an assumption does not free us from the necessity of seeking the historical order, and of assigning his natural place in that order to Ezekiel; we cannot argue on such a mere chance.  Now the question is not a complicated one, whether in the Law of Holiness we are passing from the Priestly Code to Ezekiel or from Ezekiel to the Priestly Code.  The Law of Holiness underwent a last revision, which represents, not the views of Ezekiel, but those of the Priestly Code, and by means of which it is incorporated in that code.  This revision has not been equally incisive in all parts.  Some of its corrections and supplements are very considerable, e.g., xxiii. 1-8, 23-38; xxiv. 1-14, 23.  Some of them are quite unimportant, e.g., the importation of the Ohel Moed (instead of the Mikdash or the Mishkan), xvii. 4, 6, 9, xix. 21 seq.; the trespass-offering, xix. 21 seq.; the Kodesh Kodashim, xxi. 22.  Only in xxv. 8 seq. is the elimination of the additions difficult.  But the fact that the last edition of the Law of Holiness proceeds from the Priestly Code, is universally acknowledged.  Its importance for the literary history of Israel cannot be over-estimated. 1

************************************************* 1.  L. Horst, in his discussion on Leviticus XVii,-XXYi, and Ezekiel (Colmar, 1881), has strikingly shown that the mechanical style of criticism in which Dillmann even surpasses his predecessor Knobel, is not equal to the problem presented by the Law of Holiness.  He goes on, however, to an attempt to save, by modifying it, the old Strassburg view of Ezekiel’s authorship; and as Kuenen justly remarks, he makes ship-wreck on Leviticus xxvi. (Theol.  Tijdschr. 1882, p. 646).  Cf. next note, beginning “Horst...". **************************************************

IX.II.2.  The concluding oration, Leviticus xxvi. 3-46, calls for special consideration.  Earlier scholars silently assumed that this piece belonged to Leviticus xvii. 1-XXVI. 2; but many critics, Noldeke for example, now regard it as an interpolation in Leviticus of a piece which from its character should be elsewhere.  At any rate the oration is composed with special reference to what precedes it.  If it is not taken as a peroration, such as Exodus xxiii. 30-33, Deuteronomy xxviii., its position in such a part of the Priestly Code is quite incomprehensible.  It has, moreover, a palpable connection with the laws in xvii.-xxv.  The land, and agriculture, have here the same significance for religion as in chaps. xix. xxiii. xxv.; the threat of vomiting out (xviii. 25 seq., xx. 22) is repeated here more circumstantially; the only statute actually named is that of the fallow of the seventh year (xxvi. 34, xxv. 1-7).  The piece begins with the expression, which is so characteristic of the author of chapter xvii. seq.  “If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them,” and the same phrase recurs, with slight alteration, in vers. 15 and 43.  The conclusion, verse 46, is, “These are the statutes and judgments and laws which Jehovah gave, to regulate the relation between Him and Israel on Mount Sinai, by Moses.”  This is obviously the subscription of a preceding corpus of statutes and judgments, such as we have in, xvii. 1-xxvi. 2.  Mount Sinai is mentioned also in xxv. 1 as the place of revelation.