EVIDENCE FROM THE ALLEGED ABSENCE OF THE AARONIC PRIESTHOOD.

It is claimed by the destructive critics that in the Book of Deuteronomy no official distinction is made between priests and Levites -- that all Levites were qualified for priestly functions. This they hold as proof that Deuteronomy was written at a much later date than the Mosaic book of the covenant (Ex. xx.-xxiii.), which makes no provision for any priesthood at all. It is held as proof that Deuteronomy is of earlier date than the legislation in Leviticus and Numbers, in which there is a distinction between the functions of the priests and the other members of the tribe of Levi -- the natural line of development being from no priesthood at all to one consisting of a whole tribe, and then to a select family of that tribe, elevated to aristocratic dignity.

We shall examine these several allegations in the order in which they are named, and first that respecting these of the -- two terms in Deuteronomy. Driver presents the common doctrine of his class in these words:

In the laws of P in Leviticus and Numbers a sharp distinction is drawn between the priests and the common Levites; in Deuteronomy it is implied (xviii. 1) that all members of the tribe of Levi are qualified to exercise priestly functions (Int., 82; Com. on Deut., 122).

In his later work, the Commentary, he modifies this statement by appending these remarks:

Thus, though there is a difference in Deuteronomy between "priest" and "Levite," it is not the difference recognized in P; in P the priests constitute a fixed minority of the whole tribe, viz.: the descendants of Aaron; in Deuteronomy they are a fluctuating minority. viz.: those members of the tribe officiating for the time at the central sanctuary. Accordingly, in Deuteronomy the distinctive title of the priests is not "sons of Aaron," but "sons of Levi" or "Levitical priests." Naturally the eldest of the families descended directly from Aaron, which had the custody of the ark, enjoyed the preeminence, and this is recognized in x. 6; allied families also, which had secured a position at the central sanctuary, would doubtless rank above their less fortunate brethren; but no exclusive right is recognized in Deuteronomy as belonging to the descendants of Aaron in contradistinction to other members of the tribe (219).

It seems from this that Deuteronomy does make a distinction between priests and Levites. It is admitted that the expression "priests and Levites" means "the Levitical priests." In his comment on xviii. 1, Driver makes this still more explicit by defining the expression as "the priests of the tribe of Levi, the Levitical priests, the standing designation of the priests in Deuteronomy (213). And yet he makes a feeble effort to show that the expression includes the whole tribe of Levi. The whole verse under consideration reads: "The priests the Levites, even all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of Jehovah made by fire, and his inheritance." Driver says of the clause, "even all the tribe of Levi," that it is "an explanatory apposition to 'the priests the Levites.' Such explanatory appositions are frequent in Deuteronomy,. and denote regularly the entire group of which one or more representative items have been specified in the preceding words" (213). Let this be true, and it only shows that the entire group included in all the tribe of Levi, of which one "representative item" has been mentioned in the previous words, were to have no portion nor inheritance with Israel. But this, instead of showing that the Levitical priests included the whole tribe of Levi, only shows that they constituted "one representative item" of that "entire group."

There is a fact, strangely overlooked by Driver and his fellow critics, which thoroughly disproves the assumption that the expression "the priests the Levites" means all the tribe of Levi; and this is the fact that the author of Chronicles, who, as they freely admit, was acquainted with the law which makes "a sharp distinction" between priests and Levites, employs the same expression three times for the priests alone (II. Chron. v.5; xxiii. 18; xxx. 27). Not only so, but the same expression is found in Josh. iii. 3, which is ascribed by these critics to E, who wrote according to hypothesis before the date of Deuteronomy, and yet it designates the priests only; for they bore the ark across the Jordan, and this could not have been done by the whole tribe of Levi. The expression in that place is translated in the Polychrome Bible, "the Levitical priests." Such, then, is the fate of a criticism which is held by all classes of destructive critics as proof of a contradiction between Deuteronomy and the other books of the Pentateuch.

In the rest of the extract from Driver's Commentary given above, there are two points of argument that demand attention, and both may be answered together. First, that though a difference between priests and Levites is recognized in Deuteronomy, it is not the same difference which is clearly defined in P; that is, in Leviticus. Second, that while the descendants of Aaron had the custody of the ark, and on this account enjoyed a pre-eminence, no exclusive right is recognized as belonging to them. This is all answered by the fact that in Deuteronomy the distinction between priests and Levites is nowhere formally stated, but in the three middle books it is. If, then, we grant what the books themselves claim, that these middle books which make the distinction were written before Moses delivered the addresses in Deuteronomy, it is seen at once that there was no occasion in Deuteronomy for pointing out this distinction, it being perfectly well known to all the people. It is only by first assuming that Deuteronomy preceded the other books that these critics can find a place for this argument; it can not therefore be used as proof of that precedence. When a fact can be equally accounted for by either of two suppositions, it can not be logically used as a proof of either.

We shall have more to say respecting the alleged differences between Deuteronomy and the middle books on this subject of the Levites when we come to speak of ether alleged contradictions between them.

In this connection it may be well to notice the use that has been made of Micah's Levite priest as a proof of the priestly character of the Levites in the time of the judges. Andrew Harper states the case very briefly in these words:

As we see from the story of Micah in Judges, it was considered desirable to have a Levite for priest everywhere, and consequently there would arise at all the high places Levitic priesthoods, most probably in part hereditary (Com., p.325).

When the reason why Micah was glad to obtain a Levite as his priest is considered, the inference sought to be derived from the fact disappears. This reason is uniformly ignored by the critics who argue as Harper does. It is this: Micah had set up a silver idol in his house, made of some silver which he had stolen from his mother; and, because he could do no better, he made one of his sons the priest to serve before it. The son was probably a chip from the old block. One day a good-for-nothing Levite, who was wandering about like a modern tramp, "to sojourn where he could find a place," dropped in, and Micah, on learning who he was, offered him five dollars a year and one suit of clothes, if he would stay with him and be his priest. The trifling fellow accepted the offer, and Micah was fool enough to say, "Now I know the Lord will do me good, seeing that I have a Levite for my priest." He was lifted up by the exchange, very much as a modern saloon-keeper would be if he could get a deacon for his bartender. But what proof does this afford that all Levites in those days exercised priestly functions? It was not long before this tramp Levite, for the sake of better wages, combined with some rascally Danites to steal Micah's image and carry it off to a city which the Danites were about to steal, and to set up a house of worship there. Served Micah about right (Judg. xvii., xviii.).

Driver agrees with Harper in thinking that many of the priests of the high places were Levites; and the reckless conduct of Micah's Levite makes this highly probable. In times of demoralization the people always neglect their duty toward the ministers of religion, and the latter are apt to become demoralized with them, and, for the sake of money or notoriety, to be ready for anything that turns up. But Driver makes a singular use of this fact in the following passage in his Commentary:

The aim of Deuteronomy is to limit the exclusiveness of the Jerusalem priests: it provides that a country Levite, coming to officiate at the central sanctuary, is to share in the dues received there equally with the priests resident on the spot. How far this provision was acted on by the Jerusalem priests, we do not know; II. Kings xxiii. 9 shows that, at least after the abolition of the high places by Josiah, the disestablished priests (who are yet styled "the brethren of those at Jerusalem"), though they were allowed the maintenance due to them as priests by the law of Deut xviii. 8, were not admitted to the exercise of priestly functions at the temple (220).

This is true, but where did Josiah get the idea of thus dealing with these priests, and what authority could he claim for refusing them, when they returned to their proper places, the privileges of their office? This question the critics do not pretend to answer, although an answer is close at hand if they were willing to use it, and it can scarcely have escaped the notice of them all. This exclusion is explicitly provided for in the Book of Leviticus in the cases of members of the priestly family who were marred by physical blemishes. They were to eat of the holy meats, but were not to officiate at the altar (Lev. xxi. 16-24). Here was an analogous case to guide the judgment of the king, and the fact that he followed it to the letter indicates the strong probability that he had it before him, and that therefore the critical theory which makes Deuteronomy precede the other law-books is erroneous.

We have already mentioned, in the beginning of this section, the claim that the first legislation made no provision for a priesthood. We now wish to speak of it more particularly. Robertson Smith sets forth the claim in the terms that follow:

The first legislation had no law of priesthood, no provision as to priestly dues. The permission of many altars, which it presupposes, is given in Ex. xx. 24-26, in a form that assumes the right of laymen to offer sacrifice, as we actually find them doing in so many parts of the history. Yet a closer observation shows that the old law presupposes a priesthood, whose business lies less with sacrifice than with the divine Torah which they administer in the sanctuary as the successors of Moses (O. T., 359).

The "first legislation" here mentioned is that of Ex. xx. 23. But when this legislation was given, a priesthood was already in existence; for when God commanded Moses to come up into the mount where he gave that legislation, he said to Moses: "Let the priests also, who come near to Jehovah, sanctify themselves, lest Jehovah break forth upon them." And again: "Let not the priests and the people break through to come unto Jehovah, lest he break forth upon them" (Ex. xix. 22, 24).  These were undoubtedly men who had been recognized as priests before this first legislation was given; that is, the priests of the patriarchal dispensation. On the same historical authority we affirm that during the forty days' sojourn in the mount by Moses, which followed immediately upon this legislation, God selected the family of Aaron to be his priests, thus establishing a new order of priesthood; for we read (xxviii. 1) that God said to Moses: "Bring thou near unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Sadab and Ahihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons." Then follows, in the same chapter, a description of the priestly garments which they were to wear, and in the next chapter the law of their consecration; and in the fortieth chapter, the tabernacle and its furniture having been then completed, we have a description of their consecration. So, all this history has to be cast aside as absolutely false before it can be fairly asserted that the first legislation provided for no priesthood, that every man was left to offer his own sacrifice, or that all the descendants of Levi were qualified for priestly functions. And this criticism, which destroys the history that we have, and substitutes something purely imaginary in its place, is styled historical and scientific!(1) 

1. For the arguments on this topic expressed by other authors, see Robertson Smith, Prophets, 38, 101; Addis, D. of H., xlv., lxxxiv. to lxxxvii.; A. Harper, Com., 21-25, 310-313; Bartlett, Veracity of Hex., chap. xix.; F. B. Spencer, Lex M., 550; Bissell, O. and S. of Pent., 112-122.