Show simple item record

Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

Item metadata

dc.contributor.advisorTooman, William A.
dc.contributor.authorBarter, Penelope
dc.coverage.spatialviii, 176 p.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-12-05T10:58:45Z
dc.date.available2017-12-05T10:58:45Z
dc.date.issued2017-06-20
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/12249
dc.description.abstractThere is no consensus on why Ezekiel 20 differs so strongly from the other historical traditions and texts known from the Torah. Are the authors simply purposefully selective in their reuse of earlier ‘historical’ material, or do they offer a synopsis of all the material available to them, inadvertently preserving a particular stage in the development of the pentateuchal material? Or, more likely, is the answer somewhere in between? It is these questions that the present study begins to answer. Part One offers an analysis of the general linguistic influences of the priestly, Holiness, and deuteronomic corpora on Ezekiel 20, demonstrating that the impact of all three has been overstated. Part Two, the core of the study, examines in detail four texts of the Torah which share a statistically significant number and type of locutions with Ezekiel 20: Numbers 13-14; Exodus 6.2-8; Exodus 31.12-17; and Leviticus 26. Across these texts, both unilateral and bilateral literary reuse of or by Ezekiel 20 is established, and the ramifications for the composition and rhetoric of both the Torah texts and Ezekiel 20 is explored in detail. Part Three synthesises these findings, confirming that, and describing how, Ezekiel 20 compositionally interacts with the priestly and Holiness writings, offering insight into the extent and nature of a stratified, likely independent P. Three prevailing models of the composition of the Torah are then examined for points of continuity and discontinuity with this picture, with the result that none of them are able to account for all of the data collected herein. In sum, it is no longer sufficient to consider the literary dependencies between Ezekiel 20 and the priestly or Holiness material, let alone Ezekiel and the Torah, as mono-directional.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of St Andrews
dc.subjectEzekielen_US
dc.subjectTorahen_US
dc.subjectPentateuchen_US
dc.subjectCompositionen_US
dc.subjectReuseen_US
dc.subjectBibleen_US
dc.subjectHebrew Bibleen_US
dc.subjectOld Testamenten_US
dc.subject.lccBS1543.B2
dc.subject.lcshBible. Ezekiel--Criticism, Textualen
dc.subject.lcshTorahen
dc.titleEzekiel 20 and the composition of the Torahen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.contributor.sponsorCarnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotlanden_US
dc.contributor.sponsorBritish Federation of Women Graduatesen_US
dc.type.qualificationlevelDoctoralen_US
dc.type.qualificationnamePhD Doctor of Philosophyen_US
dc.publisher.institutionThe University of St Andrewsen_US
dc.rights.embargodate2022-05-31
dc.rights.embargoreasonThesis restricted in accordance with University regulations. Print and electronic copy restricted until 31st May 2022en


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record