3. The i000 cubits were measured perpendicularly to the vvall of the city, and then perpendicular to these distances, i .e., parallel to the walls of the city, the 2000 cubits were measured on the north, south, east, and west sides, as shown in diagram III. This, however, is obviously incorrect, be cause the sides would not be 2000 cubits long if the city were of finite dimensions, but plainly longer. 4. It is assumed that the city was built in a circular form, with a radius of 15o0 cubits, that a circle vvas then described with a radius of 25oo cubits from the centre of the city, i e. , at a dis tance of moo cubits from the walls of the city, and that the suburbs were enclosed between the circumferences of the two circles, and that the corner of the circumscribed square was moo cubits from the circumference of the outer circle. Com pare diagram IV. But the objection to this is, that by Euclid, i. 47, the square of the diagonal equals the sum of the square of the sides, whereas in this figure 35oo2 does not equal 25002 25oo2. The assigned length of the diagonal varies about 35 cubits from ifs actual value. 5. The city is posed to be of a circular form ; round it a circle is described at a distance of moo cubits from its walls ; V. This view, which is somewhat fanciful, strictly meets the requirements of the Hebrew text. 6. The moo cubits are measured from the centre in then from the walls 2000 cubits are measured to the north, south, east, and west corners—the whole forming a starlike figure, as exhibited in diagram four directions at right angles to one another, and perpendicular to each of these a side of 2000 cubits long is drawn, the whole forming a square. But in this case the condition of ' moo cubits round about' is not fulfilled, the distance of the centre from the corners of the square being plainly more than moo cubits. 7. The moo cubits round about ' is equivalent to moo cubits square, or 3o5 English acres. 8. The city is supposed to be square, each side measuring woo or 500 cubits, and then, at a distance of moo cubits in all directions from the square, another square is described, as represented in diagrams VI. a. and VI. b. But this incurs the objection urged against 6, that the moo cubits can not be said to be measured round about,' the distance from the corner of the city to the corner of the precincts being plainly more than moo cubits. Upon a review of all these theories, we incline to the ancient Jewish view, which is stated first, and against which nothing can be said, if we take on the south, east, etc.,' simply to mean, as it often does, in all directions, instead of four distinct points. It pre-supposes that the cities were built in a cir cular form, which was usual in the cities of anti quity, both because the circle of all figures comprises the largest area within the smallest periphery, and because the inhabitants could reach every part of the walls in the shortest time from all directions, if necessary, for purposes of defence.
These revenues have been thought exorbitant beyond all bounds ; for, discarding the unjustifiable conclusion of Bishop Colenso, that forty-four people [Levites], with the two priests, and their families, had forty-eight cities assigned to them' (77w Pentateuch, etc., part i., p. '12), and adher ing to the Scriptural numbers, we still have a tribe which, at the second census, numbered 23,000 males, with no more than 12,000 arrived at man's estate, receiving the tithes of 60o,000 people ; consequently,' it is thought that each individual Levite, without having to de duct seed and the charges of husbandry, had as much as five Israelites reaped from their fields, or gained on their cattle' (Michaelis, Laws of Moses, i., p. 252). Add to this that, though so small in number, the Levites received forty-eight cities, whilst other tribes which consisted of more than double the number of men received less cities, and some did not get more than twelve cities. But in all these calculations the following facts are ignored The tithes were not a regular tax, but a religious duty, which was greatly neglected by the people ; 2. Even from these irregular tithes the Levites had to give a tithe to the pricsts ; 3. The tithes never increased, whereas the Levites did increase. 4. Thirteen of the forty-eight cities were assigned to the priests, and six were cities of refuge ; and 5. Of the remaining twenty-nine cities, the Levites were by no means the sole occupants or proprie tors, they were simply to have in them those houses which they required as dwellings, and the fields necessary for the pasture of their cattle. This is evident from the fact that the Levites were allowed to sell their houses, and that a special clause bearing on this subject was inserted in the Jubilee law [J uniLEE] ; inasmuch as Lev. xxv. 32-34 would have no meaning unless it is pre sumed that other Israelites lived together with the Levites.
Such was the Mosaic organisation of the Leviti cal order which Joshua faithfully endeavoured to carry into effect. But so deeply rooted was the patriarchal mode of worship in the nation, accord ing to which the head of the family, or the first born son, performed the sacerdotal functions, that even in the lifetime of Moses this innovation of substituting the tribe of Levi and offering the sacrifices before the door of the Tabernacle be fore the Lord,' instead of on any altar erected by private individuals, created a revolt (Num. xvi. 3).
It will therefore not be surprising to find that the primitive system of worship could not easily be superseded between the days of Joshua and the rise of the monarchy, that the people recurred to it again and again, that the Levites were without functions, influence, and means of subsistence, and were glad to seek refuge in any town, whether holy or not, and be maintained by the benevolence of pious individuals (Judg. 5 ; vi. ; xiii. 19, 20 ; XVii. 7-12 ; XViii. 1-31 ; I Satn. vi. 15 ; Vii. 1-5 ; X. 17 ; XXXl. 1-6). As a striking illustration of this state of things, may be specified the conduct of Micah, a man of Mount Ephraim, who had in his own residence a house of God, and made an ephod and teraphim.' This man first consecrated one of his sons as a priest, and then got a homeless and breadless Levite, supposed to be the grandson of Moses himself, to dwell with him as a father and a priest ' for little more than his food and raiment (Judg. xvii. r-r3). During the whole of Saul's reign, the Levites who had the charge of the ark of the covenant left this sacred trust to be profaned in the house of a private indi vidual at Kirjath-jearim (r Sam. vii. 2; t Chron. xiii. 2).
H. F1-0111 the commencement of the monarchy to the exile.— The deplorable condition and disorgani sation of the Levitical order were not much im proved in the reign of the first Hebrew monarch. The self-willed Saul, who arrogated to himself the priestly functions, and massacred the priests at Nob (I Sam. Iota), was not likely to recognise the Levitical order and improve their circumstances. It was reserved for David to reorganise the great Levitical body. As soon as his kingdom was established, he immediately betook himself to the reconstruction of the divine worship, when he at once recognised the Mosaic ordinances about the priesthood and the Levitical order, and assigned to them their proper share of work in the sanc tuary. When the ark was carried to Zion the Levites were the bearers of it (I Chron. xiii. 2 ; XV., XVI., With Vi. 16, etc.) The Levites engaged in conveying the ark to Jerusalem were divided into six father's houses, headed by six chiefs, four belonging to Kohath, one to Gershon, and one to Merari (r Chron. xv. 5, etc.) The most remark able feature in the Levitical duties of this period is their being employed for the first time in choral service (r Chron. xv. 16-24 ; xvi. 4-36) ; others again were appointed as door-keepers (ibid. xv. 23, 24). Still the thorough reorganisation' of the whole tribe was effected by the shepherd-king in the last days of his eventful life, that the Levites might be able at the erection of the Temple to wait on the sons of Aaron for the service of the house of Jehovah, in the courts and the chambers, and the purifying of all holy things, and the work of the service of the house of God ' Chron. xxiii. 28). This reorganisation may be described as follows :— I. Number of levites and age for service.—The Levites from thirty years of age and upwards were first of all numbered, when it was found that they were 38,000 (I Chron. xxiii. 2, j); this being about 29,5oo more than at the first Mosaic census. It will be seen that, according to this statement, the Levites were to commence service at thirty years of age, in harmony with the Mosaic institution (Num. iv. 3, 23, 3o); whilst in ver. 27 of the same chapter (i e., Chron. xxiii. 27) it is said that they were to take their share of duty at twenty years of age. Kimchi, vvho is followed by Bishop Patrick, Michaelis, and others, tries to reconcile this apparent contradiction by submitting that the former refers to a census which David made at an earlier period, which was according to the Mosaic law (Num. iv. 3) ; whilst the latter speaks of a second census which he made at the close of his life, when he found that the duties of the fixed sanctuary were much lighter and more numerous, and could easily be performed at the age of twenty, but at the same time required a larger staff of men. Against this, however, Berthean rightly urges, that —I. The 38,000 Levites of thirty years of age given in the census of ver. 3, are the only persons ap pointed for the different Levitical offices; and that it is nowhere stated that this number was insuf ficient, or that the arrangements based thereupon, as recorded in vers. 4 and 5, were not carried out ; and 2. The chronicler plainly indicates, in ver. 25, etc., that he is about to impart a different state ment from that communicated in ver. 3 ; for he mentions therein the reason which induced Davio not to abide by the Mosaic institution, which pnt-. scribes the age of service to commence at thirty, and in ver. 27 expressly points out the source from which he derived this deviating account. The two accounts are, therefore, entirely different ; the one records that the Levites, in David's time, were numbered from their thirtieth year ; whilst the other, which appears to the chronicler more trustworthy, states that David introduced the practice which afterwards obtained (2 Chron. xxxi. ; Ezra iii. 8) of appointing Levites to office at the age of twenty.