of the individual units themselves are actually composed as
direct speech of God, that is, in the I-style and with the
designation Ye. The greater part are statutes couched in
the impersonal style and speaking of Jahweh in the third
person. In the Holiness Code, viewed as a whole, Jahweh
likewise addresses Moses. But in detail the situation is
rather complicated here. One part of the statutes is direct
speech of God in the I-style, while other units are formu-
lated impersonally and speak of Jahweh in the third person.
The Sitz im Leben of these two classes is also obviously
radically different. On the one hand, there are ordinances
that can at once be recognised as technical instructions for
priests: they are drawn up for consideration in special
cases only; on the other, commandments broken up by
parenesis (i.e. by hortatory material) and arranged in
series reveal the cult assembly, where they were presented
to the people, as their place of origin. In divergence from
Deuteronomy, however, these commandments broken up
by parenesis also appear as direct speech of God.

In this sketch is involved a number of questions that
have to do with the criticism of classes of material (gattungs-
geschichtliche Fragen), and they would require to be followed
up. Let the sketch suffice here in the first instance to
demonstrate the contrast, for Deuteronomy is different: it
is definitely not an utterance of God. ¹ We saw a moment
ago in the Priestly Document and the Holiness Code that
Jahweh gave instructions to Moses (and Aaron) as the
proper recipients of cultic revelation. But then the divine
decrees were transmitted to the laity. (Transmission came

-12-