In the narrative of the Priests' Code regarding the destruction of two of Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, without issue (Lv 10'"', Nu 3* 26«', cf. Lv 16'), we should apparently find either a reminiscence of priestly families that actually died out (so, fanci- fully, Ad. Moses, Nadab und Abihu oder der Untergang dcr Saulidcn und dcs grosstcn Theils des Stammes Benjamin, Berlin, 1890: Nadab = Abinadab, 1 S 7' ; Abihu = Abiel, 1 S 9'), or even a polemic against the claim of certain families to belong to ' Aaron.' If the latter is the case, the genuineness of the genealogy of these families, which went back to Kadab and Abihu, would be denied, since these sons of Aaron perished with- out leavin" any issue behind them. It is impos- sible to find in the narrative of their fate any indica- tion of conditions pointing to a particular period of time, unless we are to hold, with Oort (p. 331), that the 'strange fire' which Nadab and Abihu brought ' before Jahweh ' has reference to their participation in bam6th worship. The eflect of tills would be that in this narrative the Aaronite families Nadab and Abihu would stand for the noa-Jenisalemite priests (as ' Aaron ' stands else- where for the priests of the bull-worship) who were displaced by Aaron's son Eleazar, whom the Zadokites regarded as their ancestor. Such an in- terpretation, however, is not very probable, for the 'strange fire' is at least offered to Jahweh, which appears to presuppose that it is offered at the legal sanctuary and not in the high places (see, further, art. Nadab).
The designation of the priests as ' Aaronites ' does not belong to the oldest strata of the Priests' Code, even apart from the Law of Holiness and the tOrOth akin to it. In a version of the story of Korah which has been worked over, and wlii<h does not belong to the Jehovistic book but to the Priests' Code, Korah is regarded as the champion of the congregation against Moses and Aaron (Nu 16'), i.e. the Levites. Here the Levites as a body are thought of as priests, just as in the narrative of the rod that blossomed (Nu n'"") Aaron is the representative of the tribe of Levi, which in its totality is thought of a-s invested with priestly prerogatives. In ojiposition to this older conception of the Levites as priests, the main body (P*) of the Priests' Code seeks to establish the exclusive right of the Aaronites, i.e., in the \ lew of the legislator, the Jerusalem priesthood.
A different procedure, again, is followed by a recent addition to the legislation, which seeks to present the Levites as more like the priests. We refer to what e\idently was never carried into actual practice, the consecration of the Levites (Nu S""-), which is intended to be an analogue to the consecration of the priests. This representa- tion, which shows a higher estimate of the Levites, will belong to the exilic or post-exilic period (P^), when by ' Levites' were understood the families of the former priests of the high places, and it was desired to gi\e to these a priest-like rank cone- sjionding to their pretensions.
Among the later elements of the Priests' Code would have to be reckoned also the description of the V estments of the high priest, if we are to see in the latter an investiture with the insignia of royalty, of which, of course, there could be no word before the post-monarchical period, when the high priest was the only visible head of Israel. But the purple in the high priest's robe can hardly be the symbol of royalty ; the principal colour of the high priest's garments is not red- but blue- purple. The diadem, to be sure, is a sign of princely rank, but ' holy princes ' (sarim) appear already in the exilic ' Isaiah' (43^), surely not as a new crea- tion of the Exile. The chief priest of royal Tyre assumed a very high dignity as ' next after the king' (Movers, Die Phimizier, II. i. 1849, p. 542 tt.). The circumstance that the high priest of the Priests' Code bears, as the most important item ia his attire, the Urim and Tliummim, is not favour- able to an exilic or post-exilic date for the com- position of the passage embodying this view, for the post-exilic period had no Urim and Thummim (Nell 7°°). The priests in old Israel were in posses- sion of them prior to the overthrow of the Northern kingdom (Dt 33"). Perhaps these insignia, and probably also the sacred ark, were lost when the temple was destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar. Tliat the author of the Priests' Code had before his mind's eye the post-exUic high priest as also the secular head of the community, does not follow from Nu 27" (Benzinger, p. 423), where it is said that Joshua and all the children of Israel and the whole congregation are ' to go out and come in at the word of Eleazar.' Eleazar gives this direction on the ground of the Urim and Thummim, that is, God issues His commands through him. No other means of ascertaining the will of God was open to the congregation after the death of Moses; there is no thought here of a ruling position occu- pied by the high priest himself, least of all of the position of the post-exilic high priest who had not the Urim and Thummim at all. The circum- stance that in Nu 34" and Jos 14' the priest Eleazar is mentioned lirst, before Joshua, among the heads of the people, is due to the fact that Eleazar, as Aaron's son, stands in a closer relation to Moses, the former leader of the people, than does Mo.ses' servant Joshua or any of the othe then princes of the people (on the relation betweci the high priest in P and in the post-exilic period, cf. Van floonacker, Saccrdoce, etc. p. 324 II. ).