3. Religious. — In all early Semitic nationalities, and especially in Israel, religion was bound up with the unity of the people. For a king to neglect the worship of the national god would be to alienate a large proportion of his subjects, who, believing themselves to have sprung from theii' god, felt that his honour was their own, and also that their o^vn welfare depended upon the treatment he received. Hence the maintenance of the religious establishment was necessarily an im- portant part of the king's duties.* A further question arises whether the early Semitic custom of the king being the religious head of the nation and the chief sacrificing priest obtained also in Israel. It has been asserted that this was the primary object of the anointing of the Israelitish kings, out no hint to this eli'ect is given in the OT (see above). Yet there are certainly traces of the old custom, whether it is to be rejjarded as held legitimate by the Israelites themselves (till quite late times) or not.
Thus we find the following examples : — (a) Sacri- fices are ottered by Saul against the wish of Samuel (IS 13»-" [J2] 14»ff- [J']), but are eWdently re- garded by Saul himself as his right in Samuel's absence. Also, perhaps, by David himself (2 S gi3. 17 [-J1-] 2425 [J']), but in these cases the sacrifices may merely have been ottered by the priests at David's order (comp., too, Ezk 45"»'-=). (A) David wears the linen ephod (2 S 6'^ cf. 1 Ch IS-''), which was a priestly garment (IS 2'^ 22'^) (see EPHOD), and he and Solomon bless the people (2 S 6'», 1 K 8'*). (c) It is more important that David and Solomon dismiss and appoint the chief priest at their pleasure (2 S 8", 1 K 2*- "■ ^).\ This may have been due to a desire to have a royal priesthood distinct from the priests of other sanctuaries (cf. 1 Ch 6'°, 1 K 4* with 1 Ch le'"- "). It is possible that the officials mani- festly not of the Levitical line who are called priests (D'jnii), viz. David's sons (2 S 8'^ [J']) and Ira the Jairite (2 S 20-* [R""]),! represent those royal officials who saw to the maintenance of such royal priests, unless perhaps they were the intermediaries be- tween tlie king and the whole body of the priests for certain functions, e.g. to supply the royal sacrifices, to superintend the royal expenditure upon the preparations for the Temple, etc.§
V. Maintenance and Establishment. — 1. Taxation.— {a) Ezk 45'-' 48" speak of a royal
• Ezk 4517 expressly orders that the prince shall provide the sacrifices (cf. 46-1-6 and 2 Ch SO" 357).
t That David gets the choir appointed (1 Ch 16^^24) proves nothing, for, apart from the question of the historicity of the Chronicler's narrative, even the closest sacerdotal body may depend on the laity for money. 1 Ch 16*^ is more to the point, but need not imply more. So also with Solomon building the Temple, which Nowack i^Arch. i. p. 310) strangely compares to Ahaz building the altar in wilful opposition to the type sanc- tioned by tlie nation's religious laws.
X I.e. dated by Budde 440-400 B.C., therefore (on the same principles) not much earlier than the Chronicler (see next note).
§ The Chronicler evades the difficulty by paraphrasing * the sons ofD.arid were chief about the king' (1 Oh 18"). In 1 K 46 the title is given to Zabud as well as ' the king's friend ' (see below).
The word ' priests ' in 2 S 818 2028 has been explained to mean, on the one hand, spiritual counsellors, or the king's highest officials, or his daily companions (which is against usage) ; and, on the other hand, * priest ' in the fullest sense. But to believe that the sons of David and Ira the Jairite actually exercised priestly functions requires much more evidence than has yel been adduced (but see Driver on 2 8 8I8). The act of Uzziah is represented by the Chronicler as monstrously lU«gsl (2 0)1 2616 IS), and has no parallel :n Isrmelitish history.
KI^'G
KING
843
domain with which God's 'princes' will be so satislied tliat they will no more ojjpress tlie peoi)le, but even with tliis tlie 'prince' 13 still to receive large supplies of food (4o'^""). Such a royal domain is also hinted at in 1 S 8'- (E-), and actu- ally possessed by David (1 Ch 27'^-").
(6) Presents, more or less compulsory, were given by subjects (to Saul 1 S 10" 16-"), and "by foreigners (to David 2 S 8'", to Solomon 1 K 4-'--^ 10'»=», and to 'Kings cif Israel from Moab 2 K 3', cf. Is 16'). The king would also certainly have his share of booty (David 2 S 8" 12™, 1 Ch 26-'').
((•) The king had apparently the right to the first cut of the pasture land (Am 7') for his many horses (1 K 18°). The land-tax was, as it seems, unknown in Palestine. Yet there was probably a property-tax of some kind (1 S 17^ [E']), perhaps the tenth of all (.roduce (1 S 8"- " [E-]). Naturally, for extraordinary needs extraordinary requisitions were levied (2 k 15-'° 23"). Caravans paid toll (1 K 10"), and much prolit must have been derived from what was in .Solomon's days the royal mono- poly in horses and, apparently, chariots (1 KIO^-'-"), as well as from the commerce by sea (1 K 10"). Appartnllv also the property of eoiidenmed persons (1 K 21 ' '•''), and of those wlio had left the country (2 K }>■'• *), passed to the king. That he also some- times seized property unjustly is implied in Ezk