Priestly Code - Composition

Composition

It is evident that rules of priestly procedure must have accompanied the institution of the priesthood, and in the earliest of times, before writing was invented, these rules probably were transmitted orally. When writing was first employed in connection with them, it is likely that only some general directions, or some details deemed most important, were committed to writing. As time passed on the importance given to written law would lead the priesthood to commit more and more of the details to writing. Critical scholars assert that in addition to this, over time, variations of detail would develop, authority for which must be committed to writing, so that actual practise would become justified by law. One would, therefore, suppose beforehand that such a code would exhibit evidence of gradual growth.

Colophons, which, according to textual criticism, are best explained as survivals from previous collections, are found in parts of the priestly code, at Leviticus 6:7, 7:37-38, 11:46-47, 13:59; 14:54-57, and 15:32-33. Colophons generally occur at the end of sources, and it is for this reason that Biblical Critics assert that the priestly code is composed of several originally separate documents placed together, with these colophons marking the ends of some of the source texts. Aside from these colophons, and obvious breaks between laws, such as those caused by narrative elements, for example the break between Leviticus 7:31 and Leviticus 11:1, as well as those caused by the presence of the Holiness Code, it is more difficult to identify other potential borders between sources.

One observation that can be made is that after each colophon, in Leviticus, there is a new introduction, of the form and the LORD said unto Moses.... Several critical scholars have proposed that these introductions are an attempt to patch over the breaks between sources, and therefore conclude that everywhere there is a new introduction, there must be a break between sources. In addition to the colophons, and narrative breaks, this adds additional borders at Leviticus 4:1, 5:14, 6:1, 6:19, 6:24, 7:22, 7:28, 13:1, 14:33, and 15:1.

More detailed textual criticism, comparing vocabulary, writing styles, and so forth, is seen, by critical scholars, to support the idea that both the colophons, and the introductions, mark the borders between works originating from different writers, except for Leviticus 6:1. Leviticus 5:15-19 and 6:2-18 are usually regarded, under textual criticism, to have been from a continuous work, due to identical writing style, such as a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation ..., and trespass (ed) against the LORD. Nevertheless, such textual criticism also identifies further abrupt changes in style, between Leviticus 1 and 2, between Leviticus 2 and 3, and between Leviticus 4 and 5.

There is also an additional, abrupt change at Leviticus 13:47, between discussion of leprosy, and of leprosy of clothing (mildew), only presenting part of a sentence, devoid of any verb clause — without the camp shall his habitation be. The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, whether it be . And if the plague be greenish or reddish in the garment . Thus, taking this as another border, in critical scholarship, Leviticus 13:1-46 represents a distinct text to Leviticus 13:47-59. This latter text, discussing mildew, noticeably appears to interrupt Leviticus 13:1-14:32, discussing leprosy, since prior to it is a law ordering that a leper be sent out of the camp to dwell alone, and after the mildew section is a law instructing priests to go out of the camp and inspect the leper to see if they are yet healed. Consequently, Leviticus 13:1-46 and 14:2-32 are viewed as one, original, text into which the mildew section was inserted at a later date.

Another section of the priestly code which is considered, by critical scholars, to interlace two earlier sources, is Leviticus 16. The ritual of the two goats, one being a scapegoat sent to Azazel, as a ritual to atone for sin as a nation, is given before, rather than within, instructions laying out how to observe Yom Kippur, leading to arguments that there were originally two separate sources describing this event. Further study on this question lead to the suggestion, supported by a majority of critical scholars, that there were two originally separate rituals which have been intertwined, one involving the two goats, at Leviticus 16:5, 16:7-10, and 16:14-28, and the other involving bullocks, constituting the remainder of Leviticus 16.

Textual criticism also produces a noteworthy observation concerning Leviticus 12. This brief chapter concerns the ritual of purification after childbirth, which is strikingly similar to the rituals for purification after menstruation, and other bodily discharges (bleeding, pus, vomit, etc.), at the end of Leviticus 15. Both, for example, involve two turtledoves, or two young pigeons brought to a priest, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering, on the eighth day. According to textual criticism, the writing style, vocabulary, and so forth, is also indicative of a single author for the two chapters. Consequently, most biblical critics view Leviticus 12 as originally belonging immediately after Leviticus 15:30, as Leviticus 15 has the structure of discussion on male non-sexual discharges, followed by discussion on male sexual discharges (semen), followed by discussion on female non-sexual discharges, and thus Leviticus 12 completes the pattern, as it discusses childbirth, which can be viewed as sexually connected (conception) discharge (of a baby) by a female. Although there is not complete agreement about why this Chapter was moved, the currently most prominent reason given is that, at a later point in time, the view of childbirth changed, and it was no longer viewed as a sexual discharge.