conflicting constructions of divine presence …domoca.org/files/diaconal vocation...

conflicting constructions of divine presence 41

copy Koninklijke Brill NV Leiden 2001 Biblical Interpretation 9 1

CONFLICTING CONSTRUCTIONS OF DIVINEPRESENCE IN THE PRIESTLY TABERNACLE

BENJAMIN D SOMMERNorthwestern University

The sign is born at the same time as imagination andmemory at the same moment when it is demanded bythe absence of the object for present perception

It has always been thought that the center which is bydefinition unique constituted that very thing within astructure which while governing the structure escapesstructurality This is why classical thought concerningstructure could say that the center is paradoxicallywithin the structure and outside it The center is at thecenter of the totality and yet since the center does notbelong to the totality the totality has its center elsewhere The concept of centered structure is contradictorilycoherent And as always coherence in contradiction ex-presses the force of a desire

mdashJacques Derrida1

Structuralists have taught us that any sign has meaning onlywithin a larger sign system Hence it is entirely possible that onesignifier may refer to opposing signifieds in different contexts Ifthose contexts overlap however so that the sign means itself andits opposite in a single complex system the observations of post-structuralists must come to the fore when the sign opposes itselfits self erasure points towards some larger absence A case in pointis evident through the analysis of one sign the priestly tabernaclein two overlapping contexts the Torah and the Tanakh

Both priestly and nonpriestly texts in the Pentateuch describea tent in which the divine manifests itself These tents differ how-ever and thus the Torah presents conflicting depictions of thedivine presence during the wilderness period According to thepriestly authors the divine presence or entered and subse-quently resided in what P variously calls the ldquotabernaclerdquo (

1 J Derrida ldquoSignature Event Contextrdquo in Peggy Kamuf (ed) A DerridaReader Between the Blinds (New York Columbia University Press 1991) p 88 andDerrida Writing and Difference (Chicago University of Chicago Press 1978) p279

benjamin d sommer42

which simply means ldquodwellingrdquo) the ldquotent of meetingrdquo ( )or ldquotent of the pactrdquo ( ) Num 915-23 stress that thecloud and fire indicating the immediate presence of God was al-ways located in or above this tabernacle Thus the priestly taber-nacle was the site of an unceasing and ever-accessible theophany2

Behind the curtains of the holy of holies stood the ark and itscover which served as Godrsquos footstool and throne respectively3

above or perhaps within the tabernacle was the itself whichwas usually hidden from sight by the or cloud It was at (orfrom) the tabernacle that Godrsquos presence would become mani-fest at times of crisis (see Num 1420 1619 177 206)4 Priestlyliterature repeatedly highlights the tabernaclersquos centrality On a

2 So RE Clements God and Temple The Idea of Divine Presence in Ancient Israel(Oxford Basil Blackwell 1965) p 118 Jacob Milgrom Leviticus 1-16 (AB NewYork Doubleday 1991) p 574 Baruch Levine ldquoOn the Presence of God inBiblical Religionrdquo in J Neusner (ed) Religions in Antiquity Essays in Memory ofErwin Ramsdell Goodenough (Leiden Brill 1968) p 76 Roland de Vaux ldquoArk ofthe Covenant and Tent of Reunionrdquo in The Bible and the Ancient Near East (Gar-den City NY Doubleday 1971) p 146

3 See Menahem Haran Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel (OxfordClarendon Press 1978) pp 236-53 and de Vaux ldquoArkrdquo pp 147-48 who notesthe placement of treaty or divinely inscribed documents under a godrsquos feet else-where in ancient Near Eastern literature this usage corresponds to the arkrsquos useas container for the tablets and footstool

4 The precise location from which the emerged (that is the precise spotwhere the generally resides) is not made fully clear The may haveemerged from within the Holy of Holies into which it presumably had movedafter the dedication ceremony for the tabernacle had been completed This in-terpretation may be indicated by Lev 162 13 and cf the closely related tradi-tion in Ezek 104 where the was located within the Holy of Holies soTryggve ND Mettinger The Dethronement of Sabaoth Studies in the Shem and KabodTheologies (CB[OT] 18 Lund CWK Gleerup 1982) p 89 and Moshe Weinfeldldquo kˆbocircdrdquo in C Botterweck H Ringgren and H-J Fabry (eds) TheologicalDictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1974-1997) vol 7 p32 Alternatively the may have been located atop the tabernacle where itwas generally hidden from sight by the becoming brighter at times of crisisso that it was visible to all the people through the cloud so Milgrom Leviticus 1-16 pp 588-90 David Frankel argues that older priestly traditions located the

within the sanctuary where it was not visible to the people thus the Holyof Holies was Yhwhrsquos throne room Later priestly documents he argues locatethe above the tabernacle where it was visible to the whole nation thus forthe later priestly tradents the tabernacle was a throne not a throne room Seehis article ldquoTwo Priestly Conceptions of Guidance in the Wildernessrdquo JSOT 81(1998) pp 31-37 His reading is intriguing but his reasoning seems based on aquestionable conflation of the and the (see especially his remarks on p32) against which see Mettinger p 89 and Frank Moore Cross Canaanite Mythand Hebrew Epic Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge HarvardUniversity Press 1973) pp 166-67


literal level the tabernacle was located in the midpoint of theIsraelite camp as Prsquos elaborate map in Numbers 2 makes clearMore significantly the tabernacle plays a principal role in thecosmos For P creation was not quite complete until the taber-nacle was built In ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies (of whichthe priestly creation account in Gen 11ndash24a is a typical example)the apogee of creation is the construction of a sanctuary for thecreator god but in P this apogee is deferred to Exodus 39ndash40which describe the erection of the tabernacle The extensive verbalparallels between Gen 11ndash24a and Exodus 39ndash40 (which severalscholars have noted5) form an inclusio indicating that world-creation and tabernacle-construction belong to a single narrativethat culminates in the latter6

Two inaugural ceremonies for the tabernacle also attest to itspivotal position in priestly literature The first was an eight-daydedication service described in Exodus 40ndashLeviticus 10 duringwhich the tabernacle was completed the divine presence enteredit its altar was purified and its priesthood was installed For Pthis ceremony constitutes the highlight of all Israelite history evenmore than the exodus from Egypt or the event at Sinai7 Indeed

5 For descriptions of these parallels see MD (Umberto) Cassuto A Commen-tary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem Magnes Press 1944) pp 333-34 38 (Heb)Martin Buber ldquoPeople Today and the Jewish Biblerdquo in Martin Buber and FranzRosenzweig Scripture and Translation (trans Lawrence Rosenwald with EverettFox Bloomington Indiana University Press 1994) pp 18-19 Franz RosenzweigldquoScripture and Lutherrdquo in Buber and Rosenzweig Scripture and Translation p62 Erhard Blum Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (Berlin De Gruyter 1990)pp 306-11 and especially Moshe Weinfeld ldquoSabbath Temple Building and theEnthronement of the Lordrdquo Beth Mikra 69 (1977) pp 188-93 (Heb) Weinfeldalso cites midrashim that point out these parallels (pp 188-90 n 4 and see alsoBlum p 310 nn 83-85) and he emphasizes the ancient Near Eastern backgroundto this connection between creation and sanctuary Cf also AJ Heschel TheSabbath (New York Farrar Straus and Young 1951) pp 9-10 96

6 This view implied in P is stated explicitly in by the rabbis in Pesiq RabKah sect14 (ed B Mandelbaum New York Jewish Theological Seminary 1987)p 9 on which see the discussion in Peter Schaumlfer ldquoTempel und Schoumlpfung ZurInterpretation einiger Heiligtumstraditionen in der rabbinischen Literaturrdquo inhis Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums (Leiden Brill1978) pp 131-33

7 See my remarks in ldquoExpulsion as Initiation Displacement Divine Presenceand Divine Exile in the Torahrdquo in Shaul Magid and Aryeh Cohen (eds) Begin-ningAgain Towards a Hermeneutic of Jewish Texts (Chicago Seven Bridges forth-coming) as well as Baruch Schwartz ldquoThe Priestly Account of the Theophanyand Lawgiving at Sinairdquo in Michael V Fox et al (eds) Texts Temples and Tradi-tions A Tribute to Menahem Haran (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1996) pp 123-25

benjamin d sommer44

Erhard Blum points out P states quite clearly in Exod 2936 thatthe goal of the liberation from slavery was none other than Godrsquosarrival to dwell among Israel which is to say the completion ofthe tabernacle8 The second ceremony was a highly orchestratedtwelve-day service described in Numbers 7 during which each ofthe twelve tribes brought identical gifts to the tabernacle9 Accord-ing to P the tabernacle is also the place from which Godrsquos lawcode is revealed (Lev 11)10 Further it serves as the single legiti-mate place of regular worship for Israelites in the desert not onlydoes God approach Israel there but Israel approaches God as wellIn short the priestly tabernacle is a sacred center the capstoneof the universe and there God is constantly and reliably mani-fest

The conception of divine presence in the E collection of docu-ments is wholly different11 Ersquos ldquotent of meetingrdquo ( mdashneverldquotabernaclerdquo and never ldquotent of the pactrdquo) was located outside theIsraelitesrsquo camp indeed at some distance from it as Exod 337makes clear God did not dwell there but popped in on appropri-ate occasions to reveal himself to Moses or other Israelites seeExod 339-11a Num 1116-17 24b-30 and Num 125-10 Thewording of Num 129-10 is especially important since these versesnarrate the departure of the presence from the tent Rather than

8 Blum Studien zur Komposition p 297 On the importance of this verse indistinguishing Prsquos outlook from that of other Pentateuchal sources see furtherAryeh Toeg Lawgiving at Sinai ( Jerusalem Magnes Press 1977) pp 152-53(Heb)

9 This ceremony may have occurred immediately after the eight-day dedica-tion in which case the whole complex of inauguration ceremonies was a grandevent lasting twenty days (so Milgrom Leviticus 1-16 p 693) But the exact dateof this ceremony is not clear The words inNum 71 may simply mean ldquowhen Moses finished establishing the tabernaclerdquonot ldquoon the day Moses rdquo (so Jacob Milgrom Numbers [JPSTC Philadelphia Jew-ish Publication Society 1989] p 364)

10 See Schwartz ldquoPriestly Accountrdquo pp 116-17 and cf Toeg Lawgiving pp153-57

11 I need not enter into the vexing question of the nature of E and the ex-tent to which it can be separated from other non P material suffice it to say thatthe passages under discussion (Exod 337-11 Num 1116-17 Num 12 as wellas Deut 3113-15 which is not as relevant to my remarks) share a consistent viewof the object in question whatever their relationship to other E or JE or non Por KD passages may be On the provenance of Exod 337-11 see the still-usefulsummaries of the issue in J Carpenter and G Harford-Battersby The HexateuchAccording to the Revised Version (London Longmans Green and Co 1900) vol2 p 133 and SR Driver The Book of Exodus (Cambridge Cambridge UniversityPress 1911) pp 358-59


being surrounded by Israel this tent was isolated Only one per-son Joshua resided there as a caretaker (Exod 3311b) Thus Edoes not portray God as permanently immanent and even whenthe presence manifested itself it did so outside the Israelite camp(On a single occasion the divine spiritmdashand even then not thepillar of cloud denoting the actual Presencemdashworked within thecamp itself This event became a cause of scandal see Num 1126-2912) Ersquos tent contains no ark and no divine throne13

The contrast between the priestly and elohistic views of the tentbecomes especially clear in their use of the word which refersto the cloud that indicates the presence of God In E texts (Exod339 Num 1125 125) the is the subject of the verb (de-scend)mdashthat is it comes and goes Priestly texts emphasize thatthe (by day) and the fire (by night) were always present at thetent rising up only when Yhwh wished to indicate that the Israel-ites should break their camp and move to a new location (Exod4036-38 and Num 915-23) In Num 916 P stresses that fromthe time the first covered the tent the never moved fromthere The insistent tone of Num 915-23 on this point may be apriestly response to the alternate viewpoint found in E14

The P and E tents exemplify two different religious ideologiesdescribed by the historian of religion JZ Smith in his revisionof Mircea Eliadersquos grand theory of archaic and post-archaic reli-gions15 A locative or centripetal view of the universe underscores

12 On the identification of E in Numbers 11 see my article ldquoReflecting onMoses The Redaction of Numbers 11 and its Aftermath in Post-Biblical Exege-sisrdquo in JBL 118 (1999) 601-24

13 See Haran Temples pp 263-6514 While older priestly literature (ie priestly texts belong to PT) seem to be

completely unaware of other Pentateuchal documents (cf Schwartz ldquoPriestlySchoolrdquo in Fox pp 103-34) the priestly texts whose use of I cite here belongto the later stratum of priestly literature HS which does recognize and react toother documents My source-critical analysis and my use of the terms HS and PTas components of P follows Israel Knohl The Sanctuary of Silence The Priestly Torahand the Holiness School (Minneapolis Fortress Press 1995) On the late date ofNum 915-23 see also Frankel ldquoTwo Priestly Conceptions of Guidancerdquo p 36

15 See especially Smithrsquos essays collected in Map Is Not Territory (Leiden Brill1978) the following summary relies especially on his comments in ldquoThe Wob-bling Pivotrdquo pp 101-102 and ldquoMap is Not Territoryrdquo pp 292-93 308 Smithrsquoscategory of the locative is nearly identical with Eliadersquos archaic ideology of cen-ter but Smith emphasizes that these two viewpoints are not simply early and lateancient and modern Rather each may be available even within a single culture(see especially p 101)

benjamin d sommer46

and celebrates that which is primeval and central16 All times andplaces have value or even reality only insofar as they relate to bor-row from duplicate imitate or acknowledge the moment of cre-ation or the axis that connects heaven and earth which may be atemple or a sacred mountain and is likely to be both Such amentality expresses an ideology of immanence for it is based onthe conviction that the divine irrupts into space and timemdashmoreprecisely into specific places and at specific times An alternativeview of the universe emphasizes not the center but the peripherynot immanence but transcendence (for no place fully compre-hends the divine) it recognizes the reality the unavoidability andeven the value of reversal liminality and chaos Smith terms thisa utopian viewpoint in the basic sense of the word lacking place

The tents described by P and E conform to Smithrsquos categoriesin a strikingly clear fashion The P tabernacle presents a classicexample of Smithrsquos locative model God is immanent at a sacredcenter whose construction effected the recurrencemdashin fact theclimaxmdashof illo tempore the moment in which the world came intobeing Ersquos tent outside the camp on the other hand represents autopian worldview It locates religious value in the peripheryrather than the center and endorses a constrained model of im-manence Utopian cultures Smith explains ldquoexpress a more`openrsquo view in which beings are called upon to challenge theirlimits break them or create new possibilitiesrdquo17 This descriptionis especially relevant to Num 1126-29 In those verses E articu-lates an ideal view of prophecy according to which all Israelitesregardless of geographic or social location will break into pro-phetic ecstasymdasha possibility that threatens the established powersand those who expect to inherit them (viz Joshua)18

16 Smith describes the locative viewpoint as ldquocentrifugalrdquo in ldquoWobblingrdquo p101 but so far as I can tell he meant centripetal when he wrote centrifugal andvice versa

17 ldquoWobbling Pivotrdquo p 10118 On the tension between the priestly tabernacle and the tent of meeting in

E texts see also Israel Knohl ldquoTwo Aspects of the `Tent of Meetingrsquordquo in MCogan B Eichler and J Tigay (eds) Tehillah le-Moshe Biblical and Judaic Studiesin Honor of Moshe Greenberg (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1997) pp 73-79Knohl connects the P tabernacle to Eliadersquos ideology of sacred center (on whichSmithrsquos locative model is based) and he connects the E tent to Victor Turnerrsquosdescriptions of liminality (which in some respects recall Smithrsquos category of theutopian) An analogous distinction appears in Gerhard von Rad Old TestamentTheology (New York Harper and Row 1965) vol 1 p 237 where a ldquotheology ofmanifestationrdquo is associated with the old tent tradition and a ldquotheology of pres-


A similar dichotomy between locative and non-locative modelsof divine presence appears in the Tanakh as a whole and againPrsquos tabernacle represents one pole Surprisingly however in thisdichotomy its position is reversed the no longer representsthe locative model

In the thinking that Tryggve Mettinger has called the ldquoZion-Sabaoth theologyrdquo God was conceived as permanently present inthe Jerusalem temple which contained the throne seat of Yhwh19

That temple was located significantly in the center of the landof Israel roughly half way between the Mediterranean and theJordan and near the border between northern and southerntribes Texts that enunciate this ideology Mettinger maintains dis-close a ldquomythical concept of spacerdquo (eg Pss 14 48 76 Isa 6)which entails the identity of the temple and heaven Such a viewmoves beyond a merely analogical typology in which the earthlytemple is a copy of the heavenly20 The fixed location of the

encerdquo with the ark in P these two conceptions are fused Von Rad argues (vol1 p 239) that in P the former predominated See the critiques of this view inKnohl Sanctuary p 130 SD McBride ldquoDeuteronomic Name Theologyrdquo (PhDdissertation Harvard University 1969) p 30 and Blum Studien zur Kompositionpp 298-99 As we shall see von Rad is both right and wrong in any event noneof the verses he cites in this connection (vol 1 p 239 n 117) in fact support hisview On the contrast between the different models of the tent see also de VauxldquoArkrdquo pp 145-46 and Haran Temples pp 262-69 Note also the insight of Au-gust Dillmann Die Buumlcher Exodus und Leviticus (Leipzig S Hirzel 2nd edn 1880)p 335 ldquoImmerhin wird auch bei B [=E] die Lade mit dem Zelt ein Ersatz fuumlrdie jetzt zu verlassende unmittelbare Gottesnaumlhe auf dem Sinai gewesen sein wie bei A [=P] nach Erbauung der Huumltte Gott nicht mehr auf den Sinai sondernvon der Huumltte aus (Lev 11) mit Mose redetrdquo Thus in P the people build thetent before departing from Sinai because the tent becomes the new Sinaimdashthatis a sacred center In E the they build a tent as they are told to withdraw fromHoreb because they desire a surrogate for the sacred center or locus of imma-nence they are forever leaving behind

19 For a description of a Jerusalemite theology which can profitably becompared with Eliadersquos notions of sacred center see Mettinger Dethronement pp 19-37 See also Jon Levenson Sinai and Zion An Entry into the Jewish Bible(New York Harper and Row 1985) pp 111-37 and Brevard Childs Myth andReality in the Old Testament (SBT 27 London SCM Press 1962) pp 83-94 (noteespecially his reservations pp 93-94) On sacred mountains in the Hebrew Biblesee also the collection of texts in Richard Clifford The Sacred Mountain in Canaanand the Old Testament (Cambridge Harvard University Press 1972) pp 98-101On what may be referred to as archetypal thinking in the Bible generally seeMichael Fishbane ldquoThe Sacred Center The Symbolic Structure of the Biblerdquo inMichael Fishbane and Paul Flohr (eds) Texts and Responses Studies Presented toNahum N Glatzer (Leiden Brill 1975) pp 6-27

20 Mettinger Dethronement p 30 cf Levenson Sinai pp 123-24 It must bestressed that this outlook did not imply that Yhwh was only or exclusively present

benjamin d sommer48

temple on top of Mount Zion the conception of that mountainas a focal point connecting or in fact merging heaven and earthand the geographically and conceptually preeminent place of thetemple all identify this ideology as locative

When set against texts that glorify the Jerusalem temple thepriestly tabernacle appears to express a different notion of divinepresence The tabernacle after all is not limited to one placefor it wanders with the Israelites Thus P texts in comparison tothe ZionSabaoth theology seem not locative but what I woulddescribe as locomotive there is a sacred center but it moves REClements points out that the priestly description of the tabernacledoes not know any notion of a singular sacred space in contrastto biblical texts that mention Jerusalem explicitly (Zion psalmsEzekiel) or allude to it (Deuteronomy) For P

no longer is the presence of Yhwh associated with a particular place at allbut instead it is related to a cultic community The Priestly Writing hasno mention of a particular place except that Yhwh speaks with Israel fromabove the cover of the ark from between the two cherubim The ark isnot a place however but a piece of cult-furniture which like the taber-nacle in which it is set is portable and moves about with the people21

We might further note that the tabernacle like the law itselfhas its origins in the wilderness outside the land of Israel accord-ing to P (and the other Pentateuchal sources) the most importantmanifestation of Yhwh occurred within the Israelite communitybut not within their land In this sense P may be said to displayan interest in periphery To be sure Prsquos theology is not whollyutopian it presents a belief in immanence But the divine pres-ence or is not associated with any one locus and it first be-came visible to Israel and first took up residence among them inthe wilderness not in the land of Israel The axis linking heavenand earth (or at least heaven and the nation Israel) is an ambula-tory one The locomotive model then combines aspects oflocative and utopian ideologies the center moves towards the

in the temple Clements points out that ldquofar from conveying the belief that Yhwhwas an earth-bound God tied to his abode in Jerusalem the whole outlook andpurpose of the temple was to stress his creative and universal actionrdquo (God andTemple p 67) The notion that Yhwh dwells in the temple ldquodid not preclude theidea that he was a God of the skies whose true dwelling was in the heavens butrather presupposed itrdquo (p 68) See Ps 114 cf 142 7 303 7 Levenson makesthe same point pp 138-40

21 Clements God and Temple p 120


periphery while points in the periphery can become temporarilya center

The polarity between locative and locomotive conceptions of di-vine presence can be sensed elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible as wellFor example the cherubim denote Godrsquos physical presencethroughout the Hebrew Bible In the priestly tabernacle and inthe Solomonic temple described in 1 Kings the cherubim serveas a divine throne (Lev 377-9 Num 789 1 Kgs 623-28 86-7)22

further the walls and tapestries in the throne room of the taber-nacle and of the Temple are adorned with images of cherubim(Exod 368 35 1 Kgs 629-35 2 Chron 314) In Ezekiel cheru-bim accompany God whether God is in the temple or on a jour-ney (eg 93 101-20 1122) similarly in Ps 1811 God rides acherub through the sky Eden is Godrsquos garden (Isa 513 Ezek283) and hence a figure of divine presence after all God strollsabout there (Gen 38) Thus it is significant for our purposes thatcherubim stand at Edenrsquos entrance (Gen 324) or that a cherubonce stood in its midst (Ezek 2814) Wherever one finds a cherub(whether as a decorative feature or a mythical creature) one findsdivine presence But Mettinger points out that the language usedto describe Godrsquos place above the cherubim varies23 In texts thatarticulate the ZionndashSabaoth theology God is mdashldquohe whosits on the cherubimrdquo Texts using that phrase are often suffusedwith locative terminology The phrase appears in the first verse ofPsalm 99 which goes on to refer to Zion the sacred hill (vv 29) the royal footstool denoting Godrsquos enthroned presence (v 5)and the pillar of cloud ( ) signifying the divine indwelling(v 7) The phrase also appears 2 Sam 62 which de-scribes the arrival of the ark and hence of God in Jerusalem andin 1 Kgs 623-35 and 86-7 which posit the presence of God in theholy of holies at the Jerusalem temple24 But Ps 1811 (=2 Sam2211) describes Yhwh as riding ( ) a cherub25 and thus it con-

22 See Haran Temples pp 251-5423 Mettinger Dethronement p 3624 Mettinger argues that the very common epithet is a short form

of the longer title (Dethronement p 24) Indeed the shortform often appears in texts connected to the notion that the temple is Yhwhrsquosthrone (eg Isa 63 5 Isa 818 Ps 2410 465-8 489-12 842 4 9 and cf Isa18-9 2 Sam 726-27 Isa 482 Hag 1 passim)

25 The same root is used with other nouns to portray Yhwh as moving throughthe skies in Deut 3326 Isa 191 Ps 1043

benjamin d sommer50

nects the cherubmdashand with it the notion of divine presencemdashtothe locomotive rather than locative model26

Similarly Clements distinguishes between the Jerusalemite the-ology of sacred center with its single great temple and a moredecentralized theology in the religion of the patriarchs which he(following Albrecht Alt) views as focusing on gods associated withthe patriarchs ldquoThe important feature of this religion for ourstudyrdquo he says

is that the gods were not thought to be connected with specific places aswas general for the Els and Baals of the Canaanites but to certain groupsof people For the patriarchs their gods were not associated with the soilnor with special holy places but were bound together with their worshipersand were believed to accompany them on their wanderings In accordancewith the semi-nomadic life of the ancestors of the Israelites so their godsalso were believed to move from place to place as the leaders of their ad-herents Thus the gods of Abraham Isaac and Jacob were markedlydifferent from the gods of Canaan and a particular feature of this distinc-tiveness lay in the manner and nature of the divine presence In the onethe presence of the gods was linked with definite persons and in the otherwith certain definite places27

Further Clements argues in premonarchic Israel the main con-ception of Yhwhrsquos presence involved the re-enactment of Yhwhrsquosarrival at or from Sinai28 Thus Godrsquos presence was not linked toany one site in the land of Israel but to an event outside the landin which community not place was of paramount importanceand God was conceived as being present only temporarily Afterthe establishment of a strong centralized monarchy with its seatin the formerly Jebusite city of Jerusalem a more settled idea ofpresence crystallized in Israel Clements connects this more loca-

26 Later traditions combine these two types of imagery In Ezekiel God ridesa cherub out of the Temple so that it may be destroyed (Ezek 9-11) later thedeity returns on cherubim and is re-enthroned there (Ezek 43 esp v 3) andcherubim line the walls of the divine palace (Ezek 4118) Thus Ezekiel sees thelocomotive model as fitting for a temporary period but the locative is ultimatelyrestored 1 Chron 2818 refers to the throne in the Jerusalem as a thususing a locomotive term to describe a locative situation The association betweenhechalot and merkabah mysticism also shows the combination of these twomodels The hechal (palace) exemplifies the locative The merkabah utilizes thevocabulary of the locomotive ( ) to describe Godrsquos throne which is really amanifestation of the locative

27 Clements God and Temple pp 15-16 He cites the work of A Alt ldquoThe Godof the Fathersrdquo in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion (Garden City NYDoubleday 1967) pp 1-86 Clements further acknowledges his debt to MartinBuber The Prophetic Faith (New York Harper and Row 1949) pp 31-42



tive model to Canaanite (specifically Jebusite) influence whilethe decentralized theology with its connections both to the patri-archal and the Sinai periods was more originally Israelite29 Thiswhole approach to the history and derivation of these two ideasis of course quite untenable Altrsquos thesis regarding the ldquogods ofthe fathersrdquo has been debunked30 the very existence of the patri-archal period is a matter of doubt among historians many schol-ars today would reject the neat opposition between Israelite andCanaanite culture on which Clementsrsquo reconstruction rests (Infact the model that Clements terms more Israelite has strongCanaanite affinities The root [ldquoridesrdquo] expresses the locomo-tive model in Deut 3326 Isa 191 Hab 33-8 and Pss 1810-11685 and 1043 The same root in the phrase rkb rsquo rpt refers tothe Canaanite god Baal in Northwest Semitic texts31)

Nonetheless his description of a tension between two types ofthinking in the Hebrew Bible remains useful Regardless ofwhether there ever was a patriarchal period the book of Genesisdoes portray Israelrsquos ancestors as practicing a religion in whichdivine presence was less oriented towards space than towards clanand the activities of these ancestors provide a model for their de-scendants Genesis uses narratives about the patriarchs in orderto represent a particular religious ideal and this ideal demandsour attention even if it is a product of the Iron Age rather thanthe Late Bronze Age even if it reflects the values of a settled

29 Clements God and Temple pp 35-66 Clements maintains that even beforeDavidrsquos conquest Jerusalem was already a sacred axis associated with the cult ofEl-Elyon whom the Jebusites to some extent identified with Baal (pp 36-47) Asa result Zion was seen as equivalent to Baalrsquos home on Mount Zaphon With theIsraelite conquest El-Elyon now merged with the Israelite Yhwh Consequentlyan Israelite text can identify Zion with Zaphon (Ps 483)

30 Cross Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic pp 3-12 Erhard Blum also rejectsAltrsquos thesis in part using reasoning differing from that of Cross see DieKomposition der Vaumltergeschichte (WMANT 57 Neukirchen Neukirchener Verlag1984) pp 495-501 (with additional references) For a balanced discussion of thefate of Altrsquos thesis with further references see Rainer Albertz A History of Israel-ite Religion in the Old Testament Period (2 vols Louisville KY WestminsterJohnKnox Press 1994) vol 1 pp 26-29

31 For the many references in the Ugaritic texts see Joseph AistleitnerWoumlrterbuch der Ugaritischen Sprache (Berlin Akademie Verlag 2nd edn 1965) pp293 See other examples cited in Mettinger Dethronement p 35 Cross CanaaniteMyth and Hebrew Epic pp 10 n 32 67 151 In other respects Canaanite El dis-plays even more pronounced locomotive tendencies since he lives in a tent whileBaal lives in a more permanent house see Richard Clifford ldquoThe Tent of El andthe Israelite Tent of Meetingrdquo CBQ 33 (1971) pp 223-25

benjamin d sommer52

people rather than the lifestyle of nomads and even if it origi-nated within the land of Canaan rather than outside it32 Simi-larly poetic and priestly texts do portray God as travelling fromthe desert south of the land of Israel in contrast to royal andJerusalemite models of presence The Torah and some psalmsthen present a locomotive notion of divine presence at odds withthe locative model associated with the temple in Kings and Zionpsalms

Context then is all the priestly tabernacle can be read to sym-bolize both locative and locomotive worldviews depending onwhether we set it against Ersquos tent or the Jerusalem temple Againstthis assertion however one might argue that the tabernacle wasintended as a symbol for the temple to begin with According tothis objection P (like D) limits sacrifice to a single site and torepresent that site P uses the tabernacle33 Its location in the cen-ter of the camp (recalling the location of Jerusalem in the centerof the land of Israel) could be said to demonstrate this linkageso too the similarities of its design to Solomonrsquos temple34 Severalfactors militate against this objection

First even if the tabernacle does constitute what we might terma proleptic allusion to the Jerusalem temple (more on this con-jecture below) the fact remains that P never mentions the possi-bility that a temple will one day be built and in contrast to D P

32 Cf Albertzrsquos contention that patriarchal religion is not a preliminary stageof Israelite religion (so Alt) nor a complete fabrication (so some of Altrsquos critics)but a substratum of Israelite religion as it existed in the Iron Age (History vol 1p 29) Further while Clementsrsquos thesis that temples were not originally impor-tant in Israelite religion and became prominent only after the rise of monarchyis based on problematic reasoning William Dever tentatively suggests a similarconclusion for completely different reasons (viz archaeological ones) ldquoIt is per-haps significant that no pre-tenth century BCE temples have yet been foundonly household shrines and small open-air sanctuaries The early [ie pre-mo-narchical] Israelite cult seems to reflect a simple agrarian nonurban societyrdquo(William Dever ldquoThe Contribution of Archaeology to the Study of Canaaniteand Early Israelite Religionrdquo in P D Miller et al [eds] Ancient Israelite Reli-gion Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross [Philadelphia Fortress Press 1987]p 233)

33 This argument is very widespread in modern biblical studies See the clas-sic statement by J Wellhausen Prolegomena to the History of Israel (New YorkMeridan 1957 [1885]) pp 34-38 See further bibliography in Haran Temples p194 n 10 Haran himself argues that the priestly tabernacle originally symbol-ized the temple in Shiloh not Solomonrsquos Temple but he agrees with Wellhausenthat the priestly tabernacle is essentially a cipher for a centralized and centrallylocated temple see pp 198-204

34 On these similarities see Haran Temples pp 189-94


never even suggests that the divine presence or some representa-tive thereof will be located exclusively in one spot35 The rhetoricP uses to describe the tabernacle carries weight that interpretersmust take into account and this rhetoric valorizes that which isportable and utopian while studiously avoiding any reference toa specific or permanent sacred spot

Second the idealized blueprint that P presents in Exodus 25ndash39 draws on two architectural models portable tent sanctuariesused by ancient Semitic nomads and Canaanite temples (or theSolomonic temple which in any event exemplifies a Canaaniteshrine architecturally) Indeed in some respects the tabernaclersquosplan is closer to that of a genuine ancient Semitic tent-shrine thanto Solomonrsquos temple36 Hence the tabernacle cannot be regardedsolely as a token for the temple The tabernaclersquos architecture planreflects its two-fold significance To the extent that it alludes tothe temple it highlights a stable center but to the extent that itrecalls a desert tent it emphasizes the periphery

Third the hypothesis that the priestly tabernacle symbolizes thesingle legitimate temple is built on exceedingly shaky foundationssince it finds no support in the text of P itself One of the hypoth-esisrsquo key proponents Julius Wellhausen acknowledges as muchwhen he states ldquoIn [Deuteronomy] the unity of the cultus is com-manded in the Priestly Code it is presupposed Everywhere it is tac-itly assumed as a fundamental postulate but nowhere does it findactual expressionrdquo37 Wellhausen notes one exception Leviticus17 according to which animals can be slaughtered only at theentrance to the tent Most biblical scholars view this law as a veiled

35 As Haran points out (Temples p 196) ldquoP appears to be completely unawareof any other house of God which might be built at any other time under otherconditionsrdquo On traces of anti-temple ideology in P see Haran 197 n 14 andreferences there See also Yehezkel Kaufmann Toledot ha-Emunah ha-Yisraelit (TelAviv Mosad Bialik and Devir 1937-56) vol 1 p 116 (Heb)

36 See Frank Moore Cross ldquoThe Priestly Tabernaclerdquo in G Ernest Wright andDavid Noel Freedman (eds) The Biblical Archaeologist Reader 1 (Garden City NYAnchorDoubleday 1961) pp 217-21 D Kellermann ldquo rdquo in G BotterweckH Ringgren and H-J Fabry (eds) Theologisches Woumlrterbuch zum Alten Testament(Stuttgart Kohlhammer 1986) vol 5 p 66 and cf Haran Temples pp 194-99Further the priestly tabernacle shows significant points of contact with the abodeof El described in Canaanite myth which is portrayed as a tent rather than apalace or building see Frank Moore Cross ldquoThe Priestly Tabernacle in the Lightof Recent Researchrdquo in Truman Madsen (ed) The Temple in Antiquity (ProvoUT Brigham Young University Press 1984) pp 94-97 and Clifford ldquoTentrdquo pp221-27

37 Prolegomena p 35

benjamin d sommer54

command to centralize the cult at the temple in Jerusalem (acommand which thus prohibits the eating of meat outside thatcity)38 However the legislative significance of this chapter for thesettled Israelites is difficult to determine Leviticus 17 does notactually mention centralization (in contrast to D) it only decreesthat slaughter must take place at the tent where a priest cansprinkle the animalsrsquo blood on Yhwhrsquos altar A command toslaughter only at an altar is not the same as a command to buildonly one altar and thus the crucial question is does the entranceto the tent in Leviticus 17 represent a single temple or does itstand for sundry Yahwistic altars in Israelite towns and villages Inthe absence of any reference to a temple in the text of Leviticus17 itself the latter possibility must be examined Yehezkel Kauf-mann suggests that composition of P preceded cult centralizationand thus P does not presume that only one temple exists In thiscase the legislative hint in Leviticus 17 does not insinuate thatanimals can be slaughtered only on Mount Zion Rather it im-plies that one can slaughter animals only at a legitimate altarmdashofwhich there are many throughout the land of Israel39 Kaufmannfurther points out that in Lev 2631 P explicitly affirms that Yhwhhas many sanctuaries in which sacrifice takes place

40 We might addthat even the architectural parallels between the priestly taber-nacle and Solomonrsquos temple are not a decisive indication that theformer symbolizes the latter specifically The basic three-part long-room plan that they share is conventional for Syro-Palestiniantemples of the Bronze and Iron Ages41 Further while the priestly

38 In addition to Wellhausenrsquos discussion see most of the commentaries aswell as Blum Studien zur Komposition pp 337-38 The thesis appears even amongscholars who regard Leviticus 17 as older than Deuteronomy 12 (and who thussee cult centralization as a priestly rather than Deuteronomic innovation) egMenahem Haran ldquoThe Idea of Centralization of the Cult in the Priestly Appre-hensionrdquo Beer Sheva 1 (1973) pp 114-21 (Heb) and Alexander Rofeacute Introduc-tion to Deuteronomy (Jerusalem Akadmon Press 1988) p 15 (Heb)

39 See Kaufmannrsquos detailed if neglected reasoning Toledot vol 1 pp 126-37

40 Toledot vol 1 p 133 The Samaritan Pentateuch the Peshitta and the con-sonantal text of some MT manuscripts (though not their vocalization) read thesingular ( ) However the plural noun ( ) which occurs in mostMT manuscripts as well as the versions other than Peshitta is to be preferred asthe lectio difficilior since that reading represents a contradiction within the re-dacted Torah

41 For convenient summaries of these features see Volkmar Fritz ldquoTempleArchitecture What Can Archaeology Tell Us about Solomonrsquos Templerdquo in


tabernacle in some respects recalls Solomonrsquos temple in others itis quite close in plan to the Iron II period Judean temple in Arad42

Thus P may intend to link the tabernacle with Israelite templesgenerally not the Jerusalem Temple exclusively

If Kaufmann is correct then the tabernacle differs from thesingle Jerusalem temple it represents a prelude not to a locativemap of the land of Israel in which there is one axis mundi but toa land full of axes a land in which the periphery spawns centersPrsquos silence on the issue of the temple or the sacred city makes itimpossible to decide between Kaufmann and Wellhausen on thisissue and other possible readings of the crucial passage exist aswell it is possible that Prsquos tabernacle did not originally stand forany one sacred site but came to represent the Jerusalem templeas priestly tradition developed43 But the fact remains that P doesnot explicitly connect the tabernacle to the Jerusalem temple oreven to multiple Israelite temples It only describes a wanderingshrine that is located at the center of the camp thus suggestingboth locomotive and locative understandings of that shrine

Frederick Greenspahn Essential Papers on Israel and the Ancient Near East (NewYork New York University Press 1991) pp 116-28 (originally published in BARev13 [1987] pp 38-49) and William Dever ldquoPalaces and Temples in Canaan andAncient Israelrdquo in Jack Sasson (ed) Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (4 volsNew York Charles Scribners Sons 1995) vol 1 pp 605-614

42 See Yohanan Aharoni ldquoThe Solomonic Temple the Tabernacle and theArad Sanctuaryrdquo in Harry Hoffner (ed) Orient and Occident Essays Presented toCyrus H Gordon (AOAT Neukirchen Neukirchener Verlag 1973) pp 1-8 espp 4

43 This explanation which mediates between Wellhausen and Kaufmann ap-pears in Knohl Sanctuary pp 112-13 204 According to Knohl PT does notcommand centralization but HS (to which Lev 17 belongs) does However Knohldoes not present an argument to support the assertion that Lev 17 forbidsmultiple altars he merely states that Lev 171-9 ldquois a clear order to centralizethe cultrdquo (p 204) which is not at all clear to me In any case if Knohl is rightthat PT does not envision centralization and HS does then the P document as awhole presents a tabernacle with a dual in fact contradictory symbolism andthus Knohlrsquos argument leads to my thesis via a slightly different route The samemy be said of the altogether unlikely suggestion of earlier scholars who regardH as predating P and who argue that H does not require centralization but Pdoes (on whom see the references in Knohl p 112 nn 1-2) Incidentally whileI am skeptical of Knohlrsquos suggestion regarding Lev 17 it is nonetheless worthnoting that his suggestion meshes well with a thesis propounded by Aharoni Hemaintains that the priestly tabernacle was originally based on a temple plan ex-emplified by the Arad sanctuary Later it was altered to conform to the Solomonictemple (See Aharoni ldquoThe Solomonic Templerdquo p 8) Thus both Knohl andAharoni view P as originally independent of influence from the Solomonic templebut subsequently committed to it

benjamin d sommer56

The dual value of Prsquos tabernacle is also indicated by its twonames Menahem Haran points out that a

fundamental distinction [between the P and E tents] is already evident inthe very names of the two institutions the word miOgravekˆn tabernacle indi-cates the place where God Ograveocirckn dwells ie his abode whereas ohel mocirc rsquod(the latter noun being derived from the root y rsquod) describes the place towhich he comes at an appointed time the tent to the entrance of which hedescends in response to prophetic invocation only to leave it when thecommunion with him is over44

It is significant then that P also uses the term ˜hel mocirc rsquo d for thetabernacle Looked at within the Torahrsquos sign system Prsquos taber-nacle is a miOgravekˆn in opposition to Ersquos ˜hel mocirc rsquo d but within thelarger sign system of the Tanakh Prsquos tent is an ˜hel mocirc rsquod in op-position to the divine dwelling place built by Solomon Al-though Haran claims that P uses these terms ldquoindiscriminatelywithout intending any difference in meaningrdquo45 in fact the use ofthe two terms discloses an important friction within P46 The ten-sion between two orientations towards divine presence in theHebrew Bible then exists within P itself47

44 Haran Temples p 26945 Haran Temples p 27246 Verbs used to describe divine speech at the tabernacle also reflect this du-

ality as has been proposed to me the qal verb in Lev 11 (as in Exod 19320 and 2416) suggests a sudden summons of a punctual nature this depictionof divine speech is reminiscent of Ersquos for Godrsquos voice is thrust uponMoses as specific moments But the hitpael in in Num 789 (as in Ezek22 and 436) may be durative in nature suggesting (the reader points out) ldquoaconstant background of divine speech to which Moses tunes inrdquo

47 Some elements of this duality are present even in the temple though onlyfaintly The cherubim in the temple may echo the locomotive model both inlight of Ps 1811 and because their wings inevitably recall motion and hence thepotentially episodic nature of Godrsquos presence Similarly the ark located in thetemple remains at least vestigially an element of mobility Further the term typically refers to a tent in contrast to a temple see 2 Sam 67 and note also itsparallel to in the Hebrew Bible and in Ugaritic texts (Num 245 etc 2Aqht [=CAT 117] column V lines 32-33 the second tablet of Kirta [=CAT 115]column 3 lines 18-19 see further Mitchell Dahood ldquoUgaritic-Hebrew ParallelPairsrdquo in Loren Fisher (ed) Ras Shamra Parallels The Texts from Ugarit and theHebrew Bible [Rome Pontificium Institutum Biblicum 1972-75] vol 1 pp 102-103) But the Hebrew Bible sometimes uses the term as a synonym for the temple(Ps 747 Ezek 3727 1 Chron 633 2 Chron 296) This emphasis on the epi-sodic nature of the divine presence in the temple comes to the fore especiallyin Ezek 8ndash10 though Ezekiel returns to a strongly locative model in chs 40ndash48If Richard Elliott Friedman is correct that the temple actually contained the oldtabernacle (see The Exile and Biblical Narrative [HSM 22 Chico CA Scholars


The double or reversed place of P in the dichotomy we haveexamined is very provocative This inner-priestly incongruity doesnot result from multiple layers of composition (though there canbe little doubt that P is a complex amalgamation of traditions) orfrom exilic or postexilic recasting of older texts48 Indeed a fail-ure of many studies of divine presence in P lies precisely in thefact that they begin with an exilic or postexilic dating of P andproceed to find a reading that allegedly fits the preordained timeperiod This problem is especially clear in the work of the manymodern scholars (for example Clements GE Wright and FrankMoore Cross) for whom Prsquos notion of divine presence involvesGodrsquos ldquotabernaclingrdquo Scholars use this verb frequently no doubtin order to call John 114 to mind and hence rightly to empha-size the parallel between the tabernacle the temple and JesusThis verb seems intended to differ somehow from ldquodwellingrdquo inthat it is not permanent The lack of permanence implied by thedivine presencersquos tabernacling is said to result from the destruc-tion of the temple in 586 bce This event forced priestly circles toadmit that God was not always resident in Zion and that divineimmanence (associated with the root ) was always subject todivine transcendence and Godrsquos permanent dwelling in heaven

Press 1981] pp 48-61) then the whole tension found in the tabernacle is presentwithin the temple Further in light of Friedmanrsquos proposal one might concludethat the tension is resolved in favor of the locative model since ultimately thetabernacle comes to rest on Zion See however the detailed critique ofFriedmanrsquos theory in Victor Avigdor Hurowitz ldquoThe Form and Fate of the Tab-ernacle Reflections on a Recent Proposalrdquo JQR 86 (1995) pp 127-51

48 While PT and HS display deep differences of religious perspective in re-gard to several questions (as Knohl demonstrates in Sanctuary pp 124-98) itseems to me that they share a single attitude towards the tabernacle If Knohl isright that HS introduces the idea of cult centralization in Lev 17 (see above n38) then locative elements of the tabernacle may ultimately take precedence inthe HS strand of P On the other hand Robert Kugler argues that the attitudestoward the differ in PT and HS see ldquoHoliness Purity the Body and Soci-ety The Evidence for Theological Conflict in Leviticusrdquo JSOT 76 (1997) pp 3-27 According to Kugler HS located sacrality not only in the but in thepeople as a whole If Kugler is right then HS returns to the viewpoint Clementsand Buber find in patriarchal religion (see above nn 27 and 28) divine pres-ence abides in community not place In this case PT is more locative and HS ismore utopian A detailed evaluation of Kuglerrsquos revision of Knohl is beyond thescope of this essay Suffice it to say in both Kuglerrsquos proposal and Knohlrsquos thefinal P work encompasses each of these tempers (locative and locomotiveuto-pian) and either one will come to the fore depending on the context in whichone chooses to read P the Torah or the Tanakh

benjamin d sommer58

(associated with root )49 Thus for Cross Clements and othersit was (could only have been) the army of Nebuchadnezzar whocompelled the priestly writers to recast their Zion-centered theol-ogy of ongoing immanence

I propose an alternative perspective for several reasons Firstwhile these scholars sense that Prsquos theology navigates a ten-sion between immanence and transcendence their insistence ondating this theology to the exile obscures the timeless nature ofthe religious dilemma at hand and limits their explanation to anarrowly historical one Second any dating of P is by definitionspeculative and in light of the lack of consensus on this issueamong biblical scholars questionable Consequently one woulddo better to analyze the P texts on their own without starting fromthe presumption that they are post D or post 586 Finally by re-stricting themselves to categories of immanence and transcen-dence they overlook the extent to which these texts are grapplingwith conceptions of sacred place which are better approachedthrough Smithrsquos more supple models of locative and utopianmindsets

The opposition embodied in the priestly tabernacle results from

49 For example Cross sees a post-586 response to the rupture of the Zioncovenant in the priestly notion of tabernacling ldquoTheologically speaking theystrove after a solution to the problems of covenant theology the means throughwhich the breached covenant might be repaired and the conditions under whicha holy and universal God might tabernaclersquo in the midst of Israelrdquo (ldquoPriestly Tab-ernaclerdquo p 228) See the kindred approach of Clements God and Temple pp116-20 of GE Wright ldquoGod Amidst His People The Story of the Templerdquo inhis collection The Rule of God Essays in Biblical Theology (Garden City NYDoubleday 1960) p 71 and of Mettinger Dethronement p 96 113 Similarlythe decision to date P later than D spurs some of these scholars to view Prsquos tab-ernacle as a response to the deuteronomistic Name theology The deuteronomistsrejected the notion of divine presence in the temple and created a sublimatedtheological idea with the notion of Godrsquos Name residing there in response Pproposed that God does not dwell ( ) but tabernacles ( ) in the tabernacletemple For such a view see Wright ldquoGod Amidst His Peoplerdquo p 71 and CrossldquoPriestly Tabernaclerdquo pp 226-27 If one is less sure that P is later than D thenthere is little reason to see the term as a some sort of theological sublima-tion For reservations regarding the distinctions between ldquodwelling ( )rdquo andldquotabernacling ( )rdquo suggested by these scholars see further Mettinger Dethrone-ment pp 90-94 By way of contrast it is worth noting that Moshe Weinfeld ar-gues I think persuasively that Drsquos Shem theology is a response to the anthropo-morphism of the older Kabod theology which finds expression in P SeeDeuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford Clarendon Press 1972) pp 191-208


the tension between two religious impulses neither of which isconfined to a particular period place or culture50 One impulseemphasizes the Ottonian fascinans which produces a desire toapproach the divine and hence a hope that God is locatable evenin a physical sense51 This impulse reflects (or implies) the viewthat the divine can become confined and hence usable Such adivinity is the foundation of order The other impulse is rootedin mysterium and tremendum For this viewpoint the divine realmmust be a realm of absolute freedom and hence the divine can-not be confined to a single place and can never be confidentlylocated by humans Examples of these impulses can be foundthroughout the history of religions often in a single tradition Insome religions each one becomes associated with particular godsthus in Mesopotamia the former is aligned with Tammuz and withpersonal gods and the latter with the high god Anu52 In Israel

50 Here we should recall Smithrsquos insistence (against Eliade) that these mod-els though competing need not belong to different periods or cultures a singleculture can incorporate both of them (see eg ldquoWobblingrdquo p 101) In our casea single symbol embodies them

51 The influence of Rudolf Otto The Idea of the Holy An Inquiry Into the Non-Rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and Its Relation to the Rational (LondonOxford University Press 1958) in the following sentences will be clear

52 On Tammuz and the element of fascinans see Thorkild Jacobsen Towardthe Image of Tammuz and Other Essays on Mesopotamian History and Culture (Cam-bridge Harvard University Press 1970) pp 73-101 On the distance of Anu forwhom there was little or no cult in most periods of Mesopotamian religion eventhough he was still recognized as high god see David Marcus ldquoAnrdquo in The Ency-clopedia of Religion (New York Macmillan 1987) vol 1 pp 246-47 Erich EbelingldquoAnurdquo in Reallexicon der Assyriologie (Berlin de Gruyter 1928) vol 1 p 116This is not to say that Anu was otiose he continues to figure in Mesopotamianmyth and in rituals for lower-ranking but more important gods Nonethelesslittle cultic activity centers around Anu himself See eg the collection of Middleand Neo-Babylonian texts in Herbert Wohlstein The Sky God An-Anu (JerichoNY Paul Stroock 1976) pp 85-97 and cf Assyrian texts in pp 140-41 The samemight be said of El at Ugarit While the nature of Elrsquos status remains a vexingquestion the sense of distance between worshipers and El (as opposed to Baal)is clear see E Theodore Mullen The Divine Council in Canaanite and EarlyHebrew Literature (HSM Missoula MT Scholars Press 1980) pp 9-11 On theremoteness of El in Ugarit see further Conrad LrsquoHeureux Rank among theCanaanite Gods El Balsquoal and the Repharsquoim (HSM Missoula MT Scholars Press1979) pp 4-7 This remoteness probably ought to be understood as an abun-dance of the Ottonian categories of tremendum and mysterium and an absenceof fascinans Thus it is probably wrong to use Elrsquos remoteness as evidence of Elrsquosalleged dethronement or decline on which see the dated but clear presentationof the issue in William Foxwell Albright Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan An His-torical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths (Garden City Doubleday 1968) pp 119-21 140-45 the somewhat inconclusive study of Marvin Pope ldquoThe Status of El at

benjamin d sommer60

both are associated with a single divinity and various texts em-phasize one or the other The genius of Prsquos model of the tent isthat it encompasses both that it is at once centripetal and cen-trifugal The term ldquotent of meetingrdquo is thus quite apt for Prsquos tab-ernacle for it brings together two opposed conceptions of divinepresence

The construction of divine presence in the texts that describethe priestly tabernacle literally moves in two opposing directionstowards the center and towards the periphery and hence it worksagainst itself By linking a symbol or predecessor of Israelitetemples or perhaps of the Jerusalem temple with a nomadic tentthat belongs to no one place the priestly document opens thedoor for a critique of its own theology of presence Thus ouranalysis suggests the question does Prsquos description of the tentwhich is often understood as the classical expression of the no-tion of divine immanence in the Hebrew Bible53 mask anxietiesregarding divine absence or at least regarding the constancy ofdivine presence I suggest that it does In P God becomes presentonly due to heavy preparations and through complex forms of me-diation54 The tabernacle must be built according to painstakinglyexact specifications described in Exodus 25ndash31 It is inauguratedin a long and involved set of ceremonies described in Exodus 40ndashLeviticus 10 and worship there must follow very precise protocolsMoreover we should recall the inaugural ceremonies ended indisaster with the death of Nadab and Abihu who were incinerated

Ugaritrdquo in Mark Smith (ed) Probative Pontificating in Ugaritic and Biblical Litera-ture (UBL 10 Muumlnster Ugarit Verlag 1994) pp 58-60 Mullen pp 109-10and LrsquoHeureux pp 18-28 Alternatively the sense of distance may be connectedwith a god and the sense of approachability with the hypostasis of some aspectof the god For example the goddess Tinnit among the Canaanites in Carthageis identified as ldquothe FacePresence of Baalrdquo Shmuel Ayenituv argues thatBaal as a high god was too distant for worshipers to approach and that his hy-postatized and feminine face was approached instead (S Ayenituv ldquoThe Counte-nance of Yhwhrdquo in Cogan Eichler and Tigay [eds] Tehillah le-Moshe p 7)

53 In contrast to the more transcendent model of Deuteronomy in which Goddwells in heaven and His name represents Him in the Jerusalem Temple SeeMettinger Dethronement pp 48-77 Clements God and Temple pp 91-95 On thiscontrast between P and D see Weinfeld Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic Schoolpp 191-209 Regarding Prsquos notion of immanence note also the somewhat differ-ent formulation of Blum who sees Godrsquos quest to come close to creation (spe-cifically by dwelling among one people) as the dominant theme in the priestlycomposition (Studien zur Komposition pp 329-32)

54 See Clements God and Temple p 115 Cross Canaanite p 299


by a fire that came ldquofrom Godrsquos presence ( )rdquo (Lev 102)Fire in the tabernaclersquos dedication ceremony not only serves as atoken of divine presence but as a reminder of divine unpredic-tability in this divine fire the fascinans that attracts humans isbrutally tempered with mysterium and tremendum55 All this gives usthe sense that divine immanence in P is a terribly fragile thingand that any receptacle of divine presence no matter how care-fully built is essentially jerry-rigged56 The God of creation standsoutside of that creation (ie God in Gen 1 pre-exists the worldand thus is not part of the world that is created at least initially)Hence the deityrsquos attachment to a particular location representsan incongruitymdashand a dangerous incongruity at that57 If this isso then Prsquos God the God who belongs in the tabernacle doesnot really belong there at all It is for this reason that the taber-nacle an epitome of the locative incorporates elements of theutopian it is for this reason that the Prsquos version of the axis mundiwanders from place to place The tabernacle like the cosmos itrepresents and whose creation it culminates is Godrsquos home aplace God desires to inhabit for in Prsquos theology God attempts toovercome the gulf separating divinity from humanity by establish-ing an abode among a particular people But the tabernacle alsoconstitutes a place of divine exile the ambivalent rhetoric sur-rounding this peripatetic center implies that God cannot be athome there This exile demands explanation not in terms of theevents of 586 bce but with reference to the events of the year zeroanno mundi as the verbal links between texts describing thetabernaclersquos construction and the worldrsquos creation suggest Thusthe priestly document reveals the beginning of a notion that devel-oped much more fully and much more boldly in the postbiblicalJewish tradition to wit the notion of Godrsquos own exile in the worldGod created58

55 On the story of Nadab and Abihu as a deconstruction of the locative modelsee Sommer ldquoExpulsion as Initiationrdquo

56 Cf Blum Studien zur Komposition p 33257 This is the case also in narratives regarding the construction of the temple

When David brings the ark to reside Jerusalem Godrsquos presence in the ark strikesUzzah dead though he is at no fault (2 Sam 66-8) The construction narrativein Chronicles begins only following the plague in 1 Chron 21 It may be pre-cisely for this reason that E locates the tent outside the camp the people mustbe protected from the divine presence See Ayenituv ldquoCountenancerdquo p 4

58 The notion of Godrsquos exile at the moment of creation in Lurianic kabbalahlike the tensions regarding divine presence in P should not be described as a

benjamin d sommer62

In presenting this argument that P augurs the motif of divineexile I do not deny that P intends to portray divine manifestationas reliable constant and productive P does assert that God carvedout a space on earth that encompasses the Indeed accord-ing to P God chose Israel precisely in order that divinity mightdwell among at least one group of humans What I suggest none-theless is that various elements of Prsquos portrayal of that space areproblematic especially when viewed from within Prsquos own systemof thought The tabernacle invites comparison with later templesand this comparison shows how limited and how tentative Prsquosconception of immanence in fact is In contrast to Zion-Sabaothtexts priestly literature consistently refrains from locating thedivine presence in any one place for any length of time divinepresence in P does not permanently connect itself to a particularlocale In Leviticus 26 and elsewhere the HS strand of P assertsthat human sinfulness renders the divinityrsquos presence volatile butit seems to me that HS does not tell the whole story Rather givenPrsquos portrayal in Genesis 1 of a creator God who is not part of thecosmos the very notion of a terrestrial center of immanence en-tails grave difficulties the assertion that the divine can be local-ized involves P in some degree of inconsistency The elaboratearrangements P enjoins for the construction of the tabernacle andthe implementation of its cult mask these difficulties but do notresolve them

When I contend that P implies a critique of its own theology ofpresence I am not stating that P rejects its own theology nor amI maintaining that in the end P lacks a notion of immanenceRather I am pointing out that certain threads in the fabric of Prsquosdepiction of presence attract attention the constantly dual man-ner in which the tabernacle signifies the absence of any explicitreference to a single temple that will replace the tabernacle themobile nature of the tabernacle the lack of connection betweenthe land of Israel and the tabernacle in light of which the taber-

mere reaction to historical factors It must be understood rather to represent aparticular religious outlook See Moshe Idel Kabbalah New Perspectives (NewHaven Yale University Press 1988) pp 264-66 and especially note his program-matic statement on p xii which my article attempts to implement The conceptof divine exile appears in rabbinic literature as well but these texts do explicitlylink this notion to the destruction of the Second Temple for a listing of rel-evant sources and a discussion of them see Abraham Joshua Heschel Torah minHa-shamayim (3 vols London Soncino 1965 and New York Jewish TheologicalSeminary 1990) vol 1 pp 65-92 (Heb)


nacle aligns itself with the ontological category of exile (and notmerely the historical event of Israelrsquos exile) and the disaster thatmars the tabernaclersquos inauguration When we pull on thesethreads the fabric unravels It does so not because P wants it tounravel but because (as Derrida asserts in the quotation withwhich I begin this essay) the very notion of a centered structureis at once coherent and enmeshed in fatal contradiction Thatwhich governs the structure escapes structurality these wordscould describe Prsquos God They could also describe Godrsquos domicileon earth which is to say the location of divine displacement59

Abstract

The tabernacle described in the Pentateuchrsquos P source yields two distinct andopposing interpretations When compared with the tent found in the E collec-tion of documents Prsquos tabernacle represents a classic example of what thehistorian of religions Jonathan Z Smith terms a ldquolocativerdquo worldview As anideology of the center this understanding of the priestly tabernacle assertsdivine immanence and celebrates the sacrality of a particular space Whencompared with the theology of the Jerusalem temple however Prsquos tent seems toexemplify what Smith terms a ldquoutopianrdquo worldview or what we might call aldquolocomotiverdquo ideology This construction of the tent eschews the notion ofsacred center and emphasizes the periphery Tension between texts exemplify-ing each of these two theoretical models is found throughout the Hebrew Bible(and throughout the history of religions) but in P a single symbol encompassesboth The significance of this symbol depends on which of two different over-lapping contexts (Torah and Tanakh) a reader privileges and which elements ofits presentation in P one accentuates Thus the priestly tabernacle works againstitself at once presenting and critiquing a theology of immanence This ambiva-lent symbol suggests that God is present even as it intimates that Godrsquos presencein the world is inappropriate Thus P is forerunner of postbiblical texts thatdescribe Godrsquos exile in the created world

59 This essay was written during a sabbatical made possible by the AmericanCouncil of Learned Societies the Yad Hanadiv Foundation and NorthwesternUniversity My thanks to H Jeffrey Hodges and Erhard Blum who commentedastutely on an earlier draft of the essay

benjamin d sommer42

which simply means ldquodwellingrdquo) the ldquotent of meetingrdquo ( )or ldquotent of the pactrdquo ( ) Num 915-23 stress that thecloud and fire indicating the immediate presence of God was al-ways located in or above this tabernacle Thus the priestly taber-nacle was the site of an unceasing and ever-accessible theophany2

Behind the curtains of the holy of holies stood the ark and itscover which served as Godrsquos footstool and throne respectively3

above or perhaps within the tabernacle was the itself whichwas usually hidden from sight by the or cloud It was at (orfrom) the tabernacle that Godrsquos presence would become mani-fest at times of crisis (see Num 1420 1619 177 206)4 Priestlyliterature repeatedly highlights the tabernaclersquos centrality On a

2 So RE Clements God and Temple The Idea of Divine Presence in Ancient Israel(Oxford Basil Blackwell 1965) p 118 Jacob Milgrom Leviticus 1-16 (AB NewYork Doubleday 1991) p 574 Baruch Levine ldquoOn the Presence of God inBiblical Religionrdquo in J Neusner (ed) Religions in Antiquity Essays in Memory ofErwin Ramsdell Goodenough (Leiden Brill 1968) p 76 Roland de Vaux ldquoArk ofthe Covenant and Tent of Reunionrdquo in The Bible and the Ancient Near East (Gar-den City NY Doubleday 1971) p 146

3 See Menahem Haran Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel (OxfordClarendon Press 1978) pp 236-53 and de Vaux ldquoArkrdquo pp 147-48 who notesthe placement of treaty or divinely inscribed documents under a godrsquos feet else-where in ancient Near Eastern literature this usage corresponds to the arkrsquos useas container for the tablets and footstool

4 The precise location from which the emerged (that is the precise spotwhere the generally resides) is not made fully clear The may haveemerged from within the Holy of Holies into which it presumably had movedafter the dedication ceremony for the tabernacle had been completed This in-terpretation may be indicated by Lev 162 13 and cf the closely related tradi-tion in Ezek 104 where the was located within the Holy of Holies soTryggve ND Mettinger The Dethronement of Sabaoth Studies in the Shem and KabodTheologies (CB[OT] 18 Lund CWK Gleerup 1982) p 89 and Moshe Weinfeldldquo kˆbocircdrdquo in C Botterweck H Ringgren and H-J Fabry (eds) TheologicalDictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1974-1997) vol 7 p32 Alternatively the may have been located atop the tabernacle where itwas generally hidden from sight by the becoming brighter at times of crisisso that it was visible to all the people through the cloud so Milgrom Leviticus 1-16 pp 588-90 David Frankel argues that older priestly traditions located the

within the sanctuary where it was not visible to the people thus the Holyof Holies was Yhwhrsquos throne room Later priestly documents he argues locatethe above the tabernacle where it was visible to the whole nation thus forthe later priestly tradents the tabernacle was a throne not a throne room Seehis article ldquoTwo Priestly Conceptions of Guidance in the Wildernessrdquo JSOT 81(1998) pp 31-37 His reading is intriguing but his reasoning seems based on aquestionable conflation of the and the (see especially his remarks on p32) against which see Mettinger p 89 and Frank Moore Cross Canaanite Mythand Hebrew Epic Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge HarvardUniversity Press 1973) pp 166-67







benjamin d sommer44















benjamin d sommer46













benjamin d sommer48














benjamin d sommer50














benjamin d sommer52













37 Prolegomena p 35

benjamin d sommer54














benjamin d sommer56











benjamin d sommer58










benjamin d sommer60












benjamin d sommer62






Abstract









benjamin d sommer44















benjamin d sommer46













benjamin d sommer48














benjamin d sommer50














benjamin d sommer52













37 Prolegomena p 35

benjamin d sommer54














benjamin d sommer56











benjamin d sommer58










benjamin d sommer60












benjamin d sommer62






Abstract











benjamin d sommer46













benjamin d sommer48














benjamin d sommer50














benjamin d sommer52













37 Prolegomena p 35

benjamin d sommer54














benjamin d sommer56











benjamin d sommer58










benjamin d sommer60












benjamin d sommer62






Abstract










benjamin d sommer48














benjamin d sommer50














benjamin d sommer52













37 Prolegomena p 35

benjamin d sommer54














benjamin d sommer56











benjamin d sommer58










benjamin d sommer60












benjamin d sommer62






Abstract










benjamin d sommer50














benjamin d sommer52













37 Prolegomena p 35

benjamin d sommer54














benjamin d sommer56











benjamin d sommer58










benjamin d sommer60












benjamin d sommer62






Abstract









benjamin d sommer52













37 Prolegomena p 35

benjamin d sommer54














benjamin d sommer56











benjamin d sommer58










benjamin d sommer60












benjamin d sommer62






Abstract









37 Prolegomena p 35

benjamin d sommer54














benjamin d sommer56











benjamin d sommer58










benjamin d sommer60












benjamin d sommer62






Abstract



benjamin d sommer54














benjamin d sommer56











benjamin d sommer58










benjamin d sommer60












benjamin d sommer62






Abstract










benjamin d sommer56











benjamin d sommer58










benjamin d sommer60












benjamin d sommer62






Abstract







benjamin d sommer58










benjamin d sommer60












benjamin d sommer62






Abstract








benjamin d sommer60












benjamin d sommer62






Abstract









benjamin d sommer62






Abstract





Abstract



conflicting constructions of divine presence …domoca.org/files/diaconal vocation...

Documents