PRIESTHOOD IN JOSHUA TO KINGS by J.G. McCONVILLE Gheltenham In scholarly interpretation of the meaning of the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH), the accent has largely fallen on the attitude of the au- thor or authors (Dtr) to the monarchy. As a result, the topic of priest- hood in DtrH has often been neglected as a theme in its own right. A habit of regarding material that reflected priestly interests as some- how intrusive to the historical books is well established. Literary critics tended to think that texts such as 1 Sam. vi 15 and 2 Sam. xv 24, which carefully record that the Levites handled the ark of the cove- nant, betray the harmonization of old narratives to later practice and belief.! And the tradition criticism of M. Noth supposed that priestly elements were residues that Dtr could not help but preserve, though he had no intrinsic interest in them. Indeed, “(Dtr) likes to confer upon cult objects a significance not strictly speaking cultic, as well as indi- cating [he concedes] their original and actual function”? Dtr’s atti- tude, furthermore, was not merely driven by force of circumstance, rather: “he did not see the end of regulated cult as any great loss”.* His portrayal of ark, temple and sacrifice follow naturally from this view.* While other views, notably that of G. von Rad, have been more positive,> and some modern studies have brought new perspectives to bear, as we shall notice, Noth’s appraisal continues to be influential. The most interesting recent contribution has come from R.D. Nelson, 1 J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Edinburgh, 1885), pp. 128, 141- 42 = Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin, 1883), pp. 132, 146-47; cf. P.K. McCarter, 1 Samuel (New York, 1980), p. 136. 2M. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (Sheffield, 1981), pp. 92-93 = Uberlieferungs- geschichlliche Studien (Tubingen, 2nd ed., 1957), pp. 103-104. * Noth, p. 94 (German, p. 105). * Noth, p. 93 (German, p. 104). * G. von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy (London, 1953), pp. 84-89 = Deuteronomium-Studien (Gottingen, 1947), pp. 59-63. © Koninklijke Brill, Leiden, 1999 Vetus Testamentum XLIX, 174 J-G. McGONVILLE who adopts a modified version of Noth’s position. The present article is in some respects a response to his. Nelson notes several features of Dtr’s positive interest in priests. First, there are elements of priestly theology in, for example, Solomon’s dedicatory prayer (at 1 Kgs viii 10-11) and at 2 Kgs xvi 15. Second, priests appear in the narrative from beginning (Deut. xxxi 9) to end (2 Kgs xxv 18).’ Third, Dtr distinguishes between priests and Levites.* And fourth, he identifies 1 Sam. ii 27-36 and 2 Kgs xxiii 5-9 as key passages for the topic. However, Dtr’s interest in priesthood should not be exaggerated, in Nelson’s view. Despite Dtr’s intervention in the promissory oracle at 1 Sam. ii 35, shifting the expectation towards a whole priestly family (and away from Samuel) as Eli’s successor, he shows no genealogical interest in Zadok.' Eli and Zadok, in the end, merely “serve as redactional pointers to what is really important to Dtr, namely, divine dynastic promise and royal obedience and dis- obedience”.!! In the account of Josiah’s treatment of priests (2 Kgs xxiii 5-9), while Dtr distinguishes five different categories of them, he is merely working out the effects of the reform.'? Nelson’s position is thus significantly different from that of Noth. This is not surprising, given that in his view Dtr is Josianic, while for Noth he was exilic. It must make a difference whether Dtr was writ- ing at a time when the royal priestly cultic establishment was flourishing, and appeared to have a golden future, or at a time when it had been destroyed, perhaps for ever. Yet the question of dating is not the only factor. It may be asked whether Dtr would have considered the reli- gious traditions associated with Jerusalem to have been entirely bound up with the Davidic dynasty, as R.E. Clements has well pointed out: “...the Deuteronomic equivocation regarding the Davidic kingship contrasts rather unexpectedly with its wholehearted commitment to Jerusalem as the chosen sanctuary after events that had so seriously damaged the reputation of both institutions”."* If the status of Jerusalem ® RD. Nelson, “The Role of the Priesthood in the Deuteronomistic History”, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume; Lewen 1989 (Leiden, 1991), pp. 132-147. ? Nelson, p. 132. " Nelson, pp. 134-5. ° Nelson, p. 132. Nelson, pp. 132, 138. " Nelson, p. 141. " Nelson, p. 144. "™ RE. Clements, “The Deuteronomic Law of Centralisation and the Catastrophe of 587 B.C.E.”, in John Barton and David J. Reimer (eds), Afier the Exile: Essays inPRIESTHOOD IN JOSHUA TO KINGS 75 remains open in DtrH, presumably that of the priests, hitherto strongly associated with the temple city, does so also. Systematic analyses of priests and priesthood in DtrH, however, are lacking.'* There is a case, therefore, for returning to the question whether Dtr was interested in priests and priesthood as such. In what follows I intend to examine the topic in the books that compose DtrH. In doing so I take a cue from Nelson, who said (as we noted) that priests appear from the beginning to the end of the corpus. I also fol- low, with qualifications, the convention that DtrH constitutes a distinct literary entity. However, it would be misleading, as Nelson also noted, to expect complete congruity between “deuteronomic” and “deuteron- omistic” points of view, for that would allow the latter no scope for development or response to new factors. In support of this point it may be observed that the historical books draw their theological impetus not only from Deuteronomy, but from other parts of the Pentateuchal material.'* The Philistines, in their alarm at the arrival of the ark on the field, recall the power of “the gods” at the exodus from Egypt (1 Sam. iv 7-8, cf. Num. x 33-36), and are subsequently themselves cast in the role of Pharaoh (1 Sam. vi 6). In the same context the motif of the “glory” of God occurs, borrowed from the presence theology of Exodus-Numbers (1 Sam. iv 21-22; cf. Exod. xxiv 16-17; xxxiii 22; Num. xiv 10, 21-22; xvii 7 [xvi 42EVV)). There is in this passage, therefore, a cluster of ideas (ark, exodus, land, Yahweh war, glory of God) that the Dtr narrative appears to share with that of the older traditions. The belief that such features might simply be residual in DtrH is weakened by the fact that the traits in common with the narrative of Exodus-Numbers are so carefully Honour of Rex Mason (Macon GA, 1996), pp. 5-25, here p. 24, and see also p. 25. I have elsewhere disputed this alleged attachment of Dtr to Jerusalem as such, in J.G. McConville and J.G. Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy (Sheffield, 1994). 4 EJ. Revell has made interesting observations from a novel angle in The Designation of the Indwidual- Expressive Usage in Biblical Narrative (Kampen, 1996). He considers the relationship between designations and narrative intent in Judges, Samuel and Kings, the term “priest” being one important case. Certain usages can show, for example, that a particular character is deemed to show too little respect for the priest; see pp. 158, 161. He does not offer a sustained interpretation of Dtr’s view of priesthood, however. * For the connections between Exodus and Samuel see R.E. Friedman, “From Egypt to Egypt”, in B. Halpern and J. Levenson (eds.), Traditions in Transformation (Winona Lake, IN, 1981), pp. 167-92; B. Peckham, The Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (Atlanta, 1985).