 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
 C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Top |
This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
| C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| High |
This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
[edit] Slavery??
Where is the mention of slavery in this article? I think it's an important point that should be made open and clear. Especially to those who are trying to suppress this fact.
==
Yeah seriously someone needs to sort this out. Many sources refer to Leviticus when talking about the bible's many references and condonations of slavery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.42.169 (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Change to balance article
I have made some changes to make the article's historicity/authorship section more balanced. It has been extremely one sided.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Youre changes are towards adding what you call "conservative scholarship" to the section of the article that deals with the origin of the book. However, these ideas are not so much conservative as fringe - they're held by a very small minority. Wiki rules on undue balance seem to exclude them. PiCo (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Or, if they are included at all, they must be clearly labeled as fringe. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Date of Leviticus
Under the section on dating/authorship the article says this: significant schools of thought argue either a pre-exilic, exilic, or post-exilic dating.Baruch A. Levine, "Leviticus: Its Literary History and Location in Biblical Literature, in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception, ed. Rolf Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler (Brill, 2006), pp. 11–23 I've read the reference article and it says nothing like this, so far as I can see. Instead it's a long argument in favour of a date in the Persian period. (See, for example, pages 19 and 20, which talk about Persian terms in the Priestly source generally). Where does it say that there are these "significant schools of thought" for non-Persian dates?PiCo (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Covenant and Leviticus
Since the concept of covenant seems to be becoming important, I thought I'd just clarify: Leviticus is not in the form of, and is not, in itself, a covenant. It relates very strongly to a covenant, namely the Sinai covenant, but that's in Exodus. A covenant is an agreement, not just a set of laws - Party A (God) agrees to be the God of Israel, to give Israel the land of Canaan, and to lend Israel his strength; Party B (Israel) agrees to accept Yahweh as their god and to follow no other god (this is what "faithfulness" means in the OT context). The observance of laws are in order to preserve holiness, their not part of the covenant itself. See Wenham's commentary, page 29. PiCo (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- OK, but Christians refer to all of the 613 mitzvot as "Old Covenant Laws". They don't distinguish between "convenantal laws" and "levitical laws". 75.15.193.10 (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
-
- I have to confess I'm not terribly clear on what Christians believe. I'd be surprised if Christians are even aware that there are 613 laws - surely that's more a Jewish thing? Maybe we could ask for some help? PiCo (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
