PKIESTS
AND
LEVITES
F.
Reforms
of
Josiah
as
they
concerned
the
Levites
.—
When
Josiah
abolished
the
local
sanctuaries,
the
diffi-culty
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
(188).
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
K
23').
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
con-cerning
the
Levites.
—
In
his
ideal
sanctuary
Ezekiel
makes
a
marked
distinction
between
the
'
Levites
that
went
tar
from
me,
when
Israel
went
astray,'
and
the
'priests
the
Levites,
the
sons
of
Zadok,'
who
had
faithfully
'
kept
the
charge
of
my
sanctuary
'
(44"'-
").
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
(vv.'-'n).
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
K
2**).
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
Nob
(see
II.
B.
6),
and
afterwards
in
Solo-mon'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
S
21),
Zadok
(1
K
2m),
and
Jehoiada
(2
K
11).
These
were
known
as
'
the
priest.'
Such
is
probably
meant
by
'the
priest
that
shall
be
in
those
days'
in
Dt
26'.
In
Ezekiel's
ideal
sanctuary
there
is
no
distuiction
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
(42").
The
earliest
document
in
which
the
distinction
appears
is
probably
the
almost
contemporary
'Code
of
Holi-ness'
(Lvl7-26).
In
21"'
we
find
the
curious
phrase
'
he
that
is
the
high
priest
among
his
brethren'
(RV),
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,
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
PRIESTS
AND
LEVITES
other
priests.
For
instance
he
might
not
marry
a
widow,
or
rend
his
garments
as
a
sign
of
grief
(21"-").
The
allusions
to
a
special
unction
(see
I.
A.
1,
B.
1)
and
the
high-priestly
dress
in
"
and
'^
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.
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
histruments,
porters
(RV
sometimes
'door-keepers'),
and
Nethinim
take
a
prominent
place.
The
Nethinim
are
always
distinguished
from
the
Levites,
as
in
1
Ch
92
(Neh
11'),
Ezr
2«
(Neh
7«).
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
Ch
9"-"
(Neh
llis-M)
1518-21
etc.
with
Ezr
7^
10«'-
",
Neh
7'
W).
'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
the
Levites
are
said
to
have
been
given
(.riethantm)
to
the
priests
(cf.
Ezr
8™
with
Nu
18").
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
Ezr
7^,
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
Ezr
2
(Neh
7°*),
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
v.",
and
the
references
to
contemporary
events
in
vv."-
'"■
".
The
Chronicler
in
Ezr
3,
after
giving
thelist,
continues
the
parallel
context
of
Nehemiah,
showing
that
here
too
he
has
taken
the
whole
extract
from
the
same
source
as
in
Nehemiah;
Ezr
2
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
Ch
23<,
Neh
ll'').
The
complicated
arrangements
in
1
Ch
26'-"
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
(Neh
12''-
").
The
note
in
v.«
is
probably
a
later
insertion
of
the
Chronicler,
who
ascribed
to
David
all
the
Temple
institutions
not
already
assigned
to
Moses
in
P.
It
appears
from
Neh
7'
that
Nehemiah
probably
went
a
long
way
in
re-organizing
the
work
of
Levites,
singers
and
porters.
(6)
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
Pss
73-85,
87-89,
1
Ch
IS''-^).
On
the
other
hand,
in
1
Ch
9",
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
(9")
under
the
general
name
of
'singers.'
It
is
impossible
to
say
which
represents
the
earlier
arrange-
