[1] An expression of this idea is quoted from the _Mahabharata_
(Muir's trans.), by Max Müller (Gifford Lectures), _Anthropological
Religion_, p. 31--
"That stage completed, seek a wife
And gain the fruit of wedded life,
A race of sons, by rites to seal,
When thou art gone, thy spirit's weal."
LÉVIS (formerly Pointe Levi), the chief town of Lévis county, Quebec,
Canada, situated on the precipitous south bank of the St Lawrence,
opposite Quebec city. Pop. (1901) 7783. It is on the Intercolonial
railway, and is the eastern terminus of the Grand Trunk and Quebec
Central railways. It contains the Lorne dock, a Dominion government
graving dock, 445 ft. long, 100 ft. wide, with a depth on the sill of
26½ and 20½ ft. at high water, spring and neap tides respectively. It is
an important centre of the river trade, and is connected by steam
ferries with the city of Quebec. It is named after the maréchal duc de
Lévis, the last commander of the French troops in Canada.
LEVITES, or sons of Levi (son of Jacob by Leah), a sacred caste in
ancient Israel, the guardians of the temple service at Jerusalem.[1]
1. _Place in Ritual._--In the developed hierarchical system the
ministers of the sanctuary are divided into distinct grades. All are
"Levites" by descent, and are thus correlated in the genealogical and
other lists, but the true priesthood is confined to the sons of Aaron,
while the mass of the Levites are subordinate servants who are not
entitled to approach the altar or to perform any strictly priestly
function. All access to the Deity is restricted to the one priesthood
and to the one sanctuary at Jerusalem; the worshipping subject is the
nation of Israel as a unity, and the function of worship is discharged
on its behalf by divinely chosen priests. The ordinary individual may
not intrude under penalty of death; only those of Levitical origin may
perform service, and they are essentially the servants and hereditary
serfs of the Aaronite priests (see Num. xviii.). But such a scheme finds
no place in the monarchy; it presupposes a hierocracy under which the
priesthood increased its rights by claiming the privileges which past
kings had enjoyed; it is the outcome of a complicated development in Old
Testament religion in the light of which it is to be followed (see
HEBREW RELIGION).
First (a), in the earlier biblical writings which describe the state of
affairs under the Hebrew monarchy there is not this fundamental
distinction among the Levites, and, although a list of Aaronite
high-priests is preserved in a late source, internal details and the
evidence of the historical books render its value extremely doubtful (1
Chron. vi. 3-15, 49-53). In Jerusalem itself the subordinate officers of
the temple were not members of a holy gild, but of the royal body-guard,
or bond-slaves who had access to the sacred courts, and might even be
uncircumcised foreigners (Josh. ix. 27; 1 Kings xiv. 28; 2 Kings xi.;
cf. Zeph. i. 8 seq.; Zech. xiv. 21). Moreover, ordinary individuals
might serve as priests (1 Sam. ii II, 18, vii. 1; see 2 Sam. viii. 18,
deliberately altered in 1 Chron. xviii. 17); however, every Levite was a
priest, or at least qualified to become one (Deut. x. 8, xviii. 7;
Judges xvii. 5-13), and when the author of 1 Kings xii. 31, wishes to
represent Jeroboam's priests as illegitimate, he does not say that they
were not Aaronites, but that they were not of the sons of Levi.
The next stage (b) is connected with the suppression of the local
high-places or minor shrines in favour of a central sanctuary. This
involved the suppression of the Levitical priests in the country (cf.
perhaps the allusion in Deut. xxi. 5); and the present book of
Deuteronomy, in promulgating the reform, represents the Levites as poor
scattered "sojourners" and recommends them to the charity of the people
(Deut. xii. 12, 18 seq., xiv. 27, 29, xvi. 11, 14, xxvi. 11 sqq.).
However, they are permitted to congregate at "the place which Yahweh
shall choose," where they may perform the usual priestly duties together
with their brethren who "stand there before Yahweh," and they are
allowed their share of the offerings (Deut. xviii. 6-8).[2] The
Deuteronomic history of the monarchy actually ascribes to the Judaean
king Josiah (621 B.C.) the suppression of the high-places, and states
that the local priests were brought to Jerusalem and received support,
but did not minister at the altar (2 Kings xxiii. 9). Finally, a scheme
of ritual for the second temple raises this exclusion to the rank of a
principle. The Levites who had been idolatrous are punished by exclusion
from the proper priestly work, and take the subordinate offices which
the uncircumcised and polluted foreigners had formerly filled, while the
sons of Zadok, who had remained faithful, are henceforth the legitimate
priests, the only descendants of Levi who are allowed to minister unto
Yahweh (Ezek. xliv. 6-15, cf. xl. 46, xliii. 19, xlviii. 11). "A
threefold cord is not quickly broken," and these three independent
witnesses agree in describing a significant innovation which ends with
the supremacy of the Zadokites of Jerusalem over their brethren.
In the last stage (c) the exclusion of the ordinary Levites from all
share in the priesthood of the sons of Aaron is looked upon as a matter
of course, dating from the institution of priestly worship by Moses. The
two classes are supposed to have been founded separately (Exod. xxviii.,
cf. xxix. 9; Num. iii. 6-10), and so far from any degradation being
attached to the rank and file of the Levites, their position is
naturally an honourable one compared with that of the mass of
non-Levitical worshippers (see Num. i. 50-53), and they are taken by
Yahweh as a surrogate for the male first-born of Israel (iii. 11-13).
They are inferior only to the Aaronites to whom they are "joined"
(xviii. 2, a play on the name Levi) as assistants. Various adjustments
and modifications still continue, and a number of scattered details may
indicate that internal rivalries made themselves felt. But the different
steps can hardly be recovered clearly, although the fact that the
priesthood was extended beyond the Zadokites to families of the
dispossessed priests points to some compromise (1 Chron. xxiv.).
Further, it is subsequently found that certain classes of temple
servants, the singers and porters, who had once been outside the
Levitical gilds, became absorbed as the term "Levite" was widened, and
this change is formally expressed by the genealogies which ascribe to
Levi, the common "ancestor" of them all, the singers and even certain
families whose heathenish and foreign names show that they were once
merely servants of the temple.[3]
2. _Significance of the Development._--Although the legal basis for the
final stage is found in the legislation of the time of Moses (latter
part of the second millennium B.C.), it is in reality scarcely earlier
than the 5th century B.C., and the Jewish theory finds analogies when
developments of the Levitical service are referred to David (1 Chron.
xv. seq., xxiii. sqq.), Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxix.) and Josiah
(xxxv.)--contrast the history in the earlier books of Samuel and
Kings--or when the still later book of Jubilees (xxxii.) places the rise
of the Levitical priesthood in the patriarchal period. The traditional
theory of the Mosaic origin of the elaborate Levitical legislation
cannot be maintained save by the most arbitrary and inconsequential
treatment of the evidence and by an entire indifference to the
historical spirit; and, although numerous points of detail still remain
very obscure, the three leading stages in the Levitical institutions are
now recognized by nearly all independent scholars. These stages with a
number of concomitant features confirm the literary hypothesis that
biblical history is in the main due to two leading recensions, the
Deuteronomic and the Priestly (cf. [b] and [c] above), which have
incorporated older sources.[4] If the hierarchical system as it existed
in the post-exilic age was really the work of Moses, it is inexplicable
that all trace of it was so completely lost that the degradation of the
non-Zadokites in Ezekiel was a new feature and a punishment, whereas in
the Mosaic law the ordinary Levites, on the traditional view, was
already forbidden priestly rights under penalty of death. There is in
fact no clear evidence of the existence of a distinction between priests
and Levites in any Hebrew writing demonstrably earlier than the
Deuteronomic stage, although, even as the Pentateuch contains ordinances
which have been carried back by means of a "legal convention" to the
days of Moses, writers have occasionally altered earlier records of the
history to agree with later standpoints.[5]
No argument in support of the traditional theory can be drawn from the
account of Korah's revolt (Num. xvi. sqq., see § 3) or from the
Levitical cities (Num. xxxv.; Josh. xxi.). Some of the latter were
either not conquered by the Israelites until long after the invasion,
or, if conquered, were not held by Levites; and names are wanting of
places in which priests are actually known to have lived. Certainly
the names are largely identical with ancient holy cities, which,
however, are holy because they possessed noted shrines, not because
the inhabitants were members of a holy tribe. Gezer and Taanach, for
example, are said to have remained in the hands of Canaanites (Judges
i. 27, 29; cf. 1 Kings ix. 16), and recent excavation has shown how
far the cultus of these cities was removed from Mosaic religion and
ritual and how long the grosser elements persisted.[6] On the other
hand, the sanctuaries obviously had always their local ministers, all
of whom in time could be called Levitical, and it is only in this
sense, not in that of the late priestly legislation, that a place like
Shechem could ever have been included. Further, instead of holding
cities and pasture-grounds, the Levites are sometimes described as
scattered and divided (Gen. xlix. 7; Deut. xviii. 6), and though they
may naturally possess property as private individuals, they alone of
all the tribes of Israel possess no tribal inheritance (Num. xviii.
23, xxvi. 62; Deut. x. 9; Josh. xiv. 3). This fluctuation finds a
parallel in the age at which the Levites were to serve; for neither
has any reasonable explanation been found on the traditional view.
Num. iv. 3 fixes the age at thirty, although in i. 3 it has been
reduced to twenty; but in 1 Chron. xxiii. 3, David is said to have
numbered them from the higher limit, whereas in vv. 24, 27 the lower
figure is given on the authority of "the last words (or acts) of
David." In Num. viii. 23-26, the age is given as twenty-five, but
twenty became usual and recurs in Ezra iii. 8 and 2 Chron. xxxi. 17.
There are, however, independent grounds for believing that 1 Chron.
xxiii. 24, 27, 2 Chron. xxxi. 17 belong to later insertions and that
Ezr. iii. 8 is relatively late.
When, in accordance with the usual methods of Hebrew genealogical
history, the Levites are defined as the descendants of Levi, the third
son of Jacob by Leah (Gen. xxix. 34), a literal interpretation is
unnecessary, and the only narrative wherein Levi appears as a person
evidently delineates under the form of personification events in the
history of the Levites (Gen. xxxiv.).[7] They take their place in Israel
as the tribe set apart for sacred duties, and without entering into the
large question how far the tribal schemes can be used for the earlier
history of Israel, it may be observed that no adequate interpretation
has yet been found of the ethnological traditions of Levi and other sons
of Leah in their historical relation to one another or to the other
tribes. However intelligible may be the notion of a tribe _reserved_ for
priestly service, the fact that it does not apply to early biblical
history is apparent from the heterogeneous details of the Levitical
divisions. The incorporation of singers and porters is indeed a late
process, but it is typical of the tendency to co-ordinate all the
religious classes (see GENEALOGY: _Biblical_). The genealogies in their
complete form pay little heed to Moses, although Aaron and Moses could
typify the priesthood and other Levites generally (1 Chron. xxiii. 14).
Certain priesthoods in the first stage (§ 1 [a]) claimed descent from
these prototypes, and it is interesting to observe (1) the growing
importance of Aaron in the later sources of "the Exodus," and (2) the
relation between Mosheh (Moses) and his two sons Gershom and Eliezer, on
the one side, and the Levitical names Mushi (i.e. the Mosaite), Gershon
and the Aaronite priest Eleazar, on the other. There are links, also,
which unite Moses with Kenite, Rechabite, Calebite and Edomite families,
and the Levitical names themselves are equally connected with the
southern tribes of Judah and Simeon and with the Edomites.[8] It is to
be inferred, therefore, that some relationship subsisted, or was thought
to subsist, among (1) the Levites, (2) clans actually located in the
south of Palestine, and (3) families whose names and traditions point to
a southern origin. The exact meaning of these features is not clear, but
if it be remembered (a) that the Levites of post-exilic literature
represent only the result of a long and intricate development, (b) that
the name "Levite," in the later stages at least, was extended to include
all priestly servants, and (c) that the priesthoods, in tending to
become hereditary, included priests who were Levites by adoption and not
by descent, it will be recognized that the examination of the evidence
for the earlier stages cannot confine itself to those narratives where
the specific term alone occurs.
3. _The Traditions of the Levites._--In the "Blessing of Moses" (Deut,
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.)