during the exile, and is finally made a genealogical distinction and established for good by the priestly law. At a later date all the officers of the temple, even the singers and the porters, are included in the tribe of Levi (above, p. 204, and below, Chapter X.).

Into this sketch fits admirably one of the priestly narratives of the Pentateuch to which I have not yet referred: the account of the rebellion of Korah, which, linked and partly fused with an older narrative about Dathan and Abiram (comp. Deut. xi. 6), lies before us in Num. xvi. xvii., and serves as an introduction to the ordinances relating to the priests, the Levites and their revenues in Num. xviii. Of late years much care and acumen has been spent upon the critical analysis of Num. xvi. xvii., by Knobel, Graf (1. c. pp. 89 sq.), Land and Oort (Godg. Bijdragen of 1865, pp. 997 seq.; 1866, pp. 205 seq., 416 seq.). The result of their investigations seems to me to be this, that the narrative of Dathan and Abiram has been worked up twice, first for the purpose of upholding the rights of the Levites against the rest of the tribes, and secondly to show the exclusive fitness of the "sons of Aaron." I will not work out this opinion further here; on this point I agree almost entirely with Oort. It is obvious at once that it is in perfect harmony with the course of the historical development which has just been sketched.

b. In investigating the degrees in rank of the priests themselves, and especially the difference between the priests and the high-priest, we must again start from the evidence of the elder historical books, and leave the Chronicler out of consideration for the present. That older evidence is meagre, incidental and fragmentary; therefore we are not surprised that it is found to be insufficient to give us an idea of the development of the offices connected with the temple. On the other hand, it leads us to an incontrovertible negative result: prior to the Babylonish exile the ordinances of the priestly law were not observed, and there existed amongst the priests at Jerusalem degrees of rank which lie quite outside the regulations of that law. The prin

cipal passages are: 2 Sam. viii. 17, 18, xx. 25, 26; 1 Kings iv.
6, ii. 24 seq. (comp. Theol. Tijdschrift, III. 472—474); 2 Kings
xii. 11, xxii. 4, 8, xxiii. 4, and xxv. 18=Jer. lii. 24 (from which
passages it appears that one of the priests, who bore the title of
Kohén hagadôl ["the high-priest"] or Kohén rôsch ["the head-
priest"], at any rate from the days of Jehoash, stood at the head
of the Jerusalem priests); 2 Kings xxiii. 4, xxv. 18=Jer. lii.
24 (from which we gather that this high-priest had a deputy, of
which office the priestly law is altogether ignorant); 2 Kings xii.
10, xxii. 4, xxiii. 4, xxv. 18 = Jer. lii. 24 (where the door-keepers,
three in number, are mentioned; their post was evidently held
in high honour, and, according to 2 Kings xii. 10, was one of
trust); Jer. xx. 1, comp. 1 Chr. ix. 11 (= Neh. xi. 11); 2 Chr.
xxviii. 7, xxxi. 13, xxxv. 8 (which passages teach us that one
of the priests superintended the temple, or, in other words, kept
order there, in which duty he was of course assisted by others;
it follows from 2 Kings xi. 18, xii. 12, Jer. xxix. 26, that this
post was instituted by Jehoiada, the contemporary of king
Jehoash); 2 Kings xix. 2 (where "the elders of the priests
occur, as in 2 Chr. xxxvi. 14, "the chief of the priests," and
in 1 Chr. xxiv. 5, Isa. xliii. 28, "the chief of the sanctuary").

With respect to the divergent accounts of the Chronicler, comp.
Theol. Tijdschrift, III. 469–472.

There is a wide difference between the actual state of affairs
to which the passages quoted bear testimony, and the precepts
of the priestly legislation. Upon reading and weighing these
precepts in their mutual connection, one receives an impression
that the high-priest is much more than the temporal head of
the officiating priests. He has a distinct dress (Exod. xxviii.
1—39, xxxix. 1—27, 30, 31) and is thereby exclusively qualified
to consult Jahveh by means of the urim and thummim (comp.
Vol. I. pp. 96 sq.); on this account Lev. xxi. 10, Num. xxvii. 21,
attach great value to that dress. He alone is anointed with the
sacred anointing-oil; "the crown of the anointing-oil of his god
is upon his head;" comp. Lev. xxi. 10, 12, iv. 3, 5, 16, vi. 13, 15,

viii. 12, xvi. 32; Exod. xxix. 7; Num. xxxv. 25. It is true that, according to the priestly laws and accounts, Aaron's sons are also anointed (Exod. xxx. 30, xl. 13, 15; Lev. vii. 36, x. 7; Num. iii. 3), but not in the same manner as their father and his successors in the high-priestly office; it was in harmony with the lawgiver's intention that the Jewish tradition confined the anointing to the high-priest (comp. Kalisch, Hist. and Crit. Commentary on the O. T., Leviticus, Part I. 574 sq.). He has moreover, as we were reminded above, pp. 273 sq., his own rights and duties. In a word, the high-priest of the ritual legislation occupies a special place in the theocracy; he is its head and representative; as he is the mediator between Jahveh and the people, so his sin re-acts upon the people and the people bear the guilt of it (Lev. iv. 3). If these notions had existed before the exile, would not some trace of them occur here or there? Do they not, moreover, carry with them, in their exaggeration, the proof of their later origin? Is not Ezekiel's silence as to the high-priest an insoluble riddle, if in his days that dignity was already looked upon in the light in which it is now described in the priestly law? It is asserted (comp. p. 293) that that law existed before the exile, but was not put into execution; therefore we must also assume this with regard to its ordinances on this head. But how comes it, then, that the priest Ezekiel entirely ignores them? Can admissible reason be given for this silence on his part other than—the later origin of the priestly regulations?

D. Let the following remarks serve to elucidate what has been said, pp. 281 sq., about the sabbath-year and the year of jubilee.

The Book of the Covenant decrees (1) the liberation of the Hebrew slaves after six years' service, Exod. xxi. 2—11; (2) the giving up of the produce of every seventh year to the poor and to the beasts of the field, Exod. xxiii. 10, 11 (comp. Hk. O. I. 143).

There are two ordinances in Deuteronomy which correspond

to these two laws, namely (1) chap. xv. 12-18, a repetition in an abridged form of Exod. xxi. 2-11, with the addition of an exhortation to give liberal presents to the slave who receives back his freedom (verses 13-15); (2) chap. xv. 1-11 (comp. xxxi. 10), an ordinance concerning the release (Hbr. sjemittah) in every seventh year: in that year the debtor is not to be compelled to discharge his debt, but must be left in peace; the Israelite must not be deterred by the prospect of this year from lending to the needy. It is clear that this law corresponds to Exod. xxiii. 10, 11. It relates to the seventh or sabbath-year; besides this, the word "release" is borrowed from Exod. xxiii. 11. But the contents of the two ordinances are not the same: the Deuteronomist does not speak of the giving up of the produce of the land; for this he substitutes-because it had been found that the people would not observe it ?—a law which could be more easily carried out and was equally to the interest of the needy.

The priestly law also contains two corresponding regulations, namely, (1) Lev. xxv. 1-7, relating to the rest of the land in every seventh year; and (2) Lev. xxv. 8-55, relating to the year of jubilee (comp. pp. 281 sq., upon the contents of this ordinance). In the latter law the decree respecting the Israelitish slave in verses 39-43 is parallel with Exod. xxi. 2 seq., Deut. xv. 12 seq., but at the same time is quite irreconcilable with it: the release, which according to the Book of the Covenant and Deuteronomy is to take place after six years' service, is here placed in the year of jubilee (comp. Hk. O. I. 35).

Now it is very evident that these three groups of laws follow each other chronologically in the same order in which they are enumerated here. It will not do to insert Lev. xxv. between the Book of the Covenant and Deut. How could the Deuteronomist, if he had known that law, have (1) omitted to mention the rest in the seventh year, and (2) retained the release after six years' service? Selfishness was strongly opposed to the execution of the precept to that effect. Thus we are not surprised

to learn from the prophet Jeremiah (chap. xxxiv. 8 seq.) that hitherto it had been altogether disregarded, and that it was not till Zedekiah's reign that the first steps were taken to carry out the release. Yet-according to the hypothesis which I contest -the Deuteronomist left that law unaltered, and this notwithstanding that an ordinance already existed, Lev. xxv. 39–43, which was much easier to carry out, since it followed from it that by far the majority of the Israelitish slaves died before the year of their liberation arrived! In addition to this there are the arguments taken from the form and the contents of Lev. xxv.: the prolixity, the theoretical and abstract character of the precepts given here, the reference to the law concerning the day of atonement (verse 9) and to the precepts relating to the cities of the Levites (verses 32-34).

Upon Ezek. xlvi. 17, see above, pp. 191 seq.

PRINTED BY C. GREEN & SON, 178, STRAND.