Priest, Hebrew ("jln's, kohen, i£pa'>c). (We base the following article upon that found in Smith's Dic- tionary of the Bible, with important additions from other sources.) See also Sacerdotal Oruer.
I. General Considerations. — 1. The Name. (1.) The English word priest is generally derived from the New- Test, term presbyter (TrpiafivTepoQ, elder), the meaning of which is, however, essentially different from that which was intended by the ancient terms. It would come nearer if derived from irpoiarnpi or vpohrafiat, " to preside," etc. It would then correspond to Aris- totle's definition of a priest. " presiding over things re- lating to the gods" (Polit. iii, 14), and with the very similar one in Heb. v, 1: "Every high-priest taken from among men is constituted on the behalf of men, with respect to their concerns with God, that he may present both gifts and sacrifices for sins." It would then adequately represent the ieptve, (5 hpa ptc,u>v) of the Greeks, and the sacerdos (a sacris faciundis) of the Latins. See Presbyter.
(2.) It is unfortunate that there is nothing like a consensus of interpreters as to the etymology of the above Hebrew word kohen. Its root-meaning, uncer- tain as far as Hebrew itself is concerned, is referred by Gesenius ( Thesaurus, s. v.) to the idea of prophecy. The kohen delivers a divine message, stands as a mediator between God and man, represents each to the other. This meaning, however, belongs to the Arabic, not to the Hebrew form, and Ewald connects the latter with the verb "p^H (helciri), to an-ay, put in order (so in Isa. lxi, 10), seeing in it a reference to the primary office of the priests as arranging the sacrifice on the altar {Alter- thiim. p. 272). According to Saalschiitz {Archdol. der
Ilebr. c. 78), the primary meaning of the word is to minister, and he thus accounts for the wider application of the name (as below). Blihr {Symbolik, ii, 15) con- nects it with an Arabic root = S"np, to draw near.
Of these etymologies, the last has the merit of an- swering most closely to the received usage of the word. In the precise terminology of the law, it is used of one who may "draw near" to the Divine Presence (Exod. xix, 22 ; xxx, 20) while others remain afar off, and is applied accordingly, for the most part, to the sons of Aaron, as those who were alone authorized to offer sac- rifices. In some remarkable passages it takes a wider range. It is applied to the priests of other nations or religions, to Melchizedek (Gen. xiv, 18), Potipherah (xli, 45), Jethro (Exod. ii, 16), to those who discharged priestly functions in Israel before the appointment of Aaron and his sons (xix, 22). A case of greater diffi- culty presents itself in 2 Sam. viii, 18, where the sons of David are described as priests (kokanim), and this immediately after the name had been applied in its usual sense to the sons of Aaron. The writer of 1 Chron. xviii. 17, as if reluctant to adopt this use of the title, or anxious to guard against mistake, gives a par- aphrase, " the sons of David were first at the king's hand" (A. V. "chief about the king"). The Sept. and A. V. suppress the difficulty by translating kohanim into auXapxcu and "chief officers." The Vulg. more hon- estly nives " sacerdotes." Luther and Coverdale follow the Hebrew strictly, and give " priests." The received explanation is that the word is used here in what is assumed to be its earlier and wider meaning, as equiva- lent to rulers, or, giving it a more restricted sense, that the sons of David were Vicarii Regis, as the sons of Aaron were Vicarii Dei (comp. Patrick, Michaelis, Ro- senmiiller, ad loc, Keil on 1 Chron. xviii, 17). It can hardly be said, however, that this accounts satisfactori- ly for the use of the same title in two successive verses in two entirely different senses. Ewald accordingly (Alterthiiin. p. 276) sees in it an actual suspension of the usual law in favor of members of the royal house, and finds a parallel instance in the acts of David (2 Sam. vi, 14) and Solomon (1 Kings iii, 15). De Wette and Gesenius, in like manner, look on it as a revival of the old household priesthoods. These theories are in their turn unsatisfactory, as contradicting the whole spirit and policy of David's reign, which was through- out that of reverence for the law of Jehovah and the priestly order which it established. A conjecture mid- way between these two extremes is perhaps permissible. David and his sons may have been admitted, not to dis- tinctively priestly acts, such as burning incense (Numb, xvi, 40; 2 Chron. xxvi, 18), but to an honorary, titular priesthood. To wear the ephod in processions (2 Sam. vi, 14), at the time when this was the special badge of the order (1 Sam. xxii, 18), to join the priests and Le- vites in their songs and dances, might have been con- ceded, with no deviation from the law, to the members of the royal house. There are some indications that these functions (possibly this liturgical retirement from public life) were, the lot of the members of the royal house who did not come into the line of succession, and who belonged, by descent or incorporation, to the house of Nathan, as distinct from that of David (Zech. xii, 12). The very name Nathan, connected as it is with Nethinim, suggests the idea of dedication. See Neth- inim. The title kohen is given to Zabud, the son of Nathan (I Kings iv, 5). The genealogy of the line of Nathan in Luke iii includes many names — Levi, Elie- zer, Malchi, Jochanan, Mattathias, Heli— which appear elsewhere as belonging to the priesthood. The men- tion in 1 Esdr. v, 5 of Joiakim as the son of Zerubbabel, while in Neh. xii, 10 he appears as the son of Jeshua, the son of Josedek, indicates either a strange confusion, or a connection, as yet imperfectly understood, between the two families. The same explanation applies to the parallel cases of Ira the Jairite (2 Sam. xx, 26), where