah, that it constantly withdrew fresh material from itself.

A certain need to have a single law, a single document as the divine law of their own God must have continued to exist from the beginning of the process of the empire's authorization of their law. This would be a law to which all Israel would submit, and it would be valid as the law of the king. A juxtaposition of different, mutually contradictory laws would diverge from the intent. Why, then, were Israel's various older legal codes not adjusted? In principle it would have been easy to arrange them as a single, consistent picture of the will of God as we find it in the tradition. That is precisely what any exegesis must achieve from the outset. Correspondingly, this is to be observed in any of the older legal documents, in the priestly documents and into the postexilic period. Each of them, if our literary analysis is correct, have incorporated older material—previous collections of legislation—creating a relatively homogenous, new entity. Why was this not handled in this way? Instead of this approach, why was an additive principle selected, which led to so many repetitions and so many obvious contradictions?

It is not a sufficient explanation to fall back on the inviolable dignity of the older texts. It is even a question of how and why, in the relatively short period since the exile and the development of the priestly writings, attitudes toward their own tradition had so completely changed. Why was the wording of these texts still regarded as more or less sacrosanct, so that something that is obviously no longer practicable could not be deleted but something new could or had to be placed alongside of it?

There is an Old Testament parallel for the idea of the unalterability of written law, and I suggest that we attempt to use it by way of explanation. In Esth 8, Esther asked the king to revoke the written decree he had previously sent, decreeing the extermination of the Jews in all the provinces (verse 5). The king, who had meanwhile changed his mind, answered: "You may write as you please with regard to the Jews, in the name of the king, and seal it with the king's ring.¹²⁵ Still an edict written in the name of the king and sealed with the king's ring cannot be made retroactive" (8:8). The new edict has the purpose of preventing what the old decree had commanded. Practically speaking, it cancelled the results of the first decree by enabling the Jews to defend themselves and take revenge (verse 11).

Such a complicated route is necessary because, as it says in verse 8, "an edict written in the name of the king and sealed with the king's ring cannot be revoked." New law can be placed alongside older law without formally canceling the first, even when the second contradicts the first.

Scholars are divided over whether there was really a Persian legal principle at work here.¹²⁶ There is, in any case, no further direct evidence for such a custom.¹²⁷ Still, as the Book of Esther shows, Israel thought this was a Persian legal principle. This too is a fact, even if it does not correspond to historical reality. Nevertheless, there are a few other places that regard the written laws of the Medes and the Persians as permanently valid (Esth 1:19; Dan 6:9, 13, 16). Taken on their own, these formulations only mean that the decrees currently in force were permanently valid. In conjunction with Esth 8:8 they could also be understood in the sense of applying to the decree under discussion.

For Frei, the applicability of the decrees well into the future was closely connected with the fact that the instructions were written.¹²⁸ Once something is written, it becomes permanent. He mentions the fact that the process of authorization of the Trilingue of Letoon was written and thus its character as "document" and its validity are connected.¹²⁹ Frei even suggests that we might be able to see the origin of the authorization of the empire in this practice.¹³⁰ When certain norms (of local institutions, for example) are transferred to the authority of the empire, and this authority writes them down, they receive permanent legal applicability.

Can we, should we see a correlation between this principle of Persian law and the characteristics of Torah?¹³¹ When Ezra or others before or after him in the Persian empire refer back to their own ancient, written law to gain the authorization of the empire, it is likely and perhaps inevitable that they regard their own tradition—thus YHWH's action—as analogous to that of the king. What was presented in ancient written law in Israel and happened in the name of God, was permanently established and could not be revoked. Because it was written, it had permanent validity. Things that were different, even contradictory, must be placed alongside without making compensatory adjustment. Israel transferred to scribes and legal authorities responsibility for decisions regarding needs for adjustment in the substance and decisions regarding actual proceedings.

There is something fundamental to the biblical canon that developed with this process, whose inner logic cannot be derived from the legal history of Israel. There is a kind of "tolerance" produced by this juxtaposition and interplay of texts, which, as parts of one canonic document, contradict each other directly in significant points. God's will is not a more or less closed system, nor is it a principle for the integration of many truths into a single entity. It comprises things mutually exclusive. This does not just apply to the present, but is also true for the things that have come from various times and eras. The canon, which came into existence with Torah, functioned throughout the various periods as an enduring foundation, because it helped to illuminate and explain widely differing situations and demands. This characteristic, however, is closely connected with and corresponds to the inner structure of the canonical text. It is this feature of the Pentateuch composition that really contributes something new to the previous corpora. Its power is, of course, only apparent as we view the overall history of reception. We can only deal with drawing attention to a few features of Torah here.

"Do not let God speak to us" (Ex 20:19): The Role of the Decalogue

The Decalogue (Ex 20; Deut 5) plays a role in the composition of the Pentateuch that cannot be overemphasized. As the introduction to the central Sinai law in Ex 20 it rises above the rest of the laws because it alone was given as God's direct word to the nation. The mediating role of Moses only comes about because of the fearful reaction of the people who were unable to bear God speaking to them directly (20:19). The function of Ex 20 as literary connection becomes very clear in the way that, unlike its parallel (Deut 5), it establishes the foundation of the sabbath commandment (Ex 20:11) in Gen 2:1-3, therefore the beginning of the enormous work. On the other hand, the Decalogue and its proclamation is repeated in Deut 5, thus representing one of the means by which Deuteronomy is connected to the very different Tetrateuch. The tradition-historical position of the Decalogue is in accord with this literary-reference function. As a whole, it is quite close to Deuteronomy and its theology, but the version in Ex 20 clearly shows signs of priestly amplification and redaction. The unity of the Sinai pericope, which is composed of differing materials, is achieved through its shape.

This special position of the Decalogue in the compositional unity of Old Testament law must be examined.¹³² Of course, it only came about in its current form in the later phases of the redaction. Ex 20 had the more self-contained Deut 5 as its immediate model.¹³³ What does the elevated status of the text over against the rest of Torah mean?

Theologically, this question deals with nothing less than the position of the Decalogue in Christian theology, its ethics and especially its catechesis. The Decalogue has played a very special role, beyond that of the rest of Torah, since the days of the early church.¹³⁴ It has been regarded as a summary of the divine will that transcends time, as the essence of natural law and biblical ethics. While only a few of the remaining contents of the rest of Torah have been adopted and applied to Christianity in an incidental and eclectic manner, the Decalogue is regarded differently. Jewish exegesis and tradition has been critical of this special role, and have sought to prevent this appropriation.¹³⁵ Closer inspection quickly shows that the contents of Torah do not support such a special position for the Decalogue. It cannot be regarded as a kind of summary, or the essence of Torah, nor was it ever intended to be such. Too many central themes are absent entirely and, as the history of interpretation shows, when interpreted into the Decalogue, they have rather little power.¹³⁶

When we examine the meaning, role and function of the "elevated" Decalogue in the canonic shape of the Pentateuch and the Sinai pericope, we are asking whether this traditionally special role can be legitimized. Can or should it be regarded in some way, as the sum and summary of God's will, to dominate the rest of Torah? Is the disregard of Torah in Christian ethics and tradition in some way justified?

After various other attempts, Norbert Lohfink most recently has worked out the canonical special role.¹³⁷ He did it in a new way, after convincingly rejecting older attempts, e.g. that of Claus Westermann."¹³⁸ Westermann believed that there is a basic difference between commandment and law, which was valid up into the Pauline theology of law, and he supported this in Hebrew legal terminology as well as the age and provenance of the traditions in accord with the assessment of Albrecht Alt. In view of the textual evidence as well as recent scholarly discussion, none of this is tenable. Lohfink emphasizes that the Decalogue is divine speech in no way different from the rest of Torah, consequently it may not be extracted from Torah.

About this special position of the Decalogue, Westermann and Christian theology in general are largely in agreement.¹³⁹ It comes, according to Lofink, solely from the function that the canonic text ascribes to this text. To the degree that the portrayals in Deut 5 as well as Ex 20 permit us to recognize a "difference" in the basic significance between the Decalogue and the rest of Torah, which is quite pertinent for the entire Old Testament, and behind which we cannot go.¹⁴⁰ The Decalogue receives a higher position in the canonical composition with respect to the rest of the law, which is only supposed to be interpreted as an unfolding of what had been established in the Decalogue.¹⁴¹ It somehow anticipates the rest of the will of God¹⁴² and would have a "key position" for interpretation.¹⁴³ Lohfink thinks that already in Deut 5 there is a conception of parts of the law hidden in this formal elevation of the Decalogue above the rest of Torah.¹⁴⁴ This, of course, involves the "historical relativity of all other legal traditions in Israel."¹⁴⁵ The distinction between temporally conditioned or changing norms and those that are permanent and unalterable is critical. For the redactors, the elevation of the Decalogue was part of the "distinction developed in the Old Testament between what changes and what endures in the will of God."¹⁴⁶ The immutable heart, the Decalogue, was placed before, and thus ultimately above, the remaining alterable law.

The traditional matrix of Christian Torah reception—that is, the special position of the Decalogue—is newly established here. The following critique is not intended to attack what Lohfink has done. It does not detract from the ever present need to be concrete, which the individual laws demonstrate, but which simultaneously renders them subject to changing conditions, nor does it intend to make the Decalogue the sum of all the laws. It is neither intended to remove the authority of the Decalogue as God's word to Moses, nor to withhold from it the Pauline criticism of the law. Nevertheless, of course, with all of these refinements, the essential, traditional role of the Decalogue as an expression of moral and natural law, which transcends time, is newly established. Exegetically, this happens in a remarkable way. The critical notion, which the special position of the Decalogue illustrates—its ability to transcend the bounds of time, meaning that it is not subject to historical and societal change—is not supported anywhere by exegesis of contents. On the contrary, quite astonishingly, it appears as an unproven presupposition by Lohfink.¹⁴⁷ Even the notion that special position of the Decalogue is a "theory" dealing "somehow" with their contents is not supported exegetically.

In both places (Ex 20 and Deut 5), the statements of the biblical text itself lead in an entirely different direction. The difference between the Decalogue and everything that follows lies completely and exclusively in the fact that it is direct speech by God. The difference is in the mode not the content. It is never indicated that what is said in this way is special or different from the rest of Torah. As we know, for each of the commandments in the Decalogue, there are more or less precise parallels in the other parts of Torah. Of course, the formulations included in the Decalogue are much more general, covering many more possible offenses,¹⁴⁸ but none of this has anything to do with timelessness.

We cannot dispute that the introduction of a collection of laws states something especially important for the document. This is shown by the introductions to all of the biblical collections of laws, but it is illustrated especially well by the Decalogue itself. Nevertheless, this should not cause us to think that this introduction of a speech is able to summarize everything else, or that it is more important, or that everything else is just an unfolding. The redactors nowhere assume that the very concrete individual collections of laws—the Book of the Covenant, Deuteronomy and the priestly law—are temporally bound in their concreteness and their detail, thus the will of God formulated in them might change with the circumstances, or be lost altogether. Ultimately, is this idea not a product of modern historical consciousness? It is precisely the process of the integration of entirely different, older laws, with very different regulations, into a single Torah that permits us to recognize something completely different. The remaining history of Jewish law accomplishes the same thing. Practically speaking, of course, new situations could render old laws partially or entirely unusable; this is particularly true of the kingship law, legislation regarding sacrifice, and many social laws. Nevertheless, the will of God formulated in them endures and is never rendered historically relative. On the other hand, it hardly needs to be mentioned that for modern historical consciousness, naturally even the Decalogue is included in the mutability of all things human.

Of course, Ex 20, like Deut 5, says something very different about the special position of the Decalogue than Lohfink wants, and we will discuss this next. It is not something in the contents that gives it a special position, but only the mode of direct speech by God. What we have here is a problem in communication. The break from direct speech by God, desired by the people after this introduction, is the aetiology for the position of Moses as mediator for the transmission of all other commands.

Now, of course, there is attestation elsewhere for a critique of Mosaic authority. In Num 12:2 Miriam and Aaron ask, "Has YHWH spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?" (Cf also Num 16f.) In Ex 20/Deut 5, however, we are not dealing with this kind of questioning of Moses' authority. There is no alternative to him, and furthermore, Deut 5 presents the whole as a recapitulation, formulated in Moses' own words. Thus, we find here no questioning of Moses' authority.

In order to begin to grasp the significance of this break, we assume that Deut 5 is a model for Ex 20. "Because it is in Deut 5, Pentateuch redaction must also have introduced it at a later time into the Sinai pericope of the Book of Exodus"—I am in agreement with Lohfink's observation.¹⁴⁹ Literary combination of Tetrateuch and Deuteronomy was only possible in this way. We should remember the following:¹⁵⁰

—Deut 5 involves a new version of the tablet tradition of Ex 34, wherein the deuteronomically influenced Decalogue is inserted in place of the cultic text Ex 34:1 Iff.

—This was probably already a reaction to the inclusion of Ex 32-34 in the priestly writing, and

—Thus deuteronomic law is likewise connected to Sinai, the place that is becoming increasingly important as the place of the giving of the law (Deut 5:31).

In short, amplifying older deuteronomic law with Deut 5 and the Decalogue cited there, had the function, above all, of connecting the law proclaimed in Moab with the new place of the giving of the law. What was first intended to contrast with the priestly conception, verified itself and increased in significance with the development of the canonical Pentateuch. If Ex 20 is modelled after the example of Deut 5, and at the same time is an expression of what deuteronomic and priestly strata have in common, then it is here that we can begin to understand the significance of the special position of the Decalogue.

God's revelation on Sinai begins with the concentrated, striking formulation of the Decalogue. It is an introduction, but it should not at all be taken as the summary of all that follows. Because the people could not endure the voice of God, Moses was made a mediator. All other laws were handed down from God to Moses, and only later were they shared with the people. In importance they were all equal, no one ranked above the other. The priestly document is presented as God's word to Moses on the mountain. Stereotypically, the laws are introduced with variations of the sentence, "YHWH spoke to Moses: Say to the Israelites …" The carrying out of the commands themselves, together with their consequences are only described in a few places.¹⁵¹ Conversely, deuteronomic law was transmitted orally to the people in Moab before Jericho. We never learn where and how this happened; we only have the summary phrase in Deut 5:31. Like the Book of the Covenant, both come from the two-party conversation of God and Moses. Deuteronomy is thus not a "second law," and the priestly document is unable to claim superiority because of its origin on Sinai.

Herein lies the special achievement of the Decalogue; more precisely, the interruption of the transmission of the law, which was desired by the people, and the introduction of Moses as mediator: In this way we have the theological and substantive equality of all of the laws that taken together form the Pentateuch. I am in complete agreement with Lohfink's observation, that with the Decalogue and its position, there was achieved "a historical relativity of all other legal traditions in Israel,"¹⁵² but I would understand it differently. The Decalogue does not claim a higher rank than the other laws, nor is this suggested anywhere. Everything is God's word and enduring will. Because, however, everything else was transmitted only to Moses, the distinctions between the laws become relative. It makes no difference whether the laws were given on Sinai through God's words or on Moab through Moses.

Exegetically, the special position currently granted to the Decalogue in Christian ethics must be regarded as misleading. Neither the exegesis of the Decalogue nor that of the other laws, nor of the difference in the way they were transmitted, is able to support this position.

According to the canonical text of the Old Testament, the Decalogue is not the will of God in any sense that is not also true of the rest of Torah. It is neither the summary, nor the timeless principles of Torah. The many attempts to gain a single comprehensive will of God from the Decalogue alone result in problematic abbreviation of that will, and they are connected with the serious aberrations in church history and Christian policy. The difference from the rest of Torah lies exclusively in the mode of transmission, and the significance of this is revealed in the history of the composition. The Decalogue, or more precisely, the change in the manner of transmission that occurs after it, functions as a rectifier for the various corpora, which are present in the canonic Sinai pericope or Deuteronomy. They are all equally God's Word. Aggressive attempts to lift the Decalogue out of everything else, making it alone the basis for Christian ethics, have cut Christianity off from Israel's Torah. They are exegetically untenable and theologically, they ought not be continued.

"All the congregation are holy" (Num 16:3): The Open Conflict

For eyes schooled in two hundred years of Pentateuch criticism, nearly every passage of this gigantic work dissolves into a variety of disparate material, strata and blocks. Still, many generations of perceptive Bible readers hardly notice most of the alleged contradictions and tensions. When viewed in a "scholarly" fashion, many of these fissures resemble the hair-line cracks in old pictures, and we can't see the picture for the cracks. Many, perhaps even most passages are formed out of completely different traditions and texts into amazingly concise (certainly not accidental or awkward), rational entities.

On the whole, this also applies to the Sinai pericope and the texts anchored within it. The text as we have it represents itself as being completely logical and expressive, if we take it seriously as literature and theology. Even the obvious contradictions between the legal corpora were no great problem for the history of interpretation that began with canonization. Many of them were settled by the practice of adding rival provisions, as the tithe laws show.¹⁵³

Against this background, the cases become all the more important in which not only is no attempt made to balance the problematic redactions, but where the contradictions are frequently allowed to remain with harsh obviousness. In this respect probably the most important subject area may be the one where we find the most insurmountable contradictions between the two theological camps which together shaped the Pentateuch. This is the disagreement over the holiness of the people (or the privilege of the priesthood). There is no consensus here or, more precisely, the consensus consists of not trying to conceal contradictions.

To work our way through this conflict, it is probably best to begin with the priestly narrative of Num 16, which is entirely wrapped up in this question. The text takes material which is clearly older, giving indication of multiple stratification (even intrapriestly).¹⁵⁴ Nevertheless, it is not only possible, but it is methodologically and substantively appropriate to read it as having been intended to be a single entity.¹⁵⁵ The chapter begins with Korah, Dathan, Abiram and 250 élite representatives of the people bringing serious charges against Moses and Aaron: "You have gone too far! All the congregation are holy, every one of them, and YHWH is among them. So why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of YHWH?" (verse 3).

The ensuing extremely complex narrative permits us to see different claims (or charges) raised among the various groups, and they are also concluded differently. There are Dathan and Abiram who basically challenge Moses' rule. Raising serious charges, they declare that they will not follow him (verses 12-14). They were swallowed by the earth (verses 31-34). Korah, who appears as a leader of a group of Levites, was swallowed up with them. His charges involved the priestly position that had been allotted to them (especially verses 8-11). They appear to question the difference between priests and Levites, which was so important for priestly theology. Finally, there are the 250 lay people designated as the élite leaders of the people (verse 2). Because the whole congregation is holy, they demand that the privileges reserved for Moses and Aaron (thus the priesthood) be revoked. As a punishment, they were killed by a fire that came out of the sanctuary (verse 35). The priestly answer to this mutiny was an ordeal which Moses initiated (verses 5, 7, 16-18). God used the incense offering reserved for the priests but offered by a person not authorized to show whom he regarded to be holy.

For the priestly narrator this was obviously an evil common to a variety of groups, but one with a common root. It lay in the claim of the ringleaders in verse 3, at the beginning of the story. The holiness of the entire congregation obviates any need for Moses and Aaron's special status. God's nearness to all Israelites—"YHWH is among them" (verse 3)—ought not to be connected with the privileges and groups to special holiness. For the priestly authors the claims of the Levites to the priesthood and of the laity to holiness are essentially identical. Basically, this raises questions about the concept of graduated holiness running throughout the entire priestly work. As necessary and salutary as this priestly status is to the special closeness of God, according to verses 20ff., it was only the prayer of those who were privileged for the whole people that saved them from destruction. The narrative that follows in Num 17 expressly underscores the role of the élite yet again.

What is behind this attack, the destruction of which Num 16 describes so impressively, is precisely the understanding of holiness that Deuteronomy and the texts around the narrative demonstrate. Scholars have seen this quite clearly.¹⁵⁶ The rebels' complaint in Num 16:3 parallels what is said with very similar language in Deut 7:6 and 14:2 (see also Ex 19:7). Of course, for the priestly text the whole people was made holy by the exodus and therefore could be in the presence of God.¹⁵⁷ This was expressly stated again in Num 15:40, immediately before the conflict in Num 16.¹⁵⁸ There are suggestions of important statements, especially those we find in the Holiness Code, "You shall be holy for I YHWH your God am holy" (see Lev 19:2 among others).

The holiness of the people is not in dispute, only its consequences. According to the priestly understanding, the holiness of the people does not exclude the special holiness of the Levites and priests but presumes that it is a possibility. Only because Aaron and his priestly descendants as Israel's representatives are aware of the special problems of close proximity to God, can they exist as God's holy people. The atonement rites are the greatest example of this.

Deuteronomy, however, expressly makes Levites and priests equal in 18:6ff. It grants full priestly rights to each Levite, clearly guaranteeing to them fewer material shares in sacrifices and tithes, and it subordinates them to the people and their representatives. Correspondingly, they are only responsible for a marginal share of the judicial process. In contrast to priestly hierarchical thinking, the holiness of the people is realized with rather democratic institutions.

Num 16, part of the priestly writings not included in Deuteronomy, is a sharp rebuke of deuteronomic thinking and theology. It is a part of a broad "debate about Israel's identity as YHWH people and the tangible conflicts of interest woven into it,"¹⁵⁹ which existed between priestly and deuteronomic, but also priestly and Levitical groups. While Deuteronomy is part of the same Torah, to which also Num 16 and the basic priestly texts belong—where the structures defended here are unfolded (Num 3 and 18 among others)—here we find clearly antithetical concepts coming together to form a single entity.

We find the same contrast in the narrative passages of the Sinai pericope. We only need recall that there is little in the texts themselves, especially in the heavily deuteronomically influenced texts of Ex 19 and 24, where there are contradictions and repeated breaks of the narrative thread, to help understand the sense of these breaks.¹⁶⁰ What is important is the question of what actually holds these texts together, not unraveling them into various literary threads, which has been notoriously unsuccessful here. Along with this, we have the problem of priestly privilege or the right of access to the presence of God, not the only, but certainly an especially clear and open conflict.

The promise in Ex 19:3ff. is placed before the entire Sinai narrative as we have it.¹⁶¹ It is a preliminary sign, an advance explanation of what follows.¹⁶² As we find in God's first words to Moses from the mountain, God brought the people to himself (verse 4). If they heed his voice and keep the covenant, they will be his possession (…, verse 5) and will become a kingdom of priests …, and a holy people (…, verse 6). The closeness to God achieved through the exodus is demonstrated by the holiness and priestly status of the whole nation.¹⁶³ This is certainly a deuteronomistic text,¹⁶⁴ and the deuteronomistic reception of the priestly concept of holiness is of special importance. If the concept of holiness became a key legal term in the priestly writings, with which the legal tradition could be reshaped in the situation of the exile,¹⁶⁵ this fundamental idea could be used deuteronomistically here and be placed at the head of all the Sinai laws as an indication for interpretation.

Along with the reception, the formulation contains a critique of the priestly conception. The nation becomes a "priestly kingdom" (…, verse 6). The expression is aimed at a political community or a state¹⁶⁶ consisting of priests. We find a related notion from the postexilic period in Isa 61:6. The expression is apparently intended to mean that all Israelites will become priests or will exercize priestly function. There is some question about the existence of degrees within the divine-human relationship in Israel, with the kind of basic legal consequence that the priestly texts seem to recognize. The fact that they serve as an introduction to the events at Sinai shows the importance attaching to this question. The material dealt with in Ex 19:6 is taken up again in Ex 24, this time in a narrative form: the ritual which the young men of the people perform as a covenant ceremony corresponds to the priestly consecration (Ex 29:20; Lev 8:24, 30). The people, as a whole, are consecrated as priests, and actual priests do not take part.¹⁶⁷

The same basic questions—to what degree are the people as a whole permitted to draw near to God, and whether (if so, which) mediators exist (or ought to exist)—run through the stories in Ex 19 and 24. According to Ex 19:10, the people are to prepare for God's arrival on the mountain by acts of ritual cleansing. Verses 12, 13a make that concrete: boundaries are established for the people. The mountain, sanctified by the presence of God, in many respects corresponds to a sanctuary with God present. It may not be touched, under penalty of death (verse 13a). This, however, is hardly an absolute boundary, because verse 13b tells us exactly the opposite: "When the trumpet sounds a long blast, they may go up the mountain."

How close the people may come to God is clearly an unresolved issue. When God descends upon the mountain, amid all of the signs appropriate to a theophany (verse 20), the people are warned to step back (verse 21). There would be mortal danger for anyone looking upon God. Even the priests, whose duties bring them in close proximity to God, are only able to do so because of the ritual purification which they have received (verse 22). On the other hand, according to verse 24 priests are specifically excluded from this nearness to God; only Moses and Aaron are allowed to come.

This conflict is carried on in chapter 24. In verse 1 there is a command to Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu as well as the seventy elders to go up the mountain. One group was to represent the priests and the other stood for the entire nation. They are then to pray from a distance (verse lb), only Moses was permitted to come closer. The representatives, like the people themselves, were to observe the distance (verse 2). After the convenant ceremony is described in verses 3-8 (in which the priests do not play a role, and in which there is a kind of priestly consecration for the people), they all (Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and also the seventy elders) go up the mountain. They see the God of Israel and they eat a meal in the immediate presence of God.

Such an overt juxtaposition of directly contradictory material is found almost nowhere else. Here, if anywhere, we need literary criticism, but it has not given us a convincing explanation. We are unable to isolate clear strata, nor do we have an explanation why no redactional attempts have made to explain what is happening here. The evidence suggests an intentional commemoration of a disagreement between two completely different conceptions.

Nothing here is smoothed over, because apparently there was nothing to smooth over. A compromise would be inconceivable. This feature may be especially important for an appropriate understanding of the development as well as the theological significance of the Pentateuch. There are so many things in common between groups or schools at the time of development as we see them on the one hand in prophetic-eschatological circles, and on the other in wisdom-aristocratic groups,¹⁶⁸ that even such significant differences did not force them apart.

A holy text containing such an obvious, profound contradiction may be affected by that contradiction in a special way. Ever since, communities who connect themselves to the heart of the canon developed here have lived with similar contradictions and continue to do so: Sadducees and Pharisees, the Eastern and Western churches, Protestantism and Catholicism—and perhaps all others. The same larger context establishes the common priesthood of all the faithful and the dignity of the priesthood. We will allow the question whether other parts of the canon have altered this (especially the prophets) to remain unresolved here.

"And thereafter, throughout your generations" (Num 15:23): Instructions for the Journey into the Future

After staying at Sinai for almost two years, Israel left in order to go to the Promised Land (Num 10:1 1ff.). At Sinai they heard the Decalogue and turned away in fear. It was there that Moses received the Book of the Covenant, and Israel pledged itself to it. It was at Sinai that they received instructions for the construction of the shrine, and it was built. The priests were consecrated and the cult begun. The calf was made at Sinai, and ultimately God's promise was renewed. Israel received the stone tablets, and it was there that Moses heard the remainder of the laws, which were only announced to the people at the end of the journey through the desert. As the final version of Torah has it, Israel received all of its law from this mountain.

Nevertheless, when the people left, they fell into deep conflicts rather quickly (Num 11-14). Very shortly they hear the direct, unmediated words of God, "YHWH spoke to Moses and said: Speak to the Israelites and say to them …" (Num 15:lf.). A stream of laws followed as if Israel were still at Sinai. After Korah's rebellion and the consequent crushing of that activity and his followers (chapter 16f.), God spoke to Aaron (chapter 18) and then to Moses and Aaron together with commandments for the people (chapter 19). This is continued, especially, in the last part of the Book of Numbers. There, the daughters of Zelophehad request the right to inherit from their father and receive it upon instruction from God (chapter 27). It is here that we find the most comprehensive cultic calendar in the Old Testament (chapter 28f.), the rules for making vows (chapter 30), regulations for the establishment of places of asylum (chapter 35), and finally, once again, the right of women to inherit (chapter 36). These are laws like those received on Sinai, but they are given on the way through the desert. Nowhere is it indicated, as it is in Deut 5, that these actually came from Sinai.¹⁶⁹

Scholars agree that these texts are among the latest passages in the Pentateuch¹⁷⁰—this is essential for their understanding—outside of the actual priestly writings.¹⁷¹ The content as well as the language of many of these texts are alien to priestly thinking. Thus, Num 18 gives the most important material foundation for the entire cult personnel with the instructions for the tithe to support Levites and priests.

Other texts are also clear continuations or amplifications of the priestly system; for example, the provisions for making sacrifice in Num 15 extend the otherwise unknown drink offering or they supplement parts of the law of sin offering. Num 19, with the instructions for the production of a special water of purification from the ashes of the red heifer, belong here.

Still, there are also clear tensions with the priestly text. It is especially important that these laws are hard to combine with basic priestly concepts. The priestly document contains a variety of laws situated before Sinai, and thus gives a priestly-theological foundation for the situation in the diaspora.¹⁷² This, however, does not mean that it becomes a kind of appendage within the Book of Numbers.

This is especially shown by the fact that the institution for which the priestly writings expressly provides, plays no part in the transmission of the law. In establishing the atonement device … in the holy of holies they created a place of which it is said—the very first time it is mentioned: "There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the covenant, I will deliver to you all my commands for the Israelites" (Ex 25:22). Shortly before they left Sinai, this was repeated (Num 7:89). The presence of God among his people, which is given when the splendor of God … enters the holy of holies, becomes a kind of moveable Sinai.

According to Lev 1:1, God speaks the entire sacrificial law from this tent (compare Ex 40:34-38).¹⁷³ This, however, never takes place in Num 10-36. Of course, we find important priestly traditions in which the "splendor" appears and God acts from the shrine all over in this section. There are, e.g. Num 14:10; 16:19; 17:7 as well as 20:6. Always the decisive resolution of the conflict portrayed is achieved by the intervention of God who is present in the tent shrine.¹⁷⁴

Nowhere, however, do we have the pronouncement of laws from this place. They do not dovetail the priestly conception with the critical question of the source and authority of the additional laws. The sample narratives (Num 15:32ff.; 27:lff.; 36:Iff.) are not accidental, but are connected with wide-ranging questions about the difference between "Moses," Aaron and other cultic representatives.¹⁷⁵

We are dealing here with texts that together shaped the final redaction(s). Some are similar to priestly writings, but closer examination shows them to have features which are probably also typical of deuteronomism. The final texts, from Num 25:1 on, are in any case explicitly situated in that place about which Moses addressed the deuteronomic law in Moab across from Jericho (especially Num 35:1). They are already influenced by the combining of Tetrateuch and Deuteronomy, as well as the separation of the Pentateuch from Joshua.

In order to understand the sense of these post-Sinai laws, we should begin by taking a look at the overall composition of Num 10-36.¹⁷⁶ Immediately after their departure, Israel was enmeshed in conflicts that had mortal consequences. In Num 11 we find the desire for meat and for a return to slavery in Egypt, in Num 12 the insurrection of Miriam and even Aaron against Moses, and finally in Num 13f. the questioning of the purpose of the entire journey through the desert, in the spy narrative. These end with the divine decree that no one of the old Sinai generation would live to see the promised land (14:28ff.).

It is only immediately after the announcement of this generation break in Num 15 that we have the first block of post-Sinai laws. The next big turning point gives the second census of the nation in Num 26. At the end of this we have the statement that the generation of the first census in Num I is no longer alive (26:64f.). In other words, we have an entirely new generation. At the center of this generation we have the question of the right of women to inherit. It is certainly significant that this subject is again taken up in the last chapter (Num 36), which deals with the new generation and its wandering in the desert.

The context permits us to see the theological intent. These texts are not about the orientation of the subjects of the commandments to the record of the exodus—as in the variety of deuteronomic traditions of the various places where the law was given.¹⁷⁷ Rather, the question addressed is how God's new instructions ought to be heeded under changed circumstances among entirely new generations.

The conclusion of the revelatory event at Sinai cannot be the end of God's revelation. Israel received new instructions on its journey between Sinai and the promised land when they needed them. In content, these were extrapolations, realizations, supplements and amplifications of subjects and questions that had already been regulated in the revelation at Sinai—such as sacrifice, sabbath, priests, purity, festivals, places of asylum.

However, it also deals with subjects which had not appeared before, e.g. manner of dress (15:37ff.), vows (30) and the basic subject of inheritance, and thus the legal position of women (27, 36). Especially the illustrative narratives, which begin at Sinai (Lev 24:10ff.; Num 9:6ff.) and continue in the desert (Num 15:32ff., and chapters 27 and 36), show to what degree we have the necessary reaction to problems that have newly arisen and were not already treated in Sinai Torah. The renewed treatment of the theme of Num 27 in chapter 36 shows how in the course of events problems continue to develop and continually require new legal regulation.

Fixing God's will in written form, in the shape of a book, requires amendment by means of continuously innovative, divine speech; it ought not lead to rigidity. The canon and the living voice belong together. The history of the development of the canon shows¹⁷⁸ step by step how the two condition and supplement each other. At the very center, in Deuteronomy, there was the establishment of the central court as well as a prophet like Moses; both speak permanently with the authority of Moses, and both institutions are of great importance: the sanhedrin invoked the one, and the other ultimately produced the second part of the canon—the prophets. In the priestly writings the place from which God will speak in the future establishes itself in the center of the sanctuary, around which everything else revolved. The final redaction, with its revelations of the law on the journey through the desert, in the midst of mortal dangers both from within and without, created another model.

At only one place is there an opening into the world of the narrator and the reader. In Num 15:22f., as part of the introduction to the expanded sin offering law, we are told that God speaks through Moses "from the day YHWH gave the commandment and thereafter throughout your generations" (verse 23b). Linguistically, it is not clear whether this sentence is connected with the divine declaration¹⁷⁹—God speaks through Moses throughout all generations—or rather with Israel's offenses.¹⁸⁰ The latter sense, however, in which we are at least able to listen along—in the same way that later rabbinic interpretation does—corresponds precisely with what complements the written Sinai revela-tion as a conception of an oral Torah. …¹⁸¹

It also understands itself as having come from Sinai and Moses. This concept is expressed quite clearly in the Talmudic legend, according to which Moses himself entered the school of Rabbi Akiba and sat in the eighth row—and was unable to understand anything. Even that was a "halakha of Moses from Sinai" (bMenahot 29b). This concept of a continuing revelation that is and remains fundamentally connected with Sinai, is probably already based in the reports of new commandments on the march through the desert as described in Numbers.

The written principle and the living voice belong inseparably together. They are part of the development of the first part of the canon and a part of the tension contained in it. The one informs the other. Alongside Torah comes the prophetic canon and the expectation of an eschatological revelation of Torah.¹⁸² Without this living voice there would be a danger of rigidity. What the Christian church generally does in connection with the foundation of the biblical canon is no less problematic. It has forgotten the indispensable base—Israel's Torah—in favor of the new revelation. The problems with which we live are not least a result of this process, which has distorted God's living voice; God's Word remains tied to his Torah.

The Unity of God and the Unity of Torah: A Starting Point for a Christian Reception of Torah

As we said at the outset,¹⁸³ Christian theology has also made a distinction between what is still valid and what no longer applies. Both historical distance, and the attendant changed historical reality alike compel such activity. This practice is also employed by the most orthodox Judaism. It always requires a creative hermeneutic and disavows any blind fundamentalism. Theologically such a separation seems unavoidable in a very basic sense: Christians are not supposed to become Jews. Nevertheless, what is the heart and center of Torah eliminates all such divisions, whether between the Decalogue and the rest of the law, between the first commandment and that of circumcision, between ritual and moral law, between the traditions of social justice and patriarchal animosity toward women.

Here at the end of our discussion of the genesis of Torah, we can describe more precisely what both entail. We can summarize many observations with the thesis that the steps toward the development of Torah are an inseparable part of the way in which Israel formulated the unity of God ever more clearly. We need remind ourselves of only a few points.

At the beginning of the history of written law in Israel, somewhere in the ninth century BCE, there were probably two documents. The one (Ex 34:1 If.) formulated regulations for a strict veneration of the one God in the context of an iron age, agricultural world. The other (Ex 21f.) is a collection of laws in the ancient Near Eastern tradition in which important societal conflicts of the era were given regulations intended to introduce justice (that is, compensation). The coming together of these two legal documents with principles for the protection of the economically as well as legally most vulnerable in society in the Book of the Covenant, can be called the actual birth of Torah structure. Thus, a part of exclusive veneration is law together with the justice that is a part of that law.

Deuteronomic law expanded the purview significantly. Above all, it now included wide-ranging political and other public institutions, the family as well as the treatment of animals and the rest of the environment. In scope all area of life were thus included in God's instructions. Still, out of experiences during the exile, the priestly writings expanded the purview once again. They had to move beyond the foundations of previous law-functioning cult, ownership of land, effective freedom. Independent of all social presuppositions, Israel was here subordinated to the divine command in the overall area of creation. We see the change in the fact that first position is given to the creation of the world instead of an altar law. Furthermore, the inclusion of guilt and forgiveness means that an entirely new area of experience has been added. The entire composition of Torah ultimately binds all of these steps together into a single document.

What was achieved in this history, sketched in a cursory manner here, is nothing less than a process in which the entire reality of a period, all areas of human life and experience are exposed to the light of Israel's God. The path from exclusive veneration to something resembling basic monotheism could only be traversed if all of the realities saturated and dominated by the many deities of polytheism were disclosed in a new way. The unity of God had to achieve a new form by a reworking of all of reality together with a redefinition of that reality. Otherwise there would only have been isolated (e.g. prophetic) initiatives. On the basis of experiences with the God of Israel, those areas must be included in which previously only other gods acted. The genesis of Torah, with its stepwise inclusion of new areas of reality, illustrates this process. Torah became the medium in the process, which the unity of God and the variety of areas of experience and reality were brought together. For that reason the identity of the biblical God is dependent upon the connection with his Torah.

All of this can only mean that—quite apart from the historical distance—Torah alone can be the foundation of a biblically oriented Christian ethic. It is, however, formulated for Israel, not for all of humanity. The one will of the only God has Israel as an inseparable human partner. It is not possible to remove Israel from Torah, nor can we replace Israel with Christianity. The dilemma contained in that statement can only be resolved by a Christian reception of Torah which enters into Torah as formulated for Israel, not for the Church. Thus it makes the unity of God, Torah and Israel as its foundation from which all concrete interpretation proceeds. Historical foundations ought to be prepared for this kind of reception; it is much more than an exegetical task.

In conclusion, the starting point for such a hermeneutic, is formulated nowhere more clearly than Deut 4:5-8.¹⁸⁴ A reception of Torah that does not divide its unity, and does not seek to replace Israel will always be amazed that we are told about "the peoples" ('amm m) here (verse 6). There are two reasons for this surprise: the uniqueness of God's nearness to Israel (verse 7) and even the content of Torah itself: in other words, that which this book is supposed to be talking about in verse 8: "What other great nation has statutes and ordinances as just as this entire law that I am setting before you today?"

Abbreviations

… AfO:

Archiv für Orientforschung

AGJu:

Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums (Leiden, Cologne) …

AJBA:

Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology

ANRW:

Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (Berlin 1972)

Ant:

Josephus, Antiquities of the Jew!

AOAT:

Altorientalische Textes zum IT …

ATD:

Das Alte Testament Deutsch (Göttingen) …

BA:

Biblical Archaeologist …

BBB:

Bonner Biblische Beiträge …

BEThL:

Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium

BEvTh:

Beiträge zur evangelische Thicologie …

BK:

Bibel und Kirche

BN:

Biblische Notizen …

BZ NF:

Biblische Zeitschrift (New Series)

BZAW:

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für diie Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft …

CBQ:

Catholic Biblical Quarterly …

CThM:

Concordia Theological Monthly

DBAT:

Dielhemier Blätter zum Alten Testament …

EThL:

Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses …

EvTh:

Evangelische Theologie …

FS:

Festschrift

GAT:

Grundrisse zum Alten …

HAT:

Handbuch zum Alten Testament, Tübingen.…

HSAT:

Die Heilige Schrift des AT (Eautzsch)

HSM:

Harvard Semitic Monographs

HThR:

Harvard Theological Review

HUCA:

Hebrew Union College Annua …

JBL:

Journal of Biblical Literature …

jBer:

Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Beralkot

JBTh:

Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie …

JQR:

Jewish Quarterly Review …

JSOT:

Journal of the Society for Old Testament Studies

JSOTS:

Journal of the Society for Old Testament Studies (Supplement)

JSS:

Journal of Semitic Studies

JThS NS:

Journal of Theological Studies (New Style)

KAT:

Kommentar zum Alten Testament (Leipzig, Gutersloh) …

KEH:

Kurzgefasstes exegetisch es Handbuch zum Alten Testament (Leipzig)

KHC:

Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament (Freiburg i Br, Leipzig, Tübingen)

KT:

Kleine Texte für theologische und philosophische Vorlesungen …

MThSt:

Münchener Theologische Studien …

NEB:

New English Bible

NF:

New series …

NTA:

Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen / New Testament Abstracts

OBO:

Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis …

OTS:

Oudtestamentische Studien …

PhB:

Spinoza …

QD:

Quaestiones disputatae …

RThPh:

Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie

S:

supplement

SBAB:

Sitzungsberichte der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin …

SBLMS

Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series …

SDGSTh:

Studien zur Drgmengeschichte und Systematischen Theologie …

SJLA:

Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity

SKG.G:

Schriften der Konigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft

SNVAO:

Skritter utgitt Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademie (Oslo) …

St Th:

Studia Theologica …

StEv:

Studia Evangelica …

StUNT:

Studien zum Umwelt des Neuen Testament

tKet:

Tosefta, tractate Ketubot

THAT:

Theologisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament

ThB:

Theologische Blatter …

TRE:

Theologische Revue …

VT:

Vetus Testamentum

VT.S:

Supplements to Vetus Testamentum …

WMANT:

Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament …

ZAW:

Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZNW:

Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft …

ZThK:

Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Notes

¹ See also jBer 1.7.3b.72-74. We are dealing with the conflict between the schools of Hillel and Shammai. Both interpretations are God's Word. Nevertheless, the halakha, i.e. the teaching to be followed, will be decided in accordance with Hillel's word. For the phenomenon of the voice of revelation (bat qol), see Kuhn, Offenbarungsstimme.

² See e.g. Noth, Gesetze; Boecker, Recht: Patrick, Law; Martin-Achard, Loi. It is not atypical that Noth does not base his understanding of the law as "an absolute authority of the late period" in the Pentateuch, in which all of the texts and theological values exist which Noth emphasizes. Instead, he employs a rather vague authority.

³ Thus Blum, Pentateuch 361. This affects his entire assessment. See also, e.g. Lohfink, Priesterschrift, who suggests that the investigation of the self-understanding of the Pentateuch is the same as for P.

⁴ See e.g. the correlation of Gen 33:19; 50:25f.; Ex 13:19; Josh 24:32ff. There are also connections between Gen 35:lff. and Josh 24, among others. See Blum, Vätergeschichte 40f.; ibid., Pentateuch 363.

⁵ Against the generally accepted opinion of Noth, Studien 182ff. (see already Wellhausen, Prolegomena 356f.), most recently especially Lohfink, Priesterschrift 222ff. (especially note 30) and Blum, Pentateuch 224ff. emphatically referred to the correlations. See also Mowinckel, Tetrateuch; Peterson, Priestly Material; Blenkinsopp, Structure; Cortese, Joshua 13-21 among others. For an overview of the research, see Auld, Joshua.

⁶ See Freedman, Formation of the Canon.

⁷ See above pp. 46ff.

⁸ See below pp. 351 ff., especially pp. 358ff.

⁹ For what follows, see Crüsemann, Pentateuch als Tora.

¹⁰ See Lohfink, Priesterschrift 213, cf de Pury/Römer, Pentateuque 67ff., Amsler, Les Documents 235ff.; for the overall problem, see also Cazelles, Pentateuque.

¹¹ If we count the chapters (a very approximate assessment!), there are about 97 that are generally narrative and 90 chapters of laws. The decision is really arbitrary especially in Numbers (see Num 1-3 and the like).

¹² See below p. 334.

¹³ Eissfeldt, Einleitung 206.

¹⁴ For the term, see Liedke/Peters, article on tora and see above pp. If.

¹⁵ See above pp. 105f., and below pp. 337ff.

¹⁶ See Kraus, Psalms II 127f.

¹⁷ Thus Noth, Studien 28 note 1; Mittmann, Deuteronomium 13ff.; Preuss, Deuteronomium 84.

¹⁸ Mittmann, Deuteronomium 14f. would, on the basis of Deut 27:8, Hab 2:2, confer the meaning "to write, reduce to writing" on the verb b'r; nevertheless, see also Amsler, Loi or ale 52 note 4; Perlitt, Deuteronomium 22f.

¹⁹ For dat see below pp. 337ff.

²⁰ See above pp. 47ff., 280f., and below pp. 349ff. and elsewhere.

²¹ E.g. Deut 28:36, 68; Lev 26:33ff., 41 ff.

²² For the discussions, see Kaiser, Einleitung 172ff.

²³ See above pp. 282ff.

²⁴ See especially, Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch; Coggins, Samaritans.

²⁵ See Kippenberg, Garizim 48 ff.; Mor, Samaritan History 5ff.

²⁶ See Kippenberg, Garizim 87ff.; Mor, Samaritan History 16.

²⁷ Especially Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch 98ff.; see also Tov, Proto-Samaritan Texts 398f.

²⁸ With due caution, see also Tov, Proto-Samaritan Texts 3948f.

²⁹ See Jellicoe, Septuagint 55; Brock, article on Bible translations 163; Hanhart, Septuagintforschung 4f.; ibid., Bedeutung 67; Dorival, Septante 56ff.; Tov, Bibelübersetzungen 134f.

³⁰ See, e.g. Hanhart, Bedeutung 71ff.

³¹ For a possible exception in Num 24:24, see below pp. 347f.

³² See Kraft, "Ezra" Materials; for the rabbinical picture, see Munk, Esra as well as above pp. 105f.

³³ Spinoza, Traktat 149ff. and elsewhere; for this, see Kraus, Geschichte 61ff.

³⁴ There is an overview of the history of the research and the positions in Lebram, Esragestalt; there is a brief outline of the problems in Williamson, Ezra. See Widengren, Persian Period; Donner, Geschichte II 416ff.; Meier, Zwischen den Testamenten; Stern, Persian Empire for the period of the restoration; see also Koch, Ezra; Cross, Reconstruction. For the methodological problems raised by the sources, see Ackroyd, Problems. He draws an analogy from chess: "the movements of a limited number of pieces, themselves restricted as to mobility, are not unlike the moving to and fro the pieces in the Achameid period for Judah. But checkmate eludes us" (54).

³⁵ See the overview in Kellermann, Esradatierung. Methodologically, all attempts to improve the number in Ezr 7:7 by emendation are fundamentally questionable; see Emerton, Did Ezra Go 1ff.; Williamson, Ezra 56. Gunneweg, Esra 126ff., e.g. regards the number as a purely theological construct and thus historically useless.

³⁶ See the overview of the discussion of the relationship of both in Yamauchi, Reverse Order; Clines, Ezra 15ff. Doubt regarding the traditional dating of Nehemiah in Saley, Date.

³⁷ Thus especially Gunneweg, Interpretation; ibid., Esra 28ff.; Eskenazi, Age of Prose; ibid., Structure; see also the discussion between Eskenazi, Ezra-Nehemia and Clines, Force of the Text.

³⁸ We need not attempt to resolve here the much discussed question, whether Ezr/Neh were conceived with 1/2 Chr as a single literary work, or as two different authorities (Japhet, Common Authorship; Williamson, Israel; Thronveit, Linguistic Analysis; Talshir, Reinvestigation; Ackroyd, Concept of Unity among others). Of course we are dealing with chronicles by closely connected author (groups), but there are clear differences (most recently see especially Talmon, Esra-Nehemia).

³⁹ See already the earlier critiques of Torrey, Ezra Studies; Hölscher, Esra und Nehemia; see especially Kapelrud, Question of Authorship; see also Noth, Studien 145ff., Smitten, Esra. The thesis of a prechronist Ezra source (e.g. Ahlemann, Esra-Quelle; Mowinckel, Studien III; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia XXIV; most recently—with care—Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah XXVIIIff., as well as Deniels, Composition)is difficult to support.

⁴⁰ Lebram, Esragestalt 117, with reference to Meyer, Entstehung and Schaeder, Esra, both of whom assess the genuineness of the Aramean document.

⁴¹ Translation in conjunction with Gunneweg, Esra 128.

⁴² Thus Meyer, Entstehung 60ff.; Noth, Studien 145ff.; Galling, Bagoas 165ff.; Cazelles, Mission; Kellermann, Nehemia 60ff.; Smitten, Esra 1 1ff.; Clines, Ezra 102ff.; Williamson, Ezra/Nehemiah 98ff.; Donner, Geschichte II 426ff.; Blenkinsopp, Ezra 146f. There are only allusions to the questions: which parts are genuine or where was emendation done?

⁴³ See most recently Gunneweg, Esra 129ff.; Lebram, Esragestalt 117ff.; Becker, Esra/Nehemia 43ff.

⁴⁴ See especially the other addresses in verses 21-24. Here as elsewhere scholars presume literary work.

⁴⁵ Especially Gunneweg, Esra 129ff.; Lebram, Esragestalt 117ff.

⁴⁶ For this great fifth satrapy, see e.g. Donner, Geschichte II 297ff.; Dandamaev/Lukonin, Ancient Iran 948ff.; and especially Rainey, Satrapy.

⁴⁷ Already Meyer, Entstehung 65.

⁴⁸ Lebram, especially, represents an exception. He regards the entire Ezra stratum of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah to be the product of the period after 180 BCE (Esragestalt 126ff.). It is a "critique of a radical group, faithful to the law, against the temple theocracy of the Hasmoneans" (131); behind it is "the pharisee's demand to recognize the law of Moses as the constitution of Jerusalem" (132). The historical Ezra is perhaps, according to Neh 12:1, 13 and Ezr 4 a figure of the exilic period. A late dating of this kind for clearly chronistic texts is improbable; the usual placement between 400 and 200 might be hard to dispute. Lebram supports his position exclusively on the fact that in Jesus Sirach, in contrast to Nehemiah (49:13), is passed over in silence, presuming that such a figure was unknown. The remarkable situation can be explained in other ways—e.g. that Jesus Sirach was interested in construction (thus Begg, Non-mention; see also, e.g. Höffken, Warum schweigt).

⁴⁹ Kaiser, Einleitung 181.

⁵⁰ Kaiser, 181f.; The statement is made in relation to the lists in the Book of Ezra.

⁵¹ Kaiser, 407 where the arguments of pp. 179-183 are summarized.

⁵² Gunneweg, Esra 140.

⁵³ Gunneweg, Esra 139.

⁵⁴ Gunneweg, Esra 141.

⁵⁵ See especially Frei, Zentralgewalt. For the so-called Persian policy of tolerance and the great religious and legal variety there, see e.g. Donner, Geschichte II 392ff.; Dandamaev/Lukonin, Ancient Iran 116ff.; Briant, Pouvoir central 3ff.; ibid., Polytheismes. Koch, Weltordnung, has attempted to describe the religio-historic background for this openness.

⁵⁶ Spiegelberg, Chronik; for this, see Reich, Codification; Dandamaev/Lukonin, Ancient Iran 125.

⁵⁷ Metzger, among others, Fouilles de Xanthos; see Frei, Zentralgewalt 12ff.

⁵⁸ Frei, Zentralgewalt 13. See Kippenberg, Erlösungsreligionen 181 f., who would rather speak of "sanctioning by the empire."

⁵⁹ See Blum, Pentateuch 345ff.

⁶⁰ See especially Kippenberg, Erlösungsreligionen 183ff.

⁶¹ See the overview in Kellermann, Esragesetz. Presuming an early dating of Ezra, before Nehemiah, he comes to the conclusion that this was Deuteronomy (381ff.); he furthermore thinks that the document could have contained exclusively the legal texts. This thesis has now been adopted by Kippenberg, Erlösungsreligionen 127ff. This raises the significant question how the entire Pentateuch might have come out of this. That would presuppose a great change in the relationships.

⁶² See below, pp. 341ff.

⁶³ Houtman, Ezra also contests any correlation between the law of Ezra and the Pentateuch because a few laws in Ezra/Nehemiah have no parallel in the Pentateuch. For a critique, see Williamson, Ezra 93, who points out the exegetical methods which underlie the the variants. For the central text, see below, Neh 10; see below 395ff.

⁶⁴ Rendtorff, Esra 183, where the arguments of 169-173 are summarized.

⁶⁵ See also Wahl, Grundelemente.

⁶⁶ Rendtorff, Esra 183.

⁶⁷ Rendtorff, Esra 183.

⁶⁸ For the following critique, see also Williamson, Ezra 92f.; Kratz, Translatio Imperii 228ff.

⁶⁹ Rendtorff, Esra 168.

⁷⁰ The usual word in Targum royetaa (see Jastrow, Dictionary 34) is only attested much later.

⁷¹ For dat see tKet 4.9; see Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte 325; for din see the marriage contract from Wadi Murabba'at, Beyer 309.

⁷² Gunneweg, Esra 138. For this first step in the development of the canon, see also Kratz, Translatio Imperii 233ff.; Steck, Kanon 236ff.; ibid., Abschluss der Prophetie 13ff.

⁷³ See above pp. 102ff.

⁷⁴ See especially Kellermann, Nehemia, who considers 1:1-7:5abá: 12:27aá, 31f., 37-40; 13:4, 5aá, 6a, 7abá, 6a, 7abá, 8-10bá, 11-21, 22b, 23a, 24a, 25-31 part of the original Nehemiah document (in summary, p. 55f.). The further discussion has been based upon this, frequently only criticizing in details, see e.g. Williamson, Ezra/Nehemiah XXIVff.; Blenkinsopp, Ezra 46 among others; see also Kaiser, Einleitung 182 note 15 (with a "fine analysis" that is methodologically hardly tenable). Gunneweg also speaks of an "incontrovertible, authentic, draft by Nehemiah" (Nehemia 176), the basic elements of which can no longer be ascertained in detail (178f.) because of chronistic redaction. In view of this discussion, the general thesis that the document goes back to the chronicler and is in no place authentic (Becker, Esra/Nehemia 8), is hardly tenable.

⁷⁵ This is emphasized by Clines, Nehemiah Memoir. "Nehemiah is a liar" (125).

⁷⁶ For the borders and the history, see below pp. 348f.

⁷⁷ See especially Kippenberg, Religion und Klassenbildung 55f.

⁷⁸ See Liver, Ransom; for the later Jewish practice, see e.g. also Safria, Wallfahrt 70f. and elsewhere.

⁷⁹ Thus Blenkinsopp, Ezra/Nehemiah 76; Rudolph, Esra 178; considers a possible change in the system of measurement Williamson. Ezra/Nehemiah 325f. (with Clines, Nehemiah 10) theorizes a dependency upon the exodus passages.

⁸⁰ Thus e.g. Bertholet, Esra 76; Rudolph, Esra 172ff.; Galling, Chronik 242; Jepsen, Neh 10 98ff. (see also 100ff.) who allows the question whether this is a literary fiction or a document of post-Nehemiah origin, to remain open.

⁸¹ Thus e.g. Hölscher, Esra 545; Gunneweg, Nehemiah 13 1ff., 135ff.

⁸² Indeed six themes are attested in Neh 13 (tithe 13:1Off., temple care 13:11, sabbath 13:15ff., marriage 13:23, wood 13:31, firstfruits 13:31), regarding forgiveness of debts it is comparable to Neh 5. The temple tax firstborn and priestly offering are entirely absent.

⁸³ See the thoughts of Kellermann, Nehemia 39ff., however, see also Williamson, Ezra/Nehemiah 330f.

⁸⁴ The long list of names interrupts the complete sentence verses 1, 30b and for that reason has been regarded as an insertion (with many others, Williamson, Ezra 27). The question of its origin (e.g. Jepsen, Nehemia 10) can remain entirely unresolved here.

⁸⁵ Gunneweg, Nehemia 131f.

⁸⁶ See above pp. 128ff.

⁸⁷ See above pp. 296f.

⁸⁸ Clines, Nehemiah 10.

⁸⁹ See Zeitlin, Halaka 17; Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutics 107ff.

⁹⁰ Blum, Pentateuch 359 criticizes my earlier (Perserzeit 214f.) descriptions "compromise" and "coalition." The former may be confusing (even though the priestly tradition did not, as Blum suggests, require forgiveness of debts and manumission of slaves to the same degree as the deuteronomic tradition) since it does not cover the process of extensive addition. He is further correct that Neh 5 does not present "direct evidence" for a coalition of priests and free farmers (thus also Schmitt, Plagenerzählung 200f., especially note 28). Historically, how they cooperated remains unclear. Even Nehemiah's memoir only gives us a vague impression of the milieu. Since, however, the interests of other groups recognizable at this time, especially the aristocracy, did not have an opportunity, it is probably still justified, perhaps even necessary, to speak of something like a social coalition.

⁹¹ See how especially Kippenberg, Erlösungsreligionen, stakes his reconstruction of religious history on activities around the problem of indebtedness.

⁹² See Crüsemann, Perserzeit 218ff.

⁹³ See above pp. 47f. and below pp. 356ff.

⁹⁴ We need only make reference here to the conflict of returnees and old-Judeans, which especially at the beginning, overlapped the fundamental social conflicts. It had a decisive affect on the history of the province. See Schulz, Political Tensions.

⁹⁵ See above pp. 290ff. Since there was not much that was fundamentally new to the conception of the overall composition in the priestly writings, the following description can be rather brief.

⁹⁶ See Bickermann, Captivity, for the problem of the diaspora during the Persian period, see Coggins, Origins.

⁹⁷ See especially Zadok, Jews in Babylonia; ibid., Some Jews among others; in addition to Wallis, Sozial Situation; Coogan, Life in the Diaspora; in general also Eph'al, Western Minorities.

⁹⁸ With Eph'al, Western Minorities 88.

⁹⁹ The description in Neh 8 has features of the later synagogue service, see especially Rendtorff, Esra 178ff.; see also Wahl, Grundelemente. For the development of the synagogue, see Levine, Formative Years. Further, Hruby, Synagogue; Safrai, Synagogue; Gutmann, Origins (as well as other contributions in this volume); Griffiths, Egypt.

¹⁰⁰ See above pp. 290ff.

¹⁰¹ For what follows, see Diebner/Schult, Ehen der Erzväter. The conclusions regarding the age of the text are not convincing. For an articulated analysis, see Blum, Vätergeschichte.

¹⁰² See Dandamaev, Political History (see pp. 351ff. for a chronological overview); see especially Salmon, Les Relations; Ray, Egypt.

¹⁰³ See e.g. Kaiser, Zwischen den Fronten.

¹⁰⁴ See Porten, Jews in Egypt.

¹⁰⁵ See e.g. Porten, Archives.

¹⁰⁶ When Schmitt, Plagenerzählung correctly finds prophetic traditions at work in these texts then we must note in these contexts what prophecy means in the Pentateuch in order to be able to make a proper evaluation. See below, p. 347.

¹⁰⁷ A whole series of new, pertinent sources has been revealed (among others: seals, coins, etc.), since Alt, Rolle Samarias advanced the thesis that it was only through the mission of Nehemiah that Judah achieved the rank of independent province. Previously, it had been part of Samaria. Of course, the question, at what date did the independent province come into existence, cannot be answered with complete surety even today. Nevertheless, the comprehensive and intensive discussions of all the questions connected with this in Williamson, Governors have made it extremely likely that already Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel (who both have the same title as Nehemiah—peha) were presiding over an independent province.

¹⁰⁸ See Dandamaev, Political History 244ff.; see also, e.g. Ackroyd, Jewish Community 154.

¹⁰⁹ See e.g. Margalith, Political Role for an early dating. There would have been a correlation with the renewed political independence around 401 BCE for a late dating of Ezra at 398 BCE.

¹¹⁰ See e.g. Donner, Geschichte II 393f. For the Persian tax system, see especially Tuplin, Administration 137ff.

¹¹¹ With Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon 80ff. It is too indiscriminating to say that the Pentateuch redactors were entirely positive toward prophecy as Schmitt, Plagenerzählung 200 note 24 suggests (see also Blum, Pentateuch 88, 359). The ranking of Moses above all other prophets is clearly a criticism of other prophets. A "complementary" relation of law and prophecy, as Schmitt formulates in conjunction with Perlitt, Mose 591f. is, of course, possible. That would mean, however, that the Pentateuch itself is not prophetic, nor would it subordinate itself to any prophecy; the history of the canon supports this.

¹¹² See e.g. W. H. Schmidt, Nachwirkungen; Smend, Ende; H.-C. Schmitt, Redaktion and others.

¹¹³"³ This is apparently the opinion of Schmitt, Plagenerzählung 199f. in his critique of my thesis (Perserzeit). He finds a "cooperation of prophetic groups in the development of the Pentateuch" (201). Nevetheless, neither the reception of prophetic traditions, which is undisputed, nor the reference to the "imposing opus of the prophetic books" originated at this time (201) disputes the fact that the decisive feature of contemporary prophecy as well as of the prophetic redactors, that is to say, a thoroughly eschatological outlook, is absent from the Pentateuch. We do not find hope for an earth-shaking action of God, but rather the contemporary practice of Torah together with the political space necessary to follow it, which shapes figures like Ezra and Nehemiah and the central figures of the Pentateuch. At the time of the development this was a contrast (and it still was for the Sadducees, for example). It is true that it was not an absolute, but rather a complementary opposite. In the history of canon Torah remained dominant. For the relationship, see for example also W. H. Schmidt, Pentateuch und Prophetie. Regarding Plöger's critique (Theokratie 129ff. for the dialog Schmitt, Plagenerzählung 202), there are clearly at least three groups in postexilic Judaism (the evidence hardly justifies the idea of "mediating forms"—against Schmitt 202 note 35). Many confusions in the discussion go back to attempts to reduce them to two groups.

¹¹⁴ For the ambivalent role of the Egyptians in this context, see above p. 345.

¹¹⁵"⁵ Against Schmitt, Plagenerzählung. Only this can resolve the issue, not, however, the tradition-historical provenance of language, motives, etc.

¹¹⁶ The interpretation of these statements extend from the sea people (Vetter, Seherspruch 55f.) to the Seleucids (Noth, Numbers 169).

¹¹⁷"⁷ See e.g. Bogaert, Trois Rédactions; Luyten, Overtones.

¹¹⁸ Thus e.g. Margalith, Political Role.

¹¹⁹ For the question of the period in which this independency began, see above note 107.

¹²⁰ For the question of the province of Judah, see Stem, Province; McEvenue, Political Structure; see also Betlyon, Provincial Government.

¹²¹ See e.g. Alt, Judas Nachbarn, and now especially Lemaire, Population et Territoires (map, p. 74).

¹²² Welten, Geschichte 123ff., especially 128.

¹²³ For the prophetic canon, see Steck, Kanon; ibid., Abschluss der Prophetie.

¹²⁴ See, for example, Nasuti, Identity.

¹²⁵ The word ki probably retains its basic, deictic meaning in a concessive sense. See Meyer, Hebrdische Grammatik III 104f.

¹²⁶ See most recently, e.g. Dandamaev / Lukonin, Institutions 117, where such a principle is called "primitive law" for Persia. Unfortunately, there is no evidence. For Old Testament evidence, see Dandamaev / Lukonin, Institutions 118.

¹²⁷ The occasional reference (e.g. Porteous, Daniel 72f.) to Diodorus Siculus XVII 30 does not fit. There we have the irrevocability of the preceding murder (see Frei, Zentralgewalt 36 note 64).

¹²⁸ Frei, Zentralgewalt 23ff.

¹²⁹ We read in line 19 of the inscription, "This law has he written" (dth dk ktb), which refers to the decree of the people of Xanthos (line 6); see Dupont-Sommer in Metzger, Xanthos VI 136f. Unfortunately, what follows, which is critical for an exact understanding, is faulty. We should probably interpret the text, which is nearly impossible to understand (mhssn) as Dupont-Sommer does. … Frei, in conjunction with a suggestion by Dupont-Sommer, interprets the text, "so that people take note" (Zentralgewalt 24f., especially note 73), so that legal validity is specially dependent upon the written nature of the law.

¹³⁰ Frei, Zentralgewalt 25.

¹³¹ See, with a different accent, Bardke, Esther 368 note 3, who compares this "horror of rigid and irrevocable human law" with the presumed parallel qualities of Jewish law.

¹³² For the Decalogue itself, see Crüsemann, Dekalog. Everything suggests that the Decalogue belongs in or near Deuteronomy, thus it is already dependent upon the critical Torah structures which developed with the Book of the Covenant. Its contribution to Old Testament legal history, along with its function in the law, lies more in its precision, clarity and ability to teach, rather than in its contents as such. It would be different if it belonged before the Book of the Covenant. Even Lohfink, Unterschied 77ff., who thinks that it might possibly be quite old, must agree that there are no discernible reasons for this. If Vincent, Dekalogforschung would place the norms formulated within the Decalogue before the crises of the eighth century, where they appear in prophecy (and the Book of the Covenant), then precisely that is improbable. The explication and formulation require reasons, and we find late, mature phrasing of these norms in the Decalogue.

¹³³ Since the studies of Perlitt, Bundestheologie 77ff., Hossfeld, Dekalog; Nicholson, Decalogue; this is no longer in dispute; see now also Lohfink, Unterschied 76f. Nothing, however, is decided regarding the relationship of the versions of the texts themselves; see most recently Graupner, Dekalogfassungen; Hossfeld, Dekalogfassungen; Lohfink, Unterschied 75. It remains unresolved here.

¹³⁴ See Borgeault, Décalogue; Rothlisberger, Kirche am Sinai.

¹³⁵ Most recently, Stemberger, Dekalog 99ff.; also Vermes, Decalogue; Vokes, Ten Commandments; Schreiner, Dekalog.

¹³⁶ See Crüsemann, Dekalog 3ff.

¹³⁷ Lohfink, Unterschied.

¹³⁸ Lohfink, Unterschied 65-74.

¹³⁹ Thus at the end of Lohfink, Unterschied 89.

¹⁴⁰ Lohfink, Unterschied 80ff.

¹⁴¹ Lohfink, Unterschied 80.

¹⁴² Lohfink, Unterschied 84.

¹⁴³ Lohfink, Unterschied 64.

¹⁴⁴ Lohfink, Unterschied 80.

¹⁴⁵ Lohfink, Unterschied 81.

¹⁴⁶ Lohfink, Unterschied 89.

¹⁴⁷ Lohfink, Unterschied 81.

¹⁴⁸ See especially Schmidt, Erwägungen.

¹⁴⁹ Lohfink, Unterschied 76; see above note 133.

¹⁵⁰ See above pp. 46ff., 55ff.

¹⁵¹ Thus, the instructions in Ex 25ff. are carried out in 35ff. Aaron is consecrated as a priest, etc. but especially the commands from Lev 11 on are the words of God alone, except that they are transmitted to the people.

¹⁵² Lohfink, Unterschied 81.

¹⁵³ See above p. 222.

¹⁵⁴ There is only inconsequential disagreement among scholars that the Dathan-Abiram episode in verses 12-15, 25-34 represents a pre-priestly text (wherein glosses, etc. are not considered here), see e.g. Noth, Pentateuch 32; ibid., Numeri 108; Fritz, Wüste 24ff.; Coats, Rebellion 158ff.; Ahuis, Authorität (who otherwise works with a broad deuteronomic stratum), most recently Schart, Konflikt 220; see even Milgrom, Rebellion 135f. This older core finds itself imbedded in a P center, which however is not generally regarded as a part of the P base stratum (Noth, Pentateuch 19 note 59; as well as-unsupported-e.g. Elliger, Sinn 175; Lohfin, Priesterschrift 222f. note 29; Schart, Konflikt, 137 note 1). Nevertheless, the model sketched of the priestly wilderness narrative by Westermann, Herrlichkeit Gottes 128ff. fits Num 16 exactly (see Blum, Pentateuch 267). Blum, Pentateuch 265f. shows that even the priestly stratum in this chapter is not unified, but represents many claims.

¹⁵⁵ See Magonet, Korah Rebellion, as well as Blum, Pentateuch 263 ff.

¹⁵⁶ See already Bentzen, Priesterschaft 281., as well as especially, Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 228ff.; Friedman, Exile 69; Kraus, Heiliges Volk 41f.; Blum, Pentateuch 270f., 334f.

¹⁵⁷ See above pp. 301ff.

¹⁵⁸ Blum, Pentateuch 335 note 5 refers to this.

¹⁵⁹ Blum, Pentateuch 335.

¹⁶⁰ See above pp. 28ff.

¹⁶¹ For the position in context, see Blum, Pentateuch 47ff. as well as Rendtorff, Text in seiner Endgestalt.

¹⁶² See Dozeman, Spatial Form.

¹⁶³ From the wide-ranging discussion about the meaning of the terms used, see Dillmann, Exodus 214; Scott, Kingdom; Martin-Achard, Israël; Coppens, Royaume; Schüssler-Fiorenza, Priester 131ff. Blum, Pentateuch 51 note 22 correctly criticizes the variety of interpretations which make the sense less concrete, but more metaphoric and generalized, most recently, e.g. Fuhs, Heiliges Volk 158; Mosis, Aufbau.

¹⁶⁴ See Perlitt, Bundestheologie 167ff.

¹⁶⁵ See above pp. 306ff.

¹⁶⁶mamléket means monarchy, government, to be sure, as an institution (Sybold, article on melek 941).

¹⁶⁷ Thus convincingly, Ruprecht, Exodus 24 167; cf Blum, Pentateuch 51f.

¹⁶⁸ See Crüsemann, Perserzeit.

¹⁶⁹ For the rabbinic interpretation, see Bamberger, Torah after Sinai.

¹⁷⁰ See Noth, Studien 190ff. with an outline of the results 217; ibid., Numbers. Finally, especially Schart, Konflikt 55ff. places this text outside the composition he calls the "final text" of Num 10-21.

¹⁷¹ This applies in each case for the researchers who attempt to work out a base document (e.g. Elliger, Sinn 174f.; Lohfink, Priesterschrift 222ff. and elsewhere).

¹⁷² See above pp. 290ff.

¹⁷³ For the—also syntactical—correlation, see Rendtorff, Leviticus 22f.

¹⁷⁴ See Westermann, Herrlichkeit Gottes 128ff.; also Rendtorff, Offenbarungsvorstellungen 48.

¹⁷⁵ See above pp. 102ff.

¹⁷⁶ For what follows, see Olson, Death of the Old especially 83ff., 165ff.

¹⁷¹ See above pp. 38ff.

¹⁷⁸ Crüsemann, Vaterland.

¹⁷⁹ Thus especially Brin, Numbers XV citing Sifre sect. 111 as well as Rashi; see also Toeg, Halachic Midrash.

¹⁸⁰ Olson, Death of the Old Man 168 note 13. He rejects Brin's thesis, referring to the syntactical structure and its parallels in I Sam 18:9; Ez 39:22. He himself; however, points out the emphasis in the five-fold repetition of "throughout your (coming) generations" … in verses 14, 15, 21, 23, 38. Furthermore, the case of the person gathering wood on the sabbath we are dealing with the sample "application of a law to a new situation which requires a divine judgment" (172). The accent that Olson himself places upon the individual laws scattered throughout the composition of the Book of Numbers, corresponds exactly with that of the rabbinic tradition of understanding 15:23.

¹⁸¹ Cf Schäfer, Dogma.

¹⁸² Isa 42:lff., 2:lff. and others. See Davies, Torah; Jervell, Tora; Schäfer, Torah.

¹⁸³ See above p. 4.

¹⁸⁴ See Braulik, Weisheit, Gottesnähe und Gesetz; besides Levenson, Theologies of Commandment 25ff.

Bibliography

… Ackroyd, P. R., Chronicles—Ezra—Nehemia: The Concept of Unity, ZAW.S 100, 1988, 189-201 …

——, "Problems in the Handling of Biblical and Related Sources in the Achaemenid Period," in: A. Kuhrt/H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg (ed.), Achaemenid History III. Method and Theory, Leiden 1988, 33-54

Ahlemann, F., "Zur Esraquelle," ZAW 59, 1942/43, 77-98

Ahuis, F., Autorität im Umbruch. Ein formgeschichtlicher Beitrag zur Klärung der literar-ischen Schichtung und der zeitgeschichtlichen Bezüge von Num 16 und 17. Mit einem Ausblick auf die Diskussion um die Ämter der Kirche, CThM 13, 1983 …

Alt, A., "Die Rolle Samarias bei der Entstehung des Judentums" (1934), in: ibid., Kleine Schriften II,³ 1964, 316-337 …

——, "Judas Nachbam zur Zeit Nehemias" (1931), in: ibid., Kleine Schriften II,³ 1964, 338-345 …

Amsler, S., "Les documents de la loi et la formation du Pentateuque," in: A. de Pury (ed.), Le Pentateuque en Question, Genf² 1991, 235-257

——, "Loi oracle et loi éecrite dans le Deutéeronome," in: N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium, BEThL LXVIII, Leuven 1985, 51-54 …

Auld, A. G., Joshua, Moses and the Land. Tetrateuch—Pentateuch—Hexateuch in a Generation since 1938, Edinburgh 1980 …

Bamberger, B. J., "Revelations of Torah after Sinai," HUCA 14, 1941, 97-113 …

Bardtke, H., Das Buch Esther, KAT XVII,5, Gütersloh 1963 …

Becker, J., Esra/Nehemia, NEB Liefg. 25, Würzburg 1990 …

Begg, C., "Ben Sirach's Non-mention of Ezra," BN 42, 1988, 14-18 …

Bentzen, A., "Priesterschaft und Laien in der jüdischen Geschichte des 5. Jahrhunderts," AfO 6, 1930/31, 280-286 …

Bertholet, A., Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia, KHC XIX, 1902 …

Betlyon, J. W., "The Provincial Government of Persian Period Judea and the Yehud Coins," JBL 105, 1986, 633-642 …

Beyer, K., Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer, Göttingen 1984…

Bickerman, E. J., "The Babylonian Captivity," in: The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. I. Introduction; The Persian Period, Cambridge 1984, 342-357

Blenkinsopp, J., Ezra—Nehemia. A Commentary, London 1989

——, Prophecy and Canon. A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origin, Notre Dame/Ind. 1977

——, "The Structure of P," CBQ 38, 1976, 275-292…

Blum, E., Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte, WMANT 57, 1984 …

——, "Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch," BZAW 189, 1990 …

Boecker, H. J., Recht und Gesetz im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient, Neukirchen-Vluyn² 1984 …

Bogaert, P.-M., "Les trois Rédactions conservées et la forme originale de l'envoi du Cantique de Moïse (Dt 32,43)," in: N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium, BEThL 68, 1985, 329-340 …

Braulik, G., "Weisheit, Gottesnähe und Gesetz. Zum Kerygma von Deuteronomium 4,5-8," in: Studien zum Pentateuch, FS W. Kornfeld, Wien 1977, 165-195 = idem., Studien zur Theologie des Deuteronomiums, SBAB 2, 1988, 53-93 …

Briant, P., "Polythéismes et empire unitaire. (Remarques sur la politique religieuse des Achémenides)," in: Les grandes figures religieuses. Fonctionnement, pratique et symbolique dans l'Antiquité, Centre de Recherches d'Histoire Ancienne 68, Paris 1986, 425-438

——, "Pouvoir central et polycentrisme culturel dans l'empire Achéménide. Quelques réflections et suggestions," in: H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg (ed.), Achaemenid History I, Sources, Structures and Synthesis, Leiden 1987, 1-31 …

Brin, G., "Numbers XV 22-23 and the Question of the Composition of the Pentateuch," VT 30, 1980, 351-354

Brock, S. P., "Bibelübersetzungen 1,2. Die Übersetzungen des Alten Testaments im Griechischen," TRE VI, 1980, 163-172 …

Cazelles, H., "La mission d'Esdras," VT 4, 1954, 113-140

——, "Le Pentateuque comme Torah," in: idem., Autour de L'Exode (Études), Paris 1987, 9-52 …

Clines, D. J. A., Ezra, Nehemia, Esther, New Century Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids 1984 …

——, "The Force of the Text. A Response to Tamara C. Eskenazi's 'Ezra-Nehemia: From Text to Actuality'," in: J. C. Exum (ed.), Signs and Wonders. Biblical Texts in Literary Focus, Atlanta 1989, 199-215

——, "The Nehemiah Memoir: The Perils of Autobiography," in: What Does Eve Do to Help? and Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament, JSOT.S 94, 1990, 124-164

Coats, G. W., Rebellion in the Wilderness. The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness Traditions of the Old Testament, Nashville / New York … 1968

Coggins, R. J., Samaritans and Jews. The Origin of Samaritanism Reconsidered, Atlanta 1975 …

——, "The origins of the Jewish diaspora," in: R. E. Clements (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel. Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives, Cambridge 1989, 163-181 …

Coogan, M. D., "Life in the Diaspora. Jews at Nippur in the Fifth Century B.C.," BA 37, 1974, 6-12 …

Coppens, J., "Exode XIX6: Un royaume ou une royauté des prêtres?" EThL 53, 1977, 185f.…

Cortese, E., Josua 13-21. Ein priesterschriftlicher Abschnitt im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, OB O 94, 1990 …

Cross, F. M., "A Reconstruction of the Judaean Restoration," JBL 94, 1975, 4-18 …

Crüsemann, F., Bewahrung der Freiheit. Das Thema des Dekalogs in sozialgeschichtlicher Perspektive, KT 78, 1983

——, "Das 'portative Vaterland'. Struktur und Genese des alttestament-lichen Kanons," in: A. u. J. Assmann (ed.), Kanon und Zensur. Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation II, München 1987, 63-79

——, "Der Pentateuch als Tora. Prolegomena zur Interpretation seiner Endgestalt," EvTh 49, 1989, 250-267 …

——, "Israel in der Perserzeit. Eine Skizze in Auseinandersetzung mit Max Weber," in: W. Schluchter (ed.,) Max Webers Sicht des antiken Christentums. Interpretation und Kritik, 548, 1985, 205-232 …

Dandamaev, M. A., A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire, Engl. transl. Leiden 1989 …

Dandamaev, M. A./Lukonin, V. G., The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran, Cambridge 1989

Daniels, D. R., "The Composition of the Ezra-Nehemiah Narrative," in: Ernten, was man sät, FS K. Koch, ed. D. R. Daniels et al., Neukirchen 1991, 311-328 …

Davies, W. D., Torah in the Messianic Age and/or the Age to Come, Philadelphia 1952 …

Diebner, B. J./Schult, H., "Die Ehen der Erzväter," DBAT 8, 1975, 2-10 …

Dillmann, A., Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus (ed. V. Ryssel), KEH 12, Leipzig³ 1897 …

Donner, H., Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grundzügen, GAT 4, 2 vols., 1984 and 1986 …

Dorival, G., "Les origines de la Septante: la traduction en grec des cinq livres de la Torah," in: idem./M. Harl/O. Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante, Paris 1988, 39-82 …

Dozeman, T., "Spatial Form in Exod. 19: 1-8a and the Larger Sinai Narrative," Semeia 46, 1989, 87-101 …

Eissfeldt, O., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Tübingen³ 1964…

Elliger, K., "Sinn und Ursprung der priesterlichen Geschichtserzählung," ZThK 49, 1952, 121-143 = idem., Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament, ThB 32, 1966, 174-198 …

Emerton, J. A., "Did Ezra Go to Jerusalem 428 B.c.?" JThS NS 17, 1966, 1-19 …

Eph 'al, I, "The Western Minorities in Babylonia in the 6th-Sth Centuries B.C., Maintenance and Cohesion," Orientalia 47, 1978, 74-90 …

Eskenazi, T. C., "Ezra-Nehemia: From Text to Actuality," in: J. C. Exum (ed.), Signs and Wonders. Biblical Texts and Literary Focus, Atlanta 1989, 165-197

——, In an Age of Prose. A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemia, SBLMS 36, 1988

——, "The Structure of Ezra-Nehemiah and the Integrity of the Book," JBL 107, 1988, 641-656 …

Freedman, D. N., "The Formation of the Canon of the Old Testament. The Selection and the Identification of the Torah as the Supreme Authority of the Postexilic Community," in: E. B. Firmage et al., Religion and Law. Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives, Winona Lake 1990, 315-331 …

Frei, P., "Zentralgewalt und Lokalautonomie im Achämenidenreich," in: idem.,/K. Koch, Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich, OBO 55, 1984, 7-43 …

Friedman, R. E., The Exile and Biblical Narrative. The Formation of the Deuteronomistic and Priestly Works, HSM 22, 1981 …

Fritz, V., Israel in der Wüste. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Wüstenüberlieferung des Jahwisten, MThSt 7, 1970 …

Fuhs, H. F., "Heiliges Volk Gottes," in: J. Schreiner (ed.), Unterwegs zur Kirche. Alttestamentliche Konzeptionen, QD 110, 1987, 143-167 …

Galling, K., "Bagoas und Esra," in: idem., Studien zur Geschichte Israels im persischen Zeitalter, Tübingen 1964, 149-184 …

——. Die Bücher der Chronik, Esra, Nehemia, ATD 12, 1954 …

Graupner, A., "Zum Verhältnis der beiden Dekalogfassungen Ex 20 und Dtn 5. Ein Gespräch mit Frank-Lothar Hossfeld," ZAW 99, 1987, 308-329 …

Griffiths, J. G., "Egypt and the Rise of the Synagogue," JThS N.S. 38, 1987, 1-15 …

Gunneweg, A. H. J., Esra, KAT XIX1, 1985 …

——, "Zur Interpretation der Bücher Esra-Nehemia. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Methode der Exegese," in: Congress Volume, Vienna 1980, VT.S 32, 1981, 146-161 …

Gutmann, J., "The Origin of the Synagogue, The Current State of Research," in: idem. (ed.), The Synagogue. Studies in Origins, Archaeology and Architecture, New York 1975, 72-76 …

Hanhart, R., Die Bedeutung der Septuaginta für die Definition des 'Hellenistischen Judentums', VT.S 40, 1988, 67-80

——, "Zum gegenwärtigen Stand der Septuagintaforschung," in: De Septuaginta, FS J. W. Wevers. ed. A. Pietersma/C. Cox, Missisauga, Ont. 1984, 3-18

Höffken, P., "Warum schweigt Jesus sirach über Esra?" ZAW 87, 1975, 184-202 …

Hölscher, G., Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia, HSAT II,⁴ 1923, 491-562 …

Hossfeld, F.-L., Der Dekalog. Seine späten Fassungen, die originale Komposition und seine Vorstufen, OBO 45, 1982 …

——, "Zum synoptischen Vergleich der Dekalogfassungen. Eine Fortfüihrung des begonnenen Gesprächs," in: idem (ed.), Vom Sinai zum Horeb, FS E. Zenger, Würzburg 1989, 73-117 …

Houtman, C., "Ezra and the Law, in: Remembering all the Way …," OTS XXI, 1981, 91-115

Hruby, K., Die Synagoge. Geschichtliche Entwicklung einer Institution, Zürich 1971 …

Japhet, S., "The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemia Investigated Anew," VT 18, 1968, 330-371

Jastrow, M., A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, New York 1950

Jellicoe, S., The Septuagint and Modern Study, Oxford 1968 …

Jepsen, A., "Nehemia 10," ZAW 66, 1954, 87-106

Jervell, J., "Die offenbarte und die verborgene Tora. Zur Vorstellung über die neue Tora im Rabbinismus," StTh 25, 1971, 90-108 …

Kaiser, O., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Gütersloh⁵ 1984

——, "Zwischen den Fronten. Palästina in den Auseinandersetzungen zwischen dem Perserreich und Agypten in der ersten Hälfte des 4. Jahrhunderts" (1972), = in: idem., Von der Gegenwartsbedeutung des Alten Testaments. Gesammelte Studien, ed. V. Fritz et al., Göttingen 1984, 189-198 …

Kapelrud, A. S., The Question of Authorship in the Ezra-Narrative. A Lexical Investigation, SNVAO.HF 1944/1, 1944 …

Kellermann, U., "Erwägungen zum Esragesetz," ZAW 80, 1968, 373-385

——, "Erwägungen zum Problem der Esradatierung," ZAW 80, 1968, 55-87

——, Nehemia. Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte, BZAW 102, 1967 …

Kippenberg, H. G., Die vorderasiatischen Erlösungsreligionen in ihrem Zusammenhang mit der antiken Stadtherrschaft, Heidelberger Max-Weber-Vorlesungen 1988, 917, 1991

——, Garizim und Synagoge, RVV 30, 1971

——, Religion und Klassenbildung im antiken Judäa. Eine religionssoziologische Studie zum Verhältnis von Tradition und gesellschaftlicher Entwicklung, StUNT 14,² 1982 …

Koch, K., "Ezra and the Origin of Judaism," JSS 19, 1974, 173-197 …

Koch, K., "Weltordnung und Reichsidee im alten Iran," in: P. Frei/idem., Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich, OBO 55, 1984, 45-116 …

Kraft, R. A., "'Ezra' Materials in Judaism and Christianity," in: ANRW II, 19/1, 1979, 119-136

Kratz, R. G., Translatio imperii. Untersuchungen zu den aramäischen Danielerzählungen und ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld, WMANT 63, 1991

Kraus, H.-J., "Das heiliges Volk," in: Freude am Evangelium. FS A. de Quervain, München 1966, 50-61 = idem., Biblisch-theologische Aufsätze, Neukirchen 1972, 37-49 …

——, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments, Neukirchen⁴ 1988

——, Psalms, trans. Hilton C. Oswald. 2 vols. Minneapolis: Augsburg 1987 …

Lebram, J. C. H., "Die Traditionsgeschichte der Esragestalt und die Frage nach dem historischen Esra," in: H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg (ed.), Achae-menid History I. Sources, Structures and Synthesis, Leiden 1987, 103-138 …

Lemaire, A., "Populations et territoires de la Palestine à l'époque perse," Transeuphratene 3, 1990, 31-74…

Levenson, J. D., "The Theologies of Commandment in Biblical Israel," HThR 73, 1980, 17-33 …

Levine, L. J., "The Second Temple Synagogue: The Formative Years," in: The Synagogue in Late Antiquity, ed. idem., Philadelphia 1987, 7-31 …

Liedke, G./Petersen, C., Art.; Tora, THAT II, 1976, 1032-1043 …

Lohfink, N., "Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichte," in: Congress Volume Göttingen 1977, VT.S 29, 1978, 169-225 = idem., Studien zum Pentateuch, SBAB 4, 1988, 213-254…

——, "Kennt das Alte Testament einen Unterschied von 'Gebot' und 'Gesetz'? Zur bibeltheologischen Einstufung des Dekalogs," JBTh 4, 1989, 63-89 …

Luyten, J., "Primeval and Eschatological Overtones in the Song of Mose (Dt 32,1-43)," in: N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium, BEThL LXVIII, 1985, 341-347…

Magonet, J., "The Korah Rebellion," JSOT 24, 1982, 3-25 …

Margalith, O., "The Political Role of Ezra as Persian Governor," ZAW 98, 1986, 110-112 …

Martin-Achard, R., "Israël, peuple sacerdotal," VC 18, 1964, 11-28 = idem., Permanence de l'Ancien Testament. Recherches d'Exégèse et de Theologie, Cahiers de la RThPh 11, 1984, 129-146 …

McEvenue, S. E., "The Political Structure in Judah from Cyrus to Nehemiah," CBQ 43, 1981, 353-364…

Metzger, H. et al., Feuilles de Xanthos. Tome VI. La stèle trilingue du Létôon, Paris 1979

Meyer, E., Die Entstehung des Judentums, Halle 1896, reprint Hildesheim 1987 …

Meyer, R., Hebrädische Grammatik, I-IV, 3rd ed. Berlin 1966-72 …

Milgrom, J., "Korah's rebellion: A Study in Redaction," in: De la Tôrah au Messie, Mélanges H. Cazelles, ed. M. Carrez et al., Paris 1981, 135-146 …

Mittmann, S., Deuteronomium 1-63 literarkritisch und traditions-geschichtlich untersucht, BZAW 139, 1975…

Mor, M., "I. Samaritan History. 1. The Persian, Hellenistic and Hasmonaean Period," in: A. D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen 1989, 1-18 …

Mosis, R., "Ex 19,5b.6a: Syntaktischer Aufbau und lexikalische Semantik," BZ NF 22, 1978, 1-25 …

Mowinckel, S., Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehemia, III. Die Esrageschichte und das Gesetz Moses, SNVAO HF, NS 7, 1965

——, Tetrateuch-Pentateuch-Hexateuch, BZAW 90, 1964 …

Munk, M., "Esra Hasofer nach Talmud und Midrasch," JJLG 21, 1930, 129-198 (reprint 1975) …

Nasuti, H., "Identity, Identification, and Imitation: The Narrative Hermeneutics of Biblical Law," Journal of Law and Religion 4, 1986, 9-23 …

Nicholson, E. W., "The Decalogue as the Direct Address of God," VT 27, 1977, 422-433 …

Noth, M., Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri, ATD 7, 1966

——, Die Gesetze im Pentateuch, SKG.G 17,2, 1940 = idem. Gesammelte …

——, Studien zum Alten Testament, ThB 6, ²1960, 9-141 …

Olson, D. T., The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch, Brown Judaic Studies 71, 1985 …

Patrick, D., Old Testament Law, Atlanta 1985

Patte, D., Early Jewish Hermeneutics in Palestine, Missoula … 1975

Perlitt, L., Bundestheologie im Alten Testament, WMANT 36, 1969 …

——, Deuteronomium, BK 5, 1990/91 …

——, "Mose als Prophet," EvTh 31, 1971, 588-608

Petersen, J. E., "Priestly Material in Joshua 13-22, A Return to the Hexateuch?," Hebrew Annual Review 4, 1980, 131-146 …

Plöger, J. G., Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium, BBB 26, 1967 …

Porten, B., Archives from Elephantine. The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony, Berkeley 1968

——, "The Jews in Egypt," in: The Cambridge History of Judaism. I. Introduction; The Persian Period, Cambridge 1984, 372-400

Porteous, N. W., Das Buch Daniel, ATD 23, ²²1968

Purvis, J. D., The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect, HSM 2, 1968 …

Pury, A. de/Römer, Th., "Le Pentateuque en Question: Position du Problème et brève Histoire de la Recherche," in: A. de Pury (ed.), Le Pentateuque en Question, Geneva²¹ 1991, 9-80 …

Rainey, A. F., "The Satrapy 'Beyond the River'," AJBA 1, 1969, 51-79

Ray, J. D., Egypt: "Dependence and Independence (425-343 B.C.)," in: H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg (ed.), Achaemenid History I, Sources, Structures and Synthesis, Leiden 1987, 79-95

Reich, N. I., "The Codification of the Egyptian Laws by Darius and the origin of the 'Demotic Chronicle'," in: Mizraim I, 1933, 178-185 …

Rendtorff, R., "Der Text in seiner Endgestalt. Oberlegungen zu Exodus 19," in: Ernten, was man sit, FS K. Koch, ed. D. R. Daniels et al., Neukirchen 1991, 459-470 …

——, "Die Offenbarungsvorstellungen im Alten Israel," in: W. Pannenberg (ed.), Offenbarung als Geschichte, KuD Beih.1, 1961, 21-44 = idem., Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, ThB 57, 1975, 39-59

——., "Esra und das 'Gesetz'," ZAW 96, 1984, 165-184

——, Leviticus, BK III Liefg.1/2, 1985/90 …

Röthlisberger, H., Kirche am Sinai. Die Zehn Gebote der christlichen Unterweisung, SDGSTh 19, 1965 …

Rudolph, W., Esra und Nehemia, samt 3. Esra, HAT 1/20, 1949 …

Ruprecht, E., "Exodus 24,9-11 als Beispiel lebendiger Erzähltradition aus der Zeit des babylonischen Exils," in: Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments. FS C. Westermann, ed. R. Albertz et al., Göttingen and Neukirchen 1980, 138-173 …

Safrai, S., "Der Versöhnungstag in Tempel und Synagoge," in: H. Heinz et al., (ed.), Versöhnung in der jüdischen und christlichen Liturgie, QD 124, 1990, 32-55

——, Die Wallfahrt im Zeitalter des zweiten Tempels, Forschungen zum jüdisch-christlichen Dialog 3, Neukirchen 1981 …

Safrai, S., "The Synagogue," in: idem.,/M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century, vol. II, Assen 1976, 908-944

Saley, R. J., "The Date of Nehemiah Reconsidered," in: G. A. Tuttle (ed.), Biblical and Near Eastern Studies, FS La Sor, Grand Rapids 1978, 151-165

Salmon, P., "Les relations entre la Perse et l'Égypte de VIe au IVe siecle av. J.-C.," in: The Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilizations, ed. E. Lipinski, Orientalia Lovaniensa Analecta 19, 1985, 147-168 …

Schaeder, H. H., Esra der Schreiber, BHTh 5, 1930

Schäfer, P., "Das 'Dogma' von der mündlichen Tora im rabbinischen Judentum," in: idem., Studien zu Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums, AGJu 15, 1978, 153-97

——, "Die Torah der messianischen Zeit," ZNW 65,1974, 27-42 = idem., Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums, AGJu 15, 1978, 198-213 …

Schart, A., Mose und Israel im Konflikt. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Wiustenerzahlungen, OBO 98, 1990 …

Schmidt, W. H., "Nachwirkungen prophetischer Botschaft in der Priesterschrift," in: Mélanges bibliques et orientaux, FS M. M. Delcor, ed. A. Caquot et al., AOAT 215, 1985, 369-377 …

——, "Pentateuch und Prophetie. Eine Skizze zu Verschiedenartigkeit und Einheit alttestamentlicher Theologie," in: Prophet und Prophetenbuch, FS 0. Kaiser, BZAW 185, 1989, 181-195

——, "Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Erwägungen zur Komposition des Dekalogs," VT.S 22, 1972, 201-220

Schmitt, H.-C., Elisa. "Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie," VT 32, 1982, 170-189

——, "Tradition der Prophetenbucher in den Schichten der Plagenerzählung Ex 7,1-11,10," in: Prophet und Prophetenbuch, FS 0. Kaiser, BZAW 185, 1989, 196-216 …

Schreiner, S., "Der Dekalog in der jüdischen Tradition und im Koran," Kairos NF 23, 1981, 17-30

Schultz, C., "The Political Tensions Reflected in Ezra-Nehemiah," in: C. D. Evans et al., (ed.), Scripture in Context. Essays on the Comparative Method, Pittsburgh Theol. Monogr. Ser. 34, 1980, 221-244 …

Schössler Fiorenza, E., Priester für Gott. Studien zum Herrschafts- und Priestermotiv in der Apokalypse, NTA 7, 1972 …

Scott, R. B. Y., "A Kingdom of Priests (Exodus xix 6)," OTS 8, 1950, 213-219 …

Smend, R., "'Das Ende ist gekommen.' Ein Amoswort in der Priesterschrift" (1981), in: idem., Die Mitte des Alten Testaments. Gesammelte Studien I, BEvTh 99, 1986, 154-159 …

Smitten, W. Th. in der, Esra. Quelle, Überlieferung und Geschichte, Assen 1973 …

Spiegelberg, W., Die sogenannte demotische Chronik des Pap. 215 der Bibliotheque Nationale zu Paris, Leipzig 1914 …

Spinoza, B., Theologisch-politischer Traktat, ed. G. Gawlick, PhB 93, 1976 …

Steck, 0. H., Der Abschluss der Prophetie im Alten Testaments. Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kdnon, Biblisch theologische Studien 17, Neukirchen 1991

——, "Der Kanon des hebräischen Alten Testaments. Historische Materialien für eine ökumenische Perspektive," in: Vernunft des Glaubens, FS W. Pannenberg, Göttingen 1988, 231-252 …

Stemberger, G., "Der Dekalog im frühen Judentum, in: 'Gesetz' als Thema Biblischer Theologie," JBTh 4, 1989, 91-103 …

Stem, E., "The Persian Empire and the political and social history of Palestine in the Persian Period,"in: The Cambridge History of Judaism I. Introduction; The Persian Period, Cambridge 1984, 70-87

——, "The Province of Yehud, the Vision and Reality," The Jerusalem Cathedra 1, 1981, 9-21 …

Talmon, Sh., "Esra-Nehemia, Historiographie oder Theologie?," in Ernten, was man sat, FS K. Koch, ed. D. R. Daniels et. al., Neukirchen 1991, 329-356.…

Talshir, D., "A Reinvestigation of the Linguistic Relationship Between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemia," VT 38, 1988, 165-193.…

Throntveit, M.A., "Linguistic Analysis and the Question of Authorship in Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah," VT 32, 1982, 201-216.…

Toeg, A., "A Halakhic Midrash in Num XV 22-31," Tabriz 1973 / 74, 1-20 (hebr.). …

Torrey, C. C., Ezra Studies (1910), New York², 1970P

Tov, E. "Die griechisen Bibelubersetzungen," ANRW II, 20 / 1, 1987, 121-189

——. "Proto-Samaritan Texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch," in: A. D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans, Tubingen 1989, 397-412…

Tuplin, Ch. "The Administration of the Achaemenid Empire," in: I. Carradice, (ed.), Coinage and Administration in the Athenian and the Persian Empires, British Archaeological Reports, Intern. Series 343, Oxford 1987, 109-166…

Wahl, O., "Grundelement eines festlichen Wortgottedienstes nach Neh 8, 1-12," in Die Freude an Gott-unsere Kraft, FS 0. B. Knoch, Stuttgart 1991, 47-59 …

Wallis, G. "Die soziale Situation der Juden in Babylon zur Archamenidenzeit auf Grund von funfzig ausgewahlten babylonischen Urkunden," manuscript Diss. Berlin 1952 …

Weinfeld, M., Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford 1972 …

Wellhausen, J., Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (1878), Berlin⁶ 1927

Welten, P., Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in den Chronikbüchern, WMANT 42, 1973 …

Westermann, C., "Die Herrlichkeit Gottes in der Priesterschrift," in: Wort—Gebot—Glaube, FS W. Eichrodt, Zürich 1971, 227-249 = idem., Forschung am Alten Testament. Gesammelte Studien II, ThB 55, 1974, 115-137 …

Yamauchi, E. M., "The Reverse Order of Ezra/Nehemiah Reconsidered," Themelios 5, 1980, 7-18…

Zadok, R., "Some Jews in Babylonian Documents," JQR 74, 1983/4, 294-297

——, The Jews in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods according to the Babylonian Sources. Studies in the History of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel, Monogr. Ser. III, Haifa 1979

Zeitlin, S., "The Halaka. Introduction to Tannaitic Jurisprudence," JQR 39, 1948/49, 1-40