Dt 143-20 compared with 11. Though interpreters differ, the facts, when taken all together, favour the priority of Dt over Ly. (1) The clean animals’ names, given Dt 144%, are omitted in Ly as covered by general law in 6f; while names of birds, etc., are retained of necessity. (2) The cases of camel, hare, and coney are expanded in Ly 1148, (3) Ly 119-12 is an expansion of Dt 14%. ® The new term abomination is used in Ly. (5) In its present form at least Ly 11 in #449 covers the question of contact, which Dt would hardly have omitted had it been con- tained in the ordinance quoted. (6) Dt omits mention of creep- ing things wpon the earth, Ly 1141f (7) The exceptions in 1121f. are wanting in Dt. (8) The prohibition which is absolute in Dt 14216 15 relaxed in Lv 1139; ef. 1715,
It is hard to say why the abomination series of verses should begin where it does, seeing that the terminology in Dt is uniform over the whole range of cases. Perhaps the compiler had before him two variants of the ordinance quoted in Dt, and found one fuller than the other in dealing with the later cases. The signs of reduplication in %1!2 confirm this conjecture, by re- vealing the presence of a ‘join’ of the two legal threads.
11440, This section is distinct from 1:23, for (1) it deals mainly with touching (eating 4% only), while 1-23 deals mainly with eating (touching 8 and perhaps 11}; (2) it enumer- ates only the unclean, and mentions only two classes in- stead of five; (3) it prescribes means of cleansing; (4) it is doubtful if it is included in the colophon. But “440 is hardly to be reckoned homogeneous. 3238 is probably secondary on its own account, for the transition is very abrupt from cases of animals that make persons unclean to cases of things that any of those animals may make unclean. But if 9% originally belonged to 2440, then 3235 is clearly an addition. 891., how- ever, looks more like a completion of 28, ete misplaced by intrusion of the abomination pase 2431, on the other hand, at no point presupposes 23, but is complete in itself.
12: On purification after childbirth.—This short chapter, whose chief interest lies in the fulfilment of its conditions at the presentation of Christ in the temple, seems in * to refer to and depend upon 15, and presents the same features.
The only trace of the camp form of legislation characteristic of Pg is found in ὅν, YV.8 is marked as a supplement; for (1) it
comes after the colophon 7, and (2) elsewhere (57 1421, cf. 114) the provision for cases of poverty is seen to be a later addition.
13f.: On leprosy.—The laws in this section pre- sent a very complex problem to the student. Dt 248 cives no details such as are found about clean and unclean in 14**, but refers for the procedure in a case of leprosy to the torah of the priests, presumably oral. The extreme elaboration of
treatment detailed in 13f. may perhaps indicate that the usage was not committed to writing till a late period ; but, apart from introductory ghrases and an occasional gloss, there are no signs of the
LEVITICUS
influence of I’* in the sections assigned to P*. But | of an altar of incense. (2) The atonement for Aaron, being | omitted in the summaries in 14 and 2%, can hardly be original
these relatively older portions are not homogeneous. For while 13 is entirely occupied with the detection and discrimination of leprosy and the regulation of the leper’s life, and 14 provides for the cleansing of the recovered leper, each is independent of and distinct from the other. Each, too, contains earlier and later elements, which may be readily separated as in the analysis above.
The colophon 145457 will furnish a good starting-point in indicating the nature of the argument. Originally, it peolenly consisted only of 57>; this ts the law of leprosy, in accord- ance with the usage elsewhere (fifteen times this is the law of... in P*), and came after 134, for even in its expanded form there ix no reference to cleansing, and 1347-59 has its own colophon. Then the reference was made more explicit: this is the law for (unique phrase) all manner of plague of , and for a scall δὲ (referring to 13228 and 29-44), to teach when tt is unclean and uwhenit is clean 5%, The addition of 1347-59, though it has its own eolophon, produced the clause and for the leprosy of a garment 65s, and similarly there followed (for the Heb. con- struction is different) and for an house 5b, to refer to 1433-53, which was kindred to 1347-59; while 56, which clearly was a gloss to make pointed allusion to 132-28, providing for a rising and for @ 8 and for a bright spot, has been inserted wrongly, instead of before and for a scail.
In 188 etc. the priest, after examining a man with a favourable result, shall pronounce him clean... and he shall wash his clothes and be clean, But in 14, if the plague be healed, many ceremonies must be performed before the priest shall pronounce him clean 7, and then he has not only to wash his clothes, but to shave off all his hair, and bathe himself before he shall be clean ὃ, Yet both the archaic colouring and the alternate vagueness and precision of the ritual directions in 1428 proclaim that this Herat comparatively early. Was the author of 13 ignorant of this ceremonial, or did he think it superstitious or unintelligible ?—149-20 seems to be a description of an inde-