To what date these oldest components of the Priests' Code should be attributed it is hard to de- citle. At present they are usually assigned to the Exile, near the time of E/ckiel. So much is un- questionably right, that the Law of Holineiis still existed as a collection by itself during the Exile, and that it received then its conclu.sion which tits only that period (Lv 26'"-) But, beyond this, it. does not follow necessarily from the special points of contact between Ezekiel and this law, that both belong to nearly the same period. These points of contact may be due to the fact that Ezekiel made quite a special use of the Law of Holiness, and specially attached himself to it. The demand which stands at the head of this law (Lv 17'"), that all slaying of animals must take place before the sanctuary (which was afterwards brour;ht by a redactor into relation to the tent of meeting, which was not originally mentioned), could be obeyed only at a time when there were more sanctuaries than one (so, followin" Dillmann, Gesch. p. 47). This would lead us to think of the pre-Deuteronomic period. That the author of the Deuteronornic law was acquainted with the tCrdli about leprosy which has come down to us in Lv 13 L, outside the specially so-called ' Law of Holi-
ness,' but belonging to those special tCrCth akin to this law (see above), is not improbable, seeing that, at all events, some lepro.sy-<ora/t entrusted to the priests is known to him (Dt 24*).
If the Law of Holiness originally presupposed the existence of a plurality of sanctuaries, it remains doubtful whether it thinks of a single chief priest for all the sanctuaries, or assumes lliat there will be a number of chief priests taking charge of the different sanctuaries.
b. The Aaronitc /jHrais.— The other components of the Priests' Code exhibit a harmonious system of organization of the priesthood ; although even here, in matters of detail, dilierences of various strata and innovations are not to be overlooked. A priesthood, according to the Priestlj' Writing, first came into beiuf; in Israel in the time of Moses, when the one legitimate place of sacrifice, the tent of meeting, was by Divine direction established. Previously, according to this writing, the fathers of Israel had ottered no sacrifices, and consequently required no priests. Moses installed as priests his brother Aaron and the latter's sons. Only to the descendants of these do the priestly rights pass on. The terms ' sons of Aaron ' and 'priests' are thus synonymous (Ex 28-" 29'" 4U'''"''- etc.). Only two of Aaron's sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, perpetuate the family. A preference, however, is given to the sons of Eleazar above those of Ithamar, when, on tl.e occasion of a pro- pitiatory action on the part of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood is entered into only with hira and his seed (Nu 25'=^'-).
For the exercise of the holy office the sons of Aaron are provided with a special priestly attire. Ex 28*'"'- — linen breeches and a long coat {kith- oneth), besides a girdle and a turban. The uiipcr garments are, according to Ex 39-", to be all of shcsh, i.e., borrowing an Egy])tian term, by-rsus, therefore white, till we come to the girdle, vliicli, according to Ex 39^ (if liere it is the girdle of the priefts in general and not that of the high priest that is spoken of), is composed of the four colours of the sanctuary, namely white, crimson, blue- purple, and red-jniriile. At all events, according to Josephus {Ant. III. vii. 2), the white ground of the priest's girdle had flowers of the four colours wTought into it. Shoes, which are nowhere men- tioned, are apparently not to be worn by the priests while performing the sacred ottice ; they probably go barefooted (Ex 3' [JE]), just as the Phoenician priests wore not shoes but linen socks (Pietschsmann, Gesch. der Phonizier, Uerlin, 1889, p. 223). The white garments of shc.sk correspond to the linen robe, the 'cj^ltod bad, which in oldrn times was worn by the Hebrew priest.-; (1 S 2"). Linen was the material of the priest's dress also among the Babylonians (Gunkel, Archiv /. lie- ligion.swissensrhiiJ't, i. [1898] p. 297) and the Egyp- tians (Ancessi, p. 10211'.; Kenan, Jlist. du pcujile d' Israel, i. 149; Gesch. p. 70 f.). The employment of shesh instead of the more common linen is to be set down as <a later refinement.
The ritual fiinctiuns oi the priests, specified in the Priests' Code, are of a manifold char.-vcti"-. The priests have to sprinkle the blood of the victim in the sanctuary (Lv !»• "■ '» etc.), to offer the sacrifices (i.e. lay them upon the altar and cause them to go up in the sacred lire (Lv 27-». lat. 16-17 gtc. ) ; they .alone may accomplish the kapparah ('covering') cflected by the presentation of tlie offerings (Lv4-"'-*' etc.). On the other hand, the killing, flaying, and cutting up of the victim is, according to the Priests' Code (differing in this from Ezekiel), the business of the person making the ottering, even should he be a layman (Lv !"• al.; see Gesch. p. 114 f.). The priests have.
PRIESTS AND LEVITES
PRIESTS AND LEVITES
83
further, to ponr ont the drink-offering (Nu 6") thev have to jierform the whole ser\'i<-e connectei lie altar of burnt -offering (Kx 30-*) and