III. The Various Functions Of The Priesthood

III. THE VARIOUS FUNCTIONS OF THE PRIESTHOOD
As the priests were so numerous, their emoluments so plentiful, and their functions so varied, it was necessary that there should also be an extensive apportioning among them of the different departments of the service. As we have already pointed out in a previous section, the whole priest-hood was divided into twenty-four families, each of which formed a distinct body, with presidents and elders at its head. But apart from this social organization of the entire order, there was further, the organism of the special functions connected with the multifarious services of the sanctuary. Of those special offices there were two that (at least during the last century of the temple’s existence, to which period the following account is to be understood as applying) were conspicuous above all the others, and to these we will here assign the foremost place.
1. The head of the whole priesthood was the supreme, or as we usually designate him, the high priest, כהן גדול, ἀρχιερεύς.[983] The characteristic feature about the position of this distinguished functionary was the combining in one and the same person of both a civil and a sacred dignity. Not only was he the supreme religious functionary, the one to whom alone pertained the privilege of performing certain acts of worship of the highest religious significance, such as, above all, the offering of the sacrifice on the great day of atonement, but he was also, at the same time, the supreme civil head of the people, the supreme head of the State, in so far, that is, as the State was not under the sway of foreign rulers. In the days of national independence the hereditary Asmonaean high priests were priests and kings at one and the same time; while, at a later period again, the high priests were, at least the presidents of the Sanhedrim, and even in all political matters, the supreme representatives of the people in their relations with the Romans (for details, see § 23. IV., above). As was to be expected, considering the distinguished social position which he held, the high priest did not officiate except on festival occasions. He was, in fact, legally bound to do so only on the great day of atonement, when he was called upon to offer before the Lord the great sin-offering of the people (Leviticus 16); though, according to later usage, he was further required to offer the daily sacrifice during the week immediately preceding the great day of atonement.[984] Otherwise he was left perfectly free to sacrifice only when he felt disposed to do so.[985] According to the testimony of Josephus, he officiated, as a rule, every Sabbath day, and on the occasion of the new moons or other festivals in the course of the year.[986] We must beware of confounding with the sacrifices just mentioned, and which he offered as representing the people and in their name, the daily meat-offering which he required to offer purely on his own account (Leviticus 6:12-16). But on those latter occasions it was not so much required that he himself should officiate (which he seldom did) as that he should defray the cost of the offerings.[987] The somewhat unique character of the high priest’s position found further expression in the special purity and holiness that were expected of him (see pp. 211, 214, above), as well as in the gorgeous official attire which he wore when exercising his sacred functions.[988] Only at that part of the service on the great day of atonement at which he entered the holy of holies, he wore a simple white dress, which however was made of the most expensive Pelusian and Indian linen (or cotton?).[989]
[983] Comp. on this functionary, Winer’s Realwörterb. under word. Oehler’s art. “Hoherpriester,” in Herzog’s Real-Encycl. (1st ed. vol. vi. pp. 198-206, 2nd ed. vi. pp. 237-245, revised by Delitzsch), and the literature quoted in both those works; also Graf’s art. “Priester,” in Scheakel’s Bibellex. Wellhausen’s Gesch. Israels, i. pp. 153-156. Riehm, Handwörterb. des bibl. Altertums, under word.
[984] Joma i. 2.
[985] Joma i. 2; Tamid vii. 8.
[986] Bell. Jud. v. 5. 7: ὁ δὲ ἀρχιερεὺς ἀνῄει μὲν σὺν αὐτοῖς, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἀεί, ταῖς δʼ ἑβδομάσι καὶ νουμηνίαις καὶ εἴ τις ἑορτὴ πάτριος ἢ πανήγυρις πάνδημος ἀγομένη διʼ ἔτους. It further appears that the high-priestly functions had been actually discharged by the Asmonaean princes. See Joseph. Antt. xiii. 10. 8 (John Hyrcanus), xiii. 13. 5 (Alexander Jannaeus).
[987] Joseph. Antt. iii. 10. 7. For a fuller treatment of the matter, see chap. iv. below.
[988] The Biblical and post-Biblical sources dwell with peculiar delight upon the splendour of this attire. See Exodus 28, 29; Sir_45:6-13; Sir_50:5 ff. Aristeas, ed. Mor. Schmidt, in Menx’ Archiv, i. 271. 21-272. 9 (in Havercamp’s Josephus, ii. 2. 113). Philo, Vita Mosis, iii. 11-14 (ed. Mang. ii. 151-155); De monarchia, ii. 5, 6 (ed. Mang. ii. 225-227). Joseph. Antt. iii. 7. 4-7, and Bell. Jud. v. 5. 7. Mishna, Joma vii. 5. Jerome’s Epist. ad Fabiolam, chap. x.-xviii. (ed. Vallarsi, i. 360-366). Among the literature given at the head of this section we would specially refer the reader to Job. Braun, Vestitus sacerdotum Hebraeorum, Amst. 1680. Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book iii. chap. iv.-viii. Bened. Day. Carpzov, De pontificum Hebraeorumvestitu sacro (in Ugolini’s Thes. vol. xii., ibid. in vols. xii. and xiii., and other monographs besides). Ugolini’s Thes. vol. xiii. pp. 163-434. Bäbr’s Symbolik des mos. Cult. ii. 61-165. Leyrer’s art. “Kleider, heilige bei den Hebräern,” in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. vii. 714-722, and the literature quoted there. Hanebcrg, Die relig. Alterthümer der Bibel, pp. 534-555. De Saulcy, Revue archéologique, new series, vol. xx. 1869, pp. 91-115. Likewise the literature of the subject of the high priest quoted in note 119. In the library of the University of Giessen there is a very learned work in manuscript by Martinus Mauritii, entitled De re vestiaria Hebraeorum, 1685 (Cod. Gissens. 593-595). During the Roman period a serious political dispute arose about the custody of the high priest’s dress, see Joseph. Antt. xv. 11. 4, xviii. 4. 3, xx. 1. 1, 2; further Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1872, pp. 627-630. At the conquest of Jerusalem this splendid attire fell into the hands of the Romans (Joseph. Bell. Jud. vi. 8. 8).
[989] Leviticus 16:4. Mishna, Joma iii. 7 (on the materials here referred to, comp. note 215, below). Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 5. 7: ταύτην μὲν οὖν τὴν ἐσθῆτα [οὐκ] ἐφόρει τὸν ἄλλον χρόνον, λιτοτέραν δʼ ἀνελάμβανεν ὁπότε [δὲ] εἰσίοι εἰς τὸ ἄδυτον. The words within brackets are here to be deleted. The high priest wore the linen dress (בגדי לבן) only when performing those parts of the service that had special reference to the great day of atonement. When performing the others however, he wore his more gorgeous dress (בגדי זהב) on the great day of atonement as well as on any other occasion. For further particulars on this point, see Joma iii. 4. 6, vii. 1. 3, 4; comp. besides, Joseph. Antt. 4. 3 (when the Romans had the dress in their custody they allowed the Jews to have the use of it τρισὶν ἑορταῖς ἑκάστου ἔτους καὶ κατὰ τὴν νηστείαν, i.e. on the great day of atonement).
2. Next to the high priest in point of rank came the סָגָן or סֶגֶן, Aramaic סְגַן, regarding whose functions the conceptions of the Rabbinical authorities are anything but. clear. They seem to think that he was simply the representative of the high priest, and that his chief function was to act as the substitute of this latter, should he happen to be disqualified for taking part in the worship in consequence of Levitical defilement; and this view has also continued to be the prevailing one among Christian scholars down to the present day.[990] But it is undoubtedly erroneous. Among all the passages in the Mishna in which the סגן is mentioned there is not one that throws any further light whatever upon his official position. All they can be said to tell us is that he stood next to the high priest in point of rank. When the high priest drew the lot, in the case of the two he-goats, on the great day of atonement, the סגן stood at his right hand, while the president of the division or course that happened to be serving (ראש בית אב) was at his left.[991] Again, when he had occasion to read a portion from the Scriptures, the president of the synagogue handed the roll to the סגן, who in turn passed it to the high priest.[992] Also when he happened to offer the daily sacrifice, the סגן was still found at his side.[993] From all this however we are not at liberty to infer that the segan (I prefer this Aramaic form because we are unable to say for certain what the Hebrew form of the singular was) was intended to act as the high priest’s substitute on those occasions on which he was prevented from officiating himself. Such an inference would be decidedly wrong. For what the Mishna says with regard to this matter of the substitute is rather to this effect: “Seven days before the great day of atonement it is customary to appoint some other priest (כהן אהר) to be ready to take the place of the high priest in the event of any accident happening to the latter calculated to interrupt the service.”[994] This would surely have been extremely superfluous if there had been a permanent official whose duty it was to act as the high priest’s representative or substitute. It appears to me that we need have no difficulty in arriving at a true and distinct conception as to what was the real position of the segan, if we will only take due note of the way in which the term סגנים is rendered in the Septuagint. For we find that there it is almost invariably represented by στρατηγοί.[995] Consequently, the סגן can have been no other than the στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ, the captain of the temple, whom we find frequently mentioned in the Greek sources, both in Josephus and the New Testament.[996] To this functionary was entrusted the chief superintendence of the arrangements for preserving order in and around the temple. And so when we consider the very important nature of this office, we can quite easily understand how the priest who had the honour to hold it should have been regarded as second only to the high priest himself.
[990] See in general, Buxtorf’s Lex. Chald. under word סגן. Selden, De successione in pontificatum Ebraeorum, ii. 1. Lightfoot, Ministerium templi, v. 1 (Opp. i. 687 f.). Sheringam on Joma iii. 9 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna, ii. 223). Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus, p. 98 f. Vitringa, Observationes sacrae (1723), lib. vi. cap. xxiii. pp. 517-531. Blossius, 1711, Overkampf, 1739 (both quoted by Meusel, Bibliotheca historica, i. 2.165). Quandt, De pontificis maximi suffraganeo (in Ugolini’s Thes. vol. xii. pp. 963-1028). Oehler’s art. “Hoherpriester,” in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vi. 204. Haneberg, Die relig. Alterth. der Bibel, p. 558 f. Levy, Chald. Wörtb. under word סגן. Idem, Neuhebr. Wörterb. under same word. On the סגנים in the Old Testament, consult Gesenius’ Thesaurus, under word.
[991] Joma iii. 9, iv. 1.
[992] Joma vii. 1; Sota vii. 7-8.
[993] Tamid vii. 3.
[994] Joma i. 1.
[995] So Jeremiah 51:23; Jeremiah 51:28; Jeremiah 51:57; Ezekiel 23:6; Ezekiel 23:12; Ezekiel 23:23; Ezra 9:2 (Vulgate omits it); Nehemiah 2:16; Nehemiah 4:8; Nehemiah 12:40; Nehemiah 13:11; Daniel 3:2; Daniel 3:27; Daniel 6:8. In a very few instances we have ἄρχοντες, Isaiah 41:25; Nehemiah 4:13; Nehemiah 5:7; Nehemiah 7:5; and, on one solitary occasion, σατράπαι, Daniel 2:48.
[996] Acts 4:1 : ὁ στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ. Similarly Acts 5:24; Acts 5:26. Josephus, Antt. xx. 6. 2: Ἀνανίαν τὸν ἀρχιερέα καὶ τὸν στρατηγὸν Ἄνανον. Bell. Jud. vi. 5. 3: οἱ τοῦ ἱεροῦ φύλακες ἤγγειλαν τῷ στρατηγῷ. Antt. xx. 9. 3: τὸν γραμματέα τοῦ στρατηγοῦντος Ἐλεαζάρου. Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 2: Ἐλεάζαρος υἱὸς Ἀνανίου τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, νεανίας θρασύτατος, στρατηγῶν τότε. It is quite possible that, in several of the last-mentioned passages, instead of its being the chief στρατηγός that was meant, it was rather one of the subordinate στρατηγοί who were also among the temple officials, as will be pointed out immediately.
Besides the segan or στρατηγός in the singular, we also meet with the plural form סגנים or στρατηγοί. When the festive processions of the country people went up to Jerusalem with the first-fruits, it was usual for the foremost among the priests to go out to meet them, namely the פַּחוֹת and סְגָנִים and גִּזְבָּרִים.[997] The two first of those categories, the פַּחוֹת and the סְגָנִים, correspond to the οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ στρατηγοί of Luke 22:4; Luke 22:52.[998] What we are to understand by the ἀρχιερεῖς has been already pointed out at p. 201 ff. above. But the סגנים or στρατηγοί are in any case, so far as the nature of their office is concerned, of the same order as the סגן or στρατηγός, only holding a somewhat lower rank, and therefore captains of the temple police as much as, though subordinate to, the chief στρατηγός.[999]
[997] Bikkurim iii. 3.
[998] The פַּחוֹת and סְגָנִים are also frequently conjoined in this way in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 51:23; Jeremiah 51:28; Jeremiah 51:57; Ezekiel 23:6; Ezekiel 23:12; Ezekiel 23:23). In such cases the Septuagint rendering is, as a rule, ἡγεμόνες (or ἡγούμενοι) καὶ στρατηγοί, in one instance (Jeremiah 51:57) it is ἄρχοντες καὶ στρατηγοί. Consequently in the passage quoted from the Mishna, viz. Bikkurim iii. 3, as above, in which it is priests that are in question, the פַּחוֹת can scarcely be other than the ἀρχιερεῖς, for the ἄρχοντες among the priests are simply the ἀρχιερεῖς. This is corroborated by the form of expression made use of by Luke.
[999]a Possibly the סגן הכהנים, R. Chananiah, so frequently mentioned in the Mishna, was a סגן of this sort. On this personage, see § 25. IV.
In the lists of the priests that are given in several passages in the Talmud those who rank next to the high priest and the segan are the presidents of the courses of service, those at the head of the twenty-four leading divisions (ראש המשמר) being mentioned first, and those at the head of the sub-divisions (ראש בית אב) coming next.[1000] The functions of those presidents had however no immediate reference to the worship, but to the priesthood as a corporate body, in which aspect we have already had occasion to speak of them at p. 220 f. The sacred functions, properly so called, which still fall to be mentioned here besides those of the high priest and the segan, are those that related partly to the administration of the possessions and stores belonging to the sanctuary, partly to the superintendence of the temple police, and partly to the religious services themselves. All that we know with respect to those three categories is substantially as follows.[1001]
[1000] See especially, Tosefta Horajoth, fin. (ed. Zuckermandel, p. 476); Jer. Herajoth 48b, in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xiii. p. 870.
[1001] Comp. Lightfoot, Ministerium templi, cap. v. and vii. Herzfeld’s Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael, i. 387-424. Haneberg, Die relig. Alterth. p. 555 ff. Graf in Merx’ Archiv, i. 226-232. Also in general the literature of the subject of the Levites as quoted in note 43 above.
I. A very important function was that of the administration of the vast amount of property belonging to the temple. The store-chambers of the sanctuary were filled with possessions of multifarious kinds piled in masses one upon another. First there were the utensils employed in the sacrificial worship, which of themselves represented a handsome sum, and consisting of a whole host of gold and silver basins, cups, pots and articles of a like kind used for such purposes as catching up and sprinkling the blood, for offering the frankincense and the meat-and drink-offerings, etc.[1002] Again there were large quantities of curtains, and priests’ garments, and of the materials required for making them.[1003] And there were, in particular, vast collections of natural products, viz.: flour and oil for the meat-offerings, wine for the drink-offerings, fragrant substances with which to make the frankincense, and in addition to these things, the offerings contributed for the benefit of the priests.[1004] But, above all, there were also thelarge sums of money that were deposited in the store-houses of the temple, and which were of such a colossal character that they not unfrequently tempted greedy foreign potentates to plunder them, and yet it would appear that they were always speedily replaced.[1005] Then, in the last place, there fall to be added to the heaps of money stored in the temple the various sums deposited there by private individuals; for it was quite common to lodge such deposits in the temple from a feeling that the sacredness of the place afforded the best possible guarantee for their security.[1006] All the money and the various articles of value were kept in separate repositories (γαζοφυλάκια) in the inner court of the temple, and not only did they require to be constantly watched, but in consequence of the receiving on the one hand and giving out on the other that were continually going on, it was necessary that they should be under careful administration.[1007]
[1002] See in general, Ezra 1:9-11; Ezra 8:26-27; 1Ma_1:21-23; Joseph. Antt. xiv. 4. 4; Bell. Jud. i. 7. 6, v. 13. 6, vi. 5. 2, vi. 8. 3; Joma iii. 10, iv. 4. According to Tamid iii. 4, ninety-three gold and silver utensils were required for the daily service; while, according to Chagiga iii. 8, three sets of each were kept. For a few particulars, see Exodus 25:29; Exodus 25:38; Exodus 27:3; Exodus 37:16; Exodus 37:23; Exodus 38:3; Numbers 4:7; Numbers 4:9; Numbers 4:14.
[1003] Bell. Jud. vi. 5. 2, vi. 8. 3.
[1004] Nehemiah 12:44; Nehemiah 13:5; Nehemiah 13:9; Nehemiah 13:12; 1 Chronicles 9:20; Bell. Jud. v. 13. 6, vi. 8. 3; Antt. xiv. 4. 4; Bell. Jud. i. 7. 6.
[1005] Attempt to plunder by Heliodorus (2 Maccabees 3); by Antiochus Epiphanes (1Ma_1:21-23). Pompey leaves the treasury intact (Antt. xiv. 4. 4; Bell. Jud. i. 7. 6); Crassus plunders it (Antt. xiv. 7. 1; Bell. Jud. i. 8. 8, carrying off 2000 talents); so also Sabinus, after the death of Herod (Antt. xvii. 10. 2, fin.; Bell. Jud. ii. 3. 3, fin.); Pilate (Antt. xviii. 3. 2; Bell. Jud. ii. 9. 4); Florus (Bell. Jud. ii. 14. 6). Comp. besides, on the ἱερὸς θησαυρός in general, Matthew 27:6; Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 5. 1; Antt. xx. 9. 7.
[1006] 2Ma_3:10-12; 2Ma_3:15. Joseph. Bell. Jud. vi. 5. 2. This was often done in the case of heathen temples as well. See in general, Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Hinterlage.” Grimm, Exeyet. Handb. zu den Apokryphen, note on 2Ma_3:10. Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, vol. iii. (1878) p. 210. Hermann and Blumner, Lehrb. der griechischen Privatalterthümer (1882), p. 456 f.
[1007] On the γαζοφυλάκια, see especially, Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 2, fin., vi. 5. 2; Antt. xix. 6. 1; Nehemiah 12:44; Nehemiah 13:5; Nehemiah 13:9; Nehemiah 13:12-13. By the γαζοφυλάκιον mentioned in the New Testament we are not to understand a treasure chamber but a treasury box (Mark 12:41; Mark 12:43; Luke 12:1; probably also John 8:20). According to Shekalim vi. 5, there were in the temple thirteen money chests made in the form of trumpets.
The treasurers, to whom the administration in question was entrusted, were called γαζοφύλακες in Greek[1008] and גִּזְבָּרִים in Hebrew.[1009] Nor were the functions of those officials confined merely to the money in the temple, but extended to the administration of all the possessions generally, that fell under any of the categories just mentioned. They had the custody of the sacred utensils,[1010] the veils, and the priests’ garments;[1011] they took charge of the flour for the meat-offerings and of the wine for the drink-offerings;[1012] it was their duty to take delivery of things consecrated (or things presented to the temple), or to return them again on the ransom being duly paid;[1013] and they also purchased wood[1014] and gathered in the half-shekel tax.[1015] Of course among the treasurers too there were once more gradations of rank. According to the statements of the Old Testament, it would seem as though the whole of those offices had been in the hands of the Levites,[1016] This may have been actually the case so far as the more subordinate duties were concerned, but there can be no doubt whatever that the more important ones were in the hands of the priests. The fact is there is mention in Josephus of a particular occasion on which the γαζοφύλαξ (perhaps the chief one of his class) is put immediately on a level with the high priest, from his being regarded as one of the most distinguished of the temple officials.[1017] We also find that elsewhere the גִּזְבָּרִים are reckoned among the higher functionaries of the temple.[1018] When the Mishna affirms that there must have been at least three גִּזְבָּרִים in the temple,[1019] it is certain that it can have had in view only the head treasurers and not the entire staff of officials that were required for the administration of the treasury.
[1008] Antt. xv. 11. 4, xviii. 4. 3 (the γαζοφύλακες had the custody of the high priest’s drees). Antt. xx. 8. 11: Ἰσμάηλον τὸν ἀρχιερέα καὶ Ἑλκίαν τὸν γαζοφύλακα (sent on an embassy to Rome). Bell. Jud. vi. 8. 3: ὁ γαζοφύλαξ τοῦ ἱεροῦ Φινέας (surrenders the priests’ garments to the Romans). Comp. also Antt. xiv. 7. 1: ὁ τῶν θησαυρῶν φύλαξ ἱερεύς, Ἐλεάζαρος ὄνομα … πεπιστευμένος τὴν τῶν καταπετασμάτων τοῦ ναοῦ φυλακήν (in the time of Crassus).
[1009] Pea i. 6, fin., ii. 8, fin., iv. 8; Challa iii, 3-4; Bikkurim iii, 3; Shekalim ii. 1, v. 2, 6; Menachoth viii. 2, 7; Meila iii. 8. The term occurs in the Old Testament likewise, Ezra 1:8; Ezra 7:21. Comp further, Levy, Chald. Wörterb. under word. Idem, Neuhebr. Wörterb. under word.
[1010] Shekalim v. 6; 1 Chronicles 9:28.
[1011] Joseph. Antt. xiv. 7. 1, xv. 11. 4; xviii. 4. 3; Bell. Jud. vi, 8. 3.
[1012] Menachoth viii. 2, 7.
[1013] Pea i. 6, fin., ii. 8, fin., iv. 8; Challa iii. 3-4.
[1014] Meila iii. 8.
[1015] Shekalim ii. 1.
[1016] 1 Chronicles 9:28-29; 1 Chronicles 26:20-28; 2 Chronicles 31:11-19. The predilection of the author of Chronicles for the Levites is well known. Yet in Nehemiah 13:13 it is a priest that is found at the head of the treasurers.
[1017] Antt. xx. 8. 11; see note 143, above.
[1018] Bikkurim iii. 3 (see p. 259, above); also in the lists of the various ranks of the priests given in Tosefta, Horajoth, fin. (see note 135), the גזברים take precedence of the ordinary priests, while these latter again rank higher than the Levites. In a certain Rabbinical lamentation over the degeneracy of the high priests, the גזברים are put immediately on a level with them precisely as in Josephus (“They are high priests and their sons are גזברין, and their sons-in-law אמרכלין.” Tosefta, Menachoth, fin.; Bab. Pesachim 57a. Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 232, note).
[1019] Shekalim v. 2.
It is probable that, under the category of treasury officials, we should also include the amarkelin (אמרכלין), who are mentioned once in the Mishna without any hint whatever being given as to the nature of their functions,[1020] the consequence being that the Rabbinical writers indulge merely in empty conjectures on the point, conjectures based, to some extent, upon trivial etymological conceits.[1021] The term itself is of Persian origin, and means a “member of the chamber of accounts, or an accountant.”[1022] Consequently in the Targum of Jonathan we find that in 2 Kings 12:10; 2 Kings 22:4, for example, the term אמרכליא is substituted for the Hebrew expression שֹׁמְרֵי הַסַּף, “keepers of the threshold,” by whom the priestly treasurers are meant. We have a term in every way identical with the one now in question in the Armenian expression hamarakar, which in like manner denotes an official having charge of the accounts (a chief treasurer).[1023] It is true no doubt that our term also occurs elsewhere in the Targums in the more comprehensive sense of chiefs or heads generally.[1024] But seeing that, as a rule, the priestly אמרכלין are mentioned along with the גזברין,[1025] we may venture to regard it as certain that they also belonged to the same category as the treasurers. It is possible that they were among the subordinate officials of this department;[1026] but perhaps the distinction between the gisbarim and the amarkelin was something like this, that while to the former was assigned the duty of receiving and taking charge of the various treasures, the latter, on the other hand, were entrusted with the task of distributing among the priests the gifts and offerings that were intended for them.[1027] Besides the two classes just mentioned, the Jerusalem Talmud mentions yet a third, viz. the קתוליקין (καθολικοί), of whom however the Mishna knows nothing whatever.[1028]
[1020] Shekalim v. 2.
[1021] In the Tosefta, Shekalim ii. 15 (ed. Zuckermandel, p. 177), it is affirmed that they kept the seven keys of the seven gates of the court (see also Grätz, Monatsschrift, 1876, p. 441). But this is a pure conjecture founded upon a statement in the Mishna to the effect that there must have been at least seven amarkelin. An attempt is made to explain the term etymologically by supposing it to be derived either from מר כל (lord of all), or אמר כל (he who speaks all, i.e. he who is entitled to order everything). See in general, Levy’s Chald. Wörterb. s.v. Idem, Neuhebr. Wörterb. s.v. אמרכל and מרכל.
[1022] Perles, Etymologische Studien (1871), p. 106. Comp. Nöldeke, Göttinger gel. Anzeigen (1871), 149. Idem, Literar. Centralbl. 1875, p. 876.
[1023] Prud’homme (Journal Asiatique, 16th series, vol. vii. 1866, p. 115) renders it by comptable ou caissier chef. Comp. also Levy in Geiger’s Jüd. Zeitschrift, v. 1867, p. 214 f. Lagarde, Armenische Studien (Abhandlungen der Gottinger Gesellsch. der Wissench. vol. xxii. 1877), No. 1216.
[1024] Buxtorf, Lex. Chald., and Levy, Chald. Wörterb. under word.
[1025] Besides Shekalim v. 2, so also in the list of the ranks of the priests, Tosefta Horajoth, fin., and in the lamentation of Tosefta Menachoth, fin. (see note 153, above).
[1026] It is true that, in the list of the grades of the priests Tosefta Horajoth, fin., the אמרכלין rank higher than the גזברין. But this can hardly be correct. See, on the other hand, Shekalim v. 2; Tosefta Menachoth, fin. In Bikkurim iii. 3, the גזברין are included among the prominent members of the priesthood, while the אמרכלין again are not mentioned at all.
[1027] In Chronicles (2 Chronicles 31:11-19) those officials whose duty it was to receive the gifts for the priests are plainly distinguished from those who were called upon to distribute them. And now we find it stated in the Mishna, Shekalim v. 2, that “it is usual to appoint not fewer than three gisbarim, and not fewer than seven amarkelim.” If with this we compare what is said about the gathering in and distributing of the money for the poor (Pea viii. 7: “Two take charge of the collecting and three of the distributing of it”), it is not unnatural to suppose that the gisborim and the amarkelim would stand to each other precisely in the same relation as that in which the collectors of the money for the poor stood to the distributors of it.
[1028] Jer. Shekalim v. fol. 49a.
II. For the duties connected with the police department, for which a very large staff of officials was required, it was mostly Levites that were employed. In early times indeed, and down even to the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, the “gate-keepers” (שֹׁעֲרִים) did not belong as yet to the order of the Levites, but were of a somewhat lower rank; it was the author of the Chronicles who was the first to include these officials also among the number of the Levites (see p. 224, above). In the inner court the duty of keeping watch and ward was discharged by the priests themselves. The author of the Chronicles, and subsequently Philo and the Mishna, have furnished us with several details regarding the organization of the department now in question.[1029] We learn from the first-mentioned authority that there were twenty-four wards in all, under four chiefs or captains, and that they were posted on the east, west, north and south sides of the temple (1 Chronicles 26:12-18, also 9:17, 24-27). The statements of this writer are to be understood as applying to the temple of Zerubbabel. But the area of the temple esplanade, or the so-called outer court, was afterwards very much enlarged, especially by Herod, so that it now formed a large quadrangle, its longer side being that which extended from north to south. Within this large square again there was an oblong quadrangular space enclosed by strong walls, the longer side, in this instance, running from west to east; this was the so-called inner court, or “the court” in the strict sense of the word. This court was approached by a flight of steps, and at the foot of this stair was a railing within which no Gentile was allowed to pass. Any Gentile who ventured to pass this boundary and set foot within the inner court was punished with death; and the Roman authorities respected the scruples of the Jews in regard to this matter to such an extent that they sanctioned the execution of this sentence even in those cases in which Roman citizens had been the offenders.[1030] To this railing notices were attached at certain distances from each other, with the prohibition and the penalty for infringing it inscribed upon them in Greek and Latin.[1031] According to Philo, there were keepers in his day not only at the entrances to the inner court, but likewise at the gates of the outer one as well, one of their principal duties being to see that the prohibition in question was rigidly complied with. In addition to these there were watchmen patrolling all round by night and by day to make sure that nothing of an unseemly character was going on anywhere.[1032] According to the Mishna, there were twenty-one points at which the Levites kept watch (at night), and three at which the priests did so. The Levitical keepers were stationed partly at the gates and the corners of the outer court (inside of it), and partly at the gates and corners of the inner court (outside of it), while the priestly guards again had charge of the inner court.[1033] It was usual for a captain of the temple to go round at night to see that the guards were not sleeping at their posts.[1034] This captain was known under the designation of אִישׁ הַר הַבַּיִת. Besides this official, there is also occasional mention of an אִישׁ הַבִּירָה.[1035] Now, seeing that the Mishna knows of no other designation for the whole space around the temple—even in cases where it is to be distinguished from the inner court—but the expression הַר הַבַּיִת,[1036] we are accordingly to understand by the איש הר הבית, a captain who had charge of the outer court, and by the איש הבירה, on the other hand, the one who had the surveillance of the temple itself. For the בִּירָה cannot possibly have been intended to refer to Fort Antonia, seeing that this latter was under the charge of a Roman φρούραρχος,[1037] but only to the temple itself.[1038] The two kinds of officials now mentioned would therefore be identical with the סגנים or στρατηγοί to whom we have already had occasion to refer.
[1029] See in general, Opitii Commentarius de custodia templi nocturna (Ugolini’s Thes. vol. ix. pp. 979-1076). Winer’s Realuörterb. ii. 590 f. Kneucker’s art. “Tempelpolizei,” in Schenkel’s Bibellex. vol. v. p. 484 ff.
[1030] See in general, Joseph. Antt. xv. 11. 5; Bell. Jud. v. 5. 2, vi. 2. 4; Apion. ii. 8. Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 31 (ed. Mang. ii. 577). Mishna, Middoth ii. 3; Kelim i. 8. It was in consequence of an alleged violation of this prohibition on the part of the Apostle Paul, by taking Trophimus into the inner court, that the popular tumult arose that led to the apostle’s being arrested (Acts 21:28). For the judicial proceedings in such cases, comp. further p. 188, above.
[1031] One of those inscriptions was discovered and published in the year 1871 by Clermont-Ganneau. For an account of it, see Clermont-Ganneau, Revue archéologique, new series, vol. xxiii. 1872, pp. 214-234, 290-296, pl. x. Derenbourg, Journal asiatique, 6th series, vol. xx. 1872, pp. 178-195. Piper, Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1876, p. 51 f. The inscription runs thus:—
[1032] Philo, De praemiis sacerdotum, sec. vi. (ed. Mang. ii. 236): Τούτων οἱ μὲν ἐπὶ θύραις ἵδρυνται παρʼ αὐταῖς ταῖς εἰσόδοις πυλωροί· οἱ δὲ εἴσω κατὰ τὸ πρόναον ὑπὲρ τοῦ μή τινα ὧν οὐ θέμις ἑκόντα ἢ ἄκοντα ἐπιβῆναι· οἱ δὲ ἐν κύκλῳπερινοστοῦσιν, ἐν μέρει διακληρωσάμενοι νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν, ἡμεροφύλακες καὶ νυκτοφύλακες.
[1033] Middoth i. 1; Tamid i. 1.
[1034] Middoth i. 2.
[1035] Orla ii. 12.
[1036] For example, Bikkurim iii. 4; Pesachim v. 5-10; Shekalim vii. 2-3. Sanhedrin xi. 2.
[1037] Joseph. Antt. xv. 11. 4, xviii. 4. 3.
[1038] So also 1 Chronicles 29:1; 1 Chronicles 29:19. Pesachim iii. 8, vii. 8; Sebachim xii. 5; Tamid i. 1; Middoth i. 9; Para iii. 1.
ΜΗΘΕΝΑ ΑΛΛΟΓΕΝΗ ΕΙΣΠΟ
ΡΕΥΕΣΘΑΙ ΕΝΤΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΕ
ΡΙ ΤΟ ΙΕΡΟΝ ΤΡΥΦΑΚΤΟΥ ΚΑΙ
ΠΕΡΙΒΟΛΡΥ ΟΣ Δ ΑΝ ΛΗ
ΦΘΗ ΕΑΥΤΩΙ ΑΙΤΙΟΣ ΕΣ
ΤΑΙ ΔΙΑ ΤΟ ΕΞΑΚΟΛΟΥ
ΘΕΙΝ ΘΑΝΑΤΟΝ.
It was also part of the watchmen’s duty to open and close the whole of the gates of the courts, all of which were shut during the night; and accordingly there was also an officer appointed whose special duty it was to superintend “the shutting of the gates.”[1039] According to Josephus, the services of two hundred men were required every time the gates were shut,[1040] and the heavy brazen gate in the east of the court took twenty men itself.[1041] Then as for the gate of the temple, we are told that when it was opened, so loud was the creaking, that it could be heard as far away as Jericho.[1042] The keys of the gates of the court were kept by the elders of the particular division of priests whose turn it was to be on watch duty within the court for the time being.[1043] When the divisions were changed, the one that retired handed them over to the one that came in to take its place.[1044] The morning sacrifice, as we know, required to be offered at daybreak, and that being the case the gates would of course have to be open some little time before; while at the Passover season they were open even so early as midnight.[1045]
[1039] Shekalim v. 1.
[1040] Contra Apion. ii. 9.
[1041] Bell. Jud. vi. 5. 3.
[1042] Tamid iii. 8.
[1043] Middoth i. 8-9; Tamid i. 1.
[1044] Contra Apion. ii. 8.
[1045] Antt. xviii. 2. 2. Also, in the time of Pentecost, the priests who were to officiate entered the court as early as during the night. Bell. Jud. vi. 5. 3. Comp. further, Joma i. 8.
III. It is true the acts of worship properly so called, i.e. the offering of the sacrifices with all the accompanying ceremonial, devolved as a whole upon the entire priesthood, who were divided into twenty-four courses, each of which conducted the worship by turns, and that for a week at a time (on this see next paragraph). Yet even here special stated officials were also necessary for certain particular functions. We get some idea of the multifarious nature of those functions from a passage in the Mishua in which are enumerated, though in a very confused and unsystematic order, the names of those persons who at a particular period (evidently in the closing years of the temple’s existence) happened to fill the most important offices in connection with the worship of the sanctuary.[1046] From that passage it will be seen that there was, for example, a special official “over the lots” (No. 3), on whom devolved the duty of superintending the daily casting of the lots for determining the particular parts of the service that were to be apportioned to the various officiating priests.[1047] Then there was another functionary who was “over the seals” (No. 1), and another again “over the drink-offerings” (No. 2). For, with a view to simplifying matters, an arrangement had been adopted according to which “seals” or tokens were issued corresponding to the various kinds of drink-offerings, on presenting which people could get the particular drink-offering indicated upon them. The mode of proceeding was first of all to purchase a token from the official who was “over the seals,” then to hand this to the one who was “over the drink-offerings,” who in return would give to the person tendering it the amount of drink-offering requisite for the particular occasion for which it was wanted.[1048] There was a similar arrangement for the convenience of those who wished to be promptly supplied with birds for sacrificial purposes. All that was necessary was to drop the money into a box, whereupon it became the duty of the official who was “over the winged sacrifices” (No. 4) duly to purchase with it, as speedily as possible, the requisite offerings.[1049] Many of the offerings were of such a nature that they required a certain amount of skill to prepare them properly, a skill which belonged by inheritance to particular families. Accordingly the family of Garmu (No. 12) had charge of the preparing of the shewbread, that of Abtinas (No. 13) had the preparing of the frankincense.[1050] Then again the chief charge of the psalmody was entrusted to an official specially appointed for the purpose (No. 11).[1051] There was another whose duty it was to sound a cymbal (צלצל) by way of letting the Levites know when to commence the music (No. 10).[1052] There were besides a temple physician (No. 5), a master of the wells (No. 6), a herald (No. 7), whose voice was so powerful that it could be heard as far away as Jericho.[1053] Then further, as the veils in the temple required to be frequently renewed,[1054] there was an official appointed to see to the making of them, and to take charge of the store in which they were kept (No. 14). And lastly, there was an official whose special duty it was to take charge of the priests’ garments (No. 15).[1055]
[1046] Shekalim v. 1: “The following are the officials who held appointments in the sanctuary: (1) Jochanan the son of Pinchas had charge of the seals; (2) Achiah of the drink-offerings; (3) Matthiah the son of Samuel of the lots; (4) Petachiah of the money for the purchase of birds for sacrifice; (5) Ben Achiah of the healing of the priests suffering from abdominal disorders; (6) Nechoniah was master of the wells; (7) Gebini a herald; (8) Ben Gabar a chief door-shutter; (9) Ben Bebai had charge of the scourging (? פקיע, the meaning of which is uncertain); (10) Ben Arsa kept the warning cymbal; (11) Hygros, son of Levi, was conductor of the psalmody; (12) the family of Garmu had the charge of the preparing of the shewbread; (13) the family of Abtinas that of the preparation of the frankincense; (14) Eleasar had the renewing (or the custody?) of the veils; (15) Pinches that of the garments.” As elucidating the whole passage, comp. the Rabbinical commentaries in Surenhusius’ Mishna, ii. p. 192; and especially, Herzfeld’s Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, i. p. 405 ff.; also Jost, Gesch. des Judenthums, i. p. 151 f.
[1047] On the casting of the lots here in question, see Joma ii. 2-4; Tamid i. 2, iii. 1, v. 2. The Matthiah, a son of Samuel, who is mentioned as having had charge of the lots, is also mentioned in Joma iii. 1, Tamid iii. 2, where he is introduced as vouching for the existence of certain practices in the temple.
[1048] Shekalim v. 3-5.
[1049] The money was dropped into one of the thirteen trumpet-shaped boxes that stood in the temple; see note 142, above.
[1050] In Joma iii. 11, both families are censured for having allowed strangers to meddle with their art. There was a chamber in the inner court that was named בית אבטינס after the family of Abtinas (Joma i. 5; Tamid i. 1; Middoth i. 1). In addition, comp. in general, 1 Chronicles 9:30-32; 1 Chronicles 23:29.
[1051] On this official, comp. further, Joma iii. 11.
[1052] Comp. Tamid vii. 3.
[1053] Tamid iii. 8.
[1054] Shekalim viii. 5.
[1055] For the priests’ official garments were kept in the court (Ezekiel 42:14). The master of the wardrobe, Pinchas, is likewise mentioned in Middoth i. 4; Joseph. Bell. Jud. vi. 8. 3. Whether his duty was simply to take charge of the garments, or whether he had also, when necessary, to provide new ones, is not quite clear.
A very numerous class of functionaries connected with the worship of the sanctuary was that of the sacred musicians, whose duty it was to accompany the offering of the “daily burnt-offering” and the other solemn services with singing and playing upon stringed instruments,[1056] and who were called in Hebrew מְשֹׁרִרִים (frequently so in Ezra and Nehemiah), and in Greek, ψαλτῳδοί, ἱεροψάλται, ὑμνῳδοί, κιθαρισταί τε καὶ ὑμνῳδοί.[1057] They formed a separate and exclusive order, to which none were admitted but those descended from a particular family, and down even to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah they were distinguished from the Levites, although at a subsequent period they were included amongst them (see above, p. 225 f.).[1058] They were divided into three families, those of Heman, Asaph and Ethan or Jeduthun (1 Chronicles 6:16-32; 1 Chronicles 15:16-19; 1 Chronicles 15:25 the entire chapter; 2 Chronicles 5:12),[1059] and the whole were sub-divided again into twenty-four courses of service (1 Chronicles 25). The principal part of their duty was to sing, playing on an instrument being regarded merely in the light of an accompaniment to the singing. The musical instruments made use of for this purpose were chiefly the three following:[1060]—(1) The cymbal (מְצִלְתַּיִם, κύμβαλα), an instrument played by striking the one plate upon the other, and resembling the warning cymbal (צלצל), with which the signal was given for commencing the singing.[1061] As the dual form already serves to indicate, this instrument consisted of two large shallow plates made of brass,[1062] which, when struck the one upon the other, emitted a loud sound. Of a somewhat more musical and harmonious character were (2) the נֵבֶל, νάβλα, Luther: “psalter,” and (3) the כִּנּוֹר, κινύρα, Luther: “Harfe.” Both were stringed instruments, the νάβλα, according to Josephus, having twelve and the κινύρα ten strings.[1063] The νάβλα was played with the hand, whereas, according to the same authority just referred to, the κινύρα was played with the plectrum (in the earlier Biblical times the כִּנּוֹר was also played with the hand).[1064] A good deal has no doubt been written in which the nature of those instruments is fully discussed, but still no certain result has been arrived at. According to the Mishna, the number of נְבָלִים employed in the temple choir was never fewer than two and never more than six, whereas with regard to the כִּנּוֹרוֹת, there required to be nine of them at the very least, and their number might be multiplied ad libitum.[1065] From all this one might venture to infer that the כִּנּוֹר was the chief, the leading instrument, while the נֵבֶל was rather intended to serve as an accompaniment to it. Besides the three instruments just referred to, reed pipes, חֲלִילִים, were also introduced into the choir on the occasion of the high festivals that occurred in the course of the year (Passover, Pentecost and the feast of Tabernacles).[1066]
[1056] On these officials and the temple music generally, compare, in addition to the literature quoted in notes 43 and 136, Gesenius, Thesaurus, pp. 698, 844, 1167. Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Musik” and “Musikalische Instrumente.” Leyrer’s art. “Musik bei den Hebräern,” in Herzog’s Real-Encycl. (1st ed. vol. x. pp. 123-135; 2nd ed. vol. x. pp. 387-398). Wetzstein in Delitzsch’s Commentar zu Jesaja, 2nd ed. pp. 702-704. Riehm’s Handwörterb. des bibl. Altertums, pp. 1028-1045 (with numerous illustrations). Grätz, Die Tempelpsalmen (Monatsschr. 1878, pp. 217-222). Idem, Die musikalischen Instrumente im jerusalemischen Tempel und der musikalische Chor der Leviten (Monatsschr. 1881, pp. 241-259). Lagarde, Erklärung hebräischer Wörter (Abhandlungen der Göttinger Gesellsch. der Wissensch. vol. xxvi. 1880), pp. 13-27. Stainer, The Music of the Bible, London (without a date, 1879?); with 100 illustrations.
[1057] ψαλτῳδοί or, according to another reading, ψαλμῳδοί, Sir_47:9; Sir_50:18. ἱεροψάλται, Joseph. Antt. xii. 3. 3, fin.; ὑμνῳδοί, Antt. xx. 9. 6; κιθαρισταί τε καὶ ὑμνῳδοί, Bell. Jud. ii. 15. 4. From this latter passage we must beware of inferring that the players on the instruments and the singers represent separate categories. For the truth is, both alike come μετὰ τῶν ὀργάνων. “Those who play on the stringed instrument and sing,” are consequently the same persons. Comp. 1 Chronicles 15:16, המשררים בכלי שיר, also 1 Chronicles 23:5.
[1058] In the Mishna too, the musicians are uniformly described as “Levites” (לוים), Bikkurim iii. 4; Sukka v. 4; Rosh hashana iv. 4; Arachin ii. 6; Tamid vii. 3-4.
[1059] On the ingenious way in which those families of the musicians are traced back to Levi, see Graf in Merx’ Archiv, i. p. 231 f. Only one of those families is mentioned among the exiles that returned with Zerubbabel, viz. that of Asaph, Ezra 2:41; Nehemiah 7:44.
[1060] See Nehemiah 12:27; 1 Chronicles 13:8; 1 Chronicles 15:16-22; 1 Chronicles 15:28; 1 Chronicles 16:5; 2 Chronicles 5:12; 2 Chronicles 29:25; 1Ma_4:54; 1Ma_13:51. Joseph. Antt. vii. 12. 3. Sukka v. 4; Arachin ii. 3-6; Middoth ii. 6.
[1061] Comp. p. 221, above. In the leading passage on the musical instruments, viz. Arachin ii. 3-6, מצלתים are not mentioned at all, but merely the צלצל. Consequently one is tempted to assume that both are identically the same. But still the different terms undoubtedly denote different instruments.
[1062] 1 Chronicles 15:19. Joseph. Antt. vii. 12. 3.
[1063] Antt. vii. 12. 3.
[1064] 1 Samuel 16:23; 1 Samuel 18:10; 1 Samuel 19:9.
[1065] Arachin ii. 3. 5.
[1066] On the use of those last-mentioned instruments, see in particular, Arachin ii. 3-4.
But in addition to this, trumpets (חֲצוֹצְרוֹת) were in regular use, and while the playing upon the instruments hitherto mentioned was left entirely to the Levites (the traditions hesitating somewhat only with regard to the reed-pipes), the blowing with trumpets, on the other hand, was performed by priests. This latter was also an accompaniment above all of the offering of the daily burnt-offering, and of other parts of the service as well.[1067] The dawn of the Sabbath was likewise announced by some of the priests blowing trumpets from the roof of the temple.[1068]
[1067] See in general, Numbers 10:1-10; Ezra 3:10; Nehemiah 12:35; 1 Chronicles 15:24; 1 Chronicles 16:6; 2 Chronicles 5:12; 2 Chronicles 7:6; 2 Chronicles 29:26-28; Sir_50:16. Joseph. Antt. iii. 12. 6. Sukka v. 4-5; Rosh hashana iii. 3-4; Tamid vii. 3. Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book iii. chap. xlvii.
[1068] Joseph. Bell. Jud. iv. 9. 12. Sukka v. 5.
The services of a more menial kind were performed, in the time of Zerubbabel, Ezra and Nehemiah, by temple slaves (נְתִינִים).[1069] It is true that נְתִינִים still continue to be mentioned in the literature of a later period,[1070] but it is no longer possible to make out with certainty what the nature of their duties now was. Instead of them we now meet with what are called “servants” (חַזָּנִים);[1071] nay we find that, in Philo, the cleaning and sweeping of the temple are mentioned along with the duty of watching as being all of them performed by the νεωκόροι, i.e. the Levites.[1072] There were also a good many functions that were left to be performed by boys belonging to the families of the priests (פִּרְחֵי כְהֻנָּה).[1073]
[1069] Ezra 2:43; Ezra 2:58; Ezra 2:70; Ezra 7:7; Ezra 8:17; Ezra 8:20; Nehemiah 3:26; Nehemiah 3:31; Nehemiah 7:46; Nehemiah 7:60; Nehemiah 7:73; Nehemiah 10:29; Nehemiah 11:3; Nehemiah 11:21; 1 Chronicles 9:2. Comp. Pfeffinger, De Nethinaeis (in Ugolini’s Thes. vol. xiii.). Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Nethinim.” Oehler, art. “Nethinim,” in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. x. 296 f.
[1070] For example, Jebamoth ii. 4; Kiddushin iv. 1; Makkoth iii. 1; Horajoth iii. 8.
[1071] Sukka iv. 4; Tamid v. 3. Comp. further, Sota vii. 7-8; Joma vii. 1.
[1072] Philo, De praemiis sacerdotum, sec. vi. (ed. Mangey, ii. p. 236): Ἕτεροι δὲ τὰς στοὰς καὶ τὰ ἐν ὑπαίθρῳ κοροῦντες τὸν φορυτὸν ἐκκομίζουσιν, ἐπιμελόμενοι καθαρότητος.
[1073] Joma i. 7; Sukka v. 2; Sanhedrin ix. 6; Tamid i. 1; Middoth i. 8, iii. 8.