1 M. Christian, Openness to the Other Inside and Outside of Numbers, in: T. Römer (ed.), The Books of Leviticus and Numbers. Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense LV, 1–3 August 2006, BETL, Peeters, Leuven, forthcoming.

2 Cf., e.g., Ezra 3:10; 8:20; Neh 12:24, 36, 45f.

3 Cf. R. G. Kratz, Die Tora Davids: Psalm 1 und die doxologische Fünfteilung des Psalters, ZTK 93, 1996 (1–34) 7: „Nun heißt die Tora in Ps 1 aber nicht ‚Tora des Mose“ (o.ä), sondern auffälligerweise'Tora Jhwhs.‘“

4 Cf. ibid., 8: „Im Rahmen des Proömiums fungiert der Ausdruck Tora Jhwhs gewissermaßen als Signal, das die Aufmerksamkeit des Lesers von den ersten Psalmzeilen an auf das wiederholte Vorkommen desselben Ausdrucks im weiteren Lesezusammenhang des Psalters lenkt … Ps 1 erfordert somit eine Lektüre und Interpretation aus und für den weiteren Kontext des Psalters.“

5 Cf. ibid., 7: Ps 1 verwendet bewußt den etwas weiter gefaßten, die Autorität steigernden Begriff Tora Jhwhs und weist damit auf eine Größe außerhalb des Psalters, sicher den Pentateuch und womöglich auch schon auf die Sammlung der vorderen und hinteren Propheten.“ To this list we would add select wisdom traditions.

6 Scholarly analyses of 11QPsalmsa have generated a number of hypotheses, one of which classifies it and other Qumran Psalter manuscripts as secondary liturgical collections. 11Q Psalmsa has been characterized as a „library edition,“ an „instruction book“ containing the supposed works of David, and „an instruction book for budding Levite choristers“ at the Temple in ca. 200 BCE (P. Skehan's thesis summarized in P. Flint, Psalms, Book of: Biblical Text, in: Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, L. Schiffman/J. VanderKam [eds.], Oxford, Oxford University 2000, 706).

7 Gunkel adjudged that „the torah appears nowhere in the psalms as an independent genre. These only influence psalmody in individual references, and even these are relatively rare. Excepting the so-called torah liturgies (Pss 15; 24:3–6), Gunkel finds such only in Ps 50:8, 14f, 22f., otherwise preserved in prose (Hermann Gunkel, An Introduction to the Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel, trans. J. Nogalski, Macon, Mercer University 1998, 249 [original emphasis]). Within the Psalter, the intentional portrayal of the torah in only broad strokes is unmistakable (cf. ibid.). In this regard the Psalter, evidently designed as a manual for worship-infused living for all-Israel, contrasts sharply with more technical (Aaronic) Priestly Source instructions found in parts of Exodus, Leviticus, and the (Zadokite penned) laws in Ezekiel and parts of Numbers.

8 Cf. Dtn 33:10; Jer 2:8; 18:18; Ezek 7:26; Hos 4:6; Zeph 3:4; Hag 2:11; Mal 2:4–9; 2 Chr 35:3. Although the Levites are often identified with the scribal class in Chronicles (e.g.; 2 Chr 24:11; 34:12f.; 35:3), rarely do the authors of this work explicitly identify Levites as scribes (1 Chr 24:6; 2 Chr 24:13; K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, Cambridge, Harvard University 2007, 90). Ezra is described as priest and scribe (Ezr 7:6; Neh 12:36; cf. K.-J. Min, The Levitical Authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah, JSOTSS 409, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 2004, 44. Cf. Gunkel: „Communicating the torah is the particular task of the priests“ (Introduction to the Psalms [see above, n. 7], 249).

9 Scribal Culture (see above, n. 8), 90. We would qualify his statement with the following, namely, that there were a plurality of levels of literate professionals, and that while certain Levites may have been among the elite priest-scribes – especially perhaps in the context of the book of Chronicles – in general they tended to fall under the category of retainer-class officiants, apparently slipping at time to the status of personae miserae. – In light of the Levites' „expert performance at Ezra's meetings,“ the probability of their serving as public teachers in Babylon is high. H. Mantel concludes from this „that provisions had existed for their intensive training in the torah“ (H. Mantel, The Dichotomy of Judaism During the Second Temple Period, HUCA, 1973 [55–87] 68). I would like to thank Mark Leuchter for suggesting this reference. On the prominence of the Israelite priest-scribe outside of the Holy Land, cf. A. Causse: „Le grand homme de la diaspora orientale au Ve siècle, celui qui devait marquer de son influence décisive le judaïsme de ce temps est un prětre-scribe, ‚versé dans la loi de Moïse, ayant appliqué son cœr à étudier et à mettre en pratique la loi de Yahvé et à enseigner au milieu d'Israël les commandements et les ordonnances,‘ Esdras le sôphěr“ (Les Dispersés D'Israël: Les origines de la diaspora et son rôle dans la formation du judaïsme, Paris, Félix Alcan, 1929, 73 [original emphasis]).

10 Cf., e.g., psalms 49 and 85 (Korahite), and Ps 89 (Asaphite; M. S. Smith, The Levitical Compilation of the Psalter, ZAW 103, 1991 (258–63) 261. E. Zenger and F.-L. Hossfeld also suggest Ps 89 as levitical, whether Korahite or Asaphite: „Central divine discourse in Psalm 89 undertakes a scribal relecture of 2 Samuel 7, with a focus on the life of David as dynastic founder. This too appears to be specific to the groups of the Asaphite and Korahite psalms … In the genre question, the special features of Psalm 89 can be explained as group-specific within the context of the Asaph and Korah psalms. Psalm 89 is the psalm of a scribal theologian who makes his chief concern the fate of the Davidic dynasty …“ (E. Zenger and F.-L. Hossfeld, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100, Hermeneia, trans. L. Mahoney, Minneapolis, Fortress, 2005, 404–05. – Smith finds features in Pss 135–37 suggesting Pss 135–150 as a Levitical grouping. If this be the case, „Ps 150 would be seen then not as part of a frame in the final redaction of the Psalter, rather, it concludes the Hallelujah Psalms of Pss 146–150, a group of psalms at home in the liturgical world of the Levites during the Second Temple period (cf. 2 Chr 5; 20:20–23)“ (Levitical Compilation, 260–61).

11 Smith, Levitical Compilation (see above, n. 10), 261 and n. 13. With respect to Ps 119, even though the teaching role falls not to the Levites but instead to Yahweh, Smith suggests „this role would represent precisely a divine representation of the Levitical role of teaching torah“ (ibid.). J. Watts warns against any „absolute distinction between the scribal and liturgical spheres. Not only is such separation highly unlikely in Second Temple Jewish society, but there is literary evidence of increasing interaction and influence between wisdom and priestly circles as the period progressed … reading involved performance, and performance might invite audience participation. Here scribal and cultic activities can easily merge into liturgy, where oral recitation, ritual action and reading coalesce“ (J. Watts, Biblical Psalms Outside the Psalter, in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception, P. Flint/P. D. Miller [eds.], Leiden, Brill 2005 [288–309] 306–07). Cf. also T. Elgvin, Priestly Sages? The Milieus of Origin of 4QMysteries and 4QInstruction, in Sapiential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, J. J. Collins et al. [eds], Leiden, Brill 2004), 67–87.

12 The Qal infinitive of שׄמר appears six times in Ps 119 (vv. 4, 5, 8, 57, 60, 106), and, not surprisingly, in Ps 19 (v.11). It appears nineteen times in the book of Deuteronomy (4:2; 5:29; 6:2; 7:8; 8:1; 10:13; 13:19; 15:5; 17:19; 24:8; 26:17, 18; 28:1, 13, 15, 45; 30:10, 16; 32:46), and sixteen times in the so-called Deuteronomistic History (Josh 1:7; 10:8; 22:5; 23:6; 1 Sam 7:1; 19:11; 2 Sam 11:16 (בשׄמר); 15:16; 16:21; 20:3; 1 Kgs 2:3: 3:14; 8:58, 61; 11:38; 2 Kgs 22:3). The four occurrences in Chronicles (1 Chr 22:12; 29:19; 2 Chr 5:11; 34:31) appear to be duplications of the Deuteronomistic History.

13 Dtn 4:29; 6:5; 11:13; 13:4; 26:16; 30:2, 10.

14 1 Sam 7:3; 12:20, 24; 1 Kgs 2:4; 8:23, 48; 14:8; 2 Kgs 10:31; 23:3, 25.

15 Ps 119: 2, 10, 34, 58, 69, 145. The books of Chronicles have seven occurrences, several of which are duplications of passages in the Deuteronomistic History.

16 Cf. J. Levenson, The Sources of Torah: Psalm 119 and the Modes of Revelation in Second Temple Judaism, in: Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross,P. Miller, et al. (eds.), 1987, 559–74, 563.

17 On levitical authorship of preexilic (!) dtr material, see, Jeffrey C. Geoghegan, „Until This Day“ and the Preexilic Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History, JBL 122, 2003 (201–27) especially 226f.

18 Quotation is von Rad's characterization of his work on this topic in a subsequent publication: Die levitische Predigt in den Büchern der Chronik, FS Otto Procksch, Leipzig 1934, 113–124 (= 1958 Gesammelte Studien Zum Alten Testament I, TB 8 (248–261); ET by T. Dicken, The Levitical Sermon in I and II Chronicles, in: The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, London, SCM Press Ltd, 1984 (267–80) 268; cf. ibid., „A very great deal of Chr [is] written in this hortatory, sermonic style already so familiar to us from Deuteronomy.“

19 So also Zeph 3:5. „The quotation form of the phrase from Deuteronomy, which the Chronicler uses in precisely the right context, is apt and makes an effective ending to this sermon on the divine justice (von Rad, Levitical Sermon [see above, n. 18], 272).

20 E.g., 2 Chr 20:14–17. The „comprensive definition“ of the addressees („Listen, all Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, and King Jehoshaphat“ [v. 15]) is a „recurring feature of the Chronicler's conception of prophecy, and may well arise from reflection on the work of the classical prophets“ (H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans 1982, 298); cf. S. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel's Worship, trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas, Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1992), 2:56: „The Chronicler considers the Levitical temple singers to be somehow inspired, and uses the term ‚prophesy‘ about their official singing, meaning that their singing arises from an ex officio inspiration (1 Chr 25:1ff). This means that it was the old prophetic guilds that had been organized into the order of the temple servants (‚the Levites‘), and had thus transferred to the latter a show of the inspiration of the old prophets. The statements of the Chronicler show too that it was among these singers that the prophetic guilds were taken up.“

21 The expression „for the battle is not yours but God's“ (2 Chr 14:15d) reveals a basic conviction of the holy war (ibid.). Von Rad considered the notion of holy war to be a fundamental theme in Deuteronomy: „Trat uns aus dem Dt. ein ausgesprochenen kriegerischer Geist entgegen. Seinem ganzen paränetischen Gehalt nach war es sozusagen gesättigt von der Vorstellungswelt des heiligen Krieges; hinter der deuteronomischen Paränese wird eine Hörerschaft erkennbar, die mit der Waffe in der Hand der göttlichen Weisungen gewärtig ist. Was diesen nationalkriegerischen Geist betrifft, so möchte man die Urheber des Dt. in den Kreisen des Heerbannes suchen“ (Deuteronomium-Studien, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1948), 42). The nexus of holy war and Levites, moreover, „is completely obvious because the Levites and the holy ark belonged together, and the ark was plainly the palladium of the holy war“ (ibid., 47). Dtn 20:1ff moreover suggests we seek the authors of Deuteronomy within levitical circles of priestprophets: In this passage a priest must make a speech before the beginning of the battle. The sketch of this speech placed in the priest-prophets mouth (vv 3–4) closely corresponds to the Kriegspredigten found elsewhere in Dtn (cf. 7:16–26; 9:1–6; 31:3–8; G. von Rad, Das fünfte Buch Mose Deuteronomium: Übersetzt und erklärt von Gerhard von Rad, ATD 8, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1968, 17). „It should be accepted that especially the Levites were the carriers of this warlike renewal movement“ (ibid., 18).

22 Cf., e.g., the utterance of Asaph the Levite in Ps 78:2, a psalm sometimes referred to as a „Levitical Psalm.“ In Matt 13:35 Jesus quotes Ps 78:2 and then characterizes its author (i.e., Asaph) as a prophet (cf. H.-P. Mathys, Prophetie, Psalmengang und Kultmusik in der Chronik, in: Prophetie und Psalmen: Festschrift für Klaus Seybold zum 65. Geburtstag, H.-P. Mathys, et al. [eds.] AOAT 280, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag 2001 (281–96) 281–83). J. Watts characterizes the „inset Psalm“ in 1 Chr 16 as a „levitical melody“ (Biblical Psalms [see above, n. 11], 293). „The Levitical personnel who voice the hymn“ (ibid., 298) demonstrate here the strong connection that exists between them, Chronicles, and psalmic literature. As for the direction of depend-ence, most scholars believe 1 Chr 16:8–36 has recourse to a version of the psalter (cf. G. Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 10–29: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 12b, New York, Doubleday 2004, 654). In 1 Chr 16, a particular concern with „the ranks and duties of levitical musicians in the Temple“ is in evidence (Watts, Biblical Psalms [see above, n.11], 293).

23 On prophetic alignment between Deuteronomy and Hosea, see below.

24 „In Rudolf's reconstruction … fifty-one verses (15:4–10, 16–21, 22–24; 16:5b-38, 42), or 71 percent, the total seventy-two verses in 1 Chr 15–16 are later additions“ (Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 10–29 [see above, n. 22], 655).

25 Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (see above, n. 20), 17.

26 In P. Dirksen's commentary on 1 Chronicles (P. B. Dirksen, 1 Chronicles, trans. A. Runia, Leuven, Peeters 2005) he argues that 1 Chr 23–27, key chapters for the aggrandizement of the Levites, are secondary: „there are decisive arguments for seeing chs. 23–27 as a later insertion“ (ibid., 277). We are not convinced by this assessment. More compelling is Williamson's argument that at least the „primary layer“ of chs. 23–27 „can be attributed to the Chronicler“ (H. G. M. Williamson, The Origins of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses, in: Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament, J. Emerton [ed.], Leiden, Brill 1979 (251–68) 264). The so-called „pro-priestly“ impact on these chapters is not extensive: „The pro-priestly reviser's work generally consists of little more than the addition of a verse or two here and there to make clear the distinction between priests and Levites. Thus his treatment of 1 Chr 23–27 is quite unparalleled in its extent“ (ibid., 264, n. 29). „The inclusion of levitical lists in their original short form traces to the Chronicler himself“ (ibid., 265). Other passages sometimes described as the Levitical portions of Chronicles include 1 Chr 1–9, 15–16; 2 Chr 29–31 (cf. G. Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 12, New York, Doubleday 2003, 91; idem, 1 Chronicles 10–29 [see above, n. 22], 655, 821f.). Knoppers observes that whereas Chronicles borrows priestly language from P and Ezekiel, it is „used in a different way … In any case, the use of Priestly language in a new and different context should caution against reading too much Priestly theology into the text. That the use of Priestly language signifies a pro-Priestly position has to be proved, not assumed“ (ibid., 822). After a comparative analysis of the duties of priests and Levites in 1 Chr 23:13–14, 28–32 and key texts in Numbers (ibid., 820ff), Knoppers both asks and answers the question as to whether „28–32 underscore the Levite's subordination to the priests? In my judgment, there is substantial evidence to suggest that the roster represents a new extension beyond the Priestly writings and Ezekiel. Rather than constituting evidence for a pro-Priestly redactor of Chronicles, the summary of Levitical duties is evidence for the Chronicler's own distinctive position, a via media among the positionings of Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, and the Priestly source“ (ibid., 825). „The writer draws on Priestly terminology, but he does so to expand Levitical responsibilities and to blur some of the clear distinctions advanced by the Priestly writers and defended by Ezekiel. In Chronicles, as opposed to P, both the Levites and the priests are ‚holy‘ (2 Chr 23:6). The Levites are referred to as ‚those holy to Yhwh‘ (2 Chr 35:3). If Ezekiel demotes the Levites, Chronicles gives them a new promotion“ (ibid., 826).

27 „That both the priests and the Levites participate in the Ark procession and cooperate at the cultic sites of Jerusalem and Gibeon need cause no great alarm. In the Chronicler's view, the priests and the Levites have important and complementary functions to play in leading, protecting, and sanctifying Israelite worship“ (Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 10–29 [see above, n. 22], 656; cf. ibid., 658f.). In contrast to P and Ezekiel, „the Chronicler stresses cooperation and complementarity, not competition and hierachy“ (ibid., 825–26).

28 The existence of an independent scribal group during the post-exilic period is dubious because scribes typically overlapped with groups such as priests. The Levites are often identified with the scribal class: 1 Chr 24:6; 2 Chr 24:11; 34:12–13; perhaps also 35:3 (cf. Min, Levitical Authorship [see above, n. 8], 44).

29 Mowinckel (Psalms in Israel's Worship [see above, n. 20], 2: 56) believed the Levites in Chronicles were simultaneously „masters of the oracle“ (שר־המשא; cf. 1 Chr 15:27) and „lower temple personnel.“ „In Jewish times the lower temple servants in quite large measure consisted of members of ancient priestly families which had been reduced to a subordinate position“ (ibid., 58).

30 Another way of viewing the inner-priestly dispute is to pit the pro-levitical Chronicler and Deuteronomy against the pro-elite priests Priestly work and Ezekiel (cf. Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 10–29 [see above, n. 22], 821).

31 Ernst Dörrfuß, Mose in den Chronikbüchern. Garant theokratischer Zukunftserwartung, BZAW 219, Berlin, de Gruyter 1994.

32 Cf. the summation statement: „In contrast to an understanding of Chronicles in the sense of the legitimation of the hope directed toward the Davidides, the group standing behind the Moses revision formulates their own concern. They criticize the present circumstances and future expectation crystallized in them. They articulate this critique with help of the interpretation of a writing recognized by them as well as by their opponents as binding – an interpretation, which perceives the guarantor of theocratic future expectation only in Moses“ (ibid., 283).

33 For a critique of Dörrfuß‘ position, including the late dating of the „Moses revision,“ see G. Knoppers, Mose in den Chronikbüchern. Garant theokratischer Zukunftserwartung (Review), CBQ 58, 1996 (705–07), especially 706. For a summary of theories of multiple editions in Chronicles, see idem, 1 Chronicles 1–9 (see above, n. 26) 90–93. Several scholars have attributed the so-called levitical parts of Chronicles (cf. all or parts of 1 Chr 1–9, 15–16, 23–27; 2 Chr 29– 31) to later redaction (ibid., 90f); cf. G. von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes, BWANT 54, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1930, 88–115; cf. ibid, 90: „Die literarischen Fragen, die 1 Chr 9 besonders im Verhältnis zu Neh 11 birgt, sind überaus kompliziert, ja wohl weithin unlösbar. Hier aber genügt die Feststellung, daß die in Betracht kommenden Verse von chronistischer Hand stammen und jedenfalls nicht in der ursprünglich übernommene Liste standen bzw. soweit sie dazu gehört haben, in chronistischen Sinn überarbeitet sind. Auch 1 Chr 23 ist nicht einheitlich.“ In general, von Rad believed that whereas the earlier portions of Chronicles line up with P, the Chronicler goes beyond it (ibid., 91).

34 Among the Davidides, the Chronicler's history reserves special authoritative status for the progenitor himself. The apposition „man of God“ apparently underscores the authority of the lawgiver (Ezr 3:2 [Moses]; Neh 12:24, 36; 2 Chr 8:14 [David]. Although other post-solomonic kings may enact law, the title „the man of god“ does not attach to them, but only to David. This would appear to underscore David's unique juridical authority (G. Steins, Chronistisches Geschichtsbild und „levitische Predigt.“ Überlegungen zur Eigenart der Chronik im Anschluss an Gerhard von Rad, in: Das Alte Testament: ein Geschichtsbuch? Beiträge des Symposiums „Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne“ anlässlich des 100. Geburtstags Gerhard von Rad, E. Blum, et al. [eds.], Münster, Lit 2005, 147–73, 166f). Cf. von Rad's statement „the Chronicler wrote in order to legitimate cultic offices founded by David“ (G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker, New York, Harper 1962), 1: 352).

35 E. Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens, FAT 30, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck 2000.

36 R. Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Pentateuch und Hexateuch, BZAR 3, Wiesbaden, Harrasowitz 2003.

37 Cf. also De Vries (S. De Vries, Moses and David as Cult Founders, JBL 107, 1988 [619–39] 637–38): „Chronicles has no specific role for the descendants of David, and that his image of the ideal king is no abstract aspiration, but one that serves a pragmatic and pressing concern, the legitimation of the Levites as rivals to the priests in the Restoration cult … The priests have Moses and Aaron, but who can substantiate Levitical claims except David?“

38 Bentzen (A. Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament, Copenhagen, G. E. C. Gads, 1948, 2:215), however, following Noth and Engnell, cautions against overstating the levitical interests in Chronicles.

39 Chronicles is particularly concerned with legitimizing the Levites, „who have yet to achieve the honor and influence that are rightfully theirs. It would not be unreasonable to speculate that Chr was himself a Levite, perhaps even a member of the order of singers“ (De Vries, Moses and David [see above, n. 37], 636). In his 1 Kings commentary, De Vries suggests levitical authorship of 1 Kgs 12:31: „V[erse] 31′s complaint that Jeroboam made priests of some who were not Levites reveals quite clearly that it was this group that was responsible for preparing the whole list. This constitutes a report passed from one Levite to another Levite over the border, and destined for the high-priesthood at the temple“ (S. De Vries, I Kings, WBC 12, Waco, Word, 1985, 161–62).

40 Mathys (Prophetie [see above, n. 22], 289) points out the overlapping roles of prophets and singers in the ketuvim as indicated by 2 Chr 35:25. In this text Jeremiah chants a dirge (קנה Polel) for Josiah; all the male and female singers then „recited in their laments for Josiah“ (JPS Tanakh; cf. LXX „the chief men and women uttered a lamentation over Josias“ [καὶ εἶπαν πάντες οἱ ἄρξοντες καὶ αἱ ἄρξουσαι θρῆνον έπὶ Ιωσιαν]) until this day. The phrase על כתוב suggests authoritative, „canonical“ status (v. 25c; ibid.). Of particular import for this study, however, is the legislative activity in which the male and female singers participate. This inclusive collective (which also includes both priests and laity; cf. Zech 7:3, 5 [the temple priests in v. 3 are not Levites; the priests in v. 5 most likely are]) has made the singing of the Josianic lament into a lasting ordinance (ויתנום לחק עשל־יראל // καὶ ἒδωκαν αὐτὸν εἰς πρόσταγμα ἐπὶ Ισραήλ). 2 Chr 35:25b indicates that the lament (and, implied, any performance instructions) is recorded in the „the lamentations“ (כתובים על־הקינות // γέγραπται ἐπὶ τῶν θρήνων); cf. Judg 11:39; Jer 9:17; Zech 7:3, 5 (cf. W. Johnstone, 2 Chronicles 10–36: Guilt and Atonement [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997], 262–63). For additional innovations in Chronicles that „promote“ - and thus arguably derive from - the Levites, see Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 10–29 [see above, n. 22], 825f. For Levites legislating in Nehemiah, see M. Goulder, The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch: Studies in the Psalter, III, JSOTSS 233, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 1996, 320: „The historical and legal traditions were in the hands of Levites, and they legislated themselves a generous provision, 9 percent of the national income.“

41 The concept of „royal torah,“ or law deriving from monarchs, is dealt with in detail in chapter five of a forthcoming monograph treating non-mosaic law in the Hebrew Bible.

42 Von Rad distinguishes sharply between the „David-Ark-Levite tradition“ and the „Moses-Tent of Meeting-Aaronide-tradition,“ the latter belonging to P: „Würde der Chronist nur ein weinig teilhaben an der Welt des P, wie könnte er Lade und Zelt so trennen, wie es in seinem Werk geschehen ist!… Hier ist ein Geschichtsbild, das man in aller Selbständigkeit neben der Konzeption von P und keinesfalls in Abhängigkeit davon sehen muß“ (Geschichtsbild, [see above, n. 33] 134). Against the P (Moses-Tent-Aaron) tradition, the Chronicler makes David into the Urheber of the temple, which becomes the special domain of the Levites. Through David the Chronicler legitimates the regulating of the temple, and legislates „far-reaching rights and responsibilities“ for the Levites (ibid.).

43 Cf. R. Westbrook, The Character of Ancient Near Eastern Law, in A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (ed. R. Westbrook; vol. 1 of 2; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 1–90, 18.

44 Westbrook, Character, 27. The author does not indicate the primary source.

45 Pace von Rad, I and II Chronicles, 279, who neglects to mention the significance of the authority-connection between David and the authors of Chronicles (he does so, however, in his Geschichtsbild, [see above, n. 33] 119–32; 134f.). He instead attributes Chronicles' over-dependence on earlier sources (that reflects „a declension in religious vigour and spontaneity“) to a self-image lacking the religious authority of earlier biblical writers: „The preacher no longer feels himself to be God's plenipotentiary when he makes his pronouncements, which is why he falls back on the old established stock of written material, borrowing from the great writings of the past the authority which he himself lacks.“ This negative view of the Chronicler's appropriation of earlier traditions (The Chronicler „really is quite the last person whom we should credit with the creation of anything, let alone a new literary form!“ Ibid., 277) has become increasingly problematic in recent years. Hellenistic period works such as 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and The Temple Scroll (11QTa) prove that not a few „late authors“ in fact considered themselves as authorized to reformulate early genres and traditions in numerous ways. This would even include laws labelled „mosaic,“ some of which were not to be found in the Pentateuch (cf. M. Christian, Reading Tobit Backwards and Forwards: In Search of Lost Halakhah, Henoch 28, no. 1 (2006): 63–96, passim). – It must be noted, however, that the final two pages of von Rad's essay (I and II Chronicles) contain an attenuation of his criticism of the Chronicler. One gets the impression here of a Nachtrag that reflects a significant migration of the author's views in the direction of a more fluid, postexilic canon, which would then explain the Chronicler's otherwise dubious view of his earlier sources. No longer an uncreative traditionist, this bold innovator's „lively interest in the ancient writings“ facilitates his „keen desire to make their contents known to the people as far as is humanly possible“ (ibid., 280). Though he edges up to it at various points („We are thus driven back to the position of assuming that he relies upon a model, that is to say, upon forms which were well-known and in common use in that Levitical tradition in which he himself was at home“ [ibid., 277]), it is here that von Rad comes closest to placing the Chronicler on a par with the ancient, creative and authoritative levitical tradition. He comes very close to identifying the Chronicler as a Levite.

46 Cf. the discussion of Jehoshaphat's speech (2 Chr 19:6ff) by von Rad (Levitical Sermon [see above, n. 18], 272): „Here the words of a sermon are put into the mouth of the King himself … The King becomes a preacher, and he sets out the theological background of the justice which a judge in Israel must know how to adminster … This homily is a sermon, however, in a still more precise sense of the word than that with which we have so far been concerned, for despite its immediate relevance to the contemporary situation it takes its stand upon ancient scriptural texts of acknowledged authority.“

47 In David's speech to the officials of Israel in 1 Chr 28, he disqualifies himself from temple-building (v.3), and then softens the political threat of his successors' rule by characterizing it as „the kingdom of Yhwh“ (מלכות יהוה v. 5d; cf. von Rad, Theology [see above, n. 34], 1:350).

48 Cf., e.g., the Psalms of Korah (42–49, 84–85, 87–88) and Asaph (50, 73–83).

49 Found elsewhere only in Exod 2:1; Numb 17:8; Zech 12:13. Ps 135:20 alone appends the definite article to the absolute noun.

50 Nasuti cited in M. Smith Levitical Compilation (see above, n. 10), 260, n. 5. Cf. Nehemiah's prayer. Finally, Ps 150 might be „seen then not as part of a frame in the final redaction of the Psalter, rather, it concludes the Hallelujah Psalms of Pss 146–150, a group of psalms at home in the liturgical world of the Levites during the Second Temple period (cf. 2 Chr 5:20:20–23)“ (ibid., 260f).

51 Cf. also „the holy ones in the land, they are the noble, in whom is all my delight“ (כקדושׁים אשׁר בארץ המה ואדירי כל־חפצי־בם Ps 16:3; cf. Ezra 8:28a אתם קדשׁ ליהוה the Nazarite in Numb 6:8b: קדשׁ הוא ליהוה the people in Exod 19:6; Dtn 7:6; 14:2, 21; 26:19; Jer 2:3. Although commentators typically adjudge the referents in Ps 16:3 to be pious Yahwists in general, the Levites well fit the profile (cf. H. W. Wolff, Ho sea: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea, Hermeneia, trans. G. Stansell, Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1974, 210). In any case, the combination of the two predicates qadosh and ‚adir is striking. The (intentional?) ambiguity allows for a referent of people and/or Levites - or an amalgation of the two.

52 Cf. Smith, Levitical Compilation (see above, n. 10), passim, especially 263: „In sum, during the Second Temple period, Levites were responsible for various aspects of the maintenance of the temple and its cult including singing and guarding the temple. Furthermore, Levites lay claim to preservation, transmission and teaching of tora.“

53 De Vries (1 Kings [see above, n. 39], 161), referencing the thesis of B. Mazar (1960), entertains the notion that the Levites served as David's agents. If we apply this line of thought to Exod 32 (Levites as Moses' agents) a picture of Levites as flexible strategists begins to emerge. Rather than functioning within central command - to use a military analogy - their activity resembles that of field commanders.

54 Cf. the Asaphite prophecy in 2 Chr 20:14; 2 Chr 29:30; cf. also Matt 13:34f: „This was to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet (ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τοῦ προφήτου v. 35)“. Asaph is the referent for „the prophet“ here; cf. also the non-Judean Asaphite Jahaziel in 2 Chr 20:4–17 (Mathys, Prophetie [see above, n. 22], 281f.).

55 For the Ephraimite-Levite connection, see Josh 21:20; Judg 19:1; perhaps also 2 Chr 34:9. Samuel, who is one of the „initiators“ of the (levitical) deuteronomic movement, „is called an Ephraimite. Its centre is Shiloh, not far from Bethel. Its symbol is the ark, an Ephraimite emblem“ (A. C. Welch, The Code of Deuteronomy: A New Theory of Its Origin, London, James Clarke & Co., Limited 1924), 209). Welch also emphasized the northern provenance of the „Deuteronomic code,“ connecting it specifically with „that religious and national movement which rose in Benjamin and Ephraim, and which in its beginning is associated with the personality of Samuel“ (ibid., 206); cf. ibid., 191: „One cannot wholly escape from the impression that in the code we have a set of regulations which have the closest relation to the life of Ephraim.“ Whereas a nucleus in Leviticus „represents the ‚use‘ which grew up round the temple at Jerusalem … Deuteronomy … may be the ‚use‘ of Bethel, or of one of the larger sanctuaries in Ephraim.“ It may be „that we possess in certain sections of Leviticus and in the Deuteronomic code the ‚uses‘ of two leading sanctuaries in Southern and Northern Israel respectively.“ - Smith (Levitical Compilation [see above, n. 10], 260) also affirms the connection between northern Ephraimites and the Levites: „the description of divine activity in the exodus was especially at home within the ‚Ephraimite“ (or northern) tradition stream; the reference to this sort of description in Ps 135,9 reflects an Asaphite hand.“

56 In 1 Sam 10:25a Samuel writes down (כבת) the rights and duties of the kingship in a sefer and then places it before the Lord (ןינח לפני יהוה).

57 Cf. 1 Chr 29:29f: „Now the acts of King David (ודברי דויד המלך), from first to last, are written in the records of the seer Samuel (כתובים על־דרבי שׁמואל הראה), and in the records of the prophet Nathan (על־דברי נתן הנביא), and in the records of the seer Gad (על־דברי גד החזה), with accounts of all his rule and his might and of the events that befell him and Israel and all the kingdoms of the earth.“

58 W. F. Albright thought „the classical illustration of a ‚Levite‘ … in the Bible is Samuel, who was vowed to Yahweh at Shiloh by his mother before he was born“ (Albright cited in Wolff, Ho sea: A Commentary [see above, n. 51], 80).

59 Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 10–29, 821.

60 Indeed, the levitical saying in the Song of Moses (Dtn 33:8–10) emphasizes the administration of law by the Levitical priests (H. W. Wolff, Hoseas geistige Heimat, TLZ 81, 1956, [83–94] 91), contextualizing it within a cultic setting. Dtn 16:18–20 also places the Levites within the local judiciary. „The people are commanded in Deut 16:18 to recognize the authority of a royally appointed figure who can serve as both adjudicator and scribe, i.e., someone who can preserve, administer, and adapt the written corpus of national law“ (M. Leuchter, The Levite in Your Gates: The Deuteronomic Redefinition of Levitical Authority, forthcoming in Biblica). Levinson (B. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, New York, Oxford University, 1997, 126) rightly emphasizes the independence of these local judiciaries from the central judiciary in Jerusalem. He neglects to mention, however, the influence of the sacerdotal officants within that royal, central judiciary (ibid., 125f). In their adaptation of written and oral traditions, especially perhaps in regions in the far north, the levitical orators could be selective, emphasizing their regional caucus's traditional preferences. In an eighth-century context, Wolff suggests that certain northern Levites – and Hosea – likely fostered worship that contrasted sharply with the operation of the official cultus (Hoseas geistige Heimat, 91). This contrast may in part be explained by the authoritative prophetic/priestly revelations originating from the far northern regions. See Excursus, below.

61 Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (see above, n. 20), 17.

62 S. L. Cook, Micah's Deuteronomistic Redaction and the Deuteronomists' Identity, in: Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism, L. Schearing/ S. McKenzie (eds.), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic 1999, 216–31, 228; cf. O. H. Steck, Tradition and Biblical Theology, in: Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament, D. A. Knight trans. of Steck's German essay and book editor, Sheffield,: Sheffield Academic Press Ltd., 1990), 183–214, 207; cf. Cook, Micah's Deuteronomistic Redaction, 229: „This partial link of Deuteronomism to the cult suggests the Levites as logical candidates in the quest to pinpoint the identity of the Deuteronomists. We know from 1 Chr 6:24–28 (Eng. 6:39–43); 9:14–15 that the Asaphite authors of Psalms 74 and 79 were considered to be Levites in the postexilic period. In light of strong reverberations that the epilogue of Micah has with these two psalms, the epilogue's Deuteronomism looks increasingly to me like the project of postexilic Levites. This Levitical identifycation of the Deuteronomists is corroborated by Chronicle's attestation to the Levite's dual involvement in psalmody and scribalism (2 Chr 34:12–13; cf. 1 Ch 9:26–27, 33).“ For the notion of the secondary inclusion of Asaphites into the levitical line see Smith, Levitical Compilation (see above, n. 10), 259, n. 2.

63 Cf. Anthony J. Saldarini, Scribes, ABD 5 (1992) 1012–16, 1013.

64 In a recent study „The History of Pentateuchal Redaction and the Development of Sacerdotal Institutions“ presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literary in Washington D.C., R. Achenbach proposes that the concept that priests must be Levites took hold later on, perhaps post-P and post-Dtr History; cf. idem, Vollendung (see above, n. 36), 72–74.

65 Levites are not mentioned in connection with the Temple cult in dtr narratives in Kings. The omission is particularly glaring in 2 Kgs 22–23. The older deuteronomic regulations pertaining to priests (Deut 18:3–4; Deut 26:3) do not mention the Levites either. Does this suggest the concept that priests must be of levitical origin took hold only later? Although scholars typically assume the concept to be of at least partial dtr derivation, this assumption fails to explain why the dtr „historians,“ nomists, etc., would later abandon the conception. The legend of Aaron found in Exod 28:1 reads: „You shall bring forward (your brother) Aaron, with his sons, from among the Israelites, to serve me as priests: Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron.“ But in the golden calf incident Aaron is denounced because „he let the people get out of control“ (Ex 32:25). The Levites alone rally to Moses and in so doing attain to ordained priestly service. Achenbach believes that in order to solve the problem of conflicting conceptions of the origin of priestly rights in Israel the issue of the „Levitical priesthood“ was instituted in Deut 10: 8–9. U. Dahmen and others proved that the concept of Levitical priesthood (as suggested by the collocation הכהנים הלוים) to be post-P and post-Dtr (Achenbach, History [see above, n. 64], forthcoming). I would like to thank Reinhard Achenbach for sharing this paper with me pre-publication.

66 Reference to Levites in Kings is also slight (1 Kgs 8:4; 12:31).

67 The issue of levitical genealogy appears in neither Haggai nor Proto-Zachariah (Achenbach, History [see above, n. 64], forthcoming).

68 The only substantive statement about Aaron in Deuteronomy is quite negative: „The Lord was so angry with Aaron that he was ready to destroy him“ (9:20; cf. 10:6; 32:50). Schaper characterizes this passage as an independent Abschnitt (J. Schaper, Priester und Leviten im achmäenidischen Juda, FAT 31, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck 2000, 276, n. 32). Cf. J. Blenkinsopp, The Judean Priesthood during the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Periods: A Hypothetical Reconstruction, CBQ 60, 1998 (25–43) 35f.

69 Only in Ezr 7:5; Neh 10:38; 12:47. Although Ezra 7:5 appears to point to Aaron as high priest (הכהן הראשׁ), Ezra may actually be the referent in this passage (cf. J. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile, Assen, Van Gorcum, 2004, 45, n. 5, who attributes this proposal to N. Ararat).

70 While Aaronite priests (alternatively referred to as „Sons of Zadok“ or simply „the priests“) figure prominently in Dead Sea Scrolls literature, little interest is shown in Aaron's narrative character. Instead - and this would be true about late Second Temple literature in general - Levi looms particularly large. Note Aaron is mentioned after Levi in 1Q33 5:1: „And upon the sh[ie]ld of the Prince of the whole congregation they shall write his name [and] the name of Israel and Levi and Aaron and the names of the twelve tribes of Israel, according to their births.“ (But see 4Q368 (4QApocrPent) 5:4f; 4Q545 (4QVisions of Amramc ar) frg. 1, col. 1: 7f) Aaron is absent in the book of Jubilees. „Indeed, in much of this literature the relationship envisioned for the restoration of a royal and priestly office is expressed through the figures of Judah and Levi“ (G. Anderson, Aaron, in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, L. Schiffman/J. VanderKam (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press 2000, 1:1–2).

71 Obviously some of the traditions in the psalter, perhaps also entire psalms, date to earlier periods. For example, that Hosea and Micah imitate the liturgies of Pss 24 and 132 convinced Gunkel of their preexilic provenance (Introduction to the Psalms [see above, n. 7], 318).

72 K. Schmid, Das Deuteronomium innerhalb der „deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke“ in Gen – 2 Kön, in: Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, E. Otto/R. Achenbach (eds.), FRLANT 206, Tübingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004, 193–211, 193.

73 J.-P. Sonnet, The Book within the Book: Writing in Deuteronomy, Leiden, Brill 1997, 262.

74 Cf. M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation In Ancient Israel, Oxford - New York, Oxford University 1985, 436: The „Mosaic voice“ is „pseudepigraphic in the Book of Deuteronomy.“

75 Ibid., cf. Sonnet, Book (see above, n. 73) 264f.

76 Weber pointed, e.g., to the juxtaposition of priests, torah teachers, and prophets in Jer 2:8. Indeed, „flüssig war die Beziehung zur Prophetie und zum Kultpriestertum“ (M. Weber, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie, vol. 3: Das antike Judentum, Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr, 1921, 190).

77 כהנים and נביאים are the most prominent religious personnel in the Bible. While scholars have in the past tended to sharply differentiate between them, recent work tends to emphasize shared features. Terminology for priests at Mari supports the melded view, and „cautions us to beware universalizing any kohen/nabi division as a general duality by which all ancient religious personnel can best be understood.“ In larger Mesopotamian temples it is best to avoid invoking „the priests“ and instead speak of „temple personnel.“ Mari data indicates that prophets coopted with temple personnel. As it tended to be the case in the ancient world, prophets were viewed askance and rarely found integration among the upper social strata. Priests serving at the temple also remained on the social periphery, and only the diviners who served the king directly found their way to higher levels. „If anything, the prophets provided only one key way for the temples to communicate the needs and demands of their gods to the king, when the primary vehicle for divine communication was controlled by diviners who operated without any personal interest in the temple cults“ (D. Fleming, Prophets and Temple Personnel in the Mari Archives, in The Priests in the Prophets: The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets and Other Religious Specialist in the Latter Prophets, L. Grabbe/A. Bellis [eds.], Sheffield, Sheffield Academic 2004, 44–64, 46). -Cf. Welch, Code (see above, n. 55), 203: „Inside the religious life, prophets and priests are still working on the whole in harmony. The prophets are zealous for Yahweh, and the priests administer and preserve the Yahweh ritual. The code can demand recognition of the prophet as the successor of Moses, and equal recognition of the Levitical priests.“

78 According to Weinfeld (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 1972, 168–69) the חכמים סופרים formulated the laws dealing with warfare and the military (chapts. 20f) reflective of Judah's political resurgence during the Josianic period. These scribes incorporated them into the ‚book of the Torah.‘ „These scribes have in fact incorporated the traditions of all the national-spiritual currents then represented in the Israelite regime.“ Such scribes worked during the period spanning the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah (ibid, 161). Scribes in less centralized settings are unlikely: „only scribes who deal with literary and written documents and who have access to the court could have assembled so variegated a collection of documents as are encountered in Deuteronomy and the whole deuteronomic composition“ (idem, Deuteronomy - The Present State of Inquiry, JBL 86, 1967 (249–62) 254).

79 A. Bentzen, Die Josianische Reform und ihre Voraussetzungen, Copenhagen, P. Haase & Sons, 1926.

80 It is regrettable that this and other studies by Bentzen, including his observations on the psalms appear to have had only limited impact on scholarship as a whole; cf. J. Crenshaw, The Psalms: An Introduction, Grand Rapids, Eerdmanns 2001, 88.

81 In his 1924 publication, Code of Deuteronomy (see above, n. 55), Welch also makes several important observations about the topic of centralization in Deuteronomy. He also finds the thesis of Deuteronomy as part of the Josianic reform indefensible: Deuteronomy „has no order … The code, accordingly, cannot have been prepared and issued by a central authority which was legislating for the needs of a whole people. That fact alone makes it difficult to suppose that it was drawn up to form the programme for the Josianic reform“ (ibid., 185–86). Further, Welch edges up to thesis of the non-elite levitical preachers promulgating a moral code. Regarding those that wrote the laws in various places, „their authority must have been chiefly of a moral character. On most subjects there is little evidence of the power, or, it may be, of the desire to make the law effective by force … The authority which enforced these regulations, especially such as dealt with the cult, does not appear to have been that of the state“ (ibid., 186). „There is the same eye for the immediate need of practical guidance; there is the same type of authoritative pronouncement which is thrown rather into the form of an exhortation to the faithful than a command to subjects“ (ibid., 189). The code is not the programme of the Josianic reform; it is its deposit. Some of its demands may be the older law of pre-exilic Israel, but all those which are impracticable belong to the Exile. There the priests revised their old law and forced it into conformity with the new principle of centralisation which they had adopted for their nation's worship“ (ibid., 196).

82 In his 1934 publication on the levitical sermon in Chronicles, von Rad did in fact mention the „deuteronomic sermon“ and the „deuteronomic-levitical tradition“ (Levitical Sermon [see above, n. 18], 267–68). Moreover, „the historical writings of the Chr stand essentially in the mainstream of the dtn-levitical tradition, and it is wholly in accord with this that religious instruction in the form of interpolated speeches should play a large part in the Books of Chronicles“ (ibid., 267).

83 An ancillary point made here is that the so-called „von Rad“ thesis is really a scholarly composite, which strengthens the overall force of the argumentation.

84 Nicholson notes that Deuteronomy's attitude toward the institution of kingship remains „one the strongest links between it and the traditions of northern Israel“ (E. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition, Oxford, Basil 1967, 69). Cf. A. Alt, Die Heimat des Deuteronomiums, in: KS II, München, C. H. Beck'sche, 1959), 250–75, 266f; G. E. Wright, The Book of Deuteronomy, in: IB II (1953) 311–537, 441.

85 Von Rad allowed for prophetic involvement in the „warlike renewal movement“ of Josiah, a theme he often emphasized. Prophetic influence in Deuteronomy, however, derives in the main to general ideas and notions characteristic of religious life and thought of this entire period. „The carriers, speakers, and interpreters of the old traditions, which are assembled in Deuteronomy are hardly the prophets, rather the Levites“ (Die Träger, Sprecher und Ausleger der alten Überlieferungen, die im Dt. gesammelt sind, waren schwerlich die Propheten, sondern die Leviten; Das fünfte Buch Mose [see above, n. 21], 18); cf. idem, Deuteronomium-Studien [see above, n. 21], 48f. It is the prophetic portrayal of Moses as אישׁ אלהים, however, where we see the central prophetic contribution to Deuteronomy. Even here, though, „Deuteronomy concerns itself much more with Moses than with a specific prophetic tradition“ (Aber gerade daran ist zu erkennen, daß es sich im Dt. nicht um eine specifische prophetische Tradition handeln kann, denn es geht ja vielmehr um Mose als um das Prophetische; citation from ibid., 49).

86 Von Rad, Deuteronomium-Studien [see above, n. 21], 45f. Von Rad would leave to others the task of delineating the geographic home of the retainer-class reformers more precisely.

87 Von Rad, Deuteronomium-Studien (see above, n. 21), 18; cf. Nicholson (Deuteronomy and Tradition [see above, n. 84], 70f) with E. G. Wright points to the connections between the northern Elohist and dtn phraseology. „A common spirit underlies both of them. This is particularly manifest in their concern with the dangers of apostasy and idolatry in which they both reflect the life or death struggle with the Canaanite religion most vigorous in the northern kingdom“ (ibid., 70).

88 Von Rad, Das fünfte Buch Mose (see above, n. 21), 18f. Although the Shechem chapter (Dtn 27) is problematic, it becomes a much less alien element in the event the book derives from northern Israel. „If these considerations are legitimate, then we shall suppose one of the sanctuaries of Northern Israel (Shechem or Bethel?) to be Deuteronomy's place of origin, and the century before 621 must be its date. There remain no sufficient reasons for going further back“ (Bestehen diese Erwägungen zu Recht, dann wird man an eines der nordisraelitsichen Heiligtümer (Sichem oder Bethel?) als Ursprungsort des Dt. denken und es in dem Jahrhundert vor 621 ansetzen müssen. Noch höher hinaufzugehen, liegen keine zureichenden Gründe vor; ibid., 18–19); cf. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition [see above, n. 84], 73f; Wolff, „Hoseas geistige Heimat (see above, n. 60),“ 91: „The oppositional character of the levitical circles especially in the northern kingdom is also given prominence in the Shechem narrative of Gen 34.25ff.“ E. G. Wright affirms the selection of Shechem: „The Deuteronomic tradition stems ultimately from the Shechem sanctuary where it was preserved and developed in special ceremonies for the renewal of the covenant, of which chs. 27–30 (cf. also 31:9–13) preserve the memory and perhaps a portion of the liturgy“ (Deuteronomy [see above, n. 84], 326). B. Halpern notes the features shared by Exod 32, Dtn, and Shechem traditions: „Exod 32 also shares with Deuteronomy a legal rather than mystical view of the covenant and the tables of the law; in addition, it manifests certain characteristics otherwise peculiar to Shechem-cycles. Shechem, as the seat of the amphictyony and site of Joshua's covenant-ceremony, was a site of considerable concern to dtn ideologues (B. Halpern, Levitic Participation in the Reform Cult of Jeroboam I, JBL 95, 1976 (31–42) 41–2; cf. p. 42, n. 40).

89 In 1895 S. R. Driver had already linked the emergence of Deuteronomy with the reigns of either Manasseh or Josiah and envisioned a prophetic circle mobilized by God's call on Israel to be a holy nation. He connected Hosea's warnings to the northern kingdom, which was suffering the after-effects of the apostate policies of Manasseh. In his inimitable way Hosea spiritualized these warnings, sermonizing against both the external and internal corruptions of the people. From these observations Driver concluded that „in a special degree the author of Dt. is the spiritual heir of Hosea“ (S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy, Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1895, xxvii; cf. Alt, Heimat [see above, n. 84], 271f). To my knowledge, Driver did not connect Hosea with the Levites.

90 For an early formulation of the Hosea-Levite connection we should look to A. Bentzen's 1926 booklet Die Josianische Reform und ihre Voraussetzungen (see above, n. 79), in which is found a hypothesis common in this period of scholarship, namely, linking the Elohist with northern traditions. Bentzen points to C. F. Burney's 1918 Judges commentary (C. F. Burney, The Book of Judges with Introduction and Notes, New York, KTAV, 1918/ 1970) as a starting point for the nexus of Hosea with the northern Elohist on one hand, Deuteronomy on the other.

91 Notable in Burney's commentary is a sketch of a Judah-Levite connection already in the Arabian desert: „It seems not unlikely that, after a period spent in the neighbourhood of Kadesh-Barnea (the wilderness sojourn) … the main part of the tribe of Levi, which, ex hypothesi, had even prior to the Exodus possessed associations with the North Arabian clans (subsequent elements of the tribe of Judah) inhabiting the region south of the Negeb, preferred to throw in its lot with these Judaean clans, and so moved up northward with them at their conquests in the Negeb and the hill-country beyond it, which came later on to be known as the heritage of the tribe of Judah. This theory appears satisfactorily to account for the tribal connexion of the Levites with Judah, as found e.g. in Judg 17:7ff, 19:1. It also offers an explanation of the story of the golden bull in Exod 32, in which … Aaron appears in an unfavorable light … and the Levites in a favorable light as uncompromising adherents to the pure form of Yahweh-worship … the narrative in its present form, was intended as a polemic against the bull-worship of the Northern kingdom … If, then, at the period at which the story of Exod 32 took shape, ‚Aaron‘ stands as the representative of the bull-worship of the Northern kingdom, we may infer that ‚the sons of Levi‘ are the priestly families of the kingdom of Judah, who are the champions of a purer form of cultus (Burney, Judges [see above, n. 90], 440, 441f). Welch (Code [see above, n. 55], 209) points to a similar thesis associated with H. Winckler.

92 Bentzen developed the Hosea-Levite nexus appreciably. He recognized the significance of Hosea's speech in ch. 4. Verses 4–6 accuse the priests of neglecting their duty to properly instruct the people, who as a result lapse into serious sin. The priest has forgotten the torah, and for this reason Yhwh has forgotten his children. This reprimand ostensibly addresses even the levitical priest who boasts of the teaching task adumbrated in the Song of Moses (Dtn 33:10). Prophets seem always to have some aspect of clerical corruption in their sights. - There may have existed a tension between lax and strict observance among the ranks of the levitical order: „Es hat vielleicht eine Spaltung zwischen einer laxeren und einer strikteren Observanz im Levitenordnen gegeben“ (Josianische Reform [see above, n. 79], 90, original emphasis). For Hosea's criticism of the corrupt priests, see e.g., 4:4, 6, 9; 5:1; 6:9; 10:5. We know of such tension from the dtr-levitical literature. 2 Kgs 23 recounts the systematic persecution of the country priests denoted in v. 5 as kemarim, a pejorative term translated „idolatrous priest“ that is also used by Hosea (10:5; possibly 4:4 [Bentzen, ibid., 90f, n. 1, suggests an emendation of ועמי ככמריו in Hos 4:4. The word כהן may be an exegetical gloss to כמריו while v. 6 uses the verb כהן.] This crux remains unsolved to this day). Bentzen suggests the opposition between reform Levites and unreformed כמרים may have already existed in Deuteronomy, for example in the interpretative crux of Dtn 18:18 (ibid., 91).

93 We will not be treating the issue of the genre of these speeches in this paper. D. Mathias rightly challenges v. Rad's overemphasis on the term „homily“ (Predigt) to describe the levitical compositions in Deuteronomy, preferring instead to characterize them as a style of the times („sicher kein Gattungs-, sondern ein Zeit- und Epochenstil ist“; D. Mathias, „Levitische Predigt“ und Deuteronomismus, ZAW 96, 1984 [23–49] 49). Since von Rad did not introduce the notion of the levitical preacher, he may not have felt it a notion requiring confirmation. This does not fully explain why his remarks on this issue occasionally seem eclectic, even vague. Here von Rad may be revealing his changing views on ancient writing in general, perhaps especially respecting the interpretative methods of the Chronicler, which at the time were very much in transition. Steins speaks of von Rad's intuitive foresight regarding the unique historiography of Chronicles: „Aber Gerhard von Rad's Intuition, dass die Chronik abzuhegben ist von den älteren historiographischen Werken der Bible, sollte auch in Zukunft die Forschung leiten“ (Chronistisches Geschichtsbild [see above, n. 34], 172).

94 The criticism seems to us to be particularly justifiable when applied to „Die levitische Predigt.“ Even here, however, his perception of the literary components is multidimensional. For instance, whereas the Chronicler used an established literary form, the „mode of instruction“ of the so-called the levitical sermon „form,“ he was incapable of a creating this model and yet capable of interpolating and shaping the „free speeches“ according to his own presuppositions, which includes prophetic claims. Von Rad believed that the „prophetic claims“ were those of the Levites „as conceived by the Chronicler“ (I and II Chronicles, 276f.). „We may therefore recognise in the Chronicler's speeches a distinct form-category, of late origin – that of the Levitical sermon“ (ibid., 277).

95 Steins, Chronistisches Geschichtsbild (see above, n. 34), 154f.

96 Another problem in need of treatment would be the imprecisely delineated identity of the Levites that the authors of Deuteronomy wish to support. Whereas on the one hand a concern to provide sustenance for land priests constitutes an obvious dtn preoccupation, on the other hand the emphasis on a central sanctuary would seem to privilege central (Jerusalemite?) rather than peripheral (land?) priests (cf. Alt, Heimat [see above, n. 84], 256). It cannot be ruled out, of course, that another (northern?) sanctuary would be in view. Does the dtn programme then attempt to broker support for two, differentiated levitical priestly strata? Alternatively, does the emphasis on a central sanctuary represent a compromise between the levitical land priests and the purposefully unnamed priestly elites (Zadokite-Levite, Aaronite-Levite, or other?), who enjoy secure placement as facilitators at a/the unnamed central sanctuary?

97 „Deuteronomy is motivated by a desire to instruct such as we find in no other book of the Old Testament. It is as if this writer feels himself driven by the problem of passing generations: how can later generations be kept loyal to Yahweh, and how can the link with his mighty acts in history be maintained? The deuteronomic sermon arose in response to this urgent need“ (Levitical Sermon [see above, n. 18], 267).

98 P. D. Miller, Constitution or Instruction? The Purpose of Deuteronomy, in: Constituting the Community: Studies on the Polity of Ancient Israel in Honor of S. Dean McBride Jr., S. Tuell/J. Strong (eds.), Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns 2005, 125–41, 133.

99 Wolff considered the prophetic circles in the northern kingdom unlikely guardians of sacral traditions: „Die Prophetenkreise, wie sie uns im Nordreich bekannt sind, kann man doch im Ernst nicht als Träger kultischer Überlieferung und als Hüter sakraler Tradition ansprechen“ (Hoseas geistige Heimat [see above, n. 59], 90). Moreover, how would Hosea have come by such a unique set of historical materials, traditions stretching from the beginnings of Israel to the taking of the land, traditions apparently unknown to the southern prophets, including Amos? (ibid., 91). In a context of Deuteronomy, von Rad asks „aber kann man die Nebiim - gleichviel welcher Schattierung - im Ernst als die Träger und Hüter der im Dt. aktualisierten sakralen Traditionen ansehen?“ (Deuteronomium-Studien [see above, n. 21], 48).

100 Nicholson sees a „close connection between the prophets in the period before Hosea and the cult. Beginning with Samuel and continuing down through the period of Elijah, Elisha and the prophetic guilds there is considerable evidence to show that the prophetic party carried out its functions to some extent at least at cult centres such as Bethel, Gilgal and Mizpah. In view of this it is surely reasonable to suppose that the prophetic party itself would have been in full possession of a knowledge of the old traditions and that Hosea and his contemporaries in the prophetic office would have inherited this knowledge from their predecessors … The most reasonable solution to the problem of the connections between Hosea and Deuteronomy is best understood if we see both as deriving ultimately from the same source - the teaching of the prophetic party in northern Israel. This is further substantiated by another consideration. For Hosea Moses was the first of the prophets (12.14; cf. Dtn 18.18)“ (Deuteronomy and Tradition [see above, n. 84], 75–6).

101 This might also be broken down into priestly and dtn/dtr categories, though here we should avoid the tendency to form mutually exclusive categories.

102 Cf. the juxtaposition of prophets and priests in Zeph 3:4: „Its prophets are reckless, faithless persons; its priests have profaned what is sacred, they have done violence to the law.“ נביאיה פחזים אנשׁי בגרות כהניה חללרקרשׁ חמסו תורה. The Jerusalem-specific context of this passage (cf. v. 1) is duly noted (W. Rudolf, Micha-Nahum-Habakuk-Zephanja: Mit einer Zeittafel von Alfred Jepsen, KAT 13/3, Gütersloh, Gerd Mohn 1975, 287), also the fact that both prophet and priest are held responsible for the iniquities of the cult; cf. K.-F. Pohlmann, Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel) Kapitel 20–48. Übersetzt und erklärt von Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann mit einem Beitrag von Thilo Alexander Rudnig, ATD 22/2, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001, 329; cf. Jer 2:8. Zeph 3:3f. moreover „exceeds the usual typifying“ characteristic of prophetic polemic, which Ezek 22:23–31 then reworks (W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, trans. R. E. Clements, Hermeneia, Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1979, 1: 466, 468). Among the notable modifications, including vocabulary (Ezek 22:25 replaces Zeph 3:1′s sarim with nesi'im, and 22:27 replaces Zeph 3:3′s shoftim with sarim), we find the priests (v. 26) placed before prophets (v. 28). – In both Zeph 3 and Ezek 22, the charge leveled at the priests of profaning the sacred is extremely serious, cutting at the root of their sacral competence and very raison d'ětre. Ezek 22:26 interprets the profanation as: (1) a failure to distinguish between holy and common and between clean and unclean (cf. Ezek 44:23), and (2) a disregarding of the Sabbath regulation. In addition the priests have „done violence to the law“; they have failed in the task of instruction. Who are the accused priests, and who and what do they teach? They serve at the Jerusalem altar. The fact that they distinguishing between holy and common, clean and unclean, a task explicitly given to the Aaronites in Lev 10:10, suggests that these priests do not teach the general populace. Indeed, in Lev 10:8f God reveals new cultic law directly to Aaron the high priest; as lawgiver placed on a par with Moses, Aaron would not teach all-Israel directly (cf. Exod 18:13–26; Numb 11:16–30). Ezek 44:23 adds additional weight to this proposal, since, beginning with v. 15, and in contrast to vv. 9–14 (Levites), the Zadokite Levites are the targeted audience. The sacral terminology in Zeph 3:4, Ezek 22:26; 44:23; Lev 10:10 is unmistakably similar, confirming interdependence (cf. also Ezek 42:22b). Though Zephaniah is usually dated to the early seventh-century, the lack of reference to a king in 3:3f is conspicuous. The case is different in Ezek 22 (chs. 17 and 19 suggest regnal malfeasance; ibid., 468). On balance, we may conclude that Zeph 3:4b probably serves as the source for the other passages. In each case we should think in terms of priestly elites (whether Zadokite or Aaronite) officiating at the altar, instructing (primarily) other priests at a central shrine. Pohlmann (Hesekiel/Ezechiel [see above, n. 102], 2:329) sees Ezek 22:23–31 as directed exclusively to the „obersten Führungskreisen des Volkes.“ Not accused are the decentralized, priest-prophet Levites, who, like their comrade Hosea before them, railed against the priestly elites. „Among the older prophets it is above all Hosea who condemns the priests of his day for misuse of their obligation to give true instruction (Hos 4:6)“ (ibid., 469). Zephaniah may be carrying on this tradition, perhaps with the assistance of levitical, priest-prophets. Cf. also Jer 2:8. – We lack the details of the profanation of the altar by Jerusalemite elites in Zeph 3:4b, though one could plausibly envision desecration along the lines of Eli's sons Hophni and Phineas (1 Sam 2), caused not so much by priestly incompetence but rather retrobate character (so Mic 3:11), or, as Rudolf puts it, they simply lacked the courage to call sin sin („oder weil sie zu feige waren, um Sünde Sünde zu nennen“; Micha [see above, n. 102], 288). Any of these scenarios could account for the expression and concept of „doing violence to the law.“ In contrast, Ezek 22:26, whose point of departure is the lack of specificity of the Zeph 3:4b, turns the affair into a competency dispute, adding the dimension of disregarding the Sabbath (26b).

103 „Prophetenkreise entwerfen keine Gottesdienstprogramme“ (Hoseas geistige Heimat [see above, n. 60], 92).

104 Cf. von Rad, Deuteronomium-Studien [see above, n. 21], 48: „Das prophetische ist doch im Dt. gar nicht ein Überlierferungstrom, der sich seinem Inhalte nach präzis bestimmen und abgrenzen ließe, sondern er ist vielmehr ein allgemeiner religiöser Einschlag, der sich mehr oder minder allenthalben im Dt. findet. Insofern ist er einfach ein Symptom der Zeit, aus der heraus das Dt. redet.“

105 Cf. the brief, critical analysis by K. Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments, WMANT 81, Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchenener, 1999, 164, n. 660.

106 Cf. A. Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuc, trans. P. Wicksteed, London, Macmillan and Co., 1881, 336f.

107 רמשׁ,צפור כנף,זכר ונכבה.

108 נושן,הוליד.

109 ברא אלהים (Kuenen, Historico-Critical Inquiry [see above, n. 106], 336–37).

110 A. Rofé, Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation, D. Reimer (ed.), London, T & T Clark, 2002, 21–22; cf. Kuenen (Historico-Critical Inquiry [see above, n. 106], 337), who proposes Dtn 1:6–4:40 as the work of the Ezekiel circle.

111 Cf. Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus (see above, n. 105), 164, n. 660: „Dtn 4, 1–40 ist … gänzlich binnendeuteronomisch interpretiert und in Analogie zum hinteren Dtn-Rahmen in drei Schichten aufgeteilt, ein literarisch einheitlicher Text, der vermutlich nach ‚P‘ anzusetzen ist.“

112 Von Rad believed a northern nexus presented itself in the message of the prophet Hosea, whose criticism of the monarchy (Hos 3.4; 8.4, 19; 13.11) lines up with Dtn 17:14ff. Von Rad also connected the love command of Deuteronomy, e.g, 6:5, to a similar emphasis in Hosea (Das fünfte Buch Mose [see above, n. 21], 18; ET, 26). We leave aside in this study the question of the bellicose nature of the dtn Levites, a theme also emphasized by von Rad.

113 This point is also made by von Rad in his Deuteronomy commentary (Das fünfte Buch Mose [see above, n. 21], 18; ET, 26).

114 Welch comments on the earliness of the Deuteronomy conception, which prefers the wilderness tabernacle to a centralized worship center: „But whatever the original intention of the sketch of the temple may have been, it was never reckoned to be part of the sacred law, but was left among the less authoritative utterances of the prophets. It was never given the authority of Moses. What was included in the law and given the authority of the first lawgiver was the representation in Exodus of the wilderness tabernacle“ (Code [see above, n. 55], 198).

115 Hoseas geistige Heimat (see above, n. 60), 91.

116 „Wird man sie anderwärts suchen können als in levitischen Gruppen? Ich finde keine andere auch nur annähernd vergleichbare Gemeinschaft“ (Hoseas geistige Heimat [see above, n. 60], 91). Wolff's mastery of the relevant texts coupled with his perceptive recognition of the innerpriestly oppositions lends considerable credibility to his argument. Wolff perceives in Hosea 8:12 („Though I write for him the multitude of my instructions, they are regarded as a strange thing“) evidence that Hosea knew of a repository traditions, some of which may have been written down. This would then offer support for the idea written covenantal traditions dating to middle of the eighth century. Although we find attestation of the opposition to calf worship in Exod 32.15–16, this particular injunction may somehow have been ‚strange‘ (כמו־זר cf. Luth. „wie eine fremde Lehre“) to the Israelites addressed by Hosea (cf. 8:4–6). Wolff suggests this possibly reflects tension between official priests and the levitical circle of traditionists with whom Hosea closely associated (Hosea: A Commentary [see above n. 51], 144). The author of Hosea 8:13 („Though they offer choice sacrifices, though they eat flesh, the Lord does not accept them. Now he will remember their iniquity, and punish their sins; they shall return to Egypt“) appropriates priestly language for his repudiation of the spate of sanctuaries. In so doing he displays familiarity with priestly matters, and bespeaks his bond with the progenitors of Deuteronomy (ibid., 145; cf. Dtn 12:5ff.). Wolff also considers the קדשׁים in 11:12 [Heb. 12:1] (cf. also Ps 34:10 and Dn 7:21) likely candidates for the Levites. „Already in an earlier period especially the Levites were so designated“ (cf. 2 Chr 35:3; Numb 3:12; Ps 16:3). „In addition, Elisha as a ‚man of God‘ was once called a ‚holy one‘ (2 Kgs 4:9). We must therefore consider the possibility that Hosea is referring to the circle of prophets and Levites closely associated with him as the ‚Holy One.‘ Though they are persecuted in Israel, they are still able to find refuge in Judah (cf. Am 7:12 And Amaziah said to Amos, “O seer, go, flee away to the land of Judah, earn your bread there, and prophesy there“). „This again lends support to our assumption that in v. 1a the prophet initially laments over his own oppression“ (ibid., 210). Cf. von Rad, Geschichtsbild (see above, n. 33), 98.

117 Wolff, Hoseas geistige Heimat (see above, n. 60), 91f.

118 The tribe of Dan receives rebuke in the Song of Deborah (Judg 5:17) for remaining aloof in a time of amphictyonic crisis. Though the Danite sanctuary would survive Jehu's religious purge (2 Kgs 10:29), Dan was captured by Ben Hadad in the ninth century at Asa's behest (1 Kgs 15:21) and then regained during Joaz's reign (2 Kgs 12:25); the Danite sanctuary still stood in Amos' time (8:14); it was extensively restructured by Ahab, rebuilt again in the 8th -7th centuries, and perhaps again after the Assyrian conquest; cf. P. Venter, Northern Traditions in Second Century BCE Literature, OTE 16, 2003 (464–88), 467.

119 Ibid., 466f.

120 Ibid.

121 This situation remained basically the same during the Persian period (ibid., 467f.).

122 That the Levites and the hard to pin down עם־הארץ („the people of the land“) would have in some contexts found occasion to join forces seems likely. Von Rad characterized the עם־הארץ as „free, landowning Judean citizens“ (freien, grundbesitzenden judäischer Vollbürger) who, as carriers of certain covenant traditions, were in need of advocates that the rural Levites came to embody (Deuteronomium-Studien [see above, n. 21], 44–46 (quote on p. 44); cf. Cook, Micah's Deuteronomistic Redaction [see above, n. 62], 230f). - W. Schniedewind also sees a link between the עם־הארץ and the authorship of Deuteronomy. He points to the innovation of Deuteronomy as reflecting a new social location for writing, a product not of royal scribes or Jerusalem elites but rather literature of the disenfranchised: „Thus, Deuteronomy is the literature of the ‚people of the land‘. Deuteronomy expressed concern for the alien in the land and for those living throughout the land of Israel … Deuteronomy is not simply the work of the elites in Jerusalem or the Josianic scribes of the royal court. Rather, in its broad social concerns Deuteronomy stands in contrast both to royal literature and to the priestly legislation known from the Books of Leviticus and Numbers“ (W. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel, Cambridge, Cambridge University, 2004, 113).

123 Questions about the oral-written literary continuum in the ancient world need not detain us here. Those northern peoples that considered themselves Israelites and/or Yahwists living in the Huleh valley may of course had their own written traditions, whether locally-penned or brought to them from an urban center.

124 Venter, Northern traditions [see above, n. 118], 468.

125 Ibid.

126 Ibid. In her summary of recent developments in social theory, Dutcher-Walls (P. Dutcher-Walls, The Circumscription of the King: Deuteronomy 17:16–17 In Its Ancient Social Context, JBL 121, 2002 [601–16] 611) discourses on „core-periphery relations, that is, relations between a dominant, core state and the secondary, peripheral states on its borders.“ The core-periphery relations of the Neo-Assyrian empire, for example, „can be characterized as a system in which the core dominated the periphery in certain specific ways through direct and indirect rule but which did not fully assimilate its outermost peripheral states into the core“ (ibid.). This does not mean, however, that leaders in outlying areas, although affected less by direct ideological coercion, would not find it expedient – whether because of fear, or the promise of benefits – to adjust their behavior and thinking in the direction of the requirements and values emanating from the centralized power (cf. ibid., 614).

127 „Dagegen hatten die Assyrer dort wie überall im Interesse der wirtschaftlichen Ausbeutung der neuen Provinzen die breiten Massen der Bauernschaft im Lande belassen, und diese werden mindestens in den Provinzen Samaria, Megiddo und Gilead zur größeren Hälfte aus Israeliten bestanden haben, die noch immer, wenn auch nicht alle mit derselben Zähigkeit, an ihrem angestammten Wesen hingen. Daß sie den inneren Widerstand gegen ihre gewaltsame Einverleibung in das Herrschaftssystem des fremden Großreiches von heute auf morgen aufgegeben haben sollten, ist sicher nicht wahrscheinlich, und wenn sie sich auch nicht oder wenigstens nicht mit dauerndem Erfolg offen gegen das ihnen aufgezwungen Joch empören konnten, so ist doch sehr damit zu rechnen, daß die Hoffnung auf Wiedergewinnung der Freiheit in ihnen nicht so schnell erlosch und sie zu immer neuer Erwägung der Frage führte, wie sie im Falle des Nachlassens oder Aufhörens des assyrischen Druckes ihr Leben nach der alten Eigenart einzurichten hätten (Heimat des Deuteronomiums [see above, n. 84], 273–74). Writer's translation of the second sentence: „That they would have abandoned overnight the internal resistance against their powerful incorporation into the authority system of the foreign kingdom is certainly improbable. They also could not with lasting success be openly outraged against the yoke forced on them. It is therefore to be expected that the hope of reobtaining their freedom did not quickly die out, and that it led to an ever newer consideration of the question, how, in the event of the reduction or cessation of Assyrian pressure, they would have adjusted their lives according to the old individuality.“

128 We should perhaps envision a certain degree of antagonism obtaining between northern and far northern factions, and not so unlike the biblical portrayal of the antagonism existing between Israel and Judah.

129 Though we do not know the point at which Mt Hermon came to be known as a place of revelation, 1 Enoch 6:5–6 and 13:7 preserve traditions that refer to ‚the waters of Dan in the land of Dan, which is south of Hermon to the east.“ The sacred status of upper Galilean sanctuaries is a given in these traditions. Indeed, these northern localities „constitute a tradition of northern Galilean provenance which, in turn, reflects visionary activity in the area of Dan and Hermon“ (G. W. E. Nickelsburg cited in Venter, Northern traditions [see above, n. 118], 465–66). Within these traditions (cf., e.g., 1 Enoch 12–16), moreover, we find „‚polemic against the priesthood, based in part on technical language from the temple and priesthood applied to the sanctuary in heaven, and the substitution of Dan for Jerusalem as the point of access to the sanctuary of heaven“ (R. Gmirkin cited in ibid., 465); cf. G.W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction, Minneapolis, Fortress, 2005, 51.

130 George W. E. Nickelsburg, A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (ed. K. Baltzer, Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 247.

131 For an example of northern, transjordanian ties to Jerusalem in the Maccabean period, see 1 Macc 5:1–15. The proper construal of ’Ιουδαίος in this period is difficult. Does it somehow apply to regions or persons beyond Judea, influenced by Judean ideology? Do these persons consider themselves Jews?

132 As mentioned above, the region of Galilee and Huleh were locally administrated from Megiddo. This connects village life in the far north with an important, international center further south. Situated on a major pass stretching from the coastal plain to the Jezreel Valley, part of the Via Maris connecting Egypt with Syro-Palestine and Mesopotamia, Megiddo is hardly an obscure outpost disconnected from the rest of the known world. The historical books know it well (Josh 12:21; 17:11; Judg 1:27; 5:19; 1 Kgs 4:12; 9:15; 2 Kgs 9:27; 23:29f; 1 Chr 7:29; 2 Chr 35:22; cf. also Zech 12:11; 1 Esdr 1:29). At least during the Persian period, though doubtless during other eras, opportunities for substantive interchange between the far north and regions to the south most certainly existed. Jeremiah 4:15 provides an intriguing example of this is relevant here. Beyond a mere affirmation of the connection between Judah and the region of Dan, Jeremiah 4:15 documents a priestly-prophetic ministry emanating from Dan, and in conjunction with Mt Ephraim. The reference to Mt Ephraim without question implicates Shechem, a site von Rad and others have posited as a hub for patently levitical traditions and the provenance of the book Deuteronomy (see above, n. 88; cf. n. 55).

133 2 Kgs 23:29f is relevant to this discussion: „In his days Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates. King Josiah went to meet him; but when Pharaoh Neco met him at Megiddo, he killed him. His servants carried him dead in a chariot from Megiddo, brought him to Jerusalem, and buried him in his own tomb. The people of the land (עם־הארץ) took Jehoahaz son of Josiah, anointed him, and made him king in place of his father.“

134 A more comprehensive inquiry into the relationships between the far north and areas further south would entail analyses of textual, epigraphic, and archaeological evidence that shed light on the depth of the interchange between these areas.

135 Ezek 43:19 is part of a secondary addition (43:17–31) to chs. 40–48: „La présence de nombreux ajouts d'origine diverse, par exemple en 43,17–31 et en 46,19–24, suggère clairement que ces chapitres ont fait l'objet de plusiers éditions successives à la bibliothèque du Second Temple“ (Chr. Nihan, Ezéchiel, in: Introduction à l'Ancien Testament, T. Römer, et al. [eds.], Genève, Labor et Fides, 2004, 359–78, 373).

136 M. Sweeney, Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest and Visionary Prophet of the Exile, SBLSP 39, 2000 (728–51), 130–31.

137 Cf. 18:29: „Yet the house of Israel says, ‚The way of the Lord is unfair.‘ O house of Israel (בית ישׁראל), are my ways unfair? Is it not your ways that are unfair?“

138 Sweeney, Ezekiel [see above, n. 137], 135.

139 A. D. H. Hayes, Deuteronomy, London, Oliphants, 1979, 324f.

140 Dtn 24:8f. reflects considerable editing by a late, probably post-dtr, editor (ibid.).

141 The universalism in Malachi (cf. 1:11) is set against the background of a Zadokite priesthood accused of corruption. Accordingly, Malachi bases his hope in a reconstitution of the „covenant with Levi.“ P. Hanson holds that both Isa 56:1–8 and Malachi originated in the early restoration period among the „wider circle of Levitical priests who, although long forced to the periphery by the Zadokites, were finding their voice anew as protagonists of an expansive vision of faith that drew upon the universalism of Second Isaiah“ (P. Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, Louisville, John Knox Press, 1995, 195). Within this environment of openness to the other, the levitical priests, known for both their devotion to Yahweh and ministry to the marginalized, insinuated themselves as the obvious cultic-leaders for an inclusive future (Isa 66:18ff.). Bearing the painful memory of demotion by „the sons of Zadok“ (Ezek 44), Levites eagerly embraced the idea of the renewal of their once, mosaically-affirmed priesthood. God himself would now affirm pious priests of mixed descent (Isa 66:20f). Hanson correctly recognizes the literary and conceptual framework apparent in Third Isaiah, viz., „Isa 56:1–8 is one half of a literary framework that encloses Third Isaiah, the other half being found in 66:18–23 (supplemented in 66:17 and 24 with additions by a rather cantankerous editor)“ (ibid., 196). Fishbane (Biblical Interpretation [see above, n. 74], 128) categorizes Isa 60:7 as another passage promoting a more inclusive understanding of priesthood. Here the phrase ‚rams of Nebaioth‘ who will serve (שרת) „shall be acceptable on my altar“ calls to mind 56:7. – S. Tuell speaks of the „priestly inclusivity“ of Third Isaiah: „The Zadokite priestly exclusivity demanded in Ez 44.1–14 is rejected by Third Isaiah, which holds rather for priestly inclusivity, incorporating the whole tribe of Levi (Mal 2:4, 8; see also Deut 18:1; Jer 33:19–22) – even those Levites rejected by the Zadokites“ (Priesthood [see above, n. 98], 202).

142 M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, Philadelphia, Fortress 1974, 49.

143 Hengel (ibid., 49f, 78f, 113) presumes a clear distinction between priests and Levites of which we are not convinced. His categorization of the Levites as part of the lower priesthood - a group that plausibly both saw substantial increase in the wake of the Josianic reform and about which Deuteronomy is concerned - we would affirm in general. It stands to reason that a non-elite, less centralized priesthood would provide more accessible religious leadership with whom laity would wish to interact, even collaborate. The teaching and scribal activities of these same levitical priests afforded non-priests the opportunity not only to learn laws and traditions but also to influence their ongoing interpretation. - The democratization of the scribal school becomes better known first in the fourth century BCE in the activities of the Hasidim (cf. the קהל חסדים in Ps 149:1), when the concern arose to instruct a broader swath of the people in their laws and traditions. But already „from preexilic times there were scribal schools in the temple and probably elsewhere in the country, which served primarily to instruct priests … who would in turn instruct the people in the law … [In later times] the ‚scribal element‘ seems mostly to have impacted the formation of the anti-assimilation opposition, which would later include Pharisaism“ (ibid., 78; cf. 78–81, 175ff). Other groups unknown to us are possible as well (ibid., 179), whose induction policies probably differed considerably. - That non-priests could enter into even intensified religious training schools seems evident already in the case of the boy Samuel (1 Sam 1–3). Samuel's successful training and subsequent lifelong religious vocation should not however becloud the reality of his non-priestly lineage. This datum suggesting the great likelihood that select groups of individuals, perhaps showing special aptitude, demonstrating pious devotion (cf. the „tremblers“ כל חרֵר בדברי אלהי־ישֹראל) in Ezr 9:4; 1 Sam 4:13; Isa 66;5;) - or possessing the right connections - could join a priestly-led guild (cf. נער, s. v. in KB). Cf. Saul's impromptu induction into a peripheral „band of prophets“ (חבל נבאים) in 1 Sam 10:5, 10.

144 Ibid., 49f; cf. 50: „The contrast, so typical in Israel between the godless rich and poor, unjustly oppressed faithful, as it appears in prophetic preaching and in the Psalms, made it possible to interpret the social contrast in religious terms. It is therefore very probable that hints of religio-social contrasts have been preserved in certain late psalms, in the latest parts of Proverbs, in the latest parts of the prophets and above all in Kohelet. They entered an acute stage in the Maccabean revolt.“

145 This may have been especially true in its early days.

146 Fabry (H.-J. Fabry, Zadokiten und Aaroniden in Qumran, in: Das Manna fällt auch heute noch: Beitrage zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments: FS Erich Zenger, F.-L. Hossfeld/L. Schwienhorst-Schönberger [eds.], Freiburg, Herder 2004, 201–17, 207) suggests that in this context Aaronites comprised the group that gradually came into prominence.

147 Ibid., 207f.

148 Regarding the Zadokites, it should be borne in mind that, as Fabry has noted, „eine Schrifttradition kennt die Zadokiden nicht“ (ibid., 209); neither do they appear in the Pentateuch.

149 Cf. ibid., 213: „Trotz dieser Widersprüchlichkeit zeigt sich tatsächlich eine Hauptlinie: 1QSa, besonders 1QSb und CD sehen die Zadokiden schon in Gründungszeiten der Gemeinden tätig. In späteren Schriften treten mehr und mehr die Aaroniden in den Vordergrund. 1QSa und 1QS lassen aber noch vage eine gewisse Dominanz der Zadokiden erkennen.“

150 Ibid., 208; cf. R. Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi, SBLEJL 9, Atlanta, Scholar's Press 1996, 225f.

151 Fabry, Zadokiten [see above, n. 147], 206.

152 A. Cody doubts the authenticity of the levitical teaching ministry in 2 Chr 17:7ff, suggesting the sarim or lay officials as the more likely candidates for performing that function (so, v. 7). „The Chroniclers contribution is the addition of the priests and levites to the mission – the addition of the priests being inspired by v. 9′s mention of the book of the law which the sarim took along with them (a book which in the original material was by no means a collection of torot in the priestly sense), and the inclusion of the levites being brought about by the Chronicler's general tendency to mention levites along with priests, pari passu, when left to his own devices“ (A. Cody, A History of the Old Testament Priesthood, AnBib 35, Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969, 187f).

153 Moreover, major biblical themes relating to Levi, such as what we find in Gen 49 and Dtn 33, undergo adaptation.

154 Regarding the authorship question, J. T. Milik proposed Samaritan provenance on the basis of: (a) an intentional combining of Levi and Joseph into one text that exalts both, and (b) place names that would betray a Samaritan priestly hand. The priestly author apparently relies on a Leviticus text similar to SamPent. It may have been that this author sought to legitimate a Samaritan priesthood opposite the Jerusalem incumbents (Milik summarized in Kugler, Patriarch [see above, n. 151], 137). Based on a Josephus tradition about Ptolemy exiling Samaritans to Egypt (Ant. 12 §§ 3–10), Kugler reformulates this view. He envisions third-century, cult-concerned Samaritans in Egypt seeking to promote a model priesthood based on Levi, though not slavishly tied to canonical legislation. Nickelsburg suggests the book was composed in „priestly circles perhaps related to those that generated the Temple Scroll“ (Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature [see above, n. 128], 164). He notes the „lack of polemics“ in the extant fragments, polemics that in contrast are in evidence in Jubilees and Qumran sectarian literature. The developing socio-religious tensions evident in Jubilees and the Qumran sectarian literature appear not to have been (a major) part of Aramaic Levi's immediate social world“ (ibid.). Nickelsburg, as well as M. Stone (M. Stone, „Levi,“ in: Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, L. Schiffman/J. VanderKam, New York, Oxford University 2000, 485–86) remain silent on the question of who these priestly authors may have been. In sum, these scholars do not fully acknowledge the Hebrew Bible's own reconfiguration of the Levi tradition.

155 Stone, Levi [see above, n. 155] 485; cf. idem, The Axis of History at Qumran, in Pseud-epigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 January, 1997, E. Chazon/M. Stone (with the collaboration of A. Pinnick), STDJ 31, Leiden, Brill, 1999, 133–49, 133.

156 Cf., e.g., ch. 13. In chs. 11–12 of both the Testament of Levi and Aramaic Levi, moreover, the priestly genealogy ends with Amram, leaving out Aaron.

157 That is to say, the text prior to the so-called Christian redaction evident in TLev 4:4; cf. J. Latorre i Castillo, Leví sacerdote en los Testamentos de los Doce Patriarcas, Est. Bib. 62, 2004 (59–75), 73, n. 56.

158 i Castillo, Leví sacerdote (see the preceding note), 73f; cf. ibid., 74: „Los puntos de divergencia respecto al vocabulario y a la teología sacerdotal son suficiamente importantes como par que affirmar que nos encontramos frente a dos teologías sacerdotales diversas: la del núcleo primitivo del TLev y de los TextXII … En núcleo primitivo del TLev manifiesta una teología sacerdotal levítica en linéa con ArLev y Jub, que a su vez, enlaza con la teología bíblica de Leví sacerdote (Gn 34 y 49:5–7 y especialmente Dt 33:8–11 y Mal 2:4–7; 3:1–4).“

159 Latorre i Castillo, Leví sacerdote (see above, n. 158), 74.

160 Cf. Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 10–29 [see above, n. 22], 826: „A basic kinship between the Levites and the Aaronides is maintained (1 Chr 23:32). The sons of Aaron (v. 13) are ultimately Levites (v.6). They share a common genealogy.“

161 On the diversity within leadership groups in Israel, cf. P. Dutcher-Walls, The Social Location of the Deuteronomists: A Sociological Study of Factional Politics in Late Pre-Exilic Judah, JSOT 16, 1991, (77–94); idem, Circumscription (see above, n. 126).

162 Stone, Axis (see above, n. 156), 138.

163 Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature [see above, n. 128], 161.

164 Cf. T. Elgvin in a forthcoming monograph on 4QInstruction.

165 T. Elgvin, Priestly Sages? (see above, n. 11), 68.

166 Also calendar and festivals, niddah, and casting lots (Elgvin, Priestly Sages? [see above, n. 11], 68–69). Cf. A. Lange, In Diskussion mit dem Tempel. Zur Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kohelet und weisheitlichen Kreisen am Jerusalemer Tempel, in: Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom, A. Schoors (ed.), BETL 136, Leuven, Peeters, 1998, 113–159, 131. Elgvin differs from Lange in that he does not believe the reference to cultic matters necessarily point to Temple provenience: „The sparse references to cultic matters in 4QInstruction do not necessarily point to the Temple as the milieu of origin. Most of these references are used symbolically. Futher, a sapiential teacher in the tiny province of pre-Hasmonean Yehud could hardly escape referring to the Temple when giving advice on life in family and society. The contrasts to Ben Sira, the priestly-oriented defender of the Jerusalem establishment, require us to seek alternative milieus for some of these sapiential texts. Behind 4QInstruction we may find Levites outside the ruling Temple circles as well as lay scribes, united in an apocalyptic hope for the end-time restoration of Israel“ (Priestly Sages [see above, n. 11], 85). Regarding the ideological unity within the diverse, apocalyptic „resistance movement,“ see A. Bedenbender, Als Mose und Henoch zusammenfanden: Die Entstehung der frühjüdischen Apokalyptik in Reaktion auf die Religionsverfolgung unter Antiochos IV. Epiphanes, in: Jüdische Schriften in ihrem antik-jüdischen und urchristlichen Kontext, JSHRZ-St 1, H. Lichtenberger/G. Oegema (eds.), Gütersloh, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2002, 182–203; cf., e.g., ibid., 188: „Nach einem gemeinsamen Plan vorgegangen, so gibt es Grund zu der Annahme, daß sie auch im Bereich der Ideologie zu einer regelrechten Koalition zusammenfanden.“

167 E. Tigchelaar, The Addressees of 4QInstruction, in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran, D. Falk et al. (eds.), Leiden, Brill, 2000, 62–75.

168 4Q424 lacks the kind of reflection on material circumstances that would indicate a rich or poor Sitz im Leben (B. Wright, The Categories of Rich and Poor in the Qumran Sapiential Literature, in Sapiential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, J. Collins et al., [eds.], Leiden, Brill, 2004, 101–23, 108).

169 Priestly Sages (see above, n. 11), 85.

170 Cf. J. T. Sanders, When Sacred Canopies Collide. The Reception of the Torah of Moses in the Wisdom Literature of the Second-Temple Period, JSJ 32, 2001 (121–36); cf. F. Reiterer, Der Pentateuch in der spätbiblischen Weisheit Ben Sira, in: A Critical Study of the Pentateuch. An Encounter Between Europe and Africa, E. Otto/J. LeRoux (eds.), ATM 20, Münster, Lit, 2005, 160–83: 179: „For Ben Sira the Pentateuch comprises only one of the sources of information of God's revelation. It does not play the central role that many exegetes suggest.“ Does this then signal that a relativizing of traditions associated with Moses occurred in the Hellenistic period? Cf. Christian, Reading Tobit, [see above, n. 45], 66–74.

171 This topic is dealt with in more detail in my study: Priestly Power that Empowers: Cross-Denominational Alliance and „Popular Religious Groups“ in Israel, to be presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in San Diego, California.

172 We have left aside the general consideration of the northern provenance of certain Psalms in this study.

173 Scribal Culture (see above, n. 8), 90.

174 Cf. Aram Levi; Jub 45:15, 4Q542, frg I,ii (cf 543, frg I, I-2) (ibid.).

175 Ibid., 91.

176 Psalms 90–106, thus subsequent to the Psalms of Korah (42–49; 84–85; 87–88) and Asaph (50; 73–83), though falling before M. Smith's posited „levitical grouping“ of Pss 135–150 (see above, n. 10).