https://theses.gla.ac.

uk/

Theses Digitisation:
https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/research/enlighten/theses/digitisation/
This is a digitised version of the original print thesis.

Copyright and moral rights for this work are retained by the author
A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study,
without prior permission or charge
This work cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first
obtaining permission in writing from the author
The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any
format or medium without the formal permission of the author
When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author,
title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given

Enlighten: Theses
https://theses.gla.ac.uk/
[email protected]
 THE PRIESTHOOD IN ANCIENT ISRAEL

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO

THE STATUS AND FUNCTION OF THE LEVITES

By
M.W.T. Allan

A thesis submitted for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in the University of Glasgow, 1971
 ProQuest Number: 10647027

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is d e p e n d e n t upon the quality of the copy subm itted.

In the unlikely e v e n t that the a u thor did not send a c o m p le te m anuscript

and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved,
a n o te will ind ica te the deletion.

uesL
ProQuest 10647027

Published by ProQuest LLO (2017). C opyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C o d e
M icroform Edition © ProQuest LLO.

ProQuest LLO.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.Q. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346
 SUMMARY

■An attempt is made to trace the development of

Israel's priesthood from the earliest traditions of
the Old Testament down to the exile. An investigation
is also made for the same period of the status and
function of the Levites, as priests and Levites were
often inextricably connected in ancient Israel.

Hence this historical survey begins with an exa­

mination of the early traditions relating to the name
Levi in both its connotations. Although no definite
relationship can be found between the secular tribe
Levi and the later landless and non-tribal connotation
of the word, it would appear that the latter meaning
denoted priestly and non-priestly elements both sharing
a common characteristic, their devotion to Yahweh. Both
these elements seem to have existed contemporaneously
in ancient Israel- The Levites' association with Moses
as Yahweh's devotees, points to the wilderness period
as the most likely time for the inauguration of the
Levites to a distinct position among the tribes of
Israel, and the fact that following the Israelite con­
quest of Canaan, levitical settlements are found in
southern Palestine suggests their possible entrance
into the land as part of the northward thrust led by
Caleb from Kadesh.

The story of Micah's Levite is interpreted as

illustrating the tendency of non-priestly Levites to
seek priestly office either at private shrines or tribal
 '. 11

sanctuaries. The. story is important for it shows a

development away from the ancient custom by which the
head of the household performed priestly duties, to
the concept of one specifically appointed to discharge
these functions. Both the traditions recorded in the
closing chapters of the book of Judges illustrate how
the Levite, although landless and tribeless, was a res­
pected member of ancient Israelite society, who due to
his unique relationship with Yahweh was considered es­
pecially eligible to function as Yahweh's priest, and
was sufficiently esteemed to command national attention
in redress of any wrong he might sustain.

The survey proceeds to the monarchic period, and

deals with the narratives relating to the various priest­
hoods of that time. The most notable of these was the
family of Eli, at whose sanctuary the Ark was located.
The priesthood at Gibeah, Saul's town, and that at Nob,
as also the Shiloh priesthood, appear to represent
three distinct and unrelated priestly families. The
derivation of Zadok is considered, and a Gibeonite ori­
gin advanced as a possible solution to this problem.
By a process of elimination the lists of levitical
cities are assigned to the early years of Solomon's
reign, and are identified with a possible arrangement
of Levites in areas of doubtful allegiance to the Davidic
monarchy. This religio-political network of government
officials was broken up following the secession of the
ten northern tribes from the two southern. As a result,
the Levites of the northern kingdom being removed from
 Ill
office, either fled to Judah or joined those elements
which were actively critical of northern state policy.

The book of Deuteronomy contains traditions re­

lating to Levites functioning as priests, priestly
Levites who, as a result of the religious upheavals in
both the northern and southern kingdoms, found them­
selves deprived of their shrines and therefore redundant,
and non-priestly Levites enumerated amongst those who
due to their poverty were considered worthy of public
charity.. Although the centralization of Yahweh worship
ultimately succeeded, the attempted gathering together
of all Yahweh's priests to function at the place of his
choice largely failed. Some priests did gain access to
the Jerusalem priesthood but the majority remained in
the country deprived of their sanctuaries, and therefore
unable to exercise their priestly office. During the
exile however, it is possible that these redundant
levitical priests made good their claim to officiate at
Jerusalem, and provided some sort of cult amid its ruins.
It seems probable that these circumstances may have
provoked the polemic recorded in Ezek. 44 as a success­
ful attempt by the Zadokites, who following the Deute-
ronomic reform had lost their overall monopoly of the
Jerusalem cult, to reassert themselves in the post-
exibcytemple.

Finally, the significance of Aaron in the later

literature of the Old Testament is discussed. Reference
is made to his role as a tribal leader in the early
 iv

pentateuchal narratives, and the wilderness tabernacle

of P is compared with Solomon's temple. It is concluded
that the priestly writer authenticated the temple of
Solomon by projecting it back into the wilderness period,
and in a similar way projected the two central figures
of the pre-exilic temple, i.e. the king and priest, into
the source period by seeing Moses and Aaron as their
earlier prototype. This, together with the fact that
the high priest became the leader of the post-exilic
state is the hypothesis advanced in explanation of
Aaron's high priestly significance.
 THE PRIE STHOOD IN ANCIENT ISRAEL

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO

THE STATUS AND FUNCTION OF THE LEVITES

By
M.W.T. Allan

A thesis submitted for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in the University of Glasgow, 1971
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Title Page

Summary.............................. i

List of Abbreviations...-............ v

1. The Early Traditions relating to

Levi................................. 1

2. Levites during the Period of

Israelite Settlement in Canaan...... 37

3. Eli, Abiathar and Zadok.............. 59

4. Levitical Organization during the

Period of the Monarchy.............. lOl

5. Deuteronomy and the Priesthood....... 133

6. The Priesthood and Exile............. 167

7. The Development of the Significance

and Office of Aaron ■............ 192

Works consulted in the Preparation

of this Thesis...................... 222

Appendix.
 SUMMARY

An attempt is made to trace the development of

Israel's priesthood from the earliest traditions of
the Old Testament down to the exile. An investigation
is also made for the same period of the status and
function of the Levites, as priests and Levites were
often inextricably connected in ancient Israel.

Hence this historical survey begins with an exa­

mination of the early traditions relating to the name
Levi in both its connotations. Although no definite
relationship can be found between the secular tribe
Levi and the later landless and non-tribal connotation
of the word, it would appear that the latter meaning
denoted priestly and non-priestly elements both sharing
a common characteristic, their devotion to Yahweh. Both
these elements seem to have existed contemporaneously
in ancient Israel. The Levites' association with Moses
as Yahweh's devotees, points to the wilderness period
as the most likely time for the inauguration of the
Levites to a distinct position among the tribes of
Israel, and the fact that following the Israelite con­
quest of Canaan, levitical settlements are found in
southern Palestine suggests their possible entrance
into the land as part of the northward thrust led by
Caleb from Kadesh.

The story of Micah's Levite is interpreted as

illustrating the tendency of non-priestly Levites to
seek priestly office either at private shrines or tribal
 ". 11

sanctuaries. The story is important for it shows a

development away from the ancient custom by which the
head of the household performed priestly duties, to
the concept of one specifically appointed to discharge
these functions. Both the traditions recorded in the
closing chapters of the book of Judges illustrate how
the Levite, although landless and tribeless, was a res­
pected member of ancient Israelite society, who due to
his unique relationship with Yahweh was considered es­
pecially eligible to function as Yahweh's priest, and
was sufficiently esteemed to command national attention
in redress of any wrong he might sustain.

The survey proceeds to the monarchic period, and

deals with the narratives relating to the various priest­
hoods of that time. The most notable of these was the
family of Eli, at whose sanctuary the Ark was located.
The priesthood at Gibeah, Saul's town, and that at Nob,
as also the Shiloh priesthood, appear to represent
three distinct and unrelated priestly families. The
derivation of Zadok is considered, and a Gibeonite ori­
gin advanced as a possible solution to this problem.
By a process of elimination the lists of levitical
cities are assigned to the early years of Solomon's
reign, and are identified with a possible arrangement
of Levites in areas of doubtful allegiance to the Davidic
monarchy. This religio-political network of government
officials was broken up following the secession of the
ten northern tribes from the two southern. As a result,
the Levites of the northern kingdom being removed from
 I l l

office, either fled to Judah or joined those elements

which were actively critical of northern state policy.

The book of Deuteronomy contains traditions re­

lating to Levites functioning as priests, priestly
Levites who, as a result of the religious upheavals in
both the northern and southern kingdoms, found them­
selves deprived of their shrines and therefore redundant,
and non-priestly Levites enumerated amongst those who
due to their poverty were considered worthy of public
charity.. Although the centralization of Yahweh worship
ultimately succeeded, the attempted gathering together
of all Yahweh's priests to function at the place of his
choice largely failed. Some priests did gain access to
the Jerusalem priesthood but the majority remained in
the country deprived of their sanctuaries, and therefore
unable to exercise their priestly office. During the
exile however, it is possible that these redundant
levitical priests made good their claim to officiate at
Jerusalem, and provided some sort of cult amid its ruins.
It seems probable that these circumstances may have
provoked the polemic recorded in Ezek. 44 as a success­
ful attempt by the Zadokites, who following the Deute-
ronomic reform had lost their overall monopoly of the
Jerusalem cult, to reassert themselves in the post-
exi be.temple.

Finally, the significance of Aaron in the later

literature of the Old Testament is discussed. Reference
is made to his role as a tribal leader in the early
 IV

pentateuchal narratives, and the wilderness tabernacle

of P is compared with Solomon's temple. It is concluded
that the priestly writer authenticated the temple of
Solomon by projecting it back into the wilderness period,
and in a similar way projected the two central figures
of the pre-exilie temple, i.e. the king and priest, into
the source period by seeing Moses and Aaron as their
earlier prototype. This, together with the fact that
the high priest became the leader of the post-exilic
state is the hypothesis advanced in explanation of
Aaron's high priestly significance.
 V

ABBREVIATIONS

A.J.S.L. American Journal of Semitic Languages

and Literatures.
A.R.W. Archiv für Religionswissenschaft.
A.V. Authorised King James version.
B.A, Biblical Archaeologist.
B.A.S.O.R. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research.
B.J.R.L. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library.
B.W.A.N.T. Beitrâge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten (und
Neuen) Testament.
B.W.A.T. BeitrSge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten
Testament.
E.T, Expository Times.
F.R.L.A.N.T. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur
des Alten und Neuen Testaments.
J.A.O.S. Journal of the American Oriental Society.
J.B.L. Journal of Biblical Literature.
J.P.O.S. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society,
J.Q.R. Jewish Quarterly Review.
J.S.S. Journal of Semitic Studies.
J.T.S. Journal of Theological Studies.
K.S.G.V.I. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des
Volkes Israel, A.Alt., I-III, München,
1953, 1959.
LXX Septuagint.
\

M.T. Massoreti c text.

O.T.S. Oudtestamentische Studien.
P.E.Q. Palestine Exploration Quarterly.
R.B. . Revue Biblique.
 VI

R.B.I. Revue Biblique Internationale.

R.S.R. Recherches de Science Religieuse.
R.S.V. Revised Standard Version.
S.J.Th. Scottish Journal of Theology.
S.T.I. Swedish Theological Institute.
T.G.U.O.S. Transactions of Glasgow University
Oriental Society.
T.Z.L. Theologische Literaturzeitung.
V.T. Vetus Testamentum.
Z.A.W. Zeitschrift für die altestamentliche t/
Wissenschaft. ^
Z.Th.K. Zeitschrift für Théologie und Kirche.
 - 1

THE EARLY TRADITIONS RELATING TO LEVI

The disintegration of the ancient Sumerian Empire

of Babylon, brought about by the descent of the Hittites
from the Taurus Mountains into Asia Minor, resulted in
a great movement of peoples throughout the ancient Near
East. Amongst this general movement of population were
successive waves of Aramaean penetration from the
Tigris-Euphrates area into Canaan. Old Testament tra­
dition associates a group of these emigrants from Meso­
potamia with Abram and his nephew Lot. According to
Gen. 11.28 ff, the family of Terah moved from Ur of the
Chaldees to Haran where Terah died, but Abram, who rep­
resented a prominent element in this group, advanced
into Canaan^. Abram subsequently became the progenitor
of Israel, and Lot the ancestor of Ammon and Moab (cf.
Gen. 19.37 f). Although Abraham is generally regarded
as being more closely associated with Hebron, where
2
there probably existed a strong Abraham tradition , he
is also connected with Gerar (cf. Gen. 20.1) and
Beersheba (cf. Gen, 21.31 ff). Isaac, whom tradition
holds to have been Abraham’s son (cf. Gen. 21.1-5) may
represent a second Aramaean migration into Canaan which

1. cf. Gen. 15.7 and Nh. 9.7.

2. cf. Gen. 23.2; 35.27.
 3
settled around Beersheba and Gerar (cf. Gen. 26.6) ,
but the evidence for such a movement is much stronger
in the case of Jacob. The refusal of Abraham to permit
his son to marry one of the indigenous population, and
the subsequent marriage of Isaac to Rebekah, brought
from Mesopotamia, could indicate another migration of
Aramaean stock which united with that already in the
4
land . The stories relating to Isaac's sons represent
tribal traditions rather than incidents involving in­
dividual persons. Esau and Jacob dwell together for a
time in southern Canaan until pressure from the former
drives the latter across the Jordan in the direction of
his ancestral home^. In the course of time Jacob unites
with fresh Aramaean elements which are represented by
his wives, Leah and Rachel. This group, now enlarged,
is compelled by Aramaean pressure to return to Canaan^.
Although the historicity of Jacob himself need not be
questioned, the historicity of the Twelve Patriarchs is
more doubtful, and it is problematical if any of them
were actually Jacob's sons. It would seem more accurate
to visualise Israel being formed by a federation of
several groups of tribes, the order in which the child­
ren were born probably indicating the order in which,

3. See Note 1 in Appendix.

4. Gen. 24.10ff. states that Rebekah came from the
city of Nahor in Mesopotamia. Nahor is mentioned
in Gen. 11.27 ff. as the brother of Abram in Ur,
which shows the Aramaean origin of Rebekah to be
similar to Isaac's background.
5. See Note 2 in Appendix.
6. See Note 3 in Appendix.
 — 3
according to ancient tradition, the individual groups
came together to form such a federation. The first
group was loosely bound under the name Leah, and ori­
ginally included only four independent tribes, i.e.
Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah, but at a later period
two more were added - Issachar and Zebulun (cf. Gen.
30.16-20) - and finally the two concubine tribes of the
Zilpah group - Gad and Asher - were absorbed (cf. Gen.
30.9-13). It is possible that these Leah-Zilpah tribes
may have been in Canaan earlier than the Jacob-Rachel
and Bilhah groups, which on their settlement in the
land were recognized as brothers of the older groups and
consequently traced their ancestry back to a common
'father'. Owing to priority of settlement, Leah came
to be regarded as the mother of the older tribes while
Rachel, the more closely united and better loved wife,
represents the younger elements. At the outset Reuben
was the most important, but its eager grasp at the
privileges of supreme power led to its early fortune,
7
and ultimately to its disappearance. Simeon and Levi
are characterized by extreme and brutal cruelty, and
they too disappear from the scene, leaving Judah as the
8
sole survivor and head of the group . The affiliation

7. This is implied by the reference to Reuben being

few in number, contained in the Blessing of Moses,
cf. D t . 33.6.
8. In the Blessing of Jacob (cf. Gen. 49) the oracles
relating to Reuben, Simeon and Levi all record
curses. Judah is the eldest 'son' to receive a
blessing.
 - 4

of Issachar and Zebulun and the two Zilpah tribes to

this four tribe league is obviously much later. In the
Rachel group the leadership from the beginning was
taken by Joseph, which later divided into two sections
9
- Ephraim and Manasseh , but eventually the tribe
Benjamin attained the supreme position though it was
not permanently a leader in Israel^*^.

Our concern is with the tribe Levi. The earliest

traditions in which it is found, mention it alongside
Simeon in Gen. 34 and 49.5-7. In the first of these
texts, Simeon and Levi are recorded as making an
assault on Shechem. The chapter is regarded as one of
the cruces of Old Testament criticism and no definite
conclusion has been reached with regard to its analysis.
Some acknowledge the existence of two sources or two
variants of a similar narrative, others assert additions
11
and interpolations . It is noteworthy that in vv. 4,
6, 8-10 Hamor, Shechem's father, undertakes the suit
for Dinah which in vv. 11 f, and 19 Shechem himself
negotiates. The account of the attack in v. 25 led by
Simeon and Levi, and the notice of their departure in
the following verse is followed by the intervention of
all Jacob's sons against Shechem in vv. 27 ff. presen­
ting a further difficulty. However, the details of

9. cf. Gen. 48. 17-22.

10. The oracle relating to Benjamin in the Blessing of
Moses may reflect the later pre-eminence of the
tribe cf. Dt. 33.12.
11. See Note 4 in Appendix.
 - 5
critical minutiae need not concern us here. The narra­
tive relates how Dinah, an Israelitess, stepped outside
the narrow confines of her tribal society and was
seduced by Shechem. Shechem wished to marry her, but
was rejected by her family because the Shechemites
were uncircumcised. In fact that was only part of the
trouble. The word denoting rape i .e.TT? % ] is an
ancient expression which was used to describe the most
serious kind of immorality. References to this word
show that a horror of sacrilege, which incriminated the
12
whole community before Yahweh, surrounded it . Hamor
in his speech to Jacob's sons (cf. vv. 8ff) transfers
the matter from a personal sphere to a matter of prin­
ciple. His proposal is that a universal connubium
should commence between the people of Jacob and the
Shechemites whereupon the people of Jacob would be per­
mitted to settle in Shecheraite territory. Shechem
presents his case more impetuously in vv. 11 f. and
offers whatever dowry the brothers of Dinah should
demand. The uncircumcision of the Shechemites is the
objection raised by the sons of Jacob (cf. vv- 14 ff.),
but this difficulty is overcome due to Hamor's success­
ful enticement of the Shechemites with the prospect of
gaining the cattle and possessions of the sons of Jacob,
and they accordingly undergo circumcision. All having
gone according to plan, Simeon and Levi seize their
opportunity and strike, slaying the Shechemites, and

12. This is especially evident in Ju. 19.23 ff.;

2 0 .6 .
 - 6

taking back Dinah (cf. vv. 25 f.). The assault of all

Jacob's sons in vv. 27 ff. is simply a variant narra­
tive, Simeon and Levi murdered, while the other brothers
plundered. The abrupt termination of the chapter need
not necessarily be completed with an account of the
downfall of Simeon and Levi. The defiant note in v.31,
with which Simeon and Levi respond to Jacob's fear con­
cerning the wisdom of their action would imply the
reverse, and suggests the triumph of Simeon and Levi.

The other passage in the Old Testament in which

Simeon and Levi are mentioned together occurs in the
Blessing of Jacob (cf. Gen, 49.5-7). Some of the
oracles in this poem are prophecies of the future, some
contain censure or curse regarding events which have
happened, others describe current events. There is no
overall uniformity, and the picture at the beginning
of the poem, of Jacob surrounded by his sons, is not
consistently followed. Because of the use of the first
person singular in v. 7b, it cannot be assumed that
the oracle relating to Simeon and Levi was pronounced
by Jacob. Perhaps one should think of a man of God who
called a ban against the guilty. The personal pronoun
in V . 7b may then be interpreted as signifying God him­
self who announces the punishment for the crime imputed
to these two tribes through the decisive saying of his
authorized agent. The date of the individual sayings
varies because the events described in them belong to
different times. The author of the oracle on Reuben
 - 7
(cf. vv. 3 f.) speaks of the early strength of this
tribe, which, due to some reason that is not wholly
13
clear, passed from it . In the song of Deborah,
dated in the twelfth century, Reuben is denounced for
apathy towards the national cause (cf. Ju. 5.16), while
in the Blessing of Moses the tribe appears to be greatly
reduced in number (cf. Dt. 33,6). The Mesha inscrip­
tion, c. 850, in reference to the territory of the
Moabite high plateau north of the Arnon (which, at
least according to later sources, was the territory of
14
Reuber} speaks of the men of Gad occupying this area
from ancient times. From the ninth century this terri­
tory was entirely in Moabite possession, and therefore
it is reasonable to infer the extinction of the inde­
pendent tribe Reuben subsequent to 900. The Israelite
population east of the Jordan in the region south of
the Jabbok is named from that time 'Gad', and amongst
these Gadites the remnant of the tribe of Reuben had
its domicile. On the other hand, the highly laudatory
way in which the poem describes Judah suggests the
period of the kingdom, the establishment of which
rapidly advanced Judah from its isolated position in
15
the south to the centre of political life in Canaan

13. The tribe's loss of power is here ascribed to the

act of incest recorded in Gen. 35.22 and I Chr. 5.1.
This fragment of what must originally have been a
full account, may possibly contain in figurative
language, some reminiscence of early tribal relations
between Reuben and the Bilhah tribes, Dan and Naphtali
14. cf. Num. 32.33; Jos. 13.23; 20.8; I Chron. 6.63
(E.y.v; 7%. ),
15. See Note 5 in Appendix.
 - 8

The mention of the sceptre and royal authority in v.10

suggests a date for this oracle not earlier than the
reign of David. Thus it can be seen that, although
the Blessing of Jacob may not have been compiled until
well into the monarchic period, it contains, along with
current traditions, also traditions of great antiquity^^.
The oracle relating to Simeon and Levi, as the preceding
oracle on Reuben, takes the form of a curse. Simeon and
Levi are referred to as brothers who indulge in activi­
ties of great cruelty, giving quarter to neither man
nor beast. Their ferocity is cursed and they are con­
demned to dispersal in Jacob and division of Israel.

The purpose behind the narrative of Gen. 34 is to

illustrate to the nomad the danger of being attracted
to urban life. This alluring enticement to an urban
existence from the traditional pastoral occupation and
way of life, that provided a livelihood for the nomad,
is shown to begin with trading and the inevitable en­
counter between the two peoples involved that this
brings about. From an economic link there gradually
developed a connubium that brought with it all the com­
plications that are natural in the merging of two
peoples. The action taken by Simeon and Levi was suc­
cessful in terminating this union before it had a
chance of coming into effect. Simeon as a tribal
entity disappears after the period of Judges, and Levi,

16- G. Hôlscher in his article 'Levi', in Pauly-Wissowa,

Real-Encyclopüdie..., XII 2, Cols. 2155-2208 dates
the compilation of the poem in the period following
David.
 - 9
apart from the two texts mentioned, 'appears throughout
the rest of the Old Testament in a distinctive capacity,
having no tribal territory, and incapable of a belli­
gerent action such as Gen. 34 describes. Therefore
this incident must belong to the period of Judges or
even earlier. The problem of the dating of Gen. 34
may be aided by a brief consideration of Ju. 9, which
17
has been adjudged to reflect the Simeon-Levi episode
The account of the destruction of Shechem found in Ju.9
provides a glimpse of the relationship that existed
between the indigenous Canaanite population and the
Israelites who were still trying to achieve a secure
foothold in the land. In the circumstance of Gideon's
refusal to accept kingly office, the narrative relates
how the half Canaanite Abimelech, in a successful
appeal to his maternal kindred, set himself up as king
of Shechem with authority over the neighbouring Israe­
lites. However, Abimelech and the people of Shechem
enjoyed the fruits of their common crime for only a
short space of time. Dissension arose amongst them,
resulting in Abimelech's destruction of Shechem and the
loss of his own life before Thebez, which had apparently
conspired with Shechem in the revolt (cf. vv. 50 ff.).
This righteous retribution is pronounced beforehand in
the beautiful parable of Jotham (cf. vv. 7 - 21), and
the writer closes by pointing out how signally Jotham's

17. See Note 6 in Appendix.

 - 10

prophetic curse had been fulfilled, • The narrative

differs in many respects from Gen. 34. Apart from the
fact that the names of the dramatis personae are diffe­
rent, the details of the respective plots are also
different. Gen. 34 is a warning against intermarriage
with the settled population, and the narrative recounts
a successful attempt to prevent this taking place. The
account in Ju. 9 takes intermarriage between the
Canaanites and Israelites as a matter of course^^.
Gideon is in no way criticised for marrying a Sheche-
mite, and in contrast with Gen. 34, in which the sons
of Jacob object to a union with Shechem, it is the
Shechemites who rebel at the idea of a half Israelite
being their ruler (cf. v.28). In both accounts
Shechem is destroyed, but the destruction in Gen. 34
is seen as a triumph for the victors, while the episode
in Ju. 9 may be interpreted as a polemical warning
against kingship. Moreover, the events in Ju. 9 are
clearly depicted and every detail outlined as it
occurred, whereas the typification of the tribes as
individuals in Gen. 34 suggests a much remoter past.
In the light of these considerations a connection
between the two narratives seems improbable, and as
the Canaanite city Shechem in later times became a
19
Manassite city , the incident recorded in Gen. 34 would

18. cf. 9-1 and also 8.31.

19. See Note 7 in Appendix.
 - 11

appear to belong to a period earlier than the era of

Judges.

Due to the fact that Simeon and Levi are mentioned

simultaneously in the Old Testament only in Gen. 34 and
49.5-7, a possible connection may exist between these
two texts. If Gen. 49.5-7 is taken as anterior to Gen.
34, then Simeon and Levi, subsequent to some humiliation,
experienced a revival in strength. But if this were so,
we would expect to find mention of further activities
on the part of Simeon and Levi, the absence of which
weakens this view. Simeon is nowhere else encountered
in the Shechem vicinity. In the conquest narratives it
takes up its position in the south in close association
with Judah (cf. Ju. 1.1 ff; 6.27). Levi also appears
to have connections with Judah (cf. Ju. 17.7; 19.1).
If, on the other hand, the account in Gen. 34 can be
attributed to a period prior to Gen. 49.5-7, a more
tenable hypothesis may be achieved, whereby Simeon and
Levi captured Shechem and put its inhabitants to the
sword, but in the passage of time experienced the same
fate as their victims. Whether they were living in this
vicinity or had a southern domicile in the Negeb area
is difficult to determine- If they lived in the Negeb,
it is possible that from time to time they would have
undertaken expeditions into the north, either as mili­
tary campaigns, or peaceable migrations during the
summer looking for change of pasturage, and in this
way their encounter with Shechem would have taken place.
 “ 12

It is also feasible to conjecture that Simeon and Levi

may have been associated with the Habiru who are recor­
ded in the Amarna letters, dated around 1375, as infil­
trating into Canaan on a semi-nomadic basis in much the
same way as the episode of Shechem's capture is des-
20
cribed in Gen. 34 . However, the basic theme of the
rejection of intermarriage between the sons of Jacob
and Shechem suggests that Simeon and Levi represented
21
fairly settled elements in the region around Shechem
The fact that Shechem following the Abimelech episode
became a Manassite city and prior to it was Canaanite,
indicates that the historical situation of this narra­
tive must be sought in the patriarchal era. This was
evidently the view of the Yahwist who placed Gen. 34
before the Joseph stories in his framework of the Penta­
teuch .

Although the early history of the Patriarchs is

obscure, Gen. 34 may provide a glimpse of the conditions
that prevailed in the early days of Aramaean settlement
in Canaan. The very small role of Jacob conflicts with

20. A number of the Amarna letters record the protests

of Lab'ayu, the ruler of Shechem, to his Egyptian
overlord about the conduct of the marauding Habiru,
whom he reported as having captured Shechem by
treachery.
21, E. Nielsen, Shechem, a traditio-historical Investi­
gation, p. 259, considers that Simeon's detention
in Egypt by Joseph, the account of the Simeonite
and the Midianite woman cf. Num. 25.6-15, and the
element of a divine name contained in Zelophehad,
which he conjectures appertained to the Simeonite
sanctuary of Beersheba, as signs suggestive of the
original northern locality of this tribe. The
suggestions he makes, however, are tenuous and lack
direct evidence.
 - 13

his position as the father of Simeon and Levi. He

takes no action on hearing of his daughter's seduction
until the return of his sons from the fields ( cf. v.5),
and his almost total absence from the marriage nego-
22
tiations is remarkable . The only other mention of
him relates his remonstrance at his sons' defence of
their sister's honour, which he fears will arouse the
animosity of the surrounding people (cf. v.30). This
colourless role of Jacob, which appears incompatible
with his position as 'father' of Simeon and Levi in
V. 25, may imply that the event originally took place
at a period before the Jacob tribes moved into Palestine,
or at least before Jacob was considered as the ancestor
of the Simeon and Levi tribes. This may explain how
the oracle relating to Simeon and Levi in Gen. 49.5-7
achieves a better sense when interpreted as a divine
pronouncement made by a man of God, rather than coming
direct from the mouth of Jacob. All that can be secu­
rely ascertained from the evidence available, is that
their possession of Shechem does not appear to have
lasted long. The oracle of Gen. 49.5-7 taken as pos­
terior to Gen. 34 may be interpreted ex eventu with
Gen. 34 to denote some event in,which these tribes
experienced a sharp decline that was seen as a divine
retribution for their former ferocity at Shechem. It
would thus appear that there exists in these two texts

22. There is a passing reference to him in v.11.

 — 14
a genuinely ancient tradition, relating to the patriar­
chal age, that circulated in Palestine and was ultima­
tely included in the sacred traditions of Israel. "..
es ist die einzige ErzShlung im Alten Testament, deren
Wurzeln für uns noch sichtbar in eine geschichtliche
Situation hinabreichen, in der noch nicht. alle israeli-
tischen Stëmme zur vollen Sesshaftigkeit in Palestine
23
Übergegangen waren"

We now turn to Ex. 32.25-29, a most important text

for the investigation of the early traditions relating
to Levi and the understanding of its distinctive chara­
cter. The verses in question are part of a composite
chapter that will be analysed as a whole in the final
section of this thesis. The passage for discussion
here opens by stating that when Moses saw the dissolu­
teness of the people, which is attributed to Aaron, he
took up his position at the gate of the camp and called
for those loyal to Yahweh to declare their faith and
side with him. The Levites accordingly obeyed, killing
three thousand people. Finally they were bidden to
consecrate themselves to Yahweh that he might bless
them.

The statement in v. 25b that Aaron had permitted

discord among the people, thus causing them to be ridi­
culed by their enemies, acts as a link with the previous
verses whose tendency is to exonerate him from impli­
cation in the idolatry of the calf. Two alternative

23. cf. M. Noth, Überlieferunqsqeschichte des Penta­

teuch, p. 95.
 - 15
interpretations are possible for this verse. Either
the result of the people's recalcitrance, which Moses
encountered, was due to the fact that Aaron had allowed
their dissoluteness and had been responsible for the
erection of the calf, or the people broke loose of
their own accord, and Aaron, having made an unsuccess­
ful attempt to restrain them (which has not been recor­
ded) abandoned them to their enemies. They, on hearing
that the Israelites had deserted their God, whom they
boasted had led them from captivity in Egypt, conse­
quently derided them. As the second alternative agrees
with the exculpatory tendency towards Aaron in the pre­
ceding verses, it would appear to be the more reason­
able interpretation. Having seen the dissoluteness of
the people, Moses asked if there were any who still
remained faithful to Yahweh. His question suggests
that the rebelliousness of the people might have con­
sisted of some kind of apostasy. The context of the
erection of the calf, in which these verses are found,
may perhaps suggest participation in the rites of a
fertility cult. The sons of Levi declared their loyalty
to Yahweh, but as all the people are described as dis­
solute in V. 25, without any suggestion of a section
remaining apart from the rest of the community, it
may be a tenable postulation to consider that a number
of miscellaneous individuals, rather than a designated
group, separated themselves from their recalcitrant
kindred and proclaimed their faith in Yahweh. It would
seem reasonable to infer from this consideration that
 - 16
the use of the term 'sons of Levi' in v.26 is a pro-
leptic one, since it was the act of attachment which
gained for these people this name. Moses, having
ascertained the committed Yahwists in the community,
then related the divine command which was duly obeyed,
24
and about three thousand people perished , the final
verse of the passage providing a sequel to the event
25
described in the preceding verses

Because of the loyalty shown by these individuals

in their attachment to Yahweh and their rejection of
their fellow tribesmen they are bidden to fill their
hand to Yahweh. Apart from the priestly document in
which the term '1’^ has the obvious meaning ' to
consecrate to priestly s e r v i c e i t never occurs
elsewhere without a definition of the service to which
the person involved is consecrated. It is stated in
Ju. 17.5 that Micah filled his son's hand, and he sub­
sequently became his priest. The waw consecutive after
the phrase I'J 21%*
'T T
îHH -w I
denotes two
separate actions that did not occur simultaneously but

24. See Note 8 in Appendix.

25. H. Gressmann, 'Moses und seine Zeit'. F.R.L.A.N.T.
(1913). p. 211, n. 2, divides the passage into two
. sections - vv. 25-28 and v. 29.
26. The term is found in Ex. 29.9,35and Lev. 8.33 in
the context of the consecration of Aaron'.s sons to
priestly office. The use of the term in Ezek. 43.26
in connection with the Zadokites, who already held
priestly office, would appear from the context to
denote consecration to the service of the altar.
 - 17
the latter subsequent to the former. As a result of
Micah filling the hand of his son he becomes his priest,
presumably because he was consecrated for the charge of
the oracle. Similarly in v.l2, subsequent to the hand
of the Levite being filled, he becomes a priest. The
words 'and he became his priest' are essential if we
are to learn of the service to which Micah's son and
27
the Levite were ;Consecrated . In David's speech rela­
ting to the building of the future temple, the king
seeks out those who are willing to fill their hand to
Yahweh, meaning the building of his house (cf. I Chr.
29.5). Here the people are asked to take up the tools
for the erection of the temple, and so consecrate them­
selves to the service of Yahweh. Unlike Ju. 17.5 and 12,
there is no suggestion of priestly service, but rather
the service of Yahweh, which from the context clearly
means the building of the temple. In Ex. 32.29 a mis­
cellaneous group of people are bidden to fill their
hand to Yahweh, i.e. to consecrate themselves to the
service of Yahweh, because they have shown their loyalty
to him, by separating themselves from their kindred.
The service to which they consecrate themselves is
simply designated as Yahweh's without any suggestion of
priestly duty. Whether, in anticipation of future

27. The usage is similar in I Kgs. 13,33 where it is

recorded that Jeroboam consecrated whoever he
wished and they became priest i.e. subsequent to
the filling of the hand the persons involved are
further described as becoming priests. Again in
II Chr. 13.9 the people whom Jeroboam has permit­
ted to fill their hand with sacrificial offerings
are subsequently recorded as becoming priests to
gods that were nonentities.
settlement in Canaan, their separation from kindred
was intended as a sacrifice of future inheritance among
their tribesmen is difficult to determine, as it cannot
be ascertained if at this stage such a notion would
have been conceived (unless the verse is understood as
a later addition reflecting post-settlement conditions),
The absence of any suggestion of priestly status in
reference to these Levites provides a sense appropriate
to the passage, especially if it is understood to stem
from the period of Israel's wilderness wandering, for
it is hardly conceivable that, resulting from a dissen­
sion within the community, a group of priests should
emerge to function at a cult of which there is no evi­
dence, and it is difficult to imagine a group of people
installed to a non-existent office. Moreover, it would
be a strange phenomenon for priests to install them­
selves in office having just slaughtered their consti­
tuents, especially as the phrase 'to fill the hand' in
reference to priestly ordination implies inauguration
by an authority to priestly service by placing the
instrument of that service in the ordinand's hand. The
meaning here is simply a self-dedication to the service
of Yahweh which is made possible by denial of tribal
kinship.

Clearly therefore the narrative does not imply any

priestly attribute for Levites. The fact that the
Levite lived a life of devotion to Yahweh to the exclu­
sion of all tribal relationships would suggest a spiri­
tual quality that was gradually regarded as conducive
 - 19
to priestly service. This will be seen in the next
chapter of this thesis. It is basically this fundamen­
tal distinctness from the rest of Israel that typifies
the Levite, not his position as priest. Up until the
time of Deuteronomy, the priestly office does not
appear to have been restricted to any particular section
of the community. In Deuteronomy, however, the priest­
hood became the exclusive privilege of the Levites
(cf. D t . 18.1-8), although there is no conclusive evi­
dence that all Levites were necessarily priests; in
28
fact D t . 26.12 implies the reverse . The basic charac­
teristic of the Levite was his peculiar relationship to
Yahweh and his own environment. The priestly office,
which did not include all Levites, may have come as
part of a later process of development following con­
quest and the emergence of settled Israelite life in
Canaan which gave rise to the formation of cultic esta­
blishments for the worship of Yahweh.

A further text of importance for this investigation

is found in the Blessing of Moses (cf. Dt. 33.8-11).
The way in which the northern tribes are emphasised,

28. The mention of a priest functioning at the shrine

where the first fruits were offered (cf. Dt. 26,3,4),
and of a Levite as a member of the worshipper's
household, and therefore part of the congregation,
without any suggestion of priestly status (cf. v.12)
implies the existence of lay Levites as well as
priestly ones. This chapter will be discussed
more fully in the section of the thesis dealing
with the Levites in Deuteronomy.
 - 20

especially Joseph (cf. vv. 13-17), suggests a northern

provenance for the poem as a whole. If the mention of
divine help for Judah in v. 7 is interpreted as reflec­
ting the conditions of exile, then the compilation of
29
the poem should be assigned to the exilic age or later
But were the oracle on Benjamin in v. 12 to be taken as
exilic, it would fail to make sense, as the southern
part of Benjamin must have gone into exile with Judah.
On the other hand, if v. 7 is understood to denote the
schism between the northern and southern kingdoms of
Israel and Judah, this would indicate a date around 900
for the poem's compilation. This dating fits the his­
torical background best as Reuben still finds mention,
although it appears to be bordering on extinction at
this time (cf. v. 5). The absence of Simeon may be due
either to its eventual absorption in Judah, or to its
extreme southerly position obscuring it from the purview
of the northern author. Gad (cf. vv. 20 f) does not
appear to have suffered yet from the trouble that the
30
expansion of Moab was to inflict upon it . The inte­
rest in Levi is not altogether surprising as Levites
were present in the northern regions of Palestine from
the period of Judges (cf. Ju. 18.30; 19.1). Although
Levi appears among the other tribal eponyms as in Gen. 49,
here it is referred to in the distinctive capacity of
adherence to Yahweh found in Ex. 32.25-29.

29. cf. G. Hôlscher, Geschichteschreibung in Israel,

pp. 334 ff, who assigns an exilic date to the poegi.
30. cf. the Moabite Stone, lines 9 ff.
 - 21

The poem begins with a statement of Moses relating

Yahweh's love for his people. The passage concerning
Levi which opens with the words H , suggests
that these verses should be understood as the prayer of
Moses for Levi, which is addressed to Yahweh. It
states that the sacred lot is assigned to the holy one
who was tested at Massah, striven with at the waters of
Meribah and forfeited all ties of tribal kinship. A
plural of address is then used, and it is recorded that
the Levites observed the convenant. They are to teach
Jacob judgements and Israel the law, to burn incense
and offer up burnt offering. The final verse reverts
to the singular number. Yahweh is to bless Levi's po­
tential, accept the work of his hands and destroy his
enemies.

The opening verse presents some difficulties in

interpretation. Should the wordsfj'I’b Q uj 'K be under­
stood to denote Levi, this interpretation would find
no support in the other traditions relating to Massa
and Meribah where this verse maintains the holy one was
tested. If, on the other hand, these words are inter­
preted to mean Moses, although there is evidence of
his presence at Massa and Meribah, no account has sur­
vived of his successfully undergoing a trial of faith
31
there . It is recorded in Ex. 17.1-7 that the people

31. E. Meyer, op. cit., p. 54, takes LÙ ' as a collec­

tive noun, and interprets the phrase r|7^ *
to mean the descendants of the holy one of Yahweh,
i.e. the Levites who derived their special signi­
ficance from their eponymous ancestor Moses.
 - 22

murmured against Moses for leading them from bondage

to a place where there was no water. Moses complained
of the people's discontent to Yahweh and was ordered
to strike water from a rock with his rod. The dissen­
sion was between the people and Yahweh, Moses acting
as intermediary (cf. v.2) and for this reason the place
was called Massa and Meribah (cf. v.7). The priestly
writer relates a similar incident taking place at
Kadesh (cf. Num. 20.1-13). The place where Moses' rod
occasioned the water at Yahweh*s command is here called
Meribah, because the children of Israel strove with
Yahweh (cf. v .13). Again there is no mention of a con­
flict between Yahweh and Moses, although it is recorded
in V. 12 that on account of the unfaithfulness of Moses
and Aaron, Yahweh would not permit them to lead the
children of Israel into the promised land. The exact
nature of Moses' and Aaron's disloyalty is not disclosed,
but the prohibition of entry into the promised land is
again mentioned in connection with the death of Aaron
32
later in the chapter (cf. v. 24) . Dt. 32.51 reite­
rates the tradition of Num. 20.12 in denying Moses
access to the promised land as a punishment for his

32. S. Lehming, ' Massa und Meribah' Z.A.W. 1961, pp.

71-77, interprets the account of Moses striking
the rock twice in Num. 20.11 as an act of deficient
faith, because he is not actually requested by
Yahweh to strike the rock with the rod as in Ex.
17.6. He considers the mention of Massa in Ex. 17
as a Deuteronomic addition to the original text,
and deduces that the priestly writer of Num. 20
used Ex, 17 in forming his account before the in­
sertion of the Massah tradition in Ex. 17.
 - 23
lack of faith at Meribah-Kadesh, Meribah again being
identified with Kadesh as in Num. 20* Dt* 6,16 and 9.22
speak of Massa as a place where Yahweh was provoked by
the people; Ps. 81.7 mentions Meribah as the site of
the people's trial by Yahweh while in Num. 27.14 Meri­
bah is named as the place where the people rebelled
against Yahweh and is located at Kadesh in the wilder­
ness of Zin. Hence it appears that we have different
traditions associated with Massa and Meribah that may
originally have been independent of each other. In
none of the texts mentioned is there any suggestion of
divine commendation for a display of faith either by
Levi, Moses or the people. However the use of the de­
finite article before the present participle in v.9a
appears to refer to the individual ih v.8 ( vi) * H )
for whom the Thummim and Urim are requested i.e. Levi.
This individual is described as appertaining to 'thy
holy one ' (t |~î’ I) 7 ) who was proved at Massa and
striven with at Meribah. In view of the traditions
relating to Massa and Meribah that have just been con­
sidered, the term 'thy holy one' would seem to denote
Israel as the people bound to Yahweh by covenant love,
who despite their special relationship with Yahweh that
singles them out as a holy people, were guilty of re­
belling against their God. But to this individual who
is selected from the recalcitrant race is assigned the
sacred oracle, and he is further described in v.9 as
denouncing his tribal allegiance- This denunciation
 - 24
of tribal kinship agrees with the view already advanced
in connection with the characteristic tribelessness of
the Levite in Ex. 32,25-29.

The change in number from the singular in vv. 8,

9a to the plural in vv, 9b, 10 and back into the singu­
lar again in v, 11 indicates the composite nature of
the text and suggests a development in the levitical
office. The manipulation of the Thummim and Urim was
33
a basic function characteristic of the priesthood ,
but the development of the cult involved the priesthood
in a wider sphere of cultic activities. Although v. 10
records that the teaching of the law was one of the
chief concerns of the priest, which according to the
earlier prophets obtained from relatively early times^^,
the mention of incense along with burnt offering suggests
that vv. 9b, 10 may belong to the later pre-exilic
period. The word can simply denote the smoke
of burning sacrifice (cf. Is. 1.13; Ps. 66.15), andthe
intensive form of the predicate has the meaning 'to

33. The Thummim and Urim were the sacred lot used to
determine Yahweh's will in a particular issue.
Elsewhere the usage is Urim and Thummim cf. Ex. 28.
30; Lev. 8.8; Ezra. 2,63. The Urim is named alone
in Num. 27.21 and I Sam. 28.6, and the Thummim
occurs by itself in I Sam. 14.41.
34. cf. Jer. 18.18; Ezek. 7.26; 22.26; Hos, 4.6; Mic.
3.11. The priest gave oracular direction in two
ways. Through the sacred lot Urim and Thummim,
and by reference to a legal code including both
the revealed will of Yahweh and the accumulated
experience of the past. From his knowledge of this
code the priest could lay down U ' % ^ uJ rules
of action, and give 1H 17) instruction in
the revealed will of Yahweh.
 - 25
35
cause to smoke’ i.e. upon the altar . But as the
final clause in the verse referring to whole burnt
offering upon Yahweh's altar would include the smoke
of the sacrificial victim, the reference to incense in
this context must denote the smoke of aromatics (cf.
Ex. 30.8 f .), and of material burned in the offering
(cf. Lev, 10;1; Ezek. 8.11)^^. All pentateuchal re­
ferences to the offering of incense, apart from the
verse under consideration, occur in the priestly docu­
ment, and it is noteworthy that the eighth century pro­
phets make no allusion to such a feature in the cult.
Moreover, the functions attributed to the priest here,
did not become the exclusive right of the Levites until
the Deuteronomic period. The concluding verse reverts
to the singular, and like vv. 8 and 9a strikes a much
37
more archaic tone than vv. 9b and 10 . The request
for divine blessing of his substance, and acceptance
of his work, together with the hostile attitude to his

35. cf. I Sam. 2.15 f .; Jer. 19.13; 44.21,23; Hos. 4.

13; 11.2; Hab. 1.16.
36. Incense compounded according to a specified formula
(cf. Ex. 30.34-38), was extensively used in the
ritual of the temple cf. Ex. 25.6; 35.8, 28;
37.29. Pure incense which could not be made or used
for secular purposes (cf. Ex. 30.37f; Lev. 10.1-11)
was burnt on the altar of incense (cf. Ex. 30.1 ff;
Lev. 4.7) which was in the temple before .the veil
of the holy of holiest.
37. P.M. Cross and D.N. Freedman, 'The Blessing of Moses'
J.B.L. (1948) pp. 191-210, eliminate vv. 8-10 from
the original oracle due to the prosaic style of
these verses which is indicated by the use of the
relative pronoun and the definite accusative- This
■ judgement would appear to be too arbitrary when
other considerations are taken into account.
 - 26
enemies, suggests a period in which the Levites were
undergoing serious opposition, and may indicate some­
thing of the circumstances they experienced in their
activities in northern Palestine.

In Dt. 33.8 the possession of the Thummim and Urim

implies the priestly status of the Levite which does
not obtain in Ex. 32.25-29. On the other hand, the
relationship between Moses and the Levites is explained
in Ex. 32.25 ff. while Dt. 33.8 ff. makes no mention of
it. The Levite is attached to Yahweh at the price of
renouncing his tribal allegiance in Ex. 32.25 ff. with­
out any suggestion of priestly office, and similarly
in Dt. 33.8 ff. the Levite is Levite due to his denial
of tribal affinity, but in this instance his manipula­
tion of the sacred lot implies his priestly status.
This may suggest that the basic tradition underlying
Ex. 32.25 ff. is older than Dt. 33.8 ff., but the evi­
dence is too inadequate to draw any firm conclusions
concerning the age of either tradition or whether one
is dependent on the other. What is common to both is
the fundamental distinctness of the Levites from the
rest of Israel. It is quite possible that we are dea­
ling with two traditions which, although they have the
basic tenet of what they are describing in common, could
have circulated among different sections of the commu­
nity and in this way developed their own variations.
A problem common to both passages is to ascertain
whether they had their roots in Palestine, or in the
period prior to settlement. It is possible that the
 - 27
tradition common to both texts under review i.e. levi­
tical tribelessness, had its roots in the post-settle­
ment period, and in later times aetiological accretions
developed around it which projected it back into the
wilderness period. On the other hand, the association
of Moses with the Levites would suggest a period prior
to conquest. As there are no adequate grounds for
questioning the authenticity of the tradition contained
in Ex. 32.25 ff, it is quite possible that it records
a genuine memory of an incident in which a number of
Israelites joined Moses to demonstrate their loyalty
to the God that Moses represented, when the divine
authority vested in him was challenged by the people.
It is also a reasonable postulation to consider a simi­
lar memory to lie at the root of Dt. 3 3.8 ff in which
a group of Israelites withdrew themselves from their
38
dissident kindred at Massa and Meribah . The tradi­
tions relating to Massa and Meribah which record their
39
location, situate them in the vicinity of Kadesh ,
where the children of Israel are recorded to have spent
thirty-eight years (cf. Dt. 2.14). The figure of Moses
is closely connected with the steppe south of Palestine,
and especially with Kadesh, the oasis in the middle of
Arabia Petraéa. In the vicinity of Kadesh, known in

38. The word u) ' in v. 8 may be interpreted as a

collective noun, e.g. often occurs
meaning 'men of Israel'.' ^ '
39. cf. Num. 20.1; 27.14. Massah and Meribah are
located in Ex. 17.1 near the wilderness of Sin,
which the Lxx and Syriac versions spell Zin.
According to Num. 20.1, the wilderness of Zin is
in the vicinity of Kadesh. The exact location of
Rephidim in Ex. 17.1 has not been ascertained.
 - 28

later times as 'ain kedes, is a much older well named

— — 40 ■ ■ “
'ain el kderat , and a third oasis called 'ain kuseme.
The feature common to all the Massa-Meribah traditions
is a dissatisfaction amongst the people over the lack
of water, traditions that are likely to have originally
circulated in the Kadesh area. Although the evidence
is insufficient to work out any assured hypothesis,
the fact that the tradition in Dt. 33.8 is tied up
with Massa and Meribah may indicate that it originally
belonged to the Kadesh area. This location would be
appropriate to the narrative of Ex. 32.25 ff. in which
Moses, who is elsewhere identified with this area,
plays a leading role as Yahweh's representative amongst
his recalcitrant people.

Other traditions relating to the institution of

the Levites occur in the priestly writing. In Num.
3.5-10 the Levites are described as being installed as
ministers to Aaron, and in this capacity responsible
for the running of the tabernacle. As Aaron does not
become accredited with the dignity of high priest until
the later traditions of the Old Testament, this passage
may represent a late tradition having its basis in the
41
post-exilic organization of the temple . Another
tradition relating to the Levites follows in vv. 11-13

40. H. Gressmann, op. cit., p. 151, compares this

oasis with the magnificent Jordan source of Banijas
41. cf. Ex. 38.21; Num. 1.47-54; 4.46 ff.; 31.30;
I Chr. 6.33 (E.V. v.48); 23.27-32.
 - 29
which has little, if anything, in common with that
recorded in the preceding verses. Here the Levites
are taken by Yahweh as substitutes for the firstborn
42
claimed by him . The sanctity of the firstborn and
their need for redemption are recognized alike by early
and later Hebrew laws (cf. Ex. 13.2p; 34.19 JE). It
is subsequently provided in P that every male at a
month old is redeemable at five shekels (cf. Num. 3.44
ff; 18.16). The Levites are substitutes only for those
above a month old at the time. Very ancient roots may
lie at the heart of this tradition. According to
Rabbinic theory, before the time when the tabernacle
was erected, priestly functions were discharged by the
firstborn^^. A similar theory might be considered to
lie at the bottom of this passage which would imply
that the firstborn in early Israel was, as a matter of
44
course, dedicated to priestly duties . The dedication
of Samuel at Shiloh may be an example of this occurring

42. . cf. also vv. 40-51 in which not only the Levites
act as substitutes for the firstborn of humans,
but their cattle are substituted for the firstlings
of cattle owned by the rest of Israel. Num. 8.5-26
describe the dedication of the Levites as substi­
tutes for human firstborn as an initiation into
cultic service.
43. cf. Rashi Zebahim 4.14, and Targum Jonathan on
Ex. 24.5.
44. cf. G. V. Baiîdissin, Geschichte des Priestertums,
pp. 55-57.
 - 30
in ancient Israel (cf. I Sam. 1.24-28), but although
Samuel was Hannah's firstborn he was not the firstborn
of his house, and therefore may not be accepted as a
typical example of this happening. Moreover, Samuel
was given in fulfilment of a pledge as a special devotee,
which would have been unnecessary if the practice of
dedicating the firstborn to cultic service had been
widely observed in Israel. Ju. 17.5 and I Sam. 7.1 do
not imply any prerogative for the firstborn assuming
priestly office. Furthermore, the evidences, of priestly
functions in early times being discharged by the leader
of the community or father of the household (e.g. the
ritual of the Passover in Ex. 12; 13.8 ff.) do not
favour the existence of a priesthood of the firstborn.
The fact, however, that the firstborn was claimed by
Yahweh (the Levite later being acceptable as a substi­
tute for him as the firstfruits of life) could perhaps
hint at a tradition in which the firstborn was conside­
red attached to Yahweh, and in some special way vested
with spiritual qualities. Unfortunately the paucity
of information allows no more than a tentative sugges-
^ . 45 -
tion

Levi encountered in a secular capacity alongside

Simeon in Gen. 34 and 49.5-7 without any suggestion of
the distinctive Yahweh service associated with the name
Levi in the other biblical traditions considered, gives

45. See Note 9 in Appendix.

 - 31
rise to the question of a possible connection between
the two distinct phenomena which the word Levi repre­
sents. It has been speculated that the Levites were
originally mantics who, in accordance with the tradi­
tions of ancient tribal societies, were held in greater
esteem by tribes other than their own. It was a uni­
versal belief among the ancients that the occult powers
of strangers were greater than those of familiar people,
and in some regions whole tribes were regarded as power­
ful wizards and their services sought by neighbouring
tribes. Thus the Levites, following some catastrophe,
such as that assumed in Gen. 49.5 ff, could have been
driven southwards and dispersed among the Judaeans
where they developed their distinctive non-tribal chara­
cter^^. Again it may be possible that after the expul­
sion of Simeon and Levi from Shechem, both tribes were
47
reduced in numbers , and subsequently driven to the
borders of Egypt where they enjoyed amicable relations
with the neighbouring tribes of Kenites, Jerahmeelites
and the other miscellaneous groups that later consti-
48
tuted Judah . Subsequently drought and famine could
have forced some of them into Egypt, as often

46. T.J. Meek, op.cit., p. 116, compares the defeat of

Levi with that of the Magi, who, failing to achieve
political power, succeeded in the religious sphere.
47. This is borne out by the fact that in later times
the tribe of Simeon appears very limited and the
cities assigned to it fall within the territory of
Judah (cf. Jos. 19.1-8), which indicates that
Simeon eventually became little more than an
element within the tribe Judah.
48. See Note 10 in Appendix.
 - 32
happened in ancient times, and there they may have come
in contact with the Joseph tribes. This hypothesis
would explain the presence of Levites in both northern
and southern Palestine as due to a migration of Levites
in both the Joseph and Judah movements into Canaan.
Moreover, the adoption of this theory would explain the
levitical background to Moses in Ex. 2. However, it is
strange that if Levi survived to return to Canaan in a
new non-tribal role of Yahweh service, Simeon should
have retained its secular character and have been almost
swallowed up in Judah (cf. Jos. 19.1-8). A slight
variation to these considerations may be briefly noted.
The tribes Simeon and Levi, along with Judah may have
infiltrated from the south into Canaan, but Simeon and
Levi advanced further north than Judah and gained pos­
session of Shechem. However their occupation of Shechem
lasted but a short time, and they were ejected and
driven back to the south where some of them were absor­
bed in Judah and others sought refuge in Egypt and
49
linked up with the Joseph tribes there . There is no
evidence to support any of these views, and although
they need not be rejected out of hand, they cannot be
accepted as more than mere speculations. The coinci­
dence of the usage of the name might indicate that the
two different connotations it embraces were connected,
but as the tribe Levi, found in a secular capacity
belongs to the early days of Aramaean settlement in
Palestine, and the special role of Yahweh service

49. cf. H.H. Rowley, From Joseph to Joshua, pp. 112 ff.
 - 33
attributed to Levi may derive from the wilderness period,
it is possible that the name 'Levi' in the interval of
time came to have two distinct connotations, one repre­
senting a secular tribe that had ceased to exist, the
other denoting a professional status. The record of
both could exist side by side in the sacred traditions
of Israel without confusion. Admittedly, Levi is in­
cluded among the tribal eponyms in the Blessing of
Moses, but its partner, Simeon, is absent and it itself
placed after Judah. Its inclusion here may be due to
the fact that although landless it did represent an
important and genuinely characteristic element of
Israel. The series in D t . 27.12 numbers Simeon and
Levi among the twelve tribes placed, as in Gen. 49,
before Judah and after Reuben. However it is quite
clear from v. 14 that there was no confusion in the
mind of the writer between the two different capacities
- secular and liturgical - that the word Levi
describes here.

In Ex. 2.1 it is stated that a man of the house

of Levi took to wife a daughter of Levi, and from this
union came Moses. This implies the existence of a
secular tribe Levi which, although alien in the land
of Egypt, is in no way assumed distinct from the rest
50
of Israel held in bondage there . If however, the
use of the term 'sons of Levi' in Ex. 32 is understood
to be a proleptic one anticipating the faithful's act
of attachment from which they subsequently took their

50. See Note 11 in Appendix.

 - 34
name, this would imply that either Moses represented
one of the last members of the secular tribe which
subsequently disappeared, or did not originally belong
to a secular tribe Levi. The evidence relating to the
existence of Moses' two sons (cf. Ex. 18.1-6) assumes
the continuation of the secular tribe Levi to which
Moses belonged, and is therefore contrary to the former
supposition. On the other hand, it is possible that
the tradition relating to Moses' levitical parentage
developed at a later date when there was a tendency to
leviticalize Moses by including him in the levitical
51
genealogies . This would favour the alternative
solution. The close association since the wilderness
period between Moses and the Levites of which Ex. 32.
25-29 bears witness doubtless gave rise to this
tendency.

The word 'Levi' has been given a variety of inter­

pretations. The etymology of the Yahwist found in Gen.
29.34 states that at the birth of Levi, Leah said "My
husband has joined me now I have given him three sons",
and for this reason the child was called Levi. This
is a play on the words, in which 'Levi* is combined
/ 52
with n i 7 which in the Niphal means 'to join' . The
T T

51. cf. Ex. 6.20; Num. 26.59; I Chr. 5.29 (E.V.6.3);

23.13 ff; 26.24.
52. J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the history of
Israel, p. 145, has proposed a derivation of the
name Levi from Leah, and considers that Leah ori­
ginally meant either wild cow or serpent.
 - 35
same play on words is found in a priestly tradition in
which the distinction between Aaron and the Levites is
described as the attachment of the latter to the former
(cf. Num. 18.1-7). In Jubilees. 31.16 Jacob explains
the name of his son as one attached to Yahweh and a
disciple to all the sons of Jacob, and the Jewish
Midrash understands the name as 'that which joins the
53
sons to their father in heaven' . It has been sugges­
ted that the root i“îl 4 may be the basis of the word
'leviathan' meaning dragon, and hence associated with
the Arabic word 'lawa' to coil. From this hypothesis
it is deduced that the Levites were a priesthood that
especially took charge of the cult of serpents. The
evidences cited in support of this view are found in
Num. 21.4 ff in which Moses is recorded as setting a
serpent on a pole, the serpent occasioning a cure for
all bitten by poisonous snakes, and in the record of
the brazen serpent in II Kgs. 18.4 which was worshipped
54
at Jerusalem until Hezekiah's time . However, these

53. cf. Bereshith rabba LXXI. 15.

54. G.H. Skipworth, 'Hebrew tribal names and the
primitive traditions of Israel' J.Q.R. (1899),
pp. 239-265, takes this v i ^ by comparing the
series T I 4 , 7^ |n ’jV I4
with y) rfj and
notes that''in the first series, iJhe final term
represents the mythical serpent of the ancient
world, and the corresponding term in the latter
series the brazen serpent set up by Moses. He
then deduces that the root Pî ii describes the
' T
coils of the serpent and Ff3 the metallic gleam
of its scales, and considers that the reason for
Moses' selection of such an emblem to represent
the God of Israel was due to the origin of the name
of the tribe Levi, which he held to mean serpent.
 - 36
traditions do not provide adequate support for the
adoption of this view as neither of them appear to
.55
have any direct connection with Levi . In fact there
is no evidence anywhere in the Old Testament to suggest
a connection between the wilderness serpents and the
Levites. The basic idea in the other views suggested
for the derivation of the word 'Levi' implies the
notion of attachment which is an idea appropriate to
the word 'Levi' in both its connotations. The deri­
vation given by the Yahwist in Gen. 29.34 may have
as its original basis the idea of the attachment of a
Levi group with a Jacob one in patriarchal times. In
its later sense, denoting professional status, the word
'Levi' would appear to signify the idea of the ones
attached in a peculiar and exclusive relationship to
Yahweh, .

55. A number of Canaanite serpent goddesses have been

unearthed in Palestine. They are usually in the
form of a female figure with a snake coiled round
it, representing the fecundizing vis naturae.
However, there does not appear to be any connection
between these figures and the Levites.
56- K. Budde, Altisraelitische Religion, pp. 45 f and
137.n6, considers that the Levites were given their
name in Ex. 32.25-29 because they attached themsel­
ves to Yahweh in rejection of calf worship.
 - 37

LEVITES DURING THE PERIOD

OF ISRAELITE SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN

The early traditions relating to the Levites in

their distinctive role of attachment to Yahweh appear,
as suggested- in the previous chapter, to have been
associated with Kadesh. This possibility, together
with the fact that Levites from the earliest period of
Israelite settlement in Canaan enjoyed a characteristi­
cally prestigious position in Israel, suggests that
those who preserved these ancient levitical traditions
of the wilderness, and who may probably be identified
with the individuals who adhered to the principles they
contained, must have found their way into the promised
land as part of the Israelite conquest. Two traditions
referring to an Israelite movement from the region of
Kadesh are found in Num. 13,14 and Num. 21.1-3. The
original narrative of Num. 13, 14 recounting the re­
connoitre of the promised land by scouts sent out by
1
Moses is fragmentary in its composition due to the
curtailment of the original account of the Yahwist in
2
favour of the priestly version . The kernel of the
narrative formed a Calebite tradition concerning the
occupation of the important city of Hebron, favoured

1. See Note 12 in Appendix.

2. M. Noth, ttberlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch,
pp. 114 f, considers that the detailed description
of the Caleb-Hebron story contained in Dt. 1.22-46
derives from the original form of the material
fragmentarily preserved in Num. 13, 14.
 - 38

by its position among the Judaean mountains, which in

the area around Hebron have always been noted for their
fruitfulness. It is recorded that scouts were sent out
3
from Kadesh to ascertain the conditions prevailing in
the region lying to the north of the Negeb. The scouts,
with the exception of Caleb, who was eager to advance
into the area, brought back a terrifying report con­
cerning the land and disheartened the people (cf. 13.
28 ff). On the other hand, Caleb (and Joshua, according
to the priestly editor) tried to prevail upon the
people to obey Yahweh's command and enter the land,
rather than allow themselves to be discouraged by the
strength of its inhabitants and so display their lack
of faith in Yahweh (cf. 14.6-10). However, their per­
sistent faithlessness provoked Yahweh's anger, and thus
necessitated the intercession of Moses"^. As a result
of Moses* plea, the severity of the punishment was
alleviated, and only the generation that escaped from
Egypt were to perish in the wilderness while their
children, although surviving to see the promised land,

3. 13.3 states that the spies set out from the wilder­
ness of Paran, and in v. 26 they return to the same
place but the exact locality is specified as being
Kadesh from where it may be assumed they started
out.
4. In his intercession to Yahweh, Moses explains that
if he destroys all the people then in the sight of
the nations he will be seen to have been frustra­
ted in his purpose to bring Israel into the land
he has promised. This remarkable plea in which
Moses appears to advise Yahweh finds a parallel in
Ex. 32.11-14. A similar phenomenon is found in
Jer. 14.21 where the prophet, interceding for
Israel, reminds Yahweh of his covenant promises.
 - 39
were condemned to. wander in the wilderness for forty
years before the promise given to them should be ful­
filled (cf. 14.26-39). In consequence, as an act of
repentance for their faithlessness, the people then
decided to advance into the southern hill country, but
due to their previous disobedience they were not given
victory, but suffered defeat at Hormah. In Num. 21.1-3
it is stated that during the period of Israel's sojourn
in the wilderness, the king of Arad on hearing of the
activities of the Hebrew spies, fought against Israel
and took some of the people captive. As a result of
this humiliation, the Israelites vowed to Yahweh that
if he would deliver the Canaanites into their hands,
they would lay the enemy’s cities under a sacred ban,
and destroy their inhabitants. On the successful out­
come of the ensuing engagement the vow was performed
5
and the place was subsequently known as Hormah .

This latter narrative, which opens up the possi­

bility of a northward advance of Israel into the Negeb
and may be taken to imply the actuality of it, is at
variance with the preceding narrative in Num. 20.14-21,
which describes the whole of Israel turning south from
Kadesh in order to avoid the land of Edom, whose king

'5. It is possible that the phrase 'king of Arad' in

V. 1 is an interpolation since the personal name
is unusual after the royal title. Moreover, with
its omission a clause corresponding to 14.25, 45
results. The reference to 'the king of Hormah'
and the 'king of Arad' in Jos. 12.14 implies that
they were two distinct places, although probably
both in the same vicinity.
 “ 40
had refused them passage through his territory. It is
difficult to understand why, when the people as a whole
had gained this victory in the Negeb, they should not
have followed up the victory but turned south to en­
circle Edom. As no harmonizing motive is evident in
Num. 21.1-3 it is possible that a tradition has survived
here that originally, related the advance of Caleb, along
with Judah and other attachments including levitical
elements, into the southern regions of the Judaean
mountains. The problem however is complicated by the
account of the conquest of Arad and the destruction of
Hormah in Ju. 1.16 ff. Here the tribes Judah and
Simeon, along with the Kenites, effect a conquest
moving southwards from the city of palm trees i.e.
Jericho. As in Num. 21.1-3, the name of Hormah is ex­
plained by the fact that the Canaanites inhabiting the
city, previously called Zephath, were smitten, and the
city placed under the ban and utterly destroyed^. It
would appear from the irreconcilable elements in the
narratives of Num. 21.1-3 and Ju. 1.16 ff that they
reflect parallel traditions relating to the same his-
•torical event. Yet this does not explain the different
starting points in the two traditions i.e. Kadesh and
Jericho- The historicity of an advance of Judah and

6. The word *1 means 'to devote' or 'put under a

ban', and thus to make taboo all that the enemy
possessed- Anything thus devoted had to be des­
troyed, and in this way whatever resisted Yahweh 's
will was entirely done away with, cf. Lev. 27.28f;
Dt. 3.6; 7.2 ff; Jos. 8.26; 10.28,37; Is. 34.2;
37.11.
 - 41
Simeon from Jericho southwards is open to question.
Subsequent to the crossing of the Jordan and the cap­
ture of Jericho the Israelites as a whole headed for
Gilgal, which they appear to have made the basis for
7
their ensuing activities . There is no evidence of a
splintering following the capture of Jericho. Moreover,
the formidable nature of the country lying between
Jericho and Hormah which includes the wildernesses of
Tekoa and Jeruel would scarcely encourage the movement
of Judah and Simeon, as described in Ju. 1.16ff, from
the main corpus to seek their fortune in this direction^.
As the tribes that originally inhabited the southern
regions of the Negeb are subsequently found occupying
the hill country to the north of this area and forming
part of a southern group of tribes, it would seem more
probable that this change in their locality came about
through a victorious northward movement as Num. 21.1-3
9
suggests . It is reasonable to infer from these consi­
derations that Ju. 1.16, 17 is a duplicate of Num. 21.1-3,

7. cf. D t .11.30; Jos. 4.19; 10.43.

8. vv. 18,19 are difficult side by side. The former,
recording the conquest of Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron
by Judah may reflect a later situation. The latter
verse with 3.3 and Jos. 13.2, 3 undoubtedly depicts
a more genuine outline of the course of events.
9. Caleb is first encountered in Kadesh cf. Num. 13, 14,
and subsequently represented as inhabiting the
locality of Hebron cf. Jos. 14.13 ff; 21.12; Ju.
1.20. Kenizzites are associated with Edom in Gen.
36.11, 15, 42; I Chr. 1-36, 53, but in I Chr. 4.15
Kenaz is enumerated among the sons of Caleb. Jos.
15.17 ff refers to Othniel as the son of Kenaz and
nephew of Caleb, and records him as occupying an
area in the Negeb region cf. also Ju. 1.13 ff.
 “ 42
reinterpreted under influence of the predominating view
that the conquest of Canaan took place in a single cam­
paign led by Joshua across the Jordan^^. Hence it
appears that the original narrative in Num. 13, 14
which, in the process of editing has become truncated,
preserved a tradition that recorded the northward move­
ment from Kadesh of various Hebrew elements that were
sojourning in the region along with other groups who
had joined themselves to the Israelites subsequent to
their flight from Egypt. The positive attitude of the
original tradition towards Caleb indicates that the
initiative was taken by this group. ' In the J. E. ac­
count it is Caleb who is specifically said to have
maintained, against the opinion of the other scouts,
that the conquest was a feasible undertaking; and it
was the area which he reconnoitred that was later
assigned to him and his descendants (cf. Jos. 15.14-
11
19) . It appears from the tradition recounted in
Num., 13, 14 that the decision to advance was not unani­
mous, but Caleb in doing so fulfilled the divine com­
mand, while those who disputed Yahweh's will and ulti­
mately entered Canaan from across the Jordan, took
forty years to reach their destination. In view of
these considerations it is conceivable that amongst
those who followed Caleb in this advance into Canaan

10. The Calebite tradition in Num. 21.1-3 is embodied

in the J tradition, but the E tradition, in which
the advance of Joshua is found, only knows of the
defeat of Israel in the Negeb and nothing of a
subsequent victory.
11. cf. also Ju. 1.lob - 15, 20.
 - 43
from the south, there would have existed levitical ele­
ments anxious to obey the divine decree related to them
by Moses with whom they had previously identified them-
12
selves in displaying their loyalty to Yahweh

An examination of the early post-settlement tradi­

tions relating to the Levites must be made in an attempt
to support this hypothesis associating levitical elements
with a movement from the south into the southern regions
of Canaan by Caleb, and the other connected groups that
ultimately settled there. A levitical genealogy occurs
in Num. 26.58 that completely differs in content and
style from the whole genealogy in which it is contained,
and all levitical genealogies in general. In place of
the usual enumeration of Gershorn, Kohath and Merari as
the sons of Levi, here the offspring of Levi is stated
to be the family of the Libnites, the family of the
Hebronites, the family of the Mahlites, the family of
the Mushites and the family of the Korahites. Instead
of the use of personal names as in the other genealogies,
a gentilicform is employed here. The previous verse

12. The death of Moses is recorded to have taken place

on the plains of Moab by the priestly writer in
Num. 2 7,12-14, and by the Deuteronomist in D t . 32.
48-52. The absence of any mention of Moses in the
older traditions subsequent to the detour round
Edom, together with the predominating notion of
the conquest having taken place solely from across
the Jordan under the leadership of Joshua, may
have given the impression that Moses died east of
the Jordan within sight of the promised land i.e.
on the east bank of the Jordan, in Moab. The two
great themes with which Moses is undisputedly con­
nected are Exodus and Sinai. It is therefore quite
possible that he may have died in the Kadesh region
after the covenant making on Sinai and before the
«a f "V" ^ ^ -I—
enumerates the three customary levitical families which
in the normal way should be followed by the details of
their descendants, but ^instead/ the immediate offspring
of Levi are related again, but in this instance diffe­
rent in style and content. However, the gentilic form
peculiar to v. 58 is dropped at the end of the verse
and the style of the previous verse is resumed with the
words 'and Kohath begat Amram'. These words do not
assume any knowledge of the previous part of the verse,
but when taken with v . 57 provide a perfect continuity
that continues into the following verses. Thus it is
clear that v . 58 ab<X is an intrusion which contains
a tradition that is different from the general run of
levitical genealogies. Though making a fresh start,
V . 58 in respect of its content is entirely parallel
to V. 57, both give a list of levitical families. It
is clear however, that two so different classifications
of levitical families in Israel could not have existed
at the same time. Genealogical schemata at the time of
their formulation reflect the current arrangement of
families and their relation to one another ; but it is
only to be expected in the many vicissitudes a nation
inevitably experiences in the process of its history
(the colourful nature of Israel's past proving her to
be no exception) that arrangements such as these would
13
not have remained static , The fact that they change
reveals the living nature of the historical circumstances

13. See Note 13 in Appendix.

 - 45
thât lie at their roots, even though it may not always
be possible to ascertain the significance of such
changes. To find the correct chronological application
for the origin of the Gershorn, Kohath, Merari system is
difficult, because there is no foundation to work on.
It is clear that in these names there exists an authen­
tic memory of persons, not references to places or
names of families. The fact, however, that these three
eponymous ancestors of levitical families remain con­
stant, although changing their respective positions
from time to time, indicates that the divergent tradi­
tion represented in v. 58 may be the sole surviving
memory of some ancient levitical communities which in
later times lost their early significance.

In order for this list to have had any significance

(which it must have had to warrant its very existence),
its formation must have been contemporaneous with the
arrangement it represents. The names Mushi and Mahli
afford little assistance in the search for a date or
origin, but the mention of Korah may indicate a pre-
exilic date if the disgrace of Korah related in Num. 16
is attributed to a post-exilic struggle within the cult
community at Jerusalem^^, and considered responsible
for the subservient position of Korah found recorded by
15
the Chronicler . This supposition is supported by the

14. See Note 14 in Appendix.

15. The Korahites were gate keepers cf. I Chr. 9.19;
26.1, 19, bakers of sacrificial meals cf. I Chr.
9.31, and singers cf. II Chr. 20.19, positions
hardly appropriate- for a group powerful enough to
contend for the priesthood of Aaron, and may there­
fore denote their demotion from high office follo­
wing their dissension with the Aaronites.
 - 46
fact that Libnah and Hebron both achieved the height of
their importance in the pre-exilic period. It is from
the record of these two settlements that the most secure
basis for the investigation of this levitical arrange­
ment is to be sought. The earliest date must be sub­
sequent to the conquest and allow sufficient time for
a levitical family to develop in each of these places,
important enough to merit the survival of their record
for posterity. Libnah reached the pinnacle of its for­
tune in the later monarchic period, when it was strong
enough to revolt against Judah (cf. II Kgs. 8.22). Its
noble families were regarded as sufficiently presti­
gious to intermarry with some of the later kings of
Judah^^. If, however, this period is accepted as an
appropriate dating of the list, although it would suit
the foremost position of Libnah^it.seems unlikely that
Hebron, by t a n unimportant garrison town in a
system of fortresses, and therefore of little signifi­
cance, should have contained an important levitical
community, the record of whose existence has survived.
Hebron experienced the climax of its historic career
during the reign of David. Subsequent to the reigns
of David and Solomon it became part of the system of
fortresses built by Rehoboam without any undue celeb­
rity (cf. II Chr. 11.10), and ultimately fell to the
Edomites during the exile. If the date of the list.' s

16. cf. II Kgs. 23.31; 24.18; Jer. 52.1.

 - 47
formulation is placed in the Davidic period when Hebron
as royal capital of Judah was enjoying the zenith of .
its long and illustrious career which had begun in
17
patriarchal times , it is most probable that the
Levites of Hebron would have insisted on their ascen­
dency over the Libnite group. Thus the era of Judges
would appear to be the period most appropriate for the
formulation of these levitical groups, when Libnah may
have enjoyed sufficient prominence to claim a prédomi­
nent position over the Hebron group, still on the
steady ascent to fame, and other levitical groups in
. . _ 18
the vicinity

A closer examination of the names contained in

the verse in question may shed some further light. A
locally connected element stands beside a personally
connected one. Both are represented by two and three
members respectively, each member having its own in­
dependent and individual pre-history. Libnah was ori­
ginally an important Canaanite city, with a king of
its own, which succumbed to the Israelite invasion of
Joshua (cf. Jos. 10.29 f). As already stated, its
leading families were connected through marriage with

17. cLK. MOhlenbrink, 'Die levitischen Überlieferungen •

des Alten Testaments' Z.A.W. 1934, pp. 184-231.
18. So L. Waterman, 'Some determining factors in the
northward progress of Levi', J.A.O.S. 1931, pp.
375-380, who takes into consideration that suffi­
cient time must be allowed for the Mushi group,
which he identifies with Moses, to be relegated
from its original position of prominence to its
present position in the list of levitical families
recorded in Num. ’26.58.
 . — 48
the Judaean royal house as late as the days of Zede-
19
kiah . Hebron, according to Num. 13.22 was built
seven years before Zoan and would thus be older than
Memphis. This statement may be rooted in the context
of connecting the establishment of the city with the
military movement of the Hyksos. Following the
Israelite conquest it became a Calebite town and was
eventually absorbed in Judah. The identity of the next
two groups is difficult to trace. Mahli and Mushi are
always named together and may represent two levitical
20
families that originally had very close associations
The word Mushi, having the same consonants as Moses,
has often been regarded as designating the family of
Levites directly descending from Moses. It is possible
that the group may have had some peculiar affinity with
Moses, perhaps as preservers of the Mosaic tradition.
The last name enumerated, Korah, shifts widely in the
21
genealogies and is entirely absent from some of them

19. G. Hôlscher in his article Levi in Pauly-Wissowa

Real-Encyclopédie ..., XII 2, Cols 2155-2208,
suggests that the word 'Libni' means 'the white
ones' from the root \1 — T
20. K. Mtihlenbrink, op. cit., thinks that due to the
fact of Mahli and Mushi always occurring together,
a transcriber of the text accidentally inserted
Mahli here, as it is absent from the LXX version
of the list, and considers the LXXs placing of
Korah in third place as original, its present
position at the end of the'list in the M.T. being
subsequent to the incident in Num. 16 following
which the Korahites were doubtless repressed.
21. See Note 15 in Appendix.
 “ 49
The southern origin of the name is supported by the
fact that Korah was one of the sons of Esau born to
him in Canaan (cf. Gen. 36.5, 14), and even more
strongly supported by I Chr. 2.43 where he is recorded
as the son of Hebron i.e. Calebite in origin and there­
fore located in the neighbourhood of Hebron. It appears
from the five levitical settlements mentioned in this
early list that the three for which some locality may
be ascertained belong to the southern regions of Judah.
The fact that these very early levitical groups existed
in and around Hebron, the city of Caleb, and the proba­
bility that the traditions relating to the characteris­
tic distinctiveness of the Levites originated in Kadesh,
would seem to support the hypothesis already advanced
that levitical elements moved into the southern regions
of Canaan with the northward thrust led by Caleb from
the Negeb.

The position of the levitical settlements cannot

be without significance, and again the mention of
Libnah and Hebron is of importance in this respect.
Libnah was originally a Canaanite town of some signi­
ficance, and the settlement of Israelites in it would
have presumably incorporated its inhabitants into the
Yahweh community. As the Levites were the followers
of Moses par excellence and preservers of the pure
Mosaic tradition of Yahwism which made them distinct
from their fellow tribesmen in their dedication to
Yahweh, they would have been regarded as an important
 - 50
element in the integration of a Canaanite city into
Israel. Their role at Hebron may have borne a double
significance when it is remembered that the Calebites
were not in fact part of the group that came out from
Egypt, but represented one of the elements that became
subsequently attached to Israel in the wilderness. It
is doubtful if they were Yahweh worshippers before
joining up with Israel in the wilderness, and on account
of the recentness of their conversion to Israel's God
(which may have been only nominal) it is very likely
that on their settlement in the Canaanite city of
Hebron they would either be influenced by the religion
indigenous to the place or revert to their original
faith. The Levites had to maintain the Yahweh influence
amongst the Calebites, and at the same time propagate
their religion among the native population. The asso­
ciation of the Levites with Judah rather than with
Caleb indicates acknowledgement of the alien nature of
Caleb, and implies that Judah was the strongest of the
Israelite elements that had entered the promised land
as part of the Calebite advance from the south. The
concurrence of the traditions propagated by these
Levites, and those which circulated among the southern
tribes, but especially in Judah the strongest of them,
must have been an important factor in the subsequent
emergence of Judah into a position of pre-eminence over
all the tribes of Israel. It could be possible, although
 “ 51
no definite conclusion may be reached, tîfat the Levites
in these settlements functioned at an amphictyonie
shrine sited at Hebron where besides Judah and Caleb,
Simeon, Othniel, Jerahmeel and the Kenizzites gathered
to worship. However we have insufficient information
to ascertain whether the Levites in these settlements
claimed priestly status, although it is not improbable
they did. It is evident from the meagre information
available that Levites existed as a distinct group in
Judaean and Calebite towns, and being an entity distinct
from the tribes in whose midst they lived, do not appear
to have shared in the tribal allotment of land.

Ju. 17 and 18 contain a genuinely ancient tradi­

tion referring to the origin of the sanctuary and
priesthood of Dan. The chapters recount how a rich
Ephraimite Micah confessed to having some silver that
belonged to his mother which he had taken without her
knowledge, but which he subsequently restored. The
silver was made into images and placed in a house
specially designated for the purpose (cf. 17.5). One
of Micah's sons whom he consecrated as priest was
placed in charge of this shrine. Then a Judaean Levite
came on the scene and stayed with Micah as his guest
(cf. 17.7 ff). Micah now installed the Levite as priest,
presumably in place of his son, and promised to pay him
ten shekels of silver a year and to provide him with
food and clothes. Micah was pleased to have a Levite
 -
as his priest and the terms of engagement appear to
have been mutually satisfactory (cf. 17.13). Chapter
18 opens by relating the plight of the Danites, who
had hitherto been unable to acquire a permanent posses­
sion in Canaan, and sent from their territory in the
22
south-west scouts to reconnoitre the land . The
scouts on passing through the highlands of Ephraim
stopped at Micah's house and consulted his oracle.
Having received a favourable response they continued
northwards and found Laish at the sources of the Jordan
inviting attack by its isolated situation and the un­
guarded security of the people. On their return to
their kindred they recounted all they had seen, and on
the strength of their report six hundred fighting men
of Dan migrated northwards stopping at the house of
Micah en route (cf. 18.14 ff). There they removed the
images of Micah by a display of force, and also carried
off the Levite, who willingly succumbed (cf. 18.20).

22, The narrative does not imply that all the Danites
joined in the expedition to Laish completely aban­
doning their original home around Eshtaol adjacent
to Judah. There is no intimation, either in the
story of Samson, or in this chapter^ of Philistine
pressure which might have forced the Danites from
their settlements. The failure of the Danites to
establish themselves is better attributed to the
stubborn resistance of the native population of
lowland Amorites cf. 1.34. The removal of a con­
siderable part of the tribe may have left room for
those who remained behind. The Song of Deborah
shows that already by that time i.e. 1100 B.C.
the tribe was in its northern territory cf. 5.17.
The migration related in Chapter 18 may therefore,
with considerable probability, be assigned to a
time not very long after the Israelite settlement
in Canaan.
 - 53
Micah and his neighbours pursued the' Danites but when
they realized the deficiency of their numbers, they
were forced to retreat, and the Danites continued
northwards to the city of Laish where they ultimately
settled and gave it their name. The image of Micah was
installed and the Levite appointed priest at its shrine.
From him a line of priests descended who functioned at
Dan until the captivity of the land by Tiglath-Pileser
of Assyria (cf. II Kgs. 15.29), but a variant tradition
in the final verse of the chapter associates the dura­
tion of the Danite priesthood with the destruction of
Shiloh.

The narrative is composite. The inventory of

Micah's idols, ephod, teraphim, pesel and massekhah in
various permutations is confusing. The origin of the
first two is apparently dependent on 17.5 and the deri­
vation of the other two is related in 17.2-4. Conse­
quently it is argued that the use of the terms ephod
and teraphim belongs to one source, and pesel and masse­
khah to another. In the verses that describe the rob­
bery of Micah's sanctuary i.e. 18.14-21 conflicting
representations occur, and the confusion resulting from
the attempt to combine them has been increased by
various glosses. v. 17 states that the spies removed
the images while the priest stood at the entrance with
six hundred Danites, which suggests that they entered
the house specially designated for the idols (cf. 17.5);
but the following verse records that they went into
 - 54
Micah's house and removed the images from there. v.20
on the other hand attributes the removal of the idols
to the priest himself. Finally, the two statements con­
cerning the duration of the cult at Dan (cf. 18.30,31)
cannot derive from the same hand. in almost all the
passages where there are redundancies and. the text is
confused, it is possible to trace two strands of narra­
tive, but to which of the two existing sources they
should be attributed there is no satisfactory criteria
23
to determine

In 17.5 it is stated that Micah had a shrine, li­

terally a house of gods, which sheltered the idol or
object of worship in the same way as the house of God
contained the ark at Shiloh (cf. 18.31). A house was
only necessary where there was an image or an oracle.
The commoner representatives of the deity, i.e. the
asherah (sacred post) or stone pillar (massebhah)
stood in the open air on the high place, or beneath the
sacred tree. Micah was the self-styled patron of this
ecclesiastical establishment similar to Gideon who was

23. Any attempt at a reconstruction in detail must at

best be one of several possibilities. C.F. Burney,
Book of Judges, p. 416, considers that the narra­
tive presents a combination of two ancient tradi­
tions from J and E which were in all essentials
strikingly similar. A. Murtonen, 'Some thoughts
on Ju. 17 and 18', V .T.1951, pp. 223,4, singles
out three strands relating to three different per­
sonages - the son of Micah (cf. 17.5), a very aged
man (cf. 17.10), a youth from Bethlehem (cf. 17.11),
and considers that the primitive narrative has been
leviticalized to legitimate the priesthood of Dan.
 - 55
proprietor of the cultic set-up at Ophrah (cf. 8.27).
The ephod made by Gideon from seventeen hundred shekels
of gold and installed in the sanctuary at Ophrah as an
object of worship was clearly an idol of some kind.
Micah's ephod and the teraphim, with which it is con­
stantly associated in this narrative, also appear to be
idols^^, for when the Danites carry off the ephod and
teraphim, Micah accuses them of taking his gods which
he has made (cf. Ju. 18.24). As the previous verse
relates to a molten and graven image it appears that
Micah was engaged in a Yahweh cult of rather spurious
nature, possibly containing Canaanite elements, but as
he was a zealous worshipper of Yahweh there is no in­
tention in the narrative to brand his shrine and the
25
sanctuary at Dan as idolatrous foundations . Having
erected his idols in his shrine, Micah now required a
priest to take charge of his shrine and consult the
oracle. This is a departure from ancient custom in
which the head of the family or tribe assumed the role
of priest. From the evidence available it does not
appear that a priest was necessary prior to this period

24. See Note 16 in Appendix.

25- Although Micah*s image was made of silver which he
had stolen from his mother, the greater part having
been kept back by fraud, it is by no means clear
that the author intended to cast reproach on either
Micah's shrine or that established at Dan. If such
had been his prime motive he would surely have
begun by telling of the theft, but this is not so
nor is there any trace of contempt or even con­
demnation in the following narrative.
 — 56
to perform sacrifice or consult the oracle. The Pat­
riarchs performed sacrifice without the slightest hint
of a priest being present^^, and Gideon was commanded
by Yahweh to offer burnt offering without any sugges­
tion of his having priestly status (cf. 6.25 ff).
Moreover, there is no evidence of the service of a
priest at Gideon's ephod. Hence it is surprising to
find that Micah refrains from assuming priestly status
at his own sanctuary, and may indicate in the conse­
cration of his own son an early tendency towards the
allocation of priestly functions to an individual who
is specifically designated to discharge them. No
special qualification is assumed for the investiture
of Micah's son, his office is obviously not hereditary
nor is it a lifelong profession, for on the arrival of
the Levite, the priest is set aside. The consecration
of Micah's son as priest might be compared with the
consecration of Eleazar, son of Abinadab (cf. I, Sam.
7.1). Neither appears to have any special training
for his office nor do they come of priestly families.
When someone better suited to the office appears, no
more is heard of Micah's priest? and when the ark is
removed from Kiriath-Jearim, Eleazar sinks into obli­
vion. It is evident in both accounts that some person

26. Yahweh's command to Abraham in Gen. 22 to sacri­

fice Isaac does not assume the presence of a
priest, nor does the sacrifice offered by Jacob
of. Gen. 31.54. In later times Elijah performed
sacrifice on Mt. Carmel without any mention of his
having priestly office or of a priest being pre­
sent cf. I Kgs. 18.23 ff.
 " 57
specifically consecrated to the office of priest was
regarded as necessary to take charge of the object
which represented the deity or in which its spirit was
considered to reside. Furthermore, it is clear that
priests of the Yahweh cult were not necessarily Levites.
Non-levitical priesthoods were probably quite numerous
and no doubt some of them enjoyed considerable acclaim.
In this way Jeroboam could appoint priests from outside
levitical circles without effecting a complete innova­
tion and break with ancient practice (cf. I.Kgs. 12.31).

The Levite is introduced in v. 7 as a young man

from Bethlehem in Judah of the family of Judah, who was
a Levite and sojourned in Bethlehem. The statement
appears prima facie contradictory, for the Levite is
stated to be Judaean by birth, but the expression ff)
< t

1 A implies that he was enjoying the rights of

protection extended to an alien or sojourner by the
tribe in whose midst he dwelt - a seemingly impossible
situation since it was his own tribe that was treating
B
him as an alien. LXX attempts a solution by omitting
'Judah' after Bethlehem, but this does not alleviate
the difficulty, for, although the sense would be that
of a young man of Judaean birth who was a Levite and
sojourned in Bethlehem, Bethlehem is clearly a Judaean
town (cf. V.8). An alternative solution is to omit the
words 'from the family of Judah', but this emendation
receives no support from the versions. The last thing
that would occur to a scribe would be to represent a
Levite as a member of another tribe. Moreover the
 - 58

textual value of codex Vaticanus is 'inferior to Alexan-

drinus which agrees with the M.T. as it stands. If the
text were reduced in either of the ways indicated the
information about the Levite would also be reduced, and
we would learn only of his foreigness but have no infor­
mation about the real sense lying behind the word
'Levite'. Only in the full text as it stands the Levite
is clearly not meant as an adherent of a secular tribe
Levi. Taken at its face value the verse means that
there existed a Levite (what this word denoted was
evidently well known), who lived in Bethlehem Judah
but as an alien did not belong to the tribe in whose
midst he dwelt. As one who sojourned as an alien rather
than lived as a member of the community, he did not pos­
sess full tribal rights entitling him to a possession
of land amongst the members of the tribe where he so­
journed. This landless, tribally-alien Levite is fur­
ther attributed to one of the families of Judah which
does not deny his alien nature or refute his connection
with Judah. But since a ”1.^ has a legal status
of tribelessness and landlessness which are practically
identical in archaic agrarian society, it must obviously
be assumed that a person connected by blood and there­
fore derived from the tribe lived as a Levite and a
foreigner or in a position analogous to these. There­
fore, the designation of the Levite in this context
cannot denote adherence to a secular tribe in the sense
of kinship but designates a distinctive character. This
 - 59
distinctiveness is in line with the tradition of levi­
tical sacrifice in the service of Yahweh. The Levite
as an Israelite must have belonged to one of the tribes
of Israel but in his rejection of kindred he loses his
inheritance of tribal land and becomes an alien.

The following verse recounts the departure of the

Levite from his city in search of a place where he could
sojourn, and in the course of his wandering he came to
the house of Micah at Mt. Ephraim. Micah inquires for
the Levite's identity and the Levite explains who he is
and what his purpose is. On receipt of this information,
Micah invites the Levite to stay with him and to be a
father and priest to him. The connecting notion is
probably that of a revered adviser and counsellor. The
use of the word 'father' here does not necessarily
imply that this Levite was a man of mature years in con-
27
trast to the youth of verse 7 . The Levite sojourned
in Micah's house and received ten shekels of silver a
year, food and clothes, which was considered an advan­
tageous offer for the Levite. Micah now installs him
in the office of priest. The appointment of the Levite
as priest of Micah's shrine does not provide any further
information about the manner and character of this
Levite or Levites generally, since it would appear that

27. I H is a title of respect given to prophets (cf.

II Kgs. 6.21) and priests, as also the king's
chief minister cf. Gen. 45.8.
 - 60
any person who seemed suitable could function as priest.
Thus the Levite was as eligible as Micah's son or any­
one else for that matter. However, the satisfaction
expressed by Micah in v. 13 at having installed a
Levite to function as priest of his shrine is accoun­
table from the fact that by doing so he has procured
the special blessing of Yahweh. It is evident from
this verse that the Levite not only stood in a special
relationship to his kindred and environment generally,
but he also had a unique relationship with Yahweh.
This distinctive feature of the Levite is valued so
positively that his appointment as priest seems to
insure the special blessing of Yahweh. To conclude
that this special relationship with Yahweh simply
exists in that the Levite as such is a professional
priest would be an incorrect assessment of the basic
meaning of the word 'Levite'. Such a preconceived
notion is not once suggested by the context of this
passage; in fact, the detailed notice relating to the
origin and past of the Levite in v. 7 does not give
the least indication of his having any previous priestly
office. The Levite had merely to state to Micah the
fact that he was a Levite in v. 9, to be admitted to
his house and later consecrated to discharge priestly
functions at his shrine. This was sufficient creden­
tial in itself. It is quite clear from this chapter
that the designations 'Levite' and 'priest' are two
distinct terms which described two different phenomena
 - 61
in no way identical. The Levite here is fundamentally
one devoted to Yahweh at the cost of forfeiting the
privileges and benefits of a member of one of the Is­
raelite tribes, and in virtue of this distinctive
vocation an alien even amongst his own people. Accor­
dingly he presents himself to Micah as a Levite, not
as a professional priest, and consequently he is con­
secrated for priestly service in exactly the same way
as the non-levitical son of Micah, and Micah is pleased
that instead of his own son he now has a Levite as his
priest. In view of these considerations it seems that
the Levite, although perhaps infrequently met with,
28
was nevertheless a well known phenomenon in Canaan

In the following chapter the Levite plays a pas­

sive role. He repays Micah's kindness to him with gross
ingratitude, and willingly accepts the offer of the
Danites to become priest to a tribe rather than to an
individual (cf. 18.19). The Levite accordingly makes
off with the Danites and becomes priest at their shrine
which they set up with Micah's images. 18.30 records
that Jonathan ben Ger shorn ben Moses and his descendants
functioned as priests to the tribe of Dan until the
captivity of the land, while the following verse dates
the termination of the Danite shrine back to the fall

28. The old view advanced by Wellhausen in his Prole­

gomena to the history of Israel, pp. 140 ff, that
the distinction between priests and Levites was
only made in post-Josianic times cannot be upheld
on the evidence of this chapter.
 - 62
29
of Shiloh . It would appear that these are variant
traditions, Hie question arises whether these verses
contain a genuinely historical remembrance relating to
the origin of the Danite priesthood, or if the emphasis
is on some later tradition. As the name Jonathan is
nowhere else represented as the ancestor of the Danite
priesthood or even as the head of a family of Levites
in the levitical genealogies, a genuine memory could
well be preserved here that derived the Danite priest­
hood from Micah's Levite named Jonathan. It is remar­
kable however, that the author should have concealed
the Levit e 's illustrious pedigree when he introduced
him to the narrative in 17.7, and that there is no
mention of it in the Levite's reply to Micah's question
regarding his identity (cf. 17.9). The Levite is recor­
ded there to be of Judaean family, not Mosaic. It is
possible that the name Gershorn was derived from the
phrase Ll KlTTl in v. 7, and was subsequently iden­
tified with the son of Moses (cf. Ex. 2.22). Hence the
tradition of a Danite priesthood which claimed descent
from a Judaean Levite named Jonathan was later, perhaps
after the Assyrian invasion of the region in 733, con­
nected up on the basis of 17.7 with Gershom who was
Moses' firstborn son, and also figures predominantly in
levitical genealogies as the eldest son of Levi. On

29. J. Bewer, 'The Composition of Ju. 17 and 18'.

A.J.S.L., 1913, pp. 261 - 283, reads ^ ? for
in V. 30 according with the date in v. 31.
The emendation has no support from the versions.
 - 63

all accounts this additional information about Jona­

than's ancestry may have been deliberately inserted to
neutralise the infamy of the Danites' behaviour by le­
gitimising the levitical priesthood of Jonathan. A
later writer took offence at this whole combination
which, in view of the entire character of the story, is
not surprising and changed Moses to Manasseh. On the
other hand, the close association that existed between
Moses and the Levites may on the basis of 17.7, or
otherwise, have developed into a genealogy which advan­
ced the prestige of this priesthood in the succeeding
generations without any thought of obviating the heinous
origin of the cultic establishment at Dan.

It is important to note that at the outset Jonathan

sojourned as an alien, or in a position analogous to
this among his own people, with no possession of land
and therefore no means of livelihood. He received the
charitable hospitality of Micah, but still retained his
distinctive character in accordance with the basic
levitical feature of attachment to Yahweh. His alle­
giance to Yahweh to the exclusion of all ties of kind­
red made him especially eligible for priestly office
and thereby procured divine blessing for the patron of
the shrine at which he functioned. This was not some­
thing fundamental to his basic vocation but what Micah
bestowed upon him. He ended up by finally becoming
priest to the tribe of Dan and established a dynasty
of priests. Doubtless this was not an isolated incident.
 —

but a process that must have gone on throughout Israel's

pre-exilic history. As a result, different categories
of Levites eventually emerged; those who remained faith­
ful to their status of Yahweh service and lived as
families, who^although an integral part of Israel^did
not enjoy the privileges of full tribal membership and
were thus dependent on public alms, those who assumed
priestly office, and finally those who belonged to levi­
tical priestly families and claimed their priestly
office from heredity but who at the same time may have
derived their status from a progenitor who originally
belonged to a community which, in virtue of its loyalty
to Yahweh^was distinct from the rest of Israel; this
progenitor subsequently becoming a priest at a shrine,
founded a dynasty of levitical priests. 'Ainsi soit en
Juda ou résidait d'abord Jonathan, soit en Ephraim ou
il séjourna ensuite, soit dans la tribu ou il fixe son
/ A
domicile définitif, on apprécié le role, 1'importance
et le bienfait du levitisme'

The second of the supplementary narratives to the

book of Judges records the tribal conflict with Benjamin,
its cause and consequences. The concubine of a Levite
sojourning in the highlands of Ephraim deserts him, and
returns to her father's home in Bethlehem Judah but is
retrieved by the Levite. On their return journey they
have to seek overnight accommodation at Gibeah in Ben­
jamin where they are entertained by an old man who is

30, cf. C. Hauret, 'Aux origines du sacerdoce Danite

à^roços de Ju. 18.30, 31', Melanges Bibliques
Rédigés en l'honneur de André Robert (1957).
 - 65
not a native of the place (cf. 19.16 ’ff) . The men of
the town set upon them and the Levite surrenders his
concubine but finds her dead the following morning (cf.
19.26-28). He then proceeds home (we are not told
where this is) and cuts the woman's body into twelve
pieces which he sends to the twelve tribes in Israel
calling upon them to avenge the outrage. The Israelite
assembly meet and resolve to punish the guilty, but the
Benjaminites refuse to surrender the culprits and war
ensues in which the Benjaminites are eventually crushed,
only six hundred surviving the conflict. The historical
character of chapters 20 and 21.1-21 is difficult to
maintain. In the description of the war there is hardly
any semblance of reality. The numbers are exaggerated
to absurdity, the levy of Israelites*is 400,000 men, the
Benjaminites muster 26,000 (cf. 20.15,17). In the first
two days fighting, the Israelites lose 40,000 men while
the Benjaminites sustain no losses, however on the third
day the Benjaminites are almost annihilated (cf. 20.30
ff). The spontaneous and united action of all Israel
is even more surprising than the prodigious numbers.
It is evident from the traditions of the period that
there was little unity among the Israelite tribes, in
fact the success of one tribe could motivate the jealousy
of others (cf. 8.1 ff; 12.1 ff). Even in the struggle
.against the Canaanites under Sisera when the whole of
the land that Israel had acquired was in danger of
invasion, Deborah was unable to unite all the tribes
in the common interest. In chapters 20 and 21, all
twelve tribes are gathered together as one man
 ( — 56
'from Dan to Beersheba and the land of Gilead' and con­
sult in solemn assembly. This unity does not appear
to be a political one but a religious bond in which
Israel acts, not as a nation, but as a congregation,
the only leaders who are named being the elders of the
congregation. This concept of Israel as a congregation
instead of a people or a nation is characteristic of
the priestly writer and the Chronicler. The evidences
of a very late date however, are mainly confined to
chapters 20 arid 21.1-14. Chapters 19 and 21.15-25, on
the other hand, reflect similar characteristics to the
other early narratives of Judges, chapter 19 having an
obvious affinity with chapters 17 and 18, bears a note
of antiquity. The original narrative must have related
how the crime at Gibeah aroused indignation amongst the
Israelites and how, when Benjamin refused to surrender
the guilty parties, they not only swore to interdict
the connubium with that tribe but visited it with
savage retribution which threatened its very existence.
The fact that Benjamin was almost exterminated only a
few generations before the time of Saul indicates the
basic antiquity of the narrative.

With regard to the Levite, the death of whose con­

cubine in such unfortunate circumstances motivated the
whole of the ensuing events, it is noteworthy that he,
like Micah's Levite in Bethlehem, is described as so­
journing in Mt. Ephraim (cf. 19.1). This could be a
 - 67
coincidence, but since the narrative is entirely uncon­
nected with the preceding chapter it seems justifiable
to assume that this non-tribal status was characteris­
tic of the Levites. As in chapter 17, there is no
suggestion of this Levite having any priestly attribute.
The nature of the crime and the violation of the legal
rights of an alien were doubtless regarded with great
disgust and animosity among the Israelites, yet grave
as the crime was in which a tribeless alien whose con­
cubine had been assaulted and his right of hospitality
in another alien's house infringed, the fact that the
party offended was a Levite accentuated the gravity of
the offence and demanded immediate redress. Moreover/
the statement that the Levite himself intimates the
crime he has suffered to all the tribes (cf. 19.29),
and the immediate response his message receives, shows
the respect that this individual in his capacity as
Levite could claim from the whole nation. As one who
stood in a special relationship to Yahweh the God of
Israel, and had in his unique position a legal right
to hospitality wherever he should care to seek it
amongst the Israelite tribes, appear to have been well
known features of the Levite in virtue of which he could
claim national attention for his cause and occasion the
severe humiliation of the tribe to which the guilty
belonged. As in the previous narrative the unique
status of the Levite is acknowledged. Although this
Levite sojourns in Ephraim, through his concubine he
was connected with Judah (cf. 19.2). Micah's Levite
 — 68
came from Judah, and the early levitical settlements
were located in Judah and the Negeb area. It would
appear from the evidence cited that the hypothesis of
an infiltration from the south northwards of levitical
elements is borne out. It was in southern Palestine
that the original domicile of the Levites existed, which
they used as a basis from which they infiltrated the
whole of Canaan and propagated the Yahweh faith. In
the centuries following settlement the esteem of the
Levites became increasingly enhanced and ultimately
reached its climax in the program of Deuteronomy,
 - 69

ELI, ABIATHAR AND ZADOK

According to the traditions relating to the child­

hood of Samuel, contained in the early chapters of I
Samuel, towards the end of the period of Judges, the
ark was located at Shiloh where Eli and his sons were
priests (cf. I Sam. 1.9). Here the young Samuel was
brought in fulfilment of a vow made by his mother (cf.
I Sam. 1.11). The picture of Eli in this narrative,
sitting at the door of the sanctuary as Hannah approa­
ched, gives the impression of a simple priest attached
to a modest cultic establishment, despite its importance
in the national consciousness as the shrine of Israel's
tribal palladium. The family appear well entrenched in
the right to function at the sanctuary, and to have
depended to a considerable extent for their livelihood
on portions of the sacrificial offerings (cf. I Sam.
2.12-17). However their right to continue in priestly
office was called in question by the conduct of Eli's
two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, the correction of which
was considered the responsibility of Eli as head of the
family. The culpable conduct of Eli's sons, with regard
to the allotted portions of the sacrifice, which gave
rise to great public scandal, and his own omission to
rectify this situation, were understood by the historian
as the causes of the calamity that befell the family.
In the course of the wars with the Philistines both of
Eli's sons were slain in the defeat inflicted on the
 - 70
Israelites at Ebenezer, and during the same engagement
the ark fell into enemy hands (cf. I Sam. 4.1-11). The
news of this disastrous event occasioned Eli's death
and brought on the travail of Phinehas' widow who ex­
pired, having given birth to a son. On the point of
death the mother named the child Ichabod to signify that
with the capture of the ark and the untimely death of
her husband and his family, the glory of Yahweh had
departed from Israel.

The threatening prophecy of a man of God, recorded

in I Sam. 2.27-36, is often taken to contain later
additions to the basic narrative. The separation of
the essential kernel from the work of later editors
is a difficult exercise to perform with any measure of
assured accuracy* Yet something of this later revision
may be detected in the last two verses of the prophecy.
From the context of the opening chapters in I Samuel,
Samuel is depicted as the person chosen to fulfil
Yahweh's purpose, and contrasted as such with Eli, who
has failed in the divine charge entrusted to him and
his family. It would therefore agree with the context
if these verses had referred to Yahweh's choice of
Samuel in place of Eli and his sons. Instead of this,
the content of vv. 35, 36 deflects the focus of atten­
tion away from Samuel to the trustworthy priest (Zadok)
for whom Yahweh wishes to establish a house for ever.
However, it is reasonable to conjecture that in their
original form vv. 35, 36 may in fact have referred to
Samuel whom Yahweh wished to appoint in place of the
family of Eli. Linguistic usages, commonly employed
 - 71
by the Deuteronomist and found in this narrative are
suggestive of Deuteronomic influence^, which is espe­
cially evident in these two final verses alluding to
the dismissal from office of the priests, here envisaged
as the descendants of Eli, who as a result are forced
to beg a living at the shrine of this faithful priest.
These circumstances reflect the plight of rural priests
following the Josianic reform.

The anonymous prophet, relating the message of

Yahweh, declares the divine choice of the family of Eli
in Egypt to serve Yahweh as priests, to offer upon the
altar, burn incense and to bear the ephod. The duties
of priestly office mentioned here include serving in
the outer court where the altar stood, serving in the
inner court in which the altar of incense was situated,
and the giving of oracles, in short, the cult in its
entirety. The writer thus casually associates three
priestly functions that were probably never contemporary
Incense can simply mean the smoke of a burnt offering
but as such sacrifice is covered by the first clause
'to offer upon mine altar' that cannot be what is
meant here, but rather the burning of aromatic substan­
ces. The main function of the priest in early times,
as the rest of I Samuel makes clear, was to bear the
ephod and interpret the instruction of the oracle.

1. The term ÎTIiT’ cf. v. 28b appears in Dt. 18.1

and elsewhere only in P, never in earlier writings.
The words in v. 29 are distinctly Deu­
teronomic in style, while the term HI FT'
in V. 30 is frequently found in the writings of
the Deuteronomist.
 - 72
Even as late as the time of Jeremiah the chief concern
of the priest was still the law (cf. Jer, 18.18).
Incense { jl 1 (7 ) is not found in early literature
'‘ 2
at all, its first mention being found in Jer. 6.20 ,
where it is regarded as an exotic and unnecessary inno­
vation in worship. The concept of a priesthood functio­
ning at the elaborate type of cult envisaged here since
the period of bondage bears no relation to the older
traditions relating to that period in which sacrifice
did not require the service of a priest, but was per-
3
formed by the head of the family or tribal group .
vv. 27, 28 appear rather to indicate the thought of the
Deuteronomist who understood all priests to be members
of the levitical tribe chosen from all the tribes of
Israel for the purpose of ministering before Yahweh
(cf. Dt. 18.5)'^.

The indictment now follows which accuses Eli’s

sons of malappropriating the offerings, and charges
Eli himself of honouring his sons more than Yahweh,
thereby laying special stress on his share in the
family's guilt. A formal threat is now pronounced. As

2. The word is mentioned along with burnt sacrifice

in Dt. 33.9 which is discussed in the opening
chapter of this thesis.
3. It has already been pointed out that the Patriarchs,
Gideon, Manoah and Elijah all performed sacrifice
without any indication of their having priestly
status or of a priest being present. Moreover,
Gideon was proprietor of a shrine with an ephod
but no mention is made of a priest in the narra­
tive relating to it.
4. See Note 17 in Appendix.
 - 73
the earlier part of the arraignment recalled the former
divine promise to the house of Eli, that it should re­
main in permanent possession of priestly office, the
following verses must signify the revoking of this pro­
mise. That is the meaning of the clause 'far be it from
me' - only those who honour Yahweh can in turn be ho­
noured by him i.e. be entrusted with high and respon­
sible office. The following verse would be expected to
record the deprivation of Eli's family and the appoint­
ment of his successor, but instead a second declaration
states that in the days to come his strength will be
weakened and there will no longer be an old man in his
5
house . In view of the almost identical phrasing at
the end of the following verse, and the fact that the
LXX omits the last part of this verse, it may be justi­
fiable to eliminate it from the text. v. 32 states
that Eli will witness distress in Yahweh's habitation^,
which presumably means Shiloh, and prosperity in
7
Israel . It may be possible to interpret the first
part of this sentence as denoting the victory of the
Philistines and their capture of the ark, and the second
part the period of national prosperity that was achie­
ved following the establishment of the monarchy under

5. The LXX vocalizes 13 f as but this by

no means agrees so well with the ’predicate
is used of strength in Ps. 10.15; 83.9
(E.V.v.8); Job. 22.8.
6. If the word which usually occurs in
poetry and more elevated prose is correct e.g.
of heaven (Dt. 26.15), Tj’j'l’.'l of
the' temple (Ps. 26.8) , we must either read
or W ' '
7. The subject of the predicate *is desiderated.
Either TTli'î'’ has fallen out after it, or read
 - 74
David. Eli learns the ominous portents of the first
prophecy from the tidings of the national calamity at
Ebenezer before his sudden death (cf. I Sam. 4.12-18),
but the second did not occur until long after his death.
Hence interpreted in this way, the two events are not
contemporaneous with each other, and therefore not in
sequence with the preceding verse. A better sequence
with V. 31 is achieved if the verse in question is under­
stood to mean that Eli will experience the affliction
of Yahweh's habitation at Shiloh as a result of the
death of his two sons and the loss of the ark, the
significance of which will appear so catastrophic that
the rest of Israel, although suffering from Philistine
invasion, will seem to prosper in comparison with the
fate of Shiloh and its priesthood. The verse concludes
by stating that the family of Eli shall be eternally
cursed with the premature death of its members. Thus
the house of Eli as a punishment for its behaviour
loses its priestly status^and is subject to the curse
of an eternal weakening that cuts short the life of its
members and leaves them without a single individual to
enjoy the wisdom and respect attributed to old age. A
limitation to this punishment now follows. One member
of the family will hot be removed from his priestly
office, but the retention of his office will only bring
him sorrow. This limitation of the severity of the
punishment is followed by a reiteration of the previous
 - 75
pronouncement that no member of the family will survive
g
to enjoy the honour ascribed to old age .

The death of Phinehas and Hophni is connected with

the sign recorded in v. 34. This is doubtless inten­
ded as a portent of events to come and a guarantee to
Eli of the fulfilment of the prophecy. The declaration
of such an assurance has its natural place at the begin­
ning or end of the whole narrative, but not in the middle
separating the prophecy already described from the con­
cluding two verses. The impression is given in v. 34
that the prophecy is concluded and what follows is a
later postscript. Furthermore, the content of these
two final verses does not provide a natural conclusion
to the fall of Eli's house and the capture of the ark,
but appears much more concerned with a priestly family
lasting from generation to generation. As already in­
dicated, the verses in question seem to suggest Samuel
as the faithful priest, and the statement that he shall
walk before mine i.e. Yahweh's anointed recalls Samuel's
;
Special relationship with Israel's first two kings.
But the mention of a 'faithful house' and 'all the
days' shows that the author already knows of a line of
priests functioning over a long period of time. More­
over when V. 36 states, as a consequence of the replace­
ment of Eli's family by the house of this faithful
priest, the necessity for the deposed priests to beg

8. See Note 18 in Appendix.

 - 76
some employment from the family that superseded them
thereby earning sufficient means to sustain themselves,
it is assumed that they find no employment as priests
outside the one sanctuary where this favoured priest­
hood operates ^d infinitum, which implies that this is
the only sanctuary where Yahweh worship could legiti­
mately take place. Hence these two verses bring us
right up into the period following the Josianic reform.
On the other hand^ when the author speaks of the Jeru­
salem priesthood walking before the anointed for ever,
he evidently does not know of the exile and must there­
fore have written before it, i.e. before 587.

The identity of the priest left to the house of

Eli is difficult to ascertain. Ichabod may be conjec­
tured, being the last surviving representative of the
priestly family at Shiloh. If, however, he did survive
to function in the office of priest, it is remarkable
that no further evidence concerning him has survived.
Hence it seems improbable that so obscure a figure
should be one of the focal points of the narrative.
Ahiah the priest of Saul who functioned at Gibeah, and
who is recorded in I Sam. 14.3 as the great grandson
of Eli could be considered as a possible identity.
However the genealogy attributed to him, which is the
sole evidence associating him with the Shiloh priest­
hood, comes under suspicion for a number of reasons.
It is not the practice of the author to introduce a
lengthy pedigree into a narrative except in the case
of a principal character like Saul. Ahiah briefly
 - 77
makes his sole appearance on the stage of Israel's his­
tory in this chapter in which he is bidden to consult
9
the oracle (cf. v .19) . The mention of a brother's
name is unusual in a genealogy, and furthermore, it is
unlikely that Ahitub whose grandson, Abiathar, was
priest to David, should have been Ichabod's brother,
since between the capture of the ark at Ebenezer and
its removal from Kiriath-Jearim a period of a mere
twenty years elapsed (cf. I Sam. 6.1; 7.2) before the
end of which Abiathar was acting priest to David. The
whole clause is devoid of syntax, and appears to have
been the work of a scribe anxious to- derive both Ahiah
and the priests of Nob, with whom Abiathar was connected,
from the house of Eli so that all priests, other than
that mentioned in the closing verses of the prophecy,
could be included in the condemnation of Eli^^. The
removal of Abiathar from priestly office and his
banishment to Anathoth for the part he played in the
court intrigue to set Adoxijah on the throne were inter­
preted by the historian who recorded these events as the
fulfilment of the prophecy against Eli (cf. I Kgs. 2.26 f)

9. In V.18 Saul commands Ahiah to bring forth the ark,

but the LXX reads 'ephod' agreeing with v.3. The
ephod and not the ark was the organ of divination,
the predicate ^ ] frequently occurring with the
noun ^10 A cf. I Sam. 23.9; 30.7.
10. M.Noth 'Samuel und Shilo' V.T.1963, pp. 390-400,
interprets I Sam. 2.27-36 as a Zadokite polemic
against the Shiloh priesthood and dates it not
long after the disappearance of the ark from Shiloh
and the fate of its priesthood. Although the
editor may possibly have revised the passage for
the purpose of authenticating the Zadokite priest­
hood, it is doubtful if the writer of the original
kernel of the narrative had this object in mind.
 - 78
Passages of this kind often occur in texts edited by
the Deuteronomic school. They represent the theologi­
cal explanation of the events which have been described.
History was never conceived of by the Hebrews as a mere
sequence of events, but what happened under the guidance
of Yahweh. Men go their way in guilt or good favour,
but Yahweh is omnipresent. Such prophetic insertions
frequently offer a cross-section of history. They give
an event its place in the context of the divine design
extending throughout all time. However, the historian
in his anxiety to interpret history in terms of Yahweh
acting out his purpose among his chosen people, and so
fitting it into a divine pattern^was in danger of dis­
torting the historical facts to fit the scheme. The
straightforward sense of I Kgs. 2.26, 27 relates to a
period in David's life when Abiathar attended him as
priest, carrying the ark of Yahweh, and when they had
together suffered extraordinary and prolonged hardship.
In fact such an association is never recorded in the
traditions relating to David's life subsequent to his
possession of the ark when he moved it from Kiriath-
Jearim. Although David suffered great hardship and
humiliation when he fled Jerusalem on the occasion of
Absalom's rebellion, it is explicitly stated in II Sam.
15.29 that the ark did not accompany him on that occa­
sion and that Abiathar was left with Zadok in Jerusalem
11
where they were to act as spies in the court of Absalom

11. The text of II Sam. 15.24-30 will be discussed

later in this chapter.
 - 79
There was only one period in the life of David when he
endured protracted hardship in the company of Abiathar,
and that was before he came to the throne, when for
many months he led the life of an outlaw on the southern
border in such constant fear of death that he finally
sought refuge in the service of the hostile Philistine
king of Gath (cf. I Sam. 22-30). Throughout that
period Abiathar was likewise a fugitive from Saul's
wrath and was ever at David's side mini storing to him
in moments of danger with the sacred oracle (cf. I Sam.
22.20 ff). The association of Abiathar with the ark
would therefore appear to have arisen from the author's
concept of him as the successor of the ark priesthood
at Shiloh, But this is historically inaccurate as the
misfortune experienced by the survivor of the house of
Eli is not the result of his removal from priestly
office, which he in fact retains (cf. I Sam, 2.33).
Therefore it seems reasonable to identify the sole sur­
vivor of the Shiloh priesthood to remain functioning at
the altar with Eli himself, who ends his days sorrowing
over the fate of his family and the loss of the ark.

Of the three priesthoods referred to above, the

most illustrious due to its custody of the ark, was
that which served at Shiloh. This priesthood was com­
pletely wiped out, its cult object captured by the
12
enemy, and its shrine destroyed . The sole survivor
an infant, after the record of his birth is never heard

12. See Note 19 in Appendix.

 - 80
of again which, in view of the fate of his family, is
not surprising. The second priesthood to come under
consideration is that found at Gibeah and represented
by Ahiah. He is recorded as the son of Ahitub, brother
of Ichabod (cf. I Sam, 14.3), a pedigree already shown
to be of doubtful authenticity. Ahiah is described as
13
bearing the ephod, and in the corrected text of v .18
Saul commanded that the ephod be consulted. Gibeah was
the home of Saul (cf. I Sam. 10.26) and doubtless the
transient celebrity of its famous son brought passing
lustre to its local priest. The third priesthood
mentioned - the family of Abiathar - resided at Nob and
is recorded as descending from Ahitub and so connected
with Ahiah of Gibeah and the Shiloh priesthood. How­
ever, if Shiloh was destroyed following the defeat of
the Israelites at Ebenezer and the capture of the ark,
its priesthood subsequently taking over the priestly
establishment at Nob, one would expect to find Samuel
in the principal position. Furthermore it was when
Saul was in Gibeah, the city of Ahiah, that he heard
of David being in Benjamin (cf. I Sam. 22.6 ff), and
from the context of the ensuing narrative Nob is pre­
sumably implied^"^ which weakens the possibility of a

13. cf. note 9.

14. J. Blenkinsopp, 'Kiriath-Jearim and the Ark', J.B.L.
1969, pp. 143-157, considers that one aspect of the
legitimization of the Davidic dynasty involved the
association and eventual amalgamation of the sout­
hern Levites with the ark priesthood of the northern
tribes. However, the genealogies associating Ahiah,
Abiathar and Zadok with the family of Eli would
appear to be later than the time of David. Further­
more there is no evidence that the priesthoods at
Gibeah or Nob were levitical.
 - 81
15
connection between Ahiah and Abiathar . The narra­
tive of I Sam. 21 makes evident that Nob was a sanc­
tuary of some prominence. It was situated between
Anathoth and Jerusalem (cf. Is. 10.32) in Benjamin
(cf. Nh. 11.32), and must have lain within a few miles
of Gibeah, but its precise location is unknown. Ahi-
melech was the chief priest of the shrine and as such
presided over the large corpus of subordinate priests
that served it. The hospitality afforded by Ahimelech
to David, who deceived the priest into thinking he was
on the king's business (cf. I Sam. 21.2), involved the
community in the rivalry between Saul and David. When
Saul heard that Ahimelech had aided David, he summoned
the whole community to Gibeah for questioning in the
course of which Ahimelech admitted the act but denied
any treasonable intent. Nevertheless, Saul was not
satisfied and at his command the whole priestly house,
eighty-" five in number, was hewn down. Only one,
Ahimelech's son, escaped perhaps because he had been
left at home when the rest of the community made the
fateful journey to Gibeah. He fled to David with the
ephod, the sacred cult object of the Nob sanctuary, and
was received with promises of protection (cf. I Sam. 22.2 3)

15. It is noteworthy that neither Eli nor Ahiah figures

in the Chronicler's genealogies. The line of Abia­
thar is associated with the Aaronite Ithamar, cf. I
Chr. 24.3, 6, 31 where Ahimelech is recorded as
Zadok's contemporary, and in v.6 to be the son
rather than the father of Abiathar. In I Chr. 18.16
Ahimelech is presented as Abimelech, but twelve
versions read Ahimelech.
 - 82
Hence, in the light of these considerations it seems
clear that Eli, Ahiah and Abiathar represent three dif­
ferent priesthoods.

Yet another priest comes into prominence in the

traditions associated with the establishment of the
monarchy in Israel. The question of Zadok's origin has
always aroused interest, but no assured solution to
this problem has yet been achieved. He first appears
on record beside Abiathar as a priest officiating at
the Jerusalem cult during the reign of David (cf. II
Sam. 8.17). In this verse Zadok is stated to be the
son of Ahitub, and as already pointed out an Ahitub is
recorded as the father of Saul's priest Ahiah (cf. I
Sam. 14.3), and the grandfather of Abiathar (cf. I Sam.
22.20). The same Ahitub however, cannot refer here to
Zadok's father since it is clear from I Sam. 2.35 that
the line of Zadok superseded the family of Eli, and
there is not the slightest indication that Zadok was
connected with the priests of Gibeah or Nob^^. The
verse is corrupt; the reference to Ahimelech as the
son of Abiathar is incorrect and may be read Abiathar
ben Ahimelech with the Syriac version. Abiathar appears
beside Zadok as his contemporary and colleague (cf. II
Sam. 20.25) and according to I Kgs. 4.4 he was still
priest with Zadok in Jerusalem at the beginning of Solo­
mon's reign. The corruption, however, appears to be

16. Ahitub is also recorded in I Chr. 18.16 as the

father of Zadok, a mistake which may be attributed
to the corruption of this verse.
 - 83
deeper, for in consideration of I Sam. 22,20 it becomes
evident that instead of Abiathar ben Ahimelech and
Zadok ben Ahitub, Zadok and Abiathar ben Ahimelech ben
17
Ahitub should be read . Thus it appears that Zadok
was originally a parvenu without pedigree. Yet if this
were so his promotion from relative obscurity to such
an important position is remarkable. The fact that
Abiathar had shared the deprivations of David after
narrowly escaping the fate suffered by his house for
sheltering him, makes it seem improbable that the king
should have raised a mere upstart to equal status with
Abiathar without some compelling reason.

I Chr. 12.24-41 (E.V.vv. 23-40) contains a census

of Israelite troops that mustered at- Hebron with the
intention of making David king over the whole of Israel
in place of Saul. Among the troops enumerated was a
certain Zadok with twenty-two captains of his father’s
house (cf. V.29, E.V.v.28). The prodigious numbers
attributed to the contingents and the lack of evidence
associating this Zadok with David's priest of the same
name, do not inspire confidence in the use of the text
as a secure basis from which to determine the derivation
of Zadok. Moreover, the mention of an Aaronite contin­
gent under the leadership of Jehoiada in the previous

17. This emendation is adopted by J. Wellhausen, cf.

Prolegomena to the history of Israel, p. 143. The
Chronicler represents Zadok descending from Eleazar
the eldest surviving son of Aaron, which he con­
trasts with the house of Ithamar to which the line
of Abiathar is attributed cf. I Chr. 24.1-5.
 - 84
verse does not appear to assume priestly status for the
Zadok in question here^^. Elsewhere the Chronicler
regards Zadok as the chief representative of the Aaronite
priesthood. Another solution attempted in determination
of Zadok's identity, associates him with one of the
bearers of the ark on its journey from Kiriath-Jearim
to Jerusalem (cf. II Sam.6). As Abiathar was priest of
the ephod, it was necessary to have a priest knowledge­
able in the custody of the ark, therefore a priest who
had functioned at a place where the ark had been for­
merly located. Hence the sole survivor of the ark's
two custodians at its former abode in Kiriath-Jearim
would seem to have been the most suitable candidate for
this position. This person is called Ahio in II Sam.
6.3, 4, a name unusual in Hebrew giving rise to diffi­
culty as the LXX shows by translating it withKQl Dl
)
which implies an unspecified number of brothers
as custodians of the ark with only one in particular
being named i.e. Uzzah. As the word ITT^^is unusual
as a Hebrew proper name^ it may have originally been
pointed to read I'HH i.e.his brother, an attempt being
subsequently made to change it to a proper name to suit

IB. C.E. Hauer, 'Who was Zadok?', J.B.L., 1963, pp.

89-94, defends the authenticity of this verse,
and attributes Zadok's promotion to his alignment
with David previous to the capture of Jerusalem,
where Hauer considers he was the priest of the
pre-Israelite shrine of the Jebusites. Josephus
Antiquities VII.ii. p. 256 also identifies this
Zadok with Zadok the priest of David's shrine at
Jerusalem.
 - 85
the context. In this way the original Gibeonite origin
of Zadok, who appeared at David's court for the first
time after this episode, and whose ancestry is never
disclosed, was deliberately concealed by the narrator.
Chronological difficulties however militate against the
acceptance of this view. The ark was taken to Kiriath-
Jearim on its return from the Philistines some years
before Saul became king, and remained there for twenty
years (cf. I Sam. 7.1,2). On its removal from Kiriath-
Jearim to Jerusalem it was delayed three months follo­
wing the death of Uzzah, and was kept in the house of
Obed-edom the Gittite (cf. II Sam. 5.10 ff). Apart
from the incident recorded in II Sam. 15.24-29^the ark
subsequently remained in Jerusalem during the thirty-
19
three years of David's reign (cf. II Sam. 5.5) . Thus
from the time the ark was first located in Kiriath-
Jearim to the court intrigue concerning the succession
to the throne which resulted in Abiathar's disgrace, a
period of approximately fifty-five years elapsed, per­
haps even longer. If Uzzah is identified with Eleazar
20
in I Sam. 7.1 , unless there existed some considerable

19. David reigned forty years in all. However, he ruled

Judah from Hebron for the first seven of them only,
before capturing Jerusalem and subsequently exten­
ding his authority throughout Palestine cf. I Kgs.
2.11; I Chr. 3.4; 29.27.
20. See Note 20 in Appendix.
 - 86
difference in age between him and his brother, Zadok
must have been nearly eighty years of age when he anoin­
ted Solomon king at Gihon (cf. I Kgs. 1.45) and there
is no evidence to suggest that he did not continue in
office for some time after. Moreover, although Uzzah's
brother is recorded as accompanying the ark in the
first attempt to bring it.to Jerusalem, there is no
account of his installation as custodian of the ark in
Obed-edom*s house, and he is entirely unmentioned in the
second attempt. Following the fate of Uzzah, anxiety
arose in David's mind with regard to the divine will,
and the ark was deposited in a neighbouring house occu­
pied by a Philistine of Gittite birth, until a more
favourable omen could be obtained. Since the residence
of the ark in Obed-edom's house brought him blessing
(cf. V . 11) it may be reasonable to assume that he him­
self took charge of the ark. Although these conside­
rations do not prove fatal to this theory, the solution
rests on the argumentum ^ silentio which can only be
tested by the probable interpretation of that silence.

A popular alternative to these solutions is to

recognize in Zadok the pre-Davidic priest-king of the
Jebusite shrine in Jerusalem. It has been suggested
that this hypothesis accords with the struggle, following
David's death which involved a Jerusalemite i.e. Jebu­
site and a Judaean faction^ in which the Jebusite party
was represented by Zadok along with Nathan the prophet
 - 87
and Benaiah ben Jehoiada. The theory assumes that
Zadok, the priest-king of Jerusalem before David's
capture of the city was allowed to retain his priestly
21
office but forfeited his royal status . Yet it seems
gratuitous to question that Nathan was a prophet of
22
Yahweh and a genuine Israelite , while the name of
Benaiah's father is in no way suggestive of Jebusite
derivation. Furthermore it is doubtful if David would
have permitted the defeated Jebusite king to have con­
tinued in the influential position of priest in his own
city, now David's capital. Had Zadok been the former
king of Jerusalem and headed the Jebusite faction that
overthrew the Judaean one, thereupon seizing power, one
would expect him to have resumed his former position
rather than to install Solomon in the honoured station
he had once occupied. A slightly different presentation
of this view which,, although it does not claim regal
status for Zadok, holds him to have been the former
Jebusite priest functioning at Jerusalem before David's
23
capture of the city . Gen. 14 and Ps. 110 are cited
in support of this solution to the problem of Zadok's

21. cf. A. Bentzen 'Zur Geschichte der Sadokiden',

Z.A.W. 1933, pp. 173-176.
22. Although Nathan did support Solomon's claim to the
throne, a certain hostility had existed between
the prophet and David arising from the Bathsheba
affair (cf. II Sam. 12) which must have made
Nathan sceptical of the monarchy as a valid insti­
tution in Israel.
23. See Note 21 in Appendix.
 - 88
24
origin . Gen, 14 records that while Abram was at Heb­
ron he learned that four kings from the north of
Canaan had raided the five kings of the cities of the
Dead Sea plain and had taken much spoil including cap­
tives, amongst which was Abram's nephew Lot who had
settled in Sodom (cf. vv. 1-12). Abram with a handful
of slaves pursued the victorious allies to Dan, routed
them in a night attack^ and rescued the captives inclu­
ding Lot (cf. vv. 13-16). On his homeward journey he
was met by Melchizedek, king of Salem, who blessed him
in the name of El Elyon to whom Abram payed tithes (cf.
25
vv. 18-20) . The king of Sodom also saluted Abram
but his offer of spoil was rejected by the hero of the
narrative with disdainful magnanimity (cf. vv. 17,21-24)
It is evident that the first half of the chapter is
merely introductory and that the purpose of the whole
is to illustrate the singular dignity of Abram's po­
sition among the potentates of the earth. The occur­
rence of prehistoric names of places and peoples, some
of which no doubt had ceased to be intelligible to
later readers, and the general verisimilitude of the
background of the narrative are points in favour of its
great antiquity . On the other hand, the route, if
not absolutely impracticable for a regular army, is at

24. Bentzen, op. cit., in citing the hypothesis of

Mowinkel's work Ezra den skriftlaerde, also uses
C/
these texts in support of his thesis.
25. Salem is used in Ps. 76.2 to denote Jerusalem,
26. See Note 22 in Appendix.
 - 89
least quite irreconcilable with the object of the cam­
paign, the raid on the pentapolis. That the four kings
should have passed the Dead Sea valley leaving their
principal enemies in the rear, and postponing a decisive
engagement till the end of a circuitous and exhausting
march would be inconceivable to a writer in touch with
the actualities of the situation, and the rout of Che-
dorlaomer's formidable army by 318 untrained men is
generally admitted to be incredible. The whole ten­
dency of the chapter is to set the figure of the Patriarch
in an ideal light, corresponding,not to the realities
of history, but to the imagination of some later age.
So although the ^chapter has historical foundations, the
grandiose and lifeless description of military opera­
tions^ which are quite beyond the author's range of con­
ception^ Indicates later editing. The Melchizedek pas­
sage in vv. 18-20 may be attributed to this re-editing
as it rather awkwardly disrupts the connection between-
v.17 and v.21. It could possibly be understood as an
aetiological legend intended to explain the origin of
the institution of tithes, and to provide the Jerusalem
priesthood with a celebrated ancestor (which it other­
wise lacked), who received tribute from the progenitor
of the Israelite nation already two generations earlier
than Jacob's vision at Bethel which designated it as a
holy place (cf. Gen. 28.10-22). The hypothesis may
then follow that perhaps underlying this aetiology lay
a permanent historical remembrance of the service per­
formed in primitive times by the priest-kings of
 - 90
Jerusalem to El Elyon which Israel came to acknowledge
as a title for Yahweh. However, there is no evidence
to verify this argument. Jos. 10 records Adonizedek^
the Jebusite king of Jerusalem,leading a league of
kings in southern Canaan against the Israelites under
Joshua, and there is no suggestion of his'being a pro­
genitor of an illustrious race of Yahweh priests func­
tioning until the exile and after. Moreover, his fate
related in Ju. 1,4-7 does not indicate any connection
with the celebrated priest-king at Jerusalem. Similarly
Abdi-hepa stated in the Amarna letters to be king of
Jerusalem is in no way indicated as a priest of high
rank. It is clearly stated in Gen. 14.18 that Melchi­
zedek was king of Salem and priest of the most high
God, two offices which it is highly improbable the
Zadokites ever held simultaneously until the Maccabaean
period. The fact, however, that the passage is found
in the Samaritan Pentateuch does not favour a Macca­
baean date for it, as it is scarcely conceivable that
subsequent to the controversy between the Jews and
Samaritans a narrative claiming to derive from pat­
riarchal times ^which legitimated the position of the
Jewish priesthood at Jerusalem would have been tole-
27 ^
rated by the Samaritans . Besides, if the purpose of
the Melchizedek passage was to legitimate Zadok's regal

27. K. Budde, op. cit., contends that as the Chronicler

makes no mention of Melchizedek as the ancestor of
the Zadokite priesthood, Gen. 14. 18-20 must be
later than Chronicles, and may therefore belong to
the Maccabaean period.
 - 91
as well as sacerdotal status, this would not only have
been contrary to the evidence which attributes only
priestly office to him but would, as already pointed
out in reference to the thesis conjecturing Zadok to
have been the pre-Davidic priest-king of Jerusalem,
have carried serious implications for the security of
the Davidic monarchy. In respect of these considerations
it appears that Gen. 14, although containing fragments
of ancient tradition, may be attributed to the Yahwist,
who writing at the time of David when he was consoli­
dating his position as the religio-political leader of
the nation at Jerusalem, took the opportunity to authen­
ticate David's position in a former Canaanite sanctuary
by understanding him to be the successor of Melchizedek
the priest-king at Abram's shrine.

This mode of legitimizing the sacral and royal

attributes of David is also employed in Ps. 110. The
psalm opens with an oracle of Yahweh, presumably deli­
vered by a priest or cultic prophet, guaranteeing the
sovereign exalted office and humiliation of his enemies.
A promise that Yahweh will extend his authority and
that henceforth the people will render willirg loyalty
to his rule introduces the second oracle which confirms
the king by divine oath in the office of priest as
successor of the ancient Jerusalemite line traced from
Melchizedek. The psalm concludes with a description of
the triumph Yahweh will give the king over his enemies
(cf. w . 5-7) . The position occupied by the royal house
 - 92
is expressed as standing in the line of Melchizedek and
is therefore not merely an appropriation of the pre-
Davidic Canaanite tradition of Jerusalem, but the con-
28
tinuation of a succession of royal priests whose
ancestor was reputed to have ministered to the Patriarch
of Israel. Possibly the immediate occasion for this
psalm was the enthronement of a new sovereign as the
29
latest successor in this celebrated series . Therefore
the house of David which claimed religious as well as
political authority appears to have derived its right
to this twofold ascendency from the traditions relating
to Melchizedek, which may possibly have had a histori­
cal kernel that was later adapted to suit current cir­
cumstances.

According to the tradition recorded by the Chroni­

cler, the wilderness tent of Yahweh since Mosaic times
had been sited at Gibeon (cf. II Chr. 1.3). The fact
that Solomon brought his great offering to Gibeon in­
spires confidence in this tradition and indicates the
importance of the shrine there (cf. I Kgs. 3.4). it is

28. The sacral attribute of David is indicated by his

initiative in bringing the ark to Jerusalem and his
wearing of the priestly ephod when he danced before
the ark cf. II Sam. 6.6-19. Ahaz exercised his
religious authority in a similar way when he ini­
tiated certain innovations in the Jerusalem worship
cf. II Kgs. 16.10 ff. This aspect of kingship will
be discussed more fully in the final chapter of
this thesis.
29. R.H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament,
p. 630, attributes the psalm to the Maccabaean
period, written in honour of Simon Maccabaeaus.
 - 93
related in Jos. 9.1-27 that the Israelites were decei­
ved into making a treaty with the Gibeonites who in
consequence became vassals of Israel. Quite a number
of vassal treaties promise military aid from the sove­
reign to his vassal in the event of attack by a common
enemy. The treaty of Jos. 9 probably had this idea
behind it as well as the aspect of pledge to preserve
the Gibeonites from devotion to the sacred ban^^.
Joshua was compelled by the treaty to aid the Gibeonite
confederation when it was attacked by a common enemy.
The emphasis laid on the divine assistance given the
federation of Israelites and Gibeonites enabling them
to conquer their enemies (cf. Jos. 10.6-11) is note­
worthy, and shows the legal nature of the oath, which^
taken in Yahweh's name^made him protector of the treaty.
The fact that such a pact existed is attested by II Sam.
21.2 ff, the context of which clearly reflects a treaty
violation by Saul. The importance of Gibeon is evident
from the effect its defection to Israel had on the rest

30. cf. F. Charles Fensham, 'The treaty between Israel

and the Gibeonites', B.A. vol. 3, 1964. pp. 96-100.
The priestly writer uses the story to explain how
Gibeonites became temple servants in post-exilic
times. The character of the treaty is clear from
V . 8 where the Gibeonites state that they are wil­
ling to be servants of the Israelites. In spite
of the fact that the word 'servant' had various
shades of meaning in the ancient Near East, the
strong probability exists here that the term refers
to vassalage. A similar type of agreement is found
in the suzerainty tablets of the Hittite Empire in
which the vassal is protected by his lord in return
for which he is bound to supply his lord with arms
when required.
 ■- 94
of the Canaanite kings, and although it had no king
itself, it is described in Jos. 10.1 f as one of the
royal cities, and its men warriors of repute. A water
system and wine jars belonging to this period have been
found in the course of archaeological excavations on
the site of Gibeon, thus providing evidence of the
31
organized and civilized community that inhabited it
The Chronicler's tradition relating to the presence of
the Mosaic tent in Gibeon implies that the Yahweh faith
32
was adopted by the vassal group . Furthermore the
presence of this ancient cultic palladium at Gibeon
may explain the necessity for David to legitimate the
site of a new sanctuary in Jerusalem by a special theo-
phany at the threshing floor of Araunah (cf. II Sam.
24.16,17). Further support for the tradition relating
to the presence of the tabernacle in Gibeon is found
in I Chr. 16.39 where it is stated that Zadok the
priest and his brethern the priests served the taber-
33
nacle of Yahweh in Gibeon . The fact that Zadok does
not appear until after the ark had arrived in Jerusalem,
and the lack of any evidence contradictory to his
having formerly ministered at Gibeon supports the tra­
dition contained in this verse. The first mention of

31. cf. J.B. Pritchard, B.A. Feb. vol XIX 1956, pp.
66-75, and vol. XXIII I960 pp. 19-24.
32. Gibeon was the chief city of a group of Canaanite
settlements that included Chephirah, Beeroth and
Kiriath-Jearim cf. Jos. 9.17; 10.2.
33. From the association of the tabernacle with the
Zadokites at Gibeon, some light may be shed on the
prominent role which the tabernacle plays in the
priestly writing.
 . - 95
Zadok at David's court is subsequent to the ark's re­
moval to Jerusalem (cf. II Sam. 8.17), and the first
time he is recorded as playing an active role was
during the rebellion of Absalom which did not occur
until the closing years of David's reign. it has al­
ready been mentioned that there must have been a motive
for bringing.Zadok to Jerusalem, This may possibly lie
in a policy aimed at unifying this powerful enclave of
former Canaanite cities under the authority of the
Hebrew monarchy, which^ due to Saul's violation of their
treaty with Israel^ had probably become estranged and
were seen by David as a potentially dangerous threat
to the security of his dominion.

As Gibeon appears to have been converted from its

Canaanite religion to Yahwism, it is reasonable to pos­
tulate that dedicated and skilful Yahweh missionaries
were actively engaged in the city subsequent to its
pact with Joshua. Their success is witnessed by the
fact that this former Canaanite city became the site
of the leading Yahweh shrine in Israel prior to the
erection of the temple in Jerusalem. Moreover it was
in Gibeon that Solomon, having offered his great sacri­
fice, received the vision in which Yahweh granted him
not only what he requested, wisdom to rule his people,
but also riches and honour. The close association of
the tribe of Judah, to which the line of David belonged,
with the Levites, and their desirability as priests of
Yahweh may suggest the levitical derivation of Zadok
and his colleagues, and thus explain the presence of
 - 96
so important a Yahweh shrine in a Canaanite city. If
Zadok was not a Levite then David would have been guilty
of the sin which the author of I Kgs. 12.31 regards as
one of Jeroboam's faults, the appointment of non-levitical
priests. The fact that there is no hint of Abiathar
or of David's own sons, who were appointed priests, being
Levites need not necessarily militate against this view
when it is remembered that although there is no sound
reason why David should not have made his sons priests,
they are never mentioned performing priestly functions,
in fact they are only referred to on one occasion (cf.
II Sam. 8.18). The parallel passage in II Sam. 20.26
does not mention David's sons, but instead speaks of
Ira the Jairite being one of David's priests. With
regard to Abiathar, he was appointed to his position
because of what his family had suffered as a result of
harbouring David, and of his own loyalty, but Abiathar's
support of Solomon's rival on the death of David can­
celled the debt of gratitude the Davidic house owed him,
34
and he was accordingly removed from office . If Zadok
is assumed to be a levitical priest, his ascendency
over Abiathar and all his other priestly contemporaries

34. E. Auerbach, 'Die Herkunft den Sadokiden', Z.A.W.

1931, pp. 327,8, who associates Zadok with Gibeon
on the basis of I Chr. 16.39, considers that
Abiathar was senior to Zadok, and Solomon to show
his gratefulness to Zadok for supporting his claim
to the throne promoted him and banished Abiathar.
However, it seems more likely that Abiathar's alle­
giance to Adonijah in the struggle for the crown
(cf. I Kgs. 1.7) was an attempt to gain favour with
the contestant who appeared most likely to be suc­
cessful, and so retain his office at Jerusalem.
 - 97
at Jerusalem may be explained by the parallel incident
in Ju. 17 where preference is shown for a Levite to
discharge priestly functions over the non-levitical
priest already established at Micah's shrine. Moreover
the Deuteronomist presupposes that the Jerusalem priest­
hood is levitical (cf. D t . 18.1) while Ezekiel expressly
designates the Zadokites as Levites (cf. Ezek. 40.46;
43.19; 44.15). It is significant that although Abia­
thar was at David’s side from early in his career,
long before Zadok came on the scene, in every instance
that they occur together, with the exception of one
passage which will be discussed in the next paragraph,
35
Zadok is always named first , while in later times the
Chronicler associates Zadok with the senior line of the
Aaronite priesthood i.e. Eleazar, and Abiathar with the
cadet branch Ithamar

II Sam. 15.24-29 is the first passage in which

Zadok is represented as a dramatis persona during the
reign of David. The passage relates the removal of the
ark from Jerusalem by Zadokand Abiathar when David
fled the city in anticipation of Absalom's advance.
In V.27 however, the king orders the return of the
ark and its retinue to Jerusalem. An examination of
the text, which is in a poor state of preservation, may

35. cf. II Sam, 8.17, the corrupt nature of this verse

has already been discussed; 15.35; 20.25; I Kgs.
4.4.
36. cf. note 17.
 - 98
shed some light on the relationship between the two
priests and the ark. With regard to syntax, the words
H D ' 3 u 3 in v. 27 in their position at
the end of the verse occupy an unusual position and
are generally awkward. The verse begins by the king
addressing Zadok with the singular personal pronoun
and emphatic imperative and continues to have reference
to Zadok alone until the final three words, the last
two having plural suffixes. This may be accounted for
by the notion that, although Zadok alone is addressed,
Abiathar is standing by. Alternatively, the plural
suffixes could be attributed to a confusion arising
from the mention of Abiathar's son, the last three
words of the verse having been carelessly inserted by
way of interpretation. However, the following verse in
using the imperative plural of the predicate i.e.
clearly refers to the two young men who are to act as
runners, and hence the rather clumsy Z]OjlK tjDQü 'Jvli
*I * f ft il t *

would appear to be a careless explanatory gloss disrup­

ting the continuity of the passage and may thus be
omitted. The word FT MI IjJ in v. 27 is difficult and
could perhaps be rendered in the sense of 'to perceive'
37
or 'understand' . The meaning of vv. 27, 28 would
appear to be 'and the king said to Zadok the priest -
"Do you understand? Return to the city in peace and
Ahimaaz thy son and Jonathan the son of Abiathar. Be­
hold, I am tarrying in the plain ofthe desert until
word comes from you to inform me".'v.24 introduces

37. See Note 23 in Appendix.

 - 99
Abiathar in a very awkward phrase i.e. TT \ V ^
but if this phrase is omitted a smoother reading results
in which Zadok and the Levites bring the ark to the
brook, lay it down, allow the people to cross and then
follow on behind. A similar incident involving the ark
is found in the account relating to the crossing of the
Jordan (cf. Jos. 3.17; 4.11). The text emended in this
way is supported by Lucian and accords with v.25 in
which the king addresses Zadok exclusively with no hint
of Abiathar's presence. The text of v.29 also presents
difficulty. The singular predicate with which the
verse opens does not agree with its plural subject
'Zadok and Abiathar'. On account of the subject being
two proper names, it is doubtful if syntactically a '
singular predicate may be allowed. As Abiathar does
not appear to have figured in the original form of the
verses under consideration, the mention of his name
here would appear to be an interpolation which, due to
the fact that none of the versions read the plural of
the predicate nor omit the iD'DHl must be early. The
!L its present form may refer to Zadok, Ahimaaz
and Jonathan or can be read in the singular with the
Alexandrinus and Vaticanus versions referring to Zadok
alone as the subject. It is thus possible that a later
reviser knowing that two priests were functioning at
Jerusalem during David's reign, could not understand
the absence of Abiathar at this critical time, espe­
cially in view of his loyalty to David in earlier days,
and accordingly rectified what he thought was an acci­
dental omission. The mention of 'all the Levites’ in
 - 100
V . 24 presents no textual difficulty, but may be taken
as further evidence of the levitical association of
Zadok, The analysis also shows the close association ’
of Zadok and the other Levites, who may have been his
former Gibeonite colleagues, with the ark. This asso­
ciation may perhaps be attributed to David's appoint­
ment of Zadok to minister before the ark in Jerusalem,
and consequently have given rise to the tradition
38
associating the Levites with the ark . Zadok would
in this way have been seen as the successor of the
ancient ark priesthood of Shiloh as described in I Sam,
2.35, 36.

38. cf. Dt. 10.8; .31:25; I Sam. 6.15; I Chr. 15.2.

 - loi
LEVITICAL ORGANIZATION
DURING THE PERIOD OF THE MONARCHY

The priestly writer records in Jos. 21 how the

chief Levites approached Eleazar the priest, Joshua,
and the tribal chiefs, and asked them for cities to
dwell in and land for their cattle round about these
cities. In response to this request, founded upon the
divine command made through Moses (cf. Jos. 21,2),
forty-eight cities including six cities of refuge were
assigned to the Levites in all the territory conquered
by the Israelites on both sides of the Jordan. In
addition to this allotment of cities the Levites also
received, in response to their request, pasture lands
1
around each city's perimeter . These pastures were to
be the exclusive property of the Levites in which they
were to raise their livestock (cf. Num. 35.3). They
could not sell them as they were their eternal posses­
sion among the children of Israel (cf. Lev. 25.33 f).
However, the fact that in the case of Hebron the vil­
lages and arable land remained the property of Caleb
(cf. Jos. 21.11 f), shows that no land fit for agricul­
ture was assigned to the Levites, and in this way the

1. Num. 35.4 states that the pasturage area was to

extend lOOO cubits from the city wall, but the
following verse defines the area as 2000 cubits
without the city thus reducing the city itself to
a mere point. Perhaps something of an idealistic
nature may be seen in this provision.
 — l02
principle was upheld which denied the Levites of an in­
heritance of land among the tribes of Israel. In a
similar way the phrase Tl3.*^ J
t. M T ' T
used in reference
to levitical settlement does not imply ownership of,
but merely residence in a city. The cities of refuge
that are included among the levitical cities, being
equally distributed throughout Palestine, provided areas
of asylum where refuge could be sought in the event of
unpremeditated homicide (cf. Dt. 4.41-43; 19.1-13).
The right of asylum is a common institution in all
times and places. The custom is found among barbarous
and civilized people alike, and obtained in Greek and
Roman times right into the Middle Ages. The selection
of these cities of refuge must have originally been
occasioned by their reputation as sites of important
shrines which had become popular as asylums for the
fugitive, and were accordingly selected as places suit­
able for levitical settlements.

A list of cities inhabited by Levites similar to

that in Jos. 21 is also found in I Chr. 6. It differs
in some details from Jos. 21, but on comparing both
the lists with the corresponding Greek versions most of
2
these divergencies may be eliminated . The arrangement
of the cities according to the levitical families
Kohath, Gershorn and Merari, with Aaron occupying the
principal position, belongs to a genealogical system
only witnessed in the later traditions of the Old Testa­
ment, and therefore points to an exilic or post-exilic

2. See Note 24 in Appendix.

 - 103
3
date for the lists . However, the area covered by the
cities is much more extensive’than that occupied by the
Jews in post-exilic times, except in the short period
of Judas Maccabaeus and the reign of Alexander Jannaeus
(103-76 B.C.). By this time however, the list in Jos.
21 and the other references to levitical cities in the
Pentateuch had become securely established in the Canon
4
of Holy Scripture . Since many of the places listed
did not become Israelite until long after Joshua's
time, it has been widely held that the lists were a
retroject'ion of the post-exilic imagination into earlier
5 . .
times . This seems little probable, for such a retro-
jection into the early days of settlement would have
had no historical foundation or real motive, and its
place in Holy Scripture as a meaningless fantasy of the
mind is hardly conceivable. Another theory relates the
lists to Josiah's removal of provincial Levites to
Jerusalem (cf. II Kgs. 23.8)^. However, the area cove­
red by the lists, which includes places in the Trans­
jordan region, such as Golan and Ashtaroth that were

3. See Note 25 in Appendix.

4. The date of the canonization of the first five books
of Moses is dependent on the date of the Samaritan ■
schism, for it is well known that that community
adopted for its own use a text of the Torah which
in content is practically identical to the Massore-
tic text of the Pentateuch. If the schism is con­
sidered as having taken place during the mid fourth
century, it is likely that the canon of the Torah
was fixed at a considerably earlier date.
5. J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel,
pp. 162 ff was one of the pioneers of this hypothesis.
6. See Note 26 in Appendix.
 - 104
lost to Damascus after 900 B.C. and only temporarily
recovered by Jeroboam II, militates against this view.
Moreover Heshbon and Jazer had passed from Israelite
rule by 830 B.C. (cf. Is. 15.4), and Gezer could not
have been included in a list of bona fide character
after its destruction in the late tenth century, pro-
7
bably by Shishak (c. 918) . Ashtaroth was occupied by
the Aramaeans probably following the invasion of Ben
8
Hadad I c. 875 , and subsequently disappeared from the
stage of history after its destruction by the Assyrians
9
in 733 . Thereafter its place was taken by the neigh­
bouring town of Karnaim^^. The places mentioned in
Reuben, to the south-east of Israel, suffered a similar
fate. Bezer and Jahaz were taken from Israel by Mesha
king of Moab c. 830, Bezer already having fallen into
ruin^^. Kedemoth and Mephaath presumably fell into
Ammonite hands about this time also (cf. Jer. 49.1 ff).
Moreover, all the towns of Galilee were lost to Israel
in 733, most of them being destroyed, never to be re­
occupied. In the light of this information the most

7. cf. B.A.S.O.R., No. 92. pp. 17 ff.

8. cf. B.A.S.O.R., No. 87. pp. 27 ff.
9. The annals of Tiglath-Pileser III state that he
destroyed 591 towns belonging to the southern
provinces of Damascus making them like heaps of
ruins left by the deluge. Among them was Metuna,
modern Imtan, on the edge of the desert south-east
of Ashtaroth, cf. B.A.S.O.R., No. 19, pp. 15 f.
10. Karnaim is now Sheikh Sa'd only three miles to the
north of Ashtaroth. Archaeological finds there
prove occupation during this period.
11. cf. Moabite Stone.
 - 105
probable date for these lists would appear to lie in
the reigns of David and Solomon. This was the only
period in Israel's history in which the area covered
by the lists was completely under Hebrew sovereignty.
It is recorded in I Kgs. 9.15 ff that Gezer was captu­
red by Pharaoh from the Canaanites and presented as a
dowry for his daughter whom Solomon married. Unless
the mention of Gezer is taken as a later addition to
the list of towns - which may be possible, although
there is no conclusive evidence that this is the case -
this record may provide a possible terminus ad quem in
12
the dating of the lists . At any rate the mention of
Gibbethon as a levitical settlement must date the
lists at least before the two-year reign of Nadab^ the
son of Jeroboam I^ when it belonged to the Philistines
(cf. I Kgs. 15. 27) ,

Having traced the lists to the one period in

Israel's history when Hebrew rule encompassed all the
places contained in them, inquiry must be made into the
historical significance and purpose that lies behind
them. The information to answer this question is found
in the book of Chronicles. Increasing importance has
been laid on the authenticity of the Chronicler's his­
tory and the traditions he preserves, which must in
many instances have secure historical foundations. In
I Chr. 26.30-32, it is recorded that the important
levitical family of Hebron was charged with religious

12. cf. J. Gray, New Century Bible - Joshua, Judges

and Ruth, p. 26.
 - 105
and secular responsibilities in the state. Hashabiah
and his brothers, esteemed as men of ability, were
appointed to attend to the affairs of Yahweh in the
area west of the Jordan and to administer the royal
authority there. Jerijah, which was evidently the fore­
most branch of the Hebronites, was sought out in Jazer
of Gilead and found to include men suitable for the dis­
charge of state business. They were set in authority
over Gad and Reuben and the half tribe Manasseh. v.31
further informs us that this organization of the Levites
into cities on both sides of the Jordan, began in the
fortieth year i.e. the last year of David's reign. The
passage has caused difficulty to the commentators as it
13
is irrelevant to post-exilic conditions , when Jewry
had no jurisdiction over the areas lying to the east of
the Jordan, nor in the region around Hebron which passed
into Edomite hands during the exile (cf. Ob. 1.11-14,20)
However, Jazer and Hebron both appear in the levitical
lists, and the areas east of the Jordan, and in the Negeb
were under Israelite control during Solomon's reign when
these lists would appear to have originated. Therefore
it seems that this is one of the genuinely old traditions
that the Chronicler has preserved. The record of the
levitical family at Jazer is in accordance with its in­
clusion in the group of levitical cities of Gad beside
the other administrative centres there i.e. Ramoth in
Gilead, Mahanaim and Heshbon. Jazer was a provincial

13. W. Rudolph in his Chronikbücher, p. 179, says 'Wie

kônnen Leviten im Ostjordanland amtieren? Dieses
lag für den nachexilischen Judenstaat jahrhunderte-
land ausserhalb seines Gesichtskreises.'
14. See Note 27 in Appendix.
 - 107
capital even before the Israelite conquest of southern
Gilead (cf. Num. 21.32) and its importance at the time
of David is witnessed by the mention of its name in the
account of David’s census (cf. II Sam. 24.5). Hebron
had been an important levitical settlement since the
period of Judges. It is stated in the verse preceding
this passage that Chenaniah and his sons, who belonged
to the family of Izhar, received a royal commission to
exercise responsibility for the nation's external
affairs, and to perform judicial and official functions
up and down the country. In the levitical genealogies,
Izhar is incorporated into the family of Levi as the
15
brother of Hebron , but in this passage no relation­
ship is implied, and unlike the royal charge given to
the Hebronites, the Izharites' commission does not in­
clude any spiritual function. It is possible that this
is a tradition anterior to those which connect Izhar to
Hebron through a common father Kohath. However, the
functions with which the family of Chenaniah is entrus­
ted may be similar to the secular part of the Hebronite's
commission in the following verses.

It is improbable that an organization of Levites,

as the lists envisage, could have been brought into
effect in a short space of time. The Chronicler records
what would appear to be the beginning of such a scheme
which he dates in the last year of David's reign. Be­
fore the scheme could have been fully developed into

15. cf. Ex. 6.18; Num. 3.19; I Chr. 5.28 (E.V. 6.2);
6.3 (E.V. 6.18); 23.12.
 - 108
the type of organization reflected in the lists of
levitical cities, a period of time must have elapsed,
which would bring the date of the plan's completion
forward into the reign of Solomon. In view of the
close association of the Levites with the tribe of
Judah, there must have existed a great bond of loyalty
among the Levites to the reigning Judaean house, and
it is therefore natural that, as an influential element
steeped in the Mosaic tradition which they shared in
particular with Judah, David and his son should have
found it expedient to extend the influence of the
Levites by advancing their position in the state. The
levitical families connected with Hebron may have been
the first to be singled out for promotion,* it was pro­
bably not only due to the elders whose friendship David
had cultivated (cf. I Sam. 30.26-31) but also to levi­
tical co-operation that he was able to set up his resi­
dence in Hebron as king of the whole of Judah, and to
use it as a jumping-off ground for his future ambitious
designs- They must have witnessed and perhaps even
officiated at his coronation, and would doubtless have
watched his career with keen interest, as the progress
of their missionary activities in the name of his God,
Yahweh, would in no small measure have been dependent
on the ultimate success of his plans.

It may with reasonable confidence be asserted that

numerous towns already included levitical elements from
the period of Judges. Apart from Hebron^it has already
been shown that Libnah from an early date had a levitical
 - 109
population^^. Jokmeam, included in the Ephraimite
group of levitical cities, is connected with the family
of Jekameam, a descendant of the levitical family of
Hebron (cf. I Chr. 2 3.19; 24.23), which may indicate
the antiquity of this settlement. The same town Jok-
meam is mentioned in I Kgs. 4.12 situated in the extreme
south of Solomon's fifth administrative district. The
name appears in Jos. 21.22 as Kibzaim which is most pro­
bably a corruption of "0 & p the original form being
similar to the form ^ ^ 3. which is abbreviated
17
from ^ * The presence of levitical estab-
lishments scattered throughout Palestine was possibly
an important contributory element in the acknowledge­
ment of a Judahite as king over all Israel. Perhaps
something of this may be found in the story relating
to Sheba's rebellion (II Sam. 20). The narrative
records how the dissident elements among the Israelite
tribes seized their opportunity to rebel by joining
the cry of revolt raised by Sheba, a Benjaminite.
Amasa was ordered by the king to raise a Judaean army
against Sheba but due to his delay Abishai and Joab
were sent in his place with the royal mercenaries to
18
suppress the revolt . Sheba, pursued by Abishai and
Joab, sought refuge in the town of Abel-beth-maacah
situated in the most northerly region of Palestine.

16 . cf. second chapter of this thesis.

1-7. See Note 28 in Appendix.
18. w . 4-13 recount the slaying of Amasa by Joab.
Amasa had been appointed Commander in chief in
place of Joab by.Absalom cf. II Sam. 17.25.
 - 110
The encounter between a wise woman from the walls of
the city and Joab at the head of the besieging army is
interesting. The wise woman affirmed the faithful and
peace-loving nature of the city and its reputation for
wisdom. She continued by asking Joab if he 'will des­
troy a city and mother in Israel and devour the Lord's
inheritance?' Joab replied that this was far from his
intention; he only wished the traitor surrendered. The
woman responded by consulting with the people, who de­
capitated Sheba and threw his head over the wall to
Joab outside. The fact that Abel was an ancient city
where wisdom was sought implies that it possessed an
oracle. No other evidence has survived to suggest its
importance apart from the woman's description of it as
a mother in Israel, which suggests that it was looked
up t'o with the respect that a mother should receive,
and implies that the city was surrounded by dependent
villages which were called its daughters (cf. Num. 21.25).
The Hebrew text is unintelligible at the end of y . 18
and beginning of v. 1 9 - r . i ^ ^ ;
1 k'YvA ' -,
‘I T J ' ^ r
O^a Hr ^
but the
’ '' d '
LXX provides a perfectly satisfactory rendering^ I /X û) *
no.1 which ’
r . - V: ^ V — : Jt î •* t %
means 'let them ask in Abel and in Dan whether anything
has come to an end which the faithful in Israel ordained'
i.e. Abel w a s ‘one of the two strongholds of conservatism
where the best traditions of Israel were preserved.
This gives the sense required for the woman's argument.
Such a display of loyalty is surprising in a region so
 - Ill

far north,especially when it is recorded in v .2 that

only Judah remained loyal to David. The name Abel
still survives in the modern Abil which is four miles
from Dan where a levitical priesthood had been operating
since the period of Judges^ and claimed descent from a
Judaean Levite (cf. Ju. 18.30). The claim of the woman
for her own city and Dan as centres where the best tra­
ditions were preserved, and the show of loyalty in the
face of dissident elements in the land lying between
this region and Judah must be accountable in some way.
With these facts taken into consideration^ it seems a
possible hypothesis that a levitical movement^having
its centre at Dan and which had its basic roots in
Judah^was actively propagating Judaean traditions in
this area.

From the mode of arrangement of the levitical

cities it seems that the value of the missionary acti­
vity that the Levites had carried on since the period
of Judges was fully appreciated by David and Solomon,
and skilfully utilized by them in the spiritual and
secular affairs of the kingdom in areas where the
loyalty of the people could not be depended upon. The
lists are composed of groups of towns, each group sepa­
rate from the next. .There is no geographical continuity
between them and yet they all lie within the bounds of
Israelite territory. Hence a parallel may be drawn
between the area in which the levitical cities are
found and the territory of the kingdom of Israel as
defined in the description of Israel's borders in
 - 112
David's census (cf. II Sam. 24). An interesting group
of cities lies in the south Judaean hills which inclu­
des Hebron, Debir, Eshtemoa, Holon^Ashan and Juttah.
Two of these, Eshtemoa and Hebron, are enumerated among
the settlements previously mentioned in connection with
the towns which David came in contact with during his
stay at Ziklag (cf. I Sam. 30.26 ff). All these cities
are situated in the district of the Calebites and
Kenizzites and thus represented a very mixed population.
It seems a possible assumption that Judaean propaganda
of the type practised by the Levites would have had an
important part to play in consolidating the region.
Only two other cities are mentioned in Judah - Libnah
and Bethshemesh. The antiquity of the levitical settle­
ment in Libnah has already been noted. It was an impor­
tant city from which the mother of two Judaean kings
came i.e. Jehoahaz (cf. II Kgs. 23.31) and Zedekiah
(cf. Jer. 52.1). At various periods Libnah appears to
have exercised a certain amount of independence from
Judah and carried on its own foreign policy (cf. II Kgs.
8.22; II Chr. 21.10). Bethshemesh was formerly a
Canaanite city (cf. Ju. 1.33), but as it is found recor­
ded in I Kgs. 4.9 as the second district of the Israe­
lite kingdom, it may have been added to Judah and for-
19
tified in the reign of Solomon . Both these towns

19. It is quite possible that there was already a

levitical settlement at Bethshemesh cf. I Sam. 6.15.
 - 113
occupied strategic positions in the border area between
Israel and Philistia^^. Force would have estranged the
region from Israel and encouraged it to accept Philis­
tine sovereignty. Therefore levitical activity had an
important part to play here in maintaining the loyalty
of the area- Working from this hypothesis^ a similar
interpretation may be advanced in explanation of the
levitical settlements further north which included Gath-
rimmon, Eltekeh, Gibbethon, Gezer, Aijalon and Beth-
horon. Due to the tenacious survival of Canaanite
elements in the region, it must have been an area in
which the spread of Judaean influence was considered
of prime importance, especially when Shishak became
21
king of Egypt and exercised sovereignty over Philistia .
The preponderance of levitical cities in the north may
be accounted for in a similar way. The area represented
an enclave of Canaanite cities which the Israelites had
never held securely, and were regarded accordingly as
a threat to the security of the nation. These cities
are still described as 'the cities of the Hivites and
Canaanites' in the summary of David's census. It is
probable that they functioned as provincial administra­
tive centres in which the Levites discharged 'all the

20. Excavations of the levitical cities of Debir and

Bethshemesh show them to contain royal store rooms,
from which it may be concluded that they served as
provincial headquarters of the central government
cf. F.M. Cross and G.E. Wright, 'The Boundary and
•province lists of the kingdom of Judah', J.B.L.,
1956, p.116.
21. If Gath-rimmon can be identified with Tell-el-
Jerishe, excavations there show that this town was
destroyed at the same time as Shishak's campaign
and never reoccupied.
 — X JL^*

22
work of Y ahw eh and the service of the king' . The
purpose of these cities would seem to be different from
that of such places as Megiddo and Hazor - fortified
strongholds with military units stationed in them and,
‘ in the case of Megiddo, chariots (cf. I Kgs. 9.15).
The settlement of Levites in the cities lying to the
immediate north of Jerusalem probably had a function
protective to the Davidic house against a possible
rising of the family of Saul in Benjamin, or of the
tribes in the north of Israel which, in view of Sheba's
revolt and the cursing of Shimei (cf. II Sam. 16.5-14)
23
was more than a mere possibility . The four cities
fall within Benjamin and are in close proximity to the
capital. Anathoth was the place to which Abiathar re­
tired after his disgrace (cf. I Kgs.„ 2.26 f) , but as
Abiathar came from Nob, Anathoth may not originally
have been a priestly settlement, although it survived
as such from this time down to the exile (cf. Jer. 1.1).
Gibeon^ as has already been suggested, was probably the
city of Zadok and thus may have been a levitical settle­
ment before the inauguration of the scheme. The absence
of Jerusalem from the lists could be accounted for by
the fact that it was the religious and political centre

22. A great number of these towns such as Ibleam, Jok-

neam and Nahalal were merely former Canaanite
centres which later became part of Solomon's fifth
administrative district.
23. Mazar, op. cit., thinks there may possibly be a hint
of the security which these cities provided Jeru­
salem in the passage relating to Benjamin in the
Blessing of Moses (Dt. 33.12) - 'Of Benjamin he
said - the beloved, of Yahweh he dwells in safety
by him, he encompasses him all the day long and
makes his dwelling place between his shoulders. '
 - 11 5

of the nation and the seat of government. There is

accordingly no mention of priestly land in connection
with Jerusalem, but it is possible that the pasturage
around the levitical settlements in Benjamin was used
for the maintenance of the Jerusalem priesthood through­
out the year. Moreover, it would appear reasonable to
assume that these towns provided a residence for the
overspill of the Jerusalem clergy, and^ as the royal
cult developed, priests, who had discharged their course
of priestly office at Jerusalem^may have retired to one
of these cities until their next turn of duty came up.
Thus these settlements would have come directly under
the control of the Jerusalem priesthood^ and may have
stood in the same relationship to Jerusalem as medieval
parishes to their cathedral. As lat.e as the return from
exile, fortified camps of Levites are found mentioned
in the region of Geba and Azmaveth (cf. Nh. 12.29) .
With regard to the country east of the Jordan, the
territory in which the levitical cities are scattered
is identical with the Israelite settlement there at
the time of the united monarchy. The settlements enu­
merated in Reuben, viz. Mephaath, Jazer, Heshbon, Bezer,
Kedemoth and Jahazah^ occupy the Israelite frontier with
Ammon and Moab. Two of the districts east of the
Jordan, in Solomon's administrative reorganization are
called by the names of settlements appearing in our
list as levitical cities, namely Ramoth in Gilead and
Mahanaim. Other levitical settlements are recorded in
 - 116
Golan, the city of refuge^ and Ashtafoth the capital of
Bashan. The list as such testifies to the character of
these settlements of Levites as administrative centres
the maintenance of whose loyalty was vitally important
for the consolidation of the kingdom under the house
of David

In Judah itself there remains an area between

Jerusalem and Hebron for which there is no record of
any levitical settlement. This phenomenon may find its
explanation in the royal policy towards Judah, the
tribe of the ruling house upon which the dynasty depen­
ded so much and to which it owed so much- The survival
of the royal house of Judah was naturally in the best
interests of the Judaeans, and therefore the mutual
interest between king and people for the preservation
of the royal authority made the pro-Judaean propaganda
of the Levites to advance the prestige of Davidic rule
in Judah unnecessary. Another region where there is
an absence of levitical cities occurs in the central
area of the country. The only exception to this obser­
vation exists in the city of Shechem which was a city
of refuge. Similar to Judah there was an absence of
canaanite elements in this region except in Shechem,
where the presence of Levites may have been a safeguard
to Davidic interests at this old amphictyonie shrine
which had in earlier times close associations with the
Joseph tribes. It may be possible to attribute the
absence of levitical settlements over such a large area

24. See Note 29 in Appendix.

 - 117
to a strong sense of tribal tradition that existed in
Joseph and was focused on the tribal palladium, the ark.
The removal of the ark to Jerusalem by David was a
skilful attempt to unify the country. During the period
of Judges the ark had been the palladium of the amphic­
tyonie sanctuary, and by its removal to Jerusalem that
city became the successor to Shiloh, the last in the
series of amphictyonie shrines. The new residence of
the ark lay on neutral ground between the two halves of
the kingdom^ and accordingly became the cultic centre
for all the Israelite tribes without any suggestion of
the deep-rooted differences that lay between north and
south. With the development of the state, the insti­
tution of the Amphictyony lost its ancient tribal sig­
nificance, and what emerged was the peculiar position
of the sanctuary of Jerusalem^ embellished with the old
amphictyonie cult object. In this way the dual monar­
chy of David was united by a religious bond with the
capital city Jerusalem and the ark it contained. This
achieved the loyalty of both Judah and Joseph during
the reigns of David and Solomon to the Jerusalem adminis­
tration in a way that made the organization of Levites
as hitherto described unnecessary in these areas. Yet
it must not be overlooked that in the course of David's
reign two rebellions took place in Israel. The first,
led by Absalom, gained some support from the family of
Saul who probably thought their hour of vengeance had
come (cf. II Sam. 16.1-8), He also gained some support
from certain Judahite elements in David's household/
which may account for his proclamation as king in
Hebron (cf. II Sam. 15.10). Absalom's counsellor.
 - 118
Ahithophel, was a Judahite (cf II Sam. 15.12), and his
general Amasa was a close kinsman both of Joab and
David (cf. II Sam, 17.25; I Chr. 2.15-17). Nevertheless,
it is unlikely that the majority of Israelites suppor­
ted this venture. Most of David's court, the religious
leaders and his personal troops remained loyal. More­
over, it is significant that many outside Jerusalem
openly showed their support for David. Hushai the
Archite (cf. II Sam. 15.32 ff) confounded the counsel
of Ahithophel and so occasioned the ultimate downfall
of Absalom (cf. II Sam. 16.20 - 17.14). Others who
rallied to David included Abishai ben Zeruiah (cf. II
Sam. 16.9-12), Ittai the Gittite (cf. II Sam. 15.19-22),
Shobi the Ammonite, and Barzillai the Gileadite (cf.
II Sam. 17.27). The revolt of Sheba, which closely
followed Absalom's rebellion, was an attempt to with­
draw northern Israel from its union with Judah under
David. Apart from some dissident elements the revolt
gained little support and was soon crushed, Sheba, as
has been mentioned already, being finally run to ground
in the north of Palestine where he met his end. These
regions may have, been administered from large provin­
cial centres such as Shechem, Mahanaim, and Ramoth
Gilead, or even directly from Jerusalem. The absence
of levitical cities in these two areas 'shows the authen­
ticity of the list, for if its author, from pure theory
without recourse to concrete facts, had wished to trace
an ideal picture of the appropriate distribution of
levitical cities throughout the whole of Israel and
Judah, then he would have drawn up a more systematic
plan which would have adequately served the whole area.
 - 119
and not allowed the most central parts of Israelite and
Judaean life to remain unprovided for.

This machinery of government was an ephemeral one

that gradually became impaired as the enemies of Israel
encroached upon her borders. As hitherto pointed out,
this process began soon after Solomon’s death. The
system was one equipped to high power propaganda and
not to force of arms, and when it came to a conflict
between the skill o{f oratory and the skill of arms, the
science of warfare won the day. During the later years
of Solomon's reign it was found necessary to impose
severe taxation to alleviate the national debt incurred
by the ambitious nature of the royal building programme
(cf. I Kgs. 5.13-18). This imposition upon the nation
met with resentment especially among the northern
tribes^ who must in many instances have come to regard
Solomon as an alien tyrant. On the death of Solomon,
his son Rehoboam travelled north to be proclaimed king
at Shechem, the chief city of northern Israel in which
there was a levitical settlement. Here he was met with
the threat of the ten northern tribes to withdraw their
allegiance from him if the odious rule of his father
25
was not relaxed . It would seem that the levitical
element, which must have been present at the time in
Shechem, either disapproved of Solomon's oppressive
rule, for which he might have found other means of ad­
ministering and therefore eclipsed their importance,

25. The hostility with which Adoram was slain when

relaying Rehoboam's message to the people shows
their angry resentment to Solomon's oppressive
policies cf. I Kgs. 12.18.
 — 120
or their influence amongst the people had been weakened
as public opinion became increasingly disenchanted with
the royal authority they represented. The attitude of
the levitical author of Deuteronomy to the institution
of monarchy (cf. D t . 17.14 ff) would seem to indicate
the former possibility as the more probable. As a
result of Rehoboam'. accepting the foolish advice given
him, even harsher government was promised. Consequently
he was not acclaimed king and the northern part of his
dual monarchy withdrew from the union. The allegiance
David had achieved in removing the ark to Jerusalem
was unable to withstand the strain of the authoritarian
administration imposed by his successors, Solomon and
Rehoboam. In place of the Davidic king, Jeroboam was
set up as ruler of the ten northern tribes. He had
been outlawed during Solomon's reign and sought refuge
in Egypt (cf. I Kgs. 11.26 ff), but returned to Pales­
tine to be hailed ruler of Israel (cf. I Kgs. 12.20)
giving, we may assume, the required pledges.

The changes made by the new administration are

found recorded in I Kgs. 12.25-33. It is stated that
Jeroboam fortified-Shechem,.from which he governed the
country, but later moved to Penuel. It is difficult
to ascertain the motive behind this move to Penuel, as
Shechem was the historic capital of the Joseph tribes,
and the fact that Rehoboam went to be proclaimed king
there indicates that it had retained its importance
throughout the period of the United Monarchy. It was
here that Jacob set up an altar (cf. Gen. 33.18-20),
 - 121
where Israel had renewed the covenant with Yahweh on
entering the promised land (cf. Jos. 24), and where
Abimelech set up his kingdom (cf. Ju. 9). The strate­
gic significance of Shechem in the narrow neck of the
pass from west to east by the Wadi F a r a c om m an di n g the
road through the hills of Manasseh to Bethshan is illu­
strated by the fact that although the capital of Israel
was shifted first to Tirzah and then to Samaria, both
these places were within seven miles radius of the old
capital- In view of the absence of any evidence rela­
ting to the motive for Jeroboam's move from Shechem,
it may be reasonable to suppose that the levitical in­
fluence in the city made it impossible for Jeroboam to
carry on his administration there. The Levites were
in charge of the local cult and were also responsible
for the discharge of local government in the region,
and although they may have been regarded with increa­
sing suspicion by the local population as representa­
tives of an odious regime, they were first and foremost
representatives of the nation's God. For Jeroboam to
26
.have had them put to death or removed from their
office would have been a serious error of judgement,
and hence it appears that he took the most politic
course of action and removed the centre of his adminis­
tration to Penuel. The levitical establishment therefore

.26. The reluctance to slay the priests of Yahweh is

illustrated by the refusal of Saul's servants to
kill the priests of Nob, cf. I Sam. 22.17.
 - 122
found itself isolated in a climate politically hostile
to it in which it no longer had any administrative
function. Penuel, east of the Jordan, had no levitical
connections. It did however have associations with
Israel's past^for here Jacob was reputed to have wrestled
with the angel (cf. Gen. 32.24 ff). In the story of
Gideon it is mentioned as a place with a strong tower
(cf. Ju. 8.8f, 17). Probably Jeroboam's fortification
of the town was designed to secure Gilead which had
remained loyal to David during Absalom's revolt (cf. II
Sam. 17.27 ff).

Having achieved political separation from Judah,

Jeroboam now turned to the religious position. The
impact of David's action in transferring the ark to
Jerusalem can be clearly seen from Jeroboam's reaction
to the significance of this move. All Israel was obli­
ged to worship at Jerusalem, since it had become the
successor of the amphictyonie sanctuary, where all the
tribes had gathered for worship during the period of
Judges. The Jerusalem temple, situated beside the
royal palace (cf. Ezek. 43.7 ff), was the chapel royal
of the state religion, and the sacral role of the
nation's leader played an important part in the ritual
performed there. This was an impossible situation if
the northern kingdom was to survive, for the partici­
pation of its people at the Jerusalem cult meant their
acceptance of the unique position occupied by the house
of David in relation to Yahweh- David and his succes­
sors were reaffirmed in the cult as Yahweh's chosen
 - 123
line of rulers infinitum, a position that they held
exclusively. Such an affirmation by the people of the
northern kingdom would have put Jeroboam's regime in
serious jeopardy. On the other hand, a complete change
in the national religion, which was the usual procedure
in the ancient east in such circumstances, would have
been an equally dangerous course of action to follow.
Seeing these difficulties Jeroboam took counsel, it is
not stated with whom (cf. I Kgs. 12.28), and a course
of action was found in the erection of the golden calves
at Bethel and Dan. These symbols have often been re­
garded as the revival of an ancient form of worship
that had^once been practised by Israelites at Bethel
27
and Dan . However, the fact that the Elohist in Gen.
28.10-22; 35,1-7 considers the cult of Bethel as legi­
timate, while Hosea and Amos condemn it, is only intel­
ligible if the cult at Bethel experienced a change from
that which was anciently practised there. The calves
that Jeroboam erected were not idols but rather symbols

27. R. DussacLd in Les origines canan^nnes du sacerfice

israelite, pp. 243 ff, says "1'institution du
Royaume d^Israel par Jerobeam I n'amena contraire­
ment au récit tendancieux de l'A.T., aucune revo­
lution religieuse. Il est très probable que le
nouveau roi ne fit que sanctionner la coutume
locale notamment quand il adopta, pour les sanc­
tuaires de Bethel ^t de Dan, 1'image^d'une jeune
taureau comme representation de Yahwe", and accor­
dingly he maintains the bull image of Dan to be
older than Jeroboam I's regime and traces it back
to the Ephraimite Micah (Ju. 17 and 18). But
since the bull in a special sense is the beast of
the God Hadad, Dussaud further concludes that the
god at Bethel^ just as the god at Dan^was nothing
further than a local form of the great Amorite
God Hadad.
 " r
which represented the presence of Yahweh in a similar
way to the ark symbolizing Yahweh's presence at the
Jerusalem temple. Yet Jeroboam's choice of calves as
his symbols to represent Yahweh must have had some,
basis to have gained popular acceptance. The calf
represented the cult animal of the Canaanite Baal and
its use by Jeroboam shows the degree of syncretism
between the worship of Yahweh and the Canaanite nature
cult that existed at the time in the northern kingdom.
The change from a nomadic state to a settled agricul­
tural one had important religious consequences for the
Israelites. The cultivation of the soil implied the
worship of the fertility deities. In a similar wa^
dependenqe on the cycle of seed time and harvest gave
increasing prominence to the sun as conditioning the
food supply with the result that sun worship gained
ground- The importance ' in . which domestic animals
such as sheep and goats were held began to include
large cattle resulting in the symbolizing of the hea­
venly deity by the might of the bull. Under these cir­
cumstances it became inevitable that the aniconic God
of Israel should come to be represented by the form of
28
the calf . The idea of the Baalim as the gods of
agriculture is found in Hos. 2.5 which, when taken with
Hos. 2.16, shows how completely Baalism had been natu­
ralised and incorporated into Yahwism by this time. No

28. It is possible that the calves at Bethel and Dan

represented pedestals or thrones upon which the
invisible Yahweh was understood to be enthroned.
Hence these calves would have had a purpose similar
to the ark of the covenant, conceived of as
Yahweh's throne.
 - 125
explanation of the calves is given for they were already
a well-known phenomena both to the Canaanite population
and to those Israelites who had lapsed into a syncre-
tiStic worship that oscillated between Yahwism and
Baalism.

One of the calves was set up at Bethel, the other

at Dan. The setting up of a calf at Dan must have
either resulted in the overthrow of the levitical
priesthood there, or its acceptance of the calf. As
Ju. 18.30 records that a levitical priesthood existed
at Dan until the fall of the northern kingdom, the
latter view would seem the more probable. The priest­
hood may have found it more expedient to refrain from
immediate protest against Jeroboam's calf than endanger
29
its ancient priestly office . Moreover, Jeroboam
probably encouraged the Levites to accept the new form
of worship, although it is doubtful if his efforts met
with much success. The emphasis appears to lie on
Bethel, which is only to be expected, as it lay in the
nearest proximity to Judah, only twelve miles from
Jerusalem itself. It had been venerated from time
immemorial as a holy place where Abraham had built an

29. E. Nielsen, Shechem, a traditio-historical investi­

gation, op. cit., p. 196, considers that the refe­
rence to the installation of one of the calves at
Dan is due to a misinterpretation of v .30b which
he takes to mean that a ritual procession took
place from Bethel to the northernmost point of
Israel with the calf. The first ritual procession
of the calf through the kingdom may have been in­
tended as its presentation to the entire population.
However v.29 clearly states that a calf was set up
in both places.
 - 126
altar (cf. Gen. 12.8), and Jacob had received a vision
(cf. Gen. 28). Jeroboam now established at this famous
oracular shrine rituals corresponding to those enacted
at Jerusalem, doubtless one of his purposes being to
entice pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem to turn aside
and worship at Bethel. It was this shrine that subse­
quently became the royal sanctuary (cf. Am. 7.13).
Apart from the two national shrines, Jeroboam is also
said to have established _ 'houses of high places', i.e.
local sanctuaries at which fertility rites were prac­
tised, and appointed priests from the general popu-
lace^^. There is no mention of the Levites being driven
out, which is a little surprising inan account coming
from the Deuteronomist's hand. It is merely stated that
non-levitical priests were appointed. A possible con­
clusion from this information may be that the Levites
could not be dislodged from their influential positions
either by force or legislation, so the policy was adop­
ted of setting up new sanctuaries with non-levitical
priests, in this way rendering the Levites completely
redundant. The secession had deprived the Levites of
their civil power, but their authority in religious
affairs continued to pose a dangerous threat to the
security of the new regime. The only way to avoid this
danger was to break the levitical monopoly in the reli­
gious affairs of the state by the appointment of priests
outside their ranks to new sanctuaries.

30. ^ ^ the evidence of Gen. 47.2; Ezek.

33.2^ and particularly Num. 22.41 in which Ba^a.am
looks upon the whole camp of Israel, suggests that
the correct meaning of is 'the mass' or 'the
whole range' of the people rather than 'from the
■ lowest of the people' as the A.V. renders it.
 - 127
The feast appointed by Jeroboam in I Kgs. 12.32 f.
corresponded to the similar festival that took place
in Jerusalem on the seventh month in which the temple
was dedicated. Theestablishment of the festival at
Bethel in the eighth month could scarcely suggest a
later harvest there than in the south, as'the distance
between Jerusalem and Bethel, being only twelve miles,
is insufficient to make a difference of one month in
harvest. In fact the rain comes earlier to Bethel,
which is at a higher elevation than Jerusalem, occasio­
ning a somewhat earlier harvest. Probably Rehoboam
arrived at Shechem to be proclaimed king over the
northern kingdom a few days after the New Year festival
in Jerusalem at which he is most likely to have been
31
crowned . No doubt Jeroboam established in the follo­
wing month a counterpart of the Jerusalem festival
which would have commemorated the gift of the covenant,
the essential element in the ancient amphictyonie cult
at Shechem, and the sacral ideology of the Canaanite
New Year festival which was vital to his prestige as
king.

31. The precise dating 'on the fifteenth day' of the

eighth month possibly reflects the later fixing
of the feast of tabernacles in Lev. 23.39a, 41b,
though the New Year festival probably always co­
incided with the full moon in the middle of the
seventh or eighth month cf. Ps. 81.4 (E.V.v.3).
J. Morgenstern, 'Festival of Jeroboam I'; J.B.L.
pp. 109-128, 1964, thinks that the old agricultu­
ral pentecontad calendar was abandoned in Solomon's
reign in favour of an international calendar based
on the solar system to facilitate trade. Jeroboam,
he contends, restored the old pentecontad calendar
by which he reckoned the New Year festival and
thereby gained popularity amongst the large agra­
rian section of the population.
 - 128
The secession of the ten tribes with its religious
and political consequences disrupted the whole scheme
of levitical settlements in the northern kingdom. By
forcing the Levites into a position of redundancy in
their religious and political spheres of activity,
Jeroboam eliminated them as a potential threat to the
national security. However, it is quite possible that
a number remained in their cities and continued to
function as priests of the Mosaic faith. The levitical
liturgy of curses relating to the twelve tribes, six
situated on Mt. Gerizim and six on M t . Ebal (cf. Dt.
27.11-26) might suggest the survival of a levitical
priesthood in Shechem. Moreover, the continuing adhe­
rence of some of the population to Jerusalem up until
the time of the exile and after may testify to the
survival of levitical influence in the northern king-
32
dom . It goes without saying that the Levites who
did retain their priestly function must have encountered
bitter opposition from their non-levitical rivals, who
functioned as priests of the syncretised Yahweh cults,
and who would have regarded them in their attempts to
impregnate the Israelite population with the pure
YahwiStic tradition as a serious embarrassment. The
Levites in their turn would have regarded the advance

32. cf. Jer. 41.5, also the attempt of the Samaritans

to help rebuild the temple in Ezr. 4 might be
attributed to a sense of loyalty to Jerusalem which
they could have inherited from levitical activity
in past centuries.
 - 129
of Canaanite influence, the suppression of which they
had in many places originally been responsible for,
with keen hostility. Many, however, would have been
forced into complete redundancy and due to current cir­
cumstances found themselves compelled to revert to
their basic vocation of non-cultic Yahweh service.
Hence the Levites must have found themselves in a
position similar to that of the religious guilds of the
sons of the prophets, the Rechabites^ and doubtless the
Nazarites (cf. Am, 2.11). Moreover, it is natural that
the Levites should have shared with these prophetic
elements a bitter antagonism to the monarchy in nor­
thern Israel. Priests are primarily represented as
omen observers, and prophets as ecstatics, but the dif­
ferentiation cannot be made without consideration of
priestly participation in ecstatic rites. The priest,
seer^ and other categories took part in the same rituals
as the prophets, and therefore it is probable that the
priest or other non-prophetic classes could also give
ecstatic oracles. In Chronicles there is evidence for
this. II Chr. 20.14 speaks of Jehazeel a Levite, one
of the sons of Asaph^ upon whom the spirit of Yahweh
descended in the midst of the assembly and an oracle
followed. In II Chr. 24.20 the same type of phenomenon
is recorded in connection with a priest. Another
example is found in Ezek. 1.3 where the prophet, enti­
tled as 'the priest', is said to be seized by the hand
of Yahweh. It may be objected that these passages are
late and prove nothing about the earlier period. But
it seems likely that even in this earlier period,
especially in the circumstances experienced by the
 - 130
Levites in the northern kingdom, that they would have
taken part in ecstatic rites along with the prophetic
guilds and have become identified with the prophetic
movement in general^^.

Some information may be found relating to the fate

of the northern Levites in II Chr. 11.13,14,17. Here
it is stated that the Levites throughout Israel resorted
to Rehoboam in Judah as Jeroboam had denied them their
priestly office. They were followed by all the faith­
ful who sought Yahweh at his sanctuary in Jerusalem,
and made Rehoboam secure for three years. Faithful
servants of Yahweh from the Chronicler's point of view
would necessarily side with Rehoboam. The Levites
therefore appear to have made of their own volition a
genuine sacrifice in leaving their land round their
cities which could never be sold (cf. Lev. 25.34), and
their houses which also were their inalienable property
(cf. Lev. 25.32,33). The reason for the limitation of
three years is due to the invasion of Shishak in the
fifth year of Rehoboam's reign (cf. I Kgs. 14.25; II
Chr. 12.2). This invasion from the Chronicler's point
of view must have been caused by some religious delin­
quency on the part of Rehoboam and his people (cf. 12.1)
which brought about a weakening of the kingdom. This
naturally falls in the fourth year of the reign imme­
diately preceding the invasion, and hence only three

33. cf. O. Plôger, 'Priester und Prophet', Z.A.W.

(1951), points out the remarkable similarity
between the Levites and the northern prophetic
guilds.
 - 131
years are left for obedience and increase in strength.
The verb used to denote the rejection of the Levites
from their priestly function is FT 3 1 which has the
basic meaning 'to be foul' or 'rancid'. It can in most
instances be understood to mean something that is abhor­
rent i.e. foul or stinking. It is found in Hos. 8.5
'thy calf is abhorrent' . It is often used of Yahweh
rejecting his people, but when rendered as loathsome
or abhorrent a much more poignant meaning is achieved^
e.g. Ps. 43.2 'Thou are the God of my strength, why
35
hast thou loathed me?' The word carries the same
tone of meaning in the hiphil form cf. I Chr. 28.9 - if
Solomon is disobedient to Yahweh’s law, Yahweh will
make him abhorrent. In v .14 of the passage under con­
sideration here^this predicate again occurs in the
hiphil form to express Jeroboam's and his son's rejec­
tion of the Levites from the priesthood. The correct
interpretation would appear to be that Jeroboam in
making the Levites abhorrent, injured their reputation
as priests among the people, and the fact that his sons
are mentioned may suggest that the process of stirring
up public opinion against the Levites continued for

34.
35. cf. also Lam.' 2.7? Ps. 44.10 (E.V.v.9), 24 (E.V.
V.23); 60.3 (E.V.v.l); 1 2 (E.V.v.lo); 74.1; 77.8
(E.V.v.7)'? 89.39 (E.V.v.38). In Is. 19.6 the
form 'iiT*3îHn occurs with
i *1 *;*
which means
T .

'the rivers stink' i.e. from lack of water. The

form shows the Aramaic influence and seems to be
made up of two readings - and
the iLatter which imitates the Chaldee, cf. Gesénius '
Hebrew lexicon pp 249 f.
 - 132
3G
some time . This would agree with the record of I
Kgs. 12.31 where there is no evidence of a direct
attempt to drive out the Levites, but rather to break
their monopoly over the state's religious affairs. It
is probable that the Chronicler has preserved a genuine
tradition that told of a stream of levitical refugees
from the northern kingdom back to Judah which doubtless
continued for many years. In later years we find
Levites engaged in civil administration and in the
cultic and legal life of the cities of Judah in the
reign of Jehoshaphat (cf. II Chr. 19.11). The stabi­
lity of the southern kingdom was consolidated by insti­
tutions based upon the permanent order of things and
supported by the permanent government. Naturally the
monarchy itself benefited most by this stability. The
royal cult, which in the kingdom of Samaria was in no
position to supersede popular and independent worship,
easily obtained a perceptible preponderance throughout
Judah, being buttressed by royal officers who could
only add prestige to the king's priesthood which gained
in strength alongside the house of David. , Thus at an
early period the way was paved for the act of unifor­
mity by which Josiah made the king's cult the official
one.

36. See Note 30 in Appendix.

 - 133
DEUTERONOMY AND THE PRIESTHOOD

The Deuteronomic programme is of prime importance

as a turning point in the history of Israel's priest­
hood, and provides an insight into its organization
and character during the later monarchic period. In
order to appreciate the information relating to the
hierarchy contained in Deuteronomy something must be
said of its derivation and background. The question
of Deuteronomy's origin is a vexed one as upon its
answer the whole of the documentary hypothesis hinges.
The internal criteria of the book are of such a complex
nature that it is difficult to draw any definite con­
clusions from them. Ancient traditional material lies
at its root8^ e .g. the section dealing with the proce­
dure in the case of a murder committed by an unidenti­
fied assailant (cf. Dt. 21.1-9). The rite prescribed
is of an archaic character and would appear to be much
older than the law of Deuteronomy into which it is here
incorporated.

The zeal for Yahweh, which expresses itself in the

destruction of those who offend against that which is
holy, or has been set apart for destruction as unclean,
is one of the most pervasive elements in the book of
Deuteronomy, and traditions relating to the holy war
are numerous^. The era of the holy war was that of the
Israelite occupation of Canaan i.e. the period of the
Judges- Israel was at this period in her history a

1. cf. Dt. 12.29 ff; 19.1 f; 20.1-20; 21.10-14; 24.5;

25.17-19.
 - 134
theocratic community united in covenant, which at
appointed times, usually annually in the Autumn, assem­
bled in council and celebrated the covenant festival at
2
the communal shrine . However, the formation of the
state transformed this system, which was,based upon a
sense of mutual responsibility amongst the tribes in-
3
volved in it . Jerusalem succeeded the old amphictyonie
4
shrine, and at the same time assumed royal status . In
none of the traditions of Deuteronomy is the king accor­
ded the authoritative role that he in fact played. This
gives the impression that in all the ordinances of Deu­
teronomy a strong tendency hostile to the institution
of monarchy is at work, which aimed at the resuscitation
of traditional practices that had obtained in Israel in
the period before the inauguration of the kingdom.
Between the termination of the age of Judges and the
discovery of the law book in the time of Josiah, which
is identified with Deuteronomy, there was a lengthy
period in which these traditions survived on the peri­
phery of Israel's sacred history, either recorded in

2. See Note 31 in Appendix.

3. If one of the tribes was threatened by attack from
outside, the others in the confederacy were expec­
ted to rally to its defence cf. Ju. 5,
4. Something of the tension between the old traditions
derived from the wilderness period and the new ins­
titutions may be indicated in Nathan's oracle war­
ning David against building the temple cf. II Sam.
7.4-17.
 - 135
writing or orally transmitted. In Deuteronomy these
traditions reappear after almost four centuries of
obscurity. Their survival must have been due to a
circle of transmitters who cherished and preserved
these traditions as a divine code from generation to
generation.

One of the great forces in Israel was the prophe­

tic one. It acted as a stronghold against syncretism
of the Yahweh faith with the religions of the surroun­
ding peoples that had impinged upon Israel. The nor­
thern kingdom was the scene of their most vigorous
activity probably because here the Yahweh faith was
more severely challenged than in the south. The tena­
cious survival in the north of the Canaanite fertility
worship associated with Baal, and the geographical
location of the country which left it open to foreign
influences, particularly from Phoenicia and Syria, were
factors with which those loyal to Yahweh had to reckon.
It was in the north that the monarchy encountered bit­
ter resentment, and even after secession from the
Judaean Davidides the institution failed to achieve
5
the stability that it enjoyed in Judah . The prophetic
guilds first made their appearance in Samuel's time at

5. A monarchy and tribal community were incompatible.

The monarchy had been accepted in Judah, but was
rejected in Israel as a cause of perversion against
true Yahwism. As a result of this tenacious sur­
vival of the old tribal concept, the northern king­
dom had no continuing dynasty of rulers and the
position of some of its kings on the throne was
highly precarious.
 - 136

the height of the Philistine threat. They seem to have

been most active in times of military crisis, especially
in the northern kingdom when the nation was in peril
and had to be defended against the enemies of Yahweh.
They often appeared on the battle field beside the
armies of Israel advising the king, and demanding that
the war should be carried out according to the sacral
principles of the holy war (cf. I Kgs. 20.13 ff; il
Kgs. 3.11 ff; 13.14 ff). Their concern for the obser­
vance of covenant law, their adherence to the concept
of the holy war and the critical view they held of some
of their rulers are all points in favour of accepting
these prophetic circles as the transmitters of the tra­
ditions contained in Deuteronomy. Although a' northern -
provenance is likely for many of Deuteronomy's traditions,
difficulties however arise in attributing their preser­
vation to prophetic circles. In ascribing their trans­
mission to the northern prophetic.movement it is diffi­
cult to explain how they found their way to Judah, why
Deuteronomy appears so interested in the centralization
of the cult, or the motives behind Deuteronomy's con­
cern for the organization of cult personnel and the
Levites. These interests do not appear to have a paral­
lel in the records that have come down to us of the
prophetic message.

In view of these difficulties we must turn to

another source where these traditions may have circu­
lated. The homiletic character of the entire corpus
seems to reflect a didactic style as can be seen for
 - 137
example in Dt. 15.. 2 ff. A séries of dicta are given
on the manner of release. Then in vv. 5 f the instruc­
tor exhorts his hearers to observe all the preceding
laws and Yahweh will bless them. They are to lend to
many nations but never to borrow. The teacher conti­
nues in V.7 by pronouncing the law of charity and warns
his listeners against exercising their right in the
year of release. The sermon is concluded in vv. 9, 10
by the preacher commending the poor to the charity of
those more fortunate than they, by holding out the
promise of blessing from Yahweh for acts of kindness
to them. Consider another example, the law dealing
with a rebellious son (Dt. 21,18-21). The instructor
declares in vv. 18 f^ that^ if a boy is beyond parental
control^ he is to be brought to the civil authorities
who are to stone him. The reason given for this drastic
treatment is the elimination of evil from Israel and
the provision of a warning for others^i.e. the mainte­
nance of a healthy and stable society which depends
upon an ordered home life. Deuteronomy is an immense
amplification of case law. This is not a literary
mode wholly peculiar to Deuteronomy, but is also found
in other parts of the Old Testament such as the judge­
ments in Ex. 20.22 - 23.19 or the decalogue, especially
the second, fourth and fifth commandments^. To whom
then can this didactic hortatory genre of literature
be attributed that permeates Deuteronomy? It obviously
must have been a community that held public instruction

p
6. See Note 32 in Appendix.
 - 138
which points to the shrines rather than the law courts
that sat at the city gates. It was here that the
priests functioned and would have access to a wide
range of cultic material which they alone as its trans­
mitters and preservers had the authority to expound and
make relevant to current reality. The prophets came
in contact with reality while the priests applied the
information drawn from this prophetic contact with the
human situation to the law they preserved, and so pro­
nounced their directives which touched many aspects of
everyday life. The homiletic style points to a prea­
ching activity which is evidenced in post-exilic times
as characteristic of the Levites (cf. Nh. 8.9 ff; II
Chr. 35.3). Not only would Levites have access to the
ancient traditions of Israel, but they would have been
greatly interested in cultic matters, especially centra­
lization of worship which was of direct relevance to
them. Moreover, as Yahweh 's chosen priests (cf. Dt.
10.8), the Levites were strong adherents of his faith
7
and committed to its propagation . The fact that cen­
tralization of worship in one place meant the closure
of the country sanctuaries and unemployment to the
Levites functioning at them, may be raised as an

7. H.W, Wolff, 'Hoseas geistige Heimat', Gesammelte

Studien - considers that although Hosea stands
within the traditions of the prophetic party of
northern Israel, his concern for the true and
ideal function of cultic worship and his familia­
rity with the old sacral traditions of early
Israel point to a contact between Hosea and the
Levites, who like the prophets were in active
opposition to the current state religious policy.
 - 139
objection to attributing Deuteronomy to Levites, but
it should be remembered that there were a great number
of Levites who had become redundant in the course of
the religio-political troubles of the northern kingdom
(cf. I Kgs. 12.31), and completely suppressed following
the disaster of 721, who finding themselves refugees
in Judah would have welcomed an opportunity to parti­
cipate at the national shrine^. Moreover, II Kgs.
18.22 implies that the Judaean Levites also were dis­
possessed of their sanctuaries subsequent to Hezekiah's
reform, and may have taken a similar line to their nor­
thern colleagues.

The Deuteronomist places no great significance on

the ark but merely describes it as a box containing the
tablets of the law (cf. Dt. 10.1-5; 31.9). As Yahweh's
dwelling is acknowledged as being in heaven by the
Deuteronomist, the ark therefore does not represent his
presence^and an attempt is made to reinterpret the ark's
significance and free it from the accretions that had
developed around it in Jerusalem, where it was conceived
of as Yahweh’s throne (cf. Is.6). The Deuteronomist
regarded the ark as the symbol of Yahweh's presence in
the place he chose for this purpose. D t - 12.1-5, which
introduces the code, represents a development from the

8. E.W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition, pp. 54

ff, 94 attributes Deuteronomy to northern prophetic
circles who after 721 fled south and formulated
their traditions into a programme for the reform
of the Jerusalem cult. In rejecting levitical
authorship he overlooks the possibility that subse­
quent to Jeroboam's rejection of the Levites they
may have been driven into opposition against state
policy, and probably took their stand alongside
the prophetic movement.
 - 140
law of sanctuary in Ex. 20.24. Here the uniqueness of
the sanctuary is pronounced with the assertion that
Yahweh will select it from out of all the tribes. Deu­
teronomy thereby attributes to Jerusalem more than had
9
ever previously been claimed for it . It was not only
the chosen place of Yahweh and the shrine of his anoin­
ted, it was now the sole place where he could be wor­
shipped, and thereby was accredited with complete sup­
remacy to rule politically and religiously over the
whole land and people, a position unparalleled in
Israel's history. Hitherto, although Jerusalem was
Yahweh 's chosen dwelling place, he c.ould still be wor­
shipped at other shrines. In the period of the Judges
there is no evidence that the central sanctuary was
the only one. Thus Deuteronomy in the law of sanctuary
gives Jerusalem complete monopoly over the Israelite
cult^but instead of Mt. Zion being Yahweh's chosen
dwelling place he is, according to Deuteronomy, 'to
cause his name to dwell there ' ( X ]'r I I
T3
J*
*
uj j' )
in a similar way to Ex. 20.24. A new assumption is
present here in the constant and almost material pre­
sence of the name at the shrine. Earlier references
to the relationship of the name with the human world
are difficult to define (cf. Ex. 20.24; 23.21; is.
30.27). Deuteronomy establishes it in a definite place
within fixed limits. It is not Yahweh himself who is
present at the shrine but only his name as a guarantee
of his salvation. The old notion of Yahweh's presence

9. See Note 33 in Appendix.

 - 141
and dwelling at the national sanctuary, substantially
a political idea, is replaced in Deuteronomy by a theo­
logically superior concept.

It could perhaps be suggested that Deuteronomy

applied the idea of Yahweh‘s actions to Israel as his
choosing it from among the nations^^. Although this
was not a new concept^ it came to be expressed explicitly
for the first time as a balance to the excessive claims
of the Davidic covenant. It replaced the sacral foun­
dation of the Israelite state that found its expression
in Yahweh's eternal covenant with David, with a divine
pronouncement that the people as a whole had been se­
lected as Yahweh's special possession. Hence Deutero­
nomy appears to have been familiar with the theological
ethos prevailing at Jerusalem- The problem arises of
reconciling this awareness and sensitivity to the Jeru­
salem scene, with Deuteronomy's background of northern
traditions in a work, as we have shown, strongly homi-
letical in style which represents a miscellany of tra­
ditions but yet has a consistency of thought. The
levitical circles, as has already been mentioned, are
the most likely to have had access to old northern tra­
ditions and at the same time to have been interested in
cultic organization. Dispossessed of their shrines in

10- This was not a new concept. Hosea speaks of Israel

being Yahweh's son whom he called for Egypt, cf.
11.1 ff, which is an amplification of the husband
wife symbolism used to express the relationship
between Yahweh and his people - a theme running
through the entire.book. Similarly Amos relates
Yahweh's exclusive affection for Israel over all
the nations of the world, cf. 3.2.
 - 142
the northern kingdom, it is not improbable that they
may have sought refuge in Judah and become acquainted
11
with the Jerusalem situation . They may, as has been
previously suggested, have been joined by those in the
south who suffered a similar fate as a result of Heze­
kiah's reform. The interest in the Jerusalem cult is
sustained with reserve^which implies that the reform
was advanced with elements of care and almost timidity
indicative of a group who did not have the authority
12
to speak with boldness ex cathedra . In the light of
these considerations^the ideas embodied in Deuteronomy
would basically appear to belong to .levitical groups
from the northern kingdom who formulated their tradi­
tions. perhaps with the help of southern levitical groups,
and adapted them to their new situation.

Having pointed to the circles that lie behind

Deuteronomy, something must now be said about its legi­
slation in reference to the priests. The interest in
the -Levite is a marked characteristic of Deuteronomy.
It is stated in 18.1 that 'the priests the Levites, all

11. A,Alt 'Die Heimat des DeuteronombUious ' Kleine

Schriften II, 1953, pp. 273 ff, considers that
Deuteronomy was the reformation programme of a
revival movement in northern Israel following the
fall of Samaria in 721, which may have included
the whole of the northern kingdom or a part of it.
However, in view of the historical situation it
seems more likely that although Deuteronomy embo­
died many northern traditions, the Deuteronomist's
interest was focused on the national cult of the
southern kingdom.
12. See Note 34 in Appendix.
 — 143
the tribe of Levi, have no part nor inheritance in
Israel; they are to eat the offerings made to Yahweh
by fire and his inheritance'. The term 'the priests
the Levites, all the tribe of Levi' is difficult. The
English translations give an assortment of renderings.
The R.S.V, translates 'the levitical priests, that is,
all the tribe of Levi', and the A.V. renders 'the
priests and all the tribe of Levi'. The term 'all the
tribe of Levi' appears in apposition to 'the priests
the Levites', and as such may be an apposition of equi­
valence or a comprehensive summation. Another partly
analogous use of phrases in apposition may be found in
Dt. 20.14 where^preceding the final comprehensive phrase
'all the spoil,' the constituents of the spoil are enu­
merated. In the instance of appositional usage here
(Dt. 18.1), the term 'the tribe of Levi' being in
apposition to 'the priests the Levites', while expli­
citly including levitical priests, assumes, as we shall
contend in v v .6-8, the existence of rural Levites not
functioning in a priestly capacity but of priestly sta­
tus. Interpreted in this way, the phrase 'all the tribe
of Levi' does not appear to be an apposition of equi­
valence but rather a comprehensive summation in which
one constituent is explicitly named i.e. the levitical
priests functioning at the place of Yahweh's choice.
Denied an inheritance, the levitical priests are allot­
ted the offerings made with fire.i.e. the burnt offe­
ring. This included the meal offering (cf. Lev. 2.3),
the thank offering (cf. Lev. 3,3) and the guilt offe­
ring (cf. Lev. 7.5), in all of which specified parts
were the perquisites of the priests (cf. Lev. 2.3;
 — 144
7.6-10; Num. 18.9 ff). From this information it would
seem that the interpretation advanced above in refe­
rence to the term 'the priests the Levites, the whole
tribe of Levi' is feasible, for it is difficult to
imagine the offerings which could be eaten only at the
place ordained by Yahweh for his worship, being sent
from Jerusalem to the non-functioning Levites of
priestly status who dwelt in the country. Furthermore^
it is clear from the context, which deals exclusively
with the question of the priesthood functioning or
otherwise, that the phrase 'all the tribe of Levi'
embraces only Levites who enjoyed priestly status,
although in some-instances not functioning as such.
Besides^ the fire offering the leviti.cal priests are to
eat each 'his inheritance.' There are two possible
interpretations for this. It may mean the other sacred
dues not included in the fire offering e.g. the first
fruits. It is stated in Num. 18.21 ff, that the Levites
were to inherit the tithe offered to Yahweh. From this
tithe a tenth part was to be given to the officiating
priests and the remainder of the tithe was retained by
the Levites themselves (cf.. Num. 18.26-29; Nh. 10.38).
Num. 18.24b states that the Levites have no inheritance
among the children of Israel, but yet in v .21 they are
assigned the tithe which is designated as their inheri­
tance in V V .21, 24a, 26. This appears contradictory
unless we accept the w o r d rf^nJ as having a relatively
"T

wide interpretation. It most frequently denotes landed

property. Canaan is time and again referred to as
Yahweh's gift or portion to Israel e.g. Dt. 4.38;
 - 145
PS. 105.11; I Chr. 16.18. It can also have other
meanings, e.g. the people of Israel are often referred
to as Yahweh's possession (cf. Dt. 4.20; 9.26,29; I
Kgs. 8.51,53; Is. 19.25); the portion allotted to the
wicked is denoted by the wordj[ ïï5a,J
J in Job. 20.29; 27.13,
and it is also found used of the sin offering which is
considered the property of the priest in Ezek. 44.28.
In the New Testament the corresponding Greek term
denotes the inheritance by which the
people of God shall live, i.e. their spiritual patri­
mony or the possession in store for them (cf. Acts.
13
20.32; Eph. 1.14,18) . In its widest sense therefore,
the word may be taken to mean possession of some
sort. As the Levites are denied an inheritance with
Israel in Num. 18.23, 24b, the word T l'T —c -o u l d be
interpreted in these instances to mean an inheritance
of land, the lack of which distinguished Levites from
other tribes. On the other hand, in Num.. 18.21, 24a,
26 the correct interpretation of the word i'T^^rT3
is obviously the tithe^ regarded as the lawful posses­
sion of the Levite. In Dt. 18.1 a similar conflict is
encountered in the use of the term (f rrig].. The Levites
are denied any inheritance in Israel, yet they are per­
mitted to eat Yahweh's inheritance, which in the light
of Num. 18.21 ff may perhaps be interpreted to mean the
tithe. If, however, is taken'to denote Yahweh *s
tithe, it is strange that the text does not explicitly
say so when it designates the preceding offerings as
those made by fire. After mention of the fire offering

13. cf. also Gal. 3.18; Eph. 5.5; Col. 3.24; Hebr. 9.15.
 — 14'6
some mention of the offering of first fruits or tithe
would be expected instead of the rather obscure term
'his inheritance'. We may, therefore, perhaps conjec­
ture a second possible meaning for this term which
falls within its wider interpretation as possession.
The cities that were allotted to the Levites included
their suburbs in which they could graze their cattle
(cf. Num. 35.3; Jos. 21.2), but they were not assigned
to them as an inheritance in the sense that lands were
distributed to the other tribes; they were given to the
Levites from each tribe's inheritance. Jos. 21,12 re­
cords that agricultural land was not assigned to the
Levites but to the Israelites, In this instance Caleb
receives the fields around Hebron, the Levites the
suburbs or non-arable land suitable for grazing, possi­
bly hillside pasturage. It may be possible then to
interpret 'his inheritance' as the produce of these
levitical pastures which were Yahweh's inheritance and
to be exclusively utilized by those in his service. It
is probable that they would have been a source of reve­
nue for all Levites of priestly status, whether func­
tioning at Jerusalem or living in the country. It is
noteworthy that although Jerusalem is never mentioned
in the lists of levitical cities, the Aaronites are
allotted a number of cities (cf. Jos. 21.13-19; I Chr.
6.42-45, E.V.vv. 57-60). As the lists of levitical
cities occur within the priestly corpus of literature,
it is not unlikely that the name Aaron has been super­
imposed on a previous designation for this group, for
 - 147
instance,Zadok. .The fact that Gibeon was one of the
cities assigned to the Aaronites in Jos. 21,13-19 fa-
14
vours this view . These cities may have constituted
an arrangement analogous to a modern diocese containing
parishes responsible for the maintenance of the mother
shrine, Jerusalem. The revenue from the shrines and
pasture lands of these cities would have provided an
important source of income for the Jerusalem priesthood.
V .2 repeats the principle of v.l more emphatically. The
tribe Levi is forbidden to have any inheritance in
Israel, meaning in this instance tribal territory. This
seems to refer to the priestly tribe as a whole which
throughout the Old Testament is repeatedly denied a
tribal inheritance.

Our attention is focused in vv. 3 ff, on the dues

assigned to the functioning priest. He is to receive
the shoulder, cheeks and stomach of the sacrificial
15
victim along with the first fruits of corn, wine, oil
and fleece. The offering of firstfruits was an ancient
and widespread custom. It is found prescribed in Ex.
23.19; 34.26 J.E. Like the tithe, it was a mode of
acknowledging Yahweh's bounty in blessing the increase
of the earth, and until it had been offered it was not

14. The possible association of zadok with Gibeon

based on I Chr. 16.39 has been dealt with in a
previous chapter of this thesis.
15. The passage is in direct contradiction with Lev.
7.32-34 (P), which prescribes the breast and right
thigh as the priest's due of the peace offering.
Perhaps the passage here may be interpreted as
being parallel to Lev. 7.32-3 4 and consequently
as fixing the priest's dues at a time when the
regulation laid down in Leviticus was not in force.
 ~ 148
considered proper to eat of the new fruit of the year
(cf. Lev. 23.17). Because the levitical priest is
Yahweh's specially chosen minister and representative,
he is to receive these dues. The closing words of v.5
may be significant since the expression 'him and his
sons' could imply a heriditary priesthood, the singu­
lar suggesting one family in particular. As the next
two verses assume one central sanctuary perhaps the
reference to 'him and his sons' may denote the priest­
hood of this sanctuary. On the other hand, it is pos­
sible that the verse has a more general meaning, deno­
ting Yahweh's choice of the Levites for his service,
and in this way may provide the vinculum of the second
paragraph (vv. 3-5) with the first (vv. 1,2).

The focus of interest is now centred on another

group contained in the levitical tribe. Here the
Levite coming from the country to officiate at the
central sanctuary is dealt with. He is to be permitted
to take his place alongside the priests already offi­
ciating at the place Yahweh shall choose, and to be at
no disadvantage relative to such priests. Thereby the
assumption in v.l of the existence of Levites who en­
joyed priestly status but did not function as such is
here made explicit. The closing words of v.8 are
obscure and interesting. Over and above having an
equal portion with the officiating priesthood the
country Levite is to have the proceeds of the sale of
his patrimony. The word translated by patrimony is
j~^l3rHrr which implies something that has passed from
 - 149
father to son. However, v.2 categorically states that
the Levite shall have no inheritance with Israel, which^
in accordance with Old Testament tradition, would seem
to refer to the whole priestly tribe whether officiating
at the central sanctuary or sojourning in the country.
The country Levite is not required to forfeit his pat­
rimony except he goes up to perform at the place of
Yahweh's choice. He may still retain it and continue
living in the country, having levitical status, and
therefore contravening the law of v.2. Even if he
chooses to join the priesthood established at the cen­
tral sanctuary he will in fact enjoy its emoluments,
and in addition possess the capital raised from his
property^^. Perhaps the clue to understanding the
meaning here may be found by interpreting the word
to denote the pasture lands around the levi­
tical cities^which was conjectured above as a possible
5 rn 17
in v.lb . Thus it would appear that
the levitical pastures were a source of revenue for all
priestly Levites. Those who had always officiated at
the central sanctuary are entitled to the produce from
their priestly estates, those who go up to the central

16. This could well have been a bone of contention

between the Jerusalem priesthood, and their ■
nouveau riche colleagues from the country.
17. The law of redemption recorded in Lev. 25.32-34
stipulates that if the Levite leased à house in
one of the levitical cities he could recover it
at any time, but the pastures of the levitical
cities could never be rented or sold. Perhaps
the idea behind this law may be that the pastures
around the cities assigned to the Levites were in
a special way a levitical inheritance handed down
in levitical families. This view is favoured by
the use of the word in v.8.
 - 150
shrine have the capital from the sale of theirs. The
Levite who remains at home however, although retaining
his patrimony cannot partake of the sacrificial offe­
rings and therefore forfeits this part of his income
and forgoes the privilege of acting in a priestly
capacity before Yahweh. It is possible that here Deu­
teronomy holds out an incentive for the Levites to
leave their rural domiciles and support the ideal of
centralization of worship. Not only would Yahweh's
cult be discharged in one place^but his chosen priests
would also be gathered at this place. Another motive
behind Dt, 18.6-8 would appear to be aimed at breaking
the exclusiveness of the Jerusalem hierarchy by giving
it an injection of fresh blood in an attempt to purify
the national cult and rekindle in it traditions that
had long since lost their significance.

In 17.9 Deuteronomy legislates that if a contro­

versy arises which is beyond the competence of the local
authorities, the levitical priests and the judge are to
act as arbitrators at the place which Yahweh elects.
From their experience they may be able to bring some
precedent to bear on the case and determine what should
be done. The mention of the sanctuary as the place
where the court of appeal sat, and the insistence on
the priests' authority seem to show that the final
decision, should all else fail, lay with them. The
regulation shows a community that relied on priests to
maintain a stable order in the community. This confi­
dence in the priestly pronouncement was due to the fact
 - 151
that the priests were regarded as possessing a special
knowledge of the divine will. This knowledge was based
on the torah which provided the priests with the means
of giving authoritative direction and guidance to the
community. The torah was the divine word entrusted to
the priest, and as characteristic for him as the vision
was for the prophet (cf. Jer. 18.18). in his applica­
tion of this law, each case was laid before Yahweh and
a precedent established - an ancient legal process
witnessed from earliest times (cf. Ex. 22.7-11). It
was the priest's business to amplify and expound the
law, and to apply it relevantly to the particular cir­
cumstances, social, political and economic, that would
confront him. The Blessing of Moses states that the
priests ‘should teach Jacob thy judgements and Israel
thy law' (Dt. 33.10). This important priestly profes­
sion of preserving Yahweh's law and expounding it sur­
vived into post-exilic times. Haggai is recorded as
seeking a torah from the priests on the matter of un­
cleanness (cf. Hag. 2.11 ff), and the Chronicler des­
cribes the situation during the period of Judges with
the words;'Many days Israel hath been without the true
God and without a teaching priest and without a law'
(II Chr. 15.3). Nh. 8.5 ff relates how Ezra the priest
and the Levites read the law and expounded it to the
people, showing that even in post-exilic times when
the priests were separated from among the Levites, all
Levites, priestly or otherwise^had an important function
to perform in transmitting, reciting and explaining the
 - 152
law^^. It was for neglecting this function and misin­
terpreting the law that Hosea criticised the priests
(cf. Eos. 4.6), Similar charges are found against the
priest in Jer. 2.8; Mai. 2.8. In Mai. 2.7 the priest
is described in his capacity as preserver and trans­
mitter of the law as 'the messenger of the Lord of
hosts' which is perhaps a true reflection of the priest's
legal role. Thus by attributing an important legal role
to the priest, the Deuteronomist moves in a similar line
of tradition. It is found recorded in D t . 17.18 that
after the king has ascended the throne, he is to trans­
cribe for himself a copy of the law which he is to
study daily in order that its principles may become his
rule of life, and that he may govern his subjects in
the just and equitable spirit it everywhere commends.
This law is in the custody of the levitical priests.
Whether they are merely in charge of it or have a func­
tion to interpret it, is not clear. But what is clear,
is that here also in a matter that involved the welfare
of Israel's life and religion, the levitical priests
had to make known the divine will contained in the
19
law . Again in D t . 24.8 we find the levitical priests

18. M. Gertner, 'The Massorah and the Levites', V.T.

I960, pp. 245 ff, considers that the Levites in
singing the psalms and reciting holy scripture
provided the accepted interpretation of these
texts acting as expositors and exegetes. In this
way, according to Gertner, they eventually develo­
ped into the later Massoretes.
19. See Note 35 in Appendix.
 - 153
giving divine direction in the case of leprosy^^. Their
pronounceraent is that of Yahweh's, for it is based upon
his law, and therefore is final- Whoever despises or
offends the divine law or its judgement comes under re­
primand from its masters (cf. D t . 17.12).

The details are recorded in Dt. 26.1-9 of how the

worshipper must bring the offering of his firstfruits
to the sanctuary and present them to the priest functio­
ning there, who is to supply him with the correct litur­
gical form to be repeated over the offering. The priest
knew the correct ritual that was to be followed to make
the offering acceptable. Since an emphasis on the holy
as distinct from the profane or unclean was fundamen­
tal in cultic procedures, it can be understood that
the priest had to pay painstaking regard to every de­
tail in connection with the cult and its performance.
The priestly law is dominated by the concepts 'holy'
and 'profane', 'pure' and 'impure' (cf. Lev, 10.10;
14.27 ff; Ezek. 44.23). Thus the necessity to distin­
guish exactly the types of offering, their practicabi­
lity and their efficacy, to know the particular festi­
vals and rites applicable to them, to oversee the pre­
paration of the offerings, the correct times to offer
them, and the liturgy that was to accompany them, all
devolved upon the priest and the divine law revealed
to him. As the contact of clean with unclean was the
greatest sacrilege, the priest had to know where unclean­
ness occurred and how it was distinguished. Uncleanness

20. See Note 36 in Appendix.

 - 154
in contact with cleanness had an immediate effect on
the person involved^ and grades of contamination were
distinguished. Where contamination was most serious
it had to be removed by special ceremonies, but in
other cases it subsided after a period of time. A
priest^ therefore, had to be instructed in the handling
of holy things, the seriousness of contamination in
each particular case, and the procedures necessary for
its removal. A similar knowledge of holiness was also
necessary for the acceptable performance of the cult
that takes place in the service of Yahweh who is des­
cribed as 'of purer eyes than to behold evil and unable
to look upon iniquity' (Hab. 1.13). On the other hand,
uncleanness and profaneness stand in strong opposition
to him and are rejected. For this reason the priest
had to exercise the most scrupulous care if the effi­
cacy of the cult was to be maintained. If he failed
in his vocation, Yahweh's law became a dead letter and
lost its influence in society. The law was a living
thing, and the priest, nurtured in it, was to cast its
pearls in such a way that they were appreciated by the
people as Yahweh's possession and were meaningful and
relevant to their own circumstances. The laity must
know the types of offering for different occasions and
their purposes. They must know where uncleanness
occurs, what its effects were, how long it lasted, and
how to guard against it or to be free from it. As
freedom from uncleanness was only attained by special
rituals, they must be instructed in this also. They
must further know how the holy is to be respected in
 - 155
order to protect themselves from the dangerous effects
of it. It was at the shrines up and down the country
that information of this sort was sought and found, for
there it had its roots. At these shrines, where levi­
tical priests functioned, we may perhaps see the ori­
ginal kernel of Deuteronomy, a law that is presumably
directed at the laity rather than the priesthood, in
the instruction and preaching that played so great a
part at the sanctuaries throughout ancient Israel.

A remarkable occurrence appears at the end of this

provision dealing with the presentation of the first-
fruits. The priest takes charge of ‘the fir stfruit s,
and before him the worshipper makes his confession.
Having finished the recital of his q.ncient faith, it
is reported in v.11 that the Israelite shall rejoice
in every good thing which Yahweh has given him, and
his family along with the Levite and the stranger that
are in his midst. Here a sharp distinction occurs
21
between the priest and the Levite . The Levite does
not officiate at the shrine and he is not even mentio­
ned as a person who participates with the Israelite in
his act of worship. He appears to be nothing more than
a companion to the Israelite citizen allowed to parti­
cipate in the pilgrimage to the central shrine. The

21, A.C. Welch, The Code of Deuteronomy, p. 97, states,

on the basis of the priest referred to in Dt. 17.12
being the same as the levitical priests in Dt. 17.9,
that the priest mentioned here is a levitical priest
This view is supported by the fact that the wor­
shipper in Dt. 26.1-11 must bring his firstfruits
to a specifically Yahweh altar at which the tribe
of Levi is called to function cf. Dt. 10.8; 33.10.
 - 156
Levite is frequently found in similar circumstances in
Deuteronomy, but in these instances he is never descri­
bes as being a priest; in fact, he only receives pas­
sing mention (cf. Dt, 12.12,18,19; 14,27,29; 16,11,14;
26.11 ff). As distinct from the Levite in Dt. 18.6-8
who at will may function as priest at the. place of
Yahweh's choice, or if he prefers remain at home and
retain his pasturage, the Levite here appears poverty
stricken and utterly dependent on those more fortunate
22
than he , The Levite described in D t . 18.6-8, although
like his non-priestly namesake is found within the gates
of Israel, has no need of protection or charity, and
therefore cannot be identified with the Levite catalo­
gued with the other personae miseras of Israel. The
poverty stricken Levite is in many respects similar to
the Levite of Ju. 17. Both the Levite here under dis­
cussion and Micah's Levite are portrayed as having no
possession of any sort. Micah's Levite is a "1^ , the
Levite here is enumerated amongst the poor of the com­
munity which includes the HA . That such a Levite
could become a priest is recorded in Ju.17, but al­
though he founded a line of priests (cf. Ju. 18.30).
it is not implied that he came from a line of priests
nor that he belonged to an ethnic tribe Levi. It is
simply stated that he was of the family of Judah and
sojourned in Bethlehem (cf. Ju. 17.7). Hence we have

22. cf. especially 12.19; 14.27.

 - 157
two traditions concerning Levites in Deuteronomy rela­
ting to those who had the right to function as priests
and had sufficient means to be useful members of society,
and those who lived in poverty, were dependent on cha­
rity and do not appear to have enjoyed the status of
priest. It is possible in view of the miscellany of
traditions of varying age preserved by Deuteronomy that
we have an earlier tradition relating to non-priestly
Levites alongside a later one when the entire tribe had
assumed priestly status. Yet although the story of
Micah's Levite may reflect a tendency of Levites during
the period of Judges to find a living in taking up the
priestly profession, it would seem improbable that all
Levites would have automatically found employment at
Israel's shrines or even wished for such employment.
Some would therefore have remained as individuals or
groups, or perhaps even families who zealously adhered
to Yahweh, keeping alive the Mosaic tradition with which
23
they were particularly associated . Hence it would
seem more probable that we have two traditions which
existed contemporaneously. One relating to the levi­
tical priesthoods that had been attached for generations
to Israel's shrines at which they either still functio­
ned or had become redundant in the course of current
events but still retained their priestly status, the

23. No account has survived relating the fate of these

non-priestly Levites following the disaster of 587.
It is possible they either joined those Levites
who had formerly been priests and formed the non-
priestly cleri minores of the post-exilic temple,
or lost their identity and became absorbed in the
general populace.
 » 158

other referring to Levites, who^in accordance with the

tradition contained in Ex. 32.25-29^set themselves
apart from the rest of Israel for the service of Yahweh
without any suggestion of priestly office^ and who
because of their great piety were considered worthy of
public alms^'^.

The effect of Deuteronomy on the organization of

Israel's priesthood may be best appreciated if some
idea of the motives surrounding its formulation can be
ascertained, and the most likely period of its promul­
gation found. If Deuteronomy is dated in the post-exilic
period, it is difficult to explain why the Deuteronomist
records nothing in Israel's history following Jehoia-
25
chin's release from prison (cf. II Kgs. 25.27-30)
This consideration allows a terminus ad quern to be
defined for the Deuteronomic history prior to the date
of return. On the other hand, if we were to take the
promulgation of Deuteronomy as being before 721, it
would be difficult to explain how many of the northern
traditions it contains reached Judah, or its interest
in the reform of the Jerusalem cult. This allows a
period of nearly two centuries to be considered for
its formulation, a period of great internal change,
and change on the international scene in which Judah
was caught up. It was at this time that the people of

24. See Note 37 in Appendix.

25. H.H. Rowley,'The prophet Jeremiah and the Book of
Deuteronomy', in From Moses to Qumran, pp. 191 f,
suggests that this short record of the release of
Jehoiachin is an appendix added to II Kings after
it had been completed for some time.
 - 159
Judah went through much soul searching in an attempt
to interpret the events that were going on around them.
As the period following Josiah's reign was a strongly
reactionary one in which there is no evidence of any
revival of the Yahweh faith or even of circumstances
conducive to this, the terminus ad quern for Deuteronomy
26
itself may be posed as 621 . The fact that many of
the changes that took place in the reform recorded in
II Kgs. 23 accord with the regulations of Deuteronomy's
programme indicate the accuracy of identifying Josiah's
27
law book with Deuteronomy . II Kgs. 22.3 ff states
that the reform commenced in the eighteenth year of
Josiah's reign as a result of the law book found in
the temple, but II Chr. 34.3 records that Josiah had
already begun his reformation programme in the twelfth
year of his reign, and that the discovery of the law
book came more or less as a culmination of the reform
that was followed by the celebration of the Passover.
It seems strange that the king, as the chronicler
records, should have been embarrassed at the contents

26. G. Hôlscher, Komposition und Ürsprung des Deutero-

nomiums, Z.A.W. 1922, pp. 161-255, considers that
although the code of Deuteronomy may be early, it
has been revised and added to by later hands, es­
pecially those whose prime interest was the centra­
lization of the cult. These editors he identified
with the exilic priesthood. However, it is diffi­
cult to conceive of a priesthood in exile legis­
lating for circumstances that had no relevance to
their current situation.
27. e.g. the abolition of sacred prostitution v.7^cf.
D t . 2 3.18; the cult of Molech involving human sac­
rifice v.lO^cf. Dt.‘ 12.31; 18.10; the prohibition
• of necromancy v.24 cf. Dt. 18.11.
 - 160

of the law book, having already anticipated its pro­

gramme of renewal, and took no further steps to augment
his reform programme on the basis of it. Yet behind
the Chronicler's account- may lie a glimmer of truth,
for the mood of spiritual rejuvenation appears to have
28
been abroad at the time . This tendency is perhaps
illustrated by the assassination of Amon (cf. II Kgs.
21.19-26) who had continued the pro-Assyrian policy of
his father Manasseh, and made himself odious to those
loyal to Yahweh and anxious to rid the nation of its
reactionary and syncretistic policies at a time when
the Assyrain Empire was disintegrating, and the oppor­
tunity for freedom from its bonds ripe. From the fate
of the northern kingdom it became clear to the religious
leaders in Judah that if they wished to escape the des­
tiny of their sister kingdom, they must turn away from
their syncretistic worship. The reverence of Yahweh
had never been surrendered in the northern kingdom but
he had not been reverenced in the right way. Against
the basic command of the covenant^ other gods had been
served alongside him at the old cult places where the
pre-conquest Canaanite population of the land had wor­
shipped their own gods. Moses in consequence of the
covenant command had directed that Yahweh was not to
29
be worshipped beside other gods . In the fall of

28. H.H. Rowley, op.cit., p.196, points out that the

fact that repairs were being carried out in the
temple before the law book was discovered may be
an indication that the Jerusalem authorities had
already been removing Assyrian cult emblems from
it.
29. See Note 38 in Appendix.
 - 161
northern Israel to Assyria, Yahweh was seen to have
pronounced a judgement on the syncretistic worship
exercised at these places. Yahv/eh could no more be
worshipped at the high places in heathen cults but at
the place of Yahweh's choice. This was the lesson
held up to Judah which must have had its impact in the
years immediately following 721^ for it was during this
time that Judah experienced a cultic and religious re­
vival. A great flowering of literature took place
during this period, and wisdom, that had flourished in
the days of Solomon, experienced a revival (cf. Prb.
25.1).. Something of this is perhaps reflected in the
work of the Deuteronomist. The law in D t . 4.6 ff is
referred to as Israel's 'wisdom', in regard to wisdom
teaching that was cultivated by all culturally developed
people of the e a s t I s r a e l has now, says the Deute­
ronomist, in Yahweh's law an instruction about the
correct action, which is superior to every wisdom as
v.8 expresses. The higher value of Israelite law in
reference to the wisdom teaching or the laws of other
peoples is not theoretically established here, but
derived from the religious and historical experience
of the people Israel, which provokes the question in
v.7.

30- Wisdom endeavoured to show to man the correct mode

of conduct in every situation of life, especially
the way to good fortune and success in life.
Upright action attains for the human being the
favour of fellow creatures^and the protection and
blessing of God. Thus Israel experiences in every
situation the protection and blessing of Yahweh if
she lives according to his law which far excels the
wisdom of other nations^ and is the way to true for­
tune.
 - 162
A great literary epoch is often motivated by sig­
nificant political and military achievements, bringing
31
stability to a people . Hezekiah succeeded Ahaz and
witnessed in the fourth year of his reign the fall of
Samaria (cf.II Kgs. 18.9). He was a nationalist and
dedicated himself to restoring the national religion.
II Kgs. 18.4 records that he abolished the high places
and their paraphernalia and destroyed the brass serpent
attributed to Moses. This must have given great encou­
ragement to those anxious to advance the ideals of
Deuteronomy, and the Deuteronomist records that Heze­
kiah 'trusted in the Lord God of Israel so that after
him was none like him among all the kings of Judah nor
any that were before him. For he clave to the Lord and
departed not from following him, but kept his command­
ments which the Lord commanded Moses' (II Kgs. 18.5,6).
Hezekiah's foreign policy was, if ultimately unsuccess­
ful, courageous. He rejected Egyptian suzerainty of
Judah and moved against the Philistines to the west
32
(cf. II Kgs. 18.8) . Most remarkable was his encoun­
ter with the Assyrians, whose commander of forces, the
Rab-shakeh, tried in vain to cause the people of Jeru­
salem to defect from their king (cf. II Kgs. 18.17-37).
The assault on Jerusalem that followed was unsuccessful.

31. The Elizabethan epoch of literature reached its

climax after the defeat of the Spanish Armada in
1588. In a similar way the political scene in
Judah, following the outcome of Sennacherib's
campaign against Jerusalem, was conducive to the
writing of Deuteronomy.
32. II Chr. 30.1 ff records an attempt made by Heze­
kiah to win the allegiance of the northern tribes.
 - 163
The Assyrians were forced to withdraw for no explicitly
stated reason, but from II Kgs. 19.35 it would appear
that they were smitten by a plague which was interpreted
33
as a divine judgement upon them . Jerusalem had defied
the assault of the greatest power of the day which no
other city or its deity had hitherto been able to with­
stand (cf. II Kgs. 18.33 ff). Its prestige was unparal­
leled, its esteem supreme. From the time of Moses the
ark of the covenant was the external sign of Yahweh's
presence amid the nation. Thus the traditional Mosaic
custom of reverencing Yahweh at his own sanctuary re­
ceived a strong impetus and vindication in these
events.

Two alternatives lie open in pinpointing the pro­

mulgation of Deuteronomy in this period so highly con­
ducive for its formulation. If it is taken as anterior
to Hezekiah's reform, then it would naturally have
provided the stimulus for it. However, as the reform
of Hezekiah took place at the beginning of his reign
and the deliverance of Yahweh's chosen place had yet
to come, when Jerusalem was to experience its miracu­
lous deliverance, the second alternative would seem
more probable i.e. to identify Deuteronomy with the law
book found in the temple in 621, and therefore anterior
to the reform that followed its discovery. In support
of this solution it may be noted that Hezekiah's reform
makes no reference to any previous law, but Josiah's

33. Herodotus.II 141, records a tradition relating to

a plague of mice that overran Sennacherib's army
near the Egyptian frontier.
 - 164
reformation appears to have legal foundations. Hence
it seems that the religious, literary and political
ethos of the later years of Hezekiah's reign or perhaps
34
even the beginning of Manasseh's reign would have
given rise to the most probable circumstances for the
formulation of Deuteronomy^which we may associate with
Josiah's law- book found in the temple in 621.

One difficulty however arises in identifying Deu­

teronomy with Josiah's law book. In II Kgs. 2 3,8 f, it
is recorded how Josiah attempted to bring all the priests
out of the cities of Judah to Jerusalem, but Dt. 18.6-8
merely states that the country Levite may go to Yahweh's
chosen place and function there, without any notion of
compulsion. Josiah appears to have gone beyond the law
of Deuteronomy, and having made an attempt to bring all
the priests to Jerusalem by force, they apparently were
denied, contrary to the law of Dt. 18.6-8, their right
to perform at the national shrine for it is recorded in
v.9 that they did not come up to Yahweh's altar in
Jerusalem, 'but ate unleavened bread among their breth­
ren' , However this incompatibility need not imply that
it is incorrect to identify the law book of Josiah with
Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy was a programme drawn up under

34. On the basis of Is. 8.16 where the prophet speaks

of sealing the torah among his disciples, some have
attributed the book of Deuteronomy to the prophetic
party when suffering persecution during Manasseh's
reign. Although a date in the former years of
Manasseh's reign would allow sufficient time for
the law book to be deposited in the temple and sub­
sequently forgotten about, the interest in the or­
ganization of the priesthood, and the Levites in
particular, indicates levitical rather than pro­
phetic origin.
 - 164
different circumstances from those under which its laws
were implemented. As indicated, it was probably for­
mulated towards the end of Hezekiah's reign when some
attempt had been made to centralize the cult at Jeru­
salem (cf. II Kgs. 18.22), and would therefore presup­
pose a large number of redundant levitical priests up
and down the country. II Kgs. 23.8,9 are an historical
account of the result of the prograimne discharged some
fifty or sixty years later. In the interval a vigorous
cultic activity had resumed at the local shrines during
Manasseh's reign as Josiah's move to abolish them illus-
35
trates . These doubtless gave employment to some of
those Levites who had been dispossessed as a result of
Hezekiah's reform. Thus the Deuteronomist's programme
was applied to a situation for which it was not origi­
nally written. The account that all the priests were
brought up to Jerusalem is in line with the centrali­
zing tendency of Deuteronomy, but the fact that many
stayed away shows the impracticable reality of the pro­
gramme applied to circumstances for which it was not
formulated.

35. The cultic activity resumed at the country sanctua­

ries during Manasseh's reign was of a very syncre-
tistic type and doubtless included elements of
Assyrian religion due to the current Assyrian do­
mination of Judah, cf. II Kgs. 21.1-9. The mention
of Q'TàJ. in II Kgs. 23.5 gives the impression that
the high places of most idolatrous character were
not attended by levitical priests. The priests
brought to Jerusalem (cf. vv. 8,9) are not expli­
citly charged with officiating at heathen worship
as in the case of the in v.5.
 - 165
As far as the priesthood was concerned^ the legis­
lation of Deuteronomy became a dead letter and instead
of a great theological centre being established at
Jerusalem with resident priests acting as full time
cultic staff, and external part time staff coming and
going intermittently, but being on an equal plane with
the full time residents, the seeds of a clerus minor
were sown in the admittance of those Levites, who,
coming from the country, did obtain a permanent place
at the central sanctuary. Subsequently they were to
lose completely their priestly status, and instead pro­
vide the temple's ancillary services. The removal of
the rural shrines and their priesthoods must not only
be seen as a move to eliminate the local sanctuaries
in an attempt to revitalise the spiritual fibre of the
nation by the restriction of its worship to the place
of Yahweh's choice, but also as a political manoeuvre
in which royal supremacy for the first time extended
over the entire functioning priesthood and worship of
the nation. Although most of the priests from the
country stayed away, the nation's worship was henceforth
confined to one place. The fact however that some
priests did go to Jerusalem from the country and found
a place there as Ezek. 40.44 ff would indicate , shows
an attempt to carry out the law of Dt. 18,6-8. The

36. cf. next chapter of this thesis for a fuller dis­

cussion of this topic.
 - 166
enhanced prestige of Jerusalem .in its miraculous deli­
verance from the Assyrians, which was further raised
by the implementing of Deuteronomy^ not only extended
the power of royal authority, but also elevated the
influence and prestige of the Zadokite clergy who,
although we have no information, must have come into
conflict with their new rural colleagues, but yet re­
tained the supreme rite at the altar (cf. Ezek. 44.15
ff)^ and in consequence of the abolition of all the
rural sanctuaries were now the only priests with the
right to offer up sacrifice to Yahweh.
 - 167
THE PRIESTHOOD AND EXILE

Following the Deuteronoiuic reform a reorganization

of the Jerusalem priesthood was an inevitable process
resulting from the assimilation of the rural priests
who had made good their claim to a place at the natio­
nal shrine on the basis of Dt. 18.1-8. The aftermath
of the reform is reflected in the closing chapters of
the book of Ezekiel, which represent a composite struc­
ture indicative of its development.

In Ezek. 40.45,46 we have recognition of two

priesthoods^. The first has responsibility for the
care of the temple buildings as a whole, the second is
2
responsible for the charge of the altar . This second
group is specifically designated as 'the sons of Zadok
amongst the sons of Levi' indicating their closer defi­
nition within the wider group Levi, and at the same
time implying that the first group although priests do
not belong to the sons of Zadok^. Since the law of
Deuteronomy assumes that all priests are Levites (cf.
Dt.10.8; 21.5), it would seem that the use hereof the

1. TheR.S.V. emendation ofv.44 with tÿie LXX is gene­

rally accepted by scholars (reading iH iTSlFTA
'î]Tiü3 jiiou)'? mill isrrrr ), the m .t .
being obviously inconsistent in the context since
the chambers were to be used by priests, not
singers. The word Q )1 lil 'south' with the LXX
for Ll'1P»n east is an obvious correction of an easy
corruption. This verse does not appear to contain
any information relevant to the subject under con­
sideration here.
2. See Note 39 in Appendix.
3. See Note 40 in Appendix.
 - 168
term 'sons of Levi' is a general one inclusive of the
two groups mentioned in particular i.e. the priests in
charge of the house and the Zadokites. As the two
groups have already been qualified by their respective
functions, the final clause in v.46 would seem super­
fluous as a further description of the Zadokites. It
may therefore perhaps have a general meaning applicable
to the functions of the two categories of priests just
described. It is important to note however^ that the
most coveted office in the priesthood is reserved for
the Zadokites i.e. the performance at the altar.

Following the description of the chambers of the

priests in Ezek. 42.1-12, we are then informed about
their function and occupants (cf. vv. 13,14). No dis­
tinction is found here between the priests beyond the
fact that they live in different sets of chambers. All
the priests may eat the most holy things and deposit
the offerings in the chambers, and as they all live
within the temple precinct there is no distinction in
their holiness. The question must now be posed whether
we have here a development from the organization of the
priesthood recorded in 40.45,46 or, conversely, whether
the scheme described, in 40.45,46 is a later development
of the organization planned here. With regard to the
first possibility, a move from a priesthood which was
separated by function and designation to a unified
organization, although in accord with the spirit of
Deuteronomy, is contrary to the evidence of history.
Admittedly, there would have been no need to maintain
 - 169

the organization of the pre-exilic cult at Jerusalem

during the exile of its priesthood in Babylon, yet the
exiled priests must have looked forward to a time when
they could return to their homeland and restore their
nation and the traditions associated with its national
worship. Therefore the traditions of the past would
have been preserved for the future. Moreover, follo­
wing the return from exile there was a sharp distinction
between priest and Levite which was contrary to the law
of Deuteronomy. The second suggestion would indicate
a demotion of a certain part of the priesthood which
might"possibly be interpreted as marking a stage in the
degradation of the Levites. If this line of argument
is taken to be correct, then it must be assumed that as
a direct consequence of the law of Dt. 18.1-8, all
Levites, whether resident at, or coming of their own
volition from the country to the place appointed by
Yahweh for his worship, performed exactly the same func­
tions and enjoyed the same privileges at Jerusalem.
This of course would have been a chaotic arrangement
and quite impracticable. A clue to the problem may
however be found in Ezek. 42.13 where the priests are
described as approaching Yahweh without any further
detail being given. In the following verse it is
stated that the priests before entering the outer court
must change their garments in which they minister and
deposit them in the chambers. We may therefore assume
that the priests approach Yahweh to minister. A simi­
lar expression is used in 40.46 which has been suggested
to denote a comprehensive term for all the functions
 - 170
undertaken by the two groups of priests specified.
Hence it would appear that 42.13,14 are chiefly inte­
rested in describing what the priestly chambers were
used for rather than giving a detailed account of their
occupants,and therefore speaks of the priests only in
general terms. Although the arrangement described in
40.45,46 would be much more in line with what one would
imagine took place in Jerusalem after the Josianic re­
form, 42.13,14 render no assistance in the attempt to
find the correct historical context for this arrange­
ment.

Important information regarding the priesthood is

found in 44.6-16. The prophet inveighs against the
uncircumcised in spirit as well as in fleshy and relates
how foreigners have been allowed into the temple by a
rebellious people who have delegated to aliens the an­
cillary services of Yahweh's house. This practice must
be terminated and no stranger is henceforth to enter
Yahweh‘s sanctuary. The polemic continues in vv. 10 ff
by turning to the Levites guilty of idolatry with the
intimation and justification of the measures taken
against them^. Although the prophet considered the
5
worship on the high places as idolatry , he assumes
that the Levites who served at these sanctuaries were
priests. As a punishment for their connivance with
the rest of the nation in its idolatry^ they will not
again approach Yahweh in the exercise of their priestly

4. See Note 41 in Appendix.

5. cf. 6.3-6; 14.3-11; 36.17,18.
 - 171
function, but in their degraded state shall forfeit
their sacerdotal status^. Having castigated the Levites
the tone changes when it is the turn of the sons of
Zadok to be dealt with. They too are to eat the fruit
of their labours, but as their labour is described as
remaining steadfastly loyal to Yahweh when Israel went
astray in contrast to the idolatrous conduct of the
rest of the levitical tribe, they receive commendation
and reward, the prize for their faithfulness being
their appointment to the exclusive office of standing
before Yahweh and offering up sacrifice to him.

In the reformed cult traced out for us on a mys­

terious and imposing scale, the distribution of sacred
functions has a moral significance. The memory of the
infidelity of a great number of priests was still pre­
sent. The high places had doubtless witnessed members
of the levitical tribe offer sacrifice to idols during
the reactionary reigns that followed the reforms of
7
Hezekiah and Josiah . It is possible that some Levites

A /
6. A. van Hoonacker, 'Les pretres et les levites dans
le livre d'Ezechiël', R.B.I. (1899), pp. 175-205,
esp. pp. 183 ff, considers two types of Levites in
this passage, those who were demoted by the loss
of their priestly status cf. vv.10-12, and those
who were restored to their former positions such
as doorkeepers, a function entrusted to priests
in pre-exilic times cf. v.14.
7. It is recorded in II Kgs. 21.1-9 how Manasseh res­
tored the high places Hezekiah had destroyed (cf.
II Kgs. 18.4), and Ezekiel writing towards the
end of the kingdom of Judah prophesied the des­
truction of the high places which were revived
during Jehoiakim's reign cf. Ezek. 6.3 ff.
 - 172
may have tried to have the best of both worlds, func­
tioning at their country shrines and exercising their
right to function at Jerusalem. Recourse to these de­
fections contributed an important feature to the pole­
mic which laid more or less repeated insistence on the
idealized ritual. The priests called to approach the
altar were those who had remained tenaciously faithful
in the midst of widespread apostasy. The ministers of
an inferior order were those priests who^by their assis­
tance at the idolatrous cult places of the erring israe-
lites^had profaned the sanctity of their sacred office^.
It is noteworthy however, that the charge of the house
which 44.14 states to be the responsibility of the
Levites deprived of their priestly status is the same
function attributed to the priests described in 40.45.
As two groups of Levites, one priestly and the other
lay could not discharge the same function, it would
appear that the group referred to in 44.14 is the same
as that in 40.45, but stripped of its priestly status.
This would seem to be the non-Zadokite element of the
Levites accepted as priests in 40.45^ but denied their
priesthood in 44.9-14. If, on the other hand, it should

8. J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the history of Israel,

p. 124, considers that Ezekiel covers the logic of
the facts with a 'mantle of morality' in an effort
to explain why the Levites were denied their right
to priestly office contrary to the law of Deutero­
nomy. It is quite true that a 'mantle of morality'
is employed here to explain a breach of the Mosaic
law, but as will be indicated, this does not fully
explain the polemic of 44.6-16.
 - 173
be argued that the identification of the priests in
40.45 with the degraded levitical priests of 44.9-14
is incorrect, we would expect then to find some mention
of the priests alluded to in 40,45 alongside the Zado­
kites in 44.15,16. The fact that the non-Zadokite
priests are unaccounted for in the second passage is
peculiar in a polemic that is wholly concerned with
cult officials, and does not favour this approach but
rather supports the hypothesis advanced associating the
levitical priests in 40.45 with the Levites deprived of
9
priestly status in 44.9-14 .

The assumption of a central sanctuary in Ezek.

40-48 shows these chapters to be posterior to Deutero­
nomy. It is not unlikely that in his youth Ezekiel
was old enough to have witnessed the reform of Josiah.
According to the spirit of the reform he acknowledged
the priesthood of the Levites even if they had adhered
to other sanctuaries of idolatrous character. As the
temple should be the sanctuary for all Israel (cf. 43.7;
45.6) Ezekiel naturally wished the levitical tribe,
chosen from among the tribes of Israel as Yahweh's
priests^^, to function at it. The detailed description
of the future temple is hardly conceivable as an ex
tempore plan of Ezekiel, its roots must lie in the

9. 44.6 ff would seem to accord with 45.4,5 which

show the priests to be distinct from the Levites
although both occupy the holy portion of land. It
would certainly appear that 44.6 ff is in line
with 48.10 ff where the Levites are stated as
occupying an area outside the sacred H IJl
10. cf. Dt. 10.8; 21.5. ^
 - 174
temple before the exile. Ezekiel therefore, although
condemning the nation's past sin, also found inspiration
in the past to look to the future amid the grim reali­
ties of exile- In view of the fact that following the
polemic of 44.6-16 it would be surprising to find the
arrangement of 40.45,46, the former verses being out of
harmony with the Deuteronomic legislation concerning
the levitical priesthood and the latter contradictory
to the reality of post-exilic times, we may refer the
polemic of 44.6-16 to a period later than 40.45,46
which as already indicated, may be a reflection of the
post-Deuteronomic arrangement of the Jerusalem priest­
hood. An inevitable question must now be asked in con­
nection with 44.6-16. How could Ezekiel reconcile his
polemic with his earlier references to the priests,
and with the dictates of Deuteronomy? Furthermore,
how could he castigate the Levites for having partici­
pated in idolatrous worship and reward the Zadokites
for their loyalty to Yahweh, when he himself had wit­
nessed the abomination of pagan worship in the temple
(cf. Ezek. 8)? The Zadokites, even if they themselves
were not idol worshippers, were at least accountable
11
for what took place in the temple . In consideration
of these questions, it would appear that a later hand
was at work here with a definite polemical aim in view.
It seems improbable that this passage should belong to

II. If Ezek. 8 refers to a secret cult taking place

within the temple, then the Zadokite clergy must
have been guilty of failing in their duty to insure
that all areas within the temple precincts were
free from the contamination of heathen worship.
 - 175
the period following the return^ as then it would be .
difficult to account for the reluctance of the Levites
to return from exile (cf. Ezra. 8.15 ff). Why should
they have remained in exile if they had the hope of
being restored to the favoured position they held be­
fore the exile described in 40.45? This therefore
suggests that Ezek. 44.6-16 must have been promulgated
12
at a period prior to the return from exile

The reason must now be sought for this change in

attitude towards the priesthood which contravenes the
law of D t . 18.1-8. Although the nobility of the nation
was in Babylon its attention was focused on the home­
land. Josiah's reform had made Jerusalem the only
place where worship could be offered., so no cult could .
be established in exile. The question in Ps. 137.4 ^
'how shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?'
gives us some idea of the nostalgia for the homeland
which was felt by some of the exiles, especially the
older ones. At the same time, however, Ezekiel taught
that Yahweh could be worshipped in exile and exhorted
the study of the law and prayer. As a result, a gene­
ration grew up in exile that had never known the land
of their ancestors, and were unanxious to return to it.

12. The emphasis on circumcision (cf. 44.7,8) is note­

worthy, as a new importance attached itself to the
rite during the exile, for like the observance of
the Sabbath (cf. 20.12), it marked the difference
between Israelites and their heathen neighbours
which was essential if the Jews were to retain their
identity in exile. This also would perhaps indicate
an exilic date for* this passage, probably not long
before the return.
 - 176
However, the priesthood in exile, being out of office
and therefore deprived of all the privileges they had
derived from the exercise of their profession, must
have represented a forceful element among those who
still were hopeful of returning at some future date to
their native land. It would therefore appear that as
no sacrificial worship took place among the Jews in
exile, an investigation into what was happening in
Judah during these years might provide some clue to
the motive that lies behind Ezek. 44.6-16.

Although the most prominent members of the nation

had been removed in 597, a remnant 6f the nobility sur­
vived this first purge. They were described by Jere­
miah as rotten figs in comparison with those who had
gone into captivity (cf. Jer. 24). However, these also
suffered a similar fate, being either executed or exi­
led following the disaster of 587, and in this second
visitation the priesthood also fell victim (cf. Jer.
52.24 ff). Yet although the ruling stratum of Judah's
society had been carried away to Babylon, there must
have been a considerable number of inhabitants left to
have made it necessary to appoint Gedaliah as governor.
Even when allowance is made for those who were murde- •
red at Mizpah and the survivors who subsequently took
refuge in Egypt, it is evident that there still remai­
ned in Judah a by no means inconsiderable corpus of
inhabitants, despite the attempt of the Babylonians to
13
reduce it to an agricultural province • Although

13. It is recorded in Jer. 52.16 that the Babylonian

officer Nebuzaradan left the poor of the land as
vinedressers.
 - 177
ruined, and destitute of their leaders, the Jewish
people still remained a self-conscious community, re­
garding themselves as Yahweh's people. What inferences
may be drawn then about the religious condition of
these people? When the invading armies had withdrawn,
some would come to the conclusion that Yahweh had 'no
power to deliver' (Is. 50.2). For them, since men must
worship some god, the most natural thing would be to
accept the deities of the invaders or the old divinities
of the land (cf. Jer. 7.18; 44.17 ff). Others however,
would interpret the destruction of Jerusalem and its
consequences as the fulfilment of Yahweh's judgement
on his people. The fact that Yahweh continued to be
generally acknowledged as the God of Israel is indica­
ted by the absence after the return of any hint to set
up the worship of a deity other than Yahweh. Yet there
must have been a mood of despondency amongst those that
remained true to the Yahweh faith. This is reflected
in the practice that developed among the worshippers
of Yahweh to come and mourn over the ruined temple and
its altar (cf. Zech. 7.3 ff; 8.18 ff; Lam. 1.4).

Soon after the untimely end of Gedaliah's adminis­

tration the same Ishmael, who was connected with the
royal house of Judah and had slain Gedaliah and his
colleagues at Mizpah (cf. Jer. 41.1-4), also slew
eighty men on their way to Jerusalem bringing offerings
to be presented in what was called the house of the
Lord (cf. Jer. 41.5-ff). These worshippers were drawn
from Shechem, Shiloh and Samaria, and the fact that
 - 178
they were on their way to Jerusalem implies that des­
pite its ruin and downfall, it still had retained its
unique position as the centre of Israel's worship.
Clearly these Israelites did not come with the inten­
tion of resuming the practice of sacrifice at the sac­
red spot, but rather they came expecting to find an
altar and officiants in Jerusalem, qualified to offer
their sacrifice there. The population had been exhor­
ted to perform its official worship i.e. sacrifice at
the national shrine of Jerusalem, and apparently that
law had survived the extreme circumstances following
587, and its influence extended even into Samaria.
Deprived then of their priesthood that had been essen­
tial to this worship, and with the Jerusalem temple,
the only sanctuary which the reform of Josiah had autho­
rized, in ruins, they suffered deprivation in respect
of Yahweh's worship in a different way to those in
exile. The exiles had a priesthood but no sanctuary
so that they could not perform any sacrificial worship;
those that were left had the sacred site although
ruined, but its official priesthood in captivity. Yet
as already mentioned, the pilgrimage of the eighty men
from the cities of the north implies that some cult
did take place at Jerusalem during these years, and
anticipates officiants of some sort. The problem is
to find the identity of these substitutes for the
exiled priesthood of Jerusalem.
 - 179
There is no assured evidence of any priesthood
existing during the exile that was in a position to
take over the Jerusalem cult. If the hypothesis that
a priesthood from Bethel functioned at Jerusalem is
accepted, then the existence of a priesthood in Bethel
at some point in time during the exile is assumed
whether it continued at Bethel at the same time as some
of its members functioned at Jerusalem, or completely
vacated Bethel and took up residence in the ruins of
14
Jerusalem . Bethel had been revered since patriarchal
times as a hallowed place, Abraham had built an altar
there (cf. Gen. 12.8)^ and Jacob had .a vision following
which he pronounced the place holy (cf. Gen. 28.16,17).
It was in Bethel and Dan that Jeroboam is stated to
have set up his golden calves (cf. I Kgs. 12.26 ff).
Special emphasis seems to have been laid on Bethel at
this time possibly due to its proximity to Judah being
within twelve miles of Jerusalem itself. It became the
royal sanctuary of the northern kingdom in much the same
way as Jerusalem had done in Judah (cf. Am. 7.13), and
its position may have been further enhanced by Jezebel's
persecution of the prophets (cf. I Kgs. 18.4,13). But
due to the unstable nature of the monarchy in northern
Israel we cannot be sure if a continuous line of priests
existed there. The account of the coup d'etat of Jehu
(cf. II Kgs. 10.18-28) which records how the Baal

14. See Note 42 in Appendix.

 - 180

priests were lured to their death, might indicate that

such a continuity of the northern priesthood did not
exist. As the priest was a prominent royal official,
it would be difficult for him to serve his master's
triumphant rival. It is presupposed in II Kgs. 17.24
ffa that the priesthood of the northern kingdom had been
carried away by the Assyrians. The land, having been
ravaged by invaders, had to a large extent returned to
an uncultivated state and an increase in wild animals
ensued as a result. The new inhabitants of Samaria
who were molested by lions, thinking this was a visi­
tation on them by the local deity, requested a priest
to be sent back from amongst those exiled from the
country to instruct them in the cultic requirements of
the deity of the land of their adoption, presumably to
find favour with this God. The request was granted^ and
a priest was sent back and took up residence in Bethel,
but he does not appear to have had much impact as we
are informed that the Samaritans continued with their
idol worship and appointed priests of their own choo­
sing. However, v.32 records that although they made
idols yet they 'feared Yahwehindicating that Yahwism
was not extinct in Samaria although it had doubtless
become to a large extent syncretized with the religion
of the settlers. Whether the priest at Bethel was
caught up in this syncretistic worship or remained an
isolated beacon of pure Yahwism we are not told. All
that may be concluded the information contained
in XI Kgs. 17.24 ff is that Yahweh worship of a type
 - 181
was re-established at Bethel, the old royal sanctuary
of the northern kingdom which, as it had been permitted
by the Assyrian authorities, must have had the approval
of the Assyrian governor. Whether the priest was a
member of the original guild of priests before 721 is
impossible to determine with certainty, but the fact
that he took up residence in Bethel may signify that he
regarded himself as their successor. From the account
of Josiah's activities in Bethel (cf. II Kgs. 23.15-20)
we learn that it was destroyed and its cultic parapher-
15
nalia pulverised and burnt . Thus if a Bethel priest­
hood did take over the Jerusalem worship during the
exile, it must have been derived from apriesthood that
operated subsequent to^and indefiance of Josiah's
reform.

The only piece of evidence that may be found in

support of this theory lies i n 'the question asked in
Zech. 7.1-3 during the rebuilding of the temple, rela­
ting to the observance of the fast commemorating its
destruction. The answer is contained in Zech. 8.18-23
where it is declared that the fast hitherto commemora­
tive of the temple's destruction should henceforth be­
come a feast day. The words f ”
2
aI <T" * I .* »
in 7.2
i

are noteworthy as they indicate that a group of men

were sent to Bethel to find out this information, and
therefore assume the revival of a cultic settlement
there^^. It is possible that, as the government of
Gedaliah had its headquarters at Mizpah, a priesthood

15. See Note 43 in Appendix.

16. See Note 44 in Appendix.
 - 182
could have been resuscitated at Bethel and continued to
exist in the period following the termination of the
Mizpah administration (of. II Kgs. 25.25,26). However,
it is difficult to understand how two years after the
commencement of the rebuilding of the temple when the
17
exiles, including the high priest Joshua, had returned ,
a group of men should go to Bethel seeking information
about the Jerusalem worship. If Bethel was able to
supply information regarding the Jerusalem temple ^then
it would appear to have eclipsed the importance of
Jerusalem. But if this was so, how can the mission to
Jerusalem of the men of Shechem, Shiloh and Samaria be
explained, especially as they must have passed quite
close to Bethel? In consideration of these difficulties,
and the speculative nature of the basis on which the
existence of a priesthood in Bethel at this time lies,
perhaps a different interpretation of the Zechariah
texts may offer a solution. A clue may be found in
the answer in 8.15 ff where in vv.21 f it is predicted
that in the future men will come to Jerusalem to wor­
ship Yahweh by cities and by nations. This signifies
that those addressed were representatives of a place,
thereby indicating that the name Bethel in 7.2 is
genuine and may be taken to mean 'the men of Bethel
sent' hence providing a subject for the predicate
-n 'ÇVÜ ' 18

17. Zech. 7.1 records that this inquiry was made in

the fourth year of King Darius, and in Hag. 1.1 ff
it is reported that in the second year of King
Darius the prophet received word from Yahweh to
inform Zerubbabel and Joshua to restore the temple.
18. See Note 45 in Appendix.
 - 183
.As it is probable that cultic worship took place
at Jerusalem during this period^ it must be asked where
its officiants came from and who they were. It was
largely the proletariat of the land that remained in
it^amongst whom there were evidently some capable of
providing the worship of Yahweh at the place chosen by
him. It is hardly conceivable that lay people should
have undertaken this function. That would have meant
accepting the policy of centralization dictated by
Deuteronomy but flagrantly disobeying the same law in
connection with the rights it held out to the levitical
priests. Among this proletariat there would have existed
some priestly Levites, who, subsequent to the Deuterono­
mic reform, had found it impossible to find a place in
Jerusalem and to participate in the offering of the
nation's worship. As a result^they either became re­
dundant or took part in the idolatrous worship that
took place on the high places revived during the last
19
years of Judah's existence , and which were doubtless
suppressed following the Babylonian invasion. However,
the removal of the Jerusalem priesthood in 587 would
have provided the opportunity for these rural levitical
priests to come and claim their right which the law had
permitted them but the reality of circumstances denied.
If those who carried on the Jerusalem cult during the
exile are not to be identified with these levitical
priests, some other priestly group must be sought who

19. cf. Jer. 7.16-18; 11.9-13.

 - 184
had a better claim to discharge Yahweh 's worship than
those who claimed it as their right pronounced from the
mouth of Moses, and were supported in this claim by a
law which, as has been shown, survived as a living rule
and was adhered to. As no evidence however has survi­
ved of any other group having a better claim than these
rural levitical priests, it seems a reasonable hypothe­
sis to identify them, or at least some of them, with
the officiants of the Jerusalem cult during the absence
of its priests in Babylon.

Returning now to the polemic of Ezekiel, may it

not be a feasible line of argument to attribute the
change in attitude towards the non-Zadokite levitical
priests to some such levitical activity in Jerusalem
during the exile? The promulgation of the polemic has
been indicated as occurring towards the end of the
exile, a time when great changes were taking place on
the international scene. The overthrow of Babylon by
the Persians was seen by the exiles as the hand of
Yahweh working his purpose out. The victories of Cyrus
were interpreted as Yahweh's judgement against his
people's enemies, and Cyrus himself as the divine ins­
trument used to fulfil the redemption of the chosen
race (cf. Is. 44.28; 45.1). The exiles viewed the
events of the day as part of the great divine plan
which they hoped would culminate in a divine pardon for
the nation's past guilty and their restoration to their
native land. This is the theme underlying Deutero-
Isaiah. But on return what was to happen those who
 - 185
had functioned in the place of the exiled priesthood?
Would they return to their humble stations among the
people (cf. II Kgs. 23.9), or would they, having at
last exercised their rights, wish to maintain them and
perhaps even come to a settlement with their non-
Zadokite brethren (cf. Ezek, 40,45) who had obtained
the priesthood of a second rank and subsequently went
into exile. These must have been considerations that
weighed heavily on the Zadokites' minds. In view of
these questions^ which were of vital importance to the
Zadokites dispossessed of their sanctuar;^ and placed
their very existence as a priesthood in jeopardy, we
may perhaps have the clue to the motive behind the
polemic of Ezek, 44.6-=^16, Although the polemic was
contrary to the law of Dt. 18.1-8, this law had never
been in the interests of the zadokites who were now
faced with the desperate situation of losing their
supremacy in the future temple or sinking into oblivion
in exile. In this situation the only solution was to
proclaim the Zadokites as alone the priests of Yahweh
and deny the rest of the tribe of Levi its priestly
status on the grounds of its past idolatry at the coun­
try sanctuaries. The polemic thus achieved three things
at once. The demotion of the levitical priests in exile
who had gone into exile as such, the suppression of the
Levites functioning in place of the Zadokites at Jeru­
salem during the exile, and the preparation for the
return of the Zadokites to their position of pre­
eminence at Jerusalem.
 - 18 6

Although the visions of 2echariah may receive dif­

fering interpretations, they are of importance for the
study of this period. A highly significant oracle re­
lating to the high priesthood is found in the third
chapter. It depicts a scene of divine judgement in
which the prophet sees Joshua the high priest standing
20
before the angel of God . On Joshua 's right hand
stands Satan to accuse him. In v.2 the Adversary is
indignantly rebuked and Joshua is referred to as a
brand plucked from the fire, indicating that the high
priest has survived some disaster which may be inter­
preted as the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile
21
following . The phrase 'and the Lord said unto Satan,
the Lord rebuke thee’ does not convey good sense and
should preferably be read ’and the angel of the Lord
said, the Lord rebuke thee ' The angel of God is
clearly depicted as the protector of the high priest
which seems to indicate that the Adversary is the
accuser, insisting upon the unworthiness of Joshua, the
defendant. Joshua is further described as attired in
filthy garments. He is high priest and clothed in
soiled raiment, a remarkable pair of descriptives, the
former denoting an office that demanded absolute purity
and ritual cleanness. Hence impurity or taint of the

20. Similar scenes depicting heavenly assemblies are

found in Ps. 82,1; Job 1.6-12; 2,1-6.
21. A similar phrase is found used in Amos. 4.11 of
the remnant of Israel left, following one of
Yahweh's destructive visitations.
 - 187
high priestly office appears to be signified, especially
as in V.4 members of the heavenly court are commanded
to remove the filthy garments from Joshua, Joshua is
then pardoned of his guilt, which is not described, and
22
given a change of clothing . The high priest having
been cleansed and pardoned, is thereupon promised the
authority of Yahweh's house and courts on condition of
his loyalty to Yahweh, the God of his fathers, and his
obedience to all divine precepts, Joshua, along with
his companions, is now addressed in v-8 which contains
an extraordinary phrase i.e. 'for behold I will bring
forth my servant the Branch'. If the 'Branch' were
understood to mean Joshua, it would be difficult then
to explain why he should be summoned to take note that
Yahweh is going to bring him forth when it is assumed
that he has already returned from exile. Moreover the
term (I" is never found used of the high priest but
rather of the messianic Davidide of the future age (cf,
23
Is. 4.2; Jer, 23.5; 33.15) . On the other hand, if
it were interpreted to denote Zerubbabel it would be
strange to speak of him as if he were yet to come, for
according to Hag. 1.12 ff he had already been in Jeru­
salem for two months actively engaged in the restoration

22. A.C, Welch, Post-Exilic Judaism,p. 182, states

that Joshua was clothed in garments which accorded
with his position as high priest. There is nothing
to indicate this interpretation; it is only stated
that Joshua received a change of raiment and a
divine pardon. The emphasis lies on the fact that
the new clothes were clean denoting a divine clean­
sing of the high priest from some previous pollu­
tion.
23. It is also used in reference to Zerubbabel in
Zech. 6.12.
 - 188
of the temple (cf. Zech. 1.1 ff) . The words TT3TF '3
repeated at the beginning of the next sentence would
indicate that we have an intrusion here, and as the
omission of the sentence in question restores the con­
tinuity of the chapter, it therefore seems probable
that a later reader^not fully understanding the context^
inserted this sentence. The exact sense of the closing
promise is very obscure and irrelevant to the problem
. .24
under discussion

The identity of Joshua must now be sought. We

know that he was the high priest, but does he represent
25
those who officiated at Jerusalem during the exile ,
or those returning from exile? The expression, used to
. describe Joshua^ i.e. 'a brand plucked out of the fire
implies someone recently escaped from a disaster rather
than a person who is about to continue in the same po­
sition as he had previously occupied. This would sug­
gest that Joshua is best identified with the returned
exiles rather than those who did not experience exile.
Moreover, if the line of the first alternative.were
favoured, it would be difficult to explain the signi­
ficance of the filthy garments with which a priest that
had never had any reason to sufferpollution was atti­
red with. If the filthy garmentswere todenote the
inferiority of the resident Jerusalem priesthood, this
inferiority is turned into a superiority that would
scarcely encourage the exiled priests to return in

24. See Note 46 in Appendix.

■ 25. See Note 47 in Appendix.*
 - 189
great number, which in fact they did (as Ezra 2.36 ff;
8.15 record)^ to be subservient to those who had acted
for them in their absence. The second suggestion, iden­
tifying Joshua with the priesthood returned from exile
would therefore seem more probable. The filthy gar­
ments would then represent the uncleanness contracted
during exile in a heathen land and on the restoration
of this 'brand plucked from the fire', all pollution
must be cleansed and the iniquity of the past removed.
It is difficult to determine whether Joshua as high
priest represents the exiled priests or the exiled
community as a whole. All that may be said is that
Joshua and his colleagues having been cleansed and ins­
talled in their office, the rituals necessary for the
cleansing of the rest of the people returned from exile
could now be performed.

The identification of the Adversary is more diffi­

cult. As he appears as Joshua's prosecutor his role
must be to express the attitude of a’ party which oppo­
sed Joshua's return and his reinstatement to priestly
office at Jerusalem. Two factions would appear to
have had reason to litigate against Joshua. The first
of these for consideration is the Samaritans. They
had tried to help in the building of the temple, but
their assistance had been discourteously rejected by
Zerubbabel, Joshua and the elders (cf. Ezra. 4.1-5).
This rejection offended the Samaritans and in retalia­
tion, they spitefully reported to the Persian king that
the Jews were preparing to rebel. This complaint
 - 190
aroused the suspicion of the Persian authorities and
26
the work at Jerusalem was stopped , Although the
Samaritans were deeply offended and aggravated in a
way that was to have important repercussions in the
future, it is doubtful if their grievance would have
27
been focused solely on Joshua . The decision to re­
ject their help was communicated by the most represen­
tative body of men that constituted the nation, state
church, and people, implying that the matter was more
a national and political one than one solely concerning
the.priesthood. Furthermore, the emphasis in Zech.3
is on the matter of uncleanness which makes Joshua un­
fit to discharge his function as high priest. This is
hardly an accusation that could have been brought
against Joshua by a people who themselves were conside­
red unclean being of mixed race and religion (cf. II
Kgs. 17.24 ff). The second possible faction would be
more likely to have a direct grievance against Joshua.
They were the levitical priests who had functioned at
Jerusalem during the exile. These priests would have
been in a position to assert themselves as ritually
clean and their position legally authentic. They could
also accuse the Zadokites of ritual impurity arising
from their exile in a heathen land. The position of
Joshua was of prime importance to them^and the question
of his inauguration was of direct significance to their
own future. The Adversary's protestations did not

26. cf. Esra. 4.17-24.

27. See Note 48 in Appendix.
 - 191
succeed however, and Joshua and his colleagues, the
Zadokite priesthood were reinstated, the polemic of
Ezek. 44.6-16 becoming law for the future.

' The exile and its aftermath was bound to bring

changes and upheavals in the history of the Jewish
people, and although an effort was made to re-establish
the old order. Providence had other plans. The fact
that the Jews retained their identity even as a congre­
gation rather than a nation, is a tribute to the tena­
city of their faith. One of the survivors from the
old order however, was the Zadokite priesthood which,
re-established at its ancient shrine, flourished once
again and developed into greater importance than ever
before in the centuries that followed the exile.
 ‘ . - 192
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
SIGNIFICANCE AND OFFICE OF AARON

An attempt is made in this chapter to ascertain

the high-priestly status attributed to Aaron in the
priestly writing and later traditions of the Old Testa­
ment. This priestly significance ascribed to Aaron by
the later documents of the Old Testament is absent in
the early pentateuchal narratives and the traditions
of the pre-monarchic, and monarchic periods. In the
older traditions in which Aaron is mentioned, he is
only faintly sketched, and we are given no idea of a
personality. However, Ex. 32 and Num. 12 are exceptions
in which Aaron, instead of appearing as Moses' protege,
acts independently and in opposition to Moses. He is
found in Ex. 17.10 ff, where it is recorded how, along
with Hur, he rendered support to Moses' arms, thereby
sustaining the uplifted rod that insured the Israelites
of victory over the Amalekites. He is mentioned in Ex.
18.12 as partaking of Jethro's sacrificial meal along
with the elders of Israel, and is referred to inciden­
tally in Ex. 19.24. This latter reference to Aaron
appears to be completely isolated and without sequel,
as there is)no record of him in the previous narrative
in which Moses alone ascends Mt. Sinai and is addressed
by Yahweh (cf.. w . 20 ff) . Furthermore, it is note­
worthy that no connection is assumed between Aaron and
the priests who are also mentioned in this verse. Aaron
is found in Ex. 24.1,9 being bidden by Moses to worship
 - 193
Yahweh afar off on the holy mount along with Nadab,
Abihu and the seventy elders, and v.14 of this chapter
informs us that Moses and Joshua went up the holy mount
to receive the tables of law, while Aaron and Hur were
left in charge of the people^. In each of the instan­
ces cited there is no hint of Aaron functioning in a
priestly capacity, but rather as an elder or seer in a
tribal community of desert nomads. Although these tra­
ditions associate Aaron with the southern wilderness
2
area , there are certain indications that the circles
in which they were preserved were those that ultimately
settled in the north. The fact that a preponderance of
these early traditions that mention Aaron are attribu­
ted to the Elohist would seem to suggest this. More­
over, the grave tradition contained in Jos. 24.29-33,
which provides valuable information with regard to the
area of activity of the persons it mentions, records in
V.33 that Eleazar ben Aaron was buried in the hill of
Phinehas in Mt. Ephraim- From this information it
appears that an Eleazar tradition circulated in Ephraim
which stated that he was the son of Aaron, and there­
fore provides further support for the theory associa-
3
ting the Aaron tradition with a northern locality .

1. W. Rudolph, *Der Elohist von Exodus bis Joshua,'

B.Z.A.W., 1938, p.48, considers Ex. 24.12-15a as
an introduction to the narrative of Ex. 32.
2. M.Noth, Æberlieferunqsqeschichte des Pentateuch,
p. 198, claims that these occurrences of Aaron
during the wilderness period are the oldest, and
may indicate a southern origin for the traditions
relating to him. cf. also A. Kusche 'Die Lager-
vorstellung der priesterlichen Erzâhlung', Z.A.W,
1951, pp. 74-105, esp. p.95.
3. See Note 50 in Appendix.
 - 195
Num. 12 appears to contain two narratives in each
of which Aaron and Miriam are represented in opposition
to Moses. The first dissension recorded in v.1 is
occasioned by Moses' marriage to a: Cushite woman. It
does not appear to have a sequel and introduces Miriam
before Aaron, but despite the plural subject, the pre­
dicate is in the feminine singular form, indicating
4
that originally Miriam alone was involved . The second
dissension related in vv. 2-ff is ascribed to the pri­
vileged position Moses held as prophet of Yahweh^ where­
by Yahweh appears to have spoken only through him, and
not Aaron and Miriam. In v.4 all three are called into
the tabernacle.but in the following verse only Aaron
and Miriam are addressed. Moses seems to appear as a
witness while Yahweh arbitrates in the dispute by ex­
plaining that although he communicates with all pro­
phets through visions or dreams, Moses receives the
divine communication directly from his mouth. A dif­
ference between the modes of divine communication used
for Moses i.e. mouth to mouth, and that used for Aaron
and Miriam is thereby expressed, which distinguishes
5
Moses from all other prophets . The account continues

4. It may be possible that 'Miriam* governs the pre­

dicate as it stands next to it. If, however, the
original narrative intended to involve both Miriam
and Aaron one would expect this to be expressed
in the verb.
5. J. Pedersen, Israel III - IV, its life and culture,
p. 192, takes a similar view, and interprets this
chapter as showing Moses as a person quite apart
and distinct from the priests and prophets of
Israel.
 “ 196
in vv. 9 ff by recording that^ although Yahweh 's wrath
was inflamed against both the culprits, only Miriam
received a punishment. That both were guilty is evi­
dent from the fact that Yahweh's wrath was kindled
against both of them (cf. v .9) and that Aaron interceded
for both Miriam and himself (cf. v.ll). As however,
Aaron's intercession for Miriam was successful (cf. v .14),
and unnecessary for himself as he remained unpunished,
we may perhaps have a tradition that was originally fa­
vourable to Aaron and which subsequently, with a pole­
mical purpose in mind, was associated with that rela­
ting to Miriam's guilt, as would appear to have happened
in v.l. Again, it may be possible that an originally
independent tradition relating to Miriam's affliction
was at a later time associated with a tradition refer­
ring to a dispute with Moses in which both Aaron and
Miriam were involved, and in this way a reason for
Miriam's leprosy would have been provided. As Miriam
and not Aaron contracted leprosy^ there would naturally
be no mention of a punishment for him. On the other
hand it cannot be ruled out that a later hand, anxious
to exculpate Aaron from his guilt, removed the record
of his punishment. It is difficult to decide which of
these possibilities is the correct one, but in view of
the later importance and significance of Aaron the last
suggestion appears to be the most probable.

Following the narrative that recounts the crossing

of the Reed Sea, Miriam is found described in the
ancient poem of Ex. 15.20 as the sister of Aaron with­
out any mention of Moses, indicating that for the
 - 197
author of this passage Aaron and Miriam had no rela­
tionship with Moses. Although the narrative of Num. 12
does not actually state this relationship between Aaron
and Miriam, the fact that they represent a 'un ited
opposition against Moses would imply some connection
between them based on their common resentment against
Moses in his unique position as prophet of Yahweh. At
the same time this opposition to Moses shows that the
relationship between Moses and Aaron referred to in
Ex. 4.14 was unknown in some circles of tradition. So
far Aaron has been encountered as a desert sheikh in
the tribal community of the wilderness period, both
accompanying Moses, and also hostile to Moses, but in
no place is conclusive evidence found of Aaron's later
priestly role. In fact in Ex. 33.7-11 where the sanc­
tuary is described, there is no mention at all of
Aaron, but Moses acts as priest with Joshua, his sole
assistant, in an apprentice-like capacity^.

Ex. 32 is of paramount importance for the exami­

nation of the figure of Aaron. It must be interpreted
in the context of Ex. 32-34 which is introduced by
Ex. 24.12-15a, and which deals with the topic of the
tables broken in Ex. 32 and renewed in Ex. 34. The
chapter is composite and represents a number of frag­
mentary developments rather than two narratives running
side by side.' vv.l-4a record that during Moses' pro­
longed absence the people feared him lost, and according­
ly they themselves leaderless. They therefore requested

6. See Note 51 in Appendix.,

 - 198
Aaron to make them (images of) gods that would direct
them on their way through the wilderness. Aaron recei­
ved gold from them and made a calf, fashioning it in a
mould- This is not an improbable event to have taken
place in the wilderness period. At this juncture, as
a natural reaction to the irreparable loss of Moses,
Yahweh worship may well have fallen into disrepute and
disuse. The people would presumably attribute the
delay in his return to his loss or possible death on
the mount,, and as a result lost faith ^n the covenanting
God. Hence a state of aporia probably existed amongst
the people for which the most obvious solution was to
revert back to an old mode of worship that was still
‘familiar to them. It is striking that although (images
of) gods were requested in v.l, v.4a records that Aaron
produced only one calf. A different mode of presenta­
tion occurs in v.4b. The phrase ff T T 1 H il denotes
that not one but two or more idols are referred to as
in v.l, but if these words are in sequence to v.l we
would expect to read 'these be our gods, O Israel,
which brought us up out of the land of E g y p t '. It
might be supposed from the K I'l at the beginning of
v.5 that Aaron, now standing back from his own handywork,
is able to admire it for the first time. On the other
hand, the implication that Aaron is now seeing the
image for the first time can be interpreted to mean
that not Aaron but the people made the image. This
interpretation however, would contradict v.4a. He pro­
claims a feast and builds an altar, the word -7 *T
7*
denoting a singular image, v.6 describes the type of
 - 199
orgy that is generally associated with calf worship.
The emphasis in this section^ i.e. vv.4b-6 seems to lie
on idol worship rather than on Israel's total disregard
7
for Yahweh recorded in vv.l-4a . This theme however is
taken up again in v v . 7 ff. In v.8 a contradiction of
terms is again found when Yahweh relates to Moses how
the people have transgressed by making a molten calf
which they address with the words 'these be thy gods O
Israel which have brought thee up out of the land of
Egypt'. . The second address of Yahweh to Moses in v.9
might indicate the introduction of another tradition,
g
or at least a break in the narrative . However, as Dt.
9.12, which is parallel to v v .7,8, is followed by a
section which is parallel to v v . 9,10, this shows that
at least by the time the Deuteronomist was writing v.8
was followed by v.9. v v . 11-14 constitute a remarkable
plea in which Moses argues with Yahweh that should he
destroy Israel, the Egyptians will doubt his sincerity
in bringing Israel out of Egypt. Moses appears to be
giving a warning to Yahweh, a peculiar relationship
9
between God and man . It may be possible to take

7. G.W. Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness, p. 184,

conjectures that behind the present form of Ex.32
a positive account of the golden calf may origi­
nally have lain, which, if still discernible,
would in all probability appear in v v . 1-6.
8. cf. S. Lehming, 'Versuch zu Ex. XXXII,’ V.T. (1960)
pp. 16-45.
9. Ezek.20 may reflect a similar line of thought es­
pecially in vv.9,14 where it is related how, in
spite of the nation's wickedness, Yahweh redeemed
Israel from bondage and led her into the promised
land to prevent his name from being polluted
before the heathen.
 - 200

v v . 7-14 as a unit in which it is told how the people

sinned and were guilty, but yet due to the covenant
with the Patriarchs Yahweh was bound to forgive them.
On the other hand,the divine reprieve in v . 14 does not
agree with the rest of the chapter where punitive action
is recorded as being discharged by Moses in v . 20, the
Levites in v . 28^and Yahweh in v . 35. This would there­
fore imply that the section relating to M o s e s ' plea i.e.
10
v v . 11-14 may be considered as a later addition . vv.
15-20 describe the descent of Moses from the mount fol­
lowing the divine command he had received there (cf.v.7)
The mention of Joshua in v . 17 provides a connecting link
with the introductory passage in Ex. 24.12-15 where
Joshua accompanies Moses up the mount, and the breaking
of the tablets in v . 19, symbolising the breaking of the
covenant, forms a connection with v.B. The speculation
of Joshua in v . 17 and the answer of Moses in the follo­
wing verse provide a good example of dramatic suspense
leading up to M o s e s ' encounter with the calf in v v .19,
20. These two verses, which seem to describe a clean­
sing ritual rather than a punitive action, appear to
be out of sequence with the following passage since it
would seem more logical for Moses to have questioned
Aaron before taking action. The explanation of Aaron
that now follows in vv.21-24 is contradictory to his
deliberate manufacturing of the calf (cf. v.4a)^ and his

lO. M. Noth, Exodus, p . 244, considers these verses as

a Deuteronomic addition.
 - 201
participation in the idolatrous cult associated with
it (cf. v.5). A nexus is provided by v.25 between the
previous section and vv.26-29, which records a tra­
dition that was originally not associated with the calf
episode, and whose prime interest lay in the institu­
tion and vindication of the Levites. The slaughter
executed by the Levites in v.28 is superfluous in view
of the visitation promised in v. 34 and discharged in
V.35. Moreover, there is no mention elsewhere in this
chapter of a group of people described as Levites who
remained aloof from those participating in the worship
of the calf. There may, however, be a connection
between this section and v.lOb in which Yahweh's pro­
mise to make Moses into a great nation is stated.
This could mean that those who showed their allegiance
to Yahweh by siding with Moses, would, as a result,
become members of the spiritual family of Moses, Never­
theless, this possibility is weakened by the fact that
the idea of Yahweh making a great nation of an indivi­
dual usually refers to the issue of the person concer­
ned (cf. Gen. 15.5; 17.5 ff; 26.3 ff)^^. This section
is followed by vv.30-34 which are at variance with v.35
and probably represent a later period of the polemic
against the calf. Moses' intercession, which is success­
ful in obtaining a postponement of the punishment, is
perhaps a concession to the fact that the calf continued
to exist, and the narrative not to anticipate the future
divine handling from its own time could only

11. For a fuller analysis of vv.25-29 see the first

chapter of this thesis. The implication in v.33
that amongst the guilty there were faithful ones,
might indicate an element common to vv.25-29.
 - 202

go so far as to announce a more assured divine punitive

action, v.35 however is the culmination of the punish­
ment discharged by Moses in v . 20.

The mention in v.4a of a calf being made by Aaron

which is subsequently described in v.4b by a plural
pronoun is a contradiction in number. A similar con­
tradiction occurs in v.8 where the same object is
described with a singular noun in reference to a calf
and followed by a plural of address relative to it.
Something similar occurs in v.l where (images of) gods
are requested of Aaron and he is recorded in v.4a as
producing a calf, and again in vv. 23 f in which Aaron
relays to Moses how (images of) gods were requested by
the people and a calf emerged from the fire. The calf
may either represent a symbol of strength or fertility,
or it could be considered as a totem in which the
spirit of the deity inhered. Yet the request for
(images of) gods and the production of one calf in
response to this request is peculiar^ and indicates a
variety of tradition. A plurality of gods cannot be
represented by one calf in this way. However, the use
of the term 'gods' in connection with calf worship may
find its explanation in I Kgs. 12.28 f. Here it is
recorded that Jeroboam set up two calves and placed
one at Bethel and the other at Dan. Moreover; he re­
ferred to them with the same words as are found used
in v.4 and v.8 of the molten calf. The historic cir­
cumstances of the wilderness may have had relevance for
 - 203
a later situation which was validated by the use of
the plural instead of the singular in this wilderness
tradition. Furthermore, it is possible when the people
of the northern kingdom turned away from Judah, after
Solomon's death, that they reverted to old traditional
ways that may originally have been interpreted in a
12
positive light but, subsequently falling into abuse,
stood condemned. The purpose must now be sought for
inserting v v . 26-29 which appear to be unrelated to the
rest of the chapter. According to I Kgs. 12.31 ff,
Jeroboam suppressed the Levites and set others in their
place. Thus the insertion of a tradition vindicating
the Levites for their dedication to the service of
Yahweh was most appropriate for the condemnation of the
calf worship associated with Jeroboam's religious
policy. Moreover, an antithesis may have been aimed
at by the inclusion of these verses with the purpose
of illustrating the loyalty of the Levites and the
apostasy of Aaron. The motive of the chapter appears
therefore to condemn Jeroboam's cultic measures as ido­
latrous and a breach of covenant, by using the wilder­
ness scenes of the surrounding narratives as a basis
13
from which the polemic is worked.

The role of Aaron in this chapter appears at diffe­

rent levels, vv.l-4a records how he deliberately formed
a calf in response to the people's desire, but in the

12. cf. n.7.

13. See Note 52 in Appendix.
 - 204
following verse Aaron sees it only when it has been
already made, and accepts it as a fait accompli. He
is not considered directly responsible for the image^
but acts as priest to it by building an altar before
14
it and proclaiming a feast to Yahweh . vv. 21-24
appear to be an attempt to exculpate Aaron from his in­
volvement in the apostate cult. The people are guilty
and Aaron has connived with them by showing approval
of their action. Moses' question, phrased to imply
that the people coerced Aaron into his action (i.e.
'what did the people do to you?') anticipates the ans­
wer it receives. Aaron took the gold from the people
and threw it into the fire from which opus operatum,
the calf emerged (cf.v.24). This is at variance with
the account in v.4a which records how he deliberately
formed it. Of the first two passages i.e. vv. l-4a,
4b-6 it is difficult to decide which is the older.
The second in relating that Aaron saw the calf only
after its completion, although he is still recorded as
directing the calf worship, may be an effort at white­
washing his guilt. We may, on the other hand, have
two separate traditions, the first (vv. l-4a) from an
original wilderness narrative which, without any pole­
mical intent, has attributed to Aaron the manufacture

14. H. Gressmann, Moses und seine Zeit, F.R.L.A.N.T.

p . 199, n.4, points out the divergence between
w . l-4a and vv. 4b-6. 'Zunachst stehen l-4a und
4b-6 im Widerspruch. Dort wird das goldene Kalb
von Aaron, hier vom Vo Ike gemacht; Aaron baut hier
nur den Altar, und selbst die Opfer werden vom
VoIke dargebracht. Dort handelt es sich urn den
Gott, der vor Israel einherziehen soil, hier dagegen
um den Gott, der Israel aus Agypten geführt hat.
 - 205
of the calf; the second (vv. 4b“6 ) , b y associating
Aaron with the organization of calf worship, may repre­
sent a polemical tendency against both Aaron and the
image. The third Aaron section (vv. 21-24) with its
definite tendency to exculpate Aaron^ would appear to
be later and to have the purpose of exonerating Aaron
from his sin- in manufacturing the image (as in vv.l-4a),
and if w . 4b-6 are taken to have a polemical tendency,
from his association with the worship of the calf.

Who was this Aaron and why should there have been
any reason for exonerating him from his guilt? Should
this Aaron be associated with that referred to in the
other narratives dealt with? It seems most probable
that the Aaron of Ex. 32 and the Aaron of the other
pentateuchal narratives are one and the same person.
He is associated with Hur both in Ex. 17.10-12 and in
the introduction to this chapter (Ex. 24.12-15), although
Hur is not actually mentioned in Ex. 32, the interest
being focused on Aaron. As Aaron, according to Ex.
32.5, was the priest of this calf worship, and this in
all probability refers to the idolatrous cult of Jero­
boam, it leaves open the possibility that Aaron or
priests claiming him as eponym may have operated at
Bethel in Jer o b o a m ’s time and later. We know from Ju.
18.30 that a Mosaic priesthood functioned at Ban from
pre-monarchic days. Although there is no direct evi­
dence that an Aaronite priesthood operated at Bethel
or indeed that any continuous line of priests functioned
there in pre-exilic times, yet from the evidence advanced
 - 206

it would seem reasonable to conjecture the existence

of a priesthood which associated itself with Aaron and
functioned at Bethel^^. The occasion for Aaron's ex­
culpation is difficult to pinpoint. It could have
taken place after Aaron had risen to high priestly
status.when the record of an Aaron punished for parti­
cipating in an idolatrous cult would have been offen­
sive. Alternatively, it may have been the result of a
northern influence after the. fall of Samaria when dif­
ferent northern and southern streams cf tradition were
merged together. A reappraisal of the figure venerated
as the eponym of the northern priesthood would have
been essential if the prophetic dream of the reunifi­
cation of Israel and Judah was to find acceptable ex­
pression in their fused traditions^^. Aaron therefore
stands as priest and although implicated in the calf
worship escapes unpunished from participation in the
idolatry attributed to him.

Having encountered Aaron as protégé of Moses, oppo­

nent of Moses, and priest, we encounter him again in
yet a different capacity in Ex.4. We are informed in
v v . 10-12 that Moses, having received his commission and
hence the means of proving himself, declined Yahweh 's
command with the excuse of inexperience in speech. In
his magnificent reply Yahweh states that he is supreme
creator^and as such ruler over man's faculties with the
power to give him whatever is necessary to discharge

15. See Note 53 in Appendix.

16. cf. Jer. 3.18; 33.7; Ezek. 37.20 ff.
 - 207
any divine task committed to him. Y a h w e h 's anger in
vv. 1 4 is a natural reaction to Moses' second refu­
sal of his command. The words 'is not Aaron the Levite
thy brother? I know he can speak well .., and he shall
be thy spokesman unto the people ... * come as a complete
surprise after v.ll where Yahweh poses the question^
'who hath made man's mouth or who maketh the dumb or
deaf or the seeing or the blind? have not I the Lord?'
The question assumes that not Aaron^but Yahweh himself
wishes to remedy the difficulty alleged by Moses.
Moreover, one would expect, following Yahweh's tole­
rance of Moses' faithlessness (cf. v. 11) ^and Moses'
second refusal of the divine command (cf. v. 13) that
Yahweh's wrath recounted in v. 14 would culminate in
, the punishment of Moses instead of in the toleration of
his recalcitrance by supplying Aaron as a substitute.
Aaron is now to discharge what Yahweh himself claims to
be able to do (cf. v.ll). This intrusive reference to
17
Aaron has its sequel in vv. 27-31 . Here Aaron is bid­
den to meet Moses in the wilderness, v. 27 implies that
both men knew each other, although we are given no in­
troduction to Aaron apart from v. 14. In v. 30 it is
related that Aaron not only acted as spokesman for
Moses to the people but that he also performed signs,
thus going beyond the mandate given him in vv.' 13-16
to act as a mouth to Moses. Although accounted to JE,

17. w . 18-25 are a separate section dealing with Moses '

return to Egypt and Zipporah's circumcision of her
son. vv. 27 ff bring the reader back to the wilder­
ness scene of the earlier part of the chapter.
 — 208

this passage in attributing signs to Aaron has an ele­

ment in common with P. This point is developed further
in the plague narratives of P in which the rod, that
Moses authenticated himself with as Y a h w e h 's messenger
by changing it into a serpent (cf. Ex. 4.1 ff), is
transferred to Aaron. According to the P- account of
the plagues, it was with this rod that Aaron performed
wonders before Pharaoh^^.

The impotence of Moses in Ex. 4.14 ff^ is contra­

dictory to his subsequent role in the plague narratives.
Here Aaron is given a sudden access of importance and
Moses is characterized as a cringing inarticulate per­
son, incapable of leadership. In the plague narratives
the reverse is seen, the indisputable authority of Moses
setting Aaron's role to the side- Aaron appears incon­
sistently and never in a leading capacity in the JE
narratives. Although both men appear before Pharaoh in
a fruitless attempt to bring about the release of the
Hebrews from bondage (cf. 5.1) Aaron in no way takes a
leading part, Moses always being named before him (cf.
vv. 4,20). Moses occasions the first plague (cf. 7.14
ff) without any mention of Aaron. In the plague of
frogs, Aaron is mentioned twice without taking any
19
active role (cf. 8.4,8. - E.V.8.8,12) . The account

18. cf. EX. 7.8-13,19; 8.1-3 (E.V.vv.5-7), 12-15

(E.V.vv.16-19).
19. vv.1-3 (E.V.vv.5-7) in which Aaron plays a deci­
sive role performing a wonder with the rod, are
attributed to P. Aaron also takes an active part
in the third plague, i.e. lice cf. 8.12-15 (E.V.
v v . 16-19), which is likewise attributed to P.
 - 209
of the fourth plague states that Moses and Aaron were
summoned by Pharaoh (cf- v . 21 - E.V.v.25), but Moses
alone conducted the ensuing negotiation, and in v . 26 -
E-V.v.30 it is recorded that Moses went out from Pha­
raoh without mention of Aaron, indicating that he
either remained with Pharaoh or, as is more probable,
the redactor omitted to remove him. Aaron is not men-
20
tioned at all in the fifth plague (cf. 9.1-7) , but
in the seventh plague (cf. 9.13-35) Moses and Aaron are
again summoned before Pharaoh (cf. v. 27), Moses pro­
mises that the hail will cease (cf. vv. 29 ff), and
departs alone, the redactor again omitting to remove
Aaron with him from Pharaoh's presence. A similar
occurrence appears in the eighth plague (cf. 10.1-20)
in which Moses and Aaron enter Pharaoh's presence (cf.
V . 3) , but only Moses is reported as leaving it (cf.
V . 6 b ) . - However in v.8 Moses and Aaron are both recal­
led by Pharaoh and both are finally driven from his
presence in v . 11. Apart from a passing reference
Aaron plays no part in the plague of locusts. He
appears alongside Moses as witness to Pharaoh's con­
fession (cf. V . 16), but no further mention is made of
him and Mose's departs alone (cf. v. 18) . Aaron is not
mentioned at all in the two final plagues i.e. darkness
(cf. 10.21-29) and the smiting of the firstborn (cf.
11.1-9).

20. The sixth plague cf. 9.8-11 in which Aaron takes

a more active part is attributed to P.
 - 210

Prom this examination of the plague narratives it

can be seen that Aaron has only a superficial presence
in them, and that his removal from the narrative would
do no violence to the text, perhaps even improve it.
Moses is the spokesman and leader of the enslaved Heb­
rews. It would appear that a redactor has made an un­
successful attempt to harmonize the Aaron intrusion in
Ex.4 with the plague narratives, by inconsistently in­
serting him beside Moses. The reference to Aaron in
4.14 as a Levite is striking and important. As he is
also described as the brother of Moses the reference
'Lévite' cannot denote tribal kinship, but rather pro­
fessional status. The fact however that Aaron has
levitical status / and is also referred to as the brother
of Moses may perhaps be seen as the seed from which the
21
Moses-Aaron relationship of P germinated . The
question arises whether we have here a snatch of some
tradition that recognized Aaron as a Levite in pre-
exilic times, but of which we have no further informa­
tion, or the possibility that the word Levite in some
traditions denotes the idea of a spokesman, or as the
priestly writer describes Aaron in Ex.7.1, a prophet -
one who acts as a medium between God and man - and so
perhaps reflects something of the prophetic quality
that Num.12 presupposes for Aaron. The description of
Aaron as the brother of Moses in 4.14 is unrecorded
elsewhere in the pre-priestly pentateuchal sources,
where he is found both as follower and opponent of Moses,

21. The fact that P states that Aaron is the elder

brother of Moses emphasises the firstborn position
of the high priest cf. Ex.7.7.
 - 211

but never as brother, which may again indicate a frag­

ment of a tradition, the rest of which has failed to
come down to us.

We have seen Aaron now in a number of different

capacities in the pre-priestly literature - as sheikh,
priest of the calf worship. Levity and both brother and
opponent of Moses. Why should he have risen from this
obscure variety of stations to the exalted position
which the priestly writer attributes to him? After
the return from exile Israel ceased to be a monarchy,
and a new order emerged based on a theocracy. Yet nos­
talgic reflection on the nation's past history and
achievements must have given courage and hope for the
future^despite the disappointment Zerubbabel's brief
appearance as the representative of the Davidic house
must have been. The. interest in a future Messianic
Davidide^who would rule as Y a h w e h 's charismatic vice­
regent as envisaged in Is. 9.2-7; 11.1-9 was still very
much alive. Haggai speaks of Zerubbabel as Yahweh Vs
signet and chosen one reigning supreme (cf. 2.20-23),
while Zechariah tells of Zerubbabel building the
temple (cf. 4.6-10). It was in this atmosphere of ex­
pectancy that the priestly document came to fruition.
Like Deuteronomy it is a miscellany of material incor­
porating many ancient traditions. Although the priestly
writer sets his material into the wilderness period yet
he reflects the circumstances of the age of the monarchy
 - 212

This becomes clear from the elaborate description of

the temple (cf. Ex. 25-31; 35-39) which accords much
more closely with Solomon's edifice than that of the
22
wandering nomadic community of the wilderness period
The correspondence is apparent in the very articles of
furniture that appear in P's tabernacle and Solomon's
temple respectively. In both of them we find that all
the inner articles of furniture are made of gold, the
23
outer of bronze . In both descriptions the ark has
poles attached to it not only at the time of removal
but also when resting at the inner sanctum (cf. Ex.
24
25.13-16; I Kgs. 8.8) . Like the boards of the taber­
nacle and its inner pillars (cf. Ex. 26.29, 32), all the
inner surfaces of Solomon's temple, walls, floors and
even doors of the inner and outer sanctums, are over­
laid with gold (cf. I Kgs. 6.20-22,30,32,35), but gold
does not figure in the court. Carvings of the cherubim
appear on the walls and doors of the inner and outer
sanctum of Solomon's temple in a similar way to the
cherubims worked on the inner curtains and veil of the
25
tabernacle . The priestly dependence on the account
of Solomon's .temple is particularly evident in the form
of their respective altars. The altar of burnt offerings

22. See Note 54 in Appendix.

23. With respect to the temple cf. I Kgs. 6.28; 7.23-39,
48-50.
24.. When the Israelites became settled in the land, the
ark also became settled in the national shrine and
was only occasionally moved when carried in the
festal processions.
25. cf. I Kgs. 6.29,32,35 and Ex. 26.1,31; 36.35.
 - 213
in the court of Solomon's temple was of bronze (cf. I
Kgs. 8.64; Ezek.9.2) similar to the altar of burnt
offering in the court of the tabernacle (cf. Ex. 27.1-8;
38.1-7). This bronze altar of Solomon's temple was the
first bronze altar that the Israelites were familiar
with, as the use of bronze as a building and engraving
material only began in Israel during Solomon's reign^^.
The horns of P's altar (cf. Ex. 27.2; 38.2) also appear
to have originally come into fashion in Israel at the
beginning of the monarchic period as there is no evi­
dence of them prior to this time. Similar to the
altar of burnt offering, the gold altar of incense des­
cribed in P is certainly a projection of the parallel
27
altar made in Solomon's temple . It seems scarcely
conceivable that the priestly writer genuinely believed
that this elaborate construction was a true description
of the wilderness tabernacle. The description is
rather an attempt to vindicate the temple of the monar­
chy by projecting it back into the source period. This
source period is used to authenticate the glory of the
pre-exilic Jerusalem cult which is seen as the culmi­
nation of the development of the tabernacle tradition.

The presentation of the temple's prototype in the

wilderness authenticated its historical existence in
Solomon's time. The priestly writer in his elaborate

26. Tyrian artisans had to be imported to execute the

bronze work of the temple court cf. I Kgs. 7.13,14.
27. cf. I Kgs. 6.20,22; 7.48 and Ex. 30.1-10.
 - 214
description of all the furnishings of the wilderness
tabernacle clearly has his objective in authenticating
the Jerusalem temple in this way. Two questions now
arise. The one, whether Moses^ the tribal leader and
high priest functioning in both priestly and secular
capacity in the source period^ may have been interpreted
by P as the prototype of the sacral king who acted as
spiritual and secular leader in the settled Israelite
community. The other question is whether Aaron, who
is represented as priest and Levite in some of the
traditions relating to the source period^ is the proto­
type of the priesthood that served at Jerusalem. It
is possible that the spiritual and secular offices
which Moses held and Samuel inherited were originally
interpreted as being to some degree separated on the
death of Samuel, which marked the passing of an era,
and consequently became vested in the king and priest.
As however the king performed certain cultic functions
it is difficult to determine exactly the office that
the king and priest each inherited from the line of
leaders that had ended with Samuel. The interpretation
of these two figures as the successors of a wilderness
prototype would appear rather to be a later innovation
of a more retrospective nature peculiar to P. If we
rule out this possibility we are confronted with the
need to explain the existence of two figures instead
of one, both known to have existed in the source period,
being represented alongside the Solomonic temple pro­
jected back into this period. As Aaron is present only
 - 215

as a minor character in comparison with Moses in the

pre-priestly literature, it would appear that his pro­
minence here has a motive behind it that,can only be
explained by interpreting him as representing the
priesthood of the monarchy.

The relationship of priest to king was that of

subordinate to superior. This is implied in the judge­
ment on the Elides where it is stated in reference to
the royal priest 'he shall walk before the face of my
anointed for ever' (I Sam. 2.35). Gradually as the
cult developed the priest's influence was extended and
28
his importance grew , but the king 'still retained con­
trol of the state cult at the royal sanctuary. David
was responsible for bringing the ark to Jerusalem and
danced before it in the priestly garment (cf. II Sam.
6.6-19). It is also recorded in this passage that he
blessed the people which, together with his other acti­
vities mentioned here, implies that he acted as a type
of pontifex maximU^- He dedicated the altar at the
threshing floor of Araunah (cf. II Sam. 24.18 ff) with­
out any mention of a priest being present. Solomon
not only built the temple^ but he conducted its entire
inauguration (cf. I Kgs. 8). The relationship between
king and priest can perhaps be best seen in II Kgs.
16.10 ff where it is stated that Ahaz gave directions

28. In the story of Athaliah, it was the priest Jehoiada

that led the rebellion to restore the Davidide cf.
II Kgs.11. It is recorded in II Chr. 22.11 that
Jehoiada was married to a daughter of the king, in­
dicating the close* ties between the family of the
Jerusalem priesthood and the royal family at this
time.
 - 216
for a new altar to Urijah the priest, which he executed
as subordinate and officer of the king. Ahaz acted as
chief priest at what appears to be the dedication cere­
monies for the altar. Urijah received his instructions
from the king and accordingly carried out his orders.
In the same way Hezekiah and Josiah brought about cultic
reforms without any part being played by the priests
who presumably must have gone along with them.

Thus the king had a dual role. With regard to

Moses it is impossible to decide where he acts as a
priest and where as a tribal leader. Although we still
find traces of him in the older period, when the chief
was considered as head of the cult, discharging cultic
functions as in the making of the covenant on Sinai (cf.
Ex. 24.6-8), yet later tradition has also assigned to
him a power that included a priestly function, even after
the function of the priesthood had become an office
apart and attributed to Aaron. Moses was nearest Yahweh
and was the intermediary between Yahweh and the people,
and although Aaron was a priest, Moses continued to have
the traits of both ruler and priest. It was therefore
possible for the psalmist to refer to both Moses and
Aaron as priests (cf. Ps- 99.6). Moses both appointed
and directed the sanctification of the Aaronic priest­
hood, the account of which is contained in the whole
complex of the temple erection, for which he also re­
ceived orders from Yahweh and discharged them (cf. Ex.
28,29). As a priest he consecrated a priest, yet he
stands apart as supreme ruler and recipient of the divine
 - 217
intimation. Even in the account of'Korah's rebellion,
which relates to an impeachment on the Aaronic priest-
29
hood (cf. Num.16) , Moses acted as arbitrator of the
dispute, representing Yahweh. On receipt of the divine
command Moses entered unhindered into the innermost
part of the tent, but Aaron could only enter at entirely
designated times and even then only with the most care­
ful attention to safeguard measures (Lev. 8f). This
shows that Moses and Aaron are both representatives of
the people, but both enter upon the holy of holies in
entirely different capacities.^ Moses as receiver of a
divine instruction and therefore communicator and inter­
cessor before Yahweh, Aaron as a cult server - '.....
allüberall amtiert Ahron durch Mose „Das sprach Jahwe
zu Mose; Rede zu Deinem Bruder Ahron...." (Lev.16.2).
So ist das VerhSltnis zwischen Mose und Ahron. Mose
weiht Ahron und seine Sbhne, er veranlasst die Primiz
Ahrons und jegliche weitere Kultausübung.'

It is noteworthy that on the succession of Joshua

to the position of leader after Moses' death (cf. Num.
27.20 ff) that only part of the honour^ i.e. 1 of
Moses is assigned to him. Although Joshua is to lead
the people, yet it is emphasised that he is to ask the
priest Eleazar for oracles and to act in accordance
with them. The order now runs ’Eleazar and Joshua'
which seems to indicate an attempt to insist upon the

29. See Note 55 in Appendix.

30. cf. G. von Rad, 'Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch'
B.W.A.N.T., 4 P.H.13p.l84.
 - 218
superior rank of the high priest. Does this emphasis
on the priest allude to a historical remembrance of
such an event, or does it reflect changed circumstances
of later times, the death of Moses and Aaron represen­
ting the end of an era, and the succession of Eleazar
and Joshua the beginning of a new one? The question
is difficult to answer, but the succession of Joshua
to only part of Moses' status, and the supremacy of
Eleazar must have some significance^ especially as Joshua
seems to have played the role of'tribal as well as spi­
ritual leader in succession to Moses in traditions
other than the priestly one. There is no mention in
Dt. 34.9 of his only partially succeeding Moses. It
is stated here, that Moses laid his hands upon him,
therefore imparting his blessing wholly on him without
mention of anyone else. Moreover, according to Jos.
8.30 Joshua built an altar on Mt. Ebal, and he is also
on record as having blessed Caleb (cf. Jos. 14.13) and
Reuben, Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh (cf. Jos.
22.6). Nowhere except in the priestly document is
Eleazar mentioned alongside Joshua, and even when Aaron
predeceased Moses, his successor Eleazar who is instal­
led, by Moses (cf. Num. 20.22 ff) is, like his prede­
cessor, subservient to him (cf. Num. 26.63; 31.12,41).
Why then should the priestly writer deny Joshua full
recognition as Moses' successor and promote Eleazar
into a position of supremacy which is nowhere else
31
recorded? As we have no evidence of this in the

31. In Num. 34.17 and Jos. 17.4 the priestly writer

records how Eleazar and Joshua distributed the land.
 - 219
source period^we may perhaps conclude that it rests on
a readjustment from the monarchy to the circumstances
of post-exilic times in which the priest ultimately sur­
vived alone and supreme. Due to the fact that Joshua
from the time of Moses had a prominent place in the
traditions of ancient Israel and therefore could not
be ignored, his importance was merely curtailed and the
32
priest emerged into the prime position

The question must now be asked whether the Chronic­

ler in the position he allocates to Aaron as ancestor
of priests was relying on some tradition that is unknown
to us / or on a mixture of traditions .drawn from the
early period and the priestly document. The first pos­
sibility cannot be ruled out, yet neither can it be
wholly accepted, since it rests on nothing more sub­
stantial than the argumentum ^ silentio. If such a
tradition did exist, it is surprising that it is not
found recorded elsewhere. It seems that there were
two groups of priests. The name Ithamar may be the
name of a section of the pre-exilic priesthood at Jeru­
salem as we find it mentioned in the Ezra memoirs.(cf.
33
Ezra. 8.2) along with the name Phinehas amongst those
returning from exile- Ezekiel's statement (cf. 44.15)

32. See Note 56 in Appendix.

33. Perhaps at this point the priestly writer attached
the genealogy of Aaron-Eleazar-Phinehas, which was
known to exist in northern circles (cf. Jos. 24.33),
to accord with his elevation of Aaron to the high
priesthood.
 - 220
that only Zadokites may function as priests would imply
that both these groups were Zadokites. The fact that
two lines of priests are recorded does not necessarily
imply a Zadokite and an intruding group, in fact the
absence of the name Zadok from E%ra 8.2 would seem to
suggest the reverse, for we know that the Zadokites
did return from exile, and therefore if one of the
groups consisted of non-Zadokite priests, one would
expect the zadokite and non-Zadokite to be designated.
The Jerusalem priesthood having existed in one family
for over four centuries was bound to multiply and re­
quire some organization into designated groups, each
group constituting part of the Zadokite priesthood.
Four great priestly families of Jerusalem are mentioned
in Ezra. 2.36-39, i.e. Jedaiah (namely the house of
Joshua i.e. Joshua ben Josadak), Immer, Passhur and
Harim. I Chr. 24.1 records all four sons of Aaron and
/
goes on to recall the fate of the two eldest suggesting
dependence on the priestly writing (cf. Lev. 10.1-7).
The surviving two, Eleazar and Ithamar^ are represented
by zadok and Ahimelech. If the Ithamar line is taken
as a renegade group unconnected with the Zadokites then
it either continued to function at Jerusalem despite
Ezekiel's dictum^ and the later rejection of those who
had falsified their pedigrees to obtain the priesthood
in Nehemiah's time (cf. Nh. 7.63-65), or the name Itha­
mar describes a Zadokite group of priests in Ezra. 8.2,
and a non-Zadokite in I Chr. 24.1. Howevei^ it seems
improbable that the name Ithamar described one thing
at one time and another at a later time? and if the
 - 221
priests it did describe survived as a renegade group
until the Chronicler's time, we would expect them to
have been driven out from office as they occupied only
eight of the twenty-four priestly courses (cf. I Chr.
24.4). It would hence appear that the Chronicler had
two groups of Zadokites, the main group denoted by the
name Eleazar at least subsequent to the priestly docu­
ment, the other designated Ithamar, recorded from early
post-exilic times. With his interest in the Davidic
period he associated them with the two lines of priests
functioning at Jerusalem in David's time. Thus the
whole scheme comes into a full circle with the post-
exilic priesthood of Jerusalem derived by the Chronic­
ler from Nob as well as from Gibeon^ and joined into
one family under the ancestor Aaron.
 - 222
WORKS CONSULTED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS THESIS

Books
Arnold, W.F., Ephod and Ark, Harvard Theological Studies
III, 1917.
Albright, W.F., Archaeology and the Religion of Israel,
Baltimore, 1953.
Baudissin, W.W. Graf., Die Geschichte des Altestament-
lichen Priesterturns, Leipzig, 1889.
Begrich, J., Die priesterliche Tora (B.Z.A.W. 66), Giessen,
1936.
Beyerlin, W . , Die Kulttraditionen Israels in der VerkÜn-
digung des Propheten Micha, (F.R.L.A.N.T. LXXII),
Gbttingen, 1959.
Bright, J., A history of Israel, London, I960.
Browne, L.E., Early Judaism, Cambridge, 1920-
Buchanan Gray, G., Sacrifice in the Old Testament,
Oxford, 1925.
Budde, K., Altisraelitische Religion. Dritte, verbesserte
und reicher erlSuterte Doppelauflage von „Die Religion
des Volkes Israel bis zur Verbannung", Giessen, 1912.
Burney, C.F., Israel's Settlement in Canaan, The
Schweich lectures, 1917.
The Book of Judges, London, 1918.
Clements, R.E., God and Temple, Oxford, 1965.
Prophecy and Covenant, London, 1965.
Coats, G.W., Rebellion in the Wilderness, Minnesota, 1968.
Cody, A., The History of the Old Testament Priesthood,
(Analecta Biblica 35. 1969. Pontifical Biblical Institute,
Rome).
Driver, S.R., Notes on the Hebrew Text and the topo­
graphy of the Books of Samuel, Oxford, 1913.
Duss^d, R., Les origines cananéennes du sacerfice
Israelite, Paris, 1921.
 - 223
Eissfeldt, O», The Old Testament, an Introduction,
trans., Peter Ackroyd, New York, 1955.
Gray, J. , Archaeolocfy and the Old Testament World,
London, 1962.
Joshua, Judges and Ruth. The Century
Bible, new edition, 1967,
Gressmann, H., Mose und seine Zeit, ein Kommentar zu
den Mose-Sagen (F.R.L.A.N.T., N.F.I), Gôttingen, 1913.
Gunneweg, A.H.J., Leviten und Priester (F.R.L.A.N.T.
LXXXIX), Güttingen, 1965.
Haidar, A., Associations of Cult Prophets among Ancient
Semites, Uppsala, 1945.
Hall, H.R.H., The People and the Book (ed. S. Peake),
Oxford, 1925.
Johnson, A.R., The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel,
Cardiff, 1962.
Koch, K. , Die Priesterschrift von Exodus 25 bis Leviticus
16. Eine überlieferungsgeschichtliche und literar-
kritische Untersuchung (F.R.L.A.N.T. LXXI), Gôttingen,
1959.
Kraus, H“J., Worship in Israel, trans. J. Buswell,
Oxford, 1966.
Kuenan, A . , Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur biblischen
Wissenschaft - aus dem Hôllandischen Übersetzt von K.
Budde, Leipzig, 1894.
Macdonald, J., The Samaritan Chronicle No II (B.Z.A.W.
107), Giessen, 1969.
Meek, T.J., .Some Religious Origins of the Hebrews, New
York, 1950.
Menes, A., Die vorexilischen Gesetze Israels (B.Z.A.W.
50), Giessen, 1928.
Meyer, E., Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstâmme, Halle,
1906.
Mordtmann, J.H., Beitrëge zur minëichen Epigraphik,
Weimar, 1897.
Nicholson, E.W., Deuteronomy and Tradition, Oxford, 1967.
 - 224
Nielsen, E., Shechem, a traditio-historical Investigation,
Copenhagen, 1955.
Noth, M. , Das System der zw<51f Stamme Israels, (B.W.A.N.T.
IV, 1), Stuttgart, 1930.
Das Buch Joshua, Stuttgart, 1938.
Uberlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch,
Stuttgart, 1948.
Exodus, trans., J.S. Bowden, London 1962.
Oestreicher, T., Das deuteronomische Grundgesetz, Güter-
sloh, 1923.
Pedersen, J., Israel, its life and culture III-IV,
Copenhagen, 1940.
Pfeiffer, R.H., Introduction to the Old Testament, New
York, 1947.
von Rad, G., Das Gottesvolk im Deuteronomium, (B.W.A.N.T.
III, 11), Stuttgart, 1929.
Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch, (B.W.A.N.T.
IV, 13), Stuttgart, 1934.
Studies in Deuteronomy, trans., B.Stalker,
London, 1956.
Reventlow H. Graf., Wâchter über Israel, Ezechiël und
seine Tradition, (B.Z.A.W.82), Giessen, 1962.
Rowley, H.H., From Joseph to Joshua, The Schweich lec­
tures, 1948.
From Moses to Qumran, studies in the Old
Testament, London, 1963.
Rost, L., Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge
David's (B.W.A.N.T. Ill, 6), Stuttgart, 1926.
Rudolph, W. , ..Der Elohist" von Exodus bis Joshua (B.Z.A.W.
68), Giessen, 1938.
Chronikbtcher (H.A.T.) 1955.
Steuernagel, C., Die Weissagung tber die Eliden (B.W.A.T.
13), Stuttgart, 1913.
de Vaux, R., Ancient Israel. Its life and Institutions,
London, 1961.
 - 225
Welch, A.C., The Code of Deuteronomy. A new theory of
its Origin, London, 1924.
Deuteronomy ; The framework to the Code,
London, 1932.
Post-exilic Judaism, Baird lecture, 1934.
Prophet and Priest in Old Israel, London,
1936.
The Work of the Chronicler. Its purpose
and date. The Schweich lectures, 1938.
Wellhausen, J., Prolegomena to the history of Israel,
trans., J.S. Black and A.Menzies, Edinburgh, 1885.
Whybray, R .N ., The Succession narrative, a study of II
Sam. 9-20 and I Kgs. 1 and 2, London, 1968.
Wright, G.E., Shechem; the Biography of a Biblical City,
London, 1965.
Zimmerli, W . , Ezechiel, Biblischer Kommentar(Neukirchen
Kreis Moers : Neukirchener Verlag, 1955).

Articles
Aberbach, M. and Smolar, L., 'Aaron, Jeroboam and the
Golden Calves' J.B.L., LXXXVI, 1967, pp.129-140.
Albright, W.F., 'The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the
light of Archaeology', B.A.S.O.R. No.74, 1939, pp.11-23,
'A votive stele erected by Ben-hadad I
of Damascus to the God Melcarth', B.A.S.O.R. No. 87,
1942, pp.23-29.
'The Gezer Calendar', B.A.S.O.R. No. 92,
1943, pp.16-26.
'The list of levitic Cities'in Louis
Ginzberg Jubilee volume I, New York, 1945, pp.49-73.
Alt, A., Die Wallfahrt von Sichem nach Bethel, K.S.G.
VJ.l, 1953, pp.79-88.
Agyptische Tempe1 in Palâstina und die Land-
nahme der Philister, K.S.G. VJ.l, 1953, pp.216-230.
Die Heimat dés Deuteronomiurns, K.S.G. VI.II,
1953, pp. 250-275.
 - 226
Bemerkungen zu einigen judaischen Ortslisten
des Alten Testaments, K.S.G. VI.II/ pp.289-305.
'Festungen und Levitenorte im lande Judah',
K.S.G. VJ.II, 1953, pp.306-315.
Auerbach, e ./ 'Die Herkunft der Sadokiden', Z.A.W. XLIX
1931, pp.327 f.
'Das Aharon-problem', suppl. XVII to V.T.
1968, pp.37-63.
Bentzen, A., 'Zur Geschichte der Sadokiden', Z.A.W. LI,
1933, pp.173-176.
'The Cultic use of the story of the Ark in
Samuel', J.B.L. LXVII, 1948, pp.37-53.
Bewer, J., 'The Composition of Ju. 17 and 18', A.J.S.L.
No.29, 1913, pp.261-283.
Blenkinsopp, J., ’Kiriath-jearim and the Ark', J.B.L.
LXXXVIII, 1969, pp.143-157.
Bowman, J., 'The Exegesis of the Pentateuch among the
Samaritans and among the Rabbis', O.T.S. vol. 8, 1950,
pp.220-263.
'Ezekiel and the Zadokite priesthood',
G.U.O.S.T. XVI, 1955/56, pp.1-14.
'The Samaritans and the Book of Deuteronomy',
G.U.O.S.T. XVII, 1957/58, pp.9-18.
'Samaritan Studies', B.J.R.L. vol. 40, March
1958, pp.318 ff.
Browne, L.E., 'A Jewish sanctuary in Babylonia', J.T.S.
No. 17, July 1916, pp.400 f.
Budde, K., 'Das Deuteronomium und die Reform Josias.
Ein Vortragsentwurf', Z.A.W. XLIV, 1926, pp.177-224.
'Die Herkunft Sadok's', Z.A.W. LII, 1934,
pp.42-50.
Campbell, E.F., 'Labayu', B.A. vol. XXIII no.1, 1960,
pp.19-22.
Campbell, E.F., and Ross, J.J., 'The excavation of
Shechem and the Biblical Tradition', B.A. vol. XXVI, no.
1, 1963r pp.2-27.
 - 227
Gazelles, H., 'David's Monarchy and the Gibeonite Claim,.
II Sam. XXI. 1-14', P.E.Q. 1956, pp.165-175.
Clements, R.E., 'Deuteronomy and the Jerusalem Cult
Tradition', V.T. XV, 1965, pp.300-312.
Cross, P.M., and Freedman, D.N., 'The Blessing of Moses',
J.B.L. LXVII, 1948, pp.191-210.
Cross, F.M., and Wright, G.E., 'The Boundary and Province
lists of the kingdom or Judah', J.B.L. LXXV, 1956, pp.
202-226.
Della Vida, G.L., 'El 'Elyon in Genesis 14.18-20', J.B.L.
LXIII, 1944, pp.1-9.
Dus, J., 'Gibeon - eine KultstSite des Sms und die Stadt
des benjaminitischen Schicksals', V.T. X, 1960, pp.353-374.
Eissfeldt, O., 'Der Gott Bethel', A.R.W.28, 1930, pp.1-31.
'Lade und Stierbild', Z.A.W. LVIII, 1940/1,
pp.190-215.
'Silo und Jerusalem', suppl. IV to V.T.,
1957, pp.138-147.
Elliger, K., 'Sinn und Ursprung der priesterschrift-
lichen Geschichtserzâhlung', Z.Th.K. 49, 1952, pp.121-143.
Emerton, J.A., 'Priests and Levites in Deuteronomy',
V.T. XII, 1962, pp.129-138.
Feigin, S., 'Some Cases of Adoption in Israel', J.B.L.
L, 1931, pp.186-200.
Fensham, F. Charles, 'The Treaty between Israel and the
Gibeonites', B.A.vol. XXVII no.3, 1964, pp.96-100.
Fisher, L.R., 'Abraham and his Priest-king', J.B.L.
LXXXI, 1962, pp.254-270.
Gertner, M. 'The Masorah and the Levites', V.T. X, 1960,
pp.241-284.
Gordis, R., 'Critical Notes on the Blessing of Moses',
JTS XXXIV, 1933, pp.390-392.
Gradwohl, R., 'Das„fremde Feuer” von Nadab und Abihu',
Z.A.W. LXXV, 1963, pp.288-296.
Gray, J., 'The Desert.sojourn of the Hebrews and the
Sinai-Horeb tradition', V.T. IV, 1954, pp.148-154.
 - 228
Greenburg, M., 'A-New Approach to the history of the
Israelite priesthood.', J.A.O.S, LXX, 1950, pp.41-47.
Griffiths, J,, 'The Golden Calf, Exod. 32', E.T. LVI,
1944/45, pp. 110 f.
Gunneweg, 'Sinaibund und Davidbund', V.T. X,
1960, pp.335-341.
Haran, M . , 'The levitical Citiesj Utopia and Historical
Reality', Tabriz XXVII, 1957/58, pp.421-439 (in Hebrew,
with a summary in English).
'The Nature of the "ohel Mo'edh" in penta-
teuchal sources', J.S.S. V, 1960, pp.50-65.
'Shiloh and Jerusalem : the origin of the
priestly tradition in the Pentateuch', J.B.L. LXXXI,
1962, pp.14-24.
Hartmann, R., 'Zelt und Lade', Z.A.W. XXXVII, 1917/18,
pp.209-244.
Hauer, C.E., 'Who was Zadok?', J.B.L^ LXXXII, 1963,
pp.89-94.
Hauret, C., 'Aux origines du sacerdoce Danite', Melanges
bibliques rédigés en l'honneur de André Robert, Paris,
1957, pp.105-113.
Hertzberg, H.W., 'Die Melkisedeq-Traditionen', J.P.O.S.
VIII, 1928, pp.169-179.
Hôlscher, G., 'Komposition und ursprung des Deuterono-
miuras,' Z.A.W. XL, 1922, pp. 161-256.
■'Levi', Pauly-Wissowa Real Encyclopadie
XII, 2, cols. 2155-2208.
Hoonacker, A. van, 'les prêtres et les levites dans le
livre d ’Ezéchiêl,' R .B .18, 1899, pp.177-205.
'Ezekiel's priests and levites',
E.T. XII, 1901, pp.383, 494-498.
Hyatt, J.P., 'The Deity Bethel and the Old Testament',
J.A.O.S. LIX, 1939, pp.81-98.
/
Irwin, W.H., 'le Sanctuaire central Israélite avant
1'establissement de la monarchie', R.B.72, 1965, pp.
161-184.
 - 229

Jeremias, J., 'Hesekieltempel und Serubbabeltempel',

Z.A.W. LII, 1934, pp.109-112.
Jirku, A., 'Die Mimation in den nordsemitischen Sprachen
und einige Bezeichnungen der altisraelitischen Manik',
Biblica, XXXIV, 1953, pp.78-80.
Judge, H.G., 'Aaron, Zadok and Abiathar', J.T.S. VII,
1956, pp.70-74.
Junker, H., 'Die Entstehungszeit des Ps. 78 und des
Deuteronomiums', Biblica XXXIV, 1953, pp.487-500.
Kennet, R.H., 'The Origin of the Aaronite priesthood',
J.T.S. VI, 1905, pp.161-186.
Kbnig, E., 'The Priests and the Levites in Ezekiel 44.
7-15’, E.T. XII, 1901, pp.300-303.
Kopf, L., 'Arabische Etymologien und Parallelen zum
Bibelwôrterbuch', V.T. VIII, 1958, pp.161-215.
Kuschke, A., 'Die Lagerworste1lung der priesterschrift-
lichen Erzëhlung', Z.A.W. LXIII, 1951, pp.74-105.
Le Bas, E.E., 'Zechariah's Enigmatical contribution to
the corner stone', P.E.Q., 1950, pp. 102-122.
Lefevre, A., 'Notes d'exegese sur les généalogies des
Qehatites', R.S.R. XXXVII, 1950, pp.287-292.
Lehming, S., 'Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte von Gen.34',
Z.A.W. LXX, 1958, pp.228-250.
'Versuch zu Ex. XXXII', V.T. X, 1960,
pp.16-50.
'Massa und Meriba', Z.A.W. LXXIII, 1961,
pp.71-77.
Levy, I., 'The Beginnings of the worship of Yahweh
conflicting Biblical views', V.T. VI, 1956, pp.429-435.
'The Story of the golden Calf reanalysed',
V.T. IX, 1959, pp.318-322.
Macdonald, J., 'The Samaritan Doctrine of Moses', S.J.Th.
vol. 13, pp.149-162.
May, H.G., 'The Ark - a miniature Temple', A.J.S.L. No
LII, 1935/36,. pp. 215-234.
 “ 230
Mazar, B., 'The Cities of the Priests and the Levites',
suppl. VII to V-T-, 1960, pp.193-205.
Medico, H.E.Del., 'Melchisedech', Z.A.W. LXIX, 1957,
pp.160-170.
Meek, T.J., 'Some Religious origins of the Hebrews',
A.J.S.L. No. XXXVII, 1920/21, pp.101-131.
'Aaronites and Zadokites', A.J.S.L. No.XLV,
pp.149-166. 1928/29.
'Moses and the Levites', A.J.S.L. No.LVI,
1939, pp.113-120.
Mbhlenbrink, K., 'Die levitischen Überlieferungen des
Alten Testaments', Z.A.W, LII, 1934, pp.184-231.
'A Chapter in the history of the High-
Priesthood', A.J.S.L. No. LV, 1938, pp.1-24, 183-197,
360-377.
Morgenstern, J., 'The Festival of Jeroboam I', J.B.L.,
LXXXIII, 1964, pp.109-118.
Murtonen, A., 'Some thoughts on Judges XVII sq', V.T. I,
1951, pp. 233 f.
Nielsen, E ., 'Some Reflections on the History of the Ark',
suppl VII to V.T., 1959, pp.61-74.
'The Levites in Ancient Israel ', S.T.1.3,
1964, pp.16-22.
North, F.S., 'Aaron's Rise in Prestige', Z.A.W. LXVI,
1954, pp.191-199.
Noth, M . , 'Zur Anfertigung des,,golden Kalbes" ', V.T. IX,
1959, pp.419-422.
'Samuel und Shiloh', V.T. XIII, 1963, pp.390-400.
Ohnstead, A.T., 'The Earliest Book of Kings', A.J.S.L.
NO. XXXI, 1914/15, pp.169-214.
Plôger, O., 'Priester und Prophet', Z.A.W. LXIII, 1957,
pp. 157-192.
Porteous, N.W., 'Prophet and Priest in Israel', E.T.
LXII, 1950-1, pp.4-9.
Press, R., 'Das Ordal im alten Israel', Z.A.W. LI, 1933,
pp.227-255.
 - 231
Pritchard, J.B., 'The water system at Gibeon', B.A.
vol. XIX, No. 4, 1956, pp.66-75.
'A Bronze Age Necropolis at Gibeon',
B.A. Vol. XXIV, No. 1, 1961, pp. 19-24.
Procksch, O., 'Fürst und Priester bei Hesekiel', Z.A.W.
LVIII, 1940/41, pp.99-133.
Robertson, E., 'Investigations into the Old Testament*
Problem; the results', B.J.R.L., vol. 32, 1949/50,
pp. 18-43.
Rost, L., 'Bermerkungen zu Sacharja 4', Z.A.W. LXIII,
1951, pp.216-221.
Rowley, H.H., 'Zadok and Nehushtan', J.B.L. LVIII, 1939,
pp.113-141.
'Early Levite History and the question of
the Exodus', J.N.E.S.3, 1944, pp.73-78.
'Melchizedek and Zadok (Gen.14 and Psalm
110)', Festschrift Alfred Bertholet zum 80 Geburtstag,
Tübingen 1950, pp.461-472.
'Hezekiah's Reform and Rebellion', Men of
God, London, 1963, pp.98-132.
Rudolph, W . , 'Zum Text des Bûches Numeri', Z.A.W, LII,
1934, pp. 113-120.
Schmid, H . , 'Jahwe und die Kulttraditionen von Jerusalem',
Z.A'W. LXVII, 1955, pp.168-197.
Schmidt, K.L., article on HOlscher's work, Geschichte
der israeliten und jüdischen Religion, T.Z.L. No. 14,
1923, pp. 290 f.
Skipworth, G.H., 'Hebrew tribal names and the primitive
traditions of Israel', J.Q.R. 11, 1899, pp.239-265.
\ X
Vincent, L.H., 'Abraham a Jerusalem', R.B.58, 1951,
pp.360-371.
Waterman, L., 'Bull worship in Israel', A.J.S.L. XXXI,
1915, pp.229-255.
'Some determining factors in the northward
progress of Levi', J.A.O.S. LVII, 1937, pp.375-380.
 - 232
Westphal, G., 'Aaron und die Aaroniden', Z.A.W. XXVI,
1906, pp.201-230.
Wolff, H.W., 'Hoseas geistige Heimat', Gesammelte Stu-
dien 1964, pp. 232-250.
Wright, G.E., 'The Levites in Deuteronomy', V.T. IV,
1954, pp.325-330.
Zimmerli, W . , 'Das Gotteswort des Ezechiel', Z.Th.K.
XLVIII, 1951, pp.249-262.
'Sinaibund und Abrahambund, ein Beitrag
zum Verstclndnis der Priester schrift ', Theologi sche
Zeitschrift 16, 1960, pp. 268-328.
 APPENDIX

1. Isaac appears as a dull reflection of Abraham.

The attempt to deceive Pharaoh by Abram passing
off Sarai as his sister (cf. Gen. 12.10-20) is
similar to the account in Gen. 26.6-11 in which
Isaac pretends to Abimelech that Rebekah is his
sister. Moreover, the dissension over the wells
between the herdsmen of Abram and Lot (cf. Gen.
13.5-13) is parallel to the strife between Isaac's
servants and the herdsmen of Gerar (cf. Gen. 26.
20-22). There is in fact only one incident in
the life of Isaac that shows independence of the
Abraham narratives, i.e. the mention of his having
some success in agriculture, cf. Gen. 26.12 ff.

2. The narratives recording the sale of the birth­

right in Gen. 25.29-34 and the stolen blessing in
Gen. 27.1-40 are intended to describe the gradual
growth of Israel compared to Edom. The latter as
an organized and settled state is represented as
the older, cf. Gen. 36.31; Num. 20.14-21; Dt . 2.
2-8. It was subdued by David cf. II Sam. 8.14,
and from that time until 586 remained in a subor­
dinate position. Israel is represented as the
younger and stronger of the two people.

3. The narrative contained in Gen. 29-31 suggests a

struggle between Israel and Aram represented by
Jacob and Laban respectively, which probably arose
from lack of sufficient pasturage to maintain the
two groups, and resulted in the expulsion of the
Jacob group.

4. E. Meyer in reference to the problem of the analy­

sis of Gen. 34 says 'es ist vielleicht das für die
Kritik schwierigste Stück des gangen Hexateuchs,
für das, so deutlich die Vermischung verschiedener
ErzÜhlungen erkennbar ist, dennoch eine gesicherte
Analyse noch Niemandem gelungen ist und vielleicht
niemals gelingen wird'. cf. Die Israeliten und
ihre Nachbarstümme, p. 412.
 11

5. The word n ^ ‘ui in v . 10, has found a great number

of interpretations, none of which have been accep­
ted as wholly satisfactory. The commonest of
these is to understand the word to denote 'Shiloh',
the Ephraimite shrine that housed the ark before
the establishment of the monarchy, and to inter­
pret the verse as meaning that Judah looks forward
to the reunificationof the north with the south,
which would suggest the date of the oracle to be
subsequent to the secession of Israel from Judah.
Another possible solution is to assume that the
word is a hapaxlegomenon, the exact meaning of
which has not survived.

6. E. Meyer, op. cit., pp. 423 ff, understands Gen.

34 as a reflection of Ju. 9, but considers that
originally Levi and Simeon had no connection with
Shechem, the theme of the plot in which they were
originally involved being of a different nature.
T.J. Meek in his Hebrew Origins follows Meyer and
considers that an originally independent Simeon-
Levi tradition was later associated with Shechem.

7. cf. Jos. 17.7. Gen. 48.22 may denote that Shechem,

subsequent to the fall of Simeon and Levi reverted
to Canaanite hands, and was later captured by the
Jacob group migrating into Canaan. This hypothesis
would accord with the kinship assumed between the
Israelites and Shechemites in Jos. 24. It is
quite possible that, as intermarriage was the
order of the day in Abimelech's tim^ there were
Israelite elements within Shechem and in the
villages round about.

8. A. Menes, 'Die vorexili schen Gesetze Israels im

zusammenhang seiner kulturgeschichtlichen Entwick-
lung'. B.Z.A.W, 50-53 (1928) p.4, contends that
Gen. 49.5-7 has the same basis as Ex. 32.26-29,
i.e. the cruelty of the Levites. The anger with
which they slay men and mutilate oxen in Gen. 49.6,
he considers parallel to the slaughter executed by
the Levites in Ex. 32.2 7 f. He deduces that Gen.
49.5-7 originated from the hand of an opponent of
 Xll

8. the Levites who was an adherent of the bull cult.

The association of these two texts in this way
does not account for the absence of Simeon in
Ex. 32.25-29,

9. It is noteworthy that the word levi appears on some

of the inscriptions discovered at El 'Ola, in the
Minaean script. The Minaeans of southern Arabia
established a colony in northern Arabia in the
territory south of Midian around 600 B.C. On
three of these inscriptions the word I w ' with the
feminine form of Iw't occurs in reference to per­
sons concerned with the cult of the Arabian God
Wadd. This word has sometimes been translated
'priests' or 'Levites', due to its resemblance to
the Hebrew word 'Levi', and it has been concluded
by some that the Israelites adopted the institution
of the Levites from those early Arabs with whom
they had contact in the desert. However, closer
examination has shown that the words Iw' and
Iw't do not mean 'priest' and 'priestess', but
rather an object given to God i.e. a pledge. The
object may be a person or a thing but it is never
a person engaged in performing the cult. Perhaps
here may lie some indication of the meaning of the
Levite in Num. 3.11-13 as one pledged, but not
necessarily involved in cultic service or a mem­
ber of a'priestly family. The Minaeans however,
were a people from southern Arabia, and their kings
did not rule the region around Dedan in northern
Arabia until the fourth century B.C. The words
Iw' and Iw't are found only in the Minaean ins­
criptions of northern Arabia at Dedan and never
in those of the south nor in any other south
Arabian dialect. It is probable thus, that they
were borrowed from the population of Dedan which
was neither Minaean nor even proto-Arab in the
widest sense. According to Arabic authors writing
in the early days of Islam, the oasis of Dedan was
then occupied by the Jews who seemed to have been
there for a considerable time. A recently disco­
vered inscription of Nabonidus states that this
 IV

9. king established a military colony in northern

Arabia at Dedan itself, and that soldiers were
mainly recruited from the west. It is possible
that there were Jews amongst them, which may
suggest a borrowing of the word 'Levi' from the
Hebrews by the Minaeans who modified the sense-of
the term giving it a feminine form which it ori­
ginally did not have. However, these inscriptions
being attributed to the fifth century B.C., would
not appear to have any information relevant to the
early Israelite traditions relating to Levi. cf.
J.H. Mordtmann, 'Beitrâge zur minâichen Epigraphik',
nos. XVII, XXIII and XXVI.

10- E. Meyer, op. cit., p. 427, considers that the

Levites were medicine men who possessed besides
the secret of the Yahweh cult, legal statutes and
oracles by lot, also the skill of serpent exorcism
and other sacred crafts and charms. For this
reason, they found a welcome among foreigners, and
perhaps being forced by enemies" e.g. the Amalekites,
or enticed by secular gains, were dislodged from
their cultic establishment at Kadesh. M. Noth, op.
cit., p. 181, rejects as highly conjectural,
Meyer's view of a cult at Kadesh where the Levites
originally functioned.

11. ' The number of Egyptian names found in levitical

genealogies may indicate the association of levi­
tical elements with Moses in Egypt. The evidence
however, is too meagre to draw any decisive con­
clusion from, and could just as well be utilized
to speculate the extent of Egyptian influence in
Solomon's administrative policy in which (as will
be shown in a later chapter of this thesis) Levites
played an important part.
 V

12. The usual analysis of these chapters attributes

13.17b“20 the briefing of the scouts, 13.22-24
the survey of the region around Hebron, 13.26b-
31,33 the good report of the region brought back
by the spies, 14.lOb-25 the account of Yahweh's
threat and Moses' intercession, and 14.39-45 the
failure of the attempted invasion, to J.E. 13.1-
17a which records the names of the scouts, one
from each tribe, 13.21,25,26a stating that the
whole land was explored as far as the entrance
to Hamath, the farthest ideal limit of the
country, 13.32 an unfavourable report of the
land, 14.1-lOa, in which elements from J.E. appear
to have been included in vv. 3,4,8 and 9, record
the complaint of the people to Yahweh, their
design for retreat and Caleb's encouragement, and
14.26-38 the pronouncement of Yahweh*s punishment,
are all attributed to the priestly writer. The
chief characters in the old narrative are Moses
and Caleb - Aaron and Joshua belong to the priestly
redaction.

13. The three main levitical families frequently appear

in the priestly document and Chronicles cf. Gen.
46.11; Ex. 6.16 ff; Num. 3,17 ff; 7.7-9; Jos. 21;
I Chr. 6.1 ff; 15.4 ff; 23.6 ff. The prominence
of the Kohath group, recorded in Num. 4.17 ff;
10.21 where it is assigned to the charge of the
most holy things, along with I Chr. 15.5 ff and
Jos. 21, differs from the more usual order that
enumerates Gershorn first. In Num. 4.21-28 and
Jos. 21-27 ff Gershom is placed after Kohath, but
in I Chr. 15.7 this group is relegated to third
place. It is difficult to trace the historical
significance that lies behind the advancement of
Kohath and demotion of Gershorn. Perhaps the
changes may reflect various tensions and struggles
within the post-exilic Jerusalem temple'.

14. The priestly strand of the narrative in Num. 16

records the revolt of Korah against the authority
of Aaron. It is a struggle between priests and
Levites of which we have no clear historical record
 VI

14. A. Kuenen in Gesaimelte Abhandlungen zur Biblischen

Wissenschaft, pp. 455 ff, is inclined to place the
struggle of the Levites recounted in the priestly
tradition of the narrative some time during the
fourth century B.C. Centuries later, even when
the Levites had sunk to the insignificant position
they held in the first century A.D., they still
succeeded in making good a minor pretension to
priestly privileges by obtaining from Agrippa II
the right to wear the priestly linen, cf. Jos.
Anti. XX, 9.6.

15. Korah is generally found in the genealogies as the

'great grandson' of Levi and 'grandson' of Kohath
cf. Num. 16.1. The remaining four in the verse
under discussion always appear in the other genea­
logies as 'grandsons' of Levi, but Libni is some­
times referred to as the son of Gershom, cf. Num.
3.18; I Chr. 6.2, (E.V.v.17), and sometimes as the
son of Merari cf I Chr. 6.14 (E.V.v.29). Mahli
and Mushi always appear as the sons of Merari,
and Hebron as the son of Kohath.

16. Evidence of the nature of the ephod is extremely

vague, and it is even doubtful whether it was
everywhere and at all times the same thing. The
ephod of the priestly writer i.e. of post-exilic,
though probably of earlier times, is described as
a decorated vestment similar to a tunic cf. Ex.28.
The pocket is mentioned in connection with the
ephod which contained the Urim and Thummim cf.
v.30. Probably similar to this ephod but uncon­
nected with any special means of obtaining an oracle
was the 'linen ephod' 1 13 H with which the child
Samuel was girded when he ministered as temple
servant (cf. I Sam. 2.18), and with which David
was similarly girded when he danced before the ark
cf. II Sam. 6.14. The description of Abiathar
fleeing to David with an ephod in his hand suggests
 vil

16. some type of small image or cultic apparatus which,

according to I Sam. 23.9 ff, was used in consulting
the oracle or 'inquiring of Yahweh'. It appears
from I. Sam. 14 that a similar object was used in
connection with Urim and Thummim- When asked to
consult the oracle the priest was told to bring it
near cf. 14.18 (reading TÏ ^ H for yj “1M with the
LXX); 23.9; 30.7; and when ordered to desist the
command was 'to withdraw thine h a n d ' cf. 14.19 which
suggests some form of manipulation in connection
with the sacred lot. Here, as in Ju. 8.22-27, it
appears to have been some sort of idol. The tera-
phim also appear to have been idols, which is evi­
dent from Gen. 31.30, 32, where Laban accuses
Jacob of having stolen his gods. This notion is
supported by I Sam. 19.13 ff, which relates how
Micai, placed the teraphim in David's bed to
deceive Saul's messengers, and so allowed David to
escape. It is possible that the association of
teraphim with familiar spirits in II Kgs. 23.24
may connect them with necromancy. Eos. 3.4. mentions
them along with the oracular ephod indicating their
use in the giving of oracles.

17. In accordance with the view of the priestly writer,

the reference to Eli's ancestor in v. 27 can only
denote Aaron, but the only other possible evidence
for connecting the house of Aaron with Eli is the
name of his son Phinehas which was also the name
of Aaron's grandson. However, it is unwise to
assume that a name ever remained the private pos­
session of a single tribe or family. The Samaritan
Chronicle II, trans. by J. Macdonald, B.Z.A.W.,
1969, pp. llO ff records that Eli, a descendant of
Ithamar had a difference of opinion with Uzzi, a
mere youth, of the other line of Aaronites, who
had recently succeeded to the office of high priest.
The dissension resulted in a schism in which the
Joseph tribes followed the high priest and drove
out Eli and his Judahite following from Mt.Gerizim.
Subsequently Eli and his adherents established a
sanctuary at Shiloh where he made an ark and pre­
served the law. This sanctuary was reputed to con­
tain the. tent of meeting which Moses had constructed
 Vlll

17. in the wilderness at Yahweh's command. As this

account has no biblical parallel its authenticity
cannot be relied on to provide a sound basis for
the solution to the problem of the genesis of
Eli's family as a priestly house.

18. S.R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew text and the

topography of the Book of Samuel, p.41, considers
the possibility of vv. 31b, 32b being two forms
of one and the same gloss which he attributes to
an incorrect application of v. 31a to the disaster
of Chapter 4, and also questions the authenticity
of V .32a due to the corrupt nature of the text and
the fact that it records eventualities which, in
Driver's view, did not occur during the lifetime
of Eli. He claims that the passage records two
disasters which befell Eli’s family - a sudden di­
saster in vv. 31a, 33b from which few escape, and
a permanent weakening of the family in v. 32b, the
former interpretation being demanded by the limi­
tation that follows in v .33a which cannot be a limi­
tation on V . 32b, as the sparing of a single indivi­
dual does not provide a suitable antithesis to the
permanent weakening of the whole family. The
limitation however, does not refer to the punish­
ment recorded in v.31 but rather to the revoking
of the promise to the house of Eli of eternal
service to Yahweh in the priesthood which occasions
this disaster. Similarly C, Steuernagel, 'Die
Weissagung über die Elides ', B.Z.A.W. 1913, vo.il,
13, pp. 204-221, claims that there are two threats
in this passage - the first, according to which
Yahweh wishes to destroy the family of Eli cf. v.31
ab<^, but alleviates this injunction in v.33 by
permitting the survival of a sole representative
to serve at the altar, and the second represented
by vv. 31bâ, 32b and X I a t the end of v.33,
in which tne house of Eli survives but under the
permanent curse of premature death, which he holds
as incompatible with the first threat i.e. the
total destruction of the family with the exception
of one individual. Steuernagel like Driver dis­
counts V .32a as secondary due to the premature
 IX

18. nature of its content in connection with Eli, and

he also eliminates vv. 31b, 32b as later additions
to the original narrative. This analysis is based
on the assumption that T means complete
destruction rather than weakening as illustrated
in note 5, chapter 3.

19. The loss of the ark and the defeat at the hands of
the Philistines marked the end of Shiloh as an
Israelite shrine, although a description of its
destruction by the Philistines has not been pre­
served. Jer. 26.6, 9 in reference to Shiloh seems
to imply its destruction at some stage of its
career. However, the city appears to have been
occupied as late as the time of Gedaliah (cf. Jer.
41.5), although the report of eighty men coming
from- Shechem, Shiloh and Samaria may merely refer
to the region rather than the city.

20. cf. K. Budde 'Die Herkunft Sadok's ' Z.A.W. 1934,

pp. 42-50 who considers that Eleazar (cf. I Sam.
7.1) and Uzzah (cf. II Sam. 6.3, 6-8) are one and
the same person, and points out that M T in
II Kgs. 21.18, 26 is a well known hypocorisma for
Azariah-Uzziah. Likewise H T ( TT Î ^ in vv.
6, 8) can also be a shortened form of Eleazar.
Here in II Sam. 6.3 ff the use of the hypocorisma
Uzzah was probably motivated by the place name
pAres-Uzzah in v.8.

21. cf. H.R. Hall, The People and the Book, ed. Peake
p. 11, and H.H. Rowley, 'Zadok and Nehushtan'
J.B.L. 1939, pp. 113-141 who consider that the
serpent Nehushtan belonged to the ancient Jebusite
cult at Jerusalem, and that the narrative of Num.
21.4 ff was an attempt to legitimate its presence
there in later times.
 X

22. The name Amraphel used to be confidently equated

with Hammurabi of the first Amorite dynasty of
Babylon, famous for his code, but this identifi­
cation is no longer accepted, as there were at
least three other kings of that name ruling city
states during this period. Ellaser is no longer
identified with the Mesopotamian city of Larsa
and its king, but Arioch is connected with the
H u rrian king Ariukki whose name occurs in the
Nuzu tablets. The name of the leader of the raid,
Chedorlaomer, is the Hebrew form of a perfectly
good Elamite name, and it is quite in keeping
with what is known of the history of the time that
Elam should have been the head of such an alliance
as the narrative depicts. The last king mentioned.
Tidal, has been identified with the Hittite king,
Tudhaliash, the first of a line of kings which
ruled the old Hittite Empire. A possible date
has been assigned to him between 1700 and 1650
B.C. The epithet 'nation' may be an honorific
title.

23. The Hebrews use the predicate TT H ^ not only to

denote perception with the eyes but also of the
other senses; e.g. to feel the fire I'lH ^^ 1
Is. 44.16, or those things understood by the mind;
e.g. to understand wisdom, Eccl. 8.16, to experience
death, Ps. 89:49 (E.V.v.48), and in the same sense
to see the pit, i.e. meet with death Ps. 16.10;
49.10 (E.V.v.9). It is this type of mental percep­
tion which would appear to be the correct inter- .
pretation here. W.R. Arnold, Ephod and Ark, p. 93
interprets the words I'l [T as
a question relating to Zadok's profession which
expects the answer 'no' since the offices of seer
and priest are quite distinct. The implication is,
that if Zadok had been a seer he could have been
useful to David by employing his powers of clair-
. voyance to describe what was happening in Jerusalem,
but as he is not it is better for him to return and
find out the news in a more normal way.
 XI

24. W.F. AlTbright in his article 'The list of levitic

Cities' in Louis Gihzberg's Jubilee volume, pp.
49-75, by comparison of both lists with the Greek
versions, especially Vaticanus, is able to elimi­
nate nearly all the differences between them, e.g.
M.T. of Jos. 21.16 has Ain, but I Chr. 6.44 (E.V.
V . 59) reads Ashan which is proved correct by the
Vaticanus recension of Joshua. In Jos. 21.25 the
M.T. erroneously repeats Gath-rimmon from the pre­
ceding verse but Vaticanus reads both
the Joshua and Chronicles texts which is only a
slight corruption of the Bilearn in I Chr. 6.55
(E.V.v.70). Again in Jos. 21.28 Kishon occurs
where I Chr. 6.57 (E.V.v.72) has Kedesh. Vaticanus
renders the Joshua text indicating that
^ ^ ’j? should be read in preference to of
the M.T. Egyptian transcriptions of the name from
the fifteenth century B.C. prove the Greek text
correct. The reading in Chronicles iscertainly
a-reminiscence of the Kadesh in Naphtali. The
scribal error was made here before the oldest
Greek translation, as it corresponds with the
Chronicler. The difference in the early square
script between and ^'Tp is so slight that a
scribal error of the Chronicler or his copyist is
not improbable.

25. M. Noth, Das Buch Joshua, pp. 97 ff, regards the

settlements of Levites as post-exilic on the
grounds that the omission of certain districts in
central Palestine indicates a time when there was
already tension between the Jews and their neigh­
bours in the district of Samaria. This view
ignores the inclusion of Shechem in the lists, the
very metropolis of the Samaritans. He considers
however, that as the Samaritan Pentateuch of Num.
35.6 ff shows a knowledge of Jos. 21, that Jos. 21
though post-exilic cannot be posterior to the
Samaritan schism.
 Xll

26. A.Alt 'Bemerkungen zu einem Judaischen Ortslisten

des Alten Testament', Kleine Schriften, 1953,
pp. 289-305, considers that the list refers to an
evacuation of the Levites to Jerusalem and the
replacement of their cities with armed fortresses.
He explains the discrepancy between the statements
of II Kgs. 2 3 and the absence of Judaean towns in
the list by the theory that the reform came to a
stop before it was accomplished.

27. The language of vv. 11-14 is so vivid that they

are considered comtemporaneous with the events
they record. The rest of the chapter which refers
to Edom is usually regarded as a prophetic predic­
tion of a downfall that took place some time
before 312 B.C. at which date the Nabataeans
occupied Petra. However, inscriptions show that
while, at about 600 B.C. the governor of Ezion-
geber was still an Edomite, by the fifth century
Arab names are found there. Moreover, Mai. 1.3
written about 460 may be interpreted to mean that
the Arabs had already invaded Edom by 460. Hence
the dating of this oracle on Edom would seem to
be previous to 460 and as soon after 586 as may
be reasonable.

28. W.F. Albright, op. cit., considers that there can

be no doubt about the accuracy of the Chronicles
reading due to the antiquity of the name as a
priestly family, cf. I Chr. 6.53 (E.V.v.68).
B. Mazar, 'The Cities of the priests and the
levites', suppl. to V.T, VII, 1959, pp. 193-206,
explains the difference in the two names from the
fact that the place name Jekameam was taken from
the name of the levitical family that settled
there, and points out that a change of place name
generally followed a change in the population or
ownership of the place. If this hypothesis is
accepted then the Chronicler's list would appear
to be younger than the Joshua one which, in view
of Albright's analysis, is an unnecessary assump­
tion.
 Xlll

29. Mazar, op. cit., suggests that, due to the Egyp­

tian influence at Solomon's court (which is wit­
nessed by his marriage to Pharaoh's daughter
(cf. I Kgs. 3.1), the Egyptians' destruction of
Gezer and its presentation to Solomon as a dowry
for the Egyptian princess (cf. I Kgs. 9.15), and
Israelite trade with Egypt), the organization of
levitical settlements was established on the
Egyptian mode of exercising control over areas of
doubtful allegiance. This scheme was based on
the system of dedicating the areas made over,to
Egyptian deities, as witnessed at Gaza and Askelon
where Egyptian priests performed civil and reli­
gious functions cf. 'Agyptische Tempe1 im Pales-
tinÉt und die Landnahme den Bhilister ', A. Alt,
Kleine Schriften I, (1953), pp. 216-230. It is
possible that a memory of such an organization did
set the scheme of levitical cities in motion, but
the idea of this organization being the direct
result of Egyptian influence in Solomon's court
would probably have been repugnant to the natio­
nalistic spirit that was part of the Levites'
faith. Moreover, as explained, the movement had
already begun before the end of David's reign.

30. In II Chr. 13.9 the predicate TT 13 is used to

express Jeroboam's action against the Levites.
The rendering 'dismissed from office' which is
adopted by the N.E.B. and which is appropriate to
the context implies that the priests of Yahweh
ceased to be the official state priesthood and
others took their place. This accords with the
interpretation proposed for II Chr. 11.14. How­
ever, due to the reference to 'the sons of Aaron'
as a priestly caste, it is doubtful if this text
is contemporary with the events it records as
Aaron does not appear as the ancestor of priests
until post-exilic times.
 XIV

31. Jos. 24 reflects something of this kind taking

place at Shechem. The Deuteronomistic passages,
D t . 11.29 ff; 27; Jos. 8.30-35 which record how
after the conquest the tribes built an altar near
Shechem and set up stones upon which the law was
inscribed, are in some way connected with a festi­
val of this nature. It is possible that at a
later period the central shrine was located at
Gilgal and Bethel respectively. For most of the
period however, the central sanctuary appears to
have been sited at Shiloh where the tribal system
was finally brought to an end by Philistine pres­
sure cf. I Sam. 4.1; Jer. 7.14; 26.9.

32. A further good example is the law concerning a

Hebrew slave cf. Dt. 15.12-18. The law states
that in the seventh year i.e. the year of release,
a Hebrew slave was to be allowed his freedom. In
vv. 13,14 the instructor explains that the Hebrew
slave must not be sent away empty in the year of
release, but be furnished generously from the flock,
garner and winepress of his master. In an attempt
to exhort the listeners to be merciful to the
slave under their care, they are reminded that they
too suffered bondage in Egypt. The teacher in vv.
16,17 then turns to deal with the treatment of a
servant who does not wish to leave his master in
the year of release. He is to have an aul pierced
■ through his ear as a token of perpetual service to
his master. The sermon is concluded in v .18 by a
rejection of any bitterness on the part of the em­
ployer if his servant chooses to leave him in the
year of release. The instructor informs his lis­
teners that in the slave's six years service he
has been double his worth.

33. T. Oestreicher, Das deuteronomische Grundgesetz,

pp. 103 ff, render sfj‘7^3^ ITIFT' "TCI' ^
Dt. 12.14 as 'but in every place which'Yahweh shall
choose in any of your tribes', taking the definite
article in as having a distributive inter­
pretation, and the indefinite article in lUHfl as
 XV

33. as a general meaning. But the sanctuary has

Yahweh for its subject and therefore can only be
translated 'in the place which Yahweh shall choose
in one of your tribes.' Moreover, if the author
had intended a numlDer of Yahweh shrines as legi­
timate places of worship one would expect to find
'but in the places ( ) which Yahweh
shall choose in your tribes'. It is assumed here
that Jerusalem is meant as the place of Yahweh's
choice, for no other shrine in Israel's history
enjoyed the exclusive right of providing Yahweh's
worship.

34. e.g. the legislation dealing with the organization

of the priesthood cf. Dt. 18.1- 8, is phrased in
such a way that it cannot be applied with absolute
certainty to a definite situation. Moreover the
references to the place Yahweh shall choose cf.
Dt. 12.5,14; 16-6, although generally taken to
denote Jerusalem, it is never specifically stated
as such.

35. J. Begrich 'Die priesterliche Tora' B.Z.A.W. 66,

pp. 66 ff, points out how this is indirectly shown
by the fact that the king of Assyria sent an
Israelite priest to the settlers in the district
of Samaria, who were ignorant of Yahweh, the local
deity. The priest was instructed to teach them
the law of the God of the land in an attempt to
assuage his anger, and so procure the welfare of
the province cf. II Kgs. 17.24 ff.

36. Leprosy was regarded as a sign of Yahweh's judge­

ment and therefore came within the sphere of
priestly jurisdiction. The brevity of the law
here, when contrasted with the detailed directions
in Lev. 13,14 shows that Leviticus was a manual
for the expert, Deuteronomy a guide for the layman.

37. G.E. Wright, 'Levites in Deuteronomy', V.T. 1954,

p. 325, thinks that these client Levites were
teachers. Although the sharp contrast between the
officiating priest and the Levito in 26.11 ff
 XVI

37. implies that the Levi te was amongst those who were
subject to the greater knowledge and experience of
the priest, this priestly superiority probably lay
in the priest's knowledge of the cult and the law
connected with it rather than the more general
teaching of the wilderness traditions associated
with Moses-

38. The Israelites' failure to bring the whole land

under their control at one time did not facilitate
obedience to this command. In the tribal terri­
tories, between the individual tribes, Canaanite
cities and territories survived which they could
not suppress, and gradually a peaceful coexistence
developed between the invading Israelites and the
resident Canaanite population^ but at the same
time the unity of the Israelite tribes was gra­
dually relaxed by the presence of alien fragments
living amongst them. Consequently, the importance
of the general covenant sanctuary of the twelve
tribes carried from the wilderness days receded,
and the Israelites often took over the holy places
of the Canaanites for their worship.

39. It is unwise to conjecture from this text that we

have the priestly writer's distinction between
Eleazarites and Ithamarites reflected here. Accor-
■ ding to P the distinction of class existed only in
that the Eleazar line represented the high priests
and not the Ithamar line. They were both equally
Aaronites and thereby priests in the full sense.

40. W. Zimmerli, 'Ezechiel II', Biblischer Kommentar

Altes Testaments, p. 1028, considers that v.46b
is an interpretation identifying the second group
of priests with the Zadokites^who among the Levites
are especially chosen to draw near Yahweh for ser­
vice. Although v.46b does identify the second group
of priests more specifically than the first, there
does not appear to be any adequate ground for des­
cribing the identification as an interpretation.
 XVll

41. A.H.J. Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester, P.R.L.A.N.T.

draws attention to an analogous reduction of levi­
tical service in the later extensions of P. ’While
Num. 1.48 ff; 3.5 ff; 4.21 ff freely speak of the
Levites keeping charge of the holy things, inten­
sified regulations are found of a more negative
type in Num. 4.5-20 and 18.1-7 prohibiting the
Levites from direct contact with the holy things.
It is noticeable that the polemical tone of Ezekiel
is absent in P - compare Num. 4.15,19; 18.3 with
Ezek, 44.13 in reference to the prohibition rela­
ting to the possible contact of Levites with the
most holy things.

42. T.J. Meek in his article 'Aaronites and Zadokites'

A.J.S.L, (1929), pp. 149-166, takes this view, and
by associating the priesthood assumed at Bethel
with Aaron, accounts for the later predominance of
Aaron in the priestly writing and Chronicles. To
identify the priesthood at Bethel with Aaron at
this point in time is a hazardous proposition in
view of the chequered history of the northern
kingdom. The probable association of Aaron with
the calf worship of Jeroboam will be pointed out
in the next chapter of this thesis, but nothing
more definite may be said of the existence of an
Aaronite priesthood during the later years of the
northern kingdom or after its fall to the Assyrians
in 722.

43. w . 16-20 appear as a later addition, as v. 16

assumes the continuing existence of the altar at
Bethel which is reported in the previous verse to
have been destroyed. Moreover the treatment of
the priests of the local shrines recorded in v.20
is in contrast with what is stated in v.8. How­
ever there are no adequate grounds for excluding
V . 15 with R.G. Kennett, 'The Origin of the Aaro­
nite priesthood', J.T.S. 1905, p.171, note, on
the basis of v.8 which limits Josiah's activities
to Judah, as v.4 records that the ashes of the
burnt temple accoutrements were carried to Bethel,
indicating that it too was within the sphere of
 XVlll

43. Josiah's reform cf. II Chr. 34.6. Perhaps the

extended influence of Judah in the north after
.the withdrawal of the Assyrians is reflected here
cf. II Chr. 35.22,

44. F.S. North 'Aaron's rise in Prestige', Z.A.W,

(1954), pp. 191-199, understands it in this way
and deduces that the cultic centre of Palestine
during the exile moved away from Jerusalem to
Bethel the priesthood of which he, like Meek, op.
cit., labels Aaronite. He further claims that
although this Bethelite priesthood did not gain
supremacy at Jerusalem, it was acknowledged as
the leading spiritual force in Palestine during
this period, and consequently the Zadokites assu­
med Aaronic descent on their return. The diffi­
culty in accepting the supremacy of Bethel is
explained here in the text of the thesis, and the
problem of identifying Aaron with a priesthood at
this period has been alluded to in n.14., chapt. 6.

45. R. Kittel, Biblica Hebraic a, has suggested reading

Bethel as a namç compounded with the next word,
i.e. “)S
(• 1• ' XM.
but it may be said in
*1

objection to this view that places were never

personified by the Hebrews except in poetry. If
the word denotes the temple of Jerusalem as the
destination of the mission, it is the sole occur­
rence of it designated in this way. It was usually
known as /TlfT' Jl'Ji cf. Hag. 1.2; Zech. 7.3;
8.9. T : «

46. The stone received by Joshua has been interpreted

to mean the corner stone or topstone of an edifice,
the plummet mentioned in 4.10, a precious stone
of the prince, or the breastplate of the high
priest cf. Ex. 28.17-21; 39.10-14. According to
4.7,9 f it was Zerubbabel not Joshua^under whose
direction the temple was to be erected. Hence it
would have been inconsistent for the prophet to
represent the object received by Joshua as one
connected with the structure's erection. Moreover,
 XIX

46. in consideration of the.first and second inter­

pretations suggested, it should also be remembered
that the corner stone had already been laid and
the topstone was not to be put in place until a
long time after the date of this vision. However,
the words 'one stone shall have seven eyes' per­
haps provide a clue. According to Ezek. 1.16,22
the eye of a stone is its lustre, and since a
gleam can only come from a precious stone, the
stone in question must have been a single stone
with seven facets. The word in the next
clause is frequently used of engraving precious
stones.

47. T.J. Meek, op. cit., takes this line and inter­
prets the Adversary as Zerubbabel who objected to
the non-Zadokite priest^ (Meek terms him Aaronite
cf. n.14) who had officiated at Jerusalem during
the exile^taking pre-eminence over the returning
Zadokites. Following this mode of argument he
interprets the covenant of peace in 6.13 as a re­
conciliation between Zerubbabel and the parvenu
Joshua. Although a covenant of peace indicates
some former lack of cohesion between the two
sides involved, this need not necessarily be attri­
buted to the situation as interpreted by Meek. The
curtailment of the sacral role of the king in
Ezek.45.9-46.15 to one of a mere spectator of the
cult responsible for defraying its expense, would
be sufficient ground to provoke tension between
priest and king. J. Morgenstern, 'A Chapter in
the history of the High Priesthood', A.J.S.L.
1938, pp. 138 ff, interprets Zech. 3 as the ini­
tiation of the high priest into the functions of
-the king after the removal of Zerubbabel, i.e.
the inauguration of a theocracy. As however the
group of visions in which Zech- 3 is found are
reported as taking place in the eleventh month of
the second year of King Darius' reign, hence only
five months after the beginning of the rebuilding
of the temple by Zerubbabel and Joshua cf. Hag.1.1,
and according to Hag. 2.10,20 ff, Zerubbabel was
still in Jerusalem in the ninth month, it would seem
 XX

47. improbable that so great a change should have

taken place in so short a time. Morgenstern fur­
ther interprets the two sons of oil (cf. Zech.
4.11,14) as representing the high priest and his
associate^ similar to the arrangement recorded in
II Kgs. 25.18. On this basis it could be further
surmised that Zech. 6.9-15 represent Joshua, desi­
gnated as the shoot i.e. the future hope of Israel,
alone assuming royal and sacral power, and his
associate priest beside him representing the
priesthood that had functioned in Jerusalem during
the exile^ and which had now become reconciled to
the returning Zadokites with whom it had made a
covenant of peace. However, even if the word .
n 'Ai is used in reference to Joshua, which
as shown is very doubtful, Joshua would then have
to be attributed with the temple's erection (cf.
V . 12b) which would be in conflict with 4.9 where
Zerubbabel is accredited with laying its foundation
stone and predicted as also finishing it. The pas­
sage Zech. 6.9 ff, although obscure, seems to
refer to Zerubbabel in v.12 who is invested with
royal authority, and in v.13b to Joshua the priest.
The covenant of peace between them^as pointed out
above^ could refer to the curtailment of the king's
sacral functions in Ezek. 45 which had given rise
to a certain tension between the two, necessita­
ting a covenant of peace.

48. L.E. Browne, Early Judaism, pp. 109 ff, considers

that Hag. 2.10-14 relates to the uncleanness of
the Samaritans who had come to the holy temple to
build and later on to sacrifice there. The ques­
tion is raised whether the temple becomes unclean
or the Samaritans clean by contact with what is
holy. The answer is that the temple becomes un­
clean. The connection with the Samaritans is
tenuous; the interpretation would seem rather to
be that the sterile nature of the land provides
material offerings that would pollute the temple,
but the promise of better things lies ahead, cf.
. V . 19b.
 XXI

50. E. Nielsen, Shechem - a traditio-historical

Investigation, p.138, considers that if the sug­
gestion once made by Reds lob is adopted i.e. that
the name Aaron ( ) is merely a personifi­
cation of the word meaning 'ark', then
Eleazar may have been a priest connected with the
ark of God. He states further the possibility
that Aaron may in fact have been the 'Urvater' of
the priesthood of the ark in the same way as (Tubal)
Cain was the progenitor of smiths cf. Gen. 4.22.
However, the connection between Aaron and the ark
is a tenuous one that finds no parallel in the
Old Testament, and furthermore, there is no sugges­
tion of either Aaron or Eleazar functioning as
priests in this verse. It is simply stated that
Eleazar ben Aaron was buried in the hill of Phine­
has which had been assigned to him in Mt. Ephraim.

51. A.H.J. Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester, P.R.L.A.N.T.

pp. 83 ff, considers Aaron as a priest from the
very beginning. He interprets Ex. 17.8-16 as a
cultic act, Aaron and Hur assisting in the admini­
stration of the blessing of Moses, and so ascribes
a cultic function to them. He sees Aaron's presence
as essential in Ex. 18.12 as Israel's cultic rep­
resentative at the sacrificial meal of the priest
of Midian, and considers that Aaron again acts as
one of Israel's cultic rejpresentatives along with
Hur, Nadab and Abihu vis a vis the elders in Ex.24.
Gunneweg also attributes a cultic role to Aaron in
Num. 12 in connection with the healing of Miriam's
leprosy, and notes that the same word H A D used
in vv.14,15^is also used in Lev-13,14 which deal
with cultic uncleanness. It is admitted that
leaders did act in a cultic capacity in the early
period e.g.Gideon, cf. Ju. 6.19-27. In the same
way the king as leader of the nation acted as high
priest over the state cult. Hence Aaron in these
narratives was not a priest of a priestly house
as in the later traditions of the priestly writer
and the Chronicler, but a tribal leader.
 XXI1

52. M. Noth, Exodus, p. 246, considers that if the con­

nection with Jeroboam in Ex. 32 is taken as the
original basis of the chapter it would present
difficulty in assigning J to the time of David and
Solomon as is customary, for it would involve
dating J as post-Solomonic or accepting Ex. 32 as
a subsequent literary addition to the j narrative,
inserted with the purpose of polemicising the calf
cult. From the fragmentary nature of the chapter,
as shown in the analysis given, it is not necessary
to allocate it as a whole to a post-Solomonic
period, but only those parts that deal with Jero­
boam's apostasy. In his Überlieferungsgeschichte
des Pentateuch, p.160, Noth says in connection
with the polemical tendency of this chapter - 'Aus
welchem Bereich die Geschichte vom goldenen Kalb
herzuleiten ist, ISsst sich nicht mehr ausmachen.
Man kam ebensogut an judaische Polemik gegen die
Staatskulte im Nachbarstaat Israel denken wie an
eine vermutlich vorhanden gewesene innerisraeli-
tische Opposition dagegen. Aus Ex. 32 selbst ergibt
sich für die Entscheidung dieser Frage nichts
Sicheres. Doch spricht die Geschichte des Penta-
teuchwerdens, dessen spStere Entwicklung im judai-
schen Süden erfolgt ist, und vermutlich auch die
Rolle Aarons in dieser Geschichte für die erst-
genannte Môglichkeit.’

53. R.G. Kennett, The Origin of the Aaronite Priest­

hood, J.T.S. (Jan. 1905), p.168, surmising a pos­
sible association of Aaron with the calf worship
inaugurated by Jeroboam at Bethel, considers that
if Bethel and Dan were sister sanctuaries as may
be possible, it is likely that the priests of
Bethel would have been regarded as colleagues or
perhaps brothers of the priests of Dan. He deduces
from this theory that if the priesthood of Dan was
derived from Moses, and the priesthood of Bethel
from Aaron, new light may be shed on the question
in Ex. 4.14 'Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother?'
This however assumes that the Aaronite priesthood
associated with Bethel was levitical, a conjecture
for which no supporting evidence has survived.
 XXlll

54. It is highly probable that some tent structure was

erected in the wilderness in which Yahweh met with
his people and where he 'tabernacled' with them.
By using this term P solves the problem of imma­
nence and transcendence as Yahweh does not dwell
( ) in a tabernacle - he dwells in heaven - but
he settles impermanently upon it. The one cosmic
God could not be confined in any shrine, but at
the same time he had to be present with his people.
This concept of Yahweh's presence is described by
the term i.e. to tabernacle.

55. Num. 16 consists of three literary strata. The

stratum associated with J recounts in rather frag­
mentary form, owing to late editorial processes,
the fate of Dathan and Abiram and their followers
who had disputed with Moses the civil leadership
of the people. The two other strata are attributed
to P and both deal with Korah. The one tells how ■
Korah the Levite and two hundred and fifty of his
levitical brethren disputed with Moses and Aaron
for the priesthood. The other, a revision in quite
fragmentary form, states how Korah alone contended
with Aaron for the office of chief priest and how
the issue between them was settled by the deity
himself through Moses.

56. Ezekiel curtailed the sacral nature of the king,

referring to him as the 'prince* and only permitted
him to receive certain taxes from the people in
payment of the sacrifices demanded by the cult, cf".
Ezek. 45.9-17. He is completely excluded from
participating'at the sacrifice, and is only allowed
to witness the offering from a distance. It may
be implied from Zech. 4.11 ff that Zerubbabel was
Joshua's equal, and it is possible that he may
- have occupied a position in the cult similar to
that prescribed by Ezekiel for the prince. Although
Zerubbabel disappeared from the post-exilic scene,
the high priest remained and assumed the leadership
of the post-exilic theocratic community. J.Bowman,
Samaritan Studies', J.R.L., (March 1958), p.318,
notes that according to Nh. 8.2 ff Ezra read out
the law thus fulfilling the function discharged by
Josiah on a similar occasion connected with the
 XXIV

56. discovery of the Deuteronomic law. This fact, he

.contends, may indicate the transition from a
monarchy to a theocracy.