Dictionaries :: Leviticus, 2

Leviticus, 2:

III. Origin.

1. Against the Wellhausen Hypothesis:

As in the article ATONEMENT, DAY OF, sec. I, 2, (2), we took a stand against the modern attempts at splitting up the text, and in III, 1 against theory of the late origin of the whole pericope, we must, after trying under II to prove the unity of the Book of Leviticus, yet examine the modern claim that the book as a whole is the product of later times. Since the entire book is ascribed to the Priestly Code (see II, 1 above), the answer to the question as to the time when it was written will depend on the attitude which we take toward the Wellhausen hypothesis, which insists that the Priestly Code was not published until the time of the exile in 444 BC (Ne 8$; 9$; 10$).

(1) The Argument from Silence.

One of the most important proofs for this claim is the "argument from silence" (argumentum e silentio). How careful one must be in making use of this argument can be seen from the fact that, e.g., the high priest with his full title is mentioned but a single time in the entire Book of Leviticus, namely in 21:10; and that the Levites are not mentioned save once (25:32 ff), and then incidentally. As is well known, it is the adherents of the Wellhausen hypothesis themselves who now claim that the bulk of the entire literature of the Old Testament originated in the post-exilic period and long after the year 444 BC. Leaving out of consideration for the present the Books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, all of which describe the history of Israel from the standpoint of the Priestly Code (P), we note that this later literature is not any richer in its references to P than is the older literature; and that in those cases where such references are found in this literature assigned to a late period, it is just as difficult to decide whether these passages refer merely to a custom or to a codified set of laws.

(2) Attitude of Prophets toward Sacrificial System.

A further proof against the pre-exilic origin of the priestly legislation is found in what is claimed to be the hostile attitude of the prophets to the sacrificial system (compare Am 5:21 ff; 4:4 f; Ho 6:6; Mic 6:6 ff; Isa 1:11 ff; Jer 6:20; 7:21 ff; Ps 40:6; 50:8,9; 51:16 f). But this cannot possibly be an absolute antithesis; for in this case, it would be directed also against the Books of the Covenant and, in part, too, against Deuteronomy, which books in Ex 20:24; 22:19; 23:18; 34:25; De 12:5 f, 11,13,17,26; 15:19-23; 16:2,5 f; 17:1; 18:1,3 also give directions for sacrifices, and which, at least in part, are yet regarded as older writings. Further, these passages under discussion are also, in part, assigned to a later and even a very late period (compare even such cases as Ps 40:6; 50:8 f; 51:16 f; Mic 6:6 ff, and in addition also Mal 1:10), i.e. they are assigned to a time in which, according to the views of the critics, the priestly laws are said to have had their origin or were already regarded as authoritative. As a rule, the prophets make sacrifices, Sabbaths, sacred places and persons a part of their pictures of the future; cf, as far as sacrifices are concerned, e.g. Jer 17:26; 31:14; 33:14 ff. Finally, Le 26:31 shows how, under certain circumstances, even P can declare sacrifices to be useless.

(3) The People's Disobedience. Further, the transgressions of the Levitical laws in the course of Israel's history cannot be regarded as a proof of the non-existence of the priestly legislation in pre-exilic times. This is clear from an analogous case. Idolatry was forbidden by the Books of the Covenant (Ex 20$; 21$; 22$; 23$; 24$; 34$), which are recognized as ancient documents; but according to 2Ki 22 the pious king Josiah down to the year 622 BC takes no offense at idolatry. Even after the reformation, which had been inaugurated in consequence of the finding of the Book of the Law in the temple during the reign of Josiah (2Ki 22 f), idolatry was again practiced in Israel, as is proved by Eze 8 and Jer 44, notwithstanding that the Books of the Covenant and Deuteronomy already were extant at that time, even according to the views of the critics.

But let us pass on to P itself, and not forget that the directions given for the Jubilee Year (Le 25), according to Jewish tradition, were never actually observed. According to the reasoning of the critics, this law could not be in existence even in the present day. According to all reports the transgressions of the Divine ordinances began even as early as the Mosaic period; compare Ex 32 (J, E, golden calf); Am 5:25; Eze 20; De 12:8 and also Le 17:7 (sacrifice to the Satyrs in Priestly Code). This condition of affairs can readily be understood because the religion of Yahweh does not claim to be an emanation from the spirit of the people, but the result of a revelation from on high. In the light of these facts can we be surprised, that in the times of the Judges, when a great prophetic leader was so often not to be found in Israel, the apostasy was so great and so widespread? But all of these cases of disobedience, that have been demonstrated as actual facts in Israel's history, are not able to eliminate the fact that there are many data to prove the existence of a central sanctuary already in the earliest history of the people, which fact presupposes as a matter of course that there were also laws for the cults in existence (see EXODUS, III, 5). We must further not forget how the sacrifices of the sons of Samuel (1Sa 2:11 ), notwithstanding all their arbitrary conduct, presupposes such passages as Le 7:30-32; 10:15; Ex 29:31 f; Le 8:31; Nu 6:19 f; Le 7:23-32; or that the high priest, as described in Priestly Code, is already before the year 444 BC as well-known a character as he is after the exile (compare EZEKIEL, II, 2); or that the question of Hag 2:11 ff takes into consideration a code of cult- laws, and that the answer is given on the basis of Le 6:27; Nu 19:22.

(4) Indiscriminate Sacrificing.

To this must be added that the transgressions, to which the critics appeal in proof of their claims, and which they abuse for their own purposes, must in part be interpreted differently from what they are. In the case of sacrificing indiscriminately at any place whatever, and by any person whatever, we have in many cases to deal with extraordinary instances of theophanies (compare Jud 2:1 ff; 6:11 ff; 13:1 ), as these had been foreseen in Ex 20:24. Even the Book of Deuteronomy does not insist throughout (compare 16:21) that the sacrifices, must be made at one and the same place (compare also PC: Le 24:31; Jos 22). After the rejection of Shiloh, at which the central sanctuary had been deposited, as recorded in 1Sa 4, the cultural ordinances of Priestly Code, as we learn from Jer 7:11 ff; 26:6; Ps 78:59 ff, became more or less a dead letter. Even the Books of Chronicles, which throughout record history from the standpoint of the Priestly Code, at this period and down to the dedication of the temple take no offense at the cultural acts of a Solomon in contrast with their attitude toward the conduct of Uzziah (see 2Ch 1:6; 6:1-4; 7:1-7, as compared with 26:16 ff). In the same way the pious people in the Northern Kingdom, after it had, by Divine consent, been separated from the Southern, could not do otherwise than erect altars for themselves, since they could not participate in the worship of the calves in Bethel and Dan. Further, modern criticism overlooks the fact that what is regular and normal is much less liable to be reported in historical narrative than that which is irregular and abnormal.

(5) Deuteronomy and Priestly Code.

It is not possible at this place to enter into further details; we accordingly refer only to EXODUS, III and IV; DAY OF ATONEMENT, III, and especially EZEKIEL, II, 2, where the proof has been furnished that this prophet belongs to a later period than Priestly Code as far as Eze 40:1-48:35 (containing his picture of the future) in general is concerned, and as far as Eze 44:4 ff (where it is claimed that the prophet first introduces the distinction between priests and Levites) in particular is concerned. All the important problems that are connected with this matter, especially the difficulties which result from the Wellhausen hypothesis, when the questions as to the purpose, the form, the success and the origin of the priestly legislation come under consideration, are discussed in my book, Are the Critics Right? The result of this investigation is all the more noteworthy, as I was myself formerly an adherent of the Wellhausen school, but was forced to the conclusion that this hypothesis is untenable.

We have here yet to refer to the one fact that the relation of Deuteronomy (D) and the Priestly Code (P), as far as Leviticus in particular is concerned, justifies the scheme of P followed by D as the historical order, while Wellhausen makes D older than P. De 10:8 f; 33:8 ff presuppose more detailed ordinances in reference to the priests such as those which have been given in P. The book of Deuteronomy further takes into account different kinds of sacrifices (compare 12:5 f, 11,13,17,26; 15:19-23; 17:1; 18:1,3, such as are described in Le 1 ff). The law in De 14 (ordinances with reference to what is clean) agrees almost word for word with Le 11, and is in such perfect harmony with the linguistic peculiarities of Priestly Code, that Le 11 must be regarded as the original, and not vice versa. De 24:8 f refers directly to the injunctions concerning leprosy, as we find these in Le 13 f, and the Deuteronomic passage is doubtless modeled after that of Lev. De 12:15,22; 15:22 cannot be understood at all, except in the light of Le 17:13. De 26:14 ff again expressly takes into account ideas that have been taken from Le 22:3 ff. As far as the laws dealing with the great feasts in De 16 are concerned, it is impossible to understand 16:9 without Le 23:15 ff, 10 f; and the designation "feast of tabernacles" in De 16:13 ff cannot even be understood without a reference to such a law as we find in Le 23:39 ff. The other passages to be discussed on this subject lead us to the following results.

2. Connection with Mosaic Period:

Even if the Book of Deuteronomy were the product of the 7th century BC, the facts that have been stated above would nevertheless disprove the claim of the Wellhausen hypothesis as to an exilic or post-exilic date for the Priestly Code. But if Deuteronomy, even in its essential and fundamental parts, merely, is Mosaic (compare Are the Critics Right? 1-55), then the Priestly Code which is still older than De must also belong to the Mosaic period.

(1) Priestly Code and Desert Conditions.

This conclusion is in this point confirmed still further by a series of facts. As Deuteronomy permits the firstborn to be ransomed (De 14:22 ), but the Priestly Code demands their consecration in natura (Le 27:26 f; compare Nu 18:15 ), the latter ordinances could be preferred and enforced only during the wandering in the desert, where the whole nation was in the neighborhood of the sanctuary. The fact that the ordinances dealing with the domestic celebration of the Passover in the private houses on the 14th of Nisan and the holy convocation on the 15th of Nisan at the sanctuary could be carried out only during the wanderings in the desert (compare Ex 12:3 ff, 6; Le 23:5; Nu 28:16; Le 27:6 ff; Nu 28:17 ff), and that this was changed in De 16:5 f to correspond to changed conditions, can be seen by reference to EXODUS, III, 3. Still more important is a third command in Le 17 in comparison with De 12. The commandment that every animal that is to be slain is to be brought to the central sanctuary can have a purpose only for the Mosaic period, and could not even have been invented at a later period. Because of the entrance of Israel into Canaan, the Book of Deuteronomy changes this ordinance in such a way that from this time on the killing of the animals is permitted at any place (12:13 ff, 20 ff). The different commands in reference to the carcasses of animals that have died and of those torn to pieces are all dependent on Le 17. In De 14:21, it was possible to forbid the use of such animals absolutely for Israel, because from now on, and in contrast to Le 17, the killing of sacrificial animals was permitted at any place (17:13 ff). In Ex 22:30 all use of such meat could be forbidden, because Le 17, with its command to bring all blood to the sanctuary, had not yet been given. Leviticus, now, on the other hand, forbids this use only to the priests (22:8), and sees in this use in the case of the other Israelites only a transitory defilement (compare Le 17:15; 11:40); and in 7:24 forbids only the use of the fat, but not of the meat of these animals; for now, according to Le 17:1 ff, all the killing is a sacrifice which only those who are clean were permitted to eat and which could not be secured at all times (compare Hoffmann, op. cit., 23 f).

Our exposition of Le 17:1 ff is, however, in another respect also of the greatest significance, for in 17:4-6,8 f the tent of meeting is presupposed as existing; in 17:5,8 also different kinds of sacrifices, and in verse 6 the priesthood; so that at once further ordinances concerning the tent of meeting, the sacrificial code, the priesthood, such as we find in Ex 25$ ff; 35; Le 1:-7:38; Ex 29; Le 8; 9; 10:21 ff, were possible and necessary, and these very laws must probably originate in and date from the Mosaic period. This same conclusion is sustained by the following considerations. For what other source or time could be in harmony with such statements found very often in other parts of Leviticus also, as "into the camp" in 4:11 ff; 6:11; 13:46; 14:3,8 (unconscious contrast to later times); 14:33 ff, 40,41,45,53; 16:26-28; 24:10-23; or "into the desert," in 16:10,21 f. In 6:15,18; 6:6 (compare also 27:2 ff), the words "according to thy estimation" are addressed personally to Moses. In 6:20 a calculation is based on the day on which Aaron was consecrated to the priesthood, while 6:22 is the first that has general coloring. Such hints, which, as it were, have only been accidentally scattered in the body of the laws, and which point to the situation of the lawgiver and of his times, are of especial value for the argument in favor of the Mosaic origin of these laws. Further, we everywhere find that Aaron and his sons are as yet the only incumbents of the priestly office (compare 1:5,7,8,11; 2:3; 3:13; 6:9,14,16, etc.). All the laws claim to have been given through Moses or Aaron or through both at Mt. Sinai (see I above). And who, in later times, if it was the purpose to magnify the priesthood of Aaron, would have thought of inventing the fact that on the Day of Atonement and on other occasions it was necessary for Aaron to bring a burnt offering and a sin offering for himself (Le 16; 8-10; 6:19 ), or that Moses in his view of a certain cultural act had been mistaken (compare Le 10:16 ff)? The law concerning the Jubilee Year (Le 25) presupposes that each tribe is confined in its own district and is not intermingled with the other tribes, a presupposition which was no longer possible after the occupation of Canaan, and is accordingly thinkable only in the Mosaic times. And now let us remember that this fact, when we recall (see II, above) that the unity of the book was proved, is a ground for claiming that the entire book dates from the Mosaic period. As far as Leviticus at least is concerned, there is nothing found in the book that calls for a later date. Le 18:24 ff can be regarded as post-Mosaic only if we translate these verses thoughtlessly, as though the inhabitants of the country were here described as being expelled earlier. On the other hand, in 18:24, just as is the case with the parallel passage, 20:22 ff, the idea is, without any doubt, that Israel is not yet in the Holy Land. Accordingly the waw consecutives at this place are to be regarded not as indicating temporal but logical sequences. In the passage 18:27, we further find the archaic form ha'-el for ha'-elleh; compare in the Pentateuch Ge 19:8,25; 26:3,4; De 4:42; 7:22; 19:11. Just as little does Le 26 take us into the exilic period. Only dogmatical prejudices can take offense at prediction of the exile. Le 26 cannot be regarded as a "prophecy after the event," for the reason, too, that the restoration of the people by God's pardon is here promised (compare 26:40 ff). And, too, the exile is not the only punishment with which Israel is threatened; and finally as far as Israel is concerned, by the side of the statements concerning their dwelling in one single country (26:34,38,41,44), it is also said that they are to be scattered among many nations and countries (compare 26:23,16,39).

(2) Unity and Construction Point to Mosaic Origin.

If to this we yet add the unity of the thought and of the external construction, looking at the whole matter, we do not see anything that would lead us to accept a post-Mosaic period for this book. Then, too, it is from the outset in itself only probable that Moses gave his people a body of cult-laws and did not leave this matter to chance. We need only think of the great role which among the oriental peoples was assigned to their religious cults. It is indeed nowhere said, in so many words, that Moses wrote even the laws of the Priestly Code. But the references made by Deuteronomy to the Priestly Code; the fact that Nu 33, which also is credited to Moses, is characterized by the style of Priestly Code; further, that the author of Deuteronomy could write in the style of P (compare De 14 with Le 11); and, per contra, that the author of Le 26 had the mastery of the style peculiar to Deuteronomy (compare De 28)-all this makes it probable that Moses even wrote these things himself; at any rate, no reasons can be cited against this view. Very interesting in connection with the question of the unity of the Pentateuch are the close connecting links between Le 18:24 ff; 20:22, and JE. The question whether Moses in the composition of the book made use of his own notes or of those of others, cannot be decided; but this is an irrelevant matter. What the facts may be in reference to the development of other ordinances, which have taken different forms in the Books of the Covenant and in Priestly Code, or in Deuteronomy and in Priestly Code, and whether the existence of these differences in the cases of particular laws compels us to accept later additions, cannot be discussed at this place. Yet from the outset it is to be emphasized that already in the Mosaic period there could possibly have been reasons for changing some of these laws; especially was this so in the Book of Deuteronomy, just before the people entered the promised land (compare e.g. the laws concerning tithes, De 12:6 f, 17 ff; 14:22 ff; 26:12;Le 27:30 ff; Nu 18:20 ff, or the laws concerning contributions for sacrifices, De 18:3; Le 7:29 ff).

Then, too, the decision whether this development took place as early as the time of Moses or not is not to be made dependent on the possibility of our being able to explain the reasons for such changes. We lack both the daily practice in these cultural ordinances, as also the oral instruction which makes these ordinances intelligible. The manner in which in Le 1 ff the different kinds of sacrifices are introduced sounds as though these were already known to the people and were practiced by them, except in the case of sin and guilt offerings. This is further in harmony with earlier narratives, which already report concerning sacrifices. It is possible that in this way we can also explain a certain relationship between the Jewish sacrificial ritual and that of Babylon (compare Zimmern, Beitrage zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion). The ordinances in reference to the clean and the unclean may also have emanated from religious and ethical ideas which are older than Moses' times. In this matter the thought was decisive, that everything that was impure, everything that suggested death or decay or sin or displeasure to God, should be kept separated and apart from the religion of Yahweh. In all such cases it is not the newness of the laws but their adaptability to the character and spirit of the Yahweh-religion that is to be regarded as the decisive factor.

IV. The Significance.

1. Positive:

(1) The Law Contains God's Will.

The law contains God's will, although in transitory form. In the article EZEKIEL under II, 2, (3) we have referred to the fact that Leviticism is an important and necessary stage in the development of true religion, and that the entire Old Testament did not advance beyond this stage and was not intended to go beyond it. The leading prophets (Isa 40, Jeremiah, Ezekiel), even in their visions of the future, cling to the temple, sacrifices, holy oblations, sacred seasons and persons. Christianity was the first to discard this external shell, after it had ripened the kernel that was concealed in this shell (compare worship in the spirit and in the truth, Joh 4:20-24). Down to this time, kernel and shell were inseparably united. This must not be forgotten, if we would appreciate the Book of Leviticus properly. It is true that this book to a large extent deals with laws and ordinances, to which we Christians should not and need not return (compare the voice from heaven to Peter, Ac 10:15, "What God hath cleansed, make not thou common," and Paul's opposition to all work-righteousness that was based on compliance with these external institutions, e.g. in Romans, Galatians, Colossians, as also his independent attitude over against the Jewish law in those cases where it could not be taken into consideration as the way to salvation; compare Ac 21:17 ff; Ro 14:1 ff; 1Co 9:19 ff). But these laws and ordinances were something more than merely external matters, since they contained the highest religious thoughts. We surely should not forget from the outset that Le 19 contains also the word, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (19:18), a command which in 19:33 f is even made to cover the strangers too, and which by Jesus, next to the absolute love demanded for God, is designated as the chief commandment of the law (Mt 22:39); and when in 19:17 f the hatred of the brother and desire for revenge on him are forbidden, we already seem to breathe atmosphere of Christianity. The entire Le 19 is, in addition, as it were, a sermon on almost all of the commandments of the Decalogue, the abiding authority of which the Christian, after the example and interpretation of Jesus, will at once recognize. But as the Decalogue itself is found enclosed in the specifically Jewish national shell (compare Ex 20:2, exodus out of Egypt; 20:8, Sabbath commandment; 20:12, promise of the holy land; 20:17, slaves), so, too, this is the case in Le 19 (compare 19:3,6 ff, 20-22,23-25,29,30,33 f). But how little the specifically Levitical ordinances, in the narrower sense of the term, exclude the spiritual factor, and how closely they are interwoven with the deepest of thoughts, can be seen from Le 26, according to which all merely external sacrifices, into which formalism naturally the Levitical legal code could degenerate, do not protect from punishment, if the heart remains uncircumcised (26:30 f, 41).

Above all, there are four leading thoughts which are emphasized forcibly, particularly by the legal system of Priestly Code. In reality all times, all places, all property, all persons are sacred to God. But as it is impossible that this ideal should be realized in view of the imperfections and guilt of man, it was decided that certain particular seasons and places, gifts and persons should be separated from others, and that in these this sacredness should be realized as far as possible, and that these representatives should by their mere existence continually remind the people of God's more comprehensive claims, and at the same time arouse and maintain the consciousness that their entire life was to be saturated by the thoughts of a holy God and His demands. From this point of view, none of the particular laws are worthless; and when they are once appreciated in this their central significance, we can understand that each law has its share in the eternal authority of the law (compare Mt 5:17 f). Paul, too, who absolutely rejects the law as a way to salvation expresses no doubt that the law really contains the will of God (Ro 8:3 f); and he declares that it was the purpose of the sending of Jesus, that the demands made upon us by the law should be fulfilled; and in Ro 13:10 he tells us that love is the fulfillment of the law (compare 13:8); and according to Ro 7:12, it is certain that the law is holy and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

(2) The Law Prepares for the Understanding of Christianity.

But the ceremonial law, too, contains not only the demands of God's will. It prepares also for the understanding of the work, the person and the mission of Jesus. In Ex 25:8; 29:45 f; 40:34 ff the indwelling of God in the tent of meeting is declared, which prophesied the incarnation of God in Christ Jesus (Joh 1:14); and then the indwelling of God through the Holy Spirit in the Christian congregation (1Pe 2:5; Eph 4:12) and in the individual (1Co 3:16; 6:19; 2Co 6:16; Joh 14:23). Through the sacrificial system in Le 1-7, and the ordinances of the Day of Atonement (Le 16), we are enabled to understand the character of sin, of grace and of the forgiveness of sin (compare ATONEMENT, DAY OF, sec. II). Let us remember to what extent Jesus and Paul, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the other New Testament writings operate with Old Testament thoughts, particularly with those of Le (priest-hood, sacrifices, atonement, Passover, signification of blood, etc.), and Paul correctly says that the righteousness of God was prophesied, not only by the prophets, but also by the law (Ro 3:21).

(3) The Law as a Tutor unto Christ.

Finally, the ceremonial law too has the purpose to protect Israel from the errors of the heathen, a thought that is especially emphasized in the Law of Holiness (compare Le 18:3,14 ff; 19:26 ff; 20:2 ff, 22 ff; 26:1) and which is in harmony with the elementary stage of Israel's education in the Old Testament, when the people still stood in need of the "tutor.... unto Christ" (Ga 3:23 f; 4:1). This already leads us over to the negative side, which Paul particularly emphasizes.

2. Negative:

The law is in itself holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good (Ro 7:12), but it has lost its power because the flesh of man is sinful (compare Ro 8:3); and thus it happens that the law is the occasion for sin and leads to a knowledge of sin and to an increase of sin (compare Ro 3:20; 4:15; 5:20; 7:13); and this shall be brought about according to the purposes of God in order that in upright hearts the desire for forgiveness should arise. It is true that nothing was so well adapted as were the details of the law, to bring to consciousness in the untutored mind that in which man yet came short of the Divine commands. And as far as the removal of the guilt was concerned, nothing was needed except the reference to this in order to make men feel their imperfections (compare Heb 7-10). God merely out of grace was for the time being contented with the blood of goats and of calves as a means for atonement; He was already counting on the forgiveness in Christ (Ro 3:25). All the sacrifices in Le 1-7, e.g., did not make the ritual of the Day of Atonement superfluous (Le 16); and in this case the very man who brought the sacrifice was also a sinful creature who must first secure the forgiveness of God for himself. Only Jesus, at once the perfect priest and the perfect sacrifice, has achieved the perfect redemption. It accordingly remains a fact that the righteousness which avails before God can be secured only through faith in Jesus Christ, and not through the deeds of the law (Romans and Galatians).

The law with its incomplete atonement and with its arousing of the consciousness of sin drives man to Jesus; and this is its negative significance. Jesus, however, who Himself has fulfilled the demands of the law, gives us through His spirit the power, that the law with its demands (1, (1) above) may no longer stand threateningly over against us, but is now written in our hearts. In this way the Old Testament law is fulfilled in its transitory form, and at the same time becomes superfluous, after its eternal contents have been recognized, maintained and surpassed.

LITERATURE.

Commentaries by Ryssel, Lange, Keil, Strack, Baentsch, Bertholet; especially for the Law of Holiness see Horst, Le 17:1-26:46 and Ezk; Wurster, Zeitschrift fur alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1884, 112 ff; Baentsch, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz; Klostermann, Der Pentateuch, 368 ff; Delitzsch, Zeitschrift fur kirch. Wissenschaft und Leben, 1880, 617 ff; Intros to the Old Testament by Baudissin, Strack, Kuenen, Konig, Cornill, Driver, Sellin; Archaeology, by Benzinger, Nowack; History of Israel, by Kohler, Konig, Kittel, Oettli, Klostermann, Stade, Wellhausen; for kindred laws in Babylonia, compare Zimmern, Beitrage zur Kenntnis der babyl. Religion; against the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis, Moller, Are the Critics Right? (ibid., "Literature"), and article EZEKIEL in this Encyclopedia; Orr, Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament; Wiener, Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, Wiener, Origin of the Pentateuch; Hoffmann, Die wichtigsten Instanzen gegen die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese; Kegel, Wilh. Vatke und die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese.

Written by Wilhelm Moller