Abstract
Kāḇôḏ in kəḇôḏ YHWH has been translated predominantly with abstract words such as “glory” or “presence” throughout the Hebrew Bible. Some scholars argue that kəḇôḏ YHWH simultaneously marks the divine presence and hides the divine essence. These understandings do not capture the specific function and signification of kəḇôḏ YHWH in the pentateuchal Priestly source (P and H). In P and H, kəḇôḏ YHWH conveys the imagery of radiant, fiery clothing, comparable to Mesopotamian melammu. The deity always appears before the public with kəḇôḏ YHWH, whereas the text never says that the deity meets anyone privately with it. kəḇôḏ YHWH expresses the royal aspect of the deity who requires honor and submission. This understanding of kəḇôḏ YHWH in P reveals that the Priestly God is not abstract, enigmatic, or transcendent.
1. Introduction
The noun כבוד, kāḇôḏ, usually rendered as “glory,” appears nearly 200 times in MT (Fossum, 1999: 348–352, esp. 348). 1 When kāḇôḏ is paired with YHWH, kəḇôḏ YHWH 2 is often more than a combination of the two words. While the traditional translation that is found in many English versions of the Bible is “the glory of the LORD,” this abstract rendering is not immediately intelligible. Morgenstern (1911: 139–193, esp. 140) and Weinfeld (1972: 201), among others, contend that kəḇôḏ YHWH has a concrete, not abstract, meaning. The rendering in NJPS, “Presence,” is no better in this respect. Aaron (2001: 52–54, esp. 53) argues “this term harbors highly charged theological connotations in later religious contexts.”
Modern critics of the Bible recognize that there were various religious traditions, theologies, and practices in ancient Israel and Judah over time and even at the same time. In the case of kəḇôḏ YHWH, this diversity is preserved and reflected within and throughout the biblical text. Therefore, in this study, I will limit myself largely to its meaning in the pentateuchal Priestly source (i.e., P and H), 3 whose writers consistently employed this phrase in a particular way to communicate their own theology of YHWH.
The abstract understanding of P’s kəḇôḏ YHWH may be related, at least partly, to a frequent (if not unanimous) scholarly assumption that the Priestly deity, especially when designated as kəḇôḏ YHWH, has an immaterial, non-anthropomorphic and amorphous, abstract appearance. 4 Yet, the text of P and H does not support such an assumption. Rather, P’s descriptions of the Tent of Meeting and its cult evoke the physical presence of an anthropomorphic deity. For instance, YHWH sits on a kappōret that is likely to be his throne (Haran, 1978: 248–254) and smells and eats the sacrifices. 5 Additionally, the theomorphic form of humankind (Gen. 1.26–27; 5.1–2; 9.6) indicates the anthropomorphic shape of the Priestly deity (Weinfeld, 1972: 201; Sommer, 2009: 69–70). P’s literary presentation of its deity demands a more concrete and anthropomorphic understanding of its kəḇôḏ YHWH. In this study, therefore, I will argue that kəḇôḏ YHWH is a garment-like attribute of the pentateuchal Priestly deity that heightens his anthropomorphic and royal characteristics in the public sphere. The translation that best captures these characteristics is the “regalia of YHWH”.
2. A Brief Overview of Previous Scholarship 6
Some scholars do not conceptualize kəḇôḏ YHWH as an abstract and impersonal phrase. For example, Weinfeld (1972: 202), Morgenstern (1911: 140, 190), Aaron (2001: 53–54), and Sommer (2009: 60–61, 68) regard kəḇôḏ YHWH as God’s body, whereas Greenberg (1983: 51), Mettinger (1982: 107), and Aster (2012: 261–264) contend that it refers to the person, or the self, of the deity. The scholars within the first group do not share the same understanding of the divine body. Whereas Morgenstern considers kəḇôḏ YHWH as material in form, for instance, Sommer (2009:70–71) strongly emphasizes that it is distinguished from a human body because it lacks substance or material: “It is possible that for the priestly authors God’s body consists of light but not of flesh, something like an intense fire, but not of some solid object that is burning. . . . If I may be permitted the anachronism of applying Newtonian terms to these ancient texts, the kabod is made of energy but not matter.” Sommer has no intention of diluting P’s anthropomorphic presentation of the deity because the non-matter can still be called body because according to his definition the body is “something located in a particular place at a particular time, whatever its shape or substance” (Sommer, 2009: 71). He argues, along with others, that kāḇôḏ is the divine body and that body, though consisting of non-matter, still shares a human shape (Sommer, 2009: 68). As Aaron (2001: 53) suggests, those who argue for the body tend to converge on the point of physicality, no matter what it is made of and in whatever form it appears. The crux of this line of argumentation is that the concept of kāḇôḏ is not abstract or metaphysical (Aaron, 2001: 54): “In many of these contexts the word kavod functions in Hebrew as a euphemism—a figurative expression—for God’s body, and nothing more metaphysical than that.”
My heuristic division of the two groups is superficial in that most of the scholars who support the divine body as the referent of kəḇôḏ YHWH eventually insist on the phrase referring to God’s self, to which the second group holds, due to the interchangeability between the body and the self (among others, see Ginsberg, 1953: 246–247; Morgenstern, 1911: 140, 144, 147, 151; and Sommer, 2009: 72–73; cf. Aster 2012: 265–266). A certain degree of interchangeability is undeniable, as in the following texts from Lev. 9: ואל־בני ישׂראל תדבר לאמר . . . יהוה נראה אליכם And speak to the Israelites . . . YHWH will appear to you.
7
(Lev. 9.3–4) ויאמר משה זה הדבר אשר צוה יהוה תעשו וירא אליכם כבוד יהוה Moses said: “This is the thing that YHWH commanded that you should do so that kəḇôḏ YHWH may appear to you. (Lev. 9.6) וירא כבוד יהוה אל כל העם And kəḇôḏ YHWH appeared to all the people. (Lev. 9.23)
Here, Aaron was supposed to tell the Israelites to prepare their first sacrifices because YHWH would appear to them on that day. When Moses tells the Israelites about the same a little later in Lev. 9.6, he says it is kəḇôḏ YHWH that will appear, and the narrator says that kəḇôḏ YHWH appeared in Lev. 9.23. Ginsberg’s translation of kāḇôḏ as “person, body” describes this convergence well by analogy to nep-eš: “nép-eš itself does not necessarily mean ‘soul,’ strictly speaking, but ‘person’ or ‘individual’ […], so that on occasion it can even be used of a corpse (Lev. 21.1; Num. 6.6). […] the same is true of kāḇôḏ.” Thus, the body is a metonym, or a synecdoche, for the person. In this way, Ginsberg equates the person and the body. 8
Hundley (2011: 43) suggests a bright, radiant cloak as the image of kəḇôḏ YHWH. While the cloak is a new understanding, it nonetheless shares many aspects of the existing suggestions. Hundley (2011: 261–315), along with Mettinger (1982: 122–123), Morgenstern (1911: 141–153), and Sommer (2009: 70–71), observes, for instance, that kəḇôḏ YHWH is frequently described as emitting light.
9
On this basis, Hundley and others compare the biblical kāḇôḏ and Mesopotamian melammu on the basis that they have a common radiant feature, which I will discuss below. He also tries to extend his definition of kəḇôḏ YHWH by identifying it with the deity himself or the divine presence. Hundley (2011: 43) says: In particular, although nowhere explicit in the Priestly texts themselves, כבוד יהוה seems to describe YHWH’s surrounding radiance. This radiance may naturally be identified with YHWH; for, even more than with the ark, the presence of the divine effulgence ensures the presence of the divinity. As such, the יהוה כבוד is an especially appropriate metonym for YHWH himself.
This illustrates the difficulty of identifying kəḇôḏ YHWH. Scholars stretch their varying definitions of it only to converge on the same point—that is, the divine self and the divine presence.
Though the varying but converging opinions in scholarship suggest that the differences between them are subtle, the corollaries are not. Scholars have been aware that this issue has an implication for the reconstruction of the biblical authors’ theologies—in this paper, the Priestly author’s theology—and conceptualizations of divinity: whether anthropomorphism, half anthropomorphism, or even anti-anthropomorphism. Those who insist on kəḇôḏ YHWH as the divine body have P’s anthropomorphic theology in mind, whereas those who still render it as glory or presence tend to regard P’s theology as anti-anthropomorphic. For instance, Morgenstern (1911: 189–190) and Sommer (2009: 68, 70–72) value the human form and anthropomorphic aspect of kəḇôḏ YHWH. On the contrary, Knohl (1995: 128–137) asserts that P’s use of kāḇôḏ coincides with P’s general tendency (in his opinion) to suppress divine anthropomorphism. For him, kāḇôḏ is impersonal and anti-anthropomorphic language—namely, “presence,” characterized by fire. 10 This impersonal language is not merely a circumlocution for Knohl. It rather reflects a historical development of faith that led to a truer understanding of the divine essence (Knohl, 1995: 145–147). 11 Hundley locates himself somewhere in the middle, between Knohl and Sommer. Because it is a garment, kəḇôḏ YHWH is not God. But it is used as a metonym for God to avoid the direct, personal description of God. In addition, kəḇôḏ YHWH, like the deity himself, is not fixed in form, if it is a form at all. To this extent, Hundley comes closer to Knohl’s anti-anthropomorphism than he comes to Sommer’s anthropomorphic kəḇôḏ YHWH. His garment-like understanding, however, corresponds to Sommer’s in that both use human analogy. Yet Hundley seems to ignore the implication that the clothing imagery is anthropomorphic. In my view, the application of anthropomorphism is not merely bound to matter or form but extends to human behavior and attributes.
These respective claims of scholars about the definition of kəḇôḏ YHWH are, therefore, by no means an inconsequential matter. If these subtle differences have such distinctive theological implications, a correct understanding of kəḇôḏ YHWH in the pentateuchal Priestly source is necessary to grasp the nature of its deity.
3. Kəḇôḏ YHWH in the Pentateuchal Priestly Texts
There are thirteen attestations of the divine kāḇôḏ in pentateuchal Priestly texts.
12
There are two clues that kəḇôḏ YHWH in P and H is not an abstract concept but rather, at a minimum, a visible phenomenon. The first clue is that kəḇôḏ YHWH is often accompanied by fire in P and H. For example, Lev. 9.23–24 state: ויבא משה ואהרן אל אהל מועד ויצאו ויברכו את העם וירא כבוד יהוה אל כל העם ותצא אש מלפני יהוה ותאכל על המזבח את העלה ואת החלבים וירא כל העם וירנו ויפלו על פניהם Moses and Aaron entered the Tent of Meeting. And they came out and blessed the people. Then, kəḇôḏ YHWH appeared to all the people. A fire came out from before YHWH and consumed the burnt offering and the fat parts on the altar. All the people saw, shouted, and fell on their faces.
In this text, after Moses and Aaron finish setting up the sacrifices and bless the people, the divine kāḇôḏ appears. Then, a fire (אשׁ) comes from before (מלפני) YHWH, and it consumes (אכ׳׳ל) the sacrifices. Likewise, kəḇôḏ YHWH appears to all the congregation (of Israel) in Num. 16.19. Then, a fire (אשׁ) comes from (מאת) YHWH and consumes (אכ׳׳ל) the rebels in Num. 16.35. One may say that the fire is of no descriptive value for kəḇôḏ YHWH, as kāḇôḏ may be separate from the fire. But Exod. 24.17 proves to be a definitive example: ומראה כבוד יהוה כאש אכלת בראש ההר לעיני בני ישראל The appearance of kəḇôḏ YHWH was like a consuming fire on top of the mountain in the sight of the Israelites.
This text is the only instance in the pentateuchal Priestly source that directly mentions what kəḇôḏ YHWH looks like (אשׁ אכלת). It uses the same noun and verbal root (אשׁ and אכ׳׳ל) as the verses that are cited above (Lev. 9.23–24; Num. 16.19, 35).
There is a second clue that signals the concrete nature of kəḇôḏ YHWH—that it is visible. In P and H, kəḇôḏ YHWH is frequently predicated by the N-stem of רא׳׳ה, meaning in the middle voice “to appear.” The N-stem רא׳׳ה can also indicate the passive voice, “to be seen.” In one case, Moses unambiguously announces that the Israelites will see kəḇôḏ YHWH, using the G-stem of רא׳׳ה: Exod. 16.7 ובקר וראיתם את כבוד יהוה בשמעו את תלנתיכם על יהוה ונחנו מה כי תלונו עלינו In the morning, you will see kəḇôḏ YHWH because he heard your grumbles against YHWH. What are we that you grumble against us?
Because of the lack of further unambiguous visual cues, some scholars look to Ezekiel. 13 The nature and direction of correspondence have long been debated: did Ezekiel reuse P or vice versa or were the authors of Ezekiel and P (and later H) rooted in the same priestly group? 14 These questions, however one answers them, do not affect the argument of this study. After all, the close literary relationship of the pentateuchal Priestly source with Ezekiel is widely acknowledged in biblical scholarship. And this fact implies historical, in addition to typological, relations among the instances of the divine kāḇôḏ in Ezekiel and the pentateuchal Priestly source. While I think this is sufficient to justify my comparison with Ezekiel, it is beyond the scope of this study to demonstrate the direction of literary dependence with textual details or to date P and H.
Although Ezekiel provides a much more elaborate picture, one may notice the similarity of the vocabulary and concepts used to depict the deity and his throne in the pentateuchal Priestly source and in Ezekiel:
15
kəruḇîm (Cherubim), marʾeh (appearance), ʾēš (fire), and, kəḇôḏ YHWH, among others. Ezekiel describes kəḇôḏ YHWH vividly, especially in Ezek. 1.26–28: וממעל לרקיע אשר על ראשם כמראה אבן ספיר דמות כסא ועל דמות הכסא דמות כמראה אדם עליו מלמעלה וארא כעין חשמל Above the expanse over their heads, there was something like the appearance of sapphire, the likeness of a throne. On the likeness of the throne, there was a likeness as a human appearance above it. I saw something that looked like amber, inside of which
In this text, kəḇôḏ YHWH is like the appearance of human beings and like the appearance of fire, having radiance with the appearance of a rainbow. Thus, the shared elements in Ezekiel corroborate the observation that kəḇôḏ YHWH is fiery and radiant in P and H. 16
Some scholars, such as Cross (1973: 153 n. 30) and Weinfeld (1995: 29–31), have pointed out the potential similarity of kəḇôḏ YHWH with the Mesopotamian melammu. Melammu has been generally understood as a radiant aura that Mesopotamian gods and kings allegedly possess. Gods and kings magnify themselves and terrify and subdue enemies with melammu in Mesopotamian literature (Oppenheim, 1943: 31–34, esp. 31; Cassin, 1968: 65–82). Both the visual similarities between melammu and kəḇôḏ YHWH, which will be discussed below, and the divine and royal characteristics of melammu suggest it is relevant to the Priestly God who is divine and royal. 17 This comparison is not intended to invoke a foreign concept uncritically but to articulate what P culturally implies and presents by kəḇôḏ YHWH.
More recently, Aster has most thoroughly studied melammu and compared it with biblical kāḇôḏ. One of Aster’s insightful contributions is that melammu is not a static concept, but rather has undergone some historical changes. For instance, melammu became predominantly identified with radiance only from the eighth century onward (Aster, 2012: 52–59). Aster’s study of melammu provides a good point of comparison for kəḇôḏ YHWH in the pentateuchal Priestly source. Yet he (Aster, 2012: 261–295, 311–315) does not acknowledge the visual similarity between the radiant melammu and Priestly kəḇôḏ YHWH. 18 I suspect this is because he generalizes that kəḇôḏ YHWH in the preexilic biblical texts (including P in his opinion) is radiant only occasionally, notably, when it is described as such, as in Exod. 24.17 and Lev. 9.23–24. It seems to have escaped him that both Exod. 24.17 and Lev. 9.23–24 belong to P. These texts should be considered first within the context of the Priestly narrative plot, before situating them within the broader biblical context. Within the narrative of P, one should not assume that the author would have listed every detail on every occasion when the author presented the same divine appearance in different narrative events. kəḇôḏ YHWH could well be fiery in the places where the narrator does not mention its fiery quality. 19
In addition to the formal resemblance, there are functional parallels between kāḇôḏ and melammu. One common function of melammu in both the second and first millennia is to demonstrate the irresistible, sovereign power of the one possessing it, whether melammu is understood as merely a covering or a radiance. In the Neo-Assyrian period, as Aster (2012, 89–98) argues, divine melammu and royal melammu are perceived as fearful and threatening by enemies, more precisely, divine melammu causes submission, whereas royal melammu causes flight. For example: Melammu of Aššur:
20
ki-i ina KUR kìr-ru-ri us-ba-ku-ni KUR gíl-za-na-a-a KUR ḫub-uš-ka-a-a me-lam-me šá aš-šur EN-ia is-ḫup-šú-nu ANŠE.KUR.RA.MEŠ KÙ.BABBAR.MEŠ KÙ.GI.MEŠ AN.NA.MEŠ ZABAR.MEŠ ÚTUL.MEŠ ZABAR ma-da-ta-šú-nu a-na muh-hi-a ub-lu-ni While I was in Mount Kirruru the radiance of Aššur, my lord, overwhelmed the Gilzānu and the Hubušku (and) they brought to me as their tribute horses, silver, gold, tin, bronze, (and) bronze casseroles. Melammu of Assurnasirpal II:
21
TA IGI me-lam-me MAN-ti-a ip-la-ḫu-ma URU.DIDLI-šú-nu BÀD.MEŠ-ni-šú-nu ú-še-ru ana šu-zu-ub ZI.MEŠ-šú-nu ana KUR ma-at-ni KUR dan-ni e-li-ú They took fright in the face of my royal radiance and abandoned their cities (and) walls. To save their lives they climbed up Mount Matnu, a mighty mountain.
There is no such distinction between divine and royal in the pentateuchal Priestly source, as its God is both divine and sovereign. Still, this observation is particularly germane to kəḇôḏ YHWH in P and H. kəḇôḏ YHWH appears in, but is not limited to, the four so-called murmuring narratives: the manna in Exod. 16, the spies in Num. 13–14, Korah in Num. 16, and, Meribah in Num. 20. Whenever the people complain or rebel, kəḇôḏ YHWH appears; sometimes he punishes the rebels, and he resolves the problems. The proper response to seeing kəḇôḏ YHWH is to submit and fall down in honor, as exemplified in Lev. 9.24; Num. 16.22; and 20.6.
Yet Aster (2012: 290–291) rejects this functional relationship between melammu and kəḇôḏ YHWH which I argued for in light of his insight. He does so because he differentiates the emotional responses to the biblical kāḇôḏ such as dismay and joy (Ps. 97.6–8) from the response of terror to melammu. However, this argument does not undermine my comparison. Generally speaking, biblical appropriations of melammu “need not be constrained by their sources’ uses of them” (Stackert, 2014: 189). More specifically, the different emotions do not apply to the passages in P I cited above, in which kəḇôḏ YHWH evokes fear and submission. 22
My comparison of P’s divine kāḇôḏ and melammu raises a question about the nature of kəḇôḏ YHWH. Is it merely a stylistic way of referring to YHWH? Here, also, melammu can shed light on our understanding of kəḇôḏ YHWH. As Oppenheim (1943: 31–34) and Aster (2012: 49–52, esp. 51) note, in some cases, melammu is understood as clothing.
23
It is often predicated by verbs related to wearing: for example, it is sometimes found with labāšu (to put on); našû (to lift, but also to put on); ḫalāpu (to cover, to clothe); and, more frequently, with saḫāpu (to cover, and also to put a cover on) and katāmu (to cover). This means that melammu is not a body part of the owner; it may be put on or taken off as in Enuma Elish, Tablet I:65–68 (esp. line 68): 65 He put Apšu to slumber as he poured out sleep, 66 And Mummu, the counsellor, was breathless with agitation. 67 He split (Apšu’s) sinews, ripped off his crown, 68 Carried away (itbala from tabālu) his aura (Apšu’s melammu) and put it on (utaddiq from edēqu) himself (Ea).
24
This clothing imagery of melammu has parallels in the Hebrew Bible. The terms usually translated with glory-like abstract concepts are used for garment imagery. 25 See Ps. 104.1b: “You are clothed with splendor and majesty” (הוד והדר לבשׁת). So too, the luminous splendor (הוד) is wearable in P (Num. 27.20), which implies the same for the divine kāḇôḏ. 26
Hundley (2011: 40–43) argues that the pentateuchal Priestly source uses the same clothing image for its divine kāḇôḏ. He observes the awe-inspiring character shared between melammu and kāḇôḏ, as I argued above, and further, the instances of non-divine kāḇôḏ in P. He notes, in passing, one situation in which kāḇôḏ does not refer to the deity in P (Hundley, 2011: 43 n. 26, 74). In this one case, kāḇôḏ is used to qualify the priestly garments and coats: Exod. 28.2 ועשית בגדי קדש לאהרן אחיך You shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother for kāḇôḏ Exod. 28.40 ולבני אהרן תעשה כתנת ועשית להם אבנטים ומגבעות תעשה להם For the sons of Aaron, you shall make tunics and you shall make for them sashes and headgear for kāḇôḏ
Namely, it means either that it should be made with the greatest skill or that its appearance should be worthy of serving the deity. Hundley does not elaborate on this point further, probably because there is no more evidence for this in P.
Though not from P, one may find further potential support from Isaiah’s vision account that shares a relatively rare word for “skirts (שׁולים)” with P’s priestly garments.
27
There is an interesting parallel between Isa. 6.1 and 6.3: Isa. 6.1 בשׁנת־מות המלך עזיהו ואראה את־אדני ישׁב על־כסא רם ונשׂא ושׁוליו מלאים את־ההיכל In the year that the king Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on the high and lifted throne, Isa. 6.3 וקרא זה אל־זה ואמר קדושׁ קדושׁ קדושׁ יהוה צבאות מלא כל־הארץ כבודו One called another and said, “holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts.
The kāḇôḏ filling the earth (מלא כל־הארץ כבודו) in Isa. 6.3 corresponds to Yahweh’s skirts that filled the temple (ושׁוליו מלאים את־ההיכל) in Isa. 6.1. The Seraphim’s cry might reflect the poetic exaggeration of elevated speech (Williamson, 2018: 37–38). More likely, the author might be contrasting the human myopia of the prophet’s perspective that is obstructed by the temple building with the Seraphim’s clairvoyance that sees on high the entire world (though their faces are covered!). If the latter is correct, these two verses are two sides of the same coin and imply that the prophet and the Seraphim are looking at the same scene from different angles.
This interpretation is supported by some ancient translators. LXX and the Isaiah Targum rendered “his skirts (שׁוליו)” with “(the brightness of) his glory (τῆς δóξης αύτοῦ in LXX and זיו יקריה in the Isaiah Targum).” There is broad agreement that these translators tried to avoid the anthropomorphism of MT, and/or the Isaianic translator of LXX theologically favored δόξα and its cognate words. 29 That said, it is still striking that these translators understood that the deity’s “skirts” in 6:1 of MT are metonymically or synecdochically interchangeable with and represent the divine kāḇôḏ.
Thus, the Isaianic vision (and the priests’ garments in P) offers and corroborates at least a typological analogy between P’s divine kāḇôḏ and Assyrian melammu as a garment (cf. Williamson, 2018: 59–60), though it cannot definitively prove it. And the divine appearance in the Jerusalem temple in the Isaianic vision offers a picture of YHWH similar to the Tabernacle in P. The Seraphim undeniably correspond to the Cherubim to some degree (Williamson, 2018: 56); the deity who is supposed to dwell in the sanctuary now reveals himself in an awesome, kingly manner outside of it. As the Tent of Meeting and the Solomonic temple share the Zion tradition (Mettinger, 1982: 81–88), the two kāḇôḏ scenes in P and Isaiah indicate a tradition-historical connection.
In addition, I would add that kəḇôḏ YHWH does not seem to be personified in P. Kəḇôḏ YHWH appears at, moves to, or fills a place physically. But it never speaks or listens, at least according to the wording of the pentateuchal Priestly source (cf. Watts, 2013: 176–177). It is always YHWH himself whom the verbs of speaking and listening predicate, even when what is seen is kəḇôḏ YHWH. A possible exception, as indicated by many scholars, may be in view when kəḇôḏ YHWH is allegedly the implied subject of קר׳׳א: for example, Exod. 24.16 with 25.1; Lev. 1.1 with Exod. 40.34–35; also, Ezek. 9.3–4. 30 But this reading is not required. It is possible that the implied subject is YHWH either in the nomen rectum of the phrase or in the following clause (Exod. 25.1; Lev. 1.1b; Ezek. 9.4). 31 This reading is more plausible because the other verbs of personification are not used for kəḇôḏ YHWH in P. Likewise, the use of שׁכ׳׳ן (to dwell) with the kəḇôḏ YHWH as its subject in Exod. 24.16 is not problematic because שׁכ׳׳ן is sometimes used with an inanimate subject such as the cloud or the tent, meaning “to remain, stay” (e.g., Exod. 40.35; Num. 9.17–18, 22; 10.19; Josh. 22.19). 32 These details suggest that the Priestly narrative distinguishes between YHWH and kəḇôḏ YHWH. All the narrative clues I have collected point toward the conclusion that kəḇôḏ YHWH is a garment-like accoutrement that makes the deity look fearful and great.
Neither the priestly garment nor a priest’s body is ever referred to as “the kāḇôḏ of the priest (כבוד הכהן).” It is possible, then, that kəḇôḏ YHWH is a part of the technical vocabulary that the Priestly author employs in relation to the deity as in other instances. For example, the divine throne is not called throne but kappōret (Haran, 1978: 248–254). It is worth noting that Baʿlu’s maces (ṣmdm) had special epithets, Ygrš (it will drive out) and Ảymr (it will surely expel), 33 appropriate to their function in a Ugaritic mythological text. Even if someone does not consider kəḇôḏ YHWH such a special name, but rather as a circumlocutionary designation of a common item, the principle is the same. Kāḇôḏ is a suitable designation for the divine garment in consideration of the term’s meaning and the object’s function (see below) in a literary work. Additionally, the argument for the interchangeability between YHWH and kəḇôḏ YHWH works as well for the clothing as for the body when a context requires understanding the concept as a metonym or synecdoche (as “a [bit of] skirt” may refer to a woman derogatively). 34
I thus agree with Hundley that kəḇôḏ YHWH is a sort of divine garment. Yet Hundley (2011: 49–52) moves from this anthropomorphic image to a metaphysical concept of transcendence. 35 As I will show, this image is better reckoned in light of the social hierarchy depicted in P and H. Considering that the etymology of kāḇôḏ is related to weightiness and honor, kəḇôḏ YHWH signifies YHWH’s official robe and/or his appearance in it as a royal garment. I would refer to the deity wearing the kāḇôḏ-garment as ‘YHWH in a suit’. Houtman (2000: 466) stated that for the high priestly garments, “Clothes make the man.” 36 Here, clothes make the deity.
4. The Component and the Function of kəḇôḏ YHWH
As many observe, kəḇôḏ YHWH is frequently accompanied by fire and cloud. Among the fifteen attestations of kəḇôḏ YHWH in P, only Exod. 24.16–17 relate both the cloud and the fire to kəḇôḏ YHWH. Some passages (Exod. 16.10; 40.34–35; Num. 17.7) mention only the cloud. Other passages (Lev. 9.24; Num. 16.19) have only the fire without mentioning the cloud; as for Num. 16.19, the fire is mentioned in 16.35.
37
Neither the cloud nor the fire are mentioned in Num. 14.10 and 20.6. Therefore, the random distribution and the occasional absence of fire and cloud suggest they may not be an intrinsic part of kəḇôḏ YHWH. Aster (2012: 271, 274) argues that visual phenomena such as the cloud and the fire are not identical to kəḇôḏ YHWH: Throughout the Pentateuch’s narratives of the Exodus, Sinai, the Wilderness wandering, and the Tabernacle, two natural phenomena are consistently used as the method of signifying God’s presence: the cloud and the fire. These are used regardless of whether the referent is YHWH or kebod YHWH. It is therefore extremely difficult to argue that in the Pentateuch, there is any specific association between kebod YHWH and fire.
The passage in Exod. 40.34–35 confirms that the cloud and kəḇôḏ YHWH are independent because kəḇôḏ YHWH is inside the Tabernacle whereas the cloud is outside (Morgenstern, 1911: 142; Weinfeld, 1972: 202–203; Hundley, 2011: 46–47).
Although this description seems generally correct, some reservations should be acknowledged concerning the fire. The passage in Exod. 24.17 unambiguously describes kəḇôḏ YHWH as fire or something like devouring fire (אשׁ אכלת), as noted above. The solution is, I think, to posit two sorts of fire in the pentateuchal Priestly narrative: guiding fire and devouring fire. The former fire is intrinsic to the cloud (i.e., a fiery cloud). When the deity has presumably already sat in the holy of holies, the fire is seen at night in place of a cloud (especially, Num. 9.15–16; cf. Exod. 40.34–38 and Num. 9.15–23). This fiery cloud guided and protected the Israelites wandering in the wilderness. 38 However, fire has a very different function in Lev. 9.23–24, 10.2, and Num. 16.35. In all of these instances, the fire devours (אכ׳׳ל) flesh, whether of men or animals. The use of the same verbal root אכ׳׳ל suggests these instances and Exod. 24.17 are closely related. The potential objection that the fire which devours flesh comes not from kəḇôḏ YHWH but from YHWH himself is not a problem. As noted above, kəḇôḏ YHWH is interchangeable 39 with YHWH himself when the former is used as a metonym or synecdoche. 40
This understanding elucidates the meaning of Exod. 29.43b (ונקדשׁ בכבדי). Anticipating Lev. 9.23–24, ונקדשׁ בכבדי refers to the sanctification of the bronze altar that represents the entire Tent of Meeting at least on this occasion (cf. Exod. 29.44) by the fire from the divine kəḇôḏ (cf. Nihan, 2007: 48, 53, 387, 602). For the same reason, the fire in Lev. 10.2 might have come from the kəḇôḏ YHWH mentioned in Lev 9.23. Though the chapter division—which was created later—between Lev. 9.24 and 10.1 might give a false impression of their separation, the waw-consecutive verbal morphology in 10.1 supports a close relationship to the previous chapter. 41 Therefore, the devouring fire is a feature of kəḇôḏ YHWH, which is the divine garment. 42
What is more important is the function and signification of kəḇôḏ YHWH in the pentateuchal Priestly source as a literary work. 43 It is worth noting that the pentateuchal Priestly text mentions kəḇôḏ YHWH only as it is shown to all of the Israelites publicly (e.g., Exod. 16.7, 10; 24.16–17; 29.43; 40.34–35; Lev. 9.6, 23; Num. 14.10, 21–22; 16.19; 17.7). Even Num. 20.6 describes the public nature of this manifestation in that Moses and Aaron did not come into the Tent of Meeting but rather came to the entrance of the Tent (אל פתח אהל מועד) from another place in the camp. They are at the public place where everyone can see, if one does not understand בו׳׳א אל־ inflexibly as “to enter.” 44 I do not know of a single case in which kəḇôḏ YHWH appears privately to a special person in P and H, as in Ezekiel. 45
This fact, if accepted, reveals the function of kəḇôḏ YHWH in the pentateuchal Priestly narrative. Scholars such as Barr (2013: 52), Mettinger (1982: 89), and Rendtorff (1968: 36–37) correctly recognize the public aspect of kəḇôḏ YHWH. 46 This is the reason kəḇôḏ YHWH appears only outside the Tent of Meeting. As noted earlier, it appeared when the deity had to subdue rebels (e.g., Num. 14.10). It also appeared when the deity wanted to magnify his sovereignty to the people (e.g., Lev. 9.23–24). Kəḇôḏ YHWH stresses the regal aspect of the Priestly deity outside his palace, namely the Tent of Meeting.
There are two apparent exceptions (Num. 14:10; Exod. 40:34–35). I will show the apparent exceptions do not undermine this thesis. The passage in Num. 14.10 seems to say that kəḇôḏ YHWH appears inside the Tent of Meeting, possibly inside the holy of holies: ויאמרו כל־העדה לרגום אתם באבנים וכבוד יהוה נראה באהל מועד אל־כל־בני ישׂראל When all the community intended to pelt them with stones, kəḇôḏ YHWH appeared in the Tent of Meeting to all the Israelites.
Yet one may easily think that this is counterintuitive. How could all the Israelites see that it appeared inside the Tent of Meeting (the main tent)? 47 Syriac, the Isaiah Targum, and LXX suggest textual variations. For example, LXX has pluses, “νεφέλῃ ἐπὶ.” On the basis of this, it may be reasonably assumed that the Vorlage of LXX reads “in the cloud upon the Tent of Meeting,” approximately, “בענן על אהל מועד.” 48 If the plus was omitted by MT through an unidentified scribal error, LXX is original, and we do not have the problem of kəḇôḏ YHWH being (and being seen) in the cloud over 49 (על) the Tent of Meeting. Indeed, we do actually have a case in which kəḇôḏ YHWH appears in the cloud (בענן) in Exod. 16.10. The cloud covered the Tent of Meeting and thereafter stayed over it unless the Israelites had to move (Exod. 40.34–38; Num. 9.15–2). The cloud also covered the Tent of Meeting when kəḇôḏ YHWH appeared in Num. 17.7. Thus, the cloud over the Tent of Meeting in Num. 14.10 LXX is consistent with other texts in P and H.
That said, this text critical conclusion is not the only way to understand Num. 14.10. Even if one prefers MT to LXX, one can understand the text as it is in MT. The Tent of Meeting (אהל מועד) may refer to the entire tent complex that includes the courtyard where kəḇôḏ YHWH is supposed to be seen (נראה) by the Israelites (e.g., Lev. 9.23–24). MT might imply that kəḇôḏ YHWH appeared somewhere in the Tent of Meeting complex (perhaps, the courtyard). In this case, LXX might have misread MT and made sense of the pseudo-problem. I think this scenario is more likely than the previous one. Nonetheless, Num. 14.10 does not undermine the thesis that the purpose of the divine manifestation as kəḇôḏ YHWH is to create a sense of awe and fear in the public.
In addition, Exod. 40.34–35 apparently contradict my observation that kəḇôḏ YHWH only appears outside the Tent of Meeting. Yet this is not a real problem if one considers P’s narrative plot. It is worth remembering that Exod. 40.34–35 describes the first-time the deity enters the Tent of Meeting to make it his home (Chavel, 2009: 12; Schipper and Stackert, 2013: 474; Feldman, 2020: 33 n. 12, 37). In fact, the entire passage in Exod. 40 describes a special scene. Moses’ manual labor relating to the assembly of the Tent and apparent cultic actions in Exod. 40 is not intended to be repeated. 50 The deity’s first entry to the newly established Tent of Meeting in Exod. 40.34–35 is intended to impress his royal position on the Israelites (cf. Nihan, 2007: 55). YHWH magnified his majestic appearance by means of filling the Tent of Meeting with his kāḇôḏ. It is to be noted that this is the only time that kəḇôḏ YHWH filled (מל׳׳א) the Tent of Meeting in P. 51 The use of מל׳׳א (to fill) may imply that the deity is active rather than enjoying his repose as usual (cf. Schipper and Stackert, 2013). Therefore, this first entering is a unique instance that is not supposed to recur.
Interestingly, kəḇôḏ YHWH is not found in the texts that mention YHWH in the holy of holies (e.g., Exod. 25.22; Lev. 16.2; Num. 7.89). 52 Admittedly, we do not have many texts describing YHWH inside the holy of holies, and thus this evidence is very limited. 53 Yet this still suggests that the Israelites meet with the deity only at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting (פתח אהל מועד) according to Exod. 29.42–43. And it was always kəḇôḏ YHWH that appeared, whenever the deity is mentioned as manifesting himself outside the Tent of Meeting. Even if kəḇôḏ YHWH were present in the holy of holies, 54 the silence about its presence there in the text (together with the frequent mentions of kəḇôḏ YHWH in the entrance of the Tent of Meeting) discloses the literary emphasis on the public function of kəḇôḏ YHWH in the pentateuchal Priestly source. 55
This public function consequently intensifies the schematic socio-religious hierarchy in P and H, which is presented along with other ordering features such as the gradations of holiness and the priestly caste. 56 Israel is more than a cultic community. The pentateuchal Priestly narrative presents a nation with the deity as a royal figure, the high priest, the other priests, and the Levites as his officials, and lay people who are supposed to support the sanctuary. 57 It assigns different roles, duties, and limits and privileges to the members of its society according to their socio-religious classes, with respect to time, space, and objects. 58 The places where kəḇôḏ YHWH appears and its intended audience (the lay Israelites), together with the limited access to the deity (probably without kəḇôḏ YHWH in the holy of holies), correspond well to the hierarchy in P and H.
5. Conclusion
In sum, kəḇôḏ YHWH is a fiery and radiant visual phenomenon in P and H. There are inner- and extra-biblical parallels that presume the royal and radiant clothing imagery, such as melammu. Kəḇôḏ YHWH can designate the divine presence and even the deity himself as a synecdoche. Yet it is not personified, which means it is not always interchangeable with the deity himself. It always appears outside the deity’s private room. When it appears, the sight is intended to demonstrate his importance to the public. Whenever it is seen, the people fall down in obeisance, become fearful, or are attacked. It evokes a picture of a king with his “regalia”—my definition of P and H’s kəḇôḏ YHWH—wearing his glorious robes and accoutrements or a full set of armor. A modern equivalent might be a president in a suit giving a public speech or an army general in combat uniform. P’s depiction of the deity, including kəḇôḏ YHWH, has often been misunderstood as anti-anthropomorphic as well as spiritual and transcendent because kəḇôḏ YHWH allegedly conceals the essence of the deity (e.g., Weinfeld, 1972: 202–203; Hundley, 2011: 40–52). But if understood in terms of clothing, it cannot but imply anthropomorphism and immanence. Therefore, kəḇôḏ YHWH does not camouflage the true divine form and nature but rather facilitates the deity’s most glorious appearance. Its divine/regal quality stresses the societal, hierarchical superiority of the deity, and is thus fully anthropomorphic (in a broad sense), in the public sphere. There is no intention here to describe the deity being totally other and transcendent, or apart from Israelite society. Rather, he is a part of the social order of the pentateuchal Priestly world.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I thank Professors Jeffrey Stackert, Simeon Chavel, Dennis Pardee, and Paul Mendes-Flohr of the University of Chicago and JSOT’s anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and critiques on various occasions. That said, any weaknesses of this study should be attributed to me.
2.
I will transliterate this Hebrew phrase as kəḇôḏ YHWH, but I will follow the original transliterations of the works I cite in the direct quotations.
3.
I distinguish “Priestly” from “priestly” with the lower case referring to the characteristics of the priests, not necessarily those of the composition P—a distinction which is not strictly made in some scholarly works. “P” and “Priestly” refer to the same composition. This designation is potentially confusing. P can refer to either the original compositional layer before H’s supplements or to the final version of the P source that includes H. Thus, what I assign to “P” or “Priestly” is related first to the original layer. When I need to specify the entire P source including H, I will try to use some modifiers or labels such as “P and H” or “pentateuchal Priestly source.” The later redactional layers that share the interest in lay holiness will be labeled as H. Cf. Rhyder (2019: 722–724); 
: 573–580, esp. 573). It should be noted that H continues and does not radically deviate from the plot of the earlier composition (P), though its stylistic and ideological differences are discernible enough. As to kəḇôḏ YHWH, P and H show no conceptual differences, which justifies my discussion of the instances of kəḇôḏ YHWH in P and H on the same level.
4.
To name a few, Eichrodt (1961, 1967: 2.31); Hundley (2011: 50); : 237–238).
5.
It is worth recalling here such expressions as “pleasing aroma (ריח ניחח)” and “food gift (לחם אשׁה)” in Lev. 3.16 and passim.
6.
Other brief, but useful, surveys on this subject are found in Aster (2012: 258–261) and : 60–62, 68– 79, 215 nn. 10–11, and 222 nn. 56–57).
7.
The translations of the biblical texts are mine unless I note otherwise.
8.
Ginsberg (1953: 246 [his parentheses and italics]) seems to assume that the semantic move from “body” to “person” is natural. Also, see : 263): “Kabod can refer to a person’s being, and not specifically to a person’s body, just as nepeš does, rather than referring consistently and specifically to the throat.”
9.
Aster (2012: 261–315) argues against the luminous characteristic of kəḇôḏ YHWH in P. See a counterargument in : 222 n. 57).
10.
: 129). It should be noted that Knohl’s anti-anthropomorphism of kāḇôḏ is exclusively limited to the period of Moses after “the revelation of the name of YHWH” in P (his PT). That revelation, he argues, sharply distinguishes the anthropomorphism in P’s Genesis period and in H from the opposite in P’s period of Moses by using distinct languages for God. For the last point, see Knohl (1995: 107, 125, 145–47). I do not accept both dispensational and redactional distinctions of the pentateuchal Priestly deity, as will be clear below.
11.
This is subtle because Knohl seems to blend the literary and the historical arguments.
12.
See Exod. 16.7, 10; 24.16–17; 29.43; 40.34–35; Lev. 9.6, 23; Num. 14.10; 16.19; 17.7; and 20.6. Cf. Rendtorff (1968: 50 n. 40–41), followed by Westermann (1970: 230) and Mettinger (1982: 80). Among the texts listed, it is to be noted that Num. 14.10 is P, whereas Num. 14.21 (thus not listed) belongs to non-P. kəḇôḏ YHWH in Num. 14.21 is not P. Cf. Gray (1903: 128–134); Baden (2009: 114–130, esp. 117); : 133–134, 297–299); Noth (1968: 101–103, 107–110).
13.
Among others, Weinfeld, 1972: 201–202; Sommer, 2009: 69, 72–73, 222 n. 57; with a caution, Hundley, 2011: 41. Some objections (von Rad, 1964: 238–242, esp. 240–241; Clements, 1965: 113–114; and Knohl, 1995: 129) are not well-founded. There is no reason to assume P’s kəḇôḏ YHWH as non-anthropomorphic. The purpose of this study is precisely to refute this assumption.
14.
For varying opinions, see Boorer (2016: 102–103, 429 n. 556); Jeon (2016: 77–92); Kohn (2002: esp. 30–85, 110–18); Idestrom (2009: 489–510); Wong (2001: 78–119); Hurvitz (1982). Recent studies of the direction of literary dependence between the pentateuchal Priestly source and Ezekiel suggest a series of mutual dependences: see Ganzel and Kohn (2016: 1075–1084); Kopilovitz (2016: 1041–1054); Lyons (2016: 1055–1074); : 1015–1039).
15.
16.
17.
P’s deity, who receives human cultic service, incorporates royal characteristics as other ancient Near Eastern deities served in their temples. For the royal characteristics of the Priestly God, see Haran (1978: 248–254); Schipper and Stackert (2013: 458–478); : 147).
18.
Against Aster’s sharp distinction between P and Ezekiel regarding kəḇôḏ YHWH as a luminous object, see Sommer (2009: 222 n. 57) and : 122 and 122 n. 19).
19.
: 314–315) grants the visual similarity of kəḇôḏ YHWH to melammu in Ezekiel. He thinks Ezekiel’s kəḇôḏ YHWH is functionally similar to and visually different from P’s kəḇôḏ YHWH, whereas the relationship between Ezekiel’s kəḇôḏ YHWH and Mesopotamian melammu is exactly the opposite. Aster detects differences between P and Ezekiel in that Ezekiel offers a consistent description in its four instances of kəḇôḏ YHWH, whereas P leaves the divine form unspecified at times. Aster (2012: 275–78, esp. 277) once entertains the possibility of filling the gap by having recourse to narrative coherence when the form of kəḇôḏ YHWH is unspecified (Num. 14.10; 16.19; 20.6) but he does not mention it again. His focus throughout the discussion is predominantly on its function. This seems to have led him to underestimate the formal consistency of the Priestly kəḇôḏ YHWH by means of the coherent narrative.
20.
Grayson (1991: 197, [A.0.101.1 col.i, lines 56–58]). Also cited in : 93).
21.
Grayson (1991: 210–211 [A.0.101.1 col. ii, lines 113]). Also cited in , 90).
22.
Potentially, one may object that the response in Lev. 9.24 is different from the other cited texts because רנ׳׳ן in Lev. 9.24 is an expression of joy: see Milgrom (1991: 591); Rendtorff (2004: 301); Watts (2013: 502); Hieke (2014: 373). Yet רנ׳׳ן does not always imply joy (cf. Lam. 2.19). 1) The Israelites fear Moses’s facial radiance earlier in P (Exod. 34.29–35). 2) Falling on faces does not usually lead to joyful singing; this gesture is more one of homage in biblical and other cultures. Note that at least some ancient, medieval, and modern interpreters grasped that joy cannot be meant in Lev. 9.24. For instance, LXX translated רנ׳׳ן with ἐξίστηµι (to confuse, amaze) in 9.24, though it typically translates רנ׳׳ן with εὐφραίνω (to cheer) or ἀγαλλιάω (to exult) in other places. Ibn Ezra interpreted this word in 9.24 in light of the nominal form רנה in 1 Kgs 22.36, as “a shout” without the implication of joy: see Cohen (1992: 57). See also the understanding of : 83): “Awestruck, the people fall on their faces and cry out.”
23.
24.
Translation from Lambert (2013: 54–55 [my parentheses and underline in line 68; his parenthesis in line 67]). Cf. : 35). The original owner of the melammu is to be Apšu rather than Mummu (See CAD, 4:29 pace CAD, 18:19). It should be noted that the description of melammu here is not merely poetic or metaphorical in this story world. Readers should not confuse the story world and their real world.
25.
Cf. Podella (1996: 264–265); : 129–30).
27.
See Exod. 28.33, 34; 39.24, 25, 26; Isa. 6.1 (Roberts, 2015: 94).
28.
29.
For the Isaiah Targum, see Chilton, 1983: 69–77. For LXX, see Brockington, 1951: 28; Troxel, 2008: 129–130; Roberts, 2015: 89; Williamson, 2018: 15. These renderings are certainly theological. And yet, “sitting/residing (κάθηµαι/שׁר׳׳י),” “throne (θρόνος/כורסיה),” and “palace (οἶκος/היכל)” are still anthropomorphic as well as royal. How effective are their renderings of “skirts” with “glory” if they really meant to avoid anthropomorphism?
30.
Rendtorff (2004: 22); Hieke (2014: 156–58); Schwartz (2014: 196); and : 176–77).
32.
Or the appearance of kəḇôḏ YHWH implies the presence of the deity himself anyway.
33.
Pardee (2003: 241–274, esp. 249 nn. 59, 61); Bordreuil, and Pardee (2009: 163); : 342–343). Cf. KTU 1:2 IV:12, 19.
34.
Hundley (2011: 43). Pace : 72–73). Sommer’s most important textual cases for “body” are heavily dependent on the interchangeability between kəḇôḏ YHWH and YHWH. Sommer seems to admit the possibility that kāḇôḏ may be interpreted as “a divine attribute or an accompaniment to divine revelation . . . as the melammu or namrirrū” in Akkadian literature and likewise in some Jewish traditions. He immediately rejects the option, however, as he assumes that this line of reasoning cannot explain the interchangeability and is concerned about its tendency to deny the anthropomorphic deity. His concern, though unnecessary, is understandable in light of previous scholarship. On his concern, see Sommer (2009: 227 n. 83).
35.
37.
For the source division of Num. 16, see Baden (2012: 149–168). According to Knohl (1995: 73–85) and Stackert (2007: 191–98, esp. 191 n. 58), Num. 16.19 and 16.35 belong to the two distinct Priestly layers (whether either or both belong to H is debatable). Nonetheless, the two Priestly layers were combined into a single story in the pentateuchal Priestly source, as Baden shows, and Num. 16.35 became the punishment report continuing Num. 16.19–24, 26–27a during the redactional process. Milgrom’s comparison of Lev. 10.1–2 and Num. 16.18, 35a implies such an understanding (Milgrom, 1991: 599–600).
38.
Cf. Morgenstern (1911: 142); Milgrom (1990: 70–71, 374); Fox (2014: 288–289). These scholars note the close connection between the fire and the cloud. They go further to argue that this fiery phenomenon in the cloud is actually the divine kāḇôḏ. This may support my view of kəḇôḏ YHWH as a divine garment. The deity may put off his kāḇôḏ in the cloud over the Tent of Meeting, while the deity does not appear with kəḇôḏ YHWH in the holy of holies (see below). If this is right, there is no need to posit two sorts of fire in P. That said, I hesitate to accept this view because the fire in the cloud is neither designated as kāḇôḏ by the narrator nor described to be emanating from it pace Mettinger (1982: 89); : 45–46).
39.
Even if they are not interchangeable, the fire presumably comes out of kəḇôḏ YHWH, as the appearance of YHWH in Lev. 9.23–24 and Num. 16.35 (cf. Num. 16.19) is with kəḇôḏ YHWH.
40.
Or it can be a metonymic designation for the event of God’s manifestation with his kāḇôḏ. Remember the translators of LXX and the Isaiah Targum considered the deity’s “skirts” in the same way.
41.
In spite of the modern chapter division between Lev. 9.24 and 10.1, scholars generally approve their close relationship: among others, Schwartz (2014: 213, 215); Milgrom (1991: 596); Levine (1989: 58); Watts (2013: 504–511); Nihan (2007: 576–607); Noth (1965: 83); : 67–108). Nihan and Noth hold that Lev. 10 was from a later hand and the coherence originated in Lev. 10’s presupposition of the previous Priestly traditions. Against Nihan, see Watts (2013: 510–511) and Feldman (2020: 104–105 n. 88).
42.
Hundley (2015: 37–38) and Morgenstern (1911: 144) also observe the fire-like substance of kəḇôḏ YHWH. : 70–71) argues for the same entity, though he discusses the divine body (not the garment) and does not want to call it matter.
43.
The pentateuchal Priestly source as a historical narrative is well presented by Chavel (2014) and .
44.
A parallel might be found in Gen. 34.20. The verse suggests that Hamor and Shechem did not enter the gate of their city but came to the gate, the public/official place (ויבא חמור ושׁכם בנו אל שׁער עירם), where the leaders of the city were present; Hamor and Shechem had been already in the city in the story. Likewise, “the entrance of the Tent of Meeting (פתח אהל מועד)” is a public place where the Israelites gather and see kəḇôḏ YHWH in the story. The situation in Num. 20.6–8 corresponds well to that in Num. 16.19–20. While appearing to the public, God can speak to Moses and Aaron privately. (Yet both Num. 16.19–20 and 20.6–8 do not tell us about whether or not the other Israelites heard the same divine voice that Moses and Aaron heard.)
45.
46.
See further Westermann (1970: 227–249); : 483, 631 nn. 120–121).
47.
On the assumption that the Tent of Meeting (אהל מועד) refers here to the main tent consisting of the two rooms. But this is not the only possibility. See below.
48.
See the relevant apparatus in BHS, 237. If it did not appear in the Vorlage, the plus could have come from the translator to clear up the difficulty.
49.
The exact location of the cloud relative to the Tent of Meeting is somewhat ambiguous. For the possible meanings and usages of the preposition על (e.g., “on,” “near,” “next”), see Waltke and O’Connor (1990: 216–218, §11.2.13); : 460–461, §133f).
50.
51.
As noted above, Num. 14.21 is not P, though the text is intertwined with the P text.
52.
Some scholars assume kəḇôḏ YHWH to be present in the holy of holies. For example, because Morgenstern (1911: 143–244), Sommer (2009: 72, 74), and Mettinger (1982: 89) (and probably Hundley, 2011: 44, but with 45) regard kəḇôḏ YHWH as inseparable from YHWH, whether it is his body or himself, they naturally understand it is kəḇôḏ YHWH that resides in the holy of holies. But if kəḇôḏ YHWH is a garment that can be taken off, YHWH’s permanent presence inside the holy of holies does not require kəḇôḏ YHWH to always be worn.
53.
This is understandable, as the narrative claims that the holy of holies is the most restricted area.
54.
In this case, only Moses could privately see kəḇôḏ YHWH in the holy of holies; the high priest was not allowed to see the deity (Lev. 16.2, 13). If so, the function of kəḇôḏ YHWH might be better termed as “official” because the oracular meeting of YHWH and Moses in the Tent of Meeting is considered official. That said, it is not mentioned in the text that Moses met kəḇôḏ YHWH in the holy of holies.
55.
A famous understanding of the Priestly cult as “the sanctuary of silence,” offers potential support for this point. The text never explicitly commands that the sanctuary should be silent, however, near absence of verbal rituals in the Tent of Meeting indicates the silence in P’s sanctuary, as Kaufmann, (1960: 303–304) and : 148–152) observed. The narrative’s cultic instructions are the literary means by which the pentateuchal Priestly source unfolds its idea (i.e., theology) indirectly, as in other sophisticated narratives.
56.
Cf. Jenson (1992); : 351–364).
58.
Cf. Jenson (1992); : 351–364).