Aaron's Sons - Nadab and Abihu

7/31/2019 Aaron's Sons - Nadab and Abihu

1/18

[JSOT 96(2001) 83-99]ISSN 0309-0892

NADAB AND A B I H U ATTEMPT TO FILL A GAP:

LAW AND NARRATIVE IN LEVITICUS 10.1-7

Bryan D. Bibb

Department of Religion, Furman University,Greenville, SC 29613, USA

The sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu took each one his censer and put firem it And they placed incense upon it, and brought near before Yahweh

strange fire that he had not commanded them Then there came out fire frombefore Yahweh and it consumed them Thus they died before Yahweh AndMoses said to Aaron, 'This is about which Yahweh spoke, saying, "In mynear ones I will be sanctified And in the presence of all the people I will beglorified " ' But Aaron was silent So Moses called unto Mishael and Elza-phan, sons of Uzziel, uncle of Aaron, and he said to them, 'Go near, lift upand take your brothers from before the holy place to the area outside thecamp' And they went near, lifted them up in their tunics, and took them tothe area outside the camp as Moses had ordered And Moses said to Aaronand to Eleazar and Ithamar, his sons, 'Do not dishevel your heads, and donot rend your garments so that you will not die nor upon all the congregationwill anger strike And your kinsmen, all the house of Israel, they will be theones to mourn the burning that Yahweh has ignited But from the door ofthe tent of meeting, do not go out, lest you die since the oil of the anointingof Yahweh is upon you ' And they did according to the word of Moses(Lev 10 1-7)

The brief story of Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10.1-7 is an enigmaticpassage in the midst of long almost pedantic lists of cultic procedures and


2/18

84 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament96 (2001)

of Aaron and his sons, and forces Moses to take emergency measures tocontain the trouble. The thesis of this article is that this story exposes our

need to fill in gaps of understanding, and reveals the inherent fragility ofour attempts to do so. The genres of law and narrative interact in a desperate effort to resolve the fundamental ambiguity of one's situationbefore 'the holy'.

The events in this story occur during the highest moment for the cult,the best chance that they will ever have for getting things just right. Theyhave Moses present for careful instruction. The people are all looking onwith anticipation and wonder, not wandering off to follow the other gods

with their pagan rituals. The golden calf incident is like the fading memory of a bad dream, and they have the highest hopes of making a cleanstart.1 Nadab and Abihu, however, step right into the consuming fire ofYahweh, sending Moses' carefully laid plans into a tailspin. The swift andmysterious destruction of these two leading priests, eldest sons of Aaronno less, strike fear into the hearts of the remaining priests, and no doubtdread into the minds of the congregation. Since that initial moment of

burning, observers of the scene have attempted to understand the fieryexecution of these two men. The characters in the story, as well as the restofus, have a stake in filling in the gaps and resolving the ambiguities thatthe text leaves open. Despite our best attempts to smooth over these difficulties, the seeds of fear and doubt have already been sown. This storydoes not merely have gaps that need to be filled; this story is itselfaboutgap-filling and its attendant danger and frustration. Let us turn now to thetext.

Presence and Absence

In the beginning of the story, Nadab and Abihu each take a censer andplace in it hot coals from a fire,2 put incense over the coals, and bring itinto the presence of Yahweh. From the beginning of the story, the keymovement ofthe action is toward the 7]}7]^ ^S. The presence of God is

the chief problem and complicating factor in the narrative. The initialcharacters are motivated by their desire to be in the presence of God, and


3/18

BIBB Nadab and Abihu Attempt to Fill a Gap 85

from the beginning we may wonder if they will be successful We do nothave any real reason to worry, however, because they have just experi

enced a powerful ceremony of installation They are freshly minted, so tospeak, and are beginning their new phase of service in the sanctuary ofYahweh

The first major gap concerns their underlying reason for taking incenseinto the presence of Yahweh Sweet smelling incense was offered by thepriests twice daily on the inner altar (Exod 30), and once each year by thehigh priest as part ofthe Day of Atonement ritual (Lev 16)3 We do notknow at this point what relationship Nadab and Abihu's incense bears tothese particular incense offerings The text does not explicitly link theircensing with any prescribed activity involving incense, but at the beginning we have no real reason to feel uneasy with this gap The details ofthe narrative seem innocuous enough the two highest-ranking officials ofthe cult, after Moses and Aaron, are taking some incense and offering itbefore the Lord We do not know what particular kind of incense they areoffering The terms used in the other passages give more detail m o p

nQD ('perfumed incense') m Exod 30 7, and Hpl CD m o p ('finelyground perfumed incense') in Lev 16 12 However, the basic noun here isthe same m p Therefore, there is no reason to assume that this is somespecial concoction of Nadab and Abihu's own invention, or that they areengaging in any particularly offensive activity

After the initial statements, however, our suspicions are suddenlyraised What is UN? What kind of fire could be called strange^There

have been several attempts to identify the 'strange' qualityofthefire,allofthem indicating that Nadab and Abihu willfullyviolated a ritual con

vention4

A list ofthe major theories will suffice to demonstrate the diffi

cultyofknowing the exact nature ofthis phrase They mayhave offered at

the wrong time ofday, orfrom the wrong motives, orm an over-zealousmannerbecause ofthe shouts ofthe people Maybe theyused the wrongprocedure by not purifying themselves properly, bydaring to enterthe

3 See the discussion in Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, pp 597-98


4/18


adytum, or by taking fire from a profane source Perhaps they were bringing foreign incense used in pagan cults, or maybe they were not even

priests at all1

It has also been suggested that this story should be understood in connection with the sin of Aaron with the golden calf (Exod 32),as a counterpart to the rebellion of Korah (Num 16), or a cipher for thesin and punishment of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 1415)5 The rabbis prove themselves superior in cleverness and creativity, as usual, by proposing a senesof possible readings 6 In addition to prefiguring later interpretations, theysuggest that the priests officiated while drunk, neglected to consult witheach other or with Moses, did not wear the right garments, were childless,wanted to usurp Moses and Aaron, looked boldly at the divine presence,or thought arrogantly that no women were equal to their status 7

Jacob Milgrom argues that the primary problem is that the priests areoffering private incense 8 He puts much weight on small textual clues thatpoint to differences between this practice and the official incense offerings He points out that each one takes his censer, which can be interpretedto mean that the censers belong to the men themselves, and are therefore

part of individual religious practices rather than the official cult Also, thetwo priests take fire (that is, hot coals) and put it in the pans They do not,however, take from the fire that was always burning upon the altar Furthermore, the incense is not described as the sweet smelling variety usedm the official rites, so therefore the mixture is their own special recipe andnot the incense intended for official purposes Therefore, the key to the'strangeness' of the fire is that the priests are not operating within the offi

cial parameters of the cultic apparatus, and therefore their sin rests in theiruse of 'unauthorized coals'9 They use the coals from a fire source other

5 See David Damrosch, 'Leviticus', in R Alter and F Kermode (eds ), TheLiterary Guide to the Bible (Cambridge, MA Harvard University Press, 1987), pp 66-77, ErhardS Gerstenberger, Leviticus A Commentary (trans D W Stott, OTL, Louisville, KY John Knox Press, 1996), pp 116-22

6 See Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, pp 633-35, Kirschner, 'The Rabbinic and Philo-nic Exegesis', pp 380-85


5/18

BIBB Nadab andAbihu Attempt to Filla Gap 87

than the one on the outeraltar, therefore one that was 'profane' ratherthan

'holy'

This interpretation of 'strange fire' certainly has its merits However,the facts in the story do not provide an unassailable basis for his reading

Much of his argument rests on precise expectations for the way that the

language oughtto appear but does not For example, the assumption is

that if the incense were really the proper kind, then the text would cer

tainly use the full name for it Further, ifthe two priests each take his pan,

then that must mean that the pans belong to them personally Finally, it

does not say that they take coals from the fire, so therefore the fire was

from some illegitimate source The fact that Milgrom must rely on evi

dence that is not there to explain the single clue that is there () illu

strates most clearly that the gap resists closure Milgrom's interpretation

seems plausible, but its chief assumption is that Nadab and Abihu are

stupid Theywillfully transgress their explicit instructions about how to

perform censing although they have witnessed the consuming power of

Yahweh's presence (ch 9) The problem is that the text is not so clear in

saying that Nadab and Abihu are willfulabout any sinful thing, or thatthey know ofa prohibition that they are transgressing

While the 'strange fire' leaves us wondering so many things about these

priests and their activity, this enigmatic phrase maybe made clearer bythe

explanatory phrase that follows tob , 'which he had not

commanded them' This phrase, though, is not itselfveryeasy to deci

pher10

Who is doing the commanding? Who is receiving the command?

Finally, what is implied here, a certain kind ofcommand orthe absence ofa command? Most commentators have assumed that there existed a spe

cific command that Nadab and Abihu violate by bringing their incense

offering The text explicitly says, however, that there is no command

particularly relevant to this incense offering They perform something that

he had notcommandedthem This is quite different from other formula

tions that describe disobedience, such as Lev 26 14-16, which says, 'If

you will not obeyme, and do not observe all these commandments bD

bXn ) I will bring terror on you' The reference m eh 26 is to

specific commandments that are willfully broken The language m ch 10


6/18

88 Journalfor the Study of the Old Testament 96 (2001)

is quite different The priests are operating in a realm in which no com

mand ofGod is pertinent This is a fact ignored by manycommentators in

theirsearch for the hidden crime that merits this swift punishmentThe recipient of the 1 *b could be the priests m general or the two

priests here in particular This choice does in fact make a difference in ourinterpretation IfNadab and Abihu are the specific recipients of the non-command then the source must be Moses, since we do not find Yahwehspeaking directly to any of the priests under Moses and Aaron {1 IfMosesis the source of the non-commandment then the issue is one ofrebellionagainst Mosaic authority Moses, though, could be negligent at times (see,e g , 16) and so we should not immediately blame the priests involvedFurther, if it were a matter of usurping Moses' prerogative to administrate

the sacrifices, this still does not provide an explanation for the events to

follow Alternatively, the priests as a group could be the recipients ofthe

command, which would probably make Yahweh the lawgiver In this

reading, there is no command that specifically authorizes or prohibits the

priests' incense offering here How could Yahweh hold the priests respon

sible for transgressing a law that he had not yet given them?The real problem for Nadab and Abihu is the absence of Yahweh's

word or command The priests prepare their incense offering and bring it

nearp i p ) unto Yahweh The text gives us no indication that they knew

theirincense to be inherently wrong, but the narratordoes tell us two facts

about the offering First, the offering uses strange fire, which seems to

have an indeterminate meaning Second, they bring an offering that Yah

weh has not explicitly commanded Therefore the priests are living withina gap In the absence of Yahweh's word they seek his presence, but the

narratorhas alerted us that they are acting withm a lacuna in the legisla

tion There is no explicit prohibition of this activity For the priests (and

others working withm gaps) is this comforting or threatening7

In the next verse (v 2) we see that the priests do in fact encounter the

presence of Yahweh However, instead of experiencing Yahweh's D^S,

they only feel the presence as an E?N coming forth from the Dn]S The lan

guage m vv 1 and 2 reveal the irony regarding what they seek and what

they actually find In the absence of Yahweh they bring 1n3S^


7/18


forth from Yahweh and consumes 'them', the same 'them' that Yahweh

has previously notcommanded. Therefore, God has been the subject of

only two verbs, one of which seems particularly appropriate within thepriestly worldview and one that does not. Yahweh consumes (literally,

'eats') the two priests just as the fire had consumed the offering in 9.24.

The difference, however, is crucial. Instead of consuming bun, the fire

consumes DDIN. The destruction by Yahweh ofthe two ranking priests is

even starker, however, in light of the only other action by Yahweh so

farnot commanding (v. 1). This action is more like a non-action than a

particular activity. The absence of Yahweh is heightened in the text, which

speaks without a specific nominal agent for the verb (). The Greek

provides the noun, KUpios, which clears up the ambiguity but also makes

Yahweh present here in a waythat he is not in the Hebrew text. Milgrom,

similarly, restores the Tetragrammaton as the subject ofthis verb.12

The

LXX and Milgrom both bring the presence of Yahweh into the text where

he is absent. Nadab and Abihu themselves finally face the presence of

Yahweh. They bring offering before Yahweh (*nDS^) and, encoun

tering the presence in the form of fire, they die before Yahweh (OS1

?mm).

There are gaps in the story, and when we pay close attention to these

gaps by refusing to close it quickly oreasilywe discover that theyexist

forNadab and Abihu themselves. The priests are not violating a specific

commandment set forth by Yahweh. In fact, theyare living within the gap,

searching forthe presence of Yahweh, stumbling blindlyin the dark. They

discover unfortunately that they are not prepared to find what they seek.

Dangerous Sanctification

After these events, we move to the center ofthe passage. Previously, the

command of God was absent and this led to grave consequences. Now

Yahweh speaks through Moses and seemingly provides an explanation for

the events that have just occurred. Moses' introduction to the speech

supposedly tells the reader how the speech is responding to the events that

have just transpired Moses says m m " It is not clear


8/18


when he spoke? Did Yahweh ever speak such words in the past at somepoint? The words are not a quote of any divine speech that we have in the

text Or as some rabbis and Milgrom have suggested, perhaps Moses isgiving a new word of Yahweh for this immediate situation 13 If this is thecase, the command of Yahweh that he had notgiven before is now implied in these new words spoken through Moses The presence of Yahwehthat had eluded and then consumed the priests now appears, speakingwords through Moses But what kind of words are they?

Yahweh says that through (in or by) his CPinp, he will KTfpK The firstword means that he will use the ones who are near to him According toMilgrom, this term is a permanent title for priests who may approach thepresence of Yahweh directly It has an analogous meaning in Akkadian asa privileged member ofa royal court14 In this case, the speech refers tothe priestly class However, we have very recently encountered two priestsbringing near (Dlp) their offering before Yahweh Thus, the words havesomething to do with the specific actions and punishment of Nadab andAbihu The niphal verb of ETfp may mean either that Yahweh will be

sanctified or that Yahweh will sanctify himself There is much at stake inthe choice of meanings here, particularly with reference to the role of thepeople in sanctifying God 15 In either case, however, the deaths of Nadaband Abihu serve the larger purpose of sanctifying Yahweh It seems thatthe deaths of these two priests have not been in vain after all By callingattention to the swift way that Yahweh responds to any violation of hissanctity, they have actually participated in the sanctification of Yahweh

In the second part of his speech, Yahweh says, 'before all the people, Iwill be glorified (""DDK)' There are similar problems with the passiveform of this verb, but the structures are in parallel, so the meaning here isclosely related to that of the first What is different here is the mention ofthe people They are the onlookers who have witnessed these activities(cf 9 24), and in some way they have witnessed the glorification ofYahweh The principle at stake here, whatever it may be, does not concernonly the priests but also has implications for the people and how they

view Yahweh It seems that the public nature of the glorification helps toexplain the sanctification m the first part of the doublet Milgrom says,


9/18


'The deaths of God's intimate priests, Nadab and Abihu, perform the

function of sanctifying Godproviding awe and respect for his power to

all who witness the incident or who will subsequently learn ofit'

16

Thesanctification and glorification of Yahweh has something to do with Yah

weh's status among the people17

In any event, Moses presents this speech of Yahweh as some sort of

explanation of the preceding events, but it comes across mainly as a

double threat Both the near-ones and the whole people stand in the same

tenuous situation that Nadab and Abihu confront Because there are gaps

in their comprehension of 'the holy', they must reckon with the fate of

Nadab and Abihu as a possible outcome In this speech the presence of

Yahweh comes to Aaron, but it is not a comforting word It helps very

little in rationalizing the events that have happened, but onlysows further

seeds ofdoubt In the face ofthis, Aaron is silent

Therefore, the speech by Yahweh does not close any ofthe gaps m the

story We could say that Nadab and Abihu are destroyed because they

violate the rules ofGod's holiness That is certainlytrue The problem is,

however, that we do not know what all of those rules are Nadab andAbihu offer their incense and are killed, while the only tangible reason is

that Yahweh had not commanded them to do so There is always the threat

of making some inadvertent transgression ofthe holiness of Yahweh, and

then one may or may not be spared The severity ofthe mishap does not

seem to correlate with the degree ofpunishment18

As the priest approaches

the daunting task of attending to the sanctuary, gaps and ambiguities

threaten to unravel the whole enterprise After this speech the presence ofYahweh recedes from the story, and Moses steps into the primary role

16 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 602 He points out an interesting parallel m Ezek

28 2217 The references to the actual profanation of Yahweh m the Holiness Code point


10/18

92 Journalfor the Study of the Old Testament 96 (2001)

Fillingin the Gaps

The first thing that Moses must do is deal with the aftermath ofthe consuming fire. Like a political spin-doctor, he contains the situation and

creates a way that the evidence can be disposed of without bringing fur

therdestruction on the people. He calls forward two ofthe kinsmen ofthe

slain priests and directs them to put the evidence ofYahweh's consuming

fire outside the camp. They should banish all ofthe nagging remnants of

their encounter with the unknown, and thus bury their fear and doubts

with the pollution ofthe dead bodies.19

Moses tells the men, Mishael and

Elzaphan, to go near() and take up the remains of the slain priests.

AfterNadab and Abihu have brought their incense nearpHpH), and after

Yahweh has declared that he will be sanctified through his near-ones

(Dmp), this seems like an astonishing request. The events around Nadab

and Abihu call into question the safety of being one of Yahweh's near

ones. Yahweh has not explicitly commanded that this procedure should be

done in this way, although clearly it does need to be done. Yahweh has

receded from the narrative completely, and now only Moses speaks anddirects the priests. With the presence of Moses and his commands, are the

people safe?

The kinsmen muster up the courage to perform this task and they

fortunately escape harm themselves. It is interesting that there are still

remains to be removed because the narratortells us that the fire consumes

the priests. Even stranger is the notion that their tunics are still there.

There are so many details missing in this narrative, and it is rather

frustrating that the narrator chooses to tell us that they are buried with

theirtunics. Philo says that the tunics are still there because Nadab and

Abihu had taken them off before entering the sancta.20

The rabbis reasoned

19 This interpretation of the burial scene does not contradict the fact that burial

removes the impure bodies from the holy area Purity is certainly an issue m this acti

vity It is not the only issue, and perhaps not even the most important one There is noaccount here ofthe purification ofthe area after the bodies have been removed, a fact


11/18


that the fire had entered their bodies through the nose and consumed them

from the inside out, leaving their clothes. Milgrom has suggested that the

mention ofthe tunics reflects a professional disagreement about whether apriest's clothing maintains contagious holiness after contact with 'the

holy'.21

It is veryinteresting that interpreters feel that they must interpret

this detail fully. Here the ambiguity in the narrative works not through

omissions, but through the inclusion of an enigmatic note.

When Moses tells the men how to dispose ofthe bodily remains, it is

only the beginning ofa flurry of activity on his part. He proceeds to give

Aaron's sons some specific instructions about their need to refrain from

mourning. He also tells the Aaronic priests that they should not drink

while ministering, and that they should teach the people to separate the

clean and unclean, the holy and profane (vv. 8-11). He also gives instruc

tions about the ritual consumption of sacrifices (vv. 16-18), which has an

ominous tone after the previous events. It seems that the deaths of these

two priests have given new vigorto Moses the lawgiver. His instructions

continue beyond this chapterinto the next section ofthe book(chs. 11-15)

concerning the laws ofpurity. Chapter 16 about emergency purificationrituals comes as a direct result of the Nadab and Abihu incident (16.1).

Chapters 17-26 define more clearly the nature of Yahweh's ETTp. In the

narrative context ofthe book, the laws following this story are attempts by

Moses to fill in the gaps that still plague their understanding of how to

stand before 'the holy'. How does one guard oneself against a real pos

sibilityofconsumption when one is not sure what causes it? In the face of

ambiguity and fear of the unknown, Moses establishes a law code thatprovides security and protection from the dreadful presence of Yahweh.

However, the seeds of doubt have already been sown.

There have been many different attempts to provide a conceptual

understanding of 'the holy'. It could be the awe-inspiring, mysterium

tremendum (Otto), the dangerous force contained bythe cult (Douglas), or

the fundamental principles that order and give life to the community

(Durkheim).22

The law is often seen as an instrument that enables one to


12/18


approach 'the holy', and this is true to a large degree. This story of Nadaband Abihu, however, shows that underlying the cultic apparatus is a sense

of fear and doubt, with a nagging awareness of ambiguity and its dangers.These are the necessary precautions that one must use when 'the holy' isliving in a tent in the middle of camp. This story, moreover, reveals theweaknesses of this apparatus. The cult must account for the stupidity andsinfulness ofthe people and ofthe priests, but it also must live with thefear that its armor is not total. Most have seen the story of Nadab andAbihu as the story of willful disrespect of Yahweh. The message thenwould be that the system is sound, and sinful people get what they deserve: 'Beware, all you priestsfollow these instructions carefully andyou will be successful'. However, this version of events rings more likepropaganda than true explanation. The extent to which the act was willfuldisobedience is highly questionable. The real problem is with the systemitself. There are things that Yahweh has notcommanded, but sometimeswe have to fill in those gaps. Nadab and Abihu show that when we try tofill in the gaps of our protection against the 'holy', sometimes we expose

the chink in our armor.

Law and Narrative

This story is pertinent to the discussion of law and narrative at both literary and hermeneutical levels. On a literary level, the law in Leviticus canbe seen as the priests' attempt to come to terms with their fear and

apprehension about dealing with 'the holy'. The fear is not a general awesuch as that discussed by RudolfOtto. It is much more concrete. The fearis related to the holy God who has delivered them from slavery in Egyptand has revealed himself to the people on the mountain at Sinai. Theirapprehension is not before 'the holy', but rather before holy Yahweh. It isrooted in specific experiences where the people and priests come intodangerously close contact with Yahweh and realize the limits of their understanding. When the priests must minister in the presence of Yahweh, it

is very important that they have complete instructions about how toconduct themselves during that process Their instructions however can


13/18


the gaps as much as possible The flurry of activity on Moses' part at the

end ofch 10 as well as the law collections in the following sections func

tion as the rounding off of gaps in their preparation This rounding off,however, is never complete and always maintains a hypothetical charac

ter These are the provisions in certain circumstances, but one never

knows what additional circumstances may arise that will not be covered

within the system

The literary gap-filling does not function in only one direction After

the narrator has told us of the swift destruction of Nadab and Abihu,

Moses says, 'This is what Yahweh was talking about when he said ' The

narrative functions on a literarylevel as a piece of evidence that helps fill

in gaps in our understanding of the cultic law In his speech, Yahweh

reminds the people that the important thing is that he be sanctified and

glorified His speech does not make the story any easierto understand, but

it does cause the hearers and readers to contemplate the principles ofholi

ness at the root of the cultic system The deaths of Nadab and Abihu

function at a level deeper than our own understanding, and despite the

opacity of the events Yahweh reaffirms that there is a deep principle atwork here This is a somewhat different point from Edward Greenstein's

view that this passage asserts Yahweh's 'unpredictabilityand autonomy'23

He says that the cultic system 'reassures' that pollution can be purified,

and 'renders God normative and predictable' Through these inexplicable

actions, 'Yahweh breaks up the orderliness to show that he is above/be

yond the cultic order'2 4

I agree with the general insight that the cultic

ordercannot contain the sheer magnificence of Yahweh's transcendenceHowever, I disagree with his notion that the cultic system is a 'veneer'

intended to hide the 'inscrutable Other'2 5

First, the cultic participants are

more aware ofthe problem than Greenstem admits Indeed, the apparatus

is necessary and continues to grow because of their realization that the

system contains gaps that always leave them vulnerable to destruction

Second, the cultic system struggles with God's otherness while still af

firming that there is order within the seeming chaos Yahweh reminds the

people that the problem is not that there is no order in his divinity The

problem is that the limited understanding and ability of humans can only


14/18


15/18


Otherinterpreters use the legal codes to explain specific developments

in the narrative. Leviticus 10 is a perfect example of this tendency, since

almost every commentator has attempted to find the hermeneutical keywithin a certain legal standard that has been transgressed. Agrowing trend

in legal scholarship is to coordinate interpretive problems in the biblical

narratives with specific legal requirements. Joe Sprinkle, a prominent prac

titionerofthe literary study of law, has presented a paper that reads the

narrative of Jehoram's assault on Moab (2 Kgs 3) in light ofthe warlaws

in Deuteronomy 20.28

The assumption is that we are able to use the legal

material to fill in our gaps of information in problematic narratives.

On a hermeneutical level, this analysis has shown that both law and

narrative have unavoidable gaps and ambiguity, and this often poses seri

ous problems for interpretation. The hermeneutical process must be a

complex interaction among the different levels within the literature, never

a unilateral movement from one genre to the next. Furthermore, although

unique problems arise when working with each genre, both function with

the rules and limits of all communication. In the modern discussion, this

issue is a point of debate between Stanley Fish and Richard Posner.29

Pos-neris a legal scholarand judge who has spent some time reflecting on the

similarities and differences between law and literature as distinct genres

of literaryproduction. Although he concedes that there are some interest

ing areas of comparison, law and literature are fundamentally different

because legal language is (among other things) non-ambiguous, non-

rhetorical, scientific and neutral, while literature is the opposite of all of

these.

30

Fish counters that all language is rhetorical and ambiguous. Hesays, 'The difference between science and law, on the one hand, and liter

ary criticism, on the other, is not the difference between rhetoric (or style)

and something else, but between the different rhetorics that are powerful

in the precincts of different disciplines'.31

There are many implications of

28 Biblical Law Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, 1998 See

Sprinkle's literary reading of the Covenant Code in The Book of the Covenant ALiterary Approach (JSOTSup, 174, Sheffield JSOT Press, 1994)


16/18


this statement, but one is that neither the law nor the narrative provides anobjective foundation for interpreting difficult texts 32 When we uncover

the specific rhetorical devices that are operating within the texts (mclude-ng gaps and ambiguity), then we are in a better position to see how theymay interpret each other33

Conclusion

The story does not just have gaps It is aboutgaps and how we deal withthem In conclusion, this leads to some interesting conversation with thework of Meir Sternberg Sternberg says that ambiguity and gaps are standard features of all narratives 34 A clever reader will be able to discern theinterplay of ambiguous elements, but the ambiguity will not hinder thepath toward proper interpretation He says that the more opaque the plotis, the more transparent the judgment35 Readers can 'luxuriate' in the ambiguity of a passage,36 but the reader who misses it will still 'get thepoint'37 Sternberg has a high degree of confidence in the biblical nar

rator's ability to lead its readers to the proper conclusion 'The wilder theplay, m short, the wider the margin of safety '38

The point of Leviticus 10 is that even when there is incredible ambiguity, there is no margin of safety1 This story breaks through the easyassumption that understanding the narrative can be a simple, or even asafe, process The ambiguity in a story is not always constructive, but canbe destructive Nadab and Abihu learn the 'point' when they stumble right

through a gap, but they do not have any room to 'luxuriate' in the processThe point I wish to make is this understanding is difficult and meaning is

3 2 Another interesting issue is the question of ' scientific ' models for interpretationA model such as structuralism, historical criticism, or even deconstructionism, has explanatory power to the extent that its rhetoric is persuasive to the audience hearing theinterpretation

33 Christopher Smith uses the narrative sections of Leviticus to understand the

structure and movement of the book in his interesting article, 'The Literary Structure ofLeviticus', JSOT70 (1996), pp 17-32


17/18

BIBB Nadab and Abihu Attempt to Fill a Gap 99

elusive, but sometimes these matters are deathly serious. Nadab and Abihucannot simply ignore the gap created by the non-command of Yahweh.

Moses and the priests around him feel the acute need to sort out theseevents and to implement some way of dealing with the ambiguity that they

see. Finally, contemporary readers in politically charged situations do nothave the 'luxury' to enjoy the narrative play of a clever gap or ambiguity.

Filling in gaps is always necessary, never complete, and sometimes quitedangerous.

ABSTRACT

The narrative concerning Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10 contains many 'gaps' that

complicate the process of interpretation The story demonstrates that filling in gaps is

always necessary, never complete, and sometimes quite dangerous When one pays

close attention to the gaps by refusing to close them quickly or easily, it is revealed that

they exist for Nadab and Abihu themselves There are many things concerning which

God has made no command, but sometimes one must fill in these gaps This has impor

tant implications for the study of law and narrative The law functions as the priests'attempt to stand safely before 'the holy' In addition, the narrative fills gaps in the know

ledge of God's requirements, which is always provisional and limited


18/18

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Documents

Aaron's Sons - Nadab and Abihu