(viii. 23 ff.), the multiplication of sacrifices and the minute regulations
with regard to the blood and oil. The succeeding section (vv. 21-32)
enjoins special modifications for those who cannot afford the more
costly offerings of vv. 9-20, and like v. 7-13, xii. 8 is clearly a later
addition; cf. the separate colophon, v. 32. The closing section xiv.
33–53 is closely allied to xiii. 47-59, though probably later in date:
probably the concluding verses (48-53), in which the same rites are
prescribed for the purification of a house as are ordained for a person
in vv. 3-8a, were added at a still later period.
4. Chap. xv. deals with the rites of purification rendered necessary by various natural secretions, and is therefore closely related to chap. xii. On the analogy of the other laws it is probable that the old tōrāh, which forms the basis of the chapter, has been subsequently expanded, but except in the colophon (vv. 32-34), which displays marks of later redaction, there is nothing to guide us in separating the additional matter.
Chap. xvi. It may be regarded as certain that this chapter consists of three main elements, only one of which was originally connected with the ceremonial of the Day of Atonement, and that it has passed through more than one stage of revision. Since the appearance of Benzinger’s analysis ZATW (1889), critics in the main have accepted the division of the chapter into three independent sections: (1) vv. 1-4, 6, 12, 13, 34b (probably vv. 23, 24 also form part of this section), regulations to be observed by Aaron whenever he might enter “the holy place within the veil.” These regulations are the natural outcome of the death of Nadab and Abihu (x. 1-5), and their object is to guard Aaron from a similar fate; the section thus forms the direct continuation of chap. x.; (2) vv. 29-34a, rules for the observance of a yearly fast day, having for their object the purification of the sanctuary and of the people; (3) vv. 5, 7–10, 14–22, 26-28, a later expansion of the blood-ritual to be performed by the high-priest when he enters the Holy of Holies, with which is combined the strange ceremony of the goat which is sent away into the wilderness to Azazel. The matter common to the first two sections, viz. the entrance of the high priest into the Holy of Holies, was doubtless the cause of their subsequent fusion; beyond this, however, the sections have no connexion with one another, and must originally have been quite independent. Doubtless, as Benzinger suggests, the rites to be performed by the officiating high priest on the annual Day of Atonement, which are not prescribed in vv. 29-34a, were identical with those laid down in chap. ix. That the third section belongs to a later stage of development and was added at a later date is shown by (a) the incongruity of vv. 14 ff. with v. 6—according to the latter the purification of Aaron is a preliminary condition of his entrance within the veil—and (b) the elaborate ceremonial in connexion with the sprinkling of the blood. The first section, doubtless, belongs to the main narrative of P; it connects directly with chap. x. and presupposes only one altar (cf. v. 12, Exod. xxviii. 35). The second and third sections, however, must be assigned to a later stratum of P, if only because they appear to have been unknown to Ezra (Neh. ix. 1); the fact that Ezra’s fast day took place on the twenty-fourth day of the seventh month (as opposed to Lev. xvi. 29, xxiii. 26 f.) acquires an additional importance in view of the agreement between Neh. viii. 23 f. and Lev. xxiii. 33 f. as to the date of the Feast of Tabernacles. No mention is made of the Day of Atonement in the pre-exilic period, and it is a plausible conjecture that the present law arose from the desire to turn the spontaneous fasting of Neh. ix. 1 into an annual ceremony; in any case directions as to the annual performance of the rite must originally have preceded vv. 29 ff. Possibly the omission of this introduction is due to the redactor who combined (1) and (2) by transferring the regulations of (1) to the ritual of the annual Day of Atonement. At a later period the ritual was further developed by the inclusion of the additional ceremonial contained in (3).
III. The Law of Holiness.—Chaps. xvii.–xxvi. The group of laws contained in these chapters has long been recognized as standing apart from the rest of the legislation set forth in Leviticus. For, though they display undeniable affinity with P, they also exhibit certain features which closely distinguish them from that document. The most noticeable of these is the prominence assigned to certain leading ideas and motives, especially to that of holiness. The idea of holiness, indeed, is so characteristic of the entire group that the title “Law of Holiness,” first given to it by Klostermann (1877), has been generally adopted. The term “holiness” in this connexion consists positively in the fulfilment of ceremonial obligations and negatively in abstaining from the defilement caused by heathen customs and superstitions, but it also includes obedience to the moral requirements of the religion of Yahweh.
On the literary side also the chapters are distinguished by the paraenetic setting in which the laws are embedded and by the use of a special terminology, many of the words and phrases occurring rarely, if ever, in P (for a list of characteristic phrases cf. Driver, L.O.T.6, p.49). Further, the structure of these chapters, which closely resembles that of the other two Hexateuchal codes (Exod. xx. 22–xxiii. and Deut. xii.–xxviii.), may reasonably be adduced in support of their independent origin. All three codes contain a somewhat miscellaneous collection of laws; all alike commence with regulations as to the place of sacrifice and close with an exhortation. Lastly, some of the laws treat of subjects which have been already dealt with in P (cf. xvii. 10-14 and vii. 26 f., xix. 6-8 and vii. 15-18). It is hardly doubtful also that the group of laws, which form the basis of chaps. xvii.–xxvi., besides being independent of P, represent an older stage of legislation than that code. For the sacrificial system of H (= Law of Holiness) is less developed than that of P, and in particular shows no knowledge of the sin- and trespass-offerings; the high priest is only primus inter pares among his brethren, xxi. 10 (cf. Lev. x. 6, 7, where the same prohibition is extended to all the priests); the distinction between “holy” and “most holy” things (Num. xviii. 8) is unknown to Lev. xxii. (Lev. xxi. 22 is a later addition). It cannot be denied, however, that chaps. xvii.–xxvi. present many points of resemblance with P, both in language and subject-matter, but on closer examination these points of contact are seen to be easily separable from the main body of the legislation. It is highly probable, therefore, that these marks of P are to be assigned to the compiler who combined H with P. But though it may be regarded as certain that H existed as an independent code, it cannot be maintained that the laws which it contains are all of the same origin or belong to the same age. The evidence rather shows that they were first collected by an editor before they were incorporated in P. Thus there is a marked difference in style between the laws themselves and the paraenetic setting in which they are embedded; and it is not unnatural to conjecture that this setting is the work of the first editor.
Two other points in connexion with H are of considerable importance: (a) the possibility of other remains of H, and (b) its relation to Deuteronomy and Ezekiel.
(a) It is generally recognized that H, in its present form, is incomplete. The original code must, it is felt, have included many other subjects now passed over in silence. These, possibly, were omitted by the compiler of P, because they had already been dealt with elsewhere, or they may have been transferred to other connexions. This latter possibility is one that has appealed to many scholars, who have accordingly claimed many other passages of P as parts of H. We have already accepted xi. 43 ff. as an undoubted excerpt from H, but, with the exception of Num. xv. 37-41 (on fringes), the other passages of the Hexateuch which have been attributed to H do not furnish sufficient evidence to justify us in assigning them to that collection. Moore (Ency. Bibl. col. 2787) rightly points out that “resemblance in the subject or formulation of laws to tōrōth incorporated in H may point to a relation to the sources of H, but is not evidence that these laws were ever included in that collection.”
(b) The exact relation of H to Deuteronomy and Ezekiel is hard to determine. That chaps. xvii.–xxvi. display a marked affinity to Deuteronomy cannot be denied. Like D, they lay great stress on the duties of humanity and charity both to the Israelite and to the stranger (Deut. xxiv.; Lev. xix.; compare also laws affecting the poor in Deut. xv.; Lev. xxv.), but in some respects the legislation of H appears to reflect a more advanced stage than that of D, e.g. the rules for the priesthood (chap. xxi.), the feasts (xxiii. 9-20, 39-43), the Sabbatical year (xxv. 1-7, 18-22), weights and measures (xix. 35 f.). It must be remembered, however, that these laws have passed through more than one stage of revision and that the original regulations have been much obscured by later glosses and additions; it is therefore somewhat hazardous to base any argument on their present form. “The mutual independence of the two (codes) is rather to be argued from the absence of laws identically formulated, the lack of agreement in order either in the whole or in smaller portions, and the fact that of the peculiar motives and phrases of RD there is no trace in H (Lev. xxiii. 40 is almost solitary). It is an unwarranted assumption that all the fragments of Israelite legislation which have been preserved lie in one serial development” (Moore, Ency. Bibl. col. 2790).
The relation of H to Ezekiel is remarkably close, the resemblances between the two being so striking that many writers have regarded Ezekiel as the author of H. Such a theory, however, is excluded by the existence of even greater differences of style and matter, so that the main problem to be decided is whether Ezekiel is prior to H or vice versa. The main arguments brought forward by those who maintain the priority of Ezekiel are (1) the fact that H makes mention of a high priest, whereas Ezekiel betrays no knowledge of such an official, and (2) that the author of Lev. xxvi. presupposes a condition of exile and looks forward to a restoration from it. Too much weight, however, must not be attached to these points; for (1) the phrase used in Lev. xxi. 10 (literally, “he who is greater than his brethren”) cannot be regarded as the equivalent of the definitive “chief priest” of P, and is rather comparable with the usage of 2 Kings xxii. 4 ff., xxv. 18 (“the chief priest”), cf. “the priest” in xi. 9 ff., xvi. 10 ff.; and (2) the passages in Lev. xxvi. (vv. 34 f., 39-45), which are especially cited in support of the exilic standpoint of the writer, are just those which, on other grounds, show signs of later interpolation. The following considerations undoubtedly suggest the priority of H: (1) there is no trace in H of the distinction between priests and Levites first introduced by Ezekiel; (2) Ezekiel xviii., xx., xxii., xxiii. appear to presuppose the laws of
