Holiness Code - Embedding in The Priestly Source

Embedding in The Priestly Source

In the documentary hypothesis, the Holiness Code is considered part of the Priestly source. However, it is believed, under the hypothesis, to have been an originally separate legal code (referred to as "H") which the priestly source chose to embed into their writing. The hypothesis further asserts that the Holiness Code was subjected to editing by the priestly source. Some such editing is simply the addition of phrases such as And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them,, designed to put the code into the context of the remainder of a code being given by God, as is the case for the remainder of Leviticus.

It is also alleged by critical scholarship that several additional laws, written with a style unlike that of the Holiness Code but like that of the remainder of Leviticus, were inserted into the body of the text by the Priestly source. These alleged additions are:

• The prohibition against consuming the naturally dead (Leviticus 17:15-16)
• The order to make trespass offerings after sexual involvement with an engaged slavewoman (Leviticus 19:20-22)
• The prohibition against an anointed high priest uncovering his head or rending his clothes (Leviticus 21:10)
• The prohibition against offerings by Aaronic priests who are blemished (Leviticus 21:21-22)
• The order to keep the sabbath, passover, and feast of unleavened bread (Leviticus 23:1-10a)
• The order to keep Yom Kippur, and Sukkot (Leviticus 23:23-44)
• The order for continual bread and oil (Leviticus 24:1-9)
• Case law concerning a blasphemer (Leviticus 24:10-15a and 24:23)
• The order for a trumpet sounding on Yom Kippur (Leviticus 25:9b)
• Rules concerning redeeming property (Leviticus 25:23 and 25:26-34)
• Order to release heathen slaves at the year of jubilee (Leviticus 25:40, 25:42, 25:44-46)
• Rules concerning redeeming people (Leviticus 25:48-52, and 25:54)

The section concerning continual bread and oil is, in critical scholarship, viewed as part of the description of the structure of the tabernacle, and vestments, present at the end of Exodus, which has accidentally become inserted at this point due to scribal error. The case law example of blasphemy is believed to be the work of one of the later editions of the priestly source, in which several other case law examples were added, such as that concerning the daughters of Zelophehad (Numbers 36). The remainder of the alleged additions arguably deform the laws from the manner they would otherwise have, to the laws supported by the priestly code. Whether these represent alterations to the law over time, lawmaking by the writer of the political faction supported by the priestly source, or simply details present but not originally thought worth mentioning, is a matter of some debate.

More recent critical scholarship, particularly that of Israel Knohl, and Jacob Milgrom, has argued instead that the Holiness Code (H) was the appendage, and the Priestly Code (P) the original. This view also identifies passages outside the traditional area of H, specifically in Exodus and Numbers, as belonging to the Holiness Code rather than P, such as the order to sound a trumpet on certain dates. In consequence, this view sees the author of H as the editor of P, rather than the reverse, in particular as P is able to be read coherently even when devoid of H. Nevertheless, the presence of what appears to be a clear ending to H, specifically Leviticus 26, which would be expected to have been moved, such as to be after Leviticus 27, if H was the addition, rather than the original, has presented some problems for such revising of the theory.