Mladen Popović, “Introducing Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. Popović; JSJSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 1-17 at 1.

Mladen Popović, “Introducing Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. Popović; JSJSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 1-17 at 1.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

For this title, cf. Anneli Aejmelaeus, “What We Talk about When We Talk about Translation Technique,” in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Oslo, 1998 (ed. Bernard A. Taylor; sblscs 51; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 531-32.

For this title, cf. Anneli Aejmelaeus, “What We Talk about When We Talk about Translation Technique,” in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Oslo, 1998 (ed. Bernard A. Taylor; sblscs 51; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 531-32.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Molly M. Zahn, “Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology,” in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (ed. Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala, and Marko Marttila; bzaw 419; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 93-119, esp. 93.

See Molly M. Zahn, “Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology,” in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (ed. Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala, and Marko Marttila; bzaw 419; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 93-119, esp. 93.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Peter W. Flint, “The Shape of the ‘Bible’ at Qumran,” in Judaism in Late Antiquity, Part Five: The Judaism of Qumran (ed. Alan J. Avery-Peck, Jacob Neusner, and Bruce D. Chilton; 2 vols.; ho 56; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 2:45-103, esp. 56-58.

See Peter W. Flint, “The Shape of the ‘Bible’ at Qumran,” in Judaism in Late Antiquity, Part Five: The Judaism of Qumran (ed. Alan J. Avery-Peck, Jacob Neusner, and Bruce D. Chilton; 2 vols.; ho 56; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 2:45-103, esp. 56-58.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Zahn, “Talking about Rewritten Texts,” 97.

See Zahn, “Talking about Rewritten Texts,” 97.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Comp., however, Hindy Najman, “The Symbolic Significance of Writing in Ancient Judaism,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (ed. Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman; JSJSup 83; Leiden: Brill, 2004).

Comp., however, Hindy Najman, “The Symbolic Significance of Writing in Ancient Judaism,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (ed. Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman; JSJSup 83; Leiden: Brill, 2004).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Popović, “Introducing,” 2.

Popović, “Introducing,” 2.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Zahn, “Talking about Rewritten Texts,” 116.

See Zahn, “Talking about Rewritten Texts,” 116.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See, e.g., James C. VanderKam, “Revealed Literature in the Second Temple Period,” in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible & Second Temple Literature (JSJSup 62; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 1-30; as well as his earlier study “Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” dsd 5 (1998): 382-402. Florentino García Martínez, “Rethinking the Bible: Sixty Years of Dead Sea Scrolls Research and Beyond,” in Popović, Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism, 19-36 at 31 refers to Jubilees and the Temple Scroll as “the two best examples of rewritings . . . that we can ascertain were accepted as authoritative by certain groups.”

See, e.g., James C. VanderKam, “Revealed Literature in the Second Temple Period,” in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible & Second Temple Literature (JSJSup 62; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 1-30; as well as his earlier study “Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” dsd 5 (1998): 382-402. Florentino García Martínez, “Rethinking the Bible: Sixty Years of Dead Sea Scrolls Research and Beyond,” in Popović, Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism, 19-36 at 31 refers to Jubilees and the Temple Scroll as “the two best examples of rewritings . . . that we can ascertain were accepted as authoritative by certain groups.”)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology (JSJSup 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007); as well as Segal, “The Relationship between the Legal and Narrative Passages in Jubilees,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran (ed. Esther G. Chazon, Devorah Dimant, and Ruth A. Clements; stdj 58; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 203-28; and Segal, “The Composition of Jubilees,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees (ed. Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 22-35.

See Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology (JSJSup 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007); as well as Segal, “The Relationship between the Legal and Narrative Passages in Jubilees,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran (ed. Esther G. Chazon, Devorah Dimant, and Ruth A. Clements; stdj 58; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 203-28; and Segal, “The Composition of Jubilees,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees (ed. Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 22-35.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Cf. John J. Collins, “Changing Scripture,” in Changes in Scripture, 23-46 at 36, who notes that Jubilees’s authority “does depend on the setting at Sinai, and the reader’s acceptance that a foundational revelatory event occurred there.”

Cf. John J. Collins, “Changing Scripture,” in Changes in Scripture, 23-46 at 36, who notes that Jubilees’s authority “does depend on the setting at Sinai, and the reader’s acceptance that a foundational revelatory event occurred there.”)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (JSJSup 77; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 44-46.

See Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (JSJSup 77; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 44-46.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Kugel, “The Figure of Moses,” 92.

Kugel, “The Figure of Moses,” 92.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Ibid., 92.

As aptly noted by Thomas Römer, “How Many Books (Teuchs): Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Deuteronomistic History, or Enneateuch?” in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings (ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas Römer, and Konrad Schmid; sblail 8; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 25-42 at 29: “The idea that there was an original Hexateuch and not a Pentateuch is as old as the Documentary Hypothesis . . . [and it] arose because of the idea that the book of Joshua is the fitting conclusion to the narration that starts with the promise of the land in the book of Genesis, so that the end of J and E (and also P) should be preserved in Joshua.” This preoccupation with the idea of a Hexateuch may readily be seen from the title of Julius Wellhausen’s Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der Historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (3rd ed.; Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1899). Likewise, Abraham Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des ouden verbonds(Leiden: Engels en zoon, 1887), 5-331 discusses the growth of the Hexateuch as a whole before proceeding to the books of Judges, Samuel and Kings.

As aptly noted by Thomas Römer, “How Many Books (Teuchs): Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Deuteronomistic History, or Enneateuch?” in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings (ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas Römer, and Konrad Schmid; sblail 8; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 25-42 at 29: “The idea that there was an original Hexateuch and not a Pentateuch is as old as the Documentary Hypothesis . . . [and it] arose because of the idea that the book of Joshua is the fitting conclusion to the narration that starts with the promise of the land in the book of Genesis, so that the end of J and E (and also P) should be preserved in Joshua.” This preoccupation with the idea of a Hexateuch may readily be seen from the title of Julius Wellhausen’s Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der Historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (3rd ed.; Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1899). Likewise, Abraham Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des ouden verbonds (Leiden: Engels en zoon, 1887), 5-331 discusses the growth of the Hexateuch as a whole before proceeding to the books of Judges, Samuel and Kings. )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

So Römer, “Le Pentateuque toujours en question,” 360.

So Römer, “Le Pentateuque toujours en question,” 360.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

So Reinhard G. Kratz, “Der vor- und der nachpriesterschriftliche Hexateuch,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (ed. Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte; bzaw 315; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 295-323 at 295.

So Reinhard G. Kratz, “Der vor- und der nachpriesterschriftliche Hexateuch,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (ed. Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte; bzaw 315; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 295-323 at 295.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Cf., e.g., de Pury and Römer, “Le Pentateuque en question,” 71: “Tout le monde reconnaît que P connaît et réinterprète les textes présacerdotaux”; and Reinhard G. Kratz, “The Pentateuch in Current Research: Consensus and Debate,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives, 31-61 at 38: “the Priestly text from beginning to end cannot be understood without knowledge of the non-P material to which it refers.” See also the “practically universal claim” noted by Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (abrl; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 188, who nevertheless disagrees with it.

Cf., e.g., de Pury and Römer, “Le Pentateuque en question,” 71: “Tout le monde reconnaît que P connaît et réinterprète les textes présacerdotaux”; and Reinhard G. Kratz, “The Pentateuch in Current Research: Consensus and Debate,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives, 31-61 at 38: “the Priestly text from beginning to end cannot be understood without knowledge of the non-P material to which it refers.” See also the “practically universal claim” noted by Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (abrl; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 188, who nevertheless disagrees with it. )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 296. See recently also Philippe Guillaume, Land and Calendar: The Priestly Document from Genesis 1 to Joshua 18 (ots 391; New York: T&T Clark, 2009).

David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 296. See recently also Philippe Guillaume, Land and Calendar: The Priestly Document from Genesis 1 to Joshua 18 (ots 391; New York: T&T Clark, 2009). )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Norbert Lohfink, “Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichte,” in Congress Volume Göttingen 1977 (ed. John A. Emerton; VTSup 29; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 189-225. He notes in “The Strata of the Pentateuch and the Question of War,” in Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 173-226 at 200: “At this point, the last of the arcs drawn from the beginning has reached its end.”

See Norbert Lohfink, “Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichte,” in Congress Volume Göttingen 1977 (ed. John A. Emerton; VTSup 29; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 189-225. He notes in “The Strata of the Pentateuch and the Question of War,” in Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 173-226 at 200: “At this point, the last of the arcs drawn from the beginning has reached its end.” )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Konrad Schmid, The Old Testament: A Literary History (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 148.

See Konrad Schmid, The Old Testament: A Literary History (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 148.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Thus Jean-Louis Ska, Introduction à la lecture du Pentateuque: Clés pour l’interprétation des cinq premiers livres de la Bible (Le livre et le rouleau 5; Brussels: Lessius, 2000), 303: “l’une des plus compliquées de tout le Pentateuque.”

Thus Jean-Louis Ska, Introduction à la lecture du Pentateuque: Clés pour l’interprétation des cinq premiers livres de la Bible (Le livre et le rouleau 5; Brussels: Lessius, 2000), 303: “l’une des plus compliquées de tout le Pentateuque.” )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

As noted by Reinhard G. Kratz, The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament (trans. John Bowden; New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 137: “The many toings and froings, Moses’ repeated ascending and descending, alone make it clear that many interests and hands have been at work on the present composition.” Nevertheless, in response to the many works emphasizing the disparateness of traditions in these chapters, some attempts have been made to highlight their coherence and even their literary unity; see particularly Erhard Blum, “Israël à la montagne de Dieu: Remarques sur Ex 19-24; 32-34 et sur le contexte littéraire et historique de sa composition,” in Le Pentateuque en question, 271-300 and T. D. Alexander, “The Composition of the Sinai Narrative in Exodus xix 1-xxiv 11,” VT 49 (1999): 2-20. Thus, it is evident that, as aptly noted by William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1-18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 2; New York: Doubleday, 1999), 141, “depending on presuppositions and temperament, one scholar’s break will be another’s artistic effect.”

As noted by Reinhard G. Kratz, The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament (trans. John Bowden; New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 137: “The many toings and froings, Moses’ repeated ascending and descending, alone make it clear that many interests and hands have been at work on the present composition.” Nevertheless, in response to the many works emphasizing the disparateness of traditions in these chapters, some attempts have been made to highlight their coherence and even their literary unity; see particularly Erhard Blum, “Israël à la montagne de Dieu: Remarques sur Ex 19-24; 32-34 et sur le contexte littéraire et historique de sa composition,” in Le Pentateuque en question, 271-300 and T. D. Alexander, “The Composition of the Sinai Narrative in Exodus xix 1-xxiv 11,” VT 49 (1999): 2-20. Thus, it is evident that, as aptly noted by William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1-18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 2; New York: Doubleday, 1999), 141, “depending on presuppositions and temperament, one scholar’s break will be another’s artistic effect.”)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

As argued by Childs, Exodus, 500-501.

As argued by Childs, Exodus, 500-501.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs, 81-98.

See Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs, 81-98.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See, e.g., Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Structure and Meaning in the Sinai-Horeb Narrative (Exodus 19-34),” in A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content: Essays in Honor of George W. Coats (ed. Eugene E. Carpenter; JSOTSup 240; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1997), 109-25, who argues that Exod 19-34 is essentially a relatively coherent deuteronomistic reworking of older traditions; see also Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (abrl; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 189-94. Likewise, Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (bzaw 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 45-99 considered it a significant example for his KD. Although he rejects the idea of a deuteronomistic redaction, a very similar scenario has actually been suggested by John Van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (cbet 10; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994), 286: “The [post-dtr] Yahwist has also transformed the event from a simple convocation to hear the law, as in Deuteronomy, into a ceremonial event with careful preparation and a final solemn act of consecration and sacrifice.”

See, e.g., Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Structure and Meaning in the Sinai-Horeb Narrative (Exodus 19-34),” in A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content: Essays in Honor of George W. Coats (ed. Eugene E. Carpenter; JSOTSup 240; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1997), 109-25, who argues that Exod 19-34 is essentially a relatively coherent deuteronomistic reworking of older traditions; see also Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (abrl; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 189-94. Likewise, Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (bzaw 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 45-99 considered it a significant example for his K^D. Although he rejects the idea of a deuteronomistic redaction, a very similar scenario has actually been suggested by John Van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (cbet 10; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994), 286: “The [post-dtr] Yahwist has also transformed the event from a simple convocation to hear the law, as in Deuteronomy, into a ceremonial event with careful preparation and a final solemn act of consecration and sacrifice.” )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See particularly Eckart Otto, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im Buch Exodus,” in Studies in the Book of Exodus, 61-112, esp. 77-82 and Reinhard Achenbach, “The Story of the Revelation at the Mountain of God and the Redactional Editions of the Hexateuch and the Pentateuch,” in A Critical Study of the Pentateuch: An Encounter between Europe and Africa (ed. Eckart Otto and Jurie LeRoux; Altes Testament und Moderne 20; Münster: Lit Verlag, 2005); cf. Thomas Römer, “Provisorische Überlegungen zur Entstehung von Exodus 18-24,” in “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (Gen 18,19): Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur Religionssoziologie: Festschrift für Eckart Otto zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Reinhard Achenbach and Martin Arneth; bzabr 13; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009), 128-54. Although scholars do not concur on the precise extent of these post-Priestly redactions, many tend to consider Exod 19:3-8 as a late redactional insertion; see also Jean-Louis Ska, “Exode 19,3b-6 et l’identité de l’Israël postexilique,” in Studies in the Book of Exodus, 289-318; and Ludwig Schmidt, “Israel und das Gesetz: Ex 19,3b-8 und 24,3-8 als literarischer und theologischer Rahmen für das Bundesbuch,” zaw 113 (2001): 167-85.

See particularly Eckart Otto, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im Buch Exodus,” in Studies in the Book of Exodus, 61-112, esp. 77-82 and Reinhard Achenbach, “The Story of the Revelation at the Mountain of God and the Redactional Editions of the Hexateuch and the Pentateuch,” in A Critical Study of the Pentateuch: An Encounter between Europe and Africa (ed. Eckart Otto and Jurie LeRoux; Altes Testament und Moderne 20; Münster: Lit Verlag, 2005); cf. Thomas Römer, “Provisorische Überlegungen zur Entstehung von Exodus 18-24,” in “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (Gen 18,19): Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur Religionssoziologie: Festschrift für Eckart Otto zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Reinhard Achenbach and Martin Arneth; bzabr 13; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009), 128-54. Although scholars do not concur on the precise extent of these post-Priestly redactions, many tend to consider Exod 19:3-8 as a late redactional insertion; see also Jean-Louis Ska, “Exode 19,3b-6 et l’identité de l’Israël postexilique,” in Studies in the Book of Exodus, 289-318; and Ludwig Schmidt, “Israel und das Gesetz: Ex 19,3b-8 und 24,3-8 als literarischer und theologischer Rahmen für das Bundesbuch,” zaw 113 (2001): 167-85. )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Childs, Exodus, 500-501.

Childs, Exodus, 500-501.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Schmid, The Old Testament, 150.

See Schmid, The Old Testament, 150.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Thus according to, e.g., Ralph W. Klein, “The Message of P,” in Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift für Hans Walter Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. Jörg Jeremias and Lothar Perlitt; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981), 57-66, esp. 62, and Baruch J. Schwartz, “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai,” in Texts, Temples and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. Michael V. Fox et al.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 103-34, esp. 133.

Thus according to, e.g., Ralph W. Klein, “The Message of P,” in Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift für Hans Walter Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. Jörg Jeremias and Lothar Perlitt; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981), 57-66, esp. 62, and Baruch J. Schwartz, “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai,” in Texts, Temples and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. Michael V. Fox et al.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 103-34, esp. 133.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Dozeman, Exodus, 431.

See Dozeman, Exodus, 431.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Najman, Seconding Sinai, 16-17.

See Najman, Seconding Sinai, 16-17.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

So Kugel, A Walk through Jubilees, 7.

So Kugel, A Walk through Jubilees, 7.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See, e.g., VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 141-43.

See, e.g., VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 141-43.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See, e.g., Christophe Nihan, “The Holiness Code between D and P: Some Comments on the Function and Significance of Leviticus 17-26 in the Composition of the Torah,” in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (ed. Eckart Otto and Reinhard Achenbach; frlant 206; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 81-122.

See, e.g., Christophe Nihan, “The Holiness Code between D and P: Some Comments on the Function and Significance of Leviticus 17-26 in the Composition of the Torah,” in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (ed. Eckart Otto and Reinhard Achenbach; frlant 206; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 81-122.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 619; cf. Nihan’s essay “Israel’s Festival Calendars in Leviticus 23, Numbers 28-29 and the Formation of ‘Priestly’ Literature,” in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, 177-231 at 231: “Perhaps more than any other portion of the Torah, the Priestly literature is the product of a creative yet highly coherent process of reception, revisions, and re-formulation spanning the totality of the Persian period . . . continuously adapting the doctrine of previous generations of scribes to the ever-changing historical circumstances in order to meet the religious and political requirements of their time.”

Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 619; cf. Nihan’s essay “Israel’s Festival Calendars in Leviticus 23, Numbers 28-29 and the Formation of ‘Priestly’ Literature,” in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, 177-231 at 231: “Perhaps more than any other portion of the Torah, the Priestly literature is the product of a creative yet highly coherent process of reception, revisions, and re-formulation spanning the totality of the Persian period . . . continuously adapting the doctrine of previous generations of scribes to the ever-changing historical circumstances in order to meet the religious and political requirements of their time.”)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See, e.g., Eugene Ulrich, “Empirical Evidence for Scribal and Editorial Transmission of Second Temple Religious Literature,” in Insights into Editing in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (ed. Reinhard Müller, Juha Pakkala, and Bas ter Haar Romeny; cbet; Leuven: Peeters; forthcoming).

See, e.g., Eugene Ulrich, “Empirical Evidence for Scribal and Editorial Transmission of Second Temple Religious Literature,” in Insights into Editing in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (ed. Reinhard Müller, Juha Pakkala, and Bas ter Haar Romeny; cbet; Leuven: Peeters; forthcoming).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation