HIGH PRIEST. Official Names, Character, and Robes according to P 0 1).

The Office in Other Documents (§ 2).

The Office in Historical and Prophetic Writings (§ 3).

The Office in Postexilic Times (§ 4).

In the Old Testament the high priest is called either hakkohen, "the priest-" (e.g., Lev. iv. 6; cf. I Chron. xvi. 39; Neh. xiii. 4), or hakkohen haggadhol, "the great priest" (e.g., Lev. xxi. 10; Neh. iii. 1), or hakkohen hammashiah, "the anointed priest" (e.g., Lev. iv. 3); also hakkohen harosh, "the chief priest" (e.g., II Kings xxv. 18), and once simply harosh, "the chief" (If Chron. xxiv. 6). The data concerning his office and position are contained in the priestly document in the Penta-

280

8igh Priest

teuch (see Hexateuch). According to this, Aaron and his sons (really the descendants of his

two sons Eleazar and Ithamar) are i. Official alone the legitimate possessors of the

Names, priestly office; among these Aaron Character, as high priest took the leading place, and Robes and was the type of official whose

according function at his death was to be asto P. sumed by one of his sons (Lev. xvi.

32), probably by the first-born (cf. Num. xxv. 11), but, in case the high priest had no sons, by his oldest brother, as happened in Maccabean times. The high priest held office for life, since no higher authority is designated by which he could be deposed; his position was that of a prince, as is indicated by his crown, by the color of his raiment, and by amnesty at his death for certain crimes which had occurred (Num. xxxv. 25, 28). His authority was entirely spiritual as mediator between God and the people. As representative of the people, he bore on his breast in sacred functions the names of the tribes; as representative of deity, he carried the Urim and Thummim by which the will of deity was indicated. As head of the priesthood, he had sacrificial duties which he alone might perform (Lev. iv. 3 sqq., 13 sqq., ix. 8 sqq., vi. 12-15). The period of seven days for the consecration ceremonies, with many other particulars, belonged to the induction into the ordinary priesthood as well as into the high priest's offce; and though the other priests were also anointed, especial significance seems to have attended the anointing of the high priest. Special importance is indicated also in the clothing assumed'by the high priest at investiture. The garments were: the me'il, a sleeveless gown of purple adorned with golden bells and pomegranate-shaped knots of violet-red or carmine; the ephod (q.v.), a shoulder cape of cloth of gold in blue purple, and scarlet with two onyx stones on which were engraved the names of the tribes; the hoshen, a breastplate containing twelve stones, each bearing the name of a tribe, in which were carried the Urim and Thummim (q.v.); and the miznepheth, a tiara, on the front of which was a gold plate carrying the inscription "holy to Yahweh" (Ex. xxxix.). It was significant of the high-priesthood that it involved complete purity. Hence the high priest was forbidden to touch a corpse, even that of his nearest relation, and his wife was to be a virgin of pure Israelitic stock (Lev. xxi. 15).

In the other Pentateuchal sources no such princepriest appears. J makes Eleazar the successor of Aaron as priest (Josh. xxiv. 33; cf. Deut. x. 6), but of an organization of the clergy in general this doc-

ument says nothing. Deut. xvii. 8 2. The in arranging for justice at the central

Office in sanctuary speaks of "the priest," Other which probably does not mean an or Documents. dinary priest, but can not mean the

high priest. It is noteworthy that Ezek. xl.-xlviii. fails to speak of the high priest; even xlv. 19 can hardly mean anything but the officiating priest of the occasion, and in Ezekiel the prince cares for the offcial ritual.

Comparison of the prescriptions of the priestly document with the historical and prophetic wri-

tings fails to reveal in the latter in preexilic times a high priest corresponding to the offcial of the former. Certain passages show a chief priest such

as Jehoiada (II Kings xi.-xii.), Urijah (II Kings

xvi. 10), and Hilkiah (II Kings xxii.-xxiii.),, where

the designation hakkohen haggadhol first appears and where late critics see interpolation, though without sufficient ground since the name of a later

office may have had historic foreshad

3. The owing. Such foreshadowing is indi

Office in cated in kohen mishneh, " second

Historical priest " (II Kings xxv. 18; Jer. Iii.

and 24), a priest who had oversight of the

Prophetic temple in late preexilic times. But

Writings. that this is not the high priest appears from the fact that there were in the time of David and Solomon two such priests, Zadok

and Abiathar (II Sam. xix. 11). The dealings of

Solomon with Zadok and Abiathar (I Kings ii. 35) show that the absolute high priest was not yet in existence. Similar conclLSions are indicated in the existence of chief priests for the separate sanctu aries of historic times. Immediately after the exile, with Joshua, grandson of the murdered chief priest Seraiah, the office assumes new importance

which suggests the Priest Code (cf. Zech. iii. and vi.

13). In Haggai Joshua's place is of importance,

but alongside that of Zerubbabel, who is generally

named first. Zechariah's view of the office is closely related to that of the Priest Code. The steps to the creation of the .offce as seen in the Priest Code are

hidden, especially in view of Ezekiel's silence. But it may be affrmed on general grounds that the emergence of the offce was due to a movement

which had for its purpose the emancipation of the

Church from the State. Ezekiel concentrated po litical power in the hands of the prince, but made it subsidiary to the cult. The Priest Code depended upon the centrality of the Jerusalem cult and made the high priest the highest authority for the people.

The authority of the high-priesthood grew in postexilic times to a significant eminence through the introduction of the priestly law which set the anointed high priest forth as the one authority, though still in a spiritual sense, which authority was generally recognized. A characteristic exam ple of this is given in I Macc. vii. 14, where it is stated that Alcimus, made high priest by Demet rius (162 B.c.), was received with confidence at

Jerusalem upon the ground that he

4. The was priest of the seed of Aaron and

Office in would do no wrong. The panegyric

Postexilic in Ecclus. 1. indicates the ideal of the

Times. offce which was maintained. The concentration of political power into the hands of the high priest continued in postexilic

times. Zerubbabel vanished without leaving a

successor, but the priest-prince remained and be

came the political representative of the people.

The Urim and Thummim, upon which, according to the Priest Code, priestly authority rested, does not appear in postexilic times. But the growing

wealth of the Jewish community ever enhanced the

political importance of the offce. The high priest's

power was somewhat limited by the Sanhedrin, but

281

he alone cared for the external relations of the people and was their protector (Ecclus. 1. 4). The assumption of the royal title, e.g., by Aristobulus (104-103 B.c.), did not alter the essential facts of the office, and the robes needed no change to express regal authority. Under the influence of the times, the political interests became predominant, as is seen in the history of the Maccabean period; but of the office between the days of Ezra and the last pre-Maccabean high priest almost nothing is known. The transference of the office to the priestly family of the Maccabees in 153 B.c. was no less illegal than the deposition of Jason in favor of Menelaus, but the gratitude of the people restrained the opposition of the legalists. The downfall of the Hasmoneans marked the end of the high-priesthood in its special significance. True, the office continued till the destruction of Jerusalem, and the holder was first in the Sanhedrin and possessed important influence; but he had lost the two essentials of the office, its transmission by heredity and its possession for life. Herod the Great and the Romans arbitrarily changed the high priests, and the title was held not only by those who at the time performed the duties of the office, but by those who had formerly done so. With the fall of Jerusalem the office ceased to exist.

F. Buhl.

Bibliography: The two early treatments of the subject, still useful, are: J. S. Selden, De successions in pontificatum Ebrworum, book i., chaps. 11-12, Frankfort, 1673; J. Lightfoot, Ministerium templi Hierosolyrnitani, iv. 3, in vol. ix. of his works, London 1825. The most comprehensive modern treatise is W. Baudissin, Die Geschichte des alttestamentlichen Priesterthume, Leipsic, 1889. Consult further: H. Ewald, Alterthfimer des Volkes Israel, pp. 382 sqq., Göttingen, 1866, Eng. transl., Antiquities of Israel, pp. 288 sqq., Boston, 1876; H. Gratz, in Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenaohaft des Judenthums, 1877, pp. 450-464, 1881, pp. 49-64, 97-110; J. Wellhausen, Geschichte Israel,, chap. iv., Berlin, 1878; Oort, De Aaronieden, in ThT, xviii (1884), 289-335; H. Vogelstein, Der Karnp/ zwischen Priestern and Leaiten alit den Tagen Ezechiela, Stettin, 1889; A. Kuenen, in TAT, xxiv (1890),1-42; A. van Hoonacker, Le Sacerdoce 1eritique, Louvain, 1899; Schürer, Geschichte, ii. 214 sqq., Eng. transl., 11., i. 195 sqq.; idem, in TSK, 1872, pp. 593-657; Benzinger, Archäologie, Passim; Nowack, Archäologie, ii. 106-108, 117 sqil.; DB, iv. 83-84; EB, iii. 3837-47; JE, vi. 389-393: and the commentaries on Enodus and Leviticus.