LEVITICUS (1t-vit'T-kils), in the Hebrew canon, is called 8:11?„ kaw-raw', the word with which it begins; the third buuk uf Muses.
/. Contents. Leviticus contains the further statement and development of the Sinaitic legisla tion, the beginnings of which are described in Exodus. It exhibits the historical progress of this legislation ; consequently we must not expect to find the laws detailed in it in a systematic form. There is, nevertheless, a certain order ob served, which arose from the nature of the sub ject, and of which the plan may easily be per ceived. The whole is intimately connected with the contents of Exodus, at the conclusion of which book that sanctuary is described with which all external worship was connected (Exod. xxxv-xl).
2. Authenticity. The arguments by which the unity of Leviticus has been attacked are very feeble. Some critics have strenuously endeavored to prove that the laws contained in Leviticus orig inated in a period much later than is usually sup, posed. But the following observations sufficiently support their Mosaical origin, and show that the whole of Leviticus is historically genuine.
(1) Mosaic Vestiges. The laws in ch. i-vii con tain manifest vestiges of the Mosaical period. Here, as well as in Exodus, when the priests are men tioned, Aaron and his sons are named; as, for in stance, in ch. i :4, 7, 8, etc. The tabernacle is the sanctuary, and no other place of worship is mentioned anywhere.
Expressions like the following constantly occur, before the tabernacle of the congregation, or the door of the tabernacle of the congregation (ch. 1:3; Hi:8,13, etc.). The Israelites are always de scribed as a congregation (ch. iv:13, sq.), under the command of the elders of the congregation (ch. iv :t5), or of a ruler (ch. iv:22). Everything has a reference to life in a camp, and that camp commanded by Moses (ch. iv:12, 21; vi :Jr ; xiv: 8; xvi :26, 28). A later writer could scarcely have placed himself so entirely in the times, and so completely adopted the modes of thinking of the age, of Moses: especially if, as has been asserted, these laws gradually sprung from the usages of the people, and were written down at a later period with fhe object of sanc tioning them by the authority of Moses. They
so entirely befit the Mosaical age, that, in order to adapt them to the requirements of any later period, they must have undergone some modifica tion, accommodation, and a peculiar mode of in terpretation. This inconvenience would have been avoided by a person who intended to forge laws in favor of the later modes of Levitical wor ship. A forger would have endeavored to identify the past as much as possible with the present.
(2) Law Against Slaughter. In ch. xvii oc curs the law which forbids the slaughter of any beast except at the sanctuary. This law could not be strictly kept in Palestine, and had therefore to undergo some modification (Deut. xii). Our opponents cannot show any rational inducement for contriving such a fiction. The law (ch. xvii: 6, 7) is adapted to the nation only while emigrat ing from Egypt. It was the object of this law to guard the Israelites from falling into the temp tation to imitate the Egyptian rites and sacrifices offered to he-goats; which word signifies also demons represented under the form of he-goats, and which were supposed to inhabit the desert (clomp. Jablonski, Pantheon zEg-vfitiacum,i,272, sq.) (3) Concerning Food and Purifications. The laws concerning food and purifications appear especially important if we remember that the peo ple emigrated from Egypt. The fundamental prin ciple of these laws is undoubtedly Mosaical. hut in the individual application of them there is much which strongly reminds us of Egypt. This is also the case in Lev. xviii, sq., where the lawgiver has manifestly in view the two opposites, Canaan and Egypt. That the lawgiver was intimately ac quainted with Egypt, is proved by such remarks as those about the Egyptian marriages with sisters (ch. xviii :3) ; a custom which stands as an excep tion among the prevailing habits of antiquity (Diodorus Siculus, i, 27; Pausanias, Attica, i, 7).