In Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (New York: Oxford, 1988), Michael Fishbane presents a traditum-traditio model, in which a biblical author interprets an authoritative traditum.
I have problems with blowing this idea off completely, since there are times when a biblical author attempts to clarify a law or concept. When I get motivated, I'll do a post on this, since it will be important in my evaluation of Fishbane's thesis.
Right now, I want to list one issue I have with it. I just don't think that the traditum was universally authoritative in Israel. And even Fishbane admits that, either intentionally or unintentionally.
Fishbane acknowledges that there was a lot of post-exilic dispute on key issues. Should certain Gentiles be allowed into Israel's community? Isaiah 56 says yes. Nehemiah 13:1 says no. And Nehemiah 13:1 bases its objection on a traditum, Deuteronomy 23:3-4: "No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD, because they did not meet you with food and water on your journey out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam son of Beor, from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you" (NRSV).
Who is allowed to be a priest? Can just anybody serve as one, or must he be a Levite or (even better) a descendant of Aaron? The Ezra party was concerned about priestly lineage. Ezra 2:62-63 states regarding certain "priests":
"These looked for their entries in the genealogical records, but they were not found there, and so they were excluded from the priesthood as unclean;
the governor told them that they were not to partake of the most holy food, until there should be a priest to consult Urim and Thummim."
And Ezekiel likewise has a restrictive view of the priesthood, limiting certain responsibilities to the house of Zadok (Ezekiel 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11).
We also encounter priestly exclusivism in the Pentateuch:
Numbers 18:1-5: "The LORD said to Aaron: You and your sons and your ancestral house with you shall bear responsibility for offenses connected with the sanctuary, while you and your sons alone shall bear responsibility for offenses connected with the priesthood. So bring with you also your brothers of the tribe of Levi, your ancestral tribe, in order that they may be joined to you, and serve you while you and your sons with you are in front of the tent of the covenant. They shall perform duties for you and for the whole tent. But they must not approach either the utensils of the sanctuary or the altar, otherwise both they and you will die. They are attached to you in order to perform the duties of the tent of meeting, for all the service of the tent; no outsider shall approach you. You yourselves shall perform the duties of the sanctuary and the duties of the altar, so that wrath may never again come upon the Israelites."
According to this passage, the Levites' role was to protect the sanctuary from the non-Aaronides.
But Isaiah 66:20-21 seems to have a more open view on who can be a priest:
"They shall bring all your kindred from all the nations as an offering to the LORD, on horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and on mules, and on dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the LORD, just as the Israelites bring a grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the LORD. And I will also take some of them as priests and as Levites, says the LORD."
Whether the new Levites are from the Gentles or the Israelites, Isaiah 66 isn't exactly picky about qualifications. And Fishbane interprets Isaiah 61:9 and 65:23 in a similar fashion: that all Israelites will be priests (123).
Here's my problem with Fishbane: When I look at such disputes, my impression is that one side accepted the traditum as authoritative, whereas the other side did not. Those who thought that all foreigners and eunuchs should worship at God's temple (Isaiah 56) were disagreeing with Deuteronomy 23. Those who believed that all Israelites should be priests were contradicting the Pentateuch.
But Fishbane presents the different ideas as contrasts in exegesis, which implies that both sides regarded the traditum as authoritative. He states that "the linchpin of these disputes was the rival claims to inherit and interpret the pre-exilic Torah traditions" (123). He says that Isaiah 56 is presented as a new revelation, but one that is "remarkably transforming the ancient Pentateuchal revelations and regulations" (128). Transforming? How about rejecting? How authoritative is this traditum, when people can feel free to reject it?
I'll be asking that question in quite a few posts!
Relevant Fishbane pages: 118, 123, 268, 271.