p. 28 II'. ), latterly agreeing with Oort, the present writer, and Vogelstein, came to the conclusion we have reached. The connotation of the term ' Aaron- ites ' is — and this not merely in theory, but as applied in practice— even in the post-exilic period wider than that of 'Zadokites.' Kuenen, accord- ingly, following Oort and Vogelstein, held that a compromise took place between the Zadokites after Ezekiel's time and non-Zadokite priestly families, and that to this compromise the enactments of the Priests' Code owed their origin (so also SchUrer, p. 239, note 49; cf., for the .same explanation, as the lirst after Oort [1884], Stade, GV/ii., Berlin, 1888, p. 104). But it is not at all likely that on the one hand Ezekiel's distinction between non- Zadokite Levites and Zadokites should have gained acceptance, as it undoubtedly did, to such an extent that a new cl.ass, 'the Levites,' was formed out of the former priests of the high places ; but that, on the other hand, this same distinction found so little acceptance that, in direct opposition to it, new regulations were introduced, by which non-Zadokites had to be admitted into the number of the priests. About the j'ear 572 Ezekiel had made the tirst attempt to have all non-Zadokite Levites declared to be sanctuary servants. A movement of non-Zadokite priestly families must, as Oort and his followers thiiiK, have formed itself in opposition to this ordinance, and must have been not without effect, so that, when Ezra returned in the year 4.58, Ezekiel's limitation of the priesthood was already forgotten so far that a, non-Zadokite family of priests joined Ezra, and no opposition was ollered to the recognition of their priestly rights. Of a decisive contest of the nou- Zadokite priestly families with tlie Zadokites in this matter, tradition shows no trace, and the development subsequently to Ezekiel's time is much more easily explained if tlie rule entitling all Aaronites to the priesthood was an older one, with which an adjustment had to be made. With what right the iiouse of Ithamar, which does not apjiear in the history prior to Ezr 8'- (M), was traced back to Aaron, as is done in the Priests' Code, it is impossible to s.ay (cf. Nowack, p. 105, note 2). But it is not likely that the connexion of Ithamar with Aaron was first put forward after the Ithamarites under Ezra had gained entrance to the priesthood, for in that case it would not be intelli- gible by what other title this entrance could have been gained by the Itliamarites in opposition to the Zadokites and to the statutes of Ezekiel. See- ing that the family of Eli in any ca.se w.as, even in pre-exilic times (in view of 1 S 2*', and probably also I K 2-'', the oracle of 1 S 2-'"''- cannot be exilic or post-exilic), traced back (1 S 2-'"-) to the priest of the Exodus (who is not, indeed, named), the assumption is, to say the least, not improb.iblo that even in pre-exilic times there were non- Zadokite priests who traced their descent to Aaron as the priest of the Exodus. The very same con- clusion results from the account in the Jehovistic book of Aaron's part in the worsliij) of the golden calf, for he is thus presented as the tj-jie, nay probably also as the ancestor, of the priests of the Northern kingdom. If from pre-exilic times there were 'Aaronites' who did not belong to the house of Zadok, the fact that the name ' Aaron ' or ' sons of Aaron ' is employed by a legislator belonging '.o the priesthood of tlie only legitimate sanctuary, the temi)le of Jerusalem, for this very priesthood, appears to the present writer to he intcltigililo only at a time when the participation of non-Jeru- salemite 'Aaronites' in the temple cultus did not form the subject of question, because at that time they did not desire such participation, i.e. at a time when, besides the ti.Miiple at Jerusalem, tlicre were other sanctuaries at which they could dis-
00
PRIESTS x\.XD LEYITES
PRIESTS AND LEVITES
charge priestly service — in other words, before Josiali's reform.
The Priests' Code appears to the present writer to betray quite clearly the circumstaiu-e that, at the time when it was written, all Aaronites did not de facto enjoy priestly riglits, but only that branch to which (so Ezr 7'*) the Zadokites were reckoned, namely the branch of I'hinehas (cf. Ezr 8- M). In Nu 25'-'- it is only to Phinehas, of all the Aaronites, that an everlasting priesthood is promised. And yet Ezra had to admit priests who were not reckoned to the house of PIiineha.s. This appears to us to be e-xjilicable only on the sup])usition that th.at saying about the everlasting priesthood of Phinehas alone belongs to a dillerent age from that of Ezra. This cannot be the age after Ezra, for the nonZadokite Ithamarites who under him were admitted to the priesthood at Jerusalem were not afterwards removed from this ottiee (Gesch. p. 139). No <loubt the Zadokite-s, as is shown by the term Sadducces derived from their family name, formed still later a special priestly aristocracy^ ; but this does not authorize our taking, with Kuenen (ThT, 1890, p. 37), the promise of an everlasting priesthood to Phinehas alone, as a later inter])ola- tion, for the everlasting priesthood was from the time of Ezra not an exclusive characteristic of Phinehas, i.e. of the Zadokites.