Special Issue IOSOT 2013 - Books and Journals

54 S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76
מגרש .4
The basic meaning of מגרש is presumably “pasture land”, a place of cattle
מגרשי הערים driving.97 are the untilled grounds surrounding the cities which
were used as pasture lands.98
In most of its occurrences in the O.T. מגרש is connected with the Levites,
i.e., in the explicit commandment to give the Levites cities with their pasture
lands (Num. xxxv 2ff.) in the law concerning the redemption of lands (Lev. xxv
32-34) and in the list of the Levitical cities ( Jos. xxi 3ff.).99
In Chr. the word is used in several ways:
a) In its basic meaning as pasture land: 1 Chr. v. 16;
b) To denote the pasture lands which surround the Levitical cities: 1 Chr. vi
54ff. (39ff.)100 which is a doublet of the list of the Levitical cities, in Jos. xxi 3ff.101
97) Cf. KBL, p. 494.
98) Cf. Num. xxxv 1-3: “The cities shall be theirs to dwell in and their pasture lands shall be for
their cattle and for their livestock and for all their beasts”.
99) In addition to these and the verses in Chr. the word מגרש is mentioned also in Ez. xlv 2, xlviii
15, 17, Jos. xiv 4.
100) M. Noth regards the list in 1 Chr. vi 54ff. as post-chronistic. His argument is that its geographical
content is not in harmony with the other lists (op. cit., p. 120). Rudolph agrees with
Noth, but differs in his reasons. To him the list cannot be chronistic as “the sons of Aaron” are
preferred to the Levites (Rudolph, Chronikbücher, p. 61). The assumption itself is not proved
since it is difficult to see how the list prefers the priests to the Levites. But even so, it should
be said that the considerations are rather general, and do not take into account the peculiar
signs of the Chr.’s work. A comparison of all the verses in which the cities of priests and Levites
are mentioned reveals that they all belong together and are composed of consistent groups
of words and terms. On the other hand, each of them is related to its context. For example:
1 Chr. xiii 2 is dependent directly upon the list in 1 Chr. vi 54ff. This causes Rudolph to doubt
its originality (op. cit., p. 110). But is it possible, if we view the matter from the Chr.’s standpoint,
that the priests and Levites were not invited to the ceremony of bringing the ark to Jerusalem?
And further: 2 Chr. xi :13 והלויים אשר בכל ישראל התיצבו עליו מכל גבולם ‏”והכהנים is dependent
on the list too, as the phrase גבולם is found only in this list and nowhere else in Chr. (1 Chr.
vi 54 (39), 66 (51)) and is also absent from the list in Jos. xxi. Should we regard this verse too
as secondary? Rudolph does not. There is no doubt that the list in 1 Chr. vi 54 (39ff.) was not
composed by the Chr. but it was incorporated in the book by the Chr. himself who gave it some
touches of his own, but did not thoroughly rework it.
101) A summation of the different views regarding the origin of this list and its relation to the parallel
list in Jos. xxi is given by B. Mazar: “The Levitical and Priestly Cities” (Hebrew), Encyclopedia
Biblica (Hebrew) IV, p. 476ff.