Christian tradition, the Priestly Code in this matter also has been authoritative.  Instead of the Deuteronomic formula “the priests the Levites,” we henceforward have “the priests and the Levites,” particularly in Chronicles, 2 and in the

*********************************************** 2.  Except in 2 Chrom v. 5, xxx. 27. *********************************************

ancient versions the old usus loquendi is frequently corrected. 3

********************************************* 3.  E.g., Josh. iii. 3 and Isaiah lxvi. 21 in the LXX, Deuteronomy xviii. 1 and Judges xvii. 13 in “Jerome; and many passages in the Syriac.  On the carrying out of the new organisation of the temple personnel after the exile, see Vatke, p. 568, Graf (in Merx’s Archiv, i., p. 225 seq.), and Kuenen (Godsdienst, ii. p. 104 seq ).  With Zerubbabel and Joshua, four priestly families, 4289 persons in all, returned from Babylon in 538 (Ezra iv. 36-39); with Ezra in 458 came two families in addition, but the number of persons is not stated (viii. 2).  Of Levites there came on the first occasion 74 (ii. 40); on the second, of the 1500 men who met at the rendezvous appointed by Ezra to make the journey through the wilderness, not one was a Levite, and it was only on the urgent representations of the scribe that some thirty were at last induced to join the company (viii. 15-20).  How can we explain this preponderance of priests over Levites, which is still surprising even if the individual figures are not to be taken as exact?  Certainly it cannot be accounted for if the state of matters for a thousand years had been that represented in the Priestly Code and in Chronicles.  On the other hand, all perplexity vanishes if the Levites were the degraded priests of the high places of Judah.  These were certainly not on the whole more numerous than the Jerusalem college, and the prospect of thenceforward not being permitted to sacrifice in their native land, but of having slaughtering and washing for sole duties, cannot have been in any way very attractive to them; one can hardly blame them if they were disinclined voluntarily to lower themselves to the position of mere laborers under the sons of Zadok.  Besides, it may be taken for granted that many (and more particularly Levitical) elements not originally belonging to it had managed to make way into the ranks of the Solomonic priesthood; that all were not successful (Ezra ii. 61) shows that many made the attempt, and considering the ease with which genealogies hoary with age were then manufactured and accepted, every such attempt cannot have failed.