Commenting
on just some of the scholarship supporting the pre-exilic date of the Priestly
(P) material, Thomas J. King wrote:
Zevit points to the socio-historical evidence
which adds to the growing argument for the preexilic date of the priestly
material. The priestly tithe laws of Num 18:21-28 provided for the needs of the
Levites who worked as judges, administrators, cultic functionaries, the
laborers, but had no agricultural lands. Nine-tenths of the annual tithe was
kept by the Levites and the remaining tenth was given to the priests by the
Levites. (Ziony Zevit, “Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of Pn”
ZAW 94 [1982]:485-87).
This tithe law appears in contrast to that of
Deut 14:27-29 which provides a tithe to the Levites only every third year. Noth
concluded that the tithe law of Num 18 “was practiced in a late period which
can no longer be precisely determined” (Noth, Numbers, 137). However, Zevit clarifies that the tithe law of Deut
14:27-29 is understood in relation to the Josianic reform. The reduced status
for the Levites may be explained by developments over a prolonged period
including: 1) the reduced territory over which the monarchy and clergy in
Jerusalem had control after the successful revolt of the northern tribes, 2)
the resultant loss of many Levitical cities (after the defection of the northern
tribes), and 3) the closing of the high places in the period of the Josianic
reform. The reconstruction implies that the P tithe law of Num 18 derives from
a period at least prior to Josiah’s
reform (i.e. before the reduction of Levitical status). This is proven if it cannot be shown with equal plausibility that
the tithe law could be understood within the history of the postexilic period.
By pointing to the continued reduction in status of the Levites into the
postexilic period, Zevit demonstrates that indeed the Levitical tithe law of Nu
18 is not equally applicable to the
postexilic period, and therefore must be understood within the early
(preexilic) setting (Zevit, “Converging Lines of Evidence,” 487-92).
Literary comparison between P and other
biblical books provides further evidence in support of an early date for P.
Hildebrand points to evidence which implies an early date when P is compared to
the biblical Historical Books. Priestly expressions reflected in Josh
14:1-21:40, which contains a similar arrangement of material as that in Num
26-36, imply that P may have preceded the Joshua text. In addition, 1 Sam
14:32-35 refers back to Lev 19:26, and priestly ritual expressions are found in
2 Kgs 12:5-17 (Eng., 12:4-16) and in 2 Kgs 16:10-26. These examples suggest
that the writer(s) of such texts in Samuel and Kings had access to P accounts
which must have been extant earlier (David R. Hildebrand, “A Summary of Recent Findings
in Support of an Early Date for the So-called Priestly Material for the
Pentateuch,” Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 29 [1986]: 137). (Thomas J. King, The Realignment of the Priestly Literature: The Priestly Narrative in
Genesis and its Relation to Priestly Legislation and the Holiness School [Princeton
Theological Monograph Series; Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2009], 36-37)
