Holiness code

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Holiness Code appears at Leviticus 17-26, and is so called due to its highly repeated use of the word Holy. The style is noticeably different from the main body of Leviticus: unlike the remainder of Leviticus, the many laws of the Holiness code are expressed very closely packed together, and very briefly.

The Holiness code also uses a noticeably different choice of vocabulary, repeating phrases such as I, The LORD, am holy, I am the LORD, and I the LORD, which sanctify..., an unusually large number of times. Additionally, Leviticus 17 begins with This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded, saying.., and Leviticus 26 strongly resembles the conclusion of a law code, despite the presence of further laws afterward, such as at Leviticus 27, giving the Holiness Code the appearance of a single distinct unit.

Even among conservatives (in this context, perhaps best described as Ultra-Orthodox Jews and Christian fundamentalists), it is debated as to how much of this passage can be of applicablity today, as the Levitical priesthood and animal sacrifices ended with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70. Many in these groups see all of the laws regarding sexuality as being of binding applicability today and as being reiterated for emphasis elsewhere in the Biblical text.

1 Embedding in the Priestly source
2 Composition
3 Comparison with other biblical law codes
4 External links

[edit] 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 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 19:21-22)
The prohibition against an anointed high priest uncovering his head or rending his clothes (Leviticus 21:10)
The prohibition against offerings by Aaronid 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 only keep heathens as slaves (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 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 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. Nethertheless, 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.

[edit] Composition

The Holiness code is a collection of many laws concerning several subjects. Critical scholarship therefore regards it as being generally a work constructed by the collecting together of a series of earlier collections of laws. One of the most noticeable elements of the work is a large section concerning the following sexual activities, which are prohibited lest the land spue you out:

Do not be sexually involved with your father
Do not be sexually involved with your uncle (on your father's side)
Do not be sexually involved with your mother or step-mother
Do not be sexually involved with your sister, step-sister, or sister-in-law
Do not be sexually involved with your daughter-in-law
Do not be sexually involved with your granddaughter
Do not be sexually involved with your neighbour's wife
Do not be sexually involved with a woman as well as her daughter
Do not be sexually involved with a ritually unclean woman
Do not be sexually involved with a man as you would with a woman
Do not be sexually involved with a beast
Do not pass your seed through the fire to moloch

These are listed within Leviticus 18. They are also listed again, shortly afterward, with the same admonition against following the practices of the Canaanites lest the land spue you out, at Leviticus 20. While Leviticus 18 presents them as a simple list, Leviticus 20 presents them in a chiastic structure based on how serious a crime they are viewed, as well as presenting the punishment deemed appropriate for each, ranging from excommunication to execution. Leviticus 20 also presents the list in a more verbose manner.

Furthermore, Leviticus 22:11-21 parallels Leviticus 17, and there are, according to textual criticism, passages at Leviticus 18:26, 19:37, 22:31-33, 24:22, and 25:55, which, have the appearance of once standing at the end of independent laws or collections of laws as colophons. For this reason, several scholars view the five sections preceding between each of these passages as deriving from originally separate documents. In particular, the two segments containing the sexual prohibitions, Leviticus 17:2-18:26 and Leviticus 20:1-22:33, are seen as being based on essentially the same law code, with Leviticus 20:1-22:33 regarded as the later version of the two.

Chapter 19, which ends in a colophon, has a similarity with the Ritual Decalogue, though presenting a more detailed and expanded version, leading critical scholars to conclude it represents a much later version of that decalogue. Notably, it contains the commandment popularly referred to as love thy neighbour as thyself, and begins with the commandment ye shall be holy, for I, Yahweh, am holy, which Christianity regards as the two most important commandments. This chapter is widely regarded as a very elegantly written development of ethics.

By this reckoning, there are thus at least five earlier law collections which were redacted together, with an additional horatory conclusion, to form the Holiness Code. Two of which contain a list of sexual prohibitions, and one of which was a development of the Ritual Decalogue.

[edit] Comparison with other biblical law codes

Most critical scholars and religious commentaries regard the Holiness code as bearing strong resemblence, in several places, to the writing of Ezekiel. Ezekiel dwells repeatedly on offences which the Holiness code condemns, and spends little time concerned with those outside it (e.g. Leviticus 18:8-17 in comparison with Ezekiel 22:10-11), and several extensive lists of such parallels exist. There is also a great similarity between Ezekiel's writing and the hortatory elements, particularly the conclusion, of the Holiness code. These strong similarities have led many, critical, scholars, to question whether Ezekiel was the author of the code, or at least the collector, and it remains an open question whether the Holiness Code influenced Ezekiel, or Ezekiel influenced the Holiness Code.

The Holiness Code has a similarity of structure with both the Covenant Code and the Deuteronomic Code. Like these, it opens with a law regulating ceremonies at the altar, lists a series of disparate laws, and then closes with a set of promises for obeying the law, and curses for failing to do so. While some of the laws appear more developed than Deuteronomy, for example, the law concerning weights and measures is more detailed, the majority show less development, and the implication of multiple sanctuaries implied by the Holiness Code's laws, concerning altar ceremonies, is usually understood to imply a date prior to the banning of sanctuaries outside the temple at Jerusalem. A similar comparison with the covenant code implies that the date of the Holiness Code is between that of the Covenant Code, and that of the Deuteronomic Code, highly suitable for the position it finds itself within the torah.

Although it is superficially plausible for the Holiness Code to be an updated version of the Covenant Code, and the Deuteronomic Code a later version still, the quite different manner in which the individual laws are presented, as well as the manner in which they are ordered, has lead to a large majority of scholars concluding that while the structure of the code is copied, indicating that the writer of each code knew the code of its predecessor, the laws themselves were collected together independently on each occasion. Nethertheless, it is similarly acknowledged by the majority, of critical scholars, that these three codes represent a gradual development of the underlying laws, as would be expected for a period of some 200-400 years.

In the documentary hypothesis, the priestly source is a work which, after its initial edition, suffered under the hand of several later, less skilled, editors, who each variously inserted documents, added additional laws, or expanded on the laws already present. Thus the original narrative, and the legal code within it, became surrounded by an extensive body of legal, and ritual, elements, as well as numerical, genealogical, and geographic, data. The underlying narrative, in the hypothesis, is based on JE, which already possessed a legal code, namely the Covenant Code and Ritual Decalogue. The majority of critical scholars thus support the position that, while the Ritual Decalogue was replaced by the Ethical Decalogue, the Holiness Code was chosen, or designed, to replace the Covenant Code.