The Presbyterian and Reformed
Review, 26 (1896) 98-115.
Public domain. Di gitally prepared
by Ted Hildebrandt (2003)
THE HOLINESS-CODE AND EZEKIEL
Lewis
Bayles Paton
In
Lev. xvii-xxvi a body of laws is found which is formally dis-
tinguished from the rest of the
legislation of the Book of
Leviticus
by having its own special hortatory conclusion
(chap. xxvi) and its own subscription, “These are the
statutes
and judgments and laws, which the Lord made between
him
and the children of
(xxvi. 46). This code contains almost entirely moral
and religious
precepts. Ceremonial matters are introduced only
when they have
some peculiar social or national importance. The
commandments
are addressed, not to the priests, as is the case
in the enclosing
Levitical legislation, but to the individual
Israelite; and, as
in the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant, the
second person
singular is used throughout.
On the negative side this
legislation views morality as opposition
to the practices of the heathen: "After the
doings of the land of
of the
(xviii.
3, cf. xviii. 24-26, xx. 23f., 26, xxii. 25). On the
positive
side it regards all duty as summed up in the idea of
holiness: "Ye
shall be holy for I the Lord your God am holy"
(xix. 2, 8, 24,
xx.
3, 7, 26, xxi. 6f., 8, xxii. 32). This
thought of the essential
unity of ethical obligation and of its basis in the
holiness of God
is so strikingly characteristic of this body of
laws that in 1877,
in an article in the Zeitschrift fur Lutherische Theologie,
Klos-
termann gave it the happily chosen name of
the" Holiness-Code."
The
name has since come into general use, and, for convenience
of reference, I shall employ it in this article to
designate the entire
legislation which is contained in Lev. xvii-xxvi,
and shall repre-
sent it by the abbreviation H.
The style of this code is succinct
to the last degree. The laws
are arranged in smaller and larger groups with
great logical
exactness, and these groups are closed with the
formula, "I am the
Lord"
(twelve times); "I am the Lord your God" (eleven
times); "I am the Lord who sanctify you"
(six times); or "I
am the Lord your God who have brought you out of
the land of
98
THE HOLINESS CODE AND
EZEKIEL 99
lay down at the beginning a general proposition,
and then to give
an exhaustive enumeration of the cases in which
the principle
holds good. In the grouping of these minor items
great skill
is displayed, and instances are few where one feels
that the
development of thought might have been improved by
another
arrangement of the individual laws.
The most striking phenomenon, however, which one
encounters
in a study of this legislation is its unique
relation to the book of
the prophet Ezekiel. Ezekiel displays an affinity
in thought
and in expression with it which he has with no
other portion of the
Pentateuch, not even with Deuteronomy. The most elaborate
discussion of this affinity has been given by Horst
in his treatise
Lev. xvii-xxvi und Hezekiel,
be sufficient to call attention merely to some of,
the more striking
correspondences in diction and in
thought. In the list which I
subjoin I have marked with an asterisk
expressions which are
found only in H. and in Ezekiel.
The list is as follows: "Whatsoever man
there be of the house
of
(xvii.
4: Ez. xxii. 7); "To go whoring after"
(xvii. 7, xx. 5, 6:
Ez. xx. 30,
xxiii. 30, etc.); "And I will set my face against"
(xvii.
10, xx. 3, 5, 6: Ez. xiv. 8, xv. 7); "I will cut
him off from
the midst of his people" (xvii. 10, xx. 3, 5: Ez. xiv. 8); "He shall
bear his iniquity" (xvii. 16, etc.: Ez. xiv. 10, etc.); imitation of
the customs of
shall ye do and my statutes shall ye keep to walk
therein"
(xviii.
4, etc.: Ez. xviii. 9, etc.); “Which if a man do he
shall live
in them" (xviii. 5.:
Ez. xx. 11, etc.); "Uncover the nakedness of
one's father " (xviii. 7: Ez.
xxii. 10); "Thy sister the daughter of
thy father" (xviii. 9, Ez.
xxii. 11); marriage with a daughter-in-law
(xviii.
15: Ez. xxii. 11); "It is wickedness"
(xviii. 17, xix. 29,
xx.
14: Ez. xvi. 27, 43, 58, xxiii.
48f.); "Unto a woman in the
defilement of her uncleanness thou shalt not approach" (xviii. 19:
Ez.
xviii.
6); "Defile oneself with a neighbour's
wife" (xviii. 20:
Ez.
xviii.
6, xxii. 11); "Cause to pass through the
fire" (xviii. 21:
Ez. xvi,
21, xx.
26, 31); "Thou shalt not profane the name of thy
God"
(xviii. 21, etc.: Ez. xx. 39, xxxvi. 20, 22);
"The land is
defiled" (xviii. 25,27: Ez.
xxxvi. 17f., xxxvii. 23); "Abomina-
tion" (xviii. 22, 27: Ez. vii. 3, 4, 8, etc.); "My sabbaths"
(xix.
3, 30, xxvi. 2: Ez. xxii. 8, etc.);
"Corruption" lvgp
(xix.
7: Ez. iv.14); "Thou shalt
not rob" (xix. 13: Ez. xviii. 7);
"Ye
shall do no iniquity in judgment" (xix. 15: Ez.
xviii. 8);
"In
righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour "
(xix. 15:
100
THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
Ez.
xviii.
8); against slander (xix. 16: Ez. xxii. 9);
"Stand
against the blood of thy neighbour"
(xix. 16: Ez. xxii. 9);
"Ye
shall not eat with the blood" (xix. 26: Ez.
xxxiii. 25); "An
alien shall ye not afflict (xix. 33: Ez. xxii. 7); just weights and
measures (xix. 35f.: Ez.
xlv. 10); "He shall surely be put to
death" (xx. 2, 9, 27, xxiv. 16, 17, 21: Ez. xviii. 13); "The
people of the land" (xx. 2: Ez.
xxii. 29); "Stone with stones"
xx.
2, 27: Ez. xvi. 40, xxiii.
47); "Curseth his father or his
mother" (xx. 9: Ez.
xxii. 7); "Defile my sanctuary" (xx. 3:
Ez. v.
11, xxiii.
38); "Hide the eyes" (xx. 4: Ez. xxii. 26);
"Children
of thy people " (xx. 17: Ez.
xxxiii. 1); "His blood
shall be upon him " (xx. 9, etc.: Ez. xviii. 13, xxxiii. 4, 5);
"Sepa-
rate between the clean and the unclean " (xx.
25: Ez. xxii. 26);
defilements for the dead (xxi. 2f.: Ez. xliv. 25); "Make bald"
(xxi.
5: Ez. xxvii. 31); "They shall not shave the
edge of their
beard" (xxi. 5: Ez.
xliv. 20); purity in the priest's wife (xxi. 7:
Ez.
xliv.
22); "Profane the sanctuary of his God" (xxi. 12, 23:
Ez.
xxiv.
21, xxviii. 18, xliv. 7);
"That which dieth of itself or is
torn of beasts he shall not eat" (xxii. 8: Ez. xliv. 31); "Keep
my charge" (xxii. 9: Ez.
xliv. 8, 16); "To be your God "
(xxii.
33: Ez. xi. 20, xiv. 11); "Branches" Jnf (xxiii. 40:
Ez.
xvii.
8, 23); "Ye shall not wrong one another" (xxv. 14, 17:
Ez.
xviii.
7); "Ye shall dwell in the land in safety" (xxv. 18, 19,
xxvi.
5: Ez. xxviii. 26, xxxiv. 25, 27, 28,
xxxviii. 8, 11, 14,
xxxix.
26); "The land shall yield its crop"* (xxv. 19, xxvi. 4=
Ez.
xxxiv.
27); "Ye shall eat your fill" (xxv. 19, xxvi. 5:
Ez.
xxxix.
19).
In Lev. xxvi the coincidences of H. with Ez. are even more
numerous and striking than in the chapters which
we have just
examined. The similarity which exists here is
without a parallel
in Old Testament literature. The coincidences are
as follows: "I
will give your rains in their seasons" * (xxvi.
4: Ez. xxxiv. 26);
"The
trees of the field shall yield their fruit" * (4: Ez.
xxxiv.
27); "None shall make you afraid" (6: Ez.
xxxix.
26);
"I will cause evil beasts to cease out of the land" * (6: Ez.
xxxiv.
25); "The sword shall not go through your land"* (6 = Ez.
v.
17, xiv. 17); "I will turn unto you" (9: Ez.
xxxvi. 9);
"Make
you fruitful and multiply you " (9; Ez. xxxvi. 11, xxxvii.
26);
"I will establish my covenant with you " (9:
Ez. xvi. 60, 62);
"I
will give my dwelling among you" * (11: Ez. xxv.
4, xxxvii.
27);
"Abhor you" * (11, 15, 30, 44: Ez. xvi. 5,
45); "Walk
among you" (12: Ez.
xix. 6, xxviii. 14); "Broken the bars of
yo
(15:
Ez. xvi. 59, xvii. 15f.,
18f., xliv. 7); "The pride-of your,
THE HOLINESS- CODE AND
EZEKIBIL.
101
power" (19: Ez. xxiv.
21, xxx. 6, 18, xxxiii, 28); “I will
send the beast of the field among you which shall
rob you
of your children" * (22: Ez.
v. 17, xiv. 15); “Cut off your
cattle" (22: Ez. xiv.
13, 17, 19, 21, xxv. 13, xxix. 8); “ Make you
few" (22: Ez. xxix.
15); “ Bring a sword upon you" (25:
Ez. v. 17, vi. 3, xi. 8, xiv. 17); "Send the
pestilence upon you"
(25:
Ez. xiv. 19, 21, xxviii. 23); “Break your staff of
bread"
(26:
Ez. iv. 16, v.16, xiv. 13); “They shall deliver your
bread by
weight " * (26 : Ez.
iv. 16); "Ye shall eat the flesh of your sons
and daughters" (29: Ez.
v. 10); “Destroy your high places"
(30:
Ez. vi. 3, 6); “Cut down your obelisks" (30: Ez. vi. 4, 6);
"Cast
your carcases upon the carcases
of your idols" * (30:
Ez. vi. 4, 5); “Make your
cities a waste" (31: Ez. vi. 6); “The
savour of your sweet odours" (31: Ez. vi. 13,
xvi. 19, xx. 28, 41);
“Your
enemies shall be astonished" (32: Ez. xxvi. 16,
xxxii. 10);
“I
will draw out the sword after you" (33: Ez. v.
2, 12, xii. 14);
“Your
land shall. be desolation" (33: Ez. vi. 14, xv. 8, xxix.
9,
12); “The land of your enemies" (34, 36, 39, 41, 44:
Ez.
xxxix.
27); “The land of your enemies shall eat you up"
(38:
Ez. xxxvi. 13, 14); “Those that are left shall pine
away
in their iniquity" * (39: Ez.
iv. 17, xxiv. 23); “Trespassed"
(40:
Ez. xxxix. 23, 36); “Uncircumcised heart" (41: Ez. xliv. 7.
9);
“Because even because" (43: Ez. xiii. 10, xxxvi.
3); “In the
sight of the nations" * (45 : Ez. v. 8, xx. 11, 14, xxii. 16, xxviii. 25,
xxxviii.
23, xxxix. 27).
The list which we have now completed is a
remarkable one.
Here
are some ninety cases in which the expressions of H. are found
in Ez. also and in which
the legislation of H. is reproduced in
Ez., often in the same
language. Of these at least twenty are
phrases which are found only in H. and in Ez. It is evident, that
similarity of this sort cannot be due to a general
correspondence of
age or standpoint in the two writers, but points to
some special
literary relation between them. What is this
relation?
The purpose of this article is to consider some
of the modern
theories on this subject and to endeavor to
determine which is the
most probable. The bearing of the question on Pentateuchal criti-
cism is too obvious to
require any special comment, nor does the
importance of the answer which we give to it need
to be empha-
sized. Accordingly, we may proceed immediately to the
review
and the critique of the several theories.
I. Graf, who first exhibited at length the
correspondences be-
tween H. and Ez., came to the conclusion that they could be
explained only by the supposition that Ezekiel
himself was the
author of Lev. xvii-xxvi; and in his famous work, Die geschicht-
102
THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
lichen Bucher des Alten Testaments (pp.81-83), he
advocated this
theory with a great deal of ingenuity and learning. In
a review of
Graf's
book (Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie,
1866, p. 150 sq,),
Bertheau announced his adherence to the
hypothesis. It was also
adopted by Colenso (Pentateuch) and by Kayser (Vorexilisches
Buch der Urgeschichte
Israels).
The difficulty with this theory is, that, while
it explains the sim-
ilarities between H. and Ez., it does not explain the differences.
The
diction of H. is not the same as the diction of Ez.
There are
a large number of words and phrases which occur
frequently in
each but are not found in the other. H. differs also
from Ez. in
its legislation (cf. Noldeke,
Untersuchungen Zur Kritik des A, T:,
p.
63; Kuenen, Onderzoek, p. 277; Klostermann, Zeitschrift fur
Lutherzsche Theologie, p. 433 sq,). I will
not discuss these differ-
ences in detail, for Graf's
hypothesis has found no general accep-
tance. It is now conceded
with practical unanimity among the
critics, that there are too many differences
between Ez. and H. to
suppose that Ezekiel was the author of H.
II. A modified and much more tenable form of the
Grafian
theory has been proposed by Horst in the treatise
entitled Leviticus
xvii-xxvi und Hezekiel. He regards Ez. not as the author of this
code, in a strict sense of the word author, but as
merely the col-
lector and editor of laws which were already in
existence. This
theory allows for all the differences in diction and
in legislation
between H. and Ez.,
and at the same time explains the fact that
Ezekiel's
closest resemblances are with the hortatory portions of
this code, particularly with the great closing exhortation
in Lev.
xxvi.
There is scarcely a hortatory phrase of H. which is not found
in Ez., and Lev. xxvi
seems to be, as Smend calls it, “essentially a
combination of phrases of Ez."
A closer examination, however,
reveals the fact that this theory also cannot
explain all of the phe-
nomena.
1. It does not explain the fact, that the most
characteristic edito-
rial formulre
of Ez. are absent from H. If Ez.
wrote H. we have
a right to expect that the commandments of the
Lord will be
introduced here in much the same way in which they
are intro-
duced in the book of his
prophecy. There is nothing in the nature
of the contents of H. to compel him to abandon
those set phrases
with which he introduces his message to
was the collector, he must have put his material in
some sort of a
framework, and that framework we should expect to be
similar to
the one in which he sets his prophetic utterances.
This, however,
is not the case. Ez. has
a number of formulae, which he uses con-
stantly, which are never found
in H. For instance, he begins more
THE HOLINESS-CODE AND
EZEKIEL.
103
than a hundred times with the phrase, "Thus saith the Lord Jeho-
vah." The words,
"Son of man," introduce the address of the
Lord
about ninety times. The introductory formula, "And the
word of Jehovah came (was)," occurs thirty-nine
times; "The ora-
cle of the Lord
Jehovah," eighty times; "As I live," sixteen
times. None of these phrases, however, occur in H.,
although all
are perfectly appropriate for use in that code. The
last one in par-
ticular we should certainly
expect to find because of the constant
use by H. of ynx "I" with some
appositional expression.
Other frequent formulre
of Ez. which are not found in H. are the
following: "The hand of Jehovah was upon
me" (i. 3, iii. 14, 22,
viii.
1, xx:xiii. 22, xxxvii. 1, xl. 1); "Lift
up my hand" (xx. 5, 6, 15,
23, xxxvi. 7, xliv. 12, xlvii. 14); "Whether they will hear or
whether they will forbear" (ii. 5, 7, iii.
11); "And thou hast deliv-
ered thy soul" (iii.
19, 21, xxxiii. 9, cf. xviii. 27, xxxiii. 5, xiv.
20),
"For my name's sake" (xx. 9, 14, 22,44).
2. The hortatory passages in H. (Lev. xix.
25-30, ch. xx., xxii.
31-33, xxv. 18-22, xxvi.
3-45) certainly come from the hand of
the collector of the legislation, and if that
collector was Ez.,
they should correspond closely with his style. It is
true, that
many of the phrases of these hortatory passages are
found scat-
tered through the book of Ez., but there are also wide differences
between these exhortations of H. and those of Ez. which forbid
the assumption that they come from the same hand.
The most
fundamental difference is, that Ezekiel's
exhortations are found
in connection with his prophecies and not with his
legislation. The
code for the restored
warnings or exhortations of any sort. How does it
happen, then,
that this code in Lev. xvii-xxvi, although it
contains laws in
regard to sacrifice and other matters which could not
be obeyed in
Ezekiel's
day, is provided with terrible denunciations in case of dis-
obedience?
Granted, however, that Ez.
might have omitted the exhortation
in Ez. xl-xlviii, where
it was more appropriate, and have appended
it in Lev. xvii-xxvi, where it was less
appropriate, the difficulty
still remains unexplained, that the most frequent and
most charac-
teristic hortatory phrases of Ez. are wanting from H. A number of
Ezekiel's
expressions are, it is true, found in H., but they are not
the expressions which are most frequent in his book
and which we
should most expect to find in any exhortation which he
had
written. Some of these recurrent phrases are the
following: "My
eye shall not pity and I will not spare" (v.
11, vii. 4, 9, .viii. 18, ix.
10, cf. ix. 5, xx. 17);
"My hand is stretched out" (vi. 14, xiv. 9, 13,
xvi.
27, xxv. 7, 13, 16, xxxv. 3); "For they are a rebellious
house "
104
THE PREBBYTERIA.N AND REFORMED REVIEW.
ii.5, 6, iii. 9,
26, 27, xii. 3, 25). "Behold I am
against" (v. 8, xiii.
9, xxviii. 22, etc.); "I will do
judgments" (v. 10, xi. 9, xxx. 14, 19);
"Finish
my anger upon thee" (v. 13, vi. .12, vii. 8, xx. 8, 21);
"Judge according to one's way (deed)"
(vii. 3, 8, xxiv. 14, xxxvi.
19);
"Give one's way upon one's head" (ix. 10, xi. 21, xvi. 43, xxii.
81);
"Pour out my indignation" (vii. 8, ix. 8, xiv, 19, xx. 8, 21, 84,
xxii.
22, 81, xxx. 15, xxxvi. 18); "Fall
by the sword" (v. 12, vi.
12, xi. 10, xvii. 21, xxiii. 25, xxiv. 21, xxv. 18, xxx. 5, 17);
"Into
the hand of strangers " (vii. 21, xi. 9, xxviii. 10, xxx. 12); "Go into
captivity" (xii. 11, xxx. 17, 18); "And
I will spread my net" (xii.
18, xvii. 20, xxxii. 8);
"Scatter to every wind" (v. 2, 10, 12, xii.
14);
"Scatter among the lands" (vi. 8, xii. 15, xx. 20, xxii. 15, xxix.
12, xxx. 28, 26); "Remove among the
nations" (xi. 16, xii. 15, xx.
28, xxxvi. 19, cf. xi. 17, xx. 34, 41, xxv. 7, xxxiv. 12); "Turn
from one's evil way" (iii. 19, xiii. 22,
xxxiii. 11, cr. iii. 18;
xxxiii.
8); "Give rest to my fury" (v. 18, xvi. 42, xxi. 22, xxiv.
18);
"Loathe oneself" (vi. 9, xx. 43, xxxvi. 31). "The fire of my
wrath" (xxi. 36, xxii. 21, 31, xxxviii. 19, cf.
xxxvi. 5); "I will cut
off man and beast" (xiv. 13, 17, 19, 21, xxv.
13, xxix. 5, cf. xxxvi.
11);
"Remember thy way" (xvi. 61, xx. 43, xxxvi. 31); "The
beast of the field. . . . the
fowl of the heavens" (xxix. 5, xxxi. 6,
13, xxxii. 4, xxxviii.
20); "Bear shame" (xxxii. 24f., 30, xxxiv.
29, xxxvi. 6f., 15, xxxix.
26, xliv. 18); "Turn the fate" (xvi. 53,
xxix.
14, xxxix. 25).
This list is very significant. None of these
phrases are found in
H.,
but they are Ezekiel's commonest hortatory expressions and
occur in his book more frequently than the phrases
which he has in
common with H. Evidently this fact is adverse to the
hypothesis
that Ez. was the author of
the Holiness legislation.
Still more important is the fact, that H.'s most characteristic hor-
tatory formulre
are not found in the book of Ez. The most free
quent and most characteristic
hortatory formula of H. is the simple,
“I
am Jehovah," which closes the minor groups of laws. Remark-
ably enough, this is never used by Ez. The simple formula, "His
blood upon him," which occurs six times in Lev.
xx, is also not
used by Ez. The striking
exhortation, "And thou shalt be afraid
of thy God" (Lev. xix. 14, 82, xxv. 17, 36, 48),
is also lacking.
Other
recurrent phrases of the hortatory passages of H. which are
not found in Ez. are,
"Eat old store" (xxv. 22, xxvi. 10); "When
none pursueth" (xxvi.
17, 36, 37); "Walk contrary to me" (xxvi.
21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 40, 41); the sevenfold punishment
for sin (xxvi.
18,
21, 24, 28); the depicting of flight before the enemy (xxvi. 7f.,
36f.); the description of the horrors of war
(xxvi. 16).
Accordingly, a comparison of the hortatory
passages in H. and in
THE HOLINESS-CODE AND
EZEKIEL.
105
Ez., in spite of all the
resemblances which it discloses, is unfavor-
able to the hypothesis that Ez.
is the collector and editor of H.
3. A further argument against this theory may be
drawn from
the difference between the personal characteristics
of Ez. and the
editor of H. Ez. is
singularly unmethodical. Accidental associa-
tion of ideas seems to
determine the sequence of topics in his
prophecy. His legislation shows none of that fine
analysis and
grouping of laws which we find in H. He has a
sensitive con-
science and a vivid imagination, but he is not
conspicuous for intel-
lectual vigor, and there is
nothing in his book to indicate that he
possessed the ability to construct so clear and
succinct a code as. H.
Another marked characteristic of Ez. is his sense of personal
responsibility (ii. 17-21, xxxiii.
1-9). In all his exhortations the
thought shines through, that he warns, not only
for the sake of the
nation, but for his own sake, that he may "deliver
his soul whether
they will hear or whether they will forbear."
No trace of this sub-
jective standpoint appears in
the exhortations of H. Here the
preacher is wholly objective; he thinks only of
the penalty which
will fall upon
disappears behind his message.
The differences of Ezekiel's literary method
from that of the
editor of H. are also unfavorable to the theory that
the two are
identical. It may not be fair to compare his
prophecies with H.
since it is natural that the styles of prophecy and
of legislation
should be different; but it is surely allowable to
compare the legis-
lation of Ez.
xl-xlviii with H., and to expect, if Ez. was the
author
of both, that the literary form will be the same.
The characteristic
form of Ezekiel's legislation is the apocalypse. His
enactments
are prefaced with visions accompanied with angelic
interpretation
in which he receives the communications that are
to be imparted
to the people and beholds the objects which he
afterwards describes
in writing. In H. there is not a suggestion of all
this. Here with-
out any scenic preliminaries or machinery of revelation,
the law-
giver simply announces the commandments in the name
of the Lord.
Again, the Holiness Code is expressly assigned
to Moses, but Ez.
never puts his legislation into the mouth of another
lawgiver.
Kuenen's remarks on this subject (Onderzoek, p.
277) are apposite:
"We
are not in a position to say that Ez. would have felt
a scruple
against ascribing legislation to Moses, but we
can say that as far as
we know he never made use of this form of
expression, and that
a priori we have no right whatever to expect it of him. In xl-
xlviii he makes Yahwe
himself announce the regulations of the
restored theocracy. What could have induced him,
a few years
earlier or later, to relegate similar precepts
to the Mosaic age?"
106
THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVI.EW.
The style of the hortatory portions of H., in
which we should
expect to find the closest resemblance to Ez., if he were the editor
of this legislation, is so much superior to
anything that we find in
his book that it is impossible to believe that he
has written these
passages. Lev. xxvi in particular is one of the
most dramatic and
impressive addresses in the Old Testament, and
although we find
most of its phrases in Ez.,
we search his book in vain for any pas-
sage where they are combined with the literary skill
which is here
manifested. It is not without reason that Kuenen regards this
“difference in artistic skill" as decisive
against the theory that Ez.
was the editor of H.
If now it be true that Ez.
was neither the author nor yet the
collector of H., his coincidences with this code
must be explained
by some theory of literary dependence of one upon
the other.
Which
one then is dependent? On this question modern criticism
is divided. Perhaps there is a majority at present
in favor of the
view that Ez. is the
earlier, and for this reason I shall review this
theory next.
III. According to the Grafian
school, H. forms the bridge from
Ez. to the Priestly Code, just as Ez. forms the bridge from Deuter-
onomy to H. In support of
this theory Kuenen (Onderzoek, p. 279)
says: “Ezekiel's assumption of the legislator's
office in xl sq. is
best explained on the supposition that the priestly
toroth had not
been codified before his time. He thus appears to be
the elder."
Similarly
Cornill (Einleitung, p. 78) asks: "If Ezekiel knew H.,
why did he publish his own code for the future?"
But one may
ask quite as appropriately, why H. should have
given his code after
Ezekiel
if the legislation of that prophet were known to him. The
difficulties which arise from the
differences of the two legislations
are equally great, whether we suppose Ezekiel or H.
to be the
earlier, and it is no more unlikely that Ez. should have made laws
superseding H. than that H. should have given laws
superseding Ez.
From
general considerations of this sort nothing can be proved in
regard to the relative age of the two works.
A much stronger argument is found in the fact
that Ez. says
nothing about a high priest and apparently has
no place for him in
his system of legislation, while H. discriminates
sharply between
the high priest and the ordinary priests and
requires a degree of
sanctity in the former which is not required of
the latter. This, it
is said, indicates a development in the direction
of the Priestly
Code. Ez. knows no distinction
in the priesthood; in H. "the
priest that is greater than his brethren
"appears; and in P we find
the high priest, the magnificent ruler of the
sacerdotal caste. On
this point more than any other emphasis is laid by the
school of
Graf in support of the proposition that H. is
later than Ez.
THE HOLINESS-CODE AND
EZEKIEL.
107
This argument would be a strong one, if there
were no indica-
tions of the existence of
such a functionary as the high priest of
H.
before the time of Ez., and if there were no reason why Ez.
should ignore the high priest in his system. That
there was a high
priest of some sort long before the time of Ez. is certain. The pre-
siding priest, who in preexi1ic times was the
intermediary between
the king and the ordinary priest, and who in Samuel
and Kings
bears
the name of "the priest," kat
] e]coxh<n, held an hereditary
office
and was the leader of the sacerdotal class. Granted
that he was
only primus
inter pares, the high priest of H. also is simply
vyHxm
lvdgh Nhkh. This greater priest of
H. agrees in all the
main features with the presiding priest of Samuel
and Kings, and,
therefore, one must either deny the truthfulness
of the representa-
tion of these books, or else
admit that Ezekiel's silence does not
prove that the high priest had not yet come into
existence. As
Baudipsen very appropriately remarks (A. T. Priesterthum,
p. 128):
"It
is unhistorical to infer from this absence of the high priest, as
well as from the silence of Deuteronomy, that down
to the Exile
there was no high priest at all. The book of Kings is
against it,
and from the nature of the case it is evident, that
for practical rea-
sons there must have been early a head priest at Jerusa1em
as well
as at the centres of the
cultus of other peoples. At the head of the
returning exiles the high priest Joshua stands
with undisputed pre-
rogatives."
The fact then is; that the absence of the high
priest from Ez. does
not indicate that this functionary was not yet developed