Literary Criticism and Theology of P - Christus Rex

THE PRIESTLY TENT (Ex 25–31.35–40)
Literary Criticism and the Theology of P Today
E. Cortese
We start with an attempt to reconsider the literary critical position on the
tent-texts (I). It carries the further scope of arriving at a more balanced
understanding of the theology of P about the tent and about the divine presence
(II). By reconsidering the relations of the priestly law with tent and
cult, the final part (III) figures as a sort of corollary on the ethics of the
priestly literature.
I. Literary criticism
Premises: literary criticism and structures in Ex 25-31 and 35-40
The trend of the literary criticism of Ex 25ff. and 35ff. in the last decades
has notably reduced their Pg 1 share. While Noth and even more Elliger attributed
the major part of 25-28 to Pg, from the end of the seventies the
trimming began, particularly by Fritz 2 and Weimar 3 , in whose reduction the
sacred objects (ark, cherubim, table of the breads, candlestick) became Ps 4
additions and the tent is left completely empty in Pg. It has transformed to
be a mere symbol of the presence of the Lord, having nothing to do with
the cult. On the other side, contrary to Noth, Weimar and Fritz has defended
Ex 29,43-46*, as original to Pg and as central theologumenon about the
presence of God. So Ex 29,43ff. is the only new text attributed today to
Pg 5 , against the abundant material that has been now subtracted from it.
1. Pg: the original Priestly code.
2. V. Fritz, Tempel und Zelt. Studien zum Tempelbau in Israel und zu dem Zeltheiligtum
der Priesterschrift (WMANT 47), Neukirchen 1977.
3. P. Weimar, “Sinai und Schöpfung. Komposition und Theologie der priesterschriftlichen
Sinaigeschichte”, RB 95 (1988) 337-385.
4. Ps: Priestly redaction.
5. N. Lohfink also now accepts this acquisition: Les traditions du Pentateuque autour de
l’exil (Cahiers Ev. 1996). And I have to change my list of the Pg texts as well in Da Mosé
a Esdra. I libri storici dell’Antico Israele, Bologna 1985, 143, on this point.
LA 48 (1998) 9-30

10
E. CORTESE
This reductionist trend reaches its most radical position in Th. Pola 6 .
He attributes to Pg the usual (and classical) portion of texts up to Ex 25.
But from Ex 25 onwards his Pg is limited only to 25,1.8a.9; 29,45f. and
40,16.17a.33b and nothing more either in Lev or in Num 7 . The consequences
of this reductionist approach to the theology of P are obvious.
Such a radicalism invites a more reasonable literary critical approach
towards our texts. At the same time we do not follow here the opposite
trend, which renounces literary criticism, by adopting other exegetical
methods, not to mention fundamentalism.
Now if one gives credit to literary criticism, as we do, one can hardly
accept the proposed structures of tent sections of P, either in their entirety
or in their parts, if such opinions are proposed without a previous literary
criticism. Such schemes or structures could be proposed only for the end
text, and are the product of later redaction (Ps) or the result of the final
redaction. Therefore many of the proposed structures of Pg on the Sinai
corpus are to be suspected.
Those structures of Pg, which do not presume a prior literary criticism
and which are based simply on the supposed parallelism with ANET
accounts of temple building and on the bipolarism between prescriptive and
descriptive texts of the ancient documents and between command (Ex 25-
31) and execution (35-41) 8 , are not acceptable to us. Nor do we agree with
those who build their demonstration of the structure purely on literary or
stylistic elements 9 .
There is also a sort of structure like the one proposed by Janowski 10
following Weimar, which is based on literary criticism, but presumes that
6. Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift. Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte
von Pg (WMANT 70), Neukirchen 1995.
7. See for instance Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 343, note 144.
8. B. Levine, “The descriptive Tabernacle texts of the Pentateuch”, JAOS 85 (1965) 110-
132. 307-318, has still his followers today.
9. G. Steins, “Sie sollen mir ein Heiligtum machen. Zur Struktur und Entstehung von Ex
24,12 (sic!)-31,18”, in F.L. Hossfeld (Ed.), Vom Sinai zu Horeb. Stationen alt. Glaubensgeschichte,
Würzburg 1989, 145-167. The proposed structure is based principally on the
speech introductions 30,11.17.22.34; 31,1.12, which are irregularly distributed in the
complex. Moreover Steins admits the secondary trait, not only of Ex 30f., which the
majority recognizes, but also of (28 and) 29, which he defends.
10. B. Janowski, “Tempel und Schöpfung. Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschr.en
Heiligtum Konzeption”, JBT 5 (1990) 50 (now in Id., Gottesgegenwart in Israel.
Beiträge zur Theologie des AT, Neukirchen 1993, 214-246).

THE PRIESTLY TENT 11
Pg has only the tent and not its objects, particularly not the ark with her
‘edût. According to this hypothesis it is easy, but very questionable, to
exclude from Pg any issue of the law, which was put in the ark.
On the one hand, outlining a structure is not the indispensable work in
the reconstruction of the theology of P, whereas literary criticism is, and it
can give a surer basis for further exegetical work. On the other hand,
considering the complex history of the formation of Ex 25-31 and 35-40,
we cannot accept the obsession that makes out of every terminological
change a literary critical hypothesis, creating to many layers of redaction
(corresponding to different names of the tent 11 , to singular or plural verb
for the subjects of the construction, to the differences in the many series of
the objects, and so on).
A. Ex 25-31
Is it possible to reach a sure textual basis in Ex 25ff. for the theology of P?
We try to do it, not by a thorough new analysis, but by way of balancing
between the scholars and by evaluating their results.
1. First we accept the general conclusions of the classic literary
criticism: Ex 30f. and nearly all of 35-40 are Ps. It is difficult to recover
the original Pg information or phrases in 35-40, after the massive work of
Ps in this part. However, following the great majority of the past and
present scholars, we consider at least 39,32 or 42 and 40,17.33f. as essential
to Pg.
The usual argument for the secondary character of 30f. is that the
incense altar 12 is not mentioned in the most apt place, i.e., in ch. 25, but
later in 30, and that in 35-40 we have a different order of the tent elements,
where the incense altar is found in its right place. This different and more
logical order is also a proof that this passage is later than that of 25ff.
Moreover, as already noted, it is exactly after the incense altar (30,1-10)
that a long series of introductions to YHWH speeches (30,11.17.22.34;
11. H Utzschneider, Das Heiligtum und das Gesetz. Studien zur Bedeutung der sinaitischen
Heiligtumtexte (OBO 77), Freiburg Schw. 1988, even after shifting from an exaggerated
literary critical approach, seems to run here into the same error.
12. Against the recent opinion of C. Meyers, “Realms of Sanctity: the case of the
‘misplaced’ incense altar in the Tabernacle Texts of Exodus”, in M.V. Fox et alii (Eds.),
Texts, Temples, and Traditions. A Tribute to Menahem Haran, Winona L. Ind. 1996,
33-46.

12
E. CORTESE
31,1.12) begins, endorsing the impression of a new intervening redaction.
As for the last object, the laver of brass (30,17-21), one has to take note of
the lack of a description similar to that of the former objects.
2. Apart from the above classical literary critical conception, we must
discuss the problem of the ark which commences from Ex 25. Here we
defend the substantial attribution of 25,10ff. to Pg (against Weimar), except
the passage on the kappôret (following de Tarragon).
2a. The empty tent proposed by P. Weimar is not acceptable. Pg
presents a tent which has clearly the form of the temple. Note the wooden
boards (26,15) and the internal veil (paroket, 26,31ff.) subdividing it in two
parts. Since Pg maintains the intention of connecting the tent with the
Jerusalem temple, it cannot exclude from it the most sacred object, on
which the whole monarchic temple and cult were centered. According to
the old tradition David recovered the ark and brought it into Jerusalem, his
political and religious center. P cannot have excluded from its ideological
reconstruction such a central object. It is worth noting that only for the ark
there is the prescription that the shafts have to be constantly kept in the
rings (25,15), echoing the old procession practice!
Consequently the ‘edût inside the ark (25,16.21) cannot be excluded
from the project of Pg. The tables of the commandments are central in the
dtr parallel description in Deut 10,1-5. Moreover in 1Kgs 6,19 the Dtr calls
the ark ‘arôn berît, an expression which is parallel to the priestly ‘aron -
ha‘edût. Besides, one of the P denominations of the tent,’ohel mo‘ed
(29,44), seems echoing this theology (although deriving from y‘d - to meet,
and not from ‘wd - to warn or to testify) in a text, which is central to Pg
according to all the recent studies.
2b. On the other hand I follow de Tarragon in considering the kappôret
a later addition 13 . A literary critical examination of Ex 25,10ff. evidences
moreover the strange double order to put the ‘edût into the ark (16 and
21b); and the order in 21b seems a little absurd, after 21a: the kappôret
already on the top of the ark. Together with the kappôret, the cherubins
(25,18ff.), as attached to the kappôret, are also Ps. That there is no kappôret
on the ark in 1Kgs 6, and in the whole dtr literature strengthens our
conclusion. In Kgs 6 the (separated!) cherubins are emphazised, as well as
the molten sea in 1Kgs 7,23-40. Also the incense altar seems to be there
(6,22).
13. J.-M. de Tarragon, “La kapporet est-elle une fiction ou un élément du culte tardif?”, RB
88 (1981) 5-12. See my article in RB 104 (1997) 338-353.

THE PRIESTLY TENT 13
2c. There need not be any doubt that Pg has the altar of the sacrifices
(27,1-8). But in the case of the remaining objects in Ex 25, viz., the shewbread
table (23-30) and the candlestick (32-40), we have to defend them as
forming part of Pg. The first, viz., the shew-bread table, besides being
mentioned in 1Kgs 7,48, has an ancient history (see for instance 1Sam 21).
Ten candlesticks too are in the Solomonic temple (1Kgs 7,49), having
already the form of a tree, a probable carry-over of the ancient cultic tree
of life, which the exiles could still see in the Babylonian cult. Ex 27,20f.,
which we shall consider later on, seems to indicate the sacrificial meaning,
at least of the candlestick. In Lev 24,1-9, a text of ancient origin inserted
by Ps, we find a clearer explanation of the cultic meaning of both objects:
perennial sacrifices of bread and olive oil, integrating the others sacrifices,
offered outside the tent on the proper altar 14 .
2d. The priestly vestments and consecration. The majority of the
scholars consider Ex 29 to be Ps. The expiatory sacrifices in the consecration
rite is a strong argument supporting this conclusion. Such
sacrifices correspond to the doctrine of the expiation and to the related
sacrifices of Lev 4.
Against Elliger and shifting from my former opinion I prefer to view
the priestly vestments in Ex 28 as Ps. They seem to be a synthesis not only
of the ancient priestly garments but also of the old kingly dress, as the
golden flower (ßiß Ex 28,36ff.) probably shows. We know that according
to the monarchical ideology the king was considered as the principal
officiant. In fact, the high priest’s dress of Ex 28 is understandable only
after the exile, when the king disappears. Ex 28f. still carry the former idea
of dresses common to all priests (28,40ff.) and of a consecration of all the
priests together. The present text, however, strongly emphasizes a single
figure among them, viz., the high priest, particularly by the vestments
described in 28,6-39.
Now in Zech 3,4 we find the command to take away the filthy garments
of the high priest Joshua, changing his raiment (ma∆l≤ßôt, new vestments?;
but ∆lß - I means military uniform. See the ∆lwßym in Num
32,27-30!). This vision seems redactionally amplified. In Zech 3f. we feel
that there is a change of perspective, i.e., from the king and the illusion
of a recovered monarchical government, immediately after the exile
14. For a recent treatment of Ex 25,32-40, see J. Voss, Die Menorah. Gestalt und Funktion
des Leuchters im Tempel zu Jerusalem (OBO 128), Freiburg Schw. 1993. He defends a Pg
nucleus of the text in 25,31-37a38.40.

14
E. CORTESE
(Zerubbabel: 4,6ff. and 6,9-14; see also the contemporary Hag 1f. The
date is soon after 520 B.C.E.), to the high priest. And that appears to be
in the frame of the temple reconstruction to which Zerubbabel is committed!
Consider also the golden candlestick with seven lamps of Zech 4,2,
parallel to Ex 25,31-40.
All these elements in Zech 3f. supply a precious background to the
fundamental Ps elaboration of Pg. We do not dare to reconstruct a possible
primitive Pg in Ex 28f.; there is a double introduction (28,1 and 4), and the
final mention of the common priestly vestments (28,29-43) which could
help in such an attempt. But the primitive text seems to be minimal.
We conclude our considerations on this point remembering the
theological way of showing the exact point of the divine presence by the
graded quality of the material used for the tent and related objects 15 . Gold
is employed only in the Holy of Holies and in the ark. It is to be noted that
this principle obviously does not apply to the priestly vestments, which
moreover have to be brought outside the tent.
2e. Ex 29,43-46 and 27,9-19. If Ex 28f. is Ps, the theological center and
conclusion of the Pg tent becomes better connected with the court (27,9-
19), which is the last piece of the tent elements in Ex 25ff. It is “there”
(åammâ, 29,43), and not in the priestly vestments, that God dwells and
meets with Israel.
We would like to inquire about the original function of 29,38-42 and of
27,20f. The latter seems to be related to the former, not only by the use of
the words tamîd and boqer-‘ereb in both texts, indicating the time and
duration of the prescribed performances, but also by the sacrificial meaning
of them, which we have already indicated above in 27,20f. (sacrificial
offering of the oil). Verses 29,36f. (expiation sacrifice) were later added to
29,38-42; they follow the subject of the preceding Ps text, 29,1-35, on the
consecration of the priests. It seems then that 27,20f. and 29,38-42 were an
earlier conclusion of the tent description, and, together with the prescription
of the shew-breads (25,30), they constitute the primitive presentation of the
cult, and eventually form part of Pg, evidently before the addition and
before the insertion of 28,1-29,35 and the addition of the last two chapters,
i.e., Ex 30f.
15. M. Haran, “The Priestly Image of the Tabernacle”, HUCA 36 (1965) 191-226, reprinted
in Id., Temples and Temple Service in A. Israel. An Inquiry into the Character of Cult
Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School, Oxford 1978.

B. Ex 35-40
THE PRIESTLY TENT 15
Although Pg is very restricted here in the construction of the tent, a few
general considerations about the history of the formation of Ex 35-40 are
necessary.
1. There are elements which seem old, sometime older than those of
Ex 28ff. For instance, an inaugural sacrifice of Moses (40,29; omitted in
the LXX!) and his incensing inside the tent (40,27) before the consecration
of the priests (Lev 8). Note the lack of the kappôret or of the incense altar
in some list of the objects: kappôret omitted: Ex 30,26 and 40,3 (see also
Num 3,31; 4,5; 7,10; 18,3.5); incense altar omitted: LXX parallel of 35,15
and 39,38; moreover LXX omits completely Ex 37,25-28 (construction of
the incense altar).
It seems therefore that Ex 35-40 contains some older traditions or
materials that existed before the redactions. Perhaps there was a way of
narrating the construction of the tent even without the account of Ex 25ff.
and the related previous order of Yahweh to Moses. The existence of such
material could be the origin of repeating all the details of 25-31 in Ex 35-
40. From a theological point of view it was sufficient, for Pg, to affirm that
Israel/Moses “did all the work according to all that the Lord commanded”
(39,42 Pg).
Anyhow the present composition 35-40, beside the above mentioned
few Pg verses, is from the beginning the Ps narration of the execution of
the orders prescribed in Ex 25ff. Note the contrast in the order of objects
narrated in Ex 35-40 (first the tent [36] and then the objects [37]; here the
incense altar is in regular order), and Ex 25ff.
We are unable to discover the different stages of the formation of the
account. Simplifying the matter we conclude merely that in Ex 35-40 the
redactions are at least two, Ps and Pss; or that there are two poles, the one
starting soon after the exile, and the other ending towards the final
redaction, at the beginning of the fourth century.
2. There are big differences between TM an LXX 16 . Without entering
into details of the question, we remark that the differences are in 36,8–
39,32. The order of the pericopes of TM and LXX is completely dif-
16. R.D. Nelson, “Studies in the Development of the Tabernacle Account”, HTR 80 (1987)
487 (summary of his doctoral thesis); J.W. Wevers, “The Building of the Tabernacle”,
JNWSL 19 (1993) 123-131. Utzschneider, Das Heiligtum, 224 has a useful but incomplete
synoptic view of the differences.

16
E. CORTESE
ferent 17 . This indicates that the composition is late. Further differences are
between single pericopes, particularly between TM 38,22-31 and the
corresponding LXX 39,1-12, an elenchus of metals, and between TM
39,33-43 and the corresponding LXX 39,13-23, an elenchus of the objects
offered to Moses. Moreover the priestly vestments in MT stand at the end
of the series (39,1b-31), which confirms our thesis about their secondary
character in Ex 28, whereas in the LXX they are at the beginning of the
series (36,8a-38).
3. It is not only 40,33, that constitutes the ending of the work, as Pola
affirms, but also 40,34, the Glory’s inhabitation of the tent, appears to be
the necessary theological conclusion of the primitive account and the first
step in the accomplishment of the promise 29,43ff 18 . The final verses, 35-
38, are probably a later addition.
Conclusion. Thus we reach the probable Pg text of the tent description
and of the essential cult. Nevertheless we admit that each element of the
primitive text in Ex 25ff. could have been amplified later by Ps. The Pg
tent is modeled on the Solomonic temple, and is furnished with the
essential cult objects, viz., the ark with the commandments, the shew-bread
table, the candlestick and the altar of sacrifice. Finally the tent is
surrounded by a court (27,9-19). If 27,20f. and 29,38-42 are the original
ending (or at least an early addition) of the complex, then 29,43-46 fits very
well as the theological conclusion of the primitive account.
The offering (terûmâ) of the material for the construction (25,2ff.), the
kappôret on the ark, the vestments and consecration of the priests and the
incense altar are Ps. Similarly the followings pieces are Ps addition, each
of which is introduced by equivalent formulas: the money offering (another
terûmâ, 30,11-16), the laver, the oil of consecration (22-33) and the
perfume (34-38); the artists (31,1-11) and the shabbat (12-17).
31,18, the giving of the lu∆ôt ha‘edût seems necessarily a Pg piece of
information. Pg do not have any other conclusion of the theophany started
in 24,15-18. If so, we have here another theological element about the
already mentioned edût, which is important in our study on account of its
connection with the law.
17. A look at the critical apparatus in BHS, p. 148, at 36,8 or at the Rahlf’s edition of LXX
at each pericope provides a guide. It seems to me that BHS has to be corrected in 36,8a-31
G, putting there: 38 G instead of 31 G; in 39,38 TM, omitted in LXX, putting there 39,39;
and in 39,43 G, putting there 39,23.
18. See M. Oliva, “Interpretación teológica del culto en la perícopa del Sinaí de la Historia
Sacerdotal”, Bib 49 (1968) 345-354.

THE PRIESTLY TENT 17
As for Ex 35-40, the P g texts comprises of the notices on the execution
and conclusion of the work and on the coming of the “glory” into the tent
(40,34); this “inhabitation” is fundamental to the theology of P. Therefore,
while Pola limits the text with Ex 40,16.17a.33b, we enlarge it a little
further and our text comprises of 39,32/42; 40,16f and 33f.
II. Divine presence in the Tent
1. Irregular or fixed presence. On the theology of the tent the scholars in
general were and are primarily concerned with the question of the irregular or
the fixed presence of God there. As von Rad pointed out a long time ago, two
traditions of divine presence converge in the priestly tent: that of the ark, fixed,
and that of the tent JE (Ex 33,6-11), irregular. As for the fixed presence, he
noted the attention of the Dtr theology to OT issues of divine transcendence.
Dtr creates therefore the theology of the Name: only the Name of God, and not
God himself is present in the temple. Finally the modern biblical theology
reached the conclusion that P makes a good synthesis of all these issues,
combining tent and ark as instruments of the irregular presence of God.
Thus the thesis of the fixed presence, of R. Schmitt 19 , which I also
defended 20 has almost been forgotten. In fact, the irregular presence
correspond to the dtr name-theology. According to this theology, the presence
of God is not an irregular presence. Even if it is His Name, instead of Himself,
which is present in the temple, His Name is steadily present there. On the
other hand, P cannot make a synthesis of two contradictory positions; it can
only choose one of the two. The advantage of the synthesis of P is the
acceptance of the issue of the steady divine presence, combined with the
periodical meeting of YHWH with Moses and the people, and the due respect
given to the transcendence issue by the cloud wrapping up the Glory. This is
the Presence of God according to our priestly texts. For this doctrine P creates
the word ‘ohel mo‘ed, “mo‘ed” echoing the ’arôn ha‘edût, i.e. of the ark, as
we have already seen, which implies the steady presence.
2. Types of Presence. Nevertheless, about the divine presence there is
another important problem, which has not yet been completely solved, as the
following discussion shows. Almost all scholars today follow too simply the
19. Defending the fixed presence: Zelt und Lade als Thema alttestamentlicher Wissenschaft.
Eine kritische forschungsgeschichtliche Darstellung, Gütersloh 1972.
20. “Num 9,15-23 e la presenza divina nella tenda di P”, RivBiblIt 31 (1983) 405-410; it
was a presentation in the IOSOT Congress 1983 in Salamanca (Spain).

18
E. CORTESE
rather generic opinion that P teaches a sort of spiritual divine presence in
human beings, as found in Ex 29,43-46, which, as we have seen, is a central
text in the priestly theology. This seems to be the recent conclusion of Pola,
despite his big effort of appealing to Ezek 20, after his enormous reduction of
the original text of Ex 25-31. And this opinion corresponds to the opinion of
Janowski 21 , based on the prophecy of the new covenant in Ezek 37,26: “I will
set my sanctuary in the midst of them for ever”, which he interprets in the
light of 11,16: “I will be to them (to the people dispersed among the nations)
a temple for a while (lemiqdaå me‘a†)”; it is a kind of divine presence by the
new covenant. Is this a satisfactory interpretation of our priestly texts?
There are many types of divine presence. We do not consider here the
presence of God as the Creator of all things, nor His spiritual presence in the
thoughts of human beings. But rather we concentrate on the special presence
of God among the people of Israel, as the modern Jews also are used to think.
Because of the election, or, as many say, the covenant with Israel, we can
believe that He has a special presence among them. This could be interpreted
either as the privilege, which the non-Jews cannot share, or as the inclusive
grace of God, from which other people can also enjoy.
In whatever way we conceive this relation, it is a shift from the right way
of interpreting the biblical message on the divine presence in the tent. We do
not deny the particular relation between Israel and God. The relation of a
father or a mother to the son, or that of a man or a wife to the partner, does
not necessarily imply the idea of their real presence. So it might be better to
distinguish carefully the concepts of “relation” and “presence”. When OT
speaks of the presence of God in the tent, this signifies something new. Israel
had already a particular relation with God, either by the divine election before
Sinai, or by the covenant stipulated on the mountain. We may better call this
a relation, not a presence, in order to maintain the singularity of the presence
of God in the tent or by means of it in Israel. Ex 29,43ff. discloses this
particular presence rather than the previous one.
3. Theological presuppositions. If we overlook such a distinction, we
would not be able to understand rightly the Sinaitic message of P. It consists
exactly in omitting the old message (J, E and D) of the particular relation
between God and Israel reached by the Sinaitic covenant. To the reasons of
such a Priestly omission and the corresponding modern debate, we shall come
back later.
21. Particularly in the article “ ‘Ich will in euer Mitte wohnen’. Struktur und Genese der
exilischen Schekina-Theologie”, JBT 2 (1987) 175-193 (now in Id., Gottesgegenwart, 119-
147).

THE PRIESTLY TENT 19
At the moment we are concerned with the exact meaning of the Priestly
message on the divine presence in the tent, and through it in Israel. It is the
Protestant theology in general, which seems to interpret inaccurately the
concept of the divine presence in the ark.
Here we must remember an important work that appeared almost half a
century back, but unfortunately forgotten in modern biblical theology of the
tent, viz., Le mystère du Temple 22 by Yves M.J. Congar. He notes that since
Wellhausen the exegetes defend a spiritualization of the idea of the divine
presence, arguing on the basis of Nathan’s opposition to the temple (2Sam 7)
and more particularly of its use in the Stephen’s speech (Acts 7,44-50).
Mowinckel himself denounced this spiritualization as an effect of the
Protestant and rationalistic opposition to the external cult 23 . Nathan surely
opposed the Davidic project, but not for these reasons! He simply favored the
tent instead of the temple.
Curiously Judaism generally follows the Protestant path. Of course not
for its tendency to the spiritualization! The reason is that the tent and the
temple disappeared and the Jews were forced to set up their religious life on
other bases. Since the Chr. era their “relation” with God became easily His
“presence”, but B.C.E. they made all efforts in asserting such a divine
presence in the temple and further in separating God’s presence from the
elected people. P is very much concerned with this separation, as we see
particularly in Num 2: God is present in Israel, but carefully separated from
them at the center of the camp.
4. Other biblical data. After these necessary statements and the Exodus
texts on the tent, let us make a further step by examining first the texts on
which the dominating thesis about the divine presence in the tent is based and
then by surveying the related biblical message both in OT and NT.
4a. Ezekiel. As we have seen, both for Janowski and Pola the concrete
starting point is Ezekiel, and particularly 37,26ff. and 11,16, and they reach
up to a spiritualised reading of 43,7: “Behold the place of my throne, and the
place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell (åkn) in the midst of the
children of Israel for ever; but the house of Israel shall no more defile my holy
name...”.
If we read carefully these texts in their context, we cannot unequivocally
affirm that Ezekiel furnishes the thesis of a divine presence no more in the
22. Paris 1957, which we quote in its Italian translation, Il mistero del Tempio, Torino 1963.
23. Congar, Il mistero, 63f. After other polemics against this position, Congar returnes to it
in the question of the cult “in Spirit and truth” (Jn 4,23), which is misunderstood by those
who oppose the traditional liturgy and the sacraments (215ff.).

20
E. CORTESE
temple, but rather in men’s heart. The general message of the prophet is that
God has abandoned His temple which has to be reconstructed and that the
exiled people will return to their land, and settle around the new temple. It is
always by means of the temple that God will be present in Israel. The only
text of Ezek on a spiritual divine presence is the above quoted 11,16, where
the adverb mԠ points out the reduced and temporary form of such a presence.
Besides, the famous promise of the new heart and the new spirit (36,26, where
however the formula of the divine presence is not mentioned) is framed by
the prophecy of the return to the land, and it will be realized only there (36,24
and 28). Our Christian reading of that promise extends up to the profound
meaning of the presence of the divine Spirit in the heart. But, as we shall see
soon, this is the final stage of the promise and of the plan of God, that is the
presence of God in Jesus Christ. The presence of the Spirit and the Trinity in
us have their basis in the Incarnation of God which is not merely the divine
presence contained in the Sinaitic relation between God and Israel. In other
words, it is not purely a spiritual presence.
Ezek 20 too, which has been emphasized by Pola after having reduced all
the second part of P to Ex 29,45f. and 40,16.17a.33b, expounds the return to
the land. The holy mountain to which Israel is lead again is neither a spiritual
mountain nor Sinai. The house of Israel will serve God in the land (Ezek
20,40); there He will accept them and their sacrifices, gathering them from
all countries. He will bring them into the Land (20,41f.). Ezekiel testifies that
the priestly theology of the divine presence implies the motif of the Land. So,
against Pola and even against Noth, Pg cannot be trimmed as Pola does, but
must follow through the episodes of the traveling till the borders of the
Land 24 . Nobody denies today the importance of Ex 29,43ff. But the method
of saving merely the central theme of the priestly document or only its
“structural elements” in Ex 25-31 is wrong 25 . By this method, using the
example of a palace, we should conclude that the original construction is only
a central pillar, with few other “primitive” structures, whereas rooms, stairs,
24. As I have demonstrated in my thesis La terra di Canaan nella storia sacerdotale del
Pentateuco (SRB 5), Brescia 1972. Note that Noth, altough negating the interest of Pg for
the theme of the land, did not dare to eliminate completely the priestly document from Num,
as Pola does.
25. Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 53-116. He classifies me among the Hexateuchian
exegetes (for instance pp. 21 and 99), but, as far as Pg is concerned this is absolutely
false. In my Josua 13-21. Ein priesterschriftlicher Abschnitt im deuteronomistischen
Geschichtswerk (OBO 94), Freiburg Schw. 1990, I show that the second part of Jos is
substantially Ps, but also that it has been translated from the end of the Tetrateuch, by the
last redaction, which united Tetrateuch and Dtr Work.

THE PRIESTLY TENT 21
doors and so on, are all “secondary additions”. And that he does it in addition
to the discussed erroneous “spiritualization” of the divine presence in the tent.
4b. OT texts in general terms. That this presence is not merely spiritual is
deduced already from the simple fact that God is said to be present in material
objects, in the ark and in the tent, even in absence of human being. But it is
important here to remember the principal biblical data on this theme. Here it
is particularly important to move on to the NT. Without it, we cannot
appreciate the complete biblical message on the divine presence.
God becomes occasionally present to the Patriarchs. Remember
especially Gen 28: the dream of the ladder with the angels, and the God’s
epiphany to Jacob. After the sleep he says: “Surely the Lord is in this place;
and I knew it not” (v. 16); playing on the word “Bethel”, the narration adds:
“this is none other but the house of God and the gate of heaven” (v. 27).
However Bethel is never considered the place of the perennial presence of
God in the following story, although Jacob himself comes back there
accomplishing his vow (Gen 35). We read about yet another particular
presence of God, viz., the presence of God to Moses (Ex 3 JE, on Sinai, and
Ex 6 P, in Egypt, as it seems). Israel himself experiences this presence at Sinai
(Ex 19-24), and P makes it the center of its theology of the divine presence.
Congar ends here (in his ch. 2) the first section of his examination of the
Pentateuch’s texts on the divine presence, pointing at Jos and noting the
disappearance of the divine cloud in the Land. Here he tries to minimize the
physical presence of God in the tent, reaching too quickly at the contrasting
conclusion, viz., the presence of God in the heart of Israel 26 . He affirms that the
ark was a sort of sacrament of the heavenly temple and that there was some
“localization of God”, but he appeals also to the “theology of the name” of dtr 27 .
Then, after praising the priestly theology and its merit in affirming “the promise
(?) of the divine inhabitation”, he, like Janowski, is lead astray by Ezek 37,27 28 .
Before discussing these oscillations, it is better to follow him, considering
the above mentioned opposition to the temple by Nathan in 2Sam 7 29 . Congar
sees two meanings in the counterproposal of God: the glorious future of the
Davidic monarchy and a new way of divine presence or inhabitation in
Israel 30 .The first meaning is developed in the theme of Messianism, till Zech
26. Congar, Il mistero, 26-32.
27. Congar, Il mistero, 26.
28. Congar, Il mistero, 30. Here he similarly connects Ezek 37,27 with Ex 29,45f!
29. Congar, Il mistero, 33-69.
30. Congar, Il mistero, 46.

22
E. CORTESE
and the NT 31 . As far as the second, Congar turns to Stephen’s polemic in Acts
against the earthly temple before approaching the history about the
Solomonic temple, where he, however, defends the concrete presence of God
in the temple and in its liturgy, against the Protestants. It is there that we find
his quotation of Mowinckel, followed by a critical comparison with the pagan
temple and cults. Again it is the same oscillation as before.
In fact Congar here seems preparing for the following section on the
Prophets 32 , where he is once more in danger of shifting towards the
spiritualization of the divine presence. First he handles the cases of the
prophetic opposition to the cult, and ends up remarking that the prophets give
primacy not to the cultic, localized presence of God, but to the “active
presence of the divine will” 33 . Then Congar develops the prophetic idea of the
kingdom of God and of the divine love (Hesed), around two motifs: the
prophecies of the destruction of the temple and the new mode of presence of
God (in the heart).
4c. The NT. From our point of view it is better to skip the pages on the
prophets and the subsequent chapter on the post-exilic literature as well,
because the problem of the interpretation of the divine presence is already
widely sketched. We could perhaps mention and also appreciate Congar’s
treatment of the rabbinic theology of the shekinâ 34 , but we shall take it up
later on.
In the second part Congar studies the message of the NT. Here the
dangerous shift towards the spiritualization disappears. It is corrected by a
long discussion on the meaning of “spiritual”, at the end of the first (new)
chapter 35 . Congar is aware that the former “spiritualization” is dangerous in
the NT. One can neither say that the presence of God is merely spiritual in
Jesus, nor speak of a heavenly presence of the Son of God in relation to a
mere human Jesus, in whom the (Son of) God would only be “spiritually”
present.
Along this line we can understand more profoundly the messages of Paul,
Hb, 1Pt (2,4-10) and Rev. Whenever the NT texts speak of the mystical body
of Christ or of the Christian Community as a temple built on the living stone
31. Congar, Il mistero, 46-56.
32. Congar, Il mistero, 70-98.
33. Congar, Il mistero, 77.
34. Congar, Il mistero, 113ff.
35. On “Jesus and the temple”, see 135-176; the related pages are 174f. Later we shall
consider more specifically the NT message about the destruction of the temple.

THE PRIESTLY TENT 23
of Jesus Christ, it is not possible to turn now to the former spiritualization of
Protestants or Catholics. The presence of God here is based on the presence
of Christ, and in him the presence of God is not merely spiritual 36 . Thus, without
paying attention to this aspect of the divine presence, that is, without correcting
the wrong shift in the Christian (not only Protestant) interpretation of
the OT divine presence, we cannot understand rightly the doctrine of the inhabitation
of God in the Christians.
5. Dialogue with the Jews on the divine presence
5a. The Christian “appropriation”. Before we come to the last step in the
discussion on that shifting, we must consider another danger in the Christian
interpretation of the temple destruction. This is the theology of “appropriation”
of the OT temple, by the affirmation that the real temple now is only
Jesus Christ. One can arrive at this Christian thesis by the spiritualization
which we have criticized above. According to this view there remains nothing
more for the Jews. We do not have much space here to recount the Christian
Scholars’ views on this topic 37 . Casalegno himself presents two positions,
i.e., the first, the Church remains the only “verus Israel”; second, the Jewish
people has still their theological identity and validity 38 .
Today there are many scholars, who pay attention to the above mentioned
danger. In many ways they defend an exceptional divine presence for the
modern Jews, noting that for the primitive Church itself the temple had still
value, after the death of Jesus. Here we touch on the question of the Land and
the temple today 39 . Without going into the details of the question, I follow (on
my own responsibility) the thought of J.M. Sevrin 40 , and his distinction in
Mark between i˚ero/n (the ampler zone) and nao/ß (the room of the temple). The
36. In the conclusions (pp. 273-276) Congar affirms that the NT is a totally new step of this
divine presence.
37. In the Italian exegesis, we mention, for instance A Casalegno, Gesù e il tempio. Studio
redazionale di Luca-Atti, Brescia 1981; G. Biguzzi, “Io distruggerò questo tempio”. Il
tempio e il Giudaismo nel Vangelo di Marco, Roma 1987; G. Betori, “Chiesa e Israele nel
libro degli Atti”, RivBiblIt 36 (1988) 81-97.
38. Casalegno, Gesù e il tempio, 207ff.: for the first group he mentions O’Neil, and for the
second Jervell etc.
39. Again we limit ourselfs to some references: H. Merklein, “Jerusalem - bleibendes
Zentrum der Christenheit? Der neutestamentliche Befund”, in F. Hahn et alii (Eds.), Zion.
Ort der Begegnung. Festschrift für Laurentius Klein (BBB 90), Frankfurt am Mein 1993,
47-61; V. Fusco, “Luke Acts and the future of Israel”, ZNW 38 (1996) 1-17.
40. He has been invited from Leuven to a Trialog-Symposium in Jerusalem, 17-18 febr.
1997, on the theme “Jerusalem place of worship for all the peoples” (Is 56), held by the
SBF, the proceedings of which are near to be published by the Franciscan Printing Press
there.

24
E. CORTESE
latter has been used by the gospel while registering the NT antagonism
against the temple, whereas the former is used when it describes Jesus’ act of
purification of the temple (Mk 11,15ff.). We can conclude that the destruction
of all temple area by the Romans has been a provisional punishment, but that
the temple, and not necessarily the OT structure and cult, has to remain in
some way as the center of the divine worship in God’s plan. This does not
mean that the structures and the related OT cult have to be completely rebuilt,
according to the NT. But the expected new cult in that area includes the
Jewish cult also, together with that of the other affiliated religions. And this
is precisely what now they carry out, even without being aware of it! Our
interpretation defends the area as a central place also for the Jews of today,
and gives an important theological value to their life here, together with
Christians and Muslims. Then the message of the divine presence here in the
temple area, at least as a pledge and as a promise for the future, should not be
eliminated in the Christian Exegesis.
5b. Strange “spiritualization” by the Jews. Nonetheless Jews have another
way of considering the presence of God and they are probably not inclined to
my perspective. Having lost the temple for 2000 years, the Rabbis looked for
another presence of God. We may formulate the result of their effort by the
word shekinâ. We can say that, after some cautious thoughts in the first
centuries, by giving more serious consideration to the concreteness and
singularity of the presence of God in the tent and the temple, Judaism went
easily on the way of their philosophers (especially Maimonides) pursuing a
kind of a spiritualization, which is similar to the Christian (especially
Protestant) one considered above. So, instead of thinking at the temple, they
consider their Sinaitic or covenantal relation with God as the source of this
peculiar divine presence among the Jewish people.
It is however interesting to recall some of the ancient discussions about
the divine presence. In the Dialogue with Trifon (56,60), the Christian partner
asks: “if God, as transcendent, cannot be concretely present, then what did the
Patriarchs see in their encounter with Him, if He was not in any way
incarnated?”. Urbach, by quoting this page points out that there were Jews,
who admitted such peculiar sort of divine presence 41 .
Anyhow, many medieval Jews were not content with their philosophical
solutions. In the Kabbala, and later on in the Hasidic Doctrine, they think of a
real divine presence in the world, which exceeds a mere spiritual presence.
Even today Jews speaking of the real presence of God in the world, mention
41. E.E. Urbach, The Sages. Their Concepts and Beliefs, Jerusalem 1975, 49f.

THE PRIESTLY TENT 25
Kabbalistic thought and the related sefirot (spheres) or zones of God’s
peculiar presence 42 .
Conclusion. We rejected the Protestant interpretation of the presence of
God in the tent. It is not our job here to solve the problem of the presence of
God according to the Jews. Nor do we intend to dwell more on the difference
of the divine presence in Judaism and in Christianity 43 . We conclude these
considerations referring to the Wyschogrod protest, that whoever explains the
Jewish beliefs on the divine presence only by the Maimonidean philosophy,
destroys Judaism 44 .
We, the Christians, must learn that for a right notion of the divine presence
in Christ and in the Church we must carefully take into consideration the
message of Ex 25-31. 35-40 on the presence of God, primarily rather in the
tent than among the people. The divine project about such presence was
temporarily truncated by the destruction of the temple, but the Incarnation of
God took back it in a new way in Jesus. Therefore we can say that God is
incarnated in the Christian people because of God’s Incarnation in Jesus. The
import of Nathan’s promise about building a house to David is not confined
to the meaning of the Davidic dynasty and the related Messianism, and to the
second meaning pointed out by Congar of the spiritual divine presence in
Israel. According to the promise of Nathan, once understood in the Christian
perspective, the divine presence in the Solomonic temple and the one in the
future house promised to David are mysteriously identical: they constitute
two steps of the same OT project.
III. Relationship of the Law with Tent and the Cult in P
Once we have established the central interest of P in the tent and the divine
presence there, it remains to explain why in the Sinaitic events of P the an-
42. See for instance C. Jacob, “God”, in A.A. Cohen - P. Mendes-Flohr (Eds.), Contemporary
Jewish Religious Thought. Original Essays on Critical Concepts, Movements, and Beliefs,
New York - London 1988, 291ff.
43. I recall the splendid pages of the third appendix in the work of Congar, Il mistero,
(303-335), on the patristic thought, that of the Greeks and the Latins, and on the possible
solution of the duality. According to the first, there is a qualitative difference, and only
after the gift of the Spirit to the Church (see Jn 7,39) one can reach the maximum of the
divine presence.
44. M. Wyschogrod, “Inkarnation auf jüdischer Sicht”, ET 55 (1995) 13-28; also in Engl.
transl., ModTh 12 (1966) 195-209.

26
E. CORTESE
cient theme of the covenant is omitted. Or in other words, what is the relation
between the Law and the divine presence in the tent.
There is no doubt that Pg has the decalogue in the ark, as we did see in
the first part. But we cannot overlook that it omits completely all the Sinaitic
elements of the encounter of the people and the covenant, which are narrated
in Ex 19-24 (JE).
1. P and the berît. In front of this omission the modern exegetes tried to
solve the problem by the theory that P revokes the importance of the Law, the
Sinaitic covenant, and the feasibility of respecting them. The classical
formulation of this solution is that of W. Zimmerli 45 . An explicit outcome of
this hypothesis was the difficulty in explaining the references of the berît in
Lev 26, as mentioned in the Lev-Commentary of K. Elliger 46 and developed
by N. Lohfink 47 .
There is now a strong reaction to this opinion, not only in the Jewish field,
but also from the Christians. We consider the recent work of Knohl as the best
formulation among the Jewish reactions 48 . He defends a radical separation
between P and H, and inside P he sees two different stages. One, from Gen to
Moses’ vocation, presents God as vividly bound to men; there we find the
notion of berît, which includes, against Zimmerli and all western exegetes,
the obligations of the Law. In the second stage, i.e., from Moses onwards, P
becomes silent on the moral obligations of the Law. Only an abstract God and
the cult are important; consequently the berît disappears 49 . On the contrary
Law and Covenant are clearly present in H 50 .
The position of Knohl and of his radical distinction between P and H
arouse some difficulties. First, there is no difference between the first part of
the P narration and H. Both of them have the same interest in the berît.
Second, the separation of the parts of H and P as proposed by Knohl is
45. See especially “Sinaibund und Abrahambund. Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der
Priesteschrift”, TZ 16 (1960) 268-280 (later in Gottesoffenbarung. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum
Alten Testament [TB 19], München 1963, 205-216.
46. HAT 4, Tübingen 1966.
47. “Die Abänderung der Theologie der priesterlichen Geschichtswerks im Segen des
Heiligkeitsgesetzes. Zu Lev 26,9.11-13”, in H. Gese - H.P. Rüger (Eds.), Wort und
Geschichte. Festschrift für Karl Elliger, Neukirchen - Vlyn, 1973, 129-136 (now in Studien
zum Pentateuche [SBAB 4], Stuttgart 1989, 157-136).
48. I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of silence. The priestly Torah and the Holyness School,
Minneapolis 1995.
49. See especially Knohl, The Sanctuary, 124-164.
50. See especially, Knohl, The Sanctuary, 168-198. Note the remarks in notes 80 (p. 143f.),
and 22 (p. 173f.) on the interpretations of Zimmerli and Lohfink.

THE PRIESTLY TENT 27
unacceptable: he, for instance, attributes to H even Ex 6,2–7,6, Ex 29,38-46,
our central Pg text, and Ex 35-40 51 . These presuppositions undermine his
proposed solution to the problem.
One finds a more general Jewish reaction to the occidental school in B.
Schwartz 52 .Without distinguishing different layers inside P, he defends that P
has clearly the issue of the law at Sinai. As he demonstrates, practically all
amount of legislation from Ex through Lev upto Num is placed by P at Sinai.
However Schwartz, by ignoring any distinction among different stages of
P and in particular the distinction between P and H 53 , fails to solve the
problem. Furthermore, he does not explain the silence of P about the berît at
Sinai 54 .
Besides the Jewish reactions, there are also Christian responses to the
Hypothesis of Zimmerli - Lohfink. First, M. Köckert 55 clearly demonstrates
the fundamental interest of Pg in the theme of the law and of its accomplishment,
and in the berît itself. He bases his demonstration on the Pg narrations
in Gen, and on Ex 12 (Easter-law) and 16 (and 31: shabbat-law). He underscores,
in addition, that the decalogue is in the ark of Pg.
A more specific treatment of the problem of Lev 26 is done by J.
Joosten 56 . He refutes the hypothesis of Zimmerli - Lohfink. The mention of
berît in the passages, where it is considered spurious by Lohfink, is on the
contrary original (vv. 9.15; and also 44? 45). According to Joosten, only 26,42
(the Lord will remember the berît with the Patriarchs) is added by P.
I have reservations in accepting his dating of H in the monarchical period,
which is his fundamental thesis, his distinction between H and P, and
particularly his assertion that the meaning of berît in the primitive Lev 26 is
not that of a bilateral covenant.
Today there appears to be a notable reduction from the former divergences.
It is important to note that they were not purely academic. There has
51. See especially Knohl, The Sanctuary, 104f.
52. “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Law giving at Sinai”, in Fox, Texts,
Temples, and Traditions, 103-134; see note 12.
53. Schwartz, “The Priestly Account”, 117, note 37, says that he accepts the distinctions of
Knohl, without taking any position on each part of the analyzed P material.
54. Schwartz, “The Priestly Account”, 126, note 52, misses also the occasion of arguing
from ‘edût in favor of the presence of the law in the Pg tent.
55. “Leben in Gottes Gegenwart. Zum Verständnis des Gesetzes in der priesterschriftlichen
Literatur”, JBT 4 (1989) 29-61.
56. We consider especially his doctoral thesis, People and Law in the H Code. An
Exegetical Study on the Ideational Framework of the Law in Lev 17-26 (VTS 67), Leiden
1996; and here pp. 110-120.

28
E. CORTESE
been behind them, for a century, a strong polemic between Christian and Jewish
scholars about the importance of the Law. Jews defending the Law, sometimes
accused the western exegetes of anti-Semitism 57 . There is, of course, the
danger of the older Protestant radicalism in interpreting the OT and NT data
about the human corruption and the original sin, which usually is not acceptable
to Judaism.
Diverging theses about this question, however, came closer and closer in
the last decades. On the one side the Jews became more and more conscious
of the necessity of the grace of God, expressed already by the divine election,
which they incline to call “covenant”. On the other side the incapacity of
fulfilling the law and the covenant is seen by the Protestants less radically
than in the past. In spite of the fact that some divergences remain among the
Christian Theologians, especially in the interpretation of the Paul’s message
on the law and grace 58 , we could affirm that there are today better premises
for a more profitable discussion and confrontation.
2. The specific problem: P-H. Coming back to our proper question, we try
now to solve it, by affirming that P and H are not to be separated, that the law
at Sinai is not suppressed, and that the berît has been simply translated into H.
The importance of the law, as set at Sinai already by Pg, is demonstrated
simply by the ‘edût in the ark. P changes only the dtr formula ’arôn berît into
its ’arôn ha‘edût. Later redactions of P develop this line adding Lev 1-7, on
the sacrifices, and 11-15, the so called Purity Code. The first group of Law
comes from the priestly professional da‘at, or ceremonial norms, which the
priests have to know in practicing their job. Its insertion at Sinai transforms
such professional knowledge of the laws for the Israelites. This has its
theological importance. It is a way of teaching the people that there are special
(cultic) forms in respecting the first commandments, which concern our
relation with God. The concern for the Holy, so important in Pg and in Ps 59 , is
a moral issue of fundamental importance, also because moral sanctity springs
57. See the accusations of J.D. Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the OT and Historical
Criticism. Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies, Louisville (Kent.) 1993, against Eichrodt,
Noth and von Rad (pp. 15-25): von Rad would have been a nazist, because of his hostility
to the Law. But such exaggerations of Levenson forget that the issue of our Christian
exegesis is fundamentally that of showing the incapacity of men to respect the Law and the
Covenant with the mere human forces and without the grace of the Lord. According to this
view it is not only the Jews who are condemned, but also the gentiles: all men.
58. See the progress in the solutions which come closer to common in J.D.G. Dunn (Ed.),
Paul and the mosaic Law (WUNT 89), Tübingen 1996.
59. See my “La sfera del sacro attorno alla Gloria di Jahweh in P”, in Quaerere Deum. Atti
della XXV Settimana Biblica (ABI), Brescia 1980, 45-55.

THE PRIESTLY TENT 29
only from God and from the holiness which surrounds Him. Therefore Lev
1-7 has something to do with the moral law. The first moral law is to respect
the first commandments of the Decalogue.
Similarly we can not say that there is no moral interest in the Purity Code
(Lev 11-15), which takes particular care of Jewish blood and skin.
Postponing the discussion on H, let us consider the final legislation of P,
particularly that given after the departure from Sinai, that is from Num 15
onwards. Here we find the introduction formula dabber ’el benê Jisra’el
we’amarta ’alehem, which is found very rarely elsewhere. Many times it is
connected with another introduction formula kî tabo’û ’el ha’areß (Num
15,1f.17f.; 33,50f.; 34,1f.; 35,9f.) 60 . These characteristics manifest a group of
homogeneous laws, which on one side are concerning the land of Canaan, and
on the other side are placed at its border. This kind of legislation too cannot
be considered distant from the moral laws.
3. The problem of H. Anyhow we find the same characteristic introductions
in the passages of H too. For the reference to the entrance in the land
in the introductions of laws, see Lev 19,23; 23,10; 25,2. For other formula,
see the introductions of each chapter, Lev 17.18.19.23.25 61 . This literary
relationship brings us finally to the question that has been held up so far.
As for the Holiness Code in general, it might already be clear that I am
opposed to the separation between P and H 62 . Lev 17-26 has its particular
structure, based on the parallel and older Dtr Code (Deut 12-28), but it comes
from the same priestly school, which produced the narrative and the
legislation considered above. The laws of H have also their peculiar literary
form, generally different from those of the first part of Lev, already examined.
The laws of H are mostly directed to the people; their origin is not the
mentioned by priestly da‘at. We can rather say that H contains preachings or
meditations on the law, following the scheme of the Dtr Code 63 . Note that,
contrary to the Dtr Code, in H there is neither any exhortation regarding the
making of the covenant, nor any indication for such a conclusion. In addition
to other reasons, this is true also because the addressees are in exile, where
such a ceremony was not possible without the temple. This final statement,
that this sort of preaching or meditation is meant for the community of the
exiles, is important for a correct understanding of the message of H and P. For
60. See my “L’esegesi di H (Lev 17-26)”, RivBibIt 29 (1981) 129-146, especially 140-144.
61. For other details see my quoted study, in the preceding note.
62. See the proof in my study quoted above, in the preceding notes.
63. See my Il Levitico, Casale Monferrato 1981, especially the Introduction and pp. 132ff.

30
E. CORTESE
instance, the knowledge of the intrinsic corruption of man and the failure of
the covenant, which the Jews will not grasp, is understandable, if we admit
this dating of H (and P) and if we take it in the context of the exiles, who felt
themselves punished for their sins and for the sins of their fathers.
Conclusion. Coming to the problem of berît in Lev 26, we should now be
in a position to solve it. There is no berît at Sinai in P because the background
is the exile, and no ceremony of covenant was possible there. Moreover, the
meditations of H, following the scheme of the Dtr Code, were originally set
at the border of the land. Therefore P excludes the covenant from the Sinai
event. On the other side P is conscious of the human inability in carrying out
the covenant obligations, as its tragic experience teaches, but it does not
consider this failure as a desperate consequence. Similarly it does not emphasize
the covenant as a mutual obligation, but rather prefers to emphasize
the gracious aspect of the covenant from the part of God; therefore P mentions
the berît in the Noah and Abraham narratives and in the calling of Moses. This
however does not mean that P is skeptical about the observance of the law,
because it places especially at Sinai an enormous quantity of laws. Anyhow
we must distinguish the law from the covenant on the law. As for the law, Pg
has its nucleus on the ark, remembering that it is fundamentally from God and
from His gracious presence that the moral obligations arise and that men
receive the force to observe the commandments.
The recurring of the covenant theme, then, does not surprise us, both in
the sense of a mutual covenant, in the first part of Lev 26, and in the sense of
gracious promise, in the second part. It is not necessary to turn to hypotheses
of different redactions or even of different documents, P and H, mixed here
in any way. Korpel defends a poetical structure and a unitary composition of
all Lev 26 64 , and we can now regard Lev 26 as a unitary text, without being
disturbed by literary or theological prejudices.
Enzo Cortese
Professore invitato
Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Jerusalem
64. M.C.A. Korpel, “The Epilogue of the Holyness Code”, in J.C. de Moor - G.E. Watson
(Eds.), Verse in NE Prose (AOAT 42), Neukirchen 1993, 123-150.