BO
PRIESTS AND LEVITES
PRIESTS AND LEVITES
of the cultus, the mediator between the community and God. The high priest is manifestly conceived of by Zechariah as anointed (as in the Priests' Code), for the 'two sons of oil' of Zee 4''' can hardly stand for anything else than the Davidic- ally descended Zerubbabel and tlie high priest Joshua.
All this marks a view of the dignity of the chief priest which is diametrically opposed to the pro- gramme of Ezekicl, and which cannot be under- stood as a direct expansion of what we have learned from Dt or the prophets or the historical books to have been the ilevelopment of thint;s hitherto. Of course, through the restoration of Israel, after the Exile, the dignity of the chief priest acquired extra elevation, because he was now head of the com- munity with no longer a king by his side. But in spite of all this it appears to the present writer inconceivable, that in the course of the 52 years which had elapsed since Ezekiel in the five and twentieth year of his captivity (B.C. 572) had his vision of tne new Jerusalem with its new ordin- ances (40'), the high priestly dignity should have made its appearance as a wholly new creation. If Ezekiel is silent about a chief priest, this is— as the statements in the Bks. of Kmgs show — plainly not because there had been no chief priest at Jerusalem up till then, but is due to an intentional reaction against a then actually existing otBce. But even if this be so, the rank of tlie chief priest must, in the interval between Dt and Zechariah, or even between Ezekiel and Zechariah, have been raised in a way of which there is no evidence in the sources as yet adduced, and which is not intelligible on the ground simply of the changed circumstances. We shall have to return later on to inquire to what influence this alteration is to be ascribed (see below, § 8 g).
In Haggai the priests are asked for tdrah, i.e. oral direction, and this with reference to the dis- tinction of clean and unclean (2""). From the fact that the reply is given by word of mouth, it does not follow that there was as yet no written t6rah at all on this subject ; even where such exists, oral direction as to its application in any particular case is still requisite. By Zechariah, too, it is regarded as the business of tlie priests— as well as the pro- phets— to give information about a question aflect- ing religious observances (7').
Neitlier Haggai nor Zechariah make any mention of Levites alongside of priests. Our first authentic witness to Levites is in the time of Ezra. Accord- ing to the account given in Ezra's own Memoirs (indicated hereafter by M, which stands also for the Memoirs of Nehemiah), Ezra was accompanied to Palestine by two priestly houses, that of Gersliom of the sons of Phinelias, and that of Daniel of the sons of Ithamar (Ezr 8^ M). No Levites came for- ward at first to join him (v." M). It was only at ■Ezra's special request that 38 Levites were at length prepareQ lo go with him (v.'"- M). Of the Nethinim, ' whom David and the princes had given for the service of the Levites,' there went with Ezra 220 men (v.^" M). The fact that so few Levites, and these only after much pressing, con- sented to follow Ezra, must have been due to special circumstances. The Levites, who in Ezr and Neh are everywhere sliari)ly distinguished from the priests, must be understood to be those whom Ezekiel had called Levites in the narrower sense, i.e. the descendants of the non-Jerusalemite priests of the high places. The station which Ezokiel had assigned to them in the State of the future must have presented few attractions. Still tlie distinc- tion between priests and Levites among those who returned with Ezra can scarcely be based merely upon the ordinance proposed by Ezekiel, but, like the appearance of the high priest in Zechariah, is
probably to be attributed to the influence of anothei classification which had nieauwhUe come into force (cf. below, § 8 g). But even apart from such, and even if there was no thought of introducing the ideal constitution of Ezekiel, the situation was not a favourable one for these ' Levites.' As Ezra himself, according to what is quite a credible account of his descent (Ezr 7"-), was a Zadokite, the descendants of the former priests of Jeru- salem would, as a matter of course, take the lead amongst the returned exiles, so that other ' Levites,' who were not in a position to claim that they belonged to the priestly aristocracy, must gi\e way to them.
The Memoirs of both Ezra and Nehemiah make a distinction, which the Bks. of Ezr and Neh do not make everywhere throughout, between the Levites and the singers and doorlteepers of the temple (e.g. Ezr 10^'- M ; see Gesch. p. 142, and cf. below, § 9). These are classes which meet ua for the first time in the post-exilic period (the 'singers' of Ezk 40-" are based upon a textual error, see Sniend, ad he; otherwise Kijl erie, p. 17 tt'.). But it is not likely that these classes constitute a really new phenomenon, which first took its rise in the Exile, for, during a period when there was neither temple nor cultus, professional classes like these can scarcely liave been formed. And as little — even if the representation given in Neh 7 (?M) = Ezr 2, that already amongst those who returned with Zerubljabel there were singers and doorkeepers, should be incorrect— can these classes have come into being for the first time under the wretched conditions that marked the beginnings of the cultus in post-exilic Jerusalem. Ratiier, it may be inferred, in the post-exiho singers and doorkeepers we liave to do with the descendants of doorkeepers and singers of the pre- exilic temple, just as in the Nethinim with descendants of pre-exilic temple-slaves. The post- exilic singers, doorkeepers, and Nethinim are con- sequently an argument in favour of the existence of a numerous non-priestly personnel of servants in the pre-exilic temple.