W. Ewing LEVIATHAN
3. ALTERNATIVE VIEW AND EVIDENCE
1. Traces of the Cities:
In point of fact, there are traces of some of the Levitical cities in the later history. Such are Anathoth (1 Kings 2:26; Jeremiah 1:1; 32), Jattir (2 Samuel 20:26, where, as shown in the article PRIESTS AND LEVITES (which see), Jattirite should be read for the Massoretic Jairite), Beth-shemesh (1 Samuel 6:13-15; see PRIESTS AND LEVITES as to the text).
(From Amos 7:17 it appears that Amaziah of Bethel had land, but we do not know that he was of Levitical descent or where the land was.)
2. Wellhausen’s Arguments Answered:
Further, the fact that many other Levitical cities appear to have been centers of worship points to the presence of priests. Was the great high place of Gibeon (1 Kings 3:4) unserved by priests? It is surely natural to suppose that during the period between the capture of the Ark and its transport to Jerusalem there was a tendency for high places to spring up in cities where there were priests rather than elsewhere; indeed there would probably be a disposition on the part of unemployed priests to go astray in a direction that would prove lucrative.
3. Van Hoonacker’s Reply:
With regard to the other objection, Van Hoonacker’s answer is convincing:
“As to the way in which the measurements were to be carried out in the mountainous country of Palestine, the legislator doubtless knew what method was usually employed. Besides, we are free to believe that he only gives these figures as approximate indications” (Sacerdoce levitique, 433).
4. Ezekiel’s Vision:
The same writer’s reply to theory that the idea originated with Ezekiel is wholly admirable. “Strictly we could ask .... whether Ezekiel did not found himself on the description of the camp of the Israelites in the desert. It is
only too manifest that the division and appointment of the territory as presented in Ezekiel 48 of the prophet are scarcely inspired by practical necessities, that they have a very pronounced character of ideal vision; and
`as no fancy is pure fancy,’ we ought also to find the elements which are at the basis of Ezekiel’s vision. The tents of the tribe of Levi ranged around the tabernacle explain themselves in the Priestly Code; we may doubt whether the Levites, deprived of territory (Ezekiel 44:28) and nevertheless grouped on a common territory, in the conditions described in Ezekiel 48, explain themselves with equal facility. A camp is readily conceived on the pattern of a chessboard, but not the country of Canaan. We need not stop there. It is in fact certain that Ezekiel here has in view the protection of the holiness of the temple from all profanation; and in the realm of the ideal, the means are appropriate to the end” (op. cit., 425 f).
5. Priestly Cities and Cities in Which Priests Dwell:
Lastly there runs through Wellhausen’s discussion the confusion between a city where priests may be dwelling and a priestly city. There were priests in Jerusalem, as there are today in London or Chicago; but none of these three places can be regarded as a priestly city in the same sense as the Levitical cities. Not one of them has ever been a patrimonial city of priests, or could be the origin of such an arrangement.
While therefore the whole of the cities mentioned in Joshua 21 were certainly not reduced into possession at the time of the conquest, the Wellhausen theory on this matter cannot be sustained.
LITERATURE.
J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 159-63; A. Van Hoonacker, Sacerdoce levitique, 423-35 (very brilliant and important).
Harold M. Wiener LEVITICUS
<le-vit’-i-kus>:
LITERATURE I. General Data.1. Name:
The third book of the Pentateuch is generally named by the Jews according to the first word, ar:q]Yiw’ [wayyiqra’] (Origen [Oujikra>, Ouikra], by the Septuagint called according to its contents [Leuitiko>n, Leuitikon], or [Leueitiko>n, Leueitikon], by the Vulgate, accordingly, “Leviticus” (i.e.
Liber), sometimes “Leviticum”). The Jews have also another name taken from its contents, namely, µynih}Ko tr’wOT [torath kohanim], “Law of the Priests.”
2. Character of Book:
As a matter of fact ordinances pertaining to the priesthood, to the Levitical system, and to the cults constitute a most important part of this book; but specifically religious and ethical commands, as we find them, e.g. in Leviticus 18 through 20, are not wanting; and there are also some historical sections, which, however, are again connected with the matter referring to the cults, namely the consecration of the priests in Leviticus 8 and 9, the sin and the punishment of two sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu (10:1 ff), and the account of the stoning of a blasphemer (24:10 ff). Of the Levites, on the other hand, the book does not treat at all. They are
mentioned only once and that incidentally in 25:32 ff. The laws are stated to have been given [behar Cinay] (7:38; 25:1; 26:46; 27:34), which expression, on account of Leviticus 11, in which Yahweh is described as speaking to Moses out of the tent of meeting, is not to be translated
“upon” but “at” Mt. Sinai. The connection of this book with the preceding and following books, i.e. Exodus and Numbers, which is commonly acknowledged as being the case, at least in some sense, leaves for the contents of Leviticus exactly the period of a single month, since the last chronological statement of Exodus 40:17 as the time of the erection of the tabernacle mentions the 1st day of the 1st month of the 2nd year of the Exodus, and Numbers 1:1 takes us to the 1st day of the 2nd month of the same year. Within this time of one month the consecration of the priests fills out 8 days (Leviticus 8:33; 9:1). A sequence in time is indicated only by Leviticus 16:1, which directly connects with what is reported in
Leviticus 10 concerning Nadab and Abihu. In the same way the ordinances given in 10:6 ff are connected with the events described in 8:1 through 10:5. The laws are described as being revelations of Yahweh, generally
given to Moses (compare 1:1; 4:1; 5:14; 6:19,24 (Hebrew 12,17); 7:22,28, etc.); sometimes to Moses and Aaron (compare 11:1; 13:1; 14:33; 15:1, etc.), and, rarely, to Aaron alone (10:8). In 10:12 ff, Moses gives some directions to the priests, which are based on a former revelation (compare 6:16 (Hebrew 9) ff; 7:37 ff). In 10:16 ff, we have a difference of opinion between Moses and Aaron, or rather his sons, which was decided on the basis of an independent application of principles given in Leviticus. Most of these commands are to be announced to Israel (1:2; 4:2; 7:23,19; 9:3 ff;
11:2; 12:2; 15:2; 18:2, etc.); others to the priests (6:9,25 (Hebrew 2,18);
21:2; 22:2, etc.); or to the priests and the Israelites (17:2; 22:18), while the directions in reference to the Day of Atonement, with which Aaron was primarily concerned (16:2), beginning with 16:29, without a special superscription, are undeniably changed into injunctions addressed to all Israel; compare also 21:24 and 21:2. As the Book of Exodus treats of the communion which God offers on His part to Israel and which culminates at last in His dwelling in the tent of meeting (40:34 ff; compare under
EXODUS, I, 2), the Book of Leviticus contains the ordinances which were to be carried out by the Israelites in religious, ethical and cultural matters, in order to restore and maintain this communion with God,
notwithstanding the imperfections and the guilt of the Israelites. And as this book thus with good reason occupies its well established place in the story of the founding and in the earliest history of theocracy, so too even a casual survey and intelligent glance at the contents of the book will show that we have here a well-arranged and organic unity, a conviction which is only confirmed and strengthened by the presentation of the structure of the book in detail (see under II, below).
3. Unity of Book: Law of Holiness:
As a rule, critics are accustomed first of all to regard Leviticus 17 through 25 or 26 as an independent section, and find in these chapters a legal code that is considered to have existed at one time as a group by itself, before it was united with the other parts.
It is indeed true that a series of peculiarities have been found in these chapters of Leviticus. To these peculiarities belongs the frequent repetition of the formula: “I am Yahweh your God” (18:2,4; 19:2,4, etc.); or “I am Yahweh” (18:5,6,21; 19:14,16, etc.), or “I am Yahweh .... who hath separated you” (20:24), or “who sanctifieth you” (20:8; 21:8,15,23, etc.).
To these peculiarities belong the references in words, or, in fact, to the land
of Canaan, into which Israel is to be led (18:3,14 ff; 19:23 ff,29; 20:22 ff;
23; 25), and also to Egypt, out of which He has led the people (18:3;
19:34; 22:33; 26:13,15, etc.); as, further, the demand for sanctification (19:2), or the warning against desecration (19:12; 21:23, etc.), both based on the holiness of Yahweh. In addition, a number of peculiar expressions are repeatedly found in these chapters. Because of their contents these chapters have, since Klostermann, generally been designated by the letter H (i.e. Law of Holiness); or, according to the suggestion of Dillmann, by the letter S (i.e. Sinaitic Law), because, according to 25:1; 26:46, they are said to have been given at Mt. Sinai, and because in certain critical circles it was at one time claimed that these chapters contain old laws from the Mosaic period, although these had been changed in form. These earlier views have apparently now been discarded by the critics entirely.
Examination of Critical Theory.
We, however, do not believe that it is at all justifiable to separate these laws as a special legal code from the other chapters. In the first place, these peculiarities, even if such are found here more frequently than
elsewhere, are not restricted to these chapters exclusively. The Decalogue (Exodus 20:2) begins with the words, “I am Yahweh thy God, who
brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”
Exodus 22:31 contains the demand, “Ye shall be holy men unto me.”
Exodus 29:44,45 contains a promise that God will dwell in the midst of the Israelites, so that they shall learn that He is Yahweh, their God, who has brought them out of Egypt in order to dwell in their midst as Yahweh, their God (compare, further, Exodus 6:6-8; 31:13 f; Leviticus 10:10,11; 11:44;
Numbers 15:37-41; 33:52 f,55 f; Deuteronomy 14:2,21). It is a more than risky undertaking to find in these and in other sections scattered remnants of H, especially if these are seen to be indispensable in the connection in which they are found, and when no reason can be given why they should be separated from this collection of laws. Then, too, the differences of
opinion on the part of the critics in assigning these different parts to H, do not make us favorably inclined to the whole hypothesis. Hoffmann, especially (Die wichtigsten Instanzen gegen die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese, 16 ff), has shown how impossible it is to separate H from the other ordinances of the Priestly Code in so radical a manner. In saying this we do not at all wish to deny the peculiar character of these chapters, only we do not believe that Leviticus 17 can be added or Leviticus 26 can be taken away from this section; for in Leviticus 17 all the characteristic
peculiarities of the Holiness Law are lacking; and, on the other hand, in Leviticus 26 the expression “I am Yahweh your God,” or a similar one in 26:12,13,14 f, is found. The subscription in 26:46 connects Leviticus 26 with the preceding; and, further, the reference to the Sabbatical year as described in Leviticus 25, found in 26:34 f,43, is not to be overlooked.
Finally, also, other legal codes, such as that in the first Book of the Covenant (Exodus 23:20-33) and that of Deuteronomy (27:11-28:68) close with the offer of a blessing or a curse.
The chapters under consideration (Leviticus 18 through 26) are most closely connected with each other solely through their contents, which have found expression in a particular form, without these facts being sufficient to justify the claim of their being a separate legal code. For since in Leviticus 1 through 17 all those things which separate the Israelites from their God have been considered and bridged over (compare Leviticus 1 through 7, the laws concerning sacrifices; Leviticus 8 through 10, the mediatorship of the priests; Leviticus 11 through 15, the unclean things;
Leviticus 16, the Day of Atonement; Leviticus 17, the use made of blood), we find in Leviticus 18 through 26 an account of the God-pleasing
conduct, which admits of nothing that desecrates; namely, Leviticus 18 through 20 contain laws dealing with marriage and chastity and other matters of a religious, ethical or cultural kind, together with the
punishments that follow their transgression; Leviticus 21 f determine the true character of the priests and of the sacred oblations; Leviticus 23 f, the consecration of the seasons, of life and death, etc.; Leviticus 25, the Sabbath and the Jubilee year; Leviticus 26 contains the offer of a blessing or a curse. Leviticus 1 through 17 have, as it were, a negative character;
Leviticus 18 through 26 a positive character. In Leviticus 1 through 17 the consciousness of what is unclean, imperfect and guilty is awakened and the possibility of their removal demonstrated; while in Leviticus 18 through 26 the norm of a holy life is set forth. Even if these two parts at certain places show so great a likeness that the occurrence of an interchange of
ordinances could be regarded as possible, nevertheless the peculiar
character of each part is plainly recognized; and this is also a very essential argument for the view that both parts have one and the same author, who intentionally brought the two parts into closer connection and yet separated the one from the other. On this supposition the peculiarities of Leviticus 18 through 26 are sufficiently explained, and also the positive contents of these chapters and the fact that just these chapters are referred to in
pre-exilic literature oftener than is the case with Leviticus 1 through 17, and particularly the close connection between Ezekiel and H is to be regarded as a consequence of the common tendency of both authors and not as the result of their having used a common source (see EZEKIEL, II, 2). In Leviticus 26:46 we have what is clearly a conclusion, which corresponds to 25:1; 7:37 f; 1:1, and accordingly regards Leviticus 1 through 26 as a unity; while Leviticus 27, which treats of vows and of tithes, with its separate subscription in 27:34, shows that it is an appendix or a
supplement, which is, however, in many ways connected with the rest of the book, so that this addition cannot, without further grounds, be regarded as pointing to another author.