xxxiii. 8-11), Levi is a collective name for the priesthood, probably

that of (north) Israel. He is the guardian of the sacred oracles, knowing no kin, and enjoying his privileges for proofs of fidelity at Massah and Meribah. That these places (in the district of Kadesh) were traditionally associated with the origin of the Levites is suggested by various Levitical stories, although it is in a narrative now in a context pointing to Horeb or Sinai that the Levites are Israelites who for some cause (now lost) severed themselves from their people and took up a stand on behalf of Yahweh (Exod. xxxii.). Other evidence allows us to link together the Kenites, Calebites and Danites in a tradition of some movement into Palestine, evidently quite distinct from the great invasion of Israelite tribes which predominates in the existing records. The priesthood of Dan certainly traced its origin to Moses (Judges xvii. 9, xviii. 30); that of Shiloh claimed an equally high ancestry (1 Sam. ii. 27 seq.).[9] Some tradition of a widespread movement appears to be ascribed to the age of Jehu, whose accession, promoted by the prophet Elisha, marks the end of the conflict between Yahweh and Baal. To a Rechabite (the clan is allied to the Kenites) is definitely ascribed a hand in Jehu's sanguinary measures, and, though little is told of the obviously momentous events, one writer clearly alludes to a bloody period when reforms were to be effected by the sword (1 Kings xix. 17). Similarly the story of the original selection of the Levites in the wilderness mentions an uncompromising massacre of idolaters. Consequently, it is very noteworthy that popular tradition preserves the recollection of some attack by the "brothers" Levi and Simeon upon the famous holy city of Shechem to avenge their "sister" Dinah (Gen. xxxiv.), and that a detailed narrative tells of the bloodthirsty though pious Danites who sacked an Ephraimite shrine on their journey to a new home (Judges xvii. sq.).

The older records utilized by the Deuteronomic and later compilers indicate some common tradition which has found expression in these varying forms. Different religious standpoints are represented in the biblical writings, and it is now important to observe that the prophecies of Hosea unmistakably show another attitude to the Israelite priesthood. The condemnation of Jehu's bloodshed (Hos. i. 4) gives another view of events in which both Elijah and Elisha were concerned, and the change is more vividly realized when it is found that even to Moses and Aaron, the traditional founders of Israelite religion and ritual, is ascribed an offence whereby they incurred Yahweh's wrath (Num. xx. 12, 24, xxvii. 14; Deut. ix. 20, xxxii. 51). The sanctuaries of Shiloh and Dan lasted until the deportation of Israel (Judges xviii. 30 seq.), and some of their history is still preserved in the account of the late pre-monarchical age (12th-11th centuries B.C.). Shiloh's priestly gild is condemned for its iniquity (1 Sam. iii. 11-14), the sanctuary mysteriously disappears, and the priests are subsequently found at Nob outside Jerusalem (1 Sam. xxi. seq.). All idea of historical perspective has been lost, since the fall of Shiloh was apparently a recent event at the close of the 7th century (Jer. vii. 12-15, xxvi. 6-9). But the tendency to ascribe the disasters of northern Israel to the priesthood (see esp. Hosea) takes another form when an inserted prophecy revokes the privileges of the ancient and honourable family, foretells its overthrow, and announces the rise of a new faithful and everlasting priesthood, at whose hands the dispossessed survivors, reduced to poverty, would beg some priestly office to secure a livelihood (1 Sam. ii. 27-36). The sequel to this phase is placed in the reign of Solomon, when David's old priest Abiathar, sole survivor of the priests of Shiloh, is expelled to Anathoth (near Jerusalem), and Zadok becomes the first chief priest contemporary with the foundation of the _first_ temple (1 Kings ii. 27, 35). These situations cannot be severed from what is known elsewhere of the Deuteronomic teaching, of the reform ascribed to Josiah, or of the principle inculcated by Ezekiel (see § 1 [b]). The late specific tendency in favour of Jerusalem agrees with the Deuteronomic editor of Kings who condemns the sanctuaries of Dan and Bethel for calf-worship (1 Kings xii. 28-31), and does not acknowledge the northern priesthood to be Levitical (1 Kings xii. 31, note the interpretation in 2 Chron. xi. 14, xiii. 9). It is from a similar standpoint that Aaron is condemned for the manufacture of the golden calf, and a compiler (not the original writer) finds its sequel in the election of the faithful Levites.[10]

In the third great stage there is another change in the tone. The present (priestly) recension of Gen. xxxiv. has practically justified Levi and Simeon from its standpoint of opposition to intermarriage, and in spite of Jacob's curse (Gen. xlix. 5-7) later traditions continue to extol the slaughter of the Shechemitcs as a pious duty. Post-exilic revision has also hopelessly obscured the offence of Moses and Aaron, although there was already a tendency to place the blame upon the people (Deut. i. 37, iii. 26, iv. 21). When two-thirds of the priestly families are said to be Zadokites and one-third are of the families of Abiathar, some reconciliation, some adjustment of rivalries, is to be recognized (1 Chron. xxiv.). Again, in the composite story of Korah's revolt, one version reflects a contest between Aaronites and the other Levites who claimed the priesthood (Num. xvi. 8-11, 36-40), while another shows the supremacy of the Levites as a caste either over the rest of the people (? cf. the prayer, Deut. xxxiii. 11), or, since the latter are under the leadership of Korah, later the eponym of a gild of singers, perhaps over the more subordinate ministers who once formed a separate class.[11] In the composite work Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah (dating after the post-exilic Levitical legislation) a peculiar interest is taken in the Levites, more particularly in the singers, and certain passages even reveal some animus against the Aaronites (2 Chron. xxix. 34, xxx. 3). A Levite probably had a hand in the work, and this, with the evidence for the Levitical Psalms (see PSALMS), gives the caste an interesting place in the study of the transmission of the biblical records.[12] But the history of the Levites in the early post-exilic stage and onwards is a separate problem, and the work of criticism has not advanced sufficiently for a proper estimate of the various vicissitudes. However, the feeling which was aroused among the priests when some centuries later the singers obtained from Agrippa the privilege of wearing the priestly linen dress (Josephus, _Ant._ xx. 9. 6), at least enables one to appreciate more vividly the scantier hints of internal jealousies during the preceding years.[13]

4. _Summary._--From the inevitable conclusion that there are three stages in the written sources for the Levitical institutions, the next step is the correlation of allied traditions on the basis of the genealogical evidence. But the problem of fitting these into the history of Israel still remains. The assumption that the earlier sources for the pre-monarchical history, as incorporated by late compilers, are necessarily trustworthy confuses the inquiry (on Gen. xxxiv., see SIMEON), and even the probability of a reforming spirit in Jehu's age depends upon the internal criticism of the related records (see JEWS, §§ 11-14). The view that the Levites came from the south may be combined with the conviction that there Yahweh had his seat (cf. Deut. xxxiii. 2; Judges v. 4; Hab. iii. 3), but the latter is only one view, and the traditions of the patriarchs point to another belief (cf. also Gen. iv. 26). The two are reconciled when the God of the patriarchs reveals His name for the first time unto Moses (Exod. iii. 15, vi. 3). With these variations is involved the problem of the early history of the Israelites.[14] Moreover, the real Judaean tendency which associates the fall of Eli's priesthood at Shiloh with the rise of the Zadokites involves the literary problems of Deuteronomy, a composite work whose age is not certainly known, and of the twofold Deuteronomic redaction elsewhere, one phase of which is more distinctly Judaean and anti-Samaritan. There are vicissitudes and varying standpoints which point to a complicated literary history and require some historical background, and, apart from actual changes in the history of the Levites, some allowance must be made for the real character of the circles where the diverse records originated or through which they passed. The key must be sought in the exilic and post-exilic age where, unfortunately, direct and decisive evidence is lacking. It is clear that the Zadokite priests were rendered legitimate by finding a place for their ancestor in the Levitical genealogies--through Phinehas (cf. Num. xxv. 12 seq.), and Aaron--there was a feeling that a legitimate priest must be an Aaronite, but the historical reason for this is uncertain (see R. H. Kennett, _Journ. Theolog. Stud._, 1905, pp. 161 sqq.). Hence, it is impossible at present to trace the earlier steps which led to the grand hierarchy of post-exilic Judaism. Even the name Levite itself is of uncertain origin. Though popularly connected with _lavah_, "be joined, attached," an ethnic from Leah has found some favour; the Assyrian _li'u_ "powerful, wise," has also been suggested. The term has been more plausibly identified with _l-v-_' (fem. _l-v-'-t_), the name given in old Arabian inscriptions (e.g. at al-'Ola, south-east of Elath) to the priests and priestesses of the Arabian god Vadd (so especially Hommel, _Anc. Heb. Trad._, pp. 278 seq.). The date of the evidence, however, has not been fixed with unanimity, and this very attractive and suggestive view requires confirmation and independent support.

AUTHORITIES.--For the argument in § 1, see Wellhausen, _Prolegomena_, pp. 121-151; W. R. Smith, _Old Test. in Jew. Church_ (2nd ed., Index, s.v. "Levites"); A. Kuenen, _Hexateuch_, §§ 3 n. 16; 11, pp. 203 sqq.; 15 n. 15 (more technical); also the larger commentaries on Exodus-Joshua and the ordinary critical works on Old Testament literature. In § 1 and part of § 2 use has been freely made of W. R. Smith's article "Levites" in the 9th edition of the _Ency. Brit._ (see the revision by A. Bertholet, _Ency. Bib._ col. 2770 sqq.). For the history of the Levites in the post-exilic and later ages, see the commentaries on Numbers (by G. B. Gray) and Chronicles (E. L. Curtis), and especially H. Vogelstein, _Der Kampf zwischen Priestern u. Leviten seit den Tagen Ezechiels_, with Kuenen's review in his _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_ (ed. K. Budde, 1894). See further PRIEST. (S. A. C.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] For the derivation of "Levi" see below § 4 end.

[2] The words "beside that which cometh of the sale of his patrimony" (lit. "his sellings according to the fathers") are obscure; they seem to imply some additional source of income which the Levite enjoys at the central sanctuary.

[3] For the _nethinim_ ("given") and "children of the slaves of Solomon" (whose hereditary service would give them a pre-eminence over the temple slaves), see art. NETHINIM, and Benzinger, _Ency. Bib._ cols. 3397 sqq.

[4] In defence of the traditional view, see S. I. Curtiss, _The Levitical Priests_ (1877), with which his later attitude should be contrasted (see _Primitive Semitic Religion To-day_, pp. 14, 50, 133 seq., 171, 238 sqq., 241 sqq.); W. L. Baxter, _Sanctuary and Sacrifice_ (1895); A. van Hoonacker, _Le Sacerdoce lévitique_ (1899); and J. Orr, _Problem of the O.T._ (1905). These and other apologetic writings have so far failed to produce any adequate alternative hypothesis, and while they argue for the traditional theory, later revision not being excluded, the modern critical view accepts late dates for the literary sources in their present form, and explicitly recognizes the presence of much that is ancient. Note the curious old tradition that Ezra wrote out the law which had been burnt (2 Esdr. xiv. 21 sqq.).

[5] For example, in 1 Kings viii. 4, there are many indications that the context has undergone considerable editing at a fairly late date. The Septuagint translators did not read the clause which speaks of "priests and Levites," and 2 Chron. v. 5 reads "the Levite priests," the phrase characteristic of the Deuteronomic identification of priestly and Levitical ministry. 1 Sam. vi. 15, too, brings in the Levites, but the verse breaks the connexion between 14 and 16. For the present disorder in the text of 2 Sam. xv. 24, see the commentaries.

[6] See Father H. Vincent, O.P., _Canaan d'après l'exploration récente_ (1907), pp. 151, 200 sqq., 463 sq.

[7] So Gen. xxxiv. 7, Hamor has wrought folly "in Israel" (cf. Judges xx. 6 and often), and in v. 30 "Jacob" is not a personal but a collective idea, for he says, "I am a few men," and the capture and destruction of a considerable city is in the nature of things the work of more than two individuals. In the allusion to Levi and Simeon in Gen. xlix. the two are spoken of as "brothers" with a communal assembly. See, for other examples of personification, GENEALOGY: _Biblical_.

[8] See E. Meyer, _Israeliten u. ihre Nachbarstämme_, pp. 299 sqq. (passim); S. A. Cook, _Ency. Bib._ col. 1665 seq.; _Crit. Notes on O.T. History_, pp. 84 sqq., 122-125.

[9] The second element of the name Abiathar is connected with Jether or Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, and even Ichabod (1 Sam. iv. 21) seems to be an intentional reshaping of Jochebed, which is elsewhere the name of the mother of Moses. Phinehas, Eli's son, becomes in later writings the name of a prominent Aaronite priest in the days of the exodus from Egypt.

[10] With this development in Israelite religion, observe that Judaean cult included the worship of a brazen serpent, the institution of which was ascribed to Moses, and that, according to the compiler of Kings, Hezekiah was the first to destroy it when he suppressed idolatrous worship in Judah (2 Kings xviii. 4). It may be added that the faithful Kenites (found in N. Palestine, Judges iv. 11) appear in another light when threatened with captivity by Asshur (Num. xxiv. 22; cf. fall of Dan and Shiloh), and if their eponym is Cain (q.v.), the story of Cain and Abel serves, amid a variety of purposes, to condemn the murder of the settled agriculturist by the nomad, but curiously allows that any retaliation upon Cain shall be avenged (see below, note 5).

[11] The name Korah itself is elsewhere Edomite (Gen. xxxvi. 5, 14, 18) and Calebite (1 Chron. ii. 43). See _Ency. Bib._, s.v.

[12]: The musical service of the temple has no place in the Pentateuch, but was considerably developed under the second temple and attracted the special attention of Greek observers (Theophrastus, _apud_ Porphyry, _de Abstin._ ii. 26); see on this subject, R. Kittel's _Handkommentar_ on Chronicles, pp. 90 sqq.

[13] Even the tithes enjoyed by the Levites (Num. xviii. 21 seq.) were finally transferred to the priests (so in the Talmud: see _Yebamoth_, fol. 86a, Carpzov, _App. ad Godw._ p. 624; Hottinger, _De Dec._ vi. 8, ix. 17).

[14] For some suggestive remarks on the relation between nomadism and the Levites, and their influence upon Israelite religion and literary tradition, see E. Meyer, _Die Israeliten u. ihre Nachbarstämme_ (1906), pp. 82-89, 138; on the problems of early Israelite history, see SIMEON (end), JEWS, §§ 5, 8, and PALESTINE, _History_.

LEVITICUS, in the Bible, the third book of the Pentateuch. The name is derived from that of the Septuagint version ([Greek: to]) [Greek: leu[e]itikon] (sc. [Greek: biblion]), though the English form is due to the Latin rendering, _Leviticus_ (sc. _liber_). By the Jews the book is called _Wayyikra_ ([Hebrew: Wayykra]) from the first word of the Hebrew text, but it is also referred to (in the Talmud and Massorah) as _Torath kohanim_ ([Hebrew: Totath kohanim], law of the priests), _Sepher kohanim_ ([Hebrew: Sepher k´´], book of the priests), and _Sepher korbanim_ ([Hebrew: Sepher korbanim], book of offerings). As a descriptive title _Leviticus_, "the Levitical book," is not inappropriate to the contents of the book, which exhibits an elaborate system of sacrificial worship. In this connexion, however, the term "Levitical" is used in a perfectly general sense, since there is no reference in the book itself to the Levites themselves.

The book of Leviticus presents a marked contrast to the two preceding books of the Hexateuch in that it is derived from one document only, viz. the Priestly Code (P), and contains no trace of the other documents from which the Hexateuch has been compiled. Hence the dominant interest is a priestly one, while the contents are almost entirely legislative as opposed to historical. But though the book as a whole is assigned to a single document, its contents are by no means homogeneous: in fact the critical problem presented by the legislative portions of Leviticus, though more limited in scope, is very similar to that of the other books of the Hexateuch. Here, too, the occurrence of repetitions and divergencies, the variations of standpoint and practice, and, at times, the linguistic peculiarities point no less clearly to diversity of origin.

The historical narrative with which P connects his account of the sacred institutions of Israel is reduced in Leviticus to a minimum, and presents no special features. The consecration of Aaron and his sons (viii. ix.) resumes the narrative of Exod. xl., and this is followed by a brief notice of the death of Nadab and Abihu (x. 1-5), and later by an account of the death of the blasphemer (xxiv. 10 f.). Apart from these incidents, which, in accordance with the practice of P, are utilized for the purpose of introducing fresh legislation, the book consists of three main groups or collections of ritual laws: (1) chaps, i.-vii., laws of sacrifice; (2) chaps, xi.-xv., laws of purification, with an appendix (xvi.) on the Day of Atonement; (3) chaps, xvii.-xxvi., the Law of Holiness, with an appendix (xxvii.) on vows and tithes. In part these laws appear to be older than P, but when examined in detail the various collections show unmistakably that they have undergone more than one process of redaction before they assumed the form in which they are now presented. The scope of the present article does not permit of an elaborate analysis of the different sections, but the evidence adduced will, it is hoped, afford sufficient proof of the truth of this statement.

I. _The Laws of Sacrifice._--Chaps. i.-vii. This group of laws clearly formed no part of the original narrative of P since it interrupts the connexion of chap. viii. with Exod. xl. For chap. viii. describes how Moses carried out the command of Exod. xl. 12-15 in accordance with the instructions given in Exod. xxix. 1-35, and bears the same relation to the latter passage that Exod. xxxv. ff. bears to Exod. xxv. ff. Hence we can only conclude that Lev. i.-vii. were added by a later editor. This conclusion does not necessarily involve a late date for the laws themselves, many of which have the appearance of great antiquity, though their original form has been considerably modified. But though these chapters form an independent collection of laws, and were incorporated as such in P, a critical analysis of their contents shows that they were not all derived from the same source.

The collection falls into two divisions, (a) i.-vi. 7 (Heb. v. 26), and (b) vi. 8 (Heb. vi. 1)-vii., the former being addressed to the people and the latter to the priests. The laws contained in (a) refer to (1) burnt-offerings, i.; (2) meal-offerings, ii.; (3) peace-offerings, iii.; (4) sin-offerings, iv. (on v. 1-13 see below); (5) trespass-offerings, v. 14-vi. 7 (Heb. v. 14-26). The laws in (b) cover practically the same ground--(1) burnt-offerings, vi. 8-13 (Heb. vv. 1-6); (2) meal-offerings, vi. 14-18 (Heb. vv. 7-11); (3) the meal-offering of the priest, vi. 19-23 (Heb. vv. 12-16); (4) sin-offerings, vi. 24-30 (Heb. vv. 17-23); (5) trespass-offerings,