The main problems that the text of Lev 10 confronts the modern interpreter with are not primarily compositional, but exegetical. There are two intractable problems. First, what precisely was the error in vv. 1–2 that led to Nadav and Avihu being consumed by divine fire? Edward Greenstein memorably described this incident as ‘a punishment in search of a crime’.[1] Secondly, why does Aaron’s enigmatic response in v. 19 mollify Moses and allow an irregular practice to be permitted? I don’t think I misrepresent scholarship when I say that we have not find a compelling solution to either problem. James Watts seeks to make a virtue out of our ignorance: “To explain exactly why Nadab and Abihu’s incense offering was wrong or exactly how Aaron reasoned regarding the eating of the sin offering would spoil the mystery of priestly service.”[2]
These two conundrums are not peripheral to the chapter, but lie right at its heart. In this panel, various proposals are made for how to understand the chapter’s compositional history. But what precisely is gained if none of the proposals make any progress on these challenging exegetical issues? I am not wishing to indict the entire literary-critical approach, but to remind us of its fundamental purposes: to help us make better sense of the text.
I am somewhat conscious that I have set myself up for a fall, not least because this panel is focussed upon the compositional and editorial history of the text. I shall sketch out what I believe are the crucial compositional judgements. These provide an account of Lev 10 that is distinctive, but I believe well-grounded. Most importantly, I believe that my account has the potential to shed light on these two exegetical puzzles, but I will only be able to say something rather brief about that.[3]
To set out my distinctive position, I want to begin with two important contributions to the analysis of Lev 10 that were published within a year of one another by Reinhard Achenbach and Christophe Nihan.[4] Whatever their minor differences, these two contributions come to similar conclusions. First, in contrast to previous analyses of Lev 10, they argue for the compositional unity of the chapter. Secondly, they abandon any attempt to find an earlier core to Lev 10 and see the chapter as one of the latest parts of the book. I concur with these judgements. Where I disagree is in my assessment of Lev 9. As I reflect on their arguments, I will present two alternative theses.
Thesis 1: Lev 9–10 are a compositional unity.
In his analysis, Achenbach argues for the unity of Lev 10, but only be separating it from Lev 9. Achenbach makes two points. First, he argues that the catastrophe of Nadab and Abihu’s offering is completely unexpected after the unprecedented approbation of the end of Lev 9 when fire came down from heaven and consumed the offerings. Secondly, Achenbach argues that whilst Lev 9 is written to the glory of God and the Aaronide priesthood, Lev 10 presents the shame and failure of the Aaronides. It can only have stemmed from another circle of tradition. In Achenbach’s analysis of Lev 10 the links to Ezek 44 indicates a common authorship by rival Zadokites.
Let us take each of these points in turn. Is the literary jolt so dramatic so as to require the presence of another author? Without further literary-critical arguments, such claims are no more than an aesthetic judgement that can hardly be judged compelling. Further, the story of Nadab and Abihu achieves its sobering literary effect precisely by contrasting their disobedience to what has proceeded. ‘Such as he had not commanded them’ succeeds because of the pattern ‘as Yhwh commanded them’ in the previous chapters. Achenbach’s second argument is a religio-historical one, and rests on an assessment of the purpose of these chapters. Following Elliger, Achenbach sees Lev 9 as a celebration of the Aaronides’ supremacy, whilst Lev 10 is a damning critique of the Aaronides stemming from a rival priestly sept.[5] James Watts has rightly questioned this anti-Aaronide interpretation pointing to Moses’ acceptance of Aaron’s arguments at the conclusion of the chapter.[6] They establish the priest’s authority over the interpretation of Mosaic Torah. In Nihan’s words they are ‘the founding legend of priestly exegesis’.[7] The annihilation of Nadab and Abihu points not to the diminishment of the Aaronide sept, or some families within it, but attests to the dangerous responsibilities entrusted to the priests. In my view, then, neither of Achenbach’s arguments are a sufficient basis to sever Lev 10 from Lev 9. Positively, we can mention the fact that both chapters are linked by the descent of fire from heaven (9.24; 10.1) and the discussion of sacrificial remains in 10.12–20 concerns the rituals that are performed in Leviticus 9.
Thesis 2: Lev 9 does not belong to the priestly Grundschrift
In contrast to Achenbach, Nihan is not so much concerned to show differences between Lev 9 and 10. Rather, he seeks to show that whilst Lev 10 is late, Lev 9 belongs to Pg. How does Nihan make that case? He argues that the instructions for the tabernacle which envisage a consecration of both tabernacle and altar by the glory of God (Exod 29.43–46) find their climax in both the theophany at the completion of the tabernacle’s construction (Exod 40.34–38) and the theophany at the completion of the priesthood’s consecration (Lev 9.22–24). Having argued that Lev 9.22–24 is part of Pg, Nihan addresses the different attempts since Klaus Koch to find at least two layers in Lev 9. Such attempts seek to isolate a supposedly original sacrifice for the community, but Nihan argues that an independent instruction to the Israelites cannot be extracted from vv. 3–4 and the descriptions of the sacrifices in vv. 15–21 clearly presuppose the sacrifices offered on behalf of the priesthood. The literary integrity of Lev 9 having been proven, Nihan turns to the various details in Lev 9 and argues that they require prior knowledge of the sacrificial instructions in Lev 1–7 and the ordination ceremony in Lev 8. As a result, ‘there is no reason to dispute the original character of the connection’.[8]
For its part, Nihan’s arguments depend to a significant degree on whether or not Lev 9.22–24 is part of the original priestly narrative. If it is not, his analysis shows only that Lev 9 is dependent on the preceding chapters, and not that Lev 8 and 9 are a compositional unity. Nihan’s argues that the promise in Exod 29.43–46, which is widely accepted as Pg, is only completely fulfilled with both theophanies in Exod 40.34–38 and Lev 9.22–24. First, Yhwh promises to consecrate tent and altar, but only the tent is mentioned in Exod 40.34–35. The altar experiences the revelation of the divine glory in Lev 9.24. Secondly, in Exod 40.34 Yhwh is veiled by the cloud, so it is only in Lev 9.24 that the people encounter Yhwh in his glory (Exod 29.43). Thirdly, Moses’ inability to enter the Tabernacle (Exod 40.35) is only explicitly lifted in Lev 9.23 when Moses and Aaron enter the Tabernacle together. How are we to assess such arguments? Viewed from the vantage of Lev 9.22–24, they appear fairly compelling. From that perspective, Lev 9.22–24 does appear to supply what Exod 40.34–38 is lacking. Nevertheless, if we simply examine Exod 40.34–35 together with 29.43–46, it is not obvious defective as a fulfilment. There is no reason to think that Yhwh’s theophany in the tent would not have been thought to have consecrated the tent itself and the altar in the court. Nor does it seem likely that the author of Exod 40.35 thought Yhwh’s appearance in a cloud meant that the Israelites had not encountered him in his glory. Nor is it convincing that any reader would have worried that the Tabernacle had become forever off limits by the theophany. Each of Nihan’s arguments takes what I find to be a rather wooden approach to the fulfilment of Exod 29.43–46.
There are, additionally, a number of arguments that can be made against attributing Lev 9 to Pg. The most important of these is, of course, the fact that the ritual on the eighth day to inaugurate the sacrificial cult is not anticipated anywhere in the previous chapters. But Christian Frevel has listed ten other arguments against attributing the chapter to Pg. These include the presupposition of the sacrificial legislation of Lev 1–7, the mediation of Moses’s commandments by Aaron, and the use of am and kol am. I will not rehearse these in detail, but the cumulative case is compelling.[9]
The Composition of Leviticus 9–10 and the Anomalies of the Ordination Ceremony
In this paper, then, I have argued very briefly that Leviticus 9–10 are to a large extent a literary unity. Since I agree with Achenbach and Nihan that Lev 10 shows a number of signs that it is a late text that presupposes the genealogy in Exodus 6 as well as the rebellion of Qorach in Numbers 16, I also hold that Leviticus 9–10 as a whole is a late insertion into the book of Leviticus. But why was this large-scale insertion felt to be necessary?
My answer is that the ordination of the priests as prescribed in Exodus 29, which I think was probably part of the priestly Grundschrift, has several ritual instructions that stand in considerable tension with ritual instructions that were incorporated into the developing priestly literature. To name but a few of the anomalies:
If Aaron’s sons have had the anointing oil sprinkled upon them (Lev 8.30) and wear vestments, are they also subject to the regulations for the priest exalted above his fellows (Lev 21)?
How does the hattat offered jointly for Aaron and his sons in Exod 29 relate to the regulations in Lev 4 that has instructions for the hattat of the anointed priest?
Can incense be offered by any of the descendants of Aaron (Num 16.40) or by Aaron alone (Exod 30.7–8)?
In Leviticus 8 the priestly ordination ceremony is repeated in almost identical fashion from Exodus 29 which brings a number of these anomalies into focus, especially after the instructions for sacrifice in Leviticus 1–7. Leviticus 9–10 sweeps up these anomalies and offers a narrative that seeks to resolve them. It does so by creating a ritual for the eighth day that, as Gordon Wenham noticed, draws upon the pattern of the ordination ceremony. Yet, it also draws upon the instructions for the Tamid offering from Exod 29.38–42, the account of the divine appearance in 29.43–46 and the instructions about the altar of incense in Ex 30.1–10. In every respect, the script for Leviticus 9–10 is provided for by Exodus 29–30 and it provides the narrative sequence of the new material in Leviticus. This is the reason, I think, why many scholars have intuited that Leviticus 9 has a close connection to Pg.
In every instance the narrative responds to these anomalies by choosing the stricter interpretation – or, in the later language of Pirke Avot, a fence is erected around the Torah. Thus, Aaron’s remaining sons are required to keep the stricter requirements of Lev 21 and not mourn their brothers because ‘the anointing oil is upon you’. On the question of who may offer incense, the stricter interpretation is again followed. In accordance with Exodus 30, only Aaron may offer the daily incense. The point is made quite clearly in Leviticus 10.1: The expression “the sons of Aaron” is foregrounded before their individual names “Nadav and Avihu”. Similarly, the verse does not conclude with the observation “that the Lord had not commanded”, but rather “that the Lord had not commanded them”. On the matter of the consumption of the hattat, there is an ambiguity with neither Exod 29 or Lev 4 having obvious precedence over the other. Both are commandments given by God. In this instance, and this instance alone, Moses is willing to permit Aaron some interpretive lenience (Lev 10.19–20).
Conclusion
In this brief essay I have tried to sketch out an interpretation of Lev 9–10 that sees these chapters as a coherent, late attempt to resolve several tensions that had arisen in the developing priestly literature. Earlier scholarship rightly recognized that many of these difficulties are apparent in the priestly ordination ritual for it presupposes just one altar, the altar of burnt offering. The instructions for the hattat in Lev 4 assume the existence of a further altar. A late priestly author inserted a completion account for the ordination ritual in Lev 8, and lest we overlook the problems created a novel ritual in Lev 9 that exposed these problems and sought to provide guidance on their resolution. In particular, this late priestly author resists any elimination of the differences between Aaron and his sons just because they have all been anointed with oil and insists that the high priest has certain responsibilities that his sons do not share.
[1] Edward L. Greenstein, “Deconstruction and Biblical Narrative,” Prooftexts 9 (1989): 56.
[2] James W. Watts, Ritual and Rhetoric in Leviticus: From Sacrifice to Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 117.
[3] For my attempt to do so which builds upon the observations made in this paper, see Nathan MacDonald, “Whose Ḥaṭṭāʾt? Aaron’s Enigmatic Response to Moses in Lev 10:19,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 133 (2021): 23–36.
[4] Reinhard Achenbach, “Das Versagen der Aaroniden: Erwägungen zum literarhistorischen Ort von Leviticus 10,” in “Basel und Bibel”: Collected Communications to the XVIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Basel 2001, ed. Matthias Augustin and Hermann Michael Niemann, Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums 51 (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2004), 55–70; Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus, Forschungen Zum Alten Testament II/25 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007).
[5] Karl Elliger, Leviticus, Handbuch Zum Alten Testament 1,4 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966).
[6] Watts, Ritual and Rhetoric, 97–129.
[7] Nihan, Priestly Torah, 602.
[8] Nihan, Priestly Torah, 122.
[9] Christian Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern: zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift, Herders biblische Studien 23 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2000).