I. The Priesthood As A Distinct Order

I. THE PRIESTHOOD AS A DISTINCT ORDER
THE internal development of Israel subsequent to the exile was essentially determined by the direction given to it by two equally influential classes, viz. the priests on the one hand and the scribes on the other. During the centuries immediately following the exile and till far on into the Greek era, it was, in the first instance, the influence of the priests that was predominant. It was they who had been instrumental in organizing the new community; it was from them that the law had emanated; and to their hands had been entrusted the direction, not only of the material, but also of the spiritual affairs of the whole body of the people. But although originally it was they who were specially versed in the law and were looked upon as its authoritative interpreters, yet by and by there gradually grew up alongside of them an independent order of doctors or men learned in the law. And the importance and influence of these latter would necessarily go on increasing in proportion as the priests grew less and less zealous for the law of their fathers on the one hand, and as the law itself came to acquire a greater value and significance in the estimation of the people on the other. This was the case more particularly after the Maccabaean wars of independence. Ever since then the scribes got the spiritual superintendence of the people more and more into their own hands. And so the age of the priests was succeeded by that of the scribes (comp. Reuss, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften A. T’.s). This however is not to be understood as implying that the priests had now lost all their influence. Politically and socially they still occupied the foremost place quite as much as ever they did. It is true the scribes had now come to be recognised as the teachers of the people. But, in virtue of their political standing, in virtue of the powerful resources at their command, and, lastly and above all, in virtue of their sacred prerogatives—for, inasmuch as they enjoyed the exclusive right of offering Israel’s sacrifices to God, their intervention was necessary to the fulfilment of his religious duties in the case of every member of the community,—in virtue of all this, we say, the priests still continued to have an extraordinary significance for the life of the nation.
Now this significance of theirs was due mainly to the simple fact that they constituted a distinct order, possessing the exclusive right to offer the people’s sacrifices to God. According to the legislation of the Pentateuch, which had been regarded as absolutely binding ever since the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, “the sons of Aaron” were alone entitled to take part in the sacrificial worship.[859] The priesthood was therefore a fraternity fenced round with irremovable barriers, for they had been fixed for ever by natural descent. No one could possibly be admitted to this order who did not belong to it by birth; nor could any one be excluded from it whose legitimate birth entitled him to admission. Now this order, so rigidly exclusive in its character, was in possession of the highest privilege that can well be conceived of, the privilege namely of offering to God all the sacrifices of the nation at large, and of every individual member of the community. This circumstance alone could not but be calculated to invest the priesthood with a vast amount of influence and authority, all the more that civil life was intertwined, in such an endless variety of ways, with the religious observances.[860] But, in addition to this, there was the fact, that ever since the Deuteronomic legislation came into force in the time of Josiah (about 630 B.C.), it was declared to be unlawful to offer sacrifices anywhere but in Jerusalem, the whole worship being concentrated in its sole and only legitimate sanctuary. Consequently all the various offerings from every quarter of the land flowed into Jerusalem and met at this one common centre of worship, the result being that the priests that officiated within it came to acquire great power and wealth. Moreover, this centralization of the worship had the additional effect of uniting all the members of the priesthood into one firmly compacted body.
[859] See in particular, Exodus 28-29; Leviticus 8-10; Numbers 16-18. I should observe here that the following view is based on the assumption that the so-called priestly code, i.e. the bulk of the laws in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, belongs to a later date than Deuteronomy and Ezekiel. This, as it appears to me. has been clearly demonstrated by the more recent criticism of the Pentateuch. The legislation of the priestly code evidently represents, in all its leading features, a later stage of development than Deuteronomy and Ezekiel. The two latter books would be simply unintelligible were we to suppose that their authors wrote them with the priestly code already lying before them.
[860] There were, for example, numerous points in matrimonial law and medical jurisprudence that could only be settled by having recourse to the priesti; see Numbers 5:11-31 (the procedure in the case of the woman suspected of adultery); Leviticus 13, 14; Deuteronomy 24:8-9 (procedure in the case of leprosy).
From what has just been said it follows, as matter of course, that the primary requisite in a priest was evidence of his pedigree. On this the greatest possible stress was laid. The person who failed to produce it could claim no title whatever to the rights and privileges of the priesthood. Even so far back as the time when the first of the exiles returned under Zerubbabel, certain priestly families were debarred from the sacred office because they could not produce their genealogical registers.[861] On the other hand, Josephus assures us, with regard to his own case, that he found his pedigree recorded “in the public archives.”[862] Consequently the family registers would appear to have had the character of public records on account of their importance for the community at large.
[861] a Ezra 2:61-63 = Nehemiah 7:63-65.
[862] b Joseph. Vita, 1: τὴν μὲν οὖν τοῦ γένους ἡμῶν διαδοχήν, ὡς ἐν ταῖς δημοσίαις δέλτοις ἀναγεγραμμένην εὗρον, οὕτω παρατίθεμαι.
With the view of keeping the blood of the priestly stock as pure as possible, there were also certain regulations prescribed with regard to marriage. According to the law given in Leviticus 21:7-8, a priest was forbidden to marry a prostitute, or a deflowered maid, or a woman put away from her husband; consequently he could only choose an undefiled virgin or widow, and of course even then only such as were of Israelitish origin.[863] At the same time there was no caste-like restriction forbidding them to many any but the daughters of priests. Nor were these regulations in any way relaxed in later times, for so far from that they came to be but the more sharply defined.[864] We find, for example, that a chaluza, i.e. a widow whom her brother-in-law declined to marry (according to the law regarding levirate marriage), was also to be treated as one “who had been put away from her husband.”[865] Again a priest was forbidden to marry a woman who had been taken captive in war as being a person that might well be suspected of having been violated.[866] Then, if a priest was already without children, he was forbidden, in marrying again, to marry a woman who was “incapable;”[867] but, in any case, he was never to choose a female proselyte or emancipated slave; nor the daughter of a man who had been formerly a slave, except in those cases in which the mother happened to be of Israelitish extraction.[868] The regulations were still more stringent in the case of the high priest. He was not allowed to marry even a widow, but only an undefiled virgin (Leviticus 21:13-15). This, like the former regulations, was also enforced and rendered yet more precise in later times.[869] In affirming, as he does, that the high priest could only marry a virgin belonging to a priestly family,[870] Philo states what is at variance at once with the text of Leviticus and the later standpoint of the law, from both of which it is evident that it was permissible for the high priest to marry any Israelitish virgin, no matter to what family she might belong. Possibly Philo’s view may have been suggested to him by the terms of the passage in Leviticus as it stands in the Septuagint,[871] perhaps also by actual practice, or, it may be, by both combined. The regulation in Ezekiel (44:22), to the effect that a priest was only to marry a virgin, or the widow of a priest, found no place in the law as subsequently developed. Considering the great importance that was attached to the strict observance of those regulations, a priest on the occasion of his marriage was, of course, required to furnish precise evidence of his wife’s pedigree. Josephus has described at length the very careful way in which this was gone about,[872] while in the Mishna it is prescribed how far back the evidence is to extend,[873] and in what cases it may be dispensed with.[874]
[863] Joseph, contra Apion. i. 7: δεῖ γὰρ τὸν μετέχοντα τῆς ἱερωσύνης ἐξ όμοεθνοῦς γυναικὸς παιδοποιεῖσθαι.
[864] See in general, Philo, De monarchia, lib. ii. sec. viii.-xi. (ed. Mang. ii. 228 f.). Joseph. Antt. iii. 12. 2. The Rabbinical prescriptions as given in Selden, De successione in pontificatum, ii. 2, 3; Ibid. Uxor Ebraica, i. 7. Wagenseil’s note to Sota iv. 1 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna, iii. 230 ff.). Ugolini, Thesaurus, vol. xiii. col. 911 ff.
[865] Sota iv. 1, viii. 8; Makkoth iii. 1. Targum of Jonathan, Sifra and Pesikta to Leviticus 21:7, as given in Ugolini, ut supra.
[866] Joseph. Antt. iii. 12. 2; contra Apion. i. 7; Antt. xiii. 10. 5, fin. (account of John Hyrcanus). According to Kethuboth ii. 9, even priests’ wives that had been found in a town captured by the enemy were debarred from any further conjugal intercourse with their husbands, unless it could be shown by satisfactory evidence that they had not been violated.
[867] Jebamoth vi. 5.
[868] Never a female proselyte or emancipated slave, Jebamoth vi. 5. With regard to the daughters, see Bikkurim i. 5. Rabbi Elieser ben Jakob says: “A priest is never to marry the daughter of a proselyte except when her mother happens to be of Israel.” This is no less applicable to the daughters of emancipated slaves. Even in the tenth generation it is lawful only where the mother is of Israelitish origin.
[869] Philo, De monarchia, ii. 9. Joseph. Antt. iii. 12. 2. Jebamoth vi. 4: “A high priest must not marry a widow, whether she has become such subsequent to her betrothal or subsequent to her actual marriage. Nor is he at liberty to choose as a wife a woman already perfectly marriageable. Rabbi Elieser and Rabbi Simon regard a marriageable woman as allowable. Nor is he to marry one that has been injured by an accident.” According to Philo, De monarchia, ii. 9, fin., the high priest was on no account to marry one that had been previously betrothed. Comp. Ritter’s Philo und die Halacha (1879), p. 72. Lundius, Die alten jüdischen Heiligthümer, book iii. chap. xix.
[870] Philo, De monarchia, ii. 11: προστάξας τῷ μὲν ἀρχιερεῖ μνᾶσθαι μὴ μόνον μόνον γυναῖκα παρθένον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἱέρειαν ἐξ ἱερέων.
[871] In the Septuagint, Leviticus 21:13 runs thus: οὗτος γυναῖκα παρθένον ἐκ τοῦ γένους αὐτοῦ λήψεται, there being nothing in the Hebrew text corresponding to the words ἐκ τοῦ γένους αὐτοῦ. Comp. Rittert’s Philo und die Halacha, p. 72 f.
[872] Apion. i. 7. From what is there said one must necessarily assume that surely there were a great many families that were in possession of genealogical registers. Comp. in addition, the copious lists in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiab; and further, the indications of the existence of such registers to be met with in the New Testament, Matthew 1:1 f.; Luke 2:36; Luke 3:23 ff.; Acts 13:21; Romans 11:1; Php_3:5. Also Mishna, Jebamoth iv. 13; Taanith iv. 5. Euseb. Hist. eccl. i. 7 = Jul. African. Epist. ad Aristidem (in Routh’s Reliquiae sacrae, ii. 228 ff., and Spitta, Der Brief des Julius Africanus an Aristides, 1877). Winer’s Realwörterb. ii. 516-518; Herzfeld’s Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael, i. 378-387 Wieseler’s Beitrage zur richtigen Wurdigung der Evangelien (1869), p. 133 ff. Holtzmann in Schenkel’s Bibellex. ii. 425-430. Hamburger’s Real-Enc., 2nd part, art. “Genealogie.”
[873] Kiddushin iv. 4: “When a priest wants to marry the daughter of a priest, he must go back and find evidence with regard to four generations of mothers, and therefore, strictly speaking, with regard to eight mothers. These are, her own mother and her mother’s mother; the mother of her maternal grandfather and her mother again; the mother of her father and her mother; the mother of her paternal grandfather and her mother again. If, on the other hand, the woman he wants to marry be simply a daughter of Levi or of Israel, he must go back a step farther.”
[874] Kiddushin iv. 5: “It is unnecessary to search back in the case of a priest who has ministered at the altar, or of a Levite who has sung in the choir, or of a member of the Sanhedrim. As a rule, all those whose ancestors are well known to have been public officials or almoners, are at liberty to marry one belonging to a priestly family without further inquiry.”
Those regulations with regard to marriage are undoubtedly based upon the idea that the priesthood is a sacred order. The same idea has been further embodied in yet other prescriptions. According to the law (Numbers 19), every one was defiled who came in contact with a dead body, nay who even entered a house in which such body happened to be lying; but as for the priests, they were forbidden to approach a corpse or to take part in the funeral obsequies, the prohibition being absolute in the case of the high priest, while in the case of the ordinary priests, the only exception was in favour of very near blood relations: parents, children, and brothers or sisters (Leviticus 21:1-4; Leviticus 21:11-12; Ezekiel 44:25-27). It would seem that the priest was not even at liberty to mourn for his own wife. Or are we to understand, although it is not expressly stated, that she is intended, as matter of course, to be included among the exceptions?[875] In no case whatever was a priest to indulge in any token of grief calculated to disfigure the person, such as shaving the head or lacerating the body (Leviticus 21:5-6; comp. Ezekiel 44:20), nor was the high priest to uncover his head and rend his garments (Leviticus 21:10; comp. 10:6, 7).[876]
[875] According to the usual interpretation of the text of Leviticus 21:4 as we now hare it, the mourning of the priest for his wife would seem to be even expressly forbidden. Although, in this instance, both exposition and text are exceedingly doubtful (see Dillmann’s note on the passage), still the fact remains that the wife is not mentioned as one of the exceptions. Nor is she mentioned as such either by Philo, De monarchia, ii. 12, or by Josephus, Antt. iii. 12. 2. The Rabbinical writers, on the other hand, regard the שְׁאֵרוֹ of Leviticus 21:2 as referring to her, while they understand 21:4 of the act of mourning for an illegitimate wife. See the passages from the Targum of Jonathan and Sifra in Ugolini, xiii. 929 ff. For the subject generally, consult besides, Oehler, xii. 176 f.
[876]a Comp. besides, Lundius, Die alten jüdischen Heiligthümer, book iii. chap. 20.
Then again it was essential to the sacred character attaching to a priest, that he should be totally free from, every sort of physical defect. If any one had a bodily defect of any kind about him, no matter though he belonged to the “sons of Aaron,” he was thereby disqualified from officiating as a priest. The various kinds of defects are already enumerated with pretty considerable detail in the law as found in Leviticus (21:16-23). And, as was to be expected, this too is one of those points on which a later age has exercised its ingenuity in the way of being minutely and painfully specific. It has been calculated that the number of bodily defects that disqualified a man for the office of the priesthood amount in all to 142.[877] At the same time however the priests who, for the reason now in question, were debarred from exercising any of the functions of the priesthood, were entitled to a share of the emoluments as well as the others, for they too belonged to the ordo.[878]
[877] Haneberg, Die religiösen Altertümer der Bibel, p. 532. See in general, Philo, De monarchia, ii. 5. Joseph. Antt. iii. 12. 2. Mishna, Bechoroth vii. Selden, De succestione in pontificatum Ebr. ii. 5. Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus, pp. 89-94. Ugolini, xiii. 897 ff. Haneberg, p. 531 f. Oehler, xii. 176. For parallels from heathen antiquity, see the Knobel-Dillmann Exeget. Handb. zu Exodus und Leviticus, p. 568.
[878] Leviticus 21:22. Philo, De monarchia, ii. 13. Joseph. Antt. iii. 12. 2; Bell. Jud. v. 5. 7. Mishna, Sebachim xii. 1; Menachoth xiii. 10, fin.
There is nothing prescribed in the law as to the age at which a priest was to be allowed to enter upon the duties of his office. Perhaps we may venture to assume that it must have been the same as that at which the Levites entered upon theirs. Yet even this latter is given differently in different parts of the Old Testament.[879] The Rabbinical tradition states that a priest was duly qualified for his duties as soon as the first signs of manhood made their appearance, but that he was not actually installed till he was twenty years of age.[880]
[879] In Numbers 4:3; Numbers 4:23; Numbers 4:30; Numbers 4:35; Numbers 4:39; Numbers 4:43; Numbers 4:47, 1 Chronicles 23:3, it is stated to be the thirtieth, in Numbers 8:23-26 the twenty-fifth, and in Ezra 3:8, 1 Chronicles 23:24; 1 Chronicles 23:27, 2 Chronicles 31:17, the twentieth year.
[880] See the passage from Sifra (= Bab. Chullin 24b) in Selden, De successione, ii. 4, and Ugolini, Thes. xiii. 927.
And now when all the requirements to which we have referred were found to be satisfied, and when his fitness had been duly established to the satisfaction of the Sanhedrim,[881] the priest was set apart to his office by a special act of consecration. According to the leading passage in the law bearing on this matter, viz. Exodus 29 = Leviticus 8, this solemn act consisted of three parts: (1) the washing of the body with water, (2) the putting on of the sacred vestments, and (3) a series of sacrifices the offering of which was accompanied with further ceremonies of a partly special kind, viz. the anointing of various parts of the body with blood, the sprinkling of the person and the garments with oil and blood, the “filling of the hands,” i.e. the taking of certain portions of the victims and laying them upon the hands of the priest with the view of indicating thereby his future duties and rights. In several other passages (Exodus 28:41; Exodus 30:30; Exodus 40:12-15; Leviticus 7:36; Leviticus 10:7; Numbers 3:3) there is superadded to these the pouring of ointment upon the head, an act which, according to the leading passage on the subject, was observed, and that as a mark of distinction, solely in the case of the high priest.[882] The whole ceremony extended over seven days (Exodus 29:35 ff.; Leviticus 8:33 ff.). How it fared with this ceremony at a later period has been, so far as several of its details are concerned, a matter of some dispute.[883] It is probable that the pouring of oil upon the head continued to be retained as a mark of distinction in the case of the high priest.[884]
[881] Middoth v. fin.
[882] On this point, see Wellhausen, Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1877, p. 412 f. Dillmann’s Exeget. Handbuch, note on Leviticus 8:12.
[883] See in general, Selden, De successione, ii. 8, 9. Ugolini, Thesaurus, xiii. pp. 434 ff., 476-548. Bähr, Symbolik des mosaischen Cultus, ii. 165 ff. Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Priesterweihe.” Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., vol. xiii. pp. 178-180. Haneberg, pp. 526-531. According to some, the newly admitted priest was only required to offer the meat-offering prescribed in Leviticus 6:12 ff. But this is utterly incredible, and is based upon a pure misapprehension of the Rabbinical passages, which undoubtedly require that the newly admitted (therefore newly consecrated) priest should, in the first instance, offer this sacrifice for himself before offering any other. See the passages in Ugolini, xiii. 546 f., and comp., in addition, Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese, etc. (1851) p. 143. No further light is thrown upon the matter by Philo, Vita Mosis, iii. 16-18, and Joseph. Antt. iii. 8. 6, as they simply reproduce Exodus 29 = Leviticus 8.
[884] Comp. Wellhausen, Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1877, p. 412. But it would appear that, in the latter days of the temple, the high priest himself was no longer (or not always?) anointed, for the Mishna knows of other high priests, who in contradistinction to the anointed ones had been introduced to their office through the ceremony of investing with the sacred garments. See in particular, Horajoth iii. 4. But be this as it may, there is at all events no truth in the view of Maimonides, that the anointing had been discontinued ever since the exile.
As the priests were so numerous it was simply impossible that they could all officiate at the same time. It was therefore necessary to have an arrangement according to which they could do so in regular rotation. With a view to this the whole body of the priests was divided into twenty-four families or courses of service.[885] The account of the origin and organization of those twenty-four courses of service as given by the Rabbinical tradition is as follows:[886] “Four courses of service (מִשְׁמָרוֹת) came back from the exile, viz.: Jedaiah, Harim, Pashur, and Immer.… Then the prophets that were among them arose and made twenty-four lots and put them into an urn. And Jedaiah came and drew five lots, which, including himself, would therefore make six. And Harim came and drew five lots, which, including himself, would therefore make six. And Pashur came and drew five lots, which, including himself, would therefore make six. And Immer came and drew five lots, which, including himself, would therefore make six.… And heads of the courses of service (רָאשֵׁי מִשְׁמָרוֹת) were appointed. And the courses were divided into houses (בָּתֵּי אָבוֹת). And there were courses consisting of five, six, seven, eight, or nine houses. In a course consisting of five houses, three of them had to serve one day each, while the remaining two had to serve two days each; in a course consisting of six houses, five of them had to serve one day each, while one had to serve two days; where it consisted of seven, each served one day; of eight, six served one day each and two served simultaneously the remaining day; of nine, five served one day each and four served simultaneously during two days.” It is true that what is here stated regarding the origin (or, according to the Talmud, the restoration) of the twenty-four courses of service cannot be said to possess the value of an independent tradition, that, on the contrary, it is based merely upon inferences from certain facts that are mentioned elsewhere. Yet it has so far hit the mark as substantially to represent the actual state of the case. For there returned from the exile, along with Zerubbabel and Joshua, four families of priests, viz.: the children of Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, and Harim, numbering in all 4289 (Ezra 2:36-39 = Nehemiah 7:39-42).[887] Further, that these four families comprised the whole body of the priesthood at the time of Ezra’s arrival, and therefore some eighty years afterwards as well, is evident from Ezra 10:18-22, But, along with these mention is also made, as early as the time of Zerubbabel and Joshua (Nehemiah 12:1-7), of twenty-two classes of priests, with a corresponding number of “heads” (ראשי הכהנים). And those same classes or divisions are also further met with in the time of Joshua’s successor, Joiakim the high priest (Nehemiah 12:12-21).[888] It is evident therefore that the four families were subdivided into twenty-two classes. Then it is substantially the same arrangement that is still to be met with in the time of Ezra. When this latter arrived with a fresh band of exiles, he brought along with him two more priestly families (Ezra 8:2)[889] and added them to the four that were already in the country (Ezra 10:18-22). But we find that shortly after, the number of classes was once more almost the same as it had been in Zerubbabel’s time, namely twenty-one, as may be seen from the list given in Nehemiah 10:3-9. However, only fourteen of the names mentioned in this latter passage are to be found in the two earlier lists (Nehemiah 12:1-7; Nehemiah 12:12-21), all the rest being different. Consequently the organization of the divisions must, in the meanwhile, have undergone certain alterations of one kind or another, as would no doubt be deemed necessary on account of a fresh accession of priestly families having been brought by Ezra, and for other reasons besides. However, under the new order of things the number of divisions remained the same as before and so continued, substantially at least, on through succeeding ages. In the time of the author of Chronicles, who traces back the arrangement that existed in his day to the time of David, the number of the divisions amounted to twenty-four (1 Chronicles 24:7-18). It is true that, in the catalogue of names furnished by this writer, scarcely more than a third of those in the earlier lists are to be found. That being so, we are bound to assume that, in the meanwhile, important changes must have taken place, always supposing that our author has not drawn somewhat upon his own imagination for a number of the names attributed to the time of David. Be that as it may, it is certain that, from that point onwards, the division into twenty-four classes continued to subsist without any alteration whatever. For we learn on the express testimony of Josephus, that it was still maintained in his own day,[890] to say nothing of the fact that some of the names of the division continued to be occasionally mentioned (Joiarib, 1Ma_2:1; Abia, Luke 1:5).[891] It is somewhat strange that, in a passage in his contra Apionem,—a passage, however, that has come down to us only in a Latin version,—Josephus should be found speaking of four families or divisions (tribus) of the priests.[892] One might perhaps be disposed to think that here the historian had in view the four families that returned with Zerubbabel. But as the context shows that he is clearly referring to the courses of service, there is nothing for it but to assume that the text has been corrupted, and that for four we ought to substitute twenty-four. Nor can it be said that this view is at once disposed of by the circumstance that Josephus alleges that the number in each division amounted to over 5000 souls. For it is probable that this number included the Levites (who were also divided into twenty-four divisions, every division of the priests having its corresponding division of Levites), and perhaps women and children as well; besides, we know only too well that one cannot depend a great deal on Josephus in the matter of numbers.
[885] On this see Lightfoot, Ministerium templi, chap. vi. (Opp. i. pp. 691-694). Idem, Harmonia evangelistarum, note on Luke 1:5 (Opp. i. 258 ff.). Idem, Horae hebraicae, note on Luke 1:5 (Opp. ii. 486 ff.). Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus, pp. 100-102. Ugolini, Thesaurus, vol. xiii. col. 872 ff. Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael, i. p. 387 ff. Bertheau, Exegetisches Handbuch zu Ezra, Nehemia und Ester (1862), pp. 228-230. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. xii. pp. 182-186. Haneberg, Die religiösen Alterthümer der Bibel, p. 555 ff. Graf in Merx’ Archiv, i. p. 225 f.
[886] Jer. Taanith iv. fol. 68, and as being substantially to the same effect, Tosefta, Taanith ii. (both passages in Hebrew and Latin being given in Ugolini, vol. xiii. p. 876 ff.); partly also Bab. Arachin 12b, comp. Herzfeld, i. 393. In the above quotation I follow the text of Jer. Taanith, only with a few abridgments here and there.
[887]a The accuracy of the alleged numbers, so far as the time of Zerubbabel is concerned, has been questioned by Stade (Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1884, 218, in the notice by Smend, Die Listen der Bücher Esra und Nehemia, 1881). Besides the objections advanced by this writer, there is the further fact that, according to pseudo-Hecataeus, who belongs to the commencement of the Hellenistic period, the number of Jewish priests amounted in all to only 1500 (Joseph, contra Apion. i. 22, ed. Bekker, p. 202: καίτοι οἱ πάντες ἱερεῖς τῶν Ἰουδαίων, οἱ τὴν δεκάτην τῶν γινομένων λαμβάνοντες καὶ τὰ κοινὰ διοικοῦντες, περὶ χιλίους μάλιστα καὶ πεντακοσίους εἰσίν). May it not be that the women and children are to be understood as included in the above 4289? So far as our purpose is concerned this question may here be left an open one.
[888] In the second list only one of the names belonging to the first (Chattusch) is wanting. The remaining twenty-one names are all identically the same in both, as is clearly evident notwithstanding the numerous inaccuracies of the text. Comp. Bertheau’s note on Nehemiah 12:12.
[889] For the names Gershom and Daniel mentioned in this passage are the names of priestly families; see Bertheau’s note on it.
[890] Antt. vii. 14. 7: διέμεινεν οὕτος ὁ μερισμὸς ἄχρι τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας. Vita, 1: ἐμοὶ δʼ οὐ μόνον ἐξ ἱερέων ἐστὶ τὸ γένος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ τῆς πρώτης ἐφημερίδος τῶν εἰκοσιτεσσάρων (πολλὴ δὲ κἂν τούτῳ διαφορά), καὶ τῶν ἐν ταύτῃ φυλῶν ἐκ τῆς ἀρίστης. Comp. besides, Taanith iv. 2; Sukka v. 6-8, and the commentaries thereon.
[891] Joiarib and Jedaiah are also mentioned, Baba kamma ix. 12. The division Joiarib is the one that is said to have been officiating when the temple was destroyed, Bab. Taanith 29a, in Derenbourg’s Histoire de la Palestine, p. 291. The division or course of Bilga is mentioned in Sukka v. 8.
[892] Contra Apion. ii. 8 (ed. Bekker, pp. 239, 20 ff.): Licet enim sint tribus quattuor sacerdotum, et harum tribuum singulae habeant hominum plus quam qoinqne milia, fit tamen observatio particulariter per dies certos; et his transaetis alii succedentes ad sacrificia veniunt, etc.
Each of the twenty-four main divisions was in turn broken up into a number of sub-divisions. If we may trust the Talmudic tradition quoted above (p. 182), the number of those sub-divisions ranged from five to nine for each main division. The main divisions were known either under the general designation of מַחְלְקוֹת (divisions, so 1 Chronicles 28:13; 1 Chronicles 28:21; 2 Chronicles 8:14; 2 Chronicles 23:8; 2 Chronicles 31:2; 2 Chronicles 31:15-16), or, in so far as they were made up of the members of one family, they were called בֵּית אָבוֹת (houses of their fathers, so 1 Chronicles 24:4; 1 Chronicles 24:6), or, in so far as they had the services of the temple to attend to, they were described as מִשְׁמָרוֹת (watches, so Nehemiah 13:30; 2 Chronicles 31:16). As regards the sub-divisions, for our knowledge of which we are indebted solely to the testimony of post-Biblical literature, they are known by the designation of בָּתֵּי אָבוֹת. And so now it had become the regular practice to distinguish the two by calling the main division a מִשְׁמָר and the sub-division a בֵּית אָב.[893] At the same time this distinction is not necessarily involved in the signification of the words themselves. For as משמר may mean any division for service, so בית אב, on the other hand, may mean any body composed of the members of the same family, no matter whether they consist of few persons or of many.[894] Accordingly, as we have just remarked, the author of the Book of Chronicles is still found to be making use of בית אבות (in Nehemiah 12:12 shortened into אבות) as one of his expressions for denoting the main divisions or courses. But it would appear that somewhat later the distinction referred to above came to be rigidly observed. In Greek the term for one of the main divisions is πατριά or ἐφημερία or ἐφημερίς, and for one of the sub-divisions φυλή.[895]
[893] This distinction is specially noticeable in Taanith ii. 6, 7. Comp. further the passage quoted above, p. 182; also Jer. Horajoth iii. fol. 48b; and Tosefta, Horajoth, fin., where it is stated that a ראש משמר is higher in point of rank than a ראש בית אב. Again, משמר is also met with in Sukka v. 6-8, Taanith iv. 2, and Tamid v. 1, undoubtedly in the seme of “main division,” or “division for a week’s service.” But it is also to be similarly understood in Bikkurim iii. 12; Jebamoth xi. 7, fin.; Baba kamma ix. 12; Temura iii. 4, and Para iii. fin. בית אב, on the other hand, occurs in the sense of a sub-division or a division for one day’s service, in Joma iii. 9, iv. 1; Tamid i. 1; Middoth i. 8.
[894] See Knobel-Dillmann, Exegetisches Handbuch, note on Exodus 6:14 (p. 58).
[895] πατριά, Joseph. Antt. vii. 14. 7; ἐφημερία, Luke 1:5; Luke 1:8; ἐφημερίς and φυλή, Joseph. Vita, 1 (see the quotation given above, note 29). We find mention made of a φυλὴ Ἐνιαχείμ in Joseph. Bell. Jud. iv. 3. 8.
Then each of the divisions, the principal and subordinate ones alike, was presided over by a head. In the Old Testament the heads of the main divisions are designated שָׂרִים (princes)[896] or רָאשִׁים (heads).[897] At a subsequent period this latter (ראש המשמר) seems to have become the current designation, just as ראש בית אב[898] came to be the one regularly employed to denote the head of a sub-division. Then, besides these, we sometimes come across the term “elders” in this connection, the זקני כהונה and the זקני בית אב.[899]
[896] שָׂרֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים, Ezra 8:24; Ezra 8:29; Ezra 10:5; 2 Chronicles 36:14. שָׂרֵי קֹדֶשׁ, 1 Chronicles 24:5. That those שָׂרִים are identical with the רָאשֵׁי אָבוֹת may be seen, above all, from 1 Chronicles 15:4-12, where both expressions are employed, as being perfectly synonymous, to denote the heads of the Levitical divisions.
[897] ראשים לבית־אבות, 1 Chronicles 24:4. ראשי האבות, Nehemiah 12:12; 1 Chronicles 24:6. Comp. also Nehemiah 11:13; Nehemiah 12:7.
[898] ראש המשמר and ראש ביתאב, Tosefta, Horajoth, fin., ed. Zuckermandel, p. 476; and Jer. Horajoth iii. fol. 48b (the latter passage being given in Ugolini, Thesaurus, xiii. 870). ראש המשמר also in the passage quoted above, p. 182. ראש בית אב, Joma iii. 9, iv. 1.
[899] זקני כהונה, Joma i. 5. זקני בית אב, Tamid i. 1; Middoth i. 8.
The importance and influense of the various divisions was by no means alike. Notwithstanding their formal equality, in so far as they all took part in the services of the sanctuary in regular rotation, still those divisions, from the members of which high priests or other influential functionaries were selected, could not fail to acquire, in consequence, a greater amount of influence and importance. Hence we can quite believe that, as Josephus assures us, it was regarded as a great advantage to belong to the first of the twenty-four classes,[900] i.e. to the class Joiarib, which had the honour of contributing the Asmonaean princes and high priests.[901] Then we find that within the individual classes again influential coteries were formed. The families living in Jerusalem would no doubt understand how to secure for members of their own circle the most important offices about the temple, knowing as they did how much influence they conferred upon those who filled them. But it was in the Roman period above all that the privileged families from which the high priests were drawn (see p. 173, above) were found to constitute a proud aristocracy, claiming to occupy a rank much superior to that of the ordinary priests. The social difference between the one circle and the other was so marked that, toward the close of the period just preceding the destruction of the temple, the high priests could even go the length of wresting the tithes from the other priests by violence, these latter being left to starve.[902] As a consequence of this disparity of rank, their political sympathies were also so widely different that, at the outbreak of the revolution, the ordinary priests favoured this movement, whereas the high priests did everything in their power to allay the storm.[903]
[900] Vita, 1: πολλὴ δὲ κἂν τούτῳ διαφορά = “there is a great advantage also in this.”
[901] One feels tempted to assume that the lists in Chronicles (1 Chronicles 24:7-18) were not framed till the Asmonaean period. For it is surely very strange that it is precisely the class Joiarib, from which the Asmonaeans were sprung, that is here put prominently at the top while in the lists given in Nehemiah (12:1-7, 12-21) it occupies a somewhat subordinate place.
[902] Joseph. Antt. xx. 8. 8, 9. 2.
[903] Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 2-4.
We must be careful to distinguish between the priests properly so called and the Levites, a subordinate class of sacred officials.[904] It is true, no doubt, that this distinction is as yet unknown to the Book of Deuteronomy. There the Levites are all regarded as being as much entitled to share in the priestly functions as the rest, and “priests” and “Levites” are made use of simply as convertible terms (see especially, Deuteronomy 18:5; Deuteronomy 21:5; and generally, 17:9, 18, 18:1, 24:8, 27:9). The practice of distinguishing between the two orders is met with for the first time in Ezekiel; and there can scarcely be a doubt that it was precisely this prophet who was the first to introduce it. According to the legislation of Deuteronomy, all places of worship outside Jerusalem were to be suppressed. At the same time the “Levites” who officiated in them, i.e. the priests, were not deprived of their rights as such; all that was asked of them was that they should exercise their priestly functions exclusively in Jerusalem. This state of things however could hardly be expected to last long, In the first place it was too much to expect that the Jerusalem priests would long relish the idea of those colleagues from the provinces having the same right to officiate as themselves; but apart from this, there was the fact that they had been guilty, to a larger extent than the priests of Jerusalem, of blending the service of strange gods with the worship of Jehovah. Consequently Ezekiel now proceeded to push the state of things brought about by the Deuteronomist to what seemed to be its legitimate result: he prohibited the Levites from beyond Jerusalem from celebrating worship altogether. This was now to be the exclusive privilege of the Levites of the house of Zadok, i.e. of the Jerusalem priests. Hereafter none but the sons of Zadok were “to offer the fat and the blood before God,” that is to say, none but these were to minister at the altar or cross the threshold of the inner sanctuary (the temple proper). To the other Levites the more subordinate class of duties was assigned, viz. the keeping watch over the temple, the slaughtering of the victims, and such like. An arrangement such as this had, at the same time, this further advantage, that it was now possible entirely to dispense with those Gentiles whom it had been necessary to employ for the purpose of performing the more menial services connected with the temple (see in general, Ezekiel 44:6-16). The order of things thus introduced by Ezekiel was the one that in all essential respects came to be permanently adopted. The distinction which he had established between priests and the other Levites is treated in the code of the priests as one that had already come to be regularly recognised. In this code the distinction between “the sons of Aaron,” i.e. the priests, and the rest of the Levites, is rigidly observed. According to its enactments it is only the former who are to enjoy the right of ministering at the altar and within the sanctuary itself (Numbers 18:7). The Levites, on the other hand, are merely to act as assistants to the sons of Aaron “in all the service of the tabernacle” (Numbers 18:4). Accordingly, what they are allowed and are called upon to do is to help the priests by performing a great many duties and services of the most varied character in connection with the temple, such as taking charge of the revenues and the sacred property, the bringing forward and preparing of all the different materials required for the celebration of worship, and others of a like nature (for more on this matter, see Part III.). We also find that the duty of slaughtering and further preparing the victims was still assigned to them in later times precisely as it had been in that of Ezekiel.[905] Only they were debarred from taking part in the ministrations at the altar and within the walls of the sanctuary (Numbers 18:3; see in general, Numbers 3:5-13; Numbers 18:1-7).
[904] See in general, Winer’s Realwörlerb. ii. 20 ff. Oehler’s art. “Levi,” in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. viii. 347-358 (in the 2nd ed. it is revised by Orelli). Graf, Zur Geschichte des Stammes Levi, in Merx’ Archiv, vol. i. Idem, art. “Levi,” in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, iv. 29-32. Wellhausen, Geschichte, i. 128-156. Smend, Exeget. Handbuch zu Ezekiel, pp. 360-362. Dillmann, Exeget. Handbuch zu Exodus und Leviticus, pp. 455-461.
[905] 2 Chronicles 29:34; 2 Chronicles 35:11. Certainly from those passages one might infer that the Levites were called upon to assist in the slaughtering of the victims only in those instances in which a great many of them had to be dealt with. As a rule the priests performed the act of slaughtering the victims themselves. However, the law even went so far as to allow laymen to undertake this duty. See Frankel, Ueber den Ein fluss der palästiniscken Exegese auf die aleandrinische Hermeneutik (1851), p. 134. Ritter’s Philo und die Halacha, p. 110 ff.
Then, like the priests, the Levites came to form a strictly exclusive order, the privilege of belonging to which was based upon natural descent. Their origin was now ascribed to Levi, one of the twelve patriarchs of Israel (Exodus 6:17-25; Numbers 3:14-39; Numbers 4:34-49; Numbers 26:57-62; 1 Chron. 5:27-6:66, and 23). Consequently in their case too as well as that of the priests it was birth that decided the claim to participation in the rights and functions of their order. The “priests” stood to them very much in the relation in which a privileged family stands to the whole stock to which it belongs. For the origin of the priestly order now came to be ascribed to Aaron, a great-grandson of Levi (Exodus 6:17 ff.).[906]
[906] The genealogical derivation of the priests from Aaron is, in the first instance, merely a dogmatic postulate from which nothing whatever can be inferred with regard to the actual state of matters during the post-exilic period. Still it is undoubtedly a probable enough thing that, besides the “sons of Zadok,” i.e. the old priestly families of Jerusalem, there were also a number of others who were not originally Jerusalem priests, who contrived to get their sacerdotal rights duly recognised. For the author of Chronicles, who traces the family of Zadok to Eleazar, Aaron’s eldest son (1 Chronicles 6:4-12), derives a portion of the priests from Ithamar, another of Aaron’s sons (1 Chronicles 24; comp. Ezra 8:2). These latter therefore were not Zadokites. Consequently we must assume that, although Ezekiel’s scheme was carried out in the main, still it was not so in every particular. Comp. Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer, p. 48.
But there is nothing that shows so plainly as just the history of the Levites itself how elastic and unsubstantial those genealogical theories were. In the post-exilic period, for example, we find that the “Levites,” in the sense in which the term has been hitherto understood, were still strictly distinguished from the musicians, doorkeepers and temple servants (Nethinim, originally, at all events, slaves); this continues to be the case therefore not merely in the time of Zerubbabel, but also between eighty and a hundred years later, viz. in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (see especially Ezra 2:40-58 = Nehemiah 7:43-60; further Ezra 2:70; Ezra 7:7; Ezra 7:24; Ezra 10:23-24; Neh. 7:1, 73; 10:29, 40; 12:44-47; 13:5, 10). But gradually the musicians and the doorkeepers came to be included among the “Levites” also. For example, the circumstance of the musicians being now merged in the Levites is presupposed in several remodelled portions of the Book of Nehemiah.[907] Later on, a similar distinction seems to have been accorded to the doorkeepers as well, for we find the author of Chronicles taking special pains to let it appear that both of the classes here in question belonged to the order of the Levites, and also to show that they too were descended from Levi.[908] The musicians again were afterwards advanced a step higher still, in so far as, shortly before the destruction of the temple, King Agrippa II., with the concurrence of the Sanhedrim, conferred upon them the privilege of wearing linen robes similar to those worn by the priests.[909]
[907] Nehemiah 11:15-19; Nehemiah 11:22-23; Nehemiah 12:8-9; Nehemiah 12:24-25; Nehemiah 12:27-29. Here the musicians are uniformly regarded as belonging to the order of the Levites, while the doorkeepers, on the other hand, are expressly excluded from it. Consequently the portions in question (Nehemiah 11, 12) must have come down to ua in a revised form, representing a point of view intermediate between the standpoint of the oldest sources of the Book of Nehemiah on the one side, and that of the author of Chronicles on the other.
[908] On the inclusion of the musicians among the Levites, see 1 Chronicles 15:16 ff; 1 Chronicles 23:3-5; 2 Chronicles 29:25, and elsewhere. For the doorkeepers again, see 1 Chronicles 9:26; 1 Chronicles 15:18; 1 Chronicles 15:23-24; 1 Chronicles 23:3-5. Further, for the tracing of their descent from Levi, particularly in the case of the three families of musicians, Heman, Asaph and Ethan, see 1 Chronicles 6:16-32; but for the same in the case of the doorkeepers as well, at least to a certain extent, viz. through Obed Edom, see Graf in Merx’ Archiv, i. 230-232. However, it is still the practice in the Chronicles as well to distinguish between the Nethinim and the Levites, 1 Chronicles 9:2.
[909] Joseph. Antt. xx. 9. 6.
The Levites, like the priests, were also divided into courses of service. But their history is involved in still greater obscurity than that of the courses of the priests. Among those who returned from exile with Zerubbabel and Joshua there were but very few “Levites” in the stricter sense of the word, only seventy-four in all; while in addition to these there were 128 singers and 139 doorkeepers (Ezra 2:40-42, the numbers in the corresponding passage, Nehemiah 7:43-45, diverging somewhat from those just given). Then at length when Ezra came he managed to bring with him only thirty-eight “Levites,” and even these could be persuaded to accompany him only after serious expostulation (Ezra 8:15-20). The disinclination to return thus shown by the Levites was owing to the subordinate place that had now been assigned them. It may be safely assumed however that those who did return would ere long receive considerable accessions to their ranks from those of their order that had never left their native country. For there cannot be a doubt that, as the “Levites lived scattered all over the land, far fewer of them, comparatively speaking, were carried into captivity than of the “priests,” by whom at that time only the priests of Jerusalem were meant. And hence we are enabled to account for the fact that, in the catalogue of Levites and singers in the time of Zerubbabel and Joshua as given in Nehemiah 12:8, we find a few more families than are to be met with in the catalogue of those who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:40 f.; Nehemiah 7:43 f.).[910] In a list belonging to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah seventeen families of Levites in the stricter sense of the word are already enumerated (Nehemiah 10:10-14 and Bertheau’s note). In another, probably referring, like the former, to the time of Nehemiah as well,[911] it is only the number of the Levites dwelling in Jerusalem that is given, inclusive of course of the singers, and it estimates that there were 284 of them (Nehemiah 11:15-18). It is to be presumed that the number of those who lived beyond the city, in the towns and villages of Judaea, would be considerably larger (Nehemiah 11:20; Nehemiah 11:36).[912] It would appear that, in the time of the author of Chronicles, the division into twenty-four classes was not confined to the priests, but had been adopted in the case of the Levites as well. This writer, although including the musicians and doorkeepers among the Levites, nevertheless distinguishes between three leading groups: the Levites who did service about the temple generally, then the musicians, and lastly the doorkeepers (1 Chronicles 23:3-5). He then proceeds in 1 Chronicles 23:6-24 to give, in the case of the Levites or first group, a list of the houses of their fathers (בית אבות), which, after one or two corrections have been made, probably amount to twenty-four.[913] As for the musicians again, he expressly divides them into twenty-four classes or courses (1 Chronicles 25). With regard to the post-Biblical period we have testimony to the effect that at that time the division now in question had been regularly established in the case of the Levites generally, so that, in fact, each class of priests had now its corresponding class or course of Levites.[914] As in the case of the priests, so also in that of the Levites, each of the various divisions or courses was presided over by a head (שָׂרִים or רָאשִׁים).[915]
[910] See Bertheau’s note, p. 251, of his Exeget. Handbuch to Nehemiah.
[911] On the period to which this list refers, see Bertheau’s Exeget. Handbuch to Chronicles, p. 99; to Nehemiah, p. 248.
[912] The number of priests living in Jerusalem is stated in this same list to have been 1192 (Nehemiah 11:10-14), while the aggregate number then living throughout the whole land is estimated at 6000 (according to Ezra 2:36-39; Ezra 8:2; comp. p. 217, above). With regard to the Levites, on the other hand, we may venture to assume that formerly the proportion of those living beyond Jerusalem to those living within it was much greater still. In any case the number of the Levites in the stricter sense of the word must have exceeded that of the singers and doorkeepers. For when the author of Chronicles tells us that in David’s time there were 24,000 Levites properly so called, and 4000 singers, and 4000 doorkeepers (1 Chronicles 23:4-5), we may assume that the relative proportions of those numbers must have pretty nearly corresponded with what actually existed in the writer’s own day, however much the absolute numbers themselves may have been exaggerated.
[913] See Bertheau’s note on the passage. To the family of Gerson are assigned nine houses of their fathers, to that of Kahat nine also, and to that of Merari probably six, if, that is to say, we supply from xxiv. 26, 27 the three missing houses of Schoham, Sakkur and Ibri, and erase from xxiii. 23 the name Mahli which occurs twice in the list.
[914] Joseph. Antt. vii. 14. 7: ἐποίησε δὲ καὶ τῆς Λευίτιδος φυλῆς εἴκοσι μέρη καὶ τέσοαρα, καὶ κληρωσαμένων κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν ἀνέβησαν τρόπον ταῖς τῶν ἱερέων ἐφημερίσιν ἐπὶ ἡμέρας ὀκτώ. Taanith iv. 2: “The earliest prophets established twenty-four courses of service (משמרות). To each belonged a staff (מעמד) in Jerusalem, composed of priesta, Levitas and Israelites. As soon as its turn to serve came round to a course, the priests and Levites belonging to it proceeded to Jerusalem, but the Israelites assembled in the synagogues of their different towns and there read the account of the creation.”
[915] שרים, 1 Chronicles 15:4-12; 2 Chronicles 35:9. ראשים, Nehemiah 12:22-23; 1 Chronicles 9:33-34; 1 Chronicles 15:12; 1 Chronicles 23:24; 1 Chronicles 24:6; 1 Chronicles 24:31. The divisions whose heads are here in question are, of course, separate and distinct from each other.
The question as to where the priests and Levites resided is one with regard to which we have very little information of a reliable kind; for we must here entirely dismiss from view the legislation with reference to the forty-eight Levitical cities, which never was more than a mere theory (Numbers 35; Joshua 21). One thing however is certain, and that is, that under the new order of things that obtained subsequent to the exile, only a fraction of the priests and Levites lived in Jerusalem itself, while the rest were scattered over the towns and villages of Judaea, the majority of them being probably within a short distance of the capital and the centre of worship. In the list in Nehemiah 11:10-19, to which reference has been already made, the number of priests who lived in Jerusalem is stated to have been 1192,[916] that of the Levites and musicians 284, and that of the doorkeepers 172. But the sum-total of the whole priests of the land amounted to something like five times that number, if not more (see note [917] while in the case of the other categories the proportion of those living beyond the city to those within it may have been greater still. In any case, the general fact that priests as well as Levites had their residences in the towns and villages of Judaea is confirmed by repeated and unquestionable testimony.[918] But we are left with little or no information with respect to details.[919]
[916] The parallel passage, 1 Chronicles 9:10-13, puts it at a somewhat higher figure.
[917] The number of priests living in Jerusalem is stated in this same list to have been 1192 (Nehemiah 11:10-14), while the aggregate number then living throughout the whole land is estimated at 6000 (according to Ezra 2:36-39; Ezra 8:2; comp. p. 217, above). With regard to the Levites, on the other hand, we may venture to assume that formerly the proportion of those living beyond Jerusalem to those living within it was much greater still. In any case the number of the Levites in the stricter sense of the word must have exceeded that of the singers and doorkeepers. For when the author of Chronicles tells us that in David’s time there were 24,000 Levites properly so called, and 4000 singers, and 4000 doorkeepers (1 Chronicles 23:4-5), we may assume that the relative proportions of those numbers must have pretty nearly corresponded with what actually existed in the writer’s own day, however much the absolute numbers themselves may have been exaggerated.
[918] Ezra 2:70; Nehemiah 7:73; Nehemiah 11:3; Nehemiah 11:20; Nehemiah 11:36; 2 Chronicles 31:15; 2 Chronicles 31:19.
[919] A number of places where musicians had settled are mentioned in Nehemiah 12:27-29. The Maccabees came from Modein (1Ma_2:1), Zacharias the priest lived in the hill country of Judah (Luke 1:39). According to Origen, Bethphage was a village where priests lived, Comment. in Matt. vol. xvi. cap. xvii. (Lommatzach, iv. 52): ἑρμηνεύεσθαι δέ φαμεν τὴν Βηθφαγὴ μὲν οἶκον σιαγόνων, ἥτις τῶν ἱερέων ἦν χωρίον.