205 The beginning of the year is that referred to in Lev. xxv. 9, the tenth day of the seventh month (September‐October). From the Exile downwards two calendars were in use, the beginning of the sacred year falling in the seventh month of the civil year. It was not necessary for Ezekiel to mention the number of the month.
206 See pp. 318 f.
207 Cf. Davidson, _Ezekiel_, pp. liv. f.
208 See Prof. W. R. Smith, _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_, pp. 442 f.
209 See ver. 10, “let them measure the pattern”; ver. 11, “that they may keep the whole form thereof.”
210 This last group is considered to be composed of several layers of legislation, and one of its sections is of particular interest for us because of its numerous affinities with the book of Ezekiel. It is the short code contained in Lev. xvii.‐xxvi., now generally known as the Law of Holiness.
211 This argument is most fully worked out by Wellhausen in the first division of his _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_: I., “Geschichte des Cultus.”
212 It should perhaps be stated, even in so incomplete a sketch as this, that there is still some difference of opinion among critics as to Ezekiel’s relation to the so‐called “Law of Holiness” in Lev. xvii.‐xxvi. It is agreed that this short but extremely interesting code is the earliest complete, or nearly complete, document that has been incorporated in the body of the Levitical legislation. Its affinities with Ezekiel both in thought and style are so striking that Colenso and others have maintained the theory that the author of the Law of Holiness was no other than the prophet himself. This view is now seen to be untenable; but whether the code is older or more recent than the vision of Ezekiel is still a subject of discussion among scholars. Some consider that it is an advance upon Ezekiel in the direction of the Priests’ Code; while others think that the book of Ezekiel furnishes evidence that the prophet was acquainted with the Law of Holiness, and had it before him as he wrote. That he was acquainted with its _laws_ seems certain; the question is whether he had them before him in their present written form. For fuller information on this and other points touched on in the above pages, the reader may consult Driver’s _Introduction_ and Robertson Smith’s _Old Testament in the Jewish Church_.
213 Gautier, _La Mission du Prophète Ezekiel_, p. 118.
214 The cubit which is the unit of measurement is said to be a handbreadth longer than the cubit in common use (ver. 5). The length of the larger cubit is variously estimated at from eighteen to twenty‐two inches. If we adopt the smaller estimate, we have only to take the half of Ezekiel’s dimensions to get the measurement in English yards. The other, however, is more probable. Both the Egyptians and Babylonians had a larger and a smaller cubit, their respective lengths being approximately as follows:—
Common cubit: Egypt 17.8 in., Babylon 19.5 in. Royal cubit: Egypt 20.7 in., Babylon 21.9 in.
In Egypt the royal cubit exceeded the common by a handbreadth, just as in Ezekiel. It is probable in any case that the large cubit used by the angel was of the same order of magnitude as the royal cubit of Egypt and Babylon—_i.e._, was between twenty and a half and twenty‐two inches long. Cf. Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_, pp. 178 ff.
215 See the plan in Benzinger, _Archäologie_, p. 394.
216 The outer court, however, is some feet higher than the level of the ground, being entered by an ascent of seven steps; the height of the wall inside must therefore be less by this amount than the six cubits, which is no doubt an outside measurement.