have like portions to eat, besides that which cometh of the sale of his patrimony." There is here nothing, as in the case of the priests, about sacrifice; but the Levites appear to be inferior ministrants, just as in the Book of Numbers; and it is provided that any of the tribe, wherever he has before lived, may come and join himself to their number and share in the provision for their support, without regard to his private property. The supposition that the Levites referred to in these last verses were also priests, i, e. entitled to offer sacrifice, would be exegetically inadmissible; for they are said to "come from any of thy gates out of all Israel," while in Josh. xxi. 9-19 the cities of the priests (described also as the sons of Aaron) are confined to the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon. Consequently those who were to offer sacrifice could not "come from any of thy gates out of all Israel."* But independently of this fact, the priests are mentioned in Deuteronomy with their duties, then afterwards the Levites separately with their duties, which are not the same; and the point would require to be otherwise most clearly proved before it could be admitted that the persons were the same. Of course Ezekiel's vision, while it separates clearly the priests from the Levites, yet in assigning to each of them a compact territory, looks to an entirely different state of things from that contemplated in Numbers or fulfilled in Joshua.

Again: the expression "the priests the Levites" used seven times in Deuteronomy (xvii. 9, 18; xviii. 1; xxi. 5; xxiv. 8; xxvii. 9; xxxi. 9) and twice in Joshua (iii. 3; viii. 33) has been relied upon as a proof that the two classes were not distinguished when these books were written. That this argument will not apply to Joshua has already appeared, and Curtiss in his "Levitical Priests"† has shown that the same expression is used in the post-exilic books of Chronicles; but our concern is with Ezekiel. He has the expression twice (xlii. 19; xliv. 15) and each time with an addition which leaves no possible doubt of his meaning: "that be of the seed of Zadok” and "sons of Zadok." Hence the same reasoning which would make all Levites into priests in Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Chronicles, would make them all into "sons of Zadok" in Ezekiel.

But this leads to another fact in the prophet's description of the priesthood. As already said, he recognizes as the priests of the future

*This difficulty might be avoided by supposing Joshua to be later than Deuteronomy; but it has already been shown that this would only involve other and no less formidable difficulties on the other side.

"The Levitical Priests, a contribution to the criticism of the Pentateuch." By S. J. Curtiss, jr., Ph. D. with a preface by Franz Delitzsch, Edinburgh and Leipzig, 1877.

only "the sons of Zadok (xl. 46; xliii. 19; xliv. 15; xlviii. 11). Kuenen indeed seems to assume (ubi sup. p. 116) that " 'sons of Zadok" and "sons of Aaron" are synonymous terms; it needs no argument to show that they are really very different. By universal agreement, the priesthood was not of old restricted to the "sons of Zadok,” and it may be added, I suppose by the same universal agreement, it was not so restricted afterwards. The return of other priests is mentioned by Ezra (ii. 36-39) and Nehemiah (vii. 39-42), and I do not know that there has ever been any question that priests of other families served in the temple in later ages. Here then the prophet is found, as in so many other cases, to be at variance alike with the earlier and the later practice and with the Mosaic law, instead of constituting a link between them. If it be alleged that he proposed to restrict the priesthood to the family of Zadok, but that this was found impracticable and his successors carried out his plan as far as they could, by restricting it to the wider family of Aaron, it may well be asked, where is the proof of this? Where is the thought or suggestion anywhere outside of Ezekiel that such a narrower restriction was ever desired or attempted? If we look upon the prophet's description as ideal, the whole matter is plain enough. "The sons of Zadok," in view of the facts of history, are the faithful priests, and only such would Ezekiel have to minister; but as a scheme for a change in the actual and literal priesthood, the whole matter is inexplicable.

Another point in which Ezekiel differs from the Mosaic ritual is in regard to the persons who were to slay the ordinary sacrificial victims. According to Lev. i. 5, 11; iii. 2, 8, 13; iv. 4 (cf. 15), 24, 29, 33, the victim was to be killed by the one who made the offering, and according to Ex. xii. 6, the same rule was to be observed with regard to the Passover. This was apparently the custom in all ages. The language of Josephus (Ant. iii. 9. § 1), although not very clear, favors this supposition, and the record in 2 Chron. xxix. 20, ss., 34; XXX. 17 seems decisive. In this post-exilic book, in the account of the purification of the sanctuary under Hezekiah, the exceptional sacrifices of the purification are said to be slain by the priests, and the assistance of the Levites in flaying the victims is expressly excused on account of the insufficiency in the number of the priests, while at the subsequent Passover it is said "the Levites had the charge of the killing the Passovers for everyone that was not clean." These excuses for these acts imply that, in the time of the Chronicler, it was still the custom for the people to kill their own sacrifices and for the priests to flay them. The Levitical law and the post-exilic custom (as well as

the pre-exilic) here agree as usual; but Ezekiel is quite apart from them and provides (xliv. 11) that the Levites "shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people." Here again he is not at all in the line of a developing system. It may be added incidentally that the Samaritan Pentateuch shows what would have been the actual progress of development if it had existed in these matters in Israel; for, by changing the number of the pronouns and verbs in Leviticus, it makes the priests the slayers of the victims in all cases.

It has often been noticed that the office of high-priest is ignored in this vision, and an argument has been based on this fact to show that the writings of Ezekiel mark an early stage in the development of the Jewish hierarchy, when the precedence of the high-priest had not yet been established. The fundamental statement itself is not strictly true, and it will appear presently that the prophet, in several different ways, incidentally recognizes the existence of the high-priest and of some of the principal laws in relation to him. But the high-priest fills a prominent and important place in the Mosaic legislation, and if it could be shown on the one hand that there was no high-priest before the captivity, and on the other, that Ezekiel knew of none, it would certainly create a presumption that the laws of the priesthood might be of later origin. But the facts are so precisely opposite, that the maintenance of such propositions seems very strange. It may be well to refer again to Kuenen, as a fair exponent of this school of critics, to show that the non-existence of the high-priesthood before the captivity is distinctly maintained by them. He admits, indeed, "that one of the high-priests, who bore the title of Kohén hagadôl ['the high-priest'] or Kohén rôsch [the head-priest'], at any rate from the days of Jehoash, stood at the head of the Jerusalem priests," but he associates him in honor and rank only with the three " doorkeepers," and tells us that the various passages cited "teach us that one of the priests superintended the temple, or, in other words, kept order there, in which duty he was of course assisted by others"; and that "it follows, from 2 Kings xi. 18; xii. 12; Jer. xxix. 26, that this post was instituted by Jehoiada, the contemporary of King Jehoash" (Relig. of Isr. vol. II. p. 304). Again he marks emphatically, as one of the evidences of the late origin of the high-priesthood, that "the distinction between the duties of the priests and the highpriest, Lev. xxi. 1-9 and verses 10-15, does not occur at all in Ezekiel" (ib. p. 190). And still again (ib. p. 214), he represents that, even in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, the duties and authority of the high-priest were still in a vague and unsettled condition.

The point here to be determined is whether we have evidence of

T

the existence before the captivity of a high-priesthood as an important, regular office, transmitted by inheritance, and forming one of the fundamental features of the Israelitish polity. Of course, we could not expect to find in such histories as have been preserved other than meagre and incidental allusions to the details of the high-priest's duties, his dress, and such matters. Such allusions do occur, as in the case of Ahimelech at the time of David's flight (1 Sam. xxi. 1-9). and of the ephod of Abiathar (1 Sam. xxiii. 6, 9-observe that in ver. 9 it is with the definite article), in connection with David's enquiry of the Lord. (Comp. also the charge against Ahimelech that he "enquired of the Lord" for David. 1 Sam. xxii. 10, 15). But the question is not about these matters of detail; the main point is, that in Israel the priestly order had, and almost of necessity must have had, especially in the times before the monarchy, an authoritative and real head, as was the case with other nations of antiquity. Even the exception here proves the rule, and we find that temporarily, in one anomalous period of the history, during the reign of David, there were two heads or high-priests, Zadok and Abiathar. The latter, after the slaughter of his father and kinsman by Saul, had fled to David in his outlawry and had become, as he was entitled to become by inheritance, his high-priest. Meantime the office could not be left in abeyance under the regular government, and when David ascended the throne he found the high-priesthood occupied by Zadok. He did not presume to displace him, and neither would he displace the faithful sharer of his own adversity; so it came about that both were recognized. This anomalous state of things was the more tolerable because at the same time, according to the history, the ark and the tabernacle were separated, while the duties of the high priest were connected with both of them. The high priest, or during the period just mentioned, the two high priests, are mentioned in the following passages which are expressly cited by Kuenen (Relig. of Isr. Note II. on ch. viii. Vol. II., p. 304) as pre-exilic: 2 Sam. viii. 17; XX. 25; 1 Ki. iv. 4; ii. 22, 26, 27; 2 Ki. xii. 10; xxii. 4, 8; xxiii. 4; XXV. 18; Jer. xx. I. It is well known how greatly this list might be extended, and also how often the high priest is mentioned in the books of Joshua and 1 Samuel, the names of Eleazar, Phinehas, Eli or Ahiah, being often given in connection with the office, besides those of Ahimelech, Abiathar, Zadok, and Ahitub. It would be hard to find any single fact in the whole compass of Israelitish history in itself more probable or more abundantly attested than the existence of the office of a real high priest, an important functionary

in the kingdom, the counsellor of the rulers, and whose especial office it was to "enquire of the Lord" and communicate His commands at important national emergencies. There is also perfectly clear and ample evidence of the continued existence of the same office after the captivity. Jeremiah (lii. 24-27) and the author of the second book of Kings (xxv. 18-21) give the name of the person who held the office at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, Seraiah, who was put to death by Nebuchadnezzar; while Ezra (ii. 2; iii. 2, 8, 9; iv. 3; v. 2; x. 18) and Nehemiah (vii. 7; xii. 1, 7, 10, 26) unite with Haggai (i. 1, 12, 14; ii., 2, 4) and Zechariah (iii. 1, 3, 6, 8, 9; vi. 11) in mentioning Joshua, or Jeshua, the son of Josedeck, as the high priest of the restoration. But Ezekiel's vision, it is said, recognizes no such office, and as will be seen presently, intentionally excludes it. Once more then, this vision not only gives no countenance, but is in direct opposition to the theory, that Ezekiel originated or was a direct link in the development of the priesthood from an earlier to a later differing form.

There is however, one curious point incidentally occurring in the vision which shows that Ezekiel was familiar with the office of high priest. In the various measurements of the temple and all its details given in chaps. xli., xlii., the prophet everywhere accompanies the measuring angel until he comes to the holy of holies. There the angel enters alone, as is shown by a sudden change in the language (xli. 3). This certainly has the appearance of a consciousness on the part of Ezekiel, the priest, that he might not enter there, and (since it cannot be supposed that this part of the temple was not to be entered at all) an allusion to that provision of the law by which entrance into the holy of holies was forbidden to all, save to the high priest only on the great day of atonement. I do not know of any other explanation, and if this be the true one, it shows that not only the high priest, but the principal Mosaic law in regard to him and also the day of atonement was known to the prophet.

That the omission of the high priest from this vision is not accidental but intentional is shown by the laws of the priesthood here set forth. These laws treat the priesthood as a single body without distinction and, considered only in themselves, admit of either of two interpretations: (1) on the development hypothesis, that they are original and general laws which were subsequently differentiated into the special stricter ones for the high priest, and the less strict for his brethren; or (2) that the specific laws were actually older than Ezekiel, but when he omitted the high priest from his scheme, he combined them into a certain mean between the two. The choice