-- : -

Paton, Lewis Bayles

The Original Form of the Holiness-Code.

Part I.

Marburg, 1897.

LDiyi

mi
£74o

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

THE ORIGINAL FORM

THE HOLINESS-CODE
A PHILOLOGICAL DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
, FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MARBURG

BY
LEWIS BAYLES PATON, M.A.
OF NEW YORK, U.S.A.

Part I.
THE ORIGINAL FORM OF LEVITICUS XV I I. -XIX.

MARBURG, 1897

THE ORIGINAL FORM

THE HOLINESS-CODE
A PHILOLOGICAL DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MARBURG

BY

LEWIS BAYLES PATON, M.A.
hi
of new york, u.s.a.

Part I.
THE ORIGINAL FORM OF LEVITICUS XVII.-XIX.

ACCEPTED AS A DISSERTATION BY THE PHILOSOPHICAL
FACULTY, MAY 21, 1806.

(VI I
\

The Original Form of Lev. 17-19.
THE importance of a critical investigation of the Holiness-legis
lation needs no proof. If, as is generally admitted, an older
code has been incorporated with the priestly legislation of these chap
ters, it is desirable that we should determine as nearly as possible the
original form of this document, in order that we may be able to assign
it to its true place in the development of Hebrew legislation.
This is recognized by all critics, and has led already to the writing
of several valuable treatises, so that a new investigation seems almost
superfluous. Nevertheless, in spite of all that has been done for the
analysis of the Holiness-Code by the researches of Graf, Kayser,
Wellhausen, Dillmann, Driver, and others, and all that has been
done for the determination of its historical position by Noldeke,
Klostermann, Horst, and Baentsch, the problems have not yet been
so fully solved as to preclude a new study.
In spite of the importance of determining the exact contents of
the Holiness-Code, its analysis has never been made the object
of such elaborate study as has been put upon the analysis of Genesis,
and the lines of demarkation between the earlier and the later strata
are still far from being certainly determined. The question has not
yet been answered, In precisely what form did the Holiness-laws
exist before they came into their present recension in the Book of
Leviticus? The relation of the hortatory passages to the code
proper and to the later insertions has never been studied with
sufficient care. Even the textual criticism of these chapters has not
yet reached the point where further research is superfluous.
In the following pages I do not claim to present a solution of the
problem of the Holiness-Code ; I endeavor only to contribute a little
to the analysis of that document. No one is better aware than I of
the difficulties that beset many of the positions that I have taken,
and of the objections that may easily be brought against them. My
own views have undergone change so frequently, as I have studied
deeper into the questions, that I know that I must hold them open
to still further modification, and am prepared to welcome criticism
1

and correction. In no single point do I feel that I have reached
finality. I present my conclusions, therefore, with hesitation, not as
established facts, but as theories and conjectures, which are worthy of
consideration, and which, I hope, may turn out to contain something
of permanent value. If ever I seem to express myself too positively
on points that are, to say the least, problematic, I trust that this will
be excused by the reader, as due to controversial ardor rather than
to dogmatism. I. ANALYSIS OF LEV. ^'-iS5.
1. The Legislation of H underlies this Section. — That portions of
this legislation are independent of P, and have linguistic affinity with
H, is now generally recognized. The recurrent formula V}*H tT^K
(,73.8. 10.13 cf_ rg6 2Q2.9 224.18 ^15^ thg phrases «PH W»b 2^^ 01
(l74 Cf. 209-n-12.1S.l«)j J-OJ j-QJ (V5.7 cf_ jgS ^ffl^ ^ ^,^-j fr^il
1129 S"»p» (v.4-9 cf. v.10 20"), ^S:D 'OS Tirtfl (V.10 Cf. 203-6 26"),
the use of the first person in the divine address, are all characteristic
of H. Other expressions occur, which, although they cannot be said
to be characteristic of H, are nevertheless foreign to P. Such are
HUT PDtS2 by (ve),"in» mt (v.7), l"Dt IX Ths (v.8). The annex
ing of reasons to the commandments is not the custom of P, and the
use of the first person in these exhortations is also foreign to his
style. Accordingly, it is apparent that we have here, to a greater or
less extent, elements of an independent legislation.
Furthermore, the fundamental ideas of this legislation are distin
guished more or less sharply from the fundamental ideas of P. The
opening enactment, which cannot be eliminated from v.3"7 by any
critical process, that every slaughtering must be a sacrifice, is diamet
rically contrary to the theory of the Priestly Code (against Kayser,
Vorexil. Buck, p. 69) . As Wellhausen shows with consummate clear
ness {Composition, p. 153), P permits and everywhere assumes the
free, non-sacrificial slaughter of domestic animals. The permission
given to Noah (Gen. 93ft) to use animal food is coupled with no other
restriction than that the blood shall not be eaten, and the fact that P
has inserted this permission along with the Sabbath and circumcision
in the history of the patriarchs, is proof that he regarded it as still
valid. The assertion of Dillmann {Ex.-Lev., p. 536) and of Kittel
{Theol. Stud, aus Wiirttemberg, 1881, p. 43), that P did not intend
this permission to be permanent, is without foundation. .The assump
tion of P, that slaughtering is free, is evident also from the following

facts : Peace-offerings play an unimportant part in his legislation,
which would not be the case, if every slaughtering were a peace-offer
ing ; and the priests are to receive the shoulder and the breast of
the peace-offerings, which would be an excessive allowance for their
support, if every slaughtering were a peace-offering. Finally, Lev. 722-27
clearly assumes that the slaying and eating of animals is permitted in
all parts of the land, the only restriction being that the fat and the
blood are not to be eaten (cf. Kuenen, Onderzoek, p. 90 ; Wurster,
ZATW. 1883, p. 120; Baentsch, Heiligkeitsgesetz, p. 22).
The second fundamental proposition of the chapter (v.8-9), that all
sacrifices must be brought to Yahweh only, is, it is true, not contrary
to the spirit of P, but is, nevertheless, formally distinct from it. P
never preaches against illegal forms of worship. It is addressed
to those who are confirmed Yahweh worshippers, and the possibility
that they will be led away into idolatry is never entertained. P
assumes that the ISltt 7l"IX is the place where sacrifice will be
offered, and that all sacrifices will be offered to Yahweh, but it does
not condemn other sanctuaries or contend against idolatry in the
manner of this passage. The situation which underlies this law,
therefore, is different from the one which is presupposed by P and is
more akin to D.
Besides, the fact that this law recognizes only two forms of sacrifice,
the TwS and the |"Q1 (or D7t#) distinguishes it from P and allies it
with the older legislation (cf. Ex. 1025 1812 2024 24s 32s Dt. 2 76f- Jos. 881
Ju. 2026 21* 1 S. 615 io8 139-12 2 S. 6m- 2423-25 1 Ki. 315 2 Ki. s17 io24f-).
The classification is foreign to P and by no means covers the sacri
fices which that code requires (cf. Dillmann, Ex.-Lev., p. 535 ;
Wellhausen, Proleg., p. 72).
The law against the eating of the blood of beasts slain in sacrifice
(v.10-12) is an element of the oldest Hebrew legislation (cf. Dt. i216-m
1523 1 S. I433"35). A law on this subject has been given by P already
(Lev. 726f"), and, therefore, it is more likely that this law comes from
another source. Moreover, P combines it with the prohibition of
eating fat, an element which is absent from Lev. 1 710"12.
The law of v.13-14 is necessitated by the one which precedes it.
After the discussion of the eating of the blood of animals which may
be offered in sacrifice, the eating of the blood of non-sacrificial
animals follows logically. If the previous enactment is independent
of P, this one must be so also.
The law of v.ls- 16 is found in the Book of the Covenant and in D.
Its standpoint also is somewhat different from that of P. In Lev. 1 1

P combines with the prohibition of eating carrion the prohibition of
touching it, on pain of defilement. This discloses a more punctilious
stage of legislation than is seen in Lev. 1 715 ; and if the latter were a
part of P, we should expect it to be enlarged with the item about
touching a carcase. Accordingly, it is evident that, not only in form
and diction, but also in contents, the code of Lev. 1 7 is distinguished
from P.
2. Leviticus 17 has been amplified in the Style of P. — The fol
lowing phrases disclose clearly the style of P : TJ1J2 7!"IX nr© ba
(v.4), mm p-ip mpr6 (v.4), mrrb n'tt'w thi (v.5), the sacri
ficial formula (v.6), the title (v.lf). All this shows that to assign this
chapter as it now stands to H, or to any other source independent
of P, is out of the question. For reasons which will appear later in
our discussion, H has here been enlarged with priestly elements
more extensively than is usual ; and the result is that the analysis of
this chapter is exceptionally perplexing. In the main critics are
agreed in regard to the added P elements, but there are a number
of sentences where the linguistic criteria are not so clear but that
there is room for a difference of opinion. It is important, however,
if possible, that a decision should be reached, for these sentences
relate to the place and the nature of sacrifice, and upon the analysis
that we make our opinion in regard to the date of the code is largely
dependent. 3. The Law against Sacrifice to Other Gods (v.8-9). — The best
starting-point for an analysis of this chapter is found in the recurrent
formulse with which v.3-810-13 begin. These formula? are character
istic of H ; and it is right, therefore, to look for the original kernel
of the H legislation in immediate connection with them. Critical
investigation must start with the second occurrence of the formula
(v.8), because the section which it introduces is easier to analyze
than the first. When once we have determined exactly what the
second law must have been, it is possible to reason back from it to
the original form of the first law.
Instead of TlbT (v.8), it is preferable with LXX, Sam. to read
!"ltW. The technical use of Htt?2? for ' sacrifice ' is found in H (Lev.
2223.24 23i2) ; and in view of rfflSS1? in the next verse, this verb
seems more natural (Driver, Leviticus, p. 30).
The phrase TS1& bilK nnD b$ (v.9) is not only peculiar to P
(44f-7 1423 Nu. 613), but is also suspicious from the fact that it does
not harmonize with the general intention of the code. The aim of

5
the legislation in v.8"9 is to compel all animals slain for food to be
brought to the altar and sacrificed to Yahweh ; but the insertion
of the 12J1S2 IHX, the central sanctuary, defeats the purpose of this
enactment by making it impossible for it to be carried out. Only
where there are altars of Yahweh in various parts of the land, is it
possible to give the command to sacrifice every animal that is killed
for food.
Moreover, the language of ib, " Blood shall be imputed to that man,
he hath shed blood," shows that the preceding clause, " to the door
of the tent of meeting, to offer it an offering unto Yahweh," must be
an interpolation. If the purpose of the original legislator had been
to conserve the unity of the sanctuary, he would not have said of
the offender merely, " he has shed blood," but " he has forsaken the
sanctuary," or some equivalent expression. It is only on the suppo
sition that the original law required that slaughtered animals should
be sacrificed, without specifying the particular place where sacrifice
should be made, that these words of * become intelligible. If, then,
the phrase is an interpolation in 4a, it is the more likely that it is an
interpolation also in v.9, and the same reasoning applies to the other
occurrences of "TSJ1I2 1HX in v.5"6.
It is more doubtful whether the clause DSirO IM* IttfK 13H J&l
(v.8) is also to be regarded as an addition by Rp. It is found in P
(Ex. 1249 Lev. 1629 Nu. is26'29 1910 ; cf. the similar phrase -jnK *W ,3
13 Ex. 1248 Nu. 914 151416). The extension of legislation to the 13 is
characteristic of P ; and, for this reason, Kuenen ( Onderzoek, p. 269)
regards this clause as an addition by Rp. The fact, however, that
this expression occurs in Lev. 202, a passage whose entire context is
unaffected by P, and that Ezekiel uses this expression (147), makes
it possible that this phrase has not been added by the priestly editor
(so Wellhausen, Composition, p. 152; Baentsch, p. 137). However
this may be, it is not probable that this phrase stood in the original
legislation. It is wanting in v.3, and there is no more reason why it
should be found here than there. In 22s5 it is forbidden to offer a
sacrifice from the hand of a foreigner. If the substance of Lev. 1 7
belongs to the same document as the substance of Lev. 22, it is
unlikely that it permits to a foreigner, who happens to be living in
the land, what another part of the code forbids to foreigners in gen
eral. Throughout the holiness legislation in general, Israel only is
taken into account. The JT&S, the MSI, and the !1K always denote
Israelites. D1K, WK, and ttfB3 mean Hebrews. The 13 occurs spo
radically in a few places only (see the way in which the law is applied

to the 13, v.re). Consequently, it is likely that this extension of the
legislation is a gloss, although probably earlier than the priestly
additions. Omitting, then, these two phrases from the law of v.8"9, we have
the primitive form of the law, " Any man of the house of Israel, who
maketh burnt offering or sacrifice, and bringeth it not to make for
Yahweh, that man shall be cut off from his kinsfolk."
4. The Law against Profane Slaughter (v.3-7) . — From the fixed
point of the original form of the second law it is possible to reason
back with considerable certainty to the original form of the first
precept which is introduced with the formula bWVD* HOtt WK E^X.
We have seen already that the 15112 SilK in v.4"6 is characteristic of
P, and that it is inconsistent with the aim of the older legislation.
The same argument would apply to the phrase mm pttftt ^Sl, if it
could be shown that in this verse mm ptPIO is a designation of the
central sanctuary. It is so used by P (Nu. i69 i72S 1913 31s047), but
such use by no means proves that this is its meaning here. The
phrase HIT pt»S5 MSb is never used by P, and the mm pWB is
tautological alongside of the ISltt ?i1K. It is more natural, there
fore, with Kayser, Wellhausen, Wurster, Baentsch, to regard this as a
relic of the older legislation which has been enlarged in the spirit
of P.
If, however, this phrase does not come from P, it must be
explained, not by the analogy of P, but of the rest of the holiness-
legislation. In itself the expression, "before the dwelling-place of
Yahweh," does not imply a central sanctuary ; for although ptt?J2 is
made definite by the genitive of the proper name, " the dwelling-
place " does not necessarily mean the central sanctuary, but only the
dwelling-place which is appropriate in any given case. To under
stand it of the central sanctuary is to defeat the main purpose of the
law, which is to make every slaughter a sacrifice. It is inconsistent,
therefore, when Baentsch rejects the 1510 7!"IK as a priestly gloss,
which is contrary to the scope of the older legislation, but retains the
Him pttffi in precisely the same sense, and draws from it the infer
ence that this chapter was written after the return from Babylon.
The true meaning of Him plPfi is to be learned from Lev. 2611
D221J"Q "WtPto Timi. This does not mean that Yahweh will set
up his tabernacle in Israel as a new manifestation of his favor nor
that he will maintain the Mosaic tabernacle which is already in exist
ence ; but it signifies simply that he will take up his dwelling in

Israel, will show by outward signs that he is present in the midst of
his people. The place where the manifestation of the divine pres
ence is afforded is a mm pttffi. From the standpoint of 2611 the
mm pt2?D is identical with " the place where Yahweh will cause his
name to be remembered " (Ex. 2024) . By this interpretation the
legislation becomes intelligible. The writer prescribes that animals
shall be slaughtered before the dwelling-place of Yahweh, because
every altar in the land was such a Him pttfti. He refrains from
using the word ttflptt, which is common in the Holiness-Code,
because he does not wish to limit sacrifice to the one or more great
central sanctuaries to which this more formal name is applicable.
" In the camp or out of the camp " (v.3) corresponds with the
situation which P uniformly assumes for his legislation. "To offer
it an offering to Yahweh " (v.4) is a purely priestly expression (cf.
Lev. i2 21-*-12 27s' u Nu. 913). This phrase is never found in the
primitive portions of H nor in Ezekiel. " And they shall bring them
to Yahweh to the door of the tent of meeting to the priest " (v.5)
also belongs unquestionably to P, and, moreover, is seen to be an
interpolation by the resumption of the previous ISO1 with DX'ST]
(Kayser, p. 70) ; CDt l"Dt (v.5) is not priestly (cf. v.7), but the
addition of HIITI D'ttbtP to DTD? is characteristic of P (Lev. 3"
Nu. 617) . The other codes and the older histories say either DTQt
(Ex. 1025 1812 1 Sam. 615 2 Ki. 517 to24), or Wtibw (Ex. 2024 32"
Josh. 831 Ju. 2026 2 14 2 Sam. 617f- 24s5 1 Ki. 315 <f), but they
do not combine DTDt and D^^tT. With the exception of Ex.
24s, which is anomalous, D'ttbtP hPDt occurs only in 1 Sam. io8
1 iis, passages which for independent reasons have long been recog
nized as part of the framework added by the last compiler or anno-
tator of the book, and 1 Ki. 8s3, a sentence which is not found in the
parallel narrative 2 Chr. f ; also Prov. 714, a late passage.
Verse 6 belongs entirely to P, with the exception of mm PDtJi 15
which is never used by him (against Baentsch, p. 21). For P's use
of the sacrificial formula see Lev. i5-91113 32-5 etc. The closing for
mula of v.7, " This shall be a statute forever to them throughout their
generations," is also characteristic of P (Ex. 1217 2721 3021 Lev. 317
io9Nu. io8 1823).
After subtracting all the additions of Rp in v.3"7, there still re
mains an important residuum, which, although it is not priestly, is
still inconsistent with the legislation of v.8- 9. It reads thus : " to
the end that the children of Israel may bring the sacrifices which
they sacrifice in the field . . . and may sacrifice them as sacrifices

. . . upon the altar of Yahweh . . . and may no longer sacrifice
their sacrifices to the satyrs after whom they go a whoring." These
words have no inner relation to the enactment of v.3f-, and the reason
which they give is incongruous with the one in v.4. They are also an
anticipation of the prohibition to sacrifice to any other than Yahweh
in3f\ Such an anticipation can hardly have been original; and, be
sides, the insertion of the phrase, "And thou shalt say unto them,"
at the beginning of v.8 shows that some insertion has just been made
in the code and that the editor now returns to the original document.
The change to the third person plural in this exhortation is also
noteworthy. Both ib and 8f- necessitate the assumption that in its primitive form
the first law in Lev. 17 contained only the command that every
slaughtering should be a sacrifice. On any other supposition we
make 8f- identical in contents with 3"7 and fail to take advantage of
the indication of the introductory formute that these were originally
independent laws. Moreover, the motive which these words give is
unlike the motive of H. H appeals simply to the fact that the law
is the will of Yahweh, " I am Yahweh," but they represent the institu
tion as designed to prevent idolatry. The exhortation is also rhetori
cally weak after the threat, " Blood shall be imputed to that man,"
which is implicitly the strongest of motives to obedience, and is, there
fore, not to be attributed to the logical and systematic author of H.
This exhortation in regard to satyr-worship, accordingly, must be
an addition to the legislation of 3f- and 8f- It cannot, however, be as
signed to P. The expressions TO? TO?, .IIIT TOlfc ^5 (Ex. 2026
2 114 Dt. 1 2s7 1621 264 27s 3310), and 1PTK 13? are unknown to P.
The D^TStP also are not found in his legislation. According to
Kayser {/PT. 1881, p. 545), Wurster {ZATW. 1883, p. 19), and
Baentsch (p. 16), a further indication of independence of P is found
in the phrase JTlttM ^S ^5 (v.s), which they claim is inconsistent
with TW&> pntt of P in v.3, and shows that the writer takes his
stand in the land and not in the desert. This argument can hardly
be regarded as conclusive, since iTTCM ^S 15 is used for the region
outside of the camp (Lev. 14753 Nu. 1916). In these cases it is
possible that Rp has used older models which he has not entirely
adapted to his desert situation. In Lev. 143 such an adaptation of
older legislation is apparent. All that we can say here is, that the*
expression seems to accord better with the standpoint of residence
in the land of Canaan than of the sojourn in the desert, and in this "
respect is analogous to the hortatory passages i824-30 2022-26 2518-22 26.

I conclude, therefore, that v.6"7 contain a non-priestly addition to
the legislation of v.3f- ar; and that the original form of the first law
was, "Any man of the house of Israel, who slayeth a steer, or a
lamb, or a goat, and hath not brought it before the dwelling-place of
Yahweh ; blood shall be reckoned to that man, he hath shed blood ;
and that man shall be cut off from the midst of his kinsfolk." Join
ing on to this, and in logical continuation of its thought, the second
law said, " Any man of the house of Israel who maketh burnt offer
ing or sacrifice, and bringeth it not to make for Yahweh, that man
shall be cut off from his kinsfolk."
It thus appears that the original first law of Lev. 1 7 has undergone
two independent amplifications. Both date from a time when the
Deuteronomic centralization of worship made it impossible that every
slaughtering should be a sacrifice and necessitated that this law
should be interpreted differently. The first annotator attempted to
do so by understanding tonttf in the original law, not of profane
slaughter, as was unquestionably its original purport, but of illegal
sacrifice. To this law, accordingly, he appended the explanatory
comment, " to the end that the children of Israel may bring the sac
rifices which they sacrifice upon the face of the field, and may sacri
fice them as sacrifices upon the altar of Yahweh, and may no longer
sacrifice their sacrifices to the satyrs after whom they go a whoring."
This gloss did not remove the difficulty, for it was still plain, that the
old law had a wider scope than the comment sought to give it, and
the result of the addition was to make this second law a mere repe
tition of the first.
When Rp took up the code, the indefinite ,1im pttflS MSb and
fflm TO12 must of necessity be defined by the 1512 1!"IH. Since
the old difficulty of the prohibition of profane slaughter still remained
only partly concealed, the addition of the 1512 11K made this ten
times worse, for now the law prescribed categorically that animals
slaughtered for food should be brought to the one central sanctuary.
That, of course, was an impossibility, and something that Rp never
wished to enact ; accordingly he added the clause, " in the camp or
out of the camp," and by this simple method made the law refer
only to the time of the sojourn in the desert and removed the appli
cation to the time of residence in the land. Verse n offers no obstacle
to this hypothesis, for to make it refer to all that has preceded it in
Lev. 17, as Dillmann does {Ex.-Lev., p. S3 7), makes P stultify him
self, since he elsewhere regularly permits profane slaughter. It can
only refer to the previous prohibition of satyr-worship.

IO
It may be remarked incidentally, that the analysis of these verses
lends no support to the theory of two independent codes or two
recensions of H which have been combined by a redactor (Kayser,
Vorexil. Buck, p. 70 ; Dillmann, Ex.-Lev., p. 534) . On the contrary,
the phenomenon which really presents itself is that of successive
amplifications of a primitive law designed to meet the wants of differ
ent ages.
In the remaining verses of the chapter (8-16) the P element is less
prominent than in the verses which have just been considered. It
adds nothing important to the sense and does not disturb the regular
progress of the legislation.
5. The Law against eating Blood of Domestic Animals (v.10J2). —
The original form of the second law of the group (v.8"9) has already
been discussed. Still following the indication of the introductory
formula of H, b^W TOfc tf\S t^K, we find in 10J2 a third law,
that no blood of sacrificed animals is to be eaten. Here there are no
traces of Rp, but the words D21J"D 131 13.1 7,21 are probably to be
assigned to the early annotator (cf. note on v.8) . The reason annexed
to the law v.11, no doubt, comes from the same hand. Theological
reasons of this sort are foreign to the spirit of H. Its fundamental
proposition is, that the expressed will of Yahweh is the sole ground of
obligation. Moreover, the use of the phrase, " therefore I said,"
(v.12) seems more naturally to indicate that the writer is commenting
on an older document than that he himself is originating the legis
lation. The expression 12121 15 seems to indicate the same
author who wrote the comment to the first law (v.6) Him TO?2 15.
The spirit of the amplification also is identical. It indicates a time
when ordinances were observed, neither because they were traditional
practice, nor because a ritual tendency was dominant, but because
men felt that they could be justified by theoretical reasons.
6. The Law against eating Blood of Wild Animals (v.18f). — The
reasons given in the last paragraph for regarding v.11"12 as a gloss
apply also to v.14, which gives a motive for the law in v.13. Though it
is a gloss on the original code, it antedates the priestly recension.
7. The Law against eating Carrion (v.15f) . — To the four original
laws which we have found thus far we must add the law against the
eating of 1TO3 and ISItfi (v.151-), in spite of the fact that this law
does not begin with the regular formula which introduces the other
laws. This precept is not a subdivision of the law in regard to the

pouring out of the blood of clean beasts taken in hunting (Well-
hausen, Dillmann, Driver), for it includes also domestic animals.
We must, accordingly, regard it as an independent fifth law of the
group on sacrifice and slaughter. According to Kayser this law must
be considered "als ein Zusatz des Sammlers (P)," and in this view
Kayser is followed by Horst {Lev. 17-26 u. Hezekiel, p. 17) and
Baentsch (p. 14) ; but, as already observed, vs.1"6 do not correspond
strictly with the standpoint of P, since the touching of carrion is not
forbidden. The appropriateness of this precept in the midst of the
Holiness-legislation is attested by Ex. 2230 and Deut. 1421, in both of
which passages it is viewed from the standpoint of holiness. Legis
lation in "regard to 1123 and ISItfl is found also in H (Lev. 22s).
Accordingly, it is more probable that an original law of H has here
been worked over in the spirit of P than that 15f- is a pure interpo
lation of P.
The phrase 1321 111X2 comes presumably from P (Lev. 1629
Nu. 1530), so also the purificatory rites 15f-, "He shall wash his gar
ments and bathe with water and be unclean until the evening : then
shall he be clean ; but if he wash them not nor bathe his flesh — " (cf.
Lev, iiS»-28-32.39 I36.34 ^8.9 jj5.11.13.27 Nu.I97. 10. 19) _ Jn the Bo()k of
the Covenant (Ex. 2230) and in Deut. 1421 the eating of carrion is for
bidden without any qualification such as we find here ; and since this
chapter stands elsewhere upon the same plane of legislation as the
older codes, it is probable, apart from the linguistic indications,
that the eating of this sort of food was not permitted originally even
with restrictions.
Lev. 1 7, accordingly, contains an original pentad of laws of H. It
is well known that the formula 11111'' ^X with or without additions
serves to mark the subdivisions of the legislation of H : see Lev. 1 144
l84a)I93 (=I930and 262) r gl* M-K. 18. 25. 28. 31. 34. 37 2I8.12.15.23 228. 16. 30 ^43
2422 2S17.38.55 Nu_ ^ Jn alJ these cases -fl-p ,Jfl stands at the en(J
of a group of closely related laws, and indicates that a section of H is
finished. Furthermore, it was observed by Bertheau {Lev. 17-20,
p. 197 ff.) and Bunsen (9 Halbb., p. 245 f.), and exhibited with more
accuracy by Ewald {Gesch., IL, p. 212 f.) and Dillmann {Ex.-Lev.,
p. SS°)» that in a large number of cases the formula closes a, pentad
of laws. This discovery has frequently been called in question by
recent critics, but, as it seems to me, with singular lack of insight. In
a number of groups the fivefold arrangement is obvious on the sur
face, and in others, which have been somewhat obscured by later
additions, it is probable. As clear specimens of the pentad form the

following passages may be cited : Lev. i83*- 3S- 3°" «¦¦ 4i i9,3°- 136' ,3c' Ul" ,-
IQ15o. 155. 15e. * 16a. 161 j „17a. 175. 18a. 185. 18c '65. 26c. 27. 28a. 286 2 j 10a. 106. Ha. 116- 12
13. 14a. J. 145. 14c. 15 2 ,35a. 355. 36. 37a. 374. 2 gla. 16. lc. 2a. 25_
The original closing subscription HiT "OK of the pentad of laws
in Lev. 17 is found in i82i, from which it has been separated by the
clumsy interpolation of the priestly title i8lf. That this pentad stood
originally in its present place at the head of the Holiness-legislation
is probable from the analogy of the Book of the Covenant and the
Deuteronomic code, which also begin with laws on the subject of
sacrifice (Ex. 2022-26 Dt. 12 : cf. Wellhausen, Comp., p. 153).
8. Laws in Regard to Allegiance to Yahweh (183-5). — This little
group of laws has preserved almost entirely the original simplicity
and brevity of H. The passage is commonly assigned to the re
dactor, but this opinion rests on no good ground. The point where
the redactor comes in is clearly marked in v.5. This verse is a verbal
repetition in inverted order of the commands of v.4, and, therefore,
cannot be original. The view that it is an extract from a parallel
code, and so is a " doublet " to v.4, has nothing to commend it.
There are no other signs of this hypothetical doublet in Lev. 18, and
it is, to say the least, improbable that the editor should have taken
the trouble to cut out from another code an extract which was pre
cisely identical in contents with what he had just given. It is more
likely that it is an addition by the same hand which annexed the
reasons in Lev. 17, He wished to add the exhortation, "Which if
a man do he shall live by them" (cf. Ex. 2012 Dt. 41), and in so
doing took occasion to emphasize the words of v.4 by repeating them
in a different order. The spirit of the addition is similar to the
exhortation in Lev. 17, for it looks at the human rather than the
divine side of the law.
With this exception, there is no reason to doubt that this paragraph
belongs to the primitive H. It contains the characteristic phrases
HpTO "jbl, D^StPttl npl, 11051 U21». God is introduced speak
ing in the first person. It contains five laws which are arranged in
fine logical order. The first is against the social usages of Egypt ;
the second, against the social usages of Canaan; the third, against
the religious practices of both peoples ; the fourth is a command to
obey the civil ordinances (D^tOBlTtt) of Yahweh ; the fifth, to observe
his religious ordinances. This summing up of the law of God under
the head of D^tDfilPD and flprl corresponds to the two main divisions
* 15d gloss repeating 15a. 1 Widow or divorced.

13
of the code 17-20, 21-25 (cf. Ex. 211). Israel is represented as
having just come out of Egypt and as about to enter Canaan. This
corresponds with the historical situation of the code proper over
against the hortatory passages (see 1923 2310 252). The group is
closed 5i with the primitive formula of H, " I am Yahweh."
Accordingly, the current opinion, that 183-5 forms a sort of special
introduction to 186-23, just as v.24"30 forms its conclusion, rests on no
good grounds. Even the modified view of Baentsch, that these
verses are drawn from an older source but are meant to serve as an
introduction, is impossible, because the general prohibition of con
forming to heathen civil and religious practices has no special appli
cability to the code against sexual impurity which follows. These
are rather fundamental enactments on which the rest of the legisla
tion depends. It is contrary to the analogy of the rest of H, of the
Book of the Covenant, of the Little Book of the Covenant, and of the
primitive Deuteronomy to insert hortatory passages at the beginning
of a group of laws. Accordingly, i83f- is not exhortation, but legis
lation. That this pentad unites with the one in Lev. 1 7 to form the original
opening decad of the code is, in my opinion, also incontestable.
Laws in regard to the attitude which is to be maintained toward
Yahweh in contrast to the neighboring heathen nations are funda
mental in their character and stand naturally at the beginning of a
system of legislation. In the original first decad of the Book of the
Covenant, which has been preserved in part both in Ex. 2022"26 and
Ex. 3412"16 (see my article on "The Original Form of the Book of the
Covenant," in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 1893, pp. 79-
93), the prohibition of heathen usages is combined with laws in
regard to sacrifice in the same way in which it is here. In Dt. 12
also, which is the beginning of the Deuteronomic code proper, the
same combination is found, and in the same order (Dt. 1229-32). It
is clear, therefore, that the present position of i83t is original and is
not due to a chance juxtaposition of two unrelated pentads of H.
I pause here to exhibit in optical form the results of our critical
study of this first group of laws. Original legislation of H is printed
in ordinary type, hortatory additions of a non-priestly character are
indicated by ordinary italics, priestly additions are marked by small
italics. The separation of the legislation into its individual laws
and the grouping in pentads is also exhibited.

14
Group I. Fundamental Laws of Religion (Lev. i71-i85).
a. Slaughter and Sacrifice (i71-i82).
And Yahweh spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons,
and unto all the sons of Israel, and say unto them : This is the thing which
Yahweh hath commanded, saying,
i. Any man of the house of Israel, who slayeth a steer, or a lamb,
Or a goat in the camp, or who slayeth it outside of the camp, and hath
not brought it unto the door of the tent of meeting, to offer it an offering
unto Yahweh before the dwelling place of Yahweh ; blood shall
be reckoned to that man ; he hath shed blood; and that man
shall be cut off from the midst of his kinsfolk ; in order that
the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices which they
sacrifice upon the face of the field, and shall bring them unto
Yahweh unto the door of the tent of meeting unto the priest, and may
sacrifice them as sacrifices of peace-offering unto Yahweh; and the
priest shall sprinkle the blood Upon the altar of Yahweh at the door of
the tent of meeting and shall burn the fat as a sweet savour unto Yahweh,
and may no longer sacrifice their sacrifices unto the satyrs
after whom they go a whoring. A statute forever shall this be unto
them throughout their generations. And unto them thou shalt say,
2. Any man of the house of Israel and of the aliens who sojourn
in their midst who maketh burnt offerings or sacrifice, and
unto the door of the tent of meeting bringeth it not to make for
Yahweh; that man shall be cut off from his kinsfolk.
3. Any man of the house of Israel and of the aliens sojourning in
their midst, who eateth any blood ; I will set my face against
the soul that eateth blood, and I will cut it off from the midst
of its kinsfolk, for the soul of the flesh is in the blood ; and I
have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your
souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement by means of
ihe soul, therefore, I said to the children of Israel, No soul
of you shall eat blood, and the alien sojourning in your midst
shall not eat blood.
4. Any man of the house of Israel and of the aliens sojourning in
their midst, who hunteth game of beast or of bird which is
eaten; he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust, for
the soul of all flesh is its blood with the soul, and I said unto
the children of Israel, Ye shall not eat the blood of any flesh,
for the soul of all flesh is its blood. Every one that eateth it
shall be cut off.

*5

And every soul who eateth that which is fallen or torn among the
homeborn and among the aliens, shall wash his garments and bathe with
water and be unclean until the evening : then shall he be clean. But if
he wash them not nor bathe his flesh, he shall bear his iniquity. And
Yahweh spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel and
say unto them, I AM YAHWEH, your God.

b. Allegiance to Yahweh (Lev. i8M).
6. According to the doing of the land of Egypt, where ye dwelt,
ye shall not do : and
7. According to the doing of the land of Canaan, whither I bring
you, ye shall not do : and
8. In their statutes ye shall not walk.
9. My judgments ye shall do ; and
10. My statutes ye shall observe to walk in them : / am Yahweh
your God, and ye shall observe my statutes and my judgments,
which if a man do he shall live by them : I AM YAHWEH.

II. THE LAWS OF CHASTITY (LEV. 180-30).
The division of Lev. 18 at the fifteenth verse is not generally rec
ognized, nevertheless it is the logical point of separation of the con
tents. Up to v." all of the laws refer to closer degrees of kinship
through parents or, looked at from the other side, through children.
With v.16 a new set of laws begins, referring to remoter degrees of
kinship through a brother's wife, etc. The laws are all addressed to
the man ; that is, the responsibility of abstaining from incestuous
relations is put upon him rather than upon the woman. It is impor
tant for the interpretation of the group to note this fact. Thus in v.7
*]2N 11151 "p2K 1115 seems not to mean " the nakedness of thy
father and the nakedness of thy mother,"" as if the daughter were
addressed as well as the son, but, " the nakedness of thy father, that
is, the nakedness of thy mother" (cf. v.14).
That this group 186"15 belongs to H is generally recognized. It is
introduced by the characteristic formula W'X WK (v.6) . The char
acteristic word 1X10 for 'near kin' occurs in v.6- 12- 13 (cf. 2019 212 2549) ;
1115 113 occurs in every verse (cf. 201117"21). There are no traces
of P or of any other editorial hand. The brevity of the precepts
and the logical development of the thought indicate that here we
have an original portion of H.

i6
The only question which can arise in regard to its integrity is,
whether all that stood originally in H has been preserved. At first
glance it is surprising, after marriage with a mother or step-mother is
forbidden, that marriage with a daughter is not also forbidden. It
has seemed to many critics that such a prohibition could not have
been lacking, and that, therefore, it must have fallen out of the text
(Dillmann Ex.-Lev., p. 543 ). The explanation of Keil, that the crime
of intercourse with a daughter is so heinous that it was not necessary
to include it in the code does not hold, for it is no more abhorrent
than the other crime, which is explicitly mentioned, of intercourse
with one's mother. The true explanation is, that this offence is
included in the prohibition of v.17, "Thou shalt not uncover the
nakedness of a woman and her daughter."
That marriage with an aunt is forbidden v.12f-, but that marriage
with a niece is not forbidden, is also not due to accidental omission.
Such a prohibition would not come under the point of view of this
group, which traces relationship through parents or children. An
aunt is related to a man through his father or his mother, but a niece
is related through his brother or sister and, consequently, her case
could not be inserted in this connection. Marriage with a niece was,
no doubt, permitted, for in this case there is no conflict between the
dignity belonging to the man as husband and the dignity belonging
to his wife as a member of a previous generation. For a similar
reason marriage with a mother's brother's wife is not mentioned, be
ing permitted, although marriage with a father's brother's wife is for
bidden (v.14 cf. Dillmann, Ex.-Lev., p. 543).
Verse ll seems to be a mere repetition of v.9, inasmuch as it refers
to a half-sister on the father's side. Knobel's conjecture that " the
wife of thy father " may mean " thy own mother," and that this law
covers the case of the own sister, which was not expressly mentioned
in v.9, is not tenable, for " wife of thy father," according to v.8 and
regular linguistic usage, means only "step-mother"; and, besides,
if this law were meant to refer to the case of an own sister, it must
have stood before v.9 to have preserved the logical order of the
code. Originally this law must have been intended to prohibit marriage
with a step-sister, which is not forbidden elsewhere, but which must
have been included in the legislation. "p2K 12 IIHK is best under
stood as a sister with the same father, *|2N 12 1111X as a step
sister with the same mother, and T2K 110K 12 as a daughter of
another wife of one's father.

i7
Accordingly, the parenthetical clause T2K (? 1T?12) 1lSl2
KM "J111S must either be rejected as an inaccurate gloss, or else,
with Dillmann, we must translate the verse, " The nakedness of thy
father's wife's daughter (she is the same as one begotten by thy
father, thy sister) thou shalt not uncover her nakedness." This is
a difficult and abnormal construction. Perhaps it is best to regard
the parenthesis as the gloss of some scribe, who failed to under
stand T2K 12 "[HIS (v.9) as the own sister. Apart from this
one clause no textual emendation can be suggested in this group,
so that there is no reason to doubt that here H has been preserved
intact. This group forms a perfect decad (against Baentsch, p. 25), which
divides logically into pentads. The first pentad begins with the in
clusive law v.6, " No man shall draw near to any near kin of his flesh
to uncover the nakedness." This is in accord with the regular
method of H to lay down first a general proposition and then define
the cases under it (cf. i913-17 21117 2 22-10-18 2s2339). Baentsch,
strange to say, gives this verse to the redactor and calls it a " general
superscription." His main reason is the change of persons, but this
does not signify anything, for in the compact and logical groups of
Lev. 19, which are most clearly in their original form, changes of
person also occur. His other reason, the presence of the formula
" I am Yahweh," fails also to prove that this verse has been inserted,
for even granting that " I am Yahweh " is a redactional addition,
as seems probable, since it does not close a group, it does not show
that the law which precedes it is redactional. Verse6, accordingly,
must be regarded as a general law which originally stood at the head
of the group. It is followed (2) by the case of mother, (3) step
mother, (4) sister (own or half), (5) grand-daughter. This exhausts
relationships of the immediate family or, as we may call them, kin
ships of the first degree.
The second pentad (n-15) treats still of relationships through
parents or children, but these are all kinships of the second degree.
It includes (6) step-sister, (7) aunt on the father's side, (8) aunt on
the mother's side, (9) uncle's wife, (10) daughter-in-law. It is
worthy of note that both pentads are closed with laws in which the
relationship is traced through the children.
Verses 16_23 relate to purity in remoter relationships. The stylistic
indications of H are even more numerous here than in the previous
section. Besides 1115 TO3 (186-19 every verse : 20"i«8^2»-21), we
find 12? v.17 (cf. 1929 2014), m25 v.20 (cf. 19111517 2419 2s1415-'7),

i8
-712210 jro v.20-23 (cf. 2015), rttxaub v.20-23 (cf. i931 Z28), 521 v.23
(Cf. I919 2016), TO1 V.23 (Cf. 2012).
The text of this group of laws seems to be substantially correct.
In v.17, instead of the a7ra£ Aeyo'/xcvov 11X10 it is better to read with
the LXX T"IK10, as in v.12-13- In v.23 the simple infinitive 1521 is
more probable than the form with the suffix 1521, which construes
521 as a transitive verb (Driver, Leviticus, p. 30). No omissions
from the text can be pointed out. The absence of a prohibition of
marriage of cousins is not accidental, but intentional. The only ques
tion, then, is : Are there interpolations in the text ? Kalisch holds
that v.18 is in conflict with v.ls, since it permits marriage with a
deceased wife's sister, while v.16 does not permit marriage with the
wife of a deceased brother. The objection is not valid, for, as we
saw in the case of the non-prohibition of marriage with a mother's
brother's wife, relationship on the female side is not regarded as so
close as relationship on the male side.
According to Ewald {Gesch., IL, p. 235) v.2" is not appropriate in
this context. Why he comes to this conclusion is difficult to see.
Adultery certainly has a place in a code against sexual impurity, and
is in a natural place between the law against improper intercourse
with a wife and the law against unnatural vice. All the other com
mandments of the Decalogue are repeated in H, but the prohibition
of adultery is wanting from the code, if it is cut out here. So far as
I am aware no other critic has followed Ewald in this opinion.
Verse21 is rejected as a gloss by nearly all critics. It is supposed to
refer to the sacrifice of children to Molech, and this subject is irrelevant
to the context, which treats solely of sexual purity. Baentsch (p. 25)
supposes this verse to have been inserted by the hortatory editor on
account of the accompanying exhortation, " That thou profane not
the name of thy God, I am Yahweh " ; but not another case can be
pointed out in the code where the hortatory editor has added legisla
tion. Moreover, the hortatory passage or doublet, whichever one
chooses to regard it, 202, contains this law also. Since Lev. 20 con
tains no legislation which does not stand in the preceding section of
H, this is strong prima facie evidence of the primitiveness of this law.
Moreover, it exhibits the characteristic brevity of H, and for these
reasons it seems proper to raise the question whether, as has always
been supposed, "]51?& f13 really means ' sacrifice thy children in
the fire to Molech.' The full expression for this rite is 1,|251
-[121 10X2 132 IX (2 Ki. 2310). This is shortened into IX 1^251
10X2 132 (Dt. 1819 2 Ki. 163 1?17 213 Ez. 2o31 2 Chr. 28s 33e) or

19
iS&S 132 IX m251 (Jer. 32s5), but -fob 51? 1^251 never oc
curs in this meaning, and in this passage we have the unique formula
"|51?2 (partitive) with f13 in connection with 1,251, and 10X2 is
omitted both here and in 2o2f-. This seems to indicate that the act
here referred to is not the sacrifice of children, but a literal offering
of seed in some form or other to the deity. How this offering was
made we have no means of judging, nor have we any historical infor
mation in regard to such a practice in the worship of Molech ; still,
our ignorance constitutes no valid objection to this interpretation.
On this view the verse is in its right place in this context, between
adultery and sodomy, since it refers to some form of unnatural lust.
Dillmann's theory that the insertion of the law at this point is due
to v.21"23 being drawn from a J recension of H, while the preceding
verses come from a P recension of H, is destitute of foundation.
The hortatory passage 24"30 has, it is true, affinities with J, but it is
secondary and is no more closely connected with v.21"23 than with all
the rest of the chapter.
Verses 24"30 are a purely hortatory passage, which shows that it is
secondary by its different historical standpoint from H, by its diffuse
and repetitious style, by its representation of the heathen as vomited
out by the land, and by its linguistic affinities with the J document.
In the original H (184) we read, "My judgments shall ye do and my
statutes shall ye keep," which corresponds with the grouping of
material in the code, but the hortatory addition of v.5 inverts the order
and says, " Ye shall keep my statutes and my judgments." This is
the form which occurs in v.26, and it is peculiar to the hortatory pas
sages (cf. 1 <f 2022 2518).
This exhortation appeals to the reason in the same way as those
which were added to Lev. 17. Instead of making the law derive all
its validity from the fact that it expresses the will of Yahweh, as in
the primitive H, it introduces other reasons of a theological character.
The polemic against heathenism also is similar to that in 17s-7. It is
probable, therefore, that this exhortation comes from the same hand
as the non-priestly addition to Lev. 17 and 185.
It is not surprising, accordingly, that in v.29 we meet a phrase of the
legislation of Lev. 17, "The souls that do them shall be cut off from
the midst of their kinsfolk." There is not the slightest reason to think
with Baentsch (p. 26) that this verse is a later interpolation in the
exhortation, designed to assimilate the code in Lev. 18 more com
pletely with the code in Lev. 17. It is the fashion of the hortatory
editor to string together phrases of the older legislation without regard

20
to logical sequence of thought (cf. 20s~5-22~26), so that breaks in the
sense furnish in his case no evidence of interpolation. The use of
the third person in this verse is also no evidence of interpolation, for
the exhorter changes freely from one person to another. In Lev. 1 75"7
he uses the third person ; in 1 7llf- 14 he uses the second person. The
only probable addition to this passage is the phrase, " the homebom
and the alien sojourning in your midst," which both interrupts the
structure of the sentence and is characteristically priestly.
Verses 24~so, being a hortatory interpolation, the formula " I am
Yahweh ! " at the end of v.80 belongs in immediate connection1 with
v.23 and marks the close of this group of laws.
The title at the head of Lev. 19 obviously comes from the hand of
Rp. The words which follow it, " Ye shall be holy, for I Yahweh your
God am holy," have always been regarded as the first commandment
of a new group of laws, but this is contrary to the analogy of the code,
for elsewhere this phrase is part of the exhortations which stand at the
end of the groups (cf. Lev. n44f' 2026 218 2232f- Nu. is41*'). Accord
ingly, before the code came into the hands of Rp, the conclusion of
the legislation on purity must have read, " I am Yahweh your God :
ye shall be holy, for I Yahweh your God am holy."
I now sum up the results of the analysis of the purity laws of Lev.
18 in a translation which exhibits the original structure and the later
additions to the code.
Group II. Purity in those related through Parents and
Children.
a. Kinship of the First Degree (186"10).
1. Ye shall not draw near any man to any one that is near of kin to
uncover the nakedness : / am Yahweh.
2. The nakedness of thy father, that is, the nakedness of thy mother,
thou shalt not uncover: it is thy mother; thou shalt not
uncover her nakedness.
3. The nakedness of the wife of thy father thou shalt not uncover ;
the nakedness of thy father is it.
4. The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father or the
daughter of thy mother, one begotten at home or begotten
abroad, thou shalt not uncover their nakedness.
5. The nakedness of the daughter of thy son or the daughter of thy
daughter, thou shalt not uncover their nakedness; for they
are thy nakedness.

b. Kinship of the Second Degree (n-15).
6. The nakedness of the daughter of the wife of thy father {she is
the same as one begotten of thy father, thy sister) thou shalt not
uncover her nakedness.
. 7. The nakedness of the sister of thy father thou shalt not uncover :
she is the near kin of thy father.
8. The nakedness of the sister of thy mother thou shalt not uncover :
for she is the near kin of thy mother.
9. The nakedness of the brother of thy father thou shalt not
uncover, to his wife thou shalt not draw near; thy father's
sister is she.
10. The nakedness of thy daughter-in-law thou shalt not uncover ;
the wife of thy son is she, thou shalt not uncover her naked
ness. Group III. Purity in Remoter Relationships.
a. Relationships through Marriage (16-19).
1 . The nakedness of the wife of thy brother thou shalt not uncover ;
the nakedness of thy brother is it.
2. The nakedness of a woman and of her daughter thou shalt not
uncover.
3. The daughter of her son, and the daughter of her daughter, thou
shalt not take to uncover their nakedness : they are near
kin : it is lewdness : and
4. A woman thou shalt not take along with her sister, as a second
wife, to uncover her nakedness beside her in her lifetime : and
5. Unto a woman in the defilement of her uncleanness thou shalt
not draw near to uncover her nakedness : and
b. Purity Outside of the Family (20-23).
6. Unto the wife of thy neighbour thou shalt not give thy issue of
seed for defilement with her : and
7. Thou shalt not give of thy seed to let it pass to Molech, that thou
profane not the name of thy God: I am Yahweh.
8. With a male thou shalt not lie as one lies with a woman : it is
abomination : and
9. Into any beast thou shalt not give thy issue for defilement with
it : and

io. A woman shall not stand before a beast to gender : it is con
fusion. Defile not yourselves in all these things, for in all these
things the nations were defiled which I cast out before you ;
and the land was defiled, and I visited its iniquity upon it, and
the land vomited out its inhabitants : and ye- shall observe my
statutes and my judgments, and ye shall not do any of these
abominations, the homeborn and the alien sojourning in your midst,
for all these abominations the men of the land did who were
before you, and the land was defiled: lest the land vomit you
out when ye defile it, as it vomited out the nation which
was before you ; for every one who doeth any of these abomi
nations, even the souls which do them shall be cut off from ihe
midst of their kinsfolk. And ye shall observe my charge so as
not to do any of these statutes of abominations which were done
before you, and ye shall not defile yourselves in them : I AM
YAHWEH, your God. And Yahweh spake unto Moses, saying,
Speak unto all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say unto them,
Ye shall be holy, for I Yahweh your God am holy.

III. LEGISLATION PARALLEL TO THE DECALOGUE
(LEV. I93-'3). ^
The legislation which stands in Lev. 193"18 bears numerous signs of
having been drawn from H. Besides the formula, " I am Yahweh "
(v.3- "¦ 10- 12- 14- 16- IS), we meet the characteristic words 1X171 ( 1 9s- 14- *>¦ 32
2517.36.43 ^ V11210 (l93-3° 262-34f") ^X 13*31 (l94-31 206 2&>) ,
wtyb* (i94 261), 12? itoii (i95 175-7 2229), m,3B (v.7), xi0^ 1315
(i98 1710 2017), bbrt mm 10-ip ix (i98 2215 cf. 1821 i912 216 203
222-32 ig29 2I4-9 2I15 229), D23i1X (l^-28-** 1825 2022 2322 25s),
rras (i9u-15-17 1820 24w2514 <-<*), miSx 210 ix rbbm (i912 1821
2 16), -]5i (i913-iG-18), bbpi (i9» 209 2415), mibx2 1x11 (i914-32
3S17.36.43); L,^ (I9«-35);^nX (I917 ^25.35.86.39.47^ ^fl ^^f, ^j
zo20 229 2415), 112101 Tlpl (ig19'37 l84-26 208'22 2S18 263).
1. Lev. 195-8 is not in its Original Place. — In spite of the fact
that all the laws of this section belong to H, it is clear that part of
them are not in their primitive connection. Verses M are purely cere
monial and have nothing to do with the moral and social regulations
among which they stand. An abbreviated form of this same legisla
tion is found in 2 229f- at the end of the code on sacrifices, and here
it is in its proper context. Verses9-10 are parallel to 23s2 and are

23
obviously in their right place in the latter connection between the
two harvest-festivals (cf. 2310-39) ; v.3f- and 1118 are parallel to the
Decalogue of Ex. 20 and Dt. 5 ; Lev. 18 is an expansion of the sev
enth Word, which is put first, presumably because of the greater
space allotted to it ; v.3f- contains the first, second, fourth, and fifth
commandments in inverted order ; v.llf- is an expansion of the eighth
commandment, 13"16 of the ninth, and 17f- of the tenth. It cannot be
doubted, therefore, that it was the intention of the original H to
follow the order of thought of the Decalogue. This unity of plan is
destroyed by the insertion of v.5-10.
In view of these facts it is surprising that so many critics retain
these verses in their present context. Graf pronounces 23s2 a gloss
derived from this passage, whereas it is evident on the face that the
relation is exactly the reverse. Ewald {Gesch., II. , p. 234) cuts out
only M, although 9f- is quite as glaringly inappropriate in the midst of
these D'lSD^D. Wellhausen ( Composition, p. 155 f.) joins 5_8 with 3f-
as an analogue to the first table of the Decalogue, and x- to 11_ls as an
analogue to the second table. Dillmann retains these verses in their
present connection in order to find in them a support for his theory
of a J recension of H over against a P recension, and supposes that a
whole set of laws in regard to the feasts originally followed 9f', but has
been omitted by- the redactor. This conjecture has no foundation.
These verses are so inconsistent with their context, that one cannot
suppose them to have stood in their present position in any formal
recension of H, least of all in the original H. H treats its material in
too systematic a way to believe that it inserted these laws. They can
only be the gloss of an editor or scribe who found these unrelated
laws and inserted them here without knowing that they occurred at
a later point of the code. There are several cases of this sort in
Lev. 17-26, and, if the doublets were in an equally logical connec
tion in both passages, the hypothesis of two recensions would be
tenable; but when we find that in one place the legislation is
orderly, while in the other the doublet disturbs the order, the only
possible conclusion is that the latter is a gloss based upon the former.
2. Leviticus 193 is to be supplemented by 26lf-. — The order of
the laws in i93f- is in part the reverse of that which is found in the
Decalogue (Ex. 202-17 Dt. 56-21), while in 1911-18 the order of the Dec
alogue is followed. The change weakens the development of thought
and can hardly be original. Fortunately we are in the position to
restore the primitive form of the code. As observed by Ewald

24
{Gesch., IL, p. 234), 26lf- is a doublet to i93f\ It is obviously a gloss
in its present position among the cultus-regulations, between the laws
in regard to the redemption of slaves and the hortatory conclusion
of the code ; nevertheless, it is a gloss which has been drawn from
H in its primitive form (cf. tfrbx, ,11210, ""tfipD, 1X1TI, and
the concluding formula). While i98f- is in the right place in the
code, 2611 exhibits the more primitive form, as a comparison of the
passages at once shows.
The order of the commandments in 26lf- is, (1) apostasy,
(z) image-worship, (3) use of idolatrous symbols, (4) sabbath,
(5) sanctuary; which is perfectly logical, conforms to the order of
the Decalogue, and forms a pentad complete in itself and closed
with the original formula of H, " I am Yahweh." In igx- the order is
(1) parents, (2) sabbaths, (3) apostasy, (4) image-worship; which
is less natural and does not conform to the order of the Decalogue
found elsewhere in this chapter ; inasmuch as it brings the commands
to honor mother and father in a group which relates to worship, and
discusses the particulars of worship before the general principle that
Yahweh alone is to be worshipped. Moreover, the prohibition of
molten gods (194) is not so original as the general prohibition of
images (261), which, like the second commandment of the Deca
logue, is aimed at perversions within the worship of Yahweh himself.
Only in the addition of 123121 to ?DS does the form in 261 seem
to be less primitive. This addition is irrelevant and suggests Deu
teronomic influence (cf. 2630). Accordingly, it seems plausible to
supplement and rearrange \<ff- by 26"', and to regard the latter as
exhibiting the original form of the opening of this set of laws which is
parallel to the Decalogue. The command to fear mother and father
must then have formed part of another pentad in immediate con
nection, just as in the Decalogue the command to honor parents is
included in the same table with duties to God.
3. Leviticus 24Is^3 belongs where 195-'° now stands. — The fact
which now demands attention is, that the prohibition of taking God's
name in vain and of murder are wanting in Lev. 19. If our recon
struction of i93f- be correct, from honoring mother and father we pass
directly (v.11) to stealing, injustice, and wrong attitude of heart towards
one's neighbor. This can scarcely be original, for it is characteristic
of H to lay emphasis upon reverence to God as the ground of all
obedience, and the sixth commandment is surely as important as any
other. Both of these commandments stand in the Book of the Cove-

25
nant (Ex. 2 a27 ai12""), and there is no reason why they should have
been left out of H. Along with the command to reverence parents we
should expect laws in regard to reverence towards God, so that the
pentad in regard to worship would be followed by one in regard to
piety both towards God and parents, and this again would be fol
lowed by laws in regard to killing. In other words, the place now
occupied by the extraneous section wo we should suppose was once
occupied by a set of laws in regard to profanity and killing, which
made the nexus between3* and11.
Here, also, by a happy coincidence we are able to restore the
missing legislation. In 24156-22 there is a group of laws, which has
long been recognized as bearing the characteristic marks of H.
Lev. 24 as a whole breaks the connection between Lev. 23 and 25.
Up to- this point the legislation of H has, in the main, proceeded
logically and regularly. In 21 there are laws in regard to holiness in
the priests; in 221"16, in regard to the hallowing of the offerings; in
2218-33, in regard to the sacrifices; in 23, in regard to the annual
feasts. In 25 the legislation in regard to the sacred seasons is con
tinued with the related subjects of the release of land and of slaves
in the sabbatical year. This forms a consistent development, but into
this scheme Lev. 24 does not fit. Between the laws of the harvest
feasts in 23 and the law of the sabbatical seventh year in 25, which
forms the natural continuation of the legislation, comes the strange
miscellany of this 24th chapter. Verses" command the provision
of oil for the sacred lamp of the tabernacle. The same command
ment in almost identical words is found in Ex. 2720f- Here it stands
among the directions for the building and equipping of the tabernacle,
and is apparently in its original place ; but it has nothing in common
with the legislation of H, either in thought or in language, and, con
sequently, its repetition in Lev. 24 must be regarded as a gloss.
The next verses of this chapter (v.5-9) discuss the subject of the
preparation and arrangement of the show-bread. They belong after
Ex. 2530, where the construction of the sacred table is commanded,
and Aaron is told to place the show-bread upon it; but it is not
explained what the show-bread is, nor how it is to be displayed upon
the table. The law is a purely priestly one, and falls outside the
scope of the legislation of H. Its diction is not that of H, but of
the priestly laws of Exodus, among which, according to its thought,
it belongs. 2410-14 is a still more curious section. It is not legislation, either
national or priestly ; but it is the story of a man who blasphemed the

26
name of God, and who was sentenced to be stoned to death. This
is a peculiar section of the Book of Leviticus, and it comes in
strangely enough in this connection.
It is followed in v.15-22 by a little group of laws in regard to blas
phemy, killing men, killing beasts, injuring men, and injuring beasts.
This section has the characteristics of H, and is admitted by all
critics to be an integral part of that code. The laws are compressed'
into simple sentences, they are arranged with logical skill, a number
of words are peculiar to H, and the group is closed (v.22) with the
characteristic formula of H, " I am Yahweh, your God." The only
relation which this section has to the preceding story is through the
single law against blasphemy at the beginning. This fragment of H
has been inserted here by the same person who inserted all the mis
cellaneous matter in Lev. 24, for the sole purpose of bringing the
story of the blasphemer into connection with the law against blas
phemy ; and, singularly enough, he has allowed to follow along with
it other legislation, connected with it in the original H, which has no
relation to the story of the blasphemer. This group, although cer
tainly a fragment of H, is as much out of place between the law of
the feasts and the law of the sabbatical year as is all the rest of
the matter in Lev. 24. Profanity, homicide, and assault are not
connected with the sacred seasons, nor are they matters of the
cultus, but they belong among the D,tO£102, or social regulations,
of Lev. 1 7-20.
These verses supply exactly the matter which is needed between
I94a-dii The continuation of i93f- ( = 26lf-) is found in 2415S-22 and
the continuation of 24s2 in 1911. Combining 2415f- with the com
mand to fear mother and father we have the relics of the pentad on
reverence which must have followed the pentad on worship at the
beginning of Lev. 19.
Baentsch comes very near recognfzing this original form of H, for
he observes that the legislation of Lev. 19 follows the order of
thought of the Decalogue, and that Lev. 24156-22 is out of place among
the ceremonial regulations of the second half of the code ; but he
makes the mistake of supposing, on the strength of 231 v.16 (cf.
202- 27), that this section once stood in connection with Lev. 20. This
is impossible, because Lev. 20 contains no new legislation. It is
merely a repetition in another form and with hortatory additions of
laws which stood in previous portions of H. It is in no sense an in
dependent code, but a hortatory passage based on 17-19. There is
no point in Lev. 20 where these laws are necessary to the completion

27
of the logical structure, while in Lev. 19 there is a gap which they
exactly fill.
The language of 24156-22 is strongly marked by phrases of H • 10iX
10* V.15 (Cf. I73-S-10.13 Ig6 2Q2.9 224.18); L,Lp, v_,5 (c£ ^ ^ ^
v;15 (cf. 2i7-12-17), 1X101 X103 v.13 (cf. 1917 202° 229), 12V 112 v.16-17
(frequent in Lev. 20), m25 v.19 (cf. 1820 i9"-w-w 25"- I6-17) ; never
theless, there are certain phrases which break the connection and
show by their diction that they were added by the priestly editor in
order to bring the legislative fragment into closer connection with the
story of the blasphemer. Thus m is a mechanical repetition of the
thought of the previous sentence, and the language is that of P in
every word (cf. Nu. is^ts^.Lxxj.se josh. ?2S)_ verse22" is also a
purely priestly addition, " One judgment shall ye have : like alien like
homebom shall it be" (cf. Ex. 1249 Nu. 914 ijis-'s-ss). Apart from
these sentences, however, there is no evidence of interpolation in this
section. Verse 16a is not a repetition of 15S since 210 2p3 is not syn
onymous with ^>~p, and since 111'' gives the law a narrower scope
than 1M1X. The phraseology of this verse is foreign to P and in
12V 112 is characteristic of H, so that there is no reason to doubt
that it is primitive.
4. Reconstruction of the Decad on Duties to God (i93f- 2415f). —
Joining 24I5S to the isolated law in regard to reverence (193), which
falls outside of the pentad on worship (i93£ 26lf), we have three laws
of the legislation on reverence ; " Ye shall fear every man his mother
and his father," "Any man when he curseth his God shall bear his
sin," " He who revileth the name of Yahweh shall surely be put to
death." Here are only three laws on reverence between five laws on
worship and five laws on physical injury. Both of the pentads are
closed with "I am Yahweh" (i93= 262 and 24s2), but the laws on
reverence lack this formula. Possibly, therefore, a couple of laws
have fallen out of the text, carrying with them the closing refrain of
the group.
It is to be noted that while in 193 there is a positive command
ment to honor parents, there is no prohibition of irreverence or
threatening with a penalty, although legislation of this sort is found
in the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 2115 17 2227). A law on this sub
ject is found in Lev. 209. This verse is unique in Lev. 20 in being
the only one whose content does not correspond formally with some
law already given in H. Even v.25 has its analogue in Lev. n2-21-41-45,
a displaced fragment of H. This law deals with the same general

28
subject as 1930, but is so different from it formally that it cannot
have been derived from it in the same way in which the other enact
ments of Lev. 20 have been derived from those of Lev. 17-19- It
is not likely, however, that in this single instance the author of Lev.
20 abandoned the original to which he adheres so closely in the rest
of the chapter. The inference, accordingly, is, that this law also
once stood in Lev. 19 and was copied from there by the editor of
Lev. 20, but that subsequently it has fallen out of the text of Lev. 19
and now remains only in the doublet. The comment 2091 (12 V21
Lev. 20 only) shows that 9" is borrowed.
This law bears the clearest linguistic evidence of being an original
element of H rather than an invention of the hortatory editor of
Lev. 20, and its diction is still more closely allied to that of the laws
on reverence Lev. 2415f- than of any other portion of H, cf. tt^X ^X
bbp\ in both places, "his father and his mother " (209), " his God "
(2415). It forms, accordingly, the natural link between 19** and 2415.
That it should have fallen out of the text of Lev. 1 9 is not surprising,
when one considers the way in which the rest of the laws on rever
ence have been dislocated, 19s" has got into the midst of the
pentad which is preserved intact in Lev. 26lf-. Lev. 24uf- has gone
to join P's story of the blasphemer, carrying with it H's legisla
tion in regard to killing, which originally followed it. It is not
wonderful, when the group was broken up in this fashion, that the
law which corresponds to 209 should have dropped out of the text.
That there was a fifth law in the group on reverence is antecedently
probable from the analogy of the rest of the code, but what it was
remains a matter of pure conjecture.
Gathering up the results of our investigation from the beginning of
this chapter, we may exhibit the reconstruction of another group of
H as follows :
Group IV. Duties towards God (i9sfs0 = 26"- 2416f).
a. Duties of Worship (i93f-30 26lf).
1. Turn ye not unto the false Ye shall not make for you false
gods (4o) and gods : and
2. Molten gods ye shall not An image and a pillar ye shall
make for you (45). not rear up for you : and
3- A figured stone ye shall not put
in your land to bow down to it,
/ am Yahweh, your God. for I am Yahweh, your God.

4. My sabbaths ye shall ob- My sabbaths ye shall observe:
serve (3>). and
5. My sanctuary ye shall fear : My sanctuary ye shall fear :
I AM YAHWEH, your I AM YAHWEH.
God (3M).
6. Duties of Reverence (1930 2415f).
6. Ye shall fear each his mother and his father (i93a).
7. [Any man who curseth his father or his mother shall surely be
put to death : his father and his mother he hath cursed, his
blood shall be upon him.] (209.)
And unto the children of Israel thou shalt speak, saying,
8. Any man when he curseth his God shall bear his sin (2415) ; and
9. He who revileth the name of Yahweh shall surely be put to death.
All the congregation shall surely stone him with stones, as well the alien as
the homeborn when he reviles the name shall be put to death (2416).
5. . This brings us to a new group of laws in regard to injuries to
one's neighbor (2417-22 i9IK). If Lev. 2415-22 stood once between
Lev. i94andu, then the laws in regard to killing must in the original
H have followed immediately after the laws in regard to reverence.
This is what we should naturally expect, for the first five command
ments of the Decalogue have already been covered in the fourth
decad. Accordingly, in 2417"22 we find a little group of H developing
the thought of the sixth commandment.
Verse 21 is open to suspicion. It is a repetition of v.17f- in reverse
order. According to Cornill {Einleitung, p. 76) it is a doublet to
17f-, but it is hard to believe that any editor would have been stupid
enough to insert from a parallel code a law which he had just given
two or three lines before. Dillmann thinks that the editor made the
repetition in order to show that the extension of the legislation to
the alien (v.22) applies to the whole group in regard to killing and
not to the last precept only. In any case it is apparently an editorial
addition. The redactional character of v.22" has already been referred to.
Apart from this there is no reason to think that the group has been
modified. It exhibits the brevity and logical construction of H.
It contains the characteristic words 121'' 112 and 1,25, and it is
closed with the formula " I am Yahweh," which here has been en
larged by a later hand with "for," and "your God." Apparently
only three laws of the pentad remain, unless v.21 is to be regarded as
a corruption of the missing two.

3°
The companion pentad to this is found in 1911. The seventh
commandment having already been developed at length in Lev. 18,
the sixth and the eighth are brought into contiguity. The law-giver
did not have enough material to make a separate decad on each of
the topics of killing and stealing, and, consequently, he has combined
a group on each in one decad. This could be done very naturally,
since killing, particularly in the case of a beast, and stealing are
readily combined under the point of view of robbing a neighbor of
that which rightfully belongs to him.
i9llf- contains at present only four laws, against stealing, denying
the truth, asserting the false, and swearing to a lie. Analogy justifies
us in supposing that one short law has fallen out of the text. It is
noticeable that, while the two sides of lying are given, only one
side of stealing is touched upon. We might expect to find along
side of the prohibition of active theft the prohibition of fraud.
The law which seems to be needed theoretically to fill the gap is
found in Lev. i935f-, which contains a prohibition of defrauding one's
neighbor by the use of false weights or measures. 1221022 at the
beginning of v.35 is irrelevant in this context, but is in its right place
in v.15 (against Dillmann) , since honesty in measures is discussed here,
while justice in legal matters is the subject of v.15f-. The original
form of this law must have been, " Ye shall do no iniquity in mete-
yard,.in weight, or in measure." Verse36 seems to be no more than
an editorial comment on the meaning of v.35 This law is isolated in
its present place at the end of Lev. 19, and is, therefore, pronounced
by Wellhausen {Composition, p. 156) a later addition to the code,
but the words blS and lim MX, and the allusion to the Exodus both
point to this law's having been part of the original document. Legis
lation in regard to weights and measures was part of the oldest
Hebrew codes (cf. Dt. 2513"16). Wellhausen remarks that "this
reads like a bit of Deuteronomy with a strong admixture of Ezekiel,"
but this does not indicate that it is secondary, since the similarity
both of Deuteronomy and Ezekiel to H is marked elsewhere. If,
now, this law is original, no more appropriate place in the code can
be found for it than in the gap in v.11. In that case the group would
have contained laws against theft and fraud, against lying and deceit,
and the general law against false swearing which applies to all the
previous cases. This last law obviously does not refer to bearing
false witness, which comes up for discussion in the next group (16f-) ,
but refers to oaths designed to defraud one's neighbor or to conceal
a theft (cf. Ex. 2210). The phrase "so that thou profane the name

3i
of thy God" belongs to the hortatory editor of the code. In 2 22 the
secondary character of this formula is particularly prominent by the
way in which it breaks the structure of the sentence. Here also it is
irrelevant. What we should expect, if any addition to the simple
commandment were made, would be, " so that thou defraud thy
neighbor." Summing up results again, we read
Group V. Injuries to One's Neighbor.
a. Physical Injuries to Man or Beast (Lev. 2417"22).
1. A man when he smiteth any human being mortally shall surely
be put to death : and
2. He that smiteth a beast mortally shall make it good, life for life :
and
3. A man when he causeth a blemish in his neighbor, as he hath
done, so shall it be done unto him ; breach for breach, eye
for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in
a human being, so shall it be done to him ; and he that smiteth
a beast shall make restitution : and he that smiteth u. man shall be put
to death. One judgment shall ye have; like alien, like home-born shall
it be, for I AM YAHWEH, your God.
b. Injuries to a Neighbor's Property (Lev. i9llf).
6. Ye shall not steal : and
7. [Ye shall do no iniquity in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or
in measure. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a
just hin shall ye have.] { 1 9^.)
8. Ye shall not lie : and
9. Ye shall not deceive each his neighbor : and
10. Ye shall not swear by my name to a lie, so that thou profane the
name of thy God: I AM YAHWEH.
6. Laws against Injustice (Lev. 1913-16). — Closely akin to the
group of laws that have just been given in regard to injuries to one's
neighbor are the laws against taking advantage of inferiors, which
follow in ig13''. In one aspect this sort of unfairness is robbery. In
another aspect it is allied to injustice in legal matters which follows
in 19™ Accordingly, this little group is in the right logical relation
at this point in the code. It contains a perfect pentad of laws,
closed 146 with the formula, "I am Yahweh."
Lev. i915-16 is a pentad of laws against injustice in legal matters.

32
As such it is an expansion of the thought which underlies the ninth
commandment of the Decalogue. The latter specifies only the sin of ;
false witness, as the most extreme offence against justice, but in prin
ciple it is aimed against all forms of injustice, and the cases which it
involves are here developed. The pentad appears to be in its primi
tive form, except that 15° and 1M are identical in thought, and it is not
likely that both are original. Dillmann rejects "Ye shall do no un
righteousness in justice," on account of the use of the second person
plural, and supposes that it is a gloss taken from 19s5, but the code
passes so freely from singular to plural (cf. uf') that no significance
can be attached to this fact. A more important indication is to be
found in the circumstance that 1Sd is positive while all the rest of the
laws of the group are negative in their form. Besides, it is more
consistent with the regular style of H to put the general precept first
and the special cases after it. For this reason it is better to reject
" in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor," as a gloss.
Group VI. Laws against Injustice (Lev. 1913"16).
a. Towards Dependents (ig13*).
1. Thou shalt not oppress thy fellow : and
2. Thou shalt not despoil.
3. The wages of a hired servant shall not stay over night with thee
until the morning.
4. Thou shalt not curse the deaf: and
5. Before the blind thou shalt not put a stumbling block, but thou
shalt be afraid of thy God: I AM YAHWEH.
b. In Legal Matters (i915f).
6. Ye shall not do iniquity in justice.
7. Thou shalt not lift up the face of a poor man : and
8. Thou shalt not honor the face of a great man. In righteousness
shalt thou judge thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not go as a slanderer among thy people.
10. Thou shalt not stand against the blood of thy fellow : I AM
YAHWEH.
7. Laws against Unkindness (Lev. 19 17f-S2-34). — The tenth com
mandment of the Decalogue prohibits covetousness as a typical sin
of the heart from which outward offences flow. Lev. i917f- follows

33
its analogy by beginning with a law, "Thou shalt not hate thy
brother in thy heart," and following this up with a set of laws
against sinful inward dispositions. The pentad here is complete
and is closed with the original formula " I am Yahweh." There are
no signs of modification in the midst of the section. The words,
"Ye shall observe my statutes " (v.19), do not introduce a new group
of laws (Dillmann), but are the hortatory conclusion of the preceding
pentad, and come from the same hand as iS5-24"30 1937.
The companion pentad to this one does not seem to be found
in the verses which immediately follow. The legislation which one
might expect antecedently in connection with the prohibition of
an unkindly disposition, would be the prohibition of ill-treating
the aged or the alien in 1932-34. These laws have no logical relation
in their present context, and are regarded by many critics as an
appendix to the code, but they exhibit the form of H, and are
ancient in tone, so that it is more natural to regard them as trans
posed fragments. Both the Book of the Covenant and Deuteronomy
contain legislation on this subject.
1932 is a command to reverence the aged. The following precept
against afflicting an alien belongs logically in this connection ; for, like
the aged, the alien was liable to oppression. The same law stands in
the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 2220), with the same reason annexed,
"for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt"; there is, therefore, no
reason why these laws should be regarded as a late addition by Rp,
or as a gloss which has crept into the text from Deuteronomy.
Only the phrases 13 11X 113"' ^2 (cf. Ex. 1248 Nu. 914 1514) and
D21X 131 131 D2b IM"1 D22 111X2 «• (cf. Ex. 1249 Lev.
24i6.22 Nu> 9m IS!9) certainly belong to P. On the other hand, P
never adds "in your land," and, in fact, this is foreign to the stand
point of his legislation. The prohibition also to afflict a stranger
tacitly implies that he does not occupy an equal position before the
law with the native, and is, therefore, more liable to injustice. The
words of m are assured for H by Lev. 1 918, where the same command
is given in respect to one's neighbor.
The hand of the non-priestly hortatory editor is seen in the familiar
formula, " but thou shalt be afraid of thy God " (v.32) with the addi
tion " I am Yahweh," which betrays its secondary character by the
fact that it does not correspond with the natural division of the
code. The formula " I am Yahweh " (v.34c) marks the end of a logical
subdivision, but only three laws have preceded it, to honor the aged,

34
not to afflict a stranger, and, positively, to love him as one's self.
That this condition is not original, is proved by the presence of the
hortatory formula, "but thou shalt be afraid of thy God" (v.32).
This phrase is regularly used by the hortatory editor after prohibitions
of peculiarly reprehensible acts of oppression (Lev. 1914 25"- M-43).
Its presence makes it possible, that a prohibition of some sort stood
after 19320 at the time when the author of this phrase annotated the
text, and that the prohibition has since fallen out of the text, leaving
this warning exhortation in connection with the positive precept to
honor the aged. What we should expect before the exhortation,
from the analogy of the other codes, would be commandments not
to afflict the widow and the fatherless. In the Book of the Covenant
(Ex. 2221) and in Dt. 2417 the widow and the fatherless are com
bined with the stranger. Ezek. 2 27f- is parallel, even in verbal detail,
to the legislation of H, but here the widow and the fatherless are
mentioned in connection with the stranger. Accordingly, it seems
possible that the original H contained legislation on this subject, to
which the exhortation of 826 belongs, and that this has fallen out of
the text in one of the later recensions. Summing up results, we may
reconstruct another decad of H as follows :
Group VII. Laws against Unkindness (Lev. igm3Mi).
a. In the Disposition (i917f).
1. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart.
2. Thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbor and not bear sin on his
account.
3. Thou shalt not take vengeance : and
4. Thou shalt not bear a grudge against the children of thy kins
folk : and
5. Thou shalt love thy fellow as thyself: I AM YAHWEH; ye
shall observe my statutes.
b. Towards the Helpless (1932-34).
6. Thou shalt rise up before old age and shalt honor the face of
an old man.
7. [Thou shalt not afflict a widow (?) .J
8. [Thou shalt not oppress the fatherless (?)], but thou shalt be
afraid of thy God: I am Yahweh. And when there sojourneth
with you

35

9. An alien in your land ye shall not wrong him. As the homebom
among you shall the alien be unto you who sojourns with you: and
io. Thou shalt love him as thyself, for ye were aliens in the land of
Egypt: I AM YAHWEH, your God.

IV. LEGISLATION OF LEV. 1919-37.
We have now concluded the legislation of H which is parallel to
the Decalogue, and in the remaining legislation of Lev. 19 we have
a collection of precepts which are aimed in the main against heathen
practices and have the design of keeping Israel separate from the
nations. 1. Legislation of Lev. 1919. — Lev. 1919 contains three laws against
the mingling of dissimilar things. Wellhausen regards this as an
ancient gloss on the legislation, but the form is that of H, and the
laws are clearly older than the similar legislation in Dt. 229-12.
Verses 20~22 have nothing to do with v.19 nor with the rest of this
chapter. Delitzsch {Studien, XII., p. 623) tries indeed to show that
they are original, but there is general agreement among critics that
they are a late gloss. If this law belongs to H, it must have stood
among the chastity laws in Lev. 18, but Knobel's idea that it is related
to the foregoing laws by the thought that intercourse of a free man
with a bond woman is as unnatural as the mixing of two breeds of
animals, is manifestly absurd. In ordinary cases such concubinage
was freely permitted. Verses 20_22 display throughout the diction of P ;
cf. 15112 SlX 112 bH, D10X, and the sacrificial formula v.22, with
Lev. 524f\ Wellhausen {Prolegomena, p. 77), Kuenen {Onderzoek,
p. 89), Wellhausen {Composition, p. 156), Baentsch (p. 29) regard
only 21_22 as added by P, but this is improbable, since v.20 has the
closest relation to the two verses which follow, but none to those
which precede, and since this verse also shows the style of P ; 11210
instead of 12X, 51? 12210 22101 (cf. Lev. 1518 Nu. S13). Lev.
1920-22, accordingly, is not the original continuation of v.19, but is an
addition to the code by the priestly editor. As remarked above,
Lev. 1919 contains only three laws. That the group is not complete
is evident from the fact that the concluding formula is wanting.
Something has been lost from the end of the original pentad, and
has carried with it the refrain, " I am Yahweh." What law, then,
must originally have followed the prohibition of wearing a garment
of two kinds of stuff ? I find the clue to the solution of this prob-

3«
lem in the order of the legislation in Dt. 22llf' Verse n reads,
"Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together."
Verse 12 continues, "Thou shalt make tassels for thee in the four
corners of thy mantle with which thou coverest thyself." The two
precepts are logically connected, the thought being, that, while it is
not permitted to weave together two kinds of material, tassels may
be put upon the border of a garment.
This combination is to my mind suggestive that the section
Nu. 1537-41, which has long been recognized as bearing the char
acteristic marks of H, once stood after Lev. 1919. This section not
only displays the diction of H, but has no relation to the context in
which it stands. It is accompanied with an exhortation every phrase
of which is peculiar to H; "go whoring after" (177 20s- 6), "remem
ber and do all my commandments" (I84f-26-30 2022 2231), "be holy
unto your God" (192 2026 2232). The whole is followed by the
familiar closing formula of H, " I am Yahweh, your God, who brought
you out of the land of Egypt "; and this indicates also that here we
have a dislocated fragment of the Holiness legislation. (So Dill
mann, Nu., p. 86; Kuenen, Onderzoek, p. 270; Delitzsch, Studien,
p. 622 ; Klostermann, ZLT., 1887, p. 409 ; Horst, p. 35 ; Baentsch,
p. 9 ; and others.)
Baentsch suggests that it must once have stood among the laws
of Lev. 18-20, but offers no nearer suggestion as to its exact original
position. It is provided with the closing formula which shows that v.41
must once have stood at the end of a pentad, and where could it have
stood more appropriately than at the end of this defective group 1919?
Its original connection with the laws against mingling stuffs in gar
ments, which is so apparent in Dt. 2212, has been obscured by the
additions hortatory and otherwise which it has received. At the time
of its transfer to its present place in Numbers the passage received
the conventional priestly superscription i537f, "Speak unto the chil
dren of Israel and say unto them." Probably the words of m, "And
they shall put in the fringe of each border a thread of blue," are
also a priestly addition, since the thread of blue is not found in the
Deuteronomic recension of the law and is ignored in the exhortation
Nu. is3"0, which speaks only of the fringe ; and since 1TO1 ' blue '
is a word which is frequent in the descriptions of the Tabernacle and
of the priestly vestments, but is found nowhere else in the Hexa-
teuch. It is apparently a bit of ritualistic amplification on the part
of the priestly redactor. The word 211T? (v.38) is also an unmis
takable priestly gloss.

37
Nu. is39"41 contains no new legislation, but is merely exhortation
to observe the previous legislation. It shows the style of the non-
pnestly hortatory editor, whose work we have seen in Lev. 17-19.
Whoever wrote this passage missed, it seems to me, the purpose of
the original legislation. He found there a law, "Thou shalt make a
fringe in the border of thy garment," and supposed that it had some
profound religious significance, whereas, as Dt. 22llf- shows, it was
simply a permission to use as a fringe material which might not be
woven into the fabric. That religious significance, he supposed, was
in order that the fringe might remind Israel to keep all the com
mandments of Yahweh, and consequently he wrote this exhortation
embodying his exegesis of the passage. By this addition the law
became a purely ceremonial institution, and was no longer appropri
ate among the 2,taS102 of Lev. 17-19, so that it is not surprising
that the priestly editor should have thought that it would find a more
appropriate place among the ritual regulations of Numbers, and
should have transferred it thither.
The restoration of Nu. is38'- to its original connection gives the
concluding law of the pentad against mixing things of diverse kinds.
One law is still lacking to complete the five. It seems to me plausi
ble that this law was analogous to the one which stands in Dt. 22s.
Dt. 2 21-12 is made up of a series of extracts from earlier legal docu
ments. Verses 1_4 relate to kindness to animals, and with these
v.6"7 are related. Verse 5 is related to v.9-12, which treat of mingling
dissimilar things. Verse 8 is foreign to either of these groups of laws;
but is connected with those in Chapter 21. Without determining
at this point which is more original, it is evident that there is some
relation of dependence between the laws of Lev. 1919, Nu. 1538, and
Dt. 225-9-12. Dt. 2 29 corresponds with Lev. i919i, except that the
law is made narrower by the substitution of vineyard for field. Dt.
2210 has probably arisen by misunderstanding of S'OII of Lev. 1919,
or else by intentional modification so as to permit the breeding of
mules (Dillmann). Dt. 2211 corresponds exactly with Lev. i919c in
its thought, and even in the use of the strange word 1312510. Dt.
2212 corresponds with Nu. 15s8. One law still remains in Dt. 22s,
which treats of interchanging garments by the sexes, and this is
allied to llf. It cannot be proved that a law analogous to this ever
stood in Lev. 1919, but, in view of the correspondence of all the rest
of the laws of the group, it seems, to say the least, a plausible hypoth
esis. Certainly a law against the wearing of garments of the other
sex would be most appropriate in a group containing laws against

38
the mingling of species and the wearing of garments of mixed
materials. I now exhibit the hypothetical reconstruction of this
pentad.

Group VIII. Laws against Mingling Dissimilar Things.

Lev. 1919: Nu. i53:

Thy beasts thou shalt not
cause to gender in two
kinds.
Thou shalt not sow thy field
with two kinds.

Dt. 2 25-10-9-Uf-.
A man's things shall not be on
a woman, and a man shall
not wear a woman's clothing.
Thou shalt not plow with a steer
and an ass together.
Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard
with two kinds, lest the whole
be hallowed, the seed which
thou sowest and the produce
of thy vineyard.
4. A garment of two kinds, a Thou shalt not wear a "sha'at-
"sha'atnez," shall not come nez," wool and linen together.
upon thee.
And Yahweh spake unto Moses
saying. Speak unto the sons of
Israel and say unto them, and
5. They shall make a fringe for
them in the borders of their
garments unto their genera
tions and shall put in the fringe
of each border a thread of blue :
and it shall be unto you for a fringe, and ye shall see it and
shall remember all the commandments of Yahweh and ye shall
do them; and ye shall not go about after your hearts and after
your eyes, after which ye go a whoring; that ye may remember
and do all my commandments, and may be holy unto your God;
I am Yahweh, your God, who have brought you out of the land
of Egypt to be a God unto you : I AM YAHWEH, your God.
The companion pentad to this, if it ever existed, has been lost
out of the Holiness legislation, and no vestiges of it remain in other
contexts in the Pentateuch. That it once existed is possible, but
what its contents were can only be conjectured. I venture to
suggest, as this pentad contains laws against the mingling of dis-

Tassels thou mayest make for
thee in the four borders of
thy mantle with which thou
coverest thyself.

39
similar things, and as the following groups are directed against
heathen practices, that a missing pentad which may have stood
between these was devoted to prohibiting Israelites from mingling
with the heathen by marriage, or in other ways, such as we find in
Ex. 3412-16 Dt. 716. For this conjecture, however, no proof can be
given. The legislation of Lev. ig23"25 bears every mark of belonging to H,
but is not in its right place here. Its contents are not only unrelated
to the groups of laws on either side of it, but are distinctly cere
monial in character. Refraining from eating the fruit of a tree for
three years and consecrating all the fruit to Yahweh in the fourth
year, is not a matter of morals, but of cultus, and does not belong
here, but among the regulations of Lev. 23-25, which treat of the
sacred seasons, or abstaining from the produce of, the land in the
seventh year, etc. The affinity of these laws with the legislation in
regard to the sacred seasons in Lev. 23, 25 is very marked. They
are introduced with the same formula 2310 and 25s, "when ye come
into the land," they connect the worship of God with the harvest in
the same way as the legislation of H in Lev. 23, 25, they use the
same word 1X121 of the crop (cf. 1925 25s-20), they exhibit the same
sort of allegorical transference of the terms of religion to the realm
of nature. In 25s the unpruned vine is spoken of as a 1,?3, because
of the analogy between the uncut locks of a man and the untrimmed
branches of a vine. In 1923, by a similar analogy, the fruit of the
young tree is spoken of as its 1115. Wellhausen says that this
analogy shows late abstraction. How unreasonable this assertion is,
is evident from the fact that the institution is recognized as well
known Dt. 206 2830 Jer. 315. What the analogy really proves is the
high antiquity of the institutions of circumcision and of the nazirite
which made it possible for names taken from them to be transferred
to trees and vines (cf. Dillmann, p. 556).
These laws in Lev. 1923"25 form the natural transition from the legis
lation in regard to the sacred seasons which fall within the year to
the sabbatical seventh year. Here the period of rest applies to only
a portion of the harvest, and the year of consecration to Yahweh is
the fourth, and thus comes oftener than the sabbatical year, which
affects the entire harvest. Finally, only a pentad of laws is found in
Lev. 252"7- 14- 17, so that this group seems to be needed to complete
the decad on the sacred years at the beginning of Lev. 25.
In one respect this little section seems to be incomplete ; it does
not tell us what is to be done with the consecrated produce of fruit

40
trees in the fourth year. We are told simply, " In the fourth year
all its fruit shall be a holy thing of praise unto Yahweh." Some law
on this subject may have stood in this connection, particularly as the
group now contains only four laws. It is impossible to say with
certainty what was the use to which the consecrated fruit was put,
but perhaps we are justified in inferring from the analogy of Lev.
23^ and 256f-, that the fruit of the fourth year was to be left for the
poor and the alien. In Dt. i428f- the tithe " at the end of every three
years " is to be laid up for the Levite, the alien, the fatherless, and
the widow. It is noteworthy, also, that this law of Dt. i428f- stands
immediately before the law of the sabbatical year in Dt. 15. This
favors the theory just advanced as to its original place in the Holi
ness-Code. 2. Legislation in Regard to Clean and Unclean Meats (Lev. n1"28-
41_47). — Lev. 1926, "Ye shall not eat anything with the blood," cannot
be original, since H has already treated of this subject in Lev. 1 710"14.
It may be a gloss that has come in at this point through association
of thought with the interpolated laws in regard to eating fruit which
immediately precede ; or, as seems to be more probable, it is a
textual corruption of another law in regard to food. No reason
appears why the laws in regard to eating the fruit of trees should
have been inserted at this point unless there was something in regard
to eating already in the text, some such law as is now found in 1926.
This consideration becomes more striking when we observe that
Lev. 2025 exhorts to separating between the clean beasts and the un
clean. Lev. 20 adheres closely to the legislation which precedes it,
and the presence of such an exhortation creates the strong probability
that some legislation in regard to animals which might be eaten and
which might not be eaten stood originally in H. (cf. Wellhausen,
Composition, p. 158; Dillmann, Ex.-Lev., p. 563).
It seems possible that the code of clean and unclean meats once
stood at about this point in Lev. 19, because in Lev. 20 the exhorta
tion to keep this law is followed by an exhortation to keep the law
against necromancers and wizards, which stands in 1931. Moreover,
2026 views abstinence from unclean meats as a means of separating
Israel from the heathen, and 1926 is followed by a set of laws against
specifically heathen practices. Accordingly, it is likely that 1926 pre
serves the relics of the beginning of the legislation in regard to clean
and unclean beasts.
The main result of a prohibition of certain foods, perhaps its main

41
reason, was to separate Israel from the nations round about ; and it
is natural, therefore, that laws of this sort should have stood in con
nection with other laws against conformity to the heathen. As a
badge of nationality, as belonging to the duties of every-day life, and
as not connected in any way with the sacred calendar, these regula
tions found an appropriate place here in the first half of the code.
Dietary laws are similar to the laws in regard to slaughter, which also
stand in this collection, rather than among the ceremonial regulations
proper. To the legislator they seemed so fundamental as to be
worthy of being put alongside of the groups that amplify the
Decalogue. The missing legislation in regard to food, which must at one time
have stood in Lev. 19 in connection with the laws against heathen
customs, is found in Lev. 11. The subscription of this code corre
sponds verbally with the exhortation of Lev. 2o2a'- : " Make not your
souls loathsome" (n43 2025) ; "Ye shall be holy, for I am holy"
(n44 2026) ; " To defile oneself " (n44 2025). Lev. n45 alludes to the
election of Israel in the same way as 2026i. It is probable, therefore,
that the legislation which 2025 contemplates is the same legislation
which is closed by 1 i43"45.
Every phrase of n43^5 is characteristic of H over against P, so
that there can be no doubt that this subscription has been drawn
from the original form of H ; but the subscription has been written
in view of preceding legislation, and, consequently, it is probable
that some, at least, of the legislation of Lev. 11 belongs to H.
Lev. 2025 speaks of clean and unclean beasts, of clean and unclean
fowl, and of creeping things, but does not give the criteria by which
these are to be distinguished. Lev. 11 gives the criteria and, there
fore, furnishes precisely the model which Lev. 2025 presupposes.
A further reason for thinking that original legislation of H precedes
the subscription of Lev. n43^5 is found in the fact that in Lev. 11 it
is evident that an older code has been combined with P. The peculiar
double superscription n1 and the second subscription n46f- indicate
that the compiler of Leviticus has used a special source. Moreover,
Wellhausen has shown {Composition, p. 155) that the older strata
may be discriminated from the later priestly addition v.24^0. This
treats of touching unclean beasts, and of the ceremonial purifications
which must follow, and is thus foreign to the subject of the chapter,
which is the eating of unclean creatures. It is ignored by the sub
scription ii43"45, and by the exhortation 2025f-; no trace of it is found
in the doublet of this code Dt. 14 ; it exhibits throughout the casu-

42
istic style and spirit of P. It is, therefore, recognized generally to
be a late priestly interpolation between n23"™441. That Wurster
should assign it to H is incomprehensible.
If, now, an older and simpler code has been enlarged in the spirit
of P, what is more probable than that this older code is H, which,
as we have seen, has been enlarged in precisely the same way in
Lev. 17-19? That the code was H is recognized by Klostermann
(p. 409), Kuenen {Onderzoek, p. 270), Horst (p. 34), Riehm
{Einl., p. 194), Dillmann (Ex.-Lev., p. 480), Delitzsch (ZKW.,
1880, p. 622 f.), Kayser {yPT. 1881, p. 650), Driver {Leviticus).
I conclude, therefore, that in Lev. 1 12"23, 41_45 another group of H has
been preserved, which has been transferred from its original place
after 1919 in the same manner as Lev. 2415"22 and Nu. 1537"41 have
been moved out of their original connection.
Space will not permit me to discuss here in full the analysis of
Lev. n in comparison with Dt. 143-20, but for the sake of complete
ness I indicate the main results of an analysis. A decad of laws of
H underlies Lev. n and Dt. 14, the enactments of which were as
follows : (1) a general prohibition of eating any sort of unclean beast
(Dt. 143), (2) a permission of certain quadrupeds (Lev. n26"3 Dt.
I44"6). (3) a prohibition of certain quadrupeds (Lev. i,i4"7 Dt. 147"80),
(4) a permission of certain aquatic animals (Lev. n9 Dt. 149),
(5) a prohibition of all other aquatic animals (Lev. n10 Dt. 1410),
(6) a permission to eat clean birds (Dt. 1411), (7) an enumeration
of unclean birds which may not be eaten (Lev. n13-19 Dt. 1412-18),
(8) a general prohibition of insects (Lev. n20 Dt. 1419), (9) an ex
ception in favor of certain kinds of locusts (Lev. n21-23 Dt. 1420),
(10) a prohibition of all wingless creeping things (Lev. ii41). The
results of the analysis and the relation of the two recensions are
exhibited in the following translation.
Group IX. Clean and Unclean Meats (Lev. 19®° n1-^-41-"
Dt. 143-20).
a. Land Quadrupeds, Fish, and Amphibians.
1. Ye shall not eat with the blood Thou shalt not eat any abomina
te260). And Yahweh spake tion.
unto Moses and Aaron, say
ing: Speak unto the sons of
Israel, saying:
2. These are the living things These are the beasts which ye
which ye may eat of all may eat, the ox, the sheep, and

43

beasts which are upon the
earth :

every one which parteth
the hoof and is cloven-
footed, chewing the cud
among the beasts, it ye
may eat.
3 . Only these ye shall not eat of
those which chew the cud
and of those which part the
hoof: the camel because it
cheweth the cud but part
eth not the hoof, it is un
clean unto you ; and the
badger, because it cheweth
the cud but parteth not the
hoof, it is unclean unto you,
and the hare, because it
cheweth the cud but part
eth not the hoof, it is un
clean unto you ; and the
swine, because it parteth
the hoof and is cloven-
footed but doth not chew
the cud, it is unclean unto
you.
Of their flesh ye shall not eat and their
carcasses ye shall not touch ; they
are unclean unto you.
4. And these ye may eat of all
that are in the waters ;
everything that hath fins
and scales in the waters, in
the seas, and in the rivers, them
ye may eat.
5. And everything which hath
not fins and scales in the
waters, and in the rivers, of
everything that swarmeth in the
waters, and of every living thing
which is in the waters, loath-

the goat, the hart, the gazelle,
the stag, and the wild goat, the
pygarg, and the antelope, and
the chamois, and every beast
which parteth the hoof and
hath the foot cloven in two,
chewing the cud among the
beasts, it ye may eat.
Only these ye shall not eat of
those which chew the cud, and
of those which part the cloven
hoof: the camel, and the hare,
and the badger because they
chew the cud but part not the
hoof, they are unclean unto
you;

and the swine because it parteth
the hoof but cheweth no cud,
it is unclean unto you.

Of their flesh ye shall not eat and their
carcasses ye shall not touch.
And these ye may eat of all that
are in the waters : everything
that hath fins and scales ye
may eat.

And everything which hath not
fins and scales ye shall not
eat ; it is unclean unto you.

44

some are they unto you, and
they shall be loathsome unto you.
Of their flesh ye shall not eat
and their carcasses ye shall
loathe. Everything which has
not fins and scales in the waters
loathsome is it unto you.

b. Birds, Insects, and Vermin.

6. 7-

And these ye shall loathe of the
winged things shall not be
eaten they are loathsome ; the
eagle, and the gier, and the
ospray, and the kite, and
the falcon after its kind,
every raven after its kind,
and the ostrich, and the
tahmas, and the seamew,
and the hawk after its kind,
and the little owl, and the
cormorant, and the great
owl, and the swan, and the
pelican, and the vulture,
and the stork, the ibis after
its kind, and the hoopoe,
and the bat.
Every winged creeping thing
that goeth upon all four, loath
some is it unto you.
Except these ye may eat of
all the winged creeping
things which go upon all four
which have shanks above
their feet to spring with
them upon the earth, these
of them ye may eat : the
locust after its kind, and
the great locust after its
kind, and the locust after
its kind, and the little
locust after its kind. And

Every clean bird ye may eat.
And these are the ones which ye
shall not eat; the eagle, and
the gier, and the ospray, and
the ra'ah, and the falcon,
and the kite after its kind,
every raven after its kind, and
the ostrich, and the tahmas,
and the seamew, and the hawk
after its kind, and the little
owl, and the great owl, and
the swan, and the pelican, and
the vulture, and the cormo
rant, and the stork, the ibis
after its kind, and the hoopoe,
and the bat.

And every winged creeping thing
unclean is it unto you, it shall
not be eaten.
Every clean winged thing ye may
eat.

10.

45
every winged creeping thing
which has four feet, loathsome
is it unto you.
(Verses21-40 belong wholly to P).
And every crawling thing which crawleth upon the face of the
earth is loathsome, it shall not be eaten. Everything which goeth
upon the belly, and everything which goeth upon all four, besides everything
which hath many feet, namely, the crawling things which crawl upon the
earth, ye shall not eat, for they are loathsome. Make not yourselves
loathsome with any crawling thing that crawleth, and defile
not yourselves that ye should be defiled with them, for I am
Yahweh, your God; and ye shall hallow yourselves and shall
be holy, for L am holy. And ye shall not defile yourselves
! with any crawling thing that creepeth upon the earth, for
I AM YAHWEH, who have brought you up out of the land of
Egypt to be a God unto you, and ye shall be holy, for I am holy.
This is the law of the beast and of the winged thing, and of every soul of
living thing that creepeth in the water, and of every soul that crawleth
upon the earth; to separate between the clean beast and the unclean, and
betioeen the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may
not be eaten.
3. Laws against Heathen Practices (Lev. 19266-31). Having given
the laws of food which separate Israel most widely from its heathen
neighbors, H proceeded to enumerate other particulars in which
Israel should be different from the heathen. The first pentad is
complete, namely, IQ26s-26i:-2'-28a-28i. Verse27 can be regarded as
containing but a single law, since there is not sufficient difference
between cutting the hair and cutting the beard to suppose the legis
lator intended that they should be regarded as separate precepts.
In 215 making bald the head and cutting the edge of the beard are
in like manner combined in a single law.
The second pentad of the group has suffered mutilation. Verse30,
" Ye shall observe my sabbaths and reverence my sanctuary : I am
Yahweh," is parallel in part to 193 and in whole to 262. It even
carries with it the closing formula of the pentad 262. We have seen
already that these two laws are in their original place in the pentad
26lf-, and in their right place in the code at 19s In this connection
they are irrelevant and cannot be original. Dillmann's theory that
they have been drawn from a P recension of H, while the doublets
have been drawn from a J recension, is destitute of evidence and is
improbable, since these laws break the continuity of the code and,
therefore, are more likely to be a gloss. This paragraph of the code

46
is directed against the introduction of heathen practices into religion.
Verse M prohibits prostitution in the service of religion. If it referred
to prostitution in general, it should have stood among the laws of
Lev. 1 8. Verse 31° treats of consulting necromancers, and 316 of inquir
ing of wizards. These three laws belong logically together, and fol
low naturally after the preceding pentad. The last bears the refrain
which marks the end of a pentad. Accordingly, it is probable that
the two laws which now stand in v.30 have been substituted in the
place of two others in much the same way in which 195-10 has been
substituted in the place of 2415-22- The original laws may have dis
cussed the subject of religious prostitution more fully, and were left
out by a later editor, either intentionally or through accident.
Perhaps we find a hint, what the missing laws were about, in Dt.
2318f. Dt. 23 is a series of disconnected clippings from various an
tique sources, and this little paragraph is wholly unrelated to its
context. 18a contains a law against religious prostitution, which is
parallel to Lev. 1929. It is followed by two kindred laws, m and 19,
which may well have stood also after Lev. 1929. It is possible that
these laws in Dt. were drawn from H before it came into the hands
of the non-priestly hortatory editor.
The exhortation which accompanies Lev. 1929 is probably second
ary. The idea of the sanctity of the land, and of sin as a profana
tion of the holy territory, is characteristic of the hortatory editor
(cf. 1825-28 2022 26s4). With this exception there is no evidence of
interpolation in this group of laws. Summing up results, I suggest
the following reading, —
Group X. Against Imitation of Heathen Customs (Lev. I9261-31).
a. In Secular Life ( 1 9261-28) .
1. Ye shall not use enchantments and
2. Ye shall not practice augury.
3. Ye shall not round the edge of your hair, and thou shalt not mar
the edge of thy beard : and
4. A cutting for a dead person ye shall not make in your flesh :
and
5. Tattooed writing ye shall not put upon you : I AM YAHWEH.

47

b. In Religion
Lev. ig29-31. e
Profane not thy daughter to
make her a harlot, lest the
land fall to whoredom and
the land become full of
lewdness.
(v.30 gloss. Seei93262).

9-
io,

There harlot Israel

Dt. 2318-19.
shall not be a temple-
of the daughters of

And there shall not be a temple-
devotee of the sons of Israel.
Thou shalt not bring the hire of
a harlot or the wages of a dog
into the house of Yahweh, thy
God, for any vow, for even
both of them are the abomina
tion of Yahweh, thy God.
Turn ye not unto the necromancers : and
Unto the wizards seek ye not for defilement with them : I AM
YAHWEH your God.

The original position of the detached laws in Lev. e^^has already
been discussed in connection with Lev. 19™ and 1914. v.866"37 is the
closing exhortation of the first main division of the Holiness Code,
that is, the moral and social regulations. It comes from the same
hand as the secondary exhortations in 18524-30 19™ 2231"33 2518"22. We
thus reach the conclusion that the first half of the Holiness Code
Lev. 17"19 contained originally ten groups of ten laws each. This con
clusion encourages us to believe that, at least in its main points, our
hypothesis of the structure of the minor divisions of this code is
correct.

LEBENSLAUF.
Ich, Lewis Bayles Paton, Sohn des Kaufmanns Robert Paton und dessen
Ehefrau Henrietta geb. Bayles, wurde am 27ten Juni, 1864 in New York geboren.
Meinen ersten Unterricht habe ich in den " public schools " erhalten und bin
dann, nachdem ich meine Abgangspriifung im Herbst 1879 bestanden hatte, zum
Besuch der Universitat New York zugelassen worden.
Nach Verlauf von vier Jahren, wahrend welcher ich "Arts and Sciences"
studierte, bestand ich das Universitats-examen und wurde darauf hin "Bacca-
laureus Artium."
Darnach habe ich ein Jahr lang an einer Knabenschule unterrichtet.
Die folgenden zwei Jahre brachte ich auf Reisen in Europa zu und beschaftigte
mich wahrend dieser Zeit mit dem Studium des Deutschen, des Franzosischen,
und des Italienischen.
Im Herbst 1887 begann ich meine theologischen Studien und widmete , mich
denselben wahrend dreier Jahre auf der Universitat Princeton, im Staat New
Jersey. Nach Ablauf dieser Zeit bestand ich die Universitats- und die Kirchen-
prufungen, worauf dann meine Ordination zum Prediger der presbyterianischen
Kirche in den V. St. erfolgte.
Im Herbst 1890 reichte ich der theologischen Facultat zu Princeton eine Dis
sertation ein mit dem Titel " The Historical Character of the Book of Chronicles."
Auf Grund dieser Arbeit und auf Grund der Auszeichnung, die ich bei einem
Concurrenzexamen im Hebraischen erhielt, ernannte man mich zum " Fellow in
Hebrew." In Folge dessen wurde mir ein Stipendium zu zweijahrigen Studien
in Deutschland gewahrt.
Zu Ostern 1890 wurde ich an der Friedrich Wilhelms-Universitat zu Berlin
immatriculirt. Dort verblieb ich fiinf Semester als Student der Theologie und der
semitischen Sprachen. Professor Dillmann nahm mich freundlichst als Mitglied
in sein Alttestamentliches Seminar auf.
Im Herbst 1892 wurde ich von der protestantischen theologischen Facultat
in Hartford, Connecticut, zum Docenten der Kritik des Alten Testaments be-
rufen. Ich folgte diesem Ruf. Im darauf folgenden Jahre wurde ich ausser-
ordentlicher Professor am theologischen Seminar und bin ich in dieser Eigen-
schaft bis zur Zeit thatig gewesen. Inzwischen — im Jahre 1895 — erhielt ich
von der Universitat New York den Grad eines " Magister Artium."
In New York habe ich den Unterricht der Professoren Baird, Draper, Johnson,
Martin, Stevenson und anderer genossen ; in Princeton den der Professoren
Green, Hodge, McCosh, Patton, Warfield und anderer; in Berlin habe ich die
Professoren Barth, Dieterici, Dillmann, Pfleiderer, Schrader, Strack und andere
gehort. Allen, die ich genannt, schulde ich aufrichtigen Dank fur das, was
ich von ihnen empfangen habe. Ganz besonders verpflichtet fiihle ich mich
Herrn Professor Green in Princeton sowie den Herren Professoren Dillmann und
Schrader in Berlin fur das freundliche Entgegenkommen, das sie mir bewiesen
haben. 48

3 9002