Leviticus: An Introduction and Study Guide

The Priestly Vision of Holiness

Philip Peter Jenson

• Publisher: T&T Clark
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9780567674852
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

In this guide, Philip Peter Jenson provides an introduction to Leviticus, examining its structure, character, and content. In particular, he focuses on explaining the basic concepts that inform the rituals and ethics of Leviticus. This is especially the case for the pervasive and complex category of holiness, along with its antithesis, impurity. Overall, Jenson's emphasis is on the overarching coherence of the book and how it reached its present canonical form.
Leviticus is a difficult book for most readers, describing rituals that are no longer practiced and reflecting a culture that is vastly different from that of the modern West. Yet it is the central book of the first section of the Bible of both Jews and Christians, and it is at the heart of the law revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai. It includes the foundational texts on matters such as sacrifice or love for one's neighbour. In this comprehensive introduction, Jenson offers extensive analysis, and concludes each chapter with reflections on the contemporary significance of the texts being discussed.

1

Reading Leviticus

The challenge of Leviticus

Anyone approaching Leviticus for the first time is likely to find it a difficult book to read and understand. Those used to reading flowing narrative will be frustrated by its repetitive style and content. The customs and practices it details largely belong to an ancient past. Most readers in the West have never seen an animal sacrifice, and the concept of physical impurity is alien to modernity. Yet this is also the book that is at the heart of the Pentateuch, the foundation of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. The issues that Leviticus addresses are of perennial concern: how an imperfect and sinful people can worship a holy God, how the people of God should relate to insiders and outsiders, and how they are to know God’s blessing in the place where they live. Even though the world of Leviticus no longer exists, the principles and goals underlying its laws and regulations may provide illumination and insight. This is especially the case if the final editing of Leviticus took place in a world in which its setting and rituals were as theoretical as they are today. Those responsible considered it an abiding and instructive word for the people of God.

The scholarly study of Leviticus has sought to make sense of it by applying the full range of interpretive methods that are employed in biblical studies (Barton 1984; Tate 2008). For the last 200 years the dominant interest has been to explain its complex character from a historical point of view. For example, what were the sources of the different parts of Leviticus, when are they to be dated, and how did the book become what we have today? These questions about the world behind the text are inseparable from the larger debate about the sources and the formation of the Pentateuch.

More recently interest has turned to taking seriously the world of the text as well-crafted literature, whatever its historical origins. Can we discern an overarching structure for the book? Is there an underlying rationale for the myriad instructions relating to impurity? Is there consistency between the perspective of Leviticus 1–16 and 17–27? Literary explanations can be in tension with the historical approach. If different texts indicate different points of view (e.g. on the nature of holiness), is this because they derive from different sources, or because they are partial expressions of a more comprehensive system, or can both explanations be valid?

However, throughout history most readers of Leviticus have been believers, regarding the book as canonical holy scripture. However difficult the text appears to be, it is there because it reveals important aspects of God’s character and his will. Leviticus was not written for historians or literary critics, but to shape the lives of obedient readers through its communicative artistry and theological truth. The world in front of the text also includes all subsequent readers, especially the contemporary community of faith. Reader-oriented approaches explore the complex two-way interaction between the world of the text and the world of the reader. Such readers will indeed have many questions about it (the hermeneutic of suspicion), but this is the beginning of a critical journey that they wager will eventually lead to deepened understanding and a return to the fullness of the text (the hermeneutic of trust; Ricœur 1967:347–57). Others, though, may wish to question or dispute the fundamental assumptions and claims of the text about God’s will for his people. It is possible to read the text ‘against the grain’ and propose a different way to understanding reality.

The major commentaries and studies on Leviticus generally focus on one or other of these worlds, though not without reference to the others. Historical critical study is the primary concern of Noth (1965), Elliger (1966), Budd (1996) and Nihan (2007). More recent commentaries (Rendtorff 2004; Willis 2009; Watts 2013) direct most of their energies to expounding the final form of the text. More explicit discussion of how the text relates contemporary faith and practice is found in Christian (Wenham 1979; Hartley 1992; Balentine 2002; Gane 2004; Radner 2008; Hieke 2014) and Jewish commentaries (Levine 1989; Milgrom 1990; 2000; 2001).

The sources of Leviticus

We probe these worlds of the text in a little more detail. In recent historical scholarship, Leviticus represented a prime witness for the Priestly writing (P), a reasonably neutral designation for what has otherwise been called the Priestly source, author, tradition, or circle. In this guide a capital letter (Priestly) will distinguish reference to this tradition from that which concerns priests (priestly). Analysing the Pentateuch as a combination of sources began in the nineteenth century, when scholars began to question the traditional authorship of Moses. They pointed to numerous inconsistencies of language, style and content that were hard to attribute to one figure. In the documentary hypothesis, which has until recently been the dominant model, the Pentateuch consisted of four main independent sources that were eventually joined together by redactors. J (from the German Jahvist) was so called because it was understood as assuming that the special name of God was known from the beginning (Gen. 4:26). This name is normally rendered in English translations as the Lord, but Yhwh, a transliteration of its four Hebrew consonants, will be used in this guide. The Elohist (E), on the other hand, referred to the general title God (Elohim) in Genesis until the divine name was revealed at the Exodus (Exod. 3:13-14). The same view was attributed to the P source, which is responsible for a second account of the revelation of the name (Exod. 6:3). D, mainly represented by Deuteronomy, was marked by a distinctive rhetorical style. The order of the sources that was eventually agreed upon was J → E → D → P. The story of the rise of this hypothesis, its variants and its recent questioning lies beyond the scope of this introduction (Carr 2011; Dozeman 2017). Very few experts in the field now regard the classical exposition as accurate, although the hold of the previous consensus remains strong.

The source critics, especially in the German tradition, were not satisfied with a simple P. The documentary hypothesis had been developed on the basis of the narrative texts in Genesis and Exodus, and those identified as Priestly were called Pg (‘g’ standing for the German Grundschrift, ‘basic writing’). The term came about because the first source critics identified it as the earliest source, although Wellhausen persuasively argued that it was instead the latest. However, much of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers are not narrative, and a large number of priestly rituals and laws were assigned to later Priestly additions. These were referred to as Ps (‘s’ standing for German sekundär, secondary). Later, Priestly redactors continued to add these to the Sinai revelation in order to legitimatize them and emphasize their divine authority. There is a lively discussion about where Pg ends. Some suggested Exodus (Exod. 40), others Leviticus (Lev. 9; 16), Numbers (Num. 36:13), Deuteronomy (Deut. 34:7-9) or even Joshua (Josh. 19:51). However, others began to question whether there should be any sharp division between narrative and law. There is no reason why a tradition cannot incorporate more than one genre. The case can also be made that there is more holding the various Priestly redactions together than that which distinguishes them.

As is typical of historical-critical investigation, P was subject to further analysis, leading to theories of multiple sources and redactions. The number and character of these layers depended on the scholar’s sensitivity to differences in vocabulary, form and theology. Elliger’s (1966) translation in his commentary is set in an impressive number of fonts, which indicated his view of the complex growth of the text. Milgrom (1991; 2000; 2001) also frequently distinguishes several stages of writing, redaction and interpolation. While it is relatively easy to detect tensions in a chapter, it is far more difficult to determine the origins and dates of underlying sources. Minor differences might be due to a different context, the use of synonyms, or memory variants (Carr 2011). The uncertainty is even greater if a scholar attempts to relate the differences in various chapters to each other and then reconstruct a systematic history of the book’s growth. One purpose of attributing all the laws to Moses was to provide a unified and integrated set of laws, so separating layers is a speculative business that goes against the grain of the text. It could be compared with the task of reconstituting the original ingredients of a cake once it has been baked. The lack of consensus regarding the growth of P reflects the difficulty of the enterprise.

The dating of Leviticus

The classical documentary hypothesis regards P as the latest of the four sources (JEDP). This is a relative dating, but the classic documentary hypothesis associated it with an absolute dating during or shortly after the exile in the sixth century BCE. Some recent scholars have pushed the dating of the final composition even further into the Persian period (Kazen 2015). The most persuasive argument for an exilic or post-exilic dating is the striking absence of evidence for the complex priestly ritual system in pre-exilic texts. This includes some of the specific sacrifices (e.g. the purification offering), the anointing of High Priest, and the distinction between the Aaronic priestly line and those of the other Levitical clans. The editors wished to finalize P so that it could be a blueprint for the restoration of worship when the exiles returned home. The great majority of critical scholars date the final form of Leviticus to the late sixth century or the fifth century BCE.

A minority opinion, especially among Jewish scholars, is that P is pre-exilic. The strongest arguments for this are probably linguistic (Joosten 2016). Various terms and syntactic features in P are said to reflect pre-exilic Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH) rather than post-exilic Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) found in texts such as Chronicles (Hurvitz 1988; Milgrom 1991:3–13). For example, Leviticus calls the national assembly an ʿēḏâ (e.g. Lev. 24:16), whereas Deuteronomy and Ezekiel use exclusively qāhāl. Critics point to the difficulties in developing a sound linguistic methodology, and the possible presence of archaizing features, and the presence in P of both earlier and later strata (Blenkinsopp 1996). The discussion is bound up with determining the relative dating of P and H in relation to texts such as Deuteronomy and Ezekiel (Hurvitz 1982; 2000; Lyons 2009).

Wellhausen (1885) proposed a sequential history of religion in which P is the latest source, subsequent and dependent on the earlier sources, and reflecting a post-exilic context and distinct theology. However, the rigidity of the schema has been challenged by various scholars. Weinfeld (1972) argued that P and D reflected different circles or schools rather than different dates. P arose in priestly circles interested in the sanctuary and the worship of Israel; D is the product of scribal circles and treats the worship of Israel in general. Douglas (1999) also proposed a complementary approach: P and D represent two different kinds of thinking, one analogical and comprehensive, the other rational and restricted. They grew and developed alongside each other. Haran (1981) proposed that P reflects a partisan ideal of worship, composed around the time of Ahaz and Hezekiah, which was kept secret and only authorized after the exile.

These different views need not be as far apart as they first appear. Proponents of a pre-exilic date often acknowledge later redactions, while those dating P to post-exilic times readily admit the presence of earlier sources. The extensive perspective represented by P could not have been born overnight, but it is very difficult to tell how extensive its roots are and how far back they might go. A helpful analogy may be the frequent reuse of stones and even walls from older buildings in the construction of new ones. In some areas there may be significant continuity; in others entirely new sections have been added.

The Holiness Code

The section Leviticus 17–27 has a number of distinctive features (Wright 1999; Milgrom 2000:1327–56; Nihan 2007:545–62). For this reason it was called the Holiness Code (German Heiligkeitsgesetzt; often H or HC). The history of its investigation is a classic example of a bold theory that has been progressively reshaped (Hartley 1992:251–60). Originally the majority of this section was understood to be an older, independent collection of laws, which the priestly editors incorporated into their work with only light editing (e.g. the references to Yhwh speaking to Moses). Evidence for the theory included the similarity of H to other collections of law, especially the book of the Covenant (Exod. 20–23) and Deuteronomy 12–28. These begin with a discussion of the place of sacrifice (Lev. 17; Exod. 20:22-26; 25–40; Deut. 12; cf. Ezk. 40) and end with a series of blessings and curses (Lev. 26; Exod. 23:20-33; Deut. 28). In contrast to Leviticus 1–16 there are frequent motive clauses. It has a distinctive vocabulary and style (Driver 1913:49–50; Milgrom 2000:1325–32), especially the repeated ‘I am Yhwh’, or ‘I am Yhwh your God’. It also conveys a distinctive set of theological emphases such as the central place of the land and the summons to the whole people to be holy (Lev. 19:2).

However, Elliger (1966) also argued that H was a later editorial redaction of P, rather than the other way round. This reversal of the direction of dependence was given such a persuasive presentation by the Jewish scholar Israel Knohl that it has now become the new critical orthodoxy. He called the earlier Priestly work Priestly Torah (PT), whereas Leviticus 17 –26 reflects the work of the Holiness School (HS). Rather than being a limited law code, the hand of the HS can be detected at places in P and indeed elsewhere in the Pentateuch. It represents a very late stage in the formation of the Pentateuch (Knohl 1995:104–6). This explains the further influences from the Ten Commandments (Lev. 19), the Covenant Code (Exod. 20:22–23:19) and the Deuteronomic tradition. Knohl argued that Leviticus 17–26 included texts that were dependent on parallels in P (e.g. Lev. 23 draws on Num. 28–29). Knohl also argued, along with other Jewish scholars, that it was largely pre-exilic. Its ethical instruction is strongly influenced by the pre-exilic prophets, who criticized the non-ethical stance of the Priestly writing, represented by Leviticus 1–16. Joosten (1996:203–7) also argued for a pre-exilic date on other grounds, such as its background in a pre-exilic rural milieu, and the portrayal of the resident alien.

One difficulty with Knohl’s reconstruction is that the scope of the Holiness School beyond Leviticus 17–27 is disputed. Some attribute fewer texts to it (Milgrom 2000:1343–4; Nihan 2007:569–72). On the other hand Tucker (2017) attributes Pg to the Holiness Composition because of their common language and theology. Others distinguish more redactional stages. Elliger (1966) finds no fewer than four main phases of H, as well as assorted precursors and insertions. Milgrom also finds four strata but also comments that the final H redactor (HR) is merely ‘the end product of the H continuum’ (2000:1345). Nor were most critical scholars persuaded by Knohl’s pre-exilic dating. The dependence of H on P suggests to many that it should be dated to the Persian period. One suggestion is that H represents a synthesis of the extant law codes (especially D and P), perhaps in response to the Persian desire for a unified stance by its sponsored nation.

There is, though, a third approach to the matter, that of the sceptics. Wagner (1974) questioned the existence of the Holiness Code. He pointed to the lack of a coherent order in Leviticus 17–26, in contrast to other Ancient Near Eastern collections of laws. The theme of cultic impurity (11–22) cuts across the traditional division into 11–16 and 17–27. While few have followed his specific analysis, others have emphasized the close relationship between Leviticus 17–27 and the rest of P (Ruwe 1999). Blum (1990:325–29), for example, highlights the significant common theological language of Leviticus 26 and earlier priestly texts (e.g. ‘establish/remember the covenant’ and ‘be fruitful and multiply’). Warning (1999) listed a number of stylistic features (e.g. the number seven) that pervade the whole of the book. Gerstenberger (1996:18) goes so far as to describe the Holiness Code as ‘a wishful phantom of scholarly literature’. The main argument for this position is that the differences between H and P are relatively insignificant compared to the differences within these traditions. Furthermore, many of the differences can be explained as arising from different contexts. Scholars who investigate the text in minute detail are likely to emphasize differences that reflect different sources. Those who are more interested in the overall theology and world view work with sufficiently general categories that differences in detail are of relatively little significance in comparison to the overall priestly world view. They are suspicious of the argument from silence, where because P is silent on a particular topic, H is interpreted as holding a different polemical stance.

Although most references to the Holiness Code are to chapters 17–27, some studies refer to 17–26. Leviticus 27 is often described as a later ‘Appendix’ (Milgrom 2001:2407–9). Although the blessings and curses of Leviticus 26 might be seen as the fitting end for law code, the final chapter avoids closing the book with the curses. It also builds on the Jubilee legislation of Leviticus 25 and continues to explore its theme of redemption. It thus provides another example of the bracketing or chiastic structuring that is found elsewhere in H and P. The discussion reflects the tension between a historical-critical approach that highlights sources or a particular stage of composition, and a literary or canonical approach that works with the final form of the text.

The assumption of this guide is that, while there are differences between the two main parts of Leviticus, there is sufficient overlap of perspective that in most cases it is useful to treat the book as a relatively unified whole. From a thematic point of view Leviticus 17–27 as the second part of the book reflects a movement towards discussion of life in the land rather than matters regarding the sanctuary.

Leviticus as a book

Turning to literary approaches, there are good reasons to regard Leviticus as a distinct book, rather than being merely part of the larger Priestly writing spanning Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers (Auld 2003). Whereas in Exodus Yhwh calls to Moses from Mount Sinai (Exod. 19:3), at the beginning of Leviticus he calls to him from the Tent of Meeting (Lev. 1:1), which has just been erected (Exod. 35–40). Leviticus ends on Mount Sinai (Lev. 27:34) and includes two summary statements about the giving of the laws to the people (Lev. 26:46; 27:34). On the other hand Numbers opens with Yhwh speaking to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai (Num. 1:1) and is framed by the census accounts of Numbers 1 and 26.

Leviticus is also the central book in the Pentateuch, which can be regarded both as a linear narrative and as a concentric or chiastic structure (ABCBA). Leviticus is the still centre (at Mount Sinai) of a story that begins with the creation of the world and God’s people (Genesis) and finishes at the border of the promised land (Deuteronomy). The book of Exodus prepares for the laws of Leviticus in its account of the making of the covenant and the construction and consecration of the Tabernacle. The first part of Numbers begins t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Contents 
• List of Figures
• Abbreviations
• Series Preface
• 1 Reading Leviticus
• 2 Holiness
• 3 Sacrifice (Leviticus 1–7)
• 4 Priesthood (Leviticus 8–10; 21–22)
• 5 Purity and Impurity (Leviticus 11–15)
• 6 Holy Living (Leviticus 17–27)
• 7 Holy Time (Leviticus 16; 23; 25)
• 8 The Continuing Relevance of Leviticus
• Bibliography
• Author Index
• Subject Index
• Imprint