The insertion of this fact in its chronological place slightly interrupts the order of the legal definitions. The laws concerning the Sabbath and the year of Jubilee, \vhich follow it, are inti mately connected with the laws which precede. For the Sabbatical law completes the declaration that Jehovah is the real proprietor and landlord of Canaan, to whom belong both the territory and its inhabitants and whose right is opposed to all occupation of the country by heathens (ch. xxv.) This section is concluded with the fundamental position Of the law, viz. that Jehovah the only true and living God, will' bless his faithful people who heartily keep his law ; and will curse all who despise him and transgress his law (ch. xxvi.) After it has thus been explained how the people might be considered to be the owners of the country, there appropriately follows the law con cerning several possessions which were more ex clusively consecrated to Jehovah, or which, like the first-born, belonged to him without being specially offered. The whole concludes with an appendix embracing the law concerning vows and tithes, with a manifest reference to the preceding parts of the legislation (ch. xxvii. 17-24).
AUTHENTIC1TY.—The arguments by which the unity of Leviticus has been attacked are very feeble. Some critics, however, such as De Wette, Gram berg, Vatke, and others, have strenuously endea voured to prove that the laws contained in Leviticus originated in a period much later than is usually supposed. But the following observations suffi ciently support their hlosaical origin and show that the whole of Leviticus is historica'lly genuine. The laws ia ch. 1.-vii. contain manifest vestiges of the Mosaical period. IIere, as well as in Exodus, when the priests are mentioned, Aaron and his sons are named ; as, for instance, in ch. i. 4, 7, 8, 1, etc. The tabernacle is the sanctuary, and no other place of worship is mentioned anywhere.
Expressions like the following constantly occur, 4:6 ritst, before the tabernacle of the congregation, or -rpn rinD, the door of the tabernacle of the congregation (ch. i. 3 ; 8, 13, etc.) The Israelites are always described as a congregation (ch. iv. 13, seq.), under the command of the 4:p1 ri-wri, elders of the congregation (ch. iv. 15), or of a WV], ruier (ch. iv. 22). Everything has a refer ence to life in a camp, and that camp commanded by Moses (ch. iv. 12, 21 ; II ; 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 usa,es of the people, and were written down at a fater period with the object of sanctioning them by the author ity of Moses. They so entirely befit the Mosaical
age, that, in order to adapt them to the require ments of any later period, they must have under gone some modification, accommodation, and a peculiar mode of interpretation. This inconveni ence would have been avoided by a person who intended to forge laws in favour of the later modes of Levitical worship. A forger would have endea voured to identify the past as much as possible with the present.
The section in ch. viii.-x. is said to have a my thical colouring. This assertion is grounded on ' the miracle narrated in ch. ix. 24. But what could have been the inducement to forrre this section ? It is said that the priests inventA it in order to support the authority of the sacerdotal caste by the solemn ceremony of Aaron's conse cration. But to such an intention the narration of the crime committed by Nadab and Abihu is strikingly opposed. Even Aaron himself here appears to be rather remiss in the observance of the law (comp. x. 16, seq., with iv. 22, seq.) Hence it would seem that the forgery arose from an opposite or anti-hierarchical tendency. The fiction would thus appear to have been contrived without any motive which could account for its origin, In ch. xvii. occurs the law which forbids the slaughter of any beast except at the sanctualy, This law could not be strictly kept in Palestine, and had therefore to undergo some modification (Dent. xii.) Our opponents cannot thew any rational inducement for contriving such a fiction. The law (ch. xvii. 6, 7) is adapted to the nation only while emigrating from Egypt. It 'was the object of this law to guard the Israelites from fall ing into the temptation to imitate the Egyptian rites and sacrifices offered to he-goats, nvvvv; which word signifies also demons represented under the form of he-goats, and which were sup posed to inhabit the desert (comp. Jablonsky, Pantheon ./Egyptiacunt, i. 272, seq.) The laws concerning food and purifications appear especially important if we remember that the people emigrated from Egypt. The funda mental principle of these laws is undoubtedly M osai cal, but in the individual application of them there is much which strongly reminds us of Egypt. This is also the case in Lev. xviii., sty., where the lawgiver has manifestly in view the two opposites, Canaan and Egypt. That the lawgiver was inti, mately acquainted with Egypt, is proved by such remarks as those about the Egyptian marriages with sisters (ch. xviii. 3) ; a custom which stands as an exception ar,ong the prevailing habits of antiquity (Diodorus Siculus, 27 ; Pausanias, Attica, i. 7).