A response to Meike J. Röhrig’s “A Pair of Pyromaniacs”
https://www.ancientjewreview.com/read/2022/2/2/a-pair-of-pyromaniacs
I wish to begin this response by thanking Meike Röhrig for her careful and thorough analysis of Lev 10, and by saying that there is much with which I can agree in this analysis. In particular, I welcome her concern for a differentiated analysis of the formation of the “priestly” texts in Leviticus, and the place of Lev 10 in that process. I definitely concur with her view that Lev 10 is a relatively late text within the book of Leviticus, which intersects not only with Lev 1-9 but also with the Holiness legislation in Lev 17-26. I also concur with several aspects of her evaluation of the intertextuality of Lev 10, such as especially the view that Lev 10:8-11 is later, and not earlier, than Ezek 44.[1] Finally, I appreciate her nuanced approach to the issue of the relevance of the term “theocracy” in relation to Lev 10. In the following response, I would like to do two things in particular: firstly, I wish to briefly return to some aspects of her analysis of Lev 10 which I find somewhat less compelling, especially as regards the issue of the composition of the chapter as well as the relationship to Num 16; and secondly, I would like to take this opportunity to make some comments on the thorny issue raised by the concept of “theocracy,” including the relevance and limits of this concept.
A. The Composition of Leviticus 10 and Its Relationship to Numbers
Pursuing the argument she already developed in her recently published monograph,[2] Meike Röhrig argues that Lev 10 is not of one piece, and that v. 8-11 are a later addition to the whole. This may seem a relatively minor point, but it has in fact some substantial implications. V. 8-11 is the only section within Lev 10 where Yhwh speaks directly to one of the protagonists; in the other sections comprising the chapter, only reported speeches by Yhwh to Moses are mentioned (v. 3 and v. 15). Furthermore, the direct speech by Yhwh in v. 8-11 is not addressed to Moses, as one would expect, but to Aaron, and consists of further instructions establishing the role of Aaron and his remaining sons. As a result, the tendency to highlight the cultic role of Aaron and the Aaronite priests in general is much more obvious in v. 8-11 as in the remainder of the chapter, with the possible exception of v. 19-20.
Does this mean that v. 8-11 are later than the rest of Lev 10? This is indeed an intriguing possibility, which I had not sufficiently considered in my own previous work on this chapter.[3] Meike Röhrig is certainly right, at any rate, that v. 8-11 go somehow beyond their present narrative context, and that it is the only unit within chap. 10 which has a close parallel outside of Leviticus, namely, in Ezek 44. On the other hand, the attempt to separate v. 8-11 from the rest of the narrative may actually raise more issues than it solves. One observation supporting the idea that v. 8-11 are integral to the rest of chap. 10 concerns the difference that can be observed between v. 6-7 on the one hand, and v. 12-15 on the other. As many scholars have observed, v. 6-7 and 12-15 are paralleled by the fact that both units open with a speech by Moses to Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar. In passing, this observation supports a structuring of Lev 10 into five units, with v. 8-11 at their center, corresponding to the following pattern: A v. 1-5, B v. 6-7, X v. 8-11, B’ v. 12-15, A’ v. 16-20.[4] Yet, although this point has seldom been noted, there is one striking difference between the two introduction formulae in v. 6 and 12, as the following comparison shows:
Apart from the fact that the formulation of the speech introduction is slightly different (wayy’omer-X in v. 6, wayĕdabbēr-X in v. 12), the main difference resides in the fact that v. 12 adds the specification הנותרים after בניו, namely, “his remaining sons.” Furthermore, this characterization of Eleazar and Ithamar is continued in the last unit of chap. 10, v. 16-20, where the two priests are likewise described as Aaron’s “remaining” sons (again with הנותרים, v. 16). This characterization thus sets apart the last two units, v. 12-15 and 16-20, from v. 6-7, and suggests that some sort of narrative development must take place in-between. This narrative development effectively corresponds to what we find in v. 8-11, where not only Aaron but his sons with him are confirmed in their priestly office despite the death of Nadab and Abihu (see v. 9: אתה ובניך אתך, “you and your sons with you”). Without v. 8-11, the sudden introduction of the phrase הנותרים in the second part of chap. 10 remains unaccounted for. This observation, in turn, supports the view that v. 8-11 are integral to the composition of Lev 10, and not a later addition to it.
This finding, in turn, invites us to revisit briefly the question of the topical relationship between v. 8-11 and the rest of the chapter. For a good part, Meike Röhrig’s argument relies on the notion that these verses would be only “loosely” connected to their narrative context, yet this is questionable. The account of the death of Nadab and Abihu in v. 1-2 introduces a key legal-ritual issue: by offering a “profane fire” (אש זרה), which Yhwh “did not ordain” (אשר לא צוה אתם, Lev 10:1b), the two priests have transgressed the cultic laws on sacrifice and thereby desecrated the sanctuary. If we accept the view that the phrase אשר לא צוה אתם in v. 1bβ refers primarily, albeit not necessarily exclusively, to the previous legislation in Lev 1-9,[5] then the issue raised by the narrative here serves to point to a close connection between the traditional role of priests, such as especially the upholding of sanctity, and the observance of the Mosaic laws. However, the implications of this legal-ritual point are not addressed in v. 1-7, which deal with the immediate aftermath of the death of Nadab and Abihu, but only later, in v. 8-11. As it has been often observed, the reference in v. 10 to the separation between sacred and profane, clean and unclean takes up the traditional role ascribed to the priests elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible,[6] and presumably in ancient Israel more broadly, but extends it then in v. 11 to the teaching of all Mosaic laws. Effectively, this means that in order to be able perform their basic tasks, such as the separation between sacred and profane, clean and unclean, priests must simultaneously be able interpreters of the Mosaic laws.
In this regard, Meike Röhrig is correct that v. 8-11 are somehow related to the issue of the pollution caused by Nadab and Abihu—which, in passing, appears to somehow contradict her own view that v. 8-11 are only “loosely” connected to their immediate narrative context. However, this connection arguably operates differently from what she thinks. V. 8-11 are not meant to address the problem of the pollution caused by the death of Nadab and Abihu. This issue is nowhere mentioned in these verses, and it will in fact be taken up only later, in Lev 16:1.[7] Rather, the point of v. 8-11 is that Aaron and his remaining sons may avoid the fate of Nadab and Abihu, as the formulation of the end of v. 9a (ולא תמתו) makes clear. At the same time, the formulation of v. 10b simultaneously points to the following collection of rules about impurity in Lev 11-15, where Aaron plays a prominent role since in several laws (11:1; 13:1-2; 14:33; 15:1) he is mentioned alongside Moses as the addressee of the divine instruction. The connection between Lev 10:8-11 and chap. 11-15 is made explicit by the fact that v. 10 uses the construction בין הטמא ובין הטהור (“between unclean and clean”) which is otherwise found in the book of Leviticus exclusively in Lev 11:47, namely, the subscription to the law on animal impurity following immediately after Lev 10. In this way, Aaron’s competence to separate between clean and unclean (Lev 10:10) in keeping with the Mosaic laws (10:11) is—at least form the viewpoint of the final edition of Leviticus—concretely illustrated by the following chapters in Lev 11-15.
***
For Meike Röhrig, the notion that v. 8-11 are a later addition to Lev 10 is important, because it is part of a larger argument according to which the first version of this chapter (without v. 8-11) would be earlier than the late priestly texts in the book of Numbers which my colleague and friend Reinhard Achenbach assigns to his “theocratic” layer in this book.[8] Specifically, Röhrig argues, Lev 10 would be earlier than the parallel account of the death of the 250 men offering incense in Num 16 (especially Num 16:18 and 35).[9] In my view, despite the fine discussion offered by Röhrig, this solution is not entirely satisfactory yet.
As Röhrig herself acknowledges, the story of Lev 10 appears to presume the Levitical genealogy in Exod 6:14-27, a text in which scholars have since long recognized a late addition to the book of Exodus.[10] As it has often been observed, the genealogy has been construed so as to introduce all the key figures mentioned in Numbers: in the case of Kohath, Levi’s grandson, the genealogy is thus continued down to the fifth generation of Levi’s descendants in order to introduce not only Aaron and his sons (and even his grandson Phinehas), but also Aaron’s cousins: the sons of Uzziel—Mishael, Elzaphan and Sithri—as well as the sons of Izhar—Korah, Nepheg and Zikri. The connection between Lev 10 and the genealogy of Exod 6 is especially apparent in v. 4, which mentions Aaron’s cousins Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of his uncle Uzziel. Elzaphan is mentioned once again (as Elizaphan) in the very late passage of Num 3:30-31, where he is said to be responsible for the objects located inside the sanctuary, such as the ark, the golden table, the menorah, and so on (Num 3:31). If we accept the view that Nadab and Abihu were trying to approach Yhwh inside the sanctuary with their offering of incense on a censer, like Aaron does in Lev 16 (see 16:12-13), this may explain why Mishael and Elzaphan were specifically chosen to carry the bodies of the two priests away from the sanctuary, as Röhrig correctly observes. Röhrig herself appears to accept the notion of a connection between Lev 10 and Num 3,[11] which would actually place Lev 10 together with some of the priestly texts which arguably belong to the latest layers in Numbers.[12] On the other hand, there is no indication that the story of the 250 men in Num 16 presupposes the genealogy of Exod 6. The portion of Num 16 about the Levite Korah presumably intersects with the genealogy of Exod 6. But as it has long been recognized— in fact, since Abraham Kuenen—the figure of Korah belongs to the latest layer of the account, whereas the story of the 250 men belongs to an earlier layer within Num 16.[13] Whether this layer is pre- or post-priestly is a debated issue, but at any rate it does not appear to make use of the genealogy of Exod 6.
At this point, it is probably fair to acknowledge that matters of relative chronology and literary stratigraphy are always complex, and may easily go out of hand. The debate about the relationship between Lev 10 and Num 16 is arguably not closed, and would require a longer discussion than is possible here. However, my point here is much more simple, and can be summarized with two brief comments. Firstly, Meike Röhrig’s argument that Lev 10 would be earlier than the late priestly texts of Numbers is not consistent with the literary connections that she rightly observes herself, in particular with the genealogy of Exod 6 and the list of the Levitical tribes in Num 3. Secondly, however one may construe the relative chronology of priestly layers in Leviticus and Numbers—and I do appreciate the fact that this discussion unfolds somewhat differently in various academic cultures—the point remains that the references to the genealogy of Exodus 6 set apart Lev 10 from the rest of Leviticus, and bring this chapter much more in proximity with the portions of Numbers classically assigned to the “priestly” layer within that book. In no other text of Leviticus are the names of Aaron’s sons mentioned, not to speak of other, more distant family members belonging to Levi’s tribe. Again, I am aware that there are many possible ways to construe this observation. What the observation does not support, however, is the view that the compositional horizon of Lev 10, of even a first version thereof, did not already include the priestly texts of Numbers.
To conclude the discussion so far: that the unit comprising v. 8-11 is a later addition is possible in principle, but rather unlikely on close examination. That Lev 10 would substantially pre-date the late priestly layers in Numbers is problematic in my opinion: the connections between Lev 10 and these priestly texts in Numbers are arguably more intricate than Meike Röhrig acknowledges, and the reconstruction of version of Lev 10 that would not already interact with the priestly texts of Numbers does not appear to be possible.
B. Leviticus 10 and “Theocracy”
This conclusion brings me to my last point, which is also the most interesting: to what extent is it legitimate to label some of the priestly texts as “theocratic”? And to what extent does such a label apply to Lev 10 in particular? As I already mentioned, I very much agree with Meike Röhrig that this terminology needs to be used with caution.
As far as we can tell, the term “theocracy” (θεοκρατία) was introduced by Flavius Josephus in his Against Apion (Contra Apionem), from ca. 93 CE.[14] What Josephus exactly means by this term is a little more complex than is often assumed. Josephus begins by defining “theocracy” as a form of government (πολίτευμα) which places “all sovereignty and authority in the hands of God” (θεῳ τὲν ἀρχὴν καὶ τὸ κράτος ἀναθείς; see C. Ap. 2.165). Later, Josephus explains that the ideal form of government is one in which the deity governing the world entrusts to the priests the management of the “most important matters.”
ἆρά γε τὴν ὅλην κατάστασιν τοῦ πολιτεύματος; καὶ τίς ἂν καλλίων ἢ δικαιοτέρα γένοιτο τῆς θεὸν μὲν ἡγεμόνα τῶν ὅλων πεποιημένης, τοῖς ἱερεῦσι δὲ κοινῇ μὲν τὰ μέγιστα διοικεῖν ἐπιτρεπούσης, τῷ δὲ πάντων ἀρχιερεῖ πάλιν αὖ πεπιστευκυίας τὴν τῶν ἄλλων ἱερέων ἡγεμονίαν;
[…] What about the whole structure of the constitution? What could be finer or more just than (a structure) that has made God governor of the universe, that commits to the priests in concert the management of the most important matters, and, in turn, has entrusted to the high priest all the governance of the other priests? (C. Ap. 2.184-185).
Although Josephus is careful to distinguish “divine government” and “priestly management,” as John M.G. Barclay rightly points out[15], the formulation makes clear nonetheless that in Josephus’ view priests are the representatives—or, better, the human agents—par excellence of this divine government. Thus, despite occasional claims to the contrary, the classical view that in the second book of Against Apion the term “theocracy” refers to a form of polity ruled by priests, with the high priest at their head, remains arguably correct.
Another issue is whether, and to what extent, this understanding of “theocracy” may be helpfully applied to the priestly texts of the Pentateuch. As John Barclay and others have emphasized, Josephus’ concept of theocracy is primarily a way to highlight the distinct nature of the Jewish polity in a Greek-Roman context; it may actually be anachronistic to reproject it onto texts composed in a different, and earlier, historical context. A first point that needs to be clarified is that there never was a theocracy, at least in Josephus’ sense, in the province of Judea—or of Samaria for that matter—in the pre-Hasmonean period.[16] In the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, Judea was ruled by a governor appointed by the Persian administration; we may have some indications in the fourth century for the growing role of the high priest of Jerusalem in the local administration, but never to the point of rivaling or even replacing the governor. Things changed somewhat toward the end of the fourth century, following the disappearance of the office of governor in connection with Ptolemy I’s conquest of the southern Levant.[17] In particular, Josephus’ account of the Tobiads (Ant. 12.154-236), and his description of the high priest Onias (= Onias II) can be construed in the sense that the Ptolemaic administration recognized some form of limited local rulership to the high priests of Jerusalem, as I have argued elsewhere.[18] Yet the high priest would have been subjected to the authority of the Ptolemaic administration and its agents, as the same story makes clear. Moreover, it is dubious that the high priest’s own authority extended much beyond Jerusalem and its immediate surroundings, a notion which is consistent with the complete absence of this figure in other sources of that period, such as the Zeno papyri or the Rainer papyri.
This conclusion, however, does not preclude the possibility that the priestly texts of the Pentateuch could develop a concept of priestly government as a kind of counter-factual ideal. Is this the case? Yes and no. What we do see in some priestly texts of Numbers is a trend toward growingly highlighting the role of the high priest. In Num 17-18, Aaron protects the community from the wrath of Yhwh, represented here as a kind of demonic power (Num 17:6-15). In return, he is rewarded by the right for his family and himself to claim prebends over the various types of donation made by the Israelites to the sanctuary (Num 18:8-20). The story in Num 27:12-23 clearly implies that the high priest Eleazar, Aaron’s son and successor, enjoys a kind of oracular monopoly, so that he is the only one who may consult the deity to divine its will for the whole community.[19] The story of Num 25 culminates, at least in its priestly edited shape, with the conclusion of a covenant (ברית) between Yhwh and Aaron’s grandson Phinehas (Num 25:10-13). Contrary to what has sometimes been claimed, this covenant does not automatically confer a royal or quasi-royal role to the high priest, but it certainly suggests at the very least that the high priestly dynasty somehow stands on equal footing with the Davidic dynasty in the perspective of the priestly writers.[20] All these examples, and some others as well, confirm that there is indeed a trend to enlarge and extend the authority of the high priest, and to confer to him roles that go beyond his traditional roles in the cult. In this regard, I certainly agree with scholars like R. Achenbach or C. Frevel, who have already correctly identified this trend in the book of Numbers.[21] The account of Lev 10, which appears to confer some sort of exclusive authority to Aaron in the interpretation of the divine laws (v. 11), to the point that he can even win a legal argument against Moses himself (v. 19-20), effectively fits well into this trend, however one construes the exact relationship between Lev 10 and the priestly texts of Numbers.
At the same time, and this point has often been insufficiently noted in the recent discussion, it is unclear whether and to what extent the priestly texts mentioned here envision a form of exclusive leadership for the high priest over the community. The story of the flourishing of Aaron’s staff which concludes Num 17 (17:26-26 = 17:1-11 ET) may point in that direction,[22] but even this account remains ambiguous since the hegemony considered here is described in strictly cultic terms.[23] Other texts, like Num 27:12-13, clearly imply a more complex distribution of social and political power, in which the authority of the high priest is relative rather than absolute, shared rather than strictly hegemonic: Joshua needs Eleazar’s guidance in order to go to war (Num 27:21), but it is still Joshua, not Eleazar, who leads the community, as v. 16-17 make clear. In other words: the high priest’s agency is required in order to rule, but the ruler is not the high priest himself. The same point could be made about the late priestly passages in Num 34 and Josh 13-21 which reference the high priest Eleazar alongside Joshua and the tribal leaders in the division of the land among the tribes.
This is arguably where we reach the limits of Josephus’ concept of “theocracy” when applied to the (late) priestly texts of the Pentateuch. It is arguably fair to say that these texts pave the way to Josephus’ concept of “theocracy”; Josephus himself may well have had a text such as Lev 10 in mind when he coined this concept. But the concept of an essentially or even exclusively priestly government of the Jewish people is still largely missing from these texts: their primary concern is to confer to the high priest—and by extension to the priesthood as a whole—growing agency over the community, but not—or at least not necessarily—exclusive leadership. To describe the process that takes place in the late priestly texts of the Pentateuch, other concepts than the concept of “theocracy” may be more accurate and may therefore serve us better. Borrowing a concept already used in other areas of religious studies, one could speak here of a process of “priestification,” in which the priestly revisions of the Pentateuch—and possibly of other collections of scriptures as well—somehow go hand in hand with a conception conferring increased agency to the priests.[24] However, arguing this point in some detail would require a paper in itself, and would go well beyond the limited topic of this short response.
[1] On this point, see my detailed argument in Christophe Nihan, “Ézéchiel 44,17–31 et la tradition sacerdotale,” in Nächstenliebe und Gottesfurcht, Beiträge aus alttestamentlicher, semitistischer und altorientalistischer Wissenschaft für Hans-Peter Mathys zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Hanna Jenni and Markus Saur; AOAT 439; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2016), 321-338.
[2] See Meike Röhrig, Innerbiblische Auslegung und priesterliche Fortschreibungen in Lev 8–10 (FAT 2.128; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021), 147-220, esp. 157-168. My discussion here is primarily based, however, on the version of her argument included in the present collection.
[3] For my own views on the composition of Lev 10, see Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus (FAT 2.25; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 576-607; and more recently Id., “Narrative and Exegesis in Leviticus. On Leviticus 10 and 24,10–23,” in Schriftgelehrte Fortschreibungs- und Auslegungsprozesse, Textarbeit im Pentateuch, in Qumran, Ägypten und Mesopotamien (ed. Walter Bührer; FAT.2 108; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 207-242, here 222-236.
[4] Likewise Röhrig, Innerbiblische Auslegung, 157-158.
[5] This view is supported, in particular, by the contrast with the phase אשר צוה in Lev 8-9, where it occurs as a leitmotiv highlighting that Moses (and Aaron) performed the relevant rituals in accordance with Yhwh’s commands: see Lev 8:4, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 29, 31, 34, 36; 9:5, 6, 7, 10, 21. See on this my discussion in Nihan, Priestly Torah, 582; as far as I can see, Röhrig (Innerbiblische Auslegung, 151) would also accept this view.
[6] See, especially, Deut 24:8; Ezek 22:26; Zeph 3:4; Hag 2:11.
[7] The fact that Lev 16:1 comes back to this issue arguably indicates that—in the perspective of the editors of Leviticus—the pollution caused by the deaths of Nadab and Abihu was disposed of in the course of the purification ritual described in Lev 16. The complementarity of sorts between the two chapters is also highlighted by the fact that in the course of lev 16 Aaron performs a ritual to the one attempted by Nadab and Abihu, yet this time successfully. For further details, see my discussion in Nihan, Priestly Torah, 99-105.
[8] Reinhard Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (BZAR 3; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2003).
[9] See already, and with more details, her argument in Röhrig, Innerbiblische Auslegung, 203-219.
[10] See, e.g., Jan Christian Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung. Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch (FRLANT 186; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 150-152, with further references. The genealogical list was introduced by means of the resumption of v. 10-12 in v. 28-30, a typical case of the scribal technique of Wiederaufnahme or “resumptive repetition.” See Bernard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 18-19.
[11] Compare also Röhrig, Innerbiblische Auslegung, 208-209.
[12] See, e.g., Achenbach, Vollendung der Tora, 488-495.
[13] In other words, the compositional sequence for Num 16 consists of the following: 1) Dathan and Abiram; 2) 250-men; 3) Korah. For a rather conservative presentation of this sequence, compare, e.g., Horst Seebass, Numeri. 2. Teilband. Numeri 10,11 - 22,1 (BK.AT; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener-Verlag, 2003), 174-189.
[14] It is likely, however, that Josephus’ term may have been influenced by the parallel Greek phrase θεόκραντος, referring to “something accomplished or wrought by the gods.” Compare, e.g., Jeremiah W. Cataldo, A Theocratic Yehud? Issues of Government in A Persian Province (LHB/OTS 498; New York/London: T&T Clark, 2009), 121-122 note 18.
[15] John M.G. Barclay, Against Apion. Translation and Commentary (FJ.TC 10; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007), 261.
[16] See, especially, Cataldo, Theocratic Yehud?
[17] The small silver fractal coin with the legend YWḤNN HKHN dates from this period, as the recent reexamination of this coin and the series to which it belongs by Gitler and Lorber indicates: see Haim Gitler and Catherine Lorber, “A New Chronology for the Yehizkiyah Coins of Judah,” Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 87 (2008): 61-82. According to their analysis, the coin dates to the end of the fourth century BCE, and thus corresponds to the transitional period when the office of the peḥāh (“governor”) was dismissed following Alexander’s conquest of the Levant.
[18] Christophe Nihan, “Josephus’ Tobiads, the High Priest Onias, and Ptolemaic Administration in the Southern Levant: A Reexamination,” in Contact Zones in the Eastern Mediterranean. Province Yehud and Its Neighbours ca. 500-200 BCE: Places, Middlemen, Transcultural Contacts (ed. Łukasz Niesiołowski-Spano; forthcoming 2022).
[19] On the “oracular monopoly” of the high priest in the “priestly” traditions of the Pentateuch, especially in Exod 28 and Num 27, see Christophe Nihan and Julia Rhyder, “Aaron’s Vestments in Exodus 28 and Priestly Leadership», in Debating Authority, Concepts of Leadership in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets, (ed. Katharina Pyschny and Sarah Schulz; BZAW 507; Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2018), 45-67.
[20] Arguably, this is also arguably how Ben Sira understood this episode: see Sir 45:23-25.
[21] Achenbach, Vollendung der Tora, 130-140 and 443-628; Christian Frevel, “Ending with the High Priest: The Hierarchy of Priests and Levites in the Book of Numbers,” in Torah and the Book of Numbers (ed. Christian Frevel, Thomas Pola and Aaron Schart; FAT 2.62; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 138-163. This conclusion goes against the argument developed by Deborah Rooke in her analysis of the priestly materials in the Pentateuch (Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel [Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000], 11-39). However, Rooke herself must admit that “Aaron’s portrayal is intended to emphasize his importance in some way” (37).
[22] Thus, e.g., Achenbach, Vollendung der Tora, 126-129, who speaks of a “Primat des Hohepriesters” in Num 17:16–26.
[23] As noted, e.g., by Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs, 31-32.
[24] Compare also David M. Carr, “Data to Inform Ongoing Debates about the Formation of the Pentateuch: From Documented Cases of Transmission History to a Survey of Rabbinic Exegesis,” in The Formation of the Pentateuch, Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America, (ed. Jan C. Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni and Konrad Schmid; FAT 111; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 87-106, here 94-97, who uses the term “priestification” to denote a set of revisions from the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic periods that are oriented toward the “priestly” texts of the Pentateuch.