LEVITICUS 26: ITS
RELATIONSHIP TO
COVENANT CONTEXTS AND
CONCEPTS
by
William D.
Barrick
Submitted in partial fulfillment of
requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Theology in
Grace Theological Seminary
May 1981
Title: LEVITICUS 26: ITS RELATIONSHIP TO COVENANT
CONTEXTS
AND CONCEPTS
Author:
William D. Barrick
Degree:
Doctor of Theology
Date: May, 1981
Adviser:
D. Wayne Knife
No other pericope of the Old Testament
possesses the affinity
which Leviticus 26 has for the Palestinian Covenant
(Deuteronomy 27-30).
The
blessings and curses contained in the two pericopes are the most
extensive in the Old Testament. Some Bible
expositors have classified
Leviticus
26 as a prophetic preview of the Palestinian Covenant. This
study tests that hypothesis. A brief consideration of
the Mosaic author-
ship of the pericope and a development of the
covenant concept in the
book of Leviticus initiates the study. The exegesis
commences with a
text-critical analysis which supports
the reliability of the Massoretic
Text
and demonstrates the unreliability of the textual apparatuses of
Biblia Hebraica (Kittel) and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. The verse
by verse treatment of the interpretation of the
pericope directs atten-
tion to the grammatical, contextual, and literary
elements. A compara-
tive analysis of Leviticus 26 and similar
extra-biblical materials (the
Esarhaddon
vassal treaties and the Sefire inscriptions) supplements the
exegesis. The writer concludes the study by
systematically summarizing
the key doctrines of Leviticus 26.
Leviticus 26 is parenetic revelation
written in an elevated lit-
erary style. It was granted at Sinai on the
threshhold of
wilderness
wanderings. The promulgation of the Mosaic Covenant had
caused
an apparent tension with the Abrahamic Covenant. After three
disturbing
apostasies at Sinai, Leviticus 26 was revealed to explain
the
relationship between the two covenants and to reemphasize the exclu-
sive
lordship of Yahweh. The Mosaic Covenant did not nullify the prom-
ises
of the Abrahamic Covenant. This message in Leviticus 26 antedated
Paul's
in Galatians 3:17 by fifteen centuries. The Mosaic legislation
emphasized
the recipients of the land promised to Abraham. The bless-
ings
and curses of the pericope are developed with both covenants and
their
respective emphases in mind. Loyalty to Yahweh would initiate
blessings.
These are described in terms of the landedness promised by
the
Abrahamic Covenant. Disloyalty would initiate cursing. This is
described
as a five-stage process of Mosaic Covenant vengeance with the
exile
as the ultimate chastisement. The purpose of cursing was to pro-
duce
confession of guilt, humility, and restitution. The sabbatical
principle
is deeply involved in the restitution. Circumcision was the
seal
of the Abrahamic Covenant, but the sabbaths were the seal of the
Mosaic.
The sabbatical principle is central to Leviticus 26. Yahweh is
both
the lord of space (the land) and time (the sabbaths). The land-
giver
and exodus-causer will always be loyal to his covenants. The peri-
cope
anticipates but does not reveal the Palestinian Covenant per se.
The extra-biblical treaties were
composed seven centuries after
Leviticus
26. Leviticus 26, the Esarhaddon vassal treaties, and the Sefire
inscriptions
were independently written. A mutual stream of covenant mate-
rials
may have influenced the, but each possesses its own distinctions.
Accepted by the Faculty of Grace
Theological Seminary
in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree
Doctor of Theology
D.
Adviser
John J. Davis
Adviser
James E. Eisenbraun
Adviser
Copyright © 1981 by William D. Barrick
Digitally prepared and posted on the web by
Ted Hildebrandt (2004)
with permission.
Please report any errors to:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer expresses his thanks to those who have
contributed
their efforts toward the
completion of this dissertation. During the
writing, the writer was engaged
in missionary deputation as preparation
for participation in the Old
Testament Translation Project of the Bengali
Common Language Bible in
committee exercised patience
and good faith while the writer was travel-
ing. Their Christian grace,
coupled with their desire for academic
excellence, has been an
inspiration.
While on deputation in
exclusive use of the office and
typewriter of a close friend, Pastor
Jim Parker. Jim's encouragement
by word and by supplying space, equip-
ment, and books, will never be
forgotten. He and his wife,
examples of true Christian
hospitality.
Last, but certainly not least, the writer expresses his
deepest
gratitude to his wife, Barbara,
who has patiently endured to the end
the years of doctoral education
and dissertation production. In the
midst of preparing the family
for departure to
neglect to encourage her
husband in his writing. Her prudence and grace
are precious. dvbk
jmtt NH-twx . . . tklWm hwx hvhym
"a wife
possessing good sense/prudence
is from Yahweh . . . a gracious woman
attains honor" (Prov 19:14; 11:16).
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST
OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
Chapter
I.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Preliminary
Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 3
Statement of
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 3
Statement of
Pertinence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Statement of
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 12
Text-critical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Exegetical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Comparative analysis with extra-biblical
treaties 17
Systematic theological synthesis . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 19
General
Introduction to Leviticus 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Date and Authorship
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
Contextual Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
II. A TEXT-CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF
LEVITICUS 26 . . . . . 23
Verse
2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Verse
9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Verse 11 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Verse 16 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Verse
17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Verse 20 . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Verse 24
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
viii
ix
Verse
31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Verses
34 and 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
Verse
39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 32
Verse
41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 35
Verse
42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 38
Verse
43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 39
Verse
44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 39
Verse
46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
III. AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF
LEVITICUS 26 . . . . . . . . 44
Precept
(vv. 1-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Prohibition of Idols (v. 1) . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Preservation of Sabbaths and Sanctuary (v.
2) . . . . . . . . . . 47
The
sabbath observance (v. 2a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
The
sanctuary reverence (v. 2b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Promise
(vv. 3-13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
The Prerequisite: Obedience (v. 3) . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
The Product: Blessing (vv. 4-12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Productivity
(vv. 4-5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Peace
(v. 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Power
(vv. 7-8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Population
(v. 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Provision
(v. 10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Presence
(vv. 11-12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 71
The Premise:
Yahweh's Salvation (v. 13) . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 79
The Summary of Verses 3-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
Form
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
x
Aim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Penalty
(vv. 14-45) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
The Cause: Disobedience (vv. 14-15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
The Consequence: Retribution (vv.
16-38) . . . . . . . . . . 90
Debilitation
and defeat (vv. 16-17) . . . . . . . . .
. . . 90
Drought
(vv. 18-20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
97
Devastation
by wild beasts (vv. 21-22) . . . . . . .
. . 102
Deprivation
by siege (vv. 23-26) . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 105
Deportation
(vv. 27-38) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 113
Introduction (vv. 27-28) . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 114
Dehumanization (cannibalism) (v. 29) . . . .
. . . . . 116
Desolation (vv. 30-32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Dispersion (exile) (v. 33) . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 126
Desertion of the land (vv. 34-38) . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 129
The
Sabbath rest (vv. 34-35) . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 129
The
stricken remnant (vv. 36-38) . . . . . . . . . . 134
The
Contingency: Repentance (vv. 39-45) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Repentance:
(vv.
39-41) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Remembrance: Yahweh's acceptance of repentance
(v.
42) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Repetition: A summary concerning retribution
(v.
43) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Reaffirmation: Yahweh's promise to the
exiles
(vv.
44-45) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
The
Summary of verses 14-45 . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Aim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Postscript
(v. 46) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
xi
IV. A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LEVITICUS
26, ESARHADDON’S
TREATIES, AND THE SEFIRE INSCRIPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Dating
the Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Dependence
in the Documents . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
The Esarhaddon Vassal Treaties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 175
Comparison
with Leviticus 26 . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 176
The Sefrre Inscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 180
Comparison
with Leviticus 26 . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 181
Conclusions
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 184
V. SYSTEMATIC SYNTHESIS OF THE THEOLOGICAL
CONCEPTS
OF
LEVITICUS 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Abrahamic Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 186
Sinaitic Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Palestinian Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 190
Land
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 191
Heilsgeschicht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Breach and Preservation of Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Relation to Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 196
Prohibition of Idolatry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 196
Observance of Sabbaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 198
Yahweh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Selbstvorstellungsformel
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 200
Relation to Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 201
Presence and Sanctuary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 202
Promise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Blessing and Curse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 202
xii
Obedience
and Disobedience . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 203
Guilt
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Retribution
and Chastisement . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 205
Exile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
Repentance
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 207
Restitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Revelation .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
208
Leviticus
26 and the New Testament . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 209
VI. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
LIST
OF ABBREVIATIONS
AB Anchor Bible
Afo Archiv fur Orientforschung
AnBib Analecta Biblica
AnOr Analecta Orientalia
AOAT Alter Orient and Altes Testament
ASV American Standard Version (1901)
BAG W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament
BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament
BDF F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of
the New Testament
BHK R. Kittel, Biblia Hebraica, 1st edition
BHK3 R. Kittel, Biblia Hebraica, 3rd edition
BHS K. Elliger, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia
Bib Biblica
BibOr Biblica et Orientalia
CBC
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CSCO Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium
EJ Encyclopaedia Judaica
GAG W. von Soden, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik
GKC Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar
HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament
xiii
xiv
ICC International Critical Commentary
IDB G. A. Buttrick (ed.), Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic
Languages
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
KAI H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaanaische und aramaische Inschriften
KB L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testament
Libros
LSJ Liddell-Scott-Jones, Greek-English Lexicon
MT Massoretic Text
NASB New American Standard Bible
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NIV New International Version
n.s. new series
OTL Old Testament Library
OTS Oudtestamentische Studien
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
STDJ Studies on the Texts of the
s.v. sub verbo "under the word"; sub voce
"under the title"
TDNT G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.),
Theological Dictionary of
the New Testament
TDOT G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren
(eds.), Theological Dictionary
of the Old Testament
THAT E. Jenni and C. Westermann (eds.),
Theologisches Handworter-
buch zum Alten Testament
UT C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook
VT Vetus Testamentum
xv
VTSUP Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten and Neuen Testament
WTJ
ZAW
Zeitschrift fur die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
For the
CD
1QH Hodayot
(Thanksgiving Hymns) from
1QM Milhamah
(War Scroll) from
11QLev Leviticus from
CHAPTER
I
INTRODUCTION
Jewish
children once commenced their biblical studies with the
book of Leviticus.1
Today, however, the book has been neglected by the
church. Few commentaries are
available to the serious student, and few
of those make any concerted
effort to exegete the book verse by verse.
The student of Leviticus will find
much of the book uninterpreted in
even the best of commentaries
and will be required to strike out on his
own if he is to uncover its
riches. Wenham's well-written commentary2
should renew interest in the
book of Leviticus because of its clear
presentation, bold approach to
key subjects (e.g., the clean-unclean
and holy-profane categories3),
and integration with New Testament
truths.4
Unfortunately, it also suffers occasionally from exegetical
malnutrition. A case in point
is the treatment of Leviticus 26.5
Leviticus 26 has consistently
been the threefold victim of
neglect: (1) It has been
avoided in the synagogue because of its
1 Bernard J. Bamberger, Leviticus, vol. 3 of The Torah: A Modern
Commentary, 5 vols. (
1979),
p. xix.
2 Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT (
Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979).
3 Ibid., pp. 18-25.
4 Each chapter concludes with a discussion
of its relationship
to
the New Testament and Christianity.
5 Ibid., pp. 324-34.
1
2
unpleasant subject matter.1
(2) It has been treated sketchily in the
commentaries (past and present,
Jewish and Christian). (3) Its covenant
affinities are rarely discussed
even in materials dedicated to the con-
cept of covenant in the Old
Testament. However, there are references
to the chapter occasionally,
and some of these demonstrate an awareness
of the chapter's significance
for covenantal studies. Delbert Hillers,
for example, places Leviticus 26
on a par with Deuteronomy 28:
In the first place, the prophets did employ much
traditional mate-
rial in composing their threats of doom. This is
not a new idea by
any means, but it is worth pointing out that the
parallels gathered
here fully support it. Secondly, this inherited
material in the
prophets is related to the Israelite tradition
of curses as pre-
served in Deut 28 and Lev 26. Thirdly, these
Israelite maledictions
resemble, at many points, curses from Akkadian
and Aramaic treaties.
None of the parallels looks like simple copying,
but the possibility
of influence of treaty-curses on Israelite
literature, or of mutual
influence, or of dependence on common sources,
cannot be disregarded.
After all, we possess only a relatively small
body of treaty-curses,
and of these only a portion are useful for
comparative purposes; in
view of this the number of parallels to
expressions in the prophets
is impressive.2
The significance of Leviticus
26, therefore, may be viewed from several
perspectives: (1) its
relationship to Deuteronomy 28, (2) its relation-
ship to the Old Testament
prophets and their revelations, and (3) its
relationship to the treaties of
the ancient Near East.
The
abundance of similarities between Leviticus 26 and Deuter-
onomy 26-28 serves to catapult
the former pericope into the same sphere
of significance as the latter.
Meredith Kline tantalizingly suggests
that the curses of Deuteronomy
28 were "anticipated in the promises and
1 Bamberger, Leviticus, p. 290.
2 Delbert R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Proph-
ets, BibOr 16 (Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964), p. 78.
3
threats of a similar section in
Leviticus (chap. 26)."l The exact
nature of this anticipation
needs definition--especially as it relates
to the concepts of prophetic
revelation and progressive revelation.
With
this brief introduction to the significance of Leviticus
26 in mind, the following
preliminary statements are presented in order
to map out the purpose and
procedure of this study.
Preliminary Statements
Statement of Purpose
This
dissertation is committed to the testing of the following
thesis: Leviticus 26 is a
prophetic preview of the Palestinian Cove-
nant. In order to facilitate
the treatment of the thesis, the follow-
ing working definitions are
offered:
Prophecy
is the message of God which he has revealed directly
to his chosen spokesman. Thus, prophecy is
divine revelation above
all else. Prophecy is not being used here in
the narrow sense of
prediction nor in the strictest
form-critical category totally dis-
tinct from narrative, law, psalms, and
wisdom. The means and form
of prophecy may differ radically from
prophet to prophet. The time
scheme of prophecy may be past, present, or
future--at times even
overlapping these three frames of reference.2
1 Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant
Structure of
Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary (
B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972), p. 124.
2 There is such a wide range of acceptance
of this definition
and
its factors that it would not serve the purpose of this study to
present
the biblical bases for the definition. The reader is referred
to
the following sources for the detailed treatment of the definition
and
its bases: Richard N. Soulen, Handbook of
Biblical Criticism
(Atlanta:
John Knox Press, 1976), pp. 129-33; Edward J. Young, My
Servants the Prophets (
4
A
preview is "a statement giving advance information: FORE-
TASTE, GLIMPSE."1 The verb
may have the meaning "to give an overall
presentation of (a subject of study) before
beginning systematic
instruction."2
The
Palestinian Covenant is the pact God established with
was entered by
by sacrifice and public deposit at Shechem
(Josh 8:30-35), and
renewed by common consent at Shechem near
the end of Joshua's
ministry (24:1-28). Synonyms for Palestinian
Covenant include
Deuteronomic Covenant and Covenant of the
Plains of Moab.3
As this
study progresses the problems of contexts must be
treated. These include: (1) the
general context of the treaty forms
of the ancient Near East; (2)
the historical-theological context of
both the Abrahamic and Sinaitic
covenants; and, (3) the prophetic-
theological context of the
Palestinian Covenant. The first of these
contexts will be developed in
Chapter IV ("A Comparative Analysis of
1952),
pp. 56-75; J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia
of Biblical Prophecy
(New
York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1973), pp. 3-9;
man,
An Introduction to the Old Testament
Prophets (
Press,
1968), pp. 37-40; Otto Eissfeldt, The Old
Testament: An Intro-
duction, trans. Peter R.
Ackroyd (
1965),
pp. 76-81.
1 Philip Babcock Gove, ed., Webster's Third New International
Dictionary of the
English Language.
Unabridged (
C.
Merriam Co., Publishers, 1976),--p. 1798.
2 Ibid.
3 Cf. Charles
Faith (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux
Brothers, 1953), pp. 58-59; Eissfeldt,
The Old Testament, pp. 214-17, 226, 230;
S. R. Driver, An Introduction
to the Literature of the
Old Testament
(
1956),
p. 71; TDOT, s.v. "tyriB;," by M. Weinfeld,
2:256, 268-69; Moshe
Weinfeld,
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School
(
Press,
1972), pp. 59-116; Delbert R. Hillers, Covenant:
The History
5
Leviticus 26, Esarhaddon's
Treaties, and the Sefire Inscriptions").
The second and third contexts
will be treated as they are encountered
during the exegesis of
Leviticus 26 in Chapter III ("An Exegetical
Analysis of Leviticus 26")
and in the discussion of the theological
emphases of the pericope in
Chapter IV ("A Systematic Synthesis of
the Theological Concepts of
Leviticus 26").
Statement
of Pertinence
The
subject of the significance of Leviticus 26 has already
been introduced in the first
section of this chapter.1 The relation-
ship of the pericope to
Deuteronomy 27-30 is indicative of the position
it should be granted in
biblical studies. The very fact that Leviticus
26 and Deuteronomy 28 both
contain covenant blessings and curses sets
the two pericopes apart from
the rest of the Old Testament--not because
they are the only such
materials, but because they are the most exten-
sive.2 Since there
is nearly a universal consensus that Leviticus 26
of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1969),
pp.
58-64, 134-42.
1 See above, pp. 1-3.
2 "In ausgefuhrter Form belegt ist
sie einzig in Dt. 28 and Lev.
26,
nur angedeutet ist sie in Texten, die von diesen beiden Kapiteln
traditionsgeschichtlich
abhangig sind oder in engem Zusammenhang mit
ihnen
stehen." Jorg Jeremias, Kultprophetie
and Gerichsverkundigung in
der spaten Konigszeit
Verlag,
1970), p. 165. (Translation: "In an elaborate form it occurs
solely
in Dt. 28 and Lev. 26, yet it is implied in those texts which
are
traditio-historically dependent on both of these chapters or stand
in
close relationship to them.") Cf. Deut 11:8-17, 26-29; 27:11-26;
30:15-20;
Josh 8:33-34; 1 Kgs 8:31-53; Dan 9:11; Hag 1:5-11; Amos
4:6-13.
See the chart of parallels between Amos 4, Leviticus 26, Deuter-
onomy
28, and 1 Kings 8 in Hans Walter Wolff, Joel
and Amos, trans.
Waldemar
Janzen, et al., ed. S. Dean McBride,
Jr., in Hermeneia, ed.
Frank
Moore Cross, Jr., et al.
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977),
p.
213.
6
is closely related to
Deuteronomy 28, it must have some bearing on the
Deuteronomic Covenant in the
latter passage and its immediate context.
This covenant is not a minor
statement of Yahweh's relationship to
Indeed it seems that isolated writers of this
school added yet
another covenant in the
series, so that 'the whole structure of the
religious relationship
now rested on these three covenants as on three
massive pillars'.
At any rate, Deut. 26.17-19; 28.69; 29.8, 11,
13, 20 point in this
direction.1
Since the Deuteronomic (or,
Palestinian) Covenant is of such major
import, Leviticus 26 must, by
its close association with it, be con-
sidered a significant piece of
literature in the Old Testament's dis-
closure of the relationship of
Yahweh to his people,
covenants made with Abraham and
Moses are not to be ignored in old
Testament theology, the
covenant in
ought not to be ignored.
A
caution should be issued regarding the subject of covenant:
"the covenant does not
explain everything about early
relationship of Leviticus 26 to
covenant is inherent to the pericope:
the Abrahamic Covenant is
specified in verse 42 and the Mosaic (or,
Sinaitic) Covenant is
identified in verses 13-15. Verse 9 ("I will
ratify my covenant with
you") provides the exegete with the problem of
identifying the covenant:
Abrahamic? Mosaic? or, Palestinian? The
1 Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 2 vols., trans.
J.
A. Baker, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), 1:53; with
quote
from Richard Kraetzschmar, Die
Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testa-
ment in ihrer
geschichtlichen Entwicklung (
2 Hillers, Covenant, p. 87.
7
impact on this pericope of
covenant concepts and covenant relationships,
therefore, is evident. It is
also quite true that the materials and
concepts of covenant provide
one of the most important aspects of Yah-
weh's relationship to Israel.1
It behooves the student, however, to
walk with care in this area and
to seek relevance rather than to create
it.2 The thrust of
this study is in that direction: to seek the con-
cept and context of covenant in
Leviticus 26. If that relationship is
discovered, it will then be
tested and proof given in detail to sub-
stantiate it.
It is with
regard to covenant relationships in this pericope
that the possibility of
prophetic anticipation must be investigated.
The idea is not novel. R. A.
Barclay3 and H. G. Reventlow4 view Levi-
ticus 26 as prophetic. Such an
identification of the material in this
pericope would not be
inconsistent with Mosaic authorship since Moses
was consistently presented as a
prophet by the Old Testament.5
The
book of Leviticus is arranged in a fashion conducive to the
view that Leviticus 26 is in a
covenant context. Chapters 1-7 present
1 R. E. Clements, Prophecy and Tradition, in Growing Points in
Theology (Atlanta: John Knox
Press, 1975), pp. 8, 15.
2 Ronald E. Clements, God's
pretation of the Book of
Deuteronomy
(Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1969),
p.
28.
3 R. A. Barclay, The Law Givers: Leviticus and Deuteronomy, vol.
3
in Bible Guides, ed. William Barclay and F. F. Bruce (
don
Press, 1964), p. 49.
4 Henning Graf Reventlow, "Die Volker
als Jahwes Zeugen bei
Ezechiel,"
ZAW 71 (1959):40.
5 Cf. Hillers, Covenant, p. 141. Cf. Deut 34:10, "There has not
arisen
again in
face."
8
the sacrificial system which
provided for an outward manifestation of
the covenant relationship
individually and nationally. The sacrifices
were to be offered by covenant
members only.1 The sacrifices did not
provide forgiveness for breach
of covenant (i.e., they did not provide
forgiveness for sins or deliver
from the consequences of sin). The
chief object of the sacrificial
system was an exhibition of fellowship
with the God of the covenant
and with the people of the covenant—
continued covenantal communion.2
Chapters
8-10 reveal the ministry of the priesthood. These
priests were the caretakers of
the covenant relationship--especially
as it was to be continually
manifested (even on a daily basis) in the
sacrificial system.
Unfaithfulness to the strict stipulations of this
covenant ministry brought the
death penalty to Nadab and Abihu (10:1-20).
Chapters
11-15 deal with the purity of life which Yahweh required
of
nize their identification with
him. They were not to identify with any
of the deities of the
surrounding peoples. By diet, by birth, by
treatment of
"leprosy," and by personal hygiene, the covenant community
was to be distinct from its
neighbors.
Chapter
16 brings the covenant relationship to the calendar of
nant renewal ceremonies. The
tone of that day was one of Yahweh's sov-
ereign rule over
continued covenantal communion.
1 Cf. Lev 1:2-3; 2:1; 17:8; 22:18, 25.
This covenant community
comprised
of both native Israelites and proselytes.
2 Cf. Exod 29:42-43; Ps 50:16.
9
was ordained in order to bring
every thought into conformity with Yah-
weh's authority. The divine
suzerain blessed his covenanted people by
granting them his continued
presence (a token of his protection) among
them (v. 16; cf. vv. 1-2).
Chapters
17-24 prescribe in detail the ordinances by which the
covenant community was bound.
This legislation affected the diet, the
social relationships, the
religious leadership, the calendar, the center
of covenant worship, and the
abuse of the covenant relationship. The
calendar (chapter 23) focused
on the seventh month with its three major
observances (vv. 23-43). The
New Year celebration (the Feast of Trum-
pets, vv. 23-25) had overtones
of kingship and kingdom.1 It was a
time when the sabbatical
principle was operative (cf. seventh day,
seventh month, seventh year,
and seventh seventh year observances). It
was a time for the covenant
community to recognize formally the suze-
rainty of Yahweh. Chapter 24
presents ordinances pertaining to the
tabernacle (the dwelling place
of the visible presence of Yahweh, vv.
1-9) and pertaining to
retribution for blasphemy (vv. 10-23). Blasphemy
is further emphasized by way of
illustration (vv. 10-12, 23). Blasphemy,
in this context, is best
understood as the appropriation of the divine
name in the issuing of a curse
without Yahweh's sanction.2 Such an
appropriation was a treasonous
usurpation of covenant authority. This
1 For arguments against connecting the Old
Testament New Year
festival
to an enthronement festival, cf. Roland de Vaux, Ancient
See,
also, Norman H. Snaith, The Jewish New
Year Festival: Its Origin
and Development (
1947).
2 Cf. Wenham, Leviticus, p. 311.
10
record is followed closely by
expanded sabbatical legislation (chapter
25) and the formal blessings
and curses of the covenant (chapter 26).
All of the ordinances (chapters
17-24) involve the covenant at
(the Mosaic Covenant).
It
appears that the overall design of the book of Leviticus
may have been influenced by
covenant concepts.1 The following summary
of chapters 1-24 reflects this
conclusion:
(1)
Provision for the continued observance of the ratification
sacrifices and meals (chapters 1-7).
(2)
Provision for the continued publication of the covenant
deposit and the delegation of
responsibility to representatives of
the suzerain (chapters 8-10).
(3)
General stipulations for maintaining the covenant identity
(chapters 11-15).
(4)
Provision for the annual renewal of the covenant (chapter 16).
(5)
Specific stipulations for maintaining the covenant identity
(chapters 17-24) .
Chapters
25 and 26 enter at this point to bring the Sinaitic
Covenant to a conclusion. This
is accomplished by emphasizing the mono-
theistic and sabbatical
principles which are the ultimate cornerstones
of the covenant (cf. 25:55-26:3
and Exod 20:2-11). It is not surprising
to find chapter 26 as the
closing of Leviticus. Blessings and cursings
l The two terms in this statement are emphasized
in order to dis-
tinguish
this concept from the concept that Leviticus was patterned
after
covenant or treaty forms. Cf. Hillers, Covenant,
pp. 29-38.
11
usually concluded the treaties
of the ancient Near East.1
Chapter
27 forms an appendix to the book. It is positioned
logically after the pericope
regarding blessings and curses. Yahweh's
vows and promises (chapter 26)
provide the perfect exemplar for human
vows and promises (chapter 27).2
Having
viewed Leviticus 26 in its greater context (that of the
entire book), it is possible to
understand the covenant significance
of the pericope as well as its
vital contribution to the development
of the book. Leviticus 26 may
be interpreted more accurately with a
proper understanding of the
purpose and argument of the book as a whole.
Recent
developments in "exile theology"3 have brought even
greater significance to this
pericope. This area of study involves the
exilic prophets' dependence
upon Leviticus 26 for some of their covenant
materials. "Exile
theology" treats the pericope as prophetic.4 The
motifs of judgment and
deliverance are emphasized in the old Testament
concept of exile. The exile was
to become more than a punitive factor
in
other their faith (i.e., a
rehabilitating factor).5
1 Cf. Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form
in the Ancient Oriental
Documents and in the Old Testament, AnBib 21A
(Rome:
Biblical Institute Press, 1978), pp. 172-87.
2 Wenham, Leviticus, p. 336.
3 E.g.: Thomas M. Raitt, A Theology of Exile: Judgment/Deliver-
ance in Jeremiah and
Ezekiel
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977);
Ralph
W.
delphia:
Fortress Press, 1979). The relationship of Leviticus 26 to
the
exile by way of the subject matter of the pericope does not auto-
matically
place its composition in the time of the exile. This matter
of
date will be discussed at a later point in this study.
4 Raitt, A Theology of Exile, pp. 25-29, 240 n. 36.
5 Klein,
12
The
concept of exile is connected closely with the sabbatical
principle. This is implied by 2
Chronicles 36:21,
so that the word of Yahweh through Jeremiah
might be fulfilled
until the land enjoyed the restitution of1
its sabbaths. All
the days of its devastation it rested so that
seventy years might
be fulfilled.
This reference is commonly
accepted as being dependent upon Leviticus
26:34,
Then the land shall enjoy the restitution of its
sabbaths all the
days of its devastation while you are in the
land of your enemies.
Then the land shall rest; yea, it shall enjoy
the restitution of
its sabbaths.
The sabbatical principle's
relationship to the land, the exile, and the
nation of
a significant pericope.2
The observance of the sabbatical principle
(both weekly and annually)
brought the promise of blessing (cf. Lev
25:18-21). The failure to
observe the principle brought the threat of
cursing, indeed, the ultimate
of curses: physical death (cf. Exod
31:13-17). Leviticus 26 closely
connects the sabbatical principle and
the blessings and curses of the
covenant. This is consistent with the
accentuation of these same
aspects elsewhere in the Old Testament cove-
nant materials.
Statement
of Procedure
The
procedure adopted in this study reflects the writer's con-
victions with regard to
exegetical methodology. The following steps
outline the procedure:
1 The italics in the biblical quotation
represent words added to
clarify
meaning.
2 Cf. Niels-Erik A. Andreasen, The Old Testament Sabbath: A
Tradition-Historical
Investigation,
SBLDS 7 (
of
Biblical Literature, 1972), pp. 80-81, 203-54.
13
(1) A
text-critical study of Leviticus 26 will be presented
first in order to establish the
text--the foundation of all exegesis.
(2) An
interpretive study of the pericope will follow in order
to exegete the established
text.
(3) A
comparative study of Leviticus 26 with key treaties of
the ancient Near East (namely,
Esarhaddon's treaties and the Sefire
inscriptions) will be pursued
in order to evaluate influence.
(4) A
conceptual-theological analysis of the pericope will be
presented finally in order to
systematize the doctrinal contribu-
tions to Old Testament
theology.
Text-critical analysis
There
are two different approaches to be considered with regard
to the study of the text of the
Old Testament. These approaches involve
both the establishment and the
interpretation of the text:1
(1) The
textual methodology emphasizes the graphic transmission
of the text and
characteristically opts to emend the Massoretic
Text (sometimes by conjecture)
rather than to await philological
or linguistic elucidation.
(2) The
philological methodology emphasizes the semantic trans-
mission of the text and
characteristically opts for cognate eluci-
dation.
The
first of these methodologies seems to dominate the majority
of commentaries on Leviticus.
Kittel's Biblia Hebraica2
is the leading
1 Thomas A. Nicholas, "The Current
Quest for the Meaning of the
Text
of the Old Testament," WTJ 34
(1972):120.
2 BHK3.
14
edition of the Hebrew Old Testament
exhibiting this text-critical
philosophy. Although
conjectural emendation has not maintained its
domination in Old Testament
text-critical study,1 it continues to be
an influential viewpoint and
practice. In the strictest sense, con-
jectural emendation is "a
reading for which no authority can be found
in any text-tradition, direct
or indirect, known to us up to the
present time."2
The ultimate thrust of conjecturalism3 is the text's
supposed state of imperfection
and its resultant lack of authority.4
This philosophy is humanistic
and wrongly denies the text its prima-
facie status.5
Conjecture with reference to the autographa should have
no place in "text
criticism in sensu stricto."6
However, such an evalu-
ation of the emendatory
approach to the text of the Old Testament should
1 David Noel Freedman,
"Prolegomenon," in The Forms of
Hebrew
Poetry, George Buchanan Gray
(reprint ed.,
House,
1972), p. xxiii; Sidney Jellicoe, The
Septuagint and Modern
Study (reprint ed.,
2 Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study, p. 20 (with regard
to
the viewpoint of Joseph Ziegler).
3 Conjecturalism is not limited to textual
criticism. It is also
exhibited
in the exegetical practice of many commentators who conjectur-
alize
interpretations on the flimsiest of grounds. See, M. H. Goshen-
Gottstein,
"The History of the Bible-Text and Comparative Semitics--A
Methodological
Problem," VT 7 (1957):198.
4 Cf. James Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old
Testament (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1968), p. 68; Bertil Albrektson,
"Reflections
on the Emergence of a Standard Text of the Hebrew Bible,"
VTSup
29 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978), pp. 62-63; James A. Sanders,
"Text
and Canon: Concepts and Method," JBL
98 (1979):19-20, 24-26.
5 See Robert Dick Wilson, A Scientific Investigation of the Old
Testament, rev. Edward J. Young
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1959), pp. 82-
83.
6 Sanders, "Text and Canon," p.
12.
15
not be taken to such an extreme
that the beneficial effects of the
While deploring the mutilating effects on the
text of their labors,
we may agree that scholars so inspired stimulate
response and
reaction, and in their way they contribute to
progress in the
field.2
The
second of these methodologies is exemplified by the contri-
butions of men like Mitchell
Dahood3 and James Barr.4 These men are
the chief representatives of
two different schools of text-critical
methodology: the
The
methodology. The
Both
methodologies have their negative and their positive
aspects. Extremism may be found
in both conjectural emendation and
philological imagination. The
external evidence involved in the
textual approach cannot be
ignored (manuscript and versional evidence).
Nor can the internal evidence
involved in the philological-linguistic
1
school
because of the relationship it had to the chief representative of
this
school, Julius Wellhausen. The title "surgical school" has also
been
employed (cf. Freedman, "Prolegomenon," p. xxii). The writer has
described
the various text-critical schools in a research paper: "Old
Testament
Textual Criticism: Its Current Trends and Tensions" (unpub-
lished
research paper, Grace Theological Seminary,
pp.
8-15.
2 Freedman, "Prolegomenon," p.
xxiii (emphasis added).
3 E.g., Mitchell Dahood, The Psalms, AB (
Doubleday
& Co., Inc., 1966-70).
4 Cf. Barr, Comparative Philology.
5 See above, n. 1.
6 Cf. G. R. Driver, review of Proverbs and Northwest Semitic
Philology, by M. Dahood, JSS 10 (1965):113-14; James Barr,
"Semitic
16
approach be ignored
(etymological, stylistic, grammatical, and semantic
evidence). All the evidence
must be considered objectively. The text
critic should employ both methodologies,
emphasizing one or the other
depending on the evidence
available for each particular textual problem.
Textual emendation must not be
ruled out dogmatically, but it should
be employed only as the last
resort. The Massoretic vocalization
should be given priority until
the evidence cannot support it.1 The
excesses of pan-Ugaritism or
any other panism should be avoided.
The
writer's approach, therefore, may be termed eclectic. In
other words, he reserves the privilege
of pursuing all pertinent avenues
of research and of considering
all forms of evidence rather than to
assume that the prima-facie
evidence of the present Massoretic Text is
unconditionally vindicated.2
The
procedure will be to consider the variants as they appear
(verse by verse), giving
greater attention to those text-critical prob-
lems which have the greater
significance to the exegetical process.
Since there are no material
variants in Leviticus 26, the discussion
will be somewhat limited. It is
not the purpose of this study to give
an exhaustive text-critical
analysis of every recurrent variant. The
evidence for each variant will
be presented in the following order:
(1) Massoretic Text, (2)
Samaritan Pentateuch, (3) Septuagint and its
Philology
and the Interpretation of the Old Testament," in Tradition
and Interpretation, ed. G. W. Anderson
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979),
p.
51.
1 Cf. Nicholas, "The Current
Quest," p. 127; Barr, Comparative
Philology, pp. 35-36, 188-222.
2 Barrick, "Old Testament Textual
Criticism," pp. 25-26.
17
daughter versions, (4)
(8) Latin Vulgate, (9) Sahidic,
(10) Coptic, (11) Ethiopic, (12) Arabic,
and (12) Armenian.l
Exegetical
analysis
In the
treatment of the textual evidence some amount of inter-
pretation will have been
employed already. Ideally, however, it should
be kept to a minimum in order
to insure text-critical objectivity. The
exegesis will proceed along the
lines of a full grammatical analysis of
the established text of
Leviticus 26. Illustrative materials will be
utilized from the Old
Testament, extra-biblical documentation, and
(where pertinent) New Testament
references (e.g., Lev 26:12 and 2 Cor
6:16b). An interpretive outline
will be presented as the study pro-
ceeds.
Details
concerning fine points of grammar or grammatical dis-
putation will be relegated to
the footnotes. The writer's grammatical
opinions will be reflected in
the body of the study. The reader wish-
ing to pursue the writer's
lines of reasoning for those grammatical
opinions should find the
footnotes helpful. In an exegetical analysis
of forty-six verses there is
little room for extensive discussion or
defence of grammatical
niceties.
Comparative
analysis with extra-biblical treaties
The
choice of the Esarhaddon treaties and the Sef're inscrip-
1 Cf. James R. Battenfield, "Hebrew
Stylistic Development in
Archaic
Poetry: A Text-Critical and Exegetical Study of the Blessing
of
Jacob, Genesis 49:1-27" (unpublished doctor of theology dissertation,
Grace
Theological Seminary,
18
tions was based upon the
agreement of Weinfeld,1 Hillers,2 McCarthy,3
and Wiseman4
regarding their importance and relationship to Leviticus
26. This opinion, however, is
not held by Bamberger who declares that
this pericope "does not
present such close parallels to any known docu-
ment from the
typed language of the treaty
curses."5 In response to Weinfeld's
comparison of Leviticus 26 to
the Sefire materials, Bamberger also
says, "these similarities
appear to me slight and superficial, not like
the striking parallels between
Deuteronomy and the Assyrian treaties."6
Obviously, there is a difference
of opinion and sufficient ground for
reevaluation of the evidence.
Such a
comparative study must be based upon a proper under-
standing of the texts involved.
Therefore, this section of the study
will follow the textual and
exegetical analyses of Leviticus 26. Such
preparatory measures are
necessitated by the fact that better commen-
taries are available on
Esarhaddon's treaties and the Sefire inscrip-
tions than on Leviticus 26: The
following works will provide the base
1 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, pp. 59-157.
2 Hillers, Treaty-Curses, p. 77; and, Covenant,
pp. 132-40.
3 McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, pp. 112-15, 287.
4 D. J. Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon (
R.
Frankena, "The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deu-
teronomy,"
OTS 14 (1965):122-54; F. C. Fensham,
"Maledictions and Bene-
dictions
in Ancient Near-Eastern Vassal-Treaties and the Old Testament,"
ZAW 74 (1962):1-19.
5 Bamberger, Leviticus, p. 290.
6 Ibid., p. 338 n. 5. Cf. Clements, Prophecy and Tradition, pp.
16-17,
21.
19
from which the extra-biblical
materials will be examined: Esarhaddon--
Borger1 and Wiseman;2
Sefire--Donner and Rollig3 and Fitzmyer.4
Systematic
theological synthesis
Since
"the historical principle operating side by side with the
systematic in a complementary
role"5 is a proper description of the
methodology of Old Testament
theology, this study will present both the
diachronic and synchronic
viewpoints of the doctrinal contributions of
Leviticus 26. The synchronic
will be inherent in the choice of doc-
trinal topics or emphases from
the pericope itself (e.g., the prohibi-
tion of idolatry, the sabbath, law,
covenant, blessing, imprecation,
exile, the land, guilt, etc.).
The diachronic will be presented within
each topical discussion. Each
subject will be related to the historical
perspective (i.e., viewed with
respect to progressive revelation).
This particular section of the
dissertation will not be treated
in great detail. The purpose is
not to present an Old Testament the-
ology, but to evaluate the
contributions of Leviticus 26 to Old Testa-
ment theology.
1 R.
Druck-
u. Verlagsanstalt, 1956).
2 Vassal-Treaties of
Esarhaddon.
3 KAI.
4 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, BibOr
19
(Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967).
5 Eichrodt, Theology, 1:32 (emphasis his). For practical pur-
poses,
this statement by Eichrodt is a description of the concept of
progressive
revelation. God's revelation not only deals specifically
with
the needs of a particular time period in which his people live,
it
also builds upon previous revelation.
20
General Introduction to
Leviticus 26
Date and Authorship
Two major factors contribute to the writer's
conclusion that
Leviticus (and, thereby,
Leviticus 26) was written by Moses: (1) the
direct statements of Leviticus
to the effect that Moses was the recipi-
ent of the revelation contained
therein (cf. 1:1; 4:1; 5:14; 6:1 [Heb.,
5:20], 8 [Heb., 6:1], 19 [Heb.,
v. 12], 24 [Heb., v. 17]; 7:22, 28, 38;
8:1; 11:1; 12:1; 13:1; 14:1,
33; 15:1; 16:1, 2; 17:1; 18:1; 19:1; 20:1;
21:1, 16; 22:1, 17, 26; 23:1,
9, 23, 26, 33; 24:1, 13, 23; 25:1; 26:46;
27:1, 34); and, (2) the
"considerable degree of uncertainty"1 about any
alternative dating of Leviticus
as a whole or in part (especially the
Holiness Code of chapters 17-26
and chapter 26 alone2 ). In lieu of
reliable evidence to the
contrary, the prima-facie evidence of the
document's own claim to Mosaic
authorship must be allowed to stand.3
To do otherwise would be to
resort to conjecture, as admitted by the
1 Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, p. 238; cf. pp.
233-39.
2 Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the
Prophet Ezekiel,
Chapters 1-24,
trans. Ronald E. Clements, ed. Frank
pp.
46-52. Zimmerli presents an excellent summary of the similarities
and
differences between Ezekiel and Leviticus 26 (ibid., p. 51) as
well
as a brief presentation of some of the various views of the author-
ship
of Leviticus 26, including Ezekiel as a possible author (ibid.,
pp.
46-47).
3 Cf.
"In
contradistinction to the inquisitorial method is that which pre-
sumes
a man to be innocent until he is proven guilty. As applied to
documents
it proceeds on the presumption that a document is to be pre-
sumed
to be what it purports to be until it shall be proved that it is
not."
Ibid., p. 27.
21
writers who question the Mosaic
authorship of Leviticus or of chapter
26 itself.1
Proceeding upon the assumption of Mosaic authorship,
Leviticus
26 has as its mise en scene the period of time
immediately subsequent
to the revelation of the
Sinaitic Covenant to Moses on Mt. Horeb/Sinai.
This setting must be recognized
for what effect it has on the revela-
tion in this pericope: exilic
statements should not be attributed to
prophecy after the occurrence
of the event (vaticinium ex eventu).
Contextual Considerations
The remote (the book of Leviticus) and the immediate
(chapters
25 and 27) contexts of
Leviticus 26 were unfolded in the discussion of
the significance of the
pericope in the book as a whole.2 Both contexts
indicate the covenant
relationship which dominates chapter 26. Chapter
25 belongs with chapter 26 as a
single literary unit consisting of two
sections: 25:1-55 and 26:1-46.
This literary unit is set apart by an
inclusion involving 25:1
("Then Yahweh spoke to Moses on
and 26:46 ("These are the
decrees, judgments, and instructions which
Yahweh presented between
himself and the sons of
through Moses").
Chapters 25 and 26 share the emphasis of the sabbatical
principle
1 See above, p. 20 nn. 1
and 2. Cf. Wenham, Leviticus, pp.
8-13;
Peter
R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration A Study
of Hebrew Thought of
the Sixth Century B.C., OTL (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1968),
pp.
84-86. For additional confirmation of an early date for the context
of
Leviticus 26 (esp. chapter 25), see: Stephen Herbert Bess, "Systems
of
Land Tenure in Ancient Israel" (unpublished doctor of philosophy dis-
sertation,
2 See above, pp. 7-11.
22
while chapters 26 and 27 share the
emphasis of the vows and/or
promises. The pericope under
consideration, therefore, is not an
isolated or appended unit
lacking significant ties to its contexts.
This unity of material is also
conducive to the Mosaic authorship of
the entire book of Leviticus.1
1 For a defence of the
Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (and
thus,
Leviticus 26), see: Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A
Survey of Old
Testament Introduction (revised ed.,
105-18,
162-64; G. Herbert Livingston, The
Pentateuch in Its Cultural
Environment (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1974), pp. 205-69; M. H.
Segal,
The Pentateuch: Its Composition and Its
Authorship and Other
Biblical Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes
Press, 1967), pp. 6-27, 56-57.
CHAPTER II
A TEXT-CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LEVITICUS 26
Leviticus 26 evidences a stable text presenting only
recurrent
variants which have little
effect upon the exegesis of the pericope.
This factor accounts for the
seeming neglect of text-critical discussion
in most of the commentaries.
The text-critical variants of the pericope
do offer some instructive
perspectives, however. They illustrate
current trends in Old Testament
textual criticism and reveal the charac-
ter of text-critical
apparatuses in the editions of the Hebrew Old
Testament.
The following studies in the text of Leviticus 26 are
presented
in the order of their
occurrence in the pericope. A summary of the
types of problems encountered
will be presented in tabular form at the
conclusion of this chapter.
Verse 2
The Syriac presents a minor variant with
(pwqdny)
"my ordinances" for yttbw "my sabbaths." This appears to be
nothing
more than a scribal error
(perhaps paramneia?) resulting from a confu-
sion of memory with either
25:18 or 26:3 where this term is employed
with the concept of
"keeping" (rmw tvcm).
Thus, the retroversion of
BHS (ytvcm) "my commandments") is consistent
with the Syriac-Hebrew
equivalents in the context but is
text-critically irrelevant since the
rendering is most likely due to
scribal error rather than to a
23
24
similar Vorlage. It would have been better had BHS given only the
transliterated Syriac variant (omitting
the irrelevant retroversion which
might lead one to believe that
a different Vorlage was probable).
Verse 9
The questionable character of the critical apparatuses in
both
BHK3 and BHS manifests itself in the lemma for
this verse. Both indi-
cate that Codex Hillel reads Mtx "them" instead of Mktx "you." How-
ever, Codex Hillel actually has
Mktx!1
Verse 11
The sole dissenting witness from the MT's ynkwm "my dwelling"
is the Septuagint's th>n diaqh<knh mou "my covenant."
However, the
testimony is divided among
Septuagint manuscripts, some of which read
skh?nh
"tabernacle" in place of diaqh<kh.2 It is again premature (or
presumptuous?) of BHK3 and BHS to offer a retroversion (ytyrb
"my cove-
nant"). The theological
association of the divine residency with the
covenant is familiar to the
student of the Old Testament (cf. Exod
24:7, 8, with 24:16; Lev 26:9
with 26:11; 1 Kgs 6:19 with 6:13; 8:1,
6, 21, 23, with 8:12; and,
especially Ezek 37:26 with 37:27). Several
explanations for the Septuagintal
reading may be offered before the text
critic should resort to
retroversion: (1) The scribe accidentally may
1 The
Pentateuch: Codex Hillel (
Ltd.,
1974), 2:297.
2 Alan
Greek According to the
Text of Codex Vaticanus, Supplemented from Other
Uncial Manuscripts (Cambridge: University
Press, 1909), 1/2:397.
25
have altered the MT due to the
proximity of Leviticus 26:9 (parablep-
sis?); (2) the scribe accidentally
may have altered the MT due to his
theological awareness of the
relationship between the divine presence
and the divine covenant
(perhaps via the Ezek 37:26-27 passage?). In
any case, there is no reason to
give the impression that some of the
Septuagint manuscripts
possessed a variant Hebrew Vorlage (as is
accomplished by offering a
retroversion).
An
additional observation is worthy of note: the massorah
indicates that ynkwm is found but three times in the Old Testament (
g o).
Such a notation is an
indication that this reading has been maintained
carefully so that it is not
altered by the Massoretic scribes. It is
indeed a marvel how often the
circellus in the MT appears "precisely
over words emended in the
apparatus of BHK or BHS!"1 The circellus
ought, to the contrary,
indicate to the textual critic that extreme
caution should be observed in
order not to alter the text.2 Certainly,
evidence for alteration in
Leviticus 26:11 is not weighty enough to
warrant emendation.
Verse 16
In this
verse another example of the preserving influence of
the massorah is discovered. The
MT hlhb "immediately" is
rendered by
some of the Samaritan
manuscripts as hlHb
"with sickness." The variant
1 Sanders, "Text and Canon," p.
18.
2 Ibid., p. 17. For a different viewpoint
concerning the massorah,
see:
IDB, s.v. "Text, OT," by B.
J. Roberts, 4:586. The notations of
the
massorah do not establish the text, they merely confirm the reli-
ability
of the prima-facie evidence.
26
may be due to a confusion of
the Samaritan script's h ( ) and H ( ).
Since there is no other witness
to support the Samaritan, the MT should
be maintained. Sanders
expresses succinctly the force of the massorah's
lamed (l) in such cases
A lamed in the mp, keyed by the Massoretes to a
word in the line
indicated, stands like a soldier to remind the
next scribe that the
word in question must be copied precisely as
written or corrected
in the Vorlage. The text critic who takes the
massorae seriously
and pursues each case far enough soon realizes
that there was often
good reason for them. The word in question with
a lamed in mp is a
hapax in the detailed form in the text. There is
no other quite
like it anywhere else in the Bible and it must
be guarded in its
particularity; it must retain its peculiarity
and not be assimi-
lated to another form of the word more common in
the Bible or else-
where.1
Verse 17
The
major text-critical problem of this verse involves the MT's
vdrv
"and they shall rule" in contrast to the Septuagint's kai> diw<contai
= vpdrv (?) "and they shall pursue."2
This lemma illustrates the need
for considering the translation
techniques of the Greek versions (espe-
cially
addition, this lemma
demonstrates the failure of BHS to
give an adequate
accounting of relevant
variants.3
The
Hexaplaric variants unfortunately were omitted by both BHK3
and BHS. Alloi present paideu<sousin "they shall
chastise" and e]pikrath<-
1 Sanders, "Text and Canon," p.
17.
2 Cf. Dominique Barthelemy, et al., Preliminary and Interim
Report on the Hebrew Old
Testament Text Project, 3 vols. (2nd revised
ed.,
3 John Wm. Wevers, "Text History and
Text Criticism of the Sep-
tuagint,"
VTSup 29 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978), pp. 395-97.
27
sousin
"they shall rule over/prevail/conquer."1 It appears that
the
Greek version of
normally rendered hdr by e]pikrate<w.2 Symmachus is credited with kata-
doulw<sontai
"they shall enslave," while Theodotion agrees with Alloi.3
All three Greek readings are in
harmony with the concept of the MT.
The concept of chastisement is
interpretive: the subjection of
to another nation was a matter
of chastisement for disobedience to
God.4 The concept of
enslavement is likewise interpretive since sub-
jection may result in
enslavement. However, katadoulo<w may
have the
meaning, "absolute subjection
or the loss of autonomy."5 The Septuagint
reading may be interpretive
also since subjection involves persecution
or even expulsion.6
The Septuagint may be understood also as an assim-
ilation of this part of the
verse to the last section of the verse.
Another
text-critical aspect of the reading vdrv is the
massorah
indicating that this form
occurs only twice: here and in Isaiah 14:2.
The Massoretic notation again
preserves the integrity of the text. The
MT's circellus alerts the reader
to this confirmatory evidence (as in
the previously discussed
examples at vv. 11 and 16).
1 Fridericus Field, ed., Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive
Veterum Interpretum
Graecorum in Totum Vetus Testamentum, 2 vols. (Oxonii:
2 Ibid., n. 23. Cf. Joseph Reider, An Index to
Turner,
VTSup 12 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966), pp. 92, 309.
3 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, 1:215.
4 TDNT,
S.V. "paideu<w," by Georg Bertram, 5:606-12.
5 TDNT,
S.V. "dou?loj," by Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, 2:279.
6 TDNT,
s.v. "diw<kw," by Albrecht Oepke, 2:229.
28
Verse 20
A minor
variant exists in the current text of this verse which
has been ignored by the
commentaries: the substitution of hdWh
"the
field" for Crxh "the land" in the last part of the
verse. Crxh is
supported by
Onqelos (majority of
manuscripts; incorrectly identified as Targum
Jonathan by BHS), and the Syriac Peshitta (omitted
by both BHK3 and
BHS). hdWh is
supported by the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint,
at least four manuscripts of
Targum Onqelos, Targum Neophyti I, the
Syriac Hexapla, and the Arabic.
A number of Hebrew manuscripts also
possess this latter reading. The
Latin Vulgate chose to omit the term
altogether.2
The
greatest influence on the variant reading appears to have
been verse 4 which is a very
close parallel. Both BHK3
and BHS indi-
cate this situation by "ut
4." The variant could have arisen through
unintentional memory error
(paramneia?) or through intentional harmoni-
zation.
The
infrequency of hdW in
Leviticus (and, in Deuteronomy)3 con-
firms the MT reading. The
combination hdWh Cf
"trees of the field"
occurs only in verse 4 and
Deuteronomy 20:19. In Ugaritic the pair
1 David Noel Freedman, "Variant
from
2 As in Wenham's translation (Leviticus, p. 325).
3 hdW (25x in Leviticus, 13x
in Deuteronomy) vs. Crx (82x in Levi-
ticus,
198x in Deuteronomy): Peter M. K. Morris and Edward James, A
Critical Word Book of
Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, vol. 8 of The
Computer Bible, ed. J. Arthur Baird
and David Noel Freedman (
MT:
Scholars Press and Biblical Research Associates, Inc., 1975), pp.
102,
109, 128, 138.
29
ars // sd "land // field" occurs in
the same context as the combination
‘sm
ars
"trees of the land," offering further confirmation of the MT in
both verses 4 and 20.1
Verse 24
Like
verse 20 with its attraction to verse 4, verse 24 has been
attracted to verse 28 by either
paramneia or harmonization. In this
case, the text-critical problem
involves more than a single word and
has a greater breadth of textual
evidence to consider. The MT reads,
yrqb
Mkmf ynx-Jx ytklhv "then, indeed, I myself shall walk in
opposition
to you." The Samaritan
Pentateuch only alters the particle Jx
"indeed"
to Mg "even," which is a semantic
equivalent.2 This variant is the
only one recognized by either BHK3 or BHS. Translation ad sensum
for
yrq
"opposition" is manifested in some Septuagint manuscripts (plagi<wj
"contrary to," e]mfhloneikwj "obstinately," e]nanti<wj "against"), the
Targums (vywqb "with difficulty," yrm "rebellious/contentious/obsti-
nate") , the Syriac ( qry’yt "contentiously,”
ptyl’yt
"obliquely/contrary"), and the Latin Vulgate (adversus). All
of these renderings have the
sense of opposition or adversity.
The
majority testimony of the Septuagint, however, reads qu<w
plagi<&
"in adverse anger" (or, "in angry/fervent
adversity/opposition").
BHK3 and BHS ignore this reading, however,
choosing instead to recognize
the lesser variant regarding
the particle. The evidence from
appears to lend support to the
Septuagint with yrq tmHb
"in fervent/
angry opposition"
(11QLev). Support may be found also in the margin of
1 UT
126:3-6 (p. 193).
2 GKC, pp. 483 (§153), 484 (§154a n. 1).
30
Targum Neophyti I: vywqbv hmHb "with anger and with difficulty."
This
reading, however, appears to be
conflate. It expands and emphasizes the
adverbial phrase in order to
express more fully the translator's inter-
pretation of the character of
divine opposition.
The
term yrq is limited to Leviticus where it
is always found
in construction with by Mf jlh "walk with" and occurs only in
chapter 26
(vv. 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 40,
41). The occurrence of hmH
"anger" in
verse 28 is a hapax legomenon in Leviticus. It would
appear that
verse 28 (yrq-tmHb "with angry/fervent opposition")
has been the primary
factor in the variant history
of verse 24 in both the Septuagint and
the
Verse 31
According
to Barr, BHS has a tendency to
"cite 'nonn Mss' or
'mlt Mss' in support of a
variation, when these are in most cases late
medieval manuscripts"
having "no independent evidential value"1 (when
considered in the light of the
ancient sources, such as the Samaritan,
Septuagint,
do support the singular Mkwdqm "your sanctuary" as opposed to the MT
plural Mkywdqm "your sanctuaries." The latter
is supported by the
Septuagint, Targum Onqelos, and
the Latin Vulgate. The context of the
verse presents a number of
pluralities: "your high places," "your
incense altars," and
"your cities" (vv. 30-31). Thus, the concept of a
plurality of idolatrous
sanctuaries is not antagonistic to the immediate
context. Indeed, the
parallelism of the first portion of verse 31
("your cities") would
seem to require the following plural, "your sanctu-
1 James Barr, review of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, in JTS
30
(1979):213-14.
31
aries." The idolatrous
practices of the Israelites would one day per-
meate their entire nation with
idol sanctuaries existing in many of its
cities (cf. 1 Kgs 12:29; Amos
8:14).
Verses 34 and 35
The
text-critical apparatuses of BHK3
and BHS for these two
verses exhibit misleading
information. The citation, without explana-
tion, of the Samaritan variant hmwx "guilt" (vv. 34 and 35) leaves the
reader in a quandary: Is the
notation intended to suggest a different
Vorlage for the Samaritan
Pentateuch in these verses? However, the MT
is supported by the fact that
the reference to this verse (or, to this
verse's concept) in 2
Chronicles 36:21 maintains hmwh
"its desolation/
devastation." The x in the Samaritan could be explained by the
possi-
bility of a miscorrection
of hmwxh, since
the Samaritan is known to
have inserted vocalic x's from time to time.1 If this seems
to be too
far afield, let one consider
the possibility that there was virtually
no theological difference
between the concrete result of
obedience
("devastation") and the abstract result of
ence
("guilt/sin"). In the mind of
the scribe(s) they may have been
understood as one and the same.
Either way, the reading can be
explained without resorting to
a differing Vorlage.
BHS's notation that the Septuagint
adds au]th?j "its" is
unnec-
essary. The Hop’al infinitive absolute has the third
feminine pronominal
1 Adolf Brull, Das samaritanische Targum zum Pentateuch, Anhang 1:
Kritische Studien (reprint ed.,
p.
19 nn. 40 and 41. The inserted x in such a case could be
an argument
for
the pointing hmwhA (as in 2 Chr 36:21) rather than hmwhI (Lev 26:34).
32
suffix appended: hm.Awa.hA = h.m.Awa.hA
"its devastation."1 The Septuagint,
therefore, was merely
translating the form accurately, not providing a
variant reading. In fact, the
Samaritan, Syriac, and Latin Vulgate all
accurately include the
pronominal suffix exhibited in the MT and the
Septuagint.
It
should also be noted that the MT includes a circellus over
both forms of hmwh (vv. 34 and 35). The same is true of hmwhb "in its
devastation" in verse 43
which suffered the same alteration in the
Samaritan. The massorah could
indicate, therefore, the Massoretes'
understanding of corruptions to
the text and they took steps to insure
that later scribes realized the
importance of copying the text accu-
rately here.2
Both BHK3 and BHS note that the Samaritan has a clearly feminine
form for tcrhv "and she shall enjoy" (= htcrhv). This
should not be
taken as an indication that the
MT does not have the feminine form.
The third feminine singular of
the perfect (qtl) does occur with
just
the t ending.3
Verse 39
BHS cites the Septuagint's dia> ta>j a[marti<aj u[mw?n
"because of
your sins" as a variant
for the MT's Mnvfb
"because of/in their iniqui-
ties/guilt." The major
problem is that of the pronominal suffix since
the concept is the same. it is
significant that there is Septuagintal
1 GKC, pp. 182 (§67y), 256 (§91e).
2 Sanders, "Text and Canon," pp.
17-18.
3 GKC, p. 209 (§75i).
33
support for the third person pronominal
suffix1 (a fact not indicated
by BHS) and that the daughter versions of the Greek Old Testament all
support the third person
reading.2 The ignoring of the manuscript evi-
dence and the daughter versions
by BHS produces a misconception of
the
ancient Greek versional
evidence.
The
most problematic lemma of this verse, however, is Mkybyx
"your enemies." The
second masculine plural pronominal suffix is chal-
lenged by a qere in Codex Muga (a ninth-century
codex evidently
by the same scribe as Codex Or.
4445 of the British Museum3), a multi-
tude ("mlt" = 20-60)4
of manuscripts, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the
versions (at least a plurality,
if not all).5 The reading supported
by this array of witnesses is the
third masculine plural pronominal suf-
fix Mh_ "their." Although neither BHK3 nor BHS state in their appara-
tuses that this latter reading
should be accepted, the very method of
citation would have a
psychological effect upon a text critic influenced
by quantity rather than
quality. Even the careful critic might assume
that these apparatuses testify
to a nearly unanimous witness which has
few, if any, contrary voices.
However, the following facts surface
upon closer scrutiny: (1) Codex
Muga is a prejudicing citation since
its contribution is but a qere and no statement is made concerning
Codex
1 Brooke and McLean, eds., The Old Testament in Greek, p. 401.
2 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, 1:216.
3 Ernst Wurthwein, Der Text des Alten Testaments (4th
edition,
revised,
4 BHS,
p. xlvii. Cf. BHK3, p. 186
("87 MSS").
5 BHS,
p. xlviii.
34
Or. 4445 (i.e., whether it, as
a manuscript by the same scribe, agrees
by text or qere). Such information would help in evaluating the evi-
dence. In fact, this piece of
evidence may be duplicated in the "mlt"
following in the apparatus. (2)
BHK3 cites "87
MSS" while BHS indicates
at least 27 less! (3) BHK3's "Edd"
(editions) is also a prejudicing
citation since these comprise
other editors' opinions of a similar
nature to those found in BHK3 and BHS. Editions are not
primary evi-
dence, but secondary (or, even
tertiary)! (4) Among the versions,
nal suffix by u[mw?n "your" in contrast to his less than
literal fellows
in the Hexapla who unanimously
have au]tw?n "their."1
(5) There are dis-
senting witnesses in the
manuscripts of Onqelos' Targum.2 (6) Lastly,
a circellus is to be observed
over the three occurrences of Mhybyx
"their enemies" in
verses 36, 41, and 44. The massorah points out that
this form does appear these
three times in this context.3 There is no
inclusion of a like form or
notation by the massorah in verse 39. That
would seem to indicate that the
Massoretes were guarding the occurrences
in verses 36, 41, and 44 from a
corrupting influence (Mkybyx
"your ene-
mies") found in verses 7,
17, 34, 37, 38, and 39. In addition, the
Rabbinic Bible places a
circellus over Mkybyx
"your enemies" in verse 39
1 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, 1:216.
2 Alexander Sperber, ed., The Bible in Aramaic, 5 vols. (
E.
J. Brill, 1959-73), 1:214, 4B:282. The Ongelos Targum in the Pabbinic
Bible
has the second person pronominal suffix. tvlvdg tvxrqm, 10 vols.
(New
York: Pardes Publishing House, Inc., 1951), 3:loc. cit.
3 BHS,
p. 205. Cf. Gerard E. Weil, ed., Massorah
Gedolah Manu-
scrit B. 19a de
Leningrad,
vol. 1: Les Listes (
Pontifical,
1971), p. 99 (#821). BHK3
omits this massorah.
35
and cites a Sevir:l Mhybyx
ylb NyfFm "in this it is misleading to
read Mhybyx 'their enemies'" (or, "occasion
for error is given with
Mhybyx").
Thus, with these six preceding points in mind, the case for
the current reading in the MT
is stronger than one is led to believe by
either BHK3 or BHS.
This
verse and its lemmas have demonstrated the value of
carefully evaluating the
text-critical apparatuses of BHK3
and BHS
due to their incompleteness and
misleading information. It has also
produced additional examples of
the values of the massorah and of the
Greek daughter versions
(especially
Verse 41
The
first lemma in this verse is presented by BHS.
BHS offers
the Septuagint's kai> a]polw? "and I shall
destroy" in place of the MT's
ytxbhv
"and I shall bring out" and provides the retroversion ytdbxhv
"and I shall
destroy." The citation of the retroversion in BHS includes
a question mark indicating that
there might be evidence of a differing
Vorlage. However, the semantic
range of a]polu<w
includes the meaning of
exile or deportation.2
The Septuagint, therefore, may be taken as being
consistent with the concept of
the MT.
The
second lemma consists of the double particle zx-vx
"whether/
if then" which provides
several interesting considerations: (1) the
necessity for a critical
edition of the Syriac Peshitta, (2) the contri-
bution
of rabbinic scholarship, (3) the BHK3
penchant for emendation,
1 tvlvdg tvxrqm, 3:loc . cit. With regard to the Sevirin, cf.
Robert
Gordis, The Biblical Text in the Making A
Study of Kethib-Qere
(New
York: Ktav Publishing House, 1971), pp. 26-28.
2 LSJ, p. 208.
36
and (4) the Septuagint's
influence on the Samaritan Targum of the
Pentateuch.
Both BHK3 and BHS cite the Syriac in this lemma as unfavorable
to the MT but favorable to the
Septuagint. BHS offers a translitera-
tion of the Syriac and a Hebrew
retroversion: "whjdjn = zxAv;."1 BHK3
offers only an ambiguous
retroversion: “zxA(v;).”2
It may be noted
that the Syriac is still a
double particle which could reflect the
translator's understanding of vx as a conjunctive ("or") rather than
as
a conditional ("if"),
an emphatic ("even"), or an interrogative
("whether") particle.
Syriac does have an equivalent to vx: ‘w
It is employed for the Hebrew
conjunctive vx three
times in Leviticus
25:49. The fourth occurrence of
conditional vx near
the end of the
verse is rendered in Syriac
by w’n "and if/if."
Therefore, the
availability of the Syriac does not guarantee its use--especially
in conditional clauses. The
reading in the Peshitta in 26:41 could be
an assimilation to the
occurrence of zxv and
then" later in the verse
(where the Syriac is identical
in meaning: whydyn "and
then"). The Syro-Hexaplar,
on the other hand, shows definite signs of
conformity to the Septuagint: zx-vx =
hydyn = to<te = "then"
(v. 41a) and zxv =
whydyn = kai> to<te = "and then" (v.
41b).3
A critical edition of the
Syriac Peshitta is in preparation, though the
1 BHS,
p. 205.
2 BHK3,
p. 187.
3 Samuel Lee, ed., Ktb' qdys’ [
and
Foreign Bible Society, ca. 1823 , was employed for this study. The
Syro-Hexaplar
source was: Arthur Voobus, The Pentateuch
in the Version
of the Syro-Hexapla, CSCO 369 (Louvain:
Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1975).
37
Leviticus volume is yet
unavailable.1 Perhaps it will prove to be of
interest and enlightening
concerning this problem. Meanwhile, there is
no direct evidence that the
present Syriac contradicts the MT.
In the
Rabbinic Bible the commentaries of Rashi (Rabbi Shelomo
Yitzchaki, d. 1105) and Ramban
(Rabbi Moses ben Nachman, called Nach-
manides, 1194-1270) are
included. Both relate this lemma to the use
of vx as a conditional particle
("if/whether") in Exodus 21:36.2 The
grammars do not cite Leviticus
26:41, but they do cite Exodus 21:36 as
an example of the conditional
use of vx.3 This grammatical
identifica-
tion is not the same as that
given by the Hebrew Old Testament Text
Project4 nor by
Elliger5 who refer to it as introducing an indirect
question.6 However,
the rendering in GKC ("if perchance")7 indicates
that the two classifications
are quite closely related if not overlap-
ping to the extent that they
cannot be adequately separated.
While BHS is satisfied with offering a
citation of critical
evidence, BHK3 stepped out on a limb by suggesting an emendation:
"1 frt
1 The Peshitta Institute of the
Old Testament in Syriac
According to the Peshitta Version (
Brill,
1966- ).
2 tvlvdg tvxrqm, loc. cit.
3 E.g., GKC, p. 498 (g159cc); P. Paul Jouon, Grammaire de l’He-
breu Biblique (reprint ed.,
p. 517 (§167q).
4 Barthelemy, Preliminary and Interim Report, 1:205.
5 Karl Elliger, Leviticus, HAT 1/4 (
Mohr/Paul
Siebeck, 1966), p. 363.
6 GKC, p. 475 (§150i).
7 Ibid.
38
cPS zx(v;)"
("read perhaps with Septuagint and Syriac, zx(v;).1
This sort of emendatory
suggestion has brought justified criticism.
Upon
checking the Samaritan Targum,2 the writer discovered that
the Septuagint's to<te "then" had been transliterated
into the Samaritan:
(Hebrew transliteration: hFF). This sort of occurrence was
noted by Brull over a century
ago (though he did not cite this particu-
lar passage),3 but
has received little attention since that time. Tal,
in a recent study, emphasized
Arabic and Aramaic corruptions of the
Samaritan Targum,4
but only mentioned Greek corruptions in passing.5
The Samaritan Targum, like
other witnesses, increase in text-critical
value in direct proportion to
the increased knowledge and understanding
of those witnesses.
Verse 42
BHS and BHK3 both note that the Septuagint omits the first per-
son singular suffix of ytyrb "my covenant" in this verse. However,
they
do not note that there are
Septuagint manuscripts supporting the suffix
(mou
“my”).6 BHS
indicates that the Syriac insertion of
d’m
1 BHK3 , p. 187.
2 Brull, Das samaritanische Targum, 3:151. Cf. H. Petermann, ed.,
Pentateuchus Samaritanus
(Berolini:
W. Moeser, 1872-91), p. 342.
3 Brull, Das samaritanische Targum, 1:33, 2:40. occurs in
v.
34 (2x) and v. 41 (2x) and other passages in the Pentateuch cited by
Brull.
4 A. Tal, "The Samaritan Targum to
the Pentateuch, Its Distinctive
Characteristics
and Its Metamorphosis," JSS 21
(1976):26-38.
5 Ibid., p. 29.
6 Brooke and McLean, eds., The Old Testament in Greek, p. 401.
39
"with" between ytyrb and the proper noun following it throughout
this
verse is equivalent to the
Hebrew Mf "with." BHK3 proposes that the
Hebrew order be altered from ytyrb-tx to -tx
ytyrb on
the basis of the
Syriac. Both suggestions are
unnecessary since the syntax of the phrase
in the MT has been translated
accurately by the Syriac.1 The BHK3
pro-
posal for the alternation of
word order is also contradicted by the
massorah (note the circellus
over the first tx). The
massorah indicates
both the position of the
particle near the beginning of the verse and
the triple occurrence of that
particle within the same verse. Once
again, the MT should be
maintained in spite of the impressions one
might receive from the
apparatuses of BHK3 and BHS.
Verse 43
The
comments made above concerning verses 34-35 suffice as an
answer to the BHS lemmas
regarding this verse.
Verse 44
The
triple particle construction at the head of this verse has
produced a text-critical
discussion due to the apparent difference in
some Targum manuscript(s?)
cited by BHS (but not by BHK3). In checking
this supposed variation, it is
discovered that neither Targum Onqelos
(via Sperber:2 xd Mrb Jxv "yet nevertheless this"), Targum
Yerushalmi
(via Sperber:3 xdb Mrb dvHlv "except only in
this"), nor Neophyti I
(which actually lacked vv.
42-44 and was reconstructed as xdhb Jvxv
1 GKC, p. 426 (§131r). The suggestion of a
dittography of the y
is
unnecessary (cf. GKC, p. 415 [§128d]).
2 Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, 1:215.
3 Ibid.
40
"and also in this")1
contain BHS's citation of the simple
bd’ (xdb "in
this"). None of the
manuscripts referred to disagree with the MT in
their Aramaic translations. More
significantly, none of the manuscripts
has the same reading in verse
44 as in verse 27--which is offered as
the reason for the supposed
variation in the Targums by BHS and
as the
reason for the proposed
emendation by BHK3. To
emend txz-Mg-Jxv
"yet
in spite of this" to txzb-Jxv "yet in this" (or, "and
even in this")
would decrease the emphasis
presented by this array of particles.2
Also, it would betray the
massorah which carefully marked the particle
construction in verse 27 (txzb-Mxv "and if in this") for
preservation
and noted the primary position
of Jxv "yet" (or, "and
yet") in verse 44.
The
plural tvcrxb "in the
lands" for the MT singular Crxb
"in
the land" is found in the
Samaritan. However, the Samaritan is best
explained by the influence of
the plural suffixes on the translator.
The BHS citation of Septuagint miniscule
manuscript(s?) for the
second person plural pronominal
suffix at the end of the verse in place
of the MT's third person plural
is significant in that this citation of
minor Greek witnesses was
employed in a place of editorial advantage.
In the preceding discussions it
has been observed that such evidence
was conveniently ignored when
it was contrary to the editorial opinion.
This type of subjective
recording of textual evidence is not conducive
to accuracy and does not merit
the trust of students. The massorah's
1 Alejandro Diez Macho, Neophyti I: Targum Palestinense MS de
la Biblioteca Vaticana, 5 vols. (
gaciones
Cientificas, 1971), 3:202-3.
2 C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, vol. 2, trans.
James
Martin, in Biblical Commentary on the Old
Testament (reprint ed.,
41
circellus over the compound divine
title (Mhyhlx hvhy
"Yahweh their
God") indicates that the
Massoretes believed this title (including the
third person plural pronominal
suffix) should be preserved.
Verse 46
The
text-critical lemma in this verse concerns the MT's plural
trvthv "and
the laws" as compared to the Septuagint's singular o[ no<moj
"the law." The
Hexapla demonstrates that the Greek daughter versions
followed the MT: oi[ no<moi "the laws."
ered one of them. His
literalness would argue strongly for the MT.
The circellus over this form
also argues for the preservation of the
plural. The use of the t as a feminine singular absolute termination
would be a rarity1
with little support here. The Septuagint's reading
probably exhibits more interpretation
than translation.
Summary
It
should be evident to the reader by now that the text-critical
apparatuses of BHK3 and BHS have proven quite disappointing to
this
researcher. The omissions,
miscitations, prejudices, and carelessness
of the two apparatuses render
them practically useless to those unable
to check the manuscripts and
versions for themselves. This disappoint-
ment over the more recent BHS is shared by other reviewers. Barr
says,
"it is sad to have to say
that the critical apparatus of BHS represents
a step backward rather than
forward in comparison with BHK (which itself
was not so very good)."2
1 GKC, pp. 223-24 (480f-g) .
2 Barr, "review," p. 215.
42
The
instruction of Sanders concerning the placement of the
circellus has been fruitful
throughout this pericope. It has proven
to be significant by its
consistent presence where emendation has been
sought by BHK3 or BHS.
The material presented in this section of the
study could be expanded easily
by a more detailed survey of the trans-
lational techniques of the
ancient versions (especially the Septuagint,
the Greek daughter versions,
the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac
Peshitta, and the Targums).
However, such is not within the scope or
purpose of this dissertation.
The
following chart is offered as a convenient summary of the
nature of the text-critical
problems discussed in this study:
1.
Scribal
1.1 - Error: verses 2 (Syriac), 16 (Samaritan),
20 (Samaritan,
Septuagint), 31
(Samaritan, Syriac), 34-35 (Samari-
tan), 44 (Samaritan)
1.2 - Alteration: verses 11 (Septuagint), 20
(Samaritan, Septuagint)
2.
Editorial (BHK3 and/or BHS)
2.1 - Error: verses 9 (Hebrew ms), 20 (Targums),
34-35 (Samaritan,
Septuagint), 44
(Targums)
2.2 - Incompleteness: verses 11 (Septuagint).,
17 (Greek versions),
24 (Septuagint), 39
(Septuagint, Greek versions, Tar-
gums), 42 (Septuagint),
44 (Targums), 46 (Greek ver-
sions)
2.3 - Miscellaneous: verses 39 (Hebrew mss,
editions, Greek versions,
Targums), 41
(Septuagint, Syriac), 44 (Septuagint)
3. Massorah:
verses 11, 16, 17, 34-35, 39, 42, 44, 46
4.
Miscellaneous sources of solution:
verses 24 (translation techniques),
31 (context), 41 (translation techniques,
rabbinics),
42 (syntax)
This chart demonstrates that:
(1) The Samaritan text is the most likely
to be subject to scribal error
in Leviticus 26. (2) The Septuagint of
43
Leviticus 26 is the freest in
its handling of the text. (3) The text-
critical apparatuses of BHK3 and BHS evidence carelessness in several
areas, but especially regarding
the Septuagint, Greek versions, and
Targums. (4) The massorah may
be a major factor in the text-critical
study of the Old Testament.
CHAPTER III
AN
EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF LEVITICUS 26
The
Massoretic divisions of the text of Leviticus traditionally
have included 26:1-2 with 25:55
and have made these three verses the
second half of 25:47-26:2.
There is much to be said, however, for a
break between 25:55 and 26:1-2.
Some commentators believe the break is
so certain that they often
consider 26:1-2 an insertion.1 The peculi-
arity of 26:1-2 argues for
annexion to the following pericope rather
than isolation from it. Moses
purposefully emphasized
relationship to Yahweh at the
commencement of this section dealing with
covenant blessings and curses.
These "elemental dimensions of covenant"2
provide the ground for the
remainder of the pericope. Without verses
1-2, the following verses have
no specified antecedent for the "stat-
utes" (HQh) and "commandments" (hvcm) of Yahweh (cf. v. 3). It is
noteworthy that the refrain,
"I am Yahweh (your God)," provides "a
double formula at the beginning
and end of the chapter"3 (vv. 1, 2, 13
44, 45). The following
exegetical analysis, therefore, recognizes the
1 Cf. J. R. Porter, Leviticus, CBC (
Press,
1976), p. 207; Shalom M. Paul, Studies in
the Book of the Cove-
nant in the Light of
Cuneiform and Biblical Law, VTSup 18 (
Brill,
1970), p. 34.
2 Walter Brueggemann, The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and
Challenge in Biblical
Faith (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1977), p. 67.
3 Wenham, Leviticus, p. 327.
44
45
unity of Leviticus 26:1-46. The
major divisions of the pericope con-
sist of Precept (vv. 1-2),
Promise (vv. 3-13), Penalty (vv. 14-45), and
postscript (v. 46).1
Precept (vv. 1-2)
Prohibition of Idols (v. 1)
The
apodictic formula of this prohibition emphasizes the abso-
lute responsibility of
not optional. The threefold
repetition of the l
preposition underscores
the intent of the idol-makers:
personal worship (Mkl
"for yourselves,"
twice; tvHtwhl "to bow down/worship," once).
The l in Mkl could intro-
duce a dativus commodi (i.e., dative of interest or benefit). The idols
were believed to be beneficial,
possessing powers which could enrich the
lives of their worshippers
(both physically and spiritually). These
benefits would accrue to the one
who acted as a vassal in the presence
of his suzerain.2
Being a vassal to an idol (or, idols) made it impos-
sible to be a vassal to Yahweh.
Either Yahweh was the sole suzerain,
or the Israelite had breached
the covenant.
The
covenant stipulations prohibited the production (hWf
xl),
the erection (Mvq xl), and the appointment/designation (Ntn xl)3 of
1 Cf. Elliger, Leviticus, p. 363.
2 Cf. J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, NICOT (
William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), p. 275. tvHtwh is an
infinitive
construct Histap'el (or, St-stem)
with a causative-reflexive
force,
from the root hvH. Cf. Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Bib-
lical Hebrew (New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1971), p. 254 (§181).
A
discussion of the force and significance of the .t-stem may be found
in
GAG, pp. 122-23 (§94).
3 Cf. BDB, pp. 680-81. Ntn has within its semantic
range the con-
cepts
of designation, assigning, confirming, imputing, and constituting--
as
with covenants, kings, decrees, ordinances, etc. It is the writer's
46
idols. The three verbs are not
necessarily synonymous. Each verb may
be understood as furthering the
concept introduced by the previous verb.
In this fashion, each verb
narrows the focus: making --> raising -->
appointing. The focus is on the
concept of exclusive authority. Their
exclusivity and authority were
not actually inherent. These qualities
were derived from their
worshippers who attributed exclusivity and
authority to them as representatives
of supernatural beings. The oppo-
site is true of Yahweh, the
covenant deity of
and authority are inherent, his
suzerainty independent of human attri-
bution and unique in the
universe--he alone is God (cf. Isa 43:10-11,
15; 44:6-21; 46:5-11; see,
also, 1 Cor 8:4).
Four
classes of idols are listed: "idols" (lylx),
“images”
(lsp),
"pillars" (hbcm) , and
"figure stones" (tykWm Nbx). The
first
noun appears to be employed
with a pejorative sense as a general term
for all idols:
"worthless/powerless."1 The second noun refers to the
fact that these idols had been
handmade, cut or carved from stone or
wood.2 The third
noun is basically equivalent to a menhir,
a memorial
stone in which a deity was
thought to reside.3 The fourth noun seems
to present the concept of an
attractive carved relief in stone.4 As a
opinion
that Ntn,
in this context, conveys the concept of setting up
something
in such a manner that the observers understand that it is
authoritative,
that it demands respect and vassalage. Cf. Ntn's use
for
the appointment of a king (1 Sam 12:13), a leader (Num 14:4), a
prophet
(Jer 1:5), and an idol-priest (2 Kgs 23:5).
1 TDOT,
s.v. “lylix<“, by Horst Dietrich Preuss, 1:285-87. Cf.
Targum
Onqelos, vfF
"something causing to go astray."
2 BDB, p. 820.
3 Cf., out of many sources, Eichrodt, Theology, 1:115-17; de
Vaux,
Ancient
4 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, p. 221; BDB, p. 967.
47
group, these four classes are representative
of all idols. These terms
also convey the breadth of
idolatrous worship in the ancient Near East.
Such worship was well-developed
and had its appealing aspects.1
The
ultimate reason for the prohibition of idols is succinctly
expressed in the Selbstvorstellungsformel ("self-introduction formula"):