Abstract
Israel Knohl's recently advanced hypothesis that the Holiness Code answers and mildly corrects the Priestly Work receives qualified support in a study of the use of words related to the roots ? and ? in Leviticus 1-16 and 17-26. But contrary to Knohl's view that the Holiness Codes still reflects priestly interests, this study shows that the different uses of the roots in the two parts of Leviticus suggest a democratization and laicization of holiness in Leviticus 17-26 and may imply a pol emic on the part of the Holiness Code's authors against the authors of Leviticus 1-16.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.