IVP + ZEB or ISBE or AYBD

I have IVP dictionaries (IVP essential reference + the two OT dictionaries currently available) and am considering adding another.

From discussions on the forum, I can see that ZEB and ISBE are evangelical, whilst AYBD is less so, but very good nonetheless.

I had been thinking of ISBE or AYBD or ISBE+AYBD, but noticed that ZEB recently became available and has some good comments on the forum. I don't really want to get all four so my question is: given that I already have the IVP dictionaries, what is the bset options of these:

a) ISBE

b) AYBD

c) ISBE+AYBD

d) ZEB

e) an option I haven't thought of!

The purpose is for understanding the Bible better in essays and preaching/teaching.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ted Hans

c) ISBE+AYBD

The above c) would be my preferred option, since you already have the IVP dictionaries. IMHO the ISBE is better than the ZEB in terms of quality of articles.

Mark Barnes

I'd go for AYBD plus either ZEB or ISBE.

Gene Britton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/317220#Comment_317220

I still enjoy and use the ISBE.

Jack Caviness

c) ISBE+AYBD

This would be my choice

Milkman

Philana Crouch

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/317247#Comment_317247

Pick c...it I have IVP NT (hope to get OT ones soon). I also have AYBD and ISBE. Both are excellent in their own ways, and I am thankful I have them.

Blessings,

Philana

Rich DeRuiter

a) ISBE

b) AYBD

c) ISBE+AYBD

d) ZEB

e) an option I haven't thought of!

The purpose is for understanding the Bible better in essays and preaching/teaching.

Sorry, what's the ZEB?

I have both ISBE (rev. ed.) and AYBD. I'm surprised how often I find the ISBE articles more helpful, since I heard so much good about the AYBD. ISBE is also much less expensive. So, if money is an issue ISBE is a pretty good choice. One reason to get both might be to do more scholarly research, where it's important to consult more than one widely accepted resource, or to find more than one source for further research (the bibliographies in AYBD can be a big help for higher level academic studies!).

Really, to answer your question, we'd need to know how you would use these, and what your study habits are like. The more academically inclined you are the more I'd recommend AYBD. If you just want a thorough, and conservative evangelical-based Bible Encyclopedia, that goes a bit farther than a one-volume Bible Dictionary ISBE would be my recommendation.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/317250#Comment_317250

Sorry, what's the ZEB?

http://www.logos.com/product/5467/zondervan-encyclopedia-of-the-bible

Graham

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/317255#Comment_317255

Sorry, what's the ZEB?

http://www.logos.com/product/5467/zondervan-encyclopedia-of-the-bible

Graham

Aha! Thanks. Never noticed this one before.

Cost seems closer to AYBD (-$46) than ISBE (+$94). The sample pages are so small that they are unreadable on my computer, so it's not really possible to evaluate the content from the link above. Editors and recommenders (under "Praise for the print edition") suggest it targets less an academic audience than a general knowledge audience, but there's no way I can confirm that.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/317264#Comment_317264

Here's a comparison of an article of the authorship of Leviticus in ISBE and ZEB:

ISBE

IV. Authorship and Date

Leviticus claims throughout to record what God revealed to Moses; nowhere does it ever state that Moses wrote down what he heard. The book’s lack of explicitness about its literary origin is one reason for the great diversity of views among modern scholars. The issue is highly complex; it really involves the question of the composition of the whole Pentateuch. Here it must suffice to set out very briefly the arguments for and against the different views as far as they concern Leviticus.

A. The Traditional View This is the view that Leviticus was compiled by Moses himself or that at least the material in the book, if not its final shape, goes back to Moses.

Four main arguments are used to support this view. First, the book always presupposes that the laws were given to Moses in the wilderness. Time and again we are told, “The Lord spoke to Moses.” The wilderness setting is not merely referred to in the introduction to each group of laws; it is often alluded to in the laws themselves. The sacrifices are offered in the tabernacle, not in the temple (chs 1–17); lepers must live outside the camp, not outside the city (13:46); 17:1–9 presupposes that every Israelite is within easy reach of the tabernacle. Laws that would apply only to a settled people are generally prefaced by a statement that God is bringing Israel into the land of Canaan, where such laws will become applicable (14:34; 18:3; 23:10; 25:2).

Second, nothing in Leviticus cannot date from the Mosaic period. Elaborate rituals and sacrificial systems are attested in the ancient Near East long before the time of Moses. The normal critical view that these institutions are a late feature of Israelite religion is contrary to what is known about the religious practices in neighboring contemporary cultures.

Third, the book is unsuited to the needs of the postexilic age. For example, although Lev. 18 and 20 deal at length with the question of marriage, nothing is said about intermarriage with Canaanites, the burning issue in Ezra and Nehemiah’s time (Ezr. 9–10; Neh. 13:23ff). While Leviticus magnifies the office of high priest, the priests of Nehemiah’s day seem to have been opposed to reform (Neh. 13). The tithe laws (Nu. 18:26ff), which come from the same source as Leviticus, seem to presuppose a ratio of ten Levites to one priest, yet from Ezr. 8:15 we discover that after the Exile there was a great shortage of Levites; the lists (Ezr. 2:36ff; Neh. 7:39ff) suggest a ratio of twelve priests to one Levite among the returning exiles.
Finally, the book of Ezekiel quotes or alludes to Leviticus many times (cf. Lev. 10:10 with Ezk. 22:26; Lev. 18:5 with Ezk. 20:11; Lev. 26 with Ezk. 34). This does not of course prove a Mosaic date for Leviticus but merely that it was an old work whose laws were binding on Israel because they enshrined the covenant between God and His people.

B. The Standard Critical View The postexilic origin of the priestly work (P) has become an axiom of biblical scholarship. J. Wellhausen’s Prolegomena to the History of Israel (1878; repr 1973) is the classic exposition of why P is believed to be the latest of the pentateuchal sources (cf. CRITICISM, esp II.D).
According to Wellhausen one can trace a development in Israel’s religious life and practice. In the earliest days worship was simple, free, and spontaneous. It gradually became more hidebound by law and custom, until eventually it reached a stage of rigid ritualistic legalism. With the growing emphasis on form and ritual went an increase in the power and privileges of the priesthood. P and the books of Chronicles represent the endpoint of this religious evolution.

These trends can be discerned in several different areas of religious life. First, there is the question of the place of worship. In the days of Samuel there was freedom to sacrifice wherever one chose (e.g., 1 S. 16:2). King Josiah, however, limited all sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem (2 K. 23; cf. Dt. 12). Leviticus (e.g., 17:1–9) simply assumes that all sacrifices must be offered in the tabernacle. According to most critical scholars the tabernacle and the cult described in Leviticus are projections into the Mosaic past of the temple in Jerusalem. That Leviticus simply assumes that all sacrifice will take place in the tabernacle, i.e., the temple, shows that Josiah’s centralization measures had been universally accepted, having occurred long before P would have been written.

The trend toward ritualism is obvious in the history of sacrifice. In early times sacrifice was a joyful fellowship meal (Jgs. 13:16ff). In Leviticus sacrifice has become an elaborate priestly function whose prime purpose is the atonement of sin.

In the great national festivals the flexibility of the early period subsequently gave way to a rigid timetable. The feasts of Unleavened Bread, Weeks, and Booths were originally harvest festivals. In early times each tribe celebrated them at times that suited the state of crops in its area. Later, when all worship was centralized in Jerusalem, it was necessary to give a fixed date so that the whole nation could keep the festivals together. This is what is presupposed in Lev. 23.

Over the years the priestly hierarchy became more highly developed and richer. In early times a priest was not even necessary to offer sacrifice. By postexilic times not only were priests indispensable, but there were great differentiations within the priesthood, which had Levites, priests, and high priest. Leviticus betrays its late origin with its stress on the importance of the high priest. In early times gifts to the priests were optional, or at least unregulated. Gradually the priests extended their rights. In Leviticus they must be given tithes, first fruits, and many parts of the sacrifices. According to Wellhausen this was a late development.

One final argument in favor of a late date for P rests on the difference between the books of Chronicles and Kings. Kings, probably written ca 550 B.C., says little about the worship in Jerusalem. But Chronicles, possibly written two centuries later than Kings, describes a very elaborate cult with many features akin to P. This similarity between P and Chronicles, it is claimed, proves the late date of P.

Since Wellhausen, many details of the above scheme have been modified; but the general picture has remained unaltered in most textbooks. It is, however, admitted by those who accept this general position that while P (and therefore Leviticus) was not finally edited until the late 5th cent B.C., it does at some points reflect the practices of the preexilic temple.

C. A Mediating Position A third view mediates between the traditional view and the standard critical view of Leviticus by maintaining that P is preexilic, but not Mosaic. This view owes its contemporary standing mainly to the advocacy of Y. Kaufmann (Religion of Israel [Engtr 1960]), though it was much more common in the 19th cent before Wellhausen’s Prolegomena was published.

Kaufmann (p. 178) challenged the basic assumptions of the standard view: “Fixity in times and rites and absence of ‘natural spontaneity’ characterize the festivals of ancient Babylonia, Egypt, and all known early civilizations … . These elements are … no indication of lateness.” Wellhausen assumed that Israelite society developed from a fairly secular one into one preoccupied with holiness and religion. Usually societies tend to become more secular with time, and this, it is argued, indicates that the priestly source is earlier than Deuteronomy, which is often dated to the 7th cent B.C.

Kaufmann and his school have advanced more specific grounds for believing in the antiquity of P. Their arguments fall into three main types. First, the language, laws, and institutions of P do not fit with what else is known of the postexilic age. Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah were written after the Exile, Ezekiel during the Exile. Their cultic vocabulary shares a number of terms with post-biblical Hebrew. But quite different terms are used in P. The only feasible explanation seems to be that P comes from a different, earlier period (see A. Hurvitz, RB, 81 [1974], 24–57). Similarly, some of the legal terminology in Leviticus was not understood in postexilic times, yet it finds parallels in second-millennium Mesopotamian law. This also points to an early date for Leviticus (see Speiser). Other sacral institutions mentioned in P, e.g., animal tithes, the anointing of the high priest, the Urim and Thummim, did not exist in the era of the second temple. This is very strange if P was composed at this time.
Second, Deuteronomy and Joshua quote Leviticus and other P passages, but not vice versa. This is understandable only if P was written before Deuteronomy.

Third, P’s notions of holiness and war, and its laws on sacrifice and blood, closely resemble those mentioned in the books of Judges and Samuel. For example, Lev. 26:31 mentions a multiplicity of sanctuaries where sacrifices are offered. Lev. 17:2–9, which insists that all animals must be slaughtered in the sanctuary, could only apply to the wilderness period. If it had been intended for the settlement situation, it would have prevented most of the population from ever eating meat, unless there were scattered through the land numerous legitimate sanctuaries equivalent to the tabernacle. The ban on eating blood (Lev. 17:10ff) is referred to in 1 S. 14:33f.
Each of three main positions has its own difficulties, and it would be rash to attempt to decide between them here. Despite the broad scholarly consensus, it does seem that a postexilic date for Leviticus is difficult to maintain in the face of the abundant quotations in Ezekiel and the linguistic evidence that P’s vocabulary does not resemble that of late biblical Hebrew. A much earlier date is required by the evidence.

ZEB

II. Authorship and date. The question of the author and date of Leviticus is bound up with two prior considerations: the attitude of the scholar to the nature of Holy Scriptures, and the method employed in deciding these issues. Because of these factors, four distinct views can be presented. (For further discussion, see PENTATEUCH.)

A. The view of the literary critic. The dominating view is that Leviticus is part of P (the Priestly Code). This opinion on the date and origin of P since the days of Julius Wellhausen was well expressed by R. H. Pfeiffer: “The Priestly Code is a fifth century midrash, or historical commentary, on the embryonic Pentateuch (JED), including a series of narratives often illustrating legal precedents, and a codification of ritual laws based on earlier codes” (Introduction to the Old Testament [1948], 88).

The conclusion that P was later than the other strands is ultimately based on a wish to view the history of OT religion and literature in terms of the evolutionary philosophies of the age. For example, Wellhausen laid down the principle that the sense of sin in Israelite sacrifice was a decidedly late development (Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel [1957, orig. 1883], 81), but this understanding was refuted by R. J. Thompson (Penitence and Sacrifice in Early Israel Outside Levitical Law [1963]). Moreover, according to Wellhausen legal codes must be regarded as a late phenomenon in Israel’s history of religion. This view has been discredited by the discovery of several ancient collections of laws since the recovery of HAMMURABI’s stela in 1901–1902. (For Ur-Nammu laws, cf. S. N. Kramer and A. Falkenstein, Orientalia 23 [1954]: 40–48; for those of Lipit-Ishtar, Eshnunna, Hammurabi, and the Middle Assyrian and Hittite laws, see the translations with bibliographies in ANET, 159–198.) Significantly, the most striking parallels between the so-called P laws and these laws are found in the so-called H (cf. G. L. Archer, Survey of Old Testament Introduction, rev. ed. [1994], 261).

In this view of the worship area at Arad (looking E), a broad room, the “holy of holies,” and an altar are visible. The book of Leviticus carefully defined the worship life of God’s people, including the sacrifices they were to make.

B. The view of the form critic. According to FORM CRITICISM, the book of Leviticus has come into existence in successive stages. For Martin Noth only Lev. 8–10 can be judged as primary and belonging to P. The remaining content of the book for him did not belong to the original or expanded P narrative. He said: “There are such striking departures in numerous details from P’s account, especially with regard to the cultic personnel, and such notable differences in language, that one is led to this conclusion: the non-narrative parts of the book have been fitted into the narrative framework as a later addition and have their own independent history” (Leviticus [1965], 13). According to these critics the cultic and ritual regulations must ultimately be traced back to an oral stage. To quote Noth: “At the back of such compositions there lies most probably a form that was oral, handing on the relevant rules from one generation to another; and in the course of this oral ‘tradition’ new material must certainly have been added to the old” (ibid., 15). Even when fixed in writing, there was always the possibility of expansion and fresh additions. For form critics, dates must be approximate, and the final form contains both ancient and more ancient material. It is as important for them to fix the place of origin as it is to fix the date.

Having settled upon the history of these units of laws, these critics then seek to identify the combinations of laws of like character or similar theme into larger collections. This method is highly subjective and undisciplined. Significantly, after attempting to trace the history of the collections in Leviticus, G. Henton Davies admitted: “But the arguments which prompt such divisions may be countered by other considerations, and this suggests that the precise analysis of these laws into intermediary sections is unwise” (IDB, 3:117). Moreover, the theory of oral tradition is contradictory to observed scribal practices in the ANE. The religious rituals and incantations from the 3rd millennium B.C. texts in the pyramids of Unis, Teti, and Pepi (5th–6th dynasties) at Saqqara, as well as the Sumerian religious texts, divine hymns, and mythological texts from Ur, Nippur, and elsewhere, point to a custom of preserving at an early stage those sources of information or procedure that were of importance to a particular profession (cf. R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament [1969], 592).

C. The view of the tradition critic. Ivan Engnell in his introduction to the OT (Gamla Testamentet, 1 [1945]), and in his articles in Svenskt Bibliskt Uppslagsverk, did not regard P as the youngest of the “sources” of the Pentateuch, but as a complete work consisting of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. This work is the product of the “P-circle.” In spite of the ancient traditions contained in P, Engnell found it necessary to date the work of the P-circle rather late, in the exilic or postexilic period, possible even in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.

But A. Kapelrud, who also recognized only a P-circle and a D-circle, contradicted Engnell by concluding that the work of the P-circle must have been completed before 550 B.C. He reasoned that so-called Second Isaiah used the work (particularly Gen. 1–2) in such a way that the prophet not only knew these chapters as we have them in MT, but he also supposed that his audience knew the passages. He concluded: “That must mean that P had got its final form not later than 550 B.C.” (“The Date of the Priestly Code,” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 3 [1964], 58–64). The only reason he advanced for dating it not earlier than 550 B.C. was that it could not be demonstrated to his satisfaction that Jeremiah and Ezekiel explicitly quote the P work, but surely this negative evidence does not lead necessarily to the conclusion that it was nonexistent in their times.

D. The view of the faithful. The Holy Spirit has convinced the faithful that Jesus of Nazareth is Lord and Christ and that the Scriptures he revered are the Word of God. His faith rests on the Spirit’s convincing work; he rejoices in all truth; and he recognizes error by its inconsistency with Scripture.

Although the author of Leviticus is not named, a comparison of Exod. 40:1, 17 with Num. 1:1 suggests that these laws belong to the first month of the second year after the exodus. Moreover, the context for these laws is clearly the revelation given by Yahweh to Moses at Sinai. Thirty-eight times it is stated that Yahweh spoke to Moses at Sinai. However, the statement in Lev. 16:1 that the law for the Day of Atonement was given after the death of NADAB and ABIHU recounted in ch. 10 shows that the material is not arranged chronologically but logically (cf. J. S. Wright in EvQ 25 [1953]: 14). Although a later writer may have set this Mosaic material into its present order, there is no reason for thinking that Moses himself did not arrange the laws. If this historical setting for all the laws and narratives is the creation of a later writer’s imagination, as the critics imply, one cannot escape the implication that he was immoral, using deceitful means to accomplish a righteous end. The work is morally tarnished according to their views and should be renounced as such.

The evidence suggests that their implied allegation is false. To this writer’s knowledge there is no hard evidence dictating either that the book is late or that these laws did not come to Moses, the founder of the theocratic state. On the contrary, much evidence supports the claim of Scripture.

It will do little good to point out isolated details in these laws that show their early origin because the form critic and the tradition critic can fit these details into their theories. But if one examines the book as a whole against a Late Bronze environment, one finds that almost every major section of the book has analogues in the ANE literature from this time and earlier.

Thus the sacrifices mentioned in Lev. 1–7 have their analogies in UGARIT. For example, an offering analogous to the minḥâ H4966,“the cereal gift” (Lev. 2:1), is mentioned in a sacrificial tariff from Ugarit (CIS, 1:145); a propitiatory peace offering appears to have been known there also (D. M. L. Urie in PEQ no vol. [1949]: 75ff.). Votive and tributary offerings were familiar throughout the ANE (cf. T. H. Gaster in IDB, 4:148ff.). On the other hand, one should caution that the sacrificial system found in the Ugaritic texts lacks convincing correspondence with the Mosaic system (cf. A. De-Guglielmo in CBQ 17 [1955]: 196); N. C. Habel said: “At this point it ought to be mentioned that the precise nature of the sacrificial system and cultic rituals at Ugarit is far from clear” (Yahweh versus Baal [1964], 79).

Even more compelling is the priestly nature of the material. In antiquity all forms of education were under the supervision of the priesthood, a tradition that was established by the Sumerians (J. Kaster in IDB, 2:27ff.). In this connection it is important to recall that this professional literature was put into writing at an early date. In addition, highly organized medical material of various kinds are known both in Babylonia and Egypt from at least the 2nd millennium B.C. onward. On this basis Harrison concluded regarding Lev. 11–15: “There is no a priori reason why the hygienic code of Leviticus cannot be confidently credited to its attributive author.… there is no specific element in the prescriptions that requires a date later than the end of the Amarna period” (Introduction, 594).

Also, it is important to recall that the legal codes with striking parallels to material in so-called H are found in writing from a time before Moses. Furthermore, with regard to the FIRSTFRUITS in Lev. 23:9–14, note that similar offerings have been attested from Mesopotamian, Hittite, S Arabic, and Aegean sources (Harrison, Introduction, 601). Finally, recall that the curses and blessings formulae of Lev. 26 find their parallel in ancient Hittite treaties.

Taking all this material into account, one gains the impression that the content of Leviticus is very old. In short, in contrast to the speculative theories of the critics, the hard facts support the scriptural claim for the book from its beginning to its end, throughout each of its major divisions.

Philana Crouch

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/317277#Comment_317277

Thanks for the comparison...I didn't realize that the ZEB made value judgements. I think I appreciate the ISBE more.

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/317280#Comment_317280

I was a one-time budding, hopeful fanboy for ZEB. No more. I found out that much of it is still the old, outdated Zondervan Pictoral Encyc. of the Bible. THere are some new articles. Some of the "updated" articles are mostly updated in the bibliography, not in the article.

I will say that they look nice in hardcopy form, and they do have nice illustrations, in color, that ISBE doesn't have. However, while some articles were nice, ISBE is consistently better, and more updated, even though it too, is outdated. There have been a few threads talking about the two. It's fine having both, but if you want substance, I'd go with ISBE plus AYDB

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/317283#Comment_317283

Dan thanks for sharing. Like you I read both the ZPEB and ZEB; and found most of the articles were the same and in some cases only cosmetic updates. What I found going for the ZEB were pictures, colour etc. and not significant updates like I had hope for. I am glad I am not the only one who has noticed this, and that this is not just bias on my part.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/317283#Comment_317283

I was a one-time budding, hopeful fanboy for ZEB. No more. I found out that much of it is still the old, outdated Zondervan Pictoral Encyc. of the Bible. THere are some new articles. Some of the "updated" articles are mostly updated in the bibliography, not in the article.

There's more on this here: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/42491/316730.aspx#316730

Dennis Parish

e) New Interpreters' Dictionary of the Bible (gathering interest at great price).

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/317287#Comment_317287

See the same article from ZPEB, Pradis Edition - Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Almost the same as ZEB

II. Authorship and date
The question of the author and date of
Leviticus is bound up with two prior considerations: (1) the attitude of the
scholar to the nature of Holy Scriptures, and (2) the method employed by those
with a “low view” of inspiration in deciding these issues. Because of these
differences four distinct views can be presented.
A. The view of the
literary critic. The dominating view is that Leviticus is part of P (the
Priestly Code). This opinion on the date and origin of P since the days of
Wellhausen was well expressed by R. H. Pfeiffer: “The Priestly Code is a fifth
century midrash, or historical commentary, on the embryonic Pentateuch (JED),
including a series of narratives often illustrating legal precedents, and a
codification of ritual laws based on earlier codes” (Introduction to the Old
Testament [1948], 88). The conclusion that P was later than the other strands is
ultimately based on a wish to view the history of OT religion and lit. in terms
of the evolutionary philosophies of the age. For example, Wellhausen laid down
the principle that the sense of sin in Israelite sacrifice was a decidedly late
development (Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel [1957], 81). His
understanding was refuted by R. J. Thompson, Penitence and Sacrifice in Early
Israel Outside Levitical Law (1963). Moreover, according to Wellhausen legal
codes must be regarded as a late phenomenon in Israel’s history of religion.
This view has been discredited by the discovery of several ancient collections
of laws since the recovery of Hammurabi’s stele in 1901-1902. (For Ur-Nammu
laws, cf. S. N. Kramer and A. Falkenstein, Orientalia, XXIII [1954], 40-48; for
those of Lipit-Ishtar, from Eshnunna, of Hammurabi, the Middle Assyrian and
Hittite laws, see the translations with bibliographies in ANET, 159-198.)
Significantly, the most striking parallels between the so-called P laws and
these laws are found in the so-called H (cf. SOTI, 230).
B. The view of
the form critic. According to the form critic the book has come into existence
in successive stages. For M. Noth only chs. 8-10 can be judged as primary and
belonging to P. The remaining content of the book for him did not belong to the
original or expanded P narrative. He said: “There are such striking departures
in numerous details from P’s account, especially with regard to the cultic
personnel, and such notable differences in language, that one is led to this
conclusion: the non-narrative parts of the book have been fitted into the
narrative framework as a later addition and have their own independent history”
(Leviticus [1965], 13). According to these critics the cultic and ritual
regulations must ultimately be traced back to an oral stage. To quote Noth: “At
the back of such compositions there lies most probably a form that was oral,
handing on the relevant rules from one generation to another; and in the course
of this oral ‘tradition’ new material must certainly have been added to the old”
(Noth, 15). Even when fixed in writing, there was always the possibility of
expansion and fresh additions. For these men dates must be approximate and the
final form contains both ancient and more ancient material. It is as important
for them to fix the place of origin as it is to fix the date.
Having
settled upon the history of these units of laws, these critics then seek to
identify the combinations of laws of like character or similar theme into larger
collections.
This method is highly subjective and undisciplined.
Significantly, after attempting to trace the history of the collections in
Leviticus G. Henton Davies admitted: “But the arguments which prompt such
divisions may be countered by other considerations, and this suggests that the
precise analysis of these laws into intermediary sections is unwise” (IDB, III,
117). Moreover, the theory of oral tradition is contradictory to observed
scribal practices in the ancient Near E. The religious rituals and incantations
from the third millennium B.C. texts in the pyramids of Unis, Teti, and Pepi
(fifth to sixth dynasties) at Saqqarah as well as the Sumer. religious texts,
divine hymns, and mythological texts from Ur, Nippur, and elsewhere point to a
custom of preserving at an early stage those sources of information or procedure
that were of importance to a particular profession (cf. R. Harrison,
Introduction to the OT [1969], 592).
C. The view of the tradition critic.
Ivan Engnell in his introduction to the OT (Gamla Testamentet, I [1945]), and in
his articles in Svenskt Bibliskt Uppslagsverk did not regard “P” as the youngest
of the “sources” of the Pentateuch, but as a complete work consisting of
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. This work is the product of the
“P-circle.” In spite of the ancient traditions contained in P, Engnell found it
necessary to date the work of the P-circle rather late, i.e. in the exilic or
postexilic period, possible even in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.
But A.
Kapelrud, who also recognized only a “P-circle” and a “D-circle,” contradicted
Engnell by concluding that the work of the P-circle must have been completed
before 550 B.C. He reasoned that so-called Second Isaiah used the work
(particularly Gen 1, 2) in such a way that the prophet not only knew these chs.
as we have them in MT, but he also supposed that his audience knew the passages.
He concluded: “That must mean that P had got its final form not later than 550
B.C.” (“The Date of the Priestly Code,” Annual of the Swedish Theological
Institute [1964], 58-64). The only reason he advanced for dating it not earlier
than 550 B.C. was that it could not be demonstrated to his satisfaction that
Jeremiah and Ezekiel explicitly quote the P work. But although it can not be
demonstrated that Jeremiah and Ezekiel explicitly quote this portion of the
Pentateuch, surely this negative evidence does not lead necessarily to the
conclusion that it was nonexistent in their times.
D. The view of the
faithful. The Holy Spirit has convinced the faithful that Jesus of Nazareth is
Lord and Christ and that the Scriptures He revered are the Word of God. His
faith rests on the Spirit’s convincing work; he rejoices in all truth; and he
recognizes error by its inconsistency with Scripture.
Although the author
of Leviticus is not named, a comparison of Exodus 40:1, 17 with Numbers 1:1
suggests that these laws belong to the first month of the second year after the
Exodus. Moreover, the context for these laws is clearly the revelation given by
Yahweh to Moses at Sinai. Thirty-eight times it is stated that Yahweh spoke to
Moses at Sinai. However, the statement in 16:1 that the law for the Day of
Atonement was given after the death of Nadab and Abihu recounted in ch. 10 shows
that the material is not arranged chronologically but logically (cf. J. S.
Wright, “Thoughts on Composition of the Pentateuch,” EQ, XXV [1953], 14).
Although a later writer may have set this Mosaic material into its present
order, there is no reason for thinking that Moses himself did not arrange the
laws. If this historical setting for all the laws and narratives is the creation
of a later writer’s imagination as the critics imply, one cannot escape the
implication that he was immoral, using deceitful means to accomplish a righteous
end. The work is morally tarnished according to their views and should be
renounced as such.
The evidence suggests that their implied allegation is
false. To this writer’s knowledge there is no hard evidence dictating either
that the book is late or that these laws did not come to Moses, the founder of
the theocratic state. On the contrary, much evidence supports the claim of
Scripture.
It will do little good to point out isolated details in these
laws that show their early origin because the form critic and the tradition
critic can fit these details into their theories. But if one examines the book
as a whole against a Late Bronze environment one finds that almost every major
section of the book has analogues in the ancient Near Eastern lit. from this
time and earlier.
Thus the sacrifices mentioned in Leviticus 1-7 have
their analogies in Ugarit; e.g., an offering analogous to the minhah, “the
cereal gift” (Lev 2:1) was mentioned in a sacrificial tariff from Ugarit (Corpus
Inscriptionum Semiticarum, I, 145); a propitiatory peace offering appears to
have been known there also (D. M. L. Urie, “Sacrifice Among the West Semites,”
PEQ, LXXXI [1949], 75ff.). Votive and tributary offerings were familiar
throughout the ancient Near E (cf. T. H. Gaster, IDB, IV, 148ff.). On the other
hand, one should caution that the sacrificial system found in the Ugaritic texts
lacks convincing correspondence with the Mosaic system (cf. A. De-Guglielmo,
“Sacrifice in the Ugaritic Texts,” CBQ, XVII [1955], 196); N. C. Habel said: “At
this point it ought to be mentioned that the precise nature of the sacrificial
system and cultic rituals at Ugarit is far from clear” (Yahweh Versus Baal
[1964], 79).
Even more compelling is the priestly nature of the material.
In antiquity all forms of education were under the supervision of the
priesthood, a tradition that was established by the Sumerians (J. Kaster, IDB,
II, 27ff.). In this connection it is important to recall that this professional
lit. was put into writing at an early date.
In addition, highly organized
medical material of various kinds are known both in Babylonia and Egypt from at
least the second millennium B.C. onward. On this basis Harrison concluded:
“There is no a priori reason why the hygienic code of Leviticus [cf. chs. 11-15]
cannot be confidently credited to its attributive author....There is no specific
element in the prescriptions that requires a date later than the end of the
Amarna period” (Harrison, 594).
Also, it is important to recall that the
legal codes with striking parallels to material in so-called H are found in
writing from a time before Moses.
Furthermore, with regard to the
firstfruits in Leviticus 23:9-14 note that similar offerings have been attested
from Mesopotamian, Hittite, South Arabic, and Aegean sources (Harrison, 601).

Finally, recall that the curses and blessings formulae of ch. 26 find
their parallel in ancient Hitt. treaties.
Taking all this material into
account one gains the impression that the content of Leviticus is very old. In
short, in contrast to the speculative theories of the critics, the hard facts
support the Scriptural claim for the book from its beginning to its end,
throughout each of its major divisions.

Requests for information should be addressed to:
Zondervan
Grand
Rapids, MI 49530

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible.
ISBN
0-310-33188-9
1. Bible--Dictionaries. I. Tenney, Merrill Chapin, 1904-
ed.
BS440.Z63
220.3
74-6313

This digital edition of the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible
does not contain the images found in the printed volumes. Photographs in this
edition are used by permission of Pheonix Data Systems, Copyright © 2002 Pheonix
Data Systems. Maps and other illustrations Copyright © 2006 by Zondervan.

The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible is dedicated to the men
whose commitment and vision made this encyclopedic reference work possible: P.
J. Zondervan, the late Peter de Visser, and the late B. D. Zondervan, Sr.

Created On: November 20, 2006
Built with Conform Version 6.00.0009

Database Version: 6.3.601

BriM

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/317295#Comment_317295

Thanks everyone who replied; I know which option to go for now.

Mark Stevens

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/317307#Comment_317307

Anchor Yale hands down. Especially if you have the ivp stuff.

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/317287#Comment_317287

Dan thanks for sharing. Like you I read both the ZPEB and ZEB; and found most of the articles were the same and in some cases only cosmetic updates. What I found going for the ZEB were pictures, colour etc. and not significant updates like I had hope for. I am glad I am not the only one who has noticed this, and that this is not just bias on my part.

right on, bro! [H] yeah, it was a little disappointing, to say the least.