If Leviticus xxvi. is incontestably intended to form the conclusion of chaps. xvii.-xxv., it would be natural to suppose that the author of that collection was also the author of the oration.  Noldeke thinks, however, that the language differs too much from that of xvii.-xxv.  Yet he is obliged to acknowledge several resemblances, and these not unimportant; while some of the differences which he adduces (Bamoth, Gillulim, Hammanim, xxvi. 30) are really examples of similarity.  Rare and original words may be found in the preceding chapters also.  It may be that in chapter xxvi they are more frequent in proportion:  yet this does not entitle us to say that the language generally is very original.  On the contrary, it is everywhere characterised by borrowed expressions.  So much of linguistic difference as actually remains is sufficiently accounted for by the difference of subject:  first come laws in a dry matter-of-fact style, then prophecy in a poetical pathetic style.  The idiosyncrasy of the writer has no scope in the former case, from the nature of the materials, some of which had already assumed their form before he made use of them.  In the latter case he can express himself freely; and it is fair that this should not be overlooked.

The arguments brought forward by Noldeke against the probability that Leviticus xxvi. belongs to chaps. xvii.-xxv. and is not merely tacked on to them, disappear completely on a closer comparison of the literary character of the two pieces.  Chapter xxvi. reminds us most strongly of Ezekiel’s style, both in thought and language.  The most significant passage is Leviticus xxvi. 39.  The threat has been uttered that Israel is to be destroyed as a people, and that the remnant which escapes the destroying sword of the enemy is to be carried into exile, to sink under the weight of past calamity and present affliction.  Then the speech goes on:  “And they that are left of you shall pine away in their iniquity in your enemies’ land; and also in the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away.  Then they will confess their own sin and the sin of their fathers.”  In Ezekiel, this confession actually occurs in the mouth of one of his fellow-exiles:  they say (xxxiii. 10), “Our transgressions and our sins are heavy upon us, and we pine away in them, and cannot live.”  In the same strain the prophet says (xxiv. 23) that in his dull sorrow for the death of his wife he will be an emblem of the people:  “ye shall not mourn nor weep, but ye shall pine away in your iniquities.”

Nor are the other traits wanting in the oration which, as we say, accompanied the Ezekielic colouring of the preceding chapters.  We do not expect to find traces of the influence of the Jehovist legislation (further than that Exodus xxiii. 20 seq. formed the model both for Deuteronomy xxviii. and Leviticus xxvi.); but to make up for this we find very distinct marks of the influence of the prophets, the older prophets too, as Amos (verse 31).  We can as little conceive the existence of the Book of Ezekiel as of this chapter without the prophetic literature having preceded it and laid the foundation for it.