Given that the Aaronic Priesthood was hereditary, married priests (pax, Jeremiah) are kind of a given in the Old Covenant. At the same time, matrimonial activity was not permitted during the time that the priest was actually functioning as priests. The Levites were not technically priests, but the same sort of thing seems to have applied.
The patristic evidence prior to the 7th century all points in the direction of married men becoming priests, with the permission of their wives, but with the proviso that they would no longer come together as man and wife.
When the council in Trullo happened in 693 (I may be off a year or two—it has been about 20 years since I studied the conciliar side of this), the east began allowing priests to practice a modified form of continence, wherein they would abstain for a certain period of time (in imitation of the Jewish priestly practice, and the three days of Exodus 19). At this time, daily Mass began to fall out of practice in the east. Interestingly enough, the council’s reasoning ended up turning largely on arguing that this was what St. Augustine of Hippo demanded, arguing from a flawed Greek translation of something that St. Augustine had written—if the west can do it, why not the east. Also of interest, three days of abstinence from conjugal relations remained the norm for reception of Holy Communion in the west until St. Pius X chucked it out in the early 20th century.
Yeah well, I go by Gods Word instead of patristic evidence. I concede conjugal relations were interrupted for short periods of time as priests performed at certain designated holidays or a period of fasting and soul cleansing. But the choice of being married or not was on the priest not some manmade council/denomination.