CHAPTER 16 Pants, Persians, and the Priestly Source The first significant critical1 attempts to overturn the consensus established by Wellhausen that the Priestly source (P) is later than the Deuteronomic source (D) were made by Y. Kaufmann. As observed by Menahem Haran,2 in order to show that P was preexilic, Kaufmann analyzed biblical cultic institutions in a manner that did not differ methodologically from Wellhausen.3 More recent * Author’s note: To Baruch I extend the blessing of Darius: Utā taya kunavāhi, avataiy Aurmazdā ucāram kunautuv. In other words, mimma mala teppušu Uramazda ina qātēka lusteššer. My friend and colleague Baruch Levine has long been in the forefront of the modern critical study of Torah-literature. The Priestly source (P) in particular has occupied much of his scholarly attention. This paper, which approaches the problem of the dating of P from the perspective of realia, is offered in tribute to our honoree. An earlier version of this paper was presented to the international meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Leuven, Belgium, in August 1994. 1 Unlike Kaufmann, the Orthodox Jewish scholar David Z. Hoffmann was doctrinally commit- ted to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Nonetheless, Hoffmann’s work engaged the Wellhausen thesis seriously and made contributions that remain significant from a critical standpoint. See B. Levine apud S. D. Sperling, Students of the Covenant: A History of Jewish Biblical Scholarship in North America (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 20. 2 M. Haran, “The Character of the Priestly Source,” in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Panel Sessions, A: Bible Studies and Hebrew Language (hereafter P8WCJS; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983), 131–138, esp. 131–132. 3 Kaufmann’s thesis is elaborately articulated in his Hebrew four-volume History of Israelite Religion (2d ed.; Jerusalem: Bialik, 1967). The first edition was abridged and translated by M. Greenberg as Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960). The Kaufmann school continues to influence Israeli scholars in particular. See, e.g., M. Weinfeld, “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source Against Their Ancient Near Eastern Background,” P8WCJS, 95–129; idem, “Julius Wellhausen’s Understanding of the Law of Ancient Israel and Its Fallacies,” Shnaton 4 (1989), 62–93 [Heb.]; idem, Deuteronomy I–II (AB 5; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 25–37; M. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University, 1978; repr. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1985); idem, “Judaism and the Bible in the Thinking of Yehezkel Kaufmann,” Mada ʾe Ha-Yahadut 31 (1991), 69–80 [Heb.]; I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah of the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995). Among Americans, Kaufmann’s procedures and essential conclusions have found their continuators in such scholars as Richard Friedman, The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the Deuteronomistic and Priestly Works (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982); J. Milgrom, “Priestly (‘P’) Source,” ABD 3:453–462. See there the refer- ences to his previous work.) It is noteworthy that in his later publications, the great American © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004340879_0�7 Pants, Persians, and the Priestly Source 197 advocates of a preexilic P, notably Avi Hurvitz, Ziony Zevit, Gary Rendsburg, Robert Polzin,4 and others have based their conclusions on reconstructions of the history of the Hebrew language. Naturally, the adherents of an exilic or postexilic date for P have countered with linguistic arguments of their own. Among these, the studies of Baruch Levine have been especially compelling.5 Art historical evidence has played a less significant role in determining the date of P, although material of great potential value is found in the studies of cultic appurtenances, such as the work of Carol Meyers on the menorah.6 One such detail that has apparently been overlooked in the debate over the dating of P comes from the history of clothing.7 biblicist H. L. Ginsberg, who had supported Kaufmann’s theories about preexilic P for decades, concluded from his studies of the pentateuchal cultic calendars that Wellhausen’s dating of P was more likely. See H. L. Ginsberg, The Israelian Heritage of Judaism (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1982); cf. the review by B. A. Levine in AJS Review 12 (1987), 143–157. 4 See e.g., A. Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel (Paris; Gabalda, 1982); idem, “The Language of the Priestly Source and Its Historical Setting: The Case for an Early Date,” P8WCJS, 83–94; idem, “Dating the Priestly Source in Light of the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew a Century after Wellhausen,” ZAW 100 (1988), 88–100; Z. Zevit, “Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P,” ZAW 94 (1982), 481–511; G. Rendsburg, “Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of ‘P,’ ” JANES 12 (1980), 65–80; R. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976). Polzin takes an intermediate position in which P’s language is transitional between Early Biblical Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew. 5 See, e.g., B. A. Levine, “Research in the Priestly Source: The Linguistic Factor,” ErIsr 16 (Orlinsky volume; 1982), 124–131 [Heb.]; idem, “Late Language in the Priestly Source: Some Literary and Historical Observations,” P8WCJS, 69–82; idem, Leviticus (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989); idem, Numbers 1–20 (AB 4; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 101–109; idem, “On the Semantics of Land Tenure in Biblical Literature: The Term ʾaḥuzzāh,” in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, eds. Mark Cohen, D. Snell and D. B. Weisberg; Bethesda, Md.: CDL, 1993), 134–139. 6 See C. Meyers, The Tabernacle Menorah (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976); idem, “Lampstand,” ABD 4:141–43. 7 In his article “Dress and Ornaments” (IDB 1:869–871), J. M. Myers collected much of the data cited in the present article without indicating their significance for dating. He observed (870) that “breeches or drawers are mentioned only in connection with priestly vestments.” He notes further that Josephus “calls these breeches άναξυρίδες (Ant. 3§152), a term used by Herodotus.” (See below.) Worth quoting in full is R. Smend, “Beinkleider,” in Biblisch-historisches Handwörterbuch, eds. B. Reicke and L. Rost; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962), I:214: “aus Leinwand, Bestandteil der nach exil (?) isr. Priesterkleidung (Exod 28: 42 u.ö.). Sonst wurden B. nicht getragen.” The most recent author to overlook the full chronological significance of his observations about clothing is Nahum Sarna, Exodus .