In a statistical account of the Astarte temple, inscribed on stone, found on the site of the ancient Kition, and belonging perhaps to the 4th cent. B.C. (CIS, I. 86a and c), there is mention of a whole series of difi'erent servants of the temple, who correspond in part to the Jerusalem temple- servants : those who had charge of the curtains, gatekeepers, those who had to attend to the slaying of the sacrificial victims, female singers or dancers (ns'^y). A personnel of a similar kind was, in fact, required by every considerable temple.
The post-exilic Levites m the narrower sense, on the other hand, cannot be identified with any ofiice in the pre-exilic temple. Although the class known in post-exilic times as ' Levites ' owed it.s origin, to all appearance, to the programme of Ezekiel, yet the presence of special doorkeepers, alongside the Levites, in the post-exilic temple, shows that the Levites had not bec^ome precisely what he intended, for he had assigned to them the charge of the temple doors (see above, § 6). From the same circumstance it may be inferred with probability that the class of doorkeepers existed prior to Ezekicl, and that he intended to amalgamate his Levites with these. If the list contained in Neh 7 is what in the present text it gives itself out to bo, namely a catalogue of those who at the first returned from the Exile with Zerubbabel (Neh 7'), the first guliih that returned already included all the above classes of sanctuary servants. Along with 4289 i>ricsts the list mentions 74 Levites, 148 (128) smgers, 138 (139) doorkeepers, 392 Nethinim and sons of
PKIESTS A^sD LEVITES
PRIESTS ANT) LEVITES
i\
Solomon's servants (Neh V*"-, cf. Ezr S^'-). But perhaps the jirobability is greater that we have to do here with a list of the population of Judah at the time of Neheraiah. The very small number of Levites will liave to be explained in this passage in the same way as in the notice regarding those that returned ^^-ith Ezra (see above). Another list (Xeh 11'"""), which likewise has reference per- haps to the time of Nehemiah (the Chronicler, at all events, understands it so), gives, amongst the numbers of those dwelling in Jerusalem, for the priests 1 192 ; for the Levites, to whom the singers are here reckoned, 284 ; for the doorkeepers 172. This list, liowever, as it does not distinguish be- tween Levites and singers, may not have been drawn up till after the time of Nehemiah. Ezra himself says nothing of singers and doorkeepers lia\-ing returned with him ; it is only in the later narrative, Ezr 7', that they are mentioned, but ^^•ithout any statement of their numbers, amongst the different classes of those who accompanied Ezra. It may be that they had already returned in such numbers, that, when Ezra set out, there were either no more singers and doorkeepers in Babylon at all (Vogelstein, p. 38 f.), or none that were prepared to go with him. On the otlier hand, 220 Nethinim returned with Ezra (Ezr 8=» M).
The same list in Neh 7, whose date is uncertain, lays great stress on the priests being able to prove their priestly genealogy ; the families that could not do this were excluded from the priesthood (v.""'). What was demanded in the matter of this genealogy is not evident from the expressions used, whether perchance descent from Zadok had to be proved, in accordance with the ordinance of Ezekiel, or from Aaron, as is required by the Priests' Code.
The above were the constituent elements of the service of the temple, when, according to the usually accepted date, in B.C. 445 or 444, during the governorship of Nehemiah, Ezra caused the Law to be read aloud in solemn assembly (Neh 8ff.). This law — probably the whole Pentateuch, otherivise only the so-called Priests' Code, i.e. the ceremonial law contained in the middle books of the Pentateuch — contained also regulations re- garding the priesthood which up till then had not possessed normative force, at whatever time tliey may have ori";inated. In the position, however, answering to tliat in the Priests Code, which was assumed by the high priest in the new Jewish community, even before the arrival of Ezra (see above), we shall have to recognize an influence exerted, prior to its imblic promulfjation, by the legislation of the Priests' Code which was gradu- ally arranged or collected, if not composed, by the scribes in Babylon. In this Code, as is ^cfl known, the high priest has a unique position given to him. The influence of the same legisla- tion is probably to be traced likewise in the ex- plicit distinction between priests and Levites amongst tlio.se who returned witli Ezra, and still more clearly in the circumstance that some priests who returned with Ezra traced their descent to Aaron (Ithamar), but not to Zadok (Phiiichas). This influence of the Priests' Code upon tlie re- lations of the new community prior to Ezra's appearance in Palestine, is enough to exclude the view, which is sometimes put forward, that Ezra composed the Priests' Code after his arrival, i.e., according to the usual chronology, between the years B.C. 458 and 445 or 444. At least the rudi- mentary stage of the Priests' Code must be placed, in view of tne position of the liigh priest in the time of the pro[Miut Zcchariah, not less than about a century before the time of Ezra.