[JSOT 60 (1993) 83-85]

RESPONSE TO ROLF RENDTORFF

J. Milgrom
University of California at Berkeley (emeritus)
1042 Sierra St, Berkeley, CA 94707

I feel pinned to the wall. If I ever hoped to evade the question of the
relationship of the priestly cult material to the pentateuchal narra
tivesan evasion, which Rendtorff admits, can be justifiedI can no
longer do so because of Rendtorff s trenchant, and now published,
remarks. This complex question will have to be dealt with in my
introduction to volume .
For me, however, more so than for Rendtorff, the problem is
magnified: I shall also have to distinguish which narrative is and
which is H, for I presume that these two priestly schools, whose
writings comprise the cultic material of the Pentateuch, have also left
their traces in the narratives.1 My quest will be further compounded
by the fact that in the narrative I will have lost the terminological
controls that I was able to muster in analyzing the cultic material. In
the meantime, I can only share with the reader my tentative, inchoate
gropings.
I have already noted that outside of Leviticus, H's cultic passages
form links between pericopes, for example, the Sabbath (Exod.
31.12-17 and 35.1-3) and the tassels (Num. 15.37-41).2 This also holds
true for within the JE narratives. The Sinaitic pericope, for example,
is encased by priestly texts: Exod. 19.1-2; 24.15b-18. From the
beginnings of modern scholarship, critics have wondered why has
no Sinaitic pericope. Their usual explanation is that for the theophany
1. The first step has already been taken by I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence
(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992) (Hebrew).
2. Cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), p. 13.

84

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 60 (1993)

takes place in the Tabernacle on the day following the week-long consecration of the priesthood when the Lord's kabod-re incinerates the
sacrifices on the altar (Lev. 9.23-24). They are both right and wrong.
P, indeed, has no Sinaitic pericope. However, it simply incorporates
the JE narrative (and law, the Covenant Code) by enclosing it with a
framework. But which P? (There are two Priestly schools, the earlier
one I call P, and its redactor I have called H).
Tentatively I propose that it is H. The beautifully crafted passage,
Exod. 24.15b-18, betrays the artistry of H.3 If my surmise will be
sustained, then the opening part of the frame, Exod. 19.1-2, must also
be H. Since this latter passage is an itinerary notice, the chances are
that all other itinerary notices in Exodus and Numbers stem from the
school of H. This conclusion would fit perfectly my general thesis that
H is a redaction, and (as indicated by this case) not only of but of
the epic tradition (JE) as well. In other words, the redaction of the
present Tetrateuch is mostly the work of H. (I say mostly because I
have yet to sort out the role of D in the redactional process.)
Moreover, the supposition that H, rather than P, incorporated the
Sinaitic pericope would accord with the Weltanschauung and goal of
H. It is H, after all, that gives primacy to ethics and social justice,
which, to judge by the structure of Leviticus 19, it bases on the
Decalogue. H, therefore, needs Sinai, and it therefore borrows the
Sinaitic pericope to get it.
Concerning the date of the redaction of the total priestly corpus, I
have already staked my claim that it is a product of the exile. 4
Yehezkel Kaufmann had already pointed to the tradition that the
Second Temple lacked the Ark, the Urim and Thummim, and the Oil
of Anointment. If the prescriptions for the Tabernacle were the pro
duct of the post-exilic period, one would be hard put to explain why
the priesthood, which had more powers than at any time in the preexilic period, did not institute these divinely commanded and cultically
indispensable sancta. If, however, someone would counter that the
Tabernacle prescriptions stem from (earlier) and not (later) H, I
would like to cite one of many pieces of evidence from H.
There exists not a single prohibition in (and in P) against
3.

Cf. Leviticus 1-16, pp. 39-42, for the examples of Lev. 11.43-44; 16.29-

31, and especially 21.17b-21; and for Exod. 24.15b-18, cf. . Janowski, Shne als
Heilsgeschehen (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), p. 304.
4. Leviticus, 1-16, p. 27.

MILGROM Response to Rolf Rendtorff

85

intermarriage. Its absence is particularly striking in H's laws of

forbidden unions, Leviticus 18 and 20. This lacuna must have been
very distressing indeed to the spiritual leadership of the post-exilic
period, when intermarriage became a major social and religious issue
(e.g. Ezra 9), so that Second Temple Judaism (cf. Jub. 23.3-11; Philo,
Spec. Leg. 3.29) and the rabbis had to concoct a forced interpretation
of the Molek prohibition (Lev. 18.21) as a ban against intermarriage.5
And because Deuteronomy limited the intermarriage ban to
Canaanites, Moabites and Ammonites (Deut. 7.3-4; 23.4-7) but not to
others (expressly exempting Egyptians and Edomites, Deut. 23.8-9),
Ezra himself had to compose his own halakhic midrash in order to
impose the ban on all peoples within Judah's ambience.6 Thus, I
submit, H is totally oblivious of the post-exilic age.
Lastly, a word on Ezekiel. In my discussion of Leviticus 26, I
intend to demonstrate that Ezekiel had all of and most of before
him, and, conversely, that there is not a single Priestly text that bears
the influence of Ezekiel.
I wish to thank Rolf Rendtorff. He and others have prodded me to
consider new questions and rethink my answer to old ones. Therefore,
I close with advice to younger colleagues. When you write a book,
stretch it out into two volumes, and publish them sequentially, not
simultaneously. You then have the opportunity in volume two to
renounce everything you write in volume one.

ABSTRACT
Tentatively, I hold that is the redactor not only of but also of the JE narrative in
the Tetrateuch. The school of H began in the Hezekian period and culminated in the
Babylonian exile. It is totally oblivious of the post-exilic age. These and other issues
will be discussed in the introduction to Leviticus 17-27, AB3a.

5. Cf. G. Vermes, 'Leviticus 18.21 in Ancient Jewish Bible Exegesis', in

J.S. Petuchowski and E. Fleisher (eds.), Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish
Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1981), pp. 108-24;
S.J.D. Cohen, 'From the Bible to the Talmud: The Prohibition of Intermarriage\
HAR 7 (1983), pp. 23-40.
6. Cf. J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience (Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 71-73.

^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.