. . .

Zevit points to the socio-historical evidence which adds to the growing argument for the preexilic date of the priestly material. The priestly tithe laws of Num 18:21–28 provided for the needs of the Levites who worked as judges, administrators, cultic functionaries, the laborers, but had no agricultural lands. Nine-tenths of the annual tithe was kept by the Levites and the remaining tenth was given to the priests by the Levites.

This tithe law appears in contrast to that of Deut 14:27–29 which provides a tithe to the Levites only every third year. Noth concluded that the tithe law of Num 18 “was practiced in a late period which can no longer be precisely determined." However, Zevit clarifies that the tithe law of Deut 14:27–29 is understood in relation to the Josianic reform. The reduced status for the Levites may be explained by developments over a prolonged period including: 1) the reduced territory over which the monarchy and clergy in Jerusalem had control after the successful revolt of the northern tribes, 2) the resultant loss of many Levitical cities (after the defection of the northern tribes), and 3) the closing of the high places in the period of the Josianic reform. The reconstruction implies that the P tithe law of Num 18 derives from a period at least prior to Josiah’s reform (i.e. before the reduction of Levitical status). This is proven if it cannot be shown with equal plausibility that the tithe law could be understood within the history of the postexilic period. By pointing to the continued reduction in status of the Levites into the postexilic period, Zevit demonstrates that indeed the Levitical tithe law of Nu 18 is not equally applicable to the postexilic period, and therefore must be understood within the early (preexilic) setting.

Literary comparison between P and other biblical books provides further evidence in support of an early date for P. Hildebrand points to evidence which implies an early date when P is compared to the biblical Historical Books. Priestly expressions reflected in Josh 14:1–21:40, which contains a similar arrangement of material as that in Num 26–36, imply that P may have preceded the Joshua text. In addition, 1 Sam 14:32–35 refers back to Lev 19:26, and priestly ritual expressions are found in 2 Kgs 12:5–17 (Eng., 12:4–16) and in 2 Kgs 16:10–26. These examples suggest that the writer(s) of such texts in Samuel and Kings had access to P accounts which must have been extant earlier.

. . . .