Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 16.djvu/451

* PRIEST. 389 PBIEST. The chief formal priesthoods of antiquit}', cer- taiiil}" those mosst elaborately deeloj5ed," were those of the Hebrews^ the Egyptians, and the Hindus. Compared with these, the priests of Greece and Rome formed a less compact social organization. (See Gkeek Religion; Roman Religion.) The early Babylonian priests were little more than exorcisers. They attained their greatest dignity when their office was amal- gamated with that of the king. They presided over sacritiee and oftered libations, but with the common people they were chiefly renowned as devil-tamers and sorcerers. In course of time a priestly caste was developed, but it lacked the homogeneity and power of tlic Hindu priestly caste. Another powerful priesthood was that of the sun-god of the Aztecs, but this was a hierarchic power assumed from the beginning by the king, who was the high priest of the nation, all his family being regarded as sacred to the sun. the women of the king-priest being vestal virgins sacred to the god and king. The development of the priest and different ideas associated with his office are illustrated by the following account of the priesthood among the Hebrews, ancient Egyptians, and Hindus. The Hebrew and .Jewish Priesthood. The Hebrew word for priest (kohcn) is of uncertain origin; the Arabic kuhin means diviner, which corresponds to one of the most distinctive func- tions of the priesthood. According to the later Jewish theory, the priesthood Ijelonged exclu- sively to the family of Aaron, while the re- mainder of the tribe of Levi held but the subor- dinate position of attendants at the sanctuary. But the examination of the historical records proves that this limitation of priestly prerogative was of bite origin. The earlier strata of the historical books exhiliit sacrifice as the right of all, especially of the heads of families. (Cf. the histories of the Patriarchs, and of ilanoah and ilicah, .Jud. xiii., xvii.. xviii.) Paiticularly was this the prerogative of national and religious leaders, of prophets like Samuel ( I. Sam. xvi. ) and Elijah (I. Kings xviii.). and of princes like David (II. Sam. vi., where he is clothed with the priestly ephod) and Solomon (I. Kings viii. ; cf. ix. 2.5 ). A1.SO David's sons are said to have been priests (II. Sam. viii. IS). But from the beginning of the national history there existed a family or caste to which the priesthood was a profession — the so-called tribe of Levi. Moses' institution of the ark required its ministers, and either he established a priestly caste, or, as is more probable, inasmuch as he belonged to the same family, he made use of an already existing caste. The part his brother Aaron played is obscure, but there is no reason to doubt that he exercised some special priestly functions. The locus classiciis for the position of the Levites in the early history is the story of Micah (see above), where, while a Levite is not neces- sary, he is much preferred : the Levite in ques- tion appears to be a grandson of Closes (.Jud. xviii. 30, R. V. (See Gekshom.) Again, the priest at the ark in Shiloh is Eli, of the line of Ithamar. son of Aaron ; doubtless this connection gave the Levites a prerogative in priestly func- tions, of which they were enabled to take ad- vantage upon the settlement of the ark in Jeru- salem, and especially upon the building of the Temple by Solomon. From tliis time on, it would seem, the sacerdotal functions of the religion of Yaliweh in the Southern Kingdom came gradually to be monopolized by the Levites. The prestige of the Temple naturally tended in Judali to the e.xaltation of a special religious caste throughout that land. As for the kingdom of Israel, it is not stated (except in the doubtful passage I. Kings xii. 31 ) w-hether the priests belonged to the Levites or not ; at all events, the prophets find no fault with their sacerdotal character. During the monarchy hierarchical grades arose; thus Abiathar of the line of Itha- mar is the leading priest under. David, to be dispossessed under Solomon by Zadok of the line of Eleazar. With the expansion of the caste and the growth of the sacred ritual, differ- entiations in office ensued, which resulted in the sacrificial functions being reserved for 'the sons of Aaron,' the remaining Levites, including jSIoses' descendants, being degraded to lower ministries. In Ezekiel's ideal sketch of the restored theocracy, the priesthood is confined to- 'the sons of Zadok.' but in Chronicles the line of Ithamar is admitted, the high-priestly descent remaining, however, in the former family. The Restoration immensely exalted the position of the priesthood, especially of its chief. (Cf. Zech. iii.. vi.) But it possessed no political force and little spiritual stimulus, so that it became a close corporation, intent upon enjoying and in- creasing its temporal privileges, leaving the development of religion in the hand of more popular leaders. The priesthood was raised to its highest honor through the assumption of the monarchy by the priestly jMaccaboean family, so that for seventy years a priest-king ruled Israel. (See Maccabees.) With the fall of the ^lac- cabaean kingdom and the destruction of that family liy Herod, the priesthood fell back to its conventional position, becoming the tool of the Romans, who made and unmade the high priest. (Cf. Annas and Caiaphas in the Gospels; also Acts xxiii. 2 sqq.) It had a small l)ut strong party behind its back in the Sadducees (q.v. ), so named after the above-mentioned Zadok. With the destruction of the Temple in a. d. 70 the priesthood cea.sed. as sacrifice was no longer legitimate. The tradition of the ancient caste is still faintly preserved in certain .Jewish families. As for the functions of the priesthood, in addition to the sacrificial acts, which were ac- companied with blessing and prayer, there was the important office of the divine oracle, for which the instrument of t'rim and Thunimim (q.v.) was used, in all kinds of questions. (Cf. the histories of Saul and David.) Also the priests at the various sanctuaries possessed the right of giving the torah or instruction of God in all matters. (Cf. Deut. xvii. 8 sqq.) With the codification of the law, the teaching function passed from the priests to the more zealous lay expounders, the Scribes (q.v.). The support of the priests came in earlier times directh- from the worshipers; they had the right to certain portions of the sacrifices, to the tithes, and other offerings. (Cf. I. Sam. ii. 12 sqq.; ISTeh. x. 32 sqq.) Later there was established a more definite provision for the support of the Temple and its priests in a poll-tax levied upon all .Tews. (Exod. xx.x. 13; Xeh. x. 32; cf. Matt. xvii. 24, E. V.) The number of the priests grew to vast propor- tions, according to .Josephus over 20,000. and