At least the earliest kings looked upon the
* Among the Assyrians as well the kin^ was at the same time the chief priest (see Alf. Jeremias, Die bau.-axnj/r. VoretfUuiigen vom Ltben nach dem Tode^ Leipzig, 1887, p. 07, note 1).
Jerusalemite priests as subordinate officials whom they could appoint and depose. From the massacre which Saul perpetrated amongst the priests at Nob who held with David (1 S 22"''''), none escaped of the family of Eli but Ebiathar, who fled for refuge to David, carrying ■with him the oracle- ephod (1 S 22-" 23"). He was installed by David as priest in attendance on the sacred ark on Mt. Zion. Along with him Zadok is named as David's priest (2 S 8", where read ' Ebiathar son of Aliimelech '). Both have their sons at their side as priests (2 S 15"-'*). Ebiathar must have held the higher rank of the two, for we are told in 1 K 2^ that Solomon, after deposing Ebiathar, gave his post to Zadok. Ebiathar, with his son Jonathan, had taken the side of Adonijah when the latter conspired against his father David (1 IC jis. 4^ff.) By command of David, Zadok anointed Solomon king (1 K P-^-). and Ebiathar was banished. He retired to his landed property at Anathoth (1 K 2^*'-), where in the time of Jere- miah we still find a priestly family settled, to which Jeremiah himself belonged (Jer 1' 32**0- Accordingly Jeremiah was probably a descendant of Ebiathar, and thus of the ancient priestly family which dated its possession of the dignity from the time of the Exodus (see above, § 2).
The house of Zadok continued in possession of the Jerusalemite priesthood. This we know from the exilian prophet Ezekiel, who constantly speaks of the Jerusalemite priests as ' the sons of Zadok.' What was Zadok's descent is not clearly to be seen. This much only is plain, that he did not belong, like Ebiathar, to the old-privileged priestly family, for a piopliecy, put into the mouth of an unnamed man of God in the time of Eli, announces that God, after He had chosen in Egypt tlie fathers' house of Eli for the priesthood, had now rejected this house, and would apjioint for Him- self a trustworthy priest who should walk after Jahweh's heart and mind, for whom Jahweh would build an enduring house, and who should walk before Jahweh's anointed for ever (1 S 2-'"'-)- This prophecy is in 1 K 2-'' understood of the installa- tion of Zadok in the Jerusalemite priesthood, and was certainly so intended from the first, for — the only other conceivable supposition — to refer it to the priestly Samuel will not answer, seeing that Samuel is never represented as a king's priest. Thus, then, Zadok did not belong to the family or the fathers' house of Eli, and consequently not to the ancient priesthood. Zadok cannot, therefore, as Poels supposes, have really belonged, although, to he sure, later generations represented hira as belonging, to an ancient Aaronile family, namely that of the Eleazarites. This family, according to I'oels, had discharged the priestly duties at Nob, and when the national sanctuary was trans- ferred to Jenisalem, Zadok came from Nob to the cajtital (so, already, essentially. Movers, Kiitische Untersuchnngen ubcr die biblisihc Chronik, Bonn, 1834, p. 294 f., according to whom Zadok was at first chief priest in the Jlosaic tabernacle at Gibcon [which Poels identifies with the sanctuary of Nob]). It is maintained by Van Hoonacker [Sacerdoce, etc. p. IGStt'.) that according to 1 S 2-'' the house of Eli was chosen 'non pas isoliiment,' but, together with others, as one particular family of the priesthood which includea a plurality of families ; but this notion is read into the text. Zadok is called the son of Ahitub (2 S 8"). In the state of the case just described, we are not to think of this Ahitub as the same as the grandson of Eli (1 S 14''). The above-cited oracle of the man of God gives undoubtedly the correct account of Zadok, for in later times, when the sons of Zadok had exclusive possession of the priesthood, men would not have attributed to them a prestige as priests less lofty
PRIESTS AXD LEVITES
PRIESTS AXD LEYITES
in its origin than that of the Elidie who had now fiillen into the backfrround. Under these circum- stances it may be doubted whetlier Zadok was a Levite at all. No certain decision can be pro- nounced, because we do not know how much is included in the expression ' fathers' house ' of Eli in tlie above oracle. If it means the same thin^ as 'sons of Levi,' then Zadok was no Levite ; but it maj' be intended in a narrower sense, perhaps, to mean the house of Aaron. Since even prior to the time of David, as we saw from the story of the Levite of Micah the Ephraimite, it was considered desirable to have a Levite for priest, David is unlikely to have overlooked this advan- tage in the selection of Zadok, who primarily was his priest. Subsequent generations naturally did full honour to the genealogy of Zadok, whose descent was traced back to a son of Aaron, nay, to his eldest son Eleazar (1 Ch 24'). In the circum- stance that the later writers made the Elidit to be descended from another son of Aaron, namely I tliamar(lCh,/.c.), there is preserved a reminiscence of the diilerence in the descent of the two priestly families.