Introduction: Nadab, Abihu, and concepts of Theocracy
The first invitation for this workshop settled both the topic: “theocracy”, and the text under discussion: Lev 10 with an emphasis on the first part of the chapter, the death of Nadab and Abihu. This suggests that there is a connection between Nadab’s and Abihu’s mishap with the incense offering and a concept or concepts of theocracy.
And indeed has recent scholarship attributed Lev 10 to a layer of redactional activities in the Pentateuch with a specific “theocratic” program. This idea has been most prominently introduced into the debate by Reinhard Achenbach in his groundbreaking study on the book of Numbers. The “theocratic” redaction’s ideological program understands God rather than a human king to be the supreme ruler of Israel.[1] God’s rule is executed by a class of priests respectively one priestly family that fulfills functions usually attributed to political leadership, such as jurisdiction, in addition to their cultic office. Most other texts attributed to this redactional layer are to be found in the Book of Numbers, and they are both ideologically and literarily connected with layers in the Books of Chronicles and in the last part of Ezekiel in Ezek 40–48, where a group of Zadokite priests is envisioned as theocratic priestly rulers.[2]
Based on this redaction-historical placement of Lev 10, two divergent interpretations of the chapter have been suggested in recent European research:
One could understand Nadab’s and Abihu’s death as a springboard to establish the rule of the remaining Aaronites who receive far-ranging competences in Lev 10:10-11. These competences would thus function, on the level of the narrative, as the initial impulse for the growing importance of Aaronites, namely Eleazar and Phinehas, who fulfill functions of cultic and political leadership alike in the Books of Numbers.[3]
Or one could, quite on the contrary, come to the conclusion that Nadab’s and Abihu’s mishandling of the incense offering disavows Aaronic claims to rule as divine representatives in such a theocratic social system – with a group of Zadokite priests possibly benefitting from this.[4]
Both opinions are based on the very same literary-critical argument, assuming that Lev 10 builds a unified synchronic whole. I will first address this issue, before putting forward an alternative suggestion.
Some thoughts on the literary integrity of Lev 10
Lev 10 can be clearly divided into four sections.
A – Nadab’s and Abihu’s Incense offering and its immediate aftermath (Vv. 1–7)
B – Competences, rights and obligations of the Aaronites (Vv. 8–11)
C – Consumption of the priestly parts of the previous offerings part I (Vv. 12–15)
D – Consumption of the priestly parts of the previous offerings part II (Vv. 16–20)
Most studies on Lev 10 rather fancy a concentric structure with 10:8-11 at the center and two corresponding parts each in the first and second half of the text.[5] This structure has been strengthened in the transmission history: see e.g. the variant of the LXX in v. 12 that emphasizes the parallel to v. 6 more than the MT does – and we cannot exclude that similar adaptations might have been applied to the Hebrew text as well. I do suggest a structure with four parts here to strengthen my point that Lev 10 is not lacking its heart and center without vv. 8-11 which are, according to my analysis, secondary (see below). The basic layer consisted of three parts that built a functioning unit by their common scope and narrative sequence, with parts C and D depending on A and pursuing the circumstances created by A’s narrative framework. Also, the events and cultic decisions reported in vv. 3-7 do react much more directly to Nadab’s and Abihu’s death than the following parts do. Vv. 1-7 thus build a strongly connected unit that does not need to be subdivided any further.
The first section (entitled “A”) in vv. 1–7 is the short narrative about Nadab’s and Abihu’s mishandling of the incense offering which causes their death and motivates some rules for the mourning rites of Aaron and his remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar. Unlike all the other Israelites, these three are not supposed to mourn their relatives, so that they do not die (v. 6a). This restriction includes their obligation to stay at the tent of meeting, so that they do not die (v. 7a), because the anointing oil is on them (v. 7a). In accordance with these rules, the corpses of Nadab and Abihu had been removed from the tent of meeting by distant relatives who were, other than Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar, allowed carrying them (vv. 4–5). The sudden death of Nadab and Abihu, the delicacy of removing the corpses and the emphasis on the potential death of other priests in the aftermath illustrate that the cult is a dangerous affair for those who carry it out and approach the God and his holy realm (cf. v. 3).
The second section (B) is a divine speech addressing Aaron alone in which YHWH instructs Aaron and his successors to avoid alcoholic beverages during their service, separate the holy and profane as well as the clean and unclean, and teach the Israelites all the statutes that YHWH has given them via Moses.
Sections C and D are closely connected to each other by references to Lev 9. Both sections tackle the question of what happened to the priestly portions of the offerings brought in Lev 9. Lev 9 has a terse, in parts elliptic way of describing the offerings (e.g. the sin offering of the community is simply said to have been offered “like the first one”, Lev 9:15, and the burnt offering is offered “according to the prescribed manner”, Lev 9:16). This elliptic way of narrative presentation especially leaves out the consumption of the priestly parts of the offerings for which Lev 1–7 gives precise guidelines. Section C fills this gap with regard to the grain offering and the well-being offering and in this applies rules from Lev 1-7 to Lev 9:17f.[6] The he-goat of the congregation’s sin offering dealt with in section D is a more complicated case. The problem of Lev 10:16-20 is well-known and, in its basic meaning, undisputed. A brief summary shall suffice here. This sacrifice had been briefly reported in Lev 9:15: it was offered “like the first one”, referring to the sin offering of the priests (Lev 9:8-11). Thus, both offerings were burnt completely, which was, in the case of the priests’ sin offering, in accordance with the regulations in Lev 6:17-23 but should not have happened to the sin offering of the people. The solution to this problem is presented as a discussion between Moses and Aaron. In a sophisticated twist, Aaron convinces Moses that the unusual situation created by the death of Nadab and Abihu justifies unusual decisions: eating the flesh of a sin offering would not have been appropriate in Aaron’s situation. Parts C and D both draw immensely upon the sacrificial torah of Lev 1-7 and apply its regulations to the Aaronites’ first offerings at the tent of meeting which were reported in Lev 9.
Most certainly, parts C and D presuppose part A. This is obvious when Moses speaks to “Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar, his remaining sons” (vv. 12; 16), as well as in Aaron’s argument for not eating the flesh of the sin offering: something terrible has “occurred” to him (v. 19) – obviously an allusion at the death of his sons. An additional commonality between parts A, C and D is their intertextual horizon: they all refer to laws from the book of Leviticus. I have already discussed the connections of parts C and D with Lev 1–7. The instructions of part A in vv. 6–7 refer to the catalogue of the mourning behavior of the high priest in Lev 21:10–12. The texts share a significant amount of details:
The remaining Aaronites shall, like the high priest in Lev 21, not dishevel their hair (ראשים + פרע אל/לא) or tear their clothes apart (בגדים + פרם לא). While ראשים + פרע אל/לא is attested in 5 other verses in the Hebrew Bible,[7] בגדים + פרם לא is an unusual formulation: it is, apart from the verses discussed here, only attested once more.[8] Usually, the verb קרע is used.[9] The commonality of the unusual formulation can be indicative to assume a literary connection between Lev 10:6f and Lev 21:10-12. This connection is corroborated by another similarity: the reason why the Aaronites are not supposed to leave the sanctuary in Lev 10:7. They are supposed to stay at their place of service because the anointing oil of YHWH is on them as it is the case for the high priest in Lev 21:12. This literary relationship can actually explain why Lev 10:7 claims that Eleazar and Ithamar have been anointed like their father, although according to Lev 8 they were not (cf. Lev 8:6-13).[10] The element has been simply taken over from Lev 21, which at the same time establishes the direction of dependence: Lev 10 draws upon Lev 21. The prohibition of mourning rites sets the high priest apart from his colleagues, the other priests, who may perform mourning rites if close family members die (thus according to the instructions in Lev 21:1-6). The standards for the high priest are in Lev 10 applied not only to Aaron, but also to Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s remaining sons, who are thus marked as Aaron’s legitimate successors.
The results of this very brief overview can be summarized as follows: Parts C and D, i.e. vv. 12–15 and 16–20 presuppose part A (Nadab’s and Abihu’s offering and its direct aftermath) and blend well into the narrative context: the regulations following after Nadab’s and Abihu’s death explicitly address Aaron and Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s remaining sons. Vv. 6f and 12–20 all apply and modify laws from the book of Leviticus – also in this respect the interplay of parts A, C and D builds a harmonious whole. This impression is strengthened by the corresponding dialogues of Aaron and Moses in vv. 3 and 19-20 that build an artful frame in parts A and D.[11]
Things are different for Lev 10:8–11 (entitled part “B” above). These verses are only very loosely connected with the rest of the chapter for the following reasons:
Other than parts A, C and D, where Moses interacts with the Aaronides, YHWH addresses Aaron directly in part B.
The laws introduced in part B are of great universality, very much unlike the concrete and situation-bound ad-hoc-instructions in vv. 6–7; 12–15 and 16–20.
Vv. 8–11 do not refer to laws from the book of Leviticus. They rather interact with material from Ezek 44, as will be discussed in more detail below.
Most strikingly, v. 10 touches the topic of cultic uncleanness with the obligation that Aaron and his sons are supposed to differentiate between the clean and the unclean. These categories play a remarkably little role in Lev 10, considering that the death of Nadab and Abihu during their incense offering should have defiled the sanctuary. The defilement of the sanctuary is not an issue in parts C and D were the consumption of the priestly parts in the compounds of the sanctuary (“in a holy place” v. 13 and “in a clean place”, v. 14) is not hindered by any cultic uncleanness. It even seems that the author or authors of parts A, C and D have been quite aware of this problem and blocked it out on purpose: in vv. 6-7, the regulation from Lev 21:10-12 is taken up and reused in almost every detail, except the issue of the defilement of the sanctuary:
Lev 10:7a, compared with 21:12, omits the subject of the desecration of the sanctuary in a kind of eloquent silence. One can get the impression that the authors tried not to draw the attention of their readers to the fact that after the incident in vv. 1–2, the sanctuary should be considered desecrated, as this is ignored in the further course of the chapter. Vv. 8-11, however, directly address the problem of cultic cleanness. The topic suddenly intrudes in a context in which it had been thoughtfully spared out in the first place.
For these reasons, I consider vv. 8–11 a secondary insertion in Lev 10. The basic layer can be found in vv. 1–7.12–20. A characteristic of this basic layer is its interest in cultic details and the priestly narratives and regulations from its immediate context, i.e. Lev 9, the sacrificial torah in Lev 1–7 and the Holiness Code. The problems addressed in parts A, C and D and the solutions provided are all presented as situation-bound decisions in the direct aftermath of the sacrificial procedure in Lev 9 and the death of Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10:1–2. The basic layer demonstrates what a delicate matter the cult is and what great competence and presence of mind the priests need so that they do not die.[12]
The relationship between Lev 10:8–11 and Ezek 44
The secondary vv. 8–11 widen the horizon of the chapter by attributing far-reaching competences to Aaron and his successors. They share significant similarities with Ezek 44:21-23, as has often been seen. Ezek 44 is the theological heart of Achenbach’s supposed “theocratic” texts stemming from a group of influential exilic priests.
The direction of dependence between the texts is still under discussion.[13] For my argument here, this question is of minor importance. I have argued that vv. 8–11 are a secondary layer in Lev 10.[14] Should they draw on Ezek 44, this would mean that specifically these secondary verses should be attributed to a “theocratic” or “pro-Zadokite” redaction, as Achenbach has suggested. The basic layer shows no signs of interaction with Ezek 44 whatsoever. Its interests are rather limited to its immediate pre-context in Lev 9.
A closer look at Lev 10:8–11 and Ezek 44 is still profitable when we ask for concepts of “theocracy” in Lev 10. I will restrict my comparison to Lev 10:10–11 and Ezek 44:23–24.
Both Lev 10:10 and Ezek 44:23 empower the priests to instruct the people in differentiating between the clean and the unclean and the holy and the profane. Lev 10:11, however, supplements this set of competences by also declaring the priests teachers of the torah. Ezek 44 knows a priestly office of jurisdiction instead (Ezek 44:24). The specific focus on the torah in Lev 10:10f is in accordance with the context of the law, with Lev 10 and the Book of Leviticus in general being interested in the cultic law. The Aaronites are in that context made teachers of the (cultic) torah (Lev 10:11).[15] The redactors who inserted the general law in Lev 10:8–11 were especially interested in the priests’ role of teaching the Israelites. On the other hand, they were, unlike the authors of Ezek 44, apparently not interested in the Aaronites juridical functions, which feature prominently in Ezek 44:24 but are lacking in Lev 10. However the literary relationship between Lev 10 and Ezek 44 may be determined, it can be said that the redactors who supplemented Lev 10 with a more general legislation for the Aaronites were apparently neither interested in the distinction of priests and Levites, nor did they take up the idea of a priestly jurisdiction. Instead, they adjusted the law to the topic of Lev 1-16 in general, i.e. the organization of the service of the priests at the tent of meeting and their being bound to the cultic torah. A similar contextual interest may have motivated the integration of the prohibition of drinking alcohol into Lev 10, as the main body of Lev 10 focusses on the priests’ consumption of certain parts of the sacrifices. I’d like to suggest that the prohibition of alcohol was included because it matched the topic of the priestly diet.
Excursus: The diachronic relationship of Lev 10 and Num 16
My results unto here suggest that the basic layer of Lev 10, which might still be one of the latest texts in the book of Leviticus,[16] is not as late as current scholarship has argued. This may be corroborated by looking at the diachronic relationship between Lev 10:1f and Num 16.
When Lev 10 is dated very late in current research, one decisive argument is that Lev 10 supposedly draws on (a late layer of) Num 16. Num 16 is a text with a complex redaction history. The main outline of these literary-critical solutions is subject of a certain scholarly consensus. The chapter consists of three layers: the story of Dathan and Abiram who stand up against Moses and are, consequently, sent to Sheol alive by God himself. The other coherent story is the episode about 250 laymen standing up against Moses and Aaron with the claim to participate in the cult (they say: "You have gone too far! All the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them. So why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?" [Num 16:3 NRSV]). The third is a redactional layer that inserts Korah the Levite in the text and makes him the leader of the 250. The uprise against Moses and Aaron thus becomes a revolt of the Levites and the controversy shifts from the question of the cultic participation of laymen to a conflict of priests and Levites – a conflict that is an ideological marker of texts attributed to the “theocratic revisions” as suggested by Reinhard Achenbach.
Lev 10:1-2 shares a striking amount of ideas and phrases with the story about the 250 laymen, as the following table indicates.
The similarities are so close that literary dependence of one text on the other seems the only plausible explanation. Only which text is the receiving one? The direction of influence between Num 16 and Lev 10 is decisive for the question whether Lev 10 can be part of the supposed “theocratic revision”, or not. In recent scholarship, there have been prominent and influential supporters of the theory that Lev 10 is the younger text that draws on the 250-laymen-episode of Num 16 and belongs on the same redactional level as the Korah-redaction.[17] I’d like to challenge that view with the following arguments that do in my opinion rather suggest that Lev 10 has the older version of the story which is taken up and modified in Num 16 by the author/redactor who wrote the part about the 250 laymen. The Korah-redaction of Num 16 dates even later. My arguments are the following:
1. Lev 10 does not need the story of Num 16 as a background to make sense. Rather, the incense offering and death of Nadab and Abihu can be understood perfectly well from its references to Lev 9.[18] The story even offers a brilliant twist of details in light of its direct pre-context. The miraculous, positive fire from Lev 9:23 does in Lev 10:2 suddenly turn out to be dangerous in a life-threatening way. This is especially clear from the parallel formulation of Lev 9:24 and 10:2 (…ותאכל יהוה מלפני אש ותצא). The punishment for Nadab and Abihu is clearly modelled on and is deeply meaningful in front of its direct pre-context. YHWH's closeness is experienced as salvific but at the same time dangerous. Like Lev 9:23-24, Lev 10:3 also takes up the programmatic word Ex 29:43-46 (see below) - also here Lev 10,1-5 stands completely within the theological and literary horizon of Lev 9 and its co-texts.
Those scholars who do, on the contrary, explain Lev 10 in light of Num 16 suggest that Lev 10 anticipates the rebellion of the 250 and Korah (thus, Num 16 in its latest version) by means of the genealogic relationships in Lev 10:4-5.[19] The fact that Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Aaron’s youngest uncle Uzziel rather than Korah, Nepheg and Zichri, the sons of Aaron’s eldest uncle Izhar carry away the mortal remains of Nadab and Abihu is supposed to be a subtle hint at Korah’s inglorious role in Num 16. This reasoning is based on Ex 6:14-25, a late insertion in the Exodus story that provides the genealogical background for Lev 10 (see table below).[20]
The explanatory power of this explanation must, however, be questioned. Should Izhar’s “entire line” really be “disqualified“ because of Korah?[21] At least in the case of Nadab’s and Abihu’s misstep, their failure does not disqualify their father’s line, as the rest of Lev 10 makes clear. Why should this be different for Izhar? His two other sons after Korah (Nepheg and Zichri) would thus be proper candidates for carrying away the dead bodies. I’d rather suggest that there is a positive reason for the choice of Mishael and Elzaphan: Elzaphan is, according to Num 3:30, head of the Kohathites who carry the most holy interior of the tent of meeting (cf. Num 3:31). As the bodies of Nadab and Abihu had to be taken out of the holy realm, he was the most proper candidate.[22] This important cultic function of Elzaphan might have been familiar to the authors of Lev 10 as traditional genealogical knowledge similar to or congruent with (an older version of?) Num 3. This positive explanation for the choice of Elzaphan and his brother might outweigh the possible negative explanation for why Korah was not chosen. One could, additionally, doubtfully ask which narrative goal the assumed anticipation of Num 16 in Lev 10, established by an eloquent silence regarding Korah, should fulfill, anyway. The opposite is the case: The episode of the 250 laymen in Num 16 is a later reminiscence of a previously reported event, in that the laymen do something that was clearly wrong before: the “test” that Moses proposes to the 250 men (see below) is analogous to the incense offering of Nadab and Abihu. Even before the ritual starts, the allusion on Lev 10 indicates to the recipients that the laymen will fail, for they are even less authorized as Nadab and Abihu were to perform the incense offering – which is a prerogative of the high priest. Consequently, their attempt fails, just as the two sons of Aaron failed before. By agreeing to the contest with Aaron, the laymen are portrayed as not only hubristic, but also ignorant.
2. In accordance with this theory (i.e. Num 16 takes up Lev 10), it becomes clear why the punishment for the 250 laymen seems a bit random and does, unlike in Lev 10, not result logically from the offense (in Lev 10 the bearers of the strange fire are killed by divine fire). Num 16 takes over the fire penalty, but not the motive of the alien fire. The fact that the 250 men are also burned by fire does not result from narrative internal connections as in Lev 10, but from the adaptation of the motive from the older story in Lev 10. Num 16 takes up the idea of the punishment by divine fire, but not the offence, which is the offering of “strange fire”.
At the same time, the motif has been developed in Num 16: it is now stylized as a competition of Aaron and the 250 laymen. The short episode as told in Lev 10:1f is enriched with additional elements and thus becomes a complex story with a dramaturgic build-up. Similar to this dramaturgic build-up, Num 16 also shows a theological development vis-à-vis Lev 10. Both stories have a direct speech in which Moses gives a theological reasoning about the possibility of humans to approach God:
Lev 10:3 Then Moses said to Aaron, "This is what the LORD meant when he said, 'Through those who are near me (בקרבי) I will show myself holy (אקדש), and before all the people I will be glorified (אכבד).'" And Aaron was silent. (NRSV)
Num 16:5 Then he said to Korah and all his company, "In the morning the LORD will make known who is his, and who is holy (ואת־הקדוש), and who will be allowed to approach him (אליו והקריב); the one whom he will choose he will allow to approach (יקריב) him. (NRSV)
Both verses reflect on the terms “to come near” (קרב) and „to be/make holy“ (קדש). Lev 10:3 clearly reflects on Ex 29:43-46, as is well-established in current research,[23] and spells out how this promise is a salvific and at the same time dangerous affair – at least for the priests, who are those who come nearest. Lev 10:3 does not go beyond the scope of the priestly myth of origins and does not show any signs that the Aaronic prerogative of approaching the deity might be questioned. The very idea that laymen could play a different role in worship than, for example, falling down rejoicing in the presence of YHWH (Lev 9:24) or providing offerings (Lev 9:3f) is foreign to Lev 10.
Num 16:5, on the contrary, reflects a situation in which unresolved conflicts between the priests and the laity make it necessary to justify the priests’ prerogatives by means of theological reasoning. This is staged with the theologically astute question of the laymen, why despite the holiness of the whole congregation there should still be a difference between laity and cultic personal (Num 16:3). The answer is as short as unquestionable: It is because they are elected by YHWH himself that the Aaronides may come near to him. Num 16:5 goes beyond Lev 10:3 in that it also gives the reason for the difference in status.
3. The third argument is simply a counterargument to an argument brought forth by Reinhard Achenbach: Lev 10 would reflect a historically later form of the incense rite than Num 16. This opinion rests solely on the formulation “strange fire” (זרה אש) in Lev 10:1 and is far from evident. In Achenbach’s view, Lev 10:3 shows how Israel adapted zoroastric fire rites in a “receptive-subversive” way[24], witnessing a growing impact of fire and incense rites in the cult, but at the same time trying to limit these activities to the official YHWH-cult. While Num 16 only rejects laymen who offer incense, Lev 10 does in Achenbach’s view go further by questioning the ritual as such. It is at least doubtful that this historical reconstruction, resting mainly on the single term “strange fire” (זרה אש) is the key to the passages. It rather seems that both texts deal with the problem who is authorized to burn incense – Nadab and Abihu and the laymen are not allowed, Aaron in his function as the high priest is allowed, as becomes clear in the close context of both stories in Lev 16:12f and Num 17.
Based on these arguments, I suggest a diachronic model in which Lev 10 has the older story which is taken up and modified by Num 16 already on the level of the 250-laymen-narrative. This result matches the diachronic layering of Lev 10 suggested above: only on the level of the secondary verses 8-11 does Lev 10 show a close relation to a “theocratic” (in Achenbach’s sense) text, i.e. Ezek 44.[25]
Conclusions: Theocracy in Lev 10?
The evidence discussed above supposes that the basic layer of Lev 10 does not refer to the “theocratic” text Ezek 44. In terms of stratigraphy, the basic layer of Lev 10 pre-dates this programmatic “theocratic” text. In terms of content, one might still ask whether the scope of the basic layer of Lev 10 is theocratic. First of all, the story about Nadab and Abihu, and the ad-hoc-instructions in the aftermath of their death and concerning the offerings of Lev 9 all stay within the thematic and rhetoric scope of the priestly narratives and laws in Exodus-Leviticus. The priestly narrative envisions Israel as living as a kingless nation with the tent of meeting at the center of their camp and the cult at the heart of their daily lives (including a strong and competent priestly family at the side of their charismatic leader, Moses). If this idea can be called theocratic, then Lev 10 is certainly as theocratic as the texts it pre-supposes and supplements. The story strengthens Aaron’s position by showing him as a competent interpreter of the cultic law, who at times even knows better than Moses. Also, it illustrates the great awe and danger that YHWH’s living in Israel’s midst can cause and stresses the importance of a minute application of cultic laws for the sake of the well-being of the whole community (cf. v. 6!). These implications of the story might be called “theocratic”, as priestly theology has, as a whole, strong theocratic implications.
If the reception of Ezek 44 alone makes a redactional hand “theocratic”, this label might be applied to Lev 10:8-11, and to these secondary verses alone. The decisive question is: even if this direction of reception is correct, does this detour justify labeling Lev 10 in its extended form a text with a “theocratic” program? Vv. 10f do definitively attribute to the priests wide-ranging competences in making them teachers for all Israelites. On the other hand, their sphere of influence is clearly defined as the cultic realm – they are teachers of the torah, not judges as in Ezek 44:24. The priests’ competence of interpreting the torah is an issue that had been present already on the basic layer of Lev 10, with Aaron amending the rules for the consumption of the sin offering in an ad-hoc-decision in Lev 10:16-20. By inserting a general divine law that instructs the Aaronites to teach the Israelites the torah, this practice is established as a general rule.[26] Lev 10:10f is, thus, a narrower identification of the Aaronites’ responsibilities than the law in Ezek 44, as it leaves out their task of jurisdiction, but at the same time wider, as it makes the Aaronites teachers of the cultic law in general, going beyond the differentiation of clean/unclean and holy/profane.
I would thus conclude that the supplemented version of Lev 10 is “theocratic” in the same way as the basic layer might be called “theocratic”: The text strengthens the priestly family’s important role in Israel’s daily life and in keeping Israel’s relationship with their God in good order. This concept of theocracy is very close to the theocracy as it is imagined in other priestly texts, especially Lev 1-9 that build the immediate pre-context of Lev 10.
Literature cited in this paper
Achenbach, Reinhard. "Levitische Priester und Leviten im Deuteronomium. Überlegungen zur sog. „Levitisierung“ des Priestertums." ZAR, no. 5 (1999): 285–309.
Achenbach, Reinhard. "Das Versagen der Aaroniden. Erwägungen zum literarhistorischen Ort von Leviticus 10," Pages 55–70 in „Basel und Bibel“. Collected communications to the XVIIth congress of the International Organization for the study of the Old Testament, Basel 2001. Edited by M. Augustin and H.M. Niemann. Vol. 51 of BEAT. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang, 2004.
Achenbach, Reinhard, Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch. BZAR 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003.
Anderson, Gary A. „Through those who are near to me, I will show myself holy“: Nadab and Abihu and Apopathic Theology, CBQ, no. 77 (2015): 1–19.
Berner, Christoph. "Vom Aufstand Datans und Abirams zum Aufbegehren der 250 Männer. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Anfängen der literarischen Genese von Num 16–17." BN, no. 150 (2011): 9–33.
Bibb, Bryan D., Ritual Words and Narrative Worlds in the Book of Leviticus. LHB/OTS 480. New York: T&T Clark 2009.
Frevel, Christian. "Kein Ende in Sicht? Zur Priestergrundschrift im Buch Levitikus," Pages 85–123 in Levitkus als Buch. Edited by H.-J. Fabry. Vol. 119 of BBB. Berlin/Bodenheim, 1999.
Frevel, Christian. "„Und Mose hörte (es), und es war gut in seinen Augen" (Lev 10,20). Zum Verhältnis von Literargeschichte, Theologiegeschichte und innerbiblischer Auslegung am Beispiel von Lev 10," Pages 104–136 in Gottes Name(n). Zum Gedenken an Erich Zenger. Edited by Ilse Müllner, Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger, and Ruth Scoralick. Vol. 71 of Herders Biblische Studien. Freiburg/Basel/Wien, 2012.
Jonker, Louis. "Melting Pots and Rejoinders? The Interplay among Literature Formation Processes during the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods." VT, no. 70 (2020): 42–54.
Jürgens, Benedikt, Heiligkeit und Versöhnung. Levitikus 16 in seinem literarischen Kontext. HBS. Freiburg/Basel: Herder, 2001.
MacDonald, Nathan, Priestly Rule. Polemic and Biblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44. BZAW 476. Berlin/Boston, 2015.
Milgrom, Jacob, Leviticus 1–16. AncB. New York u.a.: Doubleday, 1991.
Nihan, Christophe, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus. FAT II 25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
Nihan, Christophe, Narrative and Exegesis in Leviticus: On Lv 10 and 24,10–23, Pages 207–242 in Schriftgelehrte Fortschreibungs- und Auslegungsprozesse in Texten aus Mesopotamien, Ägypten und der Levante. Edited by Bührer, Walter, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2019.
Röhrig, Meike J., Innerbiblische Auslegung und priesterliche Fortschreibungen in Lev 8–10. FAT II 128. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021.
Staubli, Thomas, Die Bücher Levitikus und Numeri. NSK.AT. Stuttgart: Kath. BW, 1996.
[1] For this particular view, cf. Achenbach, Vollendung: 130-140.
[2] Cf. Achenbach, Vollendung and the recent brief sketch of Jonker, Melting Pots.
[3] Cf. Nihan, Priestly Torah, 576-607, esp. 606f.
[4] Thus Achenbach, Vollendung, 93-110 and idem, Versagen.
[5] Cf. e.g. Staubli, Levitikus und Numeri, 85; Nihan, Priestly Torah, 579.
[6] For details on this, cf. Röhrig, Auslegung, 188–192.
[7] Lev 13,45; Num 5,18; 6,5; Dtn 32,42; Ezek 44,20.
[8] In Lev 13:45.
[9] Gen 37,29; Num 14,6; Ri 11,35; 2Sam 1,2.11; 3,31 u.ö.
[10] Only their garments have been anointed (Lev 8:30).
[11] Cf. especially the detailed analysis of Frevel, Mose.
[12] Cf. e.g. Nihan, Priestly Torah, 586; Bibb, Ritual Words, 112; Jürgens, Heiligkeit, 283; Anderson, „Through those who are near to me…“, 15f.
[13] While Achenbach and Nihan both opted for a model in which Lev 10 draws on Ezek 44, MacDonald, Priestly Rule, has recently suggested to interpret Ezek 44 as a very late text that blends together material from several chapters of the Torah, including Num 18 and Lev 10.
[14] Cf. Röhrig, Auslegung.
[15] Similar MacDonald, Priestly Rule, 79.
[16] In terms of relative stratigraphy, I do basically concord with Nihan, Priestly Torah in considering Lev 10 one of the latest elements in the Book of Leviticus, cf. Nihan, Narrative; Röhrig, Auslegung, 228–232. The references on Lev 1–7 and Lev 21 discussed above illustrate this.
[17] Cf. especially Achenbach, Versagen and Nihan, Priestly Torah, 603.
[18] Similar: Berner, Aufstand, 23 with footnote 44.
[19] Cf. Nihan, Priestly Torah, 584f.
[20] Cf. e.g. Milgrom, Leviticus, 604, for this line of argumentation. Milgrom explains the choice of Mishael and Elzaphan with Korah’s bad reputation: “Yizhar’s eldest was Korah (Exod 6:21); hence, his entire line was disqualified (see Num 16). Hebron’s children, by contrast, are unknown (1 Chr 23:19 lists Hebron’s descendants, not his sons; cf. 1 Chr 26:30-31 […]). Uzziel alone remains, whose two oldest sons were chosen as the closest Levite relatives to Nadab and Abihu. Thus the choice of Uzziel’s sons may simply rest on the implications of genealogy, an artificial construct rather than a reflection of historic causes” (ibid). Milgrom’s argument does, however, not imply any diachronic relations between the texts. As much as he probably does not suppose 1 Chr 23 to be the older source for the genealogical information on Hebron does the reference to Num 16 imply the dependency of Lev 10 on this piece. He rather seems to imagine traditional, common knowledge of Korah’s bad reputation, as it is the case with the purely literary construct of genealogy in Ex 6:14-25 and 1 Chr 23.
[21] Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus, 604, citations ibid.
[22] Thus also Jürgens, Heiligkeit, 286.
[23] Cf. Achenbach, Vollendung, 101f; Frevel, Ende, 95; Nihan, Priestly Torah, 587.
[24] Achenbach, Versagen, 61.
[25] The fact that Achenbach declares Lev 10 to be a synchronic literary unit (unlike Achenbach, Levitische Priester [1999]!) is thoroughly enigmatic for my understanding. In his model, Num 16 and Lev 10 have a quite contrary scope: While Num 16 in its final form supposedly legitimates Zadokide claims to the priesthood in the torah by strengthening Aaron as the High Priest per se (cf. Num 17:1–5.6–10.16–26, verses that supposedly belong to the “theocratic revision” of Num 16f! cf. Achenbach, Vollendung, 66-82.124-129), Lev 10 supposedly disavows the same Aaronites by “hitting the intention of Lev 9 in the face” (Achenbach, Versagen, 55, translation MJR). It is enigmatic to me how the attribution of both textual units to the same editorial hand is possible. If the story of Nadab and Abihu is understood to have an anti-Aaronic tendency and if at the same time Lev 10:8-11 is understood to belong to the layer of “theocratic revisions”, this should only be possible with the literary-critical separation of Lev 10:1-7.12-20 and Lev 10:8-11.
[26] Cf. Nihan, Priestly Torah, and Frevel, Mose.