PRIESTS A N D LEVITES IN DEUTERONOMY

an examination of Dr. G. E. WRIGHT'S theory

. BY

J. A. EMERTON
Cambridge

In a paper which was published in this journal several years ago 1 ),

Professor G. E. WRIGHT challenged the usual interpretation of
passages in Deuteronomy referring to priests and Lévites. He tells
the reader that he began by accepting the usual view but that a
careful study of the evidence led him to explain these passages in a
different way. A theory advanced by so eminent a scholar is certainly
worthy of serious consideration, especially since he believes that its
implications are many and important. He does not himself state or
discuss these implications, because he thinks that the correctness of
his thesis must first be tested by others. The present paper offers
such a testing of Dr. WRIGHT'S interesting and stimulating theory.

I
WRIGHT seeks to refute the view that, according to Deuteronomy,
all Lévites are qualified to act as priests and that the two terms are
there used as synonyms. At least, it appears from the arguments
in his paper that this is his intention, though he does not make it
clear exactly how far he goes in rejecting more commonly accepted
views, when he says that they have "oversimplified the matter and
in part are wrong". He maintains that, when Deuteronomy writes
of priests, it means the altar-clergy: when, however, it writes simply
of Lévites, it refers to members of the tribe of Levi who did not
serve an altar but whose function was to give religious instruction.
Between the times of the Tabernacle and Josiah's reformation, there
were altar-priests outside Jerusalem, but, for the period after 621
B.C., the Deuteronomic expression "the priests the Lévites" means
the same as P's "the priests" and "the sons of Aaron" : both documents

*) IV1954, pp. 325-330. Cp. also WRIGHT'S commentary on Deuteronomy in The

Interpreter's Bible II, New York and Nashville 1953, pp. 315f., 413f., 444-446.
Vetus Testamentum XII 9
130 E. A. EMERTON

refer to the altar-clergy of the central sanctuary. WRIGHT'S suggestion

that the function of the ordinary Lévites was to teach is dependent
on the writings of G. VON RAD.
WRIGHT argues that, when the word "priests" is used in Deutero-
nomy, the context shows that altar-priests are meant. When, however,
"Lévites" alone is used, Deuteronomy normally refers to men who
are scattered throughout the country ("client-Levites") and who
are dependent on the liberality of landowners, because they are
without property and serve no altar. The only possible exceptions
are xviii 6 and xxvii 14. WRIGHT thinks that the Lévite of the former
passage is not one of the scattered client-Levites but one of the altar-
priests outside Jerusalem, whose altar was abolished in Josiah's
reformation. In the latter passage, he thinks that Joshua viii 30-35
makes it probable that the altar-clergy of the central sanctuary are
meant.
He seeks to strengthen his case with several supporting arguments.
He asks:"... it the Lévites were all altar-priests, getting their living
from the offerings made to the variour places of worship throughout
the country before the reform of Josiah, why should they have been
in a client-status, continually threatened with physical need?" He
considers the answer that Deuteronomy is thinking of the future
situation, when the Lévites lose their usual means of livelihood by
the closing of the local sanctuaries, but he rejects this answer as an
over-simplification. He thinks that the tribe of Levi was so numerous
that all its members cannot have acted as altar-priests. He also asks:
"How, too, would the Levitical cities have existed when they were
not the only centers of altar-worship?" Under the influence of W. F.
ALBRIGHT, he refuses to regard the lists of these cities as late or
unhistorical traditions. He presumably favours ALBRIGHT'S view
that these lists date from the period of the united monarchy. Finally,
WRIGHT apparently thinks that VON RAD'S arguments that one of
the chief functions of the Lévites was to teach favours his theory
that many of them did not serve an altar.

II
The kernel of WRIGHT'S argument is the defence of the view that,
when Deuteronomy refers to priests, it always means altar-priests.
This interpretation of the evidence is not at variance with more
generally accepted views as much as might appear from the way in
 PRIESTS AND LEVITES IN DEUTERONOMY 131

which WRIGHT refers to them. It is true that some scholars have

maintained that the term "Lévite" is synonymous with "priest"; but
others have recognized a distinction. For example, S. R. DRIVER
can say in a standard commentary x): "though there is a difference
in Dt. between 'priest* and 'Lévite', it is not the difference recognized
in Ρ : in Ρ the priests constitute a fixed minority of the entire tribe,
viz. the descendants of Aaron; in Dt. they are afluctuatingminority,
viz. those members of the tribe who are officiating for the time at
the central sanctuary". The first important question at issue is not,
therefore, whether Deuteronomy uses the words "priests" and "Lévi-
tes" as synonyms, but whether it regards all Lévites as qualified to
act as priests when they come to the altar. This question may be
sharpened yet further: does Deuteronomy recognize an impassable
and hereditary distinction between altar-priests and ordinary Lévi-
tes? WRIGHT does not state clearly his views on this important
question. When he maintains that "the difference between Ρ and D
with regard to the Lévites has been exaggerated", he discusses only
the terms "the priests the Lévites" in D, and "the priests" and "the
sons of Aaron" in P. But it is misleading to write like this without
discussing more fully P's use of the term "Lévite". According to Ρ 2),
the word "Lévite" is normally applied only to those members of the
tribe of Levi who are not qualified by descent from Aaron to act
as priests. It is misleading to say that "when Ρ and D are speaking
about the same thing, they mean the same, though they use different
terminologies", unless it is maintained that, according to D, the word
priests is reserved for a minority among the Lévites who have the
hereditary right to act as priests, in distinction from the rest of the
tribe who are not similarly qualified.
WRIGHT believes that the majority of the Lévites taught, but did
not serve an altar. Of course, there is nothing new in the suggestion
that service of an altar, in the narrower sense of the term, was not
the only function of priests or Lévites. Thus the passages discussed
by WRIGHT refer to the judicial work of the priests (xvii 9), to their
part in the proceedings concerned with an unsolved murder (xxi 5),
*) Λ Critical and JExegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy* (I.C.C), Edinburgh
1902, p. 219. Cp. G. A. SMITH, The Book of Deuteronomy (Cambridge Bible), Cam­
bridge 1918, p. 227, E. KÖNIG, Das Deuteronomi urn, Leipzig 1917, p. 141. Cp.
also VON BAUDISSIN'S words, which are not concerned only with Deuteronomy,
in J. HASTINGS (ed.), A Dictionary of the Bible IV, Edinburgh 1902, p. 70b: "the
term *Levite' nowhere occurs as the exact equivalent of 'priest' ".
2
) S. R. DRIVER, op, cit., p. 219.
132 J. A. EMERTON

to the instructions which they gave about leprosy (xxiv 8), to their
reading of the law (xxxi 9), to their share in the ceremony of blessing
and cursing (xxvii 9ff.), and to the carrying of the ark by them. It
has long been recognized that priests or Lévites had other functions
in addition to those connected with sacrifices, such as handling the
Urim and Thummim and giving instruction (cp. xxxiii 8, 10) x );
indeed, it has often been maintained that these, rather than the offering
of sacrifice, were their normal duties at an early date. Nor is there
anything irreconcilable between such views and the theory of B.
MAZAR 2 ) that Lévites were sometimes employed as government
officials. VON RAD'S theory about the work of Lévites as expository
preachers and teachers is, therefore, a development of something
which was recognized by earlier scholars. Thus, on the usual theory,
it is not necessary to maintain that no one who claimed descent from
Levi 3 ) ever worked anywhere but at an altar. So the second question
at issue — which is closely related to thefirst— is not whether there
were Lévites who taught, but whether the majority taught without
having any connexion with a sanctuary and without the right to act
as altar-priests.
Ill
There is evidence that Deuteronomy regards service at the altar
as a right common to all Lévites, not merely to a minority. The reader
is told in χ 8 that Yahwe separated the tribe of Levi "to bear the
ark of the covenant of Yahwe, to stand before Yahwe to minister
unto him 4 ), and to bless in his name": the language which is here
applied to the tribe closely resembles that which is used of "the
priests the sons of Levi" in xxi 5. Thus priestly functions are con­
ferred on the tribe as a whole (cp. xviii 5, xxxiii 8-10; Joshua xviii 7),
and nothing is said of any distinction within the tribe to suggest
that priestly rights are given only to a minority.
This interpretation of the evidence is borne out by the Deuterono-
mic usage of the word "Lévite", which may be contrasted with that

*) E. g. J. WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, E. T. Edinburgh

1885, pp. 393 ff., I. BENZINGER, Hebräische Archäologie*, Leipzig 1927, p. 347,
G. B. GRAY, Sacrifice in the Old Testament, Oxford 1925, pp. 219 ff.
») Congress Volume Oxford 1959 (Supplements to V.T. VII), Leiden 1960, pp.
193-205.
*) For the present purposes, the difficult question of the origins of the tribe
of Levi may be ignored.
4
) This is a priestly service: cp. S. R. DRIVER, op, cit., p. 123.
 PRIESTS AND LEVITES IN DEUTERONOMY 133

of the Priestly Writer. According to P, as has been seen, the term

"Lévite" is normally applied only to those members of the tribe of
Levi who are not qualified by descent from Aaron to act as priests.
In Deuteronomy, however, a priest can be described simply as a
Lévite. The fact that the writer can move easily from the one term
to the other favours the view that he saw no sharp distinction between
different types of Lévite. Thus xviii 7 describes men who are obviously
priests simply as "the Lévites". Similarly, the people who are spoken
of as "the priests the Lévites" in xxvii 9 are described simply as the
Lévites in verse 14. Even if it be thought that the former expression
is a later addition to verse 9 x), the fact remains.that a redactor, at
least, could move easily from one term to the other. Finally, xxxi
25 speaks simply of "the Lévites who bare the ark". But it appears
from xxxi 9 and from Deuteronomic passages in Joshua (iii 3, iv 3, 9,
viii 33) that these men were priests.

IV
The most important passage relevant to the discussion is Deutero-
nomy xviii 1-8, and WRIGHT'S theory largely stands or falls with his
interpretation of these verses. It has already been noted that verse 5
appears to ascribe priestly functions to the tribe of Levi, not to a
minority within the tribe, and that verse 7 describes priests simply
as "the Lévites".
Verse 1 says that there is to be no portion or inheritance with
Israel lakkoh*nim habwiyyim kol-Sebet lem. The question at issue is
whether "all the tribe of Levi" is identified with "the priests the
Lévites". WRIGHT recognkes that the translation "the Levitical
priests, that is, all the tribe of Levi" is possible. If this translation
were accepted, it would mean that "all the tribe of Levi" is in apposi-
tion to "the priests the Lévites", and that no distinction is made
between them. This translation is irreconcilable with WRIGHT'S
interpretation of the Deuteronomic evidence as a whole, and so he
has to understand these words in a different way. He therefore favours
the translation "the priests the Lévites and all the tribe of Levi".
WRIGHT thinks that "the phrase "all the tribe of Levi' is a larger
designation which expands the group mentioned in the first phrase,
'the priests the Lévites' ", but he does not discuss the syntax. The
second expression is probably in apposition to the first, since asyn-
') Cp. G. A. SMITH, op. cit., p. 303.
134 J. A. EMERTON

deton is rare with two nouns or phrases in Hebrew *), whereas apposi-
tion is very common and, as S. R. DRIVER points out 2 ), occurs a
number of times in Deuteronomy. WRIGHT seems to think that
the second phrase expands the one to which it is in apposition.
However, this is without parallel in Deuteronomy3); if the writer
had intended the meaning favoured by WRIGHT, it would have been
natural to add the conjunction n>: It is therefore more probable that-
the two phrases refer to the same people 4). The writer adds kol-iebet
lem because he wants to emphasize the fact that the whole tribe has
the right to act as Levitical priests.
In any case, WRIGHT'S theory of a distinction between altar-priests
and client-Levites involves another difficulty in these verses. This
passage goes on to give the reason why the Lévites have no in-
heritance with the rest of Israel: they are to eat sacrificial offerings.
This surely implies that Lévites are (or have been, before the cen-
tralization of worship) normally associated with an altar. Moreover,
verses 3 and 4 speak of the priest's due from the people; then verse
5 speaks, as has been seen, of Yahwe's choice of the tribe of Levi
to perform a priestly duty. Thus, WRIGHT does not escape the
usual understanding of the Deuteronomic language about the Lévites
merely by supplying the word "and" in verse 1 ; priestly rights and
duties are still associated with "all the tribe of Levi".
This passage also has a bearing on other verses which refer to

*) C. BROCKELMANN, Hebräische Syntax, Neukirchen 1956, pp. 126 f.

2
) S. R. DRIVER, op. cit., p. 214. He refers to ii 37b, iii 4b, 13, 18, iv 19, ν 8,
xv 21, xvi 21, xvii 1, xx 14, xxiii 20 (19), xxv 16, xxix 9(10). There are many other
examples of the use of apposition in Deuteronomy, but DRIVER'S list gives the
closest parallels.
3
) An examination of the passages listed by DRIVER shows that the concluding
phrase introduced by kol nowhere else in Deuteronomy expands the preceding
expression in quite the way required by WRIGHT. Where there are a number
of nouns in the first phrase (as in iv 19 and xx 14), the kol phrase denotes a larger
entity than any one of them on its own, but not a larger entity than the first
phrase as a whole; the only exceptions are xv 2 and xxiii 20(19), but here a noun
in the first phrase is repeated in the second (mum and ne/ek respectively). As far
as I am aware, Deuteronomy contains no parallel to the way in which WRIGHT
understands xviii 1.
4
) The LXX apparently understands the verse in this way. The Peshi^ta and
the Targum of Onkelos are of little help, since the former omits the reference
to the tribe of Levi and the latter merely gives a word for word rendering of
the Hebrew. The Vulgate offers some support to WRIGHT'S translation, but its
reading "sacerdotes et Levitae et omnes qui de eadem tribu sunt" looks sus­
piciously like a free rendering which brings the verse into line with the later
distinction between priests and Lévites.
 PRIESTS AND LEVTTES IN DEUTERONOMY 135

people whom WRIGHT regards as client-Levites. There are other

Deuteronomic passages which say that the Lévites have no inheritance
with ordinary Israelites. This is said of the tribe of Levi in Deuterono-
my χ 9 and Joshua xiii 14, 33, and the second of these passages, like
Deuteronomy xviii Iff., gives as a reason the fact that the Lévites
receive the sacrificial offerings (cp. also the third passage). Similarly,
Joshua xviii 7 says, "the Lévites have no portion among you: for
the priesthood of Yahwe is their inheritance". When, therefore, the
client-Levites are said to have no inheritance (Deuteronomy xii 12,
xiv 27, 29), it is natural to understand that these Lévites have a right
to share in sacrificial offerings; but this right, as has been seen, is
associated with the priesthood by the Deuteronomic writers. Of
course, Deuteronomy isolates many of these Lévites from an altar
by its policy of centralization. But it seems that all Lévites retain
the right to a share in the sacrificial offerings : there is no distinction
in principle between altar-priests and other Lévites.
Verses 6-8 of Deuteronomy xviii say that, "if a Lévite come from
any of thy gates" to the central sanctuary, "then he shall minister
in the name of Yahwe his God, as all his brethren the Lévites do,
who stand there before Yahwe" *). It has already been noted that
this passage speaks of priests simply as "the Lévites". But who is
the Lévite who comes from the country to the central sanctuary?
He is described simply as "a Lévite", but WRIGHT has to maintain
that he is not just any Lévite: he is one ot the altar-priests from one
of the local sanctuaries which Deuteronomy seeks to close; this law
does not, in his opinion, refer to the client-Levites. WRIGHT'S inter-
pretation of this verse is highly improbable in its distinction between
client-Levites and altar-priests of the former local sanctuaries. Verse
5, which immediately precedes this section, has spoken of the tribe
of Levi as a whole, and, even on WRIGHT'S interpretation, verse 1
(and therefore probably the whole of verses 1-5) includes the whole
tribe of Levi as well as the priests the Lévites. It is therefore natural
to suppose that verse 6 refers to any member of the tribe of Levi.
It is very strange, on WRIGHT'S theory, that this verse does not make
it plain that client-Levites are excluded from its provisions. It is even
stranger that the Lévite is said to come "from any of thy gates",
because these words remind the reader of the phrase "within thy

*) If the meaning of the last phrase in verse 8 were clear, it might throw some
light on the matter under discussion.
136 J. A. EMERTON

gates", which is associated with Lévites in passages where WRIGHT

thinks that client-Levites are meant (xii 12, 18, xiv 27, xvi 11; cp.
also xvi 14, xxvi 11). It is far more probable that xviii 6 refers to any
Lévite, and that we are not to read into the verse a distinction which
it does not make and which does not fit the context.
So tar, this discussion has treated xviii 1-8 as a unity; this, however,
has been challenged *). It is unnecessary to examine this question in
detail, though it may be admitted that, to say the least, the Deuterono-
mic writer is using older material. Whatever hypothesis may be
offered about the literary history of these verses, it is difficult to
resist the conclusion that whoever was responsible for them in their
final form recognized the priestly rights of all Lévites.

V
A consideration of the rights of members of the tribe of Levi in
Deuteronomy xviii 1-8 raises the question of the means of livelihood
of the people whom WRIGHT calls client-Levites. He believes that
their function was to teach. But how did they make a living? WRIGHT
says that they had no property, but were dependent on the liberality
of the land-owners. He does not make it plain whether he thinks
that they were paid for teaching, or whether they taught without
payment but were maintained by voluntary gifts from other Israelites.
Probably he means the latter; but this does not seem a very likely state
of affairs. The altar-priests and the professional prophets demanded
payment for their services, and it is difficult to imagine a class
of religious teachers living alongside them without some regular
means of payment. Perhaps this objection is not fatal to WRIGHT'S
theory, but he ought to have developed it so as to offer a plausible
reconstruction of the means of living of the client-Levites.
WRIGHT ought also to develop his theory more fully to explain
another matter. There is a widely accepted view of the history of
the priesthood between Deuteronomy and the Priestly Writing — a
development in which Ezekiel xliv plays an important part. WRIGHT
ought to offer an alternative explanation of the way in which Ρ comes
to use the word "Lévite" normally only of subordinate officials at
the single sanctuary. Perhaps he thinks that the Lévites of Ρ were
the degraded altar-priests of the old local sanctuaries. But what

*) E.g. A. BERTHOLET, Deuteronomium, Freiburg im Breisgau 1899, pp. 56f.,

and C. STEUERNAGEL, Das Deuteronomium1, Göttingen 1923, pp. 11-0 f.
 PRIESTS AND LEVITES IN DEUTERONOMY 137

became of the client-Levites who, ex hypothesis were not associated

with any altar? It may be that WRIGHT can offer a plausible explanation
of this problem, but so far his theory deals with only part of the
evidence for the history of the priesthood.

VI
Finally, WRIGHT'S supporting arguments must be examined.
First, his assertion that the Lévites were too numerous for them all
to have acted as altar-priests is unconvincing. Quite apart from the
inadequacy of our knowledge of the number of Lévites in the pre-
exilic period 1 ), WRIGHT'S argument would hold good only if it
were assumed that priests attached to an altar did nothing but serve
the altar; but it has been seen that the usual view does not maintain
this.
Secondly, WRIGHT argues that the existence of Levitical cites
favours his theory. In discussing this subject, it must be remembered
that ALBRIGHT'S evaluation and dating of the lists of these cities is a
controversial matter 2 ), and it is unwise to build too much on so
uncertain a foundation. But, for the sake of argument, let it be con-
ceded that these lists are to be dated to the time of the united monarchy.
If there were Levitical cities at that time, why should this be incom-
patible with the view that the Lévites there were qualified to act as
priests? 1 Samuel xxii tells of a city of priests at Nob, and it is con-
ceivable that this was not the only one in Israel. Perhaps WRIGHT
means that it would have been impossible for so many collections
of priests to have made a living from serving altars. But this argument
would tell even more strongly against WRIGHT'S own theory: how
could so many client-Levites have lived together, if they were depen-
dent on gifts from other Israelites? In any case, it is far from certain
how many Lévites lived at each settlement 3 ), and, as has been seen,
the usual view is not bound to maintain that priests did nothing but
serve altars, in the narrower sense of the term.
Thirdly, WRIGHT appeals to VON RAD'S arguments that the Lévites
taught the people and uses it in support of his theory that the client-

*) See G. B. G R A Y , op. cit., pp. 211 ff.

2
) Cp. A. A L T , Kleine Schriften Π, Munich 1953, pp. 258 ff., 294 ff., 310 ff.,
Μ. ΝοτΗ, Das Buch fosua1, Tübingen 1953, pp. 127 ff. See also the discussions
by R. DE VAUX, Les institutions de lyAncien Testament II, Paris 1960, pp. 224-226,
and by MAZAR, op. cit.
3
) Cp. the cautious remarks by John BRIGHT in The Interpreter*s Bible II, p. 651.
138 EMERTON, PRIESTS AND LEVITES

Lévites had nothing to do with the altar, VON RAD certainly seems x)
to favour the view that many Lévites were no longer connected
with the cult, but he advances no evidence in favour of this opinion.
It may willingly be agreed that VON RAD has made out a very strong
case for the view that the Lévites taught, but this does not prove
that they were not connected with the cult. Why should not Lévites
have acted both as altar-priests and as teachers? It has already been
seen that Deuteronomy records that priests performed duties which
were not directly connected with the altar. Moreover, some of VON
RAD'S most important evidence concerns the teaching given by
Lévites at festivals which were held at sanctuaries (or, at least, at a
sanctuary). At a time when there were many sanctuaries, it is difficult
to maintain the existence of a recognized class of official religious
teachers who were completely independent of them.
In conclusion, it may be said that WRIGHT has not succeeded in
proving his theory. He is probably correct in thinking that Deuterono-
my does not use the word priest indiscriminately, and that teaching
was one of the functions of the tribe of Levi; but there is nothing in
this which is incompatible with views which are more generally
held. WRIGHT has produced no convincing evidence that there was a
sharp distinction in principle between altar-priests and client-Levites,
and that the latter were not qualified to exercise priestly functions.
On the contrary, Deuteronomy confers the priestly office on the
whole tribe of Levi, and associates Lévites with priestly rights and
duties in a way which is difficult to explain on WRIGHT'S theory.
The evidence favours the view that all Lévites were thought to
possess the priestly status and that Lévites were usually connected
with sanctuaries before the policy of centralization was enforced —
though this did not prevent them from performing functions which
were not directly concerned with the altar. The closing of the local
sanctuaries created a class of client-Levites, but Deuteronomy still
recognizes their right to act as priests when they come to the central
sanctuary.

*) Studies in Deuteronomy, E. T. London 1953, pp. 67 f.

 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.