Leviticus 1 - In Depth Bible Commentaries

approximate that of the late E. A. Speiser: that priestly law and literature took form over a protractedperiod of time; and that it would be inaccurate to assign all of their contents to a singleperiod of ancient history. This approach helps to explain the presence of some relatively earlymaterial in Leviticus, while at the same time allowing for the inclusion of exilic and post-exiliccreativity. It also correlates well with the observable strata within Leviticus and within P (i.e., the“Priestly Document”) as a whole...“There are indications that Leviticus may include post-exilic material. Certain of its termsof reference are known from extra-biblical documents of the late sixth and fifth centuries B.C.E.,after the end of the Babylonian exile. Some of the legislation of Leviticus regarding the jurisdictionof the priesthood fits in well with the pre-exilic situation--for example, chapter 27, whichspeaks of priestly accountability for temple administration, a set of functions compatible with theJudean monarchy. Chapter 25, however, speaks of indebtedness, indenture, and land transactions;it is unrealistic to suppose that under the Judean kings the priesthood would have hadjurisdiction over such matters. From the Books of Samuel and Kings, it would appear that royalofficials and local elders dealt with such transactions. In the post-exilic period, however, Jerusalemand Judea were governed by a priesthood, a ‘hierocracy,’ centered in the temple of Jerusalem,whose heads represented the Jewish community to the Persian authorities. The theory ofland tenure set forth in chapter 25 also differs appreciably from that typical of the pre-exilicperiod.“There is a certain logic in supposing that, at a time when the second temple was beingrebuilt, priestly writers would be engaged in recording their interpretation of the historic events thathad contributed to the Judean restoration. One hears echoes of exilic prophecy in Leviticus, insuch themes as redemption (hL'ÞauG>, ge)ullah; see Leviticus 25:24, 26, 29, 29, 31, 32, 48, 51and 52, as well as Jeremiah 32:7, 8; Ezekiel 11:15; Ruth 4:6 and 7) a major emphasis in thewritings of the exilic author, or authors, of Isaiah 40-66.” (Pp. xxix-xxx)But this viewpoint, sophisticated as it may sound, is itself without much solid objectiveevidence, and has definite problems. First, it goes against the repeated claim of the Book ofLeviticus itself to be Mosaic. Second, it goes against the traditional Jewish view, and runscounter to other Old Testament and New Testament witnesses, such as may be found expressedin Romans 10:5, where Paul claims that Moses wrote the law given in Leviticus 18.The student of the New Testament documents knows well the human limitations of its authors,and acknowledges that Paul may have been mistaken in this view--but it cannot be denied thatthis was the commonly held view of the early Christians. Third, many items in Leviticus are nowseen to be best explained in terms of a second-millennium B.C. date, which is also the most likelytime for Moses, and for the initial sacrificial worship of the Israelites. Thus it can be held thatthere is no truly convincing reason not to take at face value the many references to Moses and hiswork, along with Aharon and the Levites, in the earliest worship of Israel.But at the same time, we have to agree with Gispen's observation that "The author ofLeviticus is not named in the book. Yahweh does indeed speak repeatedly to Moses andAharon, or to Aharon; but no command is given to make a written record of what he says." (P.897) And while the contents of Leviticus are said to have originated at Mount Sinai, as Israelcompleted the building of its moveable sanctuary, and began on its way to the promised land,"...That does not settle the question of the authorship of Leviticus. Moses is not named as the2