the development from it of any Egyptian or Brahminic caste-system (Ewald, Gesck. Is): ii, 185), standing to it in much the same relation as the monastic and mendi- cant orders stood, each in its turn, to the secular clergy of the Christian Church. Though Shiloh had become a deserted sanctuary, Nob (1 Sam. xxi, 1) was made for a time the centre of national worship, and the symbolic ritual of Israel was thus kept from being forgotten. The reverence which the people feel for the priests, and which compels Saul to have recourse to one of alien blood (Doeg the Edomite) to carry his murderous coun- sel into act, shows that there must have been a great step upwards since the time when the sons of Eli "made men to abhor the offerings of the Lord" (1 Sam. xxii, 17, 18). The reign of Saul was, however, a time of suffering for them. He had manifested a disposition to usurp the priest's office (xiii, 9). The massacre of the priests at Nob showed how insecure their lives were against any unguarded or savage impulse. (It is to be noticed that while the Hebrew text gives eighty-five as the number of priests slain, the Sept. increases it to 305, Josephus [.4 nt. vi, 12] to 385.) They could but wait in silence for the coming of a deliverer in David. One at least among them shared his exile, and, so far as it was possible, lived in his priestly character, performing priestly acts, among the wild company of Adullam (1 Sam. xxiii, 6, 9). Others probably were sheltered by their remoteness, or found refuge in Hebron as the largest and strongest of the priestly cities. When the death of Saul set them free, they came in large numbers to the camp of David, prepared apparently not only to testify their allegiance, but also to support him, armed for battle, against all rivals (1 Chron. xii, 27). They were summoned from their cities to the great restora- tion of the worship of Israel, when the ark was brought up to the new capital of the kingdom (xv, 4). For a time, however (another proof of the strange confusion into which the religious life of the people had fallen), the ark was not the chief centre of worship; and while the newer ritual of psalms and minstrelsy gathered round it under the ministration of the Levites, headed by Benaiah and Jahaziel as priests (xvi, 5, 6), the older order of sacrifices was carried on by the priests in the Tabernacle on the high-place at Gibeon (xvi, 37-39; xxi, 29 ; 2 Chron. i, 3). We cannot wonder that first David and then Solomon should have sought to guard against the evils incidental to this separation of the two orders, and to unite in one great temple priests and Le- vites, the symbolic worship of sacrifice and the spiritual offering of praise.
The reigns of these two kings were naturally the cul- minating period of the glory of the Jewish priesthood. They had a king whose heart was with them, and who joined in their services dressed as they were (1 Chron, xv, 27), while he yet scrupulously abstained from all interference with their functions. The name which they bore was accepted (whatever explanation may be given of the fact) as the highest title of honor that could be borne by the king's sons (2 Sam. viii, 18). The}- occupied high places in the king's council (1 Kings iv, 2, 4), and might even take their places, as in the case of Benaiah, at the head of his armies (1 Chron. xii, 27; xxvii, 5), or be recognised, as Zabud the son of Nathan was, as the "king's friends," the keepers of the king's conscience (1 Kings iv, 5; Ewald, Gesch. iii, 334).
The account here given has been based on the belief that the books of the Old Test, give a trustworthy state- ment of the origin and history of the priesthood of Is- rael. Those who question their authority have done so, for the most part, on the strength of some precon- ceived theory. Such a hierarchy as the Pentateuch prescribes is thought impossible in the earlier stages of national life, and therefore the reigns of David and Sol- omon are looked upon, not as the restoration, but as the starting-point of the order (Yon Bohlen, Die Genesis, Einl. § 16). It is alleged that there could have been no tribe like that of Levi, for the consecration of a
PRIEST
5S0
PRIEST
whole Iribe is without a parallel in history (Vatke, Bill. Tkeol. i, 222). Deuteronomy, assumed for once to be older than the three books which precede it, represents the titles of the priest and Levite as standing on the same footing, and the distinction between them is there- fore the work of a later period (George, Du aUerenJud. FetU . p. 45, 51 ; comp. Bahr, Symbolik, bk. ii, ch. i, § 1, whence these references are taken). It is hardly nec- essary here to do more than state these theories.
i 2.) Middle Period. — The position of t lie priests under the monarchy of Judah deserves a closer examination than it lias yet received. The system which has been described above gave them for even' week of service in the Temple twenty-three weeks in which they had no