The Priestly Torah Versus the Holiness School: Sabbath and the Festivals
In Biblical Studies, Leviticus chapters 17—26 are usually termed the "Holiness Code" (H). The prevailing assumption is that these chapters, along with a number of fragments elsewhere in the Pentateuch, constitute the earliest level of the "Priestly source" (P). This paper argues...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
HUC
1988
|
In: |
Hebrew Union College annual
Year: 1987, Volume: 58, Pages: 65-117 |
Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
Summary: | In Biblical Studies, Leviticus chapters 17—26 are usually termed the "Holiness Code" (H). The prevailing assumption is that these chapters, along with a number of fragments elsewhere in the Pentateuch, constitute the earliest level of the "Priestly source" (P). This paper argues that H, on the contrary, represents a late level of Priestly material, whose presence in the Pentateuch, moreover, is far more widespread than has hitherto been imagined. This level was contributed by what can be called the "Holiness School" (HS), which was also responsible for the final recension of the earlier Priestly material, usually designated P (in the strict sense), but here called the "Priestly Torah" (PT). When the writings of the two Priestly schools are properly distinguished, they are found to constitute two distinct streams with sharply differing theological and ritual conceptions. Thorough confirmation of this position would require a comprehensive study of all the Priestly material. This first presentation is restricted to the area of Sabbath and Festival conceptions. The discussion, focused on Leviticus 23, reveals the lateness of HS as compared to PT, the HS manner of editing PT, and the basic differences between the approaches of the two schools. In PT, as originally compiled, the Festivals were not related to agriculture and were severed from their historical contexts. None of the Festival rituals purported to promote the continuance of human well-being — they were primarily sacrificial rites whose objective was fulfillment of the divine command. The Sabbath was marginal, and the interdiction of work on the Sabbath was not even mentioned. HS, by contrast, wished to see the festivals as rooted in agricultural life and related to historical memories. Furthermore, it gave prominence to the aspiration for human well-being and salvation in the Festival rites. The Sabbath was allotted a central place and the obligation to cease from all labor on this day was strongly stressed. The essay also compares its conclusions with the views of Wellhausen and Kaufmann on the Sabbath and the Festivals. The continuity between the Festival rituals of HS and the ritual of the Second Temple period, as reflected in the Halakhah of the Pharisees, is then pointed out. Two linguistic expressions characteristic of HS, which serve as indicators of its recensional activity, are each dealt with in an excursus. |
---|---|
Contains: | Enthalten in: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Hebrew Union College annual
|