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 Levi ticus. For, though they display undeniable affinity with P, they also exhibit certain features which distinguish them from that document. The most noticeable of these is the prominence as signed 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 connection 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 re ligion 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. S. R. Driver, Lit. of 0.T., P. 49). Fur ther, 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 miscel laneous 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 already been 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). On the other hand the points of resemblance with P which this code presents us are mainly due 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 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. It is generally recog nized 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 else where, or they may have been transferred to other connections. Several other sections of P have, in fact, been assigned by scholars to H, but, with the exception of xi. 43 ff. and Num. xv. 37-41, the evidence is not sufficient to warrant their inclusion in that col lection.
The exact relation of H to Deuteronomy 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 age 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 argu ment on their present form, and, on the whole, it is more prob able that the two codes are independent of one another. The
relation of H to Ezekiel is also remarkably close, the resemblances between the two being so striking that many writers have re garded 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 following considerations un doubtedly suggest the priority of H: (I) 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 pre suppose the laws of Lev. xviii-xx. ; (3) the calendar of Lev. xxiii. represents an earlier stage of development than the fixed days and months of Ezek. xlv. ; (4) the sin- and trespass-offerings are not mentioned in H (cf. Ezek. xl. 39, xlii. 13, xliv. 29, xlvi. 2o) ; (5) the parallels to H, which are found especially in Ezek. xviii., xx., xxii., include both the paraenetic setting and the laws ; and lastly, (6) a comparison of Lev. xxvi. with Ezekiel points to the greater originality of the former.
Chap. xvii. comprises four main sections which are clearly marked off by similar introductory and closing formulae : (I) vv. 3-7, prohibition of the slaughter of domestic animals, unless they are presented to Yahweh; (2) vv. 8, 9, sacrifices to be offered to Yahweh alone; (3) vv. 10-12, prohibition of the eating of blood; (4) vv. 13, 54, the blood of animals not used in sacrifice to be poured on the ground. The chapter as a whole is to be as signed to H. At the same time it exhibits many marks of affinity with P, a phenomenon most easily explained by the supposition that older laws of H have been expanded and modified by later hands in the spirit of P. What remains after the excision of later additions, however, is not entirely uniform, and points to earlier editorial work on the part of the compiler of H. Chap. xviii. con tains laws on prohibited marriages .(vv. 6-18) and various acts of unchastity (vv. 19-23) embedded in a paraenetic setting (vv. 1-5 and 24-30), the laws being given in the 2nd pers. sing., while the framework employs the 2nd pers. plural. Chap. xix. is a col lection of miscellaneous laws, partly moral, partly religious, of which the fundamental principle is stated in v. 2 ("Ye shall be holy"). The various laws are clearly defined by the formula "I am Yahweh," or "I am Yahweh your God," phrases which are especially characteristic of chaps. xviii.-xx. The first group of laws (vv. 3 f.) corresponds to the first table of the decalogue, while vv. I I-18 are analogous to the second table. Chap. xx. pro hibits Molech worship, vv. 2-5, witchcraft, vv. 6 and 27, unlaw ful marriages and acts of unchastity, vv. 10-21. As in chap. xviii., the main body of laws is provided with a paraenetic setting, vv. 7, 8 and 22-24; it differs from that chapter, however, in pre scribing the death penalty in each case for disobedience.
Chaps. xxi., xxii. contain a series of laws affecting the priests and offerings, viz., (I) regulations ensuring the holiness of (a) ordinary priests, xxi. 1-9, and (b) the chief priest, vv. 1 o--15; (2) a list of physical defects which exclude a priest from exercising his office, vv. 16-24; (3) the enjoyment of sacred offerings limited to (a) priests, if they are ceremonially clean, xxi. 1-9, and (b) members of a priestly family, vv. 10-16; (4) animals offered in sacrifice must be without blemish, vv. 17-25; (5) fur ther regulations with regard to sacrifices, vv. 26-30, with a paraenetic conclusion, vv. 31-33. The fact that these chapters exhibit many striking points of context with P and the later strata of P can be best explained by the supposition that we have here a body of old laws which have been subjected to more than one revision. The nature of the subjects with which they deal is one that naturally appealed to the priestly schools, and owing to this fact the laws were especially liable to modification and expansion at the hands of later legislators who wished to bring them into conformity with later usage. Signs of such revision may be traced back to the compiler of H, but the evidence shows that the process must have been continued down to the latest period of editorial activity in connection with P.