PRIEST
408
PRIEST
ginnmg chosen for life, but later removed at will by
the secular power (Jos., "Ant.", XV, iii, 1; XX, x),
so that "the numbers of the high-priests from the
days of Herod until the day when Titus took the
Temple and the city, and burnt them, were in all
twenty-eight; the time also that belonged to them was
one hundred and seven years" (Jos., "Ant.", XX, x).
Thus one-third of the high-priests of fifteen centuries
lived within the last century of their history: they had
become the puppets of the temporal rulers. The
frequency of change in the ofRce is hinted at by St.
John (xi, 51), where he says that Caiphas was "the
high-priest of that year". Solomon deposed Abiathar
for ha%-ing supported the cause of Adonias, and gave
the high-priesthood to Sadoc (III Kings, ii, 27, 35):
then the last of Hell's family was cast out, as the Lord
had declared to Heh long before (I Ivings, ii, 32). It
seems strange, therefore, that Josephus (Ant., XV,
iii, 1) states that Antiochus Epiphanes was the first
to depose a high-priest. It may be that he regarded
Abiathar and Sadoc as holding the office conjointly,
since Abiathar "the priest" and Sadoc "the priest"
were both very prominent in Da\ad's reign (III Kings,
i, 34; I Par., xvi, 39, 40). Josephus may have con-
sidered the act of Solomon the means of a return to
unity; moreover, in the same section where he men-
tions the change, he says that Sadoc was high-priest
in Dawl's reign (Ant., VIII, i, 3), and adds "the king
[Solomon] also made Zadok to be alone the high-
priest" (Ant., VIII, i, 4). Shortly before the destruc-
tion of the Temple by tlie Romans the zealots chose
by lot a mere rustic named Phannias as the last high-
priest: thus the high-priesthood, the city and the
Temple passed away together (Josephus, "Bell. Jud.",
IV, iii, 8).
The prominence of Solomon at the dedication of the Temple need not lead to the conclusion that the king officiated also as priest on the occasion. Smith (" Ency. Bib.", s. v. Priest) maintains this, and that the kings of Juda offered sacrifice down to the Exile, al- leging in proof such passages as III lungs, ix, 25; but since priests are mentioned in this same book, for instance, viii, 10, 11 .such inference is not reasonable. As Van Hoonacker shows, the prominence of the secular power in the early liistory of the people and the apparent absence of even the high-priest during the most sacred functions, as well as the great authority possessed by him after the Exile, do not warrant the conclusion of Wellhausen that the high-priesthood was known only in post -Exilic times. That such a change could have taken place and could have been introduced into the life of the nation and so easily accepted as a Di- vine institution is hardly probable. We have, however, undoubted references to the high-priest in pre-Exilic texts (IV Kings, xi; xii; x\-i, 10; xxii; xxiii, etc.) which Buhl ("The New Schaff-Herzog Ency. of Religious Knowledge", s. v. High Priest) admits as genuine, not interpolations, as some think, by which the "later office may have had a historic foreshadowing". We see in them proofs of the existence of the high-priest- hood, not merely its "foreshadowing". Then too the title "the second priest" in Jer., hi, 24, where the high-priest also is mentioned, is a twofold witness to the same truth; so that though, as Josephus tells us (Ant., XX, x), in the latter years of the nation's his- tory "the high-priests were entrusted with a dominion over the nation" and thus became, as in the days of the sacerdotal Machabees, more conspicuous than in early times, yet this was only an accidental lustre added to an ancient and sacred office.
In the New Testament (Matt., ii, 4; Mark, xiv, 1, etc.) where reference is made to chief priests, some think that these all had been high-priests, who having been deposed constituted a distinct chvss and had great influence in the Sanhedrin. It is clear from John, xviii, 13, that Annas, even when deprived of the pontificate, took a leading part in the deliberations of
that tribunal. Schiirer holds that the chief priests in
the New Testament were ex-high-priests and also
those who sat in the council as members and repre-
sentatives of the privileged families from whom the
high-priests were chosen (The Jewish People, Div.
II, V. i, 204-7), and Maldonatus, in Matt., ii, 6, cites
II Par., xxxvi, 14, showing that those who sat in
the Sanhedrin as heads of priestly families were so
styled.
The high-priest alone might enter the Holy of Holies on the day of atonement, and even he but once a year, to sprinkle the blood of the sin-offering and offer incense: he prayed and sacrificed for himself as well as for the people (Lev., xvi). He hkewise offi- ciated "on the seventh days and new moons" and annual festivals (Jos., "Bell. Jud.", V, v, 7). He might marry only a virgin "of his own people", though other priests were allowed to marry a widow; neither was it la\vful for him to rend his garments nor to come near the dead even if closely related (Lev., xxi, 10-14; cf. Josephus, "Ant.", Ill, xii, 2). It belonged to him also to manifest the Di- vine will made known to liim by means of the urim and thummim, a method of consulting the Lord about which we have very httle knowledge. Since the death of the high -priest marked an epoch in the history of Israel, the homicides were then allowed to return home from the city where they had found a refuge from vengeance (Num., xxxv, 25, 28).
The typical character of the high-priest is explained by St. Paul (Heb., ix), where the Apostle shows that while the high-priest entered the "Holy of Holies" once a year with the blood of \'ictims, Christ, the great high-priest, offered up His own blood and en- tered into Heaven itself, where He "also maketh inter- cession for us" (Rom., \Tii, 34; see Piconio, "Trip. Expos, in Heb.", ix).
In addition to what other priests wore while exer- cising their sacred functions the high-priest put on special golden robes, so called from the rich material of which they were made. They are described in Ex., xxviii, and each high-priest left them to his successor. Over the tunic he put a one piece violet robe, trimmed with tassels of violet, piu-ple, and scarlet (Joseph., Ill, vii, 4), between the two tassels were bells which rang as he went to and from the sanctuary. Their mitres differed from the turbans of the ordinary priests, and had in front a golden plate in- scribed "Holy to the Lord" (Ex., xx\-iii,36). Josephus describes the mitre as having a triple crown of gold, and adds that the plate with the name of God wlaich Moses had written in sacred characters ' ' hath remained to this very day" (Ant., VIII, iii, 8; III, vii, 6). In a note to Winston's Josephus (Ant., Ill, vii, 6) the later history of the plate is given, but what became of it finally is not known. The precious vestments of the high-priest were kept by Herod and by the Romans, but seven days before a festival they were given back and purified before use in any sacred function (Jos., "Ant.", XVIII, iv, 3). On the day of atonement, according to Lev., xvi, 4, the high-priest wore pure linen, but Josephus says he wore his golden vestments (Bell. Jud., V, V, 7), and to reconcile the two Eders- heim thinks that the rich robes were used at the beginning of the ceremony and changed for the linen vestments before the high-priest entered the Holy of Hohes (The Temple, p. 270). For additional infor- mation concerning the vestments and ornaments of the high-priest see Ephod, Oracle, Pectoral, Urim AND Thummim.
ScHURER. The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christy II, I 195-207: also Gratz and other historians; Josephus, passim Smith, DicJ. of the Bible, s. v. High-Priest; Edersheim. The Tem- ple. Its Ministry and Service at the Time of Jesus Christ, 57-79; VAN Hoonacker, Le sacerdoce Uvitique (1899), 317-83; Smith in Encii. Bib., s. V. Priest, gives the radical view; Ouit, The Problem of the Old Testament (1906), 180-90, refutes Wellhausen and others of the radical school.
John J. Tierney.
