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.

(a) It is generally recognized that H, in its present form, is incomplete. The original code must, it is felt, have included many other subjects now passed over in silence. These, possibly, were omitted by the compiler of P, because they had already been dealt with elsewhere, or they may have been transferred to other connexions. This latter possibility is one that has appealed to many scholars, who have accordingly claimed many other passages of P as parts of H. We have already accepted xi. 43 ff. as an undoubted excerpt from H, but, with the exception of Num. xv. 37-41 (on fringes), the other passages of the Hexateuch which have been attributed to H do not furnish sufficient evidence to justify us in assigning them to that collection. Moore (_Ency. Bibl._ col. 2787) rightly points out that "resemblance in the subject or formulation of laws to _toroth_ incorporated in H may point to a relation to the _sources_ of H, but is not evidence that these laws were ever included in that collection."

(b) The exact relation of H to Deuteronomy and Ezekiel is hard to determine. That chaps. xvii.-xxvi. display a marked affinity to Deuteronomy cannot be denied. Like D, they lay great stress on the duties of humanity and charity both to the Israelite and to the stranger (Deut. xxiv.; Lev. xix.; compare also laws affecting the poor in Deut. xv.; Lev. xxv.), but in some respects the legislation of H appears to reflect a more advanced stage than that of D, e.g. the rules for the priesthood (chap. xxi.), the feasts (xxiii. 9-20, 39-43), the Sabbatical year (xxv. 1-7, 18-22), weights and measures (xix. 35 f.). It must be remembered, however, that these laws have passed through more than one stage of revision and that the original regulations have been much obscured by later glosses and additions; it is therefore somewhat hazardous to base any argument on their present form. "The mutual independence of the two (codes) is rather to be argued from the absence of laws identically formulated, the lack of agreement in order either in the whole or in smaller portions, and the fact that of the peculiar motives and phrases of R_{D} there is no trace in H (Lev. xxiii. 40 is almost solitary). It is an unwarranted assumption that all the fragments of Israelite legislation which have been preserved lie in one serial development" (Moore, _Ency. Bibl._ col. 2790).

The relation of H to Ezekiel is remarkably close, the resemblances between the two being so striking that many writers have regarded Ezekiel as the author of H. Such a theory, however, is excluded by the existence of even greater differences of style and matter, so that the main problem to be decided is whether Ezekiel is prior to H or vice versa. The main arguments brought forward by those who maintain the priority of Ezekiel are (1) the fact that H makes mention of a high priest, whereas Ezekiel betrays no knowledge of such an official, and (2) that the author of Lev. xxvi. presupposes a condition of exile and looks forward to a restoration from it. Too much weight, however, must not be attached to these points; for (1) the phrase used in Lev. xxi. 10 (_literally_, "he who is greater than his brethren") cannot be regarded as the equivalent of the definitive "chief priest" of P, and is rather comparable with the usage of 2 Kings xxii. 4 ff., xxv. 18 ("the chief priest"), cf. "the priest" in xi. 9 ff., xvi. 10 ff.; and (2) the passages in Lev. xxvi. (vv. 34 f., 39-45), which are especially cited in support of the exilic standpoint of the writer, are just those which, on other grounds, show signs of later interpolation. The following considerations undoubtedly suggest the priority of H: (1) there is no trace in H of the distinction between priests and Levites first introduced by Ezekiel; (2) Ezekiel xviii., xx., xxii., xxiii. appear to presuppose the laws of Lev. xviii.-xx.; (3) the calendar of Lev. xxiii. represents an earlier stage of development than the fixed days and months of Ezek. xlv.; (4) the sin- and trespass-offerings are not mentioned in H (cf. Ezek. xl. 39, xlii. 13, xliv. 29, xlvi. 20); (5) the parallels to H, which are found especially in Ezek. xviii., xx., xxii. f., include both the paraenetic setting and the laws; and lastly, (6) a comparison of Lev. xxvi. with Ezekiel points to the greater originality of the former. Baentsch, however, who is followed by Bertholet, adopts the view that Lev. xxvi. is rather an independent hortatory discourse modelled on Ezekiel. The same writer further maintains that H consists of three separate elements, viz. chaps. xvii.; xviii.-xx., with various ordinances in chaps. xxiii.-xxv.; and xxii., xxiii., of which the last is certainly later than Ezekiel, while the second is in the main prior to that author. But the arguments which he adduces in favour of the threefold origin of H are not sufficient to outweigh the general impression of unity which the code presents.

Chap. xvii. comprises four main sections which are clearly marked off by similar introductory and closing formulae: (1) vv. 3-7, prohibition of the slaughter of domestic animals, unless they are presented to Yahweh; (2) vv. 8, 9, sacrifices to be offered to Yahweh alone; (3) vv. 10-12, prohibition of the eating of blood; (4) vv. 13, 14, the blood of animals not used in sacrifice to be poured on the ground. The chapter as a whole is to be assigned to H. At the same time it exhibits many marks of affinity with P, a phenomenon most easily explained by the supposition that older laws of H have been expanded and modified by later hands in the spirit of P. Clear instances of such revision may be seen in the references to "the door of the tent of meeting" (vv. 4, 5, 6, 9) and "the camp" (v. 3), as well as in vv. 6, 11, 12-14; vv. 15, 16 (prohibiting the eating of animals that die a natural death or are torn by beasts) differ formally from the preceding paragraphs, and are to be assigned to P. What remains after the excision of later additions, however, is not entirely uniform, and points to earlier editorial work on the part of the compiler of H. Thus vv. 3-7 reflect two points of view, vv. 3, 4 drawing a contrast between profane slaughter and sacrifice, while vv. 5-7 distinguish between sacrifices offered to Yahweh and those offered to demons.

Chap. xviii. contains laws on prohibited marriages (vv. 6-18) and various acts of unchastity (vv. 19-23) embedded in a paraenetic setting (vv. 1-5 and 24-30), the laws being given in the 2nd pers. sing., while the framework employs the 2nd pers. plural. With the exception of v. 21 (on Molech worship), which is here out of place, and has possibly been introduced from xx. 2-5, the chapter displays all the characteristics of H.

Chap. xix. is a collection of miscellaneous laws, partly moral, partly religious, of which the fundamental principle is stated in v. 2 ("Ye shall be holy"). The various laws are clearly defined by the formula "I am Yahweh," or "I am Yahweh your God," phrases which are especially characteristic of chaps. xviii.-xx. The first group of laws (vv. 3 f.) corresponds to the first table of the decalogue, while vv. 11-18 are analogous to the second table; vv. 5-8 (on peace-offerings) are obviously out of place here, and are possibly to be restored to the cognate passage xxii. 29 f., while the humanitarian provisions of vv. 9 and 10 (cf. xxiii. 22) have no connexion with the immediate context; similarly v. 20 (to which a later redactor has added vv. 21, 22, in accordance with vi. 6 f.) appears to be a fragment from a penal code; the passage resembles Exod. xxi. 7 ff., and the offence is clearly one against property, the omission of the punishment being possibly due to the redactor who added vv. 21, 22.

Chap. xx. Prohibitions against Molech worship, vv. 2-5, witchcraft, vv. 6 and 27, unlawful marriages and acts of unchastity, vv. 10-21. Like chap. xviii., the main body of laws is provided with a paraenetic setting, vv. 7, 8 and 22-24; it differs from that chapter, however, in prescribing the death penalty in each case for disobedience. Owing to the close resemblance between the two chapters, many critics have assumed that they are derived from the same source and that the latter chapter was added for the purpose of supplying the penalties. This view, however, is not borne out by a comparison of the two chapters, for four of the cases mentioned in chap. xviii. (vv. 7, 10, 17b, 18) are ignored in chap. xx., while the order and in part the terminology are also different; further, it is difficult on this view to explain why the two chapters are separated by chap. xix. A more probable explanation is that the compiler of H has drawn from two parallel, but independent, sources. Signs of revision are not lacking, especially in vv. 2-5, where vv. 4 f. are a later addition intended to reconcile the inconsistency of v. 2 with v. 3 (R_{H}); v. 6, which is closely connected with xix. 31, appears to be less original than v. 27, and may be ascribed to the same hand as v. 3; v. 9 can hardly be in its original context--it would be more suitable after xxiv. 15. The paraenetic setting (vv. 7, 8 and 22-24) is to be assigned to the compiler of H, who doubtless prefaced the parallel version with the additional laws of vv. 2-6. Verses 25, 26 apparently formed the conclusion of a law on clean and unclean animals similar to that of chap. xi., and very probably mark the place where H's regulations on that subject originally stood.

Chaps. xxi., xxii. A series of laws affecting the priests and offerings, viz. (1) regulations ensuring the holiness of (a) ordinary priests, xxi. 1-9, and (b) the chief priest, vv. 10-15; (2) a list of physical defects which exclude a priest from exercising his office,