PRIESTS AND LEVITE8

furniture. In short, they were required to do every-thing connected with the service which was not by law required of the priests themselves (Nu IS^-' 3'-").

4. The Levites were supported from the tithe, which was in the first instance paid to them (Nu 18"-^).

D. Levitical and priestly cities.— According to Nu 3S'-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 of these, in the territories of Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin, are given to the priests (Jos 21; see also 1 Ch 6"-", 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 (48'-"). This provision of cities and land in P 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 (Dt 10», Nu IS^" 26S2 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 (Dt 18^ Nu 188-»2, Lv 27>i').

This assignation of priestly cities must therefore be re-garded as a sort of historical theory, which grew partly out of some sort of provision, in land and houses in and about Jerusalem, naving been actually made in the period of the Second Temple for the priests and other officers (Neh 11'-^, 1 Ch 9^5 , partly because the cities so assigned in F 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 S 21). Though too great a reliance should not be placed on the editorial note in Jer I'.it is quite possible that several of the priests of Jerusalem may have lived together at Anathoth, which was only 2i miles from Jerusalem, and the home of Abiathar (lK2^),andso given rise to the tradi-tion that it was a priestly city.

E. Genealogical theory of the hierarchy.— P'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 (Nu 312 8"- "). All the 'sons' of Aaron — a descendant of Levi (Ex 6»-*<i) — were priests (Lv 1' etc.). The high priesthood descended in one line by primogeniture. Nadab and Abihu, Aaron's eldest sons, having perished, it passed to Eleazar, the next in age (Nu 20a-2», Ex 6"). That Eleazar's son Phinehas succeeded him is perhaps implied in Nu 25", and certainly is so in Jg 2028— in a document closely allied in its present form to P. The rest of the male 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 (Nu S^-").

II. OT EVIDENCE FOR THE EVOLUTIGN OF THE HIER-ARCHY. — There is reason to believe that the hierarchical system of P was not handed down in its completeness from primitive times, but waa of gradual growth.

A. The Book of the Covenant. — 1. Statiis of the local priests.— The earliest document bearing at all fully on the subject is the 'Book of the Covenant' (Ex 21-23), to which we should add Ex 20 and 24. The priests of the several sanctuaries, of which many are contem-plated (20M1"), are called Blohim (RV 'God,' AV 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 Ps 82= 'I said. Ye are gods' — a reference undoubtedly

PRIESTS AND LEVITES

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 con-nected with the retention of a slave after 6 years' service (Ex 21"), decide suits, impose fines and the like (2122 228»). To 'revUe' them was a crime (22'8, where the order of phrases suggests that they were of more conse-quence than the 'rulers'). No mention is made of any distinctive dress, even where one might certainly have expected it (cf. 20" with 28", 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 sUence 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 2^ are a very late insertion not found even in LXX. It depends upon a later tradition that the Tabernacle was set up in Shiloh (Jos 18.198' [P]).

In this temple was the ark, and the infant Samuel slept inside the sanctuary to protect it (1 S 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 2^8 — 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 4", that he judged Israel 40 years, is a still later editorial insertion connecting 1 Samuel with Judges (see Jg 15™ 168' etc.).

2. Position of Samuel. — When Shiloh had been de-stroyed by the Philistines, Samuel came to be a still more powerful priest, being, according to 1 S 7'8- ", connected, both as priest and ruler, with several local sanctuaries — Bethel, GUgal, Mizpah, and Ramah. But even these were comprised within a very small circle. It is curious that, according to 9« — 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 2^8 Eli uses Elohim as in the Book of the Cove-nant, showing that, in his time at any rate, there were other priests exercising jurisdiction at their several sanctuaries.

3. Absence of regular religious organization. — 1 Samuel points to great liberty of action on the part of the priests, or, at least, of Samuel himself. His move-ments do not seem to imply any regularly organized sacrificial system. Except for new moons and yearly feasts of perhaps more than one kind (1 S 18 208- '• ^s), to which we should probably add sabbaths (cf. 2 K 4'8), there seem to have been no regular feast days. The priest appoints and invites whom he chooses to the sacrificial meal (1 S 9^- ^), and on one occasion takes with him the animal for sacrifice (16'-8).

4. Dress of the primitive priests. — In 1 S 2'8- " 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 (Ex 288-'2- si-as). But the robe is also the common name for the upper garment, and is used of that worn by Jonathan and Saul (1 S 181 24<). 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 (1 S 14'8 22'8 238- " 30'). The Urim is expressly mentioned in 288, and the Urim and

751