1st. That a subsequent limitation of the capacity to become a priest is of itself much more probable than the extension of that capacity to persons who had not possessed it before. 2nd. That omnium consensu the priestly precepts triumphed in the end and ruled in practice: how is this possible, if the Deuteronomic legislation, which makes no distinction between priests and Levites, is the youngest? We can imagine that Deuteronomy remained a part of the Thorah, even after some of its regulations had become obsolete and new precepts had been added. But how can Deuteronomy have been admitted into the Law while at the same time one of its principal rules had been disregarded? Let it be reflected that the Deuteronomist, if he must be considered to have been acquainted with the laws in Exodus-Numbers, directly contradicts them upon this point, and expressly allows (Deut. xviii. 6, 7) that which according to the priestly lawgiver (Num. xviii. 3) is punished with death. Again, we can conceive that regulations such as those of the Deuteronomist, because they had once been law and were regarded as holy, were allowed to stand; but how they can have been added to the priestly law already extant and known, without, however, being put into execution, is a mystery which we cannot solve. 3rd. That there is not a single trace in the prophetic writings of the distinction between priests and Levites. Jer. xxxiii. 18, 21, 22, and Isa. lxvi. 21, agree, even in language, with Deuteronomy; Zech. xii. 13 mentions "the family of the house of Levi," and nothing more; even Malachi (chap. ii. 1—9, iii. 3), the contemporary of Ezra and Nehemiah, still follows the timehonoured words of Deuteronomy. It has been not incorrectly observed that these prophetic instances are few in number. It is true, the prophets trouble themselves little or not at all about public worship in general and the qualifications for the priestly office in particular. But still the few allusions which we meet with in their writings do not betray the slightest acquaintance with the demands of the priestly law, and-what removes all doubt the only prophet who speaks expressly on this subject, Ezekiel, shows clearly that he is acquainted with Deuteronomy and is not acquainted with the priestly laws. See this demonstrated above, pp. 116 sq. 4th. That the older historical books (Judges, Samuel, Kings) do not know of the exclusive fitness of the "sons of Aaron," but again agree with the Deuteronomic laws. It is evident from Judges xvii. 7-13, that the Levites were deemed qualified (not exclusively, it is true, but yet) above others to perform priestly duties. The most probable interpretation of Judges xix. 18 is this, that the Levite referred to here is going to "the house of Jahveh" in order to become a priest there (comp. Deut. xviii. 6,7). With respect to 1 Sam. ii. 27—36, comp. Theol. Tijdschrift, III. 475 seq. In 1 Kings viii. 4, the priests, it is true, are distinguished from the Levites, but this is merely in consequence of a clerical error (?), which can be corrected by means of 2 Chron. v. 5: it originally stood, "And the Levitical priests brought it (the ark) up;" (comp. verses 3, 6, 10, where, in conformity with this reading, the priests alone are mentioned. 1 Kings xii. 31 is also very remarkable. The conclusion which may be drawn from this passage with regard to Jeroboam's time, has been pointed out in Vol. I. p. 338, n. §. We have now to give our attention to the historian's views. Judged by the priestly law, he is guilty of gross heresy. Had Jeroboam appointed priests "of the sons of Levi," he would, according to the historian, have acted legally. This is indeed the case-according to Deuteronomy. But this is not the case according to the priestly ordinances, which shut out the Levites in genere, and only acknowledge "the sons of Aaron." For the sake of completeness I will add, that 1 Sam. vi. 15, 2 Sam. xv. 24, also mention Levites. The first of these passages has most probably been interpolated (comp. Vatke, Bibl. Theol. I. 273, n. 4), but neither of the two can be cited in favour of the antiquity of the laws in ExodusNumbers. So much the more numerous-I fully admit—are the passages in the books of the Chronicles which bear testimony to the existence and the validity of the priestly laws in the pre-exilic times. But it is highly contrary to true criticism to side with the Chronicler in the conflict between his writings and the older historical books. I will abstain from dilating further on this point, referring the reader both to the remarks already made in Vol. I. upon the historical value of the Chronicler's statements and to the sketch of his principles and method in Chapter X. of this work. Unless I be altogether mistaken, the time cannot be far off when the priestly law on this subject will be acknowledged as the final result of the whole historical development. Unless it be so, the fortunes of the tribe of Levi are inexplicable. It is not the place here to set forth my ideas about them in full; I shall only touch upon the main points of my interpretation. Levi was one of the twelve tribes from the very first. At the time of the conquest of Canaan it was one of the smallest, probably the smallest, and consequently does not succeed in conquering a territory for itself: the sons of Levi are dispersed throughout Canaan. Moses and Aaron were Levites; Aaron's family discharges the priestly office at the common sanctuary, the depository of the ark of Jahveh; the idea arises that the fellow-tribesmen of the lawgiver and conductor of the national sacrifices are peculiarly qualified for the priesthood; the Levites for their part willingly offer themselves, in order the better to provide for their maintenance (Judges xvii. xviii.). Priests of the tribe of Levi minister in the temple of Solomon and at most of the "high places:" it gradually becomes an established conviction that they alone are fit to do so. "The blessing of Moses," Deut. xxxiii. (Vol. I. pp. 380 sq.). The Deuteronomic laws recognize that exclusive fitness of the Levites (above, pp. 26 sq.). Their regulations concerning the equalization of all the Levites are not carried out (2 Kings xxiii. 9; above, pp. 116 sq., 168 sq.); the distinction between priests and priest-servants arises, is justified and maintained by Ezekiel, remains in existence 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. With respect to the divergent accounts of the Chronicler, comp. There is a wide difference between the actual state of affairs |