Exodus 31:12-17: the Sabbath According to H, Or the Sabbath According to P and H‪?‬

Recent scholarship by Israel Knohl and Jacob Milgrom on the relationship of the Priestly Writing and the Holiness Source has transformed the parameters of the ongoing debate about priestly tradition in the Pentateuch. Before their publications, beginning with Knohl's article of 1983/84 on the Sabbath and festivals, the "Holiness Code" (Lev 17-26) was generally seen as a corpus originally separate from and anterior to the Priestly Writing, incorporated by P into P's larger work. (1) Though some scholars had noticed that there were Pentateuchal passages outside of the Holiness Code that seemed to resemble it rhetorically as well as ideologically, and though some had attempted to theorize a relationship between H and P, Knohl's and Milgrom's separate but similar formulations of the P-H relationship have exercised a more significant influence on the way scholars in general think about the problem. Knohl and Milgrom, rejecting the view that the Holiness Code antedated the larger Priestly work, have argued instead that it and related pentateuchal passages were component parts of an alternative work of priestly provenance--the Holiness Source--produced by what Knohl calls a Holiness school, much of whose activity postdated the work of Priestly tradents. (2) For both Knohl and Milgrom, members of the Holiness group were P's--and the Pentateuch's--editors. In both Knohl's and Milgrom's formulations of this thesis, the H material outside of the Holiness Code plays a crucial role. Each has observed that Holiness passages such as Lev 11:43-45 and Lev 16:29-34 appear as obvious additions to P or epic (JE) material, and each has concluded that this is indicative of redactional activity on the part of Holiness editors. (3) Milgrom puts the view succinctly: "... because these passages appear either at the end of a pericope or as links between pericopes, I had come to the conclusion that they constituted the final layers in the composition." (4) Both Knohl and Milgrom identify the Sabbath pericope of Exod 31:12-17 as one such H passage, (5) and this identification becomes the basis for Knohl's argument that the Sabbath formulation in Exod 20:11 is also from H. (6) Knohl attributes the final form of v. 18, the editorial link that follows the Sabbath pericope, to H as well. (7) I would like to challenge the assumption that Exod 31:12-17 is a single unit of tradition, and to contest the attribution of all of Exod 31:12-17 to H. In contrast, I will argue that Exod 31:12-17 is a fusion of H material in vv. 12-15 and P material in vv. 16-17. I will also argue that the transitional 31:18 is attributed as easily to P as to H. This understanding of the nature of the Sabbath pericope and the transitional verse that follows it has significant ramifications. First, it enriches our knowledge of Priestly Sabbath rhetoric and ideology because it provides the scholar with additional Priestly material on the Sabbath. (8) Second, it raises serious questions about the editorial process that resulted in the production of a fused P and H, since it can be argued that the P verses of the Sabbath passage as well as the transitional v. 18 are a supplement to the H material preceding them. Finally, the assignment of vv. 16-17 to P undermines Knohl's argument that Exod 20:11 is to be assigned to H on the basis of its similarity to Exod 31:17. If Exod 20:11 and 31:16-17 are from P rather than H, as appears to be the case, the validity of Knohl's further point that P nowhere "explicitly" proscribes Sabbath labor, in alleged contrast to H, is also called into question.