It is not impossible that the tribal name Lei-i is connected with the name Leah (■"in'?) which is given as that of the niotlier of Levi (Wellhausen, Geschichte I.traels [Prolegomena •], 1878, p. 149 , Stade, ZATW, 1881, p. 115f.), in which case it may remain an open question whether in Leah we are to find, with Staue (i.e., following Wetzstein), an animal name, ' wild cow.' The difficulty in- volved in the circumstance that Gn 49'''- is acquainted mth a tribe of Levi but does not represent it as a priestly one, is not to be obviated by the assumption that this passage relates to pre- >Iosaic conditions (so Van Hoonacker, Screrdoee, etc. pp. 309, 311) ; for all the other sayings in the so-called Blessing of Jacob have to do with the time when' Israel was settled in Canaan, and even the scattering of Levi among Israel, spoken of in Gn 49', presupposes the settlement. There remains hardly any resource but to suppose that to the author of Gn 49'*- the want of a Levitical tribal territory presented itself so strongly as a punish- ment occasioned by the conduct of the father of the tribe, that he did not look beyond this penal condition of things to the honourable priestly vocation of the members of this tribe. W hat the conduct of the tribe had really been which occa- sioned the unfavourable judgment passed ujion it, is a question we cannot answer. It is held by H. Guthe {Geschichte cles Volkes Israel, Freiburg i. B., 1899, p. 169 f.) that certain descendants of a non-priestly dowerless tribe of Levi had pro- cured maintenance for themselves by undertaking priestly functions, and that in this way Levi became a priestly appellation. But this view, which might otherwise be a possible one, can hardly be regarded with favour, because such a condition of things would not account for the relatively ancient tradition as to tlie relations of the tribe of Levi to the person of Moses (see below, § 2).
The above is the result of a consideration of the OT data. But if it should be established tliat in the Minsean inscriptions the word lavii'u is a term for ' priest,' and that this is connected with the OT Icict (Fr. Hommel, AHT, London, 1897, p. 278 f.), it will be necessary after all to think of the latter as an official name, and that an ancient Semitic one (otherwise Van Hoonackei, Sacerdoce, etc. p. 31211'.).
On bSnS ha-Uwt and bSn6 ha-Uwiyytm (rare and late for the usual hing Icwi), forms in which lemt is treated as a gentilic name, see Ed. Konig, ' Syn- taktische Excurse zum AT,' in SK, 1898, p. 537 ff.
2. The PniESTHooD in the earliest Time.s. — As everywhere in the history of religion, tliere may be recognized also in the beginning of Hebrew historj' a period when no special priestly class existed. Of course it is upon an artificials^ con- structed basis that the view presented m the 'Priestly Writing' (P) of the Pentateuch rests, according to which neither sanctuary nor sacrificial acts nor a priestly class had any existence before the Divine revelation given throu^li Moses. Even in the narratives of tlie Jeho\'ist^ic book, relatin;^ to the pre-Mosaic period, there are scarcely to be discovered any reminiscences of the then condition of the cultus ; but these narratives will hardly be wrong in representing relations which stil. per- sisted at a later period, as the only ones present in the patriarchal period, a-s when they describe the head^ of the family in the patriarchal house as exercising tlie priestly function of ofl'ering sacrifice. Besides this, we liave in the Jehovistie book a single mention, durin" the patriarclial period, of inquiring at an oracle (Gn 25^), and also one reference to the giving of tithes (Gn 28-). Both these allusions imply the existence of a sanctuary with a priest in tliarge of it. Here the narrators
PRIESTS AND LEVITES
PRIESTS AND LEVITES
6a
have momentarily forgotten the ancient situation wliicli is assumed elsewliere, yet witliout expressly naming the priest on either occasion. The author of the prologue of the Bk. of Job, again, intro- duees his liero, whom he conceives of as a shepherd-prince living in remote antiquitj- in the land of Uz, as olienng sacrifices for his family (Job 1» ; cf. 429'-, and contrast 12'» kohantm). The story of Gn 14'""^, whore Abraham is represented as giving tithes to Melihizedek the priest-king of Salem, is, in its present form, a glorilication of the later priesthood of Salem, i.e. Jerusalem.
According to a narrativ e contained in the Jeho- vistic book, Moses instituted a special priestly body when he set apart the 'sons of Levi' for this pur- pose (Ex 32-''" J. In the first instance, Moses him- self, according to this book, performs the sacrificial act (Ex 24"). In that descriptive narrative, which makes him receive the Divine revelations in the holy t«nt outside the camp to which the people went 'to seek Jahweh' (Ex SS""-), the function of conniiunicating oracles appears as a distinction conferred only upon Moses personally. 15ut in this waj- he is clearly thought of as the presiding authority over the liolv tent — in other words, as a priest. The Priestly \Vriting, on the other hand, makes Moses otiiciate as priest only upon the occasion of the instalment of the priests in their olfice (Ex 29) ; and from this point onwards, accord- ing to this source, priestly functions are discharged only by Aaron and his sons, who are selected from the body of the tribe of Levi for this purpose. According to a prophetical discourse interpolated into the older text of the history of the youth of Samuel (1 S 2"'-}, God, during the bondage in Egypt, revealed Himself to the fathers' house of Eli, the priest of Shiloh, and cliose this house out of all the tribes of Israel, to be priests. Here too, then, without any mention indeed of Aaron or Levi, appears the conce|)tion of an institution of the priesthood in the time of Moses. This con- ception, in the form in which it here makes its appearance, cannot be of quite recent origin, since in opposition to the later claims of the Zadokite priesthood, which existed from the time of Solo- mon, it represents the Elida>, who were dill'erent from these, as the original legitimate priests. It is in itself quite credible that Muses, in his arrangements for the Israelii isli nation and its cult us, made provision for the performance of religious service by a special body, and it is a very plausible supposition that he who is represented as belonging like Aaron to the tribe of Levi, selected his own family for this ollice. Among the ancient Arabs as well, the priesthood was largely in pos.se.ssion of special famdies, wluth did not belong to the tribe amongst whom they exer- ci.sed their olfice (Wollliausen, lieste^, \>. 130 f.). Gutlie (Gcscliiclitc, \>. 21 f.) opi)Oses the view that Mo.ses belonged to the tribe of Levi, and holds that the priestly tribe first originated in Canaan. This later origin, however, is ditruult to prove, and along with it the objections tall, which are brought against a gcnealoj;ical connexion between Moses and the priestly tribe. /