W. Ewing LEVIATHAN
2. STRUCTURE
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.
(1) Theories of Disintegration.
We have already seen in the article DAY OF ATONEMENT (I, 2, (2)) in connection with Leviticus 16 an example of these attempts at dissection, and here still add several examples in order to strengthen the impression on this subject.
(a) General Considerations:
If we for the present disregard the details, then, according to Bertholet (Kurzer Hand-Kommentar zum Alten Testament), not only Leviticus 17 through 26 (see, above, under I) at one time existed as a separate legal corpus, but also the sacrificial legislation in Leviticus 1 through 7, and also the laws concerning the clean and the unclean in Leviticus 11 through 15.
Concerning Leviticus 16 see above. Then, too, Leviticus 27 is regarded as a supplement and is ascribed to a different author. Finally, the so-called
“fundamental document” of P (marked Pg) contained only parts from Leviticus 9 f (also a few matters from Leviticus 8), as also one of the three threads of Leviticus 16, for Leviticus 8 through 10, it is said, described the consecration of the priests demanded in Exodus 25 ff, which also are regarded as a part of Pg, and Leviticus 16:1 is claimed to connect again with Leviticus 10 (compare on this point DAY OF ATONEMENT, I, 2).
All these separate parts of Leviticus (i.e. Leviticus 1 through 7; 8 through 10; 11 through 15; 16; 17 through 26; 27) are further divided into a number of more or less independent subparts; thus, e.g., Leviticus 1 through 7, containing the sacrificial laws, are made to consist of two parts, namely, Leviticus 1 through 5 and Leviticus 6 through 7; or the laws concerning the clean and the unclean in Leviticus 11 through 15 are divided into the separate pieces, Leviticus 11; 12; 13:1 through 46; and these are regarded as having existed at one time and in a certain manner independently and separated from each other. But how complicated in detail the composition is considered to be, we can see from Leviticus 17 through 26.
(b) Leviticus 17 through 26 Considered in Detail:
While Baentsch (Hand-Kommentar zum Alten Testament) accepts, to begin with, three fundamental strata (H1 = Leviticus 18 through 20 and certain portions from Leviticus 23 through 25; H2 = Leviticus 21 f; H3 = Leviticus 17), Bertholet, too (op. cit., x), regards the development of these
chapters as follows: “In detail we feel justified in separating the following pieces:
(i) Leviticus 17:3,4 (5,7a),8,9,10-14;
(ii) 18:7-10,12-20,22 f; and this united with (iii) 19:3 f,11 f,27 f,30,31,35,36, which was probably done by the author of
(iii). The following were inserted by the person who united these parts, namely, 18:6,27,25,26,28,30;
(iv) 19:9,10,13-18,19,29,32;
(v) 19:5-8,23-26;
(vi) 20:2(3),6(27);
(vii) 20:9,10-21; 19:20;
(viii) 21:1b-5,7,9-15,17b-24; 22:3,8,10-14,18b-25,27-30;
(ix) 23:10-20,39-43;
(x) 24:15-22, except verses 16a(?)b;
(xi) 25:2-7 (4),18-22,35-38,39,40a,42 f,47,53,15;
(xii) 25:8a,9b,10a,13,14-16,17,24 f.
In uniting these pieces Rh (the Redactor of the Law of Holiness) seems to have added de suo the following: 17:5 (beginning);
18:2b-5,21,24,26a(?),29; 19:33 f,37; 20:4 f,7 f,22-26; 21:6,8; 22:2,9,15 f,31-33;
23:22; 25:11 f; 26:1 f. At the same time he united with these an older parenetic section, 26:3-45, which, by inserting 26:10,34 f,39-43, he
changed into a concluding address of this small legal code. All the rest that is found in Leviticus 17 through 26 seems to be the result of a revision in the spirit of the Priestly Code (P), not, however, as though originally it all came from the hand of Rp (Redactor P). That he rather added and worked together older pieces from P (which did not belong to Pg) is seen from an analysis of Leviticus 23. .... As far as the time when these parts were worked together is concerned, we have a reliable terminus ad quem in a comparison of Nehemiah 8:14-18 with Leviticus 23:36 (P),39 ff (H). Only we must from the outset remember, that still, after the uniting of these
different parts, the marks of the editorial pen are to be noticed in the following Leviticus 17 through 26, i.e. that after this union a number of additions were yet made to the text. This is sure as far as 23:26-32 is concerned, and is probable as to 24:1-9,10-14,23; 25:32-34; and that this editorial work even went so far as to put sections from P in the place of parts of H can possibly be concluded from 24:1-9.”
(c) Extravagance of Critical Treatment:
This is also true of all the other sections, as can be seen by a reference to the books of Bertholet and Baentsch. What should surprise us most, the complicated and external manner in which our Biblical text, which has such a wonderful history back of it, is declared by the critics to have originated, or the keenness of the critics, who, with the ease of child’s play, are able to detect and trace out this growth and development of the text, and can do more than hear the grass grow? But this amazement is thrust into the ackground when we contemplate what becomes of the Bible text under the manipulations of the critics. The compass of this article makes it
impossible to give even as much as a general survey of the often totally divergent and contradictory schemes of Baentsch and Bertholet and others on the distribution of this book among different sources; and still less possible is it to give a criticism of these in detail. But this critical method really condemns itself more thoroughly than any examination of its claims would. All who are not yet entirely hypnotized by the spell of the
documentary hypothesis will feel that by this method all genuine scientific research is brought to an end. If the way in which this book originated had been so complicated, it certainly could never have been again
reconstructed.
(2) Reasons for Dismemberment.
We must at this place confine ourselves to mentioning and discussing several typical reasons which are urged in favor of a distribution among different authors.
(a) Alleged Repetitions:
We find in the parts belonging to P a number of so-called repetitions. In Leviticus 1 through 7 we find a twofold discussion of the five kinds of sacrifices (1-5; 6:1 ff); in Leviticus 20 punitive measures are enacted for deeds which had been described already in Leviticus 18; in 19:3,10; 23:3;
26:2 the Sabbath command is intensified; in 19:5 ff; 22:29 f, we find commands which had been touched upon already in 7:15 ff; 19:9 f we find almost verbally repeated in 23:22; 24:2 ff repeats ordinances concerning the golden candlestick from Exodus 27:20 ff, etc. The existence of these repetitions cannot be denied; but is the conclusion drawn from this fact correct? It certainly is possible that one and the same author could have handled the same materials at different places and from different
viewpoints, as is the case in Leviticus 1 through 7 in regard to the sacrifices. Leviticus 18 and 20 (misdeeds and punishments) are even necessarily and mutually supplementary. Specially important laws can have been repeated, in order to emphasize and impress them all the more; or they are placed in peculiar relations or in a unique light (compare, e.g., 24:1 ff, the command in reference to the golden candlestick in the pericope Leviticus 23 through 24; see below). Accordingly, as soon as we can furnish a reason for the repetition, it becomes unobjectionable; and often, when this is not the case, the objections are unremoved if we ascribe the repetitions to a new author, who made the repetition by way of an explanation (see EXODUS, II, 2, (5)).
(b) Separation of Materials:
Other reasons will probably be found in uniting or separating materials that are related. That Leviticus 16 is connected with Leviticus 8 through 10, and these connect with Exodus 25 ff, is said to prove that this had been the original order in these sections. But why should materials that are clearly connected be without any reason torn asunder by the insertion of foreign data? Or has the interpolator perhaps had reasons of his own for doing this? Why are not these breaks ascribed to the original author? The sacrificial laws in Leviticus 1 through 7 are properly placed before Leviticus 8 through 10, because in these latter chapters the sacrifices are described as already being made (9:7,15, the sin offering; 9:7,12,16, the burnt offering; 9:17; 10:12, the meal offering; 9:18, the peace offering; 9:3 f, all kinds). In the same way Leviticus 11 through 15, through 15:31, are inwardly connected with Leviticus 16, since these chapters speak of the defiling of the dwelling-place of Yahweh, from which the Day of
Atonement delivers (16:16 f,33). As a matter of course, the original writer as well as a later redactor could have at times also connected parts in a looser or more external manner. In this way, in 7:22 ff, the command not to eat of the fats or of the blood has been joined to the ordinances with reference to the use of the peace offerings in 7:19 ff. This again is the case
when, in Leviticus 2, verses 11-13 have been inserted in the list of the different kinds of meal offering; when after the general scheme of sin offerings, according to the hierarchical order and rank in Leviticus 4, a number of special cases are mentioned in 5:1 ff; and when in 5:7 ff commands are given to prevent too great poverty; or when in 6:19 ff the priestly meal offerings are found connected with other ordinances with references to the meat offerings in general (6:14 ff); or when the share that belongs to the priest (7:8 ff) is found connected with his claim to the guilt offering (7:1 ff); or the touching of the meat offering by something unclean (7:19 ff) is found connected with the ordinances concerning the peace offerings; or when in Leviticus 11 the ordinances dealing with the unclean animals gradually pass over into ordinances concerning the touching of these animals, as is already indicated by the subscription 11:4,6 f (compare with 11:2). Still more would it be natural to unite different parts in other ways also. In this way the ordinances dealing with the character of the sacrifices in 22:17-30 could, regarded by themselves, be placed also in Leviticus 1 through 7. But in Leviticus 22 they are also well placed. On the other hand, the character of Leviticus 1 through 7 would have become too complicated if they were inserted here. In such matters the author must have freedom of action.
(c) Change of Singular and Plural:
Further, the frequent change between the singular and the plural in the addresses found in the laws which are given to a body of persons is without further thought used by the critics as a proof of a diversity of authors in the section under consideration (compare Leviticus 10:12 ff; 19:9,11 ff,15 ff, etc.). But how easily this change in numbers can be explained! In case the plural is used, the body of the people are regarded as having been
distributed into individuals; and in the case of a more stringent application the plural can at once be converted into the singular, since the author is thinking now only of separate individuals. Naturally, too, the singular is used as soon as the author thinks again rather of the people as a whole.
Sometimes the change is made suddenly within one and the same verse or run of thought; and this in itself ought to have banished the thought of a difference of authors in such cases. In the case of an interpolator or redactor, it is from the outset all the more probable that he would have paid more attention to the person used in the addresses than that this would have been done by the original writer, who was completely absorbed by the subject-matter. Besides, such a change in number is frequently
found in other connections also; compare in the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 22:20-25,29 f; 23:9 ff; compare Deuteronomy 12:2 ff,13 ff). In regard to these passages, also, the modern critics are accustomed to draw the same conclusion; and in these cases, too, this is hasty. In the same way the change in the laws from the 3rd to the 2nd person can best be explained as the work of the lawgiver himself, before whose mind the persons
addressed are more vividly present and who, when speaking in the 2nd person, becomes personal (compare Leviticus 2:4 ff with 2:1-3, and also 1:2; 3:17; 6:18,21,25 ff).
(d) Proofs of Religious Development:
A greater importance seemingly must be attributed to the reasons based on a difference in the terminology or on contradictions in the laws, as these appear to lead to a religio-historical development. But the following examples are intended to show how all important it is to be slow in the acceptance of the materials which the critics offer in this connection.
(3) Insufficiency of These Reasons.
(a) In Leviticus 5:1-7, in the section treating of the sin offering (4:1 through 5:13), we find the word [’asham], which also signifies “guilt offering” (compare 5:14 ff; 7:1 ff). Accordingly, it is claimed, the author of 5:1-7 was not yet acquainted with the difference between the two kinds of offerings, and that this part is older than that in 4:1 ff; 5:14 ff. However, in 5:1 ff the word ‘asham is evidently used in the sense of “repentance,”
and does not signify “sin offering” at all; at any rate, already in 5:6 f we find the characteristic term [chaTTath] to designate the latter, and thus this section appears as entirely in harmony with the connection.
(b) Critics find a contradiction in Leviticus 6:26; 7:33,7, and in 6:29;
7:31,6, since in the first case the officiating priest and in the other case the entire college of priests is described as participating in the sacrifice. In reply it is to be said that the first set of passages treat of the individual concrete cases, while the second set speak of the general principle. In 7:8 f, however, where the individual officiating priest is actually put in express contrast with all the sons of Aaron, the matter under consideration is a difference in the meal offerings, which, beginning with Leviticus 2, could be regarded as known. Why this difference is made in the use of this sacrifice is no longer intelligible to us, as we no longer retain these sacrifices, nor are we in possession of the oral instruction which possibly
accompanied the written formulation of these laws; but this is a matter entirely independent of the question as to the author.
(c) According to Exodus 29:7; Leviticus 4:3,5,16; 6:20,22; 8:12; 16:32;
21:10,12, the high priest is the only one who is anointed; while, on the other hand, in Exodus 28:41; 29:21; 30:30; 40:15; Leviticus 7:36; 10:7, all the priests are anointed. But the text as it reads does not make it
impossible that there was a double anointing. According to the first set of passages, Aaron is anointed in such a manner that the anointing oil is poured out upon his head (compare especially Exodus 29:7 and Leviticus 8:12). Then, too, he and all his sons are anointed in such a way that a mixture of the oil and of the blood is sprinkled upon them and on their garments (compare especially Exodus 29:21 and Leviticus 8:30). Were we here dealing with a difference in reference to theory and the ranks of the priesthood, as these discussions were current at the time of the exile (see III, below), then surely the victorious party would have seen to it that their views alone would have been reproduced in these laws, and the opposing views would have been suppressed. But now both anointings are found side by side, and even in one and the same chapter!
(d) The different punishments prescribed for carnal intercourse with a woman during her periods in Leviticus 15:24 and 20:18 are easily explained by the fact that, in the first passage, the periods are spoken of which only set in during the act, and in the second passage, those which had already set in before.
(e) As far as the difference in terminology is concerned, it must be
remembered that in their claims the critics either overlook that intentional differences may decide the preference for certain words or expressions; or else they ignore the fact that it is possible in almost every section of a writer’s work to find some expressions which are always, or at least often, peculiar to him; or finally, they in an inexcusable way ignore the freedom of selection which a writer has between different synonyms or his choice in using these.
All in all, it must be said that however much we acknowledge the keenness and the industry of the modern critics in clearing up many difficulties, and the fact that they bring up many questions that demand answers, it
nevertheless is the fact that they take the matter of solving these problems entirely too easily, by arbitrarily claiming different authors, without taking note of the fact that by doing this the real difficulty is not removed, but is
only transferred to another place. What could possibly be accepted as satisfactory in one single instance, namely that through the thoughtlessness of an editor discrepancies in form or matter had found their way into the text, is at once claimed to be the regular mode of solving these difficulties
— a procedure that is itself thoughtlessness. On the other hand, the critics overlook the fact that it makes little difference for the religious and the ethical value of these commands, whether logical, systematic, linguistic or aesthetic correctness in all their parts has been attained or not; to which must yet be added, that a failure in the one particular may at the same time be an advantage in the other. In this respect we need recall only the anacoluths of the apostle Paul.
2. Structure of the Biblical Text:
(1) Structure in General.
The most effective antidote against the craze to split up the text in the manner described above will be found in the exposition of all those features which unite this text into one inseparable whole. What we have tried to demonstrate in the arts GENESIS; EXODUS, II; DAY OF
ATONEMENT, I, 2 (compare also EZEKIEL, I, 2, (2)) can be repeated at this point. The Book of Leviticus shows all the marks of being a well-constructed and organic literary product, which in its fundamental characteristics has already been outlined under I above. And as this was done in the several articles just cited, we can here add further, as a
corroborative factor in favor of the acceptance of an inner literary unity of the book, that the division of the book into its logical parts, even down to minute details, is here, as is so often the case elsewhere, not only virtually self-evident in many particulars, but that the use made of typical numbers in many passages in this adjustment of the parts almost forces itself upon our recognition. In other places the same is at least suggested, and can be traced throughout the book without the least violence to the text. The system need not be forced upon the materials. We often find sections but loosely connected with the preceding parts (compare under 1 above) and not united in a strictly logical manner, but which are nevertheless related in thought and association of ideas. In harmony with the division of the Book of Genesis we find at once that the general contents, as mentioned under I above, easily fall into 10 pericopes, and it is seen that these consist of 2 sets each of 5 pericopes together with an appendix.
(a) Ten Pericopes in Two Parts:
Part I, the separation from God and the removal of this separation:
(i)Leviticus 1 through 7;
(ii) Leviticus 8 through 10;
(iii) Leviticus 11 through 15;
(iv) Leviticus 16;
(v)Leviticus 17.
Part II, the normal conduct of the people of God:
(i)Leviticus 18 through 20;
(ii) Leviticus 21 through 22;
(iii) Leviticus 23 through 24;
(iv) Leviticus 25;
(v)Leviticus 26.
Appendix, Leviticus 27; compare for the number 10 the division of Exodus 1:8 through 7:7; 7:8 through 13:16; 13:17 through 18:27; also the
Decalogue, 20:1 ff; 21:1 through 23:19; 32:1 through 35:1; and see EXODUS, II, 2; and in Leviticus probably 18:6-18; 19:9-18, and with considerable certainty 19:1-37 (see below).
(b) Correspondence and Connections:
I leave out of consideration in this case the question whether an intentional correspondence among the different parts be traced or not, even in their details. Thus, e.g.; when the 2nd pericope (Leviticus 8 through 10 and 21 f) treats particularly of the order of the priests, or when the 4th pericope of the 2nd set (Leviticus 25) states that the beginning of the Year of Jubilee fell on the 10th day of the 7th month, i.e. on the Day of Atonement as described in Leviticus 16, in the 4th pericope of the 1st set (compare 25:9 with 16:29); or when both sets close with two shorter pericopes, which evidently express high stages of development (Leviticus 16 and 17, respectively, Leviticus 25 and 26 treating of the Day of Atonement, of the
use made of blood and the purposes of blood for the altar or the Jubilee Year, of the blessing and the curse).
And, as far as the order in other respects is concerned, it is throughout to be regarded as founded in the subject-matter itself that Leviticus 1 through 17 must precede Leviticus 18 through 26. First that which separates the people from God must be removed, and then only is a God-pleasing conduct possible. Just as easily, and in agreement with the context, it is possible that the consecration of the priests in Leviticus 8 through 10 presupposes the sacrificial torah (Leviticus 1 through 7; compare under 1 above) and follows the latter, and is immediately introduced by the mention made of the installation sacrifices for which otherwise there are no reasons assigned in the concluding formula in 7:37 (compare 8:22-32). The Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16), which in 16:16 f and 33 is spoken of in
connection with the purification of the sanctuary, is in turn introduced by Leviticus 11 through 15, or more particularly by the remark in 15:31, where mention is made of the pollution of the dwelling-place of Yahweh.
And on the other hand, the ordinances dealing with the priests (Leviticus 8 through 10) in 10:10, where the command is given to discriminate between what is holy and what is unholy and to teach Israel accordingly, already point to the contents of Leviticus 11 through 15. The sacrifices, with which the first part in Leviticus 1 through 7 begins, are taken up again by the conclusion in Leviticus 17, in the commandment concerning the blood for the altar. The second part, too, already at the beginning (Leviticus 18 through 20) in its religiously cultural and ethical ordinances, shows in the clearest possible manner what matters it proposes to discuss. In this way the systematic structure of the book is apparent in all particulars.
Close connections: comparison with Exodus: And, further, the different pericopes are also so closely Connected among themselves and with the corresponding pericopes in the books of Exodus and Nu, that many have thought it necessary to regard them as a special body of laws. But the connection is so close and involves all the details so thoroughly, that all efforts to divide and distribute them after the examples described under 1 above must fail absolutely. We shall now give the proofs for the different pericopes in Lev, but in such a manner as to take into consideration also Exodus 25 through 31; 35 ff, treating of the tabernacle and its utensils and the Aaronitic priesthood, which are most intimately connected with Lev.
All details in this matter will be left out of consideration.