We use cookies to enhance your experience on our website. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Find out more
Select Bible Use this Lookup to open a specific Bible and passage. Start here to select a Bible.
Make selected Bible the default for Lookup tool.
Book: Ch.V. Select book from A-Z list, enter chapter and verse number, and click "Go."
  • Previous Result
  • Results
  • Look It Up Highlight any word or phrase, then click the button to begin a new search.
  • Highlight On / Off
  • Next Result

Holiness Code and Writings

The Holiness Writings comprise a compositional stratum (or set of related strata) within the Priestly source of the Pentateuch. First identified by Karl Heinrich Graf in 1866 as a textual block comprising Leviticus 18–26, Julius Wellhausen (1885) argued that this unit should also include Leviticus 17. August Klostermann (1877) labeled Leviticus 17–26 the “Holiness Code” (das Heiligkeitsgesetz) because of its persistent concern for holiness, including its repeated exhortation to the Israelites to be holy (e.g., Lev 19:2; 20:7, 26). More recent scholarship has identified significant portions of the Priestly source outside of Leviticus 17–26 as also belonging to what must be called the “Holiness Writings.” It must be admitted, however, that a minority of scholars maintain that, even though the Priestly source is a composite work, a distinction between Priestly (P) and Holiness (H) strata is not justified (e.g., Blum, 2009).

The Pentateuchal Priestly Source and Its Compositional Strata.

Analysis of the Holiness Writings requires a consideration of the larger Priestly source of which they are a part. The Priestly source can be characterized as a historical novel with a unified plot. It begins with Yhwh’s creation of the world, a notice of his admiration for it, and the deity’s dietary instructions for his created beings. These creatures—animals and humans—fail to follow the divine directives, and their illicit actions create an intolerable disturbance for Yhwh. Yet because of his fondness for his creation, Yhwh chooses not to destroy the world completely. He instead modifies the benign disregard that was his natural orientation toward his creation and devises a plan to restore it. He also recognizes the need to establish new guidelines that will prevent it from running amok in the future.

To this end, Yhwh actively engages his creation. His actions begin with the Flood; continue through his selection of Abraham and his descendants and his promises to them; reach a highpoint in the establishment of the divine abode, the sanctuary, in the midst of the Israelites at Sinai; and culminate in the settlement of the Israelites in their land.

Included in this historical account and rationalized by it are instructions that, if assiduously followed, create the requisite circumstances for Yhwh’s perpetual habitation among the Israelites. Yhwh’s presence among the Israelites confers upon them tangible benefits, including possession of the land that Yhwh promised to them. The instructions that facilitate the divine presence are the laws of the Priestly source. They include the directions for building the sanctuary, instituting the priesthood, performing sacrifices, and establishing and maintaining purity and holiness. The Priestly source thus offers a distinctive historical account of the origins of Israel and its cultic and legal religion. Its historical narrative is meant especially to provide credibility to the Priestly legislation.

The underlying narrative structure, including all of the major elements of the Priestly plot, belongs to this text’s earlier stratum, labeled P (or Pg; Grundschrift, “foundational document”) by scholars. The Holiness Writings (H) are one identifiable set (among others) of later additions to P. In the main, H agrees with P’s basic historical narrative and religious ideology, even in cases in which it disagrees with P on particular details. H’s additions to P are thus primarily legal and do not substantially affect the Priestly plotline. Yet even if H’s texts are primarily legal, H frames these laws as part of the underlying P narrative to which it adds them. Moreover, H specifically imitates the narrative presentation of P’s legislation. Thus, H’s laws, like P’s, are extended divine speeches mediated by Moses to the Israelites. In this sense, all of H, like all of P, is narrative (Nihan, 2007, pp. 395–401).

The differentiation of H from P has been argued on several bases, including distinctive ideology and style, limited correlation with other biblical compositions (e.g., H’s special affinities with Ezekiel or Deuteronomy), and the narrative claims of the Pentateuchal Priestly source as a whole. Ascriptions to P and H are sometimes also accompanied and buttressed by reconstructed historical contexts for the literary production of the units in question. Among these criteria, distinctive ideology and the narrative claims of the Pentateuchal Priestly source provide the most reliable criteria for assigning material to P or H. Though H does in many instances exhibit a distinctive style, and though this style oftentimes has been employed as a primary criterion in ascribing texts to H, style is better relegated to a corroborative role in identifying H texts.

The Priestly sabbath law in Exodus 31:12–17 (coupled with the narrative of its communication by Moses to Israel in Exod 35:1–3) provides a useful example for demonstrating these claims (Stackert, 2011a). Several scholars have assigned the Priestly sabbath law in Exodus 31:12–17 in its entirety to H, based primarily upon stylistic elements (e.g., second-person plural address, first-person divine speech, and stereotypical words and phrases). However, there are several features in this law that suggest that it is actually a combination of P and H material. These features include the law’s two divergent understandings of the sabbath as a sign (vv. 13, 17), the reference to the seventh day of the Priestly creation account in verse 17, and the larger narrative claims of P regarding the introduction of the sabbath in history. If P is older than H and if H is a set of additions to P that does not include more invasive editorial intervention, a full and coherent P text should be identifiable in these verses. Precisely such a P text can be identified. It is verses 12–13A, 15 (minus šabbātōnqōdeš, “complete rest, holy,” and môt, “surely die,” which belong to H), and 16–17 (minus wayyinnāpāš, “he refreshed himself,” which is redactional; in the fulfillment account, Exod 35:1–2 [minus yihyê lākem qōdeš and šabbātōn] belong to P; the additions to verses 2 and 3 can be assigned to H).

Exodus 31:13B–14 cannot belong to P because they violate P’s narrative claims by presuming knowledge of the sabbath prior to Yhwh’s introduction of it to Israel. Note, for example, that these verses use the definite forms “my Sabbaths” and “the Sabbath.” By contrast, verse 15A (P) presents a basic law that presumes no prior knowledge of the sabbath. Accordingly, verse 15A does not use the definite article in its first reference to the sabbath. In fact, in view of P’s historical fiction, in which this law is the first revelation of the notion of sabbath in the history of the world, šabbāt in verse 15A is best understood as a common noun—“a cessation”—rather than the proper noun “Sabbath.”

The description of the sabbath in verse 13B as a “sign” also diverges from P, for it differs from P’s understanding of cognition signs for the deity and the sabbath sign in particular. In P, cognition signs are reminders to the deity (e.g., Gen 9:12–17; 17:11; Exod 12:13; see Fox, 1974). Sabbath observance is a reminder to Yhwh to bless Israel with agricultural fertility, like he blessed the seventh day after he finished his work of creation (Gen 2:3). The reference to the seventh day of creation in verse 17 clarifies this function for the sabbath and contrasts with the perspective articulated in verse 13B. According to verse 13b, the sabbath is a reminder to Israel to reverence Yhwh, who sanctifies them. Sabbath observance, by its regularity, reminds the Israelites to carefully follow all of the other divine rules, a practice that leads to their sanctification. For its part, P never considers the possibility of the holiness of lay Israelites (see below).

Though verses 13B–14 cannot belong to P, they can be confidently assigned to H. These verses contain several hallmarks of H. First, the focus upon the sanctification of Israelite lay persons in verse 13B is a strong H marker. Likewise, the understanding of the sabbath as a cognition sign for Israel rather than for Yhwh is consistent with the function of other cognition signs in H (e.g., Num 15:39 [reading lĕʾôt, “as a sign” for lĕṣîṣīt “as a tassel”]; Num 17:3, 25).

Finally, the style of verses 13B–14 also corroborates what can be determined on the basis of their ideology and narrative claims. These verses contain several stereotypical H locutions, including the language of profanation (“the one who profanes it”), cutting off (“that person shall be cut off from the midst of his people”), and the divine self-identification formula (“for I am Yhwh”). Yet it is important to note that stylistic features are not by themselves determinative for stratification in this case. For example, some have suggested that the language of “observing the sabbath” (šāmar + šabbāt) as well as divine first-person speech (including the self-identification formula) are reliable stylistic criteria for identifying H texts, including Exodus 31:12–17. Yet these features appear in verses 16–17 alongside ideological and narrative features that are at home in P and conflict with H. Moreover, there is nothing about the terminology of “observing the sabbath” or the use of the divine first-person/self-identification formula that is objectionable to P. In fact, the divine self-identification formula appears in other Priestly texts that are necessary parts of the P narrative (e.g., Exod 6:7; 7:5; cf. Blum, 2009).

Indeed, stylistic continuities between P and H should be expected. Because H is closely connected to P and uses P as a basis for its composition, it exhibits a similar style to P’s. Several scholars have posited a “Holiness School” to account for such stylistic similarities alongside of ideological differences among P, the Holiness Code, and other H texts (e.g., Knohl, 1995; Nihan, 2007). Even those who argue for the identification of H on the basis of style recognize that much of this style derives directly from P. So, in light of the strong continuity between P to H, style should not serve as a primary basis for separating these strata (Stackert, 2011a).

The Contents and Special Concerns of the Holiness Writings.

The largest contiguous block of H material in the Pentateuchal Priestly source appears in Leviticus 17–27—the Holiness Code proper. This material can be divided into seven parts: (1) laws governing sacrifice and meat consumption, including requirements to bring sacrificial offerings to the sanctuary and to refrain from eating blood and carrion (Lev 17); (2) miscellaneous ethical laws, including prohibitions against sexual transgressions, worship of other deities, theft, illicit breeding and mixtures, illicit divination, and mistreatment of others, as well as requirements to provide for the poor, honor elders, and love fellow Israelites as well as non-Israelites (Lev 18–20); (3) rules concerning the priests and sacrifices, including prohibitions against blemished sanctuary officials and sacrificial offerings (Lev 21–22); (4) laws governing calendrical observances, including the sabbath and annual festivals as well as the Sabbatical year and the Jubilee (Lev 23:1—24:9; 25:1—26:2); (5) the account of the blasphemer, with related measure-for-measure laws, which interrupt the calendrical observance laws (Lev 24:10–23); (6) threatened inducements for Israelite obedience, with summary postscript (Lev 26:3–46); and (7) an addendum on vows, dedications, and tithes that concludes with a summary postscript similar to Leviticus 26:46 (Lev 27).

There is less agreement among scholars in their identifications of Holiness material outside of the Holiness Code. The sabbath law in Exodus 31:12–17 discussed earlier is one example of such disagreement. Another such disputed text—and one related to the sabbath law of Exodus 31—is the creation account in Genesis 1:1—2:4A. Some scholars have argued that this text belongs to H (e.g., Milgrom, 2003). However, this claim fails to take adequate account of the underlying P narrative and its literary fiction (Stackert, 2011a). Yet even in the midst of such debate, several texts outside of the Holiness Code can be confidently ascribed to H. These include Exodus 12:14–20; Leviticus 11:43–45; 16:29–34A; and Numbers 9:1–14; 15:22–41; 18:1–32; 27:1–11. Though it remains disputed, Israel Knohl has offered a nearly complete stratification of P and H (1995, pp. 104–106). Other scholars have tended to work at the level of individual units rather than the H stratum as a whole. While the identification of the full extent of H remains a topic of debate, the recognition that H postdates P and that there is a significant amount of H material in the Pentateuchal Priestly source outside of Leviticus 17–26 undermines the identification of the Holiness Code as a once independent compositional unit (Schwartz, 1999, pp. 17–24).

Though H primarily employs the categories of P’s legislation, it does not limit itself to the cultic topics that are P’s focus. H texts instead expand their attention to ethical issues, a category generally untreated by P. In so doing, H oftentimes melds P’s cultic categories with ethical ones, creating new categories of religious thought. For example, H’s special concern for holiness introduces an ethical component to P’s cultic understanding of holiness and expands its application to humans beyond the Israelite priests to the Israelite laity (Wright, 1999). Yet H maintains a distinction between the ritual holiness of the priests, which is imbued through anointing, and the theological holiness of the laity, which is achieved through obedience to the divine commandments (Lev 19). Knohl (1995, pp. 222–224) views H’s extension of holiness to the laity, as well as its broader articulation of nonritual, ethical rules, as part of a populist trend in this stratum.

Another example of H’s innovative extension of P’s categories is its notion of moral impurity, which builds on P’s concept of cultic impurity. As Jonathan Klawans (2000, pp. 21–42) has shown, moral impurity differs from ritual impurity in several ways. For example, moral impurity is generated by sin (sexual offenses, idolatry, homicide), while ritual impurity is normally not related to sinful acts. Moreover, unlike ritual impurity, which affects the divine sanctuary and can be cleansed ritually, moral impurity may defile the land and is not subject to ritual purgation. Neither is moral impurity contagious through contact like ritual impurity is.

In its combination of impurity with sin, H links elements that are kept substantially separate in P, even as P offers indirect indications that they are related. In the case of ritual impurity and sin, P claims that, though they are not identical to each other, they defile the sanctuary in an analogous manner and may therefore be purged from the sanctuary with the same type of purification offering (ḥaṭṭāʾt) (Schwartz, 1995). Here and elsewhere, then, H extends the connections already present in P and, in so doing, offers innovative religious perspectives.

Legal Revision and Innovation in the Holiness Writings.

H informs its supplementation and revision of P by appropriating and revising portions of the Pentateuchal Elohistic (E) and Deuteronomic (D) sources (Cholewiński, 1976; Nihan, 2007; Otto, 1999; Stackert, 2007). Many of H’s revisions and supplements to P are mediating positions between P and non-Priestly Pentateuchal legislation. Hallmark examples of such appropriations are found in H’s septennial year and Jubilee laws in Leviticus 25. In these laws, H combines the E septennial-year agricultural law (Exod 23:10–11) and the D septennial-year debt remission (Deut 15:1–11, itself a reworking of E’s septennial-year law) and transforms them by freely reworking their requirements, infusing the seventh year with the ideology of sabbath and inaugurating a hitherto unattested 50th-year Jubilee release. Following especially the example of D (Deut 15:12–18), H combines in Leviticus 25 the septennial release law with rules for manumission from slavery. In so doing, however, H informs its rules for perpetual foreign slavery (Lev 25:44–46) with the language of E’s slavery laws (Exod 21:2–11) as well as P’s account of Israelite slavery in Egypt (Exod 1:13–14). The resulting legislation, though borrowing extensively from identifiable literary sources, offers a fundamentally new set of prescriptions and is not beholden to the norms of any of its forebears (Stackert, 2007).

H’s revisions of E and D are not only opportunities for refinement of its legal forebears, but also H integrates into these revisions theological perspectives that are not directly inspired by the texts revised. For example, in its extension of sabbath ideology to the septennial-year agricultural law—an extension possibly inspired by the juxtaposition of septennial-year and sabbath day laws in Exodus 23:10–12—H also offers an innovative presentation of the land of Israel as an active agent accountable for keeping divine law. In Leviticus 25:2–7, Yhwh states that the land must observe a cessation throughout the seventh year. During this time, people and animals may eat what freely grows in the fields and from existing trees and vines (whatever grows without cultivation), but the land may not actively work to produce its harvest. H reinforces and extends this innovation in Leviticus 26:34–35, 43, where Yhwh states that the land will be required to “repay” the sabbath years it fails to observe.

H’s personification of the land in its sabbath year legislation is part of its larger view of the land as active agent (Stackert, 2011c). For example, Leviticus 18:24–30 (cf. 20:22) states that the land “vomited out” the Canaanites who inhabited it before the Israelites and who defiled the land through their abominable actions. According to verse 25, the land did so after Yhwh called it to account for the iniquity they performed within it. In its imagined ability to vomit out its inhabitants and in its responsibility before Yhwh, the land is presented in this text as an idealized Israelite. As an active subject of the deity, the land must avoid the same “abominations” that the Israelites must avoid.

The similarity between the Israelites and the land is underscored further in Yhwh’s parallel claims to ownership of each. Leviticus 25:23 claims that the land is Yhwh’s, and verses 42 and 55 of this chapter make the same claim for the Israelite people. Thus, though H never explicitly calls the land holy, it characterizes the land as akin to the Israelites: each is a keeper of divine commandments and owned by Yhwh. Accordingly, H appears to understand the land’s relationship to the deity’s sanctuary as similar to the people’s relationship to the priests: the former (land, laity) can achieve holiness, while the latter (sanctuary, priests) are imbued with it. This conceptualization of holiness matches H’s imagined geography: the deity is in close proximity to the sanctuary and priests and more distant from the land and laity.

This introduction of lay holiness also appears to be a mediating position between P and D. As noted already, in P, the only Israelites who are holy are priests. In D, all of Israel is holy (Deut 7:6). H mediates between these positions, maintaining the cultic holiness of the priests and the special privileges enjoyed by them even as it provides for the possibility of lay holiness. The example of the sabbath as a sign, discussed already, shows how, though H diverges from P, it nevertheless strives to integrate its novel conceptualization of holiness with existing P ideas. Finding the characterization of the sabbath as a sign in P (and not in its other sources), H reorients it and uses the sabbath sign as a basis for reminding the Israelites to be vigilant in their attempt to achieve holiness. In H, then, the sabbath remains a sign, as in P, but it is transformed to serve H’s new and distinctive theological perspective.

Dating and Historical Context.

Assigning absolute dates to P and H is very difficult. Yet, as noted already, relative dating of these strata, both in relation to each other and to the other Pentateuchal sources, is fairly certain. When first identified in the nineteenth century and for nearly a century afterward, the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26 or 18–26) was thought to predate P’s historical narrative and P’s laws (themselves sometimes deemed secondary to P’s narrative). Especially on the basis of its general, structural correspondence with the Covenant Code and Deuteronomic law, the Holiness Code was understood to be an originally independent work: each legal collection begins with laws concerning altars and sacrifice (Exod 20:24–26; Deut 12; Lev 17), and, D’s laws conclude with blessings and curses (Deut 27–28) akin to the inducements to obedience in Leviticus 26. Likewise, Leviticus 26:46 appears to be a concluding statement, suggesting that it once ended a composition. According to this view, the preexisting Holiness Code, itself made up of a compilation of laws of disparate origins, was incorporated into P alongside of other Priestly laws and the Priestly historical narrative.

In the mid-twentieth century, Karl Elliger argued convincingly for the priority of the P narrative and the composition of Leviticus 17–26 (in stages) in response to it. As Elliger recognized, H presumes and builds upon the historical and cultic claims of P, including P’s view of the history and practice of sacrifice, the Israelite sanctuary, and the Priestly system of purification. Alfred Cholewiński (1976) and Knohl (1995) accepted Elliger’s view of the relative dating of P and H, and this view has become especially prominent since the publication of Knohl’s study.

Though the late (exilic/postexilic) dating of Pentateuchal Priestly texts is a lasting legacy of late-nineteenth-century research and remains prominent in current scholarship (e.g., Nihan, 2007), there are very few historical referents in P and H that facilitate their absolute dating. Buoyed by this ambiguity, Knohl and Jacob Milgrom offered earlier dates for both P and H. Knohl (1995) argued for a “Holiness School” that began in the eighth century B.C.E. and engaged in a continuous literary activity until the exilic period. Milgrom (2003) argued against Knohl’s view of a Holiness School. He suggested instead that the vast majority of H (95 percent) was written or compiled during a single generation in the eighth century (prior to D), with the remaining 5 percent attributable to an exilic Holiness redactor (HR). Both early and late dates, however, suffer from the paucity of evidence.

Even so, because of H’s literary interaction with D, the possibility of offering an absolute date for the D source allows some purchase on dating H. Based on the apparent reuse of the Neo-Assyrian Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon (672 B.C.E.) in Deuteronomy 13 and 28 and the integrated nature of these chapters within the larger D composition (Levinson and Stackert, 2012), a mid-seventh-century date can be posited for D. This date then serves as a terminus post quem for the composition of H. Strong ties between H and Ezekiel, which dates to the early sixth century, also support a late preexilic or exilic date for H.

The linguistic analysis of Priestly texts as developed especially by Avi Hurvitz (1988) also supports such a date for H. Eschewing the literary and historical content of biblical texts, this approach investigates the grammatical and lexical characteristics of the language of biblical texts and, anchored by texts that can be dated by other means, develops an historical typology of biblical Hebrew. This typology is then used to date otherwise undatable texts. Such studies, though disputed, have suggested a preexilic date for much of the P source.

The Aims of the Holiness Writings.

H’s literary aim can be discovered through a comparison of its interactions with its major textual sources. As noted already, H presumes the basic narrative fiction of P and cannot be read apart from it. Thus, even as H seeks at times to revise P, it does so through supplementation. Its revisions of E and D, by contrast, do not assume the continued presence of those literary patrimonies alongside of H’s compositions (Stackert, 2009). This claim is borne out for legal prescriptions and narrative claims. As shown already, H’s legislation is in many instances irreconcilably opposed to E and D. Its narrative fiction is likewise at times fundamentally at odds with them.

D’s historical claims regarding the revelation at the Horeb (Deut 5:22–31) provide a prime example of irreconcilable narrative contradiction with H (as well as E and P). H claims, like E and P, that the Israelites received divinely revealed laws. Yet D claims that the only laws revealed to the Israelites during the wilderness period were the Ten Commandments. Though Moses received the rest of the divine laws at the mountain, he only related them to Israel in the plains of Moab at the end of the wilderness period. Within the compiled Pentateuch, then, D’s Horeb narrative undermines the entirety of the legislation in E and P + H. According to D, Israel never received the laws of E, P, and H because E, P, and H all claim that Moses related these laws to Israel at the mountain or, in the case of P and H, also subsequently in the wilderness.

Because H does not assume the historical fiction of E or D and because its narrative and laws offer mutually exclusive perspectives in relation to them, it is unlikely that H should be viewed as a or the (final) Pentateuchal redactor, as several scholars have claimed (e.g., Knohl, 1995; Nihan, 2007; Otto, 1994). H should instead be understood as drawing from its non-Priestly sources with an intent subsequently to marginalize them. H thus intends its composition as a supplement to and completion of P that, while borrowing from E and D, results in a P+H work (Stackert, 2011b). Only at a later stage was this P+H work combined with the other Pentateuchal sources (J, E, D) in the compilation of the Torah, a process focused on preservation and arrangement of existing materials rather than the addition of new, distinctive viewpoints (Baden, 2012; Stackert, 2009).

The relationship between Priestly legislation and real Israelite cultic and judicial practices is unclear. While the ritual and legal prescriptions in P and H do find some analogues in the wider ancient Near Eastern world, it is uncertain to what extent even such real legal reasoning correlates with historical Israelite practice or instead reflects a primarily scholastic engagement. The richly imagined narrative frame that legitimates the legislation in P and H suggests that their authors aspired to real adjudication according to their laws or in some relation to them. Yet the careful, learned, and extensive interaction especially between H and its legal patrimonies, as well as many of the specific details of its laws, suggests that, regardless of its ambitions, H was a utopian, scholastic project (Schwartz, 1999).




  • Baden, Joel S. The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2012.
  • Blum, Erhard. “Issues and Problems in the Contemporary Debate Regarding the Priestly Writings.” In The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, edited by Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden, pp. 31–44. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95. Zurich, Switzerland: Theologischer Verlag, 2009.
  • Cholewiński, Alfred. Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium: Eine vergleichende Studie. Analecta Biblica 66. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976.
  • Elliger, Karl. Leviticus. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 4. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 1966.
  • Fox, Michael V. “The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of the Priestly ’ôt Etiologies.” Revue biblique 81 (1974): 557–596.
  • Hurvitz, Avi. “Dating the Priestly Source in Light of the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew a Century after Wellhausen.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 100 (1988): 88–99.
  • Klawans, Jonathan. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
  • Klostermann, August. “Beiträge zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Pentateuchs.” Zeitschrift für lutherische Theologie und Kirche 38 (1877): 401–445.
  • Knohl, Israel. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Translated by Jackie Feldman and Peretz Rodman. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.
  • Levinson, Bernard M., and Jeffrey Stackert. “Between the Covenant Code and Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty: Deuteronomy 13 and the Composition of Deuteronomy.” Journal of Ancient Judaism 3 (2012): 123–140.
  • Milgrom, Jacob. “HR in Leviticus and Elsewhere in the Torah.” In Leviticus: Composition and Reception, edited by Rolf Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler, pp. 24–40. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 93; Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature 3. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2003.
  • Nihan, Christophe. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II/25. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
  • Otto, Eckart. “Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26 in der Pentateuchredaktion.” In Altes Testament, Forschung und Wirkung: Festschrift für Henning Graf Reventlow, edited by Peter Mommer and Winfred Thiel, pp. 65–80. Frankfurt and New York: P. Lang, 1994.
  • Otto, Eckart. “Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26.” In Levitikus als Buch, edited by Heinz-Josef Fabry and Hans-Winfried Jüngling, pp. 125–196. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 119. Berlin: Philo, 1999.
  • Schwartz, Baruch J. “The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature.” In Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, pp. 3–22. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995.
  • Schwartz, Baruch J. The Holiness Legislation: Studies in the Priestly Code. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999 (Hebrew).
  • Stackert, Jeffrey. Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 52. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
  • Stackert, Jeffrey. “The Holiness Legislation and Its Pentateuchal Sources: Revision, Supplementation, and Replacement.” In The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, edited by Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden, pp. 187–204. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95. Zurich, Switzerland: Theologischer Verlag, 2009.
  • Stackert, Jeffrey. “Compositional Strata in the Priestly Sabbath: Exodus 31:12–17 and 35:1–3.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 11 (2011a): article 15.
  • Stackert, Jeffrey. “Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction: Leviticus 26 as a Test Case.” In The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz, pp. 369–386. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2011b.
  • Stackert, Jeffrey. “The Sabbath of the Land in the Holiness Legislation: Combining Priestly and Non-Priestly Perspectives.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 73 (2011c): 239–250.
  • Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Translated by Allan Menzies and J. Sutherland Black. Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black, 1885.
  • Wright, David P. “Holiness in Leviticus and Beyond: Differing Perspectives.” Interpretation 53 (1999): 351–364.

Jeffrey Stackert

  • Previous Result
  • Results
  • Look It Up Highlight any word or phrase, then click the button to begin a new search.
  • Highlight On / Off
  • Next Result
Oxford University Press

© 2021. All Rights Reserved. Cookie Policy | Privacy Policy | Legal Notice