THE SACRAL KINGSHIP

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CENTRAL THEJ\t1E OF THE VIII th INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS

FOR THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS

(ROME, APRIL 195 5)

Published with the help of the Giunta Centraie per gli Studi Storici, Rome

LEIDEN E. ]. BRILL

1959

\

LA REGALITA SACRA

CONTRIBUTI AL TEMA DELL' VIII CONGRESSO INTERNAZIONALE

DI STORIA DELLE RELIGION! (ROMA, APRILE 195 5)

Pubblicati col concorso

della Giunta Centrale per gli Studi Storici, Roma

LEIDEN E. J. BRILL

1 959

THE SACRED KINGSHIP AND THE PRIESTHOOD

BY

E. 0. JAME S London

Since Sir James Frazer and his contemporaries at the beginning of the century called attention to the sacred kingship in primitive society and the ancien t civilizations of the Near East the interpretation of its nature and function has undergone considerable modification in the light of new evidence and further investigation. A lineal succession from the medicine man through the chief to the divine king is no longer tenable, and this applies to the evolution of priesthood from the magician as a result of the supposed failure of the magical control of natural processes leading to a sacerdotal appeal to the gods to do what man was not able to accomplish by his own techniques. While neither of these hypotheses can be sustained, nevertheless an affinity does exist in office and function between kingship and priesthood.

In tribes organized in descent groups hereditary chieftainship may be vested in a paramount chief who owes his position to descem from an ancestor or god. This gives him a unique position in the commu-nity which may carry with it a divine and sacerdotal status, setting him apart from the tribe or nation and making him responsible for the prescribed sacred duties he is called upon to perform. Indeed, so in-timately associated is he with the well-being of society that the ferti-lity of the crops may be thought to depend upon his virility, so that to prevent loss of potency in nature he may be put to death, either ac-tually, in the person of a substitute, or sy mbolically by a ritual device, when his natural forces sh ow signs of abating.

It is true tha t the account of this practice among the N ilotic Shilluk described by Professor and Mrs Seligman in 1909 has now been questi-oned by more recent observers. It is admitted, however, that the soul of the culture-hero, Nyikang, the first Shilluk king, is reincarnated in every reth (king), and that the reth is the medium through whom both

E. O. J AMES

N yikang and Juok, the High God, are approached. Therefore, the king has a sacerdotal status and exercises mediatorial functions, what-ever may have happened in former times about his latter end when he became sick or senile. As the earthly embodiment and representa-tive of the creator of the nation, the kingship sums up all that is divine in the Shilluk ritual order and consolidates the community as a single entity in a sacerdotal capacity. Transcendentally the sacred office stands over and against the social structure because it is rooted and grounded in the eternal world. This enables it to exercise a powerful unifying in-fluence over all the various segments as a pivot of the political orga-nization, and to become the connecting link between the earthly com-munity and its supernatural foundations, very much as the medieval monarch was regarded as a mix ta p ersona, both pries t and ruler. In this capacity he acquired his sacrosanct character by hered itary right con-firmed by his sacramental 'sacring ' to act as God's viceroy in the secular and political sphere.

In primitive states of culture the divine kingship being mainly a ritual institution concerned essentially with the maintenance of the food supply and the integration of society, it has been devoted largely to the performance of sacerdotal functions to promote the welfare of the whole community. This fi nds express ion especially in the con-trol of the weather upon which the harves ts depend. As the interme-diary between the human and the natural orders, the supernatural po-tency embodied in the kingship fl ows through thi s appointed channel into the bod y politic establishing a state of harmony, equilibrium and beneficence in the integration of nature and society. It is on this basis that the institution exercises a sacerdotal function, and for this reason that the throne must always have a virile, healthy and alert occupant, since the king, symbolising the community and its transcendental and temporal aspects, is the unifying and dynamic centre.

_/~"g)pl It is against this background that the ri se of monarchical civili zation

in the Ancient Middle E ast should be set. Thus, in the Nile valley, where so many characteristic features of the di vine kingship among the Shilluk recur, the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt was ac-complished by a ruler whose falcon-god, Horus, was a sky-god who became incarnate in the person of the upper Egyptian king . When

TJIE SACRE D KL ' G SHIP AND THE PRIESTHOOD

tl1 is god eventually was identi fied with Re, the Sun-god, under the in-fluence of the Heliopolitan priesthood and its solar cult, the reigning Pharaoh was represented as having been begotten by his heavenly father (Re) whom, it was maintained, assumed the form of the living king for the purposes of the procreation of an heir to the throne. \'(!hen the O siris myth was incorporated into th is Heliopolitan solar theology the reigning Pharaoh was equated with Horus, the posthumous son of O siris conceived by Isis. Thus, he virtually combined in his complex personality divine transcendence and immanence.

Around thi s sacred monarchy and its priesthood a theocratic govern-ment developed in which every aspect of life was a function of the State centred in the divine throne as the pivot of society in a perman-ent changeless cosmic order of elemental vastness whose powers were unlimited . In theory the Pharaoh was the high-priest of every god. In all important ceremonies he alone was depicted in temple scenes as the officiant, but for practical purposes he delegated his functions to the professional priesthood who shared in some measure in his personality. The potency of the king remained unique because Re was his Ka, and when this transcendental self was extended to the priesthood it still belonged essentially to the sovereign from whom it was derived. He was the priest par excellence in whom alone all sacerdotal power in the last analysis resided.

Nevertheless, as the king represented the gods he embodied in his office, so the hierarchy impersonated the divinities in whose service they were employed in the temples as, for example, in the funerary ritual where they played the role of Horus and Osiris, or of Hathor and Isis. Their wealth and power were determined by the revenues and status of the temple to which they were attached. Thus, in the New Kingdom the high-priest of Amon-Re, and his hierarchy in the 21st. dynasty, were able to create a 'state within a state' at Thebes under their own omnipotent rule. But in theory the king remained the plenitude of priesthood, and such were the prerogatives of the throne that a weak ineffective youth in his teens was able to launch and maintain through-out his life a heretical monotheistic movement in the face of the strenu-ous opposition of the highly organized Theban priesthood.

J1!fesopotamia In Mesopotamia, on the other hand, the localization of the kingship NU~! EN, Suppl. JV

66 E. O. J AMES

in the rulers of the city-states prevented absolu te sovereignty being vested in a single divine embodiment of the pantheon as the dynamic centre of the nation and the cosmic order. Even when Hammurabi uni-fied the State in the Empire and made Babylon the capital with its chief god Marduk as the head of the pantheon, it was only a temporary stability that was attained. Anu, Enlil , and Ea (Enki) with their respec-tive priesthoods were only partially ecl ipsed, each continuing to rule over one of the three divisions of the universe, heaven, earth and the waters. Therefore, Marduk was not regarded as the Creator and Sour-ce of all the other gods like Re or Ptah in Egypt. Similarly, Mesopo-tamian kings never attained the divine status assigned to Pharaoh as god incarnate and the pivot of the social structure. They were not themselves divine though they were endowed with divinity by virtue of their office and its insignia in which it was inherent. As human agents on earth of the gods they were primarily priests, and their prin-cipal function was the exercise of their sacerdotal duties which left little or no time or opportunity for secular rule and administration beyond the interpretation of the will of the gods.

As Professor Frankfort has stressed, the deification of kings in Mesopotamia was closely associated with their sacred marriage with a goddess in the person of a priestess who chose a ruler to act as her bridegroom at the Annual Festival. As in Egypt the emphasis was on the Pharaohs as the living Horus and son of Re, so in Babylonia it was on the earthly instrument of the goddess and the priestess as the life-bestowing agent. It was she who was the active partner while her bridegroom, the king, was her obedient servant, whereas in the Nile valley the queen was visited by her royal husband in all his divine maj-esty and glory to beget a successor to the throne. The renewal of nature in Mesopotamia was dependent upon this sacred marriage of the king and queen in the guise of the liberated god (Tamrnuz) and the mother goddess (Ishtar).

Thus, Sumerian kings as the servants of the gods played the role of Tammuz-Dumuzi, incarnating the creative forces of spring through union with the goddess, Inanna-Ishtar, the source of all life. When Marduk replaced Tammuz as the central figure in the spring festival at Babylon the king assumed the function of the suffering god. In this capacity he was humiliated in the shrine of Marduk and re-instated in his office by the high-priest acting on behalf of the god. Such a rit-

THE SACRED KINGSHIP AND THE PRIESTHOOD

ual degradation of a Pharaoh would have been unthinkable in Egypt, as would have been the Babylonian custom of providing substitutes for the king as a protective devise. The Mesopotamian monarchy was es-sentially a social institution rather than the dynamic centre of the cos-mic order. As such its functions were mainly divinatory and executive. While rulers interpreted the will and purposes of the gods, the priest-hoods were the teachers and learned section of the community con-serving all knowledge human and divine. But neither the king , the priesthoods, the government nor the nation had the same assured and secure position that obtained in the more stable environment in Egypt.

Israel This also applies to Israel where neither the monarchy nor the hier-

archy had an absolute status and function. Originally the Hebrew priesthoods were primarily interpreters of the divine oracle at local sanctuaries. When the desert tribes were welded together as a confed-eracy under the leadership of Moses in a covenant relationship with the jealous god of Israel, the priests acquired their status in the theo-cracy as the attendants and mouthpiece of Yahweh. The monarchy arising under pressure of Philistine and Ammonite invasion never occupied a position comparable to that of the divine kingship else-where in the Fertile Crescent. Saul and David were, it is true, 'the Lord 's anointed', but neither they nor their successors were regarded as divine incarnations like the Pharaohs, or servants of the gods as in the case of the Mesopotamian rulers. Indeed, they were scarcely media-tors between the nation and its god as Moses was represented to have been. When eventually a covenant was alleged to have been made between Yahweh and the house of David, the monarchy doubtless acquired a quasi-priestly status and function, but as the cultus develop-ed at the larger sanctuaries the hierarchies had their own lines of des-cent and exclusive organizations. Consequently, the fall of the northern dynasty had little effect on the Bethelite priesthood, and after the Exile of Judah in the sixth century B. C. the high-priest combined the royal cultic prerogatives with his own sacerdotal functions and with the distinctions between the Zadokite priests and their servants the Levites. The covenant relationship between Israel and its god was then maintained by the sacrificial system until in A. D. 70 the social and religious structure underwent a profound change after the destruction

68 E. O . J AMES

of the temple. Even then, however, the sacerdotal functions of the hierarchy and its cultus were abrogated rather than brought to an end. But it was never sugges ted that the monarchy eventually would be restored. The kingship in Judaism, therefore, had never been the focal point in the theocratic organization that it was in Egypt and in many primitive agricultural communities . Behind both the monarchy, the priesthood and the cultus lay the covenant, and as long as this could be maintained all would be well be.::ause the institutional channels were but means to this end.

In Israel king, priest and prophet had been inseparably bound to-gether. From the time of Saul onwards kings offered sacrifice, wore the ephod and prophesied in their royal capacity as head of the priesthood, the anointed of Yahweh and his accredited messenger (JJJe!ek) . But the covenant with the House of David had a wider significance than the monarchy, and was independent of the earthly throne since behind it lay the covenant of Yahweh with the nation as a whole. The H ebrew king ruled by divine permission and the will of the people, just as the priesthood was secure oniy so long as it was faithful in the discharge of its duties. Theretore, both kingship and priesthood lacked stability, being only the instruments and agents ot the covenant which was the real unifying force.

The .Messiahship in J11daism and Christianz/y Eventually the Davidic kingship acquired a Messianic significance

with its own line of descent from the enigmatic Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of the most high God. After the fall of the monarchy the title "Messiah" was applied to kings, priests and rulers like Cyrus, Zerubbabel and Simon Maccabaeus, who acted as prince, pri :::st and governor, without being in the Davidic, Aaronic or Zadokite succes-sions. It was their function to bring " salvation" (i .e. victory) to the nation, but, although it has long been a matter of debate among theo-logians, the weight of expert opinion has been against the view that the anointed of Yahweh was expected in post-exilic Judaism to fulfil his office throltgh suffering and death. Dr Engnell , it is true, has affirmed that the Isaianic Servant was the Davidic Messiah. But, as the Septua-gint shows, the hero of the Servant saga is Israel as a nation, and his suf-ferings appear to be those endured by J ehoiachin and the exiles in 5 97 and 5 86 B.C.

THE SACRE D KI NGSHIP AND TI-IE PRIESTHOOD

If the idea of a suffering Messiah had been familiar when the Gospel tradition was in process of formulation, the disciples of J esus would not have been represented as being bewildered by the announcement of thei r Master that in this way he must fulfil his Messianic role. Neither the figure of the Davidic King nor that of the Son of Man could have been equated in their minds with the Suffering Servant. But once the significance of the Servant prophecies was realized in relation to the Messiahship of Jesus, it was the crucifixion and its sequel that made the most permanent impress ion upon the Early Church. Around this sig-nificant event the whole redemptive process was centred, and the func-tions first attributed to the D avidic King and then invested with apoca-lyptic g lory in the supernatural Son of Man, became transfigured with suffering in the person of the defeated yet victorious Saviour of man-kind.

If in the days of his fl esh it was a very different conception of the Messiahship that was commonly held, nevertheless, in the current tradition the three figures, the King, the Son of Man and the Servant, not only had a common pattern of thought but also a common theme deeply laid in the kingship myth and ritual in the Ancient East. In Me-sopotamia, as I have pointed out, the cult of the suffering god and of the mourning goddess was fundamental. As a combination of weak-ness and strength the defeated hero was a virile figure triumphing over death and the powers of evil. In the Christian tradition this theme was brought into relation with the Judaic conquering Christ under the apocalyptic symbolism of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world to ensure the final triumph of good over evil, and of life over death. The malign forces were personified in the dragon and his host, and, true to type, their destruction was celebrated by the sacred marri-age of the victor (i.e. the lamb) as the prelude to the reign of universal peace, prosperity and righteousness.

Behind this imagery lay a complex mythology derived from Egypt-ian, Babylonian, Iranian and possibly Mandaean sources. But how-ever much Christian Messiology may have been influenced by current and more remote apocalyptic ideas, the Frazerian interpretation of the divine kingship did not in fact exist anywhere in the Fertile Crescent, least of all in Palestine. It was unc1uestionably the historic Jesus who in the first instance produced the conviction of this conception of the Messiahship among his followers in terms of suffering, death and re-

70 JAMES, THE SACRED K I N GSHIP AND THE PRIESTHOOD

surrection, not only by his teaching but supremely by hi s own Passion and l ife laid down in self-oblation and complete surrender to what he was convinced was the divine will and purpose of his vocation and mission in the world. Therefore, it was around th e figure of Christ the King ,who was also regarded as the eternal High Pries t, that at the break-up of the Roman Empire the social structure and its moral values found a new unifying centre, with a priesthood and cultus having their antecedents deeply laid in the ancient civilization in which Christen-dom emerged, and in which the sacred kingship had for so long been a powerful stabilizing force in society.