+ The mention of these in 18 619, 2 S 15% (but not v.29), and 1 K 84 (contradicting v.3), is due to a late interpolation. ;
tIt is doubtful, on the other hand, whether, with Thenius and aes we should substitute ‘the ’¢phdd’ for ‘ the ark’ also in 1 K 226
. alone.
| Blessing of Moses (see
EE eee
RELIGION OF ISRAEL 649
fat was an act that could be performed by priests And even if statements like those of 15 13%, 2 $6117, 1 K 34 etc., might readily be interpreted as meaning that the kings offered sacrifice through the medium of the priests, on the other hand there are passages, such as 2S 6 and 1K 8™, which show that in ancient times even a ritual act like blessing (which in Dt 10° [probably from P] is reserved for the priests) could be performed without offence by the kings.
Of what, according to the statements of the prophets, was the most important official duty of the priests, namely, the giving of torah or ‘ direc- tion’ in ritual and legal questions (even without the employment of the sacred lot), we do not hear till towards the close of our period, in the so-called below, p. 650"). For the earlier period it is significant that in the whole of the so-called Book of the Covenant, although it deals for the most part with questions of law, priests are not mentioned at all. This does not, indeed, prove that the above function was wholly wanting to them. When a fitting occasion arose, in the case of Eli we find indeed a kind of pastoral office discharged : 1 S 19-8768. 27° (towards Heunal and Elkana) 2 (towards his own sons); but even this bears no specifically priestly character.
As to other, especially political, influence exer- cised by the priests, it was to all appearance small throughout this whole period. This admits of a simple explanation on the ground that there were as yet no priestly guilds to give support to the individual. As we saw above, connexion with the tribe of Levi was not as yet a condition of attain- ing the dignity of priest. The Deuteronomic redactor of the Books of Kings is the first to
reckon it a sin on the part of Jeroboam that he
appointed all and sundry, who were not descended from the tribe of Levi, to be priests of the high places (1 K 12°! 13%), How little advantage, how- ever, even the Levitical priests had over the others, is sufficiently plain from the story of the wayfaring Levite, Jonathan (Jg 177#:), and in quite a special way from Gn 497, Here (probably as late as the time of David) a curse is pronounced on the tribe of Levi, without any allusion to the prerogatives attributed and actually continued to that tribe owing to its connexion with Moses (cf. above, p. 648°). This shows clearly that these very prerogatives were, at least in the time of the poetical author of Gn 497, very lightly esteemed. The tribe of Levi was accounted accursed ; only a portion of its members, who had had the good fortune (Jg 178), discharged priestly functions. But even in this instance the Levite with his family occupied an isolated position at some sanc- tuary, and enjoyed no special consideration there. But the same was the case also with the priests who were not of Levitical descent. It is true that as early as the end of the period of the Judges and the opening of the monarchical period we meet with a tendency towards a hereditary, settled, and therefore more respected, priesthood, in the family of Eli. The prestige he enjoyed is explicable, above all, from the circumstance that he attended to the sacred Ark in the temple at Shiloh, the sanctuary most highly esteemed by the people. His descendants continued to live upon this reputation, as we find them doing under Saul at Nob, evidently the principal sanctuary after the destruction of Shiloh (1.8 22” ‘the city of the priests’), and as Abiathar did at the court of David.
With all this, however, there is no word of any sovereignty exercised by the priests alongside that of the king. Abhimelech assumes the atti- tude of an inferior towards even the subject of Saul (1 S 21”), and most unreservedly towards Saul
650 RELIGION OF ISRAEL
himself (22), The bodyguard of Saul hesitate, it is true, to slaughter the priests of Jahweh (v.2’), plainly because the bloody command of the king appeared to them so unjust and monstrous; but no one interposed in defence of the priests when they and their families fell victims to the blind fury of the king, using as its instrument Doeg the Edomite. The sole survivor, Abiathar, was indeed taken by David under his protection (v.73), but only as a servant whom he could order about as he pleased; and the same position was held by Abiathar under David when the latter became king. In 28 8!7 20%, 1 K 41-5, the priests are named amongst the principal officials in Judah, mostly, however, after these, or at least after a portion of them. The circumstance that the punishment inflicted by Solomon upon Abiathar for his participation in Adonijah’s attempt was only banishment, was due not to his peculiar standing, but simply to the services he had person- ally rendered to David. It is quite intelligible that the settled priesthood at so splendid a sanctuary as Solomon’s temple should have been the first to attain to wealth and higher culture, and on that account to great consideration, that at an early period these priests came even to form a species of temple aristocracy, united in a close society, and allied themselves in marriage with the most powerful families, even up to the royal house.* All the same, the chief priests are nothing but officials of the king, and the circumstances are quite exceptional that determine Joiada the priest (2 K 114") to play a great political part in the conspiracy against ‘Athaliah. Moreover, his action was in favour of the only legitimate heir of the Davidic dynasty, and thus in the service of the same. But the regard which king Jehoash owed him in return did not prevent that monarch from showing towards him and the priests (12) not merely annoyance but distrust, when he deprived them of the free control of the temple dues and handed this over to the Secretary of State.