In placing the origin of the Priestly Code in the post-exilic period it must not be supposed that its ordinances represent innovations belong ing to this late date. The aim of the compiler or compilers of the code in fact was to produce something which might so far as possible appear old. Hence not only regulations in former codes were taken up, but ancient customs and ritual istic decisions were retained if found consistent with the religious standpoint reached by the pious Yahwists of the Exile. In the Priestly Code accordingly we can pick out a large number of smaller ritualistic compendia embodying the practice of the Jerusalem priests before the Ex ile. So, e.g. within chapters i.-vii., we find (vi. 8-vii. 2) a group of instructions to priests Nvhieli embody relatively' ancient practices with additions. Chapters i.-vi. are supplement," to the subject dealt with in this group of regulations. Again the regulations for 'taboos' of food,persons, and objects rest upon ancient customs which the Hebrews shared with surrounding nations. and even the formulation of the ordinances may be relatively old, though in their present form they betray evidence of having passed through several editing stage,. Chapter xvi. furnishes a good illustration of the manner in which the old and the new have been combined in the Priestly Code. It is told in chapter x. how two priests. represented in tradition as sons of Aaron. incurred the wrath of the deity by a cere monial error (carrying unhallowed fire in their censers). in connection with this story—for chapter xvi, is directly connected with chapter x. —the precautions are set forth which must be ohoerved loy the priests in order to avoid a simi lar misfortune. Incidental to these prescriptions, an old piacular ritual is introduced, involving the sending away of a scapegoat into the wilder ness. This rite—a survival of demon-worship. and bearing on its face the mark of primitive conceptions of sin—is carried over into the sol emn Atonement Day, of which no mention is made in the pre-exilic codes, and which is essen tially a feature of post-exilic Judaism.
The manner in which the atonement rites are set forth incidental to an actual or supposed occurrence is also a eharacteristie feature of the literary method pursued in Leviticus, whieh regards the codes from the point. of view• of the historian. This point of view prompts the Priest ly compiler to break off the Priestly Code at the end of chapter NIL and insert a narrative of the sacred institutions—a deseription of the conse cration and installation rites for the priests at the time of the setting up of the tabernacle and the inaugural sacrifices on that occasion. Chapter viii. belongs therefore to Exodus. chap ter xl., while chapter xxix. is directly connected with Exodus. chapters xxv.-xxix. Whatever the other motives of the rearrangement may have been, involving the tearing apart of com ponent pieces. the desire to give an historical set ting to the codes was certainly uppermost in the mind of the compiler of the Priestly narrative and of the subsequent school of editors. Into the priestly narrative were taken up JE and the Priestly ('odes, while the Code of Holiness was added by later redactors, who also endeav ored, tlonigh without complete success, to adjust the two codes to one another.
IllistloonAeux. Consult: the commentaries of Baentseh, Svack, Keil. Kalish, and Dillmann (3d ed.. by Ilyssel) ; Driver and White, "Leviticus." in Haupt, Baer& Books of the Old Testament (Leipzig, BM; in the new Eng. trans., New York, 1898) Addis, Documents of the Heroic-rich, vol. ii. (London, 1898) ; Carpenter and Batters ly. The Ilexaleneh, (London, 1900) ; Baentseh, bus Ileiligkritsgesetz, Lev. 17-2t; (1893): and the introductions to the Old Testament of Driver, Knenen, Cornill, Kunig. and Holzinger.