* Ezk 4039 4213 4429 4620; the MNDN, also, 4319. 21.22.25 4427 4517. 10. 22.23.25. Neither, it is to be observed, appears as a new institution in Ezk.
+See LOT 129-132 (6186-189). The most noticeable contra- dictions with Dt relate to the position and revenues of the priestly tribe, the disposal of tithes and firstlings, and the manumission of slaves (ib. 77f., 982f. ; Driver, Deut. xxxviii.- ix., 169-172, 185, ἘΠῚ n 2K 1216 observe that the guilt- and sin-offerings consist in money payments (cf. RS 402 f., 4423).
t See vol. i. p. 600f
| Authority (1899), p. 77f.; and of. JS 200, 219n. @2
LAW (IN OLD TESTAMENT) ΤΊ
from the people, and other similar matters. After the priesthood had acquired, through the founda- tion of Solomon’s temple, a permanent centre, it is probable that the process of development and systematization advanced more rapidly than be- fore; the allusions in Dt imply the existence of priestly usages beyond those which fall directly within the scope ot the book, and Ezekiel, being a priest himself, refers to such usages more dis- tinctly. Although, therefore, there are reasons for concluding that the legislation of P did not assume finally the shape in which we have it until after the age of Ezk, it rests ultimately upon an ancient traditional basis ; it exhibits the final development and systematization of elements and principles, which in themselves are of great an- tiquity ; and many of the institutions prominent in it are recognized, in various stages of their growth, by the earlier pre-exilic literature, by Dt, and by Ezk.*
The question is not one of importance in the present connexion ; but it should be added that it is doubtful whether the legislation of P springs throughout from the same age; there are indications that it exhibits sometimes the usage of different periods side by side. Of. Dillm. Lz-Lv, 413 (2455: on Ly 4), Nu-Dt-Jos, 84, 181 (on Nu 28-29), 635, 641f., 643; Kuen. Hex. §§ 6. 13-15; 15. 28-30; Holzinger, Einl. 418-25, 458. ; also Ryle, Canon, 84-88.
In its general features—i.e. the general principles of sacrifice, tithes, annual festivals, purification, ete.—the ceremonial system of the Hebrews did not differ essentially from the systems prevalent among other Semitic nations, and indeed among ancient peoples generally, as, for instance, the Greeks.t+ It is not improbable that elements in it were borrowed from the Canaanites. Some of the Heb. sacrificial terms (n31, οὐ, $2, ansn, 553) are found in the Carthaginian inscription, relating to sacrifices, preserved now at Marseilles;+ an vows are also trequently mentioned in other Phen. inscriptions. There are analogies for the Sabbath among the Babylonians; and even CIRCUMCISION (which see) was not a rite peculiar to the Hebrews. The Levitical ritual, though its form is late, is based ultimately ‘on very ancient tradition, going back to a time when there was no substantial difference, in point of form, between Heb. sacri- fices and those of the surrounding nations’ (RS 198, 2215). Of course, among the Hebrews, these common Semitic institutions received, as time went on, many modifications and special adapta- tions. But the really distinctive character, ak they exhibited in Israel, consists in the new spirit with which they are infused, and the higher prin- ciples of which they are made the exponent. The aim of the Heb. legislation was ‘not so much to create a new system as to give a new significance to that which had already long existed among Semitic races, and to lay the foundation of a higher symbolism leading to a more spiritual worship’ (Ryle, Canon, p. 28; ef. Ottley, Bampt. Lect. 229).
The most conspicuous feature in the legislation of P is perhaps the multiplication and specializa- tion of ceremonial observances, which has been already touched upon.
Another characteristic, which Wellh. has empha-
* WwW. R. Smith (O7 JC? 8721., 877, 3882-4) points also to the evidences of ancient ritual law in the bands of the priests; cf. Stade, Gesch. ii. 66 (who instances in particular Ly 1-7. 11-15. 17-26, Nu 5-6. 9. 15. 19, as being for the most part ‘Niederschrift vorexilischen Gebrauchs’); Cheyne, Jewish Kel. Life after the Exile, 81. There are also many examples of archaic ideas and usages embedded in P, not less than in the other codes: see, ¢.g., Lv 11 (‘uncleanness’; cf. KS 425 ff., 2447 ff.), 147-83 (ib. 402, 2422), 162f., 218 al. (the ‘bread of God’; tb. 207, 2224), Nu 51m: (ad, 164f., 2180 f.), 19%.
+ W. R. Smith, AS, Lect. vi. (on sacrifice), and elsewhere ; Ryle, Canon, p. 27f. Of. the ‘Sacrificial Calendar fron Cos, published by E. L. Hicks in the Journ. of Hellenic Studies,
ix. (1888) p. 823 ff. t CJS 1, i. 165; see the transl, in Hogarth’s 4
12 LAW (IN OLD TESTAMENT)