The idea that the tribe of Levi has no inherit- ance finds strange expression in the purely theo- retical and evidently late added (Gesch. p. 42 f.) statement (Nu 3^'-") that Jahweh has taken to Himself the cattle of the Levites in place of the firstborn of the cattle of the children of Israel. The matter is meant thus to be viewed as if the Levites had not an absolute property in their cattle, but only the usufruct of them. In speak- ing of the possession of cattle the Priests' Code is thinking of the injunction (which is not quite in harmony with the absence of possessions on the part of the tribe of Levi) that 48 cities in the Promised Land should be set apart for the tribe of Levi to dwell in, along with the surrounding pasture lands to feed tlieir cattle (Nu 35'*'). The.ie cities, with their houses and pasture lands, are an inalienable possession ; whatever may have been sold of them is redeemable at any time, and, if it is not redeemed, it returns to the Levites in the year of jubilee (Lv 25'-'^-)- The carrying out of this enactment about Levitical cities is recorded in a narrative in the Bk. of Joshua (ch. 21), belong- ing to the Priestly Writing ; and here a distinction, not found in the earlier directions, is made between LeWtical and priestly cities ; the sons of Aaron receive 13 of the 48 cities.
g. The date of the priestly system in the ' Priesthj Writing.' — Even apart from the older elements (P', see above, § 8 a) which detach themselves from the main body of the Priests' Code, the date of the priestly system exhibited by this Code is not a single one. In general the consistent character of the system (P^) is not to be denied, but certain smaller constituents detach themselves as clearly new to it (P'). But, even after the removal of these elements, everything (in P^) is not of one cast ; in the view taken of the Levites, for instance, apart from an innovation (Nu S"'^' [see, further, below] and w.^** [see above, g 8 d]), there is no mistaking the presence of two different strata (in Nu 16, ci! ch. 17 ; see, further, below).
At present it is commonly held that the whole of the priestly system of the Priests' Code, and in general this whole Code itself, belongs to the post- exilic period, and that Ezekiel's enactments regard- ing the priests, especially his distinction between Levites and priests, paves the way for the Priests' Code (so the adlierents of the Graf hypothesis). On one point there can be no doubt, namely this, that the affinity between the law of Ezekiel and the Priests' Code is so great that it can be explained only by the dependence of one of these upon the other. For the i)riority of Ezekiel it is quoted aa decisive that in his State of the future he knows no high iiriest such as stands at the head of tlie priestly body in the Priests' Code. Ezekiel, it is argued, does not mention the one unique function assigned to the high priest in the Priests' Code, namely the propitiatory transactions on the Day of Atonement, and it is hard to suppose him to have been acquainted with them. But the law concerning the Day of Atonement in Lv 16 bears quite a peculiar character which, e.g. in the con- ception of AZAZEL (which see), distinguishes it from the rest of the Priests' Code. This law has its place immediately before the Law of Holiness (Lv 17-26), which, as it appears to the present writer necessary to assume, was incorporated in the system of the Priests' Code, not by the real
1
PKIKSTS AND LEVITES
TKIKSTS AND LEVITES
87
antlior of P' but by a later redactor ; probalily the section contained in Lv 1(5 was also a later addition (G&scA. p. 128 £. ), and so were also, in tliat cxse, as a matter of course, the merely brief allusions to the Day of Atonement which are found elsewhere in the Priests' Code. Ezekiel has no Day of Atonement, but nierelj' certain propitiatory transactions on two days eveiy J'ear, which look like a tirst step towards the Day of Atonement. There is no period at which the law of the Day of Atonement, of which there is not a trace in the pre-e.\ilic history, can be more readil)' conceived to tiave originated than during the great chastening of the K.xile, or even it may be shortly thereafter. Zee 3^ appears to contain the earliest allusion to tlie Day of Atonement. If the function a-ssi-^ned by the Priests' Code to the high ])rie8t on the I)ay of Atonement is a later insertion, the original liigli priest of this Code has no station left to him but that of primus inter pares. Even the distinc- tive dress he wears appears to mean nothing more (see below). A chief priest, however, was, beyond all doubt, found at Jerusalem prior to Ezekiel (see above, § 3). As to the further argument in favour of the priority of Ezekiel's system to that of the Priests Code, namely tliat Ezekiel was the first to introduce the distinction between priests and Levites, this rests upon an intcrjiretation, which per se is a possible one, but which is not to be deduced unconditionally from the language of Ezekiel. It is true that Ezekiel gave a new arrangement to the station of those Levites who had fiirnierli' been priests at the high places, but his language by no means excludes or even renders improbable the supposition that in the pre-exilic temjile there were other Levites besides these, or that there were, besides the foreign temple-slaves, other temple-servants not called Levites, or priests of the second rank side bj' side with the priests proper, i.e. the Zadokites (see above, § 6). We will seek to show further, below, that Ezekiel's designating of the priests as ' Zadokites,' in con- trast to their being called in the Priests' Code ' Aaronites,' is by no means an evidence of Ezekiel's priority.