THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
are mentioned as returning exiles, and they dwelt mainly in Jerusalem (Ezra ii. 58, vii. 7, 46). The Mishna (Shekalim, Middot, Tamid) preserves the tradition of the regulations affecting the service of the Levites at the second temple. After the destruction of the temple, the Levites and the priesthood lost their significance, since the synagogue did not need them, though in the ministrations of the synagogue Levites enjoyed a certain distinction. The employment of the name does not, however, involve descent from that tribe, since it was given to members of other tribes.
Modern criticism has brought under review the prevalent tradition regarding the development of the Levites and their service. Since the sharp distinction between priests and Levites found in the priestly legislation does not appear in Deuteronomy, one school throws the latter book into a later time than the other sources of the Pentateuch, on the ground that the distinc- 5. Modern tion had worn away. Another school,
Criticism, working upon the same distinction between priests and Levites and holding that in prophetic times this distinction was not existent, places the separation between the Aaronic priesthood and the liturgical Levites in the postprophetic period. A separation indicated in II Kings xxiii. 8 sqq. is carried farther by Ezekiel and placed upon moral ground, when he reduces to the rank of serving Levites those who had engaged in idolatry (Ezek. xliv. 10). Then, according to this school, the priestly regulations were compiled in Babylon, brought by Ezra to Jerusalem, and there promulgated. In this the separation made between the priestly class and the Levites was dated back into Mosaic times. The Chronicler took up the matter and developed his history in accordance with the scheme of the priestly legislation. And the school whose teachings are here summarized finds these results illuminative of documentary history, and places the development in the order Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, the priestly legislation, the Chronicler.
If all historical worth is denied to the ordinances of the priest code, if the same position is taken in respect to the reports of the Chronicler and to such passages as I Sam. vi. 15, II Sam. xv. 24 and I Kings viii. 6, then there remains little concerning the Levites of preexilic times except subjective hypothesis. Of a priestly Levitic stock in early times nothing remains. In the time of the Judges and early kings there is no separation, so far as the cultus goes, between sacred and profane — Gideon, Manoah, and Saul sacrifice, and the Ephraimite Samuel becomes a priest, and so do David's sons (II Sam. viii. 18 R.V.). A numerous liturgical personnel, such as according to P the tribe of Levi must have had, nowhere appears in early times. Individuals assumed the functions of divine service, and later came to their exalted position as in Deut. xxxiii. But these are in part arbitrary assumptions. The sources indicate that the tribe of Levi belongs to the Mosaic period and was even then in sacred service. It is inconceivable that between this tribe and the priesthood there should have been no line of separation. The union between
people and God depends upon a well-attested union of the cultus with one sanctuary and one priesthood, and the priesthood is traced in the Pentateuch to a family and not a tribe, though to the tribe during the wandering something of priestly consecration was given because of its fidelity to Yahweh. This does not involve that the Mosaic basis of the priestly legislation did not undergo in the course of time some modifications, while practical variations appeared from time to time as has been indicated above. In quite early times the separation between sacred and profane began to fade out while the idea of a universal priesthood spread. So Judges xvii. furnishes an example of consecration of a profane person, who is later replaced by a Levite. Many sanctuaries may have existed without Levites in attendance. The systematic ordering of the temple service reintroduced the separation between sacred and profane, and Levitical priests were entrusted with the sanctuary service. In the popular view each Levite had the reversion to the priestly office. The Levites of the temple were so distinguished that for ordinary menial functions lower servants were provided, and were brethren of the priests. This is the Deuteronomic position. The conclusion so frequently drawn from II Kings xxiii. 9 and Deut. xviii. 6 sqq. that the priests of Jerusalem resisted the attempt of Josiah to install there the priests of the high places is not justified; all that is deducible is that Levitic origin alone was not considered sufficient ground for their serving as priests.
C. von Orelli. Bibliography: The subject is so essentially involved in the criticism of the Pentateuch that, at least for the critical side and largely also for the historical data, reference to the literature on the Pentateuch (Hexateuch) is necessary. It is also discussed in treatises on the history of Israel (see under Ahab), on Hebrew archeology and the theology of the O. T. Consult also: E. Riehm, Die Gesetzgebung Mosis im Lande Moab, pp. 31 sqq., Gotha, 1854; J. J. Stahelin, in ZDMG, ix (1855), 708 sqq.; J. Orth, in Nouvelle Revue de theologie, hi (1859), 384 sqq.; K. H. Graf, in Archiv fur . . Erforschung des A. T., i (1867- 69), 68-106, 208-236; A. Kuenen, Godsdienst van Israel, ii. 104 sqq., Harlem, 1870, Eng. transl., London, 1875; S. I. Curtiss, The Levitical Priests, Edinburgh, 1877; S. Maybaum, Die Entwickelung des altisraelitischen Priestertums, Breslau, 1880; R. Smend, Die Listen der Biicher Esra und Nehemia, Basel, 1881; W. H. Green, Hoses and the Prophets, New York, 1882 (maintains the traditional view); W W. von Baudissin, Die Geschichte des alttestamentlichen Priesterthums, Leipsic, 1889; C. Piepenbring, in RHR, xxiv (1891), 1-60, 133-186 (summarizes the Reuss- Wellhausen theory); E. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Jvdentums, pp. 168-183, Halle, 1896; A. van Hoonacker. he Sacerdoce levitique, Louvain, 1899; F. von Hummelauer, Das vormosaische Priesterthum in Israel, Freiburg, 1899; J. Koberle, Die Tempelsanger, Erlangen, 1899; J. E. Carpenter and G. Harford-Battersby, The Composition of the Hexateuch, London, 1902. Smith, OTJC; Schurer, Geschichte. ii. 237-242, 271-279, Eng. transl., II., i. 223-229, 265-273; DB, iii. 99-102, iv. 67-97 (not to be overlooked); EB, iii. 2770-2776, 3837-47; JE, viii. 19-21, 49-50.
LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. See Family and Marriage Relations, Hebrew, § 12.
LEVITICUS. See Hexatetjch.
LEWIS, ABRAM HERBERT: Seventh Day Baptist; b. at Scott, N. Y., Nov. 17, 1836; d. at Watch Hill, R. I., Nov. 4, 1908. He studied :it Ripon College, Ripon, Wis., Milton College, Milton, Wis. (B.A., 1861), Alfred University, Alfred Centre,