often-quoted passage, Exodus iv. 14, and that too to denote his calling, not his family, for the latter he has in common with Moses, from whom, nevertheless, it is intended to distinguish him by the style, “thy brother the Levite.”  In Deuteronomy we are struck by the deliberate emphasis laid on the equal right of all the Levites to sacrificial service in Jerusalem—­ “The priests, the Levites, the whole tribe of Levi, shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the offerings of Jehovah and his inheritance....And if a Levite come from any of thy cities out of all Israel, where he sojourned, and come to the place which Jehovah shall choose, then he shall minister in the name of Jehovah his God as all his brethren the Levites do who stand there before Jehovah” (Deuteronomy xviii. 1, 6, 7).  Here the legislator has in view his main enactment, viz., the abolition of all places of worship except the temple of Solomon; those who had hitherto been the priests of these could not be allowed to starve.  Therefore it is that he impresses it so often and so earnestly on the people of the provinces that in their sacrificial pilgrimages to Jerusalem they ought not to forget the Levite of their native place, but should carry him with them.  For an understanding of the subsequent development this is very important, in so far as it shows how the position of the Levites outside of Jerusalem was threatened by the centralisation of the worship.  In point of fact, the good intention of the Deuteronomist proved impossible of realisation; with the high places fell also the priests of the high places.  In so far as they continued to have any part at all in the sacred service, they had to accept a position of subordination under the sons of Zadok (2Kings xxiii. 9).  Perhaps Graf was correct in referring to this the prophecy of 1Samuel ii. 36 according to which the descendants of the fallen house of Eli are to come to the firmly established regius priest, to beg for an alms, or to say, “Put me, I pray thee, into one of the priests’ offices, that I may eat a piece of bread:”  that historically the deposed Levites had no very intimate connection with those ancient companions in misfortune is no serious objection to such an interpretation in the case of a post-Deuteronomic writer.  In this way arose as an illegal consequence of Josiah’s reformation, the distinction between priests and Levites.  With Ezekiel this distinction is still an innovation requiring justification and sanction; with the Priestly Code it is a “statute for ever,” although even yet not absolutely undisputed, as appears from the Priestly version of the story of Korah’s company. 1 For all Judaism subsequent to Ezra, and so for

*********************************************** 1.  Distorted references to the historical truth are round also in Numbers xvii. 25 and xviii. 23, passages which are unintelligible apart from Ezekiel xliv.  Compare Kuenen, Theol.  Tijdschr., 1878, p. 138 seq. *********************************************