Chapter III: Front Matter (3)

In the last stage (c) the exclusion of the ordinary Levites from all share in the priesthood of the sons of Aaron is looked upon as a matter of course, dating from the institution of priestly worship by Moses. The two classes are supposed to have been founded separately (Exod. xxviii., cf. xxix. 9; Num. iii. 6-10), and so far from any degradation being attached to the rank and file of the Levites, their position is naturally an honourable one compared with that of the mass of non-Levitical worshippers (see Num. i. 50-53), and they are taken by Yahweh as a surrogate for the male first-born of Israel (iii. 11-13). They are inferior only to the Aaronites to whom they are "joined" (xviii. 2, a play on the name Levi) as assistants. Various adjustments and modifications still continue, and a number of scattered details may indicate that internal rivalries made themselves felt. But the different steps can hardly be recovered clearly, although the fact that the priesthood was extended beyond the Zadokites to families of the dispossessed priests points to some compromise (1 Chron. xxiv.). Further, it is subsequently found that certain classes of temple servants, the singers and porters, who had once been outside the Levitical gilds, became absorbed as the term "Levite" was widened, and this change is formally expressed by the genealogies which ascribe to Levi, the common "ancestor" of them all, the singers and even certain families whose heathenish and foreign names show that they were once merely servants of the temple.[3]

2. _Significance of the Development._--Although the legal basis for the final stage is found in the legislation of the time of Moses (latter part of the second millennium B.C.), it is in reality scarcely earlier than the 5th century B.C., and the Jewish theory finds analogies when developments of the Levitical service are referred to David (1 Chron. xv. seq., xxiii. sqq.), Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxix.) and Josiah (xxxv.)--contrast the history in the earlier books of Samuel and Kings--or when the still later book of Jubilees (xxxii.) places the rise of the Levitical priesthood in the patriarchal period. The traditional theory of the Mosaic origin of the elaborate Levitical legislation cannot be maintained save by the most arbitrary and inconsequential treatment of the evidence and by an entire indifference to the historical spirit; and, although numerous points of detail still remain very obscure, the three leading stages in the Levitical institutions are now recognized by nearly all independent scholars. These stages with a number of concomitant features confirm the literary hypothesis that biblical history is in the main due to two leading recensions, the Deuteronomic and the Priestly (cf. [b] and [c] above), which have incorporated older sources.[4] If the hierarchical system as it existed in the post-exilic age was really the work of Moses, it is inexplicable that all trace of it was so completely lost that the degradation of the non-Zadokites in Ezekiel was a new feature and a punishment, whereas in the Mosaic law the ordinary Levites, on the traditional view, was already forbidden priestly rights under penalty of death. There is in fact no clear evidence of the existence of a distinction between priests and Levites in any Hebrew writing demonstrably earlier than the Deuteronomic stage, although, even as the Pentateuch contains ordinances which have been carried back by means of a "legal convention" to the days of Moses, writers have occasionally altered earlier records of the history to agree with later standpoints.[5]

No argument in support of the traditional theory can be drawn from the
account of Korah's revolt (Num. xvi. sqq., see § 3) or from the
Levitical cities (Num. xxxv.; Josh. xxi.). Some of the latter were
either not conquered by the Israelites until long after the invasion,
or, if conquered, were not held by Levites; and names are wanting of
places in which priests are actually known to have lived. Certainly
the names are largely identical with ancient holy cities, which,
however, are holy because they possessed noted shrines, not because
the inhabitants were members of a holy tribe. Gezer and Taanach, for
example, are said to have remained in the hands of Canaanites (Judges
i. 27, 29; cf. 1 Kings ix. 16), and recent excavation has shown how
far the cultus of these cities was removed from Mosaic religion and
ritual and how long the grosser elements persisted.[6] On the other
hand, the sanctuaries obviously had always their local ministers, all
of whom in time could be called Levitical, and it is only in this
sense, not in that of the late priestly legislation, that a place like
Shechem could ever have been included. Further, instead of holding
cities and pasture-grounds, the Levites are sometimes described as
scattered and divided (Gen. xlix. 7; Deut. xviii. 6), and though they
may naturally possess property as private individuals, they alone of
all the tribes of Israel possess no tribal inheritance (Num. xviii.
23, xxvi. 62; Deut. x. 9; Josh. xiv. 3). This fluctuation finds a
parallel in the age at which the Levites were to serve; for neither
has any reasonable explanation been found on the traditional view.
Num. iv. 3 fixes the age at thirty, although in i. 3 it has been
reduced to twenty; but in 1 Chron. xxiii. 3, David is said to have
numbered them from the higher limit, whereas in vv. 24, 27 the lower
figure is given on the authority of "the last words (or acts) of
David." In Num. viii. 23-26, the age is given as twenty-five, but
twenty became usual and recurs in Ezra iii. 8 and 2 Chron. xxxi. 17.
There are, however, independent grounds for believing that 1 Chron.
xxiii. 24, 27, 2 Chron. xxxi. 17 belong to later insertions and that
Ezr. iii. 8 is relatively late.

When, in accordance with the usual methods of Hebrew genealogical history, the Levites are defined as the descendants of Levi, the third son of Jacob by Leah (Gen. xxix. 34), a literal interpretation is unnecessary, and the only narrative wherein Levi appears as a person evidently delineates under the form of personification events in the history of the Levites (Gen. xxxiv.).[7] They take their place in Israel as the tribe set apart for sacred duties, and without entering into the large question how far the tribal schemes can be used for the earlier history of Israel, it may be observed that no adequate interpretation has yet been found of the ethnological traditions of Levi and other sons of Leah in their historical relation to one another or to the other tribes. However intelligible may be the notion of a tribe _reserved_ for priestly service, the fact that it does not apply to early biblical history is apparent from the heterogeneous details of the Levitical divisions. The incorporation of singers and porters is indeed a late process, but it is typical of the tendency to co-ordinate all the religious classes (see GENEALOGY: _Biblical_). The genealogies in their complete form pay little heed to Moses, although Aaron and Moses could typify the priesthood and other Levites generally (1 Chron. xxiii. 14). Certain priesthoods in the first stage (§ 1 [a]) claimed descent from these prototypes, and it is interesting to observe (1) the growing importance of Aaron in the later sources of "the Exodus," and (2) the relation between Mosheh (Moses) and his two sons Gershom and Eliezer, on the one side, and the Levitical names Mushi (i.e. the Mosaite), Gershon and the Aaronite priest Eleazar, on the other. There are links, also, which unite Moses with Kenite, Rechabite, Calebite and Edomite families, and the Levitical names themselves are equally connected with the southern tribes of Judah and Simeon and with the Edomites.[8] It is to be inferred, therefore, that some relationship subsisted, or was thought to subsist, among (1) the Levites, (2) clans actually located in the south of Palestine, and (3) families whose names and traditions point to a southern origin. The exact meaning of these features is not clear, but if it be remembered (a) that the Levites of post-exilic literature represent only the result of a long and intricate development, (b) that the name "Levite," in the later stages at least, was extended to include all priestly servants, and (c) that the priesthoods, in tending to become hereditary, included priests who were Levites by adoption and not by descent, it will be recognized that the examination of the evidence for the earlier stages cannot confine itself to those narratives where the specific term alone occurs.

3. _The Traditions of the Levites._--In the "Blessing of Moses" (Deut, xxxiii. 8-11), Levi is a collective name for the priesthood, probably that of (north) Israel. He is the guardian of the sacred oracles, knowing no kin, and enjoying his privileges for proofs of fidelity at Massah and Meribah. That these places (in the district of Kadesh) were traditionally associated with the origin of the Levites is suggested by various Levitical stories, although it is in a narrative now in a context pointing to Horeb or Sinai that the Levites are Israelites who for some cause (now lost) severed themselves from their people and took up a stand on behalf of Yahweh (Exod. xxxii.). Other evidence allows us to link together the Kenites, Calebites and Danites in a tradition of some movement into Palestine, evidently quite distinct from the great invasion of Israelite tribes which predominates in the existing records. The priesthood of Dan certainly traced its origin to Moses (Judges xvii. 9, xviii. 30); that of Shiloh claimed an equally high ancestry (1 Sam. ii. 27 seq.).[9] Some tradition of a widespread movement appears to be ascribed to the age of Jehu, whose accession, promoted by the prophet Elisha, marks the end of the conflict between Yahweh and Baal. To a Rechabite (the clan is allied to the Kenites) is definitely ascribed a hand in Jehu's sanguinary measures, and, though little is told of the obviously momentous events, one writer clearly alludes to a bloody period when reforms were to be effected by the sword (1 Kings xix. 17). Similarly the story of the original selection of the Levites in the wilderness mentions an uncompromising massacre of idolaters. Consequently, it is very noteworthy that popular tradition preserves the recollection of some attack by the "brothers" Levi and Simeon upon the famous holy city of Shechem to avenge their "sister" Dinah (Gen. xxxiv.), and that a detailed narrative tells of the bloodthirsty though pious Danites who sacked an Ephraimite shrine on their journey to a new home (Judges xvii. sq.).

The older records utilized by the Deuteronomic and later compilers
indicate some common tradition which has found expression in these
varying forms. Different religious standpoints are represented in the
biblical writings, and it is now important to observe that the
prophecies of Hosea unmistakably show another attitude to the
Israelite priesthood. The condemnation of Jehu's bloodshed (Hos. i. 4)
gives another view of events in which both Elijah and Elisha were
concerned, and the change is more vividly realized when it is found
that even to Moses and Aaron, the traditional founders of Israelite
religion and ritual, is ascribed an offence whereby they incurred
Yahweh's wrath (Num. xx. 12, 24, xxvii. 14; Deut. ix. 20, xxxii. 51).
The sanctuaries of Shiloh and Dan lasted until the deportation of
Israel (Judges xviii. 30 seq.), and some of their history is still
preserved in the account of the late pre-monarchical age (12th-11th
centuries B.C.). Shiloh's priestly gild is condemned for its iniquity
(1 Sam. iii. 11-14), the sanctuary mysteriously disappears, and the
priests are subsequently found at Nob outside Jerusalem (1 Sam. xxi.
seq.). All idea of historical perspective has been lost, since the
fall of Shiloh was apparently a recent event at the close of the 7th
century (Jer. vii. 12-15, xxvi. 6-9). But the tendency to ascribe the
disasters of northern Israel to the priesthood (see esp. Hosea) takes
another form when an inserted prophecy revokes the privileges of the
ancient and honourable family, foretells its overthrow, and announces
the rise of a new faithful and everlasting priesthood, at whose hands
the dispossessed survivors, reduced to poverty, would beg some
priestly office to secure a livelihood (1 Sam. ii. 27-36). The sequel
to this phase is placed in the reign of Solomon, when David's old
priest Abiathar, sole survivor of the priests of Shiloh, is expelled
to Anathoth (near Jerusalem), and Zadok becomes the first chief priest
contemporary with the foundation of the _first_ temple (1 Kings ii.
27, 35). These situations cannot be severed from what is known
elsewhere of the Deuteronomic teaching, of the reform ascribed to
Josiah, or of the principle inculcated by Ezekiel (see § 1 [b]). The
late specific tendency in favour of Jerusalem agrees with the
Deuteronomic editor of Kings who condemns the sanctuaries of Dan and
Bethel for calf-worship (1 Kings xii. 28-31), and does not acknowledge
the northern priesthood to be Levitical (1 Kings xii. 31, note the
interpretation in 2 Chron. xi. 14, xiii. 9). It is from a similar
standpoint that Aaron is condemned for the manufacture of the golden
calf, and a compiler (not the original writer) finds its sequel in the
election of the faithful Levites.[10]

In the third great stage there is another change in the tone. The present (priestly) recension of Gen. xxxiv. has practically justified Levi and Simeon from its standpoint of opposition to intermarriage, and in spite of Jacob's curse (Gen. xlix. 5-7) later traditions continue to extol the slaughter of the Shechemitcs as a pious duty. Post-exilic revision has also hopelessly obscured the offence of Moses and Aaron, although there was already a tendency to place the blame upon the people (Deut. i. 37, iii. 26, iv. 21). When two-thirds of the priestly families are said to be Zadokites and one-third are of the families of Abiathar, some reconciliation, some adjustment of rivalries, is to be recognized (1 Chron. xxiv.). Again, in the composite story of Korah's revolt, one version reflects a contest between Aaronites and the other Levites who claimed the priesthood (Num. xvi. 8-11, 36-40), while another shows the supremacy of the Levites as a caste either over the rest of the people (? cf. the prayer, Deut. xxxiii. 11), or, since the latter are under the leadership of Korah, later the eponym of a gild of singers, perhaps over the more subordinate ministers who once formed a separate class.[11] In the composite work Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah (dating after the post-exilic Levitical legislation) a peculiar interest is taken in the Levites, more particularly in the singers, and certain passages even reveal some animus against the Aaronites (2 Chron. xxix. 34, xxx. 3). A Levite probably had a hand in the work, and this, with the evidence for the Levitical Psalms (see PSALMS), gives the caste an interesting place in the study of the transmission of the biblical records.[12] But the history of the Levites in the early post-exilic stage and onwards is a separate problem, and the work of criticism has not advanced sufficiently for a proper estimate of the various vicissitudes. However, the feeling which was aroused among the priests when some centuries later the singers obtained from Agrippa the privilege of wearing the priestly linen dress (Josephus, _Ant._ xx. 9. 6), at least enables one to appreciate more vividly the scantier hints of internal jealousies during the preceding years.[13]

4. _Summary._--From the inevitable conclusion that there are three stages in the written sources for the Levitical institutions, the next step is the correlation of allied traditions on the basis of the genealogical evidence. But the problem of fitting these into the history of Israel still remains. The assumption that the earlier sources for the pre-monarchical history, as incorporated by late compilers, are necessarily trustworthy confuses the inquiry (on Gen. xxxiv., see SIMEON), and even the probability of a reforming spirit in Jehu's age depends upon the internal criticism of the related records (see JEWS, §§ 11-14). The view that the Levites came from the south may be combined with the conviction that there Yahweh had his seat (cf. Deut. xxxiii. 2; Judges v. 4; Hab. iii. 3), but the latter is only one view, and the traditions of the patriarchs point to another belief (cf. also Gen. iv. 26). The two are reconciled when the God of the patriarchs reveals His name for the first time unto Moses (Exod. iii. 15, vi. 3). With these variations is involved the problem of the early history of the Israelites.[14] Moreover, the real Judaean tendency which associates the fall of Eli's priesthood at Shiloh with the rise of the Zadokites involves the literary problems of Deuteronomy, a composite work whose age is not certainly known, and of the twofold Deuteronomic redaction elsewhere, one phase of which is more distinctly Judaean and anti-Samaritan. There are vicissitudes and varying standpoints which point to a complicated literary history and require some historical background, and, apart from actual changes in the history of the Levites, some allowance must be made for the real character of the circles where the diverse records originated or through which they passed. The key must be sought in the exilic and post-exilic age where, unfortunately, direct and decisive evidence is lacking. It is clear that the Zadokite priests were rendered legitimate by finding a place for their ancestor in the Levitical genealogies--through Phinehas (cf. Num. xxv. 12 seq.), and Aaron--there was a feeling that a legitimate priest must be an Aaronite, but the historical reason for this is uncertain (see R. H. Kennett, _Journ. Theolog. Stud._, 1905, pp. 161 sqq.). Hence, it is impossible at present to trace the earlier steps which led to the grand hierarchy of post-exilic Judaism. Even the name Levite itself is of uncertain origin. Though popularly connected with _lavah_, "be joined, attached," an ethnic from Leah has found some favour; the Assyrian _li'u_ "powerful, wise," has also been suggested. The term has been more plausibly identified with _l-v-_' (fem. _l-v-'-t_), the name given in old Arabian inscriptions (e.g. at al-'Ola, south-east of Elath) to the priests and priestesses of the Arabian god Vadd (so especially Hommel, _Anc. Heb. Trad._, pp. 278 seq.). The date of the evidence, however, has not been fixed with unanimity, and this very attractive and suggestive view requires confirmation and independent support.

AUTHORITIES.--For the argument in § 1, see Wellhausen, _Prolegomena_,
pp. 121-151; W. R. Smith, _Old Test. in Jew. Church_ (2nd ed., Index,
s.v. "Levites"); A. Kuenen, _Hexateuch_, §§ 3 n. 16; 11, pp. 203 sqq.;
15 n. 15 (more technical); also the larger commentaries on
Exodus-Joshua and the ordinary critical works on Old Testament
literature. In § 1 and part of § 2 use has been freely made of W. R.
Smith's article "Levites" in the 9th edition of the _Ency. Brit._ (see
the revision by A. Bertholet, _Ency. Bib._ col. 2770 sqq.). For the
history of the Levites in the post-exilic and later ages, see the
commentaries on Numbers (by G. B. Gray) and Chronicles (E. L. Curtis),
and especially H. Vogelstein, _Der Kampf zwischen Priestern u. Leviten
seit den Tagen Ezechiels_, with Kuenen's review in his _Gesammelte
Abhandlungen_ (ed. K. Budde, 1894). See further PRIEST. (S. A. C.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] For the derivation of "Levi" see below § 4 end.

[2] The words "beside that which cometh of the sale of his patrimony"
(lit. "his sellings according to the fathers") are obscure; they seem
to imply some additional source of income which the Levite enjoys at
the central sanctuary.

[3] For the _nethinim_ ("given") and "children of the slaves of
Solomon" (whose hereditary service would give them a pre-eminence
over the temple slaves), see art. NETHINIM, and Benzinger, _Ency.
Bib._ cols. 3397 sqq.

[4] In defence of the traditional view, see S. I. Curtiss, _The
Levitical Priests_ (1877), with which his later attitude should be
contrasted (see _Primitive Semitic Religion To-day_, pp. 14, 50, 133
seq., 171, 238 sqq., 241 sqq.); W. L. Baxter, _Sanctuary and
Sacrifice_ (1895); A. van Hoonacker, _Le Sacerdoce lévitique_ (1899);
and J. Orr, _Problem of the O.T._ (1905). These and other apologetic
writings have so far failed to produce any adequate alternative
hypothesis, and while they argue for the traditional theory, later
revision not being excluded, the modern critical view accepts late
dates for the literary sources in their present form, and explicitly
recognizes the presence of much that is ancient. Note the curious old
tradition that Ezra wrote out the law which had been burnt (2 Esdr.
xiv. 21 sqq.).

[5] For example, in 1 Kings viii. 4, there are many indications that
the context has undergone considerable editing at a fairly late date.
The Septuagint translators did not read the clause which speaks of
"priests and Levites," and 2 Chron. v. 5 reads "the Levite priests,"
the phrase characteristic of the Deuteronomic identification of
priestly and Levitical ministry. 1 Sam. vi. 15, too, brings in the
Levites, but the verse breaks the connexion between 14 and 16. For
the present disorder in the text of 2 Sam. xv. 24, see the
commentaries.

[6] See Father H. Vincent, O.P., _Canaan d'après l'exploration
récente_ (1907), pp. 151, 200 sqq., 463 sq.

[7] So Gen. xxxiv. 7, Hamor has wrought folly "in Israel" (cf. Judges
xx. 6 and often), and in v. 30 "Jacob" is not a personal but a
collective idea, for he says, "I am a few men," and the capture and
destruction of a considerable city is in the nature of things the
work of more than two individuals. In the allusion to Levi and Simeon
in Gen. xlix. the two are spoken of as "brothers" with a communal
assembly. See, for other examples of personification, GENEALOGY:
_Biblical_.

[8] See E. Meyer, _Israeliten u. ihre Nachbarstämme_, pp. 299 sqq.
(passim); S. A. Cook, _Ency. Bib._ col. 1665 seq.; _Crit. Notes on
O.T. History_, pp. 84 sqq., 122-125.

[9] The second element of the name Abiathar is connected with Jether
or Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, and even Ichabod (1 Sam. iv.
21) seems to be an intentional reshaping of Jochebed, which is
elsewhere the name of the mother of Moses. Phinehas, Eli's son,
becomes in later writings the name of a prominent Aaronite priest in
the days of the exodus from Egypt.

[10] With this development in Israelite religion, observe that
Judaean cult included the worship of a brazen serpent, the
institution of which was ascribed to Moses, and that, according to
the compiler of Kings, Hezekiah was the first to destroy it when he
suppressed idolatrous worship in Judah (2 Kings xviii. 4). It may be
added that the faithful Kenites (found in N. Palestine, Judges iv.
11) appear in another light when threatened with captivity by Asshur
(Num. xxiv. 22; cf. fall of Dan and Shiloh), and if their eponym is
Cain (q.v.), the story of Cain and Abel serves, amid a variety of
purposes, to condemn the murder of the settled agriculturist by the
nomad, but curiously allows that any retaliation upon Cain shall be
avenged (see below, note 5).

[11] The name Korah itself is elsewhere Edomite (Gen. xxxvi. 5, 14,
18) and Calebite (1 Chron. ii. 43). See _Ency. Bib._, s.v.

[12]: The musical service of the temple has no place in the
Pentateuch, but was considerably developed under the second temple
and attracted the special attention of Greek observers (Theophrastus,
_apud_ Porphyry, _de Abstin._ ii. 26); see on this subject, R.
Kittel's _Handkommentar_ on Chronicles, pp. 90 sqq.

[13] Even the tithes enjoyed by the Levites (Num. xviii. 21 seq.)
were finally transferred to the priests (so in the Talmud: see
_Yebamoth_, fol. 86a, Carpzov, _App. ad Godw._ p. 624; Hottinger, _De
Dec._ vi. 8, ix. 17).

[14] For some suggestive remarks on the relation between nomadism and
the Levites, and their influence upon Israelite religion and literary
tradition, see E. Meyer, _Die Israeliten u. ihre Nachbarstämme_
(1906), pp. 82-89, 138; on the problems of early Israelite history,
see SIMEON (end), JEWS, §§ 5, 8, and PALESTINE, _History_.

LEVITICUS, in the Bible, the third book of the Pentateuch. The name is derived from that of the Septuagint version ([Greek: to]) [Greek: leu[e]itikon] (sc. [Greek: biblion]), though the English form is due to the Latin rendering, _Leviticus_ (sc. _liber_). By the Jews the book is called _Wayyikra_ ([Hebrew: Wayykra]) from the first word of the Hebrew text, but it is also referred to (in the Talmud and Massorah) as _Torath kohanim_ ([Hebrew: Totath kohanim], law of the priests), _Sepher kohanim_ ([Hebrew: Sepher k´´], book of the priests), and _Sepher korbanim_ ([Hebrew: Sepher korbanim], book of offerings). As a descriptive title _Leviticus_, "the Levitical book," is not inappropriate to the contents of the book, which exhibits an elaborate system of sacrificial worship. In this connexion, however, the term "Levitical" is used in a perfectly general sense, since there is no reference in the book itself to the Levites themselves.

The book of Leviticus presents a marked contrast to the two preceding books of the Hexateuch in that it is derived from one document only, viz. the Priestly Code (P), and contains no trace of the other documents from which the Hexateuch has been compiled. Hence the dominant interest is a priestly one, while the contents are almost entirely legislative as opposed to historical. But though the book as a whole is assigned to a single document, its contents are by no means homogeneous: in fact the critical problem presented by the legislative portions of Leviticus, though more limited in scope, is very similar to that of the other books of the Hexateuch. Here, too, the occurrence of repetitions and divergencies, the variations of standpoint and practice, and, at times, the linguistic peculiarities point no less clearly to diversity of origin.

The historical narrative with which P connects his account of the sacred institutions of Israel is reduced in Leviticus to a minimum, and presents no special features. The consecration of Aaron and his sons (viii. ix.) resumes the narrative of Exod. xl., and this is followed by a brief notice of the death of Nadab and Abihu (x. 1-5), and later by an account of the death of the blasphemer (xxiv. 10 f.). Apart from these incidents, which, in accordance with the practice of P, are utilized for the purpose of introducing fresh legislation, the book consists of three main groups or collections of ritual laws: (1) chaps, i.-vii., laws of sacrifice; (2) chaps, xi.-xv., laws of purification, with an appendix (xvi.) on the Day of Atonement; (3) chaps, xvii.-xxvi., the Law of Holiness, with an appendix (xxvii.) on vows and tithes. In part these laws appear to be older than P, but when examined in detail the various collections show unmistakably that they have undergone more than one process of redaction before they assumed the form in which they are now presented. The scope of the present article does not permit of an elaborate analysis of the different sections, but the evidence adduced will, it is hoped, afford sufficient proof of the truth of this statement.

I. _The Laws of Sacrifice._--Chaps. i.-vii. This group of laws clearly formed no part of the original narrative of P since it interrupts the connexion of chap. viii. with Exod. xl. For chap. viii. describes how Moses carried out the command of Exod. xl. 12-15 in accordance with the instructions given in Exod. xxix. 1-35, and bears the same relation to the latter passage that Exod. xxxv. ff. bears to Exod. xxv. ff. Hence we can only conclude that Lev. i.-vii. were added by a later editor. This conclusion does not necessarily involve a late date for the laws themselves, many of which have the appearance of great antiquity, though their original form has been considerably modified. But though these chapters form an independent collection of laws, and were incorporated as such in P, a critical analysis of their contents shows that they were not all derived from the same source.

The collection falls into two divisions, (a) i.-vi. 7 (Heb. v. 26),
and (b) vi. 8 (Heb. vi. 1)-vii., the former being addressed to the
people and the latter to the priests. The laws contained in (a) refer
to (1) burnt-offerings, i.; (2) meal-offerings, ii.; (3)
peace-offerings, iii.; (4) sin-offerings, iv. (on v. 1-13 see below);
(5) trespass-offerings, v. 14-vi. 7 (Heb. v. 14-26). The laws in (b)
cover practically the same ground--(1) burnt-offerings, vi. 8-13 (Heb.
vv. 1-6); (2) meal-offerings, vi. 14-18 (Heb. vv. 7-11); (3) the
meal-offering of the priest, vi. 19-23 (Heb. vv. 12-16); (4)
sin-offerings, vi. 24-30 (Heb. vv. 17-23); (5) trespass-offerings,
vii. 1-7, together with certain regulations for the priest's share of
the burnt- and meal-offerings (vv. 8-10); (6) peace-offerings, vii.
11-21. Then follow the prohibition of eating the fat or blood (vv.
22-28), the priest's share of the peace-offerings (vv. 29-34), the
priest's anointing-portion (vv. 35, 36), and the subscription (vv. 37,
38). The second group of laws is thus to a certain extent
supplementary to the first, and was, doubtless, intended as such by
the editor of chaps. i.-vii. Originally it can hardly have formed part
of the same collection; for (a) the order is different, that of the
second group being supported by its subscription, and (b) the laws in
vi. 8-vii. are regularly introduced by the formula "This is the law
(_torah_) of...." Most probably the second group was excerpted by the
editor of chaps. i.-vii. from another collection for the purpose of
supplementing the laws of i.-v., more especially on points connected
with the functions and dues of the officiating priests.

Closer investigation, however, shows that both groups of laws contain
heterogeneous elements and that their present form is the result of a
long process of development. Thus i. and iii. seem to contain
genuinely old enactments, though i. 14-17 is probably a later
addition, since there is no reference to birds in the general heading
v. 2. Chap. ii. 1-3, on the other hand, though it corresponds in form
to i. and iii., interrupts the close connexion between those chapters,
and should in any case stand after iii.: the use of the second for the
third person in the remaining verses points to a different source. As
might be expected from the nature of the sacrifice with which it
deals, iv. (sin-offerings) seems to belong to a relatively later
period of the sacrificial system. Several features confirm this view:
(1) the blood of the sin-offering of the "anointed priest" and of the
whole congregation is brought within the veil and sprinkled on the
altar of incense, (2) the sin-offering of the congregation is a
bullock, and not, as elsewhere, a goat (ix. 15; Num. xv. 24), (3) the
altar of incense is distinguished from the altar of burnt-offering (as
opposed to Exod. xxix.; Lev. viii. ix.). Chap. v. 1-13 have usually
been regarded as an appendix to iv., setting forth (a) a number of
typical cases for which a sin-offering is required (vv. 1-6), and (b)
certain concessions for those who could not afford the ordinary
sin-offering (vv. 7-13). But vv. 1-6, which are not homogeneous (vv. 2
and 3 treating of another question and interrupting vv. 1, 4, 5 f.),
cannot be ascribed to the same author as iv.: for (1) it presents a
different theory of the sin-offering (contrast v. 1 f. with iv. 2),
(2) it ignores the fourfold division of offerings corresponding to the
rank of the offender, (3) it fails to observe the distinction between
sin- and trespass-offering (in vv. 6, 7, "his guilt-offering"
([Hebrew: ashamo]) appears to have the sense of a "penalty" or
"forfeit," unless with Baentsch we read [Hebrew: korbano] "his
oblation" in each case; cf. v. 11, iv. 23 ff. Verses 7-13, on the
other hand, form a suitable continuation of iv., though probably they
are secondary in character. Chap. v. 14 (Heb. v. 26)-vi. 7 contain
regulations for the trespass-offering, in which the distinctive
character of that offering is clearly brought out. The cases cited in
vi. 1-7 (Heb. v. 20-26) are clearly analogous to those in v. 14-16,
from which they are at present separated by vv. 17-19. These latter
prescribe a trespass-offering for the same case for which in iv. 22 f.
a sin-offering is required: it is noticeable also that no restitution,
the characteristic feature of the _asham_, is prescribed. It is hardly
doubtful that the verses are derived from a different source to that
of their immediate context, possibly the same as v. 1-6.

The subscription (vii. 37, 38) is our chief guide to determining the
original extent of the second group of laws (vi. 8 [Heb. vi. 1]-vii.
36). From it we infer that originally the collection only dealt with
the five chief sacrifices (vi. 8-13; 14-18; 24, 25, 27-30; vii. 1-6;
11-21) already discussed in i.-v., since only these are referred to in
the colophon where they are given in the same order (the
consecration-offering [v. 37] is probably due to the same redactor who
introduced the gloss "in the day when he is anointed" in vi. 20). Of
the remaining sections vi. 19-23 (Heb. 12-16), the daily meal-offering
of the (high-) priest, betrays its secondary origin by its absence
from the subscription, cf. also the different introduction. Chaps. vi.
26 (Heb. 19) and vii. 7 assign the offering to the officiating priest
in contrast to vi. 18 (Heb. 11), 29 (Heb. 22), vii. 6 ("every male
among the priests"), and possibly belong, together with vii. 8-10, to
a separate collection which dealt especially with priestly dues. Chap.
vii. 22-27, which prohibit the eating of fat and blood, are addressed
to the community at large, and were, doubtless, inserted here in
connexion with the sacrificial meal which formed the usual
accompaniment of the peace-offering. Chap. vii. 28-34 are also
addressed to the people, and cannot therefore have formed part of the
original priestly manual; v. 33 betrays the same hand as vi. 26 (Heb.
19) and vii. 7, and with 35a may be assigned to the same collection as
those verses; to the redactor must be assigned vv. 32 (a doublet of v.
33), 34, 35b and 36.

Chaps. viii.-x. As stated, these chapters form the original sequel to
Exod. xl. They describe (a) the consecration of Aaron and his sons, a
ceremony which lasted seven days (viii.), and (b) the public worship
on the eighth day, at which Aaron and his sons officiated for the
first time as priests (ix.); then follow (c) an account of the death
of Nadab and Abihu for offering strange fire (x. 1-5); (d) various
regulations affecting the priests (vv. 12-15), and (e) an explanation,
in narrative form, of the departure in ix. 15 from the rules for the
sin-offering given in vi. 30 (vv. 16-20).

According to Exod. xl. 1-15 Moses was commanded to set up the
Tabernacle and to consecrate the priests, and the succeeding verses
(16-38) describe how the former command was carried out. The execution
of the second command, however, is first described in Lev. viii., and
since the intervening chapters exhibit obvious traces of belonging to
another source, we may conclude with some certainty that Lev. viii.
formed the immediate continuation of Exod. xl. in the original
narrative of P. But it has already been pointed out (see Exodus) that
Exod. xxxv.-xl. belong to a later stratum of P than Exod. xxv.-xxix,
hence it is by no means improbable that Exod. xxxv-xl. have superseded
an earlier and shorter account of the fulfilment of the commands in
Exod. xxv.-xxix. If this be the case, we should naturally expect to
find that Lev. viii., which bears the same relation to Exod. xxix.
1-35 as Exod. xxxv. ff. to Exod. xxv. ff. also belonged to a later
stratum. But Lev. viii., unlike Exod xxxv. ff., only mentions one
altar, and though in its present form the chapter exhibits marks of
later authorship, these marks form no part of the original account,
but are clearly the work of a later editor. These additions, the
secondary character of which is obvious both from the way in which
they interrupt the context and also from their contents, are (1), v.
10, the anointing of the Tabernacle in accordance with Exod. xxx. 26
ff.: it is not enjoined in Exod. xxix.; (2) v. 11, the anointing of
the altar and the laver (cf. Exod. xxx. 17 ff.) as in Exod. xxix. 36b,
xxx. 26 ff.; (3) v. 30, the sprinkling of blood and oil on Aaron and
his sons. Apart from these secondary elements, which readily admit of
excision, the chapter is in complete accord with P as regards point of
view and language, and is therefore to be assigned to that source.

The consecration of Aaron and his sons was, according to P, a
necessary preliminary to the offering of sacrifice, and chap. ix.
accordingly describes the first solemn act of worship. The ceremony
consists of (a) the offerings for Aaron, and (b) those for the
congregation; then follows the priestly blessing (v. 22), after which
Moses and Aaron enter the sanctuary, and on reappearing once more
bless the people. The ceremony terminates with the appearance of the
glory of Yahweh, accompanied by a fire which consumes the sacrifices
on the altar. Apart from a few redactional glosses the chapter as a
whole belongs to P. The punishment of Nadab and Abihu by death for
offering "strange fire" (x. 1-5) forms a natural sequel to chap. ix.
To this incident a number of disconnected regulations affecting the
priests have been attached, of which the first, viz. the prohibition
of mourning to Aaron and his sons (vv. 6, 7), alone has any connexion
with the immediate context; as it stands, the passage is late in form
(cf. xxi. 10 ff.). The second passage, vv. 8, 9, which prohibits the
use of wine and strong drink to the priest when on duty, is clearly a
later addition. The connexion between these verses and the following
is extremely harsh, and since vv. 10, 11 relate to an entirely
different subject (cf. xi. 47), the latter verses must be regarded as
a misplaced fragment. Verses 12-15 relate to the portions of the meal-
and peace-offerings which fell to the lot of the priests, and connect,
therefore, with chap. ix.; possibly they have been wrongly transferred
from that chapter. In the remaining paragraph, x. 16-20, we have an
interesting example of the latest type of additions to the Hexateuch.
According to ix. 15 (cf. v. 11) the priests had burnt the flesh of the
sin-offering which had been offered on behalf of the congregation,
although its blood had not been taken into the inner sanctuary (cf.
iv. 1-21, vi. 26). Such treatment, though perfectly legitimate
according to the older legislation (Exod. xxix. 14; cf. Lev. viii.
17), was in direct contradiction to the ritual of vi. 24 ff., which
prescribed that the flesh of ordinary sin-offerings should be eaten by
the priests. Such a breach of ritual on the part of Aaron and his sons
seemed to a later redactor to demand an explanation, and this is
furnished in the present section.

II. _The Laws of Purification._--Chaps. xi.-xv. This collection of laws comprises four main sections relating to (1) clean and unclean beasts (xi.), (2) childbirth (xii.), (3) leprosy (xiii. xiv.), and (4) certain natural secretions (xv.). These laws, or _toroth_, are so closely allied to each other by the nature of their contents and their literary form (cf. especially the recurring formula "This is the law of ..." xi. 46, xii. 7, xiii. 59, xiv. 32, 54, 57, xv. 32) that they must originally have formed a single collection. The collection, however, has clearly undergone more than one redaction before reaching its final form. This is made evident not only by the present position of chap. xii. which in v. 2 presupposes chap. xv. (cf. xv. 19), and must originally have followed after that chapter, but also by the contents of the different sections, which exhibit clear traces of repeated revision. At the same time it seems, like chaps. i.-vii., xvii.-xxvi., to have been formed independently of P and to have been added to that document by a later editor; for in its present position it interrupts the main thread of P's narrative, chap. xvi. forming the natural continuation of chap. x.; and, further, the inclusion of Aaron as well as Moses in the formula of address (xi. 1, xiii. 1, xiv. 33, xv. 1) is contrary to the usage of P.

1. Chap. xi. consists of two main sections, of which the first (vv.
1-23, 41-47) contains directions as to the clean and unclean animals
which may or may not be used for food, while the second (vv: 24-40)
treats of the defilement caused by contact with the carcases of
unclean animals (in v. 39 f. contact with clean animals after death is
also forbidden), and prescribes certain rites of purification. The
main interest of the chapter, from the point of view of literary
criticism, centres in the relation of the first section to the Law of
Holiness (xvii.-xxvi.) and to the similar laws in Deut. xiv. 3-20.
From xx. 25 it has been inferred with considerable probability that H,
or the Law of Holiness, originally contained legislation of a similar
character with reference to clean and unclean animals; and many
scholars have held that the first section (vv. 1 [or 2]-23 and 41-47)
really belongs to that code. But while vv. 43-45 may unhesitatingly be
assigned to H, the remaining verses fail to exhibit any of the
characteristic features of that code. We must assign them, therefore,
to another source, though, in view of xx. 25 and xi. 43-45, it is
highly probable that they have superseded similar legislation
belonging to H.

The relation of Lev. xi. 2-23 to Deut. xiv. 4-20 is less easy to
determine, since the phenomena presented by the two texts are somewhat
inconsistent. The two passages are to a large extent verbally
identical, but while Deut. xiv. 4b, 5 both defines and exemplifies the
clean animals (as opposed to Lev. xi. 3; which only defines them), the
rest of the Deuteronomic version is much shorter than that of
Leviticus. Thus, except for vv. 4b, 5, the Deuteronomic version, which
in its general style, and to a certain extent in its phraseology (cf.
[Hebrew: min] _kind_, vv. 13, 15, 18, and [Hebrew: sheretz] _swarm_,
v. 19), shows traces of a priestly origin, might be regarded as an
abridgment of Lev. xi. But the Deuteronomic version uses [Hebrew:
tame] _unclean_ throughout (vv. 7, 10. 19), while Lev xi. from v. 11
onwards employs the technical term [Hebrew: sheketz] _detestable
thing_, and it is at least equally possible to treat the longer
version of Leviticus as an expansion of Deut. xiv. 4-20. The fact that
Deut. xiv. 21 permits the stranger ([Hebrew: gher]) to eat the flesh
of any animal that dies a natural death, while Lev. xvii. 25 places
him on an equal footing with the Israelite, cannot be cited in favour
of the priority of Deuteronomy since v. 21 is clearly supplementary;
cf. also Lev. xi. 39. On the whole it seems best to accept the view
that both passages are derived separately from an earlier source.

2. Chap. xii. prescribes regulations for the purification of a woman
after the birth of (a) a male and (b) a female child. It has been
already pointed out that this chapter would follow more suitably after
chap. xv., with which it is closely allied in regard to
subject-matter. The closing formula (v. 7) shows clearly that, as in
the case of v. 7-13 (cf. i. 14-17), the concessions in favour of the
poorer worshipper are a later addition.

3. Chaps. xiii., xiv. The regulations concerning leprosy fall readily
into four main divisions: (a) xiii. 1-46a, an elaborate description of
the symptoms common to the earlier stages of leprosy and other skin
diseases to guide the priest in deciding as to the cleanness or
uncleanness of the patient; (b) xiii. 47-59, a further description of
different kinds of mould or fungus growth affecting stuffs and
leather; (c) xiv. 1-32, the rites of purification to be employed after
the healing of leprosy; and (d) xiv. 33-53, regulations dealing with
the appearance of patches of mould or mildew on the walls of a house.
Like other collections the group of laws on leprosy easily betrays its
composite character and exhibits unmistakable evidence of its gradual
growth. There is, however, no reason to doubt that a large portion of
the laws is genuinely old since the subject is one that would
naturally call for early legislation; moreover, Deut. xxiv. 8
presupposes the existence of regulations concerning leprosy,
presumably oral, which were in the possession of the priests. The
earliest sections are admittedly xiii. 1-46a and xiv. 2-8a, the ritual
of the latter being obviously of a very archaic type. The secondary
character of xiii. 47-59 is evident: it interrupts the close connexion
between xiii. 1-46a and xiv. 2-8a, and further it is provided with its
own colophon in v. 59. A similar character must be assigned to the
remaining verses of chap. xiv., with the exception of the colophon in
v. 57b; the latter has been successively expanded in vv. 54-57a so as
to include the later additions. Thus xiv. 9-20 prescribes a second and
more elaborate ritual of purification after the healing of leprosy,
though the leper, according to v. 8a, is already clean; its secondary
character is further shown by the heightening of the ceremonial which
seems to be modelled on that of the consecration of the priest (viii.
23 ff.), the multiplication of sacrifices and the minute regulations
with regard to the blood and oil. The succeeding section (vv. 21-32)
enjoins special modifications for those who cannot afford the more
costly offerings of vv. 9-20, and like v. 7-13, xii. 8 is clearly a
later addition; cf. the separate colophon, v. 32. The closing section
xiv. 33-53 is closely allied to xiii. 47-59, though probably later in
date: probably the concluding verses (48-53), in which the same rites
are prescribed for the purification of a house as are ordained for a
person in vv. 3-8a, were added at a still later period.

4. Chap. xv. deals with the rites of purification rendered necessary
by various natural secretions, and is therefore closely related to
chap. xii. On the analogy of the other laws it is probable that the
old _torah_, which forms the basis of the chapter, has been
subsequently expanded, but except in the colophon (vv. 32-34), which
displays marks of later redaction, there is nothing to guide us in
separating the additional matter.

Chap. xvi. It may be regarded as certain that this chapter consists of
three main elements, only one of which was originally connected with
the ceremonial of the Day of Atonement, and that it has passed through
more than one stage of revision. Since the appearance of Benzinger's
analysis _ZATW_ (1889), critics in the main have accepted the division
of the chapter into three independent sections: (1) vv. 1-4, 6, 12,
13, 34b (probably vv. 23, 24 also form part of this section),
regulations to be observed by Aaron whenever he might enter "the holy
place within the veil." These regulations are the natural outcome of
the death of Nadab and Abihu (x. 1-5), and their object is to guard
Aaron from a similar fate; the section thus forms the direct
continuation of chap. x.; (2) vv. 29-34a, rules for the observance of
a yearly fast day, having for their object the purification of the
sanctuary and of the people; (3) vv. 5, 7-10, 14-22, 26-28, a later
expansion of the blood-ritual to be performed by the high-priest when
he enters the Holy of Holies, with which is combined the strange
ceremony of the goat which is sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.
The matter common to the first two sections, viz. the entrance of the
high priest into the Holy of Holies, was doubtless the cause of their
subsequent fusion; beyond this, however, the sections have no
connexion with one another, and must originally have been quite
independent. Doubtless, as Benzinger suggests, the rites to be
performed by the officiating high priest on the annual Day of
Atonement, which are not prescribed in vv. 29-34a, were identical with
those laid down in chap. ix. That the third section belongs to a later
stage of development and was added at a later date is shown by (a) the
incongruity of vv. 14 ff. with v. 6--according to the latter the
purification of Aaron is a preliminary condition of his entrance
within the veil--and (b) the elaborate ceremonial in connexion with
the sprinkling of the blood. The first section, doubtless, belongs to
the main narrative of P; it connects directly with chap. x. and
presupposes only one altar (cf. v. 12, Exod. xxviii. 35). The second
and third sections, however, must be assigned to a later stratum of P,
if only because they appear to have been unknown to Ezra (Neh. ix. 1);
the fact that Ezra's fast day took place on the twenty-fourth day of
the seventh month (as opposed to Lev. xvi. 29, xxiii. 26 f.) acquires
an additional importance in view of the agreement between Neh. viii.
23 f. and Lev. xxiii. 33 f. as to the date of the Feast of
Tabernacles. No mention is made of the Day of Atonement in the
pre-exilic period, and it is a plausible conjecture that the present
law arose from the desire to turn the spontaneous fasting of Neh. ix.
1 into an annual ceremony; in any case directions as to the annual
performance of the rite must originally have preceded vv. 29 ff.
Possibly the omission of this introduction is due to the redactor who
combined (1) and (2) by transferring the regulations of (1) to the
ritual of the annual Day of Atonement. At a later period the ritual
was further developed by the inclusion of the additional ceremonial
contained in (3).

III. _The Law of Holiness._--Chaps. xvii.-xxvi. The group of laws contained in these chapters has long been recognized as standing apart from the rest of the legislation set forth in Leviticus. For, though they display undeniable affinity with P, they also exhibit certain features which closely distinguish them from that document. The most noticeable of these is the prominence assigned to certain leading ideas and motives, especially to that of _holiness_. The idea of holiness, indeed, is so characteristic of the entire group that the title "Law of Holiness," first given to it by Klostermann (1877), has been generally adopted. The term "holiness" in this connexion consists positively in the fulfilment of ceremonial obligations and negatively in abstaining from the defilement caused by heathen customs and superstitions, but it also includes obedience to the moral requirements of the religion of Yahweh.

On the literary side also the chapters are distinguished by the
paraenetic setting in which the laws are embedded and by the use of a
special terminology, many of the words and phrases occurring rarely,
if ever, in P (for a list of characteristic phrases cf. Driver,
_L.O.T._^6, p. 49). Further, the structure of these chapters, which
closely resembles that of the other two Hexateuchal codes (Exod. xx.
22-xxiii. and Deut. xii.-xxviii.), may reasonably be adduced in
support of their independent origin. All three codes contain a
somewhat miscellaneous collection of laws; all alike commence with
regulations as to the place of sacrifice and close with an
exhortation. Lastly, some of the laws treat of subjects which have
been already dealt with in P (cf. xvii. 10-14 and vii. 26 f., xix. 6-8
and vii. 15-18). It is hardly doubtful also that the group of laws,
which form the basis of chaps. xvii.-xxvi., besides being independent
of P, represent an older stage of legislation than that code. For the
sacrificial system of H (= Law of Holiness) is less developed than
that of P, and in particular shows no knowledge of the sin- and
trespass-offerings; the high priest is only _primus inter pares_ among
his brethren, xxi. 10 (cf. Lev. x. 6, 7, where the same prohibition is
extended to all the priests); the distinction between "holy" and "most
holy" things (Num. xviii. 8) is unknown to Lev. xxii. (Lev. xxi. 22 is
a later addition). It cannot be denied, however, that chaps.
xvii.-xxvi. present many points of resemblance with P, both in
language and subject-matter, but on closer examination these points of
contact are seen to be easily separable from the main body of the
legislation. It is highly probable, therefore, that these marks of P
are to be assigned to the compiler who combined H with P. But though
it may be regarded as certain that H existed as an independent code,
it cannot be maintained that the laws which it contains are all of the
same origin or belong to the same age. The evidence rather shows that
they were first collected by an editor before they were incorporated
in P. Thus there is a marked difference in style between the laws
themselves and the paraenetic setting in which they are embedded; and
it is not unnatural to conjecture that this setting is the work of the
first editor.

Two other points in connexion with H are of considerable importance:
(a) the possibility of other remains of H, and (b) its relation to
Deuteronomy and Ezekiel.