Joel S. Baden and Jeffrey Stackert, eds. The Pentateuch and Its Readers

Pentateuch is a Feschrift of mostly technical, specialized articles dedicated to Baruch J. Schwartz. As suggested by its title, fourteen of its eighteen chapters focus on the Pentateuch. This review summarizes each piece, then gives a few concluding comments.Joel Baden’s “Despoiling the Egyptians” argues that of the three “despoiling” passages traditionally assigned to E, Exod 3:21–22 and 12:35–36 naturally fit into the J narrative. The traditional argument for assigning these to E rests on understanding the word שכנה to mean “neighbor.” But since this word appears only here and in Ruth 4:17, we cannot confidently discern its meaning. If we do not assume “neighbor,” the context fits the J narrative. The third despoiling passage, Exod 11:2–3, was likely a later addition.David Ben-Gad HaCohen argues that Jacob’s dream sequence in Gen 28:11–22 was originally connected to Gen 32, so that in the latter passage Jacob fulfills the vow he made to El in the former. A Judahite editor separated the stories and changed “El” to “Yahweh” throughout.Tracing Israel’s travels in Numbers, Liane Feldman argues that the original P itinerary was rearranged to make Numbers 25—in which Phineas stops a plague by killing an Israelite who was cohabitating with a Midianite woman—fit the immediate context.Ariel Seri-Levi argues that the J account of the Sinai theophany, which does not contain a law code, marks the moment at which Yahweh begins to dwell with the Israelites fully and permanently. Prior to Exod 19, Yahweh’s presence had been felt only intermittently by the Israelites, leading to J’s final words prior to the Sinai theophany, “Is Yahweh among us, or not?” (Exod 17:7b). For J, Yahweh’s descent is the deity’s response to this prompting.Dodani Orstov delves into the compositional history of Exod 34. The canonical text came into being after D had shaped elements of E’s Mosaic ascent account into a second ascent, now appearing in Deut 9–10. The compiler of Exodus then chose to rework Deut 9–10 into the second ascent that comprises Exod 34.Attending to differences between LXX and MT, Guy Darshan examines the appearances of the “Tent of Meeting” in Samuel and Kings, concluding that all were added after the P sections of the Torah had been finalized.Ariel Kopilovitz proposes that some preexilic writers or schools contributed material to both the Torah and the Former Prophets. He pays special attention to priestly features of 1 Kgs 11–12.Itamar Kislev argues that the Chronicler legitimized the sanctuary at Gibeon so that it might serve as a model for the ark-less Second Temple.Raanan Eichler discusses the third person indefinite subject in P, mostly addressing the tabernacle’s construction. While Bezalel and Oholiab lead the construction workers, most pieces are made by the group, not the two leaders.Presenting their results from a graduate seminar, nine coauthors headed by Naphtali S. Meschel compare the time lines of the text of Lev 1–5 and the events to which the text points. The authors utilize cross-references in these time lines to establish correlations.Sarah Shectman utilizes feminist and intersectionality tools to explain the intersection of gender and power in Lev 21–22. The treatment of women in priestly families models power and hierarchical status across Israelite social classes.Jeffrey Stackert challenges the dual ideas that P’s creation report concludes with the Tabernacle’s completion and that the created world serves as Yahweh’s sanctuary. P flows more naturally when we prioritize P’s story ahead of its theology. When we follow the story, we discern fundamental differences between the creation of the world and the construction of the sanctuary.Working with numerous texts in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, Benjamin D. Sommer shows that P accepts the evolution of the law. P strives to present a systematic theology by integrating each element of the law with the whole.Simeon Chavel presents a new concept of the biblical development of intergenerational punishment. The family, not the nation, is in view; national intergenerational punishment is a metaphor, not a theological principle. The theology of intergenerational punishment went through crisis during the neo-Babylonian period, reemerging with a greater sense of communal responsibility for past sin.David Lambert takes issue with the idea promulgated by Wellhausen of tôrâ as personal spoken instruction evolving into fixed written law. For Lambert, once tôrâ has been uttered, it endures within Judean willingness to rework and reevaluate associated texts.Tova Ganzel explains how the additions of Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385) to Ezek 37:1–14 create a consolatory postexilic message, with a vision that features Yahweh’s love and good intentions more prominently than in canonical Ezekiel.Mira Balberg examines tractate Shevu’ot on Lev 5:1–14 to elucidate Mishnaic understandings of the priestly sacrificial system relationships between impurity and sin, sanctuary and persons, and individual and congregation.Fran Viezel surveys the thoughts of pre-Enlightenment Jewish figures on the authorship of Job, which, per the Jerusalem Talmud (y. Soṭah 5:5, 20d) and MS Paris 1337, was authored by Moses. Connections between the names of Job and his friends with names in Genesis usually persuaded most to accept Mosaic authorship.This collection shows that the Documentary Hypothesis is alive and well. Not every piece will appeal to every reader, but if you’re looking for insights into E, you’ll benefit from Baden, HaCohen, Seri-Levi, and Orstav. Fans of P should check out Feldman, Eichler, Meschel et al., Stackert, and Sommer. I most enjoyed Seri-Levi, Kopilovitz, Shectman, Sommer, and Lambert, no doubt due to my own interests. Dr. Schwartz has good reason to be proud of the work of his students and friends.