* The subsequent correction of Moses to Manasseh by a super- linear m was due simply to a desire to save Moses the shame of having a descendant who held an illegitimate (because not derived from Aaron) priesthood, and, in addition, practised the worship of images. In the estimation of the original narrator, both these things were quite justifiable and praiseworthy.
t+ If 85 men ‘who wore the linen ephod’ (7.e. officiating priests) were slain by Doeg, this is a surprisingly large number. At Shiloh only three priests are mentioned ; at Jerusalem under David, only two (apart from David's sons, 28 818, and ‘Ira the Jairite, 2026), as was the case also under Solomon, according to the original text of 1 K 425 (Azariah the son of Zadok, and Zabud the son of Nathan). It is true that hak-kdhén denotes ‘the priest’ zas’ Zoy%y, in olden times the chief priest (as is still the case in 2K 119, Is 82, and 2 K 224 where Hilkiah first becomes ‘high priest,’ thanks to a later redactor), so that the existence of other priests along with the above named is by no means excluded (cf. e.g. 2K 125™), But, while a considerable number is supposable in the case of the splendid temple of Solomon, it is not so with the more modest sanctuaries of the early monarchical period. Now, it is a possibility that in 18 2218 the number 85 may originally have stood for the whole of Ahimelech’s descendants and relations (cf. v.19), But, seeing that the LXX gives 305 (Luc. 350) in place of 85, it is evident that the number was 4 later insertion, based upon diverse guesses. Is it accident that 85 is the numerical value of the consonants of ‘ kohdné [Jahweh]’ in v.17?
RELIGION OF ISRAEL
etc.), was, according to 1§ 14%, a grandson of Eli. The sole survivor of the massacre at Nob was Abiathar the son of Ahimelech (1S 2% 22°), who fled with the ’éphéd (see above) to David. The ‘trustworthy priest,’ however, for whom Jahweh, according to 2%, is to build an enduring house, ‘.e. to whom He is to give an unbroken line of succes- sors who shall go out and in continually before the anointed of Jahweh— the king—is Zadok, who already, in the time of David, had been priest along with Abiathar (2S 15%.” etc.). Under Solomon he continued alone in office when the curse on the house of Eli was fulfilled in the de- position of Abiathar (1 K 277), It is not stated that Zadok was of Levitical descent; even the name of his father is not given.* Nevertheless, the prediction of the ‘enduring house’ was ful- filled. Towards the end of the pre-exilic period all priests at Jerusalem passed for ‘sons of Zadok,’ and in the programme for the future sketched by Ezekiel (441°*) it is to them alone out of all the existing ‘priests of Levi’ that the priestly prerogatives are accorded. Deuteronomy had at least left open the possibility that the priests of the high places might discharge priestly func- tions at Jerusalem after the concentration of the cultus in the temple there. We see, however, from 1 § 2° that it was difficult for them to obtain this privilege. The man of God there predicts to Eli that his descendants (i.e. the priests of the high places in the time of Josiah and down to B.C. 586) would have to humble themselves very low before Zadok (i.e. the legitimate priestly family at Jerusalem) and to beg from them the necessary maintenance.
3. Let us now ask,—and this is the main ques- tion,—What was the spiritual and religious signi- ficance of the priesthood during the whole period prior to the advent of written prophecy? Un- fortunately, here again we have to rest content with very meagre sources of information. Essen- tially, all that we learn is that the priests guarded the Ark, and, if necessary, carried it. Moreover, it is no inferior priests or Levites+ in the sense of P that carry it, but the priests proper, as is plain from 2.8 15% 29 (and even from 18 4%). But there is specially frequent mention of a function of the priests which consisted in guarding or carrying and consulting the ’gphéd (see above): 1 S 143 21° 6) 2915 faccording to the LXX, also v.18] 23° [where David asks Abiathar to produce the éphéd which he (v.5) had brought with him from Nob] 30° [where, however, itis David himself that consults Jahweh]. Further, in 18 1418, we are to read, with the LXX, ‘the ’éphéd’ instead of ‘the ark,’ and then ‘for he bore then the "ephéd,’ etc. There is no mention of any participation of the priests in the offering of sacrifice. Even at the head sanctu- ary at Shiloh all that is resupposed in 1S 2"# is at most an ordinance hallowed by custom in con- nexion with the handing over of the sacrificial dues to the priests ; the heinous sin of the sons of Eli consisted, not in their transgressing the require- ments of a written law (such as that of P), but in treating with contempt. the ancient hallowed sacrificial customs, and demanding their portion before the fat had been burned to Jahweh (v.39). But it is not clear whether the presenting of the
* Jt is true that in 2S 817 (1 Ch 1816 246. 31) Zadok is called ‘the son of Ahitub.’ But the MT here has certainly been corrected in dogmatic interests, with the object of inserting Zadok in a genealogy and, at the same time, of setting aside Abiathar (in contradiction to 28 1524 etc.) in advance. With Wellhausen and others we should read “ Zadok and Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub.’