Priests And Levites

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible

Priests And Levites . The method here adopted as on the whole the most satisfactory is first to give some account of the highly organized hierarchical system of the Second Temple, as we know it from the Priestly Code, and, taking this as a standard, next to trace its history up to this point, and, lastly, follow its subsequent developments.

I. The Hierarchy of the Second Temple. The chief authority for the religious institutions of the early period of the Second Temple is the document known as the Priestly Code (P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ), which was composed probably shortly after, or partly during, the Exile, and reached very nearly its present form in the time of Nehemiah. It comprised the whole of Leviticus and the ritual portions of Numbers, all the regulations connected with the Tabernacle in Exodus, together with certain narrative portions especially connected with religious institutions the Sabbath, circumcision, and the like and statistical statements throughout the Hexateuch. According to P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] , the Jewish hierarchy was threefold, including high priest, priest, and Levite, distinguished by different functions and different privileges.

A. The high priest

1 . His consecration

The high priest, who is the eldest son of his predecessor in the office, is consecrated by an elaborate ritual consisting of washing, solemn vesting in his robes, anointing by pouring oil on the head, and several sacrificial rites, among them the sprinkling with blood and the anointing with oil of different parts of the body. The sacrificial ceremonies lasted for seven days ( Exodus 29:1-46 ,   Leviticus 8:1-36 ).

2. The distinctive vestments of the high priest, in addition to those worn by all priests (B. 2 ), were the robe of blue, which was woven without seam, had a hole for the head, and was said to have reached down to the knees; the ephod of curiously wronght embroidered work; the breastplate, also of embroidered work, which was attached to the ephod, and contained originally the Urim and Thummim (Ii. B 4); the turban with the crown or plate engraved ‘Holy to Jahweh’ (  Exodus 28:36 ).

3. The special duties of the high priest included the offering of a daily meal-offering (  Leviticus 6:19-20 , where the words ‘in the day when he is anointed’ are probably a later interpolation). He had also to perform the ceremonial sprinklings in the case of sin-offerings for the whole people (  Leviticus 4:13-21 ). But by far the most important ceremonies were those connected with the great Day of Atonement, on which day alone he, and he alone, attired merely in the linen garb of the priest, entered the ‘Holy of Holies’ and sprinkled the mercy seat with the blood of a bullock as a sin-offering for himself, and that of a goat as a sin-offering for the people (  Leviticus 16:1-34 ).

B. Priests . 1. Their consecration . The priests who belonged to the family of Aaron were consecrated by special ceremonies like those of the high priest, but less elaborate (  Exodus 29:1-46 ,   Leviticus 8:1-36 ). These did not, however, include, in later times at any rate, anointing, the high priest being called by way of distinction ‘the anointed priest’ (  Leviticus 4:1-35 passim , cf.   Psalms 133:2 ). At most the anointing of priests meant sprinkling the different parts of the body with the holy oil as well as with the blood (  Exodus 29:21 ,   Leviticus 8:30 ).

2. All priests were required to wear, during their ministrations only, special vestments . These were ‘linen’ breeches, coats of checker-work, girdles and head-tires (  Exodus 28:42;   Exodus 29:3;   Exodus 29:9 ,   Leviticus 8:13 ).

3. The work of the priests consisted in ( a ) offering up all sacrifices. This included especially collecting the blood and sprinkling the altar with it; washing the inwards and legs, making the fire, placing the pieces of the burnt-offering upon it and burning them, doing the same to the ‘memorials’ of other offerings, and the removal of ashes. They did not, except usually in the case of public sacrifices, themselves kill the victim (  Leviticus 1:1-17;   Leviticus 2:1-16;   Leviticus 3:1-17;   Leviticus 4:1-35;   Leviticus 5:1-19;   Leviticus 6:1-30 ). ( b ) They were required to give decisions, after examination, about suspected leprosy, plague, and mouldin garments and houses, and to perform the required rites (  Leviticus 13:1-59;   Leviticus 14:1-57 ). ( c ) It was also their duty to blow the trumpets, whether as the alarm of war or at the new moon, especially that of the 7th month, and at the set feasts (  Numbers 10:10 ,   Leviticus 23:24; cf.   Psalms 81:3 ) and on the Day of Atonement of the Jubilee year (  Leviticus 25:9 ). The words used in different passages suggest the probability that the instruments employed were originally horns, for which silver trumpets were afterwards substituted.

4 . The priests were supported ( a ) partly by the tithe of the tithe which they received from the Levites (  Numbers 18:26 ); ( b ) partly by the first-fruits and firstlings, including the redemption money for men and unclean beasts (  Numbers 18:12-18 ,   Leviticus 7:30-34 ); ( c ) partly by sacrificial dues of various kinds. The latter included (1) practically the whole of private meal-offerings, whether flour or cakes, sin-offerings and guilt-offerings (  Numbers 18:9 ,   Leviticus 5:16;   Leviticus 10:16-20 ). These were regarded as ‘most holy,’ and might be eaten only by the priest and his sons as a sacrificial act in the Temple precincts (  Leviticus 6:16;   Leviticus 6:26;   Leviticus 7:8 ,   Numbers 18:10 ). (2) Of peace-offerings the breast and the thigh, which might be eaten by any of the priest’s family, the sacrificial act consisting in their first being ‘waved’ or ‘heaved’ respectively (  Numbers 18:11 ,   Leviticus 7:30-34 ). (3) The skin of the burnt-offerings (  Leviticus 7:8 ). (4) The shewbread and several special offerings, as that of the leper, etc. (  Leviticus 24:9 ,   Mark 2:26 ,   Leviticus 14:1-57 etc.). The language suggests that these dues were in some cases fresh enactments (see esp.   Leviticus 10:18-20 ,   Numbers 18:18 ). The tendency to increase the dues of the priests was the natural consequence of the increase of work arising out of the continually greater complication of religious ceremonies.

C. Levites

1. Dedication . The Levites were also dedicated to their work by special ceremonies. They were sprinkled with water, their bodies shaved, and their clothes washed. Then they were solemnly presented to God, the high priest laying his hands on them, and were required to present two bullocks, one as a burnt-offering, the other as a sin-offering (  Numbers 8:5-22 ). The ceremonies signified the solemn offering up of the Levites to God as a wave-offering (  Numbers 8:13;   Numbers 8:15 b). This is said to have been as a substitute for the firstborn of the Israelites, who by right belonged to God (  Numbers 3:9-13 ).

2. The age at which they entered upon their office varied at different times between 30, 25, and 20 (  Numbers 4:3;   Numbers 8:24 ,   1 Chronicles 23:3;   1 Chronicles 23:24;   1 Chronicles 23:27 ). Probably it was twice reduced because of the increasing difficulty in procuring Levites to do the work.

3. Work . The Levites were said to have been given as a gift ( nÄ•thûnîm ) to Aaron and his sons. In other words, they were to be regarded as the servants of the priests. This included especially the work of fetching and carrying, as they were believed to have carried the Tabernacle and its furniture in the Wilderness. Beyond this belonged to them the work of ‘keeping the charge,’ i.e. protecting and keeping clean the vessels and the furniture. In short, they were required to do everything connected with the service which was not by law required of the priests themselves (  Numbers 18:2-7;   Numbers 3:5-39 ).

4. The Levites were supported from the tithe, which was in the first instance paid to them (  Numbers 18:21-24 ).

D. Levitical and priestly cities . According to   Numbers 35:1-8 , there were assigned to the Levites in different parts of Palestine 48 cities with suburbs and surrounding pasture land to about 500 yards distance. In the description of the division of the land under   Joshua 13:1-33 of these, in the territories of Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin, are given to the priests (  Joshua 21:1-45; see also   1 Chronicles 6:54-81 , where, however, the text is very corrupt). No trace of any such arrangement is to be found in Ezekiel’s ideal sanctuary, according to which the priests and Levites have their possessions in the ‘oblation’ or sacred ground, which included the sanctuary (  Ezekiel 48:9-14 ). This provision of cities and land in P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] appears to be in direct contradiction to the oft-repeated statement that the Levites had no portion in the land because Jahweh was their portion (  Deuteronomy 10:9 ,   Numbers 18:20;   Numbers 26:62 etc.) a statement explained as meaning in practice that they were to depend for their support upon their tithes and priestly dues, which were all regarded as offerings to Jahweh (  Deuteronomy 18:2 ,   Numbers 18:8-32 ,   Leviticus 27:30 ).

This assignation of priestly cities must therefore be regarded as a sort of historical theory, which grew partly out of some sort of provision, in land and houses in and about Jerusalem, having been actually made in the period of the Second Temple for the priests and other officers ( Nehemiah 11:3;   Nehemiah 11:21 ,   1 Chronicles 9:2 ), partly because the cities so assigned in P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] were many of them ancient sanctuaries, where priests and Levites would have been located in early times. At some of the larger sanctuaries there may have been several priests, as, according to an early tradition, there were at Nob (  1 Samuel 21:1-15 ). Though too great a reliance should not be placed on the editorial note in   Jeremiah 1:1 , it is quite possible that several of the priests of Jerusalem may have lived together at Anathoth, which was only 2 1 / 2 miles from Jerusalem, and the home of Abiathar (  1 Kings 2:26 ), and so given rise to the tradition that it was a priestly city.

E. Genealogical theory of the hierarchy . P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ’s theory of the origin of the hierarchy was as follows: The Levites were one of the 12 tribes of Israel, descended from Levi , one of Jacob’s sons. They were set apart by Jahweh for Himself in lieu of the firstborn of the Israelites, when He slew the firstborn of the Egyptians (  Numbers 3:12;   Numbers 8:17;   Numbers 8:19 ). All the ‘sons’ of Aaron a descendant of Levi (  Exodus 6:14-20 ) were priests (  Leviticus 1:5 etc.). The high priesthood descended in one line by primogeniture. Nadab and Ahihu, Aaron’s eldest sons, having perished, it passed to Eleazar, the next in age (  Numbers 20:22-29 ,   Exodus 6:23 ). That Eleazar’s son Phinehas succeeded him is perhaps implied in   Numbers 25:11 , and certainly is so in   Judges 20:28 in a document closely allied in its present form to P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] . The rest of the made descendants of Levi were Levites, divided into the three great families of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. The family of Kohath , as being that to which both Aaron and Moses belonged, had the most honourable work. They had charge of the sacred furniture and vessels the ark, altars, candlestick, and table, while the other families divided between them the charge of the different parts of the building (  Numbers 3:21-39 ).

II. OT evidence for the evolution of the hierarchy. There is reason to believe that the hierarchical system of P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] was not handed down in its completeness from primitive times, but was of gradual growth.

A. The Book of the Covenant

1. Status of the local priests . The earliest document bearing at all fully on the subject is the ‘Book of the Covenant’ (  Exodus 21:1-36;   Exodus 22:1-31;   Exodus 23:1-33 ), to which we should add   Exodus 20:1-26;   Exodus 24:1-18 . The priests of the several sanctuaries, of which many are contemplated (exo   Exodus 20:24 b), are called Elohim (RV [Note: Revised Version.] ‘God,’ AV [Note: Authorized Version.] usually ‘the judges’), probably in the sense that they were God’s representatives, and that their decision, often probably determined by the sacred lot, was regarded as the expression of God’s will. We may compare   Psalms 82:6 ‘I said, Ye are gods’ a reference undoubtedly to this passage, made to show how unworthy the judges of a later time were of their sacred office.

2 . Their work , etc. These local priests were required to superintend the ancient primitive ceremony connected with the retention of a slave after 6 years’ service (  Exodus 21:6 ), decide suits, impose fines and the like (  Exodus 21:22 ,   Exodus 22:9;   Exodus 22:9 ). To ‘revile’ them was a crime (  Exodus 22:28 , where the order of phrases suggests that they were of more consequence than the ‘rulers’). No mention is made of any distinctive dress, even where one might certainly have expected it (cf.   Exodus 20:26 with   Exodus 28:42 , from which we may gather that the linen breeches were the addition of a later, probably post-exilic, date). Nor is anything said of their being an hereditary guild. But silence on this latter point does not prove that they were not. In laws what is customary is often taken for granted.

B. The First Book of Samuel

1 . Temple of Shiloh . With the Book of the Covenant we may compare I Samuel, which points in many ways to the state of society and religion assumed by the former. Here we find several local sanctuaries. One of the most important of them, at the time when the book opens, is the ‘temple’ of Shiloh.

The words ‘tent of meeting’ in  1 Samuel 2:22 are a very late insertion not found even in LXX [Note: Septuagint.] . It depends upon a later tradition that the Tabernacle was set up in Shiloh (  Joshua 18:1-28;   Joshua 19:51 [P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ]).

In this temple was the ark, and the infant Samuel slept inside the sanctuary to protect it ( 1 Samuel 3:3 ). The priest Eli seems to have had a large influence and to have exercised a jurisdiction over at least the whole tribe of Ephraim. In   1 Samuel 2:29 in a document probably at earliest only a little before Josiah’s reign he is spoken of in a way which implies that he held a unique position among the tribes of Israel. The further statement in   1 Samuel 4:19 , that he judged Israel 40 years, is a still later editorial insertion connecting 1Samuel with Judges (see   Judges 15:20;   Judges 16:31 etc.).

2. Position of Samuel . When Shiloh had been destroyed by the Philistines, Samuel came to be a still more powerful priest, being, according to   1 Samuel 7:10;   1 Samuel 7:17 , connected, both as priest and ruler, with several local sanctuaries Bethel, Gilgal, Mizpah, and Ramah. But even these were comprised within a very small circle. It is curious that, according to   1 Samuel 9:6 part of one of the earliest sources of the book, Saul did not appear, at the time of searching for his father’s asses, to have even heard of Samuel’s existence. It is also significant that in   1 Samuel 2:26 Eli uses Elohim as in the Book of the Covenant, showing that, in his time at any rate, there were other priests exercising jurisdiction at their several sanctuaries.

3. Absence of regular religious organization . 1Samuel points to great liberty of action on the part of the priests, or, at least, of Samuel himself. His movements do not seem to imply any regularly organized sacrificial system. Except for new moons and yearly feasts of perhaps more than one kind ( 1Sa 1:3;   1 Samuel 20:5-6;   1 Samuel 20:29 ), to which we should probably add sabbaths (cf.   2 Kings 4:23 ), there seem to have been no regular feast days. The priest appoints and invites whom he chooses to the sacrificial meal (  1 Samuel 9:23-24 ), and on one occasion takes with him the animal for sacrifice (  1 Samuel 16:2-5 ).

4 . Dress of the primitive priests . In   1 Samuel 2:18-19 the two parts of the dress of Samuel, the ephod and the robe, are, in name at any rate, what afterwards belonged to the peculiar dress of the high priest (  Exodus 28:6-12;   Exodus 28:31-35 ). But the robe is also the common name for the upper garment, and is used of that worn by Jonathan and Saul (  1 Samuel 18:4;   1 Samuel 24:4 ). Of the use of the ephod by the priests of this date there is abundant evidence. It was essentially the priestly garment of primitive times, and is especially connected with ascertaining the will of God by means of the sacred lots, Urim and Thummim, which was the peculiar province, and one of the most important functions, of the priest ( 1Sa 14:13;   1 Samuel 22:18;   1 Samuel 23:6;   1 Samuel 23:9;   1 Samuel 30:7 ). The Urim is expressly mentioned in   1 Samuel 28:6 , and the Urim and Thummim were both originally in the text of   1 Samuel 14:41-42 , as a comparison with the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] and Vulgate shows.

5. The priests’ means of support . According to   1 Samuel 2:1-36 from a relatively old document the priests had no fixed dues; but the passage seems to suggest that then, or at least in the writer’s day, what had been voluntary gifts were passing into customary claims which were liable to abuse. The chief ground of complaint was the wrong committed not so much against the sacrificer as against God, to whom was due the fat of the inwards, which should first be burnt (  1 Samuel 2:16 ).

6. A colony of priests . In addition to the priests of the local sanctuaries, we find in   1 Samuel 21:1-15;   1 Samuel 22:1-23 an account of a settlement of priests at Nob under Ahimelech, all of whom except Abiathar his son were put to death by Doeg at Saul’s command. This settlement may have originated in the troubles brought about by the Philistines.

7 . Priests not regarded as Levitical . There is nothing in the Books of Samuel which affords a sufficient reason for connecting the priesthood of this period directly with a tribe of Levi, the mention of the ‘Levites’ in   1 Samuel 6:16 and   2 Samuel 15:24 being clearly a very late interpolation which assumes the liturgical arrangements of P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] . Had these been in vogue at the time, we should certainly have found some reference to them in   2 Samuel 6:1-23 such as we find abundantly in the parallel in   1 Chronicles 15:1-29 , where   1 Chronicles 15:2 suggests that the death of Uzzah was a punishment for other than Levites having carried the ark.

C.  Judges 17:1-13  ;  Judges 18:1-31  ;  Judges 19:1-30  ;  Judges 20:1-48  ;  Judges 21:1-25 (a document which, though revised by a priestly writer, belongs to rather the earlier part of the monarchy and speaks of a still earlier condition of things) confirms in many ways the Books of Samuel. It speaks of different sanctuaries Mizpah ( Judges 20:1 ) and Bethel (  Judges 20:18;   Judges 20:26 ), besides Shiloh, which is a place of comparatively small importance, yet marked, as in 1 Samuel., by a yearly religious festival of a somewhat secular character with   1 Samuel 1:3;   1 Samuel 1:13-15;   1 Samuel 1:21 ). The ‘Levite’ who is priest to Micah is actually of the tribe of Judah (  Judges 17:7 ). There is mention of an ephod and a suit of apparel for the priest; but it is uncertain whether the ephod refers to the priest’s dress or, as apparently in   Judges 8:27 , to some kind of image.

D. 1 and 2Kings (original documents) up to Josiah’s reform . There were two circumstances which tended to diminish the prestige of the local priests. 1 . The establishment of the monarchy , by which many, if not all, of the secular functions of the priests had passed into the hands of the king or his deputies. Of these one of the most important was the practice of jurisdiction (see esp. 2Sa 12:1-31;   2 Samuel 14:1-20;   2 Samuel 15:2-4 , 1Ki 3:9;   1 Kings 3:16-28; cf. also   Deuteronomy 16:18 ). It is also true that, sooner or later, the idea of the king as God’s earthly representative was substituted for that of the priest.

2. Of even greater importance was the building of the great Temple at Jerusalem by Solomon . From the very first it made for the centralization of worship, though not of course intended originally to be the one single lawful sanctuary which it afterwards became. The local sanctuaries (‘high places’) were still tolerated (  1 Kings 15:14;   1 Kings 22:48 etc.), but would tend more and more to sink into insignificance beside this splendid building. This was especially the case in the Southern Kingdom. In the North the local sanctuary worship had more vitality, but it was largely maintained and also debased for political reasons (  1 Kings 12:26-29 ). The calves of Jeroboam were probably Canaanitish, though he probably meant them as symbols, not rivals, of Jahweh. The cult of the ‘high places’ seems gradually to have relapsed into familiar and popular types of Semitic worship; and in the books of the early prophets Amos and Hosea it is not always easy to distinguish between heathenism and a heathenish worship of Jahweh.

With the decline of the local sanctuary the status of the priest gradually declined, till it reached the low level implied in  Judges 17:1-13;   Judges 18:1-31;   Judges 19:1-30 , and in Deuteronomy.

E. Deuteronomy

1 . Levites . In Dt. (first published in all probability in Josiah’s reign) we find the terms ‘priests’ and ‘Levites’ rather curiously used. The latter occurs frequently, but when used alone it is always as of a class deserving of pity. The Levite is frequently ranged with the slave, the widow, and the fatherless (  Deuteronomy 12:12;   Deuteronomy 12:18;   Deuteronomy 16:11;   Deuteronomy 16:14 ). The descriptive phrase ‘that is within thy gates’ means in the towns generally as distinct from Jerusalem, as we see from   Deuteronomy 12:15 ,   Deuteronomy 16:5 , where the local sanctuaries are contrasted with the one permissible sanctuary. The Levites were certainly the priests of these local sanctuaries. The poverty of the Levites is also testified by   Judges 17:1-13;   Judges 18:1-31;   Judges 19:1-30 , in which we find more than one case of Levites wandering about in search of a living.

2 . Effect of abolishing local sanctuaries .   Deuteronomy 18:3-8 suggests that Levites might desire to go up to Jerusalem and perform priestly functions and receive support, and orders that they should be allowed to do both, and be treated in these respects on an equality with the priests at Jerusalem. When we realize that the ideal of Dt. was the one only sanctuary, it becomes evident that the case contemplated was one which would naturally arise when the local sanctuaries were abolished, as in fact they were by Josiah.

3 . ‘ The priests the Levites .’ On the other hand, the priests of Jerusalem are generally called distinctively, it would seem, ‘the priests the Levites’; occasionally ‘priests’ only, when the context makes it clear that the priests of Jerusalem are meant, as in   Deuteronomy 18:8 ,   Deuteronomy 19:17 .

4. The dues of these priests , including the Levites who joined them, were the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw, and the first-fruits of field and garden produce. They did not include, as in P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] , the thigh or the firstlings. The tithes were not given by right to the priests or Levites, but the latter shared in the family feast at the one sanctuary, at which they were solemnly eaten as a sacrificial act. The same was the case with the firstlings, vows, and freewill offerings (  Deuteronomy 18:1-8 ,   Deuteronomy 12:17-19 ). One sees in these arrangements very clearly the system which was elaborated in P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] , and a development from what is implied in   1 Samuel 2:1-36 .

5. Levitical theory variously explained . Not only are the priests of the local sanctuaries and those of Jerusalem both called ‘Levites’ in Dt.; but the name is distinctly understood as that of a tribe to which both belonged (  Deuteronomy 18:1;   Deuteronomy 18:7 ). The traditional explanation accepted by Dt. of the exceptional position of the tribe, was that it was a reward for having slain a large number of rebellious apostates, probably on the occasion of the golden calf (cf.   Deuteronomy 10:8;   Deuteronomy 10:8 with   Exodus 32:28-29 . [There are some critical difficulties in both passages concerning the connexion of the incident with the context]). This does not very well accord with P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] , which, as said above, connects the separation of the tribe with the dedication of the firstborn and the last of the plagues, and that of the priests, or the high priest especially, with the action of Phinehas at Baal-peor (  Numbers 3:11-13;   Numbers 25:13 ). What is, however, probably an older tradition than either, while recognizing the Levites as a tribe, explains their being scattered in Israel as a punishment for an act of cruelty in conjunction with the Simeonites towards the Shechemites (  Genesis 49:5-7 ). It is quite impossible to say what elements of truth may underlie these traditions. But if the word ‘Levite’ was originally merely official, such a united act on the part of a body of priests seems improbable; and the stories may have arisen as different ways of accounting for their dispersion. But the belief that the priests all belonged to one tribe proves at any rate that at the time when Dt. was written, and probably long before, the priesthood had become a hereditary and isolated guild. That is to say, every priest was the son of a priest, and his sons became priests. The cursing of Levi in Jacob’s blessing, so conspicuously contrasted with the glorification of Joseph ( i.e. Ephraim and Manasseh), perhaps shows that the writer, evidently of the Northern Kingdom, despised the priestly office.

F. Reforms of Josiah as they concerned the Levites . When Josiah abolished the local sanctuaries, the difficulty about the priests contemplated by Dt. seems to have arisen in fact. But it was not solved altogether in the way directed. Probably the priests of Jerusalem resented the presence of the local priests at their altar, and certainly their services could hardly have been required. In fact the language of Dt. almost suggests that the main purpose was to secure means of support (18:8). This purpose was at any rate secured by Josiah. They were to receive allowances of food with the priests of Jerusalem, but were not allowed to perform priestly functions (  2 Kings 23:9 ). It is to be noticed that the writer treats them with respect, calling them priests, and speaking of the priests of Jerusalem as brethren.

G. Ezekiel’s ideal sanctuary

1 . His direction concerning the Levites . In his ideal sanctuary Ezekiel makes a marked distinction between the ‘Levites that went far from me, when Israel went astray,’ and the ‘priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok ,’ who had faithfully ‘kept the charge of my sanctuary’ (  Ezekiel 44:10;   Ezekiel 44:15 ). The Levites are here charged with apostasy and idolatry, in reference, no doubt, to the sin of Jeroboam, which Ezekiel so regarded. He directs that as a punishment they should be forbidden the office of priest, and be allowed to do only the servile work of the sanctuary, such as the oversight of the gates, slaying of victims work that had hitherto been done, so Ezekiel complains, by uncircumcised aliens (  Ezekiel 44:5-10 ). There can be little doubt that Ezekiel here gives the clue to the way in which the ‘Levites’ in the later sense of the term arose. The descendants of the priests, turned out from their local sanctuaries and not allowed to do the regular work of the priests, became a sort of inferior order, to do the menial service of the Second Temple.

2 . The appellation ‘ sons of Zadok ’ seems to imply that the priests in Jerusalem also were, at least in Ezekiel’s time, an hereditary guild. Zadok himself was the chief priest appointed by Solomon in the room of Abiathar, in consequence, no doubt, of his loyalty with reference to Adonijah (  1 Kings 2:35 ). It is obvious that at first all the priests of Jerusalem could not have been ‘sons of Zadok,’ and it is extremely unlikely that their successors were all descended from him or any other one ancestor.

3 . Like the ‘Levites,’ the high priest seems to have emerged gradually. In the different small sanctuaries each priest probably occupied an independent position. As some of these grew in importance, the priest attached to them would obtain a relatively greater influence, or possibly a paramount influence, over a district or tribe, as in the cases of Eli and Samuel, whose power, however, a later tradition seems to have greatly magnified. When several priests were associated together, as exceptionally perhaps at Noh (see II. B. 6), and afterwards in Solomon’s Temple, some kind of leadership became necessary, without any necessary difference of religious functions. Such a leadership seems to have been held by Ahimelech (  1 Samuel 21:1-15 ), Zadok (  1 Kings 2:35 ), and Jehoiada (  2 Kings 11:1-21 ). These were known as ‘the priest.’ Such is probably meant by ‘the priest that shall be in those days’ in   Deuteronomy 26:3 .

In Ezekiel’s ideal sanctuary there is no distinction between priest and high priest, and the only special vestments sanctioned for the priests are the garments kept in the priests’ chambers, but no details are given as to their character or style ( Ezekiel 42:14 ).

The earliest document in which the distinction appears is probably the almost contemporary ‘Code of Holiness’ ( Leviticus 17:1-16;   Leviticus 18:1-30;   Leviticus 19:1-37;   Leviticus 20:1-27;   Leviticus 21:1-24;   Leviticus 22:1-33;   Leviticus 23:1-44;   Leviticus 24:1-23;   Leviticus 25:1-55;   Leviticus 26:1-46 ). In Lev   Leviticus 21:10 we find the curious phrase ‘he that is the high priest among his brethren’ (RV [Note: Revised Version.] ), which might be more exactly rendered, ‘the priest that is greater than his brethren’ an expression which would very well apply to one who did not hold a distinctly different office, as the high priest of P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] , but was rather primus inter pares . The directions concerning him deal entirely with ceremonial and social obligations, which were rather more exacting in his case than with other priests. For instance he might not marry a widow, or rend his garments as a sign of grief (  Leviticus 21:10-15 ). The allusions to a special unction (see   Isaiah 1 , B. 1) and the high-priestly dress in 10 and 12 are almost certainly later interpolations.

III. Developments in the hierarchy after the Priestly Code.

1 . Relation of lower officers to Levites . The historical sketch just given shows clearly how, in many ways, the earlier arrangements paved the way for the hierarchical system of P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] . The later history points to new developments in the hierarchical system. The Books of Chronicles, and the parts of Ezra and Nehemiah which belong to them, point to a highly organized service in which singers, and players on musical instruments, porters (RV [Note: Revised Version.] sometimes ‘ doorkeepers ’), and Nethinim take a prominent place.

The Nethinim are always distinguished from the Levites, as in   1 Chronicles 9:2 (  Nehemiah 11:3 ),   Ezra 2:43 (  Nehemiah 7:46 ). Both singers and porters are distinguished from the Levites in documents contemporary with Nehemiah and Ezra, but included among them by the Chronicler (cf.   1 Chronicles 9:14-34 (  Nehemiah 11:15-24 ) 15:16 24 etc. with   Ezra 7:24;   Ezra 10:23-24 ,   Nehemiah 7:1;   Nehemiah 10:28 ). This shows that the ‘porters and singers’ came to be regarded as ‘Levites,’ and were believed to be descended from one tribe. Meanwhile the more menial work of the Levites passed into the hands of the Nethinim, who are said in a Chronicler’s note to have been given by David to the Levites just as in P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] the Levites are said to have been given ( nÄ•thûnîm ) to the priests (cf.   Ezra 8:20 with   Numbers 18:16 ).

2. ( a ) Their history . The origin of the singers and porters is unknown. That they were both in existence in some form when Ezra began his work of reform is clear from   Ezra 7:24 , where they as well as the Nethinim were exempted from taxation by a decree of Artaxerxes. What is apparently the first mention of them is in what is, on the face of it, a list of the families which returned from the Exile in   Ezra 2:1-70 (  Nehemiah 7:6 ff.), in which the singers, porters, and Nethinim appear as separate classes. A closer examination, however, of the parallel passages makes it clear that the list in Nehemiah is not what was found in the archives, but the census made by himself. This is shown by the use of ‘Tirshatha,’ the official title of Nehemiah, in   Nehemiah 7:65 , and the references to contemporary events in   Nehemiah 7:64;   Nehemiah 7:70;   Nehemiah 7:73 . The Chronicler in   Ezra 3:1-13 , after giving the list, continues the parallel context of Nehemiah, showing that here too he has taken the whole extract from the same source as in Nehemiah;   Ezra 2:1-70 cannot, therefore, be cited as independent evidence for the early date of this list.

The porters might very naturally have arisen out of the necessity of defending the city and Temple from hostile attack ( 2 Chronicles 23:4 ,   Nehemiah 11:19 ). The complicated arrangements in   1 Chronicles 26:1-19 suggest that an original necessity had become a stately ceremonial.

The singers, or at any rate the musicians, of Nehemiah’s time appear to have belonged to one particular guild, that of Asaph (  Nehemiah 12:35;   Nehemiah 12:45 ). The note in v. 45 is probably a later insertion of the Chronicler, who ascribed to David all the Temple institutions not already assigned to Moses in P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] .

It appears from  Nehemiah 7:1 that Nehemiah probably went a long way in re-organizing the work of Levites, singers and porters.

( b ) The Books of Chronicles and the Psalms as a whole point to a later development of the Temple offices. (1) New guilds connected with the names of Korah, Heman, and Jeduthun (or Ethan) were added. The guilds of Asaph and Korah, and perhaps Heman and Jeduthun, had each a psalm-book of their own, of which several were afterwards incorporated into the general Psalter (see   Psalms 73:1-28;   Psalms 74:1-23;   Psalms 75:1-10;   Psalms 76:1-12;   Psalms 77:1-20;   Psalms 78:1-72;   Psalms 79:1-13;   Psalms 80:1-19;   Psalms 81:1-16;   Psalms 82:1-8;   Psalms 83:1-18;   Psalms 84:1-12;   Psalms 85:1-13;   Psalms 87:1-7;   Psalms 88:1-18;   Psalms 89:1-52 ,   1 Chronicles 15:16-22 ). On the other hand, in   1 Chronicles 9:19 , the Korahites , who were perhaps really of Levitical origin, are represented as doing the menial work, which had been that of the Levites, and yet are classed (  1 Chronicles 9:33 ) under the general name of ‘singers.’ It is impossible to say which represents the earlier arrangement. (2) Another change in organization testified by the Chronicler is the division of priests and Levites (singers) into 24 ‘ courses ’ (  1 Chronicles 24:1-19;   1 Chronicles 24:25 ). These were believed to have been arranged by David, but first appointed by Solomon (  2 Chronicles 8:14 ). This meant that in later times the whole body of priests and ‘Levites’ was arranged in 24 guilds, each of which was believed to be a separate family. So the work could be conveniently arranged. Thus it became customary for each of the courses of priests to attend in turn to the public work of the Temple. Like much that came to be ascribed to David, the beginning of some arrangement of the kind was probably the work of Nehemiah (  Nehemiah 13:30-31 ).

3. Further development of Levitical theory . In the Books of Chronicles we find a considerable development of the Levitical theory of the hierarchy. (1) A Levitical origin is assigned to Samuel, Asaph, Heman, etc. (  1 Chronicles 6:27-28;   1 Chronicles 6:33;   1 Chronicles 6:39;   1 Chronicles 6:44 ). (2) Zadok is held to be a descendant of Eleazar (  1 Chronicles 6:4-12 ); Ahimelech (or Abimelech), Abiathar’s father or son, a descendant of Ithamar, Eleazar’s younger brother (  1 Chronicles 24:3;   1 Chronicles 24:6; cf.   1 Samuel 22:20 ,   2 Samuel 8:17 ,   1 Chronicles 24:6 ). That Abiathar was a descendant of Eli, and Eli a descendant of Aaron, had already been implied by an editorial note in   1 Kings 2:27 , which explained Solomon’s supplanting Abiathar by Zadok as a fulfilment of the prophecy against the house of Eli (  1 Samuel 2:27-36 ), whereas in all probability by the ‘faithful priest’ is meant Samuel. According to the Chronicler, what Solomon did was to restore the high priesthood from the line of Ithamar to that of Eleazar . The office had originally passed, according to the priestly tradition, from Eleazar to his son Phinehas (  Judges 20:28 ), but how or when it got into the line of Ithamar is nowhere explained. There is a tendency in the Chronicler to ignore the priesthood of Abiathar, even in David’s reign. In   1 Chronicles 16:39 Zadok is appointed priest when the ark is first brought to Jerusalem, and in   1 Chronicles 29:22 he is anointed together with Solomon shortly before David’s death.

4. Extra ecclesiastical work of the priests and Levites . The later books of the Bible make it likely that in the later period, at least from Nehemiah onwards, the priests and Levites engaged in other than sacrificial work, and especially in religious teaching (see   2 Chronicles 15:3 , where the Chronicler characteristically reads into the history the ideas of a later time,   Malachi 2:7 ,   Nehemiah 8:4;   Nehemiah 8:7 ). In   2 Chronicles 19:8-11 the work of administering justice is similarly referred to them. Thus the influence and also, to some extent, the work which in primitive times had been theirs, and had dwindled with the rise of king and prophet, seem to have returned to them, when these officers disappeared.

IV. Influence of the hierarchy on the religion of Israel at different periods. 1. In primitive times, when each local sanctuary was the centre of religious, and, to some extent, of social and political, life, we find the influence of the priests very considerable (see II. A.). They were the natural persons to consult in case of difficulty. With them grew up a religious and moral tradition. They became the earliest channels of Divine revelation, and handed down that Divine teaching or Instruction (the ‘law’ of our English Bibles, as in   Isaiah 1:10 ).

2. It was probably out of the early priesthood that the prophetic office, as represented in the Books of Samuel, emerged. The prophet Samuel, who, according to tradition, combined the two offices, marks the transition between the spiritual influence of priest and prophet.

3. As the priestly power declined through loss of spiritual vigour, the prophetic influence became stronger, and we find the early prophets, in both the North and the South, but in the North especially, denouncing the unspiritual character of the priesthood, and the prevailing religious rites (see esp.   Hosea 4:4-9 ,   Isaiah 1:10-17 ).

4. With the religious revival under Josiah and the publication of the early chapters of Dt. we may notice a temporary reaction, but one marked by a strong tendency to give religion a more spiritual tone. It is still the prophet who is to be the source of Divine revelation (  Deuteronomy 18:15 ), though even the words of a prophet are not necessarily infallible (  Deuteronomy 13:1-5 ). At about the same period Jeremiah denounces the popular valuation of a purely formal worship and an unworthy priesthood (  Deuteronomy 3:16 ,   Deuteronomy 5:31 ,   Deuteronomy 7:11 ).

5. The possibilities, however, of a spiritual worship and a holy priesthood were never lost sight of, and a fresh impetus to priestly ideas is given, at latest during the Exile, by the ‘Code of Holiness’ (  Leviticus 17:1-16;   Leviticus 18:1-30;   Leviticus 19:1-37;   Leviticus 20:1-27;   Leviticus 21:1-24;   Leviticus 22:1-33;   Leviticus 23:1-44;   Leviticus 24:1-23;   Leviticus 25:1-55;   Leviticus 26:1-46 ) and the ideal sanctuary and priesthood sketched by Ezekiel (  Ezekiel 40:1-49;   Ezekiel 41:1-26;   Ezekiel 42:1-20;   Ezekiel 43:1-27;   Ezekiel 44:1-31;   Ezekiel 45:1-25;   Ezekiel 46:1-24;   Ezekiel 47:1-23;   Ezekiel 48:1-35 ).

6. With the first Return and the re-institution of Temple worship, the priesthood gained a fresh accession of power, all the greater as the secular power was under Persian rule. The contemporary prophets, Zech. and Haggai, not only insistently urge the importance of using every effort to re-build the Temple, but speak of Joshua the high priest as though on all but equal terms with Zerubbabel (  Haggai 1:14;   Haggai 2:1-9 ,   Zechariah 3:1-10;   Zechariah 4:11-14;   Zechariah 6:9-15 ).

7 . The same priestly feelings influence Malachi, almost the contemporary of Nehemiah, who, while he attacks unmercifully the unworthy priests (  Nehemiah 1:6 to   Nehemiah 2:9 ), is loud in denouncing those who robbed God by not paying tithes (  Nehemiah 3:16 ), and seeks for a religious ideal in a purified Levitical system (  Nehemiah 3:3-4 ).

8. The exaltation of the priesthood reached its climax in the person of Simon the Just, who restored the Temple, and re-built the city walls which had been demolished by Ptolemy. The people regarded him with supreme veneration. Sir 50:5-12 gives a most glowing description of the impression that he made as he officiated in his high-priestly vestments: ‘He was as the morning star in the midst of a cloud, and as the moon at full; as the sun shining upon the temple of the Most High, and as a rainbow giving light in the bright clouds,’ etc. etc.

9. In the Maccabæan period we find Simon II., the younger brother of Judas, actually ruling the people as high priest. Later on (b.c. 106) Judas (Aristobulus), according to Josephus, bore the title of ‘king,’ and the title actually appears on the coins of his brother Jannæus.

10. The close of this period, nevertheless, marks a decline, at any rate in the spiritual influence of the priesthood, and especially of the high priest. The latter office ceased to be hereditary, and was often bought and sold. A high priest could be deposed, and another appointed for political purposes. One reason for this decline was that religious interest tended in an increasing degree to be diverted to ethical and moral questions, as we see in the Wisdom literature of the age. Other causes or perhaps rather symptoms of the spirit of the time at a later period were the growth of the Jewish sects and t

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

( כּהן , kōhēn , "priest"; nothing is definitely known as to the origin of the word; לוי , lēwı̄ , "Levite," on which see Levi ):

I. Different Views Of The History

1. The Old View

2. The Graf-Wellhausen View

3. Mediating Views

4. An Alternative View

II. The Data Of The Priestly Code (P) In The Pentateuch

1. The Levites

2. Aaron and His Sons

III. The Other Portions Of The Pentateuch

IV. From Moses To Malachi

1. The Sources Other than Ezekiel

(1) The Custody of the Ark

(2) On Its Return from the Philistines

(3) In Abinadab's House

2. Ezekiel

V. Ezra , Nehemiah , Chronicles

1. Estimates of the Chronicler

2. His Data

VI. Legal Provisions

Literature

In some Minaean inscriptions found at El-'Ola, dating back about 1200-800 Bc (Hommel in Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands , 719), certain "priests and priestesses of the god Wadd are designated by the term lawı̂ , feminine lawı̂'at " (op. cit., 749). It is not known whether this is due to Israelite influence.

I. Different Views of the History.

1. The Old View:

There are great divergences of opinion among modern writers as to the true course of history and the dating of the different documents. It will therefore be best to sketch these views in rough outline, and then give the evidence of the various authorities, together with the reasons that in each case arise naturally from the consideration of that evidence.

The old belief was that the whole of the Pentateuchal laws were the work of Moses, that the account of the subsequent history given in the Books of Chronicles was correct, that Ezekiel's vision, if taken literally, could not be reconciled with the other known facts and was inexplicable, and that in the case of all other discrepancies harmonistic explanations should be adopted.

2. The Graf-Wellhausen View:

The modern critical school have traversed every one of these doctrines. The Chronicler is declared to be in constant and irreconcilable conflict with the older authorities, harmonistic explanations are uniformly rejected, the Pentateuch is denied to Moses and split up into a variety of sources of different ages, and Ezekiel gains a place of honor as representing a stage in a continuous and normal development. The subject is thus inextricably linked with the Pentateuchal problem, and reference must be made to the article Pentateuch for an explanation of the supposed documents and a consideration of the analysis with its nomenclature. On the other hand the present article and the article Sanctuary (which see) explain and discuss the most widely held theory of the historical development into which the history of the supposed Pentateuchal sources has been fitted.

The dominant theory is that of Wellhausen. According to this, "Levite" was originally a term denoting professional skill, and the early Levites were not members of the tribe of Levi, but professional priests. Anybody could sacrifice. "For a simple altar no priest was required, but only for a house which contained a sacred image; this demanded watching and attendance" (Wellhausen, Prolegomena , 130). The whole Levitical Law was unknown and the distinction between priests and Levites unheard of. There were a few great sanctuaries and one influential priesthood, that of Shiloh (afterward at Nob). With the monarchy the priesthood became more important. The royal priests at Jerusalem grew in consequence and influence until they overshadowed all the others. Deuteronomy recognized the equal priestly right of all Levites, and Josiah's reformation placed the sons of Zadok, who were the priests of Jerusalem and not descendants of Aaron, in a position of decisive superiority. Then Ezek drew a new and previously unknown distinction between "the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok" who are "keepers of the charge of the altar," and the other Levites who were made "keepers of the charge of the house" as a punishment for having ministered in the high places. The Priestly Code takes up this distinction and represents it as being of Mosaic origin, making of the sons of Zadok "sons of Aaron." "In this way arose as an illegal consequence of Josiah's reformation, the distinction between priests and Levites. With Ezekiel this distinction is still an innovation requiring justification and sanction; with the Priestly Code it is a 'statute forever,' although even yet not absolutely undisputed, as appears from the priestly version of the story of Korah's company. For all Judaism subsequent to Ezra, and so for Christian tradition, the Priestly Code in this matter also has been authoritative. Instead of the Deuteronomic formula 'the priests the Levites,' we henceforward have 'the priests and the Levites,' particularly in Chronicles" (op. cit., 147). From that time onward the priests and Levites are two sharply distinguished classes. It is an essential part of this theory that the Chronicler meant his work to be taken as literal history, correctly representing the true meaning of the completed law. See Criticism .

3. Mediating Views:

There have been various attempts to construct less thoroughgoing theories on the same data. As a rule, these views accept in some form the documentary theory of the Pentateuch and seek to modify the Wellhausen theory in two directions, either by attributing earlier dates to one or more of the Pentateuchal documents - especially to the Priestly Code - or else by assigning more weight to some of the statements of Chronicles (interpreted literally). Sometimes both these tendencies are combined. None of these views has met with any great measure of success in the attempt to make headway against the dominant Wellhausen theory, and it will be seen later that all alike make shipwreck on certain portions of the evidence.

4. An Alternative View:

The independent investigations on which the present article is based have led the writer to a view that diverges in important particulars from any of these, and it is necessary to state it briefly before proceeding to the evidence. In one respect it differs from all the rival schemes, not merely in result, but also in method, for it takes account of versional evidence as to the state of the texts. Subject to this it accepts the Mosaic authenticity of all the Pentateuchal legislation and the clear and consentient testimony of the Law and the Prophets (i.e. of the two earlier and more authoritative portions of the Hebrew Canon), while regarding Chronicles as representing a later interpretation, not merely of the history, but also of the legal provisions. In outline the story of the priesthood is then as follows: Moses consecrated Aaron and his sons as the priests of the desert tabernacle. He purified the rest of the tribe of Levi as a body of sacred porters for the period of wanderings, but in the legislation of Numbers he made no provision whatever for their performing any duties after the sanctuary obtained a permanent location. At the same time he gave a body of priestly teaching requiring for its administration in settled conditions a numerous and scattered body of priests, such as the house of Aaron alone could not have provided immediately after the entry into Canaan. To meet this, Deuteronomy - the last legislative work of Moses - contains provisions enlarging the rights and duties of the Levites and conferring on them a priestly position. The earlier distinction was thus largely obliterated, though the high-priestly dignity remained in the house of Aaron till the time of Solomon, when it was transferred from the house of Eli to that of Zadok, who, according to Ezekiel's testimony, was a Levite (but see below, IV, 1). So matters remained till the exile, when Ezekiel put forward a scheme which together with many ideal elements proposed reforms to insure the better application of the Mosaic principle of the distinction between holy and profane to greatly altered circumstances. Taking his inspiration from the wilderness legislation, he instituted a fresh division in the tribe of Levi, giving to the sons of Zadok a position similar to that once held by the sons of Aaron, and degrading all other Levites from the priesthood conferred on them by Dt to a lower rank. The duties now assigned to this class of "keepers of the charge of the house" were never even contemplated by Moses, but Ezekiel applies to them the old phrases of the Pentateuch which he invests with a new significance. As a result of his influence, the distinction between priests and Levites makes its appearance in post-exilic times, though it had been unknown to all the writers of the second division of the Hebrew Canon. At the same time a meaning was read into the provisions of the Law which their original author could not have contemplated, and it was this interpretation which is presented (at any rate to some extent) in Chronicles, and has given us the current tradition. Many of the Chronicler's statements are, however, not meant to be taken literally, and could not have been so taken by his original public.

II. The Data of the Priestly Code (P) in the Pentateuch.

1. The Levites:

To arrive at an objective conclusion it is necessary, in the first instance, to examine the facts without such bias as any view put forward by any other author, ancient or modern, sacred or profane, might impart. Every legislator is entitled to be judged on his own language, and where he has, so to speak, made his own dictionary, we are compelled to read his meaning into the terms used. The very first of the material references to the Levites drives this truth home. "But appoint thou the Levites over the tabernacle of the testimony, and over all the furniture thereof" ( Numbers 1:50 ). It is necessary to consider whether such expressions are to be read in a wide or a narrow sense. We learn from  Numbers 18:3 that death would be the result of a Levite's touching any of these vessels, and it therefore appears that these words are meant to be construed narrowly. "They shall bear the tabernacle, and all the furniture thereof; and they shall minister unto it," are the next words (  Numbers 1:50 ); but yet we read later of the Kohathites who were to bear it that "they shall not touch the sanctuary, lest they die" ( Numbers 4:15 ). This shows that the service in question is strictly limited to a service of porterage after the articles have been wrapped up by Aaron and his sons. By no possibility could it include such a task as cleaning the vessels. It is then further directed that the Levites are to take down and set up the dwelling and camp round about it. All these are desert services and desert services only. Then we read that "the Levites shall keep the charge of the tabernacle (dwelling) of the testimony. This concludes the first material passage (  Numbers 1:50-53 ). The other passages of Nu only amplify these directions; they never change them. But some phrases are used which must be more particularly considered.

(1) Technical Phrases.

We hear that the Levites are "to serve the service of the tent of meeting," and this looks as if it might refer to some general duties, but the context and the kindred passages always forbid this interpretation.  Numbers 7:5 ff is an admirable instance. Six wagons are there assigned to the Levites for this service, two to the Gershonites and four to the Merarites. "But unto the sons of Kohath he gave none, because the service of the sanctuary belonged unto them; they bare it upon their shoulders." Here service is transport and nothing else. Again we read of the charge of the Levites in the tent of meeting, e.g.   Numbers 4:25 f. If we look to see what this was, we find that it consisted of transporting portions of the tent that had been packed up. The "in" of English Versions of the Bible does not represent the meaning of the Hebrew fairly; for the context makes it clear that the legislator means "in respect to." "But they shall not go in to see the sanctuary even for a moment, lest they die" (  Numbers 4:20 ). In English idiom we cannot speak of the transport of portions of a dismantled tent as service in that tent. One other expression requires notice, the phrase "keep the charge" which is distinguished in  Numbers 8:26 from "doing service." The exact meaning cannot be determined. It appears to denote something kindred to service, but of a less exacting nature, perhaps the camping round the tent and the guardianship of the articles on the march. We shall see hereafter by comparison with other books that in P it does not bear the same meaning as elsewhere.

(2) Other Legal Provisions.

The Levites were to act under the orders of Aaron and his sons, who were to assign to each man his individual functions ( Numbers 3;  4 , etc.). They were to undergo a special rite of purification ( Numbers 8 ), but not of consecration. They were taken in place of the firstborn ( Numbers 3 ). The age for beginning service is given in  Numbers 4 as 30 years, but in   Numbers 8:24 as 25 years, if the text is sound. The age for ceasing to serve was 50. In many passages the versions suggest that a good many phrases are textually doubtful, and it is probable that when a critical text of the Pentateuch is formed on scientific principles, a good many superfluous expressions will be found not to be original; but there is no reason to suppose that any real difference in the meaning of the passages would be revealed by such a text.

The story of Korah is easily misunderstood. It appears from  Numbers 16:3 that his real object was to put himself on an equality with Moses and Aaron, and this is the "priesthood" referred to in   Numbers 16:10 . Nu 18 reinforces the earlier passages. It is noteworthy as showing that in the conception of the legislator the Levites were not to come near the vessels or the altar ( Numbers 18:3 ). The penalty is death for both Levites and priests.

(3) Contrast with Ezekiel and Chronicles.

The impression as to the meaning of P which may be gathered from an examination of its statements is powerfully reinforced when they are tested by reference to Ezekiel and Chronicles,  Ezekiel 44:9-14 seems to demand of the Levites some service as gatekeepers, the slaying of burnt offering and sacrifice for the people and a keeping of "the charge of the house, for all the service thereof," which in the light of   Ezekiel 44:7 f appears to mean in his terminology, not a service of transport, but an entry into the house and the performance of certain duties there. The Priestly Code (P), on the contrary, knows nothing of gatekeepers, regards the slaying of the burnt offering and sacrifice as the duty of the individual sacrificant (Lev 1; 3), and - if, as Wellhausen thinks, it refers to the temple - it would have visited with death a Levite who was present in the places in which Ezekiel requires him to minister. Similarly with the Chronicler. For instance, he the Levites being 'for the service of the ... in the courts and over the chambers, and over the cleansing of every holy thing' (  1 Chronicles 23:28 ), but P knows nothing of any chambers, would not have allowed the Levites to touch (much less clean) many of the holy things, and regarded service simply as porterage. In  1 Chronicles 23:31 the Levites are to offer burnt offerings on certain occasions; in P their approach to the altar would have meant death both to themselves and the priests (  Numbers 18:3 ). Other instances will be found in PS , 238 f.

(4) What the Foregoing Proves.

In view of these facts it is impossible to hold that the Levites in P represent a projection of the Levites of the second temple or any post-Mosaic age into the desert period. To P they are a body of sacred porters. The temple of course could not be carried about, and it cannot be held that in this respect the legislation mirrors later circumstances. "Secondly, the net result of such a scheme would be to create a body of Levites for use during the period of wanderings and never thereafter . As soon as the desert age was over the whole tribe would find their occupation gone. How can we conceive that any legislator deliberately sat down and invented such a scheme centuries after the epoch to which it relates, well knowing that in so far as his scheme purported to be a narrative of events it was fictitious from beginning to end, and in so far as it might be regarded as a legislation applicable to his own or any future day, there was not a line in it that could conceivably be put into practice? If any theorist can be conceived as acting in this way, how are we to suppose that his work would meet with acceptance?... Thirdly, P neither embodies the views of Ezekiel nor finds an accurate reflection in Chronicles. The facts are such as to enable us to say definitely that P is not in line with them. It is impossible to assume that he appointed the death penalty for certain acts if performed by Levites because he really wished the Levites to perform those acts" ( Ps , 241 f).

2. Aaron and His Sons:

Priests and Levites also speaks of Aaron the priest and the sons of Aaron the priest. It is doubtful whether the expression "the sons of Aaron the priests," which occurs frequently in the Massoretic Text, is ever original; the Massoretic expression is nowhere supported by all the authorities. "The phrase ‛A aron the high priest' is entirely unknown to Priests and Levites. Where the high priest's name is given the only qualifying apposition possible in his usage is 'the priest.' " Aaron and his sons, unlike the Levites, were consecrated, not merely purified.

At this point two features only of the legislation need be noticed: the inadequacy of the staff to post-conquest conditions and the signs of date. For example, the leprosy laws ( Leviticus 13 f) postulate the presence of priests to inspect and isolate the patient. "Remembering that on the critical theory P assumes the capital at Jerusalem as self-evident, we must ask how such provisions were to work after the conquest. During the desert period nothing could have been simpler, but what was to happen when the Israelites dwelt all over Canaan from Beersheba to Dan?" ( Ps , 246). The difficulty is immensely increased if we postulate an exilic or post-exilic date, when the Jewish center of gravity was in Babylonia and there were large colonies in Egypt and elsewhere. And "What are we to say when we read of leprous garments ( Leviticus 13:47 ff)? Was a man to make the pilgrimage from Babylonia to Jerusalem to consult a priest about a doubtful garment? And what about the leper's offerings in Lev 14? Could they conceivably have been meant to apply to such circumstances?" ( PS , 247). The case is no better with the law of leprous houses, which is expressed to apply to the post-conquest period ( Leviticus 4:33 -53). The notification to the priest and his inspections require a priesthood scattered all over the country, i.e. a body far more numerous than the house of Aaron at the date of the conquest. Such instances could easily be multiplied from the legislation; one more only will be cited on account of its importance to the history of the priesthood. According to Leviticus, the individual sacrificant is to kill the victims and flay the burnt offerings. How could such procedure be applied to such sacrifices as those of Solomon (  1 Kings 8:63 )? With the growth of luxury the sacrifices would necessarily become too large for such a ritual, and the wealthy would grow in refinement and object to performing such tasks personally. This suggests the reason for later abuses and for the modifications of Ezekiel and the representations of the Chronicler.

Result of the Evidence.

Thus, the evidence of P is unfavorable alike to the Wellhausen and the mediating views. The indications of date are consistently Mosaic, and it seems impossible to fit the laws into the framework of any other age without reading them in a sense that the legislator can be shown not to have contemplated. On the other hand P is a torso. It provides a large body of Levites who would have nothing to do after the conquest, and a corpus of legislation that could not have been administered in settled conditions by the house of Aaron alone.

III. The Other Portions of the Pentateuch.

In  Exodus 19:22 ,  Exodus 19:24 we read of priests, but a note has come down to us that in the first of those verses Aquila had "elders," not "priests," and this appears to be the correct reading in both places, as is shown by the prominence of the elders in the early part of the chapter. In Hebrew the words differ by only two letters. It is said by Wellhausen that in   Exodus 33:7-11 (E) Joshua has charge of the ark. This rests on a mistranslation of   Exodus 33:7 , which should be rendered (correcting English Versions of the Bible), 'And Moses used to take a (or the) tent and pitch it for himself without the camp.' It is inconceivable that Moses should have taken the tent of the ark and removed it to a distance from the camp for his private use, leaving the ark bared and unguarded. Moreover, if he had done so, Joshua could not have been in charge of the ark, seeing that he was in this tent while the ark ( ex hypothesi ) remained in the camp. Nor had the ark yet been constructed. Nor was Joshua in fact a priest or the guardian of the ark in E: (1) in the Book of Joshua E knows of priests who carry the ark and are quite distinct from Joshua (3 ff); (2) in  Deuteronomy 31:14 (E) Joshua is not resident in the tent of meeting; (3) in E, Aaron and Eleazar are priests (  Deuteronomy 10:6 ), and the Levitical priesthood is the only one recognized ( Deuteronomy 33:10 ); (4) there is no hint anywhere of Joshua's discharging any priestly duty whatsoever. The whole case rests on his presence in the tent in  Exodus 33:7-11 , and, as shown in the article Pentateuch (which see), this passage should stand after  Exodus 13:22 .

Then it is said that in  Exodus 4:14;  Judges 17:7 , "Levite" denotes profession, not ancestry. In the latter passage the youth whom Micah made a priest was of Levitical descent, being the grandson of Moses ( Judges 17:13 ), and the case rests on the phrase, "of the family of Judah." Neither of the Septuagintal translations had this text (Field, Hexapla , at the place), which therefore cannot be supported, since it cannot be suggested that Moses belonged to the tribe of Judah. As to  Exodus 4:14 , the phrase "Aaron thy brother the Levite" is merely an adaptation of the more usual, "Aaron, son of Amram, the Levite," rendered necessary by the fact that his brother Moses is the person addressed. The Wellhausen theory here is shown to be untenable in PS , 250 and RE3 , XI, 418.

 Exodus 32:26-29 foreshadows the sacred character of Levi, and   Deuteronomy 10:6 (E) knows the hereditary Aaronic priesthood. In D the most important passage is   Deuteronomy 18:6-8 . In  Deuteronomy 18:7 three Septuagintal manuscripts omit the words "the Levites," and if this be a gloss, the whole historic sense of the passage is changed. It now contains an enactment that any Levite coming to the religious capital may minister there "as all his brethren do, who stand there," etc., i.e. like the descendants of Aaron. "The Levites" will then be the explanation of a glossator who was imbued with the latest post-exilic ideas, and thought that "his brethren" must mean those of his fellow-Levites who were not descended from Aaron. The passage is supplemented by   Deuteronomy 21:5 , giving to the Levites judicial rights, and  Deuteronomy 24:8 assigning to them the duty of teaching the leprosy regulations. Together with   Deuteronomy 33:10 (E), 'they shall teach thy judgments to Jacob and thy law to Israel: they shall put incense in thy nostrils and whole burnt-offering on thine altar,' these passages complete the provisions of P in giving to the Levites an occupation in place of their transport duties, and providing the necessary staff for administering the legislation when the Israelites were no longer massed together in a single camp, but scattered over the country. We shall see in the next section that this view of the meaning of the Law was taken by every writer of the second part of the Canon who touches on the subject. Everywhere we are confronted with the legitimacy of a Levitical priesthood; nowhere is there any mention of an exclusive Aaronic right. Smaller points which cannot be discussed here are examined in PS . It only remains to notice that these provisions fully explain the frequent Deuteronomic locution, "the priests the Levites." One other remark must be made. Though it is not expressly stated, we may assume that consecration would be necessary in the case of any Levite acting on the provisions of  Deuteronomy 18:6-8 , and was not mentioned because in Hebrew antiquity it went without saying that every priest must be consecrated (compare  Judges 17:1-13 ).

IV. From Moses to Malachi.

1. The Sources Other than Ezekiel:

Joshua adds but little to our information. In  Joshua 18:7 the priesthood is called the inheritance of the Levites, and it is singular that the Wellhausen critics attribute this to a priestly redactor, though such a writer should ex hypothesi have been jealous to withhold the priesthood from the Levites. It is very interesting to find that in Josh 3; 4, all the different critical documents speak in exactly the same terms of "the priests that bare the ark." The priestly writer ought, on the Wellhausen theory, to have said "the Levites." The expression "the priests the Levites" is found alternating with the expression "the priests." All this points to the construction put upon the provisions of the Law in the preceding section, and finds fresh confirmation in Judges, where we see Micah rejoicing at having a Levite as a priest (  Judges 17:13 ), thus showing that the sacred character of the tribe was recognized in the earliest post-Mosaic times. The lay sacrifices in this and the following books are explained under Sanctuary; Sacrifice (which see).

The period of the early kings shows us kings blessing the people (e.g.  2 Samuel 6:18 ). It is claimed that this is the priestly blessing, but without evidence, and there seems no more reason to see special priestly rights here than in David's blessing his household ( 2 Samuel 6:20 ), or the frequent blessings of the Bible (e.g. Genesis passim , especially "in thee will Israel bless,"  Genesis 48:20 ), while in  1 Kings 8:55 ff we actually have the words of the blessing delivered on one of those occasions by Solomon, and it is quite unlike the blessing of the priests (  Numbers 6:22 ff).

Textual criticism disposes of the supposed priesthood of certain non-Levitical persons. In  2 Samuel 8:18 the Massoretic Text makes David's sons "priests," but this reading was unknown to the Septuagint, Symmachus, and Theodotion (Field, ad. loc.). The Septuagint has "aularches," i.e. chamberlains. That this represents a different Hebrew word is proved by the Septuagintal list of 3 Ki 2:46 (not extant in Hebrew), where we read that Benaiah, son of Jehoiada, was "over the aularchy and over the brick-making." It cannot be suggested that this represents an original Hebrew "over the priesthood and over the brick-making," and accordingly we must concede the existence of some secular court office which was rendered by this Greek phrase. Hitzig and Cheyne conjecture that סכנום , ṣōkhenı̄m should be read for כהנים , kōhănı̄m . This word gives the sense required (see  Isaiah 22:15 ) Revised Version margin "steward"). In  2 Samuel 20:26 we read that Ira, היארי , ha - yā'iri ("the Jairite"), was a priest, but the Syriac version supported by Lucian and  2 Samuel 23:38 reads היתּרי , ha - yattirı̄ ("the Jattirite"). Jattir was a priestly city. In  1 Kings 4:5 Nathan's son is described as 'priest friend of the king,' but the Septuagint reads only "friend of the king" (compare especially   1 Chronicles 27:33 f;   2 Samuel 15:32 ), and at another period Nathan's son held the kindred secular office of king's counselor (the Septuagint 3 Ki  1 Kings 2:46 , a fact that is certainly unfavorable to the view that he ever held priestly office). There can therefore be no doubt that the word "priest," כּהן , kōhēn has arisen through dittography of the preceding word נתן , nāthān , Nathan.

Various dealings with the ark and the age of Samuel require notice. As a boy, Samuel himself is given into the service of Eli. It has been argued that he really officiated as a priest, though probably (if the Chronicler's data is rejected) not of the Levitical descent. The answer is to be found in his age. Weaning sometimes took place at as late an age as three, and accordingly, the boy may have been as much as four years old when he was taken to Shiloh ( 1 Samuel 1:24 ). His mother used to bring him a little cloak ( 1 Samuel 2:19 ) every year, and this notice also shows his extreme youth. In view of this, it cannot be seriously contended that he performed any priestly service. He must have been something like a page, and he performed some duties of a porter, opening the door-valves of the temple at Shiloh ( 1 Samuel 3:15 ).

(1) The Custody of the Ark

When the ark was captured by the Philistines, it was in the charge of priests. When David brought it to Jerusalem, it was again placed in priestly custody, but there is an interregnum of some 20 years ( 1 Samuel 7:2 ).

It must be remembered that whatever may have happened during this period of great national confusion, the practice of all the rest of history, extending over some 600 or 700 years, is uniform and would far outweigh any irregularities during so short and troubled a period.

(2) On Its Return from the Philistines

The first difficulty arises on  1 Samuel 6:14 ,  1 Samuel 6:15 . In the second of these verses the Levites come up after the Beth-shemites have finished, and, in Wellhausen's words, "proceed as if nothing had happened, lift the ark from the now-no-longer-existent cart, and set it upon the stone on which the sacrifice is already burning" ( Prolegomena , 128). It is therefore suggest that  1 Samuel 6:15 is a gloss. But there is difficulty in   1 Samuel 6:14 which tells of the breaking up of the cart, etc., without explaining what happened to the ark. The trouble may be met by a slight transposition, thus: '14a and the cart came into the field,... and stood there, and there was there a great stone: 15a and the Levites took down the ark, etc. and put them on the great stone: 14b and clave the wood of the cart,' etc., followed by 15b. This makes perfect sense.

(3) In Abinadab's House

The second difficulty is made by  1 Samuel 7:1 , where we read that the ark was brought to the house of Abinadab 'and Eleazar his son they sanctified to guard' it. Its old abode, the house at Shiloh, had apparently been destroyed ( Jeremiah 7:12 ,  Jeremiah 7:14;  Jeremiah 26:6 ,  Jeremiah 26:9 ). There it enjoyed considerable importance, for Poels is unquestionably right in identifying the Gibeah of God ( 1 Samuel 10:5 ) with the Gibeah (hill) of the ark. Thus, there was a high place there and a Philistine garrison (compare  1 Samuel 13:3 , where Septuagint and Targum have "Gibeah"). There remains the difficulty caused by the guardianship of Eleazar. Poels may be right in reading בּני ואת אלעזר , we'eth benē' el'āzār , "and the sons of Eleazar," for בּנו אלעזר ואת , we'eth 'el‛āzār benō , "and Eleazar his son"; but in the entire absence of information, alike as to Eleazar's functions and as to his tribe, nothing definite can be said. The narratives of the slaughter among the Beth-shemites and the fate of Uzzah make it certain that Eleazar's custody of the ark kept him at a respectful distance from it.

When David at the end of this period removed the ark, it was first taken in a cart. This proved fatal to Uzzah, and the ark was deposited in the house of Obededom the Gittite. The text of Samuel knows nothing of any guardianship of the ark by Obed-edom. Probably he took very good care not to go near it in view of Uzzah's fate. Then it was transported to Jerusalem by bearers ( 2 Samuel 6:13 ) - presumably of Levitical descent. No further irregularities are urged.

More important is the change of priesthood;  1 Samuel 2:27-36 clearly threatens Eli, whose house had been chosen in Egypt, with a transference of the high-priesthood to another line. Careful comparison with   1 Kings 2:27 makes it certain that the prophecy was fulfilled when Zadok was placed by Solomon in the place of Abiathar. Who was Zadok? According to Chronicles (  1 Chronicles 6:8 ,  1 Chronicles 6:53;  1 Chronicles 24:3;  1 Chronicles 27:17 ) he was descended from Aaron through Eleazar, and this is accepted by Orr, Van Hoonacker and many others, who take Chronicles in a literal sense. According to Ezekiel he was a Levite ( Ezekiel 40:46 , etc.). It is noteworthy that throughout the prophetical books we always hear of the Levitical priesthood, not the Aaronic (see especially  1 Kings 12:31;  Jeremiah 33:18-22; Mal 2), and the "father's house" of  1 Samuel 2:27-36 that was chosen in Egypt could only be the house of _ Aaron, not of Ithamar, if the passage is to be taken in its natural sense. On this view Zadok's appointment could only have fulfilled the prophecy if it terminated the Aaronic succession. It would seem therefore that the high-priesthood was transferred to a family of non-Aaronic Levites. For the alternative view see Zadok .

The prophet's speech in  1 Samuel 2:27-36 is also important for the light it throws on the organization of the priesthood. The high priest has in his gift a number of priestly offices with pecuniary and other emoluments. This postulates a far more advanced hierarchy than that of Priest.

The reference to "the priests and the Levites" in  1 Kings 8:4 was unknown to the Septuagint, but in other passages the Books of Kings show further advances in hierarchical organization. There is not merely the high priest - generally like Aaron in the Priestly Code (P) called "the priest," but sometimes the high priest - but also the second priest (  2 Kings 25:18;  Jeremiah 52:24;  2 Kings 23:4 , according to the Targum), three keepers of the threshold ( ubi supra , and  2 Kings 12:10 ) and "elders of the priests" ( 2 Kings 19:2;  Isaiah 37:2; perhaps also  Jeremiah 19:1 ). See also  Jeremiah 20:1 f;   Jeremiah 29:26 for priestly organization and jurisdiction in the temple precincts. All this contrasts strikingly with the simplicity of the Pentateuchal organization.

2. Ezekiel:

Ezekiel is entirely in line with the other sources for this period, but he seeks to institute certain reforms. He writes, "Her priests have done violence to my law, and have profaned my holy things: they have made no distinction between the holy and the common, neither have they caused men to discern between the unclean and the clean," etc. ( Ezekiel 22:26 ). If these words have any meaning they signify that he was acquainted with a law which followed the very words of Lev 10 and other passages of the Priestly Code (P), and was intended to reach the people through the teaching of the priests. In Ezekiel 40 through 48, there is a vision of the future which stands in the closest relation to the Pentateuch. Three views have been held of this. The old view was that Ezekiel could not be reconciled with the Pentateuch at all, and that the difficulties presented were insoluble. Wellhausen and his followers maintain that the prophet is prior to the Priestly Code (P), and here introduces the distinction between priests and Levites for the first time. The third alternative is to hold that Ezekiel was familiar with P and drew from it the inspiration to make a fresh division among the Levites, giving the sons of Zadok a position similar to that occupied by the sons of Aaron in the wilderness period, and reenacting with slight modifications the legislation applicable to the sons of Aaron, this time applying it to the sons of Zadok. The crucial passage is  Ezekiel 44:6-16 , from which it clearly appears that in Solomon's temple aliens had performed sundry tasks that should have been executed by more holy persons, and that Ezekiel proposes to degrade Levites who are not descended from Zadok to perform such tasks in the future as a punishment for their ministrations to idols in high places. Either of the two latter views would explain the close connection that evidently exists between the concluding chapters of Ezekiel and the Priestly Code (P), and, accordingly, in choosing between them, the reader must consider four main points: (1) Is P shown on the internal evidence to be early or late? Is it desert legislation, or is it accurately reflected in Chronicles? This point has already been discussed in part and is further treated in Pentateuch (which see). (2) Is theory of the late composition of P psychologically and morally probable? On this see Pentateuch and POT , 292-99. (3) Is it the case that the earlier history attests the existence of institutions of P that are held by Wellhausen and his followers to be late - e.g. more national offerings than the critics allow? On this see EPC 200 ff, and passim  ; POT , 305-15, and passim  ; SBL and OP passim , and article Pentateuch . (4) Does Ezekiel himself show acquaintance with P (e.g. in  Ezekiel 22:26 ), or not? On this too see SBL , 96; PS , 281 f.

With regard to the non-mention of the high-priesthood and certain other institutions in Ezekiel's vision, the natural explanation is that in the case of these the prophet did not desire to institute any changes. It is to be noted that Ezekiel does not codify and consolidate all existing law. On the contrary, he is rather supplementing and reforming. In his ideal temple the prince is to provide the statutory national offerings (  Ezekiel 45:17 ), i.e. those of Nu 28; 29. Apparently the king had provided these earlier ( 2 Kings 16:13 ). But in addition to these there had grown up a "king's offering," and it is probably to this only that  Ezekiel 45:22 ff;   Ezekiel 46:2-15 relate. In   Ezekiel 46:13 Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate, and some Hebrew manuscripts preserve the reading "he" for "thou."

V. Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles.

Whatever the course of the earlier history, there is general agreement that in these books a distinction between priests and Levites is established (see e.g.  Nehemiah 10:37 f (38 f);   Nehemiah 12:1 f). We also find singers and porters (  Nehemiah 13:5 , etc.), Nethinim and the sons of Solomon's servants ( Ezra 7:7 ,  Ezra 7:24;  Ezra 10:23 f;   Nehemiah 10:28 (29);   Nehemiah 11:3 , etc.). It must not be assumed that these classes were new. The story of the Gibeonites (Josh 9) gives us the origin of some of these grades, and the non-mention of them in many of the earlier books is easily explained by the character of those books. We know from such passages as  Amos 5:23 that there were musical services in far earlier times (compare   Nehemiah 12:42 ).

1. Estimates of the Chronicler:

Chronicles presents an account of the earlier history of the priests and Levites that in many respects does not tally with the older sources. Many modern writers think that the author's views of the past were colored by the circumstances of his own day, and that he had a tendency to carry back later conditions to an earlier period. On the other hand it is impossible to deny fairly that he used some sources which have not been preserved to us elsewhere. Again, there is evidence to show that his work was not intended to be taken for history and would not have been so regarded by his contemporaries. Talmudical authorities held some such view as this. The historical value of his work has yet to be appraised in a more critical and impartial spirit than is exhibited in any of the current discussions. For the present purpose it is only possible to notice the effect of some of his statements, if interpreted literally. As there are passages where he has clearly substituted Levites for the less holy personages of the older sources (contrast e.g.  2 Kings 11:4-12 with   2 Chronicles 23:1-11 ), it may be that Levites have also been substituted by him for other persons in notices of which no other version has survived.

2. His Data:

David and Solomon recognized the hierarchy. The former king instituted the musical services ( 1 Chronicles 6:3 ff;   1 Chronicles 16:4 ff; 25). The Levites were divided into courses (  1 Chronicles 23:6 ) and were rendered liable to service from the age of twenty by his enactment ( 1 Chronicles 23:27 ). There were also 24 courses or divisions of priests, 16 of the sons of Eleazar and 8 of the sons of Ithamar ( 1 Chronicles 23:24 ). The courses were divided by lot. In  Nehemiah 12:1-7 we read of "chiefs of the priests," but these are only 22 in number, while   Nehemiah 12:12-21 give us 21 in the time of Joiakim (  Nehemiah 12:26 ). But not much importance can be attached to such lists, as names could easily fall out in transmission. According to  1 Chronicles 9:26 the four chief porters were Levites, and Levites were also over the things baked in pans and the shewbread (  1 Chronicles 9:31 f). This of course is not in accordance with the Law, but is found elsewhere in Chronicles. In 1 Ch 23 the Levites from 30 years old and upward number 38,000, of whom 24,000 oversee the work of the house of the Lord, 6,000 were officers and judges, 4,000 were doorkeepers and 4,000 were musicians. David altered the age of beginning service to 20, and an account of their functions is given in   1 Chronicles 23:27-32 (see, further, Music ). All these arrangements were confirmed and enforced by Solomon ( 2 Chronicles 8:14 ff). There is often uncertainty as to whether the Chronicler identifies priests and Levites in particular cases or not, e.g. in   2 Chronicles 30:27 , "the priests the Levites" bless the people according to the ordinary text, but many authorities read "the priests and the Levites." Hezekiah appears to have undertaken some reorganization (2 Ch 29 through 31), but the details are not clear. Jehoshaphat established in Jerusalem a court composed partly of Levites and priests ( 2 Chronicles 19:8-11 ). Previously he had sent priests and Levites and others to teach the Law in Judah (2 Ch 17). In  2 Chronicles 29:34 it is clearly the duty of the priests to flay burnt offerings (contrast Lev 1). It is impossible to draw any consistent picture from the Chronicler because he gives different data for different periods; it is doubtful whether he meant his statements to be taken as historical, e.g. in 1 Ch 25 we find Levites whose names Giddalti (= "I have magnified"), etc., are really words forming part of a prayer, and it is difficult to believe that either the Chronicler or his public intended this chapter to be interpreted in any but a spiritual sense (see PS , 284-86).

In  Ezra 2:40 the number of Levites who returned with Zerubbabel is given as 74, as against 973 priests (  Ezra 2:36 ), 128 singers ( Ezra 2:41 ), 139 children of the porters ( Ezra 2:42 ), 392 Nethinim and children of Solomon's servants ( Ezra 2:58 ), and the figures are the same in Neh 7, except that there the singers number 148 ( Nehemiah 7:44 ) and the porters 138 ( Nehemiah 7:45 ). When Ezra went up, he was at first joined by no Levites ( Ezra 8:15 ), but subsequently gathered 38 Levites and 220 Nethinim ( Ezra 8:18-20 ). We get glimpses of the organization in  Nehemiah 12:44-47 and   Nehemiah 13:10 ff. It appears that in this period genealogies were carefully scrutinized in the case of doubtful claims to priestly descent (  Ezra 2:61 ff;   Nehemiah 7:63 ff). In   Ezra 6:19 ff the Levites are represented as killing the Passover.

Of these books no satisfactory account can be given in the present state of textual criticism and Biblical science generally. Some writers, e.g., hold that the Chronicler had before him a source to which the Levites were entirely unknown, others that he invented freely, others again that he reproduces trustworthy pre-exilic information. The student has only an assortment of theories from which to choose. The bedrock fact is that the statements of these books, if taken in their natural meaning, convey an entirely different impression from the statements of the earlier books construed similarly. Modern research has not yet been seriously addressed to the question whether all the statements were really intended to be interpreted as mere history.

VI. Legal Provisions.

Aaron and his sons underwent consecration to fit them for their duties.  Exodus 28 f prescribes their garments and consecration (see Dress; Breastplate; Ephod; Robe; Coat; Mitre; Girdle; Urim And Thummim ), and the account of the latter may be read in  Leviticus 8 f. In individual sacrifices brought to the religious capital the priests performed the part of the ritual which related to the altar (sprinkling, burning, etc.) (  Leviticus 1 through 4). See Sacrifice . A principal function was the duty of teaching the people the law of God ( Leviticus 10:11;  Leviticus 14:54-57;  Deuteronomy 24:8;  Deuteronomy 33:10; compare  Ezekiel 44:23;  Hosea 4:1-6;  Haggai 2:11 ff, and many passages in the Prophets).

The priests were subject to special laws designed to maintain their purity ( Leviticus 21 f; compare   Ezekiel 44 ). The rules aim at preventing defilement through mourning (save in the case of ordinary priests for a near relation) and at preventing those who were physically unfitted from performing certain functions, and those who were for any reason unclean from approaching the holy things. See further Stranger . They performed several semi-judicial functions ( Numbers 5:5 ff, 11 ff, etc.; see Judge ). They also blessed the people ( Numbers 6:22; compare  Deuteronomy 10:8 , etc.). See Blessing . On their dues see Sacrifice; Tithes; Firstlings; First-Fruits; Levitical Cities; Agrarian Laws; see further Chemarim; Nethinim; Sons Of Solomon 'S Servants; Singers; Doorkeepers; Serving-Women; Judge .

Literature.

Wellhausen, Prolegomena , chapter iv, for the Graf-Wellhausen view; Wiener, Wiener, Pentateuchal Studies, 230-89, for the view taken above; S.I. Curtiss, Levitical Priests , for the conservative view. This writer afterward changed to the critical view. James Orr, Pot  ; A. Van Hoonacker, Le sacerdoce levitique (important); W. Baudissin, article "Priests and Levites" in Hdb , IV, for mediating views. The best account in English of the details of the priestly duties is contained in Baudissin's article, where a further bibliography will be found.