Part 37
PRIESTS AND LEVITES (p3 , itoTien, "priest"; nothing is definitely known as to the origin of the word; ^Ji , lewl, "Levite," on which see Levi):
I. Different Views of the History 1. The Old View 2. The Grat-Wellhausen View
.3. Mediating Views 4. An Alternative View II. The Data of P in the Pentateuch
1. The Levites 2. Aaron and His Sons III. The Other Portions op the Pentateuch IV. From Moses to Malachi 1. The Sources Other than Ezekiel (1) The Custody of the Ark (2) On Its Return from the Philistines (3) In Abinadab's House 2. Ezekiel V. Ezra, Nehemiah. Chronicles 1. Estimates of the Chronicler 2. His Data VI. Legal Provisions Literature
2447 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Priesthood in NT Priests, Levites
In some Minaean inscriptions found at El-"01&, dating bacli; about 1200-800 BC (Hommel in Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands, 719), certain priests and priestesses of tlie god Wadd are designated by the term lawt, fern. lawVal" (op. cit., 749) . It is not known whetlier this is due to Israelitish influence.
appears from the priestly version of the story of Korah's company. For all Judaism subsequent to Ezra, and so for Christian tradition, the PC in this matter also has been authoritative. Instead of the Deuteronomic formula 'the priests the Levites,' we henceforward have 'the priests and the Levites,' particularly in Ch" (op. cit., 147). From that time onward the priests and Levites are two sharply distinguished classes. It is an essential part of this theory that the Chronicler meant his work to be taken as Uteral history, correctly representing the true meaning of the completed law. See Criticism. There have been various attempts to construct
/. Different Views of the History.—There are great divergences of opinion among modern writers
as to the true course of history and the
1. The Old dating of the different documents. It View will therefore be best to slcetoh these views in rough outline, and then give the evidence of the various autliorities, together with the reasons that in each case arise naturally from the consideration of that evidence.
less thoroughgoing theories on the same data. As a rule these views accept in some form
3. Medithe documentary theory of the Pent ating Views and seek to modify the Wellhausen theory in two directions, either by attributing earlier dates to one or more of the Pentateuchal documents—esp. to the PC—or else by assigning more weight to some of the statements
The old belief was that the whole of the Pentateuchal laws were the worlc of Moses, that the account of the subsequent history given in the Books
of Ch was correct, that Ezekiel's vision, if taken
literally, could not be reconciled with the other known facts and was inexplicable, and that in the case of all other discrepancies harmonistic explanations should be adopted.
of Ch (interpreted Uterally) . Sometimes both these tendencies are combined. None of these views has met with any great measure of success in the attempt to make headway against the dominant Wellhausen theory, and it will be seen later that all alike make shipwreck on certain portions of the evidence.
The modern critical school have traversed every one of these doctrines. The Chronicler is declared to be in constant and irreconcilable
The independent investigations on which the present article is based have led the writer to a view
2. The conflict with the older authorities, Graf-Wellharmonistic explanations are uniformly hausen rejected, the Pent is denied to Moses View and split up into a variety of sources of different ages, and Ezk gains a place
that diverges in important particulars
4. An from any of these, and it is necessary Alternative to state it briefly before proceeding to View the evidence. In one respect it differs from all the rival schemes, not merely in result, but also in method, for it takes account
of honor as representing a stage in a continuous and normal development. The subject is thus inex-
tricably linked with the Pentateuchal problem, and reference must be made to the art. Pentateuch
of versional evidence as to the state of the texts. Subject to this it accepts the Mosaic authenticity
for an explanation of the supposed documents and a consideration of the analysis with its nomen-
of all the Pentateuchal legislation and the clear and consentient testimony of the Law and the Prophets
clature. On the other hand the present article and the art. Sanctuary (q.v.) explain and discuss the most widely held theory of the historical development into which the history of the supposed Pentateuchal sources has been fitted.
(i.e. of the two earUer and more authoritative por-
tions of the Heb Canon), while regarding Ch as representing a later interpretation, not merely of the history, but also of the legal provisions. In
outline the story of the priesthood is then as follows: Moses consecrated Aaron and his sons as the priests
The dominant theory is that of Wellhausen. According to this, "Levite" was originally a term denoting professional skill, and the early Levites were not members of the tribe of Levi, but pro-
of the desert tabernacle. He purified the rest of the tribe of Levi as a body of sacred porters for the period of wanderings, but in the legislation of Nu he made no provision whatever for their performing any duties after the sanctuary obtained a permanent
fessional priests. Anybody could sacrifice. "For a simple altar no priest was required, but only for
a house which contained a sacred image; this demanded watching and attendance" (Wellhausen,
location. At the same time he gave a body of
Prolegomena, 130). The whole Levitical Law was unknown and the distinction between priests and
priestly teaching requiring for its administration in
settled conditions a numerous and scattered body
of priests, such as the house of Aaron alone could not have provided immediately after the entry into Canaan. To meet this, Dt—the last legislative work of Moses—contains provisions enlarging the
Levites unheard of. There were a few great sanc-
tuaries and one influential priesthood, that of
Shiloh (afterward at Nob). With the monarchy
the priesthood became more important. The royal
rights and duties of the Levites and conferring on them a priestly position. The earlier distinction was thus largely obUterated, though the high-
priests at Jerus grew in consequence and influence
until they overshadowed all the others. Dt recog-
nized the equal priestly right of all Levites, and
priestly dignity remained in the house of Aaron
Josiah's reformation placed the sons of Zadok, who
till the time of Solomon, when it was transferred from the house of Eli to that of Zadok, who, according to Ezekiel's testimony, was a Levite (but see below, IV, 1). So matters remained till the exile, when Ezekiel put forward a scheme which together with many ideal elements proposed reforms to insure the better appUcation of the Mosaic principle
were the priests of Jerus and not descendants of
Aaron, in a position of decisive superiority. Then Ezk drew a new and previously unknown distinc-
tion between "the priests the Levites, the sons of
Zadok" who are "keepers of the charge of the
altar " and the other Levites who were made 'keep-
ers of the charge of the house" as a punishment for
of the distinction between holy and profane to greatly altered circumstances. Taking his in-
having ministered in the high places. I he P(^
takes up this distinction and represents it as being
spiration from the wilderness legislation, he instituted a fresh division in the tribe of Levi, giving to the sons of Zadok a position similar to that once held by the sons of Aaron, and degrading all other Levites from the priesthood conferred on them by Dt to a lower rank. The duties now assigned to
of Mosaic origin, making of the sons of Zadok sons
of Aaron " "In this way arose as an illegal con-
sequence of Josiah's reformation, the distinction
between priests and Levites. With Ezk this dis-
tinction is still an innovation requiring justifacation
and sanction; with the PC it is a 'statute forever,
this class of "keepers of the charge of the house"
although even yet not absolutely undisputed, as
Priests, Levites THE INTERNATIONxlL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2448
in 8 26 from "doing service." The exact meaning cannot be determined. It appears to denote something kindred to service, but of a less exacting nature, perhaps the camping round the tent and the guardianship of the articles on the march. We shall see hereafter by comparison with other books that in P it does not bear the same meaning as elsewhere.
were never even contemplated by Moses, but Ezekiel applies to them the old phrases of the Pent which he invests with a new significance. As a result of his influence, the distinction between priests and Levites makes its appearance in postexilic times, though it had been unknown to all the writers of the second division of the Heb Canon. At the same time a meaning w^as read into the provisions of the Law which their original author could not have contemplated, and it was this interpretation which is presented (at any rate to some extent) in Ch, and has given us the current tradition. Many of the Chronicler's statements are, however, not meant to be taken literally, and could not have been so taken by his original public.
(2) Other legal provisions.—The Levites were to act under the orders of Aaron and his sons, who were to assign to each man his individual functions
(Nu 3,4, etc). They were to undergo a special
rite of purification (Nu 8), but not of consecration. They were taken in place of the firstborn (Nu 3). The age for beginning service is given in ch 4 as 30 years, but in 8 24 as 25, if the text be sound. The age for ceasing to serve was 50. In many passages the VSS suggest that a good many phrases are textu-
//. The Data of P in the Pentateuch.—To arrive at an objective conclusion it is necessary, in the first instance, to examine the facts
ally doubtful, and it is probable that when a criti-
1. The without such bias aa any view put Levites forward by any other author, ancient or modern, sacred or profane, might impart. Every legislator is entitled to be judged on his own language, and where he has, so to speak, made his own dictionary, we are compelled to read his meaning into the terms used. The very first of the material references to the Levites drives this truth home. "But appoint thou the Levites over the tabernacle of the testimony, and over all the furniture thereof" (Nu 1 50). It is necessary to consider whether such expressions are to be read in a wide or a narrow sense. We learn from 18 3 that death would be the result of a Levite's touching any of these vessels, and it therefore appears that these words are meant to be construed narrowly. "They shall bear the tabernacle, and all the furniture thereof; and they shall minister unto it," are the next words (1 60) ; but yet we read later of the Kohathites who were to bear it that "they shall not touch the sanctuary, lest they die" (4 15).^ This shows that the service in question is strictly limited to a service of porterage after the articles have been wrapped up by_ Aaron and his sons. By no possibility could it include such a task as cleaning the vessels. It is then further directed that the Levites are to take down and set up the dwelling and camp round about
cal text of the Pent is formed on scientific principles, a good many superfluous expressions will be found not to be original; but there is no reason to suppose that any real difi'erence in the meaning of the passages would be revealed by such a text.
The story of Korah is easily misunderstood. It appears from Nu 16 3 that his real object was to put himself on an equality with Moses and Aaron, and this is the "priesthood" referred to in ver 10. Nu 18 reinforces the earlier passages. It is noteworthy as showing that in the conception of the legislator the Levites were not to come near the vessels or the altar (ver 3). The penalty is death for both Levites and priests.
(3) Contrast with Ezk and Ch.—The impression as to the meaning of P which may be gathered from an examination of its statements is powerfully reinforced when they are tested by reference to Ezk and Ch. Ezk 44 9-14 seems to demand of the Levites some service as gatekeepers, the slaying of burnt offering and sacrifice for the people and a keeping of "the charge of the house, for all the service thereof," which in the light of vs 7 f appears to mean in his terminology, not a service of transport, but an entry into the house and the performance of certain duties there. P, on the contrary, knows nothing of gatekeepers, regards the slaying of the burnt offering and sacrifice as the duty of the individual sacrificant (Lev 1, 3), and—if, as Wellhausen thinks, it refers to the temple—it would have visited with death a Levite who was present in the places in which Ezk requires him to minister. Similarly with the Chronicler. For instance, he speaks of the Levites being 'for the service of the house .... in the courts and over the chambers, and over the cleansing of every holy thing' (1 Ch 23 28), but P knows nothing of any chambers, would not have allowed the Levites to touch (much less clean) many of the holy things, and regarded service simply as porterage. In 1 Ch 23 31 the Levites are to offer burnt offerings on certain occasions; in P their approach to the altar would have meant death both to themselves and the priests (Nu 18 3). Other instances wiU be found in PS, 238 f.
it. All these are desert services and desert services only. Then we read that "the Levites shall keep the charge of the tabernacle [dwelhng] of the testimony." This concludes the first material passage (Nu 1 50-.5.3). The other passages of Nu only amplify these directions; they never change them. But some phrases are used which must be more particularly considered.
(1) Technical phrases.—We hear that the Levites are "to serve the service of the tent of meeting," and this looks as it it might refer to some general duties, but the context and the kindred passages always forbid this interpretation. Nu 7 5 ff is an admirable instance. Six wagons are there assigned to the Levites for this service, two to the Gershonites and four to the Merarites. "But unto the sons of Kohath he gave none, because the service of^ the sanctuary belonged unto them; they bare it upon their shoulders." Here service is transport and nothing else. Again we read of the charge of the Levites in the tent of meeting, e.g. 4 2.5 f. If we look to see what this was, we find that it consisted of transporting portions of the tent that had been packed up. The "in" of EV does not represent the meaning of the Hebrew fairly for the context makes it clear that the legislator means "in respect to." "But they shall not go in to see the sanctuary even for a moment, lest they die" (4 20). In Eng. idiom we cannot speak of the transport of portions of a dismantled tent as service in that tent. One other expression requires notice, the phrase "keep the charge" which is distinguished
(4) What the foregoing proves.—In view of these facts it is impossible to hold that the Levites in P represent a projection of the Levites of the second temple or any post-Mosaic age into the desert period. To P they are a body of sacred porters. The temple of course could not be carried about, and it cannot be held that in this respect the legislation mirrors later circumstances. "Secondly, the net result of such a scheme would be to create a body of Levites for use during the period of wanderings and never thereafter. As soon as the desert age was over the whole tribe would find their occupation gone. How can we conceive that any legislator deUberately sat down and invented such a scheme centuries
2449 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Priests, Levites
hand P is a torso. It provides a large body of Levites who would have nothing to do after the conquest, and a corpus of legislation that could not have been administered in settled conditions by the house of Aaron alone.
after the epoch to which it relates, well knowing that in so far as his scheme purported to be a narrative of events it was fictitious from beginning to end, and in so far as it might be regarded as a legislation applicable to his own or any future day, there was not a line in it that could conceivably be put into practice? If any theorist can be conceived as acting in this way, how are we to suppose that his work would meet with acceptance? .... Thirdly, P neither embodies the views of Ezk nor finds an accurate reflection in Ch. The facts are such as to enable us to say definitely that P is not in line with them. It is impossible to assume that he appointed the death penalty for certain acts if performed by Levites because he really wished the Levites to perform those acts" (PS, 241 f).
///. The Other Portions of the Pentateuch.—In Ex 19 22.24 we read of priests, but a note has come down to us that in the first ol^ those verses Aquila had "elders," not "priests," and this appears to be the correct reading in both places, as is shown by the prominence of the elders in the early part of the chapter. In Hebrew the words differ by only two
letters. It is said by Wellhausen that in Ex 33 7-11 (E) Joshua has charge of the ark. This rests on a mistranslation of Ex 33 7, which should be rendered (correcting EV), 'And Moses used to take a [or the] tent and pitch it for himself without the camp.' It is inconceivable that Moses should have taken the tent of the ark and removed it to a distance from the camp for his private use, leaving the ark bared and unguarded. Moreover, if he had done so, Joshua could not have been in charge of the ark, seeing that he was in this tent while the ark {ex hypolhesi) remained in the camp. Nor had the ark yet been constructed. Nor was Joshua in fact a priest or the guardian of the ark in E: (1) in the Book of Josh E knows of priests who carry the ark and are quite distinct from Joshua (3 ff) ; (2) in Dt 31 14 (E) Joshua is not resident in the tent of meeting; (3) in E Aaron and Eleazar are priests (Dt 10 6), and the Levitical priesthood is the only one recognized (Dt 33 10); (4) there is no hint anywhere of Joshua's discharging any priestly duty whatsoever. The whole case rests on his presence in the tent in Ex 33 7-11, and, as shown in the art. Pentateuch (q.v.), this passage should stand after Ex 13 22.
P also speaks of Aaron the priest and the sons of Aaron the priest.^ It is doubtful whether the expression "the sons of Aaron the
2. Aaron priests," which occurs frequently in the and His MT, is ever original; the Massoretio Sons expression is nowhere supported by all the authorities. "The phrase 'Aaron the high priest' is entirely unknown to P. Where the high priest's name is given the only qualifying apposition possible in his usage is 'the priest.' Aaron and his sons, unhke the Levites, were consecrated, not merely purified.
At this point two features only of the legislation need be noticed : the inadequacy of the staff to postconquest conditions and the signs of date. For example, the leprosy laws (Lev 13 f ) postulate the presence of priests to inspect and isolate the patient. "Remembering that on the critical theory P assumes the capital at Jcrus as self-evident, we must ask how such provisions were to work after the conquest. During the desert period nothing could have been simpler, but what was to happen when the Israelites dwelt aU over Canaan from Beersheba to Dan?" (PS, 246). The difficulty is immensely increased if we postulate an exilic or post-e.xilic date, when the Jewish center of gravity was in Babylonia and there were large colonies in Egypt and elsewhere. And "What are we to say when we read of leprous garments (Lev 13 47 ff)? Was a man to make the pilgrimage from Babylonia to Jerus to consult a priest about a doubtful garment? And what about the leper's offerings in ch 14? Could they conceivably have been meant
Then it is said that in Ex 4 14; Jgs 17 7, "Levite" denotes profession, not ancestry. In the latter passage the youth whom Micah made a priest was of Levitical descent, being the grandson of Moses (Jgs 17 13) , and the case rests on the phrase, "of the family of Judah." Neither of the Septuagintal translations had this text (Field, Hexapla, ad loc), which therefore cannot be supported, since
it cannot be suggested that Moses belonged to the tribe of Judah. As to Ex 4 14, the phrase "Aaron thy brother the Levite" is merely an adaptation of the more usual, "Aaron, son of Amram, the Levite," rendered neces.sary by the fact that his brother Moses is the person addressed. The Wellhausen theory here is shown to be untenable in PS, 250 and RE\ XI, 418.
to apply to such circumstances?" (PS, 247). The case is no better with the law of leprous houses, which is expressed to apply to the post-conquest period (Lev 14 33-.53). The notification to the
Ex 32 26-29 foreshadows the sacred character of Levi, and Dt 10 6 (E) knows the hereditary Aaronic priesthood. In D the most important passage is Dt 18 6-8. In ver 7 three Septuagintal MSS omit the words "the Levites," and if this be a gloss, the whole historic sense of the passage is changed. It now contains an enactment that any Levite coming to the religious capital may minister there "as all his brethren do, who stand there," etc, i.e. like the descendants of Aaron. "The Levites" will then be the explanation of a glossator who was imbued with the latest post-exilic ideas, and thought that
priest and his inspections require a priesthood
scattered all over the country, i.e. a body far more numerous than the house of Aaron at the date
of the conquest. Such instances could easily be multiplied from the legislation; one more only will be cited on account of its importance to the history
of the priesthood. According to Lev, the individual sacrificant is to kill the victims and flay the burnt offerings. How could such procedure be
applied to such sacrifices as those of Solomon (1 K 8 63)? With the growth of luxury the sacrifices would necessarily become too large for such a ritual, and the wealthy would grow in refinement and
"his brethren" must mean those of his fellowLevites who were not descended from Aaron. The passage is supplemented by 21 5, giving to the Levites judicial rights, and 24 8 assigning to them the duty of teaching the leprosy regulations. Together with 33 10 (E), 'they shall teach thy judgments to Jacob and thy law to Israel: they shall put incense in thy nostrils and whole burnt-offering on thine altar,' these passages complete the provisions of P in giving to the Levites an occupation in place of their transport duties, and providing the necessary staff for administering the legislation
object to performing such tasks personally. This
suggests the reason for later abuses and for the
modifications of Ezk and the representations of the
Result of the evidence.—Thus the evidence of P
Chronicler.
is unfavorable alike to the Wellhausen and the mediating views. The indications of date are con-
sistently Mosaic, and it seems impossible to fit the laws into the framework of any other age without reading them in a sense that the legislator can be shown not to have contemplated. On the other
Priests, Levites THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2450
Various dealings with the ark in the age of Samuel
when the Israelites were no longer massed together
require notice. As a boy Samuel himself is given
in a single camp, but scattered over the country. We shall see in the next section that this view of the meaning of the Law was taken by every writer of the second part of the Canon who touches on the subject. Everywhere we are confronted with the legitimacy of a Levitical priesthood; nowhere is there any mention of an exclusive Aaronic right. Smaller points which cannot be discussed here are examined in PS. It only remains to notice that these provisions fully explain the frequent Deuteronomic locution, "the priests the Levites." One other remark must be made. Though it is not expressly stated, we may assume that consecration would be necessary in the case of any Levite acting on the provisions of Dt 18 6-8, and was not mentioned because in Heb antiquity it went without saying that every priest must be consecrated
into the service of Eli. , It has been argued that he
really officiated as a priest, though probably (if
the Chronicler's data be rejected) not of Levitical
descent. The answer is to be found in his age. Weaning sometimes took place at as late an age as
three, and accordingly the boy may have been as much as four years old when he was taken to Shiloh
(1 S 1 24). His mother used to bring him a little cloak (1 S 2 19) every year, and this notice also shows his extreme youth. In view of this it cannot
seriously be contended that he performed any
priestly service. He must have been a sort of page, and he performed some duties of a porter, opening the door-valves of the temple at Shiloh (1 S 3 15).
(1) The custody of the ark.—When the ark was captured by the Philis, it was in the charge of priests. When David brought it to Jerus, it was again placed
(cf Jgs 17). IV. From Moses to Malachi.—Josh adds but
in priestly custody, but there is an interregnum of some 20 years (1 S 7 2).
little to our information. In 18 7 the priesthood is called the inheritance of the Levites,
It must be remembered that whatever may have happened during this period of great national confusion, the practice of all the rest of history, extending over some 600 or 700 years, is uniform and would far outweigh any irregularities during so short and troubled a period.
1. The and it is singular that the Wellhausen Sources critics attribute this to a priestly Other than redactor, though such a writer should Ezekiel ex hypothesi have been jealous to withhold the priesthood from the Levites. It is very interesting to find that in Josh
(2) On its return from the Philistines.—The first difficulty arises on 1 S 6 14.15. In the second of these verses the Levites come up after the Beth-shemites have finished, and. in Wellhausen's words, "proceed as If nothing had happened, lift the ark from the now no longer existent cart, and set it upon the stone on which the sacrifice is already burning" (Prolegomena, 128). It is therefore suggested that ver 15 is a gloss. But there
3, 4, all the different critical documents speak in exactly the same terms of "the priests that bare the ark." The priestly writer ought, on the Wellhausen theory, to have said "the Levites." The expression "the priests the Levites" is found alternating with the expression "the priests." All this points to the construction put upon the provisions of the Law in the preceding section, and finds fresh confirmation in Jgs, where we see Micah rejoicing at having a Levite as a priest (17 13), thus showing that the sacred character of the tribe was recognized in the earliest post-Mosaic times. The lay sacri-
is difficulty in ver 14 which tells of the breaking up of the cart, etc, without explaining what happened to the ark. The trouble may be met by a slight transposition thus: '14a And the cart came into the field and stood there, and there was there a great stone: 15a and the Levites took down the ark, etc, and put them on the great stone: 146 and clave the wood of the cart,' etc, followed by 156. This makes perfect sense. (3) In Abinadab's house.—The second difficulty is made by 1 S 7 1, where we read that the ark was brought to the house of Abinadab
' and Eleazar his son they sanctified to guard' it. Its old abode, the house at Shiloh, had apparently been destroyed (Jer 7 12.14; 26 6.9). There it enjoyed considerable importance, for Pools is unquestionably right in identifying the Gibeah of God (1 S 10 5) with the Gibeah (hill) of the ark. Thus there was a high place there and a Phili garrison (cf 1 S 13 3, where LXX and Tg have "Gibeah"), There remains the difficulty caused by the guardianship of Eleazar. Poels may be right in reading IJS £1X1 "ITybS, wu'eth b'ne'el'azar, " and the sons of Eleazar," for ^13 ^tybX niCI . w^'eih 'el'azdr b^no, "and Eleazar his son "
fices in this and the following books are explained under Sanctuary; Sacrifice (q.v.). The period of the early kings shows us kings blessing the people (e.g. 2 S 6 18). It is claimed that this is the priestly blessing, but without evidence, and there seems no more reason to see special priestly rights here than in David's blessing his household (2 S 6 20), or the frequent blessings of the Bible (e.g. Gen passim, esp, "in thee will Israel bless," Gen 48 20), while in 1 K 8 55 if we actually have the words of the blessing delivered on one of these occasions by Solomon, and it is quite unlike the blessing of the priests (Nu 6 22 ff).
: but in the entire absence of information,' alike as to Eleazar's functions and as to his tribe, notliing definite can be said. The narratives of the slaughter among the Beth-shemites and the fate of Uzzah make it certain that Eleazar's custody of the ark kept him at a respectful distance from it. When David at the end of this period removed the ark, it was first taken in a cart. 'This proved fatal to Uzzah, and the ark was deposited in the house of Obededom the Gittite. The text of S knows nothing of any guardianship of the ark by Obed-edom. Probably he took very good care not to go near it in view of Uzzah's fate. Then it was transported to Jerus by bearers (2 S 6 13)—presumably of Levitical descent. No further irregularities are urged.
Textual criticism disposes of tlie supposed priesthood of certain non-Levitical persons. In 2 S 8 18 the MT malies David's sons "priests," but this reading was unlcnown to the LXX, Symmachus and Theodotion (Field, ad loc.). The LXX has "aularchs," i.e. chamberlains. That this represents a different Hebrew word is proved by the Septuagintal list of 3 K 2 46 (not extant in Heb), where we read that Benaiah. son of Jchoiada, was "over the autarchy and over the brickmaking." It cannot bo suggested that this represents an original Hob "over the priesthood and over the brickmaking, " and accordingly we must concede the existence of some secular court office which was rendered by this Gr phrase. Hitzig and Cheyne conjecture that ^53D. sokh'nim, should be read for D^3n3 . koh&nim. This word gives the sense required (see Isa 22 15, RVm "steward"). In 2 S 20 26 we read that Ira, IIXIH. ha ya'iri ("the .Jairite"), was a priest, but the Syr supported by Lucian and 23 38 reads l^n^n, /io-ya«iri ("the Jattirite"). Jattir was a priestly city. In 1 K 4 5 Nathan's son is described as 'priest friend of the king.' but LXX reads only "friend of the king" (ct e.sp. 1 Ch 27 33 f: 2 8 15 32), and at another period Nathan's son held the kindred secular office of king's counsellor (LXX 3 K 2 46. a fact that is certainly unfavorable to the view that he ever held priestly office). There can therefore bo no doubt that the word "priest," ins
More important is the change of priesthood; 1 S 2 27-36 clearly threatens Eli, whose house had been chosen in Egypt, with a transference of the high-priesthood to another line. Careful comparison with 1 K 2 27 makes it certain that the prophecy was fulfilled when Zadok was placed by Solomon in the place of Abiathar. Who was Zadok? According to Ch (1 Ch 6 8.53; 24 3; 27 17) he was descended from Aaron through Eleazar, and this is accepted by Orr, Van Hoonacker and many others, who take Ch in a literal sense. According to Ezk he was a Levite (40 46, etc). It
is noteworthy that throughout the prophetical books we always hear of the Levitical priesthood, not the Aaronic (see esp. 1 K 12 31; Jer 33 18-22; Mai 2), and the "father's house" of 1 S 2 27-36 that was chosen in Egypt could only be the house of
kohen. has arisen through dittography of the preceding word ]riD ' nathdii, Nathan.
2451 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Priests, Levites
national offerings than the critics allow? On this see EPC, 200 ff, and passim; POT, 305-15, and passim; SBL and OP passim, and art. Pentateuch.
Aaron, not of Ithamar, if the passage is to be taken in its natural sense. On this view Zadok's appointment could only have fulfilled the prophecy if it terminated the Aaronic succession. It would seem therefore that the high-priesthood was transferred to a family of non-Aaronic Levites. For the alternative view see Zadok.
(4) Does Ezekiel himself show acquaintance with P (e.g. in 22 26), or not? On this too see SBL, 96; PS, 281 f
With regard to the non-mention of the high-priesthood and certain other institutions in Ezekiel's vision, the natural explanation is that in the case of these the prophet did not desire to institute any changes. It is to be noted that Ezekiel does not codify and consolidate all existing law. On the contrary, he is rather supplementing and reforming. In his ideal temple the prince is to provide the statutory national offerings (45 17), i.e. those of Nu 28, 29. Apparently the king had provided these earlier
The prophet's speech in 1 S 2 27-36 is also important for the light it throws on the organization of the priesthood. The high priest has in his gift a number of priestly offices with pecuniary and other emoluments. This postulates a far more advanced hierarchy than that of P.
The reference to "the priests and the Levites" in 1 K 8 4 was unknown to the LXX, but in other passages the Books of K show further advances in hierarchical organization. There is not merely the high priest—generally like Aaron in P called "the priest," but sometimes the high priest—but also the second priest (2 K 25 18; Jer 52 24; 2 K 23 4, according to the Tg), three keepers of the threshold (ubi supra, and 2 K 12 10) and "elders of the priests" (2 K 19 2; Isa 37 2; perhaps also Jer 19 1). See also Jer 20 1 f; 29 26 for priestly organization and jurisdiction in the temple precincts. All this contrasts strikingly with the simplicity of the Pentateuchal organization.
(2 K 16 13). But in addition to these there had grown up a "king's offering," and it is probably to this only that 45 22 ff; 46 2-15 relate. In 46 13 LXX, Syr, Vulg, and some Heb MSS preserve the reading "he" for "thou."
V. Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles.—Whatever the course of the earlier history, there is general agreement that in these books a distinction between priests and Levites is established (see e.g. Neh 10 37 f [38 f]; 12 If). We also find singers and porters (Neh 13 5, etc), Nethinim and the sons of Solomon's servants (Ezr 7 7.24; 10 23 f; Neh 10 28 [29]; 11 3, etc). It must not be assumed that these classes were new. The story of the Gibeonites (Josh 9) gives us the origin of some of these grades, and the non-mention of them in many of the earlier books is easily explained by the character of those books. We know from such passages as Am 5 23 that there were musical services in far earlier times (cf Neh 12 42). Ch presents an account of the earlier history of the priests and Levites that in many respects does
Ezekiel is entirely in line with the other sources for this period, but he seeks to institute certain reforms. He writes, "Her priests
2. Ezekiel have done violence to my law, and have profaned my holy things: they have made no distinction between the holy and the common, neither have they caused men to discern between the unclean and the clean," etc (Ezk 22 26) . If these words have any meaning they signify that he was acquainted with a law which followed the very words of Lev 10 and other passages of P, and was intended to reach the people through the teaching of the priests. In chs 40-48, there is a vision of the future which stands in the closest relation to the Pent. Three views have been held
not tally with the older sources.
1. EstiMany modern writers think that the mates author's views of the past were colored of the by the circumstances of his own day, Chronicler and that he had a tendency to carry back later conditions to an earlier period. On the other hand it is impossible to deny fairly that he used some sources which have not been preserved to us elsewhere. Again, there is evidence to show that his work was not intended to be taken for history and would not have been so regarded by his contemporaries. Taknudical authorities held some such view as this. The historical value of his work has yet to be appraised in a more critical and impartial spirit than is exhibited in any of the current discussions. For the present purpose it is only possible to notice the effect of some of his statements, if interpreted literally. As there are passages where he has clearly substituted Levites for the less holy personages of the older sources (contrast e.g. 2 K 11 4-12 with 2 Ch 23 1-11), it may be that Levites have also been substituted by him for other persons in notices of which no other version has survived.
of this. The old view was that Ezk could not be reconciled with the Pent at all, and that the diffi-
culties presented were insoluble. Wellhausen and
his followers maintain that the prophet is prior to P, and here introduces the distinction between
priests and Levites for the first time. The third alternative is to hold that Ezekiel was famihar with P and drew from it the inspiration to make a fresh
division among the Levites, giving the sons of Zadok a position similar to that occupied by the sons of Aaron in the wilderness period, and reenacting with slight modifications the legislation appli-
cable to the sons of Aaron, this time applying it to the sons of Zadok. The crucial passage is 44 6-16, from which it clearly appears that in Solomon's temple ahens had performed sundry tasks that should have been executed by more holy persons, and that Ezekiel proposes to degrade Levites who
are not descended from Zadok to perform such
tasks in the future as a punishment for their minis-
David and Solomon recognized the hierarchy. The former king instituted the musical services
trations to idols in high places. Either of the two
latter views would explain the close connection that
(1 Ch 6 3ff; 16 4ff; 26). The Le-
evidently exists between the concluding chapters of Ezk and P, and, accordingly, in choosing between them, the reader must consider four main points:
2. His Data vites were divided into courses (1 Ch 23 6) and were rendered liable to service from the age of twenty by his enactment
(1) Is P shown on the internal evidence to be early
(ver 27). There were also 24 courses or divisions
or late? Is it desert legislation, or is it accurately
of priests, 16 of the sons of Eleazar and 8 of the sons
reflected in Ch? This point has abeady been dis-
of Ithamar (ch 24). The courses were divided by
cussed in part and is further treated in Pentateuch
lot. In Neh 12 1-7 we read of "chiefs of the
(q.v.). (2) Is the theory of the late composition
of P psychologically and morally probable? On
priests," but these are only 22 in number, while vs 12-21 give us 21 in the time of Joiakim (ver 26). But not much importance can be attached to such
this see Pentateuch and POT, 292-99. (3) Is it
the case that the earlier history attests the exist-
lists, as names could easily fall out in transmission. According to 1 Ch 9 26 the tour chief porters were
ence of institutions of P that are held by Wellhausen and his followers to be late—e.g. more
Priests, Levites Prince THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2452
(Lev 10 11; 14 54-57; Dt 24 8; 33 10; cf Ezk 44 23; Hos 4 1-6; Hag 2 11 ff, and many passages in the Prophets).
Levites, and Levites were also over the things baked in pans and the shewbread (vs 31 f). This of course
is not in accordance with the Law, but is found elsewhere in Ch. In 1 Ch 23 the Levites from 30 years old and upward number 38,000, of whom 24,000 oversee the work of the house of the Lord, 6,000 were officers and judges, 4,000 were doorkeepers and 4,000 were musicians. David altered the age of beginning service to 20, and an account of their functions is given in 1 Ch 23 27-32 (see, further, Music), AH these arrangements were confirmed and enforced by Solomon (2 Ch 8 14 ff). There is often uncertainty as to whether the Chronicler identifies priests and Levites in particular cases or not, e.g. in 2 Ch 30 27, "the priests the Levites" bless the people according to the ordinary text, but many authorities read "the priests and the Levites." Hezekiah appears to have undertaken some reorganization (2 Ch 29-31), but the details are not clear. Jehoshaphat established in Jerus a court composed partly of Levites and priests (19 8-11). Previously he had sent priests and Levites and others to teach the Law in Judah (ch 17). In 29 34 it is clearly the duty of the priests to flay burnt
The priests were subject to special laws designed
to maintain their purity (Lev 21 f; cf Ezk 44). The rules aim at preventing defilement through mourning (save in the case of ordinary priests for a near relation) and at preventing those who were physically unfitted from performing certain func-
tions, and those who were for any reason unclean from approaching the holy things. See further Stranger. They performed several semi-judicial functions (Nu 5 5ff.llff, etc; see Judge). They also blessed the people (Nu 6 22; cf Dt 10 8, etc). See Blessing. On their dues see Sacrifice; Tithes; Firstlings; First-Fruits; Levitical Cities; Agrarian Laws; see further Chemarim; Nethinim; Sons op Solomon's Servants; Singers; Doorkeepers; Serving-Women; Judge.
Literature.—Wellhausen, Prolegomena, ch iv, for the GraJ-Wellhausen view; Wiener, PS, 230-89, lor the view taken above; S. I. Curtiss, Levitical Priest:', for the conservative view. This writer afterward clianged to the critical view. James Orr, POT: A. Van Hoonaclier, Le sacerdoce levitique (important) ; W. Baudissin. art. " Priests and Levites " in HDB. IV, for mediating views. The best account in Eng. of the details of the priestly duties is contained in Baudissin's art., where a further bibliography will be found.
ofiferings (contrast Lev 1). It is impossible to draw any consistent picture from the Chronicler because he gives different data for different periods; it is doubtful whether he meant his statements to be taken as historical, e.g. in 1 Ch 26 we find Levites whose names Giddalti ( = "I have magnified"), etc, are really words forming part of a prayer, and it is
Harold M. Wiener PRIMOGENITURE, pri-mo-jen'i-tar (Hnisa,
h'khorah, from h'khor, "firstborn," from bakhar, "to act early"; •n-poiTOToKia, proto-
difficult to believe that either the Chronicler or his public intended this chapter to be interpreted in any but a spiritual sense (see PS, 284-86).
1. Recogtokia) : The right of the firstborn to nition of inherit the headship of the family, Doctrine carrying with it certain property rights and usually such titles as those of the high-priesthood or kingship. The writings of the Hebrews take for granted the recognition of a doctrine of primogeniture from the earliest times. In the most ancient genealogies a distinction is drawn between the firstborn and the other son (Gen 10 15; 22 21; 25 13; 35 23; 36 15). In the bestowal of parental blessings in patriarchal times great importance was attached to preferring the firstborn (Gen 25 31; 27 29; 48 13; 49 3). The feud between Jacob and Esau (Gen 27 1—28 21) grew out of the stealing of the firstborn's blessing by the younger brother. Joseph was displeased when, in his blessing, Jacob seemed to prefer Ephraim to Manasseh, his firstborn ((Sen 48 18). The father in such cases seems to have had the right to transfer the birthright from one son to another, from the days of Abraham in the case of Ishmael and Isaac, through those of Jacob in the matter of Reuben and Joseph and in the matter of Ephraim and Manasseh, down to the days of David in the selection of a successor to the kingship. Nevertheless the Mosaic code, which declared (rather than enacted) the law of jirimogeniture, prohibited the abuse of this parental privilege in the case of a younger son by a favorite wife (Dt 21 16 f). The manner of acknowledging the firstborn incidentally referred to in Dt is "by giving him a double
In Ezr 2 40 the number of Levites who returned with Zerubbabel is given as 74, as against 973 priests
(ver 36), 128 singers (ver 41), 139 children of the porters (ver 42), 392 Nethinim and children of Solomon's servants (ver 58), and the figures are the same in Neh 7, except that there the singers number 148 (ver 44) and the porters 138 (ver 45). When Ezra went up, he was at first joined by no Levites (8 15), but subsequently gathered 38 Levites and 220 Nethinim (vs 18-20). We get glimpses of the organization in Neh 12 44-47 and 13 10 ff. It appears that in this period genealogies were carefully scrutinized in the case of doubtful claims to priestly descent (Ezr 2 61 ff; Neh 7 63 ff). In Ezr 6 19 ff the Levites are represented as kilhng the Passover.
Of these books no satisfactory account can be given in the present state of textual criticism and Bib. science generally. Some writers, e.g., hold that the Chronicler had before him a source to which the Levites were entirely unknown, others that he invented freely, others again that he reproduces trustworthy preoxilic information. The student has only an assortment of theories from which to choose. The bedrock fact is that the statements of these books, if taken in their natural meaning, convey an entirely different impression from the statements of the earlier books construed similarly. Modern research has not yet been seriously addressed to the question whether all the statements were really intended to be interpreted as mere history.
portion of all that he hath" (Dt 21 2. The 17), that is to say, double the share Double of each of the other brothers. Jewish Portion tradition {B'kho, 46a, 47b, 61a, 516; Babha' Bathra' 122a, 1226, 123a, 124a, 1426) accepts and elaborates on this right of the firstborn son. Thus, it applies only to the firstborn and not the eldest surviving son; it does not apply to daughters; it has reference only to the paternal estate, and not to the inheritance left by a mother or other relative, nor to improvements or accessions made to an estate after the death of the father.
VI. Legal Provisions.—Aaron and his sons underwent consecration to fit them for their duties. Ex 28 f prescribes their garments and consecration
(see Dress; Breastplate; Ephod; Robe; Coat; Mitee; Girdle; Urim and Thummim), and the account of the latter may be read in Lev 8 f. In individual sacrifices brought to the religious capital the priests performed the part of the ritual which related to the altar (sprinkling, burning, etc) (Lev 1-4). See Sacrifice. A principal function was the duty of teaching the people the law of God
2453 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Priests, Levites Prince
The object of the doctrine may be that the eldest son might be enabled to preside over the affairs of
"leader," is employed referring to Christ as the author of life and salvation (cf He 12 2, where the term archegos is rendered "author" [RV] or "captain" [RVm]).
family with proper dignity, or that
3. Reasons he might assume additional responsifor the bilities, such as the support of unmarCustom ried sisters. Hence one's birthright could be waived or sold (Gen 25 3 L 34). On the other hand it may be based in the ultimate analysis on the primitive feeling of favoritism for the firstborn reflected in the disappointment of Jacob, when he speaks of Reuben as his firstborn, his might, and the beginning of his strength
The OT contains a number of different words mostly rendered "prince" or "princes" in the EV.
(I) "lip, sar: In Josh 5 14 the mysterious armed stranger seen by Joshua near Jericho calls himself the "prince of the host of Jeh": a high mihtary
title applied to a superhuman being. In Isa 9 6, the name is given to the child representing the future Messiah. The term "Prince of Peace" denotes the eminent position and the peaceful reign of the Messianic king: the highest human title in
(re'shilh 'on, Gen 49 3; cf Dt 21 17). This theory would be in accord with the right of the parent to transfer the right to a younger son. The suggestion of favoritism conveyed by the Heb b'khor is manifested in its figurative use: of Israel (Ex 4 22), of Ephraim (Jer 31 9), of one dearly beloved (Zee 12 10); (cf figurative usage in the NT: Rom 8 29; He 12 23; 1 6; Rev 1 5). Light is thrown on the attitude of the ancient world toward the firstborn, and hence on the his-
its most ideal sense. Dnl 8 11 : here, again, as in Josh 5 14, occurs the phrase "prince of the host." In Dnl 8 25 "the prince of princes" refers to God Himself: the highest human title in its absolute sense apphed to God. Dnl 10 21: "Michael your prince." Michael the archangel is here called the prince of the Jewish people. He is the princely representative of God's people in the sight of God, a royal title suggesting high power and alliance with God in the great struggle going on between Him and the powers of darkness. Dnl 12 1 : here Michael is called "the great prince" who standeth
tory of primogeniture, by the language
4. The used in connection with the plague of Firstborn the finstborn: "from the first-born of in Ancient Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, Society; even unto the first-born of the maidSacrifice servant that is behind the mill" or and Re- "the captive that was in the dungeon." demption Apparently no more dreadful catastrophe for aU classes of society could be thought of than this slaying of the firstborn (Ex 11 5; 12 29). The misguided fervor of the ancient Semites who offered their firstborn as the thing most dearly beloved as a sacrifice to their gods must be considered in this light, whether it appears among the Moabites, the Phoenicians or the Hebrews themselves (Jer 32 35; Ezk 20 26.
for the children of Israel; supplementing Dnl 10 21. In Dnl 10 13: "the prince of the kingdom of Persia" (cf ver 20, "the prince of Persia," "the prince of Greece"), the expression is used in the same general sense as in Dnl 10 21. Each individual nation is represented as guided by a spiritual being that may or may not be an ally of God in His combat with the devil. In the majority of cases, though, the term sar is apphed (a) to men exer-
cising royal or ruling power: Prov 8 16: "By me princes [m "or rulers"] rule"; Isa 32 1: ^ "Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in justice." Judicial power is included (cf Ex 2 14: "Who made thee a prince and a judge over us?" and Ps 148 11: "princes and all judges of the earth"). In some passages the word sar, having been rendered "prince," stands for "chief"; so Jgs 7 25: "They took the two princes of Midian"
31; 2 Ch 28 3). It is difficult to predicate a connection between the basis of the doctrine of primogeniture and that of the Redemption of the First-
born, other than that both are ultimately based on the importance of a firstborn son and the fond-
ness of his parents for him. It is interesting to
note, however, that the tradition of redernption and the law of primogeniture are kept so distinct
(cf Jgs 8 14; IS 29 4; 2 S 10 3, etc), (b) To royal officers of a high rank: Gen 12 15: "the princes of Pharaoh" (cf 2 K 24 14: "Jerus and
that, while the latter has reference only to the
firstborn of a father, the former has reference only
all the princes"; 1 Ch 29 24; 2 Ch 24 23; Jer 36 21; 52 10; Hos 5 10, etc). "Ambassadors"
to the firstborn of a mother {B<'kho., viii.l, 46a;
cf jieter reheni, "whatsoever openeth the womb," Ex 13 2).
(Jer 36 14); "governors" (1 K 20 14: "By the young men [m "or, servants"] of the princes of the provinces"; cf Est 1 3.14, "the seven princes"); "the chief of the eunuchs" (Dnl 1 7); a "quartermaster" (Jer 51 59: "Seraiah was chief chamber-
' In a polygamous society such as that presupposed in Dt 21 it is natural to suppose that the distinction between paternal and maternal primogeniture would be clearly before the minds
of the people. See Birthright; Firstborn.
lain" [m "or, quartermaster"]). AV renders it "a quiet prince," i.e. a prince having rest, instead of
Nathan Isaacs PRINCE, prins: This word occurs quite frequently in our Eng. Bible, mostly in the OT. While
procuring rest (Hn^Sp "lip, sar mfriUhdh, "a sar
of rest"). In post-exilic times: Ezr 9 1: "The princes drew near unto me." They were the po-
it is never used to denote royal parentage (cf 1 Ch 29 24), it often indicates actual royal or ruhng
litical leaders of the people (cf Ezr 10 8: "the princes and the elders"; Neh 9 38: "our princes, our Levites, and our priests"; Neh 11 1: "The princes of the people dwelt in Jerus"; Neh 12 31: "the princes of Judah"). Of course, they were aU subject to the authority of the Pers kings, (c) To the priesthood: 1 Ch 24 5: "princes of the sanc-
power, together with royal dignity and authority. As a rule, the name is given to human beings; in
a few instances it is applied to God and Christ, the
angels and the devil.
In Mt 2 6 the word rendered "prmces might
be tr"" "princely cities"; at least, this seems to be impHed. Here the term vyeiJ.<i», hegemon, "leader,"
tuary, and princes of God" (cf Isa 43 28). (_d) On account of great achievements: 2 S 3 38: "Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen
"ruler," "prince," is u.sed, undoubtedly to hint at
the fact that Bethlehem was the native city of a
great prince. In the other NT passages^ the word
this day in Israel?"—an honorary title. Generally
iSpx"", drchon, "a potentate," "a person in author-
speaking, a prince is a wealthy man (cf Job 34 19: "That respecteth not the persons of princes, nor regardeth the rich more than the poor"), and he is a prominent man embodying true, although mortal, manhood (cf Ps 82 7: "Nevertheless ye shall die
itv," "a magistrate," occurs most frequently (cf Mt 9 34; 12 24; 20 25 [RV "ruler"]; Mk 3 22; Jn 12 31; 14 30; 16 11; lCor2 6.8AV: Eph
2 2; Rev 1 5 [RV "ruler"]). In most of these
instances the term "prince" refers to the devil.
like men, and fall like one of the princes).
In Acts 3 15; 6 31, the word apxvif'^, archegds,
Prince Prlsca THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2454
(7) ^""P? , na§ikh, derived from tfpD , na^akh, "to
(2) N"'TC5, nasi': usually derived from Nl^J. nasa', "to lift," hence "exalted"; otlierwise: a "speaker."
install a king" (cf Ps 2 6); hence a prince: Josh 13 21: "the princes of Sihon" (cf Ps 83 11); Ezk 32 30: "the princes of the north"; Mio 5 5: RV "principal men," RVm "princes among men"; Dnl 11 8: RV "molten images," RVm "princes."
(a) An honorary title (cf Gen 23 6: "Thou art a prince of God among us." The distinction is conferred upon Abraham by the children of Heth).
(h) A name given to the heads of the Israelitic tribes, families and fathers' houses: Nu 3 24: "the prince of the fathers' house of the Gershonites" (cf vs 30. 35); 3 32: "Eleazar .... shall be prince of the princes of the Levites, and have the oversight of them that keep the charge of the sanctuary"; Nu 4 34: "the princes of the congregation." They seem to be identical with the "rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens"
(8) 1"'2j5, kd(in, "a. judge," "a military leader," "a prince"; Dnl 11 18: "A prince [RVm "captain"] shall cause the reproach .... to cease" (probably a Rom consul; a Rom general?).
(9) 1D"'b'C, shalish: The usual explanation, "one
of the three men on a war-chariot" is highly improbable; Gesenius suggests that it is a loan-word, and renders it "hero." Ezk 23 15: "All of them princes to look upon" ("picked men," Gesenius).
(cf Ex 18 21; Nu 16 2). Nu 7 2: "the princes of Israel, the heads of their fathers' houses . . . . the princes of the tribes" (cf 17 2.6; 34 18; Josh 22 14; 1 Ch 4 38). (c) Equivalent to chief or king: Gen 17 20: "Twelve princes shall he beget"
(10) Craipn, hashmannim: Ps 68 31: "Princes
shall come out of Egypt." LXX renders it -wpiiy-
(cf 25 16); Gen 34 2: "Sheehem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land"; Nu 25 IS: "Cozbi, the daughter of the prince of Midian" (cf Josh 13 21); 1 K 11 34: "I will make him prince all the days of his life." This was said of Solomon, which shows the term equivalent to king. Of special interest is the use of the word 7idsl' in Ezk. The name is given to the Jewish king (cf 12 10: "This burden concerneth the prince in Jerus"). Then, again, it is applied to the future theocratic king (cf 34 24; 37 25, etc, and esp. clis 45,46). It is also used of foreign potentates and high ofRcers (cf 26 16: "the princes of the sea"; 28 2: "the prince of Tyre"; 30 13: "a prince from the land of Egypt"); 32 29: "Edom, her kings and
/3fis, presheis, "ambassadors," Vulg legati. But the meaning is uncertain. See also Governor,
1, (8). William Baur
PRmCES, prin'sez, -siz, THE SEVEN. Prince, (1), (h).
See
PRINCESS, prin'ses: The Heb term is nnll5,
sdrdh (cf snr, prince, and "Sarah"); it means
(1) a queen (Isa 49 23, AV and RV both "queen");
(2) the consort of a king contrasted with his concubines (1 K 11 3, "He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines"); (3) the wife of a prince (Est 1 IS: the "princesses of Persia and Media"); (4) it is metaphorically used of the city of Jerus (Lam 1 1).
all her princes"; and, likewise, of high Jewish officers (21 12). (d) A title bestowed upon Sheshbazzar (Ezr 1 8).
PRINCIPAL, prin'si-pal: Appears in AV as a tr of nine Heb words (fewer in RV), in one case (Isa 28 25) being used quite wrongly and in 2 K 25 19 (Jer 52 25); 1 Ch 24 31 gives a wrong sense (all corrected in RV). In 1 K 4 5, "principal officer" (ARV "chief minister") is an arbitrary tr of kohen to avoid "priest" (so ERV; cf 2 S 8 18).
(3) ^^13, nadhlbh: 1 S 2 S: "To make them sit wilh princes" (cf Ps 113 8). The original meaning of the term is willing or obliging; then generous ("liberal"; cf Prov 19 6: "Many will entreat the favor of the liberal man"; yet, it might safely be rendered here "prince" [m]) or noble-minded; a gentleman, a nobleman, a person of rank, a prince. Job 12 21: "He poureth contempt upon princes"
PRINCIPALITY, prin-si-pal'i-ti: In the OT the word occurs but once (Jer 13 IS, "your principalities shall come down"). Here AVm "head tires"
(cf Ps 107 40); Job 21 28: "Where is the house of the prince? And where is the tent wherein the wicked dwelt?" The context here suggests the thought of a wicked prince, a tyrant. Ps 47 9: "The princes of the peoples are gathered together"
is properly preferred by RV for nlTUN^p, nVra-
'dsholh (from li5i{"l , ro'sh, "head"), "head-parts." In the NT "principality" occurs for apx'i, archt, "rule," generally in the pi., referring (a) to men in authority (Tit 3 1, "Put them in mind to be subject [AV; "in subjection," RV] to principalities
(cf Ps 118 9; 146 3; Prov 17 7; 26 7; Cant 7 1).
(4) "i^^; , naglddh: According to Gesenius, this term denotes originally either a high-minded person (cf the pre(;eding word, nddlnhh) or a speaker, a spokesman; then a prince, a king. 1 S 13 14: "Jeh hath appointed him to be prince over his people" (cf 2 S 5 2: "Thou shalt be prince [RVm "leader"] over Israel"; 6 21; 7 8; 1 K 1 35; 14 7; 16 2; Job 29 9; 31 37; Ps 76 12; Prov 28 16; Ezk 28 2: "prince of Tyre"; Dnl 9 25: "the anointed one, the prince," AV the "Messiah the Prince"; Dnl 9 26: "the prince that shall come" [the Rom emperor?]; 11 22: "the prince of the covenant" [either a high priest or some Egyp king, Ptolemaeus Philometor?]).
[AV; "rulers," RV], and powers" [AV; "to authorities," RV]); (h) to superhuman agencies, angelic or demonic (Rom 8 38; Eph 3 10; 6 12; Col 1 16; 2 10.15). Paul was keenly sensible of the dualism of mind and body and of the law in his members warring against the law of his mind (Rom 7 23), and of the temporary victory of the evil, residing in the flesh, over the good of the spirit (vs
14 ff). This dualism was objectified in Zoroastrianism, and among the Babylonians the several heavenly bodies were regarded as ruled by spirits, some good, some evil. The same belief, appropriated by the Jews during the captivity, appears also in Gr thought, as e.g. in Plato and later in the Stoics. The higher spheres, which hold the even tenor of their way, were in general regarded as ruled by good spirits; but in the sublunar sphere, to which the earth belongs, ill-regulated motions prevail, which must be due to evil spirits. The perversities of human conduct, in particular, thwarting, as was thought, the simple, intelligible Divine plan, were held to be subject to rebellious powers offering de-
(5), (6) 'i'lT'l, razon, and ']Ti~l, rozen, "a high official," "a prince," u.sually as.sociated with the word "king" or "judge." Prov 14 28: "In the multitude of people is the king's glory; but in the want of people is the destruction of the prince" (razon); Jgs5_3: "Hear, O ye kings; give ear, O ye princes" (roz'iilm); Prov 8 15: "By me kings reign, and princes [rdz'iam] decree justice" (cf 31 4; Hab 1 10); Isa 40 23: "that bringeth princes [roz'nim] to nothing; that maketh the judges of the earth as vanity."
2455 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Prince Prisca
fiance to God. While Paul clearly recognized a hierarchy of such powers (Col 1 16, "thrones or dominions or principalities or powers"), it is not certain that he had elaborated a system of aeons to serve the purposes of metaphysical theology and ethics, such as appears among the Gnostics, although they evidently believed they were developing his thought. In 1 Cor 2 6 he repudiates the wisdom of this world (aion) and of the rulers of this world aidn), and declares (Eph 6 12) that the Christian has to contend with "the world-rulers of this darkness," and proclaims the triumph of Christ over "the principalities and the powers" in the forgiveness of sins (Col 2 l.'i). The same personification of such agencies or powers appears also in another passage, where the rendering of EV obscures it (Eph 1 20.21 : "when he raised him [Christ] from the dead, and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all [read "every") rule [RV; "principality," AV], and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this world [aion], but also in that which
a printer's roUer" (Mosso, The Dawn of Mediterranean Cwilizalion, 2.54-61, with many illustrations, and Frobenius, Childhood of Man, fig. 31, "Dayak block for painting the body").
The injunction of Lev 19 28, which is tr<' "print,"
is commonly, and probably rightly, in view of the Heb word, supposed to refer to the permanent marks of tattooing which may or may not have been made by this printing process. Job 13 27 AV, which .speaks of printing upon the heels or soles of the feet, has been quite changed in RV, and, if the idea is one of printing at all, it refers rather to branding than stamping with color.
The u.se of the inkhorn in setting the mark upon the forehead (Ezk 9 .3.4.6) certainly points to marking with color rather than branding. See InkHOBN. This may, of course, have been drawing rather than printing, but, on the other hand, the sealing of the servants of God on their foreheads (Rev 7 4; 9 4) neces.sarily means printing rather than drawing, and probably printing rather than branding, for the use of the seal with color had long been common. The marks of the beast upon the forehead and upon the hand in Rev 13, 14, 15, 16, 19 and 20, more hkely refer to branding, as the Gr word points more or less in this direction, while the stigmata of Gal 6 17 may also point to branding. Branding was at all events also a common method of printing characters on the flesh in Bib. times (Isa 3 24; perhaps Ex 21 2.5; a branding on the forehead, CH §127; branding of a slave §§226, 227). The reference in Jn 20 2.5 is, of course, to the clearly visible marks or scars left by the nails in the hands. See Mark. The use of seals is a true printing process, whether they are used with color, as they were both in Crete and Egypt almost from the beginning of history, or impressed on clay, wax, or other plastic substances. Mention of seals is frequent in the Bible
is to come"). Not the least interesting passage ia Eph 3 10, where the church is said to be the means of revealing to "the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places" "the manifold wisdom of God." One naturally inquires what was the purpose of this revelation. Was it to effect a redemption and reconcihation of these demonic powers to God? To this question Paul supplies no an.swer. See Angel; Satan. William Abtiiuk Heidel
PRINCIPLES, prin'si-p'lz: Found twice (He 6 12; 6 1). The Gr word (o-toix^Iov, sloicheion) is also tr'^ in AV as "elements" and "rudiments." As rendered in He, its meaning is clearly related to the elementary knowledge of Christian truth or doctrine. See Elements; Rudiments.
(see Seal). A new interest has been given to this aspect of the matter by the seaUngs discovered in Ahab's palace and other excavations throughout Pal, which are forming one of the most useful classes of modern inscriptions.
PRINT, print, PRINTING, prin'ting, PRINTED, prin'ted: Printing is the art of multiplying records —the "art of writing with many pens" {Jew Enc, XII, 295), or wholesale writing.
The art of making original records is writing. This, however, is a slow process. It involves tracing each letter and part of a letter through from beginning to end by the moving point of chisel, pen, or other instrument, and this process must be repeated with every copy. As soon, therefore, as occasion arose for frequently repeating the record, many ways were devised to save the labor of forming each symbol separately. All these ways involve making a character or a series of characters on a single surface and transferring as a whole to another surface. Neither "pressure," as some say, nor "ink," aa others, is e.ssential to the process, for printing from a photographic negative takes_ no pressure, and printing for the blind takes no ink. Any process which transfers a whole surface ia printing.
Both stamp and seal were used throughout the Middle Ages, the latter abundantly, and the stamp at least occasionally, for stamping the capital letters in Bib. and other MSS, as well as for various other purposes.
Modern printing begins with the carving of whole pages and books on blocks of wood (xylography), or metal plates for printing (chalcography). This method was quite early practised by the Chinese, and began to be common in Europe in the early
1.5th cent., most of the books printed by it having to do with Bib. topics (Bihlia pauperum, etc).
It was only with the invention of movable type about the middle of the 1.5th cent, that the multiplying of books by writing began to come to an end. The printing with movable type is also closely associated with Bib. study, the Gutenberg Psalter and the Gutenberg Bible standing with most for the very beginning of modern printing.
The earliest use of printing seems to have been