Id Dt '21* it is prescribed that the ' priests, the
sons of Levi,' are to a.ssist in the atoning ceremony for a murder that has been committed in the neighbourhood of a city of Israel ; those meant then are apparently priests from this particular city. In like manner in 24", where the treatment of lepiosy is entrusted in quite general terms to the Levite priests, the existence of priests outjside Jerusalem appears to be presupposed, for the Jenusalem priests could hardly have exercised the supervision in question for the whole country. Both these pas.sages, wliich .appear to be out of harmony with the Deuteronomic conception that there are priests only at Jerusalem, are probably borrowed from older laws which recognized a priesthood scattered up and down througliout the land.
A distinction between priests and Levites is equally unknown to the expansions of the Deutero- nomic law. The parenetic introduction to Dt assumes that the tribe of Levi, after the destruc- tion of the golden calf (10', cf. 9""''), was chosen by Jahweh to bear the ark of the covenant, to stand before Jaliweh to serve Him, and to bless in His name (10*). This serving (shdrUh) and blessing are sjiecially priestly functions. The meaning of this jiassage might, indeed, be that these functions and the bearing of the ark (which, according to another conception, that of the Priests' Codex [see below, § 8 d], is not a specially priestly office) were dividetl amongst different branches of the tribe of Levi. But in the passage belonging to some redactor of the Deuteronomic law, 31", the ark is borne by ' the priests, the sons of Levi,' while in v." its bearers are the Lerites. The jireservation of the law is, according to 3r'""-, the business of the Levites; according to v.* (and 17'"), it is tlie business of the priests, the sons of Levi (the Levite priests). Everywhere here there appears to be no dillerence recognized between Levites and priests. In ch. 27, which is also a section belonging to a redactor of the Deuteronomic law, tlie same persons who in V.' are called Levite priests, appear to be called in v.'^ Levites (butcf., on this passage, Kautzsch, ]). 288). Taking evei-ything into account, neitlier 111 the Deuteronomic law nor in the additions to it is 'Levite' employed as the special designation for a class of teniiile-servants subordinate to the priests. The supposition is, indeed, not absolutely excluded that priests and temple-servants are botu included in the name ' Levites,' but even this is not likely. Rather would it appear that all through tlie Bk. of Deuteronomy we are to under- stand by Levites those oiilj- who are called to tlie priesthood proper. There can, indeed, be no doubt, after what we know from the Jeliovistic account in the Bk. of Joshua (see above, § 3) about temple-slaves, that the autlior of the Deuteronomic law and those who expounded his law were ac- quainted with lower grades of temple-servants, 1 ut to all apjiearance they did not reckon these among the Levites.
In the words of Dt 2fi' 'the priest who shall be in those days,' there appears to be an allusion to one special jiriest, a chief priest. In 17'', do the other hand, ' the priest ' may be taken rather as a typical designation for any priest (althou<'h it is against this interpretation that in v.' we nave the sin". ' the judge side by side with ' the licvite priests in the plural). Certainly in the redactory addition to the narrative introduction to Deutero- nomy, namely 10", a chief priest is taken for granted : ' Aaron died, and his son Eleazar became priest in his stead,' i.e. Elenzar then became ehicf prie-st, he was a priest already (Gc.irh. p. 88 f.).
If no undoubted mention of a chief priest can bo found in the Deuteronomic law proper, still less docs it speak of the other priestly uignities wliicli.
76
PRIESTS AND LEVITES
PRIESTS AND LEVITES
according to the Books of Kin^a (see above, § 3), already existed in tlie pre-exUic period. This shows the incompleteness of the Deuteronomic data regarding priestly relations.
Ueuterononiy shows a distinct advance upon the older relations witnessed to in the Jehovistic book, in this, that no longer do we hear of lay priests. Itis plainly assumed in Dt that only Levite priests are entitled to otter sacrilice. The whole duty of the priests is summed up in the expression ' serve Jahweh' {s/idrcih Ja/iweh, I'" 21^ also shdreth absolutely, 18'-'), or in the equivalent expression, 'stand before Jahweh' (18°-'). To this service belongs the pronouncing of the blessing upon the people (21° 10*). Besides their special functions in connexion with the cultus, the priests are entrusted with the supervision of leprosy (24*). Further, the priest has to gdve a hortatory addiress to the host of Israel before it moves out to battle (20-"). The ancient priestly task of giving judicial decisions still persists in Deuteronomy. To deal with dilii- cult lawsuits, a superior court is established at Jerusalem (17*^'). in which Levite priests have a seat along with a lay judge (shophct). By the body of judges mentioned in IQ'" as consisting of priests and a plurality of shophetim, we should probably understand the local court. According to the decision of ' the priests, the sons of Levi,' shall every controversy and every ofl'ence be judged, hence the priests have to take part in the atoning ceremony performed when a man has been mur- dered by an unknown hand (21°). Moreover, according to a passage, whose place as a con- stituent of the primitive Deuteronomy is not uncontested, ' the priests, the sons of Levi,' have to see to the preservation of the book of the law (17'*; cf. 31» and also v.=«).