(5) The resemblances with Ezekiel have long attracted attention. They are indeed so striking as to have led many critics to argue that the prophet was the author of the code. The similar relation between Dt and Jeremiah was indeed often interpreted in the same way. But if in each case it has been found impossible to sustain the hypo- thesis of identity of authorship, in each case also it has been demonstrated that a close connexion subsisted between the two. And if it cannot be a mere coincidence that Jeremiah is the first writer to betray indebtedness to Dt, so it is natural to conclude that, if P® had been long in existence as a literary whole, it would not have been left to Ezekiel to show traces of its peculiar phrases and ideas. Some of the most striking of these parallels may now be enumerated for the examination of the student.
Parallels between Lv 17-26 and Ezekiel.*
1. The Laws. 2. The Hortatory Passages. Ly Ezk Ly Ezk 173. 8. 10 144.1 1820 205. 7.19, cf, 20 1710 148 2826 3922 28 1713 247 (not in Is or 1716 1410 4410. 12 Jer) 1812 2010.1. 9910. 11 183 207 12.17 183f 5.26 1987 2018-21, cf. 56
1913 197. 12.16 263 1112. 20 189.17 1915 188 3316 2011. 18 3627 1928 3325 1824. 80 g022f. 907. 18 1986 4510 1825, 28 3617, cf, 18 209 227 1826, cf, 27.29 86, cf, 9. 18.17 94 2115. 4425 1818. 24 215 4420 2024 Heb. 3510 2114 442 2025, οἵ, 1147 2926 4590 810 228 4431 364. 5 3425-28 1417 2215 2226 269 Heb. 869. 10 1652 2518 2826, cf. 8425.28 | 9611.12 3728. 27 437.9
888. 11. 14 806. | 2612b 8727 3628 1120
26 8723, cf. 1411 2536f. 188, cf, 18.17 2212 3424-30 2543 844 2618, cf. 1988 φρῦν. 6 3427
etc. etc,
(6) From the above (taken in connexion with the previous critical notes) certain inferences may be drawn: i. There is a substantial unity in Ly 17-26, but it is the unity of a school and not of an individual. ii. It is difficult to say whether the compiler of the code and author of the closing discourse was before or after Ezk, but on the whole it is more probable that he was later, to- wards the end of the Exile. iii. But no part of the legislation (occasional glosses excepted) need be later than Ezk. iv. The prophet appeals to and rests upon the collections of laws which under- lie the present text. v. In their form (cf. their frequent grouping in 10’s and 5’s) and in their substance (cf. the Anglo-Saxon Penitentials, framed also for a rude age) these laws may well be very ancient. Their antiquity is indeed better established than any theory of their origin. An attractive and plausible conjecture, however, is that they represent J’s missing legislation. The
pathy of J with the priest hood is repeatedly shown.
b. Enough has been said above under § 1 B and §3 B to justify the inference that there was a second
* These instances are all taken from the forthcoming Ozf. Anal. Hex., where they will be printed in full in the raped tion, which deals fully with the whole question
LEVITICUS
schoo] of priestly canonists (P*), who set them- selves to reduce to writing the current religious praxis of the Jerusalem Temple, all of which was apparently wena as Mosaic. It may be con- sidered doubtful whether their work had been carried very far, even if it was begun, before the destruction of the Temple rendered it necessary, if the whole tradition was not to be lost. 1-3 and 6%-7 probably represent two collectors, and 11-15 one or more.
c. It may very well have been one of this school who developed its presuppositions yet further, and carried them out more vigorously, embodying thei in the great book of History and Law called P*, of which but little is included in Ly. In it all takes
lace in and for the camp, and centres round the
anernaals and its single altar, Aaron the one anointed priest forming with his sons the exclu- sive priesthood, and the sons of Levi the minister- ing tribe. The most natural date is after the Restoration, as no trace of this system is found till the arrival of Ezra.
ἃ. Last came a long line of scribes (P*), com- bining, revising, expanding, and supplementing, until the Pentateuch reached its present form.
§ 6. HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF LEVITICUS.
a. As thus resolved into its component parts, arranged in chronological order, though not all furnished with definite dates, the book becomes a great witness to the Christian doctrine of evolu- tion. As, under the inspiration and prompting of the Spirit of God, the laws for conduct and worship were shaped and modified, their form largely de-
endent on historical circumstances, so we who
ave had committed to us the revelation of absolute truth in Christ may expect to have amongst us a presence of the Spirit adequate to enable us to apply that truth for each age till the end comes.
Ὁ. Lv is the literary monument of the Hebrew preshioes: Overshadowed in the earlier history
kings and prophets, represented in the pages of written prophecy by the degenerate members of the order, it is in Lv and Ezk that we see how the priests trained Israel to associate a high standard of morality with a stately form of worship, which, though freely using material means, was, in its essence, and still more as com- pared with contemporary forms of religion, severely spiritual and rich in symbolieal significance.