One of the main arguments that
scholars have used to posit a postexilic date for the instructions in the way
in which the language in 6:23 specifies the “sons of Aaron,” rather than the
Levites, as the priests responsible for giving the blessing. As part of an
argument, several studies have been attempted to use the references to the
Levites issuing blessings in the book of Deuteronomy (10:8; 21:5) as a way to
date the instructions in Numbers later than the composition of Deuteronomy in
the preexilic period. Such studies aver that the description of the commands
for the Levites to give blessings in Deuteronomy predate the instructions for
the blessing in Numbers since the specification of the task to the sons of
Aaron represented a postexilic literary tendency. Such an argument, however,
suffers from two major problems. First, it is not clear that the references to
the Levites giving blessings in the book of Deuteronomy have the priestly
blessing in mind specifically. More importantly, even if the references to the
Levites issuing blessing in Deuteronomy do have the priestly blessing in mind
it would seme more likely that the ascribing of the task of giving the blessing
to the Levites would have represented an attempt by the authors of Deuteronomy
to elevate the status of the priestly group. For this reason, attempting to
date the reference to the sons of Aaron in 6:23 to the postexilic period based
upon a supposed chronological relationship with such passages in Deuteronomy
becomes a very shaky argument. Indeed, even if the passages in both Numbers and
Deuteronomy refer to the priestly blessing it is equally possible that their
different attitudes toward the responsibilities of the Levities vis-à-vis the
sons of Aaron are reflective of contemporaneous social differences rather than
disparate chronological horizons.
A more serous though equally
problematic for the postexilic date of the instructions for the blessing in
Numbers has to do with the supposed literary differences between the language
found in the priestly blessing in verses 24-26 and language found in the
instructions for the blessing in verse 23 and 27. Several studies in the
twentieth century argued that the language of the priestly blessing did not
conform to the literary style of the priestly source, while the instructions
exhibit clear similarities to the style of the priestly literature. Gary’s
comments on this aspect of the blessing characterize this position well:
The blessing is introduced by a
formula characteristic of P. But while it formed part of P, there neither has
been nor can be much doubt felt it was not composed by P, and that is,
consequently, of earlier origin than the date of its incorporation in P. The
linguistic affinities (and, indeed, the general tenor and feeling) of the
blessing, while they decisively distinguish it from P, relate it to the Psalms.
(Gray, Numbers, 72)
The argument put forth by Gray here is
that the priestly blessing in verses 24-26 stands apart from the literary
characteristics (and ideology) of the priestly source, whereas the instructions
for the blessing wholly conform to them. The main problem with such an argument
is that it does not bear out under close scrutiny of comparison between the
language of the blessing and the priestly source. Gray’s arguments rest upon
very problematic assumptions about the characteristics and date of the priestly
source. For instance, one senses in Gray’s argument a tendency to divorce the
priestly blessing from the priestly source because it contains highly
anthropomorphic imagery of the face of Yahweh. In other words, the presence of
references to the “face” of Yahweh in the blessing make it incompatible with
the rest of the priestly material, which avoids such anthropomorphic depictions
of Yahweh. Although it is difficult to know what exactly he means by the “tenor
and feeling” of the blessing, he states more explicitly that the blessing’s
language stands rather close to the Psalms and that such a connection to the
language of the Psalms indicates an earlier provenance for the blessing than
that of the priestly source.
The main problem with such an
assumption is that the language of the priestly blessing is in fact consistent
with much of the language and literary style of the priestly material. To begin
with, the anthropomorphic imagery of the face of Yahweh appears elsewhere in
the priestly material, especially as part of the Holiness Code. For instance,
the opening phrase of the laws in the Holiness Code contains the following
statement couched in first person speech, “if anyone of the house of Israel or
of the aliens who reside among them eats any blood, I will set my face (pny)
against that person who eats blood, and will cut that person off from the
people (Lev. 17:10).” (Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence, 89, n. 95)
later, in Leviticus 20:3-5, a similar threat also invokes the face of Yahweh:
“I myself will set my face (pny)
against them, and will cut them off from the people, because they have given of
their offspring to Molech, defiling my sanctuary and profaning my holy name.
And if the people of the land should ever close their eyes to them, when they
give of their offspring to Molech, and do not put them to death. I myself will
set my face (pny) against them and against their family, and will cut
them off from among their people, them and all who follow them in prostituting
themselves to Molech.”
Similar expressions occur at several
other points in this collection of laws in Leviticus (20;3, 5, 6; 26:17). The
references to the face of Yahweh in these and other passages in the Torah make
it difficult to separate the blessing form the priestly source based solely
upon the presence of anthropomorphic imagery in the blessing. The language of
the blessing and the instructions for the blessing shares similarities to the
literary style of the priestly source. As a result, there is little basis for
assigning the blessing and the instructions for the blessing to different
chronological horizons based upon supposed differences in their respective
literary styles. (Jeremy D. Smoak, The Priestly Blessing in Inscription and
Scripture: The Early History of Numbers 6:24-26 [Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2016], 84-86)
The use of the expression “and I will
bless them” (w’ny ‘brkm) at the end of 6:27 also has affinities to the
literary characteristics of the Holiness Code. Scholars have long observed that
one of the chief characteristics of the material in the Holiness Coe is the
couching of the divine instructions through the use of the first person speech,
often with the pronoun ‘ny. This trait is particularly visible within
the laws of Leviticus 17-26, many of which conclude with the expression “I am
YHWH” (18:5), “I am YHWH your God” (19:30), or “You shall keep all my statues
and all my ordinances: I am YHWH” (19:37). The use of such personal depictions
of the deity, especially with references to Yahweh speaking in the first
person, contrasts sharply with the rest of the priestly literature outside of
the Holiness Code (Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence, 15 n. 14; 89, no.
95). (Ibid., 177 n. 103)
