PRIESTS AND LEVITES
PRIESTS AND LEVITES
77
Hie .lerusalemite priesthood. Further, we have no reason to think of Hilkiah as prejudiced in favour of this special interest.
5. The Priesthood from Josiah's REFOiiM to THK Exile. — The requirements of Dt on lielialf of the Leviles were not carried out to their full extent in Josiah'.s reform. Even from this circumstance it may be inferred that Hilkiah, under whose guid- ance probably the reform was conducted, is not to be credited with the formulating of the Deutero- noniic legislation. A consistent carrying out of tlie letter of the Deuteronomic jjrescrijitions would liave re(|uired that, after the abolition h}' Josiah (jf all places of worship except the temple at Jeru- salem, all non-Jerusalemite Levites who desired it should be equally admitted to the cultus at Jerusalem ; for Dt sets up no distinction amongst the Levites outside Jerusalem, between those w-lio are entitled to this and those who are not. Not- withstanding, iu so far as the narrative in Kings is correct, and in this instance its correctness hardly admits of doubt, nothing like a general admi.ssion of Levites took place. Hilkiah, if lie was the moving agent in tornmlating Dt, must thus either have failed to carry out thoroughly his own aims, or he did not iu the Deuteronomic jiio- gianinie give correct expression to these aims. Little probability attaches to either of these suppositions.
According to the narrative of Kings (2 K S."?), Josiah, in liis purification of the cultus bj' the suppression of the hdmOth worship, aii])ears to have di.stmguislied between three categories of priests outside Jerusalem. The kemarim he deposed (v.°). Hy these are meant, in accordance >vith the uniform or use of this word (see above, § 1), and in view of tbf Aay in which the kimartm are introduced in connexion with the.suppres.sion of the IJaal worship which found expressiun in the adoration of sun, moon, and stars — idolatrous priests. The koIWuiiin from the cities of Judah were assembled by the king (v.*), but he did not permit the priests of the high places to ascend the altar of Jahweh at Jeru- salem, but allowed them to ' eat mnrzCth in the midst of their brethren ' (v."). By tliis is perhaps meant that they had to remain in their respective places and there find their bread. In this sense the expression would certainly be somewhat strange, and there would be no indication then that these bCtmith priests were treated with any less severity than the kemarim, although it must be assumed that they were. We must therefore suppose that the expression ' eating of mazzCth ' has reference to some favour shown them in the matter of maintenance (Gesrh. p. 225 f.). Of a third class of non-Jeru.salemite priests there is not express mention ; but since it is said that the koluXnim (in a body) were assembled at Jerusalem, and then the special treatment of the kulUlniiii of the high places is indicated, the assembling can hardly have had any object except to seiiarate these hi'imuth priests fioiii other non-Jerusalemite priests wild had not been priests of the high places. Kuenen (ThT, xxiv. [ISiJii] II. 27) objects, indeed, to this explanation, with apparent right, when he says that then the order of words in 2 K 1'X' would re<|uire to be ^nkh kohdni hn-bfimCt/t 16' ya'dUi. Hut the contrast is between ' ho bromj/it to Jeru- salem ' (v.") and ' the priests of the high jilaeos iri:vl not up,' so that the order of words ('«/./( lo' yiidlii) can be justilied also on our view. Those non-Jeru.salemite priests who had not been |iriests of the high places were then probably admitteil by Josiah, in accordance with the directions of Dt regarding the Levites, to a share in the cultus at Jerusalem. If this was done, the rei|uireMients of Dt were satisfied in the spirit, although certainly not to the extent of what, taken in the letter, they
might exjiress. On the other hand, if by the priests of the high places (v.») who were excluded by Josiah from the sen-ice of the altar, we are to understand all non-Jerusaleiiiito Levites, it must be held that the Deuteronomic demands in favour of the admi.ssion of the non-Jerusalemite Levites had no regard paid to them at all. Considering the impression which the law made upon Josiah, this is not exactly probable, for Dt demands in no ambiguous terms that the non-Jerusalemite Levites should be admitted to some share in the holy ser- vice. It is possible, no doubt, that in tlie narrative of Kings the admission of non-Jerusalemite Levites to the cultus is passed over in silence, not without intention, because it might ajipear objectionable to the author. In the cities ot the old kingdom of Samaria, which were likewise purilied of the bdmoth, Josiah, according to the narrative of Ivings, offered all the bCunuth priests upon the altars (v.-"). AVhether this bloody measure w.as literally carried out may indeed be doubted. On other jioints the story of the reform of the cultus makes the impression of being ba.sed upon good authority. For in.stance, in the mention of the eating of mazzvtli (or whatever may have been the original expression in what is perhaps now a corrupt text) by the former priests or the high places in the midst of their brethren, the author must have had in view a special arrangement no longer clearly intelligible to us, which cannot have been invented by him after the analogy of certain relations in which the priests fouiul themselves at a later period, or w hicli were known from other sources.