Literary Criticism and Theology of P - Christus Rex

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.