Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 10.djvu/84

* HIGH PLACE. 68 HIGH PRIEST. high places were tukeii over fruin the Canuanitea and Ihe denuuciutiuus uf the |iru|ihet.s aUuv, the euntiiiuaiiee in Inrael. even at a hile dale, of the worship ol' tlie UaaU, it is probable that with Vahweli oilier deities also, espeeially the Haalim or FAiiii, 'lords' or "gods," to wiioni the sanctuaries had once belonged, were rccognizeil by sacrilices in these temples. That these hi;,'li places were once regarded as altogether legitimate is evident from the fact that Samut-l conducted worship at a numU-r of them. David, ."solomon. ami all his succeasors down to Josiah saeriliced in them, and at these sanctuaries the stories of the patriarchs were told. Many of the stories of Genesi.s cluster about the high places of Shecliem anil Bethel. Mizpali and Mahanaini, Hebron and Beersheba, and Beerla-hai-roi. Hut the prophets of the eighth century, men like Amos and llosea. Isaiah and Mieah. denoumed these temples of the na- tion and the sacrilicial cull there carried on. They maintained that Yahweh had not com- manded that sacrifices be brought to Him, that Israel was happiest and mo>t pleasing to Yahweh when no sacrifices could l>e offered, viz. in the wilderness : and they attacked the drunkenness and religious prostitution that nour- ished at these temples. While the earliest law of Israel, the Covenant Code (Ex. .xi.-xxiii.), re- gards worship at those sanctuaries where Yah- weh had revealed Himself as perfectly legitimate, the Deuteronomic law introduced by King Josiah about ')'20 declares that sacrifices sliall be olTered in onlv one place. This centralization of the cult in ■Jerusalem may have l)een an ideal of the local ])riesthood as early as the days of Hezekiah, and some .Judean ti'iiiples may have been closed and destroyed as is stated in II. Kings xviii. 4. 22; xi. .■}. though it is probable thai the author of these verses has wrongly given Hezekiah credit for the same reformatory work as .losiah. That .Josiah allenipled to carry out the change pro- posed in Deuteronomy, and did so with a high hand, there can be no doubt (II. Kings, xxiii. ). But it is equally certain that the affection of the people could not by his violent measures be di- verted from their ancient temples. The destruc- tion of the temple in .Icrusalem by Xebuchad- nezzar naturally enlianccil Ihe importance of the smaller shrines and caused a reaction against the Y'ahweh cult in favor of the worship of other gods. The rehiclance to rebuild the temple in .Jerusalem complained of by Haggai was no doubt in jiart caused by this reaction. There is evidence in parts of the Book of Isaiah written during the Persian and Oreek periods of the sur- vival of licentious and idolatrous rites that can scarcely be cnnnecteil with the temple in .Jeru- salem. A positive proof of the existence of other temples besides that in the capital at a very late time is found in the letter of Onias to Ptolemy and Cleopatra, quoted by .Tosephus (.In/, xiii. 3, 1 ), in which he states that the .Jews of Egypt, Ccele-.Syria. and PInenicia have many temples of different patterns, and therefore wishes to have permission to build his temple in T^-ont^polis (see Oxi..s'.s Tf.mpi.e). on the model of that in .Jeru- salem. From this it must be concluded that the idea of the illegitimacy of all worship except at .Jerusalem cannot have been universally cherished among the .Jews, and that the hill temples are likely to have attracted worshipers as late as in the second eentury B.r. If Onias's letter should prove to be a forgery, its testimony would not be of less value, as it would then show a still longer survival of this altitude. Consult Yon Gall, A llisruelil incite Kullslulleii (Ciicsseu, 18U8), and .Moore, in /•.'iicyc/o/zarfiu liiblica. HIGH PRIEST (I lei), hakkohen lunjijadol). The chief ol the .lewisli priesthood. There is no evidence that in the pre-exilic jK-riod there was any distinctive ollice of high priest. In early days among the Hebrews, the rulers united in iheir persons priestly and civil functions, and to a certain extent the Kings of Israel and .Judah continued to perform otlices of a priestly iliaract<T. By the side of the king-priest there were guardians of the sanctuaries scattered throughout the country, and as sonic of tho.se (e.g. at Shiloh. Bethel, Samaria, and Jerusalem) grew in importance an ecclesiastical government gradually developed, and naturally in such signif- icant centres as Samaria and .Icrusalem there was always one ])riesl who was regarded as supreme over the others. In the Deuteronomic code there is no reference as yet to the high priest as such : nor does Ezekiel make mention of such an otlice in his sketch of the future theoc- racy. Deuteronomy makes no distinction be tween priests and I.evites ; in Ezekiel the priests are members of the Zadokite family, to whom is assured control of the temple at Jerusalem, while the I.evites are the body-servants of the priests and represent those attached to the old sanctuaries of the country, which were set asiile with the establishment of the principle of cen- tral authority for the temple of .Icrusalem. (See Dei'TKRONOMY. ) In the post-exilic priestly cckIc (sec Ezra; I.eviticis). however, the preroga- tives of the Zadokites are thrown aside, and in accord with the general theory underlying this code, whiih traces everything back to the days of Moses, the priesthood is fixed by Moses him- self in the family of his brother Aaron. The latter is acrorilcd the dignity of high priest and the ollice is handed down to Aaron's third son, illeazar, and by the latter to his son, Phinehas, and so in regular succession. The regulations for the ollicp are set forth in great detail in the Priestly Code (cf. Ix"v. viii., x.. xxi., etc.), but it must be borne in mind that these regulations remained to a certain extent in the domain of theory. Many more restrictions were attached to the office than belonged to the ordinary office of a priest. The high priest was allowed to mar- ry none but a virgin, and one of his own tribe; every impure contact, even of the dead bodies of his own parents, he was strictly forbidden. besides many other things that might cause defilement. His functions consisted principally in the general administration of the sanctuary and all that be longc<l to the sacred service. He alone was ;il- lowed to enter the Holy of Holies on the Day of .■tonement, and to consult the urim and thum- mim (q.v.). His costume was of surpassing costliness and splendor, comprising numerous vestments in addition to those of the ordinary priests. This costume was laid aside by the high priest when, on the Day of Atonement, he went to perform the service in the Holy of Holies; a simple garb of white linen — the funeral dress of the .Jews in later times — was all he wore on that occasion. The revenues of the high priest were in the main the same as those of the other priests; but. according to the Talmud, he was to he richer than these, and if his own means were insufficient, he was to be