LEVITICUS lĭ vĭt’ ə kəs. The third book of the Bible. Its Heb. title is the first word, wăyyĭqrá', “and he called.” The Eng. title is derived from the Vul., an adjective meaning “The Levitical” which in turn is derived from the title prefixed to the LXX, Leueitikon or Leuikon, an adjective qualifying Biblion, despite the fact that the book nowhere refers to the special functions of the Levites. The designation given to it in the Mishnah, “priests’ law,” “priests’ book,” “law of offerings,” in the Talmud, “Law of the priests,” and in the Pesh., “the book of the priests,” better indicate its scope. But a study of the addressees shows that many of its regulations are addressed to the congregation of Israel as well as to Moses and Aaron.
Outline
I. The unity
Whether one is a literary critic, who regards the book as essentially the product of the so-called “priestly” writer, or a form critic or a tradition critic, both of whom see numerous sources in the code, all three schools of thought recognize Leviticus 17-26 as a separate law code entitled “Holiness Code” (H) by A. Klostermann in 1877 (cf. his later work, Der Pentateuch: Beiträge zu seinem Verständnis und seiner Entstehungsgeschichte [1893], 368ff.).
A. Arguments for recognition of H. These arguments are traditionally advanced for the recognition of H. First, critics allege that chs. 17-26 are marked by their beginning (17:1, 2) and by their ending (26:46) as a separate law code. Second, various writers have given lists of words and phrases that are peculiar to the code, and which show the author is nearer to Ezekiel than to any other book in the OT. Because of this connection between H and Ezekiel some claim Ezekiel is the author of H, and many conclude that the two are roughly contemporary and that possibly H originated among the exiles in Babylon. Third, their analysis reveals that the code contains much exhortatory material akin to Deuteronomy. Fourth, they claim the laws of this code are derived from another collection because they are much wider in scope than those in the preceding chs. Finally, they note that reference is made in these chs. to matters which have already been dealt with (cf., e.g., 19:6-8 with 7:15-18; 20:25 with ch. 11; and 23:26-32 with ch. 16).
B. Arguments against the recognition of H. These arguments are readily refuted and others can be advanced demonstrating that chs. 17-26 are part and parcel with the rest of the legislation attributed to Moses in this book. First, the introductory formula in 17:1 is similar to others found in the book (passim) and appears to be a stereotyped way of introducing a fresh element in the revelation. In fact, this argument is so weak that C. A. Simpson ignored the issue when he suggested for reasons of his own that ch. 17 may have come from another source than chs. 18ff. (HBD rev., 581).
Second, the concluding statement in 26:46 might be referred better to the whole book than arbitrarily limited to these chs. This suggestion is confirmed by noting that the curses and blessings formulae in ch. 26 more properly belong to the entire covenant enacted on Sinai. Korošec and Mendenhall demonstrated that the Sinaitic covenant is similar in its form to the Hitt. international treaties. In this connection they noted that these covenants typically include the curses and blessings formulae (G. E. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” BA, XVII [1954], 50-76). By viewing Exodus 19-Leviticus 26 as a unity all six elements typically found in these Hitt. treaties are present in the Sinaitic covenant. By denying this unity one is left with the anomaly that some of these elements are present in one code and others are present in later codes. Thus Mendenhall conceded that the last three out of the six elements are lacking in the Decalogue. Moreover, by separating chs. 17-26 the critic produces the anomaly that the blessings and curses are now found in a code that is much later and lacks the other unifying elements. By accepting the Biblical claim, on the other hand, one possesses an integer similar in structure to these Hitt. covenants.
Third, there is no valid reason why the scope of legislation should not be expanded from legislation governing the cult to other rules regulating the social, moral and religious life of the people in whose midst Yahweh reigned.
Fourth, the change to sermonic style in chs. 18-20 is appropriate to the subject matter. In these chs. Yahweh prohibits the Israelites from conforming to the corrupting practices of their pagan neighbors. Because of the temptation to conform to their degraded practices Moses is not content simply to explain what the laws of God are, but he earnestly enjoins them upon the conscience of the people, and urges them to take with utmost seriousness God’s call to a holy life. In a word, the change in subject matter readily accounts for the change in style and vocabulary.
Fifth, regarding the connection with Ezekiel G. Henton Davies admitted that “it cannot be shown with certainty that H preceded Ezekiel or vice versa” (IDB, III, 119f.). Assuming that Leviticus 17-26 preceded Ezekiel, why should it be surprising that Ezekiel reflects this material foundational for the theocratic state?
Sixth, the connection of material found throughout the book argues for its homogeneity; e.g. the ban on blood (3:17; 7:26f.; 17:11); regulations regarding impurity (7:21, and chs. 11-15); distinction between clean and unclean (10:10, ch. 11); 20:25 clearly alludes to the law concerning the clean and unclean animals in ch. 11 and clearly integrates the commandments of chs. 18-20 with chs. 11-15. Moreover, there are doublets within H itself: e.g. 17:12=19:26a; 19:27, 28=21:5; 19:30=26:2; 19:31=20:6; 19:34=24:22. The distinctive emphasis on Israel’s holiness because of Yahweh’s holiness found in 21:1-22:16 is stated earlier in 11:44f.; 19:2; 20:7.
II. Authorship and date
The question of the author and date of Leviticus is bound up with two prior considerations: (1) the attitude of the scholar to the nature of Holy Scriptures, and (2) the method employed by those with a “low view” of inspiration in deciding these issues. Because of these differences four distinct views can be presented.
A. The view of the literary critic. The dominating view is that Leviticus is part of P (the Priestly Code). This opinion on the date and origin of P since the days of Wellhausen was well expressed by R. H. Pfeiffer: “The Priestly Code is a fifth century midrash, or historical commentary, on the embryonic Pentateuch (JED), including a series of narratives often illustrating legal precedents, and a codification of ritual laws based on earlier codes” (Introduction to the Old Testament [1948], 88). The conclusion that P was later than the other strands is ultimately based on a wish to view the history of OT religion and lit. in terms of the evolutionary philosophies of the age. For example, Wellhausen laid down the principle that the sense of sin in Israelite sacrifice was a decidedly late development (Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel [1957], 81). His understanding was refuted by R. J. Thompson, Penitence and Sacrifice in Early Israel Outside Levitical Law (1963). Moreover, according to Wellhausen legal codes must be regarded as a late phenomenon in Israel’s history of religion. This view has been discredited by the discovery of several ancient collections of laws since the recovery of Hammurabi’s stele in 1901-1902. (For Ur-Nammu laws, cf. S. N. Kramer and A. Falkenstein, Orientalia, XXIII [1954], 40-48; for those of Lipit-Ishtar, from Eshnunna, of Hammurabi, the Middle Assyrian and Hittite laws, see the translations with bibliographies in ANET, 159-198.) Significantly, the most striking parallels between the so-called P laws and these laws are found in the so-called H (cf. SOTI, 230).
B. The view of the form critic. According to the form critic the book has come into existence in successive stages. For M. Noth only chs. 8-10 can be judged as primary and belonging to P. The remaining content of the book for him did not belong to the original or expanded P narrative. He said: “There are such striking departures in numerous details from P’s account, especially with regard to the cultic personnel, and such notable differences in language, that one is led to this conclusion: the non-narrative parts of the book have been fitted into the narrative framework as a later addition and have their own independent history” (Leviticus [1965], 13). According to these critics the cultic and ritual regulations must ultimately be traced back to an oral stage. To quote Noth: “At the back of such compositions there lies most probably a form that was oral, handing on the relevant rules from one generation to another; and in the course of this oral ‘tradition’ new material must certainly have been added to the old” (Noth, 15). Even when fixed in writing, there was always the possibility of expansion and fresh additions. For these men dates must be approximate and the final form contains both ancient and more ancient material. It is as important for them to fix the place of origin as it is to fix the date.
Having settled upon the history of these units of laws, these critics then seek to identify the combinations of laws of like character or similar theme into larger collections.
This method is highly subjective and undisciplined. Significantly, after attempting to trace the history of the collections in Leviticus G. Henton Davies admitted: “But the arguments which prompt such divisions may be countered by other considerations, and this suggests that the precise analysis of these laws into intermediary sections is unwise” (IDB, III, 117). Moreover, the theory of oral tradition is contradictory to observed scribal practices in the ancient Near E. The religious rituals and incantations from the third millennium b.c. texts in the pyramids of Unis, Teti, and Pepi (fifth to sixth dynasties) at Saqqarah as well as the Sumer. religious texts, divine hymns, and mythological texts from Ur, Nippur, and elsewhere point to a custom of preserving at an early stage those sources of information or procedure that were of importance to a particular profession (cf. R. Harrison, Introduction to the OT [1969], 592).
C. The view of the tradition critic. Ivan Engnell in his introduction to the OT (Gamla Testamentet, I [1945]), and in his articles in Svenskt Bibliskt Uppslagsverk did not regard “P” as the youngest of the “sources” of the Pentateuch, but as a complete work consisting of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. This work is the product of the “P-circle.” In spite of the ancient traditions contained in P, Engnell found it necessary to date the work of the P-circle rather late, i.e. in the exilic or postexilic period, possible even in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.
But A. Kapelrud, who also recognized only a “P-circle” and a “D-circle,” contradicted Engnell by concluding that the work of the P-circle must have been completed before 550 b.c. He reasoned that so-called Second Isaiah used the work (particularly Gen 1, 2) in such a way that the prophet not only knew these chs. as we have them in MT, but he also supposed that his audience knew the passages. He concluded: “That must mean that P had got its final form not later than 550 b.c.” (“The Date of the Priestly Code,” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute [1964], 58-64). The only reason he advanced for dating it not earlier than 550 b.c. was that it could not be demonstrated to his satisfaction that Jeremiah and Ezekiel explicitly quote the P work. But although it can not be demonstrated that Jeremiah and Ezekiel explicitly quote this portion of the Pentateuch, surely this negative evidence does not lead necessarily to the conclusion that it was nonexistent in their times.
D. The view of the faithful. The Holy Spirit has convinced the faithful that Jesus of Nazareth is Lord and Christ and that the Scriptures He revered are the Word of God. His faith rests on the Spirit’s convincing work; he rejoices in all truth; and he recognizes error by its inconsistency with Scripture.
Although the author of Leviticus is not named, a comparison of Exodus 40:1, 17 with Numbers 1:1 suggests that these laws belong to the first month of the second year after the Exodus. Moreover, the context for these laws is clearly the revelation given by Yahweh to Moses at Sinai. Thirty-eight times it is stated that Yahweh spoke to Moses at Sinai. However, the statement in 16:1 that the law for the Day of Atonement was given after the death of Nadab and Abihu recounted in ch. 10 shows that the material is not arranged chronologically but logically (cf. J. S. Wright, “Thoughts on Composition of the Pentateuch,” EQ, XXV [1953], 14). Although a later writer may have set this Mosaic material into its present order, there is no reason for thinking that Moses himself did not arrange the laws. If this historical setting for all the laws and narratives is the creation of a later writer’s imagination as the critics imply, one cannot escape the implication that he was immoral, using deceitful means to accomplish a righteous end. The work is morally tarnished according to their views and should be renounced as such.
The evidence suggests that their implied allegation is false. To this writer’s knowledge there is no hard evidence dictating either that the book is late or that these laws did not come to Moses, the founder of the theocratic state. On the contrary, much evidence supports the claim of Scripture.
It will do little good to point out isolated details in these laws that show their early origin because the form critic and the tradition critic can fit these details into their theories. But if one examines the book as a whole against a Late Bronze environment one finds that almost every major section of the book has analogues in the ancient Near Eastern lit. from this time and earlier.
Thus the sacrifices mentioned in Leviticus 1-7 have their analogies in Ugarit; e.g., an offering analogous to the minḥah, “the cereal gift” (Lev 2:1) was mentioned in a sacrificial tariff from Ugarit (Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, I, 145); a propitiatory peace offering appears to have been known there also (D. M. L. Urie, “Sacrifice Among the West Semites,” PEQ, LXXXI [1949], 75ff.). Votive and tributary offerings were familiar throughout the ancient Near E (cf. T. H. Gaster, IDB, IV, 148ff.). On the other hand, one should caution that the sacrificial system found in the Ugaritic texts lacks convincing correspondence with the Mosaic system (cf. A. De-Guglielmo, “Sacrifice in the Ugaritic Texts,” CBQ, XVII [1955], 196); N. C. Habel said: “At this point it ought to be mentioned that the precise nature of the sacrificial system and cultic rituals at Ugarit is far from clear” (Yahweh Versus Baal [1964], 79).
Even more compelling is the priestly nature of the material. In antiquity all forms of education were under the supervision of the priesthood, a tradition that was established by the Sumerians (J. Kaster, IDB, II, 27ff.). In this connection it is important to recall that this professional lit. was put into writing at an early date.
In addition, highly organized medical material of various kinds are known both in Babylonia and Egypt from at least the second millennium b.c. onward. On this basis Harrison concluded: “There is no a priori reason why the hygienic code of Leviticus [cf. chs. 11-15] cannot be confidently credited to its attributive author....There is no specific element in the prescriptions that requires a date later than the end of the Amarna period” (Harrison, 594).
Also, it is important to recall that the legal codes with striking parallels to material in so-called H are found in writing from a time before Moses.
Furthermore, with regard to the firstfruits in Leviticus 23:9-14 note that similar offerings have been attested from Mesopotamian, Hittite, South Arabic, and Aegean sources (Harrison, 601).
Finally, recall that the curses and blessings formulae of ch. 26 find their parallel in ancient Hitt. treaties.
Taking all this material into account one gains the impression that the content of Leviticus is very old. In short, in contrast to the speculative theories of the critics, the hard facts support the Scriptural claim for the book from its beginning to its end, throughout each of its major divisions.
III. Purpose
Leviticus is a collection of enactments enabling the holy Yahweh to live in residence amid His unholy subjects. Cautioning the people to keep this covenant, Yahweh concludes that if they keep it: “I will make my abode among you, and my soul shall not abhor you. And I will walk among you, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people” (26:11, 12). For this reason Yahweh legislates the cultic, civil, social, moral, and economic life of his redeemed people. Exodus concluded with the account of the completion of the Tabernacle. From the Tabernacle rendered glorious by the divine Presence, issues the legislation contained in Leviticus. As Yahweh draws near to the people in the Tabernacle, so the people draw near to Yahweh in the prescribed offerings (chs. 1-7), and through the prescribed priesthood (chs. 8-10). Moreover, Yahweh demands cleanness (chs. 11-15), and provides for their pollution through the Day of Atonement (ch. 16). To enjoy His fellowship His people and priests must be holy in all particulars in contrast to their pagan neighbors (chs. 17-25). Blessings and curses will be determined by their response to the law (ch. 26). The laws concerning devoted property (ch. 27) stand apart from the prerequisite standards for Yahweh’s residence among the people.
IV. Outline
V. Selected studies
A. The laws governing the sacrifices in chs. 1-7
1. The burnt offering (ch. 1). The motive behind the “[whole] burnt offering” (v. 3) is exhibited in the clause “when any man of you brings an offering to the Lord [or gift (cf. v. 10)]” (v. 2). The gift consisted of an animal and served to secure to the offerer the good pleasure of Yahweh (v. 3). The expression “that he may be accepted” is never used in connection with the sin offering, whose peculiar function was to obtain the pardon, rather than the gracious favor of Yahweh. Accordingly, like the other two “sweet savor” offerings, it was voluntary. An example of its use is seen when the king offers up a burnt offering before going to battle (1 Sam 7:9; 13:9; Ps 20).
2. The cereal offering (ch. 2). The motive behind this sacrifice is identical with the first as seen in the clause: “when a soul wishes to bring near a cereal gift” (2:1). The wording is almost identical with 1:2 except the gift is qualified by minḥah, “cereal, grain gift.” Elsewhere this word is used for both bloody and non-bloody offerings (cf. Gen 4:3, 4) but under the law it is restricted to the bloodless offering. Again, the motive is not prompted through a divine demand but through an instinctive desire to commune with God. Eichrodt said: “Just as an inferior brings a present to his superior, or a client to his patron, or a vassal to his lord, as the normal expression of his subjection and fealty, so the pious worshiper makes an offering to God. Naturally, only something valuable, the surrender of which involves an act of renunciation on the part of the giver, is suitable for such an offering. Hence food—and that only at its best—accords admirably with this idea of a gift, because it is essential to life” (Theology of the Old Testament, I [1961], 144).
3. The peace offering (ch. 3). Chapter 3:1 should be rendered: “If his gift is a sacrifice of well-being.” The word “sacrifice” (zebaḥ) denotes the concept of sacral communion. According to 7:12 and 7:16 the sacrifice was offered for “thanksgiving” or as “a votive offering” or “a freewill offering.” The word tr. “thanksgiving” (tōdəh) would be rendered better by “acknowledgement” (cf. C. Westermann, The Praise of God in the Psalms [1965], 25-30). Eichrodt concluded: “The toda springs spontaneously from man’s need to give public and material expression to his gratitude for some deliverance or marvelous benefit” (Eichrodt, 147). The vow (neder) springs from the spontaneous conviction that it is right to give a gift only to one’s benefactor. “A real element in the vow,” said Eichrodt, “is the spontaneous conviction that God’s gifts require from men not merely words, but deeds of gratitude, and that for a person praying to make his readiness for such an act explicit is to express a right attitude of mind and to show a real awareness of God’s graciousness in answering his prayer” (Eichrodt, 145). The “freewill offering” (nedabah) expresses one’s homage. Eichrodt commented: “The nedaba is an example of a free act of homage, which views man’s humble recognition of and submission to his divine Lord, and was a common practice on the occasion of the regular visits to the sanctuary at the time of the great annual festivals (Exod 23:15; 34:20)” (Eichrodt, 145). Thus the basic motive prompting this sacrifice is that of appreciation.
This is the only sacrifice eaten by the lay worshiper (Lev 3:17; 7:26; 17:1-7) and the only animal sacrifice that does not make atonement (cf. Lev 1:14; 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:16, 18, 26; 16:24).
4. The sin offering (ch. 4). The sin offering (haṭṭa’t) offered in connection with the inadvertent transgression of some commandment (4:2; Num 15:22ff.; contrast Num 15:30ff.; cf. Ezek 45:20), designates the sacrifice that made atonement; i.e. paid the price to appease the wrath of God (see below). Throughout the ritual the ransom price demanded was blood.
5. The guilt offering (ch. 5). The guilt offering made compensation for the damage done through sin. Eichrodt said: “A breach of trust between human beings involved the payment of compensation. The same obligation toward God was expressed in the guilt offering or the sacrifice of reparation (’ašam). Moreover, the proper legal compensation had to be made either directly to the injured fellowcitizen, or to the sanctuary at the same time as the sacrifice...” (Eichrodt, 161).
B. The laws of purification (chs. 11-15)
1. The clean and unclean animals (ch. 11). The categorizing of animal species into clean and unclean (ch. 11) is unique in the annals of Near Eastern lit. in its avoidance of magical considerations. R. K. Harrison wrote: “The system of therapeutics and preventive medicine...was grounded upon an empirical basis, in marked contrast to the contemporary peoples, who were dominated by a priori magical considerations and as a result tended invariably to spiritualize pathological phenomena in terms of the activity of demons” (Harrison, 603). The foods classified as clean are known to be beneficial in contrast to the unclean known to be noxious. These dietary regulations issue from Yahweh’s design for His people. The word “abomination” (sheqeṩ) (v. 10, passim) is a technical word designating that which is culticly unacceptable (cf. Dan 9:27) in contrast to the much more frequent term “abomination” (tô'ēbáh) which designates that which is repugnant to one’s sensibilities.
2. The laws governing leprosy (chs. 13, 14). R. G. Cochrane, an authority on Hansen’s disease, as modern medical practitioners prefer to designate leprosy, argued convincingly that the disease diagnosed in Leviticus 13 and 14 is not exactly the same as Hansen’s disease (“Biblical Leprosy,” The Star, Carville, Louisiana, n.d.).
Regarding the description of diagnostic techniques and quarantine regulations derived from clinical procedure recorded in ch. 13, Harrison said: “The Hebrew of chapter 13 is technical, suited to a professional textbook for the priest-physician. The language is like that of the Egyptian medical texts, and it is obscure to the modern Biblical student as most advanced texts are to beginners in other fields of knowledge” (Harrison, 608).
C. The Day of Atonement (ch. 16). A crucial word in Leviticus as a whole and foremost in ch. 16 is kipper, “to make atonement.” Some scholars define its original meaning as “to wipe away,” “to expiate” on the basis of the Babylonian and Assyrian parallels (J. Milgrom, “Prolegomenon to Leviticus 17:11,” JBL, XC [1971], 151). Others define its meaning as “to cover” on the basis of its Arabic parallel (BDB, 497). L. Morris has demonstrated on the basis of usage that it means “to pay a ransom price.” In its non-cultic use he concluded kipper means “to avert a ransom....Thus extra-cultic kipper denotes a substitutionary process....In each case the essence of the transaction is the provision of an acceptable substitute” (The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross [1965], 166). He found the same nuance in its cultic use: “...the verb kipper carries with it the implication of a turning away of the divine wrath by an appropriate offering. This meaning accords well with the general usage of ἐξιλάσκομαι, and it seems clear that the verb is used so often to tr. kipper precisely for this reason” (L. Morris, 170). He also noted that the atonement paid is always out of proportion to the price paid: “There is always an element of grace” (L. Morris, 167).
D. The law governing blood (ch. 17). The significance of “blood” in the scriptural sacrifices has been understood in two ways. Some argue that by “the blood” life is meant rather than death so that the essential element in sacrifice is the presenting of life. Accepting this understanding G. Henton Davies said: “The blood is the life, and sacrifice is surrendered life, and so involves surrendered time, surrendered property, and surrendered self (laying on of hands)” (IDB, III, 120). This interpretation is based on the narrow base of Leviticus 17:11. But L. Morris demonstrated through an exhaustive word study that “blood” in Scripture denotes death. He properly rejected the above interpretation and concluded: “dam [blood] in the Old Testament signifies life violently taken rather than the continual presence of life available for some new function, in short, death rather than life, and that this is supported by the references to atonement” (L. Morris, 121). He argued that nephesh, “life” (Lev 17:11), more prob. means “life yielded up in death.”
VI. Text
The Qumran fragment of Leviticus in paleo-Heb. script dated by S. Birnbaum to the 5th cent. b.c., and to the Maccabean era by F. M. Cross, Jr. (The Ancient Library of Qumran [1961], 34) demonstrated the fidelity of the MT in Leviticus by its agreement with the traditional text.
VII. Relationship to the NT
The Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 22:40 that the entire law and prophets depend on Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. The second injunction, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” is repeated in Matthew 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14. When He cured the leper he instructed him to carry out the law regarding leprosy (cf. Leviticus 14). In the Sermon on the Mount to His disciples He demanded the righteousness obtained by these laws (cf. Matt 5:18-20, 44, 45).
The apostles saw much in Leviticus as a type, a divinely inspired picture, of their doctrines; e.g., the priests and sacrifices connected with the Tabernacle shadowed the work of Christ in connection with heaven (cf. Heb 3:1; 4:14-16; chs. 9, 10); the presence of God in Israel (Lev 26:12) prefigured the templehood of Christian believers (2 Cor 6:16).
The apostles also insisted that these enactments were not binding on the Church but had been superseded in Christ and through the indwelling Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 9:9-16; 15:1-21; Gal 2:11-3:5; 1 Tim 4:1-5; Heb 9:10).
Bibliography In addition to the classics on the Pentateuch see W. Kornfeld, Studien zum Heiligkeitgesetz (1952) for an extensive bibliography up-to-date at the time of writing. L. Urie, “Sacrifice Among the West Semites,” PEQ, LXXXI (1949), 67-82; J. S. Wright, “Thoughts on Composition of the Pentateuch,” EQ, XXV (1953), 2-17; A. DeGuglielmo, “Sacrifice in the Ugaritic Texts,” CBQ, XVII (1955), 196-216; W. Eichrodt, Theology of the OT (1961); R. J. Thompson, Penitence and Sacrifice in Early Israel Outside Levitical Law (1963); N. C. Habel, Yahweh Versus Baal (1964); A. Kapelrud, “The Date of the Priestly Code,” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute (1964), 58-64; M. Noth, Leviticus (1965); R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the OT (1969), 589-611.