010
The JPS Torah Commentary
Genesis, Nahum M. Sarna
Exodus, Nahum M. Sarna
Leviticus, Baruch A. Levine
Numbers, Jacob Milgrom
(Philadelphia, New York, Jerusalem: Jewish Publication society, 1989–1990)
A rewarding experience awaits readers of the new JPS Torah commentary. As in the earlier JPS translation of the Torah (now included in the full rendition of the Holy Scriptures, the Tanakh [Philadelphia, 1988]), extensive use is made of the rich store of traditional Jewish learning, alongside the expected reference to the advances of modern scholarship. And though the intended audience is expressly Jewish readers, with denominational concerns treated in a number of excursuses, a general audience will also find much of interest in these four, handsomely produced volumes. (The fifth volume, Deuteronomy, is nearing completion.)
Happily, a uniformity of approach on questions of tradition and biblical criticism was not imposed on the authors; each was free to pursue his own course. Nahum Sarna, editor of the series and author of the commentary volumes on Genesis and Exodus, in describing this liberal presentation of contemporary Jewish biblical scholarship, invokes the rabbinic aphorism: “Just as a hammer shatters the rock [Jeremiah 23:29] and generates numerous splinters, so may a single verse yield a multiplicity of meanings” (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 34a). Yet, true as it may be that the Sages could countenance discord as to the interpretation of a particular verse, this should not be taken to mean that they were divided over the doctrine of a revealed Torah delivered by Moses at Mt. Sinai. The JPS commentators, unlike their rabbinic mentors, are far from united.
Sarna takes the most conservative position of the lot; he states at the outset that he will treat the text as a “completed edifice” and not engage in a “coroner’s approach, that is, on dissecting a literary corpse” (Genesis, p. xviii). Yet Sarna is a careful reader and is fully conversant with the critical issues (as his Understanding Genesis [New York, 1966] had already shown us); and at times, he cannot escape the evidence he himself musters. So, for example, in connection with God’s instructions to Abraham regarding circumcision (Genesis 17:9–14), Sarna observes that the evidence “proves that the [entire passage was] added to the original when the legal extract [concerning the laws or circumcision] was incorporated into our narrative” (Genesis, p. 125). But more typical of Sarna’s approach is the handling of the doublets (repeated passages that modern critical commentators often attribute to different authorial strands) identified in the Flood narrative; the evidence is noted, but left untreated (Genesis, p. 49). Again and again, this reviewer wanted to ask the commentator: “Just how do you reconstruct the process by which the text achieved its present shape?”
Levine (Leviticus) and Milgrom (Numbers), though both deal with materials derived from priestly circles, are worlds apart. Levine follows what he terms a “realistic” approach, seeking to discover the particular period in biblical history when “the priests offered sacrifices” or “presided over purifications like those prescribed in” Leviticus (p. xxi). He calls upon comparative evidence from ancient Near Eastern cultures and inner biblical statements in his attempt at reconstructing that real world. The late E. A. Speiser, who pointed to both early and late materials in Leviticus, is favorably cited; yet in the end, Levine opts for the position that “Leviticus would seem to reflect the life situation of the Judean populace in the early postexilic period” (Leviticus, p. xxxiii).
Milgrom, on the other hand—in the most comprehensive of the commentaries under review—basing himself in part on a study of the technical terminology of the Priestly documents (for example, ‘edah, nasi’, matteh and ‘elef), concludes “that the priestly account of the wilderness sojourn has faithfully preserved a host of institutions that accurately reflect the social and political realities of Israel’s premonarchic age [12th–10th centuries B.C.E.]” (Numbers, p. 336).
On almost every page of these commentaries, alternate renditions of the JPS Bible translation are suggested; this is particularly true in Leviticus and Numbers, where Levine and Milgrom attempt to highlight the technical nature of the cultic terminology of the Priestly Code. Like Jonah Ibn Janah in his day (early 11th century C.E.), all three authors press the comparative philological approach into good service, with Akkadian and Ugaritic as the touchstone Semitic languages. It is only natural that a reader will not agree with every comment or translation. For example, Hebrew taµhasû (Numbers 4:6), used in making the tent covering the tabernacle, is not likely to have been “dolphin” skins, hard to come by in the Sinai desert, but rather “dyed goat/sheep leather” (cf. Akkadian dusuÆ/tuhÉuÆ [see note to Exodus 25:5]).
But to focus upon such disagreements or to try to quantify them would be 011quibbling and would miss the obvious effort expended by all of the authors. To rephrase the Sages: Study the text again and again with the aid of this commentary; there is much in it.
