History of the Old Covenant. By J. H. Kurtz [pp. 451-486]

. Kurtz on the Old Covenant.
some cases at least (a remark made by Ilengstenberg, which
may be worthy of attention) rather true of them as branches of
the chosen people, than characteristic of them as individual
tribes.
2. The contents of the prophecy and its form agree entirely
with the views and expectations of Jacob, and have nothing in
them that would be at all surprising as coming from him on the
supposition that he were really endowed with prophetic foresight. The proof of this has been sufficiently exhibited already.
3. The blessing contains positive data, which compel us to refer
its composition to the ante-Mosaic period. The dispersion of
Levi here appears as a judgment upon him for his misconduct.
But this was accomplished, after the unholy zeal of the parent
had been succeeded by the pious zeal of his descendants, Exod.
xxxii. 27-29, and the curse had in consequence been converted
into a blessing, by his being honoured to be the priestly tribe,
and receiving in consequence as his inheritance cities selected
from all parts of the land. But nothing is here said of the
dignity of Levi as invested with the priesthood, or as being in
any wise distinguished above his brethren. There is only the
language of rebuke and malediction. It is impossible, as even
critics of the most destructive school have been compelled to
acknowledge, that language, such as we find here, could have
been used after the priestly succession was fixed in the line of
Levi. Tuch indeed endeavours to escape this conclusion, by
referring its composition to the period when the misconduct of
the sons of Eli had brought the priesthood into disrepute,
1 Sam. ii. 17, and when Levites wandered through the land
homeless, and ready to enter the service of any who would give
them wages. Judg. xvii. 7-12. But we cannot say much in
praise of that candour which thus extends without evidence the
misconduct of a single vagabond Levite, or of Eli's two profligate sons, to the whole tribe to which they belonged. Nor,
however low the sacerdotal tribe may have sunk in character or
influence, would any writer of a truly theocratic spirit, as the
author of this prophecy manifestly was, have represented that
in such unqualified terms as a curse, which was the direct consequence of their investiture with the priesthood. And then the
very instances referred to, show the opposite of that for which
484
[JULY