Explore the vast range of titles available.

Abstract This article analyzes the relationship between the pentateuchal tithe laws in Lev 27:30-33; Num 18:21-32, and Deut 14:22-29 from a literary perspective and finds that (1) Lev 27:30-33 is the oldest tithe law in the Pentateuch that may have been the common source of the other pentateuchal tithe laws, (2) the tithe law in Num 18:21-32 may have been literarily dependent upon the tithe law in Deut 14:22-29, (3) the purpose of the legal revision of the pentateuchal tithe laws was to replace rather than to supplement the older legislation, and (4) the tithe law in Lev 27:30-33 may have been a product of the Priestly School, whereas the tithe law in Num 18:21-32 may have stemmed from the Holiness School albeit from a later stratum than H proper (Lev 17-26).

This dissertation analyzes the literary relationship between the Holiness Code (H) and other legal corpora in the Pentateuch, namely, the Covenant Code (CC), the Priestly Code (P), and the Deuteronomic Code (D). After surveying the current state of research on how H relates to other pentateuchal legal corpora, this study develops a method for analyzing the literary relationship between two or more texts by focusing on the linguistic features of the texts, such as lexical, syntactic, semantic, and structural-thematic features. This method is then applied to three passages in H proper, namely, the laws of cultic centralization and animal slaughter in Lev 17, the laws of the festivals in Lev 23, and the laws of the Sabbatical and Jubilee Years in Lev 25. These laws in H are compared with their parallel laws in CC, P, and D to identify the presence of a literary connection, to assess the nature of the literary connection, and to determine the direction of the literary dependence.The analyses of these passages demonstrate that the degrees of literary connections between H’s laws and their parallel laws in the Pentateuch vary. The literary relationship between H and P is extensive and systematic, as evidenced by the high degree of literary borrowing of the latter by the former. By contrast, the literary relationship between H and non-Priestly pentateuchal legal corpora is less salient. Despite claims that H overtly revises non-priestly legislation, the present study finds that H’s reuse of non-Priestly legislation is generally covert, if present at all. Moreover, while the knowledge of P is required to understand H, it is not necessary for the reader of H to consult or be aware of CC and D to comprehend its laws. This study further discusses the compositional method and exegetical purpose of H’s legal innovation, or lack thereof, as exemplified by the three laws in Lev 17, 23, and 25 vis-à-vis their parallels in the other pentateuchal legal corpora. The findings do not support the notion that H was intended to be a “super law” that supersedes or replaces all other pentateuchal legal corpora. Instead, these laws in H were composed to supplement P with occasional reuse of materials from CC and little to no interest in D.