PRIESTS. 



249 



ministry (Ex. xix. 11, 24). They also mention Ecyp- 

 tian, Palestinian, and Midianite priests, with whom 

 Israel came into contact in the pre-Sinaitic times (Gen. 

 xli. 45, 50 ; xlvi. 20 ; xlvii. 22, 26 ; xiv. IS ; Ex. ii. 16 ; 

 iii. 1 ; xviii. 1). It is well known that the Egyptian 

 priests were not mere keepers of shrines, but media- 

 tors by sacrifices between men and the pods. Among 

 the few items mentioned concerning Jothro the priest 

 is his taking "a burnt offtrin?," in addition to the sae- 

 riticial feast he made for Moses and the elders of 

 Israel (Kx. xviii. 12). Israel at that time had a 

 national burnt offering, and a ritual of the sprinkling 

 of blood (Ex. x. 25: xxiv. 5, 6,8; cf. Heb. ix. 19). 

 Israel was then familiar with the idea of a priesthood, 

 as that of men set apart, having peculiar relations re- 

 spectively with God, and with other men (Ex. xix. 5, 

 6). From these facts, from the elaborate account in 

 Num. iii. : viii. 5-22, of the taking of the Levites in- 

 stead of the first-born, and from the pains taken in 

 the popular legislation in Deuteronomy to define the 

 priests there mentioned as "the Levite priests" (just 

 as if. otherwise, some one might understand that non- 

 Levite priests were meant), it is a highly probable in- 

 ference (not, perhaps, a necessary inference) that these 

 writers meant to be understood that the priests of 

 Israel, when they came out of Egypt, were "the first- 

 born," and that the Sinaitic legislation superseded 

 this priesthood by that of the tribe of Levi. But 

 whether this view or some other be taken, in any case 

 the early Israelite priests are not mere shrine-keepers, 

 but have a genuine mediatorial priesthood. 



In the so-called priest-code legislation, "the priests, 

 the sons of Aaron," are sharply distinguished from 

 the Levites; but in most of the passages where this 

 distinction is defined, "the sons of Aaron " are simply 

 his luur sons, whose names are mentioned. That is 

 to say, after the death of Nadab and Abihu, the 

 priests, according to the prevailing, perhaps the exclu- 

 sive usage of the priest-code, are Aaron, Kleazar, Itha- 

 mar, and, in the last year of the wandering, Phinchas, 

 and no others, save that the term "priest" is also 

 applied to future descendants of Aaron, as well as to 

 those then living (Ex. xxviii. 1, 3, 4, 41 ; xxx. 30; 

 xxix. 29, 30 ; Lev. vi. 15 [22] ; Num. xviii. 1-7 ; xxvi. 

 1 . 2 ; xxvii. 2, 1 9, and scores of other places). Occa- 

 sionally in these writings the terms " the great priest," 

 or the "anointed priest" are used to distinguish the 

 person who, later, was known as the high-priest (Lev. 

 xxi. 1(1 ; Num. xxxv. 25, 28; Lev. iv. 3,5, 16; vi. 15 

 [22]), but ordinarily the simple term " priest" is used 

 instead. The especial functions of the priesthood are 

 those of mediation and atonement, in connection with 

 the sacrifices and the holy of holies. In distinction 

 from this the Levites had ministrations, external and 

 internal, in the care of the sanctuary, and were the 

 assistants of the priests. 



Doubtless the laws of the priest-code - assign to the 

 priests of the times of Muses a vastly greater number 

 of duties than it was possible for three men personally 

 to perform. It matters not how we suppose that the 

 writer of these laws intended us to understand this, 

 whether, that Aaron had other sons and grandsons 

 besides Eleazar and Ithamar, acting as priests, or 

 whether a body of Levites performed priestly fiinc- 

 tions under the name "sons of Aaron, ' though not 

 lineally descended from him, or whether it was under- 

 stood that he and his two sons were to do their work 

 largely by deputy, or whether we adopt some other 

 understanding of the matter ; in any case the term 

 priest, in the priest-code, is ordinarily used either to 

 describe the person who, later, was known as liigh- 

 or to describe him and a very limited number 

 of sacerdotal chiefs, associated with him. 



From this point of view the alleged contradiction of 

 psage between the priest-code and Deuteronomy van- 

 ishes. Deuteronomy ami Joshua use the term "the 

 priest" precisely as it is often used in the priest-code, 

 to denote the high-priest of the time, Deut. x. 6 ; 

 VOL. IV.~<i 



xvii. 12; xxvi. 3, 4; Josh. xiv. 1 ; xvii. 4 ; xix. 51 ; 

 xxi. 1, 4, 13; xxii. 13, 30, 31, 32 (once "the great 

 priest," Josh. xx. 6, from Num. xxxv.). Apparently, 

 however (the point is disputed), these books also call 

 all Levites priests, insisting mainly on the distinction 

 between a Levite priesthood, and a non-Levite, Deut. 

 xvii. 9, 18 ; xviii. 1-3 ; xxi. 5 ; xxiv. 8 ; xxvii. 9 ; 

 xxxi. 9 ; Josh. iii. 3, 6, 8, etc. The Levite priests 

 principally mentioned in these books are those who 

 have charge of the ark, and the other furniture of the 

 sanctuary, and of its internal services ; these functions 

 the priest-code assigns to the Kohathite family of Le- 

 vites, the family to which Aaron belonged. Naturally, 

 the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua never use the 

 term "sons of Aaron" to denote Eleazar and Ithamar; 

 indeed, they use this term only in one passage (Josh. 

 xxi. 4, 10, 13, 19). Here the sons of Aaron are also 

 called priests, and comprise so large a section of the 

 Kohathite Levitieal family that they receive 13 cities, 

 while the remaining Kohathites receive only 10, the 

 other two great Levitical families receiving respec- 

 tively 13 and 12. Whether we suppose that the 

 lineal descendants of Aaron had now become as 

 numerous as these proportions would indicate, or 

 suppose that these "sons of Aaron" were so called 

 from their habitual functions rather than from 

 their parentage, in any case, the representations of 

 these books are capable of being understood in such 

 a sense that they perfectly agree with the priest-code 

 laws. 



Thus understood, the state of the Israelitish priest- 

 hood, at the beginning of the period of the judges, 

 was about as follows : There was the high-priest 

 Phinehas, resident in Shiloh, the ordinary seat of the 

 tabernacle and the ark ; with him were as many 

 Aaronite priests and other Levites as were needed for 

 sen-ice ; the corps of service was changing, however, 

 some Lcvites constantly coming in from their homes, 

 and others returning to their homes ; the great body 

 of the Aaronite priests, the Kohathites, the other 

 Levites, ami t hr Gibepnite sanctuary servants dwelt in 

 their respective cities in the various parts of the coun- 

 try, or sojourned where they saw fit. 



Are these representations contradicted by the other 

 accounts of the times of the Judges and of David? 

 The statement that " the priest," in the narrative of 

 Eli's time, "is always in the singular" is incorrect 

 (1 Sam. ii. 13, the Hebrew, and i. 3). The statement 

 that "Hophni and Phinehas are not called priests" is 

 also incorrect (i. 3). The statement that tney "bore 

 the ark ' ' has no ground in anything said in 1 Sam. The- 

 fact is that the term "priest" is here used just as in the 

 priest-code and Deuteronomy and Joshua, sometimes 

 to denote the chief priest, and sometimes to denote 

 subordinate priests. The assertion that " the priest 

 of Shiloh. . . sits enthroned by the doorway, preserving 

 decorum among the worshippers," instead of minis- 

 tering at the altar, is an instance of purely imaginary 

 exect'sis. The statement, " Wherever there was a 

 temple there was an oracle, a kind of sacred lot, . . . 

 which could be drawn only where there was an ' ephod,' 

 and a priest" includes particulars not found in 1 Sam. 

 xiv. 18, 41, Sept.; xxiii. 6 teq. , the passages on which 

 it is based. The statement from Ex. xxxiii. 7 sea. 

 that " Moses was the priest and Joshua the aedituus ' 

 of a tent-temple in the wilderness, has no foundation 

 either in that passage or elsewhere. To infer that the 

 priest "is not the minister of an altar " from such in- 

 stances as 1 Sam. xiv. 34, 2 Sam. xxiii. 16, 17 

 instances that have nothing to do with either priest or 

 altar is inconsequent reasoning. When one says " It 

 is not clear from 1 Sam. ii. 15 whether even at Shiloh 

 the priests had anything to do with sacrifice," he 

 ignores the apparently clear fact that in that passage 

 the worshippers complain of the priests for violating 

 the precept. Lev. vii. 28-34, that the priests' portion 

 was due after the burning of the fat. Moreover, in 1 

 Sam. ii. 28, and elsewhere in the writings connected 



