robes, and that David may have avoided the difficulty of deciding between tlie claims of his faithfid friend Alji- athar and his new and important ally Zadok (who, per- haps, was the means of attaching to David's cause the 4600 Levites and the 3700 priests that came under Je- hoiada their captain, ver. 26, 27), by appointing them to a joint priesthood : the first place, with the ephod, and Urim and Thummim, remaining with Abiathar, who was in actual possession of them. Certain it is that from this time Zadok and Abiathar are constantly named to- gether, and, singiUarly, Zadok always first, both in the book of Samuel and that of Kings. AVe can, however, trace very clearly up to a certain point the division of the priestly offices and dignities between them, coin- ciding as it did with the divided state of the Levitical worship in David's time. For we learn from 1 Chron. xvi, 1-7, 87, compared with 39, 40, and yet more dis- tinctly from 2 Chron. i, 3, 4, 5, that the tabernacle and the brazen altar made by Moses and Bezaleel in the Avil- derness were at this time at Gibeon, while the ark was at Jerusalem, in the separate tent made for it by David. See GiBEOX. Now Zadok the priest and his brethren the priests were left " before the tabernacle at Gibeon" to offer burnt-offerings unto the Lord morning and even- ing, and to do according to all that is written in the law of the Lord (I Chron. xvi, 39, 40). It is therefore obvi- ous to conclude that Abiathar had special charge of the ark and the services connected with it, which agrees ex- actly with the possession of the ephod by Abiathar, and ■ his previous position with David before he became king of Israel, as well as with what we are told 1 Chron. xxvii, 34, that Jehoiada and Abiathar were the king's counsel- lors next to Ahithophel. Residence at Jerusalem with the ark, and the privilege of inquiring of the Lord be- fore the ark, both well suit his office of counsellor. Abi- athar, however, forfeited his place by taking part with Adonijali against Solomon, and Zadok was made high- priest in his place. The pontificate was thus agam con- soUdated and transferred permanently from the line of Ithamar to that of Eleazar. This is the only instance recorded of the deposition of a high-priest (which be^ came common in later times, especiallj' under Herod and the Romans) during this second period. It was the fulfilment of the prophetic denimciatious of the sin of Eli's sons (1 Sam. ii, iii).
Another considerable difficulty that meets us in the historical survey of the high-priests of the second group is to ascertain who was high-priest at the dedication of Solomon's Temple : Josephus (.1 7it. x, 8, 6) asserts that Zadok was, and the Sedei- Olam makes him the high- priest in the reign of Solomon. Otherwise we might deem it very improbable that Zadok, who must have been very old at Solomon's accession (being David's con- temporary), should have lived to the 11th year of his reign ; and, moreover, 1 Kings iv, 2 distinctly asserts that Azariah, the son of Zadok, was priest under Solo- mon ; and 1 Chron. vi, 10 tells us of an Azariah, grand- son of the former, " he it is that executed the priest's office in the Temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem," as if meaning at its first completion. If, however, either of these Azariahs (if two) was the first high-priest of Solomon's Temple, the non-mention of him in the ac- count of the dedication of the Temple, where one would most have expected it (as 1 Kings viii, 8, 6, 10, 11, 62 ; 2 Chron. v, 7, 11, etc.), and the prominence given to Solo- mon— the civil power — would be certainly remarkable. Compare also 2 Chron. viii, 14, 15.
In constructing the list of the succession of priests of this group, our method must be to compare the genea- logical list m 1 Chron. vi, 8-15 (A.V.) with the notices of high-priests in the sacred history, and with the list given by Josephus, who, it must be remembered, had ac- cess to the Usts preserved in the archives at Jerusalem, testing the Avhole by the application of the ordinary rules of genealogical succession. Now, as regards the genealogy, it is seen at once that there is something de- fective ; for whereas from David to Jechoniah there aro
HIGH-PRIEST
249
IIIGH-PRIEST
20 king?, from Zadok to Jehozadak there are but 13 priests. Moreover, the passage in question is not a hst of high-priests, but the pedigree of Jehozadak, Then, again, wliile the pedigree in its first six generations from Zadok inchisive seems at first sight exactly to suit the history — for it makes Amariah the sixtli priest, while the history (2 Chron. xix, 11) tells us he lived in Jehosh- aphat's reign, who was the sixth king from David, in- clusive ; and while the same pedigree in its last five gen- erations also seems to suit the history — inasmuch as it pLices Ililkiah, the son of Shallum, fourth from tlie end, and the history tells us he lived in the reign of Josiah, the fourth king from the end — yet is there certainly at least one great gap iu the middle. For between Ama- riah, the high-priest in Jehoshaphat's reign, and Shal- lum, the father of Hilkiah, the high-priest in Josiah's reign — an interval of about 240 years — there are but two names, Ahitub and Zadok, and these liable to suspicion from their reproducing the same sequence which occurs in the earlier part of the same genealogy^-Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok. Besides, they are not mentioned by Jo- sephus, at least not under the same names. This part, therefore, of the pedigree is useless for our purpose. But the historical books sup[)ly us with four or live names for this interval, viz. .Jehoiada, in the reigns of Athaliah and Joash, and probably still earlier; Zechariah, his son ; Azariah, in the reign of Uzziah ; Urijah, in the reign of Ahaz ; and Azariah, in the reign of Hezekiah. If, in the genealogy of 1 Chron, vi, Azariah and Hilkiah have been accidentally transposed, as is not impossible, then the Azariah who was high-priest in Hezekiah's reign woulil be the Azariah of 1 Chron, vi, 13, 14. Putting the additional historical names at four, and deducting the two suspicious names from the genealogy, we have 15 high-priests indicated in Scripture as contemporary with the 20 kings, with room, however, for one or two more in the historj\ Turning to Josephus, we find his hst of 17 high-priests (whom he reckons as 18 [Ant. xx, 10], as do also the Rabbins) in places exceedingly corrupt, a corruption sometimes caused by the end of one name ad- hering to the beginning of the following (as in Axiora- mus), sometimes appai'cntly by substituting the name of the contemporary king or prophet for that of the liigh-priest, as Joel and Jotham (both these, however, confirmed by the Rabbinical list). Perhaps, however, Sudeas, who corresponds to Zedekiah, in the reign of Amaziah, in the «S'f(/er Okim, and Odeas, who corresponds to Hoshaiah, in the reign of Manasseh, according to the same Jewish chronicle, may reaUy represent high-priests whose names have not been preserved in Scripture. This would bring up the number to 17, or, if we retain Aza- riah as the father of Seraiah, to 18, which, with the ad- dition of Joel and Jotham, finally agrees with the 20 kings.