Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Priestly Code (in Hebrew Torat Kohanim, תורת כהנים) is the name given, by academia, [1] to the body of laws expressed in the Torah which do not form part of the Holiness Code, the Covenant Code, the Ritual Decalogue, or the Ethical Decalogue.
A linguistic study of the relationship between the Priestly source and the book of Ezekiel: a new approach to an old problem. Cahiers de la Révue Biblique. Vol. 20. Paris: J. Gabalda. Hurvitz, Avi (2000). "Once Again: The Linguistic Profile of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch and its Historical Age. A Response to J. Blenkinsopp".
Initially, the Holiness Code was considered part of the Priestly source by some scholars holding to the documentary hypothesis.However, other scholars generally believed it to have been an originally separate legal code (referred to as "H") which the Priestly source edited and chose to embed into their writing after. [3]
Then in the reign of Hezekiah, c.715–687 BCE, the Jerusalem priesthood produced a text which they saw as a replacement for JE, the theology of which was objectionable to their project of religious reform: this was the Priestly source, or P. Hezekiah's reform program failed, but was revived in the reign of his great-grandson Josiah, c. 640 ...
According to Joel Baden, "The Covenant Code is a part of E; the priestly laws [of Leviticus and Numbers] are part of P; and the deuteronomic laws [of Deuteronomy 12–26] stand at the center of D." [3] Regardless of precise positions on the process, scholars agree that the Covenant Code was produced by a long process in which it changed over ...
The ritual instructions in the Priestly code apparently grew from priests giving instruction and answering questions about ritual matters; the Holiness code (or H) used to be a separate document, later becoming part of Leviticus, but it seems better to think of the Holiness authors as editors who worked with the Priestly code and actually ...
The remainder is called collectively non-Priestly, a grouping which includes both pre-Priestly and post-Priestly material. [ 39 ] The general trend in recent scholarship is to recognize the final form of the Torah as a literary and ideological unity, based on earlier sources, likely completed during the Persian period (539–333 BCE).
Among those who reject the documentary approach altogether, the most significant revisions have been to combine E with J as a single source, and to see the Priestly source as a series of editorial revisions to that text. [10] The alternatives to the documentary approach can be broadly divided between "fragmentary" and "supplementary" theories.