upon the famous holy city of Shechem to avenge their
“sister” Dinah (Gen. xxxiv.), and that a detailed narrative
tells of the bloodthirsty though pious Danites who sacked an
Ephraimite shrine on their journey to a new home (Judges
xvii. sq.).
The older records utilized by the Deuteronomic and later compilers indicate some common tradition which has found expression in these varying forms. Different religious standpoints are represented in the biblical writings, and it is now important to observe that the prophecies of Hosea unmistakably show another attitude to the Israelite priesthood. The condemnation of Jehu’s bloodshed (Hos. i. 4) gives another view of events in which both Elijah and Elisha were concerned, and the change is more vividly realized when it is found that even to Moses and Aaron, the traditional founders of Israelite religion and ritual, is ascribed an offence whereby they incurred Yahweh’s wrath (Num. xx. 12, 24, xxvii. 14; Deut. ix. 20, xxxii. 51). The sanctuaries of Shiloh and Dan lasted until the deportation of Israel (Judges xviii. 30 seq.), and some of their history is still preserved in the account of the late pre-monarchical age (12th-11th centuries B.C.). Shiloh’s priestly gild is condemned for its iniquity (1 Sam. iii. 11-14), the sanctuary mysteriously disappears, and the priests are subsequently found at Nob outside Jerusalem (1 Sam. xxi. seq.). All idea of historical perspective has been lost, since the fall of Shiloh was apparently a recent event at the close of the 7th century (Jer. vii. 12-15, xxvi. 6-9). But the tendency to ascribe the disasters of northern Israel to the priesthood (see esp. Hosea) takes another form when an inserted prophecy revokes the privileges of the ancient and honourable family, foretells its overthrow, and announces the rise of a new faithful and everlasting priesthood, at whose hands the dispossessed survivors, reduced to poverty, would beg some priestly office to secure a livelihood (1 Sam. ii. 27-36). The sequel to this phase is placed in the reign of Solomon, when David’s old priest Abiathar, sole survivor of the priests of Shiloh, is expelled to Anathoth (near Jerusalem), and Zadok becomes the first chief priest contemporary with the foundation of the first temple (1 Kings ii. 27, 35). These situations cannot be severed from what is known elsewhere of the Deuteronomic teaching, of the reform ascribed to Josiah, or of the principle inculcated by Ezekiel (see § 1 [b]). The late specific tendency in favour of Jerusalem agrees with the Deuteronomic editor of Kings who condemns the sanctuaries of Dan and Bethel for calf-worship (1 Kings xii. 28-31), and does not acknowledge the northern priesthood to be Levitical (1 Kings xii. 31, note the interpretation in 2 Chron. xi. 14, xiii. 9). It is from a similar standpoint that Aaron is condemned for the manufacture of the golden calf, and a compiler (not the original writer) finds its sequel in the election of the faithful Levites.[1]
In the third great stage there is another change in the tone. The present (priestly) recension of Gen. xxxiv. has practically justified Levi and Simeon from its standpoint of opposition to intermarriage, and in spite of Jacob’s curse (Gen. xlix. 5-7) later traditions continue to extol the slaughter of the Shechemitcs as a pious duty. Post-exilic revision has also hopelessly obscured the offence of Moses and Aaron, although there was already a tendency to place the blame upon the people (Deut. i. 37, iii. 26, iv. 21). When two-thirds of the priestly families are said to be Zadokites and one-third are of the families of Abiathar, some reconciliation, some adjustment of rivalries, is to be recognized (1 Chron. xxiv.). Again, in the composite story of Korah’s revolt, one version reflects a contest between Aaronites and the other Levites who claimed the priesthood (Num. xvi. 8-11, 36-40), while another shows the supremacy of the Levites as a caste either over the rest of the people (? cf. the prayer, Deut. xxxiii. 11), or, since the latter are under the leadership of Korah, later the eponym of a gild of singers, perhaps over the more subordinate ministers who once formed a separate class.[2] In the composite work Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah (dating after the post-exilic Levitical legislation) a peculiar interest is taken in the Levites, more particularly in the singers, and certain passages even reveal some animus against the Aaronites (2 Chron. xxix. 34, xxx. 3). A Levite probably had a hand in the work, and this, with the evidence for the Levitical Psalms (see Psalms), gives the caste an interesting place in the study of the transmission of the biblical records.[3] But the history of the Levites in the early post-exilic stage and onwards is a separate problem, and the work of criticism has not advanced sufficiently for a proper estimate of the various vicissitudes. However, the feeling which was aroused among the priests when some centuries later the singers obtained from Agrippa the privilege of wearing the priestly linen dress (Josephus, Ant. xx. 9. 6), at least enables one to appreciate more vividly the scantier hints of internal jealousies during the preceding years.[4]
4. Summary.—From the inevitable conclusion that there are three stages in the written sources for the Levitical institutions, the next step is the correlation of allied traditions on the basis of the genealogical evidence. But the problem of fitting these into the history of Israel still remains. The assumption that the earlier sources for the pre-monarchical history, as incorporated by late compilers, are necessarily trustworthy confuses the inquiry (on Gen. xxxiv., see Simeon), and even the probability of a reforming spirit in Jehu’s age depends upon the internal criticism of the related records (see Jews, §§ 11-14). The view that the Levites came from the south may be combined with the conviction that there Yahweh had his seat (cf. Deut. xxxiii. 2; Judges v. 4; Hab. iii. 3), but the latter is only one view, and the traditions of the patriarchs point to another belief (cf. also Gen. iv. 26). The two are reconciled when the God of the patriarchs reveals His name for the first time unto Moses (Exod. iii. 15, vi. 3). With these variations is involved the problem of the early history of the Israelites.[5] Moreover, the real Judaean tendency which associates the fall of Eli’s priesthood at Shiloh with the rise of the Zadokites involves the literary problems of Deuteronomy, a composite work whose age is not certainly known, and of the twofold Deuteronomic redaction elsewhere, one phase of which is more distinctly Judaean and anti-Samaritan. There are vicissitudes and varying standpoints which point to a complicated literary history and require some historical background, and, apart from actual changes in the history of the Levites, some allowance must be made for the real character of the circles where the diverse records originated or through which they passed. The key must be sought in the exilic and post-exilic age where, unfortunately, direct and decisive evidence is lacking. It is clear that the Zadokite priests were rendered legitimate by finding a place for their ancestor in the Levitical genealogies—through Phinehas (cf. Num. xxv. 12 seq.), and Aaron—there was a feeling that a legitimate priest must be an Aaronite, but the historical reason for this is uncertain (see R. H. Kennett, Journ. Theolog. Stud., 1905, pp. 161 sqq.). Hence, it is impossible at present to trace the earlier steps which led to the grand hierarchy of post-exilic Judaism. Even the name Levite itself is of uncertain origin. Though popularly connected with lāvāh, “be joined, attached,” an ethnic from Leah has found some favour; the Assyrian l ī’u “powerful, wise,” has also been suggested. The term has been more plausibly identified with l-v-’ (fem. l-v-’-t), the name given in old Arabian inscriptions (e.g. at al-‘Olā, south-east of Elath) to the priests and priestesses of the Arabian god Vadd (so especially Hommel, Anc. Heb. Trad., pp. 278 seq.). The date of the evidence, however, has not been fixed with unanimity, and this very
- ↑ With this development in Israelite religion, observe that Judaean cult included the worship of a brazen serpent, the institution of which was ascribed to Moses, and that, according to the compiler of Kings, Hezekiah was the first to destroy it when he suppressed idolatrous worship in Judah (2 Kings xviii. 4). It may be added that the faithful Kenites (found in N. Palestine, Judges iv. 11) appear in another light when threatened with captivity by Asshur (Num. xxiv. 22; cf. fall of Dan and Shiloh), and if their eponym is Cain (q.v.), the story of Cain and Abel serves, amid a variety of purposes, to condemn the murder of the settled agriculturist by the nomad, but curiously allows that any retaliation upon Cain shall be avenged (see below, note 5).
- ↑ The name Korah itself is elsewhere Edomite (Gen. xxxvi. 5, 14, 18) and Calebite (1 Chron. ii. 43). See Ency. Bib., s.v.
- ↑ The musical service of the temple has no place in the Pentateuch, but was considerably developed under the second temple and attracted the special attention of Greek observers (Theophrastus, apud Porphyry, de Abstin. ii. 26); see on this subject, R. Kittel’s Handkommentar on Chronicles, pp. 90 sqq.
- ↑ Even the tithes enjoyed by the Levites (Num. xviii. 21 seq.) were finally transferred to the priests (so in the Talmud: see Yebamoth, fol. 86a, Carpzov, App. ad Godw. p. 624; Hottinger, De Dec. vi. 8, ix. 17).
- ↑ For some suggestive remarks on the relation between nomadism and the Levites, and their influence upon Israelite religion and literary tradition, see E. Meyer, Die Israeliten u. ihre Nachbarstämme (1906), pp. 82-89, 138; on the problems of early Israelite history, see Simeon (end), Jews, §§ 5, 8, and Palestine, History.
